There is a statement that familiarity breeds contempt. Yet,
in the marketing industry it would seem that companies should actually try to
increase familiarity. Up to this point brands have tried to obtain that
familiarity with repetition of their brand or their message. There is a quote
that is attributed to Oscar Wilde that states that the only thing worse than
being talked about is not being talked about. This was sort of the precursor to
the idea that there is no such thing as bad publicity. The idea is that you
want your name to be talked about, good or bad, because it was the repetition or
continued recognition of your brand that accomplished the goal of selling your
goods. At least that is the end result. Good marketers are actually trying to
sell more than goods; they are actually trying to sell ideas. By that I mean
that through the reduction of uncertainty they are trying to get people to
accept them and their goods or services. In Mediating
the Message: Theories of Influence on Mass Media Content, Shoemaker and
Reese make the point that from an ideological perspective, “programs encourage
a feeling of social stability resistant to substantial social change.” This
means that the longer something runs (in this case it was television shows) the
more comfortable people get with it. Think about the most well-known brand in
the world, Coca Cola. In the 80’s they
tried to change their brand and there was a huge backlash against them. People
had been drinking coke for years and they were not happy with this change. The
backlash was so fierce that, after only a short time, the Coca Cola Company
returned to their previous brand with only one exception, they added the word
Classic. This helped to signify to their customers that they understood that
they were comfortable with what they had always known.
There is a theory that proposes an inverted U relationship
between familiarity and liking. Under this premise, it states that, initially,
there is a positive relationship between reduction of uncertainty and liking.
This means that when a company starts out, they need to reduce the uncertainty
about themselves as quickly as possible. However, it seems that the theory
agrees with the idea that familiarity breeds contempt because it states that
eventually what endeared the company to the public will eventually become the
reason that the public comes to dislike the company (or person). I can think of
no better example than that of Tim Tebow. Tebow started his college career with
the University of Florida. During his time there he was a part of two teams
that won national championships and participated in three conference
championships. While at Florida, Tebow had become a national favorite. Part of
the reason for that favor was that he was devout in his faith and expressed
that faith on the field. However, as time wore on people became less enamored with
his expressions of faith (also called “Tebowing”) and, as such; they also
started to criticize his play on the field. The interesting thing about this is
that, while he was with the Denver Broncos, Tebow had an impressive win/loss
record and routinely outplayed opposing quarterbacks (Bryne, 2011). Yet,
because of his controversial nature and people’s dislike of him, this was often
ignored and his image suffered because of it.
At a point in time a company no longer has to be a proponent
of who they are. By this I mean that they no longer have to try to convince
people of what they stand for. This is where actions of the company speak for
the company as well as where the idea of transparency comes into effect. Some
of the most successful companies are transparent but they no longer have to be
a cheerleader for their values. Their values are shown in how they act. In
regard to the Tebow example, there was another football player named Reggie
White. Reggie was a defensive player for the Green Bay Packers but he was also
a preacher. Reggie never garnered the negative attention that Tebow did
because, even though everyone knew that he was Christian, he no got to a point
that he did not have to continue to do things to prove it such as tebowing.
There was an interview after the death of Reggie where former Dallas Cowboys
wide receiver, Michael Irving, who had a questionable past, said that even
though you knew that Reggie was a Christian you never disliked talking to him
or resented him for his faith. This was because whenever Reggie would talk to
Irving, he would not talk to him about what he had been doing wrong or ask him
about his faith but he talked to him about his personal life. The focus shifted
from Reggie to Irving. Reggie was transparent in that there was never a
question about his faith but he reached the point where he did not have to talk
about it because his actions showed it.
This is a great example of what Morgan Spurlock was talking
about in his TED talk about marketing. In it he talks about the culture that is
required in order to make a company successful. He made the point that the
companies that were willing to take chances and were willing to lose a little
bit of control were most successful. My favorite quote from his talk was “When
you train your employees to be risk averse, then you’re preparing your whole
company to be reward challenged.” So a company should be willing to take risk.
It is true that when a company first starts, they should hold to their values
because it helps give them and their customers comfort. They should remain
transparent but allow their work to signify their values because if they
continue to try to get people to know who they are, they run the risk of
chasing people away. Finally, they must not be risk adverse because it is
through risk that they grow.
No comments:
Post a Comment