American Airlines, Customer Service Ninjas, and the Power of a True Brand Story

The new American Airlines rebranding has received a lot of attention lately, much of it disproving the old adage that there’s no such thing as bad press.  In addition to their new logo – which I, in apparently contrarian mode, happen to like – there is new advertising, which is, to be generous, less than breakthrough (for a pithier appraisal, see Robert Passikoff’s commentary in Forbes).

The airlines press release proclaims “The ads, featuring both customers and employees, illustrate the important linkage between the knowledge American employees possess and how that knowledge aligns with the reasons people fly.”

Good thought, but the run-of-the-mill, introductory ad at least is self-congratulatory and company focused rather than being convincingly customer-centric.

Using Real Humans, But Missing their Real Humanity

While American’s new made up story did nothing to get me to look at them in a new way, an encounter with their true story did.  Last night, while scrambling to use American Advantage Miles to take a spring break vacation, a service rep, who asked to be identified only as Thomas F., not only went the extra mile, but seemed willing to make a round-the-world trip to get us what we needed.  He spent a generous amount of time on the phone, persisting despite the inherent challenge of our late booking, limited availability, our desire not to pay the exorbinant fees tacked on if flying their “partner” airlines,  and our need to get kids back into school on a timely basis.  This, mind you, was after my wife and I (OK, really just my wife) had spent countless hours online trying to work it out before ever calling.

To our surprise, American not only let us deal with a real human being, but an absolutely awesome one.  About 30 minutes into the adventure, when I could tell that every dead end only made Mr. F. more determined to see us through, I (the inveterate customer-service complainer) actually asked “How do you just keep going?”  His reply:  “At this point, it becomes a mission with me.”

If your Employees are On A Mission, Let the World Know

This unusally positive experience made me wonder why American had to get so grandiose in their brand positioning and the subsequent campaign. Why could they not tell their own true stories and connect human-to-human rather than corporation-to-public?

The answer, I think, is that big brands and their big agencies are still more comfortable with “story selling” than true story telling.  American and the big brand world at large would do well to strip away the self-importance, pretense and even the big production values to simply let their brand truth shine through.

A 3-Step Plan to Get from “Story Selling” to Powerful Brand Storytelling

1)  Listen to your customers. Really open up your ears. Brands typically pay for a lot of focus groups, surveys or even one-on-one interviews, but few manage to really hear and understand the feedback. Allow your researchers to tell you what’s really being said, not just what the organization has predetermined it wants to hear.  Then tailor your customer experience to that before you ever start worrying about logos or ads.

2)  Listen to your own people.  Apply the above to your own employees.  Continually. And provide them with both the invitation and the means to keep telling  you what’s really happening on the front lines. This will improve both your operations and communciations.

3)  Tell their story in human terms, not corporate or even ad speak.
“Change is in the air,” and “There’s something new in the air,” accompanied by corporate fantasy images of customers and employees looking longingly, lovingly up at airplanes, is generic advertising at best.  If you’re really hearing what employees and customers are saying, you’ll find a true brand voice, a convincing, human voice and a compelling, believable message.

New American Airlines Commercial:

 

 

 

 

BRANDS NEED TO OFFER CONTENT BEYOND CLAIMS FOR BRAND POSITIONING TO RING TRUE

The ad column in The New York Times last Friday was headlined “Paring Down Marketing Messages to a Few Simple Basics,” and offered this overview:

“SIMPLY put, a lot of what Madison Avenue says these days is simply put.  “Simply,” “simple” and “simplicity” — along with like-minded thoughts that include “easy,” “honest” and “clear” — have become marketing buzzwords in response to three related trends: how busy life today seems, the growing complexity of technology and the increasingly complicated economic picture. That has encouraged advertisers to woo consumers with promises to provide solutions that are meant as simple but not simplistic.”

What follows are several examples, essentially of fairly traditional lip service to simplicity, from brands that offer little in the way of simplifying substance or news. Ivory Soap (“Keep it pure, clean and simple.”).  California Milk Processor Board (“Real. Simple. Got Milk?”).  And the Simply Juices line from Coca-Cola, where the name supposedly says it all (but in an altogether undifferentiated way from any other 100% juice line).

My favorite misplaced example offered is Real Simple magazine, the forest-killing monthly that, fattened with ad pages, seems to be telling us that all we need to reach simple nirvana is more stuff (preferably from its own licensed lines of products available at major retailers).

SIMPLICITY DOES PAY OFF IN BRANDING
I am actually quite interested in the subject of simplicity, in marketing and otherwise, having long subscribed to the philosophy of “simple is good,” so I searched the article eagerly for new facts, studies, evidence of how and why simplicity is making real in roads.  But where was the mention of Seigel+Gale’s  intriguing “Simplicity Index,” which for several years has brought some statistical rigor to the subject and philosophy upon which that firm bases its entire business? And where were the mentions of marketers reaching out to actively help consumers simplify their lives via instructive content marketing?

And I wish that Stuart Elliot had at least touched on the inherent problem of a core lack of truth or significance in so many of these traditional assertion-not-substance campaigns?  He might have at least mentioned that “simplicity” is one of those unregulated claims – like “all natural” (which was featured on the opposite page in an article about a new class action suit against General Mills for false advertising) – which, while appealing to consumers also runs the risk of incurring their wrath if found to be untrue or not compelling in its minimal truthfulness. (Interestingly, I think what Simply Juices wants to do with their name is side-step the whole “natural” brouhaha, and I would argue with Mr. Elliot that their campaign isn’t part of the simplicity versus complexity but positions them as natural without saying so. Unfortunately, this side-stepping hasn’t saved the brand from its own class-action lawsuit headaches.)

As Seigel+Gale’s index shows, simplicity, if actually delivered, can be a major brand-building benefit (and a boost to shareholder value; take a look at the numbers in the “Simplicity Portfolio” contained within the annual index report).  Likewise, the mandate for truthfulness in a media age controlled by consumers, online and off, can be turned to significant marketing advantage, as illustrated in Jonathan Baskin’s new book “Tell the Truth:  Honesty is Your Most Powerful Marketing Tool.” But as those and other observers note, that advantage arises out of demonstrating simplicity and delivering on it as a brand experience – not simply claiming it as a positioning, or incorporating it into a theme line or brand name.

While I wish that Mr. Elliot had dug a little deeper into the subject, I more so fault the marketers and, most of all, their very traditional agencies, which are stuck in their apparently still-profitable rut of speaking at consumers rather than with them, of asserting rather than demonstrating, of interrupting their lives with paid messages rather than enhancing their lives with the information, education and entertainment they need and want.  In short, traditional agencies are still making image-based claims without bringing them alive with content (or even self-evident truth) – and in this age, that simply won’t do.

 

HOW TO WRITE AN EFFECTIVE CREATIVE STRATEGY – PLUS A SAMPLE CREATIVE BRIEF

This is a blog about issues of brand trust, written by the head of a creative project agency – and yet it’s never addressed one critical, trust-building (or trust-destroying) tool:  The creative brief.  Allow me to correct that oversight now.

Building brand trust starts with building team trust
You may be a marketing mega-maven who’s just crafted the most compelling marketing strategy ever seen for creating a customer-centric,  consumer-delighting, trust- and loyalty-building brand experience – but if your creative team doesn’t have an actionable brief, they’re never going to be able to create the communications and content that bring it all to life.

Even worse, they’re going to get frustrated, ticked off or both, inevitably retreating into the traditional we/they posture that so often besets creative and clients (or account people).  In short, if your creative team doesn’t trust you to give them the support and consideration they need, they won’t be able to give you the trust-building campaign your brand deserves.  Oh, they may give you something cool, cutting-edge, and totally irrelevant – but if you want honest human communication, everybody is best served by investing the time to create an effective, usable creative brief.

How to write a creative strategy that makes the creative work… work
In my experience, whether at BBDO New York working on superbrands like Pepsi or GE or in my own agency, working for big brands and start-ups alike, there are five relatively simple, but routinely overlooked, keys to creating a strategic process that creates team trust:

1. Include the creative team in the strategic process.
   I know that everybody likes to own their own corporate turf, but if brand managers, or the account people who serve them at agencies, aren’t willing to vest the creative team in the formation of the creative
   strategy, well, you can pretty much count on less-than-strategic creative results.
2. Keep the creative brief brief
   Your creative team has to distill a ton of information into a campaign of integrated, and largely short form, communications:  TV spots of 30 seconds or less; blog posts of 300-400 words; tweets of 140 characters max; images with no words of explanation at all.  You, as the owner of the strategic process, will do everyone a huge favor if you distill what you can upfront.
3. Skip the marketing jargon…
   … that is, unless you want the creative team to go mad and drive a stake(holder) through the heart they’re convinced you don’t have.
4. Keep it consumer-benefit focused
   Save the product-centric copy for the catalog; whether you’re developing a website, ad campaign, sales collateral or all the above, all communications need to focus on what’s in it for the consumer.
5. Use the creative strategy as your guide to judging the creative work
   Unlike some of my creative kin who feel that their creative output should be embraced without question as divine revelation, I believe that the creative marketing process requires dialogue. Unfortunately, clients and creatives frequently seem to speak different languages.  You can facilitate productive discussion and collaboration by leveraging a well-wrought creative strategy as your Rosetta Stone for interpreting, and constructively criticizing, work.DOWNLOAD A SAMPLE CREATIVE BRIEF 

And what does it look like when one doesn’t use the creative strategy process as the opportunity to develop a constructive, mutually trusting client-creative relationship?  Sometimes, something like this:

Why is “the power of story” such a hot topic these days?  Largely because, in our over-marketed world, many feel that the straightforward sell, sell, sell, no matter how well targeted, is simply worn out, is increasingly ineffectual in convincing and converting ever-more sophisticated (or at least overexposed) consumers.

STORIES GET PROSPECTS TO SELL THEMSELVES ON YOUR BRAND
Instead of selling the prospects, brand storytelling – at least when it gets to the self-evident truth of a product or service – gets the prospect to engage, imagine, and ultimately sell them selves.  (Of course, our perspective at Creative on Call is that all successful branding and marketing depends on identifying and communicating the simple truth about a brand, whether you’re creating an elaborate story-telling campaign or writing your next corporate brochure.)

A couple of very different forces in the popular story-telling culture  –  Peter Guber, the Hollywood power broker, and Ira Glass, the NPR maestro of telling real stories – share their perspectives on the art of a story well-told:

And now, for something completely different, Ira Glass, creator of “This American Life.”  This is the first in a series of four short videos which are talking about what goes in to pure storytelling for TV and radio, but which are also instructive for anyone wanting to inject the power of story into brand communications.

We like to think that one of the main reasons clients come to Creative on Call is because we pay off our core promise:  we help them identify and communicate the simple truth about their brands, one project at a time.   In fact, our newest client (an innovative energy firm out of Texas that I’ll tell you about in a future post, once their new campaign is launched) was very explicit that it was just that orientation that drew them to work with us.

They even referenced previous remarks found here in copyklatsch about Seigel+Gale, whose Global Brand Simplicity Index goes a long way to support our perspective.  Let us share just a few key findings – and the video recap – from the latest version of that annual study (hey, if they’re going to buttress our business, shouldn’t we do the same for them?):

1)        “Brands with a clear sense of identity, focused on consistent experience and communications, came up the big winners.  Simple brands are simply easier to understand.  They live longer in memory. They minimize – or at least don’t add to – the complexity bedeviling people’s lives.”

2)        As has been seen in each of the three studies so far, people are “willing to pay more for simpler communications and experiences from brands.”

3)        The “Simplicity Portfolio, which is comprised of stocks from the leading global Simplicity Index brands, continues to outperform the major indexes.”

In short, simple is still good…  good and profitable.

Image still counts – actually, it counts more than ever in the hyper-competitive world of brand marketing. And in the word-driven (search and social media) world we live and work in, words are often our primary, or at least initial, image creators. As I always tell clients, creating a brand image is about helping prospects imagine what it’ll be like to buy, use or in any way be part of your brand. (Or, to borrow more theological terminology, words incarnate, putting flesh and bones on your brand promises, so make sure you use words that can breath life into ideas.)

Unoriginal should be unacceptable
So why do so many leading brands rely on the stalest of clichés in their communications? Case in point, a recent post from a major business consulting firm entitled “Marketing ROI on Steroids.” I read the title before seeing the attribution and immediately assumed that the source must be a small-time player that can’t afford, or doesn’t care, to invest in fresh communications. But it’s from an A-list name that not only can afford to do better, but which, at least in the long term, can’t afford not to.

Tired language implies brand fatigue
It’s hard to imagine a more exhausted, less-pumped-up cliché than “________ on steroids.” and yet there it was, paired with a less-than-imaginative image of what used to be called dumbbells (I’ll let you make of that what you will). Taken all together, it could only detract from my expectations as I began to read… in fact causing me at first to dismissively skim the article (before catching myself in my own pledge to not post about things I haven’t thoroughly read).

Still, I don’t mean to be hard on just one firm – many other good business thinkers fall into the same trap of assuming that original thinking will stand out on its own merits, even when communicated in unoriginal language.

3 key to keep clichés from killing your brand
Just to be sure I’m not simply harping, but also helping, I’d like to offer three simple steps that can conquer the scourge of hackneyed hyperbole and confidence-killing clichés.

1. Get help.
If you just want to put words into your messages, get a dictionary (there are dictionaries of clichés, you know). If you want to put meaning and a unique brand voice into your marketing and other communications, get professional, outside help (the outside part is important, because even if you’re a communications firm, you need perspective, and that takes input from the outside). Yes, this is a self-serving suggestion – but also an important one.

2. Get tough.
I came of creative age under the tutelage of the late legend Phil Dusenberry, at BBDO New York, a great writer and idea man whom his staff often referred to as “Redo-senberry,” and his shop as BBDO: Bring it Back and Do it Over. The point is, learning not to settle for the first OK, workable idea was a matter of survival… and it still is, in this very unforgiving, seen-it-all-before marketplace. So demand more of yourself and of those writing, designing and creating for you. Give great direction, and expect great work in return.

3. Get a voice.
If you take the time to develop a unique brand voice – which of course comes after developing a unique brand positioning and personality – clichés just won’t sound right to you. To develop that voice, make sure you adhere to points 1 and 2 above.

What are some of your least favorite marketing clichés?

As with any advancing army, it should be no surprise that people just can’t get their minds off Millennials (and no wonder that any variation of “millennial” makes a most attractive keyword in blog posts). But how well do you understand them, even if you are “them?” And how much are you like, or unlike, the Millennial generation?

Are you 20% Millennial? 50% Millennial? 100%?
The folks at Pew Research developed a handy little quiz to answer that last question: “How Millennial Are You? The Quiz.” It turns out that, while I am nearly a Gen Xer, at least according to this evaluation, I’m only 31% Millennial. (Damn, I guess I’ll have to take my hoodies back to Abercrombie.)

I’m not sure how valuable this “tool” really is in understanding the millennial marketing juggernaut, but it’s fun and at least mildly thought provoking (not to mention an excellent excuse to pack a post with high-value keywords like “millennials,” “millennial marketing,” and “millennial generation”).

It’s not about age – really. It’s about state of mind.
The quiz is quite quick – so please take it and let me know how youthful you really are.

PS: Pew did create a pretty good primer on Millennial beliefs, attitudes and behaviors, which you can download here.

OK, I’m finally going to do it. I’m putting a face, my face, on my personal brand. While up until now I’ve always taken the position that I would prefer to have the professional community judge me on my work rather than my appearance, I’ve finally given in to the profile picture as a “must do,” if only because, in some cases, the most common, or perhaps communal, practice becomes the minimum requirement for best practice.

So no more QR Code (which only my younger contacts liked, by the way). No more blank picture. Which leaves me to ask you, dear reader (assuming you did not already know me), seeing me now do you trust my opinions more, less or is there no difference at all? I’m looking for a gut reaction here. How does this photo strike you? Is this a face you can trust?

Brand Face Value
As I cogitated on my own “face value” in terms of creating trust, I did a little looking into the value of brand faces, which is to say, logos. One study reports that the visual key to a trustworthy logo – one that imparts confidence that a company will act ethically and in a social responsible manner – is symmetry. I suggest that it may not just be the logos’ symmetry that is reassuring, but also (or possibly moreso) their simplicity. They are easier to take in and remember, suggesting that the less we confuse our prospects and customers, the more likely they are to trust us. It’s part of why I have always counseled clients that “simple is good,” a rule of thumb that gets even more relevant in an age of advancing complexity.

Take a Look in the Brand Mirror
So, how important do you feel your showing your own face is to the perceived trustworthiness of your personal brand? And, reviewing your own portofolio of brand logo(s), what’s your response to the research indicating symmetry (or in my interpretation, simplicity) better creates a sense of corporate trustworthiness?

In my last post, Brands as Functional Friends for Millennials, I opined on the potential to create brand trust, and subsequent loyalty, among Millennials by becoming functional friends, i.e., by actively providing useful resources and support. This is differentiated from the notion of “faux friends,” that is, brands that build excitement, if not real attachment, by being a part of the “gimme culture,” wherein your brand is only as good with its audience as its last offer, daily deal, freebie, or other “gimme.” (For more thoughts on that subject, check out Marketing to Millennials: Brand Trust or Transaction?)

So I’m wondering where on that brand friendship spectrum you would place the involved parties featured in last Sunday’s New York Times article On Campus, It’s One Big Commercial.

Can you sell more soap in an Ivory Tower?
The piece talks about the growing, if not new, marketing practice of not merely reaching out to kids on campus but actually becoming part of institutionalized college life. Besides the well-established outreach of “brand ambassadors” and “campus evangelists” (the commercial kind), the article describes how brands are now even creating events on official school calendars:

“Just how far one big company — Target — has permeated [the University of North Carolina] was evident at freshmen welcome week in late August, at what students and administrators alike characterized as a touchstone party for the class of 2015. As part of the official university program, Target sponsored a welcome dinner on a Friday. Then, on Saturday, for the first real social event for freshmen, it hired buses to ferry students to a Target superstore in Durham for late-night shopping, says Winston B. Crisp, the university’s vice chancellor for student affairs.”

As a parent of not-quite-old-enough-for-college kids, I cringed a bit at the thought of the hallowed halls of higher learning becoming the hollow halls of hyper-selling. As a marketer, however, I have to admit that my initial reaction was “Wow, Target does it again!”

Brand Trust Winners and Losers
Nonetheless, I think there are brand winners and losers in this scenario. The UNC brand (and that of the 65 other universities in the Target program) is at risk here, at least with tuition-paying parents who may look askance at paying for the privilege of turning their kids into a captive marketing audience. (And then there’s the question of maintaining trust in an educational brand’s commitment to unfettered academic inquiry and intellectual honesty, but that’s a whole ‘nother post.)

And even the Marvelous Marketing Machine from Minneapolis faces the long-term risk of being seen as a faux friend. After all, no matter how fun and involving the events may be, they are, at their core, selling opportunities dressed up as social occasions. To this crucial demographic group of which one noted survey says “… nothing matters more than authenticity…” events that purport to build school spirit and aid student life, while being commercial at heart, may over the longer term undermine a brands image as an authentic “friend.”

Then again, college kids may just not care – Target’s program is now rockin’ the freshman welcome week ritual at 66 universities across the country. But the business of buying consumer love is a fickle one, as the final quote in the Times article implies:

“Back at Target, Nitin Goel, a wiry, gum-chewing 18-year-old in low-slung jeans, is loaded down with free mac and cheese. He’s carrying a friend’s new beanbag chair. Earlier that night, waiting for the Target bus by the campus bookstore, Mr. Goel had pledged allegiance to Wal-Mart, where he had shopped all his life. Now he doesn’t seem quite so sure.”

My money says that as soon as ol’ Noel gets a free ride and a gaggle of gimmes from former-favorite Wal-Mart, he’s out the Target door once again.

Your thoughts?

There’s a lot of talk about the importance of transparency in terms of building brand trust. The buzz is that brands acting as if they have nothing to hide have everything to gain, particularly when marketing to millennials (and current reports suggest this applies in categories across the spectrum, whether you’re marketing wine to millennials, trying to attract and retain them as employees, or are wondering how to get millennials to go to church).

Transparency! Authenticity! Accessibility!
I’m all for the trend toward greater transparency. At Creative on Call, our approach as an on-call creative and strategic resource is to help clients identify and communicate the simple truth about their brands. Once you’ve distilled the actionable essence of what your brand truly delivers, being transparent about isn’t just good policy, it also makes for more persuasive marketing communications.

Consequently, I took quizzical note of a recent study, co-authored by Northwestern and Wake Forest University professors, entitled “On the Dangers of Pulling a Fast One: Advertisement Disclaimer Speed, Brand Trust and Purchase Intention.” I was not surprised by their conclusion that fast disclaimers – the audio and/or super-titled fine print – can undercut the credibility and perceived trustworthiness of unfamiliar brands, nor by their contention that consumer trust in well-established brands isn’t negatively affected by the speed of their fast-and-fine print. What did surprise me was one of the co-authors’ recommendations.

Say “Trust Me,” Fast, Ten Times
Professor Eli J. Finkel is quoted as saying “…if you’re promoting a trusted brand, feel free to save time by using a fast disclaimer. Use your precious advertising seconds promoting your product rather than spending them on your disclaimer.” But if you are truly a transparent, customer-centric brand, why wouldn’t you want to promote your customers’ understanding as a means of promoting your product? Assuming that disclaimers qualify or clarify the copy in important ways (for instance, the side effects of drugs for people with certain health conditions), why would you not want to educate your consumers and make it clear that you are promoting your product in a manner serving their best interests? And even when all that mandatory verbiage is just regulatory boiler plate – and often difficult to deal with creatively – why would you want to give your trusted brand the same tenor as those unestablished fast-talkers assumed by consumers to be unworthy of their trust or business?

Brand Transparency – or Transparently Lip Service?
As I said, I am all for the trend toward transparency – so long as it’s not transparently lip service (and when you’re moving your lips too fast to coherently deliver disclaimers, that’s exactly what it can become).