“What good fortune for those in power that people do not think.”
Interesting thought, especially when you consider the role of the music or movie industries or even advertising in popular culture. I often find people in the biz that consider others - especially consumers - as fools. Then they deliver mediocrity of a kind that is really unacceptable, but it is often lapped up!
Unfortunate that those words are Hitler’s and we still see his vision play out day after day around us. Isn’t it time that people became less naive to the phenomenon? It might be wise to heighten awareness and learn how to see through sugar-coated manipulations. But more than anything else, I wish we would all pay just a little heed to to our intuition.
Millward Brown recently did a worldwide study to measure brand loyalty. One of the questions they asked was: would you be ready to permanently tattoo a brand logo on to your arm?
Almost 20% said they would be willing. Of them, the most popular response was Harley Davidson. If you are thinking that’s because of Harley’s rough-n-toughness, then consider the brand that came in a close second: Disney. So, obviously, it’s less about brand-consonance with the concept of tattoos, and more about the brand itself. Not surprising then that Cocoa Cola came in third?
Now guess which brand was fourth…
It wasn’t Apple, no. Go here for the answer, but think about it for a moment first - just for the fun of it!
Have you often wondered why the television set seems to blare much louder during the commercials between programming?
I dug around a little and it appears that the peak levels of commercials are actually no louder than that of the shows they pepper. It’s just that the average level of sound in TV ads is greater and so the perceived loudness is higher too. But I digress. Regardless of whether or not they do get louder, they sure seem to get louder, and so we turn the sound off/down or change the channel.
Wouldn’t it make sense for advertisers to tone the sound down so that we aren’t knocked off our sofas? To keep us from constantly clutching at our remotes, one finger on the mute button, in dread of the commercial breaks? Perhaps on more than one count…
Communication researcher Carson Wagner has recently found that watching anti-drug commercials under conditions of low attention is actually more convincing than watching under conditions of high attention. One reason offered up as an explanation for this phenomenon is that when pro-drug viewers are watching with full-on attention, they have the resources required to find faults with the message. They refute it and, in so doing, are less persuaded by it.
That kind of ‘counter-argument’ of the ad’s message doesn’t happen when viewers are watching the commercials in their peripheral view. In the latter case, the associations between the concept ‘drug’ and the concept ‘bad’ are subtly reinforced, despite - and perhaps even especially because of - a lack of complete attention on part of the viewer.
The same could easily apply to selling brands. The ads would play at slightly lower volumes and yet reiterate the connection between the ‘brand’ concerned and the concept ‘good’. It would be a softer sell, sure, but a sell nonetheless. And at least it wouldn’t encourage viewers to turn the darn telly off or have them change the channel to escape those in-your-face “breaks.”
Also, commercials that are replayed incessantly might not become as off-putting as they do when they are too loud. Anyone who watched the India-Australia test match at Perth on TV this week could vividly recall the Airtel annoyance. It actually made my father swear he would never subscribe to Airtel - even though he considers its message quite good. The intrusiveness of the ad somehow got attached to the brand for him, and I suspect that he is not alone.
So, advertisers, hear hear! It would probably be wise to turn the volume of your ads DOWN.
Derren Brown is devoutly skeptical of the paranormal. Like him, most ‘psychics’ seem to use a combination of observation, suggestion, psychology, misdirection, and showmanship in order to ’see’ things. But unlike most who have his skills, he is an entertainer. Here is a video on how he uses subtle cues to generate powerful suggestion - to the point that it’s almost persuasion. Amazing!
Yet, this fall, America’s #1 psychic will be crowned on reality TV. 16 ’seers’ will compete in several rounds of competition on a Lifetime show called ‘America’s Psychic Challenge’. In one challenge, psychics match pet-owners to their pooches. In another, the psychics recreate a scene of a violent crime years later. So on. Previews feature all the blurry sepia shots and eerie music one might expect, and it is being advertised on all major networks.
I can’t help but wonder how progressive or responsible of the media it is to give ‘psychics’ any legitimacy whatsoever. Did someone mention a “bottom line”? Of course.
What makes a brand a brand? Its ability to stand out of the clutter, how the product fits lifestyles, how the advertising fits mindsets, the price, the packaging, the connection it makes over time with consumers… the list could go on and on. How does belief in the brand fit in the big picture?
At an account planning conference I went to recently, Domenico Vitale talked about ‘belief’ branding. One such is the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty. This flavour of branding seems to derive itself from a higher purpose, a greater calling, if you will. As Carisa Bianchi put it, “People want to be inspired. It’s up to us to find a way.” Consumers appear to be looking for a way to make a change for the better, to be part of something bigger than just the brand. And sure enough, companies are beginning to create appropriately ‘noble’ contexts for their brands.
But some brands are inspired from within - where a ‘purpose’ need not be superimposed on the brand, since the product and the greater good that inspires it are seamlessly spun. Consider Method. I’ve been following it for a couple of years and been fascinated.
They are a home cleaning product brand with the tagline “People Against Dirty”. Their aim was to clutter-bust P&G and other big soapers. They also knew they wanted to be environmentally friendly, aesthetic and fun. Their products look beautiful, they clean well, are naturally scented - they are truly sink-top accessories rather than something nasty that you hide away as soon as you are done. They don’t make a big deal about being “green” in their advertising but their blog is explicit: “Dedicated to the fight against dirty. In whatever form dirty appears.” On it, they talk about individual and corporate social responsibility with respect to the environment and other such things.
I have never known a brand that comes from the inside-out as much as Method does. These guys are young, smart, and above all, they have a vision. They seem to sleep, breathe, walk, and talk Method. They deeply believe in their brand and (perhaps consequently) have been wildly successful in engaging deeply consumers’ belief in their brand. The result: a near cult phenomenon linked to something as banal as cleaning! Of the co-founders, one of them was an account planner and the other is a chemical engineer. Together, they have a brand that was initially bottled in their kitchen in San Francisco. It has grown almost 4000% (?!) in the last 5 years and they were listed this year as the seventh-fastest growing company in America.
Here is an engaging telling of the entrepreneurship of Method by one of its co-founders, Eric Ryan.
Listen to Sir Ken Robinson make a marvelous appeal for designing an education system that nurtures creativity. I heard him speak at an Account Planning conference in San Diego recently and he made similar points with respect to organisational innovation. This talk is from TED where some of the world’s most progressive and articulate people share their thoughts. Truly ‘ideas worth spreading’.
