Are Iconic Technology Brands a myth?

Classical branding taught us about power brands that stand the test of time.Across market conditions , geographies and time.Have a good product, invest in your brand over time; and it will continue to be iconic.

But in the recent past in an increasingly 'instant' world; not too many technology brands seem to stand the test of time and tend to lose their aura pretty quickly.

Let's look at cars. From the 1920's to 1950s the power brands(pun unintended) in automobiles were from the Ford and General Motors stable- Pontiac, Chevy, Dodge, etc. Soon these were upstaged by European superbrands - Mercedez Benz , Porsche and Audi (rememebr the Quattro?). In the 80s; the hitherto quirky Japanese brands started gaining traction. Companies like Toyota (based on their reliability and quality values) and Honda(refinement) became the brands of desire- Lexus,Accord and recently; the Prius.So much so that in emerging markets; the American/European brands didn't stand a chance in the desirability stakes. But today;on the back of a recession; its the Korean brands that seem to have taken centerstage.

Even in PCs; brands like IBM gave way to 'hip' brands like Apple.Which today are fighting for their 'hipness/tech' status with upstarts like Acer.In software - Microsoft upstaged IBMs OS but then became the 'big bad wolf' to Google .And today; the Google brand is fighting online upstarts in the 'cooltech' stakes.

Take mobilephones - Motorola (remember the cool flipphone and Startac?)gave way to Nokia. Today Nokia may be the world's largest selling brand but is it hip/iconic? That space belongs to IPhone/Blackberry in the top end, Samsung in the middle market and a host of Chinese brands in the bottom end.

Even in consumer electronics iconic TV brands moved from RCA to Philips to Sony to Samsung to "I don't know what's hip today!" pretty quickly.

Evidence suggests that increasingly, technology brands seem to lose their sheen soon after they become big. In the technology space 'trust' doesn't seem such a big deal after all;when compared to sexiness/performance/newness.


Its almost that technology customers are rooting for the underdog!

So how does a technology brand stay iconic ?

By assuming that brand decay is inevitable; despite your best efforts.

So does one you invest in the brand? Or reinvent it to keep it continuously fresh? Or just create a new brand using the resources and credibility of the cash cow mother brand?

I'm still to figure that one out but currently I am tending to the latter.

But what about financial brands?

Evidence suggests for financial brands it's the complete opposite! Trust is the biggest deal and newness be damned! The older the brand, the bigger it gets(like compounded returns!).

But then that's the topic for a different post!

Cheers.