Which leaves his category of “Brevity or Longevity”. I’m not sure I understand this one. I completely agree that long-term negligence would have a significant impact on brand damage – but what I wonder is if he’s again developing a consideration for what we call “productivity” in FAIR. If the brand hasn’t been around a significant amount of time, would not the consumer be accounting for that in their risk analysis (”will I be able to continue to I get what I need”)? When we look at the probable impact of an incident from our If the brand has been around, I start thinking of recursive expressions of “reputation damage”. This makes my brain hurt.
This is not so much due to negligence in traditional sense of the word. It’s more along the lines of not being able to properly assess the market and adapt to the change. This will occur differently in different industries. The fashion industry is one example where one can have a hot brand one minute and not the next. LaCoste is a good example of when the image of a brand declines over time. Luckily for them it rebounded.