I just saw a TV commercial for "The Promise," the new album by the Simon Cowell-created operatic pop group Il Divo. The voice-over included this line:
"It's not just music... it's Il Divo!"
This immediately raised two questions in my mind:
1. Are you sure it's not music? It sounds an awful lot like music to me.
2. Will this particularly lazy brand of copywriting ever go away?
There's Pennzoil's current tagline: "Not just oil, Pennzoil." (So you're saying Pennzoil's not oil?)
There's Wendy's current tagline: "It's waaaay better than fast food. It's Wendy's." (Actually, it's remarkably similar to fast food.)
There's Michelob's old tagline: "There's beer, and then there's Michelob." (There's beer, and then there's colossally average beer.)
It's not just the aesthetics I'm protesting here. There are probably a half-dozen other recent examples I could cite of this construct, in which we're told the brand in question is different from the category it exists in, with no reason to believe whatsoever. And that's the problem: Any brand could create one of these taglines by simply filling in the blanks, and it would be every bit as unconvincing. It's lazy, it's undifferentiated, and it claims or proves nothing.
So beware. If you find yourself or your agency drafting similar copy - "Not just a bowling alley, but _______," or "There are post-nasal drip remedies, and then there's _______." - it's an immediate red flag that something's gone horribly wrong. You're either doing nothing meaningfully different than your competitors, or you are and you've (inexplicably) elected not to talk about it.
I believe the average small business can write a better tagline than the agencies to which Pennzoil and Wendy's are paying millions of dollars. Prove me right.
ADDENDUM, November 21: I just saw an ad for Kmart which featured the line, "There's smart, and there's Kmart smart!" Hands up if you ever in your life associated Kmart with the word "smart."
Anyone?
November 17, 2008
November 14, 2008
Brand Benefits - Beyond the Functional
The scene would be surreal if it weren't so familiar.
A man sits before a table. He is in the desert, though he is oblivious to this fact; he sits in air-conditioned comfort in a building designed to evoke the city of Venice, Italy. Above him is a chandelier the size of a compact car. A vodka tonic is in his left hand; it was given to him, free of charge, by a leggy blonde in a revealing outfit.
On the table before him, playing cards are placed face-up. If the man's cards meet one set of conditions and the dealer's meet another, the man wins a small amount of money.
One hundred per cent of the time, the rules of the game do not favor the man. He knows this. But that doesn't silence the voice in his head that inexplicably repeats: "I will leave richer than I came."
You've probably guessed that the scene is a blackjack table in Las Vegas. I've just returned from another visit
to that desert oasis, where I saw, with my own eyes, a woman praying at a roulette table. I don't think it was Bill Maher in drag, but you never know.
What I do know is that this scene, and thousands of others like it, plays out in Vegas every day. And that should teach us something about the benefits we provide via our brands.
We humans are, ultimately, rather irrational beasts. But brand stewards often choose to appeal only to the rational brain. They seek to persuade via logic, ignoring the potentially richer veins of emotions and experiences.
Business-to-business firms are particularly guilty of this. I've spoken with several B2B marketers who lament the seemingly short list of benefits that they – and their competitors – provide: Increased sales, reduced costs, better productivity. And that's about it.
That means big prizes may await those bold enough to move beyond the rational. For example, a B2B brand might position itself as an industry thought-leader by hosting exclusive conferences or customer appreciation events that plug into needs beyond the ho-hum "sales and costs."
So today I challenge you to reinvent the benefits you offer. Generally speaking, there are three kinds of brand benefits, and we’ll use my own experience in Vegas as examples of each:
Functional. These benefits serve a practical or rational need. I've no idea what functional need Vegas serves, which speaks to the power of the next two kinds of benefits.
Emotional. These benefits are psychological in nature. My penchant for bouts of escapism is as high as the next guy's, and Vegas was built on exactly that need.
Self-expressive. These benefits are about how we want others to see us. If I win a daily poker tournament at the Golden Nugget, you can be sure my friends will hear about it.
A strong brand can deliver all three. An Apple computer user might derive the functional benefit of an efficient operating system, the emotional benefit of creativity, and the self-expressive benefit of being seen as a progressive techie. Clearly, such a user's brand loyalty will be well above average.
Explore your benefits by answering these questions:
You, today: What benefits are you currently the best in your category at providing? If none, what can you do differently?
Consumers: Do consumers need the benefits that you're best at? If not, what can you do differently?
The other guys: What benefits are your competitors best at providing? Where is the whitespace where you can play and win?
Values: What is the higher-order calling of your brand – the need that you're truly driven to serve?
The horizon: What benefits will emerge as important in the future? How can you get there first (and best)?
I'm not advising you to avoid functional benefits. Quite the contrary: Functional may be the strongest card for you to play. But exploring the full range of current and future benefits is one path to winning a brand jackpot.
A version of this post appeared in the Business Courier of Cincinnati column "That Branding Thing" on November 14, 2008.
A man sits before a table. He is in the desert, though he is oblivious to this fact; he sits in air-conditioned comfort in a building designed to evoke the city of Venice, Italy. Above him is a chandelier the size of a compact car. A vodka tonic is in his left hand; it was given to him, free of charge, by a leggy blonde in a revealing outfit.
On the table before him, playing cards are placed face-up. If the man's cards meet one set of conditions and the dealer's meet another, the man wins a small amount of money.
One hundred per cent of the time, the rules of the game do not favor the man. He knows this. But that doesn't silence the voice in his head that inexplicably repeats: "I will leave richer than I came."
You've probably guessed that the scene is a blackjack table in Las Vegas. I've just returned from another visit
to that desert oasis, where I saw, with my own eyes, a woman praying at a roulette table. I don't think it was Bill Maher in drag, but you never know.What I do know is that this scene, and thousands of others like it, plays out in Vegas every day. And that should teach us something about the benefits we provide via our brands.
We humans are, ultimately, rather irrational beasts. But brand stewards often choose to appeal only to the rational brain. They seek to persuade via logic, ignoring the potentially richer veins of emotions and experiences.
Business-to-business firms are particularly guilty of this. I've spoken with several B2B marketers who lament the seemingly short list of benefits that they – and their competitors – provide: Increased sales, reduced costs, better productivity. And that's about it.
That means big prizes may await those bold enough to move beyond the rational. For example, a B2B brand might position itself as an industry thought-leader by hosting exclusive conferences or customer appreciation events that plug into needs beyond the ho-hum "sales and costs."
So today I challenge you to reinvent the benefits you offer. Generally speaking, there are three kinds of brand benefits, and we’ll use my own experience in Vegas as examples of each:
Functional. These benefits serve a practical or rational need. I've no idea what functional need Vegas serves, which speaks to the power of the next two kinds of benefits.
Emotional. These benefits are psychological in nature. My penchant for bouts of escapism is as high as the next guy's, and Vegas was built on exactly that need.
Self-expressive. These benefits are about how we want others to see us. If I win a daily poker tournament at the Golden Nugget, you can be sure my friends will hear about it.
A strong brand can deliver all three. An Apple computer user might derive the functional benefit of an efficient operating system, the emotional benefit of creativity, and the self-expressive benefit of being seen as a progressive techie. Clearly, such a user's brand loyalty will be well above average.
Explore your benefits by answering these questions:
You, today: What benefits are you currently the best in your category at providing? If none, what can you do differently?
Consumers: Do consumers need the benefits that you're best at? If not, what can you do differently?
The other guys: What benefits are your competitors best at providing? Where is the whitespace where you can play and win?
Values: What is the higher-order calling of your brand – the need that you're truly driven to serve?
The horizon: What benefits will emerge as important in the future? How can you get there first (and best)?
I'm not advising you to avoid functional benefits. Quite the contrary: Functional may be the strongest card for you to play. But exploring the full range of current and future benefits is one path to winning a brand jackpot.
A version of this post appeared in the Business Courier of Cincinnati column "That Branding Thing" on November 14, 2008.
November 3, 2008
Positioning and the Next President
It's the eve of the 2008 presidential election, and this has been an absolutely fascinating campaign when viewed through the lens of brand positioning. I'm not writing today to endorse either candidate, but rather to offer a few thoughts about the strategies and tactics used by each.
Obama: "Change"
The messaging of Barack Obama's campaign has been remarkably consistent since its inception. The theme of "Change" – sometimes presented as "Change We Can Believe In" or "Change We Need" – is quite potent at a time when disapproval ratings for the sitting president hover around 70%. (Which is to say a large portion of the electorate is not pleased with the current Republican experience – in politics, as in branding, experience usually trumps messaging.) In other words, Obama's campaign selected a positioning that the market clearly desires.
Obama: "Change"
The messaging of Barack Obama's campaign has been remarkably consistent since its inception. The theme of "Change" – sometimes presented as "Change We Can Believe In" or "Change We Need" – is quite potent at a time when disapproval ratings for the sitting president hover around 70%. (Which is to say a large portion of the electorate is not pleased with the current Republican experience – in politics, as in branding, experience usually trumps messaging.) In other words, Obama's campaign selected a positioning that the market clearly desires.
The "Change" positioning also enables Obama to take a potential negative – his lack of experience – and re-cast it as a positive. If ever there was an election where lack of Washington-insider experience could be portrayed as an advantage, this is it.
Positioning is relative. For the "change" claim to stand up, Obama doesn't need to prove that he is the man to deliver change – he simply needs to convince you that he is more likely to deliver change than John McCain. Obama ads that feature McCain admitting that he voted with George W. Bush "over 90% of the time" drive this point home with a powerful simplicity.
Strategically and tactically, Obama has led the most innovative presidential run in history. He has harnessed the internet, text messaging, and other tools, reaching young voters in a way that is comfortable to them. And he has succeeded in creating hordes of "brand champions" – the volunteers who go door-to-door, the people wearing the Change t-shirts, the people donating all that money. Clearly, he has energized a base in a manner that Kerry and Gore did not even approach.
After the election, Obama's campaign will be studied closely, and its lessons will affect every major campaign from this point forward.
McCain: ?????
Given Bush's (dis)approval ratings, any Republican candidate for president would need to run a better campaign than his Democrat opponent. McCain hasn't accomplished this. I honestly can't say that I know what McCain's position is. As I write this, "Country First" is the lead messaging at JohnMcCain.com, and that's the slogan I've seen most often.
Positioning is relative. For the "change" claim to stand up, Obama doesn't need to prove that he is the man to deliver change – he simply needs to convince you that he is more likely to deliver change than John McCain. Obama ads that feature McCain admitting that he voted with George W. Bush "over 90% of the time" drive this point home with a powerful simplicity.
Strategically and tactically, Obama has led the most innovative presidential run in history. He has harnessed the internet, text messaging, and other tools, reaching young voters in a way that is comfortable to them. And he has succeeded in creating hordes of "brand champions" – the volunteers who go door-to-door, the people wearing the Change t-shirts, the people donating all that money. Clearly, he has energized a base in a manner that Kerry and Gore did not even approach.
After the election, Obama's campaign will be studied closely, and its lessons will affect every major campaign from this point forward.
McCain: ?????
Given Bush's (dis)approval ratings, any Republican candidate for president would need to run a better campaign than his Democrat opponent. McCain hasn't accomplished this. I honestly can't say that I know what McCain's position is. As I write this, "Country First" is the lead messaging at JohnMcCain.com, and that's the slogan I've seen most often.
However, apart from McCain's commendable military service, he's offered little to support "Country First." Worse, his choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate undermines his own positioning. With polls showing that 50%+ of Americans believe Palin is not qualified to be president, McCain's judgment and commitment to "Country First" are implicitly (if not overtly) called into question.
(Not incidentally, the presence of Palin on the ticket somewhat neutralizes valid attacks that can be launched against Obama's own short record.)
Other McCain messaging is even more curious. "The Original Mavericks" was more credible eight years ago, when McCain was without question perceived as a maverick within his own party. (His "Straight Talk Express" was a genius stroke to support this position.) Again, however, his Bush-aligned voting record undercuts the "maverick" claim, and in fact helps Obama to re-position McCain as not a maverick, but as "another W." The use of the plural suggests that Palin is also a maverick, but her record is far too short to justify this.
Some of McCain's ads have even used the slogan "Change Is Coming," which is one of the most peculiar messaging decisions I've ever seen, given Obama's success in owning the word "change." This is akin to launching a car brand to compete with BMW, and supporting it with the tagline, "No, really, we're truly the ultimate driving machine."
Finally, McCain has suffered in the "brand character" department. In the debates, for instance, while Obama remained poised and polished, McCain often seemed condescending and cranky. And referring to a fellow senator as "that one" simply shows a lack of class. Brand character helps buyers (voters) to identify in one of three ways – "people like me, people I like, people I want to be like" – and McCain struggled to pass even some basic "likability" tests here. These last few days, both on Saturday Night Live and on the campaign trail, McCain has seemed looser and more self-deprecating, but it may be too little too late.
I'm well aware that the above is short on substantive matters like policies and issues. In a perfect world, of course, substance would decide every election. However, matters of policy can be complex and difficult for voters to grasp, and every single voter today suffers from information overload. One of my points is that successful political campaigns, like successful brand campaigns, must unify and convey their stories with simplicity, consistency and credibility. Obama did this, and McCain did not.
I'll offer no predictions for what will happen in the election tomorrow, but should Obama win, it will be in no small part because he ran the superior campaign.
Whichever side you support – get out and vote tomorrow! And may the best ticket win.
(Not incidentally, the presence of Palin on the ticket somewhat neutralizes valid attacks that can be launched against Obama's own short record.)
Other McCain messaging is even more curious. "The Original Mavericks" was more credible eight years ago, when McCain was without question perceived as a maverick within his own party. (His "Straight Talk Express" was a genius stroke to support this position.) Again, however, his Bush-aligned voting record undercuts the "maverick" claim, and in fact helps Obama to re-position McCain as not a maverick, but as "another W." The use of the plural suggests that Palin is also a maverick, but her record is far too short to justify this.
Some of McCain's ads have even used the slogan "Change Is Coming," which is one of the most peculiar messaging decisions I've ever seen, given Obama's success in owning the word "change." This is akin to launching a car brand to compete with BMW, and supporting it with the tagline, "No, really, we're truly the ultimate driving machine."
Finally, McCain has suffered in the "brand character" department. In the debates, for instance, while Obama remained poised and polished, McCain often seemed condescending and cranky. And referring to a fellow senator as "that one" simply shows a lack of class. Brand character helps buyers (voters) to identify in one of three ways – "people like me, people I like, people I want to be like" – and McCain struggled to pass even some basic "likability" tests here. These last few days, both on Saturday Night Live and on the campaign trail, McCain has seemed looser and more self-deprecating, but it may be too little too late.
I'm well aware that the above is short on substantive matters like policies and issues. In a perfect world, of course, substance would decide every election. However, matters of policy can be complex and difficult for voters to grasp, and every single voter today suffers from information overload. One of my points is that successful political campaigns, like successful brand campaigns, must unify and convey their stories with simplicity, consistency and credibility. Obama did this, and McCain did not.
I'll offer no predictions for what will happen in the election tomorrow, but should Obama win, it will be in no small part because he ran the superior campaign.
Whichever side you support – get out and vote tomorrow! And may the best ticket win.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
