We are moving toward construction of a brand positioning, but we need to understand the components first. Having discussed functional and emotional benefits, now it's time to discuss brand character (if you prefer, brand personality).
This is an exercise in personification. For this discussion, personification is the projection of human qualities on inhuman objects. Upbeat, empathetic, problem-solver, friendly, fun, intense, progressive, zany, cool, reliable, sincere, traditional, out-of date, old fashioned, stale, annoying, cheap, unreliable, schizo. These are all words I have heard consumers use to describe brands. Drier sheets or detergents or beverages or cars cannot by themselves assume any of these traits. It's the BRAND behind them that brings those traits to life.
Everybody claims to have brands, but few really do. Most have products. One way to measure if you have built a brand in consumer's minds (which is where all brands live, by the way) is to conduct the personification test. Ask consumers (or yourself) "If brand Z were a person what would they be like?" The strength, depth and consistency of the response will give you a great indication of whether or not you are working with a brand and what its CHARACTER is.
As a brand builder, our job is to DEFINE the brand character we want to develop with consumers. Do we want to be perceived as modern or traditional, liberal or conservative, optimistic or realistic, unpredictable or reliable? These are choices WE make, then work relentlessly to build in consumers minds. Practically speaking, these choices must tie back to the functional and emotional benefits you have already selected. (e.g., progressive brands can't rely on out of date technology.)
Most of us work with inherited brands, to begin understanding BRAND CHARACTER start by asking your consumers the personification question.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Hierarchy of Benefits
Just like Maslow believed in a hierarchy of needs, I believe there is a hierarchy of benefits. For brand builders, the precedent benefit is the functional benefit. What is the physical function of the brand? Cleaning clothes, reducing thirst, providing energy, dry cleaning clothes, transportation, supporting feet, etc. Define what functional benefit you want to stand for first, and build from there. And practically speaking, most of us market brands/products that already exist. It's just not a practical option to start over. So understand what your brand does functionally, then proceed.
From my P&G days, Tide stood for clean, Cheer stood for color safety, Gain stood for scent. Oh they all cleaned clothes, gave them fragrance and had an acceptable level of color safety, but the brands were built off of three different functional benefit platforms. With their core functional benefit determined, they were then able to differentiate product performance through synergistic product design and communication focus. Similarly, from a well defined functional benefit, you are also able to develop a relevant emotional benefit.
Emotional benefits that are disconnected from functional benefits are inherently inauthentic. Consumers smell these for what they are, marketing over promise. A couple of current examples of over-promise: Coca-Cola: Open Happiness. McDonald's: I'm Lovin' It. I'm just not believing this. Are you? On the flip side, Apple: Think Different. Olay: Love the Skin Your In. These brands back up the emotional promise with functional performance.
For a season, I was Global Brand Manager on Fanta. Fanta is a sticky sweet, brightly colored (usually Orange), carbonated beverage. Not a thirst quencher, it's too sweet. It's liquid candy. Our emotional benefit was a sense of belonging that emerges from fun times with friends. Why? Because the marquee consumption occasion for Fanta was fun social environments for tweens. Is Fanta a cool hip teen/young adult brand? No. It has no credibility in that world, partly because its intrinsic properties keep it from ever being taken too seriously.
So, figure out the functional benefit first, THEN define a believable emotional benefit.
From my P&G days, Tide stood for clean, Cheer stood for color safety, Gain stood for scent. Oh they all cleaned clothes, gave them fragrance and had an acceptable level of color safety, but the brands were built off of three different functional benefit platforms. With their core functional benefit determined, they were then able to differentiate product performance through synergistic product design and communication focus. Similarly, from a well defined functional benefit, you are also able to develop a relevant emotional benefit.
Emotional benefits that are disconnected from functional benefits are inherently inauthentic. Consumers smell these for what they are, marketing over promise. A couple of current examples of over-promise: Coca-Cola: Open Happiness. McDonald's: I'm Lovin' It. I'm just not believing this. Are you? On the flip side, Apple: Think Different. Olay: Love the Skin Your In. These brands back up the emotional promise with functional performance.
For a season, I was Global Brand Manager on Fanta. Fanta is a sticky sweet, brightly colored (usually Orange), carbonated beverage. Not a thirst quencher, it's too sweet. It's liquid candy. Our emotional benefit was a sense of belonging that emerges from fun times with friends. Why? Because the marquee consumption occasion for Fanta was fun social environments for tweens. Is Fanta a cool hip teen/young adult brand? No. It has no credibility in that world, partly because its intrinsic properties keep it from ever being taken too seriously.
So, figure out the functional benefit first, THEN define a believable emotional benefit.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Emotional Motivation: Group vs Self Identity
This is the third in a series of posts on Emotional Benefits, you may want to start at the beginning of the series for context.
To pick up from the previous post, we are all motivated by the goal for self actualization, but self-actualization can only be achieved after we have met our "social needs" and "esteem needs". Social needs refer to our desire to belong, to have friends, to be in a group, to have community. Esteem needs refer to our desire for self identity, self respect, and independence from a group. Group identity vs self identity. The emotional benefit of any brand "ladders" up to these higher order needs.
Before we go further, let me clarify that this discussion is in regard to foundational brand architecture and is several steps removed from a tactical marketing vehicle (advertisement, promotion, packaging, etc). Between this discussion and a marketing vehicle, lies a communication strategy & brief, and a creative execution that translates the strategy into consumer compelling language.
So we are at the 40,000 feet strategy level and we are trying to determine what do consumers receive from my brand emotionally. Does it deliver a feeling of belonging for consumers or self identity? Let's complicate matters by saying that the answer will depend on the value system of your target consumers, the functional properties of your brand, the level of consumer engagement with the category and competition.
Let's use an example to illuminate: personal computers. High engagement category due to cost and heavy use. Lots of brands/products, but few with very strong identities. Going back to their landmark TV ad 1984, Apple has been encouraging consumers to break from the herd for 25 years. To step beyond the group, to think differently. Even today, PCs enjoy a dominant market share over Apple, but Apple has found a healthy niche by not catering to the norm, but daring consumers to step beyond it.
But remember, there have been times when Apple faltered. This can be tied primarily to their products inability to deliver "difference" in performance. In my opinion, Apple is the only personal computer brand that understands the emotional aspect of branding. Dell? Compaq? Sony? These guys stand for nothing but functional benefit and none seem capable of delivering differentiation on functionality. Now Apple is doing it to smart phone rivals.
One observation for closing. Most successful leadership brands tend to gravitate toward BELONGING benefits, while their successful pursuers tend to deliver SELF IDENTITY. Coca-Cola is a classic leader brand which at times has even promised to unite the world. While I was at Coca-Cola in the late 1990's, Coke's ALWAYS positioning attempted to ladder up to social needs. Sprite (also owned by Coca-Cola) strongly positioned against brand Coke encouraging consumers toward individualism and self expression by proclaiming OBEY YOUR THIRST. (Note: This positioning was extremely successful for Sprite in most western cultures, but struggled in eastern cultures where the value of self expression is subdued).
In my next post we will bring all this in for a practical landing, until then.
To pick up from the previous post, we are all motivated by the goal for self actualization, but self-actualization can only be achieved after we have met our "social needs" and "esteem needs". Social needs refer to our desire to belong, to have friends, to be in a group, to have community. Esteem needs refer to our desire for self identity, self respect, and independence from a group. Group identity vs self identity. The emotional benefit of any brand "ladders" up to these higher order needs.
Before we go further, let me clarify that this discussion is in regard to foundational brand architecture and is several steps removed from a tactical marketing vehicle (advertisement, promotion, packaging, etc). Between this discussion and a marketing vehicle, lies a communication strategy & brief, and a creative execution that translates the strategy into consumer compelling language.
So we are at the 40,000 feet strategy level and we are trying to determine what do consumers receive from my brand emotionally. Does it deliver a feeling of belonging for consumers or self identity? Let's complicate matters by saying that the answer will depend on the value system of your target consumers, the functional properties of your brand, the level of consumer engagement with the category and competition.
Let's use an example to illuminate: personal computers. High engagement category due to cost and heavy use. Lots of brands/products, but few with very strong identities. Going back to their landmark TV ad 1984, Apple has been encouraging consumers to break from the herd for 25 years. To step beyond the group, to think differently. Even today, PCs enjoy a dominant market share over Apple, but Apple has found a healthy niche by not catering to the norm, but daring consumers to step beyond it.
But remember, there have been times when Apple faltered. This can be tied primarily to their products inability to deliver "difference" in performance. In my opinion, Apple is the only personal computer brand that understands the emotional aspect of branding. Dell? Compaq? Sony? These guys stand for nothing but functional benefit and none seem capable of delivering differentiation on functionality. Now Apple is doing it to smart phone rivals.
One observation for closing. Most successful leadership brands tend to gravitate toward BELONGING benefits, while their successful pursuers tend to deliver SELF IDENTITY. Coca-Cola is a classic leader brand which at times has even promised to unite the world. While I was at Coca-Cola in the late 1990's, Coke's ALWAYS positioning attempted to ladder up to social needs. Sprite (also owned by Coca-Cola) strongly positioned against brand Coke encouraging consumers toward individualism and self expression by proclaiming OBEY YOUR THIRST. (Note: This positioning was extremely successful for Sprite in most western cultures, but struggled in eastern cultures where the value of self expression is subdued).
In my next post we will bring all this in for a practical landing, until then.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Emotional Needs: Hello Maslow
This is the second blog in a series on Emotional Benefits click to read previous.
Brand builders continue to primarily rely on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs as a conceptual framework for understanding the motivation of their consumers. In a nutshell, this model proposes that all emotional needs “ladder up” to our ultimate pursuit for self actualization. Read more here.
A fair amount of academic debate continues on what the hierarchy looks like after physiological needs are met. The debate doesn’t center on the ultimate goal of self-actualization, but whether there is a standard hierarchy that ladders to self-actualization. I tend to side with Maslow, thinking that the pursuit of self respect and self esteem emerges after we have satisfied the need to belong and have gained self-confidence at that level.
Practically speaking, I’m not sure order hierarchy matters as much to marketers, as the understanding that “social needs” and “esteem needs” are both powerful motivators of human behavior. That said, brands that use emotional benefits that ladder directly to “social needs” are probably working a lower order need, than those pursuing “self esteem” needs.
Brands focused against meeting “social needs” are basically saying, "use brand x and you will be liked and accepted by people you value." Brands focused on “self esteem” needs are basically promising, "use brand x and you will like yourself and not sacrifice self respect just to “fit-in” with people you value."
Deciding where to position your brand depends on your product functionality and your consumer target. More on this determination in my next posting.
Brand builders continue to primarily rely on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs as a conceptual framework for understanding the motivation of their consumers. In a nutshell, this model proposes that all emotional needs “ladder up” to our ultimate pursuit for self actualization. Read more here.
A fair amount of academic debate continues on what the hierarchy looks like after physiological needs are met. The debate doesn’t center on the ultimate goal of self-actualization, but whether there is a standard hierarchy that ladders to self-actualization. I tend to side with Maslow, thinking that the pursuit of self respect and self esteem emerges after we have satisfied the need to belong and have gained self-confidence at that level.
Practically speaking, I’m not sure order hierarchy matters as much to marketers, as the understanding that “social needs” and “esteem needs” are both powerful motivators of human behavior. That said, brands that use emotional benefits that ladder directly to “social needs” are probably working a lower order need, than those pursuing “self esteem” needs.
Brands focused against meeting “social needs” are basically saying, "use brand x and you will be liked and accepted by people you value." Brands focused on “self esteem” needs are basically promising, "use brand x and you will like yourself and not sacrifice self respect just to “fit-in” with people you value."
Deciding where to position your brand depends on your product functionality and your consumer target. More on this determination in my next posting.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Emotional Benefits
When consumers interact with a brand, there is an emotional consequence. Brand failure, even in the most insignificant categories, can cause frustration, anger, even embarrassment. Brand success can lift spirits and turn a bad day around. What’s interesting is these emotional consequences are often not just directed at the brand, but at the user. Ever felt like a sucker for buying a brand? Ever felt more confident about yourself when using a brand?
As a brand builder, the goal is to marry your brand to a positive emotional experience that enhances the user’s day and their self opinion. In short, interaction with this brand makes me feel ______. So when I want to feel that way, I reach for the brand. This is the essence of the emotional benefit.
Unlike with functional benefits, it is often much easier to differentiate your brand with its emotional benefit. When I was a boy, Nike and Adidas were functionally marketed brands with little differentiation. Nike figured out the emotional benefit of running (and fitness in general) to its users, and the rest is history.
In the coming posts, we will unpack emotional benefit development. While functional benefit remains precedent to emotional benefit in my opinion, it’s the MARKETER that is typically the author of emotional benefit strategy. Net, this is where we earn our keep in brand construction.
As a brand builder, the goal is to marry your brand to a positive emotional experience that enhances the user’s day and their self opinion. In short, interaction with this brand makes me feel ______. So when I want to feel that way, I reach for the brand. This is the essence of the emotional benefit.
Unlike with functional benefits, it is often much easier to differentiate your brand with its emotional benefit. When I was a boy, Nike and Adidas were functionally marketed brands with little differentiation. Nike figured out the emotional benefit of running (and fitness in general) to its users, and the rest is history.
In the coming posts, we will unpack emotional benefit development. While functional benefit remains precedent to emotional benefit in my opinion, it’s the MARKETER that is typically the author of emotional benefit strategy. Net, this is where we earn our keep in brand construction.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
On Performance
When evaluating performance, marketers often make two mistakes: (1) relying solely on technical testing to evaluate performance & (2) too narrowly defining the performance window.
Most marketers trying to make a superiority claim end up spending an inordinate amount of time with their legal department. The legal department requires technical proof that a product performs significantly better on a performance dimension (e.g., cleans better) than competition. Elaborate test are concocted and conducted to validate this performance, many of which are built to favor one brand over another. And in the end, it can still be irrelevant. Why?
Technical superiority is irrelevant if the consumer cannot tell a difference. Great brands are not built on false claims. If you claim to be superior, the consumer must recognize and experience the superiority. In building a brand on performance superiority, go the extra step of testing consumer perception of performance. Product development teams HATE this, because it raises the bar. But in the end, who matters? A lab tech, a lawyer or your consumer?
The second mistake is to too narrowly measuring performance. Brand experience begins even before purchase and ends with disposal. If you are going to claim superiority you have to understand the entire experience cycle and measure performance across the cycle. You may not have superiority in all aspects, but are you deficient anywhere? Is it important to overall experience? It's not about making the technical claim, its about perception.
In reason years packaging has become an increasingly important component of brand experience. Package design, functionality and environmental impact can significantly influence experience and perception. For years packaging was something to be cost optimized and standardized. In some categories, packaging has become a key secondary point of consideration.
Superiority is a very powerful platform, but difficult to achieve and maintain. If you make this claim, be sure you fully understand how the consumer evaluates the brand and make sure they experience superiority. Great brands are not built on lies.
Most marketers trying to make a superiority claim end up spending an inordinate amount of time with their legal department. The legal department requires technical proof that a product performs significantly better on a performance dimension (e.g., cleans better) than competition. Elaborate test are concocted and conducted to validate this performance, many of which are built to favor one brand over another. And in the end, it can still be irrelevant. Why?
Technical superiority is irrelevant if the consumer cannot tell a difference. Great brands are not built on false claims. If you claim to be superior, the consumer must recognize and experience the superiority. In building a brand on performance superiority, go the extra step of testing consumer perception of performance. Product development teams HATE this, because it raises the bar. But in the end, who matters? A lab tech, a lawyer or your consumer?
The second mistake is to too narrowly measuring performance. Brand experience begins even before purchase and ends with disposal. If you are going to claim superiority you have to understand the entire experience cycle and measure performance across the cycle. You may not have superiority in all aspects, but are you deficient anywhere? Is it important to overall experience? It's not about making the technical claim, its about perception.
In reason years packaging has become an increasingly important component of brand experience. Package design, functionality and environmental impact can significantly influence experience and perception. For years packaging was something to be cost optimized and standardized. In some categories, packaging has become a key secondary point of consideration.
Superiority is a very powerful platform, but difficult to achieve and maintain. If you make this claim, be sure you fully understand how the consumer evaluates the brand and make sure they experience superiority. Great brands are not built on lies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)