Sex with the lights on

The big companies (and perhaps not unrelated - the companies that are in the most financial trouble) have always built stuff that was made to reach the most amount of people. General Motors, Blockbuster, Circuit City, AT&T, pick a clothing company - all these companies, and most of their competitors, have all focused on pleasing - at most- the widest variety of people with the fewest products possible.

Now, we hear a lot about the Long Tail, Tribes, the Herd, and the need for new marketing and new companies to narrow their focus and do better than please people. All consumers will tell you there happy or "feel good" about the interaction. That's less of a compliment and more of an auto-response. Plus, we've set the bar so low on "happy" customers that it only means they don't hate us. Consumers need and want reasons to be absolutely passionate about the things that make up their lives.

The problem: If you are going to take your company/product past pleasing and into absolutely passionate consumer interactions you will piss a lot of people off.

Passionate = polarizing. True passion is almost blind to the opposing view.

The benefit: Passion is also an emotion that continuously drives desire. Rather than make an ad that drives a little bit desire, make a product that drives passion and desire will follow.

UPDATE: Feb 16, 2009. Turns out the Anti-Gym is a not-so-great example. Lawsuits and unpaid taxes shut it down. Lesson: every brand needs more than a reputation - it needs to have competent people behind it and needs to work for its consumer. Sound business is always a great place to start. So, I apologize for the terrible example, but it was polarizing regardless. If you're looking for another example of a more narrowed approach by brands look at: The Container Store (niche marketing), Umpqua Bank (not your grey suit bankers), Toone Guitars (get off the bandwagon), and even Toyota's choice to make the Prius (not so big news now, but considering who it was launched by and what state the auto industry is in...it is big news).

Now for the not so great example I gave of the now defunct Anti-Gym...

A great example of love it or leave it positioning is summed up well by Anti-Gym. This Denver based fitness centre understands the words "polarizing" and "passionate". It speaks to a well defined group of people. Because Anti-Gym knows who it is talking to, it can clearly speak to those people. It doesn't worry about everyone else - just the people who will be passionate about this fitness brand.

Ant-Gym is against the gym/spa culture of fun weight loss and evening leisure that currently pollute the fitness centre market. For example: Why do people work out? Is it to run marathons? Sometimes. Is it for their highly laborous lives? Rarely. Is it to look better and be attractive? Almost always. So Anti-Gyms answer: "Have sex with the lights on".

Or how about this...most people that joined their local gym in January have long returned to their evenings watching reality TV. Anti-Brand has one thing to say and it clearly narrows who will accept their message: "No chubbies allowed! A 'chubby' is not necessarily someone with a spare tire or thunder thighs, it’s an unmotivated, lazy slob who wants to blame everybody else but themselves for their shortcomings."

So Anti-Gym is a great example of a narrow focus and leveraging passion. If you end up browsing the site, their mass marketing ads are a terrible example of how to communicate the brand promise. They also push the boundaries on communication and message to the point of ignorance. But that probably won't stop this brands growth. (update - it has. This brand died after lawsuits and tax trouble).

Avoid Fork, Knife, Butter

I was recently at a Judges Breakfast for a regional advertising award show. The guest speaker/lead judge (who shall go unnamed) had just given an impressive speech on the need, now more than ever, for advertising agencies to be innovative on how they connect between brands and consumers. To exemplify this point he engaged the audience with a basic question and pointed at random to the attendees for a response. The questions was “what items do you find in a kitchen?” He points at an individual at the front table - “Fork!” is the response. Another “Knife”. Another “ Butter”. This goes on for a few minutes, with more responses coming out representing cutlery, dishes, or appliances- “Fork…saucer…fridge…party…blender…plates”. Stopping the exercise our judge asks the intent listeners what was the most memorable kitchen item? The resounding response: “Party”.

Apparently, the top three responses received when this question is presented to a group of people are Fork, Knife, and Butter. I guess Butter is the attempt at some people to avoid saying Spoon, and rounding off the cutlery name game. This exercise was a great example of how unconventional thought, when appropriately applied can create a memorable response amongst listeners, while telling a lot about the brand that is making the statement.

On the discussion of unconventional thought, a member of the group asked the lead judge what his thoughts were on the “Gorilla” ads for Cadbury – which happened to win a Gold Lion at Cannes this year. His response and the other responses that surrounded the discussion, were very similar. The general consensus was that the ads were irrelevant to the brand, were another gimmick used by Director Juan Cabral (creator of the Sony Balls and Paint spots)”, and without the hindsight of Cadbury's success, it may not have been so well received by its peers.

I’m not sure if you’ve picked up on this, but even if you haven’t seen the ad, you can guess by its title that it is beyond conventional. With the previous demonstration of the need for marketers and advertisers to avoid Fork, Knife, Butter, I did find it a little bit surprising that many members of this group would be surprised that a Gorilla playing the drums could have a chance at delivering positive results for brand and product. In fact one of the judges mentioned that this ad would not win in this regional competition as they couldn’t see the connection between the brand and the ad, and although it was funny, would not constitute good advertising.

I had a look at the spot. I don't have 30 years of creative experience. But after seeing the ad and taking in the discussion at the breakfast, I’m reminded of a quote I read once “the products and services that succeed wildly are the ones that everyone expected would fail..." (Is that Seth's?). In this context “products and services” could be replaced with “ad campaigns”. A group of old agency executives all looked at the Gorilla ad and said this won’t work. Even with the hind sight of knowing the ads success with the brand and at Cannes, most of this group would still never consider producing an ad that followed the unconventional, left-field, thought process that went into the Gorrila spot. To play on the metaphor – these folks would avoid Fork and Knife, but deliver Butter. Party is too risky.

Whether you like the Gorrila spot or not, my point is that all the rules of business are changing - and the agency world seems to be the last to take notice. This spot doesn’t seem to connect to the product. But it DOES connect to the emotion. It DOES catch your attention. It DOES guide you through 60 seconds of experience (don’t most of us pray for 12 seconds?). And it DOES make an effort to break the mold and give the audience something to share.