About Annabelle and the uniqueness of brands
I don’t know how old Annabelle from New York is and I don’t know with whom she usually visits museums either. Nor do I know how many and which museums she has already visited in her life. But I do know that in February 2011, Annabelle from New York was at the Museum of Modern Art. And she left scathing criticism (found in one of my favourite blogs “Letters of Note” http://lettersofnote.com/): ”I did not see a dinosaur. You call yourself a museum!” Well, too bad for the MoMA. At least some painted dinosaurs would have had to be there in order to convince Annabelle that the MoMA is a bit of a museum. But just with modern art, the MoMA was violating one of Annabelle’s basic convictions: museum = dinosaurs. Or the other way around: Every museum with dinosaurs can be sure of Annabelle’s love. Just because they confirm what Annabelle believes in. This is exactly how most successful brands work: they are purchased because they meet, complement, emphasise and assist their buyers in their basic convictions, their passions, and their personalities. However, the basic prerequisite is that the brand makes the access to itself - and thereby the opportunity for me to realise that we match - as easy as possible. As clearly as in Annabelle’s head, museum stands for dinosaur (which she obviously loves), as much does a brand that wants me to be its ardent fan have to stand for something I love. BMW stands for driving pleasure, Volvo for security. I can decide what is more suitable for me. But how do brands achieve such uniqueness and why are there so few of them? The reason is often quite simple: just take a look at the last briefing you gave to your agency or received from your customer. You should especially do so if the resulting campaign did not have the desired success again; that is, the campaign did not contribute to the uniqueness of your brand. And now count the adjectives that describe the brand and were assigned to it. More than 5? More than 3? 2? At this point, you already have to see clearly that something is going wrong. Two adjectives contradict the logic of clearness and already lower the chances of unambiguous brand communication by 50%, mathematically speaking. Into the bargain, most of the adjectives end in –er: whiter, bigger, faster, and if nothing else is left – cheaper! The problem: using –er automatically makes the brand comparable, I am downright asking for a comparison. In that case, uniqueness only occurs if the brand makes laundry a whole lot whiter, seems a whole lot bigger, drives a whole lot faster or is a whole lot cheaper. And that has to be the perception of the customer and not the opinion of the marketing department. According to a study by the consultancy Bain&Co, 80% of CEOs are convinced that their brands deliver a unique experience. Only 8% of customers agree to this evaluation… I am sure that Annabelle has a favourite museum: the best dinosaur museum in Annabelle’s universe. Not comparable, but unique. It’s the benchmark every other museum – even the MoMA - has to measure up to. The same is true for my MacBook, my Adidas running shoes or my Nutella – all three of them are unique to me, I don’t even take alternatives into consideration. Why? Because Nutella represents the yummiest bun of the week, the Saturday morning bun. Because I am convinced that Adidas shoes make me to deliver my best performance since I once scored 3 goals in one football game 30 years ago – in brand new Adidas football shoes. Because my MacBook has opened up a whole new world to me. Therefore, these brands stand for uniqueness, which, according to Grateful Dead – co-founder Jerry Garcia, was the goal of his band as well: “You do not merely want to be considered just the best of the best. You want to be considered the only ones who do what you do!”
