A visual hammer is so effective because it says something about your brand. The “lime” that says Corona is the authentic Mexican beer. The “contour bottle” that says Coca-Cola is the original cola. The “cowboy” that says Marlboro is the masculine cigarette.
A company makes a major mistake when it develops a verbal strategy without considering what visual hammer might help hammer that idea into consumers' minds.
In the year 2010, General Motors spent $1.1 billion advertising its Chevrolet brand. The verbal strategy? "Chevrolet runs deep."
But how do you visualize an abstract idea like that?
Most advertising slogans are abstractions impossible to visualize. To turn them into "nails," they need to be brought down to earth.
Years ago, BMW could have used "performance," a typical automotive theme, to position its brand. Instead, it called its brand, "The ultimate driving machine."
"Performance" can't be visualized, but "driving" can. So BMW ran television commercials with happy owners driving their BMWs over winding roads. A great hammer and a great marketing success. Today, BMW is the world's best-selling luxury vehicle brand, outselling Mercedes-Benz, Audi and Lexus.
Look at the problems Brand Atlanta has had in trying to create a memorable slogan for the city. Created by Mayor Shirley Franklin in 2005, Brand Atlanta has the task of trying to make the city more of a visitor and business destination. (Trying to do both was its first mistake.)
"Every day is an opening day" was the first slogan that quickly ran out of steam. My complaint, Where's the visual that could reinforce an opening day idea?
"City lights, Southern nights" fared no better. (It was another slogan that couldn't be visualized.) At the launch of this backup campaign, the executive director of Brand Atlanta said, "I went to New York last weekend and it wasn't because of I love New York." Maybe she should have paid attention to the best-known city slogan in the world.
It's the "heart" hammer that makes all the difference. Ironically, Atlanta also has two well-known verbal ideas that do suggest visual hammers.
Atlanta is a fast-growing community because it's the transportation hub of the Southeast and home of the world's largest airport. Locals often call their city "Hotlanta," a verbal idea that suggests many possible visual hammers.
The second idea has to do the environment. Compare Dallas, the city's only serious competitor in the South, with Atlanta. Compared to Atlanta, Dallas looks like a desert and Atlanta is loaded with trees. "City in a forest" is what people often say about Atlanta.
If there is one case history that demonstrates the power of a visual hammer, it can be found just 145 miles east of the city.
In the world of professional golf, there are four major championships: (1) The U.S. Open, (2) The British Open, (3) The PGA Championship and (4) The Masters.
The first three are hosted by major golf organizations, but the Masters is hosted by a private club, the Augusta National Golf Club. Guess which tournament draws the most attention? The Masters, of course.
If you want to make your brand famous, give your brand a green jacket.
Visual Hammer is on sale now at Amazon and iTunes.
In 1986, CBS broadcast a 60 Minutes segment about Audi entitled "Out of Control." The show chronicled the tendency of the Audi 5000 model to suffer from "unintended acceleration."
(Three years later, the culprit was discovered. “The major cause," according to The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, "appears to have been drivers unknowingly stepping on the accelerator instead of the brake pedal.")
Consumers, however, blamed the car instead of the driver. Audi sales in the American market plummeted. From 74,061 vehicles in 1985 to 12,283 vehicles in 1991.
In 1990, Audi hired my Dad to help them revive the brand following the crisis and downfall. I remember the case well and was curious about what his exact ideas for Audi were so I dug up a copy of his report. Al’s advice: "Don't try to fight a bad perception. Just change the name."
Not a bad idea. It has taken Audi another 20 years of struggling to finally get where it is today. Enthusiasts speak to the quality of the cars, but for decades the brand suffered from the crisis and a weak sounding name.
What if they had listened to Al’s advice? What if they changed the name? What could they change it to? Sometimes there are no good alternatives.
But in the case of Audi, they had something right under their noses. Audi had introduced a four-wheel-drive model called "Quattro" which Al thought was a good automobile name. And it is! It also focused the brand on a key feature: four-wheel drive.
The Ries advice: change the Audi brand name to Quattro and import only four-wheel-drive vehicles to the United States.
What was even more interesting was a single line buried in report: "Interestingly, the four-circle Audi symbol is a natural extension of the Quattro four-wheel-drive concept.”
Too bad Al didn’t have me and a copy of my new Visual Hammer book to help him sell that idea to Audi. He could have made the point that four circles are a powerful visual hammer for a four-wheel-drive vehicle with a four-wheel-drive name. It would have been brilliant!
Forty years ago, Advertising Age published a series of articles by my father, Al Ries, and Jack Trout titled "The Positioning Era Cometh."
Nine years later, McGraw-Hill published their book "Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind." In the years that followed, "positioning" became one of the most talked-about concepts in the marketing community. In its 75th anniversary edition, Advertising Age selected positioning as one of its 75 “top ad moments.”
But as revolutionary as positioning was, it had a weakness. Invariably, positioning strategy was expressed verbally. You looked for a verbal hole in the mind and then you filled that hole with your brand name.
The best way into the mind is not with words. It’s with visuals. They can play a more important role in marketing than words because visuals hold emotional power that words alone do not. Emotion is the glue that sticks memories and brands into the mind.
Consider what the pink ribbon has done for Nancy Brinker. In 1982, Ms. Brinker started a foundation to fight breast cancer in memory of her sister, Susan G. Komen. Since then, the foundation has raised nearly $2 billion. Today, Susan G. Komen for the Cure is the world’s-largest non-profit source of money to combat breast cancer.
The American Cancer Society was founded in 1913, yet most people have no idea what visual symbol the society uses.
Here’s the difference: The Cancer Society has a trademark that is almost impossible to verbalize while Susan G. Komen has a visual hammer that is easy to verbalize.
Then there’s Aflac, the company that brought us the duck. In 2000, the first year the duck was advertised, sales went up 29%. The second year, 28%. The third year, 18%.
Before the duck, Aflac had a name recognition of 12%. Today, it’s 94%. (The duck is the hammer and the “quack” is the verbal nail. It’s the integration of the two that makes the brand so memorable.)
The advertising industry is hung up on trademarks and logotypes, but in reality they account for only a small percentage of visual hammers. Anything associated with a brand can become a hammer. Color, packaging, demonstrations, founders, celebrities. Even the product itself.
In 2010, Coca-Cola spent $267 million advertising its brand in the U.S. What was Coke's slogan? Most people don’t remember. What they do remember is the “contour” bottle.
The contour bottle is not just a bottle—it’s a visual hammer that hammers in the idea that Coke is the original, the authentic cola, the real thing. Even though Coca-Cola sells very little cola in contour bottles, the visual is strongly identified with the brand. And they reinforce the visual hammer by using the bottle image on its cans, cups, billboards, trucks and even business cards.
If Coke’s contour bottle says "the authentic cola," what does Pepsi's "smiley-face" trademark, introduced in 2008 to much fanfare, say? Pepsi's new smiley-face trademark says "Pepsi." In essence, it's a rebus, a visual symbol that’s a substitute for a brand name.
In fact, almost all trademarks are rebuses. After years of constant use, they can be recognized as symbols that stand for brand names. But trademarks don’t have to be meaningless.
Nike, for example, has the Swoosh, a powerful visual hammer. The Swoosh doesn’t just say "Nike." The Swoosh says "leadership." Nike was first in its category, giving it permission to create a visual hammer out of a rather mundane checkmark that has been streamlined. Today, everybody knows what a Swoosh looks like, but how many people can rattle off a description of Reebok’s trademark?
If you’re not first in a category, you need a hammer, not a trademark.
Not every brand gets it right. Take Red Bull. Despite $5.1 billion in annual sales, Red Bull doesn’t own a visual hammer. It had the opportunity, but its visual is too complicated for a small energy-drink can. "Two bulls and a sun" make a weak hammer. Furthermore, its blue cans undermine the Red Bull name.
In spite of these examples, why do many marketing people work exclusively with words, when the real power is with visuals? Don’t get me wrong—words are important, too. The objective of a marketing program is to "own a word in the mind” and visuals shouldn’t come before some well-thought positioning planning. But to consider words independent of how they might relate to a visual would be a mistake.
The interplay between words and images is like a nail and a hammer. If the objective is to nail two pieces of wood together, why fool around with a hammer? Why not just focus all of your efforts on putting the pieces of wood together with a nail?
That's the problem of marketing. Your most useful tool is a visual hammer, but the nail comes first. Unless you pick the right nail, all the creative hammers in the world are not going to help very much.
For decades, marketers have sat in meetings developing positioning statements for their brands. But sorry Dad, today that’s not enough. Today, marketers also need a visual hammer to build their brands. A visual hammer that connects emotionally, authentically and credibly with consumers.
This post is an except of a longer article that was published in Advertising Age on March 12, 2012 entitled: Repositioning 'Positioning': Connect with Consumers with a Visual Hammer; Not Verbal Nails. Laura Ries Uncovers the 'Weakness' in her father Al's famed theory on Postioning. Read the Ad Age article here.
Top 5 Reasons Management got us into this Recession:
1. Management is focused on reality, when the real problem is perception.
Bob Lutz, global product development chief at General Motors, recently said that the company's Saturn brand probably won’t survive. "We spent a huge bundle of money in giving Saturn an absolutely no-excuses product lineup, top to bottom. They had a better and fresher lineup than any GM division, and the sales just never materialized."
That's the reality, but what’s the perception? Ask anyone "What’s a Saturn?" and you’ll probably get a blank stare.
Oddly enough, Saturn did have a favorable perception as an inexpensive, entry-level car. Four years after its introduction, Saturn reached its high-level mark selling 286,003 vehicles in the U.S. market. Last year Saturn’s "no-excuses product lineup" managed to sell only 188,004 vehicles.
2. Management is focused on expansion when the real opportunity is contraction.
Initially Saturn was available in one model only, the "S" series, although you could have it in a two-door, a four-door or a hatchback version.
So what did Saturn management do next? They expanded the line to include a larger, more expensive Saturn, the "L" series. That was the first step in the long decline of the Saturn brand.
Today, of course, Saturn has five models: Outlook, an 8-passenger crossover. Sky, a sports car. Astra, a compact sedan. Vue, a compact SUV. And Aura, a midsize sedan.
When Saturn was introduced, it was the only U.S. automobile brand available in one-model only. Its enormous initial success should have convinced General Motors that you build brands with a narrow line, not a full line.
3. Management demands "better" products when the real opportunity is "different" products.
Both Sony and Microsoft introduced videogame consoles that were vastly more powerful than their previous products. So who won the videogame battle?
The Nintendo Wii, a far-less powerful product, but one with a difference. The controller, a wireless motion-sensing remote that has revolutionized the videogame industry.
When Red Bull arrived in its unique 8.3-oz can, every major beverage company tried to introduce "better" 8.3-oz energy drinks. Except Monster which was introduced in a 16-oz. can and rapidly became a strong No.2 brand.
4. Management expects rapid growth when the real opportunity lies in the opposite direction.
Almost every powerful brand started slowly. It took Red Bull 9 years to break $100 million in sales. It took Microsoft 10 years to break $100 million in sales. It took Starbucks 11 years to break $100 million in sales. It took Wal-Mart 14 years to break $100 million in sales.
Too often, management tries to accelerate this process with massive up-front marketing expenditures. Take Webvan, for example, the first Internet grocery store. The company opened up in eight with a multi-million-dollar marketing campaign. Two years later, Webvan folded, losing $800 million.
On the other hand, FreshDirect started slowly in New York City only. Today, FreshDirect does $200 million in annual sales and is profitable.
And look at the fiscal disasters of Sirius and XM Satellite Radio. Both were launched with massive marketing campaigns and massive upfront talent investments ($50 million a year to Howard Stern, for example.)
A slow, but steady growth might have made a big difference.
5. Management values "creativity" when the real opportunity lies in "credentials."
Take Tropicana’s recent redesign of its packaging. The new design might have been clever and creative, but consumers rebelled. "It doesn’t look like Tropicana anymore." As a result, PepsiCo backtracked and agreed to bring back the original packaging.
A leading brand, over many decades, tends to become accepted as the only authentic brand in the category. The original. The real thing.
When you change the look of the brand, consumers get nervous. Did the company change the product, too? If not, why did they change the packaging.
You can’t separate the product from the package. The classic Coke bottle reinforces the authenticity of the brand.
Why does management continue to make the same mistakes?
Because they are logical thinkers. Cleverness, rapid growth, better products, expansion and reality are all logical ideas. They just don’t happen to work in marketing.
Actually there are two kinds of thinkers: Left brainers and right brainers. Left brainers are verbal, logical, analytical. They tend to be extroverts and good talkers. Right brainers are visual, intuitive, holistic. They tend to be introverts and good writers.
Now what do you suppose the boardrooms of corporate America are loaded with?
Left brainers, of course.
The vast majority of managers in America today are talkers rather than writers. Extroverts rather than introverts. Why is this so? Because of the way people move up the ladder in the corporate world. There's an old saying: You don't get promoted, you get elected.
Management is like politics. Your fellow workers determine who they would like to work for. Left-brain extroverts are particularly good at schmoozing with people. Right-brain introverts are totally outclassed when it comes to office politics.
As companies grow up and get bigger, their upper levels tend to be staffed almost exclusively with left brainers. As a result, the innovators (primarily right brainers) tend to leave or get pushed out. Like Steve Jobs who was effectively fired from Apple before returning to lead the company to staggering successes.
In spite of their absence from most boardrooms, it's the entrepreneurs who have contributed the most to the U.S. economy. People like Bill Gates, Michael Dell, Howard Schultz and hundreds of others.
Did you ever wonder why almost every successful new brand was launched by an entrepreneur and not by an established company?
Amazon.com was not launched by Barnes & Noble, the world's largest bookstore chain, but by Jeff Bezos, an entrepreneur with no experience selling books.
Southwest Airlines was not launched by any of the major carriers, but by Herb Kelleher, an entrepreneur with no experience in the airline industry.
Google was not launched by any major media company, but by Larry Page and Sergey Brin, two Stanford Ph.D. students.
Both The Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo, Inc. are more than 100 years old, yet neither company introduced the new brands that would become leaders in the soft-drink categories. Red Bull, Snapple, Gatorade, Dr Pepper and Mountain Dew were all introduced by entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs who were right brain thinkers and understood marketing.
To get us out of this economic crisis our corporate leaders to understand marketing and take advice from the right brainers in the boardroom.
More of the same left brain thinking is not going to fix GM or Citibank. Now is the time to let the right brainers help clean up this mess and get companies, brands and our country get back on the right track.
Watch this video to find out more about the War going on in the Boardroom.
Do you live in Atlanta? Well you are in luck! I'll be speaking at an Atlanta Ad Club & Atlanta AMA meeting on Wednesday, March 11th. Register today. Both Al & I will be signing books.
Have you checked out the all new Ries.com? It is awesome. Visit us today.
Have you read War in the Boardroom? If so, get over to Amazon or BN.com and write a review today. We are counting on you to help us get the word out. We certainly won't be doing any advertising, we are only doing PR. So if you are interested in an interview or inviting me to make a speech contact me today.
And if you haven't taken our quiz check it out today. You may be surprised by the results.
As marketing professionals, Al and I spend
way too much of our time trying to sell our ideas to top management. Meetings often
turn into boardroom battles between marketing on one side and management on the
other. On many occasions, we have lost these battles and have the scars to
prove it.
So we tried to figure out why marketing and
management always clash? And it occurred to us. They don’t understand each
other because they think differently.
What makes a good chief executive? A person
who is highly verbal, logical and analytical. Typical characteristics of a left
brainer.
What makes a good marketing executive? A
person who is highly visual, intuitive and holistic. Typical characteristics of
a right brainer.
What are you? Not sure? Take our quiz to
find out.
Because they think differently, the two
sides don’t see eye-to-eye. Management is logical, marketing is not. What works
in marketing is almost exactly the opposite of what seems to be the right thing
to do.
Take expansion, for example. Management at
almost every company in the world is committed to expanding its line. More
products, more markets, more distribution channels, more variations, more price
points.
Take the U.S. airline industry. Every major
carrier offers multiple classes of service and flies both domestic and
international routes. That makes sense to a left-brain manager.
But not to a right-brain entrepreneur like
Herb Kelleher who launched Southwest Airlines, the first “no-frills” airline.
Coach only. Domestic only. No food. No pets. No advanced seating reservations.
No inter-airline baggage exchange.
Entrepreneurs are invariably visually-oriented
right brainers who often turn out to be exceptionally good marketing thinkers,
too. They are usually “visionaries” who focus on the “big picture,” sometimes
suffering in the short term.
That’s not true of the vast majority of
managers in America today who are verbally-oriented left brainers. Why is this
so? Because of the way people move up the ladder in the corporate world. In
many companies, you don’t get promoted,
you get elected.
Management is like politics. Employees find
a way to let management know whom they would like to work for.
Right brainers don’t have much of a chance
in the office game. A left brainer is an extrovert, particularly good at
schmoozing with people. A right brainer is an introvert, totally outclassed
when it comes to office politics.
As companies get older and bigger, their
upper levels tend to be staffed almost exclusively with left brainers. As a
result, the innovators and marketing people (primarily right brainers) tend to
leave or get pushed out.
Chief marketing officers, for example, have
the shortest tenure of any top executive, only 26 months. “This job is
radioactive,” reported BusinessWeek.
We certainly don’t advocate a right-brain
takeover of corporate America. Business needs both: Logical, analytical left
brainers to manage the business and intuitive, holistic right brainers to
create the new marketing ideas and concepts that will insure future success.
But for this to happen, both sides need to better
understand each other.
Al and I have an exciting two weeks of blogging ahead. We are going to be taking part in 800-CEO-READ's Business Blog Book Tour. Over the next two weeks we will be making stops at the following top branding blogs to discuss our new book The Origin of Brands. I hope you will all join us at the various blogs to read our interviews and post your comments.
