Via Scoop.it – storybranding
Trustiness vs. Trust, the difference between fiction and non-fiction when it comes to brands We’re all looking for someone to trust. People and institutions that will do what they say and say what they mean. Banks used to use marble pillars and armed guards to make it clear that our money was safe.
Via sethgodin.typepad.com
Via Scoop.it – storybranding
This interview with my friend Michael Margolis is brilliant. He fully captures what StoryBranding is all about. And Zappos is one of the best examples of a StoryBrand. The interview is 34 minutes long but it is something that should be watched in full.
Via www.getstoried.com
A brand is much like a character in a story. And like all story characters, brands have both outer and inner layers that determine the extent to which we become engaged with them. The outer layer consists of the brand’s functional attributes and capabilities. The inner layer is comprised of beliefs and values that are responsible for why the brand does what it does. Too often, brands disregard or ignore the importance of their inner layers. In this video, Simon Sinek discusses something very similar while helping to explain the profound and often ignored reality that “people don’t buy what you do, they buy why you do it.”
Stories are one of the most powerful tools in our communications arsenal.
If that comes as a surprise, think back on important values and beliefs you gained while growing up, and from the likes of Aesop, The Brother’s Grimm, religious parables, and other story sources. If you’re looking for more substantive proof, there is a plethora of research on the potency of stories. You can find references to over 300 studies in a book aptly titled StoryProof, by Kendall Haven, the foremost authority on the subject. Another author, Daniel Pink, who recently wrote The Whole New Mind:Why Right-Brainers Will Rule The Future, provides further proof as he explains how storytelling proficiencies are growing in importance as we become less reliant on left-brain analytics being advanced by computer technology.
What can brands learn from stories and story structure?
In a word: plenty.
Simply put, a story consists of a character (or characters) dealing with some obstacle to overcome some goal. This is often referred to as the story’s plot. However, the stories that have the most long-term impact are those that are emotionally charged with some value or belief that resonates with us: persistence pays, love makes the world go ‘round, crime doesn’t pay etc. This is often referred to as the story’s theme or message, and the more unique the theme, the more powerful the story.
Comparatively, brands have plots and themes, as well. A brand’s plot consists of the functional problems (or opportunities) a brand addresses. These are usually expressed as explicit benefits like increased value for the money, more safety, ease of use etc. However, as with stories, a brand that is solely dependent on its plot is vulnerable to be forgotten or possibly copied by competitors over time. Given the speed of innovation, brand plots have expiration dates. A unique solution to some problem today is very likely to become a ‘so what’ tomorrow.
The brand’s theme on the other hand, if unique and meaningful, is something that lasts over time. A classic example is Apple and its garnered association with the value of thinking different. Likewise, Nike’s brand is built around the value of athletic performance. Then there’s North Face and it’s belief in the value of exploration, Chipotle and its association with food integrity, and Harley Davidson through its drive to promote individualism. These brands have causes that go well beyond their functional advantages and benefits. There are many others, but unfortunately, these are more the exception than the rule.
Many brands fall short of story theming in the truest sense of the word. Keep in mind that a story theme idea is different from what many refer to as an advertising theme line. In fact, many and arguably most so-called theme lines are promises or benefit claims. They have nothing to do with a universal belief with which audiences can identify and/or rally around. Many advertising theme lines would be more accurately labeled “plot lines. “
Why is the plot/theme distinction important?
Brands and stories are both vehicles through which relationships are forged. To better understand this concept, consider that the root of the word relationship is “to relate.” “To relate “ simply means to understand, identify, and support someone. It follows that the extent to which we do defines the strength of our “relationship.” This explains why we love story heros and despise villans. Arguably we love heros not so much for what they do but for the values we associate with their motivations.
Steve Jobs to many is a hero. What he did while alive is remarkable. But why he did what he did is where the real admiration comes in. If you’re familiar with his biography, how he functioned as a manager has been met with a great deal of criticism. It is well documented that he was often abusive, cagey, and belligerent. But his belief system provides a more important story. Despite his eccentricities, he was motivated by the conviction that he was just crazy enough to change the world. And he did. It is hard not to admire and aspire to his indefatigable spirit and the “theme” of his life.
It is the same with brands. We like, want and even need their functional benefits. But if we are to relate to a brand, what it does or how it performs will never be as important to us as what it represents. We like brands for what they do. But we love them for what they stand for.
http://wp.me/p21mMC-45
To see StoryBranding slideshow, click on Link
Trust. Now in aerosol spray.
My spam folder is always good for a few laughs.
The other day, among the typical ads about increasing the size of certain body parts and/or my sexual prowess, I saw an ad for a trust spray. Just spray this on a prospective client before that big meeting and the deal is as good as done. To this I say, spray a prospective client with anything and gaining trust will be the least of your problems. Do people actually buy this stuff?
Nevertheless, this ad, for some reason aroused my curiosity. I simply had to know how someone would actually attempt to sell something so ridiculous. So, I clicked on the link to the trust spray website.
Once there, a seductive female avatar greeted me by announcing that now all my dreams can come true. ”Use this spray and everyone will trust you. Trust is power,” she says.
I read on to discover that the magic ingredient that is being promoted is oxytocin, the human hormone that is released within our system when we experience trust. Still curious, I clicked on the news links from ABC, NBC and other sources that I usually perceive as credible. And as things go when I get into one of those ‘just-gotta-know’ jags, one link led to another and to another until I got to an abstract of the July issue of The Journal of Psychiatry. I was kind of busy last summer. Must have missed that issue.
Still not convinced that I ought to carry around an aerosol can of trust spray in my brief case (special pocket sizes are available too), after struggling through the journal abstract, I must admit that there is something to the oxytocin thing.
Researchers have shown that it is especially released with touch, as in a massage, and during emotional movies. In one study they showed that in both humans and dogs oxytocin levels in the blood rose after five to twenty-four minutes of a petting session. While reading this, I’m thinking that if I engage in petting a research volunteer, I won’t need trust as much as I’ll need a good lawyer. Nevertheless, I am convinced that it is possible that oxytocin does play a role in the emotional bonding between humans and dogs.
For marketers, other than perhaps those trying to sell trust in a can, this raises some important questions worthy of investigation. If there is any truth to the effects of oxitocyn, what does this suggest for advertising effectiveness? One might surmise that cold hard facts or opinions alone aren’t going to do too much to create a bond with consumers. My guess is that very little oxitocyn gets released when an ad boasts superlative for its product like “the best, the fastest, or the least expensive?” Comparatively, it’s easy to surmise that emotionally charged values and beliefs that are shared with consumers can do more to create loyalty. If scientists can measure oxitocyn emissions that occur through petting, certainly someone should be able to measure the flow through our blood streams when ads take the form of stories instead of editorials. One thing for sure. It would be a lot safer.
A Branding Lesson from George Orwell
As I walked into my office today, there was a copy of George Orwell’s 1984 on my desk. On the book was a sticky note attached to a page with a drawn arrow that pointed to a certain passage. The note wasn’t signed, but I knew that the words “READ THIS!” were written in my assistant Heather’s handwriting.
Like most books I was supposed to read in high school, all I can remember about George Orwell’s 1984 is what Cliff Notes told me to remember. And what I remember most are warnings against evil dictators, Big Brother and the thought police.
As I wondered if Heather was trying to send me a message, I sheepishly started reading the passage. By the time I was done I was ready to give her a promotion.
Here is an extract from the passage the arrow pointed to:
The book fascinated him, or more exactly it reassured him. In a sense it told him nothing that was new, but that was part of the attraction. It said what he would have said, if it had been possible for him to set his scattered thoughts in order. It was the product of a mind similar to his own. The best books, he perceived, are those that tell you what you know already.
The context is less important than the content of this message. But if you’re interested, it’s in Chapter 9 when the lead character finishes reading a book he had been struggling to get his hands on.
Heather has known for a while that I have a fascination with the similarities between stories and brands. She also knows that this passage supports what I believe is yet another in a long list of parallels that can be drawn between good stories and good brands.
To understand why Orwell’s passage resonated with me, I should first let you in on a couple of beliefs I have about brands, in general. You should know that I don’t think brands are objects; rather they are labels given to objects for which we associate certain meanings. Furthermore, you should know that I believe that the “best” brands contained within anyone’s favored set of brands satisfy needs that go beyond product or service functions. Rather, they are brands that have meanings we value as important. Mercedes means something important to the owners of Mercedes, as does the meaning of Subaru to its owners.
Understanding this, the real “ah ha!” for me is a point that Orwell makes in this passage about “best books.” He says they tell us what we already know and that they are the “product of minds similar to ours.” In other words, they don’t create beliefs and values as much as they reinforce what’s already there. And they do this by awakening our minds or putting “our scattered thoughts in order.”
When Steve Jobs passed away, one of the most poignant comments I heard about him was that he didn’t give us Apple computers, iPods or iPads. Rather, he gave us Apple. He gave us a meaning that we could connect with emotionally for those of us who, like Jobs, value what is promoted through Apple’s theme line, “Think Different.” The reason we could connect with this meaning isn’t because Steve Jobs put that meaning into our belief system. It was already there. Like a good story, meanings associated with Apple are meanings that, to borrow from Orwell, “fascinate or more exactly reassure us.” Apple gave us something we were already predisposed to receiving.
The reason this is an important concept is plain to see when examining powerful brands like Apple, Harley-Davidson, Disney, Nike and others that tap into and/or celebrate our existing values. But just as there are lessons from success, there are lessons from underestimating just how important it is for brands to crystalize rather than create meaning.
Try as they might, brands like stories cannot change beliefs and associated values if we are not ready to have them changed. Marketing history is rife with examples that prove the point. Oldsmobile learned this lesson the hard way when it tried to convince its audience that “This is not your father’s Oldsmobile.” Despite its clever attempt to shed a different light on its brand, the belief that Oldsmobile is a car for older people was too entrenched to be radicalized. As Sears learned through its efforts to shed light on “The Softer Side of Sears,” it was impossible for us to let go of its harder side image we had come to associate through brands like Craftsman, Die-Hard, and Kenmore. We gave Radio Shack a “you’ve got to be kidding” snicker when they tried to go from geeky to hip with its new moniker “The Shack.” And then there’s the archetypal New Coke mistake that taught us that changing an image, especially when it ain’t broke, can be a costly mistake.
Time and time again we hear Chicken Little pronouncements by management that “we must change our identity (read: meaning) or we are going to perish.” More often than not, the only thing that needs to change is an improved sense of meanings that haven’t changed.
At its core, Old Spice is a brand we have learned to associate with masculinity. Granted, it might be our father’s aftershave. But “Smell Like A Man,” didn’t bother to change Old Spice’s meaning in order to reignite its appeal. Rather, it stayed the course merely with a more contemporized frame of reference we now have for masculinity. Volkswagen’s Beetle found its link to its reverse snobbery roots when it reestablished a cult following by introducing the new Beetle with alternative rock music. It furthered that link by attaching a flower vase to its dashboard. Sperry Topsiders, an old, tired brand sold mostly to men, dramatically increased sales by making its long-held association with the good life, on or around the water, relevant to women and kids.
Thank-you George Orwell for putting my scattered thoughts in order. And thank-you Heather. You’ve been elevated to Super Assistant.
