Pragmatics and Advertising: Content, Relationship and TV Ads

On a whim and technically by the direction of another book I’ve been reading I’ve started reading a book called “The Pragmatics of Human Communication”. Its stuffy scholarly book written in the 1970’s that apparently hasn’t been updated since. Despite its obvious lack of information related to the way the internet has affected communication, and its frequent use of the term “cybernetics,” Pragmatics is unbelievably helpful. Though I haven’t finished it yet it has inspired me to talk about one of its recurring themes content and relationship.

The Recap
Messages can be divided into 2 parts: Content and Relationship. The Content is everything you’re actually saying. The Relationship is all the intangible stuff about a message, like your body language and tone of voice. For instance, if you were talking to your significant other, you could be annoyed because you’ve stayed up all night and you’re tired and say “Honey, let’s go to bed” or you could be interested in some intimacy and say “Honey, let’s go to bed”. The Content is the same, but the Relationship is different—upset or affectionate.

Healthy relationships focus more on Relationship than content and dysfunctional relationships focus more on Content. A healthy relationship example is when two people know each other so well that even with little to no Content they can communicate—like knowing the other person’s mood or their possible reaction to a given situation. An unhealthy relationship example would be the tumultuous partnerships full of arguing that never seems to solve anything. The partners aren’t hearing each other and are so focused on their own Content that nothing else gets across, not the other person’s Content or feelings.

Why does all this matter? Because we as consumers have healthy and unhealthy, relationships with brands and that effects their advertising.

Healthy Relationships
There are certain brands that always come to mind when making a purchase. Detergent = Tide. Soda = Coke. Chips = Lay’s. These brands have a big market share, and the biggest slice of brand awareness in our brains. Because we have been exposed to them so much, we have a healthy relationship with them. That healthy relationship means we no longer place a lot of focus on what their commercials say but how they say it—the feeling we get when we watch them. For example, the Coca-Cola Christmas commercials with the polar bears.

If we were focusing solely on Content we would be wondering why in the world bears were drinking sodas. But because our relationship with Coke has moved past that, we unconsciously focus on the feeling cute polar bears give us, namely, happiness. 

Brands with a healthy consumer relationship can take risks in their advertising. They know that the consumers they are aiming for already “get it” and so the information about their product or service can be substituted for entertainment. Some of the funniest and most well received commercials are from the brands we know and love, and while there are a lot of contributing factors that make the previous statement true, none of it would be possible without a healthy relationship.

Unhealthy Relationships
We’ve all seen those commercials that just leave us wondering—what the point is, what their selling, who thought it was a good idea in the first place—and they just leave a bad taste in our mouths. Most of these commercials were made by “runner up” brands, names that occupy a smaller amount of space in our brains. These brands don’t have the same connection with us so we are often looking for more when we see a commercial. We want to be convinced of why we should pick their product over the brand we always buy, what gain we’ll get. Runner up brands normally miss the mark on this because they are not “hearing” us, they are too busy trying to compete with the big brands. An unhealthy relationship is marked by a focus on Content to the point where no actual communication is happening. They are not telling us anything with their commercials and they are not hearing what we need.

A great recent example of this is the new Dairy Queen commercials that heavily draw on another big brand from another industry

Look familiar? DQ (Dairy Queen) is trying to draw on the spontaneity of the Old Spice commercials to engender a similar kind of healthy relationship. It won’t work and here’s why:

1. Its been done. Old Spice has cornered the “random” market when it comes to commercials. Everyone else will look like a copy cat and it’s the originality of the idea that sells it.
2. DQ is a runner up. While Dairy Queen has been a staple in the South for a long time, it’s still no Mc Donald’s and doesn’t have the same “share of mind” with consumers. Trying to skip the important part of relationship building and go straight for entertainment fails almost every time.
3. Bad positioning. DQ isn’t hip or new, or anything really. It’s another fast food chain with one selling point—the Blizzard. Trying to be funny with “shaving bunnies” doesn’t remind people why they should come back to Dairy Queen—the Blizzard.

Most brands don’t understand why their commercials never “come though” and equal to increased sales. Again, there are a lot of contributing factors, but more often than not it’s because they don’t fully understand the kind of relationship they have with their audience.

To sum it all up, healthy relationships connect the brand and the consumer. Unhealthy relationships usually miss the mark.  Now you may be thinking that with a little effort, every unhealthy relationship can be made healthy. Wrong. Just like people, brands—at their core—don’t usually change. A resistance to real transformative change will always equate to an unhealthy relationship. They can ply you with flowers, candy and special offers but without a bigger shift, they’ll never get the share or your mind and heart they need to get the share of your wallet they want.

Cost Versus Value

I've been working with a client for a couple months on a print project. Assembling a book for sale is a big deal--especially when you choose to self publish. There are a lot of options out there that will offer new authors on a budget a helping hand, but my guy decided to go to a local print shop. Fair enough, choosing someone local gives you more control over the project. A print agent you can talk to and get real time advice from is an excellent choice for the first time self publisher who has no experience with book assembly. However, the subject of this post is not about the pros and cons of online versus local self publishing (although it might be an interesting topic to entertain at a later date) its about the dynamics of Cost and Value.

Low Cost=Low Value?
We've all heard the old adage "You get what you pay for." I agree. For instance, the offerings at Dollar Tree stores across the nation have expanded drastically in the recent years. Shelves that used to be filled with ceramic knic-knacks and cheap fake flowers now hold some really useful things, like umbrellas when the rain catches you off guard. When you buy an umbrella for a dollar, you don't expect it to be high quality, you don't expect it to last, you just expect it to be a "momentary item"--good for a few uses and completely disposable. After all, you got your money's worth.

Let's go back to my client. He chose a local print shop because of their price--their cheap price. The product he received from that shop looked, well, cheap and he was dissatisfied. In hoping to save money on the production process, my client has actually cost himself more in the long run--he now has to pay to have the book printed over again, and he's stuck with money invested a pile of product he's too displeased with to sell.  When making decisions about your product, or image, or business, remember that it should never be considered a "momentary item." Invest the time and money in yourself and your venture knowing that the value you receive in return makes it worthwhile.

High Cost=High Value?
Times are tight for everyone, and people in my line of work are feeling the crunch just as much as anyone else. Businesses usually cut marketing,and design by extension, to save money in their budgets. There are a million reasons why you shouldn't, and only one reason I can think of that you should--Cost>Value.

There's a particular clothing store that specializes in young female 20-somethings. I really liked their clothes. Yep, past tense. The price tags prohibited me from buying most things, but it was just my luck to catch a sale. I'd purchased a short sleeved casual jacket to dress up my sleeveless tops when meeting clients. I was able to get three wears out of it before the buttons, the nice buttons, came off in the wash--all of them. Granted, they are just buttons. I could go to any fabric store and pick up some plain replacements, but its the principle of the matter. I paid extra for that jacket perceiving it to be of higher quality than a Wal-Mart knock off. I was under the impression that I was making an investment and that the jacket would last until I had gotten my money's worth--the value equaled the cost. It didn't. I learned that just because something is expensive, that doesn't make it better; a very different lesson from the above paragraph but one to be taken to heart.

When examining your efforts, production, marketing, ect, be sure to evaluate what you're actually getting. Track where your business is coming from to make sure you aren't wasting marketing dollars. Shop around for manufactures to compare production costs. Re-evaluate your relationships with other businesses to make sure any partnerships really are mutually benificial. The list is endless. Just make sure that your cost doesn't out weight your value because in the end, you'll end up passing that cost along to customers and they may not be so willing to pay.

Education of a Girl: A Lesson from the Stage and Stardom

Because of my quiet nature around others, most people don't know that I have a background in Theater. Throughout my high school years I participated in lots of plays and took classes. Once I started college, I began to re-evaluate whether or not a place on stage was for me. Ultimately, I decided against it. Even though I don't aspire to be a leading lady any longer, the lessons from that time have manifested themselves in interesting ways--which just happen to be the subject of today's post.

During my time as a Thespian, I had quite a few friends that were really talented. One in particular was a Triple Threat--he could sing, was a great tap dancer and had a certain charm about him when acting. He could do it all and do it well. It takes a special kind of business to be able to take on the attributes of a Triple Threat. More often than not, business owners that try to, expand in ways that don't connect with one another or try to do too many things at once.

A Triple Threat, in the classic sense, does the three things that are important for an actor to be able to get work--ideally on Broadway.They have their end goal and have the skills (singing, dancing and acting) necessary to make an attempt at that goal feasible. What a Triple Threat isn't is an actor, make up artist and set builder. These are not linear skills because two of the three listed are back stage jobs, a completely different line of work.

When a business ventures to add more products or services, trying to appeal to or gain more customers, they enter dangerous territory when they don't go linear. For example: a bakery could also be a coffee shop. Baked goods + coffee=good. A bakery could serve light lunches as well. Baked goods + lunch=cafe. Also good. However, a bakery should never join forces with a butchers. Even though they both sell food, baked goods + raw meat=bad. If you're thinking about expanding your offerings in order to cater to a wider range of customers, take the next logical step and keep it linear.

Believe it or not, competition was pretty stiff in high school. As with anything, there were a few overachievers who had decided early on that the stage was their calling. In hopes of standing out, some of the girls were not only good singers and actors, they specialized in more than one type of dance, or took an interest in gymnastics or learned to sing in other languages. Granted those are all admirable skills to have, but in all reality, they should have just worked on their acting. In trying to be a "Jack of all Trades" they made themselves "The Master of None" and effectively lost sight of what they were hoping to accomplish--being famous for their acting.

Some business owners fall into this same trap. They tack on so many new services that they can't do any one thing exceptionally well. The first example that comes to mind is Miami Subs. We used to have a Miami Subs here in Tallahassee. Until I actually visited the fast food chain, I had assumed that they were like Larry's Giant Subs or a Subway. I was totally wrong. Yes they had sandwiches but their menu goes on for days! They even went so far as to carry Kenny Roger's Chicken and Nathan's Hot Dogs at one point. With a menu that all over the place, it was hard for them to stand out for one delicious dish that would keep customers coming back--so they didn't come back.

The next example is a success story of sorts. Hardee's used to have a menu just as horrible as Miami Subs. When they realized that a more linear approach would help them attract new customers, they ditched the fried chicken and focused on being a better burger joint. With their ThickBugers leading the way, the franchise that was on the brink of food oblivion is now enjoying measurable success. The important point here is: it is better to be known for one great thing than a thousand mediocre attempts.

For my last example, I really wanted to drive my point home with a "phenomenon" we can all relate to: the Singer-Turned-Actor. Some singers and pop idols try their hand at acting, hoping that their celebrity will help rocket them to the top. Cases include: Jessica Simpson, Beyonce, Alicia Keys, Mos Def, Jennifer Hudson, and Mandy Moore. Good first step, after all it is linear skill. However, taking a linear step does not always equate to talent on the other end. Whether or not someone is "good" at acting is all a matter of opinion; the point I want to make here is we've all had the thought "why did he/she think they could act" regardless of whose new movie we were watching. Just because you do one thing very well, don't assume you can do everything very well, whether it happens to be a linear skill or not.

It all comes down to evaluating your strengths and weaknesses before expanding your business. Build on your strengths, expand with your strengths, strengthen your weaknesses but never assume collecting a lot of weaknesses will make you stronger.

What do Rappers & Women Have in Common? Part 1

This topic was actually the subject of a conversation between myself and my significant other. We were chatting this morning about the Coach brand and how its image has been bifurcated. I'm going to attempt to address this tastefully and say, both the "haves" and "have nots" carry Coach bags and wallets as somewhat of a status symbol. This is not a unique instance. Being African-American, I can't help but notice the unusual correlation between Rappers (and hip-hop artists) and women--hence the interesting title. 

So what do Rappers and women have in common? They both invest in lifestyle brands and buy lifestyle products.

Lifestyle brands can be defined as any company that associates its tangible offerings with intangible benefits. For example, Jeep sells a freewheeling, rugged outdoors adventure that can only be obtained by purchasing one of their vehicles.

Lifestyle Products are the actual tangible item that makes the owner prettier, classier, stronger, or any other superlative you might think of. A good example is Costa Del Mar sunglasses, the sunglasses for real fishermen. I don't personally own a pair but it could be reasoned that if you're willing to spend so much on sunglasses for fishing, then you must take your fishing seriously. The casual fisherman would never spend $200 on glasses that annihilate glare, so one who would spend the money must think of it as either a status symbol, an investment or both.

So what do lifestyle brands and products have to do with women and rappers? Both women and rappers are more likely to buy products and be loyal to brands that offer added value by "meaning something"  either to themselves or in the eyes of others.
Some quick examples:

• Oil of Olay offers a chance at the fountain of youth, not just face cream
• Grey Goose is a premium Vodka from France but it is also a "guide to the extraordinary"
• Shoe designer Jimmy Choo doesn't sell women stilettos he's peddling the voracious confidence of a woman in charge of her sexuality
• An ultimate marriage of style and executive perks, the Maybach isn't just a car with a Trump-sized price tag
• With their tagline "Simply Perfect" Patron attempts to be more than tequila; it wants to be the halmark of impeccable taste.

Lets dwell on Patron for a moment and its competitor 1800 tequila. 1800 is currently running a series of ads that blatantly attack Patron for being all "lifestyle" and no substance. It the recent "kickback" commercial, the spokesman says that when he drinks 1800, he likes to "kick back and be himself"--meaning he wants to leave behind all the pretentious trappings of Patron's tequila and focus only on his personal preferences, rappers and popular culture be damned.

What should you take away from this? Positioning your product as a lifestyle can backfire. Your product could be labeled as a product socialite--fancy, attractive, well-known, expensive but hardly necessary.

While were on the case study bandwagon, lets look at lifestyle brand with an opposite connotation of Patron-- Budweiser.  As the Great American Lager, Budweiser sells a lifestyle too. One of good old American roots, mom, apple pie, and hard workin' salt of the earth people. Its uncomplicated. Its everywhere. Its America in a glass. What should you take away from this? Not to be afraid of going for the lifestyle sell. If you find your market and position your product correctly, you'll foster a real loyalty among customers that will lead to success. (it also shouldn't be over looked that price also plays into it. Bud is an inexpensive beer and there by a lifestyle brand people can afford to stick by)

I'm going to cut it short here and continue the rest of my notes in a subsequent post, aptly labeled "What do Rappers & Women Have in Common? Part 2." In that post I'll be detailing the intricacies of the types of people who buy lifestyle products and pointers on how to each them. Until then, Same Bat Time; Same Bat Channel!

Location, Location, Location & Customer Service

Eating at a Chic Fil A last night gave me the idea for this post. I'm fortunate enough to live in Tallahassee where we have 5 Chic Fil A's and because I go to the one closest to my house I grew accustomed to a certain level of service. The person taking my order, though usually high school age, is always polite, management is always visible and even during the busiest times of day I'm always served promptly. Last night I went to a Chic Fil A on the other side of town, closer to where my mother works and received vastly different service. Let me qualify this by saying, that "vastly different" within the context of Chic Fil A's corporate culture is bad, but within the grand scheme of fast food service, its still way better than average.
That started me thinking:

• How much does corporate culture affect customer service practices? 
• How much does location affect customer service practices?
• Can corporate culture & hiring practices supersede customer service issues that arise based on location?

Great Corporate Culture = Great Customer Service
I remember taking an HR class when I went through college for my first degree. We did a little case study on Starbucks and how their hiring practices and corporate culture are connected to ensure better customer service. I wasn't a Starbucks customer at the time so I thought it was complete hog wash. I mean how can you make sure all employees are the positive "sun-shiny" people you want them to be? Time for investigation! So I started going into Starbucks off and on, and not just in Tallahassee, but any port of call I may have found myself in. They totally proved me wrong. I had consistently "perky" service that really truly seemed genuine, not from a saccharine plastic script. That was my first brush with the concept of a strong corporate culture leading to a strong workforce identity.

Location  &  Customer Service
Let's be honest, every city has this invisible line that certain people and certain brands don't cross. That has to have an effect on customer service. Hypothetically, if a Chic Fil A or Starbucks opened in a maximum security prison and was employed by prisoners to serve other prisoners, regardless of their corporate culture, the level of customer service would be abysmal. Granted, that's a seriously unlikely situation and an extreme example of location but 2 things are clear: 1) in a location where ideal employees are unavailable service will suffer 2) customers and their attitudes have an affect on employees and their attitudes. What this means is: 1) stores concerned with service will also be concerned with location. 2) employees that work in a nicer environment and with nicer patrons respond in kind by being nice.

Corporate Culture > Location?
Well yes and no, in my opinion. Let's go back to the Chic Fil A I had last night. Yes the service wasn't what I was used to but because it was Chic Fil A it was still great. However, because location dictates attitudes of employees and patrons no amount of "service first" mantra can truly over come the challenges presented by location.