There is something about the commercial world (of which we are a part) that makes it block out any thought which does not entail the spending or earning of money. So while we can talk about 'low cost' ways of marketing, we understand very little of 'zero cost' ways of marketing.Not because they don't exist, but because our corporate mind allows thoughts in, only if they carry the gate pass of money.
Years ago, one vividly recalls, entering office to see a huddle of colleagues engaged in excitable conversation early in the morning. The subject under discussion was that all over the country, our lovable elephant headed god Ganesh was drinking milk! This merits not one but several exclamation marks, if the event indeed did happen. But this story is not about whether it happened or not, but about its rapid propagation and its seeming anonymous authorship. It is almost miraculous that someone (how can there ever be multiple authors of the same myth at precisely the same time) started the tale about Ganesh that early morning (couldn't have been the previous night, because at least someone should have mentioned it then) and by the time one reached office everyone in office and in fact everyone in every office in this vast nation of a billion hearts and minds, knew the tale by heart, with no distortion as one should normally expect in Chinese whispers.
Imagine a car being launched this way.
One zero cost whisper and 100% awareness.
Even the redoubtable question of whether one is reaching a sharply defined target audience is redundant simply because in this case one is actually reaching all!The commercial world, on the other hand, somehow ends up at the wrong end of the stick. In the late 80s, LML Vespa opened bookings for the 'Vespa XE' scooter. This was India's first 100cc scooter (many consumers don't know what is 'cc' about a scooter and yet it matters!) which established a world record in the sheer number of bookings made. Consumers paid Rs 500 for the booking and in the next few days all hell broke loose. Rumours flew far and wide from mouth to ear across the vast geography of this hungry consumerist nation (that's how it was for scooters then, just in case you don't know because you didn't exist then or were perhaps not even thought of!)) that this 100 cc scooter was unsuitable for twin riding (the pillion seat of the scooter was then the main reason to buy one and perhaps still is). Who started this story (again can't be simultaneous authors) and one doubts that Bajaj Auto could have gone so far, especially since while LML thought Bajaj was competition, Bajaj had no clue! The cancellations in the scooter bookings was another world record. And a rumour started it all.
Then in 1984 as the body of Indira Gandhi lay riddled with bullets at AIIMS in Delhi, even buses stopped as the driver braked on hearing the news. The news was near simultaneous (need I stress the size of the nation once again). The country came to a grinding halt. It's crippling and paralytic sense of shock is but one part of the tale, with the miraculous propagation of the news being the other. One thing is certain. That the news entered the idiot box after one had already heard it in what is jargonistically called 'word of mouth'.
Some of us have of course had the default vision of starting life before dotcoms began, so that we always know the difference! The experience of the world before emails and dotcom and the world thereafter is not just about the simple insight of institutionalising organisational politics through technology enablers like the bcc button or the tendency of pretending to talk to the 'To' while actually talking to the 'cc', on which we will surely cover ground in some other post in this blog very soon. But this time it's about how all of a sudden without seeing a single ad anywhere we started opening yahoo.com to search something (and now anything! it is now moved to window shopping! on this in some other issue of know-your-brand). And then one day someone told us about google and also told us it was better, though google did not once tell us so and still hasn't! We weren't able to decode this word of mouth phenomenon, so like we always do, we gave it a new name! Another matter, we still don't understand it.
Now we call it 'viral marketing', but it remains laboured and lacks the power of the word of mouth.In the 90s, an excited (urbanised) India awaited the entry of foreign brands with bated breadth, minus much knowledge about them, but many of then failed. They assumed strong 'word of mouth' about their famous selves unmindful of the fact, that their fame was confined to the white parts of the world which were suspected of being blessed with cold weather. So in came International Tourister and no one lined up for it. And in came Pepsi with Remo Fernandes on TV strumming a guitar wildly and screaming "Open Up! Open UP" to a stubborn bottle of Pepsi on the table. And presto, it finally did open! The trouble however, was a simple one. While the Pepsi team celebrated this high decibel launch, the consumer wondered why Remo couldn't have used an opener instead! So with the commercial world on the other hand, even high decibel high cost stuff appears vain and shallow to consumers who can't fathom what the commotion is about.Because somewhere it seems that something that is free (Google) or something that will help (Ganesh) or something that is poignant and calamitous (Indira Gandhi - in life and in death), or something who is talked about but not talks for himself, fits the bill better for word of mouth.Consider this.
All our religion is passed into our ears through the mouths of well meaning grandmothers (even parents lack the seniority). The messenger's credibility, good intentions and selflessness (an atheist would add: the recipients innocence!) power the word of mouth, without which it has no engine, no motor, no wings. And in the commercial world luxury brands enjoy a jaw dropping reputation for no fathomable reason, but then their price is often behind the pretense one launches while displaying awareness about them. Some inane words are heard "Oh man! Louis Vitton bags are quite something!" The grey hair on marketing heads have learnt to interpret this as a pricing story.
A powerful word of mouth is not necessarily about the cause, which in turn is about collective wisdom. It can also be about the effect which given it's singular authorship can very well be, the case of talented and individualistic fraud.
One shudders to think what would be the word of mouth consequences if google and gmail were to crash one day!
But on this, not next time.
In fact, not anytime.
Friday, September 18, 2009
"We" and "I"
There is something about the 'We' that is different from the 'I'.
For starters, somehow "We" tends to surge, while "I" tends to stand.
To dive deeper... I once heard a political scientist remark that collectivism is great for movements but bad for accountability. And then of course Psychology is replete with explanations for the basis of unification. Roughly speaking, for two people to unite in a static state, all that is required is that they stand on the same geography! But when people have to move in unision, they either need a common enemy or a common goal. Or as the famed McKinsey 7S framework puts it - 'shared values'. But it is this last one that is the toughest, because while it looks right from a 'framework'-of-management perspective, it sits poorly when it comes to human psychology.
Will anyone want to scale a vast plateau at 8848 m? Clearly No. But the summit of Everest at the same height is a different case altogether. A summit is a goal, a single converged point, a pinnacle that leaves no scope for more. Goals have to be high and narrow. They can't be generalisations. Imagine a company vision that reads: "We will be the most preferred manufacturer of three wheelers in the north east part of south west Delhi"
The 'goal' legitimises the purpose. Remember images of the first version of the Standard Chartered Marathon? Well, the very first version of this was actually societal and not commercial. It really was Gandhi's Dandi march that started it all! At the end of it, it was just a fistful of native salt, symbolism at its very best - the very basis of any movement - without which it would remain no more than a static statement of intent akin to a huge number of people standing or sitting in the same geography.
Now this is where Marketing comes in. Marketing is directional. It is a vector, for direction without magnitude is no more than a platitude. So it often suffers (but withstands) invasions of oversimplifications. When all the dust of oversimplifications have settled, Marketing must brush it off, gather itself with its related disciplines of social science, psychology and anthropology and set about the task of creating a surround around the product, a Venn diagram of sorts, in which the consumer alternates his existence within the many layers of the brand world. The world itself is no more than just four concentric circles with the innermost (or bullseye) being about the core value of the brand and the others being the rituals, the role models and the symbols associated with it. Like just about any popular religion.
Now this is exactly the point where the road diverges into two different methodologies. The first one is the weaker one that defines the target audience in singular terms, adds it mathematically ignoring the simple insight that the behaviour of a human being alters when collectivism happens. In other words each individual when affected by the "We" phenomena, behaves differently than how he would have behaved all alone as an "I".
If each person was asked to separately do his own Dandi march, or if Gandhi chose one person at a time - the idea seems unfathomable!
It is like the television reportage of the human chain. the order is that first we marvel at the fact there is a human chain. And then we rationalise with a 'cause', which is just symbolic and not transformational.
So we first run the marathon simply because others are running it and then we defend our action with a laundry list of justifications ranging from good health to charity. The number of people who run together is surely more than the simple addition of each individual running by himself, before the marathon. The effect of collectivism is to snowball. A few lose snowflakes gather more in their wake and assume the shocking proportion of a monstrous avalanche.
Perhaps only part of the credit of building a cult brand called Harley Davidson should go to Harley Davidson; the other part should go to its customers who snowballed its appeal collectively, so much so that now consumers were getting consumers through multiplication and not addition.
The dictionary has a way of leaning on history to invent words that represent a phenomenon. The word 'Solidarity' was the name of an independent Polish trade union founded in 1980 that went on to play the lion's role in the ouster of communism. The dictionary, an incorrigibly plagiarist of history writes the meaning of "solidarity" as " a union or fellowship arising from common responsibilities and interests, as between members of a group or between classes of people".
So "classes of people" may unite either against other classes of people or may march towards a fistful of salt. Or in their corporate avataar, grow straggly beards and big muscles, don a bandana and evil black clothes and speak in booming voices and then sit on a cruiser caller Harley Davidson that growls away into a long dusty American sunset. What a cause! Or when 'men' collectively form a class implicitly turned against 'women' as a class and wield a lasso, astride a horse, with a stetson shadowing strong jaw lines, in the Marlboro country.
This is not the typical target audience definition and thankfully has no baggage of SEC A & B. It is psychological and societal and easy to develop in hindsight, but actually possible only through a philosophical bent of mind without which observation is hampered. And without observation, insight is impossible.
"We the people of India" while having united to fight a common enemy called the British are now facing the problem of accountability. Can the "I" please return?
For starters, somehow "We" tends to surge, while "I" tends to stand.
To dive deeper... I once heard a political scientist remark that collectivism is great for movements but bad for accountability. And then of course Psychology is replete with explanations for the basis of unification. Roughly speaking, for two people to unite in a static state, all that is required is that they stand on the same geography! But when people have to move in unision, they either need a common enemy or a common goal. Or as the famed McKinsey 7S framework puts it - 'shared values'. But it is this last one that is the toughest, because while it looks right from a 'framework'-of-management perspective, it sits poorly when it comes to human psychology.
Will anyone want to scale a vast plateau at 8848 m? Clearly No. But the summit of Everest at the same height is a different case altogether. A summit is a goal, a single converged point, a pinnacle that leaves no scope for more. Goals have to be high and narrow. They can't be generalisations. Imagine a company vision that reads: "We will be the most preferred manufacturer of three wheelers in the north east part of south west Delhi"
The 'goal' legitimises the purpose. Remember images of the first version of the Standard Chartered Marathon? Well, the very first version of this was actually societal and not commercial. It really was Gandhi's Dandi march that started it all! At the end of it, it was just a fistful of native salt, symbolism at its very best - the very basis of any movement - without which it would remain no more than a static statement of intent akin to a huge number of people standing or sitting in the same geography.
Now this is where Marketing comes in. Marketing is directional. It is a vector, for direction without magnitude is no more than a platitude. So it often suffers (but withstands) invasions of oversimplifications. When all the dust of oversimplifications have settled, Marketing must brush it off, gather itself with its related disciplines of social science, psychology and anthropology and set about the task of creating a surround around the product, a Venn diagram of sorts, in which the consumer alternates his existence within the many layers of the brand world. The world itself is no more than just four concentric circles with the innermost (or bullseye) being about the core value of the brand and the others being the rituals, the role models and the symbols associated with it. Like just about any popular religion.
Now this is exactly the point where the road diverges into two different methodologies. The first one is the weaker one that defines the target audience in singular terms, adds it mathematically ignoring the simple insight that the behaviour of a human being alters when collectivism happens. In other words each individual when affected by the "We" phenomena, behaves differently than how he would have behaved all alone as an "I".
If each person was asked to separately do his own Dandi march, or if Gandhi chose one person at a time - the idea seems unfathomable!
It is like the television reportage of the human chain. the order is that first we marvel at the fact there is a human chain. And then we rationalise with a 'cause', which is just symbolic and not transformational.
So we first run the marathon simply because others are running it and then we defend our action with a laundry list of justifications ranging from good health to charity. The number of people who run together is surely more than the simple addition of each individual running by himself, before the marathon. The effect of collectivism is to snowball. A few lose snowflakes gather more in their wake and assume the shocking proportion of a monstrous avalanche.
Perhaps only part of the credit of building a cult brand called Harley Davidson should go to Harley Davidson; the other part should go to its customers who snowballed its appeal collectively, so much so that now consumers were getting consumers through multiplication and not addition.
The dictionary has a way of leaning on history to invent words that represent a phenomenon. The word 'Solidarity' was the name of an independent Polish trade union founded in 1980 that went on to play the lion's role in the ouster of communism. The dictionary, an incorrigibly plagiarist of history writes the meaning of "solidarity" as " a union or fellowship arising from common responsibilities and interests, as between members of a group or between classes of people".
So "classes of people" may unite either against other classes of people or may march towards a fistful of salt. Or in their corporate avataar, grow straggly beards and big muscles, don a bandana and evil black clothes and speak in booming voices and then sit on a cruiser caller Harley Davidson that growls away into a long dusty American sunset. What a cause! Or when 'men' collectively form a class implicitly turned against 'women' as a class and wield a lasso, astride a horse, with a stetson shadowing strong jaw lines, in the Marlboro country.
This is not the typical target audience definition and thankfully has no baggage of SEC A & B. It is psychological and societal and easy to develop in hindsight, but actually possible only through a philosophical bent of mind without which observation is hampered. And without observation, insight is impossible.
"We the people of India" while having united to fight a common enemy called the British are now facing the problem of accountability. Can the "I" please return?
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
"EXPENSIVE" Vs "PREMIUM"
It's astonishingly different - the difference between 'expensive' and 'premium'.
And a really recent example comes starkly to mind.
Now here you are in the parking lot in the basement of a mall headed towards the lift. And what are doing? Well, what you always do - stare at the cars in the parking lot. There are all kinds, but your eyes linger a bit longer on the newer makes and models. The difference is in the caress of your glance, which settles a little longer and caresses the metal of the better looking car - a more premium looking car. And now there is the Fiat Linea. You look at it again. And again. And longer. Without doubt a premium looking car in its appearance, but actually priced lower than its appearance suggests. Now what does that mean. To understand this, we need to imagine the concept testing stage of the Fiat Linea, that the marketing department would have done before launch. Now if a consumer was shown the Linea (before it was launched) minus its logo and asked a question like this - "Now here you see this car. It is from a leading car company and we won't tell you which. Now tell us just by looking at it, what do you think would be the price". Chances are, that the consumer would compare it with the other good lookers on the road in his mind and say something like "Rs 14 lacs". Now that is Rs 6 lacs more than the Linea's real price!This is what makes the Linea a 'premium' car. So what's an 'expensive car', you might ask. Take the example of the Honda Jazz, minus its advertising of 'Why so serious'. And imagine the same concept testing before launch.The consumer is again asked to guess the price. Chances are he will say something like - "Rs 6 lacs" for this 'two box' car. Now that is Rs 2.5 lacs less than its real price!Its easy to tell the fate of these two brands and models of cars. One doesn't need to an astrologer or a marketing pundit.So let me stick my neck out and say it. The Honda Jazz will flop and the Fiat Linea will succeed. And that's because the Linea is genuinely 'premium' and the Jazz is tragically expensive.But that's just one side of the argument.
Sometimes the price doesn't matter AT ALL.
You are interested in buying a house of Rs 50 lacs in a certain colony and the brokerage is 2%. Where is your focus? On the price of the house and how much it will appreciate or on the brokerage? Further, if the broker reduces his brokerage to 1 %, would you buy two houses!?Now lets look at one more example. A 'Mesiterstuck laptop bag' from 'Mont Blanc' costs Rs 68,350/- only. The 'only' is ironical! But its not too surprising, considering the fact that the 'Mesiterstuck Business card holder' from Mont Blanc costs Rs 7,050/ (only!) and the 'Urban Walker Cool Blue Keyring' from Mont Blanc costs a mere Rs 19,100/- Now who buys this, you might wonder. So let's close our eyes and imagine this consumer. A laptop bag of Rs 68,000 must contain a laptop of Rs 2 lacs minimum. Now that should be a Mac. The bag should hang from a shoulder clad in a suit worth Rs 1.5 lacs. The cuff links would naturally be Mont Blanc again. So they would be "Indent" from Mont Blanc of Rs 17,800/ (only!). And the goggles (oops! Sorry 'shades') would be "Indent" again of Rs 18,100/- only and so on and on and on.Actually premium pricing is the easiest to do. This man who buys Mont Blanc buys everything at 17 times the price many of us can afford (laptop bag of Rs 68,000 is 17 times Rs 4,000). So he treats Rs 17 the same way we treat Rs 1.So now, if we like the Honda City of Rs 10 lacs and buy it, he will naturally buy the Rs 1.70 crore Bentley. To us this car is 'expensive', because it is outside the realm of possibility, not because it is not desirable.So we call it 'luxury' but can't buy it.
Finally it is simple maths.
We all buy a formula, whenever we buy any product. Perceived Value divided by Price. And if the product is more less a commodity, then what? On this, next time! Over the weekend check out the number of people inside a Bose Store divided by its square feet area. And then check out the number of people in Jumbo Electronics divided by its square feet area. And guess what you will find? That not only is the population density greater in the Bose store, the average price too is much higher. Now that is the way to check the perceived value divided by price!But go and see the two stores for yourself.
And a really recent example comes starkly to mind.
Now here you are in the parking lot in the basement of a mall headed towards the lift. And what are doing? Well, what you always do - stare at the cars in the parking lot. There are all kinds, but your eyes linger a bit longer on the newer makes and models. The difference is in the caress of your glance, which settles a little longer and caresses the metal of the better looking car - a more premium looking car. And now there is the Fiat Linea. You look at it again. And again. And longer. Without doubt a premium looking car in its appearance, but actually priced lower than its appearance suggests. Now what does that mean. To understand this, we need to imagine the concept testing stage of the Fiat Linea, that the marketing department would have done before launch. Now if a consumer was shown the Linea (before it was launched) minus its logo and asked a question like this - "Now here you see this car. It is from a leading car company and we won't tell you which. Now tell us just by looking at it, what do you think would be the price". Chances are, that the consumer would compare it with the other good lookers on the road in his mind and say something like "Rs 14 lacs". Now that is Rs 6 lacs more than the Linea's real price!This is what makes the Linea a 'premium' car. So what's an 'expensive car', you might ask. Take the example of the Honda Jazz, minus its advertising of 'Why so serious'. And imagine the same concept testing before launch.The consumer is again asked to guess the price. Chances are he will say something like - "Rs 6 lacs" for this 'two box' car. Now that is Rs 2.5 lacs less than its real price!Its easy to tell the fate of these two brands and models of cars. One doesn't need to an astrologer or a marketing pundit.So let me stick my neck out and say it. The Honda Jazz will flop and the Fiat Linea will succeed. And that's because the Linea is genuinely 'premium' and the Jazz is tragically expensive.But that's just one side of the argument.
Sometimes the price doesn't matter AT ALL.
You are interested in buying a house of Rs 50 lacs in a certain colony and the brokerage is 2%. Where is your focus? On the price of the house and how much it will appreciate or on the brokerage? Further, if the broker reduces his brokerage to 1 %, would you buy two houses!?Now lets look at one more example. A 'Mesiterstuck laptop bag' from 'Mont Blanc' costs Rs 68,350/- only. The 'only' is ironical! But its not too surprising, considering the fact that the 'Mesiterstuck Business card holder' from Mont Blanc costs Rs 7,050/ (only!) and the 'Urban Walker Cool Blue Keyring' from Mont Blanc costs a mere Rs 19,100/- Now who buys this, you might wonder. So let's close our eyes and imagine this consumer. A laptop bag of Rs 68,000 must contain a laptop of Rs 2 lacs minimum. Now that should be a Mac. The bag should hang from a shoulder clad in a suit worth Rs 1.5 lacs. The cuff links would naturally be Mont Blanc again. So they would be "Indent" from Mont Blanc of Rs 17,800/ (only!). And the goggles (oops! Sorry 'shades') would be "Indent" again of Rs 18,100/- only and so on and on and on.Actually premium pricing is the easiest to do. This man who buys Mont Blanc buys everything at 17 times the price many of us can afford (laptop bag of Rs 68,000 is 17 times Rs 4,000). So he treats Rs 17 the same way we treat Rs 1.So now, if we like the Honda City of Rs 10 lacs and buy it, he will naturally buy the Rs 1.70 crore Bentley. To us this car is 'expensive', because it is outside the realm of possibility, not because it is not desirable.So we call it 'luxury' but can't buy it.
Finally it is simple maths.
We all buy a formula, whenever we buy any product. Perceived Value divided by Price. And if the product is more less a commodity, then what? On this, next time! Over the weekend check out the number of people inside a Bose Store divided by its square feet area. And then check out the number of people in Jumbo Electronics divided by its square feet area. And guess what you will find? That not only is the population density greater in the Bose store, the average price too is much higher. Now that is the way to check the perceived value divided by price!But go and see the two stores for yourself.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Understanding 'Rational Appeal'
The trouble with Theory (even if it is Marketing theory, which is nothing but documented practice and packaged principles) is that it is open to interpretation. For all the credit that Philip Kotler got for Marketing, one wishes he had explained the concept of 'rational appeal' such that it wouldn't have been misinterpreted for years after.
In the Kotlerian scheme of things, 'Rational appeal' is simplistically speaking one of the two types of 'appeal' that advertising seeks to leverage - the other being 'emotional appeal'. If Kotler were to re-write this today, in today's environment of deep consumer insight, he might have dug deeper and the very axis on which advertising creative is placed, would change.
From 'emotional and rational appeal', we would have moved to 'fact based and culture based' communication. Thus there is fact-based communication and quite delightfully fictional imagery or positioning that is aligned to the prevailing popular culture, both stated and tacit. The other name for the former is 'tactical advertising' and for the latter 'thematic advertising'.
Now if an FD offers 9% interest, it is fact-based and tactical for there is a fact and an immediacy of action - of offer to be made and consumed in a topical way. If everyone offers 9%, then surely it isn't a differentiator, but the one who offers it fast and the one who is seen to offer it the most will benefit the most in early sales. Thus, the tactical part always was and remains a communication that takes birth after the real fact. But thematic communication has a reverse order. When it is rational or fact based, it labours and struggles and falls flat. But even when it is emotional, it may remain emotional without evoking an response in its audience.
Was Surf and Lalitaji a rational communication? Yes, as per the theory of Marketing in the past. But No, as per the more advanced consumer insight generation that we have today.
Did anyone actually figure why 'surf ki kharidari mein samajdhari hai' to kyon hai? Now without a 'why' there is no case for rational appeal. It was merely a communication that claimed to offer more for less. It wasn't actually verified by the consumer or believed by the consumer, but it got a large share of voice. But to be fair, it isn't easy for a detergent to appear very desirable in the first place. However it was many notches better than the mere (and somewhat sudden) visibility of Nirma, which gave absolutely no why-buy-me. But then they sliced the market into another part - a market that always existed but one that their MNC competitor was blind to. Sometimes, advertising cannot take a brand into all types of demographic segments and a real product is required.
True McDonald's offers a burger as it's core product but its complete value proposition is actually such that while the product can still be changed with no adverse impact, the marketing of it can't! In other words, if one changes the name, the logo, the branding, the drive in, the child focus, the family focus, the steel kitchen, the price - value package, then everything would have changed and McDonald's would be dead. It would have to restart!
But instead, if you only changed the burger and replaced with a dosa, and not anything else, McDonald's would remain the same and not have to restart!
In other words, if you change the product, no harm done. But if you change the delivery, the story and the positioning, it is finished.
This indeed is the power of non-fact based, non rational appeal based offers. Which is not to say that there is no case for doing a McDonald tactical promotion.
But, then to club it all as merely 'rational' and 'emotional' is like saying that in the races of the world, there are only two types of people - one black and one white. But we browns know better!
Now the Beetle was indeed an ugly car that sold like hot cakes when it cutely confessed that it was ugly and when it called itself an 'ugly bug'. Rationally speaking, an ugly car has no business to sell. Unless there is a story, a tale, a yarn or a clever way of appealing. One never tires of saying that brands are like people. I once had a good friend who was very overweight and his signature was 'fats'. Everyone loved him. If he was a brand, he could have afforded a higher price, a price higher than an arrogant good looking fellow who called himself 'handsome'.
Over the weekend, let's think hard to identify just one brand that was able to command a value because of a rational appeal. Perhaps there is none.
Just to caution - now before you say by way of rejoinder, that the fuel efficient 100cc bike Hero Honda is one such, I daresay, research established way back in 1990, that the bike sold because it was 'firangi' and 'Honda' and had a 'nice' ad. Rings a bell doesn't it with what happened once in America. Honda entered the American motorcycle market with a campaign that simply said "you meet the nicest people on a Honda". And this in an America where bikes were identified with hoodlums, gangs and crime. The rest as they say, is history.
And then there was Harley Davidson all over again!
In the Kotlerian scheme of things, 'Rational appeal' is simplistically speaking one of the two types of 'appeal' that advertising seeks to leverage - the other being 'emotional appeal'. If Kotler were to re-write this today, in today's environment of deep consumer insight, he might have dug deeper and the very axis on which advertising creative is placed, would change.
From 'emotional and rational appeal', we would have moved to 'fact based and culture based' communication. Thus there is fact-based communication and quite delightfully fictional imagery or positioning that is aligned to the prevailing popular culture, both stated and tacit. The other name for the former is 'tactical advertising' and for the latter 'thematic advertising'.
Now if an FD offers 9% interest, it is fact-based and tactical for there is a fact and an immediacy of action - of offer to be made and consumed in a topical way. If everyone offers 9%, then surely it isn't a differentiator, but the one who offers it fast and the one who is seen to offer it the most will benefit the most in early sales. Thus, the tactical part always was and remains a communication that takes birth after the real fact. But thematic communication has a reverse order. When it is rational or fact based, it labours and struggles and falls flat. But even when it is emotional, it may remain emotional without evoking an response in its audience.
Was Surf and Lalitaji a rational communication? Yes, as per the theory of Marketing in the past. But No, as per the more advanced consumer insight generation that we have today.
Did anyone actually figure why 'surf ki kharidari mein samajdhari hai' to kyon hai? Now without a 'why' there is no case for rational appeal. It was merely a communication that claimed to offer more for less. It wasn't actually verified by the consumer or believed by the consumer, but it got a large share of voice. But to be fair, it isn't easy for a detergent to appear very desirable in the first place. However it was many notches better than the mere (and somewhat sudden) visibility of Nirma, which gave absolutely no why-buy-me. But then they sliced the market into another part - a market that always existed but one that their MNC competitor was blind to. Sometimes, advertising cannot take a brand into all types of demographic segments and a real product is required.
True McDonald's offers a burger as it's core product but its complete value proposition is actually such that while the product can still be changed with no adverse impact, the marketing of it can't! In other words, if one changes the name, the logo, the branding, the drive in, the child focus, the family focus, the steel kitchen, the price - value package, then everything would have changed and McDonald's would be dead. It would have to restart!
But instead, if you only changed the burger and replaced with a dosa, and not anything else, McDonald's would remain the same and not have to restart!
In other words, if you change the product, no harm done. But if you change the delivery, the story and the positioning, it is finished.
This indeed is the power of non-fact based, non rational appeal based offers. Which is not to say that there is no case for doing a McDonald tactical promotion.
But, then to club it all as merely 'rational' and 'emotional' is like saying that in the races of the world, there are only two types of people - one black and one white. But we browns know better!
Now the Beetle was indeed an ugly car that sold like hot cakes when it cutely confessed that it was ugly and when it called itself an 'ugly bug'. Rationally speaking, an ugly car has no business to sell. Unless there is a story, a tale, a yarn or a clever way of appealing. One never tires of saying that brands are like people. I once had a good friend who was very overweight and his signature was 'fats'. Everyone loved him. If he was a brand, he could have afforded a higher price, a price higher than an arrogant good looking fellow who called himself 'handsome'.
Over the weekend, let's think hard to identify just one brand that was able to command a value because of a rational appeal. Perhaps there is none.
Just to caution - now before you say by way of rejoinder, that the fuel efficient 100cc bike Hero Honda is one such, I daresay, research established way back in 1990, that the bike sold because it was 'firangi' and 'Honda' and had a 'nice' ad. Rings a bell doesn't it with what happened once in America. Honda entered the American motorcycle market with a campaign that simply said "you meet the nicest people on a Honda". And this in an America where bikes were identified with hoodlums, gangs and crime. The rest as they say, is history.
And then there was Harley Davidson all over again!
Sunday, July 19, 2009
'LOOK & FEEL'
Isn't it difficult to explain the feeling of going to a hill station in childhood.
Wasn't it certainly much more than just the weather?
But why only a hill station. Equally, it was difficult to explain the feeling of driving into Jaisalmer. Because it was much more than that rational something.
Now even photographs flounder in their inability to describe the 'jannat' (which again begs more descriptors) that is Kashmir, or the monument that is Taj, or in fact the soaring reality of the Khajuraho temples that mocks the pretentious photograps of the same.
Now in pictures, Kashmir looks ordinary, the Taj, overated, and Khajuraho, puny - indeed the exact opposite of what they are.
And Language?
Well that too is belaboured. It struggles and strains under its weighty attempt to describe Persons, Places and Things even though this is at the heart of its existence. And Grammar? Well grammer calls these three 'nouns' but that doesn't help and so it adds a category called 'adjectives' which try to ease the attempt at describing.
But now let's allow the argument to settle a bit.
So what did Nehru see in Coorg?
Or why did Indira Gandhi travel two days into a Kashmiri autumn? Merely to see the chinar leaves changing colours?
No, it can't be so simple.
Let's plunge deeper...
Why does a disproportionate part of the holiday experience in a remote wilderness, constitute the phase involved in getting there?
And if Kashmir was only about a few defined contributors to its heady experience, then all we need to do is put a mound of grassy mud into an air-conditioned room, surround with water, give it a false ceiling of the azure of a Kashmiri sky (technology can perfect this) with a few more condiments added to this synthetic recipe. And bingo, we should get Kashmir! But don't we know better.
Which brings us all the way back to the sprightly subject of ambiance.
Now ambiance is what retail formats thrive on. And because they struggle to add ingredients a la a synthetically created Kashmir, they fail to achieve the purpose.
In a mall in Dubai, they ski down on artificial powder snow, delighted to dole up their desert dreams. But a nature lover winces with the experience. Few people return to ski there.
The moral of the story - the mere assemblage of hard material in a retail format, does not a brand make. The 'living' experience is vital. Brands have to live and moreover, the powerful ones are those that titillate one of the five senses.
A Seagram scotch ad story line, set in a cold and misty Scotland, brings forth the fragrance of great scotch. It's like hot pakoras in the pouring monsoons of Mahabaleshwar. Or notice how the car ads convert full grown men to boys, as they watch shiny eyed, bright red cars careening, spinning and whizzing past wet roads. Now who hasn't observed the forbidding, threatening glint in the wife's eye, as a De Beers diamond pops out in media. Isn't it is known to cause blindness in alert husbands. Then you have coffee ads and frothy fragrance, which are so intertwined that they seem to have merged into one.
Some brands however, miss out on this very soft part, given their penchant for arranging strategy in linear boxes of cause and effect.
Thus when you see a Subhiksha, it appears to be apologising for its presence. Yet a Domino's confidently surveys the world with its bold masculine fascia. Brands are afterall like people...
That's why a SubWay looks cool and green. And Coke bottles look sprightly and bubbly. While big ice cream brands struggle to out do each other in showing dollops of ice cream, but Natural Ice Cream of good ol' Bombay shows the fruit instead, scoring a march on the real seeking of the teeth and the tongue. That's why one stops and enters the parlour ever so frequently.
And a few slurps into real fruit gets the brand loyalty galloping.
But if you thought it is only about soft products, then think of Dove and you virtually experience cream. And with Liril, despite all the angrezi, the uninhinderd feeling of Nimbu Paani rushes forth and the waterfall, despite advertising claims, is quite incidental. But when you Karen Lunel under a waterfall you pepper the imagination of escapist abandon in the women who watch the ad and the feeling of wanting to be there in the men who watch the ad! With that the ad takes us into fantasy land just as the product also fulfills this vicarious need. Afterall deep immersion is always a private seeking and never a public clamed rationale. That's why research makes an ass of itself ever so often when it imagines it can decode real feelings.
So will only SEC A and B want to escape the straight jacketed world! That's like saying that only men with white hair want to be younger! Now think of some of those research presentations. Aren't they arranged in sequential boxes of cause and effect! We must be machines if we behaved like that. Even sunsigns say there are 12 types of people! But at least that doesn't not pretend to not come from an esoteric place.
And then to call all this sweepingly mere "Look and Feel" is like calling everything below Madhya Pradesh - Madraasi and everything above - Punjabi.
have you noticed how in organisations sometimes Marketing is seen to be about 'Look and Feel'. Of course it is, but then 'Look and Feel' is more than just about look and feel!
Ta ta till the next round of catharsis!
Wasn't it certainly much more than just the weather?
But why only a hill station. Equally, it was difficult to explain the feeling of driving into Jaisalmer. Because it was much more than that rational something.
Now even photographs flounder in their inability to describe the 'jannat' (which again begs more descriptors) that is Kashmir, or the monument that is Taj, or in fact the soaring reality of the Khajuraho temples that mocks the pretentious photograps of the same.
Now in pictures, Kashmir looks ordinary, the Taj, overated, and Khajuraho, puny - indeed the exact opposite of what they are.
And Language?
Well that too is belaboured. It struggles and strains under its weighty attempt to describe Persons, Places and Things even though this is at the heart of its existence. And Grammar? Well grammer calls these three 'nouns' but that doesn't help and so it adds a category called 'adjectives' which try to ease the attempt at describing.
But now let's allow the argument to settle a bit.
So what did Nehru see in Coorg?
Or why did Indira Gandhi travel two days into a Kashmiri autumn? Merely to see the chinar leaves changing colours?
No, it can't be so simple.
Let's plunge deeper...
Why does a disproportionate part of the holiday experience in a remote wilderness, constitute the phase involved in getting there?
And if Kashmir was only about a few defined contributors to its heady experience, then all we need to do is put a mound of grassy mud into an air-conditioned room, surround with water, give it a false ceiling of the azure of a Kashmiri sky (technology can perfect this) with a few more condiments added to this synthetic recipe. And bingo, we should get Kashmir! But don't we know better.
Which brings us all the way back to the sprightly subject of ambiance.
Now ambiance is what retail formats thrive on. And because they struggle to add ingredients a la a synthetically created Kashmir, they fail to achieve the purpose.
In a mall in Dubai, they ski down on artificial powder snow, delighted to dole up their desert dreams. But a nature lover winces with the experience. Few people return to ski there.
The moral of the story - the mere assemblage of hard material in a retail format, does not a brand make. The 'living' experience is vital. Brands have to live and moreover, the powerful ones are those that titillate one of the five senses.
A Seagram scotch ad story line, set in a cold and misty Scotland, brings forth the fragrance of great scotch. It's like hot pakoras in the pouring monsoons of Mahabaleshwar. Or notice how the car ads convert full grown men to boys, as they watch shiny eyed, bright red cars careening, spinning and whizzing past wet roads. Now who hasn't observed the forbidding, threatening glint in the wife's eye, as a De Beers diamond pops out in media. Isn't it is known to cause blindness in alert husbands. Then you have coffee ads and frothy fragrance, which are so intertwined that they seem to have merged into one.
Some brands however, miss out on this very soft part, given their penchant for arranging strategy in linear boxes of cause and effect.
Thus when you see a Subhiksha, it appears to be apologising for its presence. Yet a Domino's confidently surveys the world with its bold masculine fascia. Brands are afterall like people...
That's why a SubWay looks cool and green. And Coke bottles look sprightly and bubbly. While big ice cream brands struggle to out do each other in showing dollops of ice cream, but Natural Ice Cream of good ol' Bombay shows the fruit instead, scoring a march on the real seeking of the teeth and the tongue. That's why one stops and enters the parlour ever so frequently.
And a few slurps into real fruit gets the brand loyalty galloping.
But if you thought it is only about soft products, then think of Dove and you virtually experience cream. And with Liril, despite all the angrezi, the uninhinderd feeling of Nimbu Paani rushes forth and the waterfall, despite advertising claims, is quite incidental. But when you Karen Lunel under a waterfall you pepper the imagination of escapist abandon in the women who watch the ad and the feeling of wanting to be there in the men who watch the ad! With that the ad takes us into fantasy land just as the product also fulfills this vicarious need. Afterall deep immersion is always a private seeking and never a public clamed rationale. That's why research makes an ass of itself ever so often when it imagines it can decode real feelings.
So will only SEC A and B want to escape the straight jacketed world! That's like saying that only men with white hair want to be younger! Now think of some of those research presentations. Aren't they arranged in sequential boxes of cause and effect! We must be machines if we behaved like that. Even sunsigns say there are 12 types of people! But at least that doesn't not pretend to not come from an esoteric place.
And then to call all this sweepingly mere "Look and Feel" is like calling everything below Madhya Pradesh - Madraasi and everything above - Punjabi.
have you noticed how in organisations sometimes Marketing is seen to be about 'Look and Feel'. Of course it is, but then 'Look and Feel' is more than just about look and feel!
Ta ta till the next round of catharsis!
Sunday, July 12, 2009
THE 'PURCHASE PROCESS'
It’s a weekend and so it’s time for storytelling again.
This time the story is about an interesting source of consumer insight—yes the ‘purchase process’.
Remember Maggie? The sauce? But of course you do.
Not just because you consumed a little while ago, but because it occupies a disproportionate part of your life for the kind of product it is. If you think about it, it is not even the main meal - it is an accompaniment. Yet it demands and gets attention.
Further, this surely evidences the fact that the length of the name of an entity has nothing to do with its recall. So what do we recall? Well, we recall Maggie sauce as “Maggie Hot and Sweet Tomato Chilli Sauce - It’s different”. That’s nine words, quite a mouthful.
And when uttered, a vivid set of images form in the brain. The genre of the image is that fun and indulgence. The type of thought it evokes is pleasant, as it uses humour. The tonality is Indian. And by that we mean that it is deliberately slapstick, wonderfully irreverent, comfortably silly. And so when you eat it, you consume more than cooked and pasted tomatoes.
As a matter of fact, come to think of it, it is only after Maggie entered our lives, that the bottle of Kissan Ketchup started appearing dull and drab! So have you noticed, how when you stare at it today, you wonder if the ‘sauce’ is fresh. And so in a store while shopping, you pick it up, roll it in your hands and place it back on the shelf. Then you pick up the fun bottle - Maggie and move on to the next item on your shopping radar. And you did so not because Kissan was not fresh, but only because Maggie is ‘fresher’. Not because it really is, but only because of it’s image, carved out of plain fiction, not rooted in any fact.
Amazing, isn’t it?
But the more seemingly innocuous entity is actually the Maggie bottle. It conceals a whole sub science of marketing strategy. In jargon we call it “The Purchase Process”.
To make it lighter on the mind, let’s imagine a time when Nestle was planning to enter the ketchup / sauce market.
They needed consumer insight to find a unique slot in the consumer’s mind. Remember, those were days when Kissan was literally equal to the category. So what did they do?
A small team (large teams give findings, not ‘insights’!) went over to the Kirana store and quietly observed the ‘purchase process’ of a man buying Kissan Ketchup.
And this is what they observed.
There were two SKUs on the shelf - one a ‘big’ bottle of sauce and other a ‘small’ bottle. Now while buying, the consumer merely identified what he wanted, as ‘big’ or ‘small’ bottle of ‘ketchup/sauce’. So he would say - “give me that big bottle of sauce’. He never bothered identifying the bottle by its quantity i.e. volume or weight. So he never said something like “give me 500 gms of ketchup”. This gave Nestle the cue they were looking for.
Now when ‘Maggie’ was launched, it was ‘different’ for more reasons than just its advertising.
First, it was ‘sauce’ not ketchup.
And it was more dilute.
Moreover it was flavoured ‘hot and sweet’.
It was indisputably brighter or so it seemed.
But most importantly, it was more expensive.
And still more importantly, the bottles of both ‘big’ and ‘small’ SKUs looked different in their shape than the Kissan bottle such that one could never compare the quantity! So the consumer couldn’t tell and in fact didn’t care that Maggie gave him less ‘sauce’!
As a matter of strategy, the implication is even more significant. Now every unit of Maggie sold is consequently more profitable. It has to be. Plus, the price too is higher. Higher price per unit, lesser quantity and still the value offered is perceptually much greater. Now this is what we call strategy. If you look at it, the offering has no rational component. But emotionally it’s a winner. And that’s what makes it a stupendous brand.
But come to think of it, there’s more than just the purchase process behind the Maggie story. But on that, later;
(Now they have “Maggie Pichkoo”. Howzatt!)
This time the story is about an interesting source of consumer insight—yes the ‘purchase process’.
Remember Maggie? The sauce? But of course you do.
Not just because you consumed a little while ago, but because it occupies a disproportionate part of your life for the kind of product it is. If you think about it, it is not even the main meal - it is an accompaniment. Yet it demands and gets attention.
Further, this surely evidences the fact that the length of the name of an entity has nothing to do with its recall. So what do we recall? Well, we recall Maggie sauce as “Maggie Hot and Sweet Tomato Chilli Sauce - It’s different”. That’s nine words, quite a mouthful.
And when uttered, a vivid set of images form in the brain. The genre of the image is that fun and indulgence. The type of thought it evokes is pleasant, as it uses humour. The tonality is Indian. And by that we mean that it is deliberately slapstick, wonderfully irreverent, comfortably silly. And so when you eat it, you consume more than cooked and pasted tomatoes.
As a matter of fact, come to think of it, it is only after Maggie entered our lives, that the bottle of Kissan Ketchup started appearing dull and drab! So have you noticed, how when you stare at it today, you wonder if the ‘sauce’ is fresh. And so in a store while shopping, you pick it up, roll it in your hands and place it back on the shelf. Then you pick up the fun bottle - Maggie and move on to the next item on your shopping radar. And you did so not because Kissan was not fresh, but only because Maggie is ‘fresher’. Not because it really is, but only because of it’s image, carved out of plain fiction, not rooted in any fact.
Amazing, isn’t it?
But the more seemingly innocuous entity is actually the Maggie bottle. It conceals a whole sub science of marketing strategy. In jargon we call it “The Purchase Process”.
To make it lighter on the mind, let’s imagine a time when Nestle was planning to enter the ketchup / sauce market.
They needed consumer insight to find a unique slot in the consumer’s mind. Remember, those were days when Kissan was literally equal to the category. So what did they do?
A small team (large teams give findings, not ‘insights’!) went over to the Kirana store and quietly observed the ‘purchase process’ of a man buying Kissan Ketchup.
And this is what they observed.
There were two SKUs on the shelf - one a ‘big’ bottle of sauce and other a ‘small’ bottle. Now while buying, the consumer merely identified what he wanted, as ‘big’ or ‘small’ bottle of ‘ketchup/sauce’. So he would say - “give me that big bottle of sauce’. He never bothered identifying the bottle by its quantity i.e. volume or weight. So he never said something like “give me 500 gms of ketchup”. This gave Nestle the cue they were looking for.
Now when ‘Maggie’ was launched, it was ‘different’ for more reasons than just its advertising.
First, it was ‘sauce’ not ketchup.
And it was more dilute.
Moreover it was flavoured ‘hot and sweet’.
It was indisputably brighter or so it seemed.
But most importantly, it was more expensive.
And still more importantly, the bottles of both ‘big’ and ‘small’ SKUs looked different in their shape than the Kissan bottle such that one could never compare the quantity! So the consumer couldn’t tell and in fact didn’t care that Maggie gave him less ‘sauce’!
As a matter of strategy, the implication is even more significant. Now every unit of Maggie sold is consequently more profitable. It has to be. Plus, the price too is higher. Higher price per unit, lesser quantity and still the value offered is perceptually much greater. Now this is what we call strategy. If you look at it, the offering has no rational component. But emotionally it’s a winner. And that’s what makes it a stupendous brand.
But come to think of it, there’s more than just the purchase process behind the Maggie story. But on that, later;
(Now they have “Maggie Pichkoo”. Howzatt!)
Friday, July 10, 2009
The story of two hunters
There is the typical marketing conundrum of pull and push that we sometimes wonder about.
To understand it, let's take the help of a story. It's called the story of two hunters....
Now there is the first hunter and what is he up to?
Well he is on his way to hunt a deer.
And the forest is pitch dark. He is armed with a quiver full of 100 arrows.
So what does he do? Given that he has an urgent target to achieve?
Well he moves deep into the forest. Then he stands, aims and shoots the first arrow.
He then shoots the next.
He goes on shooting his 100 arrows and gets one deer!
Now excited he goes to his boss.
And what will the boss say?
The few possibilities are:
"Well done! Target achieved!"
"Now, get me two deer!" (typical of corporate bosses)
So what does he do this time.
He takes now 200 arrows and gets two deer from the dark forest.
Now that is statistical perfection!
But now there is this 2nd hunter. And he also goes with 100 arrows.
But he thinks differently. For starters, he sizes up the situation.
Situation No. 1: the forest is dark.
Situation 2: the deer is somewhere else and can't be seen.
So he now reasons that he needs to get the deer with some bait or go to a place, maybe a watering hole, that the deer might frequent. (For that he must understand, the thinking of the deer).
And so he figures this out and gets the deer close by and shoots the arrow. But he is a bad shot. So he misses. He shoots again and misses again, and again.
But with the 4th arrow, he gets the deer!
His conversion rate - one out of four. That too when he is a bad shot.
The 2nd hunter has created 'pull'.
He has managed to 'appeal' to his target.
He has got the deer to seek him instead of the other way round.
This is exactly what Starbucks did to Nestle, till then the Gods of coffee.
Nescafe was consumed in-home from packets bought at the store. Starbucks is consumed out of home, freshly made and brewed.
Nestle relies largely on push and in order to drive preference, creates some pull through it's advertising that 'claims' it is the world's favourite coffee.
But Starbucks has a different weapon, which only retail brands have (if they know how to use it). The weapon is Brand Experience (goes far beyond brand claim) through the retail ambience, which changes human behaviour and has the power to create a very strong pull. The bait is the Starbucks store ambience. The coffee is sold as a consequence!
And it is priced many times the price of Nescafe!
Starbucks is the 2nd hunter.
But does the consumer behave differently in a different ambience, you might be wondering. So on this, next time!
To understand it, let's take the help of a story. It's called the story of two hunters....
Now there is the first hunter and what is he up to?
Well he is on his way to hunt a deer.
And the forest is pitch dark. He is armed with a quiver full of 100 arrows.
So what does he do? Given that he has an urgent target to achieve?
Well he moves deep into the forest. Then he stands, aims and shoots the first arrow.
He then shoots the next.
He goes on shooting his 100 arrows and gets one deer!
Now excited he goes to his boss.
And what will the boss say?
The few possibilities are:
"Well done! Target achieved!"
"Now, get me two deer!" (typical of corporate bosses)
So what does he do this time.
He takes now 200 arrows and gets two deer from the dark forest.
Now that is statistical perfection!
But now there is this 2nd hunter. And he also goes with 100 arrows.
But he thinks differently. For starters, he sizes up the situation.
Situation No. 1: the forest is dark.
Situation 2: the deer is somewhere else and can't be seen.
So he now reasons that he needs to get the deer with some bait or go to a place, maybe a watering hole, that the deer might frequent. (For that he must understand, the thinking of the deer).
And so he figures this out and gets the deer close by and shoots the arrow. But he is a bad shot. So he misses. He shoots again and misses again, and again.
But with the 4th arrow, he gets the deer!
His conversion rate - one out of four. That too when he is a bad shot.
The 2nd hunter has created 'pull'.
He has managed to 'appeal' to his target.
He has got the deer to seek him instead of the other way round.
This is exactly what Starbucks did to Nestle, till then the Gods of coffee.
Nescafe was consumed in-home from packets bought at the store. Starbucks is consumed out of home, freshly made and brewed.
Nestle relies largely on push and in order to drive preference, creates some pull through it's advertising that 'claims' it is the world's favourite coffee.
But Starbucks has a different weapon, which only retail brands have (if they know how to use it). The weapon is Brand Experience (goes far beyond brand claim) through the retail ambience, which changes human behaviour and has the power to create a very strong pull. The bait is the Starbucks store ambience. The coffee is sold as a consequence!
And it is priced many times the price of Nescafe!
Starbucks is the 2nd hunter.
But does the consumer behave differently in a different ambience, you might be wondering. So on this, next time!
Thursday, July 9, 2009
REALITY, ASPIRATIONS and 'SOCIETAL FASHION'
This has to be the mother of paradoxical marketing oversimplifications. Sounds weird? That's because it is.
But what exactly is this oversimplication that one is referring to, and calling paradoxical?
The first is that when we position brands, we tell ourselves that we must depict reality, not exaggeration. And the second is that when we talk to a target audience, we cater to its aspirations, not reality.
Now look at the bunch of paradoxes in the first example itself. Speaking in Hindi to a 'Hindi' audience comes from the desire to make the brand be in touch with reality. But now where does the ad appear? On an English TV channel! Now if to the audience, the choice of language does not lead to channel loyalty, then why should it matter to the advertiser. Look at it another way. Sure there is an audience that reads Hindi novels, Hindi newspapers. But what about its professional education? It's all in English. So clearly this audience 'understands' English, whether or not it likes the language. Now should it like the language, or should it like the ad? So why does the language of the ad matter? One could go on and on till the paradoxes themselves are tied in knots!
But now lets look at the bunch of paradoxes in the second example. In 1991, Limelight soap was launched to target rural areas. It depicted the rural reality and it bombed. Market research was hastily done to diagnose the problem. The reason it seems was that while rural reality was being depicted in the ad, the rural audience had urban aspirations! The soap was relaunched in rural areas once again, dressed up in urban tonality. And it was a hit.
Now brace yourself for here comes the mother of all paradoxes:
The first example says language and audience must be married in reality - so the language must be the spoken language. And the second says language must be aspirational and therefore consciously divorced from reality!
So how does one explain this. Firstly choice of language is immaterial and does not drive preference, in the minds of the target audience. Secondly, Reality and Aspirations as words themselves are oversimplications. There is no such thing as reality. And there is no such thing as aspiration. Because, sitting on top of these two issues are 'relevance' and 'likeability', with the latter being more important than the former. Now this simply means that it does not matter whether the language is 'real' or not or whether the serving is real or aspirational, as long as it is liked and is relevant.
And above all it needs to be 'refreshing'.
Hindi baselines under English brand names tell us two things. Thing One - that it is paradoxical. Thing Two - the consumer is also language neutral so it doesn't matter.
Celebrating the 'girl child' in advertising is also what one can classify as 'societal fashion'. Have all the 'boy child' in this nation been provided for that it is now the turn of girls. So why not just 'child' instead of 'girl child'. The overflowing love for animals is another 'societal fashion' in todays age given the fact that this may well be the age when the black buck shivers when sighting an 'aspirational' film star; or when the tiger ceases to exist.
Language too turns societally trendy with people 'sending an invite' and not an invitation, 'meeting UP with you' even if the meeting is on the ground floor and calling anything likeable 'awesome' or 'cool' even it is really hot soup.
And advertising is merely a mirror of societal fads, seeking to justify it all with seemingly rational explanations, which when examined closely, get tied up hopelessly in knots.
But why does it happen, you might ask. Well because we human beings are paradoxical in our very conception. Remember we are after all animals wearing clothes!
Now this weekend look out for another paradox. In your morning walk, watch that man walking his dog - he in bermudas and the dog in a raincoat!
But you know there are some rituals that pin down near points to a defined brand work. But on that, some other time.
But what exactly is this oversimplication that one is referring to, and calling paradoxical?
The first is that when we position brands, we tell ourselves that we must depict reality, not exaggeration. And the second is that when we talk to a target audience, we cater to its aspirations, not reality.
Now look at the bunch of paradoxes in the first example itself. Speaking in Hindi to a 'Hindi' audience comes from the desire to make the brand be in touch with reality. But now where does the ad appear? On an English TV channel! Now if to the audience, the choice of language does not lead to channel loyalty, then why should it matter to the advertiser. Look at it another way. Sure there is an audience that reads Hindi novels, Hindi newspapers. But what about its professional education? It's all in English. So clearly this audience 'understands' English, whether or not it likes the language. Now should it like the language, or should it like the ad? So why does the language of the ad matter? One could go on and on till the paradoxes themselves are tied in knots!
But now lets look at the bunch of paradoxes in the second example. In 1991, Limelight soap was launched to target rural areas. It depicted the rural reality and it bombed. Market research was hastily done to diagnose the problem. The reason it seems was that while rural reality was being depicted in the ad, the rural audience had urban aspirations! The soap was relaunched in rural areas once again, dressed up in urban tonality. And it was a hit.
Now brace yourself for here comes the mother of all paradoxes:
The first example says language and audience must be married in reality - so the language must be the spoken language. And the second says language must be aspirational and therefore consciously divorced from reality!
So how does one explain this. Firstly choice of language is immaterial and does not drive preference, in the minds of the target audience. Secondly, Reality and Aspirations as words themselves are oversimplications. There is no such thing as reality. And there is no such thing as aspiration. Because, sitting on top of these two issues are 'relevance' and 'likeability', with the latter being more important than the former. Now this simply means that it does not matter whether the language is 'real' or not or whether the serving is real or aspirational, as long as it is liked and is relevant.
And above all it needs to be 'refreshing'.
Hindi baselines under English brand names tell us two things. Thing One - that it is paradoxical. Thing Two - the consumer is also language neutral so it doesn't matter.
Celebrating the 'girl child' in advertising is also what one can classify as 'societal fashion'. Have all the 'boy child' in this nation been provided for that it is now the turn of girls. So why not just 'child' instead of 'girl child'. The overflowing love for animals is another 'societal fashion' in todays age given the fact that this may well be the age when the black buck shivers when sighting an 'aspirational' film star; or when the tiger ceases to exist.
Language too turns societally trendy with people 'sending an invite' and not an invitation, 'meeting UP with you' even if the meeting is on the ground floor and calling anything likeable 'awesome' or 'cool' even it is really hot soup.
And advertising is merely a mirror of societal fads, seeking to justify it all with seemingly rational explanations, which when examined closely, get tied up hopelessly in knots.
But why does it happen, you might ask. Well because we human beings are paradoxical in our very conception. Remember we are after all animals wearing clothes!
Now this weekend look out for another paradox. In your morning walk, watch that man walking his dog - he in bermudas and the dog in a raincoat!
But you know there are some rituals that pin down near points to a defined brand work. But on that, some other time.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
'Traditional' and 'Modern' brands
In the corridors of advertising agencies, some phraseology is more common than others. Of course, this too has changed with times. But advertising agencies and marketing departments suffer from the same malaise as everyone else. They follow what is trendy. They claim it is well thought out.
It’s the same with the human race. One human does something simply because another human being also does it or will do it. How else can one explain, the need to smoke a cigarette for example. Imagine the man who was the first to ever put a cigarette in his mouth! He must have rolled some tobacco in a paper and blown smoke in. And coughed after that. What for?
Decades later, we don’t even question the inane-ness in the very act of smoking. Our pre-occupation instead, is with it being ‘harmful’, not stupid! Now why is that? Not because the category makes sense, but because that brands inhabiting it have found acceptance, such that they are embedded deeply in our lives. So much so, that we think they define our personality. Such that they re-position even the way we once saw a category.
Yet marketing and advertising agency corridors are abuzz with the fashionable view that repositioning of anything is very difficult and long drawn! Actually like anything else, it is difficult only for those who don’t know. And easy for those who do.
Let’s come back to the cigarette example. There once used to be a ‘feminine’ cigarette, yes ‘feminine’. It was targeting women. It even had a lipstick mark tipped on the filter! And what did this brand change to? Marlboro, that’s right Marlboro of the Marlboro man fame. And today it is difficult to visualize a more macho brand! Incidentally the handsome cowboy model died of lung cancer in real life.
Likewise there is another example that comes to mind in the context of advertising and marketing belief stereotypes. Under this trendy notion, all brands of the past and present are assumed to be ‘traditional’ and so their desired goal, their evolution is taken to be ‘modern’. And this is where the trouble starts. (Of course, it is true that there are some brands - MNCs often show the tendency - that court vernacular with an equally illogical passion, that it appears, and is contrived).
Now take a deeper look at the urban Indian consumer and the popular culture that surrounds him or her. An Indian bahu smokes in office. An IT professional consults an astrologer. A fashion guru fasts on Tuesday. The vacuum cleaner pleads and pleads and tries hard to replace the Indian Ayah, but the Indian Ayah rules unabated. The same doesn’t hold true for the washing machine, a proud possession of the housewife; her gadgety vengeance against the husband!)
And now modern chocolates are gift wrapped for Diwali while the traditional ladoo watches in horror. The tabeez peeps out uncertainly from under a lycra ganjee. And on Saturday night, at their western best, young men with drooping trousers and young women with lifted spirits open their armpits to the wind and dance all night to Bhangra Pop.
Yet brands continue to be fond choosing either tradition or modernity, even though the Indian consumer has clearly chosen both.
Let’s look at one more example. An example of how it impacts service philosophy, in this case in the world of airlines. A young girl who wears salwar kameez on holidays, sculpts blood red western attire around herself while on duty; paints her eye brows and eyelids in a gleaming something; blushes her cheekbones high and looks like a mannequin carved under neon signs while proceeding to serve with tongs, aaloo paranthas in plastic-wrapped pickle, in an accent that is somewhere between American, Italian and Sri Lankan. Just roll the flight announcement on your tongue, in that familiar and distinctive accent that you last heard on flight: “Kursi ki pethhi baaaaand leejiye”.
Yet brands forever ponder about these two worlds of tradition and modernity, the euphemism for which is ‘Indian’ or ‘Western’.
Can there be watertight classifications of brands as modern or traditional? Or is it simply Indian? If it has to be authentic, it doesn’t have to fall into the ‘traditional’ archetype. It must speak the language of its particular and specific catchment. Why must service personnel of ‘big’ brands always speak in English to customers? Or speak Hindi in such an accent that it actually alienates a customer instead of getting him closer.
Why should the customer’s comfort not be the main criteria?
Now a professional working in a metro afterall has a ‘small town soul’. He almost invariably hails from somewhere else even if he is found of saying “basically I am from Delhi”. So we now live in metros, but have our origins elsewhere, from some small town or the other. So whenever the small town manifests itself in our metro paced lives, we respond to it with the same feeling as we do to an old favourite song.
Remember ladies and gentlemen, after the fourth drink, it is Kishore Kumar all the way!
Brands in India have to be rooted in the prevailing popular culture. And India as we know, is much more than a crucible of different cultures simmering in one cauldron. It is in fact the compression of various multi-cultural historical interventions and influences through its long existence as a civilization. That is what gives us our pluralism, which besides including all communities, also blurs the seemingly sharp boundaries between ‘tradition’ and ‘modernity’.
So have a happy weekend. Shed the tie guys and let the winds of bhangra pop take over!
It’s the same with the human race. One human does something simply because another human being also does it or will do it. How else can one explain, the need to smoke a cigarette for example. Imagine the man who was the first to ever put a cigarette in his mouth! He must have rolled some tobacco in a paper and blown smoke in. And coughed after that. What for?
Decades later, we don’t even question the inane-ness in the very act of smoking. Our pre-occupation instead, is with it being ‘harmful’, not stupid! Now why is that? Not because the category makes sense, but because that brands inhabiting it have found acceptance, such that they are embedded deeply in our lives. So much so, that we think they define our personality. Such that they re-position even the way we once saw a category.
Yet marketing and advertising agency corridors are abuzz with the fashionable view that repositioning of anything is very difficult and long drawn! Actually like anything else, it is difficult only for those who don’t know. And easy for those who do.
Let’s come back to the cigarette example. There once used to be a ‘feminine’ cigarette, yes ‘feminine’. It was targeting women. It even had a lipstick mark tipped on the filter! And what did this brand change to? Marlboro, that’s right Marlboro of the Marlboro man fame. And today it is difficult to visualize a more macho brand! Incidentally the handsome cowboy model died of lung cancer in real life.
Likewise there is another example that comes to mind in the context of advertising and marketing belief stereotypes. Under this trendy notion, all brands of the past and present are assumed to be ‘traditional’ and so their desired goal, their evolution is taken to be ‘modern’. And this is where the trouble starts. (Of course, it is true that there are some brands - MNCs often show the tendency - that court vernacular with an equally illogical passion, that it appears, and is contrived).
Now take a deeper look at the urban Indian consumer and the popular culture that surrounds him or her. An Indian bahu smokes in office. An IT professional consults an astrologer. A fashion guru fasts on Tuesday. The vacuum cleaner pleads and pleads and tries hard to replace the Indian Ayah, but the Indian Ayah rules unabated. The same doesn’t hold true for the washing machine, a proud possession of the housewife; her gadgety vengeance against the husband!)
And now modern chocolates are gift wrapped for Diwali while the traditional ladoo watches in horror. The tabeez peeps out uncertainly from under a lycra ganjee. And on Saturday night, at their western best, young men with drooping trousers and young women with lifted spirits open their armpits to the wind and dance all night to Bhangra Pop.
Yet brands continue to be fond choosing either tradition or modernity, even though the Indian consumer has clearly chosen both.
Let’s look at one more example. An example of how it impacts service philosophy, in this case in the world of airlines. A young girl who wears salwar kameez on holidays, sculpts blood red western attire around herself while on duty; paints her eye brows and eyelids in a gleaming something; blushes her cheekbones high and looks like a mannequin carved under neon signs while proceeding to serve with tongs, aaloo paranthas in plastic-wrapped pickle, in an accent that is somewhere between American, Italian and Sri Lankan. Just roll the flight announcement on your tongue, in that familiar and distinctive accent that you last heard on flight: “Kursi ki pethhi baaaaand leejiye”.
Yet brands forever ponder about these two worlds of tradition and modernity, the euphemism for which is ‘Indian’ or ‘Western’.
Can there be watertight classifications of brands as modern or traditional? Or is it simply Indian? If it has to be authentic, it doesn’t have to fall into the ‘traditional’ archetype. It must speak the language of its particular and specific catchment. Why must service personnel of ‘big’ brands always speak in English to customers? Or speak Hindi in such an accent that it actually alienates a customer instead of getting him closer.
Why should the customer’s comfort not be the main criteria?
Now a professional working in a metro afterall has a ‘small town soul’. He almost invariably hails from somewhere else even if he is found of saying “basically I am from Delhi”. So we now live in metros, but have our origins elsewhere, from some small town or the other. So whenever the small town manifests itself in our metro paced lives, we respond to it with the same feeling as we do to an old favourite song.
Remember ladies and gentlemen, after the fourth drink, it is Kishore Kumar all the way!
Brands in India have to be rooted in the prevailing popular culture. And India as we know, is much more than a crucible of different cultures simmering in one cauldron. It is in fact the compression of various multi-cultural historical interventions and influences through its long existence as a civilization. That is what gives us our pluralism, which besides including all communities, also blurs the seemingly sharp boundaries between ‘tradition’ and ‘modernity’.
So have a happy weekend. Shed the tie guys and let the winds of bhangra pop take over!
'Modern' and "Classic' brands
A lingering question often is what is the difference between ‘modern’ brands and ‘classic’ brands. Well there are dimensions to these archetypes, but we will touch just one aspect this time.
Well, in a sense it is like the difference between air travel and train travel. At one level, both serve the same purpose of reaching a far away destination. Still they are different. In fact, very different.
When we travel by air, we actually formally dress up for the occasion. We reach the airport well before time and immediately on entering, the procedures rule and we have no control. Processes and systems effectively take us to the plane.We are part of a queue. Our baggage is whisked away. We know (almost!) that it is safe and it will reach. We are now on an assembly line of sorts with one person behind us and one in front. At the entrance the ID and ticket is checked. After this, it is one section or one counter after another in a defined fashion. Once inside the airplane, the seatbelt and lights take charge. Funnily we don't really talk to the person in the neighbouring seat.
This is a very western journey - very formal and precise. But then when we buy an airline ticket, this is what we sign up, because we like it. It is quick,efficient, systematic, fast, hassle free and also aspirational.The service is squeaky clean. It is silent and smiling. Few words are exchanged. Everything is automated. Even when we get into the plane, we barely talk to our neighbour on the adjoining seat. In effect, when we travel by air, we consume a western type of accessible luxury that efficiently gets us to our destination. It is transactional in flavour. Conversation is minimum.
Ditto with modern and transactional brands. From the time the customer touches them till the time he exists, everything is almost automated. It is a modern world with western efficiency. This is quick and efficient and to the point.
Contrast this with a comfortable air conditioned (AC) train travel. The same person traveling by train undergoes and in fact seeks a different experience.
Sometimes, speed is not so important. Or the journey we seek is not much less than the destination. There is no need for hurry and a train will do. Nobody bothers to dress up formally for a train journey. In fact, the kurta pajama seems just fine! What's more there are hardly any procedures here. One doesn't even enter a highly westernised environment. One does not dress up for the occasion. One talks a lot. There is no whispered service here. Conversations between strangers are common. It is clean but not squeaky clean. It is not silent. It is not just metal and glass. It is aesthetically Indian. It is talkative and free. Conversations are long. And loud. In a train, we are in small town India. It's a world we sometimes miss and sometimes seek. The western world is now nowhere in sight, in look, feel or behaviour. Nothing is automated. There is no conveyor belt or assembly line here. You can board a moving train and jump out of a moving one! This experience is very interactive. The journey occupies a large slice of the experience.
In these ‘classic’ brands, there are no transactions on offer. There is a pleasant journey to reaching the destination that the brand promises. It is high on conversation. It is high on relationships. Silence is out of place here. These brands have a 'small town soul'. They are almost avuncular. That’s why they are inviting.
Are you wondering why this email was long? Well, because no one talks to people who speak sparingly. People like talking to talkative people. People from small towns.
Well, in a sense it is like the difference between air travel and train travel. At one level, both serve the same purpose of reaching a far away destination. Still they are different. In fact, very different.
When we travel by air, we actually formally dress up for the occasion. We reach the airport well before time and immediately on entering, the procedures rule and we have no control. Processes and systems effectively take us to the plane.We are part of a queue. Our baggage is whisked away. We know (almost!) that it is safe and it will reach. We are now on an assembly line of sorts with one person behind us and one in front. At the entrance the ID and ticket is checked. After this, it is one section or one counter after another in a defined fashion. Once inside the airplane, the seatbelt and lights take charge. Funnily we don't really talk to the person in the neighbouring seat.
This is a very western journey - very formal and precise. But then when we buy an airline ticket, this is what we sign up, because we like it. It is quick,efficient, systematic, fast, hassle free and also aspirational.The service is squeaky clean. It is silent and smiling. Few words are exchanged. Everything is automated. Even when we get into the plane, we barely talk to our neighbour on the adjoining seat. In effect, when we travel by air, we consume a western type of accessible luxury that efficiently gets us to our destination. It is transactional in flavour. Conversation is minimum.
Ditto with modern and transactional brands. From the time the customer touches them till the time he exists, everything is almost automated. It is a modern world with western efficiency. This is quick and efficient and to the point.
Contrast this with a comfortable air conditioned (AC) train travel. The same person traveling by train undergoes and in fact seeks a different experience.
Sometimes, speed is not so important. Or the journey we seek is not much less than the destination. There is no need for hurry and a train will do. Nobody bothers to dress up formally for a train journey. In fact, the kurta pajama seems just fine! What's more there are hardly any procedures here. One doesn't even enter a highly westernised environment. One does not dress up for the occasion. One talks a lot. There is no whispered service here. Conversations between strangers are common. It is clean but not squeaky clean. It is not silent. It is not just metal and glass. It is aesthetically Indian. It is talkative and free. Conversations are long. And loud. In a train, we are in small town India. It's a world we sometimes miss and sometimes seek. The western world is now nowhere in sight, in look, feel or behaviour. Nothing is automated. There is no conveyor belt or assembly line here. You can board a moving train and jump out of a moving one! This experience is very interactive. The journey occupies a large slice of the experience.
In these ‘classic’ brands, there are no transactions on offer. There is a pleasant journey to reaching the destination that the brand promises. It is high on conversation. It is high on relationships. Silence is out of place here. These brands have a 'small town soul'. They are almost avuncular. That’s why they are inviting.
Are you wondering why this email was long? Well, because no one talks to people who speak sparingly. People like talking to talkative people. People from small towns.
"WHAT'S IN A NAME...
….that which you call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”.
Now that’s the trouble with proverbial generalizations.
Mohavra No. 62 is often cancelled by mohavra No. 45. Now ‘two heads are better than one’ is countered by ‘too many cooks spoil the broth’.
But on the subject of brand names, life goes deeper than proverbs.
Let’s reflect on names that inhabit our lives - names given to children upon birth; names of retail brands, even names of food items or dishes.
And on a rainy Tuesday evening, one is tempted to start in the reverse order!
‘Ah food!’ when we say and stretch languidly, images flash first, followed closely by their names. A ‘butter chicken’ sounds like a chicken with gravy. ‘Fish Fry’ leaves little doubt on what it’s about. Once ‘bhindi’ is understood and ‘sabzi’ has been accepted to mean ‘vegetable’ (which must have itself been coined one day!), ‘bhindi ki sabzi’ is easy to fathom.
But where did ‘khichdi’ come from? Or ‘sub’? In fact what is so ‘french’ about ‘french fries’? All mysteries if you really consider, but does that make them less understood. Why did McDonald's not bother writing the word ‘burger’ in its name? Why did subway create a whole new type of sandwich or hotdog, likening it to a ‘sub-marine’, when it doesn’t have to be eaten under water! Why did ‘Papa Johns’ spring up all over America as a chain of Pizza outlets, with the word ‘pizza’ subsumed in the tonality of the name.
Now this is where the answer lies. Sometimes names lower the cost of marketing and multiply the effectiveness by focusing on the tone and not the rationale.
Imagine how it would be if every child who took birth was called ‘Child’ and maybe given a number say ‘1’ or ‘2’ and so on, with records maintained by the government. Actually, rationally speaking it would even help obviate the need for a census, or voter id cards!
But then names have a way of rolling on the tongue, seemingly meaningless but loaded with meaning, suggesting origin, striking a chord with those in the same cultural ecosystem, finding a flavour.
There are afterall two key qualifiers of consumer insight. One that it appears easy and obvious in hindsight, but was difficult to arrive in foresight, given its edgy and disruptive nature! And two, its abhorrence and rejection of proximate analysis (superficial logic) and adoption and seeking of the ultimate analysis (getting under the skin, almost like a root cause analysis, but behavioural and societal in nature)
Now there are many ‘Ritus’, ‘Amits’ and ‘Sanjays’, but they tend to be names of children who were born in India in a certain period of time. And that time is up. Today, ‘Sanjay’ has been replaced by ‘Ishaan’ and a surprising number of ‘trendy’ infants have been christianed such but will grow up to realize that when the class teacher calls out names, she might mention the rare name of ‘Ishaan’ some 8 times out of 50.
Coming back to food, what does ‘khichdi’ mean? My grandparents asked me to have it when I was unwell. The argument that ‘rice and dal’ were eaten otherwise too, fell on deaf ears! Call it ‘khichdi’ and it turns therapeutic! Call it ‘rice and dal’, and it is suddenly meant for healthily burping individuals. But then popular culture changes all. Afterall the khichdi, despite grandmother’s limited imagination, was quite tasty. Which is why, now upon growing up, when it confidently sits bang in the centre of an appetizing gujarati thaali, it acquires a whole new meaning.
A decade ago, Eicher launched the ‘Eicher City Map’ and while the company was discussing the ‘naming’, a conservative marketing viewpoint arose saying let’s not call it ‘map’ because maps are the large unwieldy fold-outs and this is in book form like the London A to Z, which goes to the extent of even giving house numbers. Vikram Lal the chairman then, had a simple counterpoint. He said that once the ‘Eicher City Map’ is launched, the meaning of ‘map’ would change! He was right. There are now two types of maps in India and Eicher is one of them. Like the khichdi!
The son of ‘Awdesh Kumar Singh’ now drops the ‘kumar’ and modernizes the ‘Awdesh’ to ‘Sameer’ and the resulting ‘Sameer Singh’, returns stylishly to his roots with cricketing support by naming his son ‘Yuvraj Singh’, who sheds his moustache and dons grey blue contact lenses. Remember light eyes earlier suffered rejection as ‘kanji aankhen’.
Consider this: McDonald's, a complicated name resonates with children.
The moral of the story - interesting names work best. Now that’s easily understood in hindsight, isn’t it?
Have a great dinner. Eat khicdi but drop a dollop of butter in it and tell the dietician that butter comes from milk. And ‘milk’ means ‘health’.
Now that’s the trouble with proverbial generalizations.
Mohavra No. 62 is often cancelled by mohavra No. 45. Now ‘two heads are better than one’ is countered by ‘too many cooks spoil the broth’.
But on the subject of brand names, life goes deeper than proverbs.
Let’s reflect on names that inhabit our lives - names given to children upon birth; names of retail brands, even names of food items or dishes.
And on a rainy Tuesday evening, one is tempted to start in the reverse order!
‘Ah food!’ when we say and stretch languidly, images flash first, followed closely by their names. A ‘butter chicken’ sounds like a chicken with gravy. ‘Fish Fry’ leaves little doubt on what it’s about. Once ‘bhindi’ is understood and ‘sabzi’ has been accepted to mean ‘vegetable’ (which must have itself been coined one day!), ‘bhindi ki sabzi’ is easy to fathom.
But where did ‘khichdi’ come from? Or ‘sub’? In fact what is so ‘french’ about ‘french fries’? All mysteries if you really consider, but does that make them less understood. Why did McDonald's not bother writing the word ‘burger’ in its name? Why did subway create a whole new type of sandwich or hotdog, likening it to a ‘sub-marine’, when it doesn’t have to be eaten under water! Why did ‘Papa Johns’ spring up all over America as a chain of Pizza outlets, with the word ‘pizza’ subsumed in the tonality of the name.
Now this is where the answer lies. Sometimes names lower the cost of marketing and multiply the effectiveness by focusing on the tone and not the rationale.
Imagine how it would be if every child who took birth was called ‘Child’ and maybe given a number say ‘1’ or ‘2’ and so on, with records maintained by the government. Actually, rationally speaking it would even help obviate the need for a census, or voter id cards!
But then names have a way of rolling on the tongue, seemingly meaningless but loaded with meaning, suggesting origin, striking a chord with those in the same cultural ecosystem, finding a flavour.
There are afterall two key qualifiers of consumer insight. One that it appears easy and obvious in hindsight, but was difficult to arrive in foresight, given its edgy and disruptive nature! And two, its abhorrence and rejection of proximate analysis (superficial logic) and adoption and seeking of the ultimate analysis (getting under the skin, almost like a root cause analysis, but behavioural and societal in nature)
Now there are many ‘Ritus’, ‘Amits’ and ‘Sanjays’, but they tend to be names of children who were born in India in a certain period of time. And that time is up. Today, ‘Sanjay’ has been replaced by ‘Ishaan’ and a surprising number of ‘trendy’ infants have been christianed such but will grow up to realize that when the class teacher calls out names, she might mention the rare name of ‘Ishaan’ some 8 times out of 50.
Coming back to food, what does ‘khichdi’ mean? My grandparents asked me to have it when I was unwell. The argument that ‘rice and dal’ were eaten otherwise too, fell on deaf ears! Call it ‘khichdi’ and it turns therapeutic! Call it ‘rice and dal’, and it is suddenly meant for healthily burping individuals. But then popular culture changes all. Afterall the khichdi, despite grandmother’s limited imagination, was quite tasty. Which is why, now upon growing up, when it confidently sits bang in the centre of an appetizing gujarati thaali, it acquires a whole new meaning.
A decade ago, Eicher launched the ‘Eicher City Map’ and while the company was discussing the ‘naming’, a conservative marketing viewpoint arose saying let’s not call it ‘map’ because maps are the large unwieldy fold-outs and this is in book form like the London A to Z, which goes to the extent of even giving house numbers. Vikram Lal the chairman then, had a simple counterpoint. He said that once the ‘Eicher City Map’ is launched, the meaning of ‘map’ would change! He was right. There are now two types of maps in India and Eicher is one of them. Like the khichdi!
The son of ‘Awdesh Kumar Singh’ now drops the ‘kumar’ and modernizes the ‘Awdesh’ to ‘Sameer’ and the resulting ‘Sameer Singh’, returns stylishly to his roots with cricketing support by naming his son ‘Yuvraj Singh’, who sheds his moustache and dons grey blue contact lenses. Remember light eyes earlier suffered rejection as ‘kanji aankhen’.
Consider this: McDonald's, a complicated name resonates with children.
The moral of the story - interesting names work best. Now that’s easily understood in hindsight, isn’t it?
Have a great dinner. Eat khicdi but drop a dollop of butter in it and tell the dietician that butter comes from milk. And ‘milk’ means ‘health’.
THE SMALL TOWN SOUL AND TIMELESSNESS OF BRAND IDEAS
Often there is quite a song and dance about the impact of differentiated brand communication. Even though it is more than clear that a lot of advertising suffers from sameness in its laboured desire to look different.
A close observation will reveal that the appearance of advertising is like the appearance of people really. All young men studying in colleges in the metro cities tend to go to beauty parlours, which for them are called by male names. The word ‘unisex’ had to be invented to rationalise this societal code and to place all men and women within the same rental of real estate. And out they come, (the men) with ‘different’ hairstyles called ‘hairdos’ (a new name had to be invented for this). But closer scrutiny reveals that each of them emerges from the same saloon and parlour looking much the same! But that’s not true of old timers who look different than the youngsters. But then they look like each other.
Advertising is no different. A bunch of ads look quite the same, though different from another bunch of ads, which among themselves look the same! And like changing hairstyles they change with time. Who says advertising is immune to fashion? But then, when set within the same period they look the same, in their demanding desire to look delightfully different.
If a creative director of an advertising agency has a set of beliefs set in a time context, loosely referred to as ‘fashion’, then so does the client. So when thoughts are vastly different, the client prevails. But when the beliefs are common, they agree on an advertising idea, which suffers from the similarity, since another client and his / her agency must have agreed on the same one. We tend to agree on the safe ones that ride today’s trend.
Now that sounds confusing. Simply because it is!
So let’s easen the load on our mind with the help of examples:
In today’s day and age, we find the television replete with a full bunch of ads purporting enlightened differentiation, while being set in the same setting of a hospital ward for example, with a father nearly screaming “It’s a girl!” I haven’t seen a father do that though. We may want him to but he doesn’t, at least not in the manner of Columbus discovering America.
Now that ubiquitous cute dog has become such an acceptable idea, that it is almost spawned of as a full creative route. Notice how you may well have a neighbour who tearfully adopts what was earlier called a ‘street dog’ or ‘pariah’ with much fanfare, and feed it on the road with no responsibility for it vaccination or any concern for its training. So the dog now feeds ads and ads feed dogs, while people develop new phraseology to exclaim every other day about every other dog - “Choooo Chweeet!” Not that there is a problem in being a dog lover, but it’s the recency of the fashion that is noteworthy.
Now it is a formula - when in doubt, put a dog in the film. If not, then show a child. To pep up matters further show a child with a dog. Still not happy, tell the agency to play some music and show some fading romanticism. The brief here is simple - “Give us something different”. The result is the same!
Print advertising suffers the same malady.
Why must all Swiss watch ads show only the watch or a celebrity and nothing else?
Why must all airline ads show a plane in flight, when the experience of the flight is actually inside and when the plane looks the same from outside?
And when set inside, why must they only show food? Especially since their food is almost always stale (another reason why we prefer the liquor!)
But then there are brands that try to root themselves in a thought that germinates from a need to seek timeless appeal - like the Absolut Vodka ads where the space is filled by only the bottle in a world of liquor where every other brand tries hard to show a celebration or premiumness.
Sure McDonalds shows children, but from the viewpoint of a child and not from the viewpoint of an adult or adult’s notion of cute children and / or childhood.
Take the Jaguar advertising which actually goes so far as to feed the product and vice versa. How else would one explain, how every boy lusts for a Jaguar as it passes by, and not for any other car. As for its advertising, it plays to the boy in every man.
Remember how when we go to a mall and watch someone whacking the ball into the cricket nets, a private smile ceases the moment and makes us inform whosoever is near us - ‘I used be quite good at this’ or some such thing. Whatever the man may be today, there is timeless appeal in his boyhood.
Lets look within ourselves now. And we will discover when we shed our metro make-up that suddenly we are not in a hurry. That we love to talk, the moment we reach home after a long day in a ‘metro’ office. Now let’s trace it back further. Why do we love to talk? Or better still who loves to talk? Well, the person who lives in a small town. Conversations without an agenda, not driven by the motivation to profit at the end of it are some elements of the small town conversation. Its the small things that one talks about. It has an element of banter; it is a version of aimlessness. It is accompanied by a smile. It is needlessly long. It evokes and delivers open laughter, that is not of the practiced kind. Nothing is rehearsed. It is real and authentic, not metallic, hurried or synthetic. Its like cotton, not terricot; wood, not glass; matte, not gloss; soap, not perfume.
It's not like a male beauty parlour called by another name. It is timeless, because it is set outside the influence of fashion. It resonates with our origins, not our projected selves, but our real selves. After all, wherever we may now be and wherever we may choose to head, we all hail from some small town or the other. So even through our mascara eyes, or through our Versace ‘shades’, when we see a sight that reminds us of home, we trust it because it comes from home.
That’s because, between origin and destination, while it is fashionable for advertising to choose the latter, but that need not be the case.
So anyone for haircut and champi over the weekend?
A close observation will reveal that the appearance of advertising is like the appearance of people really. All young men studying in colleges in the metro cities tend to go to beauty parlours, which for them are called by male names. The word ‘unisex’ had to be invented to rationalise this societal code and to place all men and women within the same rental of real estate. And out they come, (the men) with ‘different’ hairstyles called ‘hairdos’ (a new name had to be invented for this). But closer scrutiny reveals that each of them emerges from the same saloon and parlour looking much the same! But that’s not true of old timers who look different than the youngsters. But then they look like each other.
Advertising is no different. A bunch of ads look quite the same, though different from another bunch of ads, which among themselves look the same! And like changing hairstyles they change with time. Who says advertising is immune to fashion? But then, when set within the same period they look the same, in their demanding desire to look delightfully different.
If a creative director of an advertising agency has a set of beliefs set in a time context, loosely referred to as ‘fashion’, then so does the client. So when thoughts are vastly different, the client prevails. But when the beliefs are common, they agree on an advertising idea, which suffers from the similarity, since another client and his / her agency must have agreed on the same one. We tend to agree on the safe ones that ride today’s trend.
Now that sounds confusing. Simply because it is!
So let’s easen the load on our mind with the help of examples:
In today’s day and age, we find the television replete with a full bunch of ads purporting enlightened differentiation, while being set in the same setting of a hospital ward for example, with a father nearly screaming “It’s a girl!” I haven’t seen a father do that though. We may want him to but he doesn’t, at least not in the manner of Columbus discovering America.
Now that ubiquitous cute dog has become such an acceptable idea, that it is almost spawned of as a full creative route. Notice how you may well have a neighbour who tearfully adopts what was earlier called a ‘street dog’ or ‘pariah’ with much fanfare, and feed it on the road with no responsibility for it vaccination or any concern for its training. So the dog now feeds ads and ads feed dogs, while people develop new phraseology to exclaim every other day about every other dog - “Choooo Chweeet!” Not that there is a problem in being a dog lover, but it’s the recency of the fashion that is noteworthy.
Now it is a formula - when in doubt, put a dog in the film. If not, then show a child. To pep up matters further show a child with a dog. Still not happy, tell the agency to play some music and show some fading romanticism. The brief here is simple - “Give us something different”. The result is the same!
Print advertising suffers the same malady.
Why must all Swiss watch ads show only the watch or a celebrity and nothing else?
Why must all airline ads show a plane in flight, when the experience of the flight is actually inside and when the plane looks the same from outside?
And when set inside, why must they only show food? Especially since their food is almost always stale (another reason why we prefer the liquor!)
But then there are brands that try to root themselves in a thought that germinates from a need to seek timeless appeal - like the Absolut Vodka ads where the space is filled by only the bottle in a world of liquor where every other brand tries hard to show a celebration or premiumness.
Sure McDonalds shows children, but from the viewpoint of a child and not from the viewpoint of an adult or adult’s notion of cute children and / or childhood.
Take the Jaguar advertising which actually goes so far as to feed the product and vice versa. How else would one explain, how every boy lusts for a Jaguar as it passes by, and not for any other car. As for its advertising, it plays to the boy in every man.
Remember how when we go to a mall and watch someone whacking the ball into the cricket nets, a private smile ceases the moment and makes us inform whosoever is near us - ‘I used be quite good at this’ or some such thing. Whatever the man may be today, there is timeless appeal in his boyhood.
Lets look within ourselves now. And we will discover when we shed our metro make-up that suddenly we are not in a hurry. That we love to talk, the moment we reach home after a long day in a ‘metro’ office. Now let’s trace it back further. Why do we love to talk? Or better still who loves to talk? Well, the person who lives in a small town. Conversations without an agenda, not driven by the motivation to profit at the end of it are some elements of the small town conversation. Its the small things that one talks about. It has an element of banter; it is a version of aimlessness. It is accompanied by a smile. It is needlessly long. It evokes and delivers open laughter, that is not of the practiced kind. Nothing is rehearsed. It is real and authentic, not metallic, hurried or synthetic. Its like cotton, not terricot; wood, not glass; matte, not gloss; soap, not perfume.
It's not like a male beauty parlour called by another name. It is timeless, because it is set outside the influence of fashion. It resonates with our origins, not our projected selves, but our real selves. After all, wherever we may now be and wherever we may choose to head, we all hail from some small town or the other. So even through our mascara eyes, or through our Versace ‘shades’, when we see a sight that reminds us of home, we trust it because it comes from home.
That’s because, between origin and destination, while it is fashionable for advertising to choose the latter, but that need not be the case.
So anyone for haircut and champi over the weekend?
Monday, July 6, 2009
THE POWER OF MYTHS
Just think about it. What are the three great sources of authenticity? Well we are talking in the Indian context here.
By authenticity we mean, the credible faith builders. The first of course is Science. If something as rational as Science says so, then it must be true. The second is History. That which actually happened, cannot be false. The third one is the most fascinating. It is the Grandmother's Story, which is handed down generations to hapless grandchildren as mythological tales. By their very definition, they are myths and so therefore not true. But their massification lends them credibility. Every religion is handed down as mythological tales by grandmother. And every religion is populated with fables and has enigmatic storytelling at the heart of its longevity.
Brands too are myths that layer reality. What would be the Beetle worth, in the absence of the myth of being an 'ugly bug'. But that is still a remote argument. Much closer, one would do well to wonder why gold is more valuable than silver, when logically, silver may even be better looking. Or for that matter why should a 'fake' diamond command a lower price than a real one, when to the common eye, they both appear as attractive. Why should the Jaguar be a young boy's dream car any more than a Bentley?
Now this begs the question - why are myths so powerful that they even make 'ugly' seem appealing. Well that's because they come from not just human experience, but deep felt human experience. In other words, fiction is a better way of telling one's own real story, because autobiographies are incredible self-indulgences. That is why the tone of an ad is better than its facts.
No wonder then that Salim Sinai in Salman Rushdie's Midnights Children was actually Salman himself. The young boy in 'Boyhood' by JM Coetzee was Coetzee himself. And in "God of Small Things", young Rahel is Arundhati Roy herself. The book is actually her own sad story. It is her deep felt sadness that comes through and that is the power of the book. Now when Prasoon Pandey who hails from Almora, creates ads with Hindi as the language and the character is set in small town India, it works. Otherwise it doesn't.
Now let's see storytelling from one more angle.
An ugly man becomes a matinee idol, because people see themselves in him and the massification of his appeal comes from multiplication and not simple addition. We human beings love to do this - we only multiply, we never add. When we praise someone, we overdo it and when we criticize, we actually condemn. There is bit of maths in this. What do you get when you multiply 0.1 and 0.1. Well you get 0.01, which is lower than 0.1!
A brand with a bad 'myth' (read story) gets killed as rapidly as the meteoric rise of a brand with a good myth.
In 1984, after Mrs Gandhi's death, Rajiv Gandhi was compared to the ablest administrators in world history. One year later, people relied more on Laxman's cartoons to understand him, than from the headlines.
On the subject of brands: what makes a man stare more at a bottle of Jack Daniels than a bottle of Smirnoff. It's the myth.
Another thing about myths - they are excessive in character. One doesn't ever know the full story. There are some dotted lines always. Plus while everyone knows about them, no one knows it all. Ask someone if Versace is a big brand and the answer will be affirmative. Now ask him why, and he will run for cover.
Do you remember all of Mahabharatha and Ramayana? Next question - does that make you less devout.
Now that brings us to the point where we are compelled to understand the myth in the context of brand creation. What makes a myth a more powerful story besides the natural appeal of fiction. One is that is many-layered, like good value proposition. And then the structure of the story. It must have a five stage structure, as any Creative Writing program would have us believe. The first stage is when a problem is introduced; the second when a conflict is created; the third when the conflict climaxes, the fourth when it is resolved and the fifth, the moral of the story.
So what is the moral of this complicated story?
One, that for something to be believed, it doesn't have to be believable. In other words, advertising stories do not always have to stem from rational appeal. Two, create fuller value propositions. Three, be true to a single perspective. Four, have sharp characterisation viz sharply defined target audiences. Five, immerse it all in a setting replete with rituals. Now rituals, well they are vital for brand building, but on that later. Mythology can't be written in just a single day! So see you again.
By authenticity we mean, the credible faith builders. The first of course is Science. If something as rational as Science says so, then it must be true. The second is History. That which actually happened, cannot be false. The third one is the most fascinating. It is the Grandmother's Story, which is handed down generations to hapless grandchildren as mythological tales. By their very definition, they are myths and so therefore not true. But their massification lends them credibility. Every religion is handed down as mythological tales by grandmother. And every religion is populated with fables and has enigmatic storytelling at the heart of its longevity.
Brands too are myths that layer reality. What would be the Beetle worth, in the absence of the myth of being an 'ugly bug'. But that is still a remote argument. Much closer, one would do well to wonder why gold is more valuable than silver, when logically, silver may even be better looking. Or for that matter why should a 'fake' diamond command a lower price than a real one, when to the common eye, they both appear as attractive. Why should the Jaguar be a young boy's dream car any more than a Bentley?
Now this begs the question - why are myths so powerful that they even make 'ugly' seem appealing. Well that's because they come from not just human experience, but deep felt human experience. In other words, fiction is a better way of telling one's own real story, because autobiographies are incredible self-indulgences. That is why the tone of an ad is better than its facts.
No wonder then that Salim Sinai in Salman Rushdie's Midnights Children was actually Salman himself. The young boy in 'Boyhood' by JM Coetzee was Coetzee himself. And in "God of Small Things", young Rahel is Arundhati Roy herself. The book is actually her own sad story. It is her deep felt sadness that comes through and that is the power of the book. Now when Prasoon Pandey who hails from Almora, creates ads with Hindi as the language and the character is set in small town India, it works. Otherwise it doesn't.
Now let's see storytelling from one more angle.
An ugly man becomes a matinee idol, because people see themselves in him and the massification of his appeal comes from multiplication and not simple addition. We human beings love to do this - we only multiply, we never add. When we praise someone, we overdo it and when we criticize, we actually condemn. There is bit of maths in this. What do you get when you multiply 0.1 and 0.1. Well you get 0.01, which is lower than 0.1!
A brand with a bad 'myth' (read story) gets killed as rapidly as the meteoric rise of a brand with a good myth.
In 1984, after Mrs Gandhi's death, Rajiv Gandhi was compared to the ablest administrators in world history. One year later, people relied more on Laxman's cartoons to understand him, than from the headlines.
On the subject of brands: what makes a man stare more at a bottle of Jack Daniels than a bottle of Smirnoff. It's the myth.
Another thing about myths - they are excessive in character. One doesn't ever know the full story. There are some dotted lines always. Plus while everyone knows about them, no one knows it all. Ask someone if Versace is a big brand and the answer will be affirmative. Now ask him why, and he will run for cover.
Do you remember all of Mahabharatha and Ramayana? Next question - does that make you less devout.
Now that brings us to the point where we are compelled to understand the myth in the context of brand creation. What makes a myth a more powerful story besides the natural appeal of fiction. One is that is many-layered, like good value proposition. And then the structure of the story. It must have a five stage structure, as any Creative Writing program would have us believe. The first stage is when a problem is introduced; the second when a conflict is created; the third when the conflict climaxes, the fourth when it is resolved and the fifth, the moral of the story.
So what is the moral of this complicated story?
One, that for something to be believed, it doesn't have to be believable. In other words, advertising stories do not always have to stem from rational appeal. Two, create fuller value propositions. Three, be true to a single perspective. Four, have sharp characterisation viz sharply defined target audiences. Five, immerse it all in a setting replete with rituals. Now rituals, well they are vital for brand building, but on that later. Mythology can't be written in just a single day! So see you again.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
The vexed issue of Pricing
"If we want to sell more, we must be cheaper in price"
Now this must rank among the topmost marketing myths!
It suffers from the typical inside-out syndrome. Strangely people are almost mathematical because they buy a ratio - a formula with a numerator and a denominator. The numerator is 'Perceived Value" and the denominator is "Cost".
Why 'cost'? Why not 'price'? Well because, to the consumer it is a cost and to us it is a 'price'.
And why "perceived' value? Why not simply, 'value'? Well because people only buy perceptions, not reality.
If Dove is a good soap because it is creamy (has cream?), then why not take a bath with cream! why buy dove in the first place!
If Liril has the fragrance of lime (has lime?) and lime is fresh, then why not take a bath with lime! So why buy Liril in the first place!
Well when people bought Liril, they bought the feeling of fresh and escapist abandon, that came into being with the girl under the waterfall. (they may not realise it or confess so)
And when people bought Dove, they bought the creamy and natural skin of the model who testified to using it. They didn't buy fair skin; they bought 'creamy skin. (by the way, the model is plump!)
But people 'think' that they buy for incredibly rational reasons.
And when people bought Nirma powder, Surf was forced to counter it by increasing the 'perceived' value, this time through a form of rational appeal. Is there evidence to prove that Lalitaji is rational? Wrong question - for Lalitaji is in fact a myth, not reality. The better question is: kya surf ki kharidaari mein wakayi samajdhari hai? But no one really knows the answer to this one. And yet they buy.
Consider this: it is a reality in the marketing world that the market leader is ALWAYS more expensive.
It is also human nature to claim to be rational while simply desiring something. Have you ever heard someone say in a meeting "I don't have a strong opinion on this"? It proves that we will never confess that we bought something without much rationale. But that's how we actually buy.
Now just reflect on this: It's funny how men who are forever intoxicated by cars and discuss them in such great detail, forget entirely about the engine, the power weight ratio and the torque. It's strange how after very carefully buying a car (because it offers driving pleasure), they gift it to their chauffeur to drive!
And most of all, it is almost universal that men negotiate the hell out of a car dealer while their spouses patiently watch the display of negotiation skills and two months later (the men) do not remember the exact on-road price of the car!
Ask yourself, do you remember the exact on road price of your car? By the way, the car is perhaps the most expensive consumer durable at home! When you buy a car, you buy the brand. The product comes free.
Now think about this: Starbucks coffee is priced (sorry...'costs') many times the price of Nescafe even though you have to spend on petrol to get to their outlet! What is the main differentiation? No, it is not the product, no matter what they say. The main differentiation is in the Method- of- Sale. The former is consumed at home; the latter out of home. The latter gets a far greater opportunity to provide a brand experience. Hence it is high on experience and therefore on perceived value and therefore on price.
And now consider this: In a superstore, we buy packets and bottles of stuff even though the price is unreadable, submerged as it is, in the barcode. Yet, we claim to go there because they are running a good deal.
Or the same liquor in a five star hotel and we pay more. But this is a full subject on 'Brand Ambiance'. On this, later!
Now this must rank among the topmost marketing myths!
It suffers from the typical inside-out syndrome. Strangely people are almost mathematical because they buy a ratio - a formula with a numerator and a denominator. The numerator is 'Perceived Value" and the denominator is "Cost".
Why 'cost'? Why not 'price'? Well because, to the consumer it is a cost and to us it is a 'price'.
And why "perceived' value? Why not simply, 'value'? Well because people only buy perceptions, not reality.
If Dove is a good soap because it is creamy (has cream?), then why not take a bath with cream! why buy dove in the first place!
If Liril has the fragrance of lime (has lime?) and lime is fresh, then why not take a bath with lime! So why buy Liril in the first place!
Well when people bought Liril, they bought the feeling of fresh and escapist abandon, that came into being with the girl under the waterfall. (they may not realise it or confess so)
And when people bought Dove, they bought the creamy and natural skin of the model who testified to using it. They didn't buy fair skin; they bought 'creamy skin. (by the way, the model is plump!)
But people 'think' that they buy for incredibly rational reasons.
And when people bought Nirma powder, Surf was forced to counter it by increasing the 'perceived' value, this time through a form of rational appeal. Is there evidence to prove that Lalitaji is rational? Wrong question - for Lalitaji is in fact a myth, not reality. The better question is: kya surf ki kharidaari mein wakayi samajdhari hai? But no one really knows the answer to this one. And yet they buy.
Consider this: it is a reality in the marketing world that the market leader is ALWAYS more expensive.
It is also human nature to claim to be rational while simply desiring something. Have you ever heard someone say in a meeting "I don't have a strong opinion on this"? It proves that we will never confess that we bought something without much rationale. But that's how we actually buy.
Now just reflect on this: It's funny how men who are forever intoxicated by cars and discuss them in such great detail, forget entirely about the engine, the power weight ratio and the torque. It's strange how after very carefully buying a car (because it offers driving pleasure), they gift it to their chauffeur to drive!
And most of all, it is almost universal that men negotiate the hell out of a car dealer while their spouses patiently watch the display of negotiation skills and two months later (the men) do not remember the exact on-road price of the car!
Ask yourself, do you remember the exact on road price of your car? By the way, the car is perhaps the most expensive consumer durable at home! When you buy a car, you buy the brand. The product comes free.
Now think about this: Starbucks coffee is priced (sorry...'costs') many times the price of Nescafe even though you have to spend on petrol to get to their outlet! What is the main differentiation? No, it is not the product, no matter what they say. The main differentiation is in the Method- of- Sale. The former is consumed at home; the latter out of home. The latter gets a far greater opportunity to provide a brand experience. Hence it is high on experience and therefore on perceived value and therefore on price.
And now consider this: In a superstore, we buy packets and bottles of stuff even though the price is unreadable, submerged as it is, in the barcode. Yet, we claim to go there because they are running a good deal.
Or the same liquor in a five star hotel and we pay more. But this is a full subject on 'Brand Ambiance'. On this, later!
The 'Death Zone' of Branding
Can anything that has a brand name become a brand? Now that's an interesting question, but the thought this question consequently evokes is - Is there a limit to branding? Even though a marketer would be loath to admit it?
Take a mountaineering analogy. On the classic South Face route of Mount Everest, by which it was first climbed in 1953, expeditions establish many camps as they move higher- Base Camp, Camp 1, Camp 2, Camp 3. They then arrive at Camp 4, a small wedge in mountain called South Col. It is 8500 metres high. At this altitude, life changes drastically. Suddenly. The human body starts wasting, feeding on itself. Some 15 kgs of weight is lost; three layers of skin has peeled; there is a continuos hacking cough. The mountaineer is reduced to a pair of lungs flapping in the winds. The winds are screaming at over 140 miles an hour. The temperature less than - minus 30. The wind chill - another minus 20. Zero sleep. Zero appetite. And the waiting is indefinite.
South Col is called "The Death Zone". Climbers don't stay here beyond a few hours. As for sherpas, they don't stay here at all. They say it is haunted. The Yeti legend is active here. And if the summit window (when winds die down) does not open, one descends - either to try again, or to abandon the climb.
The human being is simply not designed for this altitude. (The summit to death ratio of Mount Everest continues to remain 1:4 since 1953, despite all advances in equipment and training. Incidentally the worst year was as recent as 1996)
Some commodities and categories fall in the Death Zone of Branding - for a variety of reasons. They are not inherently designed to become brands. They just try. The odd exception of course could be there (1919 was when man attempted Everest first but it was scaled in 1953)
One category characteristic which makes branding a verticle climb in rarefied altitude, is when the product category itself suffers from very low consumer involvement.
Some examples:
1. Ship Carborised matches from WIMCO struggled to fight the matches that came from middle / tiny sector viz Shivakasi products. They had three fundamental business problems. One, their cost structures were 'organised' and their competition enjoyed an excise free life; two - the consumer didn't really care about matches in general - it was a very low involvement product category; three - because they were an 'organised' organisation, they thought that Ship was a brand. The trouble was that it was not. Remember, the consumer decides this!
2. For years, Gillette struggled to fight the house of Malhotra double edged blades with their twin-blade product. But it was a losing battle for long. Gillette felt that shaving blades were very important in the consumer's life. The consumer didn't really share the sentiment! So they talked product! They showed in their ads, how the second blade shaves off the full hair, which the first one could not. And now they have three blades! And even five (Clearly, the first ad was wrong!). So the consumer now wonders, when will they have ten blades! True, they have some market, but because they have no competitor in the same category. Actually they are 'category', not 'brand'. (Don't forward this mail to Gillette!)
3. Xerox once released a huge ad campaign saying that "Xerox is a multiple dollar corporation and is not available for 30 paise". There were a few problems with this. One, the consumer didn't understand why they felt the need to say so! Two, it didn't solve their problem of having become so equal to the category, that when the consumer purchased any other brand also, he called it Xerox. The brand had become so generic, that it was no longer helping to drive preference in sales.
So what is the moral of the story? 1. You have to understand South Col - The Death Zone before you can cross it 2. You need a DIFFERENT strategy to cross it. It is another game alltogether. 3. A lot of self-talk pretends to be positioning, but is actually counterproductive.
Consider this: (a) for two decades television marketers advertised on TV claiming 'better picture clarity'. So here you were, watching a Toshiba TV ad on your Sony TV, which showed you how a Toshiba TV had better picture clarity (than a Sony), as you can see 'clearly' on your Sony TV! Now how funny is that.
(b) there were some Airtel hoardings, which showed the network strength symbol which we have on our phones saying "AirTel - the full strength network". And here you were at a crossing where this hoarding was showing the signal as full. So it forced you to look into your phone, where you found the signal to be half! (Please forward this mail to Airtel, if you are an Airtel customer)
4. And you have to be really very solid to scale the death zone of branding - else it's worth remembering, that there always was another lesser mountain to climb anyway. If you can define a category, choose the right one. Unless you are a suicidal daredevil.
But even in adventure sports, it is said, safety first, adventure later. Ever saw a dead body climb a mountain? Now that's true for marketing too.
Take a mountaineering analogy. On the classic South Face route of Mount Everest, by which it was first climbed in 1953, expeditions establish many camps as they move higher- Base Camp, Camp 1, Camp 2, Camp 3. They then arrive at Camp 4, a small wedge in mountain called South Col. It is 8500 metres high. At this altitude, life changes drastically. Suddenly. The human body starts wasting, feeding on itself. Some 15 kgs of weight is lost; three layers of skin has peeled; there is a continuos hacking cough. The mountaineer is reduced to a pair of lungs flapping in the winds. The winds are screaming at over 140 miles an hour. The temperature less than - minus 30. The wind chill - another minus 20. Zero sleep. Zero appetite. And the waiting is indefinite.
South Col is called "The Death Zone". Climbers don't stay here beyond a few hours. As for sherpas, they don't stay here at all. They say it is haunted. The Yeti legend is active here. And if the summit window (when winds die down) does not open, one descends - either to try again, or to abandon the climb.
The human being is simply not designed for this altitude. (The summit to death ratio of Mount Everest continues to remain 1:4 since 1953, despite all advances in equipment and training. Incidentally the worst year was as recent as 1996)
Some commodities and categories fall in the Death Zone of Branding - for a variety of reasons. They are not inherently designed to become brands. They just try. The odd exception of course could be there (1919 was when man attempted Everest first but it was scaled in 1953)
One category characteristic which makes branding a verticle climb in rarefied altitude, is when the product category itself suffers from very low consumer involvement.
Some examples:
1. Ship Carborised matches from WIMCO struggled to fight the matches that came from middle / tiny sector viz Shivakasi products. They had three fundamental business problems. One, their cost structures were 'organised' and their competition enjoyed an excise free life; two - the consumer didn't really care about matches in general - it was a very low involvement product category; three - because they were an 'organised' organisation, they thought that Ship was a brand. The trouble was that it was not. Remember, the consumer decides this!
2. For years, Gillette struggled to fight the house of Malhotra double edged blades with their twin-blade product. But it was a losing battle for long. Gillette felt that shaving blades were very important in the consumer's life. The consumer didn't really share the sentiment! So they talked product! They showed in their ads, how the second blade shaves off the full hair, which the first one could not. And now they have three blades! And even five (Clearly, the first ad was wrong!). So the consumer now wonders, when will they have ten blades! True, they have some market, but because they have no competitor in the same category. Actually they are 'category', not 'brand'. (Don't forward this mail to Gillette!)
3. Xerox once released a huge ad campaign saying that "Xerox is a multiple dollar corporation and is not available for 30 paise". There were a few problems with this. One, the consumer didn't understand why they felt the need to say so! Two, it didn't solve their problem of having become so equal to the category, that when the consumer purchased any other brand also, he called it Xerox. The brand had become so generic, that it was no longer helping to drive preference in sales.
So what is the moral of the story? 1. You have to understand South Col - The Death Zone before you can cross it 2. You need a DIFFERENT strategy to cross it. It is another game alltogether. 3. A lot of self-talk pretends to be positioning, but is actually counterproductive.
Consider this: (a) for two decades television marketers advertised on TV claiming 'better picture clarity'. So here you were, watching a Toshiba TV ad on your Sony TV, which showed you how a Toshiba TV had better picture clarity (than a Sony), as you can see 'clearly' on your Sony TV! Now how funny is that.
(b) there were some Airtel hoardings, which showed the network strength symbol which we have on our phones saying "AirTel - the full strength network". And here you were at a crossing where this hoarding was showing the signal as full. So it forced you to look into your phone, where you found the signal to be half! (Please forward this mail to Airtel, if you are an Airtel customer)
4. And you have to be really very solid to scale the death zone of branding - else it's worth remembering, that there always was another lesser mountain to climb anyway. If you can define a category, choose the right one. Unless you are a suicidal daredevil.
But even in adventure sports, it is said, safety first, adventure later. Ever saw a dead body climb a mountain? Now that's true for marketing too.
"SURPRISE RESULTS"
Fresh from the general elections, it should be easy to understand what the topic this time means. Actually, haven’t we got used to the media expressing utter surprise when election results are announced. This is how the story pans out: In the run up to elections, their biases are in full flow; they take sides and exhibit allegiance to particular party or persons; they then do their ‘exposes’ and blow up incidents, to make sensational news. Now when the voting starts, they surround themselves with a section of the population of the country, each member of which, clearly appears to never stood in a queue on a hot Indian summer day in his / her life (so it seems highly unlikely they voted at all!), commenting on the possible outcomes, eulogizing heroes and condemning villains-the contesting candidates of the election in question. Now add to that a ‘psephologist’ (the latest ‘ologist’ to be added to the media motley), and you have a pot boiler in the media studio. Now go one step further-connect to a quixotically angry socialite talking in Oxford English about some ‘public indignation’; add a couple of film stars venturing daringly into the elections; pepper it with a few retired journalists and bureaucrats and you have enough dramatics personae to put Shakespeare to shame. Now thank god for commercial breaks, but no thanks!. For now you see a high-tax-paying film star display the electoral ink on his finger and with this ultimate act, our throbbing democracy, stakes claim to a long life expectancy.
And then finally when the results are declared, the media expresses utter surprise, cleverly pretending that the voter too is surprised, forgetting that while they were talking, the voter was voting! So the voter who voted is surprised that they are surprised. But what is most surprising is that this paradox escapes their attention in every subsequent election as well!
Now this is exactly what happens in the marketing world as well. That we wish to sell a product, is not a good enough reason for the consumer to buy! Now the consumer’s choice can surprise a manufacturer as much as the press was surprised recently. And the subsequent analysis too can be as bad as well.
That is why product concepts more often than not, produce surprising results. So brands either succeed or fail, but stoutly refuse to follow the 45 degree slope in the excel sheet of the business plan.
The reasons are also the same. The simple truth is that it is not enough to know about the voice of the customer, but it is important to know it first hand. The other truth is that the right question must be asked at the time of research or testing for the answer to be meaningful. And for this to happen, two ingredients are crucial - one, an objective mind that is free of agenda and bias; and two an understanding of not the elements being received in communication, but the composite appeal of the un-segregated story that is seen or heard by the recipient of the message. Now what does this mean?
Because when people vote, they vote out of sentiment, not out of the arithmetic. When people choose, they choose what they prefer. And their preferences are driven by need and hope. These needs are intangible more times than not. My sense is that people are hoping that Kali Yug ends and whichever party (read people in leadership) can help doing so, is who they prefer. They did not for sure, sit and do factor analysis deploying statistical tools to figure out which party has ‘performed’ better than the other. Just as voters vote with little knowledge, so do consumers.
Star Bucks was a ‘surprise result’ and it was a change. So was McDonalds. But it was not a surprise result to Starbucks themselves, or to their consumers who bought the coffee. It was a surprise to the others. At the heart of the conception of Starbucks, was a simple thought of getting the Italian coffee drinking experience to America.
At the heart of the many retail stores lies some simple thought or the other, of altering behaviour of the human race, sometimes inadvertently. Communist conversations in coffee homes; dating at Café Coffee Day (“A lot can happen over a cup of coffee”. Surely!). Who says Barista in a mall is about coffee and snacks. It is actually a break when shopping in a large mall gets tiring. It is a fuelling station for tired shoppers. But the role the brand purports to play is not achieved in a day. Remember, Starbucks took over two years. Two years of sensing the customer first hand. But as they say - ‘well begun is half done”
But we must always have a deep sensing of our customers and their needs, a rich understanding of our catchment. Do you know, all Starbucks baristas are on first name terms with their customers?
So have a good time watching TV over the weekend! Now when the press gets surprised, please be surprised, but at them!
And then finally when the results are declared, the media expresses utter surprise, cleverly pretending that the voter too is surprised, forgetting that while they were talking, the voter was voting! So the voter who voted is surprised that they are surprised. But what is most surprising is that this paradox escapes their attention in every subsequent election as well!
Now this is exactly what happens in the marketing world as well. That we wish to sell a product, is not a good enough reason for the consumer to buy! Now the consumer’s choice can surprise a manufacturer as much as the press was surprised recently. And the subsequent analysis too can be as bad as well.
That is why product concepts more often than not, produce surprising results. So brands either succeed or fail, but stoutly refuse to follow the 45 degree slope in the excel sheet of the business plan.
The reasons are also the same. The simple truth is that it is not enough to know about the voice of the customer, but it is important to know it first hand. The other truth is that the right question must be asked at the time of research or testing for the answer to be meaningful. And for this to happen, two ingredients are crucial - one, an objective mind that is free of agenda and bias; and two an understanding of not the elements being received in communication, but the composite appeal of the un-segregated story that is seen or heard by the recipient of the message. Now what does this mean?
Because when people vote, they vote out of sentiment, not out of the arithmetic. When people choose, they choose what they prefer. And their preferences are driven by need and hope. These needs are intangible more times than not. My sense is that people are hoping that Kali Yug ends and whichever party (read people in leadership) can help doing so, is who they prefer. They did not for sure, sit and do factor analysis deploying statistical tools to figure out which party has ‘performed’ better than the other. Just as voters vote with little knowledge, so do consumers.
Star Bucks was a ‘surprise result’ and it was a change. So was McDonalds. But it was not a surprise result to Starbucks themselves, or to their consumers who bought the coffee. It was a surprise to the others. At the heart of the conception of Starbucks, was a simple thought of getting the Italian coffee drinking experience to America.
At the heart of the many retail stores lies some simple thought or the other, of altering behaviour of the human race, sometimes inadvertently. Communist conversations in coffee homes; dating at Café Coffee Day (“A lot can happen over a cup of coffee”. Surely!). Who says Barista in a mall is about coffee and snacks. It is actually a break when shopping in a large mall gets tiring. It is a fuelling station for tired shoppers. But the role the brand purports to play is not achieved in a day. Remember, Starbucks took over two years. Two years of sensing the customer first hand. But as they say - ‘well begun is half done”
But we must always have a deep sensing of our customers and their needs, a rich understanding of our catchment. Do you know, all Starbucks baristas are on first name terms with their customers?
So have a good time watching TV over the weekend! Now when the press gets surprised, please be surprised, but at them!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)