High Risk, High Reward Marketing (Part 2)

The human psyche is incredibly complex, and marketing seeks to capitalize on what elements of the psyche we know have a direct input-output relation. The colors red and yellow, for example, tend to subtly create a desire to eat. Just look at KFC, McDonald's, Carl's Jr, Burger King, Pizza Hut, Dairy Queen, Lipton, Pepperidge Farm, etc.; each of them uses red and/or yellow in their logo to try and create this established psychological response when you are exposed to their logo. Going beyond a simple response to color, humans tend to also have a psychological response to other human-like entities when we are exposed to them. This phenomena is actually well-known, and goes by the name of empathy! Our awareness that others have emotions, and our ability to feel others' emotions vicariously begins at the simple connection that both parties involved are human (or, at least, alive. There is empathy between species, such as a pet dog and his owner, but we will overlook this). AnMa seeks to capitalize on this empathetic response we have to other human-like creatures to better advertise.

Without diving into the overbearing details of the why and how (which, if you care to read, all sources and articles will be listed at the end), it is a fact that when potential consumers perceive a brand as more human, they are more likely to associate with it, empathize with it, and ultimately, choose it. Therefore, in general, it might be beneficial to begin to anthropomorphize your brand. The trade-off comes in a slightly messy, grey area. This brand empathy, subconsciously, elicit customers to treat a brand in the same way they might treat a friend or acquaintance. The longer the relationship lasts, and remains mutually beneficial, the stronger and more powerful the relationship becomes. Brand loyalty soars, and other competitors cannot conquer your market share without significant resources. As an experiment, think about your favorite coffee (or perhaps beverage in general) and ask yourself: how much of a discount would another brand have to offer in order to sway your purchase away from your regular and onto theirs? Personally, if the two brands are similar enough, I might find myself drawn by as small a discount as 10%, or a buy-one-get-one deal. The tipping point is fairly low, and my loyalty can be swayed fairly easily. What is your tipping point for the coffee brand you envisioned? 

Now, think of a brand that has an AnMa mascot or brand. (Note: we selected coffee initially so as to have a control experiment to refer back to; very few, if any, coffee brands have an AnMa approach.) With this new brand in mind - I am selecting Popeye's Supplements - let us reapproach the initial question: how much of a deal would you have to be offered to select another brand? Different from my coffee, I have a significantly larger loyalty to Popeye's, and so the deal would have to be much more substantial. Perhaps a discount of 25% might grab my attention, but I suspect that my loyalty for Popeye's would likely result in turning a blind eye to most other offers. Popeye's, for me, mirrors a lot of the qualities I want to display; strength, dedication, a healthy lifestyle, and so on. It's just a brand, but it's a brand that I, like many consumers, has come to empathize with. This empathy makes shopping elsewhere less likely, and has a powerful retention subconsciously built into the brand.

If AnMa seems to be all upside, why wouldn't every marketing team be utilizing it? A fair question, as the downside of AnMa is not immediately obvious. Anthropomorphizing a brand, and tapping into the empathetic response it has on consumers opens a dangerous door if that empathy is ever broken. Like a friendship that goes sour and is never fixed, a brand risks permanently ostracizing itself from its customers if it ever breeches the implicit trust the anthropomorphized empathy brings. The high risk, then, is from the powerful ability to retain, or permanently lose customers. Even more impossible to account for is the threshold for which customers will allow transgressions. Each customer, like relationships between various people, has a different level of allowance for a brand before a transgression becomes too great, and breeches the empathetic trust. Thankfully, like a friendship, this level is not (usually) so low that the risk of AnMa is too great, but it is unspoken. Any company pushing the envelope will eventually find themselves the subject of mass scrutiny, and the loss of customers as a result. This loss can result not only from intentional actions, but even accidents. A company whose mascot normally displays values of honesty, care, and compassion, and is discovered to be associated with actions in contradiction to those (for example, a company utilizing child labour) risks breaching the empathetic trust and forevermore being labelled as untrustworthy and uncaring. Customers often, at risk of judgement from their peers, abstain from association with a less-than-reputable character, be it a company mascot or an average civilian.

The use of AnMa then, is a balance of risk and reward. If done correctly, AnMa builds and can foster a strong brand loyalty and relationship with customers. Market share becomes most consistent and stable, harder to conquer, and the company brand becomes more recognizable to the general public. The trade-off, and what any company must consider and weigh before diving into AnMa, is their risk at breaching the trust they work so hard to build. A strong moral code, built into the company's motto and values, is a start, but continues beyond that. What risks are present in your industry that present a threat to such a relationship with the public? What about within your company? Only a deep, truthful, introspective analysis can determine if AnMa is right for your company.