Skip to main content

To love is to let go

If you are controlling your brand, you are already behind.

In today’s shared economy, people create and share content faster and more authentically than companies.  So, why don’t most of us allow our customers to own and tell our stories? Why don’t we let go of our brands?

Is it the risk? As marketers, we are control freaks:  We want to protect our brand. In the name of consistency, we try to control every touch point from defining the message to dictating timing and channels. It’s like being in a one-way relationship with a control freak. “Human”? Maybe. Desirable? No.  

While this approach may have had its merits, it is not in tune with today’s reality.  People care about people, not products or features.  They don’t want to be told a story; they want a story to tell, and they want to tell it on their own terms.

If you look at the brands (e.g., Coke, Heineken, Patagonia, McDonalds, Lego, Red Bull, BuzzFeed…) that are thriving in this new reality, they share a common trait: they are live brands.  Not static or controlled brands. This means that they have a sense of purpose, they live in real time, and their stories are human, created and shared by people on their own terms.

In 2011, Coke rewrote its communication constitution to achieve its new ambition, to be the #1 in the non-alcoholic ready-to-drink business in every market, every category, by 2020. Big goals require big change. They new mantra “Liquid, Linked, &Liked, is about “creating ideas that are contagious so we actually lose control of where they go but directly linked to the values and objectives that matters to the brands,” according to Jonathan Mindenhall, VP of advertising strategy and Creative Excellence.

One of the most notable responses has been the “Share a Coke” campaign, which literally puts the brand in the hands of the consumers.


McDonald’s, a brand torn to bits in the media and in movies such as Supersize Me, Food Nation, and Food Inc, had a major quality perception problem. To address the problem, McDonald’s in Canada decided to open up by inviting people to ask questions about the food. Then, McDonald’s answered all the questions openly, honestly and in real-time, and posted the Q&A live for the world to see.  What started as a national campaign in Canada transformed the way that people around the world felt about McDonald’s.




In the lieu of sponsoring the US Open, Heineken decided to bring a little bit of the Arthur Ashe Stadium’s experience to Union Square.  They brought a tennis umpire chair to the square and asked bystanders to silence the crowd for two tickets to the US Open. The result: a marriage proposal. Check it out.




In summary, in today’s connected economy, the best Brands stay relevant by letting go. The more we try to control our brands, the less love they get.  That’s why to love is to let go.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How Cool Brands Stay Hot: Aim for Love, Not Likes

Love is an unconditional emotion while like is a more watered-down version of love. Loving someone means that he or she means everything to you while liking someone implies that you are only happy being with that person. Love involves deeper, stronger emotions, while like is more of a tender feeling towards that special someone. In a world of infinite choices, love is everything. Like is a nice to have.  Today, we live in a world of abundance, where people intent to create content surpass their time to consume it. Video content is much easier and cheaper to produce than at any other time in history. YouTube sees 400 hours of video uploaded every minute. Facebook has more than 250,000 status updates in the same span. We could never read and see everything online.  With unlimited possibilities and limited time, we pay sustainable attention to what we love and divided attention to what we like. We spend hours watching Homeland and give our divided attention to our news feed on Facebook. …

Adidas kills TV. Now, let’s debate

The News: Adidas is ditching TV for digital. The company is looking to boost its e-commerce revenues from $1.06 billion in 2016 to $4.25 billion by 2020 — and Adidas wants to use digital channels to get there. The Rationale: Fish where the fish are. Younger consumers don't watch TV anymore. They spend most of their time on their mobile devices. The Controversy: Why do they want to ditch a medium that is allegedly more "critical" to the brand and that generates more sales than digital? Here we have the Debate between TV and digital: Media Consumption TV: People are watching TV now more than ever.  Digital: People are consuming media more than ever, but mostly through digital devices. The Fact: In 2017, people are projected to spend 6 hours on digital – with the majority being mobile devices - while only spending 4 hours consuming television according to the eMarketer forecast. Younger viewers watch 2.5 times more internet video than TV. Consumers aged 13-24 watch 12.1 hours …

Winter and Summer in Adland

It is winter in Adland.  We have moved from a world of scarcity to a world of abundance and algorithms.  We have lost the power of influence. Trust has been severely damaged.  Consumer attention is the new bottleneck. We no longer decide who sees us. Instead, we get picked.  30 second is not enough anymore. We need to take consumers through a scenic journey to create a long lasting relationship.  Everyone is a publisher. It is easier than ever to create, but harder than ever to make a hit.  The impulse to make has far outrun the desire to consume.  New forces have emerged in the form of sophisticated algorithms.  A new model has surfaced called "pay per play,” which scored everything we do on relevance to feeding the machine. It decides what gets picked, when, and where, based on extreme relevancy.  Mass media has vanished. Precision and personalization have emerged.  It is winter in Adland. The good days are all long gone.  It is Summer in Adland We now have the power to make bra…