Category Archives: Featured

Featured articles.

The Most Important Resource

Image

Imagine you’re flying from New York to San Francisco in a plane that requires 7000 gallons of fuel to make the trip. Which of the 7000 is the most important gallon? The obvious answer is the gallon currently powering the engine, so long as there are at least 7000 gallons in the tank.

Of course attempting the flight with less than the required number of gallons renders the question of a most important gallon senseless. Either the total amount of fuel required to complete the flight exists or it doesn’t. It should be obvious that the same kind of thing is true for a company, campaign, or charity.

And yet, we’re regularly asked, “What is the most important resource required to bring about success?” Our answer is always the same. There is no such thing as the most important resource. For any given circumstance, a resource is either necessary or it isn’t. That means all necessary resources are of equal importance; a fact that requires close inspection.

The word “resource” is often used interchangeably with the word asset. But resources are not the same as assets. Resources are the elements with which assets are obtained. Further, when one examines the resources available to an organization, any organization, all organizations, and reduces those resources to their fundamental irreducible parts, it becomes evident that an organization has only three resources: time, money, and talent.

At a basic and invariable level every asset can be expressed in terms of time, money, or talent. An organization deficient in any given asset need only spend some of its time, money, talent, or some combination of each, to acquire the asset in question.

For instance, product development, polling, and trash removal are assets that any organization can obtain in exchange for time, money, talent, or some combination of each.

By its nature, trash removal will likely demand less time, money, or talent than product development or polling. This does not mean trash removal is less important than product development or polling. This means only that procurement of trash removal service will likely place less of a demand on time, money, or talent than will procurement of product development or polling.

We use the adverb “likely” because while some combination of time, money, or talent can always be traded for assets, they cannot always be traded for each other. Indeed the degree to which time, money, and talent are interchangeable varies greatly based upon circumstance.

A San Francisco bound plane, sitting on the tarmac in New York, with 6850 gallons of fuel in its tank, will pay the going rate for the 150 additional gallons of fuel required to make the trip. It simply doesn’t matter if the money to acquire the additional fuel is much less, much more, or about the same as the per gallon cost of the fuel already in the plane’s tank. Without the additional fuel the plane will not reach San Francisco. Nothing can change this circumstance.

Circumstance freezes time. A failure to acknowledge circumstance almost always leads to the ill-fated “we’ll worry about it when we get there strategy.” By definition, “when we get there” is a circumstance — a moment of frozen time. Indeed circumstance dictates that there will be no time available to “worry about it when you get there.”

Assets can always be expressed in terms of the basic and invariable resources: time, money, and talent. Asking the importance of each is exactly the same as asking the importance of each gallon of fuel in the tank of an airplane. Either there is enough to make the trip or there isn’t.

The Most Important Resource
March 17, 2014 by Bob Manna & Matt Manna
Version: 6A24A6C8(R01) • Mar 17, 2014
Photo © alphaspirit — Fotolia.com

Download
The Most Important Resource (PDF)

Related
Article – On Replication
Article – Projection vs. Prediction
Article – Talent

Steam

Image

It’s common for an organization that’s running out of steam to try and get it back. Less common is the ability to discover what to do to get it back.

The usual attempt to regain steam is to store and evaluate data that not only suggests, but “proves,” what to do. This effort is flawed because data, and the “proof” it advocates, are past happenings, and knowing what has happened in the past is irrelevant to knowing what can happen in the future. No organization would ever run out of steam if this was untrue.

Organizations run out of steam when the people running them stipulate that a course of action will be considered only if it is proven to achieve a predetermined, predictable, result. This tyranny of proof is literally unfortunate in that it destroys existing fortunes. Happily, the tyranny of proof can be avoided. The key is to acknowledge the proper meaning of intelligence.

It’s very common (and very wrong) to think of intelligence as an ability to store, recall, and evaluate data. Of course the ability to store, recall, and evaluate data is impressive. We reward it in schools and on game shows. But storing, recalling, and evaluating data are retrospective acts, and retrospection is incapable of depicting what can happen in the future. This is not merely an academic statement.

Most organizations are well staffed with individuals capable of storing, recalling, and evaluating data. These folks can explain, in exquisite detail, why an organization is running (or has run) out of steam. Few can predict the event before it occurs, and none can offer proof of what will prevent it.

To transcend the tyranny of proof, intelligence must be held to a standard that begins where retrospection ends. We call this standard of intelligence Unusual Mind — the talent to achieve success in the absence of, and sometimes in opposition to, proof. Unusual Minds seek to answer a single question: What will it take to change the mind of a customer, voter, or philanthropist?

This is a scary question because one possible answer is that nothing is capable of occasioning such a change. In such circumstances the best thing to do is stop trying and save resources for another day. Happily, circumstances are not usually so dire. Most seemingly immutable situations are nothing more than myopia. The cure is to look beyond existing messages, products, candidates, and causes.

For instance, it is probably impossible to topple Heinz from the top of the market by offering a competitive brand of ketchup. But Heinz’s dominance of the ketchup market does not make it impossible for a different condiment to supplant ketchup.

Also, most products, campaigns, and causes run out of steam gradually. There is usually time to react. Sadly, it is precisely during times of decline that proof’s translucency is most pernicious.

The Unusual Mind is different. The Unusual Mind accepts that the existing state of affairs (that which is proven) is incapable of uncovering what must change in order to acquire, reacquire, and importantly, maintain success.

Whereas the tyranny of proof dictates that a course of action can be seriously considered only if it is proven to achieve a predetermined, predictable result, the Unusual Mind accepts that it’s impossible to prove the future. This distinction is not hypothetical, it’s real.

It’s trivially easy to recall any number of once great organizations that gradually declined to a point of obscurity. We won’t reveal our list in order to keep from appearing as though we stacked the deck in favor of our next two questions.

Do you believe organizations are ignorant of their decline? Do you believe proof of decline mitigates decline? Of course not. Organizations decline because no one knows what to do to reverse or avoid the decline! If you take one single thought from this article it should be this: The fact that an organization stands in a place of dominance today, does not prove, or even suggest, the potential to maintain that position.

There are only three elements that generate success, and every organization is in direct control of two of them. The first element is the product, service, candidate, or cause on offer. The second element is/are the message(s) used to promote the product, service, candidate, or cause. The third element, the public’s reaction, is a direct result of the first two.

It is only by attempting to parlay with patrons through the development of products, candidates, causes, and their attendant messages, that proof can emerge. The attempt comes first, the proof comes second. The tyranny of proof demands the exact opposite order.

The tyranny of proof is not merely opposite from the intelligence of an Unusual Mind, it is often directly opposed to Unusual Mind intelligence. Worse yet, the opposition is, in some respect, correct. There are always aspects of the current environment that can be demonstrated to have some value. This does not, in any way, prove, or even suggest, future value.

The plain fact is that proof is subordinate to the existing convictions of patrons. The only question when it comes to acquiring or reacquiring success is: Do current offerings, and their attendant messages, parlay with the existing convictions of customers, voters, and philanthropists?

The fact that proof is subordinate to the convictions of customers, voters, and philanthropists can be an uncomfortable realization. But discomfort does not imply inaccuracy, or dismiss reality. The only way to harness the steam that powers success it is to elevate the intelligence of an Unusual Mind above the tyranny of proof.

Steam
March 3, 2014 by Bob Manna & Matt Manna
Version: 6AF9901D(R01) • Mar 3, 2014
Photo © nikkytok — Fotolia.com

Download
Steam (PDF)

Related
Article – Bad News
Article – Changing The Game
Article – Hut, Hut … Hut
Article – Marketing's Greatest Conviction
Article – Persuasive Resolutions
Article – Projection vs. Prediction
Article – Seeing Clearly
Article – Success Is Built On Frameworks, Not Rules
Article – The Invention Of The Birthday Machine
Article – The Weed Eater

Marketing’s Greatest Conviction

Image

We all have convictions. They’re the semi-conscious hunches, notions, and gut instincts that set our behavior in motion.

It’s difficult to directly observe a conviction, but it’s not difficult to observe how a conviction sets our behavior in motion. The following simple experiment will assist.

Start the video shown below, and then say out loud the color each of a series of words is printed in. Don’t say the words, say the color in which each word is printed. Everything will make sense once you get going, so start the video now.

Now you can appreciate the influence convictions wield on your behavior. It really didn’t matter what you were directed to do, when words were presented on the screen your behavior was to read them. That’s because the conviction (the semi-conscious, gut instinct) of literate adults dictates that words must be read before they can be otherwise considered.

If it were any other way, you would be able to say the color of the words whose letters do not match, as quickly as those whose letters do. What this experiment makes perfectly clear is that convictions are the foundation of behavior.

Sadly, those whose prosperity is most dependent on influencing behavior — marketers tasked with delivering success — are often the least interested in understanding how convictions influence (and often control) behavior. Marketers will do almost anything to accommodate behavior once it exists, except exploit its origin.

That’s a problem because convictions set the agenda for the very behavior marketers seek to accommodate. Marketing’s greatest conviction is simply this: Success results only when products, services, candidates, causes, and their attendant messages, parlay with the basic and invariable convictions held by customers.

This conviction has been demonstrated time and time again. It explains why White Wave’s Silk brand soy milk is a leading seller of chocolate “milk,” even though Silk contains no milk. It explains why Starbucks was conceived as a social place to drink coffee, not sell it. It explains why Apple owns the iconic mobile connection device, the iPhone.

It’s important to point out that none of the above success stories were brought about through the identification and accommodation of market segments. Knowing the demographic and/or psychographic profile of people who like chocolate milk had no bearing on White Wave’s decision to liquefy soy powered, put it in a milk carton, and shelve it in the refrigerator next to cow milk.

Howard Schultz didn’t know the ages or IAO (interest, activity, opinion) profile of any of Starbucks’ customers when he remade Starbucks, because Starbucks had no customers when Schultz remade it.

In fact Schultz is on record as saying he had no idea how many, or what class, of people would want to visit a Starbucks store. (C-Span Global Innovation Video – Watch the 4 minute segment beginning at minute 7:00 and ending at 11:10)

Consider also that Folgers, Maxwell House, Sanka, et. al spend lots of time and money trying to identify and then accommodate the whims and desires of segmented “target” markets. This differentiation process is required because Folgers, Maxwell House, Sanka, et. al are easily (and therefore often) compared to each other.

Starbucks doesn’t have to worry about differentiation because Starbucks doesn’t trade on coffee. Starbucks trades on convictions, namely those associated with human connection; a conviction that can be experienced through coffee but not compared to it. Speaking of human connection…

Steve Jobs turned a deaf ear to the “big time” consultants who argued divergence would rule the mobile phone. The explicit purpose of a mobile phone is to connect people. How “divergence” could occasion a sense of connection is nonsensical on the surface — worthy of a very different type of conviction. (Why the iPhone Will Fail)

It’s tempting to think that White Wave, Starbucks, and Apple are unique, idiosyncratic, unapproachable, one-offs, but that is not the case. White Wave, Starbucks, and Apple are no different than every organization.

There are three elements that effect success, and every organization is in direct control of two of them. The first is the product, service, candidate, cause, etc., on offer. The second element is/are the message(s) used to promote the product, service, candidate, or cause. The third element, public reaction (word of mouth, news, public attitudes, social media buzz, consumer groups’ reactions, etc,) is a direct response to the first two.

White Wave, Starbucks, and Apple aren’t unique, idiosyncratic, unapproachable, one-offs. White Wave, Starbucks, and Apple use convictions as the raw material to create their products, services, candidates, causes, and messages. That’s why they’re winners!

Winners understand that it’s pointless to tell people not to read when presented with words. Winners understand that convictions are inceptive gut instincts that spark behavior. What winners understand best is marketing’s greatest conviction. Success results when products, services, candidates, causes, and their attendant messages, parlay with the convictions held by customers.

Marketing's Greatest Conviction
November 8, 2012 by Bob Manna & Matt Manna
Version: 6C674909(R04) • Feb 17, 2014
Photo © chrisharvey – Fotolia.com

Download
Marketing's Greatest Conviction (PDF)

Related
Article – Belief In Branding
Article – Changing The Game
Article – Projection vs. Prediction
Article – Sales Collateral Isn't
Article – Seeing Clearly
Article – Steam
Article – Success Is Built On Frameworks, Not Rules
Article – The Marketplace Of Abundance

Changing The Game

Image

A dominant belief among business/product developers, candidates, advertisers, and influencers of all sorts, is that success is dependent upon certain time-honored procedures. Among the most destructive of these is the belief that success depends upon identifying, segmenting, and targeting future behavior as suggested by the analysis of data representing past behavior.

Research and analysis of this sort is usually followed by application of the “four Ps” — the notion that a “target” will behave favorably when offered a Product that is Promoted at a Place and Price in line with research enlightened calculations.

When success does not flow as predicted, fault is routinely placed on the quantity or quality of data, or on the skill of those who analyzed the data, or on those who enacted the procedures suggested by the data.

Rarely, if ever, is the belief itself questioned. Until now. The belief that success is dependent upon the application of procedures, as suggested by data analysis of past behavior, is wrong.

At its essence, data is distinct and disconnected from the behavior it represents. To put it plainly, behavior is as behavior does, not as it has done. The ability to create success does not come from analyzing the past, it comes from knowing what is possible in the future. The talent to act upon this fact separates a game changer from a marketer.

A marketer administers historical procedures to existing products. A game changer creates success where none exists. A marketer finds comfort in the past. A game changer greets the past with antipathy because he or she knows that past behavior cannot divine what is possible in the future.

To create success, data analysis of past behavior must be replaced with something forceful enough to inform messages, products, services, candidates, and causes with an understanding of what is possible in the future. This is the purpose of Customer DNA, which at its essence is principled with a single idea: the cause of behavior is found inside the mind. That is why we say, “It is better to know how people think than to know what people have thought!”

And how do people think? Without exception all people from every culture (1) create a set of convictions to make sense of their “world,” (2) use their convictions as filters to disqualify incoming messages, products, services, candidates, and causes that are discordant to their existing convictions, (3) seek out and join with others that hold convictions similar to their own.

Convictions are behavior’s doorways. Game changers parlay with them by creating messages, products, candidates, and causes that can pass through and rearrange existing convictions in a way that motivates new behavior. That talent ennobles the game changer above the marketer.

Steve Jobs believed that the historically based arguments of others were wrong and that convergence, not divergence, would be the future of the mobile phone. Some of the best marketing minds in the industry bet against the iPhone because it stood in stark contrast to what came before. (Why the iPhone Will Fail)

But Steve Jobs was a game changer. To Jobs the past had no bearing on the future success of the mobile phone. Jobs understood that the iPhone would provide people with the comfort of continuous connection (a deeply held conviction) while coincidentally providing the means to make a phone call.

In 2007 Howard Schultz told a TV audience that he had no idea how many or what class of people would want to visit a Starbucks store. He went on to say that traditional processes like advertising and ubiquitous distribution were not major contributors to Starbuck’s success. (C-Span Global Innovation Video – Watch the 4 minute segment beginning at minute 7:00 and ending at 11:10)

What Schultz did know is that human connection is a conviction that can be experienced through the basic and invariable meaning of the coffee break. Until Starbucks, there was no place to have a coffee break other than at work or at home. Hence there were no historical data upon which to argue for the creation of such a place.

However, there was (and is) an understanding by Howard Schultz of how people think. That’s why Schultz is famous for saying, “We’re not in the coffee business serving people but we’re in the people business serving coffee.”

Game changers create success when marketers cannot because game changers elevate the possibilities of the future above the certainty of the past. The simple truth is that data collection and data analysis are forceful only when they reveal convictions. Any attempt at creating success that does not accept and comply with this fact is fated for a future of failure.

Changing The Game
August 30, 2012 by Bob Manna & Matt Manna
Version: 0049EFCD(R03) • Feb 13, 2014
Photo © Maksym Protsenko – Fotolia.com

Download
Changing The Game (PDF)

Related
Article – Belief In Branding
Article – Impact
Article – Marketing's Greatest Conviction
Article – On Replication
Article – Projection vs. Prediction
Article – Seeing Clearly
Article – Seeing Red
Article – Success Is Built On Frameworks, Not Rules
Article – Talent

On Replication

Image

If your company ceased to exist would your customer’s desires go unanswered? For many the answer is, “My customer’s desires would go unanswered only until they walked down the street to the next company that offers what I offer.” There is a one word description as to why this is so — replication.

Replication refers to the practice of creating or developing a product, service, candidate, or cause that is substantially similar to that which currently exist. Unfortunately most organizations, most of the time, follow the practice of replication. This is sad because replication always leads to a Marketplace Of Abundance; a marketplace in which there are more products, services, candidates, and causes than people need, want, or care to consider.

The Marketplace Of Abundance is almost always corrosive even though most replicated products extend the merit of their original counterparts. Why? Because replication extends merit at the expense of customer loyalty and price. There is little rational for expecting loyalty in an environment that satisfies desires simply by walking down the street. As for price…

When all is said and done, the survival of an organization is determined by the attention paid to this short four-word question, “How much is it?”

Sellers pay primary attention to the first two words of the question, the “how much” part, because they assume price is the primary concern of customers. But that is not the case. The primary concern of customers is the determination of merit, not the discovery of price. The difference between the two is important.

Merit is a personal intrinsic assessment based on an individual’s circumstances and/or state of mind. Price is an expenditure required to obtain a product. The natural order of things in the mind of a customer is to determine merit before considering price.

In the customers mind the question is not, “How much is it?” In the customers mind the question is changed round becoming, “It is how much?” A purchase decision is not primarily determined by the price offered, but rather on the approximation of the offered price to the inceptive merit felt by the customer.

The corrosive effect of replication on price is that it saturates the marketplace with products that are substantially similar to what customers have already evaluated. In the customer’s mind (and in your mind too) an attempt to evaluate differences in merit between substantially similar products is valueless. In such a situation the only consideration is price. End of story!

One way to resolve this situation is to surrender to replication and create low priced products, promoted with messages designed for high frequency, large reach delivery systems. That is a valid business tactic that works for some folks, some times. But there is a catch. Replication is a paint by numbers exercise that perpetuates a repeating and corrosive cycle of competition, followed by price erosion, followed by consolidation. This cycle can be marginally successful for one or two survivors. For most it’s an agonizing existence. Fortunately, there’s a better way.

The natural order of things in the mind of a customer is to determine merit before considering price. The key to avoiding the pitfalls of replication is to realize that customers deem as meritorious those products, services, candidates, and causes that connect on a personal intrinsic level. This deeply personal, and mostly emotional, evaluation provides the foundation for dealing with replication. To avoid replication, products and their attendant messages must connect to the personal, intrinsic determination of merit that customers are first and foremost looking to satisfy. (…)

We must emphasize the importance of messaging at this point. A product has very little chance at success if the amount of time, talent, and money devoted to creating impactful messages — messages that connect to the customer’s personal and intrinsic determination of merit — does not at least equal the amount of time, talent, and money devoted to creating the product. That may be tough to accept, but it’s the truth!

Creating impactful messages isn’t easy (although it isn’t as hard as shaving an additional 1% off the price of a replicated product quarter over quarter) but it is required to exit the low cost seller’s game. Happily, once a way is found to make the emotional connection, to create and promote a product in a way that resonates with the buyer’s intrinsic assignment of worth, there will be a line of customers out the door. (…)

There are numerous examples to support this claim. The most dramatic emerge from new organizations with no customers that become immensely successful in the face of existing suppliers with a huge resource advantage. Two of the more familiar are McDonalds, that grew to replace White Castle, and Starbucks, that captured a marketplace long dominated by such names as Maxwell House, Folgers, et al.

As we write this article, Apple’s iPad is in high demand everywhere it is sold, including Wal-Mart, where it sells for the same price as it does everywhere else. Interestingly, Apple enjoys a market capitalization of 565 billion dollars while Wal-Mart has a market cap of 247 billion. Which company faces the bigger challenge: Apple, with the task of ensuring their future products continue to connect emotionally; or Wal-Mart, who must continue to find a way to wring another 1% out of the cost of groceries?

The answer lies in recognizing that replication is unsustainable. At some point there will be no more price reduction or logistic efficiency possible. Conversely, the upper limits of developing products and messages capable of strong intrinsic connection, and high profit margins, are boundless.

On Replication
July 20, 2012 by Bob Manna & Matt Manna
Version: 005BC2F0(R06) • Jan 27, 2014
Photo © SM Web – Fotolia.com

Download
On Replication (PDF)

Related
Article – Belief In Branding
Article – Changing The Game
Article – Impact
Article – Marketing's Greatest Conviction
Article – Sales Collateral Isn't
Article – Talent
Article – The Marketplace Of Abundance

Seeing Clearly

Image

Alfred North Whitehead was an English mathematician noted for saying, “It requires a very unusual mind to undertake an analysis of the obvious.” Whitehead made this comment in connection to a method of thinking called Analytic Philosophy. The thesis of this method of thinking is that the solution to a problem will become obvious once the basic and invariable meaning of the problem is uncovered. (…)

We accept that you might find it strange to find an opening paragraph about analytic philosophy in a Manna Groups article. We believe you will soon see its relevance. We begin with a question from the remittance processing industry. What is the basic and invariable function of mail sorter bins?

A word of caution, while there is no doubt that the sorting of mail is a necessary duty of mail sorter bins, you should reconsider if you think the basic and invariable function of mail sorter bins is to sort mail.

Before we reveal the answer please allow us to offer a little background.

For years, the authors of this article were members of an ownership team that operated a business developing and selling products exclusively to the transaction processing industry. The strategy behind all product development in that organization was to uncover the basic and invariable function of the products we brought to market. In short, the success of the organization was dependent upon the talent to find answers to questions just like the one posed above. What is the basic and invariable function of a mail sorter?

Our answer to that question led to the introduction of a product that changed the remittance processing industry. This product’s merit was so obvious that it literally “sold itself,” even to remittance centers that already had mail sorter bins.

Our answer: the basic and invariable function of a mail sorter is to be able to see the mail once it has been sorted. The idea that sorting mail is trivial compared to the significance of seeing mail after it has been sorted, literally made our next step clear.

Never loose an envelope again with the Clear Vue mail sorter system!

We developed a transparent mail sorter constructed from the material used at ice hockey rinks. We called it the Clear Vue mail sorter system. Our tag line for promoting the product, “Never loose an envelope again with the Clear Vue mail sorter system!”

The success of the Clear Vue was instant and widespread. After a single installation, articles about, and pictures of, the product appeared in trade magazines. Consultants mentioned the product to their customers, and those customers spread the word to others. In short, the product went viral.

In one case insurance rates were lowered because footstools were no longer needed to see into the bin’s top row. In other cases the product’s glistening appearance became a “high tech” selling point for a process that was traditionally seen as otherwise. In every case, visibility lowered the chance of missing processing deadlines.

Now you see why we elected to begin this article with Whitehead’s quote. It concisely reveals the foundation of successful product development. Basic and invariable function becomes apparent once (and only if) one undertakes to analyze the obvious.

Nowadays it seems trivially apparent that the basic and invariable function of a mail sorter is to see mail once it has been sorted. Of course the obvious always seems trivial after the fact. An important lesson is that until the obvious is analyzed, basic and invariable meaning will not be apparent, regardless of how trivial it becomes after the fact.

Another important lesson is the effect analyzing the obvious has on the competition. Imagine the feeling a CEO of a metal or wooden mail bin company must have had the day after the Clear Vue was released.

The story of the Clear Vue mail sorter (just like the Weed Eater story) stands in direct opposition to the type of analyses usually undertaken during the product development process. Metrics like estimated sales volume, target market(s) growth forecasts, market penetration, etc., are incapable of measuring whether existing products have made the obvious apparent.

Metrics have a part to play in the product development process, but it’s a subordinate part. Until basic and invariable meaning has been made apparent, no other data matters. After basic and invariable meaning has been made apparent, few, if any, data are required.

We can tell you with absolute certainty that every remittance processing center that purchased a Clear Vue mail sorter system had a solution already in place. Or to put it in typical marketing speak, Clear Vue was successfully sold into a market that was 100% penetrated. It was a total repeat of the situation that existed the day before the Weed Eater went on sale.

Until the obvious is analyzed there is no calculus capable of measuring market potential. And there is no limit to the potential success of newly developed products that make the obvious apparent, particularly when they stand in contrast to existing products which have not.

Seeing Clearly
June 5, 2012 by Bob Manna & Matt Manna
Version: 005B0C6E(R03) • Jan 29, 2014
Photo © alphaspirit – Fotolia.com

Download
Seeing Clearly (PDF)

Related
Article – An Unusual Mind Ghost Story
Article – Changing The Game
Article – Marketing's Greatest Conviction
Article – Projection vs. Prediction
Article – Seeing Red
Article – The Invention Of The Birthday Machine
Article – The Most Important Resource
Article – The Weed Eater

Belief In Branding

Image

The Bank of New York (now Bank of New York Mellon) was founded in 1784 and is generally regarded as the oldest bank in the United States. Although difficult to exactly pin down, people in 1784 lived somewhere between 25 and 40 years. Today the difference between ages 25 and 40 is more a measure of conduct than life expectancy. Nowhere is this more evident than in the world of banking.

Juliette Gordon Low founded the Girl Scouts in 1912. This past year, the father of a Girl Scout described an unusual characteristic that he and many of his Facebook coworkers share; they don’t customarily carry cash to work. This insight, shared with his daughter and her troop, resulted in her troop selling 400 boxes of cookies at the Facebook Headquarters using a mobile device to process payments.

The genesis of the Salvation Army’s Red Kettle Campaign occurred in 1891 when Army Captain Joseph McFee placed a pot at the Oakland Ferry Landing with a sign that read, “Keep the Pot Boiling.” Today ringing bells and red kettles are iconic emblems of the Salvation Army Christmas Charity Campaign.

The bells will likely be around forever but the kettles may not fair as well. This past season The Salvation Army accepted mobile payments at ten separate locations in each of four cities: Dallas, San Francisco, Chicago, and New York. As Salvation Army spokesman Major George Hood said in a recent New York Times article, “A lot of people just don’t carry cash any more. We’re basically trying to make sure we’re keeping up with our donors and embrace the new technologies they’re embracing.” (Bell Ringers Go Digital This Season)

These examples help illustrate the proper definition of the term brand. A brand is a belief (or set of beliefs) that exists inside the mind. This definition of brand differs significantly from the traditional definition: A name, term, design, or symbol that differentiates one seller’s product from others.

Names, terms, designs, and symbols are not brands, they are belief activators. The activated belief(s) are the brand. That is not to say that names, terms, designs, and symbols are unimportant. They are important. But the existence of these things, even when they are expertly designed, will not create beliefs.

A twenty-five year old and a forty year old both require the means to deposit funds into their banking account. In that regard they are alike. But the twenty-five year old makes her deposit inside a coffee house with a smartphone. The forty year old leaves the coffee house, drives to a local branch, and literally deposits the funds in question. Both have satisfied exactly the same need, and both may be customers of exactly the same institution. But each, in a nontrivial way, believes very different things when it comes to “making a deposit.”

No name, term, design, or symbol can be baked into a cookie that will change what Facebook employees in Silicon Valley believe when it comes to paying for products. These folks believe electronic payment processing is superior to cash, end of story!

Major George Hood is almost correct when saying, “We’re basically trying to make sure we’re keeping up with our donors and embrace the new technologies they’re embracing.” We say almost because donors do not embrace technologies. Donors (many in the case of The Salvation Army) embrace causes.

Donors also demand that the causes they embrace adhere to their beliefs. That’s why the Salvation Army’s experiment in accepting mobile payments proved successful in Dallas, San Francisco at large, Chicago, and New York. Folks in those cities embrace the same beliefs regarding payment processing as their Silicon Valley counterparts.

Be it cash, cookies, kettles, or anything else, belief has been in branding since at least 1784. It can’t be any other way since a brand has no meaning outside of the belief that people bring to it. Brands do not bring belief to people, people bring belief to brands.

Belief In Branding
February 1, 2012 by Bob Manna & Matt Manna
Version: 00586F15(R04) • Feb 13, 2014
Photo © Santhosh Kumar – Fotolia.com

Download
Belief In Branding (PDF)

Related
Article – Communication Insanity
Article – Impact
Article – Marketing's Greatest Conviction
Article – Persuasive Resolutions
Article – Sales Collateral Isn't
Article – Success Is Built On Frameworks, Not Rules
Article – The Invention Of The Birthday Machine