Oath: why we need to remind ourselves of job one of branding

What a week.  Between gleefully complaining about Pepsi’s hamfisted attempt to recapture the Pepsi Generation as viewed through the eyes of disconnected in-house execs, cringing at Uber’s continued missteps in its self-driving car lawsuit with Google, and whining about the eventual decline of Virgin America, people barely had time last week to spit-take their coffee at the premature announcement that AOL, a former key patron of the US Postal Service, now owned by Verizon, would be rebranding itself and the soon-to-be-acquired Yahoo, a leader in leaking user data, as…

(Cue record scratch.)

Now, I could jump on the bandwagon and make fun of the name itself, but I don’t think the name is the problem here. Nor is the idea that the name was leaked and then AOL and Verizon found themselves on their heels trying to defend the choice. I won’t mention the money being left on the table and even more being wasted by dropping two established brands in favor of one that is likely forgettable. No, I won’t talk about how the very idea that Yahoo could be associated with a name that connotes trust and commitment after failing to notify users or the government or its corporate suitor that it had been hacked in a major way is nuts. That’s all just too easy. Because coming up with a name is hard. Those of us who have been through the process, even just once, know that coming up with a name that supports your business, that works for your customers, and that stands out today but will be lasting tomorrow can seem like trying to do the impossible.

What I care about is how AOL and Verizon got there. Because it seems they did the one thing brand folks shouldn’t do: they thought more about themselves than their customers.

What I care about is how AOL and Verizon got there. Because it seems they did the one thing brand folks shouldn’t do: they thought more about themselves than their customers.  In an interview with Adweek, AOL CMO Allie Kline described the decision to go with Oath for AOL’s various properties and technologies. It’s worth a quick read, but there was one nugget in the interview that raised the hackles on my neck:

“...we wanted a brand that I think most importantly represented what all of these brands and all of the people that work on them share, which is a set of values and a commitment to building brands that people love.”

— Allie Kline, CMO AOL via Adweek.com

They chose the name based on what the people who work at AOL think about themselves. Kline goes on to say that the name will communicate the company’s commitment to its advertisers, but it’s clear that the origin and chief filter of the exercise was not one that began and ended with customers, or even the category. It was with the company itself.  And that is the mistake.

Having asked itself how it would like to be perceived, AOL’s team answered with an idealized version of itself, and one that is less likely rooted in reality than it would like to believe. And, in doing so, rather than set an audacious goal for the entire (and expanding) organization to strive for, Oath actually sets expectations for how the company should be behaving and delivering today. Chances are, those are expectations that won’t be delivered on for a while.

The development of Oath screams of a business that exists in the service of itself and it’s collective ego, rather than the people and businesses that pay the bills.       

So why does this happen? After all, in business schools around the globe, in books and all over the web, we’re taught that a marketer’s chief responsibility is to understand and interpret consumers for the organization. And yet, so much of the work that gets done by teams within companies and by the agencies and consultants that they hire, merely playback what people inside the company want to hear. When that happens, you don’t just get Oath, you get Uber’s brand and visual system redesign from last year that epitomized self-centered decision making; you get JetSmarter’s attempt to cajole journalists into writing positive articles; you get every single ho-hum positioning that is just another way of saying “we want to feel good about coming to work get our fair share of the market”.

The reason this happens is that it’s easy. Or, at least, it’s easier to navigate the bureaucracy of an organization than it is to put yourself out there, listen to your customers and try something new and uncomfortable. But, that's the job. And whether you're a marketer or someone who advises marketers, you have an obligation to at least try to do the job. 

Whether you're a marketer or someone who advises marketers, you have an obligation to at least try to listen to your customers. 

Now, perhaps I have this all wrong. Maybe the team at AOL did all this, uncovered something real and compelling that connects their business and their customers, and stands apart in the category, while still being true to who they are. But, somehow, I don’t buy it. More importantly, I don’t think Oath’s customers will either.