Is this branding's biggest mistake?

I worked in the island nation of Mauritius from 1998 to 2000 and it changed the course of my life.

Not because it is an incredible place (it is), not because the work was exciting (it was) but because I got to work for Joseph Yip Tong. His light and laughter are no longer in this world but, in numbers too big to count, there are many of us who are daily proof of his legacy. I feel his presence every day in some way and I think we can all relate on some level to the thought that some debts can never fully be repaid. My wife recently asked me to describe Joseph in a word or two and my response was: like all greats his principles never moved but his methods constantly shifted.

As an industry, the branding world could do with embodying this philosophy.

Methods should move; principles should not

Mauritius also has another role to play in this article. It was one of the principal sources of sugarcane for Tate & Lyle. Tate & Lyle are Wikipedia-recognised as the world’s first brand. Founded over 175 years ago they grew because they were able to access a natural source of wealth (sugar cane), add value to it (sugar cubes from Tate, golden syrup from Lyle) and then find a way to consistently brand this value: Smile, it's Tate & Lyle.

Despite their efforts sugar has become the very definition of an unfashionable commodity, but yet the brand endures, even under new ownership. They succeed because of their point of salience (trusted and linked with happiness) and point of functional difference (made from sugar cane, not the inferior sugar beet). This is why they have endured for 175 years and are still the leading brand of sugar in the UK. They are understood as something more than just sugar and this is the basis of their value.

For an historical brand such as this, being something salient is enough. If they were starting today they, like many FMCG brands, would face a different challenge. Goods that are based on utility no longer carry the meaning they once did. In fact, the biggest shift facing most consumer goods in the last twenty years has been where we consumers look for meaning and where we seek validation. Chances are both entities are more than likely found on our phones than on a grocery shelf. So brands have even more noise to cut through.

The cultural conundrum

The best marketers see the business they are in regardless of the business they work for. They ask, “Am I in the business of standing for an idea or am I in the business of supporting a valued utility?” A good way to answer this is the simple Logo Test. Would you wear it on a t-shirt? Have you ever seen it worn on a t-shirt? Answering this goes a long way to knowing whether you are an idea brand or a utility brand. My challenge for example with the recent Gillette work was not that it wasn’t good, it’s that their brand has no idea base from which to say it. It fails the t-shirt test. You don’t see many men walking around with a Gillette logo on their chest so I would suggest that their brand image is rooted in what they do for me, not what they say about me.

On the other hand we do see Nike logos on countless things because they speak to the enduring idea of achievement. It doesn’t matter if it is Jordan above everyone’s shoulders, Tiger fixing his back and brain, or Kaepernick taking a knee. They represent people being the best version of themselves and that’s always an idea into which consumers will want to buy.

As a valued utility should Gillette have perhaps gone the next step and supported the cause they communicated? Maybe, but it’s important to note this is not their model nor I would ague their brand image. Gillette has zero history as a brand of being image based. They are the internal me and their value is in helping me do. If they focused on doing something about male privilege rather than commenting on the male image construct then…maybe. Perhaps the marketing team got bored or perhaps they were seeking ways to move towards a culture where purpose has become a thing. Either way, it still doesn’t link to a purchase driver, but maybe owning a cultural ritual such as legacy (father teaching son) would…but I digress.

Your mission or your marketing?

I would argue Gillette has made a mistake that is becoming all too common. They confused organisational strategy with brand strategy.

There is a gaping hole for someone as powerful as Proctor & Gamble (who own Gillette) to directly lead on gender and equality issues. They could lobby for everyone to adopt equal pay, increase wages in overseas factories and also force their suppliers to do so too. They already provide branded products and services of superior quality and value, and adding this type of branded action would address the last part of their mission neatly, they can improve the lives of the world’s consumers. This would be a powerful way to deliver the trifecta of organisational strategy. It is achievable and value accretive, it is differentiating, and it would force others to copy with less of the halo effect of the first mover. Sun Tzu would be proud.

This is not what Gillette did and as they are discovering there is a big difference between the best a man can get versus the best he can be.

Be better to each other.

—
Picture courtesy by Frank Welgemoed