The era of marshmallow brands: How can you stop your brand being too gooey inside?
One of the most famous social science studies in history is Stanford’s ‘Marshmallow Study’. Conducted by Walter Mischel in the 1960s the study, which included ninety wealthy children, looked for a correlation between a child’s ability to delay gratification and their future success. Those who ate one and could look for at least fifteen minutes at number two before eating it were doing better at the game of life. I am sure I would have smashed them both and asked for a third.
An NYU study re-staged this famous experiment but drew a different conclusion. With a larger and more economically diverse sample, they concluded that the most important variable had nothing to do with willpower and everything to do with wealth. Children from wealthier homes waited because they knew there would always be more marshmallows, while those from a disadvantaged background got in while the getting was good. This also explains the worrying truth behind standardised tests such as the SAT. The more your parents make (say more than $200k per annum, the 1%) the higher your score tends to be. The circle unfortunately continues.
Solve the right problem
The Marshmallow Study is an example of the existential crisis facing disciplines like psychology, as new studies fail to replicate old conclusions. Many studies are seeing the bias of their own subjectivity. Branding is facing similar challenges as we transition from ‘one to many’ to ‘one to one’ communication, and from short term brand harvesting to longer term brand equity building. The important thing to remember in the conflicting noise is, much like our social science friends are discovering, the biggest variable is (generally) a missing subjective circumstance or context. As you frame a problem the most important variable to consider is your own history and inherent bias.
Beware of smooshy solutions
As a result, we see what I call marshmallow brands becoming all the rage. They are smooshy on the outside, all gooey on the inside and inherently bad for business. They suck because they fail to look at their history to build their brand image. For example, when you see brands like Doritos telling you they are going to disrupt the world to ignite adventure and inspire action. I end up raising my cheesy yellow covered middle finger at the thought.
The question is not, “How do we add more purpose to our business?” The question is, “How do we further differentiate our brand based on who we inherently are?" Keith Weed, ex Marketing Head of Unilever, says this best when he says, “Our role is to help consumers make better decisions for themselves and our planet.” The challenge of purpose positioning is the ideas tend to be undifferentiated hygiene factors on which the business, not necessarily its brand, should be focused. What you are describing is actually a category truth more than something that you can claim as distinctive. In today’s world there is a space to use the tools of business and brand to not just create shareholder value but to create value that goes beyond profit. We have the opportunity to make the world better one decision at a time.
Be the best version of you
A good brand strategy focuses on what you are, not what you wish you could be. Patagonia, often held up as a poster-child brand, actually has many purposes. Its actual brand position is not based on saving the planet, it is based on its fundamental position as a builder of specialist equipment for climbers that will last. It is this position and resulting image that has allowed them to add others such as ‘designed to last for life’ and prioritising the use of recycled fabrics. The purpose they started from is still the purpose they serve. As a business that needs the great outdoors to fuel its consumption, taking a stand on climate change and drilling for oil is a natural extension. Yet, it was not always thus. Patagonia wandered through the commercial woods for many years supported by a few oddballs (me included) who loved their gear not because it came from recycled bottles but because when exploring the wilds of Canada the gear lasted. Hold Your Nerve is not just the title of a great Boy & Bear track it is also what it takes to continually reinforce a real brand position rather than be sucked in by the shiny spoons of the day. This is the genius of Yvon; and his time in the sun has come.
Wal-Mart is another example of a brand which has held its nerve. From its humble roots the brand has become the world’s largest retail organisation by revenue. Wal-Mart was founded on the principle of saving people money on the items that matter to them most. If you are slightly older (like myself) you remember the Wal-Mart star and confident blue and red brand codes. It screamed value, not a better choice. As the brand faced a brave new world of more considered consumption, it looked to what it already was for, “Save Money, Live Better”. It adds a benefit while keeping what people already loved about Wal-Mart.
It’s a lesson Australian retailers should take to heart. Woolworths is “Fresh” but has maintained this while adding “Fair Pricing” to its arsenal. Coles will need to tread a similar tightrope as it moves from one marketing era to the next. “Down Down” established its “More for Less” credentials but the brand still lags on a meaningful differentiator at a brand level. Perhaps much like Bunnings combined price with community contributors, Coles can add an aspect such as doing the right thing by the communities they serve.
Be better to each other.
—
Picture courtesy by Angela Duckworth
