“Mirror, Mirror on the wall
Who is the most beautiful of them all?”
Of course, you my lady.
Every fashion, beauty, cosmetic brand has been giving this answer to the consumer since eternity.
Actually all these brands go a step further – they promise beauty. No ordinary beauty - transcendent beauty.
Is anything wrong with this?
No, not at all.
To be noticed, to be attractive, to stand out is the reason we dress up, invest in gold, diamonds, designer clothes and other fashion products.
Colored hair, torn jeans, ear-rings, bald look nothing but renditions of the same need.
All these are in a way are substitutes for success – I’m better than you. I’m special.
Humans are driven in their effort to be exceptional, brilliant, extraordinary.
The leader of the pack - Everyone wants to be special.
These products primarily address this innate need of the humans and beauty is an expression of this need.
Beauty makes you special. Makes you more than what you are or in a human logic shows your true worth – bow you minions to my glowing personality.
Now if you translate this logic into communication for say a jewelry brand, we will find advertising with beautiful women, products proclaiming their uniqueness, intricate designs.
To a detour here, unique is also an expression of beauty. Only unique will make you stand apart from the herd.
In creative expression terms all communication for beauty and jewelry brand stems from – all eyes upon you (person or the product).
But hey, here is my question, if such brands are addressing this special need, can communication for all these brands be clone of each other?
Another no will not be out of order here.
But that is all what we see… beautiful women, focus on designs, drawing attention to uniqueness –in various creative ways but always in the same form.
Now if a new jewelry brand has to enter this industry, how should it convey its differentiator?
Conventional wisdom will take the new brand to the same playing space. It will create footprints in a field already made dirty by many.
Is there a way in which the brand can differentiate itself without breaking away from the core reason for existence?
For this let’s move back and re-look at what is happening there.
Most of the brands have looked at beauty in a uni-dimensional way and focused on the softer aspects of the term - Mushiness, softness, love, longing, yearning.
But enter the deep recesses of your soul, the need does not stem from these feelings.
The true DNA of beauty is based on a baser human – DOMINATION.
DOMINATION
POWER
CONTROL
LUST
Beauty must give you CONTROL. Control over the emotions of others.
A new truth.
A new reality.
To be continued…..
Showing posts with label marketing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marketing. Show all posts
Monday, January 14, 2008
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Social Trends 1: The changing “Father – Child” relationship
One social change which probably will find resonance with lots of people with or around young kids is the changed ‘father-child’ dynamics.
Today we find fathers spending more time with their kids and being concerned about their upbringing on a day to day basis.
This is a phenomenon of the recent years, as earlier, at least during my growing up years (and as corroborated by others in my social group) fathers were less involved with their kids and largely limited their roles to the providers of the family. This is not to take away the huge influence they had as role models and custodians of the family values.
The question that begs to be answered is what brought this change?
One can hazard multiple guesses for the same.
One acceptable theory could emanate from the recent trend of ‘metro-sexual’ behavior expected from the men. The society is creating an extraneous pressure and defining acceptable behavior. This in turn gets internalized by men at a micro-level leading to changed behavior and attitude towards certain facets of life. After all what is ‘metro-sexual’ but to exhibit certain female traits (with family as the fulcrum of this definition).
We can approach this from another direction - the nuclear family and working moms. In this case it is not a question of intent but of compulsion. If this was true, there is no change in the desired attitude but the manifestation can be seen in behavior. But this assumption will be bear out on all the parameters.
But in my opinion the reason for the same is different. And there has not been in any change in the attitude. Fathers of the previous years and the fathers today have a similar psychological make-up, what has changed are the social dynamics. And the change we are experiencing today has a direct correlation with the social pressures and expectations.
The fathers measure their success (as a parent) with the success of their children. They largely limit their role to ensuring that the kids are able to realize their potential in the outside world. Twenty-thirty years back (maybe much less) it meant ensuring that they are able to provide the best facilities and amenities. And this would ensure success. The competition probably was much less severe and the definition of success - the bar – was pegged much lower. Doctor, engineer, government official.
Today the parameters of success have changed. And the parents of today find themselves struggling in the new world. The face the ignominy of the unknown every day. Uncertain future. Missed Megabucks. They crave success which was fiefdom of the only the born rich for themselves. But for the majority the opportunity probably is already missed (lack of training, talent, ambition, fear).
To ensure the success of the kids (mega success or the new acceptable benchmarks and standards of success) fathers no longer can play passive roles. They need to actively train their children for the success that they missed.
The responsibility that fathers always believed has remained unmoved only the manifestation & expression has changed.
Today we find fathers spending more time with their kids and being concerned about their upbringing on a day to day basis.
This is a phenomenon of the recent years, as earlier, at least during my growing up years (and as corroborated by others in my social group) fathers were less involved with their kids and largely limited their roles to the providers of the family. This is not to take away the huge influence they had as role models and custodians of the family values.
The question that begs to be answered is what brought this change?
One can hazard multiple guesses for the same.
One acceptable theory could emanate from the recent trend of ‘metro-sexual’ behavior expected from the men. The society is creating an extraneous pressure and defining acceptable behavior. This in turn gets internalized by men at a micro-level leading to changed behavior and attitude towards certain facets of life. After all what is ‘metro-sexual’ but to exhibit certain female traits (with family as the fulcrum of this definition).
We can approach this from another direction - the nuclear family and working moms. In this case it is not a question of intent but of compulsion. If this was true, there is no change in the desired attitude but the manifestation can be seen in behavior. But this assumption will be bear out on all the parameters.
But in my opinion the reason for the same is different. And there has not been in any change in the attitude. Fathers of the previous years and the fathers today have a similar psychological make-up, what has changed are the social dynamics. And the change we are experiencing today has a direct correlation with the social pressures and expectations.
The fathers measure their success (as a parent) with the success of their children. They largely limit their role to ensuring that the kids are able to realize their potential in the outside world. Twenty-thirty years back (maybe much less) it meant ensuring that they are able to provide the best facilities and amenities. And this would ensure success. The competition probably was much less severe and the definition of success - the bar – was pegged much lower. Doctor, engineer, government official.
Today the parameters of success have changed. And the parents of today find themselves struggling in the new world. The face the ignominy of the unknown every day. Uncertain future. Missed Megabucks. They crave success which was fiefdom of the only the born rich for themselves. But for the majority the opportunity probably is already missed (lack of training, talent, ambition, fear).
To ensure the success of the kids (mega success or the new acceptable benchmarks and standards of success) fathers no longer can play passive roles. They need to actively train their children for the success that they missed.
The responsibility that fathers always believed has remained unmoved only the manifestation & expression has changed.
Why Mountian Dew will never do well in India
My views on the current position of Mountain Dew in the category.
Let’s first look at the current TG profile.
At the face it is youth which is further filtered basis the attitude. When addressing the youth the common platform that is taken is “different” but the Mountain Dew youth is the “on the edge different”. If one had to take a typical example if the normal “different youth” would be bunking the class to showcase his freedom, the Mountain Dew youth would be having fun while staying in the class. Everything about him would be an expression of a strong individuality and self-expression, would read Chuck Palanuik rather than Shantaram, would have seen “Old Boy” rather than “Zinda”. Unknown/ Obscure is more exciting than the popular/ known.
The issues
According to me the product faces three issues-
1. A non-cola normally is a substitute drink and not the primary choice. So a category which per se is not very large (in comparative terms), we have a product which is a sub-set of the category and targeted at a segment which in itself is an extremely smaller sub-set of the total market.
2. If one looks at the category the consumer makes a choice over something – I prefer this over that – “Identifiable enemies”. Pepsi vs Coke, Mirinda vs Fanta. So at a product level the “identifiable enemy” should be “Sprite” but for Mountain Dew the enemy is basis the attitudinal point of reference – “Thums Up. So the question that arises – Is it a good anti-point of reference? Maybe not. Thums Up is able to deliver on the attitude basis a very different taste in the category – strong/masculine – and automatically gets clubbed in the parent segment of colas. Though the communication of Mountain Dew has been able to capture the consumer attitude it has not given any clear cues on the product difference.
3. The third key issue is occasion/location of consumption. The non-colas have defined very clear occasion/location situation. Limca/Sprite for thirst, Mirinda/Fanta for taste. “Mountain Dew” the name suggests freshness and the communication cues outdoor but the extreme nature of the communication does not make that easy link with either as the attitude overshadows both. And this leads no reminder for consumption.
The way forward
We will go ahead with the assumption that we are not looking at re-positioning the brand. And the opportunities need to be identified within the existing realities.
Youth – This segment is the high consumption segment, so largely the most attractive segment. If we can make with the Mountain Dew a everyday part of the repertoire of CSD there can be a potential for growth.
a) Associate location/occasion with attitude rather than a physical rendition.
b) Activity seekers – The most visible trend today is the need to be associated with “activity” away from the sedentary fun. People are no longer looking at normal regular modes of enjoyment they are rather seeking something new, something exciting. One can plug in the product with everyday possible but unique activities.
c) Cross-category cues – Maybe I’m going berserk here – direct association with certain brands in similar domain (in attitude or uniqueness) can be used for creating that unique identity of Mountain Dew user. Nike wearers Just Do the Dew.
Overall it is critical that the attitude is owned and rendered into a form which would act is a reminder for consumption.
Let’s first look at the current TG profile.
At the face it is youth which is further filtered basis the attitude. When addressing the youth the common platform that is taken is “different” but the Mountain Dew youth is the “on the edge different”. If one had to take a typical example if the normal “different youth” would be bunking the class to showcase his freedom, the Mountain Dew youth would be having fun while staying in the class. Everything about him would be an expression of a strong individuality and self-expression, would read Chuck Palanuik rather than Shantaram, would have seen “Old Boy” rather than “Zinda”. Unknown/ Obscure is more exciting than the popular/ known.
The issues
According to me the product faces three issues-
1. A non-cola normally is a substitute drink and not the primary choice. So a category which per se is not very large (in comparative terms), we have a product which is a sub-set of the category and targeted at a segment which in itself is an extremely smaller sub-set of the total market.
2. If one looks at the category the consumer makes a choice over something – I prefer this over that – “Identifiable enemies”. Pepsi vs Coke, Mirinda vs Fanta. So at a product level the “identifiable enemy” should be “Sprite” but for Mountain Dew the enemy is basis the attitudinal point of reference – “Thums Up. So the question that arises – Is it a good anti-point of reference? Maybe not. Thums Up is able to deliver on the attitude basis a very different taste in the category – strong/masculine – and automatically gets clubbed in the parent segment of colas. Though the communication of Mountain Dew has been able to capture the consumer attitude it has not given any clear cues on the product difference.
3. The third key issue is occasion/location of consumption. The non-colas have defined very clear occasion/location situation. Limca/Sprite for thirst, Mirinda/Fanta for taste. “Mountain Dew” the name suggests freshness and the communication cues outdoor but the extreme nature of the communication does not make that easy link with either as the attitude overshadows both. And this leads no reminder for consumption.
The way forward
We will go ahead with the assumption that we are not looking at re-positioning the brand. And the opportunities need to be identified within the existing realities.
Youth – This segment is the high consumption segment, so largely the most attractive segment. If we can make with the Mountain Dew a everyday part of the repertoire of CSD there can be a potential for growth.
a) Associate location/occasion with attitude rather than a physical rendition.
b) Activity seekers – The most visible trend today is the need to be associated with “activity” away from the sedentary fun. People are no longer looking at normal regular modes of enjoyment they are rather seeking something new, something exciting. One can plug in the product with everyday possible but unique activities.
c) Cross-category cues – Maybe I’m going berserk here – direct association with certain brands in similar domain (in attitude or uniqueness) can be used for creating that unique identity of Mountain Dew user. Nike wearers Just Do the Dew.
Overall it is critical that the attitude is owned and rendered into a form which would act is a reminder for consumption.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
