In my previous post, I described the current state of branding in developed markets: dozens of functionally indistinguishable products competing for shelf space by introducing marginal “improvements” or inconsequential variations. To justify a price premium, many brands have sought to create an emotional bond with their consumers. If conferring emotional benefits is “state of the art” for brands in developed economies, what is the next step on the evolutionary brand continuum?
Many pundits believe that brands must become more social – that is, able to chat directly with consumers through channels such as email, social networking sites, or mobile messaging. The more personal the connection, they reason, the stronger the bond between a brand and its consumers. This approach is clearly working for some brands. Some brands, in fact, are alluring enough to not only engage their consumers in this way, but also to put them to work. Apple, for example, provides its own product support for customers, but also encourages users to help each other.
Most brands, however, operate in simple low-involvement categories and lack the charisma and appeal of Apple. For those brands, are there other unmet and perhaps unexpressed needs that an insightful marketer can address?
I am sure that most readers are aware of Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Maslow proposed a hierarchy of five levels, which is often depicted as a pyramid. At the base of the pyramid, the first level consists of basic physiological needs (food, water, warmth, etc). Proceeding upwards, the next levels are security, belonging, esteem, and finally, self-actualization.
It is commonly accepted that the needs satisfied by brands parallel this progression. A brand must always solve a basic problem satisfactorily—that is, address the basic functional (physiological) need—but when all competing brands also address this need, a brand can differentiate itself only by addressing a higher-level need.
Maslow characterized the first four levels of his hierarchy as “deficiency needs,” meaning that those needs must be met before an individual can fulfill the highest-level need, self-actualization. Brands competing in established categories in developed economies have certainly addressed all these needs to some extent, and a few would seem to have progressed to appeal to self-actualization. Nike’s “Just Do It” campaign challenges people to exceed their physical limitations. Johnnie Walker applauds men who strive to progress. Dove’s “Campaign for Real Beauty” encourages women to shake off the self-doubt and anxiety imposed by traditional concepts of beauty.
Based on his recent contribution to the Huffington Post (click here for article), it seems that Chip Conley would agree that higher-level needs represent the next frontier for brands. In discussing how Maslow’s hierarchy of needs might apply to brands, he says:
Today’s successful companies will understand that their customers are no longer consumers. They are people looking to have their higher needs met and who will feel deep gratitude when that company taps into an unrecognized higher need that the customer may not have even imagined they were looking for.
So could it be that the next step for brands is to move into the space described by the pinnacle of Maslow’s pyramid, self-actualization? (or possibly in a level Maslow identified in later years, transcendence?) In another article in the Huffington Post, Patt Cottingham lauds brands like the U.S.’s Patagonia, the U.K.’s Ethletic Sneaker, France’s Sur Le Dos Des Filles, and Korea’s Beautiful Store, as brands that “are making very conscious and considered choices about their impact on humanity.” That caused me to wonder if one way to address people’s self-actualization needs might be to espouse positive social and environmental change.
Patagonia is a brand that I am very familiar with, and I would agree that it is a conscious and responsible brand. The company is involved in an extensive number of initiatives, including projects to establish a national park in Patagonia itself, track clothing miles, and recycle old clothing. Not only does Patagonia actively “tithe” sales revenues as a member of “1% For the Planet” (one percent of net sales is donated to environmental groups), but the company encourages staff and customers to take part in cause-related activities.
Patagonia’s commitment to the environment is not superficial; it is embedded in the very fabric of the company. (OK, OK. Bad pun!) Everything they do is designed to make it easy for people to buy something they want and give back in the process. Importantly, I note one statement on the site’s “Environmentalism” page, “We believe in using business to inspire solutions to the environmental crisis.”
I will continue to explore these ideas in subsequent posts. Meanwhile, what do you think of the parallel between Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and the evolution of branding? Do you think that more people will come to value brands that satisfy their self-actualization needs? If so, will concern for humanity and the planet become a more important factor in brand success? Please share your reactions.
(4 votes, average: 4.75 out of 5)
Loading ...
Email This Post
September 30th, 2009 at 7:56 am
I have always admired Maslow and feel he is as relevant today as when he developed his seminal work more than 60 years ago. I feel that while different societies operate at different levels of the hierarchy, generally, as markets have matured, appeals have evolved from the lower levels to higher levels, but appeals to “deficiency” needs continue. Why then would Volvo continue to appeal to safety even in the most sophisticated markets such as Scandinavia? And to that thought, why would Mercedes and BMW do so well in China? My point being that different appeals live side by side within any society and it really depends on the individual to respond: older appeals don’t disappear, newer ones become additive.
Back to generalizing: In the future I anticipate more sophisticated appeals such as interactivity, “Gestalt” and Aesthetic becoming more prevalent – this pretty much reflects your position although from a slightly different perspective – more intellectual than emotional. I think the future of brands will be to fulfill the “cognitive” need – to understand and explore the world and to express individuality. In many ways the brand will become the canvas upon which the consumer paints his or her self portrait.
September 30th, 2009 at 8:09 am
Thanks Phil this is a nice addition to the post. When you say that consumers will paint their self portrait through their choice of brand do you mean brands (plural)? Or do you mean that brands will become so customizable that each consumer can tailor them to their own desires? If so, are they still brands as we know them?
September 30th, 2009 at 8:17 am
Phil, great line at the end about brands, I’ll have to steal that if the time comes. I’m also a huge Maslow fan (have used it in many arenas myself) and agree. Did the caveman care who manufactured his set of wheels or care who branded his loincloth? Now a set of tyres can stand for safety or responisility while brands of clothes probably touches most levels of Maslow - creating feelings of warmth/security to belonging in a different social strata to feeling that you are indeed the Ralph Lauren/Polo man.
September 30th, 2009 at 8:27 am
Hi Ed, just a quick thought. I can’t speak for the caveman but there is evidence that prehistoric Mesopotamia imprinted clay seals were used to indicate provenance and may have gone further to publicize the quality of the goods.
September 30th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Ha, well there you go - with evolution (Mesopotonia was how many years since the start of mankind?) - we moved forward from just utilitarian needs to quality, then possibly up the hierarchy.
September 30th, 2009 at 9:22 am
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is one dimensional, and brand shouldn’t lose sight of the second dimension of each level in their quest to move their brand up the hierarchy.
September 30th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Nigel, you may be on to something with your allusion to cavemen. The cave drawings in southern France — which date from around 30,000 BC — may constitute the world’s first billboards. But I think their implications go beyond simple signaling — “good hunting in this area.” They were also a way to make sense of the world through storytelling. In essence, they created meaning. Telling and retelling the story created an emotional attachment between tellers and listeners. Sounds like branding to me.
Maslow’s hierarchy has been a useful tool for many marketers. But we should remember that it was developed long before recent discoveries in evolutionary psychology provided even deeper insights into human behavior. For example, it may be that the need to create shared meaning lies not in the upper levels of Maslow’s pyramid, but in its base — i.e, it contributes to survival, reproduction and kinship.
Similarly, it may be a mistake to think that brand differentiation is only necessary when a product faces functional equivalents. Branding is more primal than that. In fact, maybe every brand should try to find the Darwinian roots of its promise.
September 30th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Hi Dick, the idea that shared meaning lies at the base of the pyramid makes good sense. After all tapping into a relevant, shared human motivation helps global brands transcend cultural differences. But the challenge remains to make it unique to your brand. Mothers want the best for their kids…mmm, not how do we make that brand specific?
To Phil’s point perhaps brands really need to differentiate at every level. Higher order needs are simply an additional means of differentiation?
October 1st, 2009 at 9:44 am
While the debate here centres around a brand moving up the hierarchy of needs, it is interesting to speculate whether needs themselves migrate - and the implications of this.
You quote Patagonia’s association with environmental responsibility as meeting higher-level needs. As local ‘green queen’ I seize on that as the problem. Perhaps when environmental considerations move down Maslow’s hierarchy, to become a matter of basic physiology & survival, we might see people a bit more willing in this area!
October 13th, 2009 at 10:00 am
[...] I personally think it’s a fun time. And more and more, I’ll say this: we’re all marketers now. On a vaguely related note, check out this blog post for a vaguely related topic. [...]
May 4th, 2010 at 6:41 am
[...] of safety and comfort, people then seek to satisfy other more socially responsible needs. (Click here to read the post I wrote last fall on Maslow’s hierarchy and the future of brands.)Â [...]