Safe doesn’t mean risk-averse
January 29th, 2009 | Published in Technology Branding | 8 Comments
A great quote by Seth Godin author of marketing “bibles” like Purple Cow, Free Prize Inside and Small is the New Big.
“If the marketplace isn’t talking about you, there’s a reason. If people aren’t discussing your products, your services, your cause, your movement or your career, there’s a reason.
The reason is that you’re boring. (I guess that’s what boring means, right?) And you’re probably boring on purpose. You have boring pricing because that’s safer. You have a boring location because to do otherwise would be nuts. You have boring products because that’s what the market wants. That boring staff? They’re perfectly well qualified…
You don’t get unboring for free. Remarkable costs time and money and effort, but most of all, remarkable costs a willingness to be wrong. Remarkable is a choice.”
- Seth Godin
It’s a great wake-up call in business and in life. When did it become ok to be the status quo? How is it that many personally want to grow, learn, evolve - take a new class, meet new people, try something different (even at the risk of not liking it) - but once they step into their office they believe the safest choice is the best approach? Here’s another thought - is being safe in this environment actually risky?
I’d like to believe that the opposite of safe isn’t a careless, free-spirited approach to life or business, but a willingness to power beyond the status quo and reach towards ideals. Know where you want to go and find ways to get there. Now Mr. Godin does go on to say that some customers actually want an unremarkable (aka average/boring) choice - like say for your business insurance. But in technology, the sole focus of Allis Inc., average companies are trumped every day. What’s the point of waking up and trying to be unremarkable?
Thought map around challenges and opportunities of idealistic brands.
Is this new paradigm different for women and men? Of course. According to Neilsen’s 51-country Happiness Study in May 2008, women are more optimistic about the future than men, scoring higher on predictions of their happiness in the next six months. Women will seek brands with this same type of positive voice.
February 4th, 2009 at 8:37 am (#)
Hi,
Thank you! I would now go on this blog every day!
Thank you
Pett
February 6th, 2009 at 12:00 pm (#)
[...] Max). For those need to be as testosterone driven as possible, there is certainly no room for being boring in the Super Bowl. PepsiMax developed for [...]
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:44 pm (#)
[...] The website is a tactic to build the brand. There is a fine balance between the creativity of the website and driving a purpose. I believe that both can be accomplished, but branding can’t derail the process - it needs to empower it. Brand messages should be simple, subtle but above all, interesting and engaging (this is not a time to be boring.) [...]
March 19th, 2009 at 7:09 am (#)
I don’t think people make a concerted effort to be boring - they make a concerted effort to be all things to all people and therefore their own quirkiness/creativity is stifled in the process. The more we segment our audiences the more we can address them in a tone that will be appealingly creative to each. It is when we treat all customers/viewers with the lowest common denominator of what all will approve that we lose creativity..just think of any committee-driven campaign with 10+ people on the committee, has much greatness ever come out of such a thing?
March 19th, 2009 at 7:16 am (#)
I hit send before I intended but the other point that needs to be made is that it is very expensive to develop messaging unique to each individual and that also drives the decision to play it “Safe”.
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:32 am (#)
Greatings,
I have already seen it somethere…
Thank you
Saurooon
March 25th, 2009 at 12:26 pm (#)
I would also add that the tendency towards ‘safety’ is due to one of the most pervasive (and incorrect) principles in advertising, branding and marketing. The idea that there is a clear division between ‘rational’ and ‘emotional’ drivers of behavior, and that we should build our brands accordingly.
Unfortunately, this principle is based on antiquated psychological theories from the 19th and early 20th century, that suggested human thought could be neatly split into levels or layers. These theories are wrong. The human mind is incapable of splitting apart purely rational or emotional thought. Instead they occur at the same time, involuntarily and more often than not unconsciously (95% of the time according to some studies)
So what’s the link back to ‘safety’?
When marketers believe they can split apart ‘rational’ and ‘emotional’ motivations in consumers, they tend to choose ‘rational’ because it seems safer. It’s not safer. It just seems that way.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:39 pm (#)
Interesting timing for me, as I just finished the Purple Cow book. There were some interesting take aways, but far to broad be more than a wake up call to make sure you are aware of how your brand is perceived in the market.
It’s not okay to become safe, but I see this all time in the mega-corporation I work for. Innovative methods to reach our main customers becomes stretched and watered down to reach a few more customers just outside of our demographics. Hard edges are softened for the benefit of management approval because the committee is afraid to present something new.
My company does a great job of reinventing itself internally, but has stagefright externally. As a result, we play it safe.