I've been reading some branding literature lately that very much based on research.  And, while I think that research is a great thing, and often helpful, I want to believe that we're perched on the precipice of a new zeitgeist in branding.  What I mean by this is, maybe what worked in the past (Ford for example) isn't a good predictor of what will work in the future. 

I also mean that the definition of "worked" is changing for a lot of consumers and entrepreneurs.  Does Wal-Mart work?  Sure it does.  They make a lot of money and push people around.  For the old guard, maybe that's enough.  For the new guard though, I think much more is required.  Philanthropy.  Sustainability.  Actually caring about one's employees - to the point where a union is a waste of time.

I think if researchers looked at a shorter time frame - what has worked well in the last 5 years say, some interesting entrants would come up.  What do you think?  Do you think we can use the past as justification for how we run our brands?  Or do you think it's time to redefine what works?

One final example... three of the Good to Great companies are Wells Fargo, Kroger, and Walgreens.  I've got to tell you, I think it's great that they made a lot of money in the last 15 years.  But I don't believe that many customers or employees are leaping out of bed every morning jazzed to go to these brands.  They don't move the needle on the passion meter for me.  And ultimately, that's the measure of greatness... isn't it?