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!
No comments:
Post a Comment