Cracker Barrel has relented and returned to its original brand proposition. At the same time, we learn that Jaguar, the iconic British sports car, is completely redefining itself including a vehicle overhaul redesign.
Is the choice of a single-dimensional solution the answer?
Are marketers still tethered to the “tyranny of the OR” as Jim Collins and Jerry Poras pointed out in Built to Last (1994)?
Have marketers and corporate executives not learned anything over the past 31 years?
Collins and Poras wrote about visionary companies. They remarked:
“They (visionary companies) do not oppress themselves with what we call the ‘Tyranny of the OR’… the rational view that cannot easily accept paradox, that cannot live with two seemingly contradictory forces or ideas at the same time. The ‘Tyranny of the OR’ pushes people to believe that things must be either A OR B, but not both. Instead of being oppressed by the ‘Tyranny of the OR,’ highly visionary companies liberate themselves with the ‘Genius of the AND’… the ability to embrace both extremes of a number of dimensions at the same time. Instead of choosing A or B, they figure out a way to have both A and B.”
This Genius of the And is what marketers seem to forget.
This article is part of Branding Strategy Insider’s newsletter. You can sign up here to get thought pieces like this sent to your inbox.
Brands are complex, multi-dimensional ideas. A single-dimensional solution is not always a pathway to profitability.
Humans are complex. People do not want to give up one aspect of the desired brand experience to receive another aspect. Consistent, locally relevant, personally differentiating brands that maximize contrary needs are winners.
Customers seek brands offering satisfying, trustworthy experiences based on the optimization of conflicting needs. Customers want brands to deliver on the paradox. Customers seek brands that solve the paradox promise.
Do not be fooled by those who say singular positions are the answer. Those posionistas are stuck in a world where “own one thing in the customer’s mind” is the answer.
As we see with Cracker Barrel, customers are uncompromising. Customers are comfortable with what they know. On the other hand, customers are not against maximizing what they know with something new. Customers want multiple benefits. If those observing and opining about the Cracker Barrel situation believe that by returning to the original premise, sales will now be increasing year-over-year, they may be be surprised. As for Cracker Barrel management, “Was it not possible to figure out how to solve the paradox of old and new?”
Jaguar is taking a different approach by ignoring what people are saying. Jaguar is okay with the information that “… only 15% of its current customers (will) buy its cars once its rebrand is complete.” If we read this correctly, Jaguar is telling us that 85% of current customers can go elsewhere.
Jaguar’s CEO told The Wall Street Journal that the Jaguar brand’s “… new luxury positioning” is intended to “… appeal to a younger, affluent audience interested in design who may have associated Jaguar with a very male midlife crisis.”
Uh oh. This is not your grandfather’s automobile. A campaign idea that killed Oldsmobile.
The current Jaguar CEO says that Jaguar’s association with movies and racing could not generate profitability. Possibly. But, a vehicle that did not need monthly service would have been a good idea.
If you were alive in the 1990s when Jaguar was in such trouble the brand was sold to Ford Motor Company, you would know that the real problem with Jaguar was not its look or feel. The real problem was mechanical. Jaguars spent most of their time being repaired. If driving a Jaguar was critical, you owned two because one was always getting repaired.
To its credit, Ford made the Jaguars run. Unfortunately, Ford manufactured Jaguars on the same line as the Ford Taurus. From the rear, you actually believed you were behind a Taurus rather than a Jaguar when stuck in traffic.
Jaguar is now saying that the brand is ditching its past and morphing into something new. In automotive, something “new” is very expensive. Was it not possible to maximize the original promise of Jaguar with a contrary benefit? Is throwing away 85% of your base worth the costs (money, time, effort)?
Apparently, the defense of the Jaguar re-brand is not a quick story. Here is what The Wall Street Journal reported,
“Defending the rebrand, however, turned out to require its own communications strategy.
After Jaguar struggled to convey the nuances of a new business model and its marketing strategy on social-media platforms, it pivoted to prioritizing long-form interviews and media coverage.
“I now spend a lot of time telling people our narrative,” CEO Glover said. “When we’ve had an opportunity to really tell that story, the vast majority go, OK, I get it, now.”
In a world where 1-minute at a drive-thru is considered an excruciating wait and over 40 seconds for your complex Starbucks drink is a brand-killer, having a story that takes a lot of time to communicate is a potential disaster. When we learn that 12th grade Americans are generating troubling scores for reading, a story that takes time to convey may not be the best for messaging. Telling isn’t selling, either.
So, what can brands do?
As a marketer, your job is to compete. Compete differently with The Blake Project.
Use your resources to insightfully grasp users’ complex needs and problems while understanding the brand’s potential solutions.
A powerful paradox promise is not single-minded: it is a complex, multi-dimensional idea expressed in a simple, compelling manner. A paradox promise recognizes that people have multifaceted individual problems. A paradox promise satisfies customers’ desires for no trade-off brand benefits while maintaining the integrity of the brand’s essence.
In the McDonald’s turnaround of 2004, the brand had the insight that to be a part of your life, McDonald’s had to emphasize its heritage and its modernity. McDonald’s had to be Forever Young.
Brand success rests with solving a customer problem. That customer problem may not be just one thing. That customer problem may be contradictory needs.
Lots of brands have solved the paradox problem and generated enduring profitable growth. Coke gave us diet soda that tastes great. Apple gave us easy to use technology. The Gap allowed us to dress differently just like all of our friends. In our marketing past, when we washed our dishes by hand, a brand such as Palmolive dishwashing liquid offered hard on dishes, soft on hands. Today, Dawn dishwashing liquid is tough on dirt and grease, but so gentle it can safely clean baby ducklings covered in muck from oil spills.
People tend to reject trade-off solutions (choose X or Y) that make them feel they have made a poor decision. People also tend to reject UN-resolution-type decisions that compromise X and Y to create a Z solution. That is, a revision to X and Y that creates an agreeable but tepid Z, a solution about which no one can feel passionate.
Humans do not like making bad decisions. Forcing a trade-off or watering down two options to make a third option comes across as a bad decision. Bad decisions are painful, and if anything, we are pain avoidance mammals. When forced to make a trade-off decision, people feel they have sacrificed something important. Seminal research calls this “satisficing.” We satisfy the need to decide but sacrifice feeling good about the decision.
Studies focused on choice reveal that trade-off decisions reflect conflicts. Some conflicts are more emotionally charged than others. Trade-off decisions can generate negative emotions. The decision-maker may sense a threat to achieving a goal. The decision-maker may feel that something of value will have to be lost in this process. One result is that the decision-maker may avoid having to decide. (Even though no decision is actually a decision.) This avoidance mechanism is usually associated with high-difficulty choices. Through avoidance, the decision-maker does not have to deal with loss aversion.
Difficult choices can appear to be more challenging and threatening to personal stability. These trade-offs may require too much personal justification for not enough benefit. Rather than having to choose or accept a lesser solution, people seek the maximization of contrary needs.
So, sure, I want that old-time, nostalgic feeling. But, that does not mean I do not want some freshness, some newness? Was it not possible for Cracker Barrel to stand for “old is new”? Is it not possible for Jaguar to be retro and revolutionary, grounded and ground-breaking?
When Carole King wrote the lyrics, “I feel the earth mover under my feet, I feel the sky tumbling down,” she might have well as been describing the way a lot of people are feeling now.
For segments of the population, there is a sense of unsteadiness and concern about what is around the corner and whether I can afford whatever comes my way. The linear, analytic approach to management that is offered through case studies at universities cannot provide ways to deal with this particular kind of universal insecurity and constant flux. “The highly mathematical models… tend to focus more on well-defined problems rather than the messy ambiguities of the real world,” as Paul Shoemaker pointed out in his California Management Review article almost 20 years ago.
For brand business management, it is ever more important to deliver a compelling, differentiating, trustworthy, multi-dimensional solution. In every category, the challenge is to identify the biggest, most relevant paradox promise opportunity. Paradox promises address desired yet conflicting needs by delivering the benefits of an optimized whole. Promising and delivering branded paradox promises generates enduring profitable growth.
Contributed to Branding Strategy Insider by: Joan Kiddon, Partner, The Blake Project, Author of The Paradox Planet: Creating Brand Experiences For The Age Of I
At The Blake Project, we help clients worldwide, in all stages of development, define and articulate what makes them competitive and valuable at pivotal moments of change. Please email us to learn how we can help you compete differently.
Branding Strategy Insider is a service of The Blake Project: A strategic brand consultancy specializing in Brand Research, Brand Strategy, Brand Growth, and Brand Education
Post Views: 33
