November 18th, 2009
The Elephant in the Room
My friend, Noah Brier, came over for a visit this morning and we got to talking about Brand Tags, the tool he built as an experiment in commercial word association. If you haven’t checked it out, it’s here
The Final Inquiry dvdrip , and it’s addictive.
Brand Tags is profound in its simplicity. There is a refreshing lack of scientific rigor. You don’t have to log in, identify yourself, or offer any information that a marketer might use to qualify responses (gender, age, education, etc.). You aren’t given any instruction for how to generate your response other than the most basic: What is the first thing that pops into your head? (A word or phrase please… there are no wrong answers). Deliver Us from Eva ipod
What you get is unadulterated word association–which some believe is a key to unlocking (or at least unearthing) subconscious associations. Marketers love subconscious associations. If you agree with Carl Jung that people connect ideas, feelings, experiences and information by way of associations, then the exploration of the collected responses of many, many people is in a way a glimpse of the collective unconscious with regards to a particular brand.
Insightful? Yes, but maybe not in the ways you might think.
“People (Marketers) always want to know what unusual or radical insights have been unearthed with Brand Tags,” Noah explained, “But, the reality is Brand Tags is best at bringing to light that ‘thing’ everyone knows about a brand but no one wants to admit.”
I love this. And don’t we need more of it.
Almost always over the course of my research projects, what I am looking for and listening for are insights. INSIGHTS. The client is waiting for me to “wow” them with knowledge of their brand or circumstance previously unknown to them. They are looking for new news. Insights have become so important to research that whole projects live and die by the researchers ability to produce them and sell them in to the client. In the process, ignoring or skimming over the information consumers offer that is both true and relevant to the brand’s fortunes…though it might not be news.
After Noah left, I played on the site for a while and marveled at some of the “things everyone knows but no one wants to admit” about these brands:
AAA–brings to mind “alcohol” (AA), “old” people, and “towing”
Absolut–“Cool advertising” dominated the tag cloud where few adjectives about the actual product were in evidence–haunted by the ghost of campaigns past?
Blockbuster–a “bankrupt,” “dead,” “dinosaur” to most of the presumably young and savvy people contributing to the site
Gap–still has a strong association with “khakis” though no one wears them any more
Wal–Mart–while the retailer gets recognition for being “cheap” and “huge,” it also conjures images of “red necks,” “white trash,” and “the devil”
Of course, there are also plenty of positive associations a brand would be smart to recognize and nurture. Too often, these assets–built over time–are abandoned in the pursuit of something more “current,” or disruptive:
Starbucks–“ubiquitous” and “green” give the brand a platform for talking about having the potential to enact social and environmental change on a massive scale
Tropicana–instead of trying to go gourmet, the brand ought to dial up the simple attributes customers already give it credit for: “juicy,” “fresh” and from “Florida”
M&Ms–people still think of the old line, “Melts in your mouth, not in your hands”
Of course, I’m not saying these results are actionable (neither would Noah), but they do force you to acknowledge obvious associations. Something marketers, in their quest for Insights (intentional initial cap), often overlook.
posted by schuyler brown
Filed Under: Skyelab