Is Your Agency Killing Your Brand With Love?

Posted May 09 in Opinion tagged ,

Many agencies are so concerned with “creating an emotional connection” that they are killing the brands they work on. This is especially true of many big, established brands, some of which have lost their way. Take for example, the following brands:
What do these brands stand for? What is the benefit they offer? How is this benefit different from their competitors? These brands may all be, to a greater or lesser degree the victims of advertising that has, for to long focused on ‘emotional engagement’ at the expense of clearly articulating what the brand is for and the benefit it offers – they may be ‘donut brands’. That is, they are nice to taste but ultimately, lacking substance – with a giant hole in the middle of them. This hole is because there is no clearly articulated reason why these brands deliver on the emotional engagement promised in the advertising.

Poor Myer has been trying to unconvincingly tell people for years that it is ‘My Store’. However, it’s never articulated why it is indeed ‘My Store’. Consequently few people believe the promise and the business suffers.

The ad industries obsession with ‘emotional branding’ and brand love is killing brands. The research industry is also doing their bit, putting the knife in, by having so many research measures that focus on ‘love’ and ‘affinity’ at the expense of ‘why’.

William Bernbach, said, “You can say the right thing about a product, and nobody will listen. You’ve got to say it in such a way that people will feel it in their gut. Because if they don’t feel it, nothing will happen.” Wise words. Unfortunately, in the quest to make people ‘feel’, I think we’ve forgotten to give people a reason to purchase.
People need to not only feel connected to the brands they buy, they also need a reason to purchase. If they can’t clearly articulate this reason (to themselves) then they are less likely to buy your brand.

What do you think? Do you see your agency killing brands through love?

Share this post

Comments

  1. Katie Harris

    May 10th, 2009

    More often than not, I think it’s as simple as “Show me, don’t tell me”.

  2. Anonymous

    May 10th, 2009

    ….or involve me. don’t show me.

  3. Katie Harris

    May 11th, 2009

    Not sure about that.

    If you show me, and I *want* to get involved, I will.

    If you try to involve me when it’s not relevant/I don’t want to be involved, then you’re just annoying me.

  4. returnon

    May 12th, 2009

    Apple have mastered the balance between emotive and practical marketing. Katie says that if you “show” you’ll provoke a desire to “involve”. The iPhone/Touch ads show how easy and enjoyable the product is to use. That’s a pretty clear WHY. Simple yet arresting aesthetic and copy like “The Funnest iPod ever” emotionally engages, particularly in the youth market with the intended malapropism “Funnest”.

    We were producing TVCs for a fashion retail client that incorporated a lot of photo shoot behind the scenes, which provides an aspirational quality. The reasoning being that its a more personal look at the brand. However, I emphasized the importance of product in fast moving fashion apparel and we eventually found that focusing on the garments (or the ‘why’ as you put it) was a more effective strategy.

    Sometimes the brand needs to take a back seat and let the product drive.

  5. Anonymous

    May 12th, 2009

    Returnon – that was beautiully articulated

  6. Daniel Oyston

    May 13th, 2009

    The comments about a “reason to purchase” are particularly true for Myer as they are a store that stocks things that you can get anywhere.

    They need to give me a “reason” why I should buy a tie from Myer and not the suit shop around the corner?

  7. Fritz Bachen

    May 17th, 2009

    Couldnt agree more. It makes me think that some people have lost their way. Focusing to much on clever comms and forgetting about the reason for being. Why purchase a tie from Myer? couldnt tell you.

  8. Kelly

    May 18th, 2009

    Although the “other guys” are a client of mine, Myer’s business is actually doing very well – their business is definitely not suffering, so not sure where you get that idea from.

    Also the research industry putting “the knife in”? – please! Sure, we have measures on love and affinity, but any researcher with half a brain also can determine what actually drives this affinity (in the case of retail- service style, product mix and offer, store environment, etc).

    Any brand platform that is based purely on emotion learns pretty fast that it’s sitting on sand. But any brand lacking it also learns pretty fast that a competitor who has the heart as well as the brain will win every time.

  9. Fritz Bachen

    May 19th, 2009

    Kelly, Thanks for taking teh tmie to write. Glad to hear Myer’s business is doing well. I have nothing against them and wish them teh best. However, as a brand with a strong clear positioning? They are at best – murky. If tehy are doing well now imagine how much better they would be with a strong and understandable brand promise.

    In terms of the research point – the comments you make support what I am trying to say. Affintity / love should not always be the end measure. Other measures are not just there to make sense of how much a person loves / likes a brand. There could be some other end point that is desirable other than that consumers like that brand. For example the ultimate measure cuold be how useful it was, how easy, how happy it made me, how impressive I look. The ned point you are measuring may be better aligned with the brand ambition rather than just the default of brand love.

    Finally lots of people like / love brands becasue they are functionally bloody good (Google) the love stems from focusing on teh functional attributes, and your reason for being in peoples lives.

    Dont be hoodwinked by love!

  10. Kelly

    May 19th, 2009

    The ultimate measure is actually spend – in retail this tends to correlate with strong advocacy, which links to brand affinity. And companies use this as a proxy for brand strength – they know if their affinity and advocacy scores are looking healthy then so is their bottom line. And working for Myer’s opposition, I know a lot about love and how critical that is for that brand. Love in that case has me completely hoodwinked as I’ve seen the magical power it has over shoppers and their loyalty.

    Not sure I agree that Google is purely a rational transaction – there is a lot of love floating around because of what it enables people to do. I’m not sure we can (or should) separate the two. Katie Chatfield has just written a neat little post about this very thing – http://katiechatfield.wordpress.com/2009/05/18/pretty-important/

  11. Carolin Dahlman The Love Coach

    Aug 14th, 2009

    That is true. Many agencies use emotions in a naive way, without emotional intelligence.

    I do believe though, in the enormous power of feelings. When you touch the heart of your customer you:
    1. Connect with them
    2. Give them more for their money

    When it's made from the heart of the brand it will be honest and efficient. Love branding is far from putting a heart in your ad though :)

    Have a beautiful day
    Carolin Dahlman, love-branding.com

  12. Brand Agency

    Sep 3rd, 2009

    Creativity is an advertising agency's most valuable asset, because it is the rarest.

  13. Keen Media Branding

    Sep 10th, 2009

    For branding , we can measure in different degree especially in digital world that we can know what people make the feeling and response to our brands.

Trackbacks and Pingbacks

    Leave a Comment