On Lovemarks

A candid confession by Saatchi & Saatchi's Kevin Roberts in a Wharton article titled It's all about getting to the future first:

"lovemarks" was born really out of desperation and fear.

Fear of irrelevance and lack of differentiation. A few lines on, it's getting a bit cynical:

the only purpose to create a "lovemark" is to charge a premium. Brands were invented to charge premiums...

The latter sentence is true. But I disagree with the former. Nowadays, one builds a brand (or 'lovemark' or call-it-what-you-will) to 'lubricate' a fair exchange of value between consenting parties. Of course there's a need for a profit, but there's definitely got to be something given in exchange--something worth that profit. Looking at both sides of the exchange is what's it all about these days in branding.

But it goes on nicely, making a few wake-up calls that are never made often enough:

The power has now switched to the consumer. The consumer is boss. And the consumer really will not be talked to or controlled. She's in control.

You can't get insight and foresight from data and from analysis.

Finally, one other statement that may sound odd to many a manager or marketer. There's truth beyond an MBA, and it implies things like

mystery, sensuality and intimacy

Nice read.