It seems that timespan for change is narrowing down day by day. Not only in FMCG, but even in less end-customer-driven industries. It was easy to understand and manage a change from 5 years to a year or half a year for such reinvention. But what about to perform changes more frequently, monthly, weekly, daily?
Alongside with the question “how often” comes the question: how? It seems logical that with higher frequency the way how we rebrand, reinvent our company, changes. The way we reinvented ourselves each year cannot be the same as if we have to reinvent ourselves weekly, daily or even in shorter period. Shorter period? What a nonsense! Is it possible to reinvent, rebrand something second by second?
Nonsense? Do tigers reinvent themselves yearly, daily or every 1000 years? How often does evolution happen?
It is not that we need new tools for reinventing our companies due to new trends. Old ways of reinvention were obsolete in the moment they were conceived already. There is only one way of reinvention. The way taught by evolutionary biology. From Darwin on we should understand dual nature of reinvention. It happens both evolutionary and revolutionary.
What I want to say is that we have to turn around the very perception of our brands, our companies. And we have to do this radically. If reinvention is a prerequisite for sustainable life of any company then the need to imply tools from evolutionary biology should be quite obvious? Isn’t it?
But wait! Tigers are living creatures, while brands are not! Aren’t they? If not alive, are they dead stuff like stones or carpets?
We know that a stone does not evolve. Stone changes according to an entropy law: it gets more and more messy. While on the other hand we see that brands do evolve, they do get more and more organized, less entropic. So they are alive!
What a mess! No.
#Brandlife is going to provide initial set of tools but even more a set of concepts that will help us understand what we really manage. Coming soon.