At social events everyone has a rather difficult time remembering names. Some are better at it than others, but overall it's challenging for people. One study done on the subject reported that people who had to study biographies remembered the subject's job first (69%), followed by their hobbies (68%), their home towns (62%) and then, finally, their first name (31%) and their last name (30%).
There are different theories as to why this is. But the most popular explanation is that names are mostly arbitrary. We become used to the fact that there is no common trait for people named Dave or guys named John. And because of this their last name--which is probably more unique--falls away forgotten along with the first.
There's a parallel here for company names. A drive around any city calls this to mind. Take pizza joints: we've become so used to seeing "so and so's famous pizza", or anything for that matter next to "pizza" that we largely forget the entire name. "Pizza" is the equivalent to "Dave" and whatever's next to it is the equivalent of the last name. The whole thing, like a person's name, becomes difficult to remember.
Recall is helped from being bold and unique either in name or in execution. This doesn't give license to be weird, but it does give way for smart creativity.
As is always the case, the brand makes the name. And people, it turns out, have the ability to associate desired meaning to seemingly unconnected things if the execution and personality is worth re-occurring patronage. Virgin can be an airline. Puma can be shoes. Paul Smith can be a luxury shirt. This is freeing for entrepreneurs and brand creators.
There's the unique single word: IKEA, Cisco, Twitter, Usher, Pandora and IDEO. It's helpful to be first here. Flickr was among the first to adopt the web-trend of dropping vowels, which was great for them. But this is now becoming so common that the pizza joint example above starts to come to mind.
Then there's the friendship name ability that Al Ries once wrote about; the ability to shorten something and make it personal with a nickname. Much like how Michael becomes Mike. And how Walt Disney becomes Disney. This is a big, successful category: American Express, Coca-Cola, Mercedes-Benz, Louis Vuitton and Harley-Davidson all have this ability of easy shortening. (But it's sometimes disappointing when a company assumes their friendship name fully and drops the full name--such as AOL and JWT. And sometimes not: IBM.)
Then there's a final category that is always fascinating: the strange phrase or association that shouldn't be easy to remember but it is. In music, take A Tribe Called Quest. In engineering, take CH2M Hill. In book titles, take The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy. Not very common, but terrific when they hit.
Watching these recent examples and then re-watching this terrific advice, is a reminder that in the big communication outlets we should try to focus on saying only two things. The first is, of course, the key product takeaway. And the second is the tone and emotion that it's presented in for it's what lingers, sells and motivates over the long term.
The causal role of conscious thought has been vastly overrated. It is often a post hoc explanation of responses that emanated from the adaptive unconscious. And this experiment shows with rather shocking clarity the huge difference that can exist between the way we think we choose things and the ways that we really choose. We are quite capable of feeling a strong preference for something for reasons which we're totally ignorant of, but we are good at disguising this to ourselves because we automatically tend to create an apparently rational cover story, which we then believe in.
There's the Lady Gaga approach: Standing out wins, marketing is a lifestyle, lots of customer engagement, etc.
"Gaga has done something unprecedented... building a business empire notable for both the speed of its creation and diversity of platforms." -Fast Company
And there's the Adele approach: No Tweeting, no major festivals or appearances, restrictive access, etc.
"What's become lost in the Lady Gaga-era is the confidence in the idea that less is more. A large element of Adele's success is that she remains something of an enigma and we don't know everything about her." -Paul Rees, Editor, Q
Both work. Which is nice because when the product quality is superb, we can choose whichever is most fitting.
Often in advertising and marketing there is debate as to whether the industries are more art or science. I happen to think that good science and good art don't have many differences from each other and that it's actually the combination of what might typically be referred to as "artistic" approaches and "scientific" approaches working together that breed the best insights.
But there are two different processes we can go through to get to those insights... And that's where an interesting difference lies and where the science of idea finding comes in.
Facts --> Idea
The first is Facts to Idea, or the brick-by-brick approach. Based on a logical progression of information this is the more traditional process where A leads to B then to C and so on... It begins with an observation which is followed by the accumulation of data and then the analysis of that data. Once everything is analyzed there is more observation to verify the facts and then the process is done. This is the most common approach in business as it's relatively safe with many opting out points. Facts to Idea is widely taught in business schools. The approach has brought us frozen food at the supermarket and the proof of gravity's existence.
Idea --> Support
The second is Idea to Support. In this approach one doesn't start with an observation but rather with an idea brought forth from background knowledge. Once the idea is thought of the rest of the process goes about disproving why the idea won't work via experiments and prototyping. A diagram from Stephen King's excellent 1981 presentation of Advertising: Art and Science highlights this wonderfully:
Idea to Support is what Galileo and Einstein practiced. We see it today in the likes of Bezos and Jobs. They start by disproving accepted ideas through volunteering something entirely new.
These are two very different approaches. So which one is right?
I've studied and experimented a lot with both and I must say that neither side has convinced me they are exclusively optimal. I think more to the point is how well you do each of them. And when you do each of them; "change the category" and "change the world" ideas usually come from Idea to Support because it's starting from a place of dissatisfaction with the status quo.
It's important to be cognizant that there are two types of idea creation and that everyone probably has a preferred method. Which means if you're choosing a method that goes against-type for someone it's helpful to discuss the differences at the beginning.
Being able to articulate something perfectly is a skill. And it's a wonderful moment when we hear it being done. You know the occasion; someone summarizes a person or thing in one word or a series of concise sentences and just nails it perfectly.
The interesting thing about perfect articulation is that it occurs only in two situations: spontaneousness or well-crafted thought. The former requires a perfect understanding of the subject at-hand usually gained from years of affiliation while the latter comes with lots of writing and re-writing in a focused amount of time. I liken this to writing the truest sentence possible as Hemingway always tried to do.
This month Pearl Jam Twenty releases. Directed by Cameron Crowe, it's a documentary about the career of Pearl Jam. As a fan of the band, proud member of Gen X and purveyor of all things Pacific Northwest, I'm excited to see it.
An article with Crowe in this month's Vanity Fair asked him about what Eddie Vedder brought to the band once he joined. His choice of words made me think about the skill of perfect articulation.
VF: Why did you go back to the band's beginnings as Mother Love Bone with their first lead singer, Andrew Wood?
Cameron Crowe: I wanted to tell that story of lightning striking twice. Nobody believed there was going to be a future for those guys after Andy Wood died, and it's kind of a rock miracle that Eddie Vedder--who was living in California at the time--sent an audition tape.
VF: What do you think Eddie brought to the band?
Cameron Crowe: He brought promise, and also a challenge to their Seattle, set-in-their-ways community. Eddie, as a guy, wants to fit in, but he also wants to tilt against the windmills. That combination of push and pull really helped them. Andy was ready to play arenas with no guilt, and I think Eddie wanted to stay close to fans and build it slowly. He was both an insider and an outsider.
[ Pictured above: Crowe and Vedder in Italy in '93. ]
The initial goal (in the year 2000) was to build an e-commerce website that featured original entertainment content--a well-trod marketing maneuver today but eye-openingly ambitious a decade ago, particularly for a fashion house. That year, Ralph Lauren launched the luxury industry's first e-commerce site, created Ralph Lauren Magazine, an online publication with original articles, and Ralph Lauren TV, an original web channel covering fashion, design and sports, and featuring celebrity interviews. Together the pieces formed what David calls "merchantainment," the blending of commerce and content. This strategy echoed Ralph's own distinctive print advertising moves from 30 years ago: The goal was not to push specific Ralph Lauren products, but rather to sell the idea of the Ralph Lauren lifestyle.
"The internet came at the right time for us. Our stores are like movie sets. Our ads are like still lifes of movies. The web let us create truly interactive, immersive movies. It's not about the technology. It's about the brand." -David Lauren, EVP, Ralph Lauren
When it comes to Account Planning one of the best blogs right now is Martin Weigel's Canalside View. The research and affiliated cultural mentions that go into each post are most impressive. Be sure to check out this one: defining better problems.
Every organization should spend more time defining problems. According to a study cited on Martin's post, campaigns that set hard objectives based on business or behavior results enjoy an effectiveness success rate of 50%. Conversely, campaigns that were based on soft goals, such as attitudinal changes, had a success rate of only 11%.
Defining better problems upfront is the key. And to do this, great insight can be found in the post. I particularly liked seeing the CIA Phoenix checklist.
Recently I've been studying the papers of Dr. Robert Heath. Of particular interest is his terrific exploration of brand relationships: how they're strengthened by emotion and, to a certain degree, weakened by attention. It's why I probably like this:
The common assumption is that advertising works best when it delivers a rational message that tries to persuade and change beliefs. Most advertising models here in the US are underpinned by this approach.
But when we think about the brands we love, and the marketing that, over time, has gotten us to the point of love, do we recall the individual messages along the way or is it more of the total feeling?
The work of interpersonal communication psychologist Paul Watzlawick found that it's more of the latter. Emotion is the content that primarily endures, not the rational points. Thinking about The Home Depot, for instance, we remain excited about the possibilities of home improvement far longer than we're able to recall the featured products we saw in the ad.
The first reason emotion works in this way is through the "Reinforcement Model", which was originally coined by Andrew Ehrenberg in '74 but I came to understand the principle more recently through Godin's writing when he talks about worldviews. The Reinforcement Model says that it's far better (and more successful) to reinforce the current worldviews of the audience than it is to try and create new ones or change someone's mind.
PUMA did this beautifully...
We gravitate to the emotions that we want to experience ourselves when we're interacting with the product.
And here's another interesting thing about emotion and communication from Dr. Heath's papers:
"Every communication has a content and a relationship aspect such that the latter classifies the former and is therefore a metacommunication."
The metacommunication is the nonverbal stuff that goes along with the message. How important is that? Watzlawick's research on interpersonal communication between couples found the following:
"When relationships between couples were on the verge of collapse, the "communication" was often perfectly reasonable and sensible, but it was the metacommunication that was causing the breakdown. In other words, although people were saying good things, the way in which they said them was causing friction and negativity. They found that by correcting the metacommunication they could often repair the relationship rift, even when damaging and negative things were occassionally said."
It's how we say things that builds relationships. And I think this is true for brands just as much as it is for people.
# TONE
For years I've maintained that one of the most important items on any creative brief is the "Tone". But it's usually just glossed over. Often we see a collection of non-defining, easy-to-approve words in the tone, like, "approachable," "spirited" and "fun". These typically aren't very helpful or ownable. Tolstoy wrote once that the more vague a definition of a word the more often we use that word and with greater confidence since we assume everyone knows what we mean. How true.
When it comes to tone we can be so much better! I once saw a creative tone that was "not James Bond but Jason Bourne." How great is that? Very visceral. Identifying a unique and consistent tone is paramount because it's the metacommunication that maintains the positive customer relationship.
I would love to see the tone on the Skittles briefs...
I'd also like to see the tone that Johnson&Johnson has been working from...
So with the correct tone we're almost done.
But here's the next dynamic: How much attention do we want the audience to give? This is sort of a trick question... we want them to give a lot attention, but we don't want them to know that they're doing so.
A 1989 study by Robert Bornstein confirmed that the less aware we are of the emotional elements in advertising the better the ads are likely to work because the viewer has less opportunity to rationally evaluate, contradict and weaken their potency.
This is why storytelling is so important. When we see "Write the Future" we get wonderfully lost in it. We're not questioning why it's happening which is good because, of course, rationally, it's impossible. But we're totally absorbed with what the brand is saying...
Emotion reinforces our worldviews and then establishes how the brand manages a successful, ongoing relationship with us.
Sounds good.
But what happens to the logical sales points that also need to be advertised?
They're still very much a part of a brand's plan, they just need to go in their optimal places. And that's a post for another day. But in the meantime, from Dr. Heath:
"Of course, the opposite is the case with message-based information processing communication, where more attention will provide more recall and more persuasion. Advertising that has the tactical aim of communicating factual information (i.e. product improvements, promotions, prices, etc.) will benefit from more attention, because that way you remember better what the message is.
So this raises something of a dilemma for the issue of engagement. Advertising that needs to get a factual message over works best if high attention is paid. But our evidence shows that if advertising wishes to build strong brand relationships, it needs to incorporate high levels of emotional content, and this emotional content will be most effective if less attention is paid to it."
There are times to get lost in an emotionally-forward brand message. And then there are times to get right to the point. Both need to be done. The wisdom and success comes from knowing when to do each and build them both into the master plan.
There are several levels of successful ideas in marketing, ranging from really good ideas to epic ideas. But how do you know if a creative strategy--and its subsequent marketing expression--might be one of those rare epic ideas? Perhaps a key question can help: Does the idea work at different emotional speeds? Can it emotionally upshift and downshift and still be on-strategy.
Like this:
Upshift...
Downshift...
It's a bit like people. There are times when we want energy and excitement and then there are times that we welcome introspection and caring. If a brand stands for something huge, the same theory should apply. In Nike's case, standing for "the athlete" is a huge position. It upshifts and downshifts but it's always about the athlete. Because being an athlete carries a range of emotions. Harley-Davidson has done similar over time. Allstate is doingthis now. The Gap did this when their advertisingwas part of culture.
We see this beyond advertising... we see it in rock bands. The epic groups are those capable of rocking a stadium then immediately slowing things down, allthewhile still being, well, them. Consider: there's "Pride (In the Name of Love)" and then "With or Without You". "Revolution" and "Let It Be". "Misty Mountain Hop" and "Going to California". But no matter what track you're listening to it always feels perfectly normal and is unquestionably U2, The Beatles and Zepplin through and through.
Most highly-regarded marketing campaigns get a few great years of run time. But they need refreshing because the audience can start to wain and culture begins to shift so we concept something new. Very normal. But I always have a fondness for emotional range. And the epic ideas are big enough to represent many different emotions all under one creative strategy, keeping the audience engaged for decades.
