Coherence in healthcare
We were interested in the Consistency over coherence debate recently posted on adliterate.com, which questions the importance of identity-driven communication. Should a brand repeat itself for the sake of recognisability?
Convention in healthcare communications says yes. HCPs lack time - the mental link must happen, and quickly. Consistency also makes sense when global visibility outranks the needs of diverse markets. Waning production budgets make this a fact of our industry.
Clearly we need to retain some consistency in our creative work, but brands can also capitalise on the much bigger premise of coherence. That means staying true to your message first, thus having more freedom in its execution. This brings meaning to brands - your materials and tactics don’t just strike a chord because they look the same, they resonate because they mean the same.
It works because your big idea becomes more than the sum of its parts. When we talk to doctors, why not be that much braver - who says they can’t put two and two together after all?
The real benefits of coherence lie in consumer marketing. New media has a lot to do with patient power. As people search wider for answers in healthcare, so we gain new ways to reach them. Our brand becomes a stream of conversations that evolves along with the community around it. Take a step back and you see how big and relevant the picture has become.
Agencies must face facts - the definition of integration has moved on. Let’s commit to bigger, braver thinking in healthcare with coherent strategies that everyone can profit from.
Blog posts
Becs said (January 30th, 2008 at 11:41am)
How does consistency relate to the all important ‘brand identity’ - surely the reason why people argue for a fundamental consistency of approach is that it is required in order to maintain a coherent brand identity…or perhaps not?
Many well intentioned branding models are handicapped by the perceived absence of choice about identities, creating cultural ‘boxes’ for brands to live in and singular, solitarist brand identities. Brand identities, like human identities should be plural, multifaceted, and evolving. In a rigid attempt to maintain brand consistency there is a danger of ignoring the fluidity and plurality of identity that makes a brand live. Having the same conversation with customers over and over again might be consistent…but is it also boring.
Brands for the future have a requirement to communicate with people through the different ways in which they see themselves: through class, gender, profession, language, literature, science, music, morals or politics and they need to be able to reflect that level of flexibility in their own existence in order to maintain coherence, relevance and importance for consumers.
TW said (January 30th, 2008 at 5:07pm)
Interested comment picked up by Tim about consistency vs. coherency from adliterate.com. I think that brands need to mean the same rather than always look the same.
Think about the people you know. Very often their attitudes, personalities, views and perspectives remain consistent; this either attracts you to them (”friends”) or pushes you away (”others”).
However, frequently their appearance changes. The clothes they wear, their haircuts, sunglasses, the music the’re listening to, the bars you see them in etc. The visible package changes, but the content remain the same.
Above all, you make decisions about these people based on whether they are coherent with your own personal value set. The more this remains to make sense to you (i.e. coherent) the more your (same)relationship with them lasts.
Marketeers in other industries are more able and confident in exploiting this, but all too often in pharma land, the drive is towards what the brand looks like (corporate brand guidelines etc).
Simply put, although inextricably linked, surely it’s both brave and right to put coherency over consistency.