From the days of the much-maligned Brand Onion (which occasionally shape-shifted into a pyramid, or a key, if you were at Unilever), I remember very few specific good examples.
But I can remember the endless debates:
Is X a functional benefit or an emotional benefit?
Does this go in Personality or Values?
What's the difference between an attribute and a benefit?
Is this meant to be how we're seen now, or where we want to be?
Fast forward a decade or two, and enter Kipling's "honest serving men" - or some of them - in a glorious glowing Golden Circle. It was all going to be simple - chuck out those endless debates and start with Why?
I've noticed in the last few years that those "honest serving men" are getting about a bit. Almost every presentation on a process or strategy is peppered with Hows and Whos and Whats.
However, the debates remain:
Do we mean Who or To Whom? (The grammar fanatics love this one!)
Is that the How or the What?
Is When important?
And in this article by Thomas Kolster the author (previously a proponent of Pupose and Why?) suggests that it's now all about the Who a brand can help people to become (so a kind of Who in the future). A brand is a coach, helping people "be more, do more, see more, experience more!". This Who "focuses on the role you can play enabling their beliefs and dreams, whereas Why focuses on your organisation's beliefs and dreams."
The "honest serving men" have done a sneaky pivot from a circle to an arrow (perhaps still golden?). Why has disappeared and taken Where with him:
This all feels suspiciously like a return to "what's in it for me" - or a simple statement of what your brand does for people - benefit, if you like.
Kipling's poem continues - and this is not often quoted -
But after they have worked for me,
I give them all a rest.
I let them rest from nine to five,
For I am busy then ...
I think he had a point, and don't intend to discuss the Whys and Wherefores ;)
GOING FORWARD – MORE PROOF
1 year ago