Marian, this is by far the worst post I've ever read from you. Ok, just kidding - good question, bad joke from me. My loyalty is to individual products (or people) as opposed to an overall brand promise. VW was a great brand, not so much now. VW has killed the jetta, I love what we have right now (2001), but I'm not looking to buy the blob they currently offer. I like the flexibility to jump when I want. Why would some one want to stay with one brand forever? What is there to gain from that?

Brand loyalty is a combination of those things, Marian: product, person, location, emotion. In your case, you were loyal to the person, who should have been symbolic of his/her's company brand. Theoretically, if a company ingrained their brand culture in all their employees, the replacement person should be as good as the last. Of course, we all know that's a bunch of bull, unless the employees are all clones.

Would you sign on with a new accountant if, despite his incredibly charming personality and Ivy League credentials, his employer were embroiled in some financial scandals which most likely won't affect you at all? I doubt it, but you see why personality and product/producer are intertwined in service industries.

I've refused to shop at stores or patronize restaurants that offer lousy service no matter how good the shoes or food. On the other hand, I've gotten lame service at the local Apple Store (yeah, who hasn't?), but I keep going back. A brand firing on all cylinders would never have those dichotomies, but the real world is what it is.

when it comes to a service - the people

when it comes to a specific product - the company

if the people move, i try to follow; if the product turns sour, then i move

(Michael, you are so cruel!)

Why would some one want to stay with one brand forever? What is there to gain from that?

But isn't that what brands are hoping for? And is it a complete waste of time, unless the product never changes?

OK, so you've got Pepsi, and you've got Coke; provided they don't change (ahem), there's a pretty good chance of "brand loyalty" ... to the product. But what if you're a Pepsi person, but Coke makes cooler clothes and branded material? Wouldn't you be just as likely to drink the Pepsi and wear the Coke?

I'm suggesting there really is no such thing as "brand loyalty," and I'm waiting for Debbie to prove me wrong.

Brand loyalty is a combination of those things, Marian: product, person, location, emotion

This seems untenable to me. Too many variables to change. It also seems (forgive me) like marketing-speak, and devoid of real meaning.

Actually, I have always wondered why companies don't put more time and energy into their staff. I've been sold clothes I barely wanted by an attentive salesperson, and I've often walked away from things I really wanted by staff assholes.

But people aren't really part of a brand: they're just doing jobs, and they're just as likely to work for company X as company Y.

As for "emotion," I have never felt any true emotion in relation to a brand ... except maybe Quark, which I loathe and detest (said detestation being a primary factor in running into the arms of InDesign at the first opportunity.)

Some people will drive a Chevy truck no matter how good the latest Ford truck is.

Some people will only buy Kenmore appliances, despite similar features and lower price of the Maytags.

Some people will only buy Craftsman tools, and always have.

I hate Quark too.

Brand loyalty isn't really about stubbornly choosing one company or product despite knowing that it isn't the best deal.

Brands influence our judgement in subtler ways than that.

If there are two products that seem very similar to us (Coke and Pepsi are good examples), how do we choose one over the other?

The reality is that we're not loyal to anyone but ourselves - we just go with our gut reaction. Usually one product feels more right than the other.

This has very little to do with the product itself. Brands tap into our aspirations, our fears, our base desires and our egos - creating a little packet of cultural identity that makes us feel good.

Of course, we don't like to think of ourselves as irrational, so we convince ourselves that our choice is based upon real, empirical considerations - Coke does taste nicer, we tell ourselves, and this is what gives brands their power. In reality, the products are almost identical (try the Pepsi challenge!)

Brand loyalty comes into play when there's little difference between the products we're choosing. If Pepsi was obviously much nicer than Coke, then there'd be no brand loyalty - we'd all buy Pepsi.

This is because real, practical considerations are much stronger motivations for our choices than are subconcious, aspirational considerations, or imaginary considerations.

Brand loyalty only goes so far - helping us to choose between almost identical products, and making us feel comfortable with any new products bearing the same brand.

But in a choice between an obviously good product and an obviously bad product, we'd have to be crazy to pick the bad one because of 'loyalty'.

Is it the fear of change that is being masqueraded as brand loyalty? I buy my brand of socks because I know exactly what I'm getting. If I change to a new brand of socks, my feet might not sweat as much, or I might be able to jump over meter-maids, but they might also disintegrate on some San Francisco hill the next day. Right now, I know exactly how long my socks will last, and that period of time is acceptable to me.

I am loyal to the quality of a product, and the integrity of the service.

I trust the brand, the brand is trust.

“Teens are very brand- conscious; we know that both from quantitative research and just from talking to them,” says Ekaterina Walsh, a senior analyst with Forrester Research.

While teenagers are often perceived as fickle, when it comes to brand names, they’re remarkably loyal. “Teens are brand-conscious and brand-loyal at an early age,” affirms Walsh, noting that 69% of teens say that when they find a brand they like, they stick with it.

Fourteen-year-old Erika is a typical brand- conscious teen, whose stores of choice are Aeropostale and Abercrombie & Fitch. “Me and my friends all wear pretty much the same styles,” she says. “My mom already knows to only buy me clothes from my favorite stores, otherwise I won’t wear them.”

Whatever the human motivations and meanings are behind the concept of brand loyalty, we have only to look at the actions and words of the young among us to see that it does indeed exist.

Marian...

For the services, I think the personal touch is what does it. I wish the companies that these people work for would reward them when they see that it's their individual service and personalities that bring the business in and keep 'em coming back. Too many times these special employees feel underappreciated and start looking elsewhere, and when they leave it's really a blow to the company.

For the product, you have to continue to impress me if I'm going to stay with the brand. I agree with you re: The Gap, by the way, but then again maybe I just grew up and on to Banana Republic :)

Blindly staying with a brand is just as ridiculous as voting the same party right down the line every single time you vote. Weren't we raised to honor the individual and not be a total conforming ideological hermit?

I lost my lawyer, my accountant and my banker... I have zero “brand loyalty,” and will be casting far and wide (on friends’ recommendations) for replacements.

I think it's interesting that when it comes to the services that you mention above, a referral from a friend can trump most marketing campaigns. You trust a friend because they don't have a lot of motivation to give you a bad recommendation. Can the same be said for those companies you currently have accounts with?

Speaking of referrals/testimonials. I've always been a fan of how Amazon drives users to products with reviews, or tells them to steer clear. The reviews help shape your opinion of the product, and establish a degree of trust. How informative are they? Could competitors swoop in and write a scathing review, and then push you to their brand? Sure. It has happened, and you’d never know it unless they publish their real name or employer—and they never do.

Who doesn’t want to own the latest iPod when Steve Jobs showcases it at a conference? Now if Paul Allen of Microsoft says he has 3 of them, you'll be even more tempted because here’s this Windows guru that has not 1 but 3. And when your best friend of 15 years, who works for Home Depot, swears that his iPod, “Changed his life,” you’re sold.

When people who aren't stakeholders promote a brand, their opinion is more authentic.

Coke does taste nicer, we tell ourselves, and this is what gives brands their power. In reality, the products are almost identical (try the Pepsi challenge!)

I don’t drink either and I can tell the difference (and think Coke tastes a lot better.) But who cares? I’m the sort of crank who has strong brand preferences but cuts the logo tags off his clothes.

Who is your loyalty to really? Is it to the individual product or person, or is it to a “brand”?

I don’t buy the question. Brands are, in semiotic terms, signs and signs are like Russian dolls—each one contained by and containing others. So my banker (I guess I have one even though I haven’t seen her in six years and my bank branch is 350 miles away and about to be 3000) “is” a brand and so is Bank of America and they interrelate. She is part of the Bank of America brand for me. If she leaves that changes my B of A brand.

There is loyalty beyond reasons. like proud, passion, love and intimacy for the brands (service, i am not sure).

But people aren't really part of a brand: they're just doing jobs, and they're just as likely to work for company X as company Y.

I do agree. Even the brand creator herself/himself do not trust in their own product/service.

I think it's funny that Pepsi and Coke spend all these millions of dollars on marketing, only to have the following exchange occur over and over again.

Me: "... and I'll have a large Diet Coke with that."

Person behind the counter: "We just have Diet Pepsi. Is that OK?"

Me (and everyone I know): "Sure, whatever."

Who is your loyalty to really? Is it to the individual product or person, or is it to a “brand”?

None of the above. It's to yourself. Your loyalty is to any product, person, or brand that meets your own needs, wants, lifestyle, preferences, desires, etc.

That is why many of the most successful brands/products/people make you believe that the they are what you want, need, desire, etc. - not that the 'product' is so great.

Tommy Hilfiger is a popular brand amongst many. Um, they don't make anything. Other companies manufacture the clothes and Tommy plops a label on them (as far as I have learned). If this is true, then it ain't the product, because they wouldn't be making a consistent item. People are loyal to the product (i.e. invest in it) because they feel it is what they want/need.

Product. Absolutely. Except for areas/industries where service is an integral part of the product (think restaurants.)

we have only to look at ... the young among us to see that [brand loyalty] does indeed exist.

Regarding consumer goods, clothes, cars, etc., isn't "brand" merely marketing-speak for "peer pressure"? And some people are just more autonomous/immune?

None of the above. It's to yourself.

Amen, Sam. As difficult it may make my job, I have to ask for more individuals, fewer herds, please. A drop in quality by a brand is abuse of trust and disregard for their consumers--and brands have been able to sustain growth throughout their quality drops due to peer pressure. I don't stand for it. Except for Mac. [/rant]

I had an interesting brand experience recently. I was on my way back to Chicago following a short vacation and got food poisoning while having dinner at a non-chain restauarant in Pittsburgh. The next day, while at the airport waiting to fly back and still under the duress of food poisoning distress, my partner and I were in need of lunch.

Normally I go for the non-chain restaurants, but there we were in an airport with one or two non-chain options. We ended up at TGI Friday's, a brand I'd normally steer well clear of. I think it might have been the combination of me being out of it and being desperate for a product that I knew would have no surprises (after all, I was still full of surprises from the prior night's meal).

Big brand won out. Though I am now fairly certain my chances of getting mishandled food are just as great (if not greater) at a big chain where people are underpaid and have little reason to be personally invested in their work, at the time this seemed like the right thing to do. In this context, felt that the little independent restaurants couldn't absolutely deliver on the promise of a safe meal.

Of course, I also avoided the places that I was certain would have the highest chance of bad service and mishandled food: Mc Burger, etc. But at the end of the day, big brand won. But, I was sick and logic may not have been at its strongest. But then, is our take on brand ever 'logical'?

> But isn't that what brands are hoping for?

Probably, one thing that brands hope to achieve through their costly branding efforts is when you face that moment of doubt (or choice) — whether it is losing your banker, having to choose between big-chain restaurants or between Pepsi and Coke — you make a choice based on the perceived values of a brand. In that split second (or half hour or two months) they hope that they have communicated enough about their superiority over the other brands that you will choose their brand over their competitor's. I presume — and this is a total, possibly lame, guesstimate — that if 5% to 10% of the people make a decision like that, it would be a good payoff.

On another note, Bryony and I have recently embarked on the process of buying a home and all the people/companies we have dealt with (mortgage broker, lawyer and real estate company) all have the crappiest logos, fax sheets and business cards I have seen. Their identity never made a difference to whether we would hire them or not. Weird — and frighteningly ironic — huh?

My parents like to travel by car in the South (driving down from Connecticut) and the highlight of their trips is not the views, the super nice locals, the beautiful crafts... it's Crackerbarrel. They will route their trip around having lunch at Crackerbarrel.

It's certainly not those long lines (I've, unfortunatly, had to experience Crackerbarrel on some family occasions since one opened near their home). Is it the food? It's not really good. I think it's the percieved authenticity. They feel they're experiencing the authentic South.

When some kid drinks Mountain Dew is it because he likes it or is it because he thinks it makes him as authentic as those extreme sports guys in the commercial? I'm sure he likes it enough but probably not better than any other soda.

These are just two samples of brand bringing an "experience" to a user. I'm sure there are a jizzillion reasons why each individual chooses and stays with one brand.

But to answer the question "Is it the individual product or person, or is it to a 'brand'?" I'd have to agree with most of the comments above, if it is solely a service then I'm loyal to the person. But nobody from the Coca-Cola company hand delivers my Caffeine Free Diet Coke every afternoon, so I guess I'm loyal to the brand.

And, Gunner, this had me cracking up:

I’m the sort of crank who has strong brand preferences but cuts the logo tags off his clothes.

Me too!

i dont think i have any brand loyalty of any kind except maybe a more healthy food for my cat, max-which eats far better than me!

there is something about consumerism that urks me and im a designer! am a rare species? or crazy? a designer who designs/creates identities and has a problem with consumerism?!

maybe i just like the look, the idea, and the nice warm thought of a single product designed by a mom and pop shop. a unique product that no one else sells and you feel like its a holiday everytime you buy or use it. i feel like design gets overlooked if its mass produced.

good site to go to that will get you thinking about consumerism:

adbusters.org

By doing ANY design or advertising work for any brand, you essentially concede that there's no such thing as brand loyalty. That's the whole point, after all; if you believe that what we do works, then you must believe that people can and will change their minds on something potentially as superficial as a typeface or color palette.

Much to corporate America's dismay, I'm sure, most people don't spend too much time thinking about brands. They think about what they need to get done. Kids playing a little league game? Shirts might get dirty. Baseball field becomes a point of relevance to that person. Whatever brand is closer and more relevant at the point of relevance (pardon the redundancy), will probably win. Look around at other situations involving life as opposed to pure commerce, and it starts making sense.

What is a brand?

You really want to know what a brand is?

Here, I'll put it into the simplist of terms.

A brand is basically a stamp for a company with a design that says "this is us" thats distributed,changed if neeed,recognized,and payed for.

now brand loyalty is what they decide what should be done to represent that "stamp" should it be friendly? Should it be corporate? Whats its audience? What should it represent? Should it break the rules? Should it stay "in the box"? What are we as a company? etc.

There you have it thats basically what it is.

Go ahead try to dispute it and if you will I would like to see proof please, then I might change my definition.

"A brand is basically a stamp for a company"

I guess if guys like you keep distorting it that way it will be. A brand is not a logo and a logo is not a brand. I was just bitching at Design Maven with my morning coffee about this very topic.

It bothers the piss out of me that Speak Up has a topic called "Rebranding" and it's only about logos. The brand, my man, is the entire fucking customer experience. The logo, the stamp, is just one tiny component.

The BRAND includes manufacturing, marketing, merchandising, customer service, employee training, and a whole bunch of other goodies. Putting a Dole stamp on a turd doesn't make it a banana. I've got a fruit salad I'll send you for lunch if you care to dispute that.

Oops I mistaken the defintion of brand loyalty.

Okay here goes.....

Brand loyalty is what the consumer decides is what he/her is going use based on familarity of the product,how well it works,how good it is,the consumers trust with it,its service,its people,etc.

basically like choosing which channel to watch some like CBS, some like NBC, others might like FOX or ABC, some might want to watch CNN all day, or MTV etc.

but then the choosing of the channel is also deciding what shows are on and which you'd like to watch right now.

here I'll put it in a diagram

Choice of brand->Brand->what the brand is made of->quality of the brand->familarity with the brand->How well will the brand treat you->choice of brand.

Now a little multiple chioce.

What will you chose a brand?

A.Familiar brand that has bad service

B.Unfamiliar brand that has good service

C.Familiar brand that has good service

D.Unfamiliar brand that has bad service

E.Familiar Brand thats outdated but good service

F.Unfamiliar Brand thats up to date but bad service

G.Familiar brand thats up to date and has good service

H.Unfamilar brand thats outdated but good service

so many choices

Now lets go by logo

Insurace companies:

A.

B.

C.

D. ">

E.

F.

G.

Car companies:

A.

B.

c.

D.

E.

F.

G.

H.

I.

Wireless companies:

A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

G.

H.

Phew! thats a lot of logos pick one from each catagory

I guess if guys like you keep distorting it that way it will be. A brand is not a logo and a logo is not a brand. I was just bitching at Design Maven with my morning coffee about this very topic.

It bothers the piss out of me that Speak Up has a topic called "Rebranding" and it's only about logos. The brand, my man, is the entire fucking customer experience. The logo, the stamp, is just one tiny component.

The BRAND includes manufacturing, marketing, merchandising, customer service, employee training, and a whole bunch of other goodies. Putting a Dole stamp on a turd doesn't make it a banana. I've got a fruit salad I'll send you for lunch if you care to dispute that.

Thank you Bluestreak for that comment, you have proven me wrong there is more to the brand than the logo. You are more experienced than me and have given the proof that I asked for, the Dole comment is perfect. Just changing the logo isn't changing the brand, if the brands the same but the logos different, then the company has not changed.

Bluestreaks comment was perfect he stated a point and backed it up with proof.

You what I would like to see? I would like to see someone post here how a company is before and after a new logo.

For example when UPS rebranded I want to hear about someones experience with the company, either working with them or experiencing their customer service.

before the new logo was UPS good with customers? Did they treat you well if you worked inside the company? and after the new logo did things get better or worse or did nothing change?

Sadly most of the argument was Rands legendary brand Vs. the new UPS brand, sigh.

To be a creative mind you must listen more and talk less, you might learn something.

Listen to every point of view before stating whats right or whats wrong.

Mark asked, "You [know] what I would like to see?"

Hey Mark... gldude,

I love your passion for logos and logo design. And I've been trying to keep up with the multitude of samples you've been posting. You know what I, and I think others here, would like to see?

Who did all those logos you post? That's why Design Maven™ has become my identity hero. He digs up and shares massive amounts of details about the creators. So who created all those marks you've posted? What was the purpose of the design? How did they effect the marketplace?

The BRAND includes manufacturing, marketing, merchandising, customer service, employee training, and a whole bunch of other goodies.

Thanks, BlueStreak. This has been driving me crazy as well. I was just having a similar discussion the other day with a marketing exec how companies always change the logo but rarely change anything else. The reason, I think, is straightforward: a logo change is a lot easier and cheaper than re-training your entire sales staff or rebuilding your store interiors. The best "re-brandings" are more experiential. The visual changes like logos and ad campaigns should be clues to a deeper change going on within.