This Time, It's Personal

While proper planning is an undeniably critical component of successful brand communications, we are in an age when most professionals and experts subscribe to the belief that “content is king.” This means that the execution of communications plans—like how messages are crafted and delivered—can easily determine the ultimate success of even the most well-designed plans. Following through with creative and interesting content that sparks conversation and builds relationships with consumers is imperative if we aren’t to have our strategic plans regarded as “all bark and no bite” and in order to prove our worth as communications professionals.

Easier said than done, though, right? Absolutely. And to make things even more difficult is the fact that communications strategists have yet to reach a consensus on how to do this “right”—especially when it comes to crafting messages for new social media. One such debate revolves around the effectiveness of brands “acting like people” through their messaging and social interaction with consumers.

This act of humanizing brands isn’t referring to dishonest and unethical measures, but rather transparent attempts to communicate the brand in a manner that is approachable and relatable to people. To be honest, this concept has always seemed like an inherently good idea to me; in fact, I have been preached to about the importance of portraying personality through brand messaging by several class speakers and at just about every industry conference I’ve ever attended. Countless articles have been written on the subject, including a great one I read at Forbes.com by Britt Peterson, Director of Growth Strategy at Cole & Weber United, called It's Time Brands Started Acting More Like People.

I didn’t even know there was support for the opposing side of this issue until coming across an article last week on AdAge.com titled No, Brands Aren't People—and Consumers Don't Want Them to Be by Corey Mull. To defend his stance against the humanization of brands, Mull reached for stats from a CEB study that stated, “only 23% of consumers have brand relationships—and they are already fans of the brand in question. The rest aren't interested in a relationship, regardless of whether they like a brand or not.” Instead of striving for humanity, Mull insists that brands should focus on simplifying noise, achieving long-term goals and staffing effectively.

I’m not so sure I agree with Mull’s position, and I feel that the support for his argument is rather weak. Once I scrolled down to the comments, I soon found that I was not alone in this. Commenter Emmelie De La Cruz of Washington, DC, for one, made this good point: “Brands are not human, but they take on human traits such as honesty, openness and humor. (At least the good ones do.) As consumers in a social era, many want to be able to relate to brands in a similar way that we relate to people.”

As another commenter, Sean Hazell of Toronto, ON, wrote, “Consumers are well aware that brands aren't people.” But this awareness does not necessarily mean that they are not receptive to more “human” communications. I believe that this approach helps brands effectively convey personality, reflect their values and most importantly, make a connection with people. 

Child's Play

This semester marks the beginning of my thesis research, and as I start to sift through the thousands of articles written on the subject of gender representations in advertising and other media, I find that much of it concludes with a negative outlook on the current state of affairs for both sexes. But every once in a while—today being one of those special days—I will come across a piece that’s a bit more optimistic.

The title of an article featured today on AdAge.com asks the question, “Why Do Boys and Girls Have Similar Interests, But Very Different Toys?” In this article, writer Maureen Morrison provides and analyzes data from a recent global study conducted by the agency Marketing Store Worldwide called "The New Definition of Childhood,” in which more than 4,000 children across the world between the ages of six and 12 with access to the Internet were surveyed on the topic of toys.

The study found that the popularity and ownership of traditional gender-specific toys, such as dolls and construction sets, still skewed about how one would guess—with a much higher preference among girls and a much higher preference among boys, respectively. And these results were fairly consistent across the 12 countries involved in the research study.

However, the survey findings also revealed that all around the world, boys and girls are progressively participating in the same activities and sharing in many of the same interests. Electronics and gaming were found to be highly popular among children of either gender, so the unearthing of this information begs Morrison’s question, “why are there still such huge gaps in toys globally? (Morrison, 2012).”

While the article continues to quote marketers who cite poor product development in the toy industry to be at fault for this phenomenon, I felt it failed to also address the lack of evolution in toy advertising over the last few decades. Sure, providing girls with the option to get it in pink sounds like a surefire strategy, but if there is anything I have already learned in my thesis research, it’s that advertising does have a significant effect on the assignment of gender roles—especially at a young age.

So what’s my solution you ask? I do feel that product development is necessary in order to make certain toys appeal to both genders, but advertisements should strive to show both boys and girls at play and finding enjoyment in the experience, instead of the old method of relying on feminine and masculine cues—like a gratuitous presence of pink or a “tough” appearance—to assure each group that their interaction with the toy is socially acceptable.

I say let kids be kids and find their own way in life with what they like. Besides, they have the rest of their lives to feel the pressure of being “men” and “women.” And I say this because sadly, toys are just one in a sea of products that continue to be advertised to genders in an adverse manner. 

Communications Cousins

While I still subscribe to the opinion that advertising and public relations are rather different from each other, I was surprised to discover that their planning processes are actually pretty similar.

Both advertising campaign plans and PR plans grow out of the client’s mission statement and overall company goals. The realization of these goals elicits certain business objectives, achievable through strategies carried out via specific tactics. Just like an advertiser can’t simply “have a good idea” for an ad or promotion without it reinforcing the values, goals and business objectives of the client, PR activities must also be supported in the same way.

However, I’m finding that PR planning gets slightly more complicated with its additional consideration of multiple audiences. In my formal advertising education, I have always been taught that the best ad campaigns target a single, defined audience, to whom all communications are directed. While a client can run several campaigns simultaneously appealing to different target audiences, each is a separate planning process among which the key insight will usually significantly differ.

PR planning, though, must address all relevant parties under the umbrella of each objective and communicate to each as appropriate. It’s a slightly different approach in the fact that this process occurs all in one plan. But the more I think about it, the two still are not all that unlike each other.

I suppose the major difference (and the reason I love advertising) is the manner in which it is considered acceptable for each to convey their messages. Devices like hyperbole aren’t necessarily acceptable in the realm of PR communications, and it’s blatantly biased and persuasive techniques like this one that make being an advertising copywriter so much fun. (Not to say you PR people don’t have fun, too! It’s just a different kind of fun.)