Will the future be without logos?
January 19, 2004 | 12:00am
The word dream is not easy to use, particularly when talking about business. Some would say it’s unquestionably a cliché, both difficult to define and too intangible to categorically communicate a business idea. Often, people are piqued at being associated with such an exquisite term, feeling that it disparages the seriousness of their business endeavors. Yet a dream is a catchy image that best describes what inflames our imagination and cravings.
Such is advertising. We peddle dreams to people. Dreams culled from big ideas that can trigger people to sit back, listen, ask, desire, buy, develop loyalty, consider alternatives or completely withdraw support from something that has lost its meaning. As Jim Aitchison, author of numerous advertising books and business articles, asked in his presentation at the 2003 Philippine Advertising Congress: "Current research tells us that emotional differences are more important than rational ones. But is our industry itself dreaming?"
Whatever happened to the orchestras in silent movie houses? Whatever happened to the people who made radio serials? Whatever happened to full-service agencies? Are we locked in the past? Have our clients left us behind? Does advertising have anything left to offer? This litany of questions leaves us breathless, challenging the Philippine advertising industry to lead the way, and determine where it should go.
"If we are to stay relevant to our clients, we have to understand brands, branding and brand building," Aitchison claimed. In 2001, The Economist reported that traditionally leading brands are losing loyalty and value. Kellogg’s, Kodak, Marlboro and Nescafe are no longer in the Top 10 brand league. Ten years ago, Kellogs ranked second. Today, it has slipped to 39th place. Of the 74 brands in the top 100 league that year, 41 declined in value within the next 12 months. Their combined value fell by $49 billion, representing a five percent decline.
Why is this happening? A major influence is the active lobby of anti-marketers like Naomi Klein who is aggressively pushing for a "No Logo" mindset. One of Klein’s disturbing observations and arguments in her book carrying the same title is that global brands have resulted in the exploitation of third-world workers, increased domestic unemployment, reduced local wages and the continual erosion of workers’ rights. Her views have led readers to believe in Bill Hicks’ words "that advertising or marketing is Satan’s spawn, filling the world with bile." A big accusation indeed, and it has influenced people’s thinking about brands and ads.
The diminishing trust of the buying public is a big factor. In 1975, 86 percent of American consumers, 60 to 69 years old, remained loyal to their regular brands. Today, only 59 percent do. Over the same period, the same trend has been observed for the younger, 20 to 29 market segment, where the loyalty score of 66 percent moved down to 59 percent.
The bad behavior of brands – perceived or tangibly demonstrated – contributes to a brand’s decline. In the UK last year, Nike had the second lowest trust rating among all brands. Marketing experts connect this to what they label as corporate irresponsibility. Nike’s links with third world exploitation are well documented. And this pulled down the image and reputation of the brand to a much lower level. Customers depend on brands to deliver the same values every time, and the dedication and consistency in the experience will result to loyalty. The non-delivery of all this can spell reproach.
Consumers are now better-educated and more marketing literate. They can detect our motivations, understand our intentions, and simply refuse to get manipulated. In the UK, the number of people who agreed that most companies were fair to consumers fell from 58 percent in the early ‘80s to 36 percent in 2002. Relationship building is key here. Brands are not mere logos, trademarks or advertising strategies. Their strength rests in the kind of bonding they establish and sustain with clearly defined markets.
Consumers determine brands. They only exist in the minds of users who own them. Sergio Zyman looks at them as "bundles of emotional benefits, attributes, usage experiences, icons and symbols." They convey the meaning of a company. They build "communities of users" that compete with each other for people’s attention and support – Apple vs. IBM, Mercedes Benz vs. BMW, Globe vs. Smart. Brands become lovemarks when loyalty for them transcends rational thinking. Everything we do with brands either enhances or diminishes their worth. Nothing happens in a vacuum.
Brands are larger than 30-second TV commercials. The way they will be measured is manifested in the way phones are answered, how service requests are handled, how the products are packaged, the way the staff is dressed up, the way the cleanliness of the toilets is maintained. They collectively represent a total use experience. People buy the company behind the brand. The Japanese approach distinctly demonstrates this point. It is a spot-on. They have to fall in love with the company before they fall in love with the product.
We can further understand brands and branding by destroying some marketing and advertising myths. Let’s start with marketing. First, it is an intuition more than a science. So many things happen by accident, synchronicity or serendipity. Second, it is not all about sustained growth, but about endurance strategies. Several case studies prove that in a company’s brand mix, only 20 percent account for its survival. Third, reinventing the brand is more critical than just sustaining its apparent competitive advantages. We should not rely on the repertoire of habitual brands and launch something new since consumers are wont to try something different every time. We should aim for retention of existing customers more than encourage incremental sales that can accrue from fleeting inattentive purchasers.
Advertising introduces a brand to consumers or keeps them connected in a relationship. It is the process of developing a linkage with people – holding their hands, looking into their eyes, and generally dealing with human emotions that allow us to ask questions like "Would we trust those people?" "Are their eyes friendly or shifty?" or "Are their hands warm, friendly, hot or sticky?" Brand relationships are identical to human kinship, where life’s biggest decisions are emotional not rational.
In defining our advertising objectives, Aitchison opined, "Awareness doesn’t sell." He emphasized that we should instead aim for saliency or relevance. Make our brands more irresistible than popular. We should try to change behavior, not just attitudes, for attitudes are formed by behavior. Reinforcing the compatibility of brands with the values of the consumers that they cater to will work. Understand the "cage metaphor," which is all about entering the consumer cage, proving the brand’s importance to their lives, sharing their experiences and relieving any disturbing cognitive dissonance. "The more creative people comprehend the cage, the better their work will be," Aitchison claimed.
How do people process advertising? The media statistics are alarming. Advertising recall figures are declining. In 1965, 34 percent of adult American viewers could remember one or more brands advertised on the TV show they’d just watched. By 1990, only eight percent could. Imagine what the current figure will reveal. There is an increasing avoidance of ads on TV. A major contributor to this phenomenon in the US and Europe is the TiVo technology, which delays the main program presentation as commercials are being run. In Asia, 70 percent of the viewers channel surf, and only remember the ads they liked.
In this environment what can Philippine advertisers do? Experts agree that we should hang on to the universal truths – single-minded propositions, simplicity of ideas and execution and sustained relevance. But can the country develop a universally recognized creative style? Will the world be able to say, "That was a Filipino idea!"? To these queries, Aitchison offered a roadmap. It starts by recognizing that a bad ad is a bad ad, and accept that local culture is no excuse. "Homogenized creativity is a danger to everyone. So how can one be local and yet be part of the global mainstream?" he asked. We must not copy the West, but instead apply the universal truths in our own cultural context. We have to be true to ourselves. Britain, the US, India, Thailand, Japan and Brazil succeeded in doing this. We should see no reason why the Filipino can’t.
What has changed in advertising that could change our advertising career? There is the phenomenon of "unbundling." Sixty-six percent of Asian marketers now use media independents and ironically they now do creative work. Aitchison predicted, "They will be super-planners, media neutral and will select from all channels and disciplines."
Payment-by-results (PBR) will be upon us. Sixty percent of client/agency relationships in the UK incorporate it. Procter & Gamble with Saatchi, Burnett and Grey introduced the concept. Nestle uses the scheme in Australia. Aitchison asserted, "PBR promotes true transparency on both sides. Agency shares the risks and the rewards with the client."
Advertising will conglomerate. Company owners will continue to demand higher, unrealistic profits, and big clients’ choice of agency partners will be pegged to four. They will intensify their search for other marketing communication vehicles that can yield better deals.
What does the future hold? There will be more independent startups, more passion and pure creativity but in a different landscape. Creative departments will be unbundled, and more genuine creative leaps will raise the bar in the way we do business. Given these scenarios, starting an agency can become as convenient and fun as a tea party.
So what’s the big idea? We should understand the advertising industry from more perspectives, from beyond our jobs or our individual crafts. This way, we can have a more informed opinion and make a more important contribution to its metamorphosis. Aitchison advised: "Fight the good fight, with the right facts. See the world as bigger than a 30-seconder, look for creativity from your client, and ask yourself, if advertising is going to survive, what am I doing to help it?"
And dream on!
E-mail bongo@vasia.com or bongo@ campaignsandgrey.net for comments and suggestions.
Such is advertising. We peddle dreams to people. Dreams culled from big ideas that can trigger people to sit back, listen, ask, desire, buy, develop loyalty, consider alternatives or completely withdraw support from something that has lost its meaning. As Jim Aitchison, author of numerous advertising books and business articles, asked in his presentation at the 2003 Philippine Advertising Congress: "Current research tells us that emotional differences are more important than rational ones. But is our industry itself dreaming?"
Whatever happened to the orchestras in silent movie houses? Whatever happened to the people who made radio serials? Whatever happened to full-service agencies? Are we locked in the past? Have our clients left us behind? Does advertising have anything left to offer? This litany of questions leaves us breathless, challenging the Philippine advertising industry to lead the way, and determine where it should go.
"If we are to stay relevant to our clients, we have to understand brands, branding and brand building," Aitchison claimed. In 2001, The Economist reported that traditionally leading brands are losing loyalty and value. Kellogg’s, Kodak, Marlboro and Nescafe are no longer in the Top 10 brand league. Ten years ago, Kellogs ranked second. Today, it has slipped to 39th place. Of the 74 brands in the top 100 league that year, 41 declined in value within the next 12 months. Their combined value fell by $49 billion, representing a five percent decline.
Why is this happening? A major influence is the active lobby of anti-marketers like Naomi Klein who is aggressively pushing for a "No Logo" mindset. One of Klein’s disturbing observations and arguments in her book carrying the same title is that global brands have resulted in the exploitation of third-world workers, increased domestic unemployment, reduced local wages and the continual erosion of workers’ rights. Her views have led readers to believe in Bill Hicks’ words "that advertising or marketing is Satan’s spawn, filling the world with bile." A big accusation indeed, and it has influenced people’s thinking about brands and ads.
The diminishing trust of the buying public is a big factor. In 1975, 86 percent of American consumers, 60 to 69 years old, remained loyal to their regular brands. Today, only 59 percent do. Over the same period, the same trend has been observed for the younger, 20 to 29 market segment, where the loyalty score of 66 percent moved down to 59 percent.
The bad behavior of brands – perceived or tangibly demonstrated – contributes to a brand’s decline. In the UK last year, Nike had the second lowest trust rating among all brands. Marketing experts connect this to what they label as corporate irresponsibility. Nike’s links with third world exploitation are well documented. And this pulled down the image and reputation of the brand to a much lower level. Customers depend on brands to deliver the same values every time, and the dedication and consistency in the experience will result to loyalty. The non-delivery of all this can spell reproach.
Consumers are now better-educated and more marketing literate. They can detect our motivations, understand our intentions, and simply refuse to get manipulated. In the UK, the number of people who agreed that most companies were fair to consumers fell from 58 percent in the early ‘80s to 36 percent in 2002. Relationship building is key here. Brands are not mere logos, trademarks or advertising strategies. Their strength rests in the kind of bonding they establish and sustain with clearly defined markets.
Consumers determine brands. They only exist in the minds of users who own them. Sergio Zyman looks at them as "bundles of emotional benefits, attributes, usage experiences, icons and symbols." They convey the meaning of a company. They build "communities of users" that compete with each other for people’s attention and support – Apple vs. IBM, Mercedes Benz vs. BMW, Globe vs. Smart. Brands become lovemarks when loyalty for them transcends rational thinking. Everything we do with brands either enhances or diminishes their worth. Nothing happens in a vacuum.
Brands are larger than 30-second TV commercials. The way they will be measured is manifested in the way phones are answered, how service requests are handled, how the products are packaged, the way the staff is dressed up, the way the cleanliness of the toilets is maintained. They collectively represent a total use experience. People buy the company behind the brand. The Japanese approach distinctly demonstrates this point. It is a spot-on. They have to fall in love with the company before they fall in love with the product.
Advertising introduces a brand to consumers or keeps them connected in a relationship. It is the process of developing a linkage with people – holding their hands, looking into their eyes, and generally dealing with human emotions that allow us to ask questions like "Would we trust those people?" "Are their eyes friendly or shifty?" or "Are their hands warm, friendly, hot or sticky?" Brand relationships are identical to human kinship, where life’s biggest decisions are emotional not rational.
In defining our advertising objectives, Aitchison opined, "Awareness doesn’t sell." He emphasized that we should instead aim for saliency or relevance. Make our brands more irresistible than popular. We should try to change behavior, not just attitudes, for attitudes are formed by behavior. Reinforcing the compatibility of brands with the values of the consumers that they cater to will work. Understand the "cage metaphor," which is all about entering the consumer cage, proving the brand’s importance to their lives, sharing their experiences and relieving any disturbing cognitive dissonance. "The more creative people comprehend the cage, the better their work will be," Aitchison claimed.
How do people process advertising? The media statistics are alarming. Advertising recall figures are declining. In 1965, 34 percent of adult American viewers could remember one or more brands advertised on the TV show they’d just watched. By 1990, only eight percent could. Imagine what the current figure will reveal. There is an increasing avoidance of ads on TV. A major contributor to this phenomenon in the US and Europe is the TiVo technology, which delays the main program presentation as commercials are being run. In Asia, 70 percent of the viewers channel surf, and only remember the ads they liked.
In this environment what can Philippine advertisers do? Experts agree that we should hang on to the universal truths – single-minded propositions, simplicity of ideas and execution and sustained relevance. But can the country develop a universally recognized creative style? Will the world be able to say, "That was a Filipino idea!"? To these queries, Aitchison offered a roadmap. It starts by recognizing that a bad ad is a bad ad, and accept that local culture is no excuse. "Homogenized creativity is a danger to everyone. So how can one be local and yet be part of the global mainstream?" he asked. We must not copy the West, but instead apply the universal truths in our own cultural context. We have to be true to ourselves. Britain, the US, India, Thailand, Japan and Brazil succeeded in doing this. We should see no reason why the Filipino can’t.
Payment-by-results (PBR) will be upon us. Sixty percent of client/agency relationships in the UK incorporate it. Procter & Gamble with Saatchi, Burnett and Grey introduced the concept. Nestle uses the scheme in Australia. Aitchison asserted, "PBR promotes true transparency on both sides. Agency shares the risks and the rewards with the client."
Advertising will conglomerate. Company owners will continue to demand higher, unrealistic profits, and big clients’ choice of agency partners will be pegged to four. They will intensify their search for other marketing communication vehicles that can yield better deals.
What does the future hold? There will be more independent startups, more passion and pure creativity but in a different landscape. Creative departments will be unbundled, and more genuine creative leaps will raise the bar in the way we do business. Given these scenarios, starting an agency can become as convenient and fun as a tea party.
So what’s the big idea? We should understand the advertising industry from more perspectives, from beyond our jobs or our individual crafts. This way, we can have a more informed opinion and make a more important contribution to its metamorphosis. Aitchison advised: "Fight the good fight, with the right facts. See the world as bigger than a 30-seconder, look for creativity from your client, and ask yourself, if advertising is going to survive, what am I doing to help it?"
And dream on!
BrandSpace Articles
<
>
