15: Your Brand Halo Storybook
View the warning on the contents page regarding "facts" presented by this author.
The author suggests the value of storytelling: while the academic approach of communicating ideas has the benefit of being focused and comprehensive, it doesn't resound with the audience in the same way that narrative does.
Storytelling goes back to he most primitive origins of human society, in tribal societies where hunters would gather for their evening meal and share stories of their experience, or legendary stories teach lessons that can be put to practical use.
These stories are more compelling than "dry facts and figures", and include a wealth of seemingly inconsequential details that place the lesson into a context that seems more "real" to the listener, and the emotional portent of the drama holds attention and enhances memory.
(EN: The drawback the author fails to mention is the sense that stories are fiction. The audience knows it's "just a story" and even the storyteller often embellishes the story with confabulation, undermining its credibility. So while it is in some ways effective, it's not by any means perfect, not appropriate for teaching all lessons - which is why authors and lecturers should use them sparingly and be careful of the line between fact and fiction.)
The need for stories today
One of the values of western culture is time, particularly the need to save time by getting to the point, eliminating unnecessary details, and communicating the basic facts in as few words as possible. This is especially true of commercial interaction, where professionals are "strictly business" and "just the facts."
But at the same time, people are still interested in stories and broader conversation that places facts into context. And a "just the facts" approach is cold, sterile, and dehumanizing that does not motivate, excite, or inspire. But branding is emotional, and the staccato patter of cold facts may communicate data, but fails to form an emotional connection at all.
When customers report that they want a meaningful dialogue with their suppliers, a relationship with brands, they mean that they want more that the stale facts and figures. While numerical data is compelling, it is essentially meaningless outside the context of a narrative.
And in terms of context, brands are not isolated elements, but are integrated into the story of their customers' lives, and part of their identity. Especially for younger generations, the brands they consume are a collection of badges that define who they are (EN: or more likely, who they want others to think they are and who they wish to be), and the choice of brand is intensely emotional and personal.
That is to say that when people speak of a brand in a positive manner, the brand is a prop in the story of their own lives - and it must be a prop that fits, a firm whose story is similar to the one they wish to tell, and to believe, about themselves.
The author refers to Adidas's "impossible is nothing" campaign, whose commercials said absolutely nothing about the product itself, but featured recognized athletes telling stories of their personal achievements. The product was shown only briefly in the context of the story, and the last frame was a product shot. This said nothing of product quality, but was highly effective in engaging the emotions and aspirations of the audience and associating them to the brand.
Animals and brands
The author switches from the notion of storytelling to consider the loose topic of using animals in advertising. (EN: This is another topic more extensively considered by more authoritative sources, so likely I will abbreviated the author's coverage.)
It's been observed that animals, even cartoon depictions of animals, capture the attention of an advertising audience, and using an animal mascot has been shown to create a strong brand.
Ironically, the author also strays into using humans as mascots, which may be a celebrity spokesperson or authorities, but in some instances has just been a human character, an "everyday" person. Especially in the online medium and the age of reality television, brands have reached a wide audience by attaching themselves to oafish people doing stupid things.
(EN: And while this grabs attention, I wonder if it makes an entirely desirable association: does it communicate that the brand is dopey, or does it communicate that only dopey people use the brand? Calls to mind that not all attention is good attention.)
Back to actual animals, the author runs through some general guidelines for the brand that is considering adopting a mascot: specifically, the qualities people associate with the animal should match those you want to associate with the brand.
Also, given that there is cultural sensitivity to the welfare of animals, using an actual beast is likely to draw some consternation, and a cartoon, puppet, or costume approach may be an easier and safer option.