Aspirational Advertising. Oh, and a Podcast..

When trying to tap into human emotions, advertising often has a difficult task.

Making people laugh through comedic stuff like the Pot Noodle campaign or the recent Burger King spots sometimes runs into problems simply because there's no way of knowing precisely what certain people will find amusing.

I love the Old Spice/Burger King work; I find it hilarious - yet for every one of me, there'll be a few who are completely alienated by it and dislike the brand.

There's also probably evidence to suggest that people are becoming more unshockable. However, that doesn't stop those who advertise for the COI attempting to amaze and horrify us with cautionary tales of how it doesn't pay to drink and drive or to take drugs.

So...with that in mind (and with more than a nod to Maslow, thank you Mr Colman), why don't more brands try the aspirational approach in their work? I'll show you an example below which I don't think quite pulls it off - though I love the strategic thought:



What did you think of that? Personally, I think the strategy would have been far stronger if the ad had interspliced 'real' people with the kids; showing just how imaginative the children can be, and how they are far more creative and aspiring than the adults.

I think a lot of brands don't paint their products in aspirational terms because it is very difficult to get people to go along with you for 30 seconds, or even longer. Also, given that the public are quite cynical, and that most brands have the subtlety of Johnny Vegas attempting to be a prima ballerina, it's often a very difficult task.

Now....the challenge becomes to make your brand aspirational without ever directly saying so. All of the world class advertising is able to do this, either via its execution (Sony 'Balls'), its line ('Happiness is a Cigar called Hamlet' / 'At 60 miles an hour, the loudest noise you can hear in a Rolls-Royce is the electric clock') or its positioning (The Economist, Innocent, John Lewis).

Aspiration should be the fist inside advertising's velvet glove. More often that not, it's a poorly aimed and ill-disguised blow with a knuckle-duster.

Oh, and podcast 3, 'Oh No Cucumber Sandwiches' is up. Enjoy.

Sod choice. YOU NEED IT BECAUSE YOU'RE WEAK.

Yes, forcefulness may be devoid of subtlety, occasionally lacking charm and not always the most insightful thinking out there.

But it can be as effective as a hammer to the forebrain. That's right pop pickers, I'm talking about brands which say to the outside world 'I'm right. And you'll listen'.

I respect Jaguar so much more ever since they stopped dicking around with the faux English pretentions and told us what they were, in so many words, or at least told us why we buy them:

No, I don't think 'Gorgeous' is perhaps the best ad in the world, nor is it wholly all there strategically. But (in addition to the very good execution) it is unapologetic.

x

When you know who you are, and can say it - 'We are good because of x', it's brilliant. Of course, you have to commit - the below ad would have just been a good ad rather than an all time classic, praised for its excellent positioning and thinking, if not for the company's commitment:

Ballsy advertising, is, of course, not the refuge of the timid client. But being unafraid, honest, able to back it up and above all - a talking point - should be what every brand aims for.

x

As well as a healthy dose of humility if they overpromise.

x

I'm not eschewing thoughtful stories, seeded across many mediums and with 'easter eggs' in them. No. Those can exist as well. But I think the world needs its fair share of the arrogant brands - Old Spice is perhaps the closest example I can think of being able to bridge the divide.

x

Are Lovemarks Bollocks?

Kevin Roberts. Much maligned man? Complete Genius? Or massive advertising charlatan who is peddling old ideas from the 80s?

Well, if you read these articles, you'd be forgiven for thinking that yes, his theories are a bit overstretched.

However, I've found a little defence for his argument here.

Let's consider what he's got to say:

"Lovemarks transcend brands. They deliver beyond your expectations of great performance. Like great brands, they sit on top of high levels of respect - but there the similarities end. Lovemarks reach your heart as well as your mind, creating an intimate, emotional connection that you just can’t live without. Ever."

"Take a brand away and people will find a replacement. Take a Lovemark away and people will protest its absence. Lovemarks are a relationship, not a mere transaction. You don’t just buy Lovemarks, you embrace them passionately. That’s why you never want to let go."

Let's consider the penultimate line for a moment. 'You don't just buy lovemarks, you embrace them passionately'. Barring people queueing round the clock for the sales or the latest games console, I can't say I've ever seen this happening. Much as I love my adidas trainers, I don't hug them or call them a special name.

However, there is a simplistic truth to all of that. There are certain brands that people would buy ahead of anything else. But again, there's a limit to how far that can be pushed.

What stops me from agreeing from Kevin's thesis is simply that I don't believe that people value brands highly enough to make them Lovemarks. Russell Davies made the point very eloquently when he compared brands to a small figurine (the link is a download) - simply put, people don't value brands on anything like the same levels Kevin thinks they do.

x

Moreover, people are fickle - what he describes as a Lovemark can easily become a fad quickly. People respect people - they don't respect brands in the same way. It's ALWAYS going to be a fad, and the only way it commands a repeat showing is by it living up to the image the communication or perception has generated.

x

So no, I don't agree that the future is Lovemarks. Parts of the concept are interesting (if a little obvious, but that's about it).

x

Mind you, it poses an interesting question; if people can be brands now, can THEY be what Kevin describes as Lovemarks?

x

Edit: Good Lord, he has a sequel out. Proof 1000 admen can't stop it...

x

Interview thoughts 1: Magners & Kodak..

As reported in the prior post, I had an interview yesterday. However, I wanted to write a little bit more about my thoughts on some of the topics that were discussed, as well as linking to some of the source material I was chuntering on about.
x
Well, first and foremost, Magners.

Let's look at the line. 'Time Dedicated to You'. As discussed, I don't believe this line has had much impact on the brand's tremendous success. It sounds to me like they came up with the execution/the idea first, then tacked this onto the end of it.

However, let's consider the market before Magners' tremendous success. I've got a little bit of an inside track here, as one of my father's clients was Thatchers, one of Magners' closest rivals. Essentially, there was a two-fold market for cider before Magners. The first was the mainstay of the more traditional ciders such as Thatchers sales, that segment of the market that were liable to be CAMRA members, between the age of 35 to 70, possibly bearded, and definitely the antithesis of lad culture. The second segment who drank cider (and, before Magners, made up the majority of the cider market) were those who used cider predominately as a mixer. In this case, they preferred Strongbow & Black.

Now, Magners has been able to add a layer of sophistication to its offering by effectively turning cider into a long drink, making it far more of a social activity. Though the line appears to be a bit vacuous and tacked on, it does encapsulate the newly created market. I would imagine the creative agency (or indeed, Magners themselves) had the executional idea before anything else.

And indeed, there's the ultra simplistic approach - Magners were the first brand to actually explain just how the cider making process occurs, and how straightforward it is. Couple that with promoting the youth/Irishness angle in the executions whilst helping to create a new category of drinker emphasises, in my view, why the campaign has been a success. The strategic proposition would undoubtedly have been something along the lines of: "Create a new market for cider drinkers" or something similiar.

Magners managed to change the image of cider as profoundly as the reinvention of Lucozade from a medicinal supplement to a sports drink, changing attitudes to the sector from niche to mainstream. It remains to be seen if this will continue to endure; but one thing is for certain - no other drink is like Magners.

Moving on to Kodak, which was the brand I mentioned that I'd like to work on at the moment (not to mention the Independent, The Economist, Morrisons and others which escaped me at the time). Let's have a look at their most recent output, an internal video which was intentionally leaked to YouTube:

That piece of work was created by Partners & Napier. More on it can be found here. Thanks again to Jess for pointing it out to me.

The last thing I knew about Kodak's strapline was that it was now 'Keep it digital', which to me seemed rather strange when you consider the amount of cultural capital tied up in the brand. After all, this is the brand which has had songs written about its products and used them to sell it, as well as essentially owning the connection between memories and pictures - the 'Kodak moment'.

I expressed in the interview that this brand would be fun to work on given the challenges it faces and the amount of cultural capital still tied up in the name. Kodak, I believed, should go after the colour making process - after all, Kodachrome was the first amateur colour film. Surely a base can be built around that?

However, the potential challenge was discussed. Surely Sony could blow Kodak out of the water when it came to owning this colour process? This could be especially problematic, given that they have probably produced the best ad for emphasising colour richness in recent memory.

Perhaps then Kodak could continue to target the Baby Boomer generation, those who grew up knowing the Kodak was a brand leader in the production not only of film, but of cameras as well? I made the suggestion that Kodak could ape 35mill cameras by producing digital versions of them (physically bigger cameras like 35 mill, but with a digital backscreen), perhaps even continuing to produce 35mill cameras while all other manufacturers discard it. However (especially in the case of the latter), this would prove to be an anachronism - effectively giving the company's photography segment a shelf life of 5-7 years.

That said, the notion of dwelling on your heritage isn't a wholly bad idea, just so long as it can be expressed in a new way. I feel that the new Old Spice campaign is able to emphasise this both online and on TV:

And Kodak certainly has the background to be able to do this. Check out the Science & Technology section on their website; they should have a vested interest in making sure their colour credentials are underlined. Far more so than Sony's.

The 'Keep it Forever. Keep it Kodak' line is ok, but it doesn't underline Kodak's history, nor attempt to give a really thoughtful reason as to why consumers should buy their product - to me, it seems to suggest that the reason Kodak think you'll want to buy the camera is because you need something which will never change/be reliable. Digital photography is the antithesis of this.

That rather old fashioned approach aside, the company isn't as antiquated as you may believe; along with the viral, their 1000 words blog is interesting, allowing comments from the outside world (unlike an awful lot of brand blogs, which seem frightened that the consumer will play with/disrupt the brand), and also gets at another inalienable truth, that photos are about telling stories.

However, unlike colour, I don't think Kodak can effectively 'own' this space without seeming like they are harking back to a bygone era and overly targeting the ageing population. Give Kodak owners a reason to feel proud of the product, like Old Spice. They have waited a long time to go/market digital because they wanted to ensure that the colour process was spot on. There's part of the insight.

Another insight would be that Kodak photos aren't throwaway, unlike the majority of 'quick snaps' that take place with a digital camera. How digital cameras are used vs 35mill is like comparing Internet consumption with TV. It's just such a different ball-game. It is perhaps why the 'cameras for purists' angle could work to some extent - Kodak certainly have the associations to make it work.

However, by emphasising the colour credentials, I've learnt something. I didn't know the extent that Kodak had researched colour, much less that they had developed an alternative to the flat panel display screen, their self luminous OLED. There's something to shout about, and doesn't limit the market Kodak go after, unlike 'cameras for purists'. It's their patent as well, so they have a real point of difference. I'd organise my thoughts for Kodak around the strategic thought that should "Demonstrate how Kodak's unique colours allow people to capture their best memories" or something to that effect.

My initial thought for a tagline was something like 'Memories aren't disposable', but I think that doesn't emphasise the colour aspect well enough, and plays too much on the 'purists' angle again.

I take back what I said about the brand in the interview; that they are seemingly doomed - I really think Kodak (if marketed correctly) have a great chance at pushing on in the digital sector, even given the size of the competition. Sony/LG/Panasonic simply don't have the colour/imaging history that Kodak have. Find a way of exploiting that, and the brand could rise again.

I'm really keen to hear what others have to say about these two brands - any opinions/thoughts?

The Banksy Brand..

x

Well, after an interesting discussion about brand devotees, I noticed a post on Russell's planner ziki from a chap called Ross Cidlowski, who runs this blog, which is excellent.

x

According to Ross's post, Banksy has released a load of his unreleased prints of his website, encouraging everyone to print them off at work on company paper (natch).

x

Drawing the two discussions together, what what would you classify Banksy as? For what it's worth, I think he harks back to a comment discussion MM and I had here. He's a brand onto himself; and I think greater credence can be given to this view as he's effectively anonymous. We can't attach anything that's real to him, barring his content.

x

What would you think he looks like? I think he's probably a lot older than we all think. Perhaps a renegade graphic designer, on the run from Pentagram.

x

It's this mythology which adds such a degree of charm to something. Perhaps why you can't get brand evangelists to easily come on TV without looking like used car salesmen. Put a face to something and it loses its edge.

x

Perhaps why, as Russell has just pointed out, Monkey is making a comeback. Everyone loves advertising characters (but damn well hate Jamie Oliver).

x

It's why I think having a blog creates a brand for a person - from reading this, you'll get some sort of perception about me, which I'm sure will change if you ever met me.

x

On that note, come along to Russell's coffee morning tomorrow if you fancy finding out or just want to meet some smart and interesting people (albeit without the love for Stoke City).

x

iPhone communication thoughts..

Well well.. possibly the biggest product launch of the year.

x

Would you do a Steve Jobs and present it all on your own? Or would you let your employees help explain it?

x

Personally, I think Apple have missed a bit of a trick with this launch. Why not emphasise the phone's qualities by demonstrating how 'average' employees use it. Yes, a good old fashioned try before you buy.

x

It is perhaps testament to the controlling nature of Jobs (from what I've read) that he's reluctant to let it be shown this way. The products are his children, and damned if he isn't going gush and evangelise about them on his own.

x

Steve, the product's going to sell well. No need to be possessive. Let your army of Mac devotees do it for you. I suppose you always know what you are getting if you are the brand yourself.. coming neatly back to my suggestion that people can be branded, albeit in peculiar ways, whilst writing blogs.

x

Like Richard says in his excellent 'Brands & 2.0' presentation, talking and writing about the brand changes the speaker more than the listener; is it then better to have a single presenter, so they can evolve with the brand?

x

Look and what Bill Gates as done with his presentation to the world; as he's become more philanthropic, attitudes towards Microsoft have softened.

x

Or, perhaps better yet - should brands have readily identifiable spokesmen/people at ALL?

x

For what it's worth, I don't think it's nearly as much of a risk/reward thing as with associating celebrities with brands which seemingly have nothing to do with them. At least product evangelists have some form of history with the brand.

x

Still...if Jobs rubs people up the wrong way, or indeed, if the iPhone flops (I don't like the lack of keys, I'll be honest - this may not help it.. but I don't know...I hated the RAZR, but it seems everyone has one...) - which it won't - Apple could have an interesting time on its hands.

x

But if it did fail, Apple would be able to get out of it; it'd call in the renegade Apple preachers, something which no other brand seems to have.

x

P.S. There is more new music in the sidebar. Check it out...

x

Blog/Brand devotion..

I'd like to begin this post by saying a big get well soon to Marcus Brown. Having the foresight to bring a camera along to the doctors, let alone blog about it deserves some respect. I'm not sure I'd have done the same, but this just cements Marcus's legendary status.

Curiously, this also coincided with me reading Naked Conversations (the book's blog can be found here) and learning about the 'rules' for blogging, and how blogging frequently can help businesses put out the fire of negative publicity.

I'd like to extend this belief into more personal thing (touched on by the book). It's quite staggering, when you think about it - blogging voices seem to in some cases to subsume the 'real' or certainly cross over. If any one of my blogging friends suddenly stopped posting for a prolonged period of time, I'd wonder what had happened to them. Yet, with twitter and technology like it, we are now more connected than ever. Indeed, if a blogger was ever struck down with illness, I wonder how many would text twitter before doing anything else.

Becoming this devoted (or mildly insane, in the case of the latter example) would surely have tremendous implications. You'd become what Gladwell calls the 'Salesman' of the piece, inspiring an audience almost on the basis of your relentless blogging. And, as one of the book's examples cites, 'good' bloggers blog once or twice a day. I've resolved to do that, but it's not going well this year. Perhaps I should get a Yo-Yo. I do have a digital camera now though, so more random pictures will be forthcoming.

Going back to the book for a second; it references a chap who was interested (to put it mildly) in Treo's. If blogs can whip up high priests of the brand, think how much your product would benefit. Even entering into a conversation with your consumer would surely help - yes, even the flaming you'd probably receive at some point.

Indeed, this blog was initially begun as a highly self referential online CV. However, as it's matured/become more irreverent/posted about music, I hope it's done rather more than that. I would like to think now it's a conversation with the world, as well as an online record of all my thoughts, even if they aren't always strictly marketing or advertising focused - I have had difficulty reconciling normal situations to marketing or advertising scenarios, unlike Mr Godin. Still, I'm not paid as much as he is and am not published quite yet.

I think I'd feel quite sad to abandon it at this point, although I'm not about to take photos of myself on a hospital bed. Some conversations shouldn't include photos of me laid out - I'll leave that to the drunken Flickr photos.