The Tricky Path of Brand Relationships

People rather pay to represent the brand than have the brand pay them. It’s quite funny actually. 50 years ago, large logos on clothing didn’t exist, but now, people proudly display these logos as status symbols.

Or, let’s think about Apple’s iPod. They made their headphones white and people paid to join the white headphone community. They saw white headphones on other people so they subconsciously realized they wanted an Apple iPod.

So, here is the next way to market a business. Make your product exclusive and charge people a monthly fee to wear your shoes — even if they dont’ wear them daily.

What do you think of that, Chris?

I’ve always thatough that the more you can tap into someone’s emotions, the more loyal your audience will be. Because, to me, this kind of ‘buy in’ is so moch more than the wow effect — that will only last until the next ‘wow’ product comes thru. But when you affect someone on a deeper level, you’ve made a connection.

These connections make a difference with companies, people and products. And why not? There’s trust and credibility – which goes a long way…especially in a financial freefall like the one we’re all experiencing.

The form of marketing that has always been most effective on me is free (or very low cost) samples. Since he or she is initially trying to give me something instead of sell me something, I am more receptive to his or her approach than I would be otherwise. Also, it’s usually pretty obvious when someone offering samples genuinely uses and likes the product (and really believes that you will too after you try it) versus is just pushing samples because it is his or her job.

Chris…

I had this debate three years ago, with the people behind DeSmogBlog.

They made the contention that PR people are to blame for global warming, because PR practitioners are “clouding” the “resounding” science supporting their cause. Their statement was that PR people were selling out their souls, chasing the dollars of the greedy capitalists.

I asked the simple question: “What if there are PR people who, prior to any question or opportunity for money, believed that global warming is a natural event and that the impact of mankind has been exaggerated?”

In that instance, is their counsel and messaging support any less valid because they happen to be paid now?

My very thoughtful and well-reasoned comment was deleted outright, and never acknowledged.

So there is your answer.

The purists who already KNOW EVERYTHING will stop at nothing to bully and browbeat those with whom they disagree with the OLDEST rhetorical shortcut in the world: the ad hominem of circumstance.

Screw ‘em. They reveal their character in the way they say one thing and do another.

I’m thinking that we don’t get the word out and sales don’t happen if we don’t advertise. If people don’t know about your product, they don’t know to buy it.

I’m thinking it primarily has to deal with the negative subconscious ideas and experiences that people have around money and business. The average person has been programmed to consume. To receive a “kick-back” for actively promoting what was just “consumed” seems like a conflict of interest… an underlying “oxymoron” running the default memory in most people.

I like the idea of content marketing that you suggested. Depending on your surveyed subjects, the outcome may change. If you do this again, compare and contrast the responses from business owners/entrepreneurs/students and regular workers. There may be a differential there.

There’s another element here and that’s that the people who read this site and I’m guessing (?) many of the people you’ve surveyed are pretty marketing savvy.

I guess this sounds kind of snobby or elitist, but there are a massive number of people out there who will buy or sample something because Tiger Woods says they should.

Things evolve. Advertising will certainly find its way into our lives. I believe in passion and its influence, whether that be a blog post or any other kind of media.

I think your results are incongruous because there is emotion and passion as an underlying current that flows through those that are passionate about the subject to respond. That always skews the results a bit.

Overall, I believe that people are inclined to be apathetic or worse when the advertising targets a product or service for which they have no passionate position. To some extent I think the advertising needs to work a bit to try and instill that passion.

On another note, I think that celebrity endorsements play little part to my purchasing decisions. I’m afraid I liken them to political endorsements and I’m usually inclined to go the other way.

George

I saw when you posted this questions on twitter but I could not really answer this in 140 characters or less so thanks for making a post about this. Receiving money for representing a brand is fine if done correctly.

The person who is getting paid should have some knowledge of the product or brand for the average individual to ask questions. The problem comes when the person just slaps a name on a brand and has no idea what it really is about. Credibility is lost and maybe even a sale.

@bookerx3

Chris:
I would generally agree with you that we as consumers can be hypocritical about this subject – but who said consumers were always rational people? :)

I think you’re dead on talking about content marketing as the way to move forward – but why do consumers have to be paid for that? Couldn’t the ones who are passionate about it do it for free, but still work in conjunction with the company?

And as far as advertising goes, why couldn’t the company advertise the community rather than the product? As in, discussions and involvement are happening around this product or idea, so come join us. Be a part of something. That I think would seem appealing to people. It wouldn’t feel like they were being “sold” per se, just informed.

Thanks again, Chris, for a great discussion starter.

The questions you asked on twitter recently got me thinking. Here’s a one person case study of my experience with Icebreaker clothing (they make Merino wool thermals, base and mid layers, great for all kinds of sport, and general wear, check them out at Icebreaker.com). It’s not cheap.

I first found out about Icebreaker from a friend who had bought himself a selection of their products to wear on a ski holiday. He’d been influenced by a salesperson who recommended Icebreaker as a response to the question: What’s the BEST, money no object, thermals you sell? I was sceptical at first but he extolled the key virtues of the Merino wool: it doesn’t stink – you can sweat but your clothes don’t smell, it’s really comfortable to wear – no artificial fibres helps.

I didn’t buy any immediately (did I mention, it’s pricey stuff!), but the exclusive retailer of Icebreaker where I live were doing a promo and I noticed it on their storefront, buy one item get the second for half off. That was the nudge that I needed, I bought my first couple of items of Icebreaker and they’re the most frequently worn clothes I own.

So, it took a personal recommendation AND some good ol’ fashioned point of sales promotion to get me to buy, but no traditional advertising. Now I’m a devoted fan. Take what you like from this.

I suspect celebrities because I questions whether they really use the product or use the product as “regular” people would.

Another thought pops up: If I’ve already stated that I love a product, in my case, my Nikon D40 camera, and Nikon suddenly offered to be a sponsor for my blog, which already features photos taken with my camera, would my love of my Nikon be suddenly suspect?

Chris,

Your post reminded me of Dan Ariely’s chapters in Predictably Irrational about how money turns a social relationship into a business relationship. What if people see their favorite brands (not all brands – only their favorites) as social relationships – as part of their identity? They would see someone offering to pay them as violating this social relationship, much like Dan’s example of standing up after Thanksgiving dinner and offering your mother-in-law some money for the dinner. If you haven’t read Predictably Irrational, take a look at it. You might draw some connections with the effect you are seeing in your post.

Oh, boy. I saw your tweets asking for input, and didn’t, but I found the above summary interesting. Marketing really gets the juices flowing for some folks, doesn’t it? Ogilvy and Charles Revson had wonderful observations about B2C marketing. I take them to heart, although my area is B2B they are still relevant. All marketing is based on human nature.

Authors (like Isaac Asimov or Stephen King) have been known to say that being an author spoils reading for them. They know the tricks. Similarly we marketing folks recognize what we see going on around us – or do we? Pepsi and Coke create communities of affiliation with their ads. Celebrity advertising supposedly works enough to justify its cost. It works because it taps into the brand of the celebrity and bites off a piece of that for the advertiser. Whether we like/dislike celebrity ads (I find them a waste of money), we respond to them because the celebrity is a shorthand notation for a set of characteristics a company wants affiliated with their product. That’s why DELCO advertises on NASCAR cars.

Mostly product marketing is about making people aware of the product and its benefits. To do this we need to, as you say, “get the word out.” Visibility to the right people. And we’ll use every psychological, physical, electronic, etc. trick in the book. Does money change everything? Unless they’ve been living under a rock, consumers are sophisticated enough to know the celebrities are being paid and adjust their antennae input for that. But the shorthand still works. Pepsi commercials without celebrities work, too. Visibility, affiliation, benefits. You pays your nickel and you takes your choice. We’re selling dreams as well as functionality.

I wrote a post over on my blog about “Why we should care about Attention” to answer this question. (www.whitneyhoffman.com)
Basically, what we have here is a classic case of mixing the metaphor, straight out of Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely. We have a social relationship, but when it gets financial, it muddies the water, as much as if you offered to pay your Mom for that fine Thanksgiving dinner. What we’re doing in this new age of consumer-centered marketing is playing with this mixed message of when we can ask our “friends” for money and financial support in return for “x”- the idea/service/product we are trying to capitalize on.

Just wanted to leave a comment on the ‘advertising works’ aspect of this.

You have to be careful when concluding that ‘advertising works’. From which perspective are you asserting this? It could be from the point of view of the advertiser. They notice a measurable improvement to their sales, strongly correlated with their campaign. In that sense, yes, the advertising has ‘worked’.

However, looked at globally – from an ‘overview’ sort of perspective, it might not have ‘worked’ as well as is indicated by the advertisers perspective.

How many people have been alienated, annoyed, insulted, irritated by the style of the advertising? To what extent has the reputation of the vehicle which carried the advertising been adversely affected by the campaign? How much ‘long term damage’ has been sustained in contrast to ‘short term advantage’? How much future potential business has been permanently lost by catering to the people who are easily influenced by that particular type of advertising?

The measurable improvement may have been achieved as the result of a sub-group reacting favourably to the advertising but this could mask the majority who did not.
The party who are benefiting from the ‘bottom line’ might not care about carrying out any further analysis. The advertising has ‘worked’ and that is all that matters to them.

In my opinion, this is what is wrong with advertising in recent years. It simply ignores the growing cohort of people in society who are sick of the usual techniques of advertising. They are not part of the ‘success’ of advertising and are therefore simply not counted. It is a bit like a political party winning an election with only 20 percent of the vote say. They declare ‘victory’ but really, they have lost.

I hope that this made some sort of sense because I am speaking as a ‘consumer’ rather than a member of the profession (which I am not).

Looking at your points in reverse order, here’s my take:

-Advertising works just the way it is supposed to. The advertisers have run the numbers and they know what they are getting for their buck. It certainly does seem, though, that media delivery is changing, so ad buys are likely to shift as circulation/viewer counts and other demos shift.
-Celebrity endorsements are primarily a form of entertainment to me; if the celebrity finds some creative way to stick in my head, MAYBE I’ll try the product if I’m not already a user. Often though, I watch advertising for products I already use, so the celebrity serves just as an entertainer.
-I’d have a hard time understanding how to properly weight an ebulliently positive review versus a scathingly negative review if I know that the reviewer gets paid as a product delivery and marketing conduit. Maybe you can remain objective, you are that good, but most people would simply become ‘tools’ at this point. Also, I wouldn’t want to make my own living this way. I just don’t really like that many products and think that maybe we are a bit too focused on consumerism (?)
-I have no problem at all with sharing my own positive experiences and I heartily recommend ways that my friends/colleagues/etc can improve their lives. I’d hate to soil those recommendations with the appearance of an impropriety due to “compensated positivity”. Interestingly, instead of products it is normally people (i.e. Chris Brogan, my mechanic, and my barber) and sometimes companies (i.e. Walmart, Coca Cola, WordPress) that I recommend. My own recommendations are normally based on positive experiences, not individual products. The only compensation I need is the knowledge that my friend has had a similarly positive experience.

Celebrity endorsements definitely don’t change my mind about a brand. I know its all about the money there and I’ll use the product if I like the product.

I feel like I already promote my brands. I tell people I like certain brands because I use them. It doesn’t take any money I just like the products.

I hear your argument, but I think that with celebrity endorsements, there’s an understanding that consumers know that they’re being paid. And having been in on those negotiations, I know that — by and large — celebrities don’t just endorse any old thing. We’ve had many turn down endorsement/spokesperson opportunities based on principle, dislike, conflict-of-interest, etc. For instance, celebs who are spokespersons for pharma companies usually have a personal connection to the drug, disease, whatever.

There’s such a strong bond of trust placed on a non-solicited, non-paid endorsement by Joe and Jane Public. You feel like you’re getting the real scoop. However, in your case, Chris, you’re moving into that celebrity realm (seriously), so a paid endorsement by you, goes with a certain understanding of trust and knowing the source. You’ve built up that trust, so if you truly endorse something — paid or not — I feel you’re being honest, because you’ve built up that trust with me … more so than Paris Hilton!

Hi Chris —

Good on you for starting a conversation about the next steps in solving a serious problem.

“Hey gang, how do we make money off these cool new tools that let us stay in touch and talk about things that are important to us?”
– (insert chorus of “yeah,” “all right,” “sounds good”)
~later…~
“Hey gang, this thing from company is really cool! Have you tried it? I like x y and z but how about you?”
– (insert discussion about the thing, which probably inspires some people to buy it, and at least gives thing google juice)
~later~
“Hey gang, company sent me a free new thing, and I think it’s just great. It does x, y and z. What are your experiences?”
– “SELLOUT!!!!!!”

Apparently, actually succeeding at what EVERYONE wants to do suddenly makes you LESS reliable and trustworthy. I don’t know if I have answers but GODDAMN it feels good to see someone ask the questions. Maybe more later.

-Dave

Excellent point about people who are already passionate being turned into brand advocates.

I’d argue it’s a question of self-respect/dignity – people can’t be made to feel as if they’ve been conned. That’s why my intro to marketing course in CEGEP taught us that after a purchase, people talk about it with friends/family to validate their decision and be comfortable with what they did – they’re seeking reassurance that it was a good buy (compliments on how nice the car is matter too, but that’s besides the point). That’s why folks are OK with paid reps, so long as the relationship is disclosed – they feel they can make an informed decision, and avoid being taken advantage of. Perhaps more than self-respect, it’s an instinct of self-preservation?

Fascinating the depth of comments you get here.

In the research I’ve seen on women and WOM, women are especially alert to incentives that might taint their recommendation. Spreading WOM is often about strengthening relationships. Do it wrong, and it could hurt your relationships with your friends and your social standing.

and yes, there’s the social relationship theory from Predictibly Irrational mentioned by several other commenters.

I think it comes down to a perception of “incentivising” vs. “appreciation.”

Incentivising your customers implies giving something with an expectation of getting something in return. It also implies lack of freedom to say what you really think (aka, you’re probably not going to get the incentive if your review is negative)

appreciation is about a more one-way transacation with no expectations of anything in return, and no restriction on what you can say (aka, you send a free product to a loyal customer, but they have the right to give it a positive review, a negative review, or no review it at all)

It’s a fine line – really a perception thing. But Transparency and authenticity have to be built in.

In short, Brand Relations should be led by PR, not the traditional “ad man.” Now is the opportunity for the PR industry to emerge as more of an asset to brand than ever before. Become the “branding through communications” agency similar to the way ad firms have in the past. Ads are about “push”, but today’s marketing is not.

re celebrity endorsement: I think the misperception here is that brands pay celebrities to endorse products. I manage two outdoor brands and can tell you that our celebrity sponsorship is about branding, not endorsement. What I mean is that, they are an extension of our brand. The represent what our brand is about, and they add exposure to the brand. I don’t believe people are listening to what they say about our brand, but I do believe people associate products with people – and that’s an entirely different thing.

Hi Chris,

We’ve seen the same trends among the Mom demographic as well. Mom WOM is strong:

67% of Moms would rather get information from someone they consider a peer than a “celebrity” Mom.

94% of Moms rely on recommendations from other Moms when it comes to purchasing decisions.

The large majority of Moms read consumer-written product reviews online before making even small purchasing decisions. Since Moms now invest more time and effort researching their purchasing decisions, they feel compelled to share their findings with others. We’ve found Moms, especially, are leaders in this movement.

I love those little quotes under the stories in Readers Digest. One of them I read years back that stuck with me is:
“People will always prefer the calm seas of despotism to the turbulent waters of independence” (can’t remember the author)
It’s sad but true, but that’s STILL no justification for becoming a despot.
Advertising/not advertising should be a matter for personal preference, and not something that’s forced down your throat like bad medicine or, worse, religious dogma!