The Angle of Repose
In engineering, the angle of repose is defined as “the maximum angle of slope (measured from horizontal plane) at which loose, cohesionless material will come to rest on a pile of similar material.” Put more simply, if you’ve ever slowly released a handful of sand from your hand into a pile, you’ve observed that the height of the sand pile continues to diminish until that moment when the grains stop sliding down from their apex, and the pile of sand comes to rest.
The slope of that pile is its angle of repose. Out of the multiplicity of possible heights, this is those thousands of grains’ ideal height. Repeat this exercise a hundred times, and you’d, largely, get the same result.After reading an article in this months Harvard Business Review “Authenticity: Is it Real or Marketing” I returned to this ongoing dialogue I’ve had with myself about this idea, and how it applies to our clients’ brands.
We all have our ambitions, professionally and personally. I imagine those grains of sand do too–they’d probably like to stand much taller than they can– to be the biggest pile of sand on the block–the pile against which all other piles are measured! But, in fact, the pile can only be as tall as its physics will allow–the height at which it is naturally stable. So it is with brands. The sooner a brand comes to find and accept its angle of repose, the sooner it will become its most effective self. It’s most authentic self. Ultimately, where it, the company, the employees, and the people who purchase their goods and services will be most comfortable.
Apple is a brand that will soon test its angle of repose. Part of Apple’s cult like appeal has been the size of its market share. It was able to be the rebel precisely because it was not The Man. So now, as its market share grows and white earbuds fill sidewalks like iPhone commercials fill airwaves, Apple’s very essence: exclusivity, rarity, antiestablishmentarianism* is being threatened by its popularity. At a certain point, “The Computer for the Rest of Us” will be all of us. The company that urged us to “Think Different” may come to represent similarity.
In many respects this will be good. Apple makes beautiful products that perform beautifully, and having more people buy them and enjoy them will result in increased revenues, increased shareholder value, more products, more stores, more enterprise penetration . . . more, more, more. Until, more becomes less. Until the brand has found its apex, and its base can support no higher heights, and it comes to rest at its angle of repose. Beyond this angle, Apple’s brand equity will begin to erode, and will require a fairly radical repositioning.
Toyota seems to be respectfully approaching Scion’s ideal slope. Their conscious restraint of the brand’s ambition offers many lessons on how to create an authentic brand. Their patient optimizing for a loyal, niche, cult-like following has created admirable success achieved by minimizing mass media, and delivering unique, innovative brand experiences for owners and potential buyers. By slowly and patiently releasing the grains of their brand, observing what happens, and aiming only for their optimum height, they’ve built a brand foundation that can endure.
There are many other brand examples ranging from to Threadless.com to Pappy Van Winkle Bourbon: who understand that there is an inverse and proportional relationship between availability and devotion: more of one creates less of another. That creating scarcity through restraint of production, mass advertising . . .creates exclusivity, while ubiquity leads to disaffection. To my eyes they appear content with their angle of repose, find comfort in it, and in doing so create dividends for their brands and the people that love them.
In the end, few brands can grow to be mountains, and shouldn’t try to. Be true and authentic to the physics of your brand–aim not for height, but for greatness that resonates with your audience. There’s nothing wrong with being a most excellent hill.
*Oh God, why couldn’t we be playing Scrabble!
Posted: February 27th, 2008 under Branding Theory.
Comments: none |
Digg |
Del.icio.us |
Stumble it!







Write a comment