It's been emotional: how marketing has adapted to the needs of the consumer

We all know how the story started; in the beginning product messaging ruled supreme. The brand was the teacher, imparting its knowledge and hoping consumers would listen. However, there were the good teachers and the bad – the ones that strove to create an emotional connection and the ones that people, quite frankly, couldn’t stand being in a room with.

As time went by, the school of emotionally inspiring teachers grew: from the smooth Marlboro Man to the quirky Smash aliens – these were the brands which paved the way for emotion in marketing and drove consumer engagement in communication.

Percentage of people who claim to ‘like’ or ‘quite like’ advertising:

Source: UK Advertising Association Surveys 1961-19

By the 1980s, some brands were dialing up the emotional aspect of their appeal to dizzying heights. The ‘sex and rebellion’ of Levi’s and the men who “can’t help acting on impulse” had all but done away with functional USPs, but interestingly, they were still treating consumers as subjects. Communication remained their story – an inwardly focused world that consumers were invited to view, but could rarely join.

As time went on, the marketing industry sought to evidence the worth of emotion in advertising, seeking ways to prove that the intangible ‘gut feeling’ was a valid measure. Today, of course, we have myriad studies that recognise the power of emotion in comms.

The IPA report “Marketing in the Era of Accountability”, which draws its conclusions from 880 case studies, concludes that campaigns which appeal to emotions are more effective than rational ones on every single business measure - sales, market share, profit, penetration, loyalty and price sensitivity; however, in the early years of advertising, emotional communication was developed far more on faith than fact.

1990s-2000s: Brand as peer

During the 1990s, changes in consumer culture led to a new breed of brand. Post the materialistic yuppies, and off the back of new rave culture, individuals were defining themselves less by material possessions and more by behaviour. Travel and experiences became a much more important social currency than simply what people owned.

Brands born around this time weren’t on a pedestal, talking down, but were our ‘friends’. Egg Banking, Innocent, Orange and Ben & Jerry’s defined the peer-to-peer voice, which was gradually adopted by the mainstream. At the time it was unheard of that a telecoms brand would be named after a fruit, launch with a baby swirling in water, and talk about “the future being bright and orange”, but it felt refreshing and appealed to the new sensibility. Brands were winning by being more human and appealing to audiences on a personal level.

When the digital revolution came, it allowed these ‘brand friendships’ to truly blossom; theorists told the marketing community to interact with consumers and to expand brand stories for multiple platforms. Brands joined online social scenes and began talking more, sending consumers fun things to do and starting ‘conversations’. Brands wanted to be where real people were.

Source: TNS, ‘Brand Friending’ Research, 2009

Yet, the truth is, whilst the tone of the peer-to-peer relationship is welcome, most brands don’t actually make very good friends. Too often they break fundamental social codes by guiding people towards a transaction. Brands might have set out to be a peer, but they ended up behaving more like a narcissist, a desperado or a stalker.

Present: Brand as servant

A few years ago, the marketing world began to acknowledge that brands had to be more meaningful, and that it was time for them to start following consumer interests, not attempting to drive them.

Trust in many establishments was in decline: the financial crash, MP’s expenses and media phone tapping all proving to the public that they should not believe all they read, or be led by institutions.

In marketing, the pioneers explored the possibility of a higher meaning for brands – causes they could credibly champion, and a counter balance to the sense that the world was falling in on itself.

In many ways the strategy du jour now is one with purpose at its heart. Meaningful brands are winning. Dove, Always, Lurpak and Pampers are popular examples of brands who have relegated their own stories in favour of something bigger.

While many marketers might see this as the brand becoming an activist, we define it in humbler terms. Acting as servant may seem lowly, but in fact it is very powerful. As a great service to consumers we are relied upon, we are useful, we are helpful… and, actually, this is emotional.

Whether played out like Under Armour, as the world’s greatest coach making all athletes better, or Apple as the ultimate assistant, brands are depended on in a way they never have been before. And the great thing is, it doesn’t have to be huge gestures. Yes, some brands might seek to change the world, but the helpful app, the useful tips, the personal encouragement can be just as engaging.

In a world that doesn’t stop talking, adding to the noise does little for brand appeal, but being useful within it can be immensely engaging. It is little surprise then that some of biggest, most dynamic brands of today are the consumer’s subordinate, and less bothered about trying to build their own stories. Ask anyone what Google’s tagline is, or Snapchat’s, or Uber’s, or Air BnB’s and they’ll struggle. But these are the brands people love unconditionally and interact with frequently, simply because they provide a service, and provide it brilliantly.

As it turns out, the way to be emotional is to stop attempting to drag consumers into carefully constructed brand worlds and just make it easier for them do more of the things they want to do.

Mark Stringer is founder of entertainment, sport and wellbeing agency PrettyGreen.