Posts Tagged 'brand personality'

get the message?

cadbury gorilla

Simon Law shared some thoughts in response to the recent measures of success post that alluded to another interesting question:

Does advertising always need a message?

Much like ‘big ideas’, advertisers increasingly question the validity and relevance of ‘messages’.

But I believe much of that criticism is unfounded.

Every advert – and indeed, every communication – needs a message.

The issue in advertising is not the relevance of messages, but what the word ‘message‘ has come to mean.

People use it arbitrarily to mean a variety of different things: slogan, tagline, theme,…

Strictly speaking, however, it’s none of those.

Defining the term

Communication is all about exchange.

The word’s linguistic root means “to make common” – i.e. to share.

Modern definitions have evolved to encompass a slightly broader context; this is‘s perspective:

The imparting or interchange of thoughts, opinions, or information by speech, writing, or signs.

It’s clear from this that communication should always involve some kind of sharing.

And that’s where ‘messages’ come in.

Sharing what?

In an advertising context, the message is whatever we hope to share: thoughts, opinions, information, etc.

Put more simply, the message is

The subject of communication.

However, this is still a little too ambiguous.

The role of a message

We’ve seen before that the purpose of brand communication is:

To create a shared understanding between a brand and the people it wishes to influence.

In that context, the ‘subject‘ of brand communication is the understanding that we want to share.

So, fundamentally, a message is

The thing we want people to think, believe, or perceive as a result of experiencing our communications.

So why do we need one?

Some people have suggested that a ‘message’ isn’t necessary – that advertising can work perfectly well without one.

But that makes no sense.

All advertising must have a purpose: an objective that relates to the brand’s success.

Furthermore, that purpose will always involve sharing something with an audience that will influence their attitudes and / or behaviour.

So, in light of how we’ve defined ‘message‘ above, it’s logical to conclude that all advertising must have a message.

Deciding the message

Deciding exactly what that message should be is a lot more complex.

As always, the most appropriate message depends entirely on what the brand wants to achieve, and whom it’s talking to.

Let’s look at an example that many detractors cite when asserting that advertising doesn’t need a message:

I’ve heard many people suggest that ‘Gorilla‘ doesn’t have a message.

But, together with a group of very intelligent people*, I worked on the strategy that inspired Gorilla (and the subsequent ‘Trucks‘ and ‘Eyebrows‘ films), so I can confidently assert that it did have a message.

The expression of that message even appears in the clip, albeit subtly.

At the time we began development of this strategy, the Cadbury Dairy Milk brand faced an interesting dilemma: although it was still the nation’s favourite chocolate, it had become a category generic: Cadbury Dairy Milk was ‘chocolate’, and people didn’t perceive it standing for much beyond that.

Meanwhile, competitors were gaining ground with highly targeted positionings that appealed to specific audience desires.

A thorough exploration of the Cadbury Dairy Milk brand revealed that there was a generosity that ran through everything the brand did – from its cooperative roots, to the fact that Cadbury continues to use fresh milk in the production process.

Coincidentally, we already knew that the audience aspired to be more optimistic: they were tired of the constant cynicism that surrounded them, and they wanted to break free from that by surrounding themselves with more optimistic people.

We saw a relevant connection between generosity and optimism.

Then, when we reflected on the brand’s heritage of ‘a glass-and-a-half of milk in every half pound‘ (a well-known claim used in much of the brand’s historic advertising), the somewhat obvious line was too good to ignore:

See the world as a glass-and-a-half full.

The play on seeing the glass half empty versus half full is obvious: Cadbury Dairy Milk offers people an exceptionally optimistic outlook that counters the cynicism that pervades their lives.

It’s not rocket science, but then, choosing a brand of chocolate isn’t too complicated either.

I wasn’t involved in the specific development of the Gorilla film,  so can’t comment with authority, but I think the intended ‘message’ is pretty clear:

Cadbury Dairy Milk’s communications bring you a moment of optimistic joy – just like Cadbury Dairy Milk chocolate.

Simple, but very effective.


Communications always need a message: something that the brand wants its audience to understand, and that will help it achieve its objectives.

That message doesn’t need to be complex, and it doesn’t need to be expressed explicitly.

But we’ve always got to share something.

Even if that’s just a moment of joy.

*As a consultant at ascension strategy consulting, I helped to develop the proposition and subsequent positioning for the Cadbury Dairy Milk brand. Publicis were Cadbury’s agency at the time of this development, although the brand’s account subsequently moved to Fallon, who created the Gorilla film featured above.


one of a kind


KINDED is a fantastic idea – one of those rare occasions where I want to go out and try a brand just because of its communications.

It’s organised by KIND, a “not-ONLY-for-profit” brand of hand-made, all-natural snacks from Australia.

I’ll refrain from calling this a campaign, because it’s not.

Rather, it’s a wonderful way to bring the brand philosophy to life, giving KIND relevance and making the brand a welcome part of your life.

The underlying concept of this ‘movement’ is ‘ random acts of kindness’, but it adds elements of the game ‘tag‘ and features from this fascinating initiative that tracks the movements of dollar bills in the U.S.

Here’s what the brand has to say about its ‘movement’:

Ever wish you could do an incredible kind act for someone else, but can’t do it alone? The KIND team wants to help make it happen.

KINDED is a movement inspiring unexpected kind acts. These kind acts can be anything from helping someone carry heavy bags, sharing your umbrella, or paying for a stranger’s coffee.

“KINDED cards” serve as licenses to do kind acts for people who might otherwise be wary, making KINDED easy to pass on.

And since each card has a unique code and can be mapped online, you can track how far your chain of KINDING travels and view kind acts happening around the world.

They go on to explain that the KINDED cards make it easier to overcome the social awkwardness that some people associate with helping a random stranger, by acting as an ice-breaker and explanation.


At the time of writing, 719 ‘KINDINGS’ have already been performed.

You don’t need to wait for someone to pass their card to you though – you can apply for one and start a chain of your own simply by popping over to the KINDED website.

So why do I think this is such a great activity?

Firstly, the concept is very simple: it focuses entirely on sharing the brand’s philosophy.

That may seem a narrow objective, but I now know exactly what the brand stands for – what makes it different, and why I should be interested. And that’s enough to make me want to try it.

Secondly, there’s no need for people to buy anything. It sees the world from the audience’s perspective, overcoming the “I know you’re trying to sell me something, so why should I even pay attention?” factor.

But most of all, this activity will bring joy and warmth to people’s lives – it will make people happy.

That’s powerful ‘CSR‘ that will inspire conversations, PR coverage, awareness, and goodwill.

All in all, a highly engaging communications proposition.


Thanks so much to Springwise for the pointer. Images ‘borrowed’ from the KINDED website. And no, as far as I’m aware, I have no connection of any kind to KIND – I just think this is a great way to build a brand.

differentiating brands

stand out from the crowd

One of marketing’s key tasks is differentiation: helping a brand to stand out from the crowd of other options.

There are many different ways to differentiate a brand, but there is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answer; it’s simply a case of understanding what works best for your brand and the kinds of people you want to attract.

Rob has a great introduction to differentiation techniques on his semantic argument blog, so I thought I’d share some additional thoughts on aspects of the marketing mix you might want to explore when expressing what sets your brand apart. I’ve tried to make it as straightforward as possible, to ensure it’s accessible to those without a strong marketing background.

I don’t pretend that it’s a comprehensive guide to the topic, but together with Rob’s posts and other web resources, it should at least provide some useful stimulus when it comes to defining or sharpening your differentiation.

Price Differentiation

This is the most basic form of differentiation, although there are a few variations on the theme:

Super Discount

Differentiation based on being the cheapest. It’s clear to see why it appeals to consumers, but it’s a cul-de-sac for the brand: ever-eroding profit margins and constant compromises on quality make it difficult to sustain.

Highest Price

People sometimes use price as a proxy for determining ‘quality’, particularly in complex or technical categories. This technique interprets that insight to suggest that a high price is actually desirable in certain circumstances.

This is particularly true in the pharmaceutical and child-care categories, where brands often play on people’s fears of the perceived ‘compromise’ they associate with cheaper brands.

It is also a favourite technique amongst luxury brands, who use exaggerated pricing to transform their offerings into status symbols and badges of wealth and success.

Mid Point

Adopting a price point that lies between the prices of existing competitors establishes a safe, ‘middle-of-the-road’ positioning that neither offends nor excites anyone. It appeals to people who want to compromise, and as a consequence, it rarely delivers meaningful differentiation.

Quantifiable Superiority

The brand differentiates its offering via measurable attributes, e.g.:

The speed of a computer processor
The amount of legroom on an airline
The number of years a malt whisky has been aged

This approach works well for brands that can deliver superior functional performance over time.

However, the brand risks losing its differentiation if another brand can deliver similar or superior performance, or if another brand succeeds in changing the basis for comparison to a different product or brand attribute.

It’s worth noting that brands can celebrate any attribute they choose, regardless of whether that attribute contributes significantly to its offering’s core performance, provided it can justify the relevance of that attribute.

There are a few variations on the Quantifiable Superiority approach:

Size Matters

This approach focuses on a comparative maximum or minimum of size, irrespective of how this impacts actual value – i.e. quantity over quality:

The hotel with the most rooms
The cable plan with the most channels
The smallest phone on the market

A parallel to this is the ‘blanket advertising’ approach, where the brand attempts to differentiate by shouting as loudly as it can, so that people simply can’t ignore it.

These approaches are neither pretty nor  subtle – they are the marketing equivalent of a man measuring his appendage – but their use is still widespread.

However, such popularity does not denote effectiveness.

Safety in Numbers

This approach harnesses the ‘herd instinct’, using rational claims to overcome more subjective concerns:

“Millions of satisfied customers can’t be wrong”
“The nation’s favourite”
“We work with more Fortune 500 brands than any of our competitors”

This works well in categories where measures of performance are more subjective; where people aren’t sure what really matters; or where competing brands emphasise a variety of unconnected attributes.

Interestingly, brands can also harness the opposite approach – ‘small for a reason’ – to equal effect, e.g.:

“For those who know the difference”
“Think different”
“Go your own way”

This is ultimately a volume limiting strategy, but the approach supports premium pricing that can offset lower unit sales.


The places where you make your brand available will play a strong part in establishing and reinforcing your positioning. However, distribution can also be used as a differentiation strategy in its own right.

Brands like Avon, Tupperware, and even Dell managed to break free from the traditional confines of their categories by making their brands available through new and relevant channels.

There are two broad routes to differentiated distribution:

Wherever, whenever

Although it may not the key pillar of the brand’s differentiation, this approach is most famously adopted by Coke, with their ‘always within arm’s reach‘ philosophy. Quick-service restaurants and mobile communications networks often emphasise it too.

It requires considerable commitment to introduce and maintain, and it’s fairly obvious if the brand doesn’t  achieve it (“they’re everywhere, except when I need them!”).

However, when implemented successfully, it creates ‘monopoly through ubiquity’; although it might not be a person’s favourite brand, they will continue to choose it because it’s always there when others aren’t.


Conversely, restricting the supply and availability of your brand can help to make it more desirable, particularly in categories like luxury and ‘gadget’ technology.

It can work well for high-quality brands if used in conjunction with other approaches – notably highest price –  but basing an entire differentiation strategy on restricted availability will most likely just frustrate people and accelerate the brand’s demise.


This approach plays on the belief that longevity is a reliable indication of experience and trustworthiness; e.g.:

“Established in 1823”
“A family recipe handed down over the generations”
“The original…”

Although not as extreme, this approach suffers from issues similar to Safety in Numbers: it is very effective in situations where people don’t know much about the category, or where it’s difficult to compare competitor claims, but it loses its advantage as soon as a competitor establishes a more compelling basis for comparison.

Rational Advantage

The brand demonstrates or claims superiority through a rational benefit of its offering, e.g.:

Saves you time
“Won’t let you down”
Simple enough for anyone to use

This approach shifts the focus from the functional attribute to the benefit that the attribute delivers, but it suffers from risks similar to those associated with the Quantifiable Superiority approach, and consequently may not be sustainable.

Augmented Product

Effectively a derivative of the Rational Advantage approach, this approach highlights advantages offered by features other than the core product, e.g.:

The purchase experience
After-sales support
Distribution or delivery

When used correctly, these features become more important than the product offering itself, and help to establish deep and lasting relationships with the brand’s customers.

Outstanding Promotion

Although common and seemingly attractive, this approach is highly risky, because it encourages people to focus on superficial aspects of the brand that have little to do with the product’s core benefit.

While this may be acceptable in spontaneous, low-risk purchase categories such as snacks, it is rarely sustainable elsewhere.

However, attractive packaging, beautiful merchandising, and slick advertising all help to solicit attention that enables the brand to introduce more complex or substantial dimensions of differentiation.

The Secret Formula, or Magic Ingredient

This approach bridges functional and emotional claims by harnessing what could be termed ‘irrational functional’ claims:

“A formula known only to 3 people in the world”
“With patented compound Q16e”
“A secret blend of 11 unique herbs and spices”

Brands that have used this approach to varying degrees of success include KFC, Kellogg’s Frosties, as well as numerous cosmetics brands.

When it harnesses a relevant truth, or is executed with appropriate humour, this approach can be highly engaging.

However, beware of relying on shallow claims, particularly in relation to pseudo-science; while you may fool people for a short while, if people discover or perceive that your brand is all ‘hot air’, you won’t have any equity left.

Implied Superiority

Exaggerating or downplaying other elements of the marketing mix can infer superiority on the product itself.

We’ve already seen how outstanding promotion or unexpectedly high pricing work, but downplaying such elements can also work when carefully implemented:

Purposely bland packaging in a category where extravagance is the norm
A well kept secret – the specialist connoisseur’s brand
“We don’t need to advertise; this product sells itself”

This approach can afford high margins, but is not without risk.

In particular, it suffers from the ‘emperor’s new clothes’ dilemma: it works brilliantly provided there’s real substance behind the exaggeration.

Subjective Superiority

The brand asserts its superiority based on subjective measures that are difficult to measure:

“Best-tasting brand”
“Probably the best lager in the world”
“If your pet could choose, they would buy this brand”

This approach is often carefully controlled by law to prevent misleading advertising.

However, provided the brand stays within relevant guidelines, and as long as the execution fits clearly with the brand’s overall personality, it can successfully engage audiences.

It seems particularly effective when used with irreverent humour.

Emotional Appeals

The brand highlights how it makes you feel, rather than what it does:

“Open happiness”
“A glass and a half full of joy”

This is an exceptionally powerful route to differentiation, because it allows the brand to break free from the limitations associated with functional product features, and instead focus on areas that foster more enduring bonds.

The brand can emphasise any emotion it likes, but those emotions that people commonly associate with the product’s functional benefits are often the simplest to establish.

It’s worth noting that brands can still gain an advantage over competitors by harnessing emotions that are generic to the category, provided they are the first or most credible claimants.

Flattery and Justification

This approach is more of an advertising technique than a unique differentiating approach, but deserves mention due to its ability to engage specific groups:

“Because you’re worth it”
“You deserve it”
“Go on, indulge yourself”

There are many variations on this theme, but they all pander to some sense of inner insecurity.

Although not particularly subtle, this approach can establish a deep bond, and is therefore worthy of consideration.

Affinity Plays

This approach is more about establishing a differentiated brand personality than it is about demonstrating tangible product differentiation.

The simplest approach is to highlight things that the brand has in common with the people it wants to engage – just as people who are meeting for the first time do. This is one of the main uses of sponsorship: brands attempt to connect with people by demonstrating shared ‘passions’.

A more difficult, yet potentially more engaging approach is to create a new focus for people’s attention. Red Bull has employed this strategy for a number of years, and has enjoyed considerable success with activities such as its Flugtag and Air Race events.

Despite their simplicity, Affinity Plays are difficult to implement successfully, because it’s very easy for the brand to come across as a me-too brand that’s trying too hard.

However, brands that succeed enjoy lasting success, because they establish meaningful relationships with people beyond the tangible and functional qualities of their products.

The key is to demonstrate early and lasting commitment to the area of focus; arriving late to the party makes it much more difficult for the brand to establish credibility.

The Choice Of…

A slight variation on Affinity Plays, this approach highlights the choices of people or groups that the brand believes its target feel an affinity towards.

It builds affinity by association:

By appointment to the Queen
George Clooney’s choice
The choice of a new generation

The approach is similar to Safety in Numbers, but emphasises emotional appeals over measures of sheer magnitude or volume.

Further thoughts

Many brands  combine a number of these approaches in order to establish and express their differentiation.

However, it’s often better to focus on one principal dimension at the outset, because it makes it easier for people to understand what makes your brand different and special.

Don’t forget that competitors won’t stand still either – as you define your differentiation and change market dynamics, so competitors will change their approach. Consequently, the task is never complete: you’ve got to keep building and reinforcing it.

Above all, remember that differentiation takes time. It isn’t a ‘campaign’ job – you’ve got to live it and demonstrate it in everything you do.

As I mentioned earlier, this is by no means an exhaustive guide, so I’ll pass the baton on.

What’s missing? What would you add or remove?

The comments section is waiting for your thoughts and feedback.

blessed be the brand

ATM duilian

PSFK featured this ethnographic gem a couple of weeks back, as captured by Jan Chipchase of Nokia.

The red images either side of this new ATM in Tibet bless all transactions that pass through the machine.

Out of context, this might seem quite insignificant, but by harnessing local culture and traditions, the gesture subtly reassures people that the ATM is safe and reliable.

A simple but effective way to engender trust and reinforce the brand’s image.

This blend of old and new remains a key part of Asian culture, but it’s something that brands around the world could harness.

For example, I could see HSBC using exactly the same approach for its ATMs in the West. Accompanied by a small, factual explanation, the activity would be a great extension of the brand’s ‘local / global’ positioning.

Image borrowed from the original PSFK post.

legends of the dark black


A few weeks ago, over on the wonderful Noisy Decent Graphics, Ben shared some history relating to the oldest logo still in use today.

He came to the conclusion that it’s the S.P.Q.R. mark, which dates back to Ancient Roman times:


This started me thinking about the world’s longest surviving brands.

The world’s major religions – Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam – would probably all make it into the top 10.

Surprisingly, this Wikipedia page suggests that they might be joined by a few hotel brands.

Less surprising was the fact that breweries would probably make the list too; I can think of a few beer brands that have been around for more than a couple of centuries.

Perhaps the best example of this is Guinness – a brand which, fittingly, celebrates its 250th birthday this week.

It’s by no means the world’s oldest beer brand, but it’s certainly one of the most widely recognised; indeed, it enjoys such cult status that people happily wear Guinness T-shirts, even if they’re not big fans of the drink.

So what is it that has helped Guinness to survive and continue growing for so long, and what can other brands learn from its success?

Here are a few thoughts:

The brand is a story

Many people still believe that the recipe for Guinness was discovered by accident when Arthur accidentally burnt a batch of his normal brew. The story goes that he sold this batch at a discount to porters at the local docks, who all came back asking for more. Regardless of whether this story is true*, it’s exactly the kind of trivia that the brand’s core consumers love to share in pubs and bars, inspiring talkability at the point of purchase and consumption.

In a similar vein, I’ve heard many people retell the more accurate story that Guinness was regularly prescribed to new mothers, people who gave blood, those with heart conditions, and for a variety of other ailments. A variety of functional qualities, not least the drink’s high iron content, mean that many people still believe the brand’s historic claim that “Guinness is Good For You.”

The product is highly distinctive

In a market saturated with hundreds of lager brands that all look, smell, and taste the same, Guinness offers something different. It’s thick, dark, and bitter, and as a consequence, it stands apart from all the competing offers at the bar.

What’s more, outlets invariably serve Guinness in distinctive, branded glassware – vessels so prized that drinkers often ‘forget’ to return them once they’ve finished their pint.

It’s part of numerous consumption rituals

To many people, Guinness is Ireland, and vice versa. Every year, people make a point of visiting bars on March 17th to drink a Guinness in honour of St Patrick. A good proportion of them will do so in an Irish Pub – another ‘brand’ which has successfully travelled the globe, invariably taking Guinness with it.

And then there’s the product ritual itself. The real Guinness pour – ‘119.53 seconds to perfection’ – is a brand ritual like no other. It’s an unparalleled intangible social object, reinforced by barstaff and brand fans the world over. Not only is the ritual observed, but people share the story themselves, citing the brand’s famous “good things come to those who wait” explanation.

Crucially, consumers can be a part of all these occasions – indeed, the brand is often merely a facilitator in their occasions – and that draws people deeper into the brand’s franchise.

It delivers a strong expressive (emotional) benefit

Guinness is often seen as a ‘real man’s beer’. The strong, bitter taste takes some getting used to, and more than a couple of pints in one sitting requires determination. The associations vary subtly by culture, but most relate to strength, courage, and masculinity, as well as a sense of mystery and intrigue.

It delivers inconic communications

The brand has built on its talkability through a long-standing association with iconic advertising. From the famous “Guinness is Good For You” slogan and the instantly recognisable toucan, to more modern incarnations such as the Rutger Hauer “Pure Genius” campaign and the award-winning surfer (both below), Guinness’s advertising regularly inspires conversations.

Guinness toucan

It’s an experience

It’s hard to rush Guinness, even if you could find a reason to want to. It’s a stout that’s meant to be savoured, not guzzled. The rituals, the distinctive glassware, the experiential settings all combine to make a Guinness so much more than a “quick pint”. Because of this, Guinness actually helps the drinker to slow down, which makes it a relevant choice at the end of a long day.

It’s tasty

While taste is a matter of subjective interpretation, it’s unlikely the brand would sell 1 billion pints around the world each year if it didn’t tickle the right taste buds. And that makes a big difference; no matter how much hype surrounds a brand, if it delivers fundamental utility, it stands a better chance of surviving in the long run.

I’m sure I won’t be alone in raising a glass (or two) in celebration of the Dark Black on September 24th.

*Apparently this story is pure legend, but I think I’ll stick with it anyway.
Remember that alcohol is only fun in moderation – don’t ruin the occasion by having too much.

beck’s paints the town

comunicadores beck's music inspired art

Comunicadores are running a feature on this interesting piece of activity from Beck’s in the UK.

The brand has teamed up with local artists to produce a series of pub facade decorations around the theme of “Music Inspired Art“. The facade in the example above is inspired by The Cure’s “Lovecats”.

This campaign appeals to me for a number of reasons.

Firstly, it creates powerful engagement at the point of consumption – a hugely important objective in beer marketing.

Secondly, it builds the brand’s personality through associations – music and art – that appeal to the brand’s focus audience.

Finally, it provides a valuable service to outlets, by creating attractive exteriors that will attract more visitors, so deepening the brand’s customer relationships too.

A great example of how to make point-of-purchase communications work much harder.

Image borrowed directly from the Comunicadores post, with many thanks

the symbiosis of brand and sales

short-term vs long-term

Over on his adliterate blog, Richard Huntington shares some great thoughts on the perceived dichotomy of short-term and long-term objectives.

It might be an idea to read the post first in order to get some context for what follows below.

In light of some recent discussions on this theme, it appears that the issue of sales vs. brand is actually getting more complex, even though we’re allocating more resource to addressing it.

In his post, Richard raises an important concern about ‘digital segregation’:

“Online brand activity seems far more segregated into ‘like the brand’ and ‘buy from the brand’ than offline, into apps and experiences on the one hand and cheap and cheerful direct response advertising on the other. Fine if these are just tools to compliment other marketing activity, but not much of a future as a stand-alone industry.”

One of the things that attracts marketers to digital communications is the fact that they allow us to perform straightforward cause-and-effect analyses. It’s easy to prove whether specific activities drive sales, and that’s very useful. However, we seem to have become caught up in the reporting, and we’re increasingly focusing on the activities that are easiest to measure. We obsess about measurement, rather than on the outcomes the measurements should assess in the first place.

However, by not measuring the more complex, brand half of the equation, we risk returning to a commoditised approach. We’re placing greater value on linear returns, and as a consequence, each interaction is in danger of becoming a one-off transaction.

Perhaps this imbalance stems from a disproportionate emphasis on short-term results. Our focus on the present quarter means we’re losing sight of longer-term planning and the continued growth and success of the brand. There’s no denying that each quarter’s sales are critical, but to the same point, so are next quarter’s sales, and those 5 years from now.

But this is a classic case of missing the forest for the trees: we don’t need to choose one over the other.

Building brands and driving sales are not mutually exclusive. Rather, they should exist in symbiosis. They’re the yin and yang of brand success; we need to balance both in order to survive.

In that respect, any activity that prioritises one over the other is a sub-optimal compromise.

Some brands have already proven that we can achieve this balance. Ben & Jerry’s have shown that free sampling can be used to build a strong, durable brand at the same time as driving quarterly sales. Their success lies in the fact that everything they do engages people on an emotional level, rather than merely enticing them with free or cheaper product.

Of course, this strategic model requires more up-front thinking, consistency of purpose, and patience, but nothing worthwhile ever came without effort.

Critically, any brand can achieve that same balance.

I recognise that theory will not prove this point effectively, so I’d be more than happy to respond to any specific queries on how it can work for any (your) brand.

Share your challenge via the comments section below, or via twitter: @eskimon.

Many thanks to Richard for his inspiring post.


Other Distractions