Marketing Messages And Man's Search For Meaning.

One of the big battles we as marketers face is debating the balance of functional and emotional messages within a campaign or brand strategy.  More often than not, marketers have to champion the idea of having an emotional component to a campaign. More often than not, there is a non marketing person wanting to make the message 100% about features, rational benefits or price.
I've often wondered why this tug of war takes place and why it is so challenging to prove the need for an emotional benefit.  Sometimes I even start questioning the reason we think emotional benefits and messages are so important to good marketing.
I got a bolt of inspiration the other day as I was talking to someone about how Social media still needs to follow the basic fundamentals of how humans think and behave.  Somehow into that conversation, from the back pages of my mind, came this statement.  "We humans have certain constant driving behaviors and needs.  For example, humans need meaning in their lives.  (Read about it in Victor Frankel's Man's Search For Meaning.)  Our need for meaning sets us apart from other animals and is what constantly drives us...both good and bad."
Rooted in that need is one of the reasons why attaching an emotional benefit to a product or brand is so powerful...at least I think so.  We are always looking for something deeper than merely breathing.  It is why we have religion and it is also why new shoes make us happy and certain cars make us feel younger. The desire and need is ever present.  We look for it subconsciously like our lungs seek air.
Sometimes the need for meaning gets directed into more fleeting things such as joy, happiness or something as vague as smelling cut grass at Fenway Park in Boston.  But even then we capture and cherish those moments because down deep we are always looking for something more than what is on the surface.
So it comes down to this - if your marketing message does not have an emotional component, you pass up the opportunity to connect with one of our most deep, driving desires.  Maybe it is as simple as that.  It's what we do!

"Social" vs. Socializing

Before Social had a capital "S"...it was called "socializing". Back then it was acknowledged that certain types people were good at certain parts of socializing.  People who were great party hosts knew lots of people.  Then there were the entertainers who could keep a partly alive.  And, finally but not least there were the wall flowers who, if you took the time to talk to them, probably had lots of knowledge and interesting things to say.  Put them all together and you had an event where ideas took hold and spread to the next party.
Those of you who are clever...which of course is all of you, will pick up on the fact that I have created a metaphor to describe what Malcolm Gladwell talks about in his book "The Tipping Point".   Ideas spread when you have "connectors" (people who link us up with the world), "mavens" (information specialists), and "salesmen" (charismatic people who can persuade others).
Perhaps you may use a different model or metaphor but its hard to argue that you need these types of individuals to help create a trend, fad or movement.  Humans simply socialize in certain ways. It is part of our DNA and part of our cultural norms.  "Social", with a capital S, does not change that.  "Social", with a capital S is a tool that can magnify how humans interact.  But if "Social", with capital S does not acknowledge the sociological behaviors of humans it can lead to dead ends and circular discussions.

• Your brand can have 5 million Facebook fans all willing to connect, but if they don't have content and information making it worthy to act upon...well then not much happens. 
• Subject matter experts sometimes have the nasty habit of blogging to an audience of other subject matter experts.  They can copy and compete against each other.  But without a good salesman thrown into the mix, the wide world never hears or gets passionate about their ideas.  

In future, I'd like to see socializing get a capital "S".  Is that too much to ask?   

Is there really a tablet market?

I watched an interview with Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google. It was on Fareed Zakaria's CNN show.  It gave Mr Schmidt a open platform to talk about his open platform strategy for tablets via Android. It was interesting and got me thinking.
There are numerous views of what the future of "tablets" is going to be like.  The two that are bouncing around my head are:

1). It's iPod all over again.  Turns out there wasn't really an mp3 market.  There was an iPod combined with iTunes market. It was total market domination and everything else fell off the map.  Now there are those who predict the same with tablets.  They say there isn't really a tablet market.  There i s only an iPad market because it offers you the ultimate iTunes and App mobile experience.
Thus far, sales figures give that theory some credibility.
2). Eric Schmidt suggests that the future will resemble the PC market in its early days.  Apple had created wonderful even exquisite computers, but due to its closed platform approach it became a "boutique" maker of computers.  Over time, he argues, Androids open platform and its collaborative creative approach will box iPad into a similar corner.
3).  Is there a 3rd option?  I will declare myself out of this discussion due to my BlackBerry background.

What do you think?  Can the Android open platform approach put Apple in its place?  Or, is first to market and brand domination the winning strategy?  Please respond.

Oh...one more thing.  Mr. Zakaria suggested that the tablet battle was not just a battle of brands but it was a battle of ideas.  Seems to me that a brand is an idea, and that the above strategies are embedded in the Apple and Google brands.

Brand Exceptionalism

Today's blog entry by Seth Godin is entitled "Brand Exceptionalism" and it is really worth the read. Seth's Blog  It speaks to the internal mindset of successful brand managers. They know the brand intimately.  They know the nuance.  They know the company and how to compromise to keep the brand alive.  And, within that mindset they come to believe that their brand strategy is best.  When the brand starts losing in the marketplace...well people just don't understand all the good they've done because their brand is...exceptional.
Of course that's not true and being exceptional doesn't count.
All of this was obvious to me, except for the moments of slight pain when I realized that I've been guilty of this mentality from time to time.
I've spent the last 10 years building and coaxing a brand forward.  A pretty darn good brand and I did a pretty darn good job of keeping it alive. But I have honestly learned so much more about the brand in the last 3 months because I've left the company and now only have the coldly unfair view of the brand from the outside looking in.  I no longer see the importance of the nuances or the compromises.  I no longer have the internal company dialogue in one ear and the external dialogue in the other.  I just have the external dialogue to listen to.
Nothing is exceptional and nothing is fair.  Everyone in marketing should have this view from time to time.  It is so very valuable.

Trust Your Brand Manager

I remember learning the golden rule that your brand only exists in you customer's mind.  It does not exist in the upper left hand quadrant of a powerpoint deck and it doesn't exist in the CMO's corner office.
One could go further and say that it is the customer who actually creates your brand. I believe that branding is the act of a customer determining what they trust your product will deliver to them on a consistent basis.  You may be able to influence what that determination will be through marketing, and you sure as hell have a role in ensuring you can deliver on the trust given to you. But at the end of the day your customer brands you.
They are the ones that choose your product over another.
They are the ones who use your product solely because they want to.
They are the ones who choose to love your product or tolerate it.
So, who is your brand manager?
We marketers have all heard this before.  We've all talked about it.  But how many of us act like we believe it?

Where were you when...?

This week we all had a rare experience.  We all had a singular shared experience.  A "Where were you when...?" experience.  Of course I'm talking about the Osama Bin Laden story.  This story has been "done" to death, but my take on it is a little different.  A singular shared experience is very rare for us in today's fragmented digital age.  While information travels quickly in today's information age, we are not all sitting in front of one screen watching it together.  We are all lost in our own customized view of the virtual world.  Twitter, College Humor, cnn.com, apps...on and on.  In the information age, a common refrain is "Really? I missed that".

So, it's a rare thing for us all to share in a message at the same time.  It use to be common place.  The whole country use to watch Johnny Carson together.  Or, every Friday morning most people would gather around the water cooler and discuss last night's Seinfeld episode.  But this is simply no longer the reality as we all have virtually unlimited choice in the virtual world.

I think marketers are still struggling to come to terms with this.  I've sat in far too many meetings were we grasped for the big idea.  But in today's world maybe you need more small (but brilliant) ideas to make an impact on society.

The age of "I'd like to teach the world to sing..." spots is gone.  So is the Apple 1984 approach.  Brands don't need a campaign...brands need many campaigns and many strategies to make a cultural impact.

So Much Tension

I recently heard someone in the fashion industry say that there are no trends today.  Anything goes.  I'm not sure I fully agree with that.  My recent trip to SXSW would certainly suggest that Rayban sunglasses, dark clothes, and a few days growth (for men...hopefully) is very much in.  It was the official uniform of those trying to not look like they are following any trends.

I do get the idea that trends aren't what they use to be.  Certainly the life cycle of a trend is very short in our AD, D world. The slightest hint of a new trend is picked up and blogged tweeded and tumbled like good old wildfire.  Before you know it, someone my age has heard about it and the trend is as good as dead at that point.

But I don't think that as a result there are no trends.  In fact, I think there is a major trend forming as we all adapt to this rapid life cycle.  I believe there is a trend of tension - or the trend of purposely adopting conflicting symbols, ideas and habits.   Some examples:

• We love our modern sleek technology.  The iPad2 is almost sensual in its design.  Yet the new Fujifilm x100 is super retro in design.  
• We love combining clothing items that are from different eras.  Things that say different things about ourselves.  (I've started wearing frayed jeans and Allen Edmonds dress shoes.)
• One of the biggest growth categories in watches is expensive manual winding watches.  

I have a theory or two as to why this is and both have to do with technology.

First, due to the rapid sharing of digital information, everything changes so quickly that the only way to keep up is to accept and embrace duality and contradiction.  I think this is great, because contradiction is the true human condition.  So, maybe we are just being fully honest in how we live and express ourselves.

Secondly, technology has given us many things we can rely on.  Cell phones have good camera and clocks.  They are reliable and with us at all times.  This gives us the freedom to be a little frivolous.  Watches can be jewelry. You don't really need them to tell time.  And, if you visit Lomography you'll see that cameras can now be fun, silly, joyful...and anything but digital.  Why?  Because you know you know you have a reliable camera in your pocket at all times.

Perhaps we are in world of welcomed tension and contradictions.  Sounds fun.  But what does that mean to marketers who are trying to manage brand consistency?   I'm not sure.  Do you have thoughts?