This Branding Tool is/is not Useful

Rethinking a go-to brand development exercise

“Not being everything to everyone” is a well agreed-upon goal in the marketing world. As Wayne Campbell would argue, be Led Zeppelin, not the Bee Gees. The attempt to put the theory into practice often leads to an age-old exercise: The “Is / Is-not”. The idea is simple: Shape a brand’s personality by defining what the brand is and what it is not.

They often start reasonable enough, usually establishing guard rails to certain qualities:

(The brand is):

• Confident, not boastful.

• Lighthearted, not goofy.

But things can quickly get derailed with strange false dichotomies and straw man arguments that nobody would argue against.

(The brand is NOT):

• Optimistic, not cultish.

• Smart, not insulting.

• Inviting, not reckless.

It’s the type of thing that will likely get some heads nodding because it’s overwhelmingly agreeable. Which means it’s equally boring and mostly hollow. It’s the illusion of specificity; the charade of a choice being made, having not gained or lost much of anything. If set side by side, the list above would be just as useful as saying the brand IS awesome, and is NOT terrible.

If brands flourish with distinct personalities, shouldn’t they have qualities beyond the positive and rosy? If “don’t be everything to everyone” is our North Star, shouldn’t the “IS NOT” list include traits that are generally desirable?

Imagine a new acquaintance describe themselves by saying:

“Well, I’d say I’m confident, inviting, smart, approachable and overall optimistic. And those that know me best would say I’m also NOT naive, never insulting and the least irresponsible person you’ve ever met.”

If you’re like me, you might assume that person is hiding something horrible. Like a severed head or a steady refusal to return empty shopping carts.

Why not take the tool beyond obvious limits to good traits, and actually identify a brand’s flaws? Could the definition of a brand’s personality include things like skeptical, stubborn, opinionated, or absent minded? What about ugly? Also - what are you willing to NOT be?

Oatly: Milk (and a brand voice) for Humans

Take the example of Sweden-based Oatly. The brand has received plenty of praise for it’s lighthearted, self-aware approach to reaching consumers.

(Note: I have no affiliation or connection to Oatly or any agency partner responsible for the work)

But beyond the “Look - an ad for something to put in your coffee” approach - the personality of the Oatly brand is a great example of what can be unlocked by creating a voice and personality that goes beyond the bold declaration that you’re not NOT boastful, reckless or insulting.

The impression Oatly creates is NOT inspiring (or inspiring’s more popular cousin “empowering”) at least not in the "live your best life, it’s so much more than coffee creamer, it’s a decadent shot of balance into your otherwise hectic modern life, now go nail that job interview” sort of way.

It’s NOT confident, nor optimistic. In certain ads, the copy plainly states why it doesn’t think the ads will work. So what is it? It’s self-aware, even self-deprecating.

via JCDecaux North America

It’s highly practical, and much more literal than we’re accustomed to as consumers. Oatly’s message is as transparent as it could possibly be, making no effort to hide the fact that it’s an advertisement vying for your attention.

Which means it feels actually authentic, honest, playful and down-to-earth. In other words... human. Ads like these helped put Oatly on the map because they stand out in a sea of messages that overpromise, confuse, and inevitably create distance between brands and the people they hope to reach.

Can Flaws be Assets?

What does it look like to even further celebrate and embrace flaws? What if “Flaws to Flaunt” showed up as key criteria in a brand book, or on a brief?

There’s perhaps no better example than VW’s approach to advertising the Beetle in 1959. In what has since become one of the most famous ad campaigns of all time, Volkswagen’s message was anchored by the line, ‘Ugly is only skin deep.’ It reclaimed a common critique of the Beetle, convincing drivers that VW focused on what really mattered: superior engineering.

For years, car rental company AVIS deployed a similar strategy. Having trailed market-leading Hertz for years, their appeal was simple: “We’re #2, so we try harder.” They celebrated their second-place position as proof that they can’t afford to cut corners.

When a person or brand can admit to a weakness or perceived flaw, it actually makes us trust them even more. for a deeper dive into the psychology behind how consumers interpret flaws and some other time-tested examples of brands putting it to use, check out the brilliant Richard Shotton.

Finding Opportunity in Imperfection

It’s easy to say we want a brand to feel “human.” It’s just as easy to forget what being human really means. It’s our nature to be deeply flawed. Our self-preservation instincts often tell us to keep those flaws hidden, but as growing piles of research continue to show: we become more connected to one another when those flaws live out in the open.

I believe it’s a truth more people in the marketing, branding and advertising world can put to use, myself included. Bottom line: We get so obsessed with making brands appealing, we forget that perfection rarely is.

Thoughts? Leave a comment below or get in touch!