A whole new brand has suddenly appeared in press ads and OOH along city streets. What’s interesting about this exciting brand launch is that it’s for a product you may have heard of: YouTube.
Until recently, the online video platform giant had never run consumer-facing ads in Australia. Yet here they are. Why?
The answer undoubtedly lies in the looming threat of YouTube being included in the Australian Government’s newly introduced age-restrictions for social media platforms. YouTube initially escaped the restriction, only to now face inclusion. The seasoned marketers among us can smell their strategy of a pre-emptive priming of public sentiment. And while there’s nothing wrong with that as a playbook for crisis management, the core message of the YouTube ads reads like a love-building brand play.
But what stands out most is the simple fact these ads exist. YouTube’s long history of marketing silence disrupted by this sudden advertising burst smacks of a poor approach to long-term brand-building. Brand equity isn’t a switch that can simply be flicked on when needed.
This trick has been pulled before by brands who’ve coasted along for years, resting on their laurels of constant consumption, believing their relevance was unshakeable, unbreakable, until an unforeseen disruption forced them into a reactive campaign. As the leading photography brand for a century, Kodak entered the heady days of little to no advertising spend and their P&L probably looked pretty sweet without the burden of that cost. Then digital photography shattered the 35mm film business and they suddenly launched expensive TV ad spots, outdoor ads and splashy homepage takeovers, all claiming Kodak still cared about customers. It was too late. Customers saw the brand as nostalgic but no longer relevant.
In an Ozymandian twist of fate, it was a Kodak engineer who invented the first digital camera technology that would ultimately bring this giant to bankruptcy in 2012.
Before Toys ‘R’ Us collapsed in the US, it dominated the retail toy industry for years until online shopping gained ground. As a final gasp, the chain paid heavily for a slew of TV and social ads declaring “we need you” and “we are still here.” Their desperately tokenistic reliance on advertising only amplified how badly the company had neglected its brand presence for so long. In their complacency, they ignored the consumer need for an emotional attachment.
Doing nothing when times are good, only to hope a campaign spurt will shore up or magically manifest sentiment when danger looms is a risk tantamount to corporate sabotage that every C-suite exec and board member should be watching out for. Ads are unlikely to create trust out of thin air. Brand building must be a constancy.
An adaptable constancy though.
For decades Apple maintained brand love through a position of intuitive design, but as the world around them shifted so did the needs of consumers and Apple pivoted to make privacy a consistent narrative so over time fans could point to years of “privacy is a right” messaging and value alignment when regulatory or competitive pressures mounted. Apple had a reservoir of trust to tap. In the early 2000s, LEGO faced structural challenges yet steadily told stories about creativity, imagination and childhood play. When crisis came the brand did not need a big campaign to reassure. Consumers already felt known, understood and valued. And an entire film studio was born from the loins of their long-standing equity.
The difference between reactive bursts of attention and foundational brand-building becomes clearer when we think of several dimensions in narrative. Brand equity cannot be built instantly. Without familiarity, trust, or story, ads feel hollow or manipulative when they suddenly appear. Public perception needs narrative, a reason to believe, not just presence.
Throwing up YouTube posters in bus shelters may raise eyebrows but will yield little impact unless people already feel something – a connection or belonging with the brand. And reactive campaigns risk misreading public sentiment or amplifying cynicism that the brand only cares when it needs something from you. Promotional bursts cannot undo years of brand neglect or reinforce emotional bonds that were never built.
So, is YouTube too late? For a brand that has remained background, unseen and unspoken despite the everyday awareness and usage of its product – utilitarian wallpaper – a campaign trying to instil emotional resonance feels arbitrary or manipulative. Without clarity or narrative, the strategy risks misfire.
To build lasting resonance and support, YouTube needed to be present much earlier, investing in awareness that met relevant meaning. Brand-building is not a crisis tool; it is the ground from which resilience grows.
If you’re in the C-suite or on the board of a company that isn’t constantly building brand love among with your consumers, perhaps it’s time to change the channel.
