A rose by any other name would not smell as sweet to Rachel, and definitely not to Rosemary

A few years ago, by what I considered at the time to be an interesting fluke, I, Martin John Bishop, managed the MJB coffee brand. According to new work reported in Kellogg Insight, this was not a fluke. It was destiny!

In yet another example that we humans are just completely hopeless really, a team of marketing academics has shown that your name can influence your everyday choices and even life-shaping decisions. As Professor Miguel Brendl, one of the authors of the research says: “It’s a bizarre idea, but your liking for the letters of your name, which is really driven by your liking for yourself, might spill over to objects and influence your choices.”

A series of four studies show that it is not a coincidence that Marks and Marshas prefer a Mars bar to a Snickers bar when stressed or hungry or that women named Louise are disproportionately likely to move to Louisiana. The phenomenon is being called name-letter branding.

The theory: The idea is that positive self-esteem translates into people's preference for letters that are in their name. When asked to rate their liking of letters in the alphabet, people consistently chose letters in their own name. This letter-liking can be strong enough that it can transfer to objects that include the same letters. The transfer emerges under two main conditions: when people experience a strong need for the product or when they need to boost their self-esteem.

The research: In one experiment, people's self-esteem was threatened by asking them to write about an aspect of themselves they would like to change. This threat made people look for ways to feel more positive about themselves and this led 64% of those tested to prefer a tea whose name shared the first three letters of their name (e.g. Jonathans preferred Jonoki to Elioki). In another experiment, the researchers found that preferences for the name-letter brand were boosted when respondents were prompted to rely on their intuition rather than reasons.

The implications: “Even though, as you can imagine, the name-letter effect is not very strong and only works when people trust their feelings,” says Brendl, “it can have interesting implications for managers. For instance, it can be applied when choosing a name for a product aimed at a well-defined segment of customers, such as early adopters. It could also be useful for direct mailers, who can use different names to sign their sales pitches.” And, as Brendle points out, “name-letter branding should be particularly relevant when dealing with business categories related to ego, such as beauty, sports, and luxury products.”

As I read this research, I thought about a recent post from Landor colleague, Mich Bergesen (note the initials) talking about the "i-convention" and the trend towards everything being named "i"-this and "i"-that. The convention continues to be popular even though it's already past what may have been thought to be a sensible limit because it so perfectly expresses human nature. "No matter what era we were born in, it seems we are all part of the iGeneration—it truly is all about us." Instead of name-letter branding, the i-phenomenon took it up one level.

Meanwhile, back in the Bishop household, which still has some MJB golf balls, coffee cups and other tchochkes sales-driving premiums from the coffee management era, this research may explain our rediscovered appetite for fondue. It's made by Emmi, all the letters of our 6-year old daughter's name.
Research Source:
Brendl, C. Miguel, Amitava Chattopadhyay, Brett W. Pelham, and Mauricio Carvallo. 2005. “Name-Letter Branding: Valence Transfer When Product Specific Needs Are Active.” Journal of Consumer Research, 32: 405-415.

How annoying are you, Facebook friend?

Photo: Jason Tester (Flickr)

Peter Hartlaub, the San Francisco Chronicle's Pop Culture Critic, just joined Facebook. He's a little late to the party but he's made up for it by coming out with a list of nine friend stereotypes and given each an "Annoyance Factor" score. His original list has now been supplemented by reader suggestions. Some of the friend types that resonated with me (but which, of course, don't apply to me or any of my friends) are:

The TMI: The friend who wants to share every piece of information about "his seemingly pointless life: John Doe is tired of working ... John Doe is going to the grocery store to get some kiwis ... John Doe just cleaned the bathroom. On to the kitchen!" Annoyance Factor : 100

The Friend Addict: "This is the Facebook equivalent of one of those crazy ladies who gets declared a public nuisance because she has too many cats in her home. Even though this Facebooker only knows 47 people, he/she managed to accumulate 786 friends - mostly by going through other people's profiles and friending perfect strangers." Annoyance Factor: 28

The Compulsive Gifter: "Every day, they find yet a new way to send cyber-tchotchkes to all their friends. Look on the bright side, though - at least you don't have to dust the Grateful Dead Bears or Hatching Eggs."

The Tweeter: "who has her twitter updates tied to her Facebook status. Her friends face an incessant barrage of cryptic microblogs. The 140-character tweet limit is the only thing that keeps her annoyance factor below 50."

The I Work Out More Than You: ""Stephie just got back from yoga" "Stephie just got back from running" "Stephie just got back from salsa" "Stephie just got back from salsa and yoga and is tired" "Stephie just got back doing salsa, yoga and running." Annoyance factor 100, unfriend."

The Always Tired and Busy: "According to their constant status updates, this friend is constantly tired and/or busy. But so is pretty much everyone. Annoyance factor: 100"

As marketers, is there anything else can we do with this insight over and above reading it for entertainment?

Feed me: The never-ending need for content.

Remember Audrey II from the Little Shop of Horrors? It's the plant that feeds on human blood and wants to take over the world.

For marketers there is a little bit of Audrey about social media. It's a little intimidating, a little bit out of control and it has a voracious appetite. But since it has mainly succeeded in taking over the world, marketers are having to learn how to deal with this particular monster opportunity.

One problem for marketers is that they have not typically been making the right kind of "blood." This Audrey feeds on rich content and is not going to settle for a diet of "whiter than white," functionally-based fare. That stuff's not digestible--it's not something you can really have a conversation about.

The marketers that are making the most headway are those that have found a way to "ladder up" from a pure functional benefit into something that can be expressed in a way that transcends function.

Perhaps the best-known example of a brand climbing up the ladder is Dove, launched by Unilever back in 1957 as a beauty bar. Its functional benefit is that it does not dry out your skin (proof point: because it's not soap). An important and differentiating benefit but a bit of a yawner from a social media perspective. But once the connection was made between Dove's roots as a beauty bar and current stereotypes about beauty, that opened up a new way to talk about the brand, one that is relevant to the social media space. The video, Evolution, that showed the time-lapsed face of a young woman transformed by cosmetics and Photoshop techniques into drop-dead gorgeous was a YouTube smash hit, watched around 10 million times.

Not all brands have the same potential to ladder up or can ladder up so far. Commodity brands that lack any differentiating raw material, for example, may struggle. Brands that are just the "biggest" or the "cheapest" may be similarly challenged. But for many brands, it will be possible to take that kernel of differentiation and turn into something that will be a real tasty morsel.

Links:
1) Brand Digital (Chapter 2: The Importance of Relevant Differentiation): Allen Adamson
2) My Contagious Interview: Grant McCracken
3) Want to beat up the Dove? Take a ticket: Brand Mix

My ridiculous Subway experience

So, the other day I went into Subway for lunch. I was waiting in a long line facing a dilemma: 6 inches or 12 inches? 6 inches being too small requiring me to also order chips and a cookie that I don't really want but 12 inches being too much.

So, as I waited, I started wondering why it was I couldn't order 9 inches which is what I really want. And realized that that wouldn't work because Subway only makes 12 inch loaves so they can't offer a 9 inch option because no-one would want the other 3 inch bit and they'd have to throw it away.

But then, I thought, as the line came to a screeching halt as some idiot ordered food for the whole office, why couldn't they make 18 inch loaves? Then they could offer 6, 9 and 12 inch choices. And I'd be happy and go there more often. But then I noticed that the ovens that look like they are only designed to hold 12 inch loaves.

And that's what I was thinking when it was my turn to order. I went with the 12 inch Pastrami (no onions), ate the whole thing, felt uncomfortably full and decided the whole episode was bloggable. And then I found this.

Well, let me tell you Mr. Smarty-Pants deSoto, it's going to take more than something like that to stop me sharing my important sandwich experiences and insights with my readers. They need to know!