my turn

Commentary

The Fallacy Of The Low-Involvement Category

As the fourth quarter came to its close, brand marketers were reflecting on their successes and failures over the past year. Some will have overachieved and others will invent excuses. I always enjoy the debate when a marketer, often seeking an excuse for poor brand performance, will say the category has “low involvement.” The argument generally centers on the perceived difficulty in connecting with a target consumer who is too busy or distracted by more enticing product offerings to pay any mind to that category, let alone that brand. Certainly, there are more captivating forms of entertainment than the typical digital banner or print ad, but I’m not buying the low-involvement category argument at all.

There are plenty of examples of brands that have found engaging ways to connect with consumers, despite living in categories that don’t tend to leap into casual conversation at cocktail parties. All it takes is three key ingredients:

  • a meaningful consumer insight
  • a desired brand benefit
  • a compelling narrative

advertisement

advertisement

Just ask the little green lizard that informs us “a 15-minute phone call could save us 15% or more on car insurance.” Few product categories are as dry as insurance, but it is a huge industry where brands must differentiate from each other to drive preference and enrollment. GEICO gets it; it has a clear brand benefit – saving 15% or more on car insurance. They have a meaningful consumer insight – it’s a pain to switch insurance, but if it only takes 15 minutes, it could be worth it. As for narrative, they’ve found numerous humorous ways to tell the story so it remains fresh, whether through the Gecko, the cavemen or another campaign. In fact, GEICO’s ads are so entertaining and camp that the brand now offers mobile ringtones and wallpaper for their biggest brand fans. And they have forced their competitors to invest in highly engaging campaigns of their own, all the while selling insurance.

Another brand that does this brilliantly is Axe. Although the brand now offers body wash and hair care products, it began life as a deodorant spray. Certainly, deodorant was not a category that garnered a tremendous amount of discussion, debate or interest beyond the basic needs of personal hygiene. The impressive growth of the Axe brand is due to their ability to transcend the typical category benefits of reducing odor and wetness by connecting deeply with young men striving for sexual confidence and offering them a exciting brand benefit – the Axe effect – in highly engaging, humorous, often irreverent ways.

While GEICO and Axe both use humor in their marketing communication, this is not the magic bullet to drive brand engagement. Many brands have found successful routes to break through the clutter and reach people without trying to be funny. To illustrate perhaps the farthest end of the spectrum, take Livestrong, the charitable organization that works to improve the lives of people affected by cancer.

While no one would claim that this work is low-involvement, the fact remains that there are many worthy charitable organizations competing for resources, and often ones tied to current events, such as natural disasters, garner the headlines and stimulate engagement. Livestrong has grown into a leading organization with a clear brand mission by demonstrating that people with cancer can thrive. It built its brand by creating a “badge” – the yellow wristband that was so cool it became trendy – that signifies involvement and propagates further discussion. Naturally, Lance Armstrong being the celebrity spokesman adds dimension to their narrative, but Livestrong will remain strong, long after Lance is replaced.

What ties GEICO, Axe and Livestrong together is the winning formula of three key ingredients: a meaningful consumer insight, a desired brand benefit, and a compelling narrative. It is these things that drive brands to connect with consumers, no matter what product category it lives in. Evidence that, in fact, that every category can be “high-involvement” if marketers mix the right elements together in an inspiring way.

3 comments about "The Fallacy Of The Low-Involvement Category".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. David Nasser from Georgia 'State University, January 11, 2012 at 10:26 a.m.

    Great article, insightful and realistic. I would only take issue with a small point...the idea that "every category can be high involvement." I think that your examples demonstrate, rather, that there are high involvement brands even in low involvement categories. And, the reasons you give for that are spot-on.

  2. Bruce Levinson from SGK, January 11, 2012 at 1:40 p.m.

    Thanks for the nice comments, David. And I can see your point about brands versus categories. Either way, it seems we both agree to the potential of brands no matter what category they sit in.

  3. Michael Baer from TechCXO, January 12, 2012 at 11:42 a.m.

    Nice article, Bruce. We used to say, "there are no low-interest categories, only low-interest brands". In addition to what you've pointed out, having a "brand purpose" helps raise a brand above the low-involvement mush. Take a peek at an article I wrote in yesterday's TalentZoo - http://www.talentzoo.com/news/Purpose-Marketing-for-Today-s-New-Normal/12743.html

Next story loading loading..