Great Brands Don’t Zag

Do you know what isn't going to work for your brand? Two words: Radical. Differentiation.

I know I'm probably going to hell for disrespecting the overarching and timeless theme of Marty Neumeier's classic brand strategy book, Zag. Before you grab your pitchforks and start frothing at the mouth, allow me to share my thoughts on why (today) being different isn't actually a strategy. And how in our hyper-saturated digital ecosystem of groupthink, echo-chambers, and ideology, identifying and relentlessly appealing to something familiar seems to make more sense. Sometimes.

First off, if you've read Zag, you know that Radical Differentiation is much more complicated than merely being unique from your competition. It's a process that requires deep insight, unabashed intuition, and some real cajones. Blazing new trails ain't for the faint of heart. It takes dedication, vision, and commitment.

Second, and obvious to many, a brand is more than the sum of its design elements, products, or campaigns. A great brand is the totality of a shared experience measured in interpretation, emotion, and ultimately...loyalty.

In the world of advertising, Zag has become something of a holy book. In my first year as an Advertising student at RCAD, it was among the many recommended reading selections provided by faculty. If you spend enough time conversing with creatives, you'll undoubtedly hear the (not so) subtle concepts ripped right from its pages and promoted like gospel. The ideas described in Zag have laid the foundation for countless successful brands — they've been discussed, dissected, and regurgitated over and over…and over. 

The debate, however, isn't whether those ideas were impactful or amazing; obviously, they were, and they very much are. The question comes down to the way advertising, strategy, consumer interaction, and brand stability symbiotically exist — and the familiarity which a great brand requires to grow and stay competitive.

Time to Ditch Your Darlings…

If you haven't listened to Chris Do's podcast, The Futur, the time is now to hit your favorite podcast app and start peeping it asap. I'll even wait while you take a second to hit it up.

You back? Cool…

Okay, so in episode 79, Why Branding Matters, Chris and his guest, Stef Hamerlinck, debate topics such as who won the great cola wars — Coke vs. Pepsi. Clothing brands like Patagonia vs. their budget competitors, and expensive headphones vs. the plethora of cheaper alternatives. Marty Neumeier is brought up often in this episode, and his ideas are shared and discussed in some detail (Chris also has an episode with Marty Neumeier, which is super dope.) Stef and Chris engage in a pretty spirited conversation, with some great points being made on either end of the ideation spectrum.

However, while concepts like tribalism, value, identity, and perception are considered in the convo — what is, in my opinion, overlooked is the dichotomous trench between the views Neumeier proposed in Zag and the reality in which the average everyday brand is trying to survive in. While a portion of Neumeier's Zag used the very grounded concept of a start-up wine bar as his brand case study — Chris and Stef's radical differentiation conversation mostly revolved around brands that have become industry staples. Today these brands are recognized as leaders, not for their originality, but rather their marketing budgets, staggering product availability...and...most importantly, their steadfast commitment to maintaining a cohesive and mostly neutral identity.

Look, every industry has its icons, heroes, and fundamental mythos — the big guys, those top dogs, which we imagine ourselves demolishing one day like David did Goliath. And no doubt, it's fun to dream big; those industry names make it easy to find a success story we can latch onto and motivate ourselves and our clients to move in one direction or another.

But…and here's the reality of all this…you’re not the hero in this story. I'm not saying you don't have a ton of potential, and I certainly don't want to rain on your parade of passion and grandeur. What I am saying is this — let's just talk cola for a moment, how many cola brands are out there competing against one another? Go ahead, take a guess…100? 200? 1000? Well, it's a good question, and the simple answer is this — it doesn’t matter. Coca-Cola alone has a product portfolio of over 3,500 beverages and nearly 500 individual cola brands. 

Impossible to compete with? No, I mean, as long as you don't mind being Pepsi. But if you are a craft cola in a mid-sized market looking to expand your retail and distribution reach, maybe radical differentiation shouldn't be your top priority. Maybe, just maybe…identifying a product that a calculated and reliable portion of the population feels an inherent desire to connect with, based on interpretation, emotion, and loyalty, should be your goal. 

Another example worth looking at is the craft beer sector vs. global brewers (I know, the beverage industry is so hot right now.) I like this example because it embodies so much of what we’re discussing here. Take Anheuser-Busch InBev — with over 600 beer brands, annual sales of more than $57 billion, and its global distribution network. Now measure that next to Wynkoop Brewpub and their Rocky Mountain Oyster Stout, which uses roasted bull testicles for a "meaty" "savory" flavor (yo, do your thing!). It would seem that when comparing these two beer makers side-by-side, their definitions of what radical differentiation means are nowhere near the same.

For years, the world's largest brewers have been gobbling up their micro-sized competition to stay relevant. The fear being that their pint-sized (sorry, puns like that are totally worth it) adversaries would encroach further and further into market share. Microbreweries, scrappy and eager to stand apart from their big brethren, devoted themselves to the idea of staunch independence. This meant constantly one-upping each other with bewildering new beer offerings in hopes of appealing to a consumer with short attention spans. We're talking peanut butter and jelly beer, Lucky Charms flavored beer, even Rogue Ales Beard Beer, which is apparently made with yeast grown from master brewer John Maier's beard. 

While I love a good microbrew and admire the creativity, for all the “radical differentiation,” Anheuser-Busch InBev's market share and profits continue to skyrocket — while many independent brewers have faced increased competition, dwindling interest, buyouts, and overall market fatigue. 

You see, here's the sobering truth (no more puns, I promise) — if everyone is trying our hardest to be different, well, then ultimately, what ends up happening is nobody actually seems all that unique. Some might compare it to paralysis by analysis (i.e., too much to choose from). Others would say it’s not only obnoxious but that it also breeds unrealistic and unsustainable expectations of what a brand can and should be.

To be, or not to be…

It's easy to find ourselves in the weeds when it comes to our quest for originality. To say familiarity and uniqueness require a delicate balance would be the understatement of the century. It doesn't matter whether you're a creative undertaking new work for a client, or a brand looking to appeal to a larger, more engaged audience; at the end of the day, most people crave familiarity. It's hardwired into our psyche — apparently, the remnants of some inherent survival mechanism meant to keep our hunter-gatherer forbearers alive.

Maybe if more businesses and creatives worked harder on actually being good, instead of just, well…different, we would find that the radical differentiation of yesterday will usher in the revolutionary brand appreciation of tomorrow.

I'll leave you with this quote by legendary designer Paul Rand — it's well known, but it's something else I remember once hearing Chris Do say on The Futur: "Don't try to be original — just try to be good."