“The genie is out of the bottle,” says Bruce Philp branding guru to ING Direct and co-author of The Orange Code. “Advertising is not branding; it’s just a thing a brand does.” And mostly it’s just showmanship—and the dazzle isn’t enough to cause consumers to become loyal to your brand. 

The big question is: How does advertising fit into your marketing mix? Here, in the first of a series of interviews, Philp digs into the answer:

Brand & Strategy: What do you mean by “disingenuous” advertising?

Bruce Philp: Consumers know that you have chosen to don a costume and mount the stage to try to affect some sort of cognitive event. Advertising is, by its very nature, a contrivance. It’s not our brand’s voice, and everybody knows it.

So how should an organization integrate advertising into its plan?

Advertising has to work authentically within this consensual understanding and respect it. Marketers and advertising people both need to let go of the idea that a purchase decision is an event, and to think of it instead as the end of a process. Then remember what advertising is actually good for in marketing strategy terms.

And what is that?

With so many other ways to influence the consumer’s decision making process, advertising could hardly be said to sell anything–at least not very cost effectively (Snuggies aside). But it’s very good at beginning the dialogue that might lead to a sale (what advertising people rather dryly call “awareness”). Advertising can knock on the door, suggest an emotional promise relevant enough that the consumer might open it, and then be respectful and interesting enough that they’ll leave it open for the next opportunity to influence them.

I think that advertising should be purposed specifically with that in mind.

Any caveats about advertising?

We need to both expect more from advertising, and less: More in the sense that it can and should do better than just amuse people, and less in the sense that it shouldn’t presume to be able to go from zero to closing the sale in 30 seconds (Snuggies, again, aside).

If I were going to knock on your door to sell you a vacuum cleaner, I wouldn’t put on a puppet show in the hope that you’ll like me so much you’ll buy my Electrolux. Nor would I open by throwing the machine at you and screaming that your floors are filthy.

Advertising is a powerful and important tool for marketing. What’s changed in the last few years is that advertising is now a more specialized tool. Keep that in mind, and its inherently disingenuous nature will never be a problem.

The new consumer chooses your brand (product or service) if they believe what the brand is saying is true. It’s a selective—and an emotional—choice. Marc Gobé, author of Emotional Branding, Citizen Brand, and Brand Jam (www.emotionalbranding.com) discusses this historical shift and how your leadership style must change to accommodate different expectations. 

Brand & Strategy: We’re awash in brand clutter from the last three or four decades. How does that clutter shape the way people make buying decisions?

Marc Gobé: We are back to reality and normal branding, not excessive branding. The past six or seven years, there was an uncontrolled rush towards money with no principle whatsoever. I don’t think I saw any real branding for a few years. The money was there for the taker. Business upheld a ‘grab it’ strategy rather than trying to make an effort to bring consumers towards their brand.

One of the expressions of the excess was the illegal billboards in New York and L.A.

Is there a fundamental shift in the minds of consumers in how they approach spending?

As Baby Boomers head for retirement, they are going to be spending less. Right behind them is Generation X, comprised of 47 million, which has lost the buying power that Boomers had. The millennial generation brings a whole new set of values. Their concerns are going to be the environment, and they are clearly looking to conserve energy and buy less; they’ll be a lot more sensitive to the impact of their buying options.

People are choosy; they are not free-spenders. The challenge for businesses will be to give them freedom to buy their brand. That’s real branding. The biggest revolution, though, is people being able to talk to each other about brands.

How is that different from a generation ago?

The new media technology has made it so that the success of a brand is based on how open they are with these consumer communities. Consumers have a personal relationship with the brand; they have to believe what is being said.

In reading about the founders of Google and Twitter and Facebook, I found that these people all have one thing in common: They aren’t Jack Welsh – the iconic former GE leader! They got rid of the emperor complex. What’s interesting is that most colleges still train under the Jack Welsh theory.

What makes them different?

The new leaders expose themselves to criticism. They are open to dialogue. That is a new culture, which is the social media culture.

Take the CEO of Zappos.com, for example. At 31, he makes one dollar a year, even though he heads a large company. When he Twitters, he exposes himself: This is who I am, these are my finances, this is my business, and these are my values. He creates an open dialogue. He makes you feel like he knows you. He’s with his consumer. It’s a model of fairness, personal accreditation, and personal engagement.

Brands, then, are defined by authentic leadership?

Yes – where the reputation of the brand is strongly connected with the owner and how much people like them as individuals. It’s about humanizing the brand. That means a leader of the company Tweets: I’m locked out of my hotel room because I closed the doors behind me and I cannot get back into my room. That’s human, and we can relate to that.

The new generation seems to crave that, but what about the Boomers?

The Baby Boomers were trained to believe in any kind of dream that was offered up. They were told there were no limitations to dreams. It was about limitless opportunities. And they were willing to compromise their integrity for the acquisition of material goods, because those material goods defined who they were.

Now we are at a point of finding out that there are limits and that some of the dreams that were referred to us are unattainable. Hence, leadership has changed. People don’t want to hear that you’re going to take them to the moon. They just want you tell them who you are.

In a sense, brands have been lying to us for a long time.

Of course. But to be fair, everybody was on the same page. Somebody tells you, “I love you,” it’s not exactly true, but it’s kind of nice to hear. The game was played, and accepted–and it was good. And why not? Because really, there was not a lot of risk playing that game…until it got out of control. Think of the movie Wall-E: The younger generation is like robots trying to fix the mess. And consumers don’t want to be deceived anymore.

If you promote your company as green but at the same time you’re suing the state of California because you don’t want to abide by their emission standards, people are not going to buy your brand.

So how does an ordinary organization apply this shift to their marketing?

The new media technology has made it so that the success of a brand is based on how open they are with these consumer communities. Consumers have a personal relationship with the brand; they have to believe what is being said.

It’s a bank that claims to not be a bank. 

And it doesn’t siphon off its customers’ money with hidden fees and service charges. Instead, ING DIRECT promises to help you save money—at a great interest rate.

In an industry in which “bank” has become a new four-letter word because of the sector’s general disregard for its customers, ING DIRECT has become a stand-out—even likeable—brand.

In an interview with CZ President Dave Goetz, Bruce Philp, principle of Brand Engineering and chief brand architect of ING Direct, and co-author of The Orange Code, identifies what your brand must do to trump the competition:

Brand & Strategy: You wrote, “… don’t dominate the category, subvert it.” How do you do that? 

Bruce Philp: People tend to use the word subversive when they really mean “iconoclastic,” or even just “unconventional.” My definition of subversive is much more orthodox.

Like it or not, when you position a brand, you have to face the brands against which consumers will compare it. In our case, we were going to be compared to the status quo, which would never be a level playing field for our low-cost business model. If the status quo doesn’t support your business concept, then don’t dodge the comparison—undermine it.

Reframe it and cast doubt on it.

Don’t try to fool people into thinking you’re the “best” something. Be the only alternative to a flawed something.

How did that work with ING DIRECT?

We said the last two things you’d ever expect a bank to say: “We’re not a bank,” and “Save your money.” And we said them with such confidence that consumers couldn’t help but challenge their own assumptions about both.

That’s subversive positioning.

You talk about the dangers of boredom when messaging to your audience. What are some signals that it’s time to rethink your advertising strategy?

I think it’s important not to lose sight of what advertising really is. Too many people in our business tend to unconsciously equate it to branding. But of course they aren’t the same thing, and probably haven’t been since, say, the 1970s. Advertising isn’t a brand, it’s a brand asking a consumer to do something.

When we think about boredom or wear-out, we have to think of it in terms of how we’re asking them—not what, and certainly not in what character.

Do you believe that consumers own your brand?

I don’t, even if they seem to say so in focus groups. I think brands exist by the consumer’s grace, but consumers don’t want to own brands any more than, say, they want to govern themselves by plebiscite. They want to be heard, but they don’t want brands to delegate leadership to them.

Left to their own devices, consumers can figure out what a product needs to do, but they’re not going to inspire themselves.

If you leave branding to consumers, you’ll wind up with low margin, commodity businesses. Great brands are like lighthouses, an illuminating beacon that consumers find in the darkness.

How do brands become this “lighthouse”?

“Gut” is really important. By “gut” I don’t mean an ability to predict how people will react to something. I mean the conviction to pursue your agenda as a brand and trust that, if it’s in the best interest of enough consumers, the marketplace will reward you.

It’s guts more than it is a gut instinct.

Apple is a poster child for this notion. Virtually nothing they do is entrepreneurial. Nor is it the product of permission marketing. Nearly all of what they do is the product of a fierce, singular, take-it-or-leave-it vision. I know that not every business can function like that, but it’s amazing how many of the ones we admire the most do.

What are other traits of this brand gutsiness, especially in a down economy?

The brands that seem to be acting like those lighthouses share the following qualities:

• They have not abandoned their purpose. By not dropping their principles like hot potatoes at the first sign of pressure, they have proven they’re authentic at the moment when doing so would have the greatest impact.
• They have reached out to their customers and tried to turn them into a community.
• They have not exploited the anxiety of the times.
• They have concentrated on value.
• They have listened hard to what people are really feeling and put a special effort into being genuinely empathetic.

What is your best positioning advice for senior leaders in universities and other third-sector organizations?

Dare to have a purpose.

In my work with such organizations in the past, I’ve very often seen a stultifying kind of commodity mentality. It’s a product of well-meaning people who believe that they’re betraying their callings if they focus on one constituency or one mission to the exclusion of all others.

The exception to this reluctance is the charitable organization that exists to fight a disease, for example. It’s no coincidence that these are some of the most strongly branded NGOs. They have a singular cause.

By contrast, organizations like industry associations and universities have a pathological fear of taking a stand. They don’t want to leave, as we put it in The Orange Code, “money on the table.” And it’s tragic to see how often they fail, or at least never seem to get anywhere, as a result.

What about those willing to take a stand?

Make a mental list of the most prestigious and superbly branded post-secondary institutions in America. Is there even one brand on that list that isn’t famous for just one or two defining vocations? I bet not.

What makes that a bit mystifying is that when a school decides to promote true excellence in one or two areas and succeeds at it, the entire school becomes more prestigious. Excellence is a reflection of the brand, not the curriculum. Just about any resume is better with Harvard on it—even if it has nothing to do with medicine, law or business.

Your clients or constituents suffer from decision paralysis. The market offers them endless choices like what you provide. Stress and confusion inevitably result. Worse, your clients begin to ignore you.

Peter Sealey, professor at The Peter F. Drucker Graduate School of Management at the Claremont Graduate University, and former Chief Marketing Officer of Coca-Cola, thinks that success lies in marketers’ abilities to simplify their customers’ lives.

B&S: Why so much fragmentation?

Peter Sealey: One reason is the internal marketing organization. There’s a built-in bias at the marketing department level to fragment, line-extend, and introduce new products. It gives them something to do. It means they have brand managers, assistant brand managers, and advertisers.

We only have room for so many products and services in our life. How do organizations simultaneously offer choice and simplicity?

I use Crest as an example in my lectures. Crest toothpaste offers 27 different flavor, additive, and packaging variations. When Crest came out, it had one flavor, two package sizes.

The new positioning for Crest is that it’s not just a toothpaste. It’s a healthy, beautiful smile for life, whether it’s from dental floss, whitening strips, a battery-powered toothbrush, or toothpaste. The smart marketers are positioning their brand in a more complete, wider context.

How can smaller organizations, who don’t have the deep pockets of Procter & Gamble, respond quickly to trends in the marketplace?

Most importantly, observe consumers in the act of actually using your product. Then hold a focus group with your product and customers. How do they interface with the product? Are they happy? You can do that for almost nothing. There’s not a marketer in this country who can’t afford a couple of group sessions. Finally, study people who are not your customers. Why are they not users of your product or service?

Can your concepts of simplicity marketing be adapted to nonprofits and service organizations?

The nonprofit sector has the same challenges as the profit sector. The old thought was these people live in a hazy, “touchy feely” world, and don’t have the discipline of budgets and balance sheets. In reality, they need as much discipline as the profit sector.

Volunteer work and charitable giving is huge in this country—competition exists within nonprofits. You need to position your brand. What motivates people to volunteer? And why would they choose you out of the myriad of options?

Given the speed of change today, how can a small organization plan in the way you suggest in your book?

Micro-trends—movements that are low key but important—pop up everywhere. Right now, there’s a micro-trend that shuns bottled water. It has been the star of the beverage category for the past 10 years, but people now say that bottled water is no better, maybe worse than most tap water in the United States.

I doubt that the major bottled water companies have spotted this micro-trend yet. It’s key for small companies to see these trends and to adapt. Your antennae need to be up and you need to be very sensitive. Hands-on marketing, viral marketing, is the way to go.

So small, speedy, and agile are the key traits of success today?

Absolutely. In the old days, you could simply pound consumers over the head with television advertising. The guy with the biggest budget and a decent brain won. That’s not the case anymore.

The big companies are having trouble adapting. Being small is a real advantage today; the world is going in their direction.