Companies have been trying to attach emotional crusts to their products for decades. Often their efforts amount to naively sticking ’emotional benefits’ (like happy & cool) to their brands. Somehow, somewhere managers start to believe that they can simply choose from a list of emotions (or values, ideals) and presto, they come up with their unique selling proposition, a brand personality, a brand essence, [insert your prefered lingua here]. Most often, these attempts come off as fake, marketing gimmicks and result in brands trumpeting the same old boring and empty emotional clichés (Happy Meal, happy Cola, HappyBake).
Others refuse to play this emotional game, sticking instead with the traditional ‘functional benefit’ approach (the faster, whiter, cheaper, lighter approach). They hold on to the (times and again) disproven myth of consumers as prudent choice makers searching for the optimal functional benefit-cost ratio. They are reassured by the fact that consumers also like to think of themselves in this way. Alas, managerial simplifications and consumers’ subjective self-image perceptions often have little to do with reality.
The ways in which we interact with the world (products, services alike) are far more complex than the emotional or functional benefit ‘theories’ would have you believe. Take SPAR’s Premium brand (SP). Yes, we can prefer SPAR Premium Chips over your ordinary chips because of functional benefits (less salt, more potatoe, better taste). But these ‘benefits’ are not what the product is truly about. If you put the same chips in a unlabeled packaging, it will very likely sell much worse than Premium does.
An ’emotional benefit’ proponent would point out the positive emotional associations created by SPAR’s advertising, packaging and in-store promotion. Yes, a celebrity like Bond can shore up some positive associations (adventure, luxury, cosmopolitanism, sex-appeal, etc.). But that’s not the full story either. Take the functional benefits out and the associations become phony. A turd embroiled with 007 is still a turd. Wait a minute! SPAR Premium is phony even if you leave the functional benefits in. Can you imagine consumers going ‘Right, Bond using SPAR’s products that makes sense. This truly speaks to me!’ ? I personally can’t buy into the ‘Bond prepares a SPAR Premium meal for his ‘Bond girl’ gimmick’ (she doesn’t even have a name for god’s sake). Don’t get me wrong, I like most of the SP products and the ’affordable luxury’ concept, but something just isn’t right here.
We need a third view to take this further. Let’s be fair, the celebrity and emotional associations SPAR attempted to stick on SP worked OK (I see a lot of consumer falling for the brand), but not great. Do I see people being proud of buying SP? Nope. Do I see people buying into the ‘Bond goes SP’ story? Nope. Spar did Ok in terms of functionality and emotional branding, but poorly in terms of cultural branding. Not only do marketer need to come up with good functional claims and set up a proper emotional scenery, they need to make their brand resonate with culture (the ideologies of the day and time) as well.
From a cultural perspective the ’affordable luxury’ works mainly because consumers like to create special moments of luxury in their everyday lives. Think of it as a self-reward kind of moment, a small but important moment you can look forward to. This type of luxury is the only kind of true luxury that most of us can afford. The economic crisis made sure that it is the prefered kind of luxury also for the wealthy and the growing ranks of the ex-wealthy. It’s the prudent kind of luxury that won’t bankrupt you (at least not right away) and won’t expose you to ‘look-at-that-wastful-arrogant -SOB’ remarks and guilt. It’s smart, guilt-less luxury – luxury on discount.
Does Bond get this? Is Bond a smart shopper? Please, he doesn’t even shop. He eats out and couldn’t care less where the money comes (or fails to come) from. ((Do I need to point out that the old Brosnan-kind-of-Bond doesn’t even work for Bond movies anymore?)). To switch from OK to great, SPAR needs to look for more culturally tunned stories of premium. It’s brand story needs to become less Bond and more McGyver, less celebrity and more, well… us.
Yes, it was a great attention grabber, but the kind of money Brosnan got will always ensure attention. Attention is not enough. It’s what you get to say after people tune in that really makes or breaks a brand. There is no authenticity to the ’007 Chips’. You could of course add humorous spin and retain Bond without making the brand come of as farfetched and artificial (I wish we had an adjective like overmarketingized). Can SPAR come up with a better story to truly capture the spirit of today’s mass luxury? How would you do it?
