The more I think about Heart Intelligence, the more I like it as a way of understanding communications. It is like a lovemark with … well, a lovemark with a brain. It takes "gut instinct" and recontextualises it as a form of logic — it gives us a way or perhaps, a reason, to confirm our sense that there is something deeper at play in the way that we communicate. It certainly provides an understanding of the desire or impulse to "connect", but it also provides a tangible link to our bodies. At first instance, heart intelligence makes a great deal of sense in relation to communities — both on and offline — but it also makes sense in terms of any form of human communication. (Bloggers should be able to relate to the increased heart rate and adrenaline rush that comes when you receive your first comment.)
When I was looking through the presentation deck below (courtesy of Katie), I was struck by the way that the principles and approaches to bringing brand strategy and design together reinforced this idea of heart intelligence. However, I am thinking that heart intelligence is a way of understanding brands and communication from the consumer backwards, not the brand forwards. More to come on this!
Hey Gav – I’m going to go into this slide show completely, but until I get that chance, I wanted to weigh in on the definition of a brand.
The “gut feeling” definition is probably accurate, but incomplete. I read a definition a few years back that, the more I think about it, makes the most sense. It comes from the owner of the agency I work for, Stan Richards. He defines a brand as “a promise.”
Simple. Except it’s not.
A promise can either be fulfilled or unfulfilled. It sets the stage on which promises will be kept or broken — where people will get a “good gut feeling” or a “bad gut feeling.”
A promise sets the expectation for not only the amplitude, but also the frequency. Meeting the demands of the promise requires an action that is clearly defined by the promise. Exceeding that promise then becomes a measurable goal, whereas exceeding the demand of a “gut feeling,” does not. A promise can set the direction, a gut feeling cannot.
Anyway, I’m certain it’s very possible that I could get past slide 20 and realize all of this is said, but I figured I’d risk being proved an impulsive fool for the opportunity to bring that to the table. 🙂
I’ve not yet looked at the prez but I wanted to chime in on “heart intelligence” and how much it resonates with me. And, as it goes with classic “BSP,” as I’m writing this you’re commenting on my blog ;-).
Looking at the consumer first and keeping them central to a brand’s strategy ain’t backwards- it’s forwards thinking!
Brands need to face their customers, have them in their vision at all times and design a role for them in the brand’s communication.
I love the way that you’re putting ‘heart’ in the middle to bridge the gap between brand and consumer, between strategy and creativity between the idea and the execution. I use ’empathy and insight’ as this bridge and am enjoying the notion of the augmentation of this with “heart”- alive, needs oxygen and energy, life blood of the relationship….
Nice one.
Okay… I finished watching… and it is very interesting. I stand by my earlier statement, but in the context of the entire presentation, it is not nearly a big a deal as I initially expected.
Cam … I have been thinking about your/Stan’s definition of a brand — I really like it, especially in relation to that sense of fulfilment that comes from the word “promise”. One of the things that is interesting about this is that what constitutes a “brand” seems to evolve over time … prompting us all to scramble around in search of a catch-all definition.
I think the best aspect of this is that the term “brand”, in its wilful disobedience, actually reflects the chaotic and changeable nature of consumers. Perhaps markets and brands are the perfect foil for one another 😉 Also … gives us all plenty to think and talk about!