• by Sean Hargrave , Staff Writer, March 2, 2017

Are we in danger of getting a little carried away with ourselves in marketing every now and then? I don't want to seem like some dinosaur reactionary, but is it just me who thinks marketers can be a little too earnest sometimes, or at least take the public at face value, just a little too readily? Can marketers also sometimes anthropomorphize brands to a point where they step over the line between strategy and hot air?

Let me give you an example of what I mean. I was recently talking with a marketing organisation in London about how important values are and will continue to be. Consumers want brands that represent their values, and those that do not will find the future very heavy going indeed. I couldn't help butt in here because I'm always the court jester -- in the old-fashioned sense of the guy who uses humour to pick out the points that others would rather avoid.

If that were true, I reasoned aloud, then our higher notions must be that we think a retailer should lock everyone in a giant warehouse, offer no conceivable form of customer service and pretend that a DVD that has been delivered in the UK is part of a transaction that mysteriously involved the low tax regime of Luxembourg. The point is, everyone talks about these higher values and then fires up the Amazon app for a wide range of low-priced items (wouldn't they all be if the high street were in Luxembourg?) delivered free in the form of a reduced margin for some supplier we've never heard of.  

Put it another way -- when did you last buy a book, movie or stationery from WH Smith because it's a British-based company paying tax in Britain? When did you last favour Costa over Starbucks on the grounds that Costa pays its tax fair and square, it doesn't hide money overseas and then climb down by telling the tax authorities how much money it will gift them next year? When was the last time you thought it would be nicer to reward a black cab driver for doing the knowledge and walk outside in the rain to hail a cab rather than click on Uber?

I keep reading also about how brands need to have a purpose too. I get this, don't get me wrong -- but much of the time it's a pretty simple purpose to taste better, work better, cost less or last longer than a very similar rival. I think I'm tempted to call this an attribute -- a reason to buy rather than thrusting this need to have a purpose onto an inanimate object.

Marmite can do all it likes to be the spread that divides us down the middle -- I will buy it regardless of any marketing, because I love it. My wife can't even look at the stuff. No amount of purpose will change that. We pick toothpaste to appeal to the kids' taste, so they brush, not for any reason of one brand having more meaning than the other. Don't get me wrong -- I do get what brand marketers are on about, particularly for heritage brands which can appeal to our nostalgia -- every Brit will associate Bisto gravy with Sunday lunch or Persil as the detergent they now use to keep their kids' whites white, just as our parent did.

But I just thought I'd pop my head above the parapet to wonder aloud whether it's just me. Are we overstating values and purpose?

As one of the most vilified entrepreneurs underlines how accusations of slave labour conditions are not holding him back by lining up his Sports Direct chain lining up the purchase of luxury underwear brand, Agent Provocateur, it does beg a question. Are we as consumers guilty of saying one thing and then acting in another way? Do we talk up our values and then not apply those worthy considerations when shopping? And do marketers listen to much to those aspirations, those worthy intentions, just a little too much, rather than taking stock of real-life experiences?