AI and the evolving role of the brand manager

In the age of AI, an interesting article showed up, relating to the value of fixed visual identity. The writer asked if identity should (could) be more fluid, deviating from the norm and orthodoxy established by the brand manual?

AI gives the brand manager the ability to post social media on a variable basis, depending on the person scrolling through a feed. The variability of posts has one definite benefit: asymmetry.

Currently, using human capacity, new content is difficult and expensive to generate. The individual will be exposed to the same content across various social media platforms. This means that the individual will not be asked to assess the message, having seen it once or twice, and will carry on scrolling. Subsequent to the initial exposure, placement on a different platform or repeat placement on the same platform, is an expense with declining returns in value.

Asymmetric posting repeats the core message in different forms, so the individual needs to assess and understand each post, with obvious brand gains to each message.

This approach, executed manually in the past, was known as debranding. The classic example of this was the Coca-Cola campaign with the names on the cans. Changes in the form of visual identity and the addition of names stopped the shopper and forced a reassessment of the brand. The core message of sharing the product remained the same (share with a friend who has that name).

Well-trained, well-planned and well-implemented AI can drastically reduce the amount of work involved in generating and placing customized communication on an individual basis. In other words, asymmetric posting becomes feasible. The AI speaks to the individual, not the masses.

What becomes of human creativity, the role of the brand manager and the creative?

AI cannot be left to operate autonomously. It must be trained, the material must be assessed. The brand is driven by a core set of messages that are closely related to a central thread. The messages use facets of identity: colours, shapes, naming conventions, language, music and tone. This identity is assessed by an individual who forms an image of the brand that influences purchase decisions.

As Coca-Cola showed, there is plenty of room for variance, relying on just singular Coke red, typography and the shape of the contour curve. The range of Coke-branded products also shows that even the colour can vary. All of this is within the scope of AI. However, there has to be a consistent thread. AI can write and design, but it may be subject to variance that leads to further variance: like the butterfly flapping its wings an ocean away, the end result of the AI exercise can be an unproductive hurricane.

The role of the human will be firstly to train the AI. An output is only as good as the input that the processor receives. The human, be they a brand manager, art director, designer or copywriter, has to establish the baseline standard for the varying messages. The human also has to ensure that the messages do not go off track, remain true to the brand’s position and personality.

AI is an evolution, not a replacement for human capacity. The true threat lies in the proliferation of messages by the brand and its competitors. In an age when there are near infinite permutations of messages, personalized to the individual, it will become difficult to value messages.
This is where the classical field of brand management and human discrimination needs to come to the fore.