Soon after the first of the year, the U.S. government announced that it was abandoning its "Shared Values" television advertising campaign. The campaign, amid much fanfare, had been touted as an important way for America to win over the world's Muslim and Arab communities. Congress had allocated about $15 million for the effort and eagerly awaited its results.
Much like a company that aims to communicate its brand message, the U.S. government hired bright advertising minds, spent considerable time and effort crafting its message, articulated a target audience and a desired result, and allocated the necessary funds for the project. And then, like so many advertisers, the government wound up sorely disappointed with the results. The campaign failed to achieve its clearly stated objectives, and -- despite ambitious promises and investments -- the government has apparently pulled the plug on this effort.
Some industry observers have claimed (See "Is Advertising Dead?" in See Also) that the problem stems from the fact that advertising -- especially TV advertising -- is no longer effective at reaching a large audience and conveying a powerful message. But the real problem is probably the misperception that advertising is the simple solution to any and all marketing challenges.
Advertising does play an important role in brand building, since companies must communicate their brand promise to relevant audiences. For businesses, these audiences include their prospects, customers, and stockholders, as well as their employees. Conveying the brand promise is essential, and that need hasn't changed even though media alternatives have become more varied and the communication world has grown increasingly cluttered.
However, as with the "Shared Values" campaign, too many organizations continue on a fruitless quest for a "silver bullet" solution for their myriad brand-marketing problems. And the solution that often appears most enticing -- advertising -- usually cannot provide a quick fix or achieve the desired objective.
Advertising alone can't transform a brand, whether that brand represents a grocery chain, an airline, or an auto manufacturer. Nor, much to the apparent chagrin of Congress, can advertising transform the image of America.
This is because advertising merely registers the brand promise -- it cannot deliver on it.
Missing links
Nonetheless, companies persist in hoping that advertising will create what their products and services can't: lasting customer relationships. Too often, companies try to advertise their way out of product problems, relying on hype rather than substance.
Got a customer service problem? Then develop a new ad campaign that shows how "the customer always comes first" at your company. Got a product performance problem? Time for an advertising effort to assure consumers that, at your company, there is nothing more important than product quality.
Not only are efforts like these doomed, they serve to increase consumer skepticism, waste time and money, and drain precious resources away from meeting the real challenge. The point is not whether your company can make a promise, but whether it can keep the promise.
Recent commentary by Eric Clemons, a Wharton professor, serves to further highlight the issue. Clemons notes that many larger companies seek to differentiate their brands via advertising rather than through the products and services they market. That's clearly unfortunate, because advertising differentiation without product differentiation is meaningless. Products aren't perceived as being different merely because companies claim they are. They are perceived as being different only to the extent that consumers see that they are. In short, "Don't just tell me; show me."
For example, the product quality perceptions that General Motors faces can't be transformed through advertising alone, regardless of how much money GM spends on its new corporate "road to redemption" ad campaign. In a somewhat different vein, General Electric has launched a major $100 million advertising campaign centering on the company's "imagination at work." Whatever the expenditures, it will take more than advertising to create a strong perceptual link between GM and "quality" or between GE and "innovation." It will take evidence -- products and services that clearly deliver on these new claims.
What does it take to create successful connections between consumers and brands? It takes a meaningful and unique brand promise that the company -- and its products or services -- can consistently deliver. Some observers seem surprised by this simple fact. John Blasberg and Vijay Vishwanath studied more than 500 brands and concluded that growing or "hot" brands combined innovative products with aggressive advertising. Imagine that! A great brand is more than just heavy advertising expenditures or just strong product or service performance. Great brands require both -- intensive brand communications, but with a credible product performance story to tell.
Advertising can contribute to brand strength, but it cannot substitute for product and service excellence -- or compensate for their absence. Believable advertising only reinforces the story that product performance permits. Thus, the clear message to General Motors, General Electric, the U.S. government, and every other marketer around the globe is that -- with apologies to Gertrude Stein -- there has to be a there, there.