Obama’s one-word equity
I was thinking about the business implications of the Obama juggernaut the other day when a friend said to me, “I can’t think of the word ‘hope’ any more without thinking of the guy.’” Something about that comment stuck in my head.Then this afternoon, I was going through some piles of clippings and ran across a column by Maurice Saatchi in which he lays out his theory of “one-word equity”:
“What I am describing here is a new business model for marketing, appropriate to the digital age. In this model, companies compete for global ownership of one word in the public mind. In this new business model, companies seek to build one-word equity – to define the characteristic they most want instantly associated with their brand around the world, and then own it. That is one-word equity.”If any politician, let alone any company, has ever established “global ownership of one word in the public mind,” it’s Obama’s seemingly permanent grip on “hope.” Whatever your politics, you must agree that’s an amazing accomplishment — especially for a guy who five years ago was a state senator.
Chris on June 11, 2008
I think I may have to disagree a bit on this one. I don’t think any one person or company can ‘own’ these words. (Of course the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and World Intellectual Property Organization are filled with attempts to do just that!) The difference here is that words like ‘hope’ and ‘change’ aren’t unique but rather genericized and in that way belong to the public domain and not a person or company. Never the less, these words are certainly powerful mantels/mantra for politicians given the energy and emotion behind these words. Companies too try and monopolize or brand words as their own (When I say ‘Truck’ or ‘Tough’ what do you think?). In politics, when it comes to ‘hope’ I still think of Bill Clinton, “The man from Hope (Arkansas)”. Now when I think of ‘change’ I think of Obama. But all these words transcend their current holders in the zeitgeist. Think about the word- Japan or phrase, “Made in Japan”. In the 70′s most people thought- junk, in the 80′s- cheap, and now- technology and innovation!
With all due respect to M. Saatchi, I don’t think this is new or driven by the digital age but rather a continuation on the standard practice of building simple and powerful brands that are relevant and immediately relatable to people (especially customers!). For some fun with this (and perhaps Noah could do it with political candidates and not just brands!) check out- http://www.brandtags.net/ (H/T Gareth Kay and Noah Brier).
Peace and get out and vote!
Richard Sullivan on June 11, 2008
The one-word equity may not be something that lasts forever but if someone, some group, or some company can grab a word out of everyday usage and make it an association of their own it is a powerful thing; and it happens all the time. I remember when the word gay meant something entirely different than it does today, not exactly meant but that word now has a one-word equity. Understand that this was a marketing strategy not just a movement. It did occur way before the digital age as did “Made in Hong Kong”, as did countless others but I think what Mr. Saatchi was keying on was that it is much easier to do now. Maybe it is not necessarily easier in the digital age because you have the access to a clip on youtube, a decent website, and some well designed graphics. Maybe it is easier now because of the way media has been cut down to such small slices, from 60 second ads to 30 second ads, 15 second ads, 5 second ads means that we are more programmed to be more receptive to allowing a snippet or word to be re-associated. Frankly it may not even take that much effort and can and has been done on local levels without the huge resources. In the past it took either a lot of personal exposure “Made in Hong Kong” (and a bit of xenophobia) or a lot of rallies and a communal focus “gay” to accomplish it. I also believe people may be a little reluctant to name their child Katrina for a while.
As an example of how I believe we have become more likely to be receptive to this process, not even a word, but a letter developed one-letter equity. A “W” on a bumper sticker accomplished it rather quickly.
Chris on June 11, 2008
Some great thoughts Richard! I like your “W” one-letter equity example and it touches on my thought that the “one-word equity” idea is just too simplistic.
For example, I’m sure most Americans when they see those “W” bumper stickers (or the ones crossed out!) will translate that in a similar way- George W. Bush.
But, here is the challenge… now that you have an association with the word or symbol relating to your product or person what does it ‘mean’ to folks? What emotions/behaviors does it elicit from them?
Are you happy when you see a W? Angry? Don’t care?
Knowing and controlling this, as well as uniqueness (no more value in ‘Kleenex’), makes all the difference be it for brand, product, or persona.
Brad Hutchings on June 12, 2008
How is Barrack Obama’s “hope” in 2008 different from Bill Clinton’s “change” in 1992?
Venkat on June 13, 2008
If you think about it, isn’ the Google AdWords model of bidding for specific terms a non-brand left-brained counterpart to the right-brained “own a word” in the sense of a design high concept? In AdWords, you own the word in the sense of its use in the deep data-mining and analytics that run our world’s communication infrastructure today.
And it goes the other way too. Half the world still says ‘get me a xerox of that’ as opposed to ‘get me a copy of that.’ I work for Xerox, and we actually have PR policies to discourage that… a case of a brand-word being category-defining in such a powerful way that the original owner loses control
Jason Bedunah on June 14, 2008
Saatchi might have said this recently but Jack Trout and Al Ries have been talking about it and helping companies achieve it for a VERY LONG time…
Their book Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind. The original Positioning articles were published in Advertising Age in 1972.
Here is the definition of Positioning, according to Al Ries:
“Positioning is not what you do to the product; it’s what you do to the mind of the prospect. It’s how you differentiate your brand in the mind. Positioning compensates for our overcommunicated society by using an oversimplified message to cut through the clutter and get into the mind. Positioning focuses on the perceptions of the prospect not on the reality of the brand.”
In almost every case the goal is to own a single word in the mind. Volvo=Safety is one of the most common and clear examples.
~ Jason ~
http:/www.bigcashcopy.com
P.S. That Saatchi site might be the worst designed site I’ve ever seen.
Abraham Lincoln Owusu on June 24, 2008
Yes, I think I agree with Richard Sullivan In today’s digital world, “Change” is key. Obama’s “Hope” is good in every facet of life, if people do not realize the need for cahnge, hopes provides nothing but empty promises.
T
Andrew on July 23, 2008
Single words can be quite powerful in all sorts of different ways…. even a single letter
I’m writing with a group of people from around the globe on just that and some great conversations are happening. http://www.bigwordsforsmallbusines.com
M&C Satchi … what a debacle.
They forgot their customer in amongst all that me me me , we we we Imagine they were going out to a meal with you how boring and self centered.