What's the word?

What is Lord Maurice Saatchi up to now? 

Just months after dismissing the effectiveness of search for driving brands and business (because, "people do not know what they want until a brilliant person shows them" -- so let's heavy up those spot buys because we advertising execs are just brilliant enough to show the little people what they really want), he is revisiting a concept that he hatched about a year ago.  In short, the idea is that every brand has the opportunity and the obligation to distill their essence down to one word - and only one word - that they must "own" globally, forever (presumably by hammering home the connection between the brand and the chosen word in lots and lots of mass media advertising.)

He must really believe in this notion because now M&C Saatchi (not to be confused with Saatchi & Saatchi) is spinning out a division, called One Word Equity, to specialize in helping brands find and own their one word.  Why is this important?  One Word Equity's site explains that it is a survival tactic for marketers looking to break through rising clutter and connect with "digital natives" - those pesky new consumers under the age of 30 who are so wrapped up in multitasking and social media and media snacking that they can't even make the time to pay attention to our advertising.  They can't absorb all the information that advertisers are delivering (can't or won't?) so we need to dumb it down.  Hunh?  It would appear to me that digital natives are better equipped to deal with the rising cacophony of digital chatter.  The fact that they are ignoring and/or actively screening out unwanted ad messages is our problem not theirs -- and shouting out the same word over and over seems like a strange way to address the problem.

On top of that, the premise behind one word equity (the concept and the company) relies on a faulty notion that your "one word" and my "one word" for a brand will be the same.  No matter how much you invest in ad messages trumpeting your brand essence, the consumer (though they may be influenced by what you tell them) will always define your brand in their own terms.  Is McDonald's "hamburgers", "fast", "food", "convenient," "consistent," "delicious" or even "unhealthy?"  Or is it simply "McDonald's" (in which case, they'd be foolish to hire and agency to tell them that?)  At the end of the day, it depends on each indviduals point of view -- which is impacted by a bevy of factors including experience, demographics, psychographics, behaviors, geography, your friends POVs and more -- doesn't it?  And doesn't the essence of any brand evolve over time?  To dismiss these realities seems insulting to both consumers and to the brands themselves.

If being all things to all people is an unreasonable approach in this age of increased fragmentation and the rising power of the niche, isn't trying to be just one thing to all people just as unreasonable?

As an aside, I think it's telling that this agency devoted to the (in my opinion ridiculous) concept that brand essence (a complicated thing) can be distilled to a single word that should resonate with everyone, everywhere is, itself, seemingly incapable to doing so for it's own brand-- even their company name clocks in at three whole words and nowhere on their hopelessly convoluted web site do they ever come out and says, "our word is _ _ _ _ _ _ _."

Maybe their one word is "clueless."

This post was prompted by a note and post from Karl Long. So thanks Karl for giving me something to rant about today. :-)

Related posts: Deborah Schultz and Jon Burg.