Anthropomorphism is “the attribution of human characteristics to non-human creatures and beings, phenomena, material states and objects or abstract concepts.” At least that’s what Wikipedia says.
Nobody knows this better than the marketers involved with brands and branding. I know of people who talk about their pets like they were their children. Branding experts go one step (too far) further, and refer to brands as if they were people.
I’ve suffered through this in silence for too long. The following snippet from a Brandweek article about…well, I really don’t know what the article was about…is the straw that broke the silence’s back:
In a Times Square studio last Thursday, actor Ed Norton was interviewed as part of a Diet Coke promotion. The interview was beamed live to billboards in Times Square, as well as on the Diet Coke Web site and banner placements sprinkled on sites like E! Online, Cosmopolitan and Hello. “It’s fascinating because it’s really about the brand letting it all hang out and not being afraid of messing up,” said Lars Bastholm, chief digital creative officer at Ogilvy North America. “If brands want to … be seen as ‘friends,’ then they also need to have flaws like real people have.”
The emphasis in the last sentence is mine.
This is a fascinating notion: That, in order to be seen as a friend, a brand needs to have flaws like real people have. Like REAL people. Not like fake people, but real people.
As a seriously flawed real person, I’m very qualified to determine which flaws brands should have. (It’s possible that you’re flawed, too, but I can’t verify that you are a real person).
Here are some “flaws” that brands could have to help them be seen as “friends”:
1. An aspirin brand — take Tylenol, for example — could have a packaging “flaw” which would enable people to tamper with the product causing the deaths of people who use the product.
2. A brand of chocolate — could be one like Nestle’s, but it doesn’t have to be — could have a “flaw” and contain e.coli bacteria. There must be consumer research to show that many people associate e.coli with positive emotions, so this could be a really good “friend-building” flaw.
3. The US car makers seem to be struggling these days, so let’s see if we can find a “flaw” that will help them build their brand. Oh, here’s one: What if they manufacture cars with a minor flaw that causes the gas tank to explode on minor collisions? That brand would be my best friend.
Is it any wonder that marketing isn’t a well respected function in many organizations across many industries? When CEOs and CFOs hear a marketer talk about how their brands need to have “flaws like real people” they just nod their heads in silence and play along. That’s because they’re too polite and too political to come right out and say what they’re really thinking.
Which is: “WTF is this guy talking about?!@#!*#@!”
I think we’re talking little tiny harmless flaws, like a beauty mark on the brand. Or perhaps the brand is constantly leaving the toilet seat up, but is otherwise adorable and perfect. But catastrophic flaws are certainly more fun to discuss!
Now you’re getting into judgement calls. One man’s catastrophic flaw is another man’s beauty mark. Who’s to judge?
Flaws like real people? Step back a bit. Real people have the right and privilege to vote for government. Didn’t see Diet Coke in the voting booth. Corps are still created by laws in order to exist. They, in fact, seem to constantly want to be humanlike. Do they need oxygen? BIt brands are perfect, like some people
I don’t see Canadians paying taxes in the US, but I did hear about them coming across the border into the US for flu shots. So, if we’re cut Canadians some slack, then doesn’t Diet Coke deserve the same courtesy?
Where’s the flaw in Diet Coke? Aspartame? Ties to the fashion industry? I don’t understand what this is saying is the “flaw”.
And he works for Ogilvy?
Hey Ron,
Love the word “Anthropomorphism”. That is a 3 dollar word if I’ve ever seen one. So I RTed you post, good stuff btw. And I said that it was interesting but might be a hard sell. The reason being: what you said in the last paragraph. Here:
“CEOs and CFOs hear a marketer talk about how their brands need to have “flaws like real people” they just nod their heads in silence and play along. That’s because they’re too polite and too political to come right out and say what they’re really thinking.
Which is: “WTF is this guy talking about?!@#!*#@!””
Image you telling you wife or g/f that she looks great, but she looks too nice and that she needs to mess up her makeup a little or tear a hole in her stocking because she just looks too good or too perfect, for me this is a decent analogy of what a higher up thinks about his or her company. There company to them looks beautiful or perfect in every way. Now why would they want to screw up a good thing? Now if the wife or g/f character had no choice (no makeup or tattered clothes) then she could come to the understanding of “there is no choice.”
Really good article here. Thanks for pulling me outta my shell and getting me talking. Not an easy task.
–Michael P.
Michael: Thanks for the comment, and for expounding on the “hard to sell” comment.
Jimmy: Now you’re getting to the core of the matter. If the comment about “brands need flaws” wasn’t bad enough by itself, the person who made that comment was basically implying that if Edward Norton — BTW, Brandweek: Edward Norton is the actor, Ed Norton is a character from The Honeymooners — screwed up, then it would be perceived as Diet Coke screwing up. And he was basically implying that if people saw that, they’d think “wow, Diet Coke screws up just like the rest of us. Let’s go out and buy a case.”
Are you beginning to understand why I have my doubts about some ad agencies?
Pingback: uberVU - social comments
Pingback: » Brand Flaws « Marketing Tea Party by Ron Shevlin | Brand Marketing Tips
I can see how the corniness of this rubs you the wrong way, and I agree “wtf is that guy talking about” is a reasonable reaction. I do think there’s a good, true point, though, that there are some similarities between brands and people. Both have personalities, spirits, and souls, but often times neither people nor brands really understand how to express those (nor are they comfortable doing so). The result is that they’re awkward and hard to connect with. My takeaway from that passage you shared, while maybe oversimplified, is that brands, like people, are what they are…and it’s not always perfect or flawless. And often times it’s a person’s flaws that show you they’re real and genuine…and genuine/authentic is what we’re attracted to.
I think the notion of personalizing objects (eg brands) is entertaining and right up there with a childs invisible friend. Ad’s do extremely well when they appeal to the child in us
The real point driven home but that poorly worded article that got you fired up was the personalization of brands. Developing a reflection of your target audience or more important – the elevated or improved sense of self is what has worked in the past and so long as it’s attainable (at least in the buyers mind) and doesn’t provoke resentment it can be effective. To me flaws and personalizations are interchangeable but not the same.
Whoa, here’s a real-life example of “flaw branding” as we speak.
An excerpt:
“Feared to be seen as a corporate overlord rather than an adorable, fun-loving cartoon brand, Disney has ventured into the cryo-chamber (say “Hi” to Walt for me) and begun to enliven the Mouse for a new generation of children and consumers.
The new Mickey will be slowly unveiled, first in the video game Epic Mickey for the Nintendo Wii, due out next year. As the New York Times describes it, the game will “show the character’s darker side.” Our new Mickey is multifaceted, and can be at times “cantankerous and cunning, as well as heroic, as he traverses a forbidding wasteland.”
Full article: http://tinyurl.com/y9bkfaz
Flaw in this case is a relative term. Reality shows have become very popular simply because it shows people in their less than perfect circumstances, and in some cases permits, us everyday consumers to see that they are just like us…with flaws.
What you highlight as flaws are “neglect” not flaws. We need to be mindful that there will be flaws in every company. Diet Coke was trying to achieve the “reality” effect with the live stream–they simply didn’t want to record and edit for a perfect presentation of their brand. They know what their market needs!
Like the post and look forward to reading more.
Thanks for the comment, Dennis.
Clearly (I hope), I was making fun of the “flaws” comment made by the speaker.
And you’re absolutely right that my list of “flaws” isn’t exactly what the guy was alluding to.
But there’s still a troubling aspect to the guy’s comment: That if Edward Norton slipped up while doing something in the name of Diet Coke, that the slip up would reflect — whether it was positively or negatively — on the Diet Coke, and not just Norton.
Why would that be the case? I surely haven’t changed my opinions of the advertisers of the Letterman show since finding out he has flaws (namely, he has little moral fortitude and slept with his employees).
Of course, if I had a shrink, s/he’d tell me that because I had previously thought Letterman was a creep, since my opinion of him didn’t change as a result of his most recent actions, then I wouldn’t think differently about his advertisers.
Thanks again for your comment Dennis, and for giving me an excuse to bash David Letterman.
I have been reminded of this post the past few days as I’ve watched the news unfold about the Tiger Woods situation with the car accident, etc. In this msnbc.com article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34223570/ns/business-sports_biz/), the author argues that the Tiger brand is safe, despite this first major flaw to be inflicted upon it. In the end, will people see Tiger as more human now that he’s screwed up? We’ll have to wait and see. Sometimes negative occurrences do actually end up strengthening a brand, oddly enough, based on how they are handled.
Thanks for the comment — I was thinking of this blog post myself last night. What I was wondering was this: Given the premise spelled out by the guy quoted in the Brandweek article, shouldn’t brands be THANKFUL that Tiger screwed up, showing himself to be human, i.e, having FLAWS, and thus making the BRAND look more human (or whatever)?
But it seems the brands are more worried about whether or not the accident will adversely affect them.
My conclusion: The premise that a brand needs to have flaws like humans is a bunch of BS.
I guess I may as well admit it… I slept with Tiger Woods too. So that means I have flaws. I am a flawed person. Sponsorships for a single flaw are available for $10,000, or, alternatively, you can sponsor all my flaws for $100,000. Nike, Buick, Gatorade… you know how to find me.
Meanwhile, as long as Tiger Woods wins golf tournaments, we can all take great comfort in the security of his endorsements. NOTHING…ELSE…MATTERS. Especially in sports.
Celebrities and sports heroes alike seldom appreciate how forgiving a world their fans have created for them. You can go to prison… You can take illegal performance enhancers… You can do drugs, or sell them… You can rip off other people’s work… You can be a racist… You can be a cheat… You can kill someone… You can torture/kill animals… You can be accused of rape… You can have sex with 5,000 people during your career giving how many of them HIV?… AND YOU CAN STILL MAKE A COMEBACK!
So I’m pretty sure a one-car fender bender… with a tree… inside a gated community… is something the world’s greatest golfer can overcome.
Never underestimate how resilient celebrity brands can be.
As far as how many people Tiger Woods has slept with (including me — Enquirer, Globe, TMZ.com…you know how to find me)… Phhhbbbttt…! If you’ve never cheated on someone — ever — go ahead and feel free to judge the man. But everyone else? Take that puritanically hypocritical B.S. and cram it.