Salman Rushdie once wrote that a person will primarily be either a Beatles fan or a Rolling Stones fan, just as one will prefer either Tolstoy or Dostoevsky. I appreciate the clarity of this analogy – one is carefully crafted and elaborate; the other is sharp and hard.
The clarity of the analogy immediately makes sense because both the Beatles and the Rolling Stones were successfully crafted instruments of effective marketing, whether it was fully intentional or not - they each presented a very straightforward brand promise.
Generally speaking, the Beatles were the fun, safe version of British rock ‘n’ roll. Their brand promise was supported by fun, high-energy, escapist pop music (especially in their early recordings), and was later supported by “artistic” leanings: cerebral rather than visceral.
The Rolling Stones were the harder edge of British rock. From their earliest club dates, the music was earthy, physical, sensual music rooted in (and lifted from) American Blues. They were somehow dirty and dangerous – and certainly more sexual. That was their brand promise: the darker, dirtier side of music with a sensual edge that early-60s America represented to England.
These brand promises were not accidental. The Beatles chose a band name with an obvious built-in pun in the word’s misspelling, hinting at a sense of humour and fun. The band members themselves were (relatively) clean-cut, and publicly innocent and fun-loving. They even quickly developed consistent iconography – the trustworthy brand recognition that carried from the logo on Ringo’s kick drum logo to every product with the Beatles name on it.
Similarly, the Stones presented a dark, smoky impression from their very first recording, and a consistent non-smiling attitude. The band members sported big ears, big lips, bad haircuts and acne scars - there wasn’t a “cute” one in the bunch. And again, their name supports the brand promise unambiguously: a rolling stone = rolling rock = rock’n’roll. The Beatles wanted to hold your hand. The Stones wanted to take you out in the alley behind the bar and knock your boots against the wall.
The effective, successful marketing of each band’s brand promise is evident when viewed through the lens their pre-recording years: the Beatles first dressed in leather, and the Stones wore suits and crooked-toothed smiles. In hindsight, both images look put-on and they probably were - which is why their later images, as we now know them, worked: they were genuine.
A clear brand promise for each band/brand was of course supported by excellent products, and the rest is history. The 60s supported this kind of clarity with branding or music and entertainment, and it may never happen again – but the lessons here do apply to brand marketing in general. You have a few moments to make a pitch, and a lifetime to develop repeat customers if you do everything well in the first place. A carefully-considered brand strategy, a clearly-articulated brand promise, and well-communicated product attributes will almost always win the day, and will win the test of time as well.
I mean, what the hell were Herman’s Hermits about anyway?
0 comments:
Post a Comment