Shoot straight(ish)

Brands will inevitably try to sell themselves with the best image possible. There are times though when I feel they boost their own image completely out of their natural category to get more positive brand associations. This is mostly practiced by brands that have negative connotations that they are looking to ditch.

I have seen two ad campaigns recently that have been examples of this. There is a campaign by MacDonald’s currently running with all kinds of outdoor media depicting vegetables, fruit, water, sport and all things healthy. They are meant to look like public service announcements. Some read:

“Make fruits a daily target”,
“Include veggies in your daily programme” and
“Fortify your diet with protein”



Yes… that is a man cycling on orange slices in a giant vegetable garden.

Firstly it must be said they aren’t making any verbal claims that MacDonald’s food is healthy but through association they are creating a healthy picture of their brand. To me it is obvious that MacDonald’s isn’t healthy, it’s very unhealthy (I have no proof of this, please don’t sue me). I don’t have a problem with that though; what does bother me is that they are trying to create health resonance with the brand MacDonald’s. When we cognitively face this idea (healthy MacDonald's) it's laughable but consumer behaviour has shown us that even if communications that are as far fetched as this they will eventually be successful in creating the desired association between health and their brand. Over time subconscious links will form. Our minds are a complex store of images, sounds and ideas that are linked. The links like muscles being exercised are strengthened by repetition. Whether we like it or not the paths between images of health and the idea of MacDonald’s will have had certain amount of traffic that will strengthen the associations subconsciously; this association will affect our purchasing decisions.

The other campaign I had in mind was by ABSA Bank (The biggest retail bank in South Africa) that included Radio, TV, Print and Billboard ads with people saying what their bank (ABSA) is to them. Some of these ads included:

“My bank is my warmth”
“My bank is my friend”
“My bank is my everything”
“My bank is my freedom”
“My bank is my inspiration”

It’s hard to even imagine any bank client feeling this way about standing in queues, filling in forms and paying fees but they too will achieve some kind of positive sub conscious associations from the sheer jack-hammering our brains take from seeing and hearing this campaign everywhere for days on end.

The idea of them brainwashing people in this manner irritates me but I can’t blame them really. The real indictment on them is a poor strategy. Shrewd and discerning consumers will consciously evaluate campaigns like these and attach negative associations with the brands.

The traditional and overly simple way of viewing this type of marketing is that persuading the more susceptible and sizable segment is worth sacrificing a smaller segment of discerning consumers. The problem for these brands is that more people are becoming discerning consumers and discerning consumers are often the opinion leaders; they can influence the larger segment as much as ads do.

For MacDonald’s the association made between their brand and conniving (and willingness to take advantage of people) gets exercised just the same way the health associations are formed. These two associations partly counteract each other. The sum of these two different associations is hard to measure but one result is quite clear:

These mixed messages erode one of the most valuable buffers a brand can have: a human component. They create an awareness of game play and strategy; they frame MacDonald’s as a corporate business more than a restaurant. The best thing a brand can be perceived as is a group of real people the worst thing is a corporate entity. People are flesh and blood, they have empathy and their own needs and lives; corporate entities are cold and mechanical, they have profit margins and deadlines. They are self serving.

Consumers are becoming more sensitive to brands and their meaning; they are communicating more than ever, establishing clearer understanding of companies’ real corporate missions’. The youth of today have incredible knowledge of brands; they are becoming harder to fool.

It’s less worth while to try to convince consumers of bogus benefits; even if you manage to ‘brainwash’ them, the bogus perception created may be thrown into a mix of perceptions that don’t point in the same direction.

If companies like ABSA and MacDonald’s have messages that are (possibly less flattering but) true to their nature and in line with each other they can deflect corporate game play associations and increase the companies’ perceived empathy; making them more human and easier to relate to. Direct cues are not the only place where humanising must take place but also in the indirect cues; like what opinion leader feel and say about brands.

Brands should recognise and downplay their weaknesses, shoot straight(ish) instead of trying to convince consumers that these weaknesses don’t exist at all. After all, those weaknesses are usually shared by competitive brands; acknowledging them first can differentiate the brand with honesty and create great brand admiration.

Take a break from watching what you eat and treat yourself to some indulgent food.
– McDonald’s

As your bank we want you to spend as little time with us as possible.
– ABSA

Crazy shceme to make profit

One of my favorite movie moments was when Greg Focker (Ben Stiller) in Meet the Parents is on the phone with the airline people after his suitcase was lost and they brought him the wrong suitcase. He said:

Yeah, you gave me the wrong suitcase. Uh-huh. Yes, it's a black Samsonite. Uh-huh. Ok, well don't you think that the Samsonite people, in some crazy scheme in order to make a profit, MADE MORE THAN ONE BLACK SUITCASE?

Its not massivley profound, but its true, the Samsonite people and almost every other company for that matter follow a simple rule, whether its writen in their business strategy or not, its more universal really: sell as much as you can in order to make as much profit as possible (so in a round about way you can blame our voracity for all those luggage mix ups).

BRANDS "R" US

I'd like to kick this blog off in the Kalahari where brands and people collide. I’m thinking about how companies reflect people’s real nature. If you think of the Bushmen of Botswana and their struggle against diamond mining companies (like De Beers) for land, it’s clear that there is a strong demand for diamonds in the world market even from people firmly against ‘native people abuse’. Where there is a market and money to be made you can be sure that there is an industry or a company or an oilrig extracting that value (entrepreneurs everywhere are working on the unharnessed gaps).

Not only do we control the demand side but companies are owned by people too, from the ultra wealthy with a controlling share to the small time investor with a meagre share portfolio; or even indirectly through something like your pension. When we invest, our money doesn't go to some abstract financial realm but to someone who spends it; we lend them money hoping they will bring good returns. With that money they pay their suppliers, buy their stationary and run their business.

Companies serve people; they are run by people; they are owned by people and operate in people’s interests. Companies are the symptom of the human drive; they are just like us in that they are self serving, goal orientated, biased, corrupt but also intelligent, dynamic and unique.

I met an elderly couple that are quite unhappy with the state of the world, they blame 'the companies'. Many people like them believe that “The corporations are out to screw us”, but actually they are us, well not us, they are people, just other people.

The world has taken the shape of a zero sum game. Everyone is jostling to get ahead with the limited resources we have and the best weapons come in brand form.

Capitalism is like musical chairs in a way; there are enough chairs (resources or wealth) to go around because everyone doesn't need to sit at the same time, but because everyone is aware that there aren’t enough we become quite set on having one even if you don’t feel like sitting.

topics

Marketing, Economics, Research, Design, Environment, society, efficiency, sustainability

New York New York