As a child in the 1970s, with all the grazes you pick up at friends’ and extended family’s houses, my world divided into Savlon families and Germolene families.
We were a family of the gentler-smelling Savlon. To me, that alien medical-smelling pink Germolene was never quite the homely soothing I wanted, however kindly applied by friends’ parents.
(BTW, the Germolene smell is mainly oil of wintergreen, and phenol which you’ll recognise in TCP and very peaty whiskies like Ardbeg or Bruichladdich.)
I had this clear idea that you were either a Savlon family or a Germolene family but never both. But both antiseptic creams did much the same job, so what was that about?
The other day, as I put some Savlon, AKA Magic Cream, on a mysteriously throbbing toe (it helped) I decided to put my childhood theory to the test as an adult. I put a poll up on Twitter.
Turns out I wasn’t far wrong with my childhood theory – only 18 of the 361 respondents (5%) used both brands.
That got me thinking about brands that polarize consumers. The polarizing attributes of a brand and the people you associate with them, the way they speak to us and the words they use, the advertising and PR they produce. The products and their polarizing smell, colour and packaging and the psychological associations they evoke.
I think (but not 100% certain) it was Gary Hamel who talked to me, early in my career, about companies that deliberately set themselves up in opposition to another – usually a larger and more established incumbent. This is in part to set out their stall as definitively ‘not like the other’. I remember also discussing its strategic cousin – deliberately polarizing consumers so they self-select and more strongly identify with the company’s brand and advocate its products.
Both techniques use polarization to define and build their brand, and attract attention.
(Gary Hamel founded Strategos, in the late 1990s. I met him on a flying visit and heard him speak when his team were working with my team at the merging insurance giants of Commercial Union, General Accident and Norwich Union, now unified as Aviva. Strategos helped us develop our ideas into what became an early business incubator, SiliconWharf, which resourced and encouraged the company’s hottest talent to launch and scale finance- and insurance-related start-ups from within the company. What we now call FinTech. Looking back I see how much thanks I owe to Gary Hamel and Strategos for that intense skunkworks project experience.)
Back to brands that polarize.
One of the most famous examples of one company pitching itself against an incumbent giant was Virgin Atlantic and its PR and legal battle against British Airways’ dirty tricks in the 1990s. You can read about the dirty tricks campaign here, here and here. It’s an extraordinary story.
No doubt Richard Branson would have struggled to resource his win without the commercial strength of his other Virgin businesses; his airline was tiny compared to BA. But in winning his public and righteous fight against such a huge and devious opposition, the Virgin Atlantic brand was cemented into our consciousness as the brave and meritorious upstart alternative.
That win, and the continuing strikingly confident ‘join us, we’re glorious winners’ theme of its advertising (featuring the gorgeous staff and their gorgeous designer uniforms) made the Virgin Atlantic brand. And just like Savlon v Germolene, with Virgin or BA you generally favour one or the other.
More recently, there’s Apple versus Android. Again often defined by legal battles, although these days they’re rather more esoteric patent disputes. Whilst many of us have an iPad but use an Android phone, vanishingly few of us switch from iPhone to Android, and increasingly fewer switch from Android to iPhone. You’re either one or the other. Some might say it’s a style (iPhone) over substance (Android) thing. The truth is, iPhones aren’t that awesome as phones. But the gorgeousness of the brand and the beauty of Apple’s physical product design blows away the many many phone brands using Google’s arguably superior Android operating system. Whatever, you’re generally one or the other.
Marmite took brand polarization to new heights with its enduring Love It Or Hate It advertising.
Here, as with all the greatest brands, the creative message started with the product which I and millions of others love, but maybe you and millions of others detest. So clever to boldly say, “You’re either with us or against us but not both.”
Newer brands have adopted this polarizing strategy too, to huge effect.
Brewdog, the Scottish craft beer company, brilliantly and notoriously positioned themselves, with awesome product and punk Visit postattitude, against the boring, patronising drinks industry. I’ve had first-hand dealings with that inert, self-interested patriarchy as co-founder of Blackwood’s Gin in the early noughties. The struggle is real. I judged the Bartender Awards in Australia several years ago and was gobsmacked to witness corporate bullying like this. And I wish I’d had the chutzpah to write this riposte to the Portman Group.
Similarly, crime fiction publisher Fahrenheit Press are exponents of the ‘this is who we are: you’ll either love us or you’ll hate us’ strategy, inspired by the founder’s punk roots and attitude. Communicating primarily through Twitter and email, the tone is of a gang mentality – you’re either with us or against us. It pays off. Fahrenheit only published their first book (of over 50 to date) in October 2015, but their style and substance have already made a disproportionately huge impact on the publishing industry, attracting and publishing big-name authors and launching newly discovered authors into readers’ hands with equal attention and confidence.
What all these brands achieve, with their polarizing brand strategies, is to create commercial value where there is none, and/or build value faster than most. Clever. They sustain it by sticking to their authentic values and principles. Even as success alters their P&L their attitude, marketing and positioning stay true. The brand associations in consumers’ minds become sub-conscious over time and we either love them or hate them – but we definitely know which one. There’s no ‘meh’ about these brands.
I’ve only named brands that I love in this post, but then I’m a lover not a hater. And in a weird sort of way it winds us back to the very beginning – two brands, Savlon and Germolene, owned respectively by ICI and Beechams in the 1970s. Despite being owned by these behemoths, the amusing and nostalgic replies to the Twitter poll clearly show the place these two brands have in our hearts and our memories.
https://twitter.com/demerarabird/status/803342406368247808
I’m quite impressed that my naïve childhood observation-based theory was spot on. The impact of a brand that embeds deep and lasting memories and feelings of love (or hate) is a powerful force. For consumers it becomes part of our identity; for the companies a sustainable source of growth.
PS I read this wonderful article recently, about childhood memories and how they shape us, even after we’ve forgotten them, by Erika Hayasaki. It’s absolutely fascinating.
PPS Big thanks to the 361 people who voted, the 27 people who retweeted it, and the 29 people who replied with their stories. I’m mightily tempted to write about that ‘pain is good’ thing that was so common in the 70s – remember neat TCP dabbed on with a cotton wool ball? Check out the replies (by clicking on the poll tweet near the top of this article) if you want to wallow in such memories as Dettol baths.
tarablueskyblog 