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.