Who says marketing doesn’t work?
In case you haven’t heard - McDonald’s carrots taste better than regular old carrots.
Some of us in the marketing field know how marketing works. It is a beautifully balanced mixture of branding and awareness. But the naysayers would have you believe that marketing = advertising. They believe that as long as you are sending out something, (anything) that you are marketing properly.
I have even been told by a credit union marketer that the typical member wouldn’t know the different between a well designed or “pretty” postcard and a white postcard with black type describing the service. I was stunned. That statement was so contrary to everything that we know about marketing that I didn’t know what to say. I didn’t know where to start. So I just said “OK”. I was dumbstruck. I felt like I had been slapped in the face with a dead fish.
I can now, once clear-headed, cite example after example of how this is such a mis-characterization of what marketing is in the marketplace. I have stacks of ROI reports to prove that position to be false. Nothing, however, makes it as clear as what I read over at Insight Advertising’s blog.
Now a study funded by Stanford University and the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation helps to illustrate plainly how much effective marketing pervades our entire perception of quality.
What the study shows is that children, ages 3-5, could be tricked into eating carrots (and like it) if the carrots were wrapped in McDonald’s branded wrappers. They would eat Non-McDonald’s food as long as it was in their wrappers and declare that it was better than the real McDonald’s food that was unwrapped (which may have been true - McDonald’s is blech!). It reminds me of an old Eddie Murphy (by the way the beginning is a little offensive but I couldn’t find the clip without the swearing) bit about McDonald’s. Eddie speaks about being a kid and wanting a McDonald’s hamburger and his mom making him (what likely tasted better) a “House Burger”. Then he had to go out to play and be ridiculed by the neighborhood kids for not having McDonald’s.
Marketing, at it’s core, is the communication of perceived benefits (Pechman & Cornelia, 1992). We tell people every day how much better credit unions are than banks. We also know that talk is cheap and that opinions are like… well I digress. Marketing is making them BELIEVE that credit unions are better than any other financial institution. And more directly, that YOUR credit union is better than the other credit unions.
In reality, marketing is everything. I don’t say that because that is my chosen career. I say it because of my career, I am more able to see and appreciate it in all its forms. McDonald’s is fun. It is exciting with all of it’s bright colors, happy meal toys (they actually branded the words HAPPY and MEAL!). It is a trip in the car with the whole family. It is the only time some kids get salty and delicious french fries and sometimes the only time they get to drink a soda. The entire process of a McDonald’s meal conditions children to want that feeling the same way some people feed depression with chocolate ice cream.
McDonald’s isn’t a marketing powerhouse because they have the best food. Most credit unions don’t have the best rates (I mean lets really be honest here, right? The rates are good, but sometimes…) McDonald’s has convinced consumers, through awareness and “Pretty” packaging, that they are the most fun. “We have clowns and birds and fry guys and toys and bright yellow packages, salty fries and unhealthy foods, games and playhouses and we are fun fun FUN”! Thats why kids love it. They aren’t eating chicken nuggets - they are eating childhood joy.
So, to those who think marketing is nothing but pretty pictures - take a closer look at what is in your shopping cart. Did you buy the Barilla pasta because it is the best or is it because it looks nice in the cardboard box? Did you buy the Oreos (America’s favorite cookie or Milk’s favorite cookie) or did you by the store brand “Sandwich Cookies”? Do they taste better? Not according to some taste tests.
Now, that being said, I buy name brand products for some items. I actually buy Barilla pasta because I buy a lot and its easy to stack and see what kinds I have for a particular dish. Branding isn’t always dishonest. Sometimes the ads are right. Sometimes the product is the best tasting, freshest, strongest, most wonderfullest. Whatever. The fact remains, given the option, people will choose a well branded product over a generic a vast majority of the time. “Pretty” packaging does count sometimes. Sometimes a pretty picture catches the consumers eye just long enough to make the pitch. Its the eye candy that gets them to look at the “99% more wonderful” sales pitch. Marketing is a conglomeration of good design, effective communication, placement and message.
Marketing isn’t just a pretty picture on a postcard my friends.
Popularity: 14% [?]
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Jeffry,
I think false branding (so do I get credit for making that up?) is really more apparent to those of us in this industry. I think we may see it a little more clearly than the average consumer.
The average consumer is more able to compare an advertisement and a product since both are tangible items. They can hold them in their hands and roll them around and really get a good look. Branding is more of an identity or a concept. It is a little ethereal and to compare a tangible to an ethereal is a little more specialized.
Think about fast food places that position themselves as the healthy alternative to burgers – when they have a higher sodium and fat content than their burger counterparts? That’s false branding to me. I think this means that they AREN’T the healthy alternative. I think they are a taste alternative. But people may want to “eat healthy” will go get a salad or a sandwich that has more fat than a Big Mac.
I was jumping around a bit in this post. I have a habit of writing in a stream of consciousness kind of mode. I apologize if it was a bit confusing.
I appreciate you bringing it up though – I think you have given me an idea for another post.
Also, thanks for not attacking me too brutally 
Thanks for reading and participating!
Tony
It wasn’t an attack. What caught my attention most about your post was the honest tone coming from an industry insider who was candidly reflecting on the reputation of “marketing” (be it branding or advertising or any other marketing discipline). As Denise Wymore puts it, much of marketing is merely “putting lipstick on a pig.”
Jeffry,
I leave myself pretty open to misinterpretation. I have a habit of rambling on and stepping on my own words. I guess it happens because I try to give my most honest and unadulterated opinions. I’d like to think that its part of my charm 
Seriously, I didn’t REALLY think you were attacking me - I meant that if you were, i am sure I made many more inflammatory statements than “Branding isn’t always dishonest.” that could be used against me. I have chronic foot in mouth disease!
While you are right, we do suffer from a bad or dishonest reputation going back to the tobacco industry days - its also tough to educate people as to what we really do. By the way, is anyone besides me watching “Mad Men”?
I know we are on the same side. I appreciate the conversation. I hope people hold me accountable for what I say and my opinions. It’s really the only way I know that people are really reading these extremely long posts of mine (I am working on that too)
Thanks again!
[…] of you may remember a post I wrote a while back where I quoted a credit union marketing executive who said that their members wouldn’t know the difference between a postcard with a pretty design […]
This candid presupposition is both interesting and amusing: “Branding isn’t always dishonest.”
Isn’t it advertising that has the dirty reputation, not branding? I’ve heard of deceptive advertising before, but not deceptive branding.