Brand Story

How to Write Great Headlines (and Copy): Try Telling a Story.

My first "real" job out of school was writing catalog copy. At the time, the model for great copy was the J Peterman catalog (later made famous by Seinfeld). The Peterman catalog (called an owner's manual) was almost as much fun to read as a novel. And while I never wrote anything as entertaining as did Mr. Peterman and his copywriter, Don Staley, I did learn a few things.

 Number one on the list: even a boring product can come to life with a little romance. Like cologne. Or a shirt. (Click through and read the copy, it's worth it.)

Copy this engaging is all too rare.

So I was pleasantly surprised when I picked up the most recent REI catalog. Browsing through I noticed the writer didn't settle for product specs, part numbers, and sizes—the three components of most catalog copy. Instead, he (or she) tells stories that focus on the product benefits. (It's probably been like this for a while, but it took me a while to notice.)

Sometimes it's just a simple story in a headline, like this one for the Kelty Yellowstone Tent: Have lots of money left over for marshmallows. Or this one for a pair of zip-away pants: Pants or shorts? Eh, decide later. Okay, they're not high literature. It's not even J Peterman. But they are simple stories that share a great product benefit. And it made browsing the catalog not just more entertaining, but more engaging. I've added several items to my "stuff to get" list.

Compare REI's catalog description for a pair of biking shorts to similar shorts (different brand) featured in the Performance Bicycle catalog that came the same week.

New! Don't let the casual look fool you—these are serious shorts
On the surface, they're rugged, stretchy nylon/Lycra spandex shorts with a laid-back look. But look inside, a wicking mesh liner and gel chamois add serious comfort. Import.

Zoic Ether Short
Ripstop nylon shell and removable Assault liner with Zo-wick Chamois. Side adjustable elastic waist with Velcro tabs, two zippered hand and two cargo pockets. 11" inseam.

Big difference. Which would you rather read? Or buy?

It's too bad more writers don't understand the power of stories to create meaningful and memorable brand interactions. Want great headlines? Start with a story. Also goes well with body copy.

Threadless Gets the Imporance of a Brand Story

Last month's Inc Magazine featured a long and interesting story about Threadless, the online t-shirt maker. Threadless takes an innovative approach to product development by involving a community of designers in design creation and production decisions. The result is $30 million in sales and a very involved, evangelistic customer base.

Threadless's success in the t-shirt business hasn't gone unnoticed. They have been approached by retailers like Target and Urban Outfitters who want to carry Threadless's designs in their stores. Here's what Jake Nickell, Threadless's founder had to say about the opportunity:

"We would do a deal with Target or Urban Outfitters... The only stipulation we need is to have some kind of presence in the store where people are able to easily learn about where the designs come from. You go to Target or Urban, and it's just shirts on a wall. You have no idea where they came from or who designed them... As long as the story isn't lost, we're OK."

Nickell proposed an in-store kiosk that would allow shoppers to rate designs and learn more about the artists who created them. So far, the big retailers have balked.

Unlike retailers who want to move more and more popular products, the guys at Threadless understand that their business isn't just about making and selling t-shirts. It's about interacting with their community of fans, who are suppliers, customers, and evangelists. This story is the one thing that really sets Threadless apart from any other t-shirt vendor. Losing that would make Threadless products just more "shirts on a wall."

Choosing a brand story over the opportunity to increase sales in the short term is no doubt a difficult decision. But it's the right decision in the long run. Good for Threadless.

Fast Company Gets Microsoft Story Wrong

In its most recent cover story, Fast Company, gives a big wet kiss to ad industry icon, Alex Bogusky. The article is supposed to be about whether CP+B can make Microsoft cool, but is more about how cool Bugusky and his agency are. It's a little over the top. The article compares Bogusky to Jesus: "There was, like, this halo over him." Note: I'm not a CP+B hater. I love the work they did for Mini, though I hate the stuff they've done for Burger King.

Regardless of how you feel about Bogusky or his agency, the article makes some pretty silly claims about the relationship between Apple and Microsoft:

"Nothing is doing more to carve away at Microsoft’s reputation—and contribute to its loss of market share—than the assault launched by Apple two years ago in the form of the “Mac vs. PC” spots featuring The Daily Show satirist John Hodgman…  Gartner media research analyst Andrew Frank credits Apple—whose annual media spend is less than half of Microsoft’s nearly $1 billion budget—with single-handedly rebranding Microsoft “as a kind of self-conscious and self-absorbed nerd that is out of touch with the normal lives and needs of its users.”

Let's see if I have this straight. Apple produces some clever (and often funny) ads and spends a couple of million dollars to put them on television. And that is what has defined Microsoft as uncool?

What about the years-late and buggy release of Vista? Or the monopoly issues here and overseas? Or crazy Steve Ballmer's antics on stage and threats to Google and Apple? Or bloated software that is expensive to upgrade? Or the blue screen of death? Or .NET? Or the very unhip Zune—supposedly the iPod killer? What about Windows security, viruses, and spyware? Where exactly do those things fit in the creation of Microsoft's reputation? I think they're giving Steve Jobs a little too much credit.

Apple does a great job telling its brand story. And Microsoft, well, what exactly is their story, if not the above? For their sake, I hope that CP+B is smart enough to see that Microsoft, not Apple, is the biggest threat to Microsoft's image. Note to FC writer Danielle Sacks (and Microsoft): brand stories are built almost entirely by the things a company does every day, not a competitor's ads.

***UPDATE: Danielle Sacks was kind enough to reply by email that she takes issue with what I've written above. She marked the email private, so I won't post it here, but her criticism of what I wrote above deserves to be heard. Here's the gist of her response to me: I left out some of what she wrote about Crispin's failures, the comparisons to Jesus were to illustrate how over the top the agency world is in its Bogusky worship, and she does write about Microsoft's missteps and failures. She writes it was incredibly irresponsible and sloppy to leave these out of my criticism of the article.

My response: I stand by my description of the article in its over-the-top reverence for Bogusky. It may have been presented to show how ridiculous the ad world's worship of this "mechanic of cool" (her words from the article) is, however I can't find anything in the article that makes that point. It reads like hero worship whether it was intended that way or not (and I'm not the only one who has noted this—see the links below). I apologize for my inability to infer the intended nuance and humor.

As for the parts of the article I left out, I linked directly to the article so anyone who reads this post can go back to the source. Yes, my description is simpler than the article. After all, it's difficult to reference everything written in a nine page article with a six paragraph blog post. Danielle did reference a few of Microsoft's failures, but the exact words used in the article are: "Nothing is doing more to carve away at Microsoft's reputation—and contribute to its loss of marketshare—than the assualt launched by Apple..." This is what I think she got wrong. And if the experts she quotes believe this, then they are wrong too. Just about everything Microsoft has done has a bigger impact on Microsoft's brand image, than what Apple is doing.

Readers, please take a look at the original article linked above and add a comment if you agree or disagree with my characterization. I'd be interested in knowing if you think I got it wrong too.


Read more:
Bob Bly criticizes the article here (read the comments, they're fun).
Spike at Brains on Fire is a little less critical, here.
AdFreak's take is here.
Here are a few ideas on what CP+B can do.

Name that Brand Story...

Story telling is a powerful communication tool—and brands that are associated with strong stories have a significant advantage over those with weak or forgetable stories. In fact, some brand stories are so ingrained in our culture that they are easily recognized with just a few details. See if you can name this brand:

Brand X got its start when the founder made innovative changes to the soles of his athlete's shoes to help them run faster. The brand was named for an ancient god and over the next two decades was adopted by many internationally known athletes.

In it's more detailed version, it's a story of seeking a competitive advantage, working hard, and achieving a goal. So what brand is it? Would you believe Reebok?

In the 1890s, Joseph William Foster added spikes to the soles of his shoes to help athletes run faster. His company was originally called Mercury Sports. And the brand has been worn enthusiastically by many of the world's best known athletes—most famously the runners of the 1924 Olympic Games featured in the movie, Chariots of Fire.

But if you're like most people, you didn't guess Reebok. You guessed Nike. With good reason.

In the 1960s, Bill Bowerman and Phil Knight added a special waffle pattern to his shoes to help athletes run faster. Their company was named Nike (after the Greek Goddess of Victory) and the brand has been worn by many of the world's best known athletes.

Both companies share oddly similar beginnings. But only one is known for this story. Why?

Nike has embraced the story of innovation and achievement, while Reebok has almost run away from it (despite their 70-year head start). While both companies began with passion for athletic achievement, today only Nike can tell that story. More than forty years later Nike continues to embrace its founding values (examples here, here, and here). And Reebok? Not as much. (Other examples here and here.)

So ask yourself this: is your brand true to its brand story and values? Or are you leaving your most important asset for your competitors to run away with?

Whose Brand Story—Hannah Montana or Milie Cyrus?

By now just about everyone has heard that Milie Cyrus posed "topless" for Vanity Fair magazine (news reports here and here). Okay, so it's not exactly what you expect when you hear the word topless. But the critics are right, no matter how unrevealing or artsy the photo is, it is simply wrong and exploitative to ask a fifteen-year-old to pose for this kind of suggestive photograph, even for Annie Leibovitz. 

So why did Milie do it? Why would her parents, who were reportedly on the shoot, allow it? Some have argued it's another case of Hollywood values and bad parenting (and they may be right), but I think there's something more to it than that. I think it comes down to competing brands.

Hannah Montana will make something close to one billion dollars for Disney this year. That's right, billion with a B. It's a great story, a more or less regular girl living a secret double life as a rock star. The best of both worlds, as the theme song says. And Disney has built the character into a powerhouse brand.

On the other hand, Milie Cyrus will take home something closer to twenty million dollars for playing the character on TV and in concert appearances. Now twenty million is nothing to sneeze at, but it's not a billion. Not even close.

So how does Milie go from being the actress that plays Hannah to a rock star in her own right, and grab a bigger piece of the billion-dollar pie? How does she move beyond the eight- to twelve-year-old girls that make up the television-watching HM fan base and appeal more to the high school and college kids that attend concerts? How does she develop her own brand story, separate from Disney's Hannah Montana character? One way is to be more controversial. Get noticed.

So we get the photo (which may or may not have been a publicity stunt). Then a quick apology. But there will be more. Maybe not photos, but something else to make it clear that while Milie plays Hannah, Milie is not Hannah. Because when it comes down to it Milie Cyrus' brand story will always be more important to Milie (and her minders) than the Hannah Montana brand story.

One brand that is certainly enjoying the controversy is Vanity Fair.

More:
Here's what  American Copywriter has to say about it.
Leibovitz defends the photo here.

Accidental Branding, Or Is It?

Ben McConnell, co-author of Creating Customer Evangelists, has a great interview with David Vinjamuri at the Church of the Customer blog. Vinjamuri is the author of a new book, Accidental Branding. It's worth reading.

I've written many times about what branding is and I think Vinjamuri gets it. It's not necessarily about budgets, campaigns, or advertising. At its core, branding is building a successful business. And maybe a little bit of luck.

The premise of Vinjamuri's book (I haven't read it yet) is that motivated entrepreneurs can build great brands without any branding know-how. They find a problem, then solve it. They create a new experience/product/service and choreograph the interaction with their customers. They ask questions like how would I want to feel when I enter my store? What would I want the employees to say to me? How should I feel when I use the product? They micromanage the experience to create memorable customer interactions. Which, of course, is the nuts and bolts of branding.

Favorite quote from the interview:

"What lesson would you engrave in stone for entrepreneurs?
Learn how to tell your story really well. I call it ‘building a myth’ because like a myth the story has to be easy to remember and share, dramatic, and it has to have a lesson contained within it. That shareable founding story is what consumers use to convert people to your brand."

I'll be adding this book to my nightstand soon. In the meantime, here are a few related links:

Buy the book here.
Download a free chapter here. Another free chapter is here.
Read more about Accidental Branding at Brand New, The Marketing Spot, and Egg Head Marketing.

Super Bowl Ads: The BrandStory Round-up III

Obviously, the BrandStory staff is a little late in getting to this story (for good reasons and bad). But hopefully we'll make up for it with the breadth of links about this year's Super Bowl ads.

A couple of thoughts:

Why exactly did the ad for AMP energy drink need the disclaimer: "Warning: Do Not Attempt." So you're telling me I shouldn't attach jumper cables to my nipples and to a car battery? It seemed like a such good idea while I was watching your ad.

There were a couple of ads that made me think, "just because you can animate it, doesn't mean you should" including the lame Chinese-accented pandas for SalesGenie, the dancing lizards for SoBe, and the seemingly endless Fox promotions for NASCAR. Did the fake race through the engine make you want to watch? Me neither. And I have a hard time believing that it didn't occur to anyone on SalesGenie marketing staff that their ad would be offensive. Could it be a deliberate strategy to get us talking about the ads days later?

Just in case you were wondering, my favorite ads were for Tide (talking stain) and Coke (Jinx). Both were terrific examples of brand stories demonstrating the product benefit.

On to the links:

The guys at American Copywriter talk about the ads  here. Give them a listen.
You'll find the USAToday Ad Meter here and here. There's a write-up on the ads here.
The Wall Street Journal wrote about it here and here (these links likely won't be free forever).
Some thoughts from MSNBC are here and the NYT wrote about the ads here.
And a more scholarly look (if that's possible) from the Kellogg School of Management here.
More from AdFreak and AdWeek. Or if you prefer the tabloid size, from Advertising Age and again here.

UPDATE:
Advertising for Peanuts talks about next year's ads, here.
Beyond Madison Avenue posts their take, here.

If you have a Super Bowl Ad write up or favorite article you'd like me to add to the list, please leave a comment.

Making Things Right = Customer Loyalty

Tom Fishburne shares an experience he recently had with an angry customer and what it took to make things right—a little human touch. He also notes a discussion he had with the head of Dyptique who said that "some of his best consumers were those who had a bad product experience, but then were overwhelmed by amazing customer service."

This is not an isolated experience. Angry customers who receive great service to fix their problem often become dedicated consumers. Why?

First, customers don't expect to companies to make things right. Billing problems, long hold times, lost information, forgotten call-backs, attention before the sale and neglect afterward. They all add up to very low expectations. Problems are seldom fixed. And when they are, it often requires so much effort on the part of the customer that the experience is still negative.

So when a company (or an attentive employee) fixes things, it is unexpected. And when the employee provides amazing service, it is so out of the ordinary that it makes a significant impact; in many cases, it makes a brand impression with lasting consequences.

Just as importantly, customers who go through these kinds of experiences now have a (brand) story to tell. (Thanks to the power of Word of Mouth, these micro stories can have a greater effect on the brand than the macro-stories companies tell in the advertising.) And if the brand is lucky, the newly happy customer will tell their story over and over. There are lots of examples of this. One of mine features RayBan sunglasses.

Risky Business and Tom Cruise made RayBan Wayfarers the "must-have" accessory back in the middle 80s. I had a pair that broke. This wasn't a case of losing a screw. I sat on them and they broke—in half—at the nose. The Sunglass Hut wouldn't take them back, so I sent them directly to RayBan with a note that simply said: "These broke. Please fix." I had no expectations of ever hearing from the company and started looking for some new glasses. Two weeks later I received a new pair of RayBans in the mail. I was thrilled. And 22 years later I'm a huge fan of RayBan and still telling the story.

Guess which brand of sunglasses I look for first when a need a new pair?

Have you had a great customer experience that you share over and over? Leave it in the comments.

Made to Stick—A Few Story-related Thoughts

I recently finished reading Made to Stick by Chip and Dan Heath (I know, I'm a little late to this party). Anyone involved in telling brand stories (marketers, advertisers, customer service agents, CEOs, PR people, bloggers) should not only read, but ingest, what the Heaths have to say about communicating messages in a way that makes them "sticky".

They retell a variety of stories to make their points: from urban legends to familiar advertising tales like Subway's Jared and The American Legacy Foundation's Truth campaign.

In crafting stories that stick, the authors recommend that you create messages that are Simple (not dumb, but the core of the idea), Unexpected, Concrete (using details to hook the message into memory), Credible, Emotional (the need for analysis is the enemy of stickiness), and follow a Story line. The use the acronym SUCCESS to help you remember the steps.

From the book:

"[Stories] ...naturally embody most of the SUCCESSs framework. Stories are almost always Concrete. Most of them have Emotional and Unexpected elements. The hardest part of using stories effectively is making sure that they're Simple—that they reflect your core message. It's not enough to tell a great story; the story has to reflect your agenda... Stories have the amazing dual power to simulate and to inspire. And most of the time we don't even have to use much creativity to harness these powers—we just need to be ready to spot the good ones that life generates every day."

Chip and Dan note three types of story plots that resonate best. They are: 1. The Challenge Plot (underdog, rags to riches, willpower): think Southwest Airlines, Pepsi Challenge, or Richard Branson. 2. The Connection Plot: think Coke's Mean Joe Green or Hallmark. 3. The Creativity Plot (solving problems in new ways): think ZipCar or Post-its.

Great stuff. I highly recommend this book.

From a branding standpoint, don't miss what the Heaths have to say about the curse of knowledge and how to overcome it. Hint: well-told stories can help.

Check out these other Made to Stick links:
1. Good PDF summary of the main points of the book.
2. Chip and Dan's Blog.
3. You can read a book excerpt here.
4. Reviews from Brand Autopsy, Time, USNews, BusinessPundit. One more here.
5. Podcasts from HBR, Ducttape Marketing, and 800-CEOREAD.
6. An interviews from Guy Kawasaki. Another interview here.
7. The Made to Stick Change This manifesto.
8. The Made to Stick SlideShare.
9. And of course, you can buy the book here (recommended).

Does WalMart Need a Better Image?

Or maybe the question should be, should a leopard change its spots?

According to a couple of news stories earlier this week (here and here), WalMart's former advertising agency GSD&M prepared a report that argues for a more upscale image for the decidedly downscale retailer. And WalMart is playing down the importance of the report.

You can read the 55 page report here.

According to the news stories, the report argues for repositioning the brand along the lines of smart shopping and better living (and thus, away from "low prices—always"). Why? Because while WalMart is the smart place to shop for brand-name consumables like toothpaste, it is not seen as a smart choice for purchases like electronics, apparel, and home decor (they call these priority departments). "Its reputation for discounts... 'works against [them]' as it tries to move upscale." 

But can WalMart grow into these new areas without impacting it's existing story? Is changing WalMart's positioning and brand story to accommodate the new priorities worth the risk?

In fact, the news reports are badly misreading the report. The economic, psychographic, and competitive information in the report indicates that WalMart should stick to it's low-price story. One survey quoted in the report notes that saving money is the #1 driver of shopping and that 87% of female shoppers agree that getting the best price is the most important thing to them when shopping. What percentage of WalMart's 138 million weekly customers are begging for better service in Home Apparel or higher end brands in the electronics department? My guess, it's very low. Instead of changing its position, the recommendations are for helping consumers understand how the low price story also means a better quality of life.

So the report argues for helping customers understand that smart shopping can also mean saving time, energy, or stress. It can mean spending dollars at a company that gives back to the community. These are areas that WalMart can improve.

So why the bad reading of the report? Perhaps it has something to do with the source: WakeUpWalMart.com, a union-backed group that is critical of WalMart (and clearly has an agenda for releasing the report). Maybe the reporters should have spent a little more time reading what the report actually says. In reality, it's a fascinating look into the day-to-day challenges of appealing to WalMart's customers.

Don't get me wrong. WalMart has some massive challenges. But being the low-price leader barely makes the list. In fact, one could argue that low prices are the only reason WalMart is what it is today.

John has a discussion going on about this at Brand Autopsy.