Question
Why should words matter to businesses and other organisations? What difference can well-chosen words make to their success?
Answer
I'll stick to the brands/branding subset of the question, since general perception management, which includes PR and sales and post-sales communications, is too complex to address in one answer.
The best illustration of the importance of words in branding I've seen is Al Ries' analysis of the impact of different Coca Cola slogans between 1886 and 2002 in his excellent "The fall of advertising and the rise of PR"
Al Ries' point is a very powerful one. "Only twice, in 1970 and again in 1990, did Coca-Cola go back to its roots..."
PR establishes new brands, but once they are established, advertising can only maintain them. And to maintain it effectively you need to keep reinforcing the positioning that's already occupied in the market's mind.
In the case of Coke, what's your mental association? "Real thing" right? When did you last associate Coke with "a smile" or "brain tonic?"
If the advertising isn't reinforcing "real thing" it is doing something between wasting money and damaging the brand. Ad copywriters have traditionally loved to view themselves as "creative" and that leads them to mess things up. Al Ries was one of the figures who ended the Mad Men "creativity" fueled era of self-indulgence in theory, but you still see tons of advertising stuck in the 60s, either weakening brands or doing nothing.
Sure you could argue that advertising that does not reinforce the main positioning theme is still exposure that helps recall. Even a bad Coke ad might lead somebody who hasn't had it for a while to drink a can.
But over the long term, using words that either conflict with the positioning ("New Coke" is the worst offender, since the "Real Thing" cannot simultaneously be the "New Thing") or are unrelated to it (and therefore dilute the position by either unintentionally expanding, contracting or shifting the center-of-gravity), are extremely damaging.
Think of the "right" words as positive compound interest on the brand equity (for Coke, real thing, classic, original...). The wrong words (for Coke, new, hip, cool, stylish...) are like negative compound interest that rapidly destroy brand equity. The random words that copywriters throw in just to be creative and create advertising art that wins awards... they are like annoying short-term stock market fluctuations that create needless volatility in the brand equity share price. Volatility by itself doesn't hurt fundamental equity, but long-term volatility reduces trust in the stability of a brand,and leaves it open attack by a new brand that is less volatile in the same core, and capable of drawing converts.
The disaster that was "New Coke" illustrates the danger of negative compound interest well enough, so let me make up a what-if to illustrate the dangers of volatility in brand connotations.
In the case of Coke, such a hypothetical scenario might be: Coke does a huge number of distracting things that, while they don't mess with the "real thing," don't reinforce it either, and create a tag-cloud around an undefended center. Every month you have a new campaign with a new theme, none of them including the words "Real" or "Classic." You have "Kids!! Back to School" in January, "Groundhog Drink" in February, "Spring Break with Coke" wet t-shirt ads in March, "Coke: the taste of spring!" in April (which loses badly to the fruit-drink market say).... you get the idea.
In this environment, you can imagine a disruptive new product from an upstart, "FundaCola" that sticks with unwavering commitment to the theme of "the fundamentals of the cola experience, simple and uncluttered."
FundaCola would try to take the "classic" position away from Coke by reframing the debate as "the oldest is not necessarily the most real, the product that best reflects fundamental cola values is the real thing."
You can imagine FundaCola vs. Coke ads (a la Mac vs. PC) that portray Coke as a distracted dabbler that has lost its way. You can imagine a mischievous ad that has "great grandpa Coke" from the 1880s disowning 2011 Coke and anointing FundaCola as the real thing...
So yeah... words matter.
The best illustration of the importance of words in branding I've seen is Al Ries' analysis of the impact of different Coca Cola slogans between 1886 and 2002 in his excellent "The fall of advertising and the rise of PR"
- 1886 Drink Coca-Cola
- 1893 The ideal brain tonic
- 1905 Coca-Cola revives and sustains
- 1922 Thirst knows no reason
- 1929 The pause that refreshes
- 1941 Everything your thirst could ask for
- 1956 Coca-Cola, making good things taste better
- 1960 Coke refreshes you best
- 1970 It's the real thing
- 1971 I'd like to buy the world a Coke
- 1979 Have a Coke and a smile
- 1982 Coke is it
- 1985 New Coke
- 1989 Can't beat the feeling
- 1990 You can't beat the real thing
- 1993 Always
- 1998 Enjoy
- 2001 Life tastes good
- 2002 All the world loves a coke
Al Ries' point is a very powerful one. "Only twice, in 1970 and again in 1990, did Coca-Cola go back to its roots..."
PR establishes new brands, but once they are established, advertising can only maintain them. And to maintain it effectively you need to keep reinforcing the positioning that's already occupied in the market's mind.
In the case of Coke, what's your mental association? "Real thing" right? When did you last associate Coke with "a smile" or "brain tonic?"
If the advertising isn't reinforcing "real thing" it is doing something between wasting money and damaging the brand. Ad copywriters have traditionally loved to view themselves as "creative" and that leads them to mess things up. Al Ries was one of the figures who ended the Mad Men "creativity" fueled era of self-indulgence in theory, but you still see tons of advertising stuck in the 60s, either weakening brands or doing nothing.
Sure you could argue that advertising that does not reinforce the main positioning theme is still exposure that helps recall. Even a bad Coke ad might lead somebody who hasn't had it for a while to drink a can.
But over the long term, using words that either conflict with the positioning ("New Coke" is the worst offender, since the "Real Thing" cannot simultaneously be the "New Thing") or are unrelated to it (and therefore dilute the position by either unintentionally expanding, contracting or shifting the center-of-gravity), are extremely damaging.
Think of the "right" words as positive compound interest on the brand equity (for Coke, real thing, classic, original...). The wrong words (for Coke, new, hip, cool, stylish...) are like negative compound interest that rapidly destroy brand equity. The random words that copywriters throw in just to be creative and create advertising art that wins awards... they are like annoying short-term stock market fluctuations that create needless volatility in the brand equity share price. Volatility by itself doesn't hurt fundamental equity, but long-term volatility reduces trust in the stability of a brand,and leaves it open attack by a new brand that is less volatile in the same core, and capable of drawing converts.
The disaster that was "New Coke" illustrates the danger of negative compound interest well enough, so let me make up a what-if to illustrate the dangers of volatility in brand connotations.
In the case of Coke, such a hypothetical scenario might be: Coke does a huge number of distracting things that, while they don't mess with the "real thing," don't reinforce it either, and create a tag-cloud around an undefended center. Every month you have a new campaign with a new theme, none of them including the words "Real" or "Classic." You have "Kids!! Back to School" in January, "Groundhog Drink" in February, "Spring Break with Coke" wet t-shirt ads in March, "Coke: the taste of spring!" in April (which loses badly to the fruit-drink market say).... you get the idea.
In this environment, you can imagine a disruptive new product from an upstart, "FundaCola" that sticks with unwavering commitment to the theme of "the fundamentals of the cola experience, simple and uncluttered."
FundaCola would try to take the "classic" position away from Coke by reframing the debate as "the oldest is not necessarily the most real, the product that best reflects fundamental cola values is the real thing."
You can imagine FundaCola vs. Coke ads (a la Mac vs. PC) that portray Coke as a distracted dabbler that has lost its way. You can imagine a mischievous ad that has "great grandpa Coke" from the 1880s disowning 2011 Coke and anointing FundaCola as the real thing...
So yeah... words matter.