"The meek shall inherit squat."

Sermon From the Mount

February 26, 2010

Real Branding Hurts*

There are hundreds of definitions for branding. There are even dozens of good ones.

The difference is, in marketing, it's the brander who hurts instead of the brandee.

The difference is, in marketing, it's the brander who hurts instead of the brandee.

For the moment, let’s consider this one:

Branding is the process of making one company’s products distinct from similar products offered by competitive companies.

Sure, it’s overly simplistic but let’s go with it for now.

Just as there are hundreds of definitions for branding, there are hundreds of ways to make one product distinct from another. We can invent distinctive, new features and functions, create distinctive, new ways to benefit customers, find distinctive, new ways to communicate about features and benefits (even if those features and benefits are not especially distinctive and new). And we can imbue our products with distinctive, intangible qualities that some customers will find enticing.

But not all customers. The process of making a product distinctive requires us to define exactly who we’re going to try to entice and exactly who we’re going to risk turning off. And that’s why branding – real branding - hurts.

“But, I don’t want to turn my back on potential sales”

Having the guts to walk away from something is just as important as having the fortitude to embrace something. That’s hard to do because “I don’t want to turn my back on potential sales.” But, think about it this way; what if you could be reasonably sure that the “customers” you’re walking away from would never really be your customers anyway? What if you could know that they’re so in thrall to your competitors that spending one more dollar on them would be foolish? And what if you could focus all your attention on people who are most likely to find your offer appealing?**

Bank of America is a 900-pound silverback of a brand. Bank of America can afford to be all things to all people. Or it can afford to try. Wainwright Bank, based in Boston, MA, cannot, so they’ve made the conscious decision to be “the socially responsible bank” (my words, not theirs; don’t come after me, Wainwright folks, I’m a big fan) and to appeal to people who find that enticing. You can follow this link and read in detail how well Wainwright’s doing with this strategy.*** I wouldn’t have used them as an example if their results weren’t pretty remarkable.

Cannibals need love too


If you’re a company with a portfolio of multiple brands, sometimes real branding means letting one of your brands take share from another. Procter & Gamble and Campbell’s Soup are great at this and they’re thriving. Their attitude is “if anybody is going to carve off a chunk of our business, it’s going to be us.” General Motors is lousy at it and, well, we’ve picked on the U.S. auto industry enough.


But, even for marketers who are good at it, it’s painful. For somebody like a CMO, it requires a clear vision, an iron will and the ability to turn a slightly deaf ear to the righteous indignation of the brand managers who are getting cannibalized.


John Mellencamp, marketing strategist


When you do it right, branding hurts. Sometimes it means walking away from what seem like potential sales. Sometimes it means allowing one of your brands to encroach on another, and may the best brand win. But if the real goal of branding is to make what you’re selling distinct from similar offerings from competitors (and, let’s all be real honest, the are a lot of similar offerings available) then the hard choices have to be made by people who are comfortable with discomfort.

Next time you’re facing one of those hard choices, hum a few bars of Hurts So Good. Maybe that will make it easier. But it probably won’t.

_______________

* This post was inspired by my good friend and client, Phil Jones of AGCO Corporation. Thanks, Mr. Jones.

** Exactly how to go about doing this will have to be the subject of a future entry. Short answer: call Drumcircle at 617.395.1636 and ask for Bill.

*** I’ll bet that the Wainwright folks don’t see this as a strategy so much as A Way Of Being. A Mission. A Raison d’être. And that beats a wimpy old strategy any time.

July 15, 2009

“Facts are the enemy of truth.” So said Miguel de Cervantes, 16th Century Spanish novelist and, apparently, savvy marketing guy.

I think Seth Godin is a heck of a bright fellow and I especially admire him when he expresses (beautifully) ideas that align with Drumcircle’s worldview.

For example, in his blog today, entitled Facts always win, right?, he writes about how marketers, especially B2B marketers, are far too prone to rely on facts as reasons people should buy their products.

Young man, your presentation on 3/8-inch, high-capacity chisel point staples interested me. But it didn't move me.

Young man, your presentation on 3/8-inch, high-capacity chisel point staples interested me. But it didn't move me.

Says Seth:

“If you’re selling a business to business service and you can prove that it’s better, that it delivers more value, that it’s cheaper or more durable or more efficient, shouldn’t that mean you will close every sale?”

Of course, we all know it doesn’t work that way. Nobody closes every sale. And there are dozens of fat books and scholarly papers on neuroscience, decision-making and marketing that explain why: they’ll never admit it, they’ll probably never even know it, but even the most spreadsheet-obsessed, abacus-wielding, thy-Likert-scale-guideth-and comforteth-me businessperson will still always buy what feels right rather than what - at least according to the manufacturer - is right (a more neuroscientifically accurate way to say it is that we buy what feels right, then convince ourselves that it is right by looking to all those facts).

The truth is, building a sales pitch solely on facts and product attributes is risky. After all, a competitor can drop prices, introduce a more durable product, incorporate a secret ingredient or win some important industry award. Suddenly you’re in a facts arms race. Suddenly, you’re working hard to “out-fact” your competitors instead of outsell them.

Without even knowing it, Seth Godin captures in four paragraphs the potency of what Drumcircle calls Message Architecture™. It’s an important part of how we help clients move from feature/function/fact-driven, transactional marketing to connection-driven, Emotivational™ marketing.

Stick to the facts. Just stick them on the bottom.

Message Architecture isn't advertising copy, but it has been known to inspire more emotionally engaging advertising copy.

Message Architecture isn't advertising copy, but it has been known to inspire more emotionally engaging advertising copy (click the picture for a larger view)

In almost every Drumcircle engagement there’s a session called an Emotivation Workshop. In these half-day sessions, we work together with our clients (and anyone else they’d like to include) to craft a new, more effective Message Architecture for their products or brands.

These new messages are always constructed from the bottom up, in three linguistic “stories”, like the illustration on the left (click it for a version you can actually read).

As with any good structure, Message Architecture has to be built on a firm foundation. In this case, it’s all the facts and features that make what we’re selling great: we’ve got the biggest, fastest, oldest, newest, freshest, lightest, heaviest, you get the picture.

Continuing the architectural analogy, the middle story is where the work gets done. It’s where we elaborate on the benefits customers derive from all those great features and facts in the first layer.

The top layer is derived from a unique, emotional insight discovered during the course of the project. This insight is the answer to the question “what, exactly, does right feel like?”

Whether our client is selling baby shoes, copier paper or auto service, there’s always an emotional need within the potential purchaser that goes much deeper than shoes, paper or an oil change. The closer we can come to acknowledging and filling that need, the more right our offering will feel.

This is how we’ll out-connect, out motivate and outsell competitors.

This is where we’ll demonstrate that We Understand the deep, emotional need.

This is where we’ll make our offering feel right (if our assignment is to help develop a new product concept, we’ll work together to design the new product so that every aspect of it, from components to packaging to promotion, not only feels right, but is right).

We don’t have feelings about facts. We accept the facts that fit our feelings.

It’s important to keep in mind that, while Message Architecture is built from the bottom up, people perceive and react to it from the top down. We Understand makes people look (“Why, they’re speaking directly to me…), We Can Do Great Things For You makes them pay attention (…and they’re telling me things that benefit me, personally) and, finally, We’re Great gives them reason to believe (I knew I was right to look and listen, after all, look how great these people are!).

Facts, features and functions are important parts of marketing communication. But in Message Architecture and in human psychology, they come dead last in the process of making a sale. And that’s good. Because, if some competitor comes in and cuts your facts out from under you, but you’ve done a good job convincing people that you understand and are doing great things for them, that powerful, emotional connection can buy you some time to build yourself some new facts (if you find you even still need them).

July 9, 2009

Malcolm Gladwell, Howard Moskowitz, spaghetti sauce and the end of endless line extensions.

Stop & Shop in Somerville, MA stocks 33 kinds of spaghetti and 87 kinds of pasta sauce. To anyone planning to introducenumbers 34 and 88, respectively, good luck!

Stop & Shop in Somerville, MA stocks 33 kinds of spaghetti and 87 kinds of pasta sauce. To anyone planning to introduce numbers 34 and 88, good luck!

Everybody who works in any phase of marketing in any category from investment counseling to internet routers, farm machinery to pharmaceuticals, horse chow to house paint, furniture to funeral services (you get the picture) should watch this video, take it to heart and share it with colleagues who might either benefit from it or deny its implications (after you’ve finished reading this blog entry, of course).

In the 20-minute video, Malcolm Gladwell, at the TED conference in 2004, makes great points about the fallibility of focus groups, the unreliability of asking consumers directly what they want in a product and the worldview of worms in horseradish. Gladwell is a genius at seeing the deep meaning in tiny things, so you owe it to yourself to watch the video. But, here’s my shot at condensing it to a bloggable blip:

It was the early 1980’s. The time of “just say no”, Rubik’s Cubes, Pac-Man and Flashdance.

Second-place spaghetti sauce manufacturer, Prego had a can’t-miss plan. They’d have Psychophysicist Dr. Howard Moskowitz determine the formulation for the “perfect” spaghetti sauce, with the flavor and texture that was most liked by the most people. Then, in one swoop, they’d unseat category leader Ragu.

But Dr. Moskowitz’s proved (to Prego’s initial dismay) there was no such thing as one perfect sauce, and that if Prego created a sauce that hit the “sweet spot” between the different sauces that different people liked, they’d have a sauce that millions would find acceptable, but nobody would love.

Dr. Moskowitz still saved the day, though. He went on to prove that if Prego looked at people not as one, big group of spaghetti sauce consumers, but as a groups of people who clustered around particular spaghetti sauce traits, then made multiple kinds of sauce, they could divide the market and conquer Ragu.

Thus was created Prego Extra Chunky, and thus was Ragu moved to the number two position in the category.

Now, embracing and exploiting* the diversity of an audience’s desired product attributes is a standard, common part of almost every marketer’s tool kit these days. We use this tool to design new products, seize shelf space (in the case of CPG’s) and brain space (in the case of just about everything other product or service) and to focus marketing programs more accurately.

So I’m going to make a bold assertion that this tool is, in fact, so standard and common that it just might be losing its effectiveness.

Consider:

  • In The Paradox of Choice, Barry Schwartz, a sociologist at Swarthmore, makes a pretty darned convincing argument that today’s abundance of choices (a good thing, right?) is, in fact, an excess of choices (he describes the shelves of his local supermarket groaning with 85 kinds of crackers, 21 “different” kinds of chocolate chip cookies, 75 kinds of iced tea, a dozen different choices of Pringles, 29 different chicken soups, and goes on to cite similar examples in just about every business category from financial services to health care plans) that bewilders, overwhelms and actually causes symptoms of depression in many people.

Graphic from the The Wall Street Journal, Jube 26, 2009

Graphic from The Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2009

  • According to The Wall Street Journal, (June 26, 2009), These Challenging Economic Times** may already be alleviating some of that problem, because many retailers are cutting way back on the variety of products they’re allowing onto their shelves (Walgreen’s is cutting the types of superglues it carries to 11 from 25. Wal-Mart is dropping 20 of the 24 different tape measures it sells. Kroger is eliminating about 30% of its cereal varieties).

The time is fast approaching, if it’s not already here, when marketers are no longer going to be able to line-extend their way to success. Tossing product features and consumer traits into the Cuisinart isn’t going to pass for “innovation.”

We’re all going to need to learn new ways to design products that are both relevant to and resonant with consumers who are more discerning, less willing to spend and just plain weary of having to chose between zip front and button fly, boot cut and standard leg, athletic fit and trim fit, stone washed and acid washed, just to buy a pair of pants.

________________________

*By the way, I’m sick and tired of “exploit” being considered a bad word. This is the definition according Microsoft Encarta:

exploit: verb [ trans. ] : make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource), noun : a bold or daring feat

Neither of those are bad things. I hereby reclaim this perfectly useful word for the forces of goodness and clarity.

**Henceforth in this blog, this irritatingly overused set of words will simply be abbreviated as “TCET”.

Powered by WordPress