The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones: Clear, Effective Branding

Salman Rushdie once wrote that a person will primarily be either a Beatles fan or a Rolling Stones fan, just as one will prefer either Tolstoy or Dostoevsky.  I appreciate the clarity of this analogy – one is carefully crafted and elaborate; the other is sharp and hard.

The clarity of the analogy immediately makes sense because both the Beatles and the Rolling Stones were successfully crafted instruments of effective marketing, whether it was fully intentional or not - they each presented a very straightforward brand promise.

Generally speaking, the Beatles were the fun, safe version of British rock ‘n’ roll.  Their brand promise was supported by fun, high-energy, escapist pop music (especially in their early recordings), and was later supported by “artistic” leanings: cerebral rather than visceral.

The Rolling Stones were the harder edge of British rock.  From their earliest club dates, the music was earthy, physical, sensual music rooted in (and lifted from) American Blues.  They were somehow dirty and dangerous – and certainly more sexual.  That was their brand promise: the darker, dirtier side of music with a sensual edge that early-60s America represented to England.

These brand promises were not accidental.  The Beatles chose a band name with an obvious built-in pun in the word’s misspelling, hinting at a sense of humour and fun.  The band members themselves were (relatively) clean-cut, and publicly innocent and fun-loving.  They even quickly developed consistent iconography – the trustworthy brand recognition that carried from the logo on Ringo’s kick drum logo to every product with the Beatles name on it.

Similarly, the Stones presented a dark, smoky impression from their very first recording, and a consistent non-smiling attitude.  The band members sported big ears, big lips, bad haircuts and acne scars - there wasn’t a “cute” one in the bunch.  And again, their name supports the brand promise unambiguously: a rolling stone = rolling rock = rock’n’roll.  The Beatles wanted to hold your hand.  The Stones wanted to take you out in the alley behind the bar and knock your boots against the wall.

The effective, successful marketing of each band’s brand promise is evident when viewed through the lens their pre-recording years: the Beatles first dressed in leather, and the Stones wore suits and crooked-toothed smiles.  In hindsight, both images look put-on and they probably were - which is why their later images, as we now know them, worked: they were genuine.

A clear brand promise for each band/brand was of course supported by excellent products, and the rest is history.   The 60s supported this kind of clarity with branding or music and entertainment, and it may never happen again – but the lessons here do apply to brand marketing in general.  You have a few moments to make a pitch, and a lifetime to develop repeat customers if you do everything well in the first place.  A carefully-considered brand strategy, a clearly-articulated brand promise, and well-communicated product attributes will almost always win the day, and will win the test of time as well.

I mean, what the hell were Herman’s Hermits about anyway? 

Frequency and Relevancy – The Sociable Rules of Content Generation

If you review a few dates on this blog, you will see that I have broken a rule I so often espouse: when blogging, set a goal for frequency of posting, and stick to it. The problem is that I also recommend relevancy with every post: thought leadership can’t be established without relevant content. If your blogs, tweets or status updates aren’t directly relevant to your target audience, then it is better to say nothing. So, I’ve been saying nothing.

That’s not to say I’m not busy - but I won’t post information about my work on behalf of clients (my rule #4 of social media engagement is to respect privacy). The bottom line is that there are few rules with social media engagement, but if you are doing it at all, you need to set some goals and stick to them - so I'm providing a few "rules" of my own. My goals were sidetracked by my Rule #10 – until a client called me on my lack of posting frequency. Point taken – a client’s confidence was shaken in my ability, and it all comes back to revenue generation.

Since one of my unspoken rules of content generation is that blogs don’t need to be essays:

Sociable Communications’ Select Rules of Content Generation:

1. If you don’t have anything relevant to say, say nothing.

2. Know the ‘Who’ - who you are talking to.

3. Know the ‘Why’ - know your goals. Are you in it to build thought leadership? Drive sales? Brag?

4. Re-purpose existing content – if it’s worth saying in one place, say it in every place.

5. Respect privacy, and always give credit where credit is due.

6. Follow your company’s Code of Business Conduct and all other Company policies. If you don’t have any policies, write them and keep records of content generation.

7. Remember that your local posts can have global significance – and know that the Internet is permanent. When in doubt, do not post.

8. You don’t hold all of the keys – share your blogging opportunities with other staff. They have valuable insights too.

9. Do not say anything that could be perceived as confrontational, arrogant, libellous, unprofessional or slanderous – unless that is your goal.

10. If content generation isn’t generating revenue somehow, they why bother doing it?

My favourite is the last one. We are all too busy to do things that don’t add value. If you are participating in social media engagement, then always add value – if other people find your information valuable, then they will feed value back to you. At least, that is my goal.

Marketing to Middle-Aged Men - Anything is Possible.

Middle-aged men are trickier to market to than many think. Lazy marketers develop tactics that disparage the “clueless loser” guy, or they’ll pile boobs ‘n’ booze into advertising, confidently assuming that it’ll speak to all middle-aged males - one way or the other. It may reach them, but will it penetrate? Men don’t need to be reminded of their failures, inability or complacency - they need is to feel like anything is possible.

From a social perspective, I have a theory about men that may define a better means of reaching these guys in a manner that will generate better results. Think about this: ask any man who their best male friend is. Ask who their next-best male friend is. Chances are that those names are men who were still boys when they met each other in their teenage years. The deepest relationships that men develop with other men are usually cemented before they turn 20. Men are experts are building acquaintances – business contacts, golfing buddies, drinking partners, husbands-of-wives-friends - but they never let someone “in” quite like they did when they were seventeen. That old friend may now have nothing else in common with their 45-year-old self, but that guy was “there” when their seventeen-year-old guard was down – and that’s why they are still there now.

Men are generally still the neurotic, insecure boys that much advertising ridicules – but they very rarely wear it with such inelegance. They often have a deep, persistent need to reconnect with a younger, more confident, more idealistic version of themselves, because that younger version knew how to dream without limits. They retain their oldest friends because they don’t know how (or don’t want) to build deep connections with newer acquaintances. And more to the point, they can’t (or won’t) trust new people when ever-present social, political or grown-up business concerns are apparent.

Truly effective marketing tactics should dig deeper into a man’s psyche and soul. Most men aspire to innovation and leadership, but their actions rarely match their goals. What is missing in marketing to middle-aged men is an understanding of what this teenage-friend theory reveals. Men need comfort, peace-of-mind, and simplicity, aligned with non-judgemental trust. People are judged every day, but sometimes you just need to be yourself. Men don’t need another salesman trying to be their “buddy”, and they need to be disparaged even less – they get enough of that already. They need to know that their core beliefs are respected and reflected, if not shared, without judgement.

Every young guy wanted to be a star athlete, rock star or mogul. It didn’t happen, and they’re all a little pissed off about it now, but their earliest friends who shared the articulation of those dreams understand the disappointment in learning that the dreams weren’t achievable (for whichever reason). Those friends also understand how those dreams evolved into the present reality – for better or worse. Nothing can touch that – not golf partners, drinking buddies, or even life partners. Good marketers should dissect, understand and respect that.

This explains the success of Nike, Four Seasons Hotels, or most luxury brands for that matter: it is always preferable (if not possible) to “just do it”; you deserve the best, without question or judgement (as long as you can pay the bill). Middle-aged men almost always aspire to be better than their current reality (even if actions rarely match goals), and leveraged aspirations are therefore a powerful marketing tool if applied creatively.

Men aren’t clueless or desperate – they are just very resistant to change, and they need an occasional comfort-zone separate from their daily concerns that does not represent dramatic change. If marketers understand that every 40-year-old man is still an 18-year-old at heart, then they should also understand that “boobs ‘n’ booze” won’t speak to them in an efficient manner: in their hearts, they know that the conventional “party picture” is a reality that is now beyond their grasp. Again, they’re a bit pissed off about it, but it’s a fact, and they don’t need another reminder of their fading dreams and abilities. What they do need is to feel like anything is possible – anything at all. Is it better to suggest the achievement of an impossible dream – or to deliver a sense of confidence, aspiration and security, such as that which comes from sharing in the confidence of a best friend?

Remember what life was like when you were seventeen? It probably sucked – but in hindsight, didn’t the world seem to be your oyster? Everything was going to change after high school – you would go to school, go to work, get money, and get a life. All of those things happened – just not as most people planned. But, if smart marketers can remember that we all remember the shimmering possibility represented in teenage/early 20s dreaming, there is a huge opportunity to leverage a brand in a manner that is relevant, exciting, personable and sustainable. Anything is possible.

Moosehead and Sleeman: My Animal is Bigger than Yours

Moosehead beer has a new campaign in Ontario that has partnered with Roots, the venerable Canadian clothing line, to provide co-branded promotional goods. The radio spots supporting this campaign pair an exec from each company who discuss the relative Canadian merits of the Moosehead and Roots brands. A final comment points out that a Moose, the obvious symbol of Moosehead Beer (with a logo that looks not dissimilar to the Caribou on the Canadian quarter) is “bigger” than a Beaver (appearing on the classic Roots brand icon, as well as on the lowly nickel).
The Canadian beer business has traditionally been pretty scrappy, and not usually adept at subtlety. However, the Roots “beaver” icon is striking similar to the trademarked icon seen on every single bottle of Sleeman beer. Sleeman was the neck-and-neck competitor for the title of “biggest independent brewery in Canada” until Sleeman was purchased by Japan’s Sapporo some years ago, and Sleeman would still be seen as a clear, direct competitor in the “super-premium” segment of the domestic Canadian brewing industry.

Is it possible that the Moosehead folks (or their creative agency) were able to lob such a subtle grenade into the brewing industry, striking at the heart of the icon displayed on every single bottle of their competitors’ brew? Could this light-hearted banter in a radio spot in fact be a shot across Sleeman’s bow? Both Moosehead and Sleeman boast “roots” that go back to the early days of this nation, and it seems somehow probable that the similarity between their icons and national coinage is not a co-incidence.

In the wild, a Moose is clearly bigger than a Beaver. If the fine folks at Moosehead did intellectualize this campaign down to the point of quietly hinting at their superiority to Sleeman, then huge kudos to the team - what a great way to rattle the consumer confidence of those who patronize the direct competition.

Lazy Marketers – How can anyone build a sustainable brand if consumer stress is the result of your brand promise?

Tyler Durden said it best: “Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need.”

The New Economics Foundation is a think tank based in the UK who recently published a spectacular document that calculates the “real value to society of different professions” (http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/bit-rich).

Their calculations estimate the share of social and environmental damage caused by overconsumption that is attributable to advertising, and advertising executives rank spectacularly low in their research in terms of their net benefit to society. The math suggests that a daycare worker generates at least £7 of societal benefit for every £1 they are paid, while an advertising executive destroys £11 of value for every pound they are paid. It goes without saying that ad execs earn much more than daycare workers.

The suggestion is that advertising “encourages high consumer spending and indebtedness. It can create insatiable aspirations, fuelling feelings of dissatisfaction, inadequacy and stress.” This study quantifies what we all suspect – advertising may be a necessary evil if we want to be entertained with “free” radio and television, but at its foundation the job of advertising is to keep us “chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don’t need.” By igniting consumer stress, advertisers are in fact generating negative value.

I run a marketing agency, so I guess that makes me an “ad exec” of sorts. I do keep my clients branding efforts as “human” as the brand will allow (that’s the “Sociable” element of the company name), but the fact is that I am working to sell more “units” of whatever my client is “selling”. This New Economics Foundation paper has me thinking about my prospective client base, but also about marketing strategy. Is all marketing and advertising evil?

In difficult economic times, people need to cut back and purchase only essential items. Cars and clothes are necessary, but perhaps the designer labels can be cut back? Perhaps it makes sense to buy a used car instead of new? Nobody will put these thoughts on a billboard, but we all know it makes sense – and when was the last time you felt remorseful for a smart decision?

If someone buys something they don’t really need they will likely feel an eventual degree of buyer’s remorse. I therefore have to wonder - how the hell anyone can build a sustainable brand or product line in the long-term if consumer remorse, pain and stress are built into the brand promise?

I don’t question The New Economics Foundations’ results, but I do believe these results are driven by lazy marketing and lazy marketers. Before a business fabricates an illusion to support sales, how about developing an understanding of how the product can provide real, quantifiable value in the lives of your consumers? Instead of scaring your customers into a purchase decision, how about revealing a genuine significance? You may not sell as many units this quarter, but your business may still be here in twenty years. It is a big world, and consumer needs are as diverse as its population. Unless your business goal is to dump a load of consumer crap on the world and pack your business in next year, you need to get past the greed of generating immediate cash flow, and generate real value to a targeted consumer.

Otherwise, in the words of Tyler Durden, your customers will be thinking…. “we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off.” A twenty-year-plus return will almost definitely be greater than a one-year fast burn – and you may even generate some incremental societal value along the way.

“Free Social Media Seminar in Guelph” - When Value and Education are ignited by a Buzzword

The Guelph Chamber of Commerce recently ran a survey of community small business owners to gain a sense of interest for a proposed all-day information-exchange event to be titled "Guelph Leadership in Information Technology and the New Economy".

The key insight I had in reviewing desired breakout session topics was that almost every respondent requested a session on either Search Engine Optimization, or on leveraging social media. Business people want to know more about social media, and they want more traffic to their websites – but the structure and process to accomplish this remains (perhaps understandably) mysterious.

So, when I partnered with Cam Guthrie of HJM Insurance to present a free seminar on “Marketing with Social Media” as a value-add to his clients, we had strong hopes for a big turnout. And, as it turns out, the initial response has been so strong that we’ve had to change venues from the HJM Insurance boardroom (capacity 40) to the Lakeside Church (7654 Conservation Road in Guelph, Ontario), which holds well over 250 people (the seminar runs from 7:00pm-8:30pm if you are interested – everyone is welcome).

I’m not suggesting that we’ll get 250 bodies in the door, but I am intrigued by the power of a buzzword: “social media” is what everyone is talking about, but few have a sense of how to leverage it for business applications.

The key message that I hope people will take away from the seminar is to not get worried or scared by “social media”. In fact, it is entirely likely that many small- to mid-sized businesses in Guelph would not gain much benefit from social media engagement – at least not unless they really dive in. The fact remains however that people are concerned that they are somehow missing out on something big - and they are pretty motivated to learn more… which brings me to the other thing that intrigues me here: the common desire for education.

The very nature of social media is that it is people interacting with other people. A seminar (or a classroom) is just an internet forum staged live – people exchanging ideas with other people in real time. If you tack the word “free” onto a buzzword that generates motivation and mix it into a public, interactive forum, you draw a crowd quickly.

What is my point? This is all about nurturing dialogue between people – the best marketing efforts are about establishing and nurturing human relationships – without that, you have nothing. That is why this seminar is “free” (and there will be more to come). Cam Guthrie and I both believe that the best “business model” is to be honest, transparent, and informative…

“Sociable”, I guess you could say….

Communications Strategy: Get the basics right before going social.

Why would anyone consider social media for business without a clearly defined communications strategy? People are scrambling just to keep up with day-to-day stuff, let alone making the time to nail down the fundamentals of strategic communications planning, which leads me to ask the same question of media or public relations engagement too – why consider anything without a clearly defined communications strategy? And yet, with an existing palette of misguided non-strategic marketing approaches that shift with each fiscal year (or with each revolving-door Marketing Manager), so many businesses now believe they must get into social media too.

If this sounds familiar, first ask what your company’s communications goals are. Who are you trying to reach? Why? Do you have your goals written in a formal document that has been viewed and approved by all stakeholders? If not, go and do that. If yes, then ask how social media engagement will align with those goals. Why do it? Who are you speaking to? What are you going to say? Do you have anything relevant or compelling that will spark and sustain a dialogue? If yes to all of these, then write a plan. Then write a policy. Then do it, and keep on doing it because nothing looks worse than a corporate blog or twitter account with two postings. This isn’t a quarterly campaign – you basically just posted a new hotline to the company decision makers – you’d better answer the phone over the long-term.

Social media is just another tool in the marketer’s box, but it can deliver some communications opportunities to a business that other media and PR vehicles can’t. However, social media is fundamentally just a messaging distribution mechanism – though with the opportunity for consumer reciprocity. Do you publish a newsletter? E-mail blasts? If so, you should create a blog too and repost the information – the text has already been created for the newsletter. Not everyone will see your newsletter, and not everyone will see your blog – but it’s one more way to reach out. Face it, not many people heard your radio ad either – you need to take advantage of every possible communications vehicle. The blogged newsletter will also allows a mediated opportunity for people to comment on your “newsletter” postings – think of it as letters to the editor, but you are the editor. And if you care to listen, you may find that you gain significant consumer insights.

If you don’t want your business or brand to be conversational, then don’t consider social media – but if you see value in customer loyalty, extending your messaging reach, and enhancing your brand’s personality, then you may want to consider it.

However, if after reading this you are still unsure about your communications strategy, then do your company a favour: set a chunk of time aside, ensure that all relevant stakeholders on your team join you, and get to the core of your brand’s essence. Ensure that everyone turns off email, Facebook and Twitter accounts and Blackberries. Reach consensus on a brand strategy. Then write a marketing & communications strategic plan. Then ask which communications vehicles will most efficiently deliver your integrated brand message. Then do it. You will likely be surprised at how much money you wasted in earlier plans – but you may at least stop the bleeding now. You will also be surprised to find that your brand health will improve measurably. Basic stuff, but who has time to focus on the fundamentals these days?