Most brand relationships are a figment of a marketer’s imagination
Several times last year I heard marketers talk about the importance of building brand relationships. When people do so, there seems to be an underlying assumption that people want a relationship with the brands they buy, and further, that building relationships with potential customers is what marketing should aim to do. Unfortunately, I think both assumptions are often incorrect.
I know this is a slightly contentious point of view, and it does depend on the type of business that is involved, but I suspect that most consumer goods marketers would be more effective if they stuck to the basics and stopped trying to build spurious relationships with their customers.
An elusive and often ephemeral goal
I am not denying that people can feel passionate about a few of the brands they buy. However, the evidence suggests that those brands are the exceptions not the rule. Most people have a passing acquaintance with the brands they buy, which rarely escalates to anything like a relationship. And, if you accept that fact, then spending time and money on trying to build relationships is often going to be wasted. So, perhaps marketers would be better off if they stuck to the basics, rather than seeking to chase an elusive and often ephemeral goal?
Fleeting attraction more than deep emotional connection
Several years ago, Kantar measured people's instinctive attraction for different brands and found the typical reaction was very weak by comparison to the reaction to more meaningful items like a baby (positive) or dirty toilet (negative).
The truth is most potential buyers – assuming they are intent on buying any time soon – often have only vague impressions of what each brand in the product category has to offer. They may have some inclination to choose one brand over another but probably view most of them as substitutable. Any claims made by the brand that they recall are likely to be checked for veracity during the purchase process. And at the point of purchase, while most people feel a fleeting attraction to their brand choice, it rarely escalates to anything deeper.
Emotions do matter
As noted, there is evidence to suggest that people's emotional response to brands is weak, but that does not mean it doesn't exist. Further, marketing about developing relative strengths, so an instinctive emotional response that is weak but stronger than that evoked by other brands will win.
This was confirmed by an analysis I did while at Kantar looking at whether brand affinity (measured on a scale from love to hate) was solely driven by usage. The answer was no. While claimed usage did explain about two thirds of the variance in affinity, there was a wide variation around the general relationship. I remember brands like the iPhone, Amazon, and Tesla had strong, positive excess affinity (more than would be expected based on the number of users). The interesting thing was that the other metric most correlated with excess affinity was the perception that the brand was worth more than it costs. Never mind positive imagery, the real determinant was whether the brand delivered on its promise well enough to justify the price paid for it.
A relationship requires more than just emotion
"The way in which two or more people or groups regard and behave toward each other, e.g., "the landlord–tenant relationship."
Implicit in the definition (and the way marketers talk about brand relationships) is the idea that there is some knowledge and emotion involved. In the example given for instance, the landlord and the tenant know each other. They may have a stormy relationship, or they may regard each other with affection, and the emotions involved determines how they behave toward each other. Do brand relationships meet the same standard?
Brands are a one-sided relationship at best
I would suggest that most brand relationships are very one-sided. The consumer knows how they feel about the brand, the marketer must infer how the consumer feels from the data available to them, and all too often, they interpret that evidence as a relationship, because that it what the marketer wants it to be.
Even when someone has bought and used a brand, I am not convinced that most relationships run that deep. A survey by Havas found that people would not care if 74% of brands they used vanished (a figure that shows remarkable durability given it is almost identical to the finding from a similar survey conducted in 2008). Despite the bribes offered to sign up to a mailing list when visiting a new brand's website, I suspect that few people remain on the list long-term, and most ignore the emails that they receive.
Relationships develop with experience
Even when brand relationships develop, I would argue that they do so because a brand has consistently proven itself to be meaningful to the person using it. In other words, the brand reliably solves the need that it was chosen for and is appreciated for doing so. The emotion felt is a result of experience. Yes, the brand can actively do things to enhance the user experience, but if the product does not solve the need for which it was recruited, then those actions will be wasted.
For instance, Jill feels that she has a relationship with Eileen Fisher. Why? Because she believes that brand passes her baseline requirements for clothing – she generally likes the style and the items usually fit – but more than that she feels the brand stated ethics are aligned with her values. A major factor in Jill's relationship is Eileen Fisher's recycling program, which reduces waste by taking back "gently used" clothes. Does Jill buy from other clothing brands? Yes, but Eileen Fisher has been a staple in her wardrobe for years and is her "go to" choice. This relationship is the result of experience, and required proven, repeated positive experiences for it to develop.
Four types of "relationship"
The problem is that many product categories are not well suited to sustaining a relationship, whether that relationship stems from experience or well-crafted marketing communications. Solar generators? Nope. Choose one, hope it proves to be worth the investment. (Of course, that does not stop the brands from bombarding you with ads and emails long after a decision has been made.) So maybe it helps to think about how people buy your category and then decide whether it is worth investing in trying to build a relationship with your customers.
Transactional
Honestly, I suspect most product categories other than packaged goods fall into this category. In this category people have a problem they want solved at the right price and nothing more.
Habitual
Now this is where many packaged goods brands fit into the scheme of things. For many, it is questionable whether the relationship qualifies as a relationship, more a shortcut to a satisfy a repeated need.
Contractual
Subscription services, like credit cards, streaming services, banks and insurance, and paid-for apps, all benefit from locking in their customer, either with a fixed period contract or by relying on the customer being unwilling to change their allegiance.
Most of the time I am not even sure that people consciously think about what brand they are using unless it is associated with a specific need or occasion. If I want to watch Foundation, I must use the Apple TV+ app. If I want to watch The Three Body Problem I must use Netflix. I feel slightly dissatisfied with both services, because the former has limited content, even if it is usually pretty good, the latter has a ton of content, much of which is of little interest to me, and I hate the way a clip plays when I mouse over a specific movie or TV show. A brief, succinct summary is far more user friendly.
Advisory
In this category I would include many services where the customer relies on a human advisor for their expertise and advice. B2B services would be an obvious example. Relationships do matter when it comes to sustaining a long-term professional relationship. In my experience, half the battle when pitching a new client for research services was to win their trust, and the quickest way to lose a client was to breach that trust. Of course, the product or service on offer still had to deliver on the client's needs, but the relationship between the key players on either side was important.
However, unlike so many other product categories, the relationship was often nurtured by regular conversation, face-to-face meetings, and even the odd drink. As Brian Fetherstonhaugh, then Chairman of Ogilvy's Global Brand Community, once stated in a presentation to the Millward Brown leadership team,
"Relationships are wine-enabled, not web-enabled."
Even in these days of Zoom, Teams, and AI-enabled chatbots, I believe that statement holds true, and I cannot help but wonder if the move to self-serve and chatbots is undermining average lifetime customer value by removing humans from the brand side of the relationship.
Can relationships be mass produced?
Once last note before I conclude. I am seeing more and more companies touting personalization powered by generative AI to build customer relationships, but I have severe doubts as to whether the promise of true personalization is achievable or desirable.
The power of AI is amazing when it comes to pattern identification, summarization, and extrapolation, but to be truly creative it needs a human to guide it, otherwise you end up with bland, look-alike pap, and may fall foul of hallucination. And the problem with all personalization is that the data available to be used is limited. Each individual buyer has an instinctive idea of which brand is right for them, based on a lifetime of experience and maybe a little thought. The marketer and their AI have access to only the tip of that iceberg.
Based on what I have seen, it is perfectly possible for AI to mimic the responses of a cross-section of people and give credible answers to a variety of survey questions, that correlate well with surveys conducted with real people. However, whether an AI can correctly anticipate the needs of an individual beyond simply answering questions is debatable. The specific context, experience, and personal inclination of the individual matter a lot when it comes to determining the right answer, and in the past models have struggled to predict individual behavior with any real accuracy. Will AI do better? I guess time will tell.
Takeaway: stick to the basics
People buy brands to solve a problem. Marketers need to figure out what that problem is and then make sure that their brand is seen to be the obvious choice to solve it. As I intimated above, the problem may not be directly related to functionality, but unless the brand delivers against the functional needs of its buyers, the emotional needs will never be enough to outweigh the disillusionment.
When it comes to brands which people have not yet personally experienced, all they have to go on is an impression. They might see the brand as leading the way, they might have heard good things about it, and they might believe it is a good option to satisfy their needs, but little more. All that BS about building brand relationships ahead of purchase might make a marketer feel more purposeful and productive, but it does little to boost growth or profits compared to simply raising the brand's profile creating a positive impression with potential users.
For most brands, relationships exist in the mind of the marketer, not that of the brand's customers. Even if your product or service category is one that lends itself to the development of relationships, perhaps the best way to do that is to give your customers an experience that rewards their investment in your brand. By all means, invest in community marketing, email marketing to subscribers, and Instagram posts to followers, but think of these activities as the icing on the cake. People love brands that do the job they were bought for and do it well. Focus attention on that experience and you will not go far wrong, because potential buyers will get a positive impression, and existing users will feel that their purchase has been justified.
I know this is a slightly contentious point of view, and it does depend on the type of business that is involved, but I suspect that most consumer goods marketers would be more effective if they stuck to the basics and stopped trying to build spurious relationships with their customers.
An elusive and often ephemeral goal
I am not denying that people can feel passionate about a few of the brands they buy. However, the evidence suggests that those brands are the exceptions not the rule. Most people have a passing acquaintance with the brands they buy, which rarely escalates to anything like a relationship. And, if you accept that fact, then spending time and money on trying to build relationships is often going to be wasted. So, perhaps marketers would be better off if they stuck to the basics, rather than seeking to chase an elusive and often ephemeral goal?
Fleeting attraction more than deep emotional connection
Several years ago, Kantar measured people's instinctive attraction for different brands and found the typical reaction was very weak by comparison to the reaction to more meaningful items like a baby (positive) or dirty toilet (negative).
The truth is most potential buyers – assuming they are intent on buying any time soon – often have only vague impressions of what each brand in the product category has to offer. They may have some inclination to choose one brand over another but probably view most of them as substitutable. Any claims made by the brand that they recall are likely to be checked for veracity during the purchase process. And at the point of purchase, while most people feel a fleeting attraction to their brand choice, it rarely escalates to anything deeper.
Emotions do matter
As noted, there is evidence to suggest that people's emotional response to brands is weak, but that does not mean it doesn't exist. Further, marketing about developing relative strengths, so an instinctive emotional response that is weak but stronger than that evoked by other brands will win.
This was confirmed by an analysis I did while at Kantar looking at whether brand affinity (measured on a scale from love to hate) was solely driven by usage. The answer was no. While claimed usage did explain about two thirds of the variance in affinity, there was a wide variation around the general relationship. I remember brands like the iPhone, Amazon, and Tesla had strong, positive excess affinity (more than would be expected based on the number of users). The interesting thing was that the other metric most correlated with excess affinity was the perception that the brand was worth more than it costs. Never mind positive imagery, the real determinant was whether the brand delivered on its promise well enough to justify the price paid for it.
A relationship requires more than just emotion
Oxford Languages offers this definition of a relationship.
"The way in which two or more people or groups regard and behave toward each other, e.g., "the landlord–tenant relationship."
Implicit in the definition (and the way marketers talk about brand relationships) is the idea that there is some knowledge and emotion involved. In the example given for instance, the landlord and the tenant know each other. They may have a stormy relationship, or they may regard each other with affection, and the emotions involved determines how they behave toward each other. Do brand relationships meet the same standard?
Brands are a one-sided relationship at best
I would suggest that most brand relationships are very one-sided. The consumer knows how they feel about the brand, the marketer must infer how the consumer feels from the data available to them, and all too often, they interpret that evidence as a relationship, because that it what the marketer wants it to be.
Even when someone has bought and used a brand, I am not convinced that most relationships run that deep. A survey by Havas found that people would not care if 74% of brands they used vanished (a figure that shows remarkable durability given it is almost identical to the finding from a similar survey conducted in 2008). Despite the bribes offered to sign up to a mailing list when visiting a new brand's website, I suspect that few people remain on the list long-term, and most ignore the emails that they receive.
Relationships develop with experience
Even when brand relationships develop, I would argue that they do so because a brand has consistently proven itself to be meaningful to the person using it. In other words, the brand reliably solves the need that it was chosen for and is appreciated for doing so. The emotion felt is a result of experience. Yes, the brand can actively do things to enhance the user experience, but if the product does not solve the need for which it was recruited, then those actions will be wasted.
For instance, Jill feels that she has a relationship with Eileen Fisher. Why? Because she believes that brand passes her baseline requirements for clothing – she generally likes the style and the items usually fit – but more than that she feels the brand stated ethics are aligned with her values. A major factor in Jill's relationship is Eileen Fisher's recycling program, which reduces waste by taking back "gently used" clothes. Does Jill buy from other clothing brands? Yes, but Eileen Fisher has been a staple in her wardrobe for years and is her "go to" choice. This relationship is the result of experience, and required proven, repeated positive experiences for it to develop.
Four types of "relationship"
The problem is that many product categories are not well suited to sustaining a relationship, whether that relationship stems from experience or well-crafted marketing communications. Solar generators? Nope. Choose one, hope it proves to be worth the investment. (Of course, that does not stop the brands from bombarding you with ads and emails long after a decision has been made.) So maybe it helps to think about how people buy your category and then decide whether it is worth investing in trying to build a relationship with your customers.
Transactional
Honestly, I suspect most product categories other than packaged goods fall into this category. In this category people have a problem they want solved at the right price and nothing more.
- Do you really want a relationship with your car? Hyundai seems to think I do, but then they also seem to believe I find their app so useful I am willing to pay for it. Think again. The Ioniq 5 is a good car, but the app is far less reliable. Would I recommend the Ioniq to others? Yes, but that does not indicate a lasting relationship.
- Do you really want a relationship with your stove? GE seem to think I have time to waste exploring content on how to better use my oven and provide a nice little QR code for me to use. Give me a break. It would be far faster to find the information I want in a good, old-fashioned booklet. (Yes, it would. I can skim read a pamphlet; I cannot skim read a video).
- Do you really want to have a relationship with that clothing brand? Despite Unbound Merino sending an unending series of emails touting new products and colors I doubt I have spent any more with them than I would otherwise. Unsubscribe.
Habitual
Now this is where many packaged goods brands fit into the scheme of things. For many, it is questionable whether the relationship qualifies as a relationship, more a shortcut to a satisfy a repeated need.
- I do not waste time thinking about which brand of mayonnaise to buy, I reach for Hellman's. If Hellman's is not stocked, then I must stop and consciously decide which brand I want. However, I am not sure that I have any emotional connection to Hellman's beyond the instinctive positive response that comes from recognizing the brand. But then, that is the real power of many brands, we buy them because we recognize them as an obvious solution to a need.
- I drink Pete's French Roast Coffee almost every day. I will drive 30 minutes to resupply, which is more commitment than I show most brands. Does that count as a relationship? Do I weep bitter tears and go without my daily coffee if Pete's is unavailable? No. I simply buy another brand, preferably French Roast, but anything with a similar flavor profile will do. Would I prefer Pete's, yes, but that preference only goes so far.
Contractual
Subscription services, like credit cards, streaming services, banks and insurance, and paid-for apps, all benefit from locking in their customer, either with a fixed period contract or by relying on the customer being unwilling to change their allegiance.
Most of the time I am not even sure that people consciously think about what brand they are using unless it is associated with a specific need or occasion. If I want to watch Foundation, I must use the Apple TV+ app. If I want to watch The Three Body Problem I must use Netflix. I feel slightly dissatisfied with both services, because the former has limited content, even if it is usually pretty good, the latter has a ton of content, much of which is of little interest to me, and I hate the way a clip plays when I mouse over a specific movie or TV show. A brief, succinct summary is far more user friendly.
Advisory
In this category I would include many services where the customer relies on a human advisor for their expertise and advice. B2B services would be an obvious example. Relationships do matter when it comes to sustaining a long-term professional relationship. In my experience, half the battle when pitching a new client for research services was to win their trust, and the quickest way to lose a client was to breach that trust. Of course, the product or service on offer still had to deliver on the client's needs, but the relationship between the key players on either side was important.
However, unlike so many other product categories, the relationship was often nurtured by regular conversation, face-to-face meetings, and even the odd drink. As Brian Fetherstonhaugh, then Chairman of Ogilvy's Global Brand Community, once stated in a presentation to the Millward Brown leadership team,
"Relationships are wine-enabled, not web-enabled."
Even in these days of Zoom, Teams, and AI-enabled chatbots, I believe that statement holds true, and I cannot help but wonder if the move to self-serve and chatbots is undermining average lifetime customer value by removing humans from the brand side of the relationship.
Can relationships be mass produced?
Once last note before I conclude. I am seeing more and more companies touting personalization powered by generative AI to build customer relationships, but I have severe doubts as to whether the promise of true personalization is achievable or desirable.
The power of AI is amazing when it comes to pattern identification, summarization, and extrapolation, but to be truly creative it needs a human to guide it, otherwise you end up with bland, look-alike pap, and may fall foul of hallucination. And the problem with all personalization is that the data available to be used is limited. Each individual buyer has an instinctive idea of which brand is right for them, based on a lifetime of experience and maybe a little thought. The marketer and their AI have access to only the tip of that iceberg.
Based on what I have seen, it is perfectly possible for AI to mimic the responses of a cross-section of people and give credible answers to a variety of survey questions, that correlate well with surveys conducted with real people. However, whether an AI can correctly anticipate the needs of an individual beyond simply answering questions is debatable. The specific context, experience, and personal inclination of the individual matter a lot when it comes to determining the right answer, and in the past models have struggled to predict individual behavior with any real accuracy. Will AI do better? I guess time will tell.
Takeaway: stick to the basics
People buy brands to solve a problem. Marketers need to figure out what that problem is and then make sure that their brand is seen to be the obvious choice to solve it. As I intimated above, the problem may not be directly related to functionality, but unless the brand delivers against the functional needs of its buyers, the emotional needs will never be enough to outweigh the disillusionment.
When it comes to brands which people have not yet personally experienced, all they have to go on is an impression. They might see the brand as leading the way, they might have heard good things about it, and they might believe it is a good option to satisfy their needs, but little more. All that BS about building brand relationships ahead of purchase might make a marketer feel more purposeful and productive, but it does little to boost growth or profits compared to simply raising the brand's profile creating a positive impression with potential users.
For most brands, relationships exist in the mind of the marketer, not that of the brand's customers. Even if your product or service category is one that lends itself to the development of relationships, perhaps the best way to do that is to give your customers an experience that rewards their investment in your brand. By all means, invest in community marketing, email marketing to subscribers, and Instagram posts to followers, but think of these activities as the icing on the cake. People love brands that do the job they were bought for and do it well. Focus attention on that experience and you will not go far wrong, because potential buyers will get a positive impression, and existing users will feel that their purchase has been justified.
But what do you think? Please share your thoughts in the comments box below.
Stay Informed
When you subscribe to the blog, we will send you an e-mail when there are new updates on the site so you wouldn't miss them.
Comments