choose your words: Systematicity vs. Consistency - enhancing our understanding of focus
Why is it useful to be conscientious about precision in language? Precision allows us to direct our thoughts. Precision allows us to unlock perspectives we might otherwise not be able to take. Precision helps us to define actions independently, execute them individually and observe their effects in isolation. Precision in strategizing will help fashion managers to build better brands. So welcome to the first article of the category „choose your words“.
I had previously defined the external-execution dimension (top right) as „consistency“. In the same article I wrote: “Consistency means maintaining focus over time and across all brand activities.”
Previously, I may not have chosen words carefully enough: After a discussion with Prof. Benjamin Simmenauer during a lecture at Institut Francais de la Mode, I feel the need to review the terms chosen for the external-operative dimension and the definition of consistency. To do so, I will introduce the word “systematicity”. Systematicity is distinguished from Consistency. Both occupy different spaces in our model of focus.
Isolating time from activities
The issue with my previous definition of consistency is that it mixes two key variables, which are A) “time” and B) “brand activities”. Therefore, it is imprecise. While A), the time variable, gives us a perspective that spans over multiple periods, B), the brand activities, can be reduced to all the activities at one very specific point in time. Therefore, the two can – and should – be isolated from each other to enhance our understanding of a focused brand and our ability to define actions to build focused brands.
By splitting these up, two new definitions emerge:
Systematicity is maintaining focus across all the brand activities.
Here a brand activity is the re-iteration of the brand identity at a customer touchpoint. These touchpoints include for example social media, retail experience, website experience and of course the collections themselves.
Consistency is maintaining focus over time.
Systematicity and consistency have their own specific relationship. A brand is consistent when it adheres to systematicity over time.
So, which one is more important to build a strong brand?
In large brands whose lifetimes span over years or even centuries, consistency is naturally limited. At some point the creative director will be replaced. Especially where the replacement is due to commercial causes, decision makers were not satisfied with the performance of the products created by the creative director, there will often be a big break in consistency of a brand. Brands free themselves of certain aspects of their identity to introduce new ones and make the brand more appealing to a target audience.
If we look at the Gucci of Sabato de Sarno compared to the Gucci of Alessandro Michele, they seem like two entirely different brands – outside of the heritage symbols (Name, GG, monogram and horsebit) there is no consistency in the last 5 years because there was a change in Creative Director. Same holds if we compare Bottega Veneta of Daniel Lee with Bottega Veneta of Tomas Maier. Especially when brands are in the commercial need of a re-invention there is an immediate inorganic break in consistency.
Other than consistency, systematicity may never be broken! If a brand is not systematically aligned across all touchpoints at a given point in time it will not be able to precisely communicate what it stands for!
Let’s conclude that consistency is important to a certain extent. Without the re-iteration of identity over a critical amount of time a brand proposition won’t stick. However, consistency is limited as brands might want or need to switch out their creative directors which leads to an almost unavoidable, and often intentional, break in consistency.
Systematicity, however, is always imperative! Without systematicity brands can never reach their full potential.
How do systematicity & consistency factor into the definition of focus
First, we need to replace the old definition of consistency with the newly defined understanding of systematicity. So now our external dimensions are A) finding a pin-pointed identity and B) systematicity in execution of this identity across all touchpoints. Our internal dimensions remain C) goal-orientation and D) discipline. All of them are defined as the dimensions of focus at one specific point in time.
Consistency, however, loses its place in the 2×2 matrix. While consistency remains key to building a strong brand, we also introduced the limits to its relevance. When a brand is not working commercially, there comes the point when consistency in the brand’s execution of focus has to be broken. At this point a new chapter of a brand’s timeline is opened.
Acknowledging this distinction, we realise that consistency occupies a unique space in our definition of focus. As consistency is a function of time, it is the vector of the third dimension. This highlights the relevance of consistency across all the other dimensions of focus. Consistency is relevant; until it is time for a reinvention.
Below I have illustrated the new definition of focus to visualise this understanding.
navigate the noise with me and be first to read the latest articles