|
One of the oldest concepts in marketing is that of the Unique
Selling Proposition or brand USP. The terminological progeny, if I recall correctly, of the Bates international advertising network. USP relevance is being amplified
by digital communications and technology. Your brand USP will telegraph a ‘with it’ ‘out of it’, mainstream, marginal or moribund signal. So distinctive is the
perception relationship between consumer and brand that we’re spawning new refining and defining criteria. To whit: The Jones’ - who are (no-brainer!) people concerned
with “keeping up with the Jones’.” Or maybe even ahead of them!
The Jones’ are a statistically important clutch of people aged between forty and fifty.
Identified originally by sociologist Jonathan Pontell, they’re now punted by a British political pollster as a crucial niche ‘cusp’ group or sector between the
classic Boomers and X-ers. The Jones’ have leapt to prominence particularly courtesy of the latest frantic electioneering between Tony Blair and his excruciatingly
vanilla Conservative Party opposition counterpart, Michael Howard. Howard’s manifestation of charisma catapults funerals into rock concert league. But that’s another
discussion.
The Jones’ are defined by the political analysts (PA’s) as being driven primarily by status and materialism. They’re interested in the May 5th 2005 British elections largely insofar as the outcomes will affect their status, income, privilege and leisure. So, many of the political stump speeches have been crafted to appeal to the self-interest, whims and fancies of the Jones’ and other niche constituents.
The role of the brand USP has taken on particular significance in the political field. It’s part of the reason why the erstwhile ‘New’ (misnomer) National
Party (NNP) was sold out by the arch ‘hensopper’ (the Boer war term for ‘hands-upper’, ‘surrenderer’ or collaborator) and our Pillsbury Foods’ ‘doughboy’ caricature,
Marthinus van Schalkwyk. Personal power and status are clearly more important to Kortbroek than the needs of any dysfunctional followers. So - as with all ‘past their
sell-by date’ species, Mother Nature prescribed extinction. Without so much as a volcanic eruption in Khazakstan, a meteorite strike or an ice-age, (depending on which
scientific hypothesis you subscribe to), to blame for it.
The relevance for brand custodians and marketers today is that a USP will not automatically remain
forever the USP. People will ‘me-too’ and piggy-back on your brand characteristics – whether tangible or intangible. Witness the fray in the anti-wrinkle industry. The
latest Time magazine articles indicate a piranha-like frenzy in a no-holds-barred attempt to garner a sliver of market share. Disconcertingly, it seems the Jones’
don’t believe wrinkles are necessary - which imposes one helluva burden on those of us already suffering a smidgen of hail damage here and there!
Marketers of
mobile phones, PDA’s, i-Pods, Sony Play stations, notebook PC’s, compact entry-level cars, Vespa scooters, kids’ biscuits and a host of successful ‘sexy’ brands,
understand the need for a) a brand personality with which (particularly) young people can identify and b) something which sets that brand apart from others in the
category – its USP.
The challenge for marketers today is continuously to evolve the brand in line with shifting social norms, mores, expectations and demands.
What was fashionable many years ago may at some point enjoy a reincarnation in another guise. It’s a bit like grandma’s furniture, which we thought was hideous when we
were kids, but which would now sell for an absolute fortune.
Part of brand architecture and strategising has to be an inbuilt plan or mechanism for
regeneration. If incremental changes, logo tweaks, packaging refreshers and advertising ‘repositionings’ are done appropriately, they won’t make negative consumer
waves. Rather, they will keep the brand in the zone of the ‘contemporary’ – even if it’s a tried and trusted ‘Makoya’ (original) like Zambuk, a Lennon traditional
medicine like Borsdruppels or Vicks Vaporub and their ilk.
Waiting for competitive activity to compel such change is a recipe for extinction. Equally disastrous
is allowing the egos of the brand or marketing people to drive change for the sake of ‘making their mark’ on the brand. I know of one young brand manager who was given
her head in the cosmetics industry and based largely if not entirely on text book information, screwed up a range that had previously enjoyed tremendous success. Her
pedestrian notion of aesthetics was at odds with that of the target market. Her motivation for the change was not ‘what will further benefit or please the consumer?’
but rather ‘what can I do to leave a legacy and make my porty (portfolio) look good?’ She was fired too late to reverse the damage. She went on to manage toothpaste
brands in a multinational that fortunately had processes in place to clip the wings of Napoleonic band managers.
As the adage goes, ‘The only one who really
enjoys change is a baby with a wet nappy.’ Consumers adapt better when change is subtle and incremental – at all times maintaining brand integrity and personality in
the process. Breach the evolutionary process at your peril. Ignore it and you’ll have no brand – whether personal or corporate. Go ask Kortbroek.
|
