Brand storytelling is one of the most wildly overused (and least understood) buzzwords of marketing. It’s often casually used without discretion to describe just about any type of marketing communication.
Years ago, I visited the Portland studio of Character, which helped pioneer storytelling as a framework for brands, and chatted with Jim Hardison and David Altschul. Part of what they do is separate what distinguishes a story from mere information.
One of the key principles they talk about is “Conflict.” Marketing teams are sometimes shy to consider conflict, but conflict is essential in a story. As they put it:
“Conflict is the engine that makes the story go. A story doesn’t start until a conflict begins and doesn’t end until it’s over. Conflict creates an immediate emotional connection that hooks the audience and maintains their interest … The first step in articulating your brand’s story is to get a handle on the conflicts that drive it.”
I’ve been thinking about “brand storytelling” in the context of two conversations last month with Orlando Wood at System 1 and Les Binet, who I finally had an opportunity to meet in person.
Orlando introduced me to the idea of two distinct types of advertising — “showmanship” and “salesmanship.” Showmanship is more related to longer-term brand-building and salesmanship is more related to shorter-term direct-response.
Ultimately brands need both, as Les Binet famously argued with Peter Field in “The Long and the Short of It.” They advocated a 60:40 rule of thumb — with 60% of advertising spend placed in brand-building (the “show”) and 40% in performance marketing (the “sale”).
In a recent panel with Orlando at Adam&eveDDB, Les said:
“Where I think we get it wrong is when we want to do both jobs at the same time. Brands make that mistake of trying to do the brand stuff at the point of purchase. They’re different jobs.”
Here are a few related cartoons I’ve drawn over the years:
