The first one is publicizing something negative about a bus
iness (or what it is not good at) in order to qualify the positive. Consider the famous Avis slogan “Were #2. We try harder”. Proclaiming to the world they are not #1 takes guts. The underlying logic of qualifying the positive, however, sits well; because they are not #1, they need to try harder. Motel 6 is another example: “Our rooms aren’t fancy; our prices aren’t fancy.” Because their rooms are not fancy, therefore they are able to charge non-fancy prices. This idea was expressed by adman Ron Hoff. He said "I have often wondered why corporate ads always strive to make the reader believe that the company is infallible. Admit one negative and the rest of your advertisement will gain believability."
The second category takes it a step further. In this category, negative attributes are expressed without even qualifying anything positive! For example, Listerine’s original slogan “The taste you hate, three times a day” or Buckley’s cough medicine “it tastes awful. And it works.” Both these companies chose to focus on an attribute –bad taste- that is entirely not positive. Volkswagen’s Beatle slogan “It will stay uglier longer” or Crocs’ slogan “Ugly is beautiful” chose to brand themselves as being ugly. Both Beatle and Crocs not only have slogans that emp
hasize their ugliness, their very names emphasize it as well! Naming a car after an insect or a sandal after a crocodile is no oversight but rather a well-planned brand strategy.Why does it work so well? Why did these companies go on to become “cult brands” with huge fan clubs singing their praises? There are a few dynamics in play. I’ll share one of them with you: People’s minds cannot perceive an item as being good in all areas. The term “Jack of all trades, master of none” may not necessarily be true but is a deeply embedded principle etched in the psyche of the human mind. We don’t believe a Jack of all trades can be master of any. Not only that, but because our minds think linearly, intuitively we don’t truly believe anything to be a master of more than only one idea. Because these brands chose to publicly divest themselves of extraneous positive qualities, we come to believe that they truly mastered the single quality they express. If Crocs look ugly, we conclude that they must be comfortable. If Listerine or Buckley’s taste bad, they must work. Otherwise, why would people ever buy them?
In a different vein, the third category is about saying what you are not, but never explaining what you are. I like to call it the vacuum technique. Consider Obama’s “change” or “Yes you can” message. While it may seem like they told you what he is, in reality you were only told what he’s not. The word “Change” means it will not be like whatever was before the change. “Yes you can” means your pri
or state was one of “no you couldn’t”. As for what the “change” will be or what will happen when “you can”, that was left open-ended.The reason this works is because by only saying what he is not, a vacuum is created as to what he may be. Science dictates that all vacuums get filled. Who fills the vacuum? You do. The masses replaced any problematic, unchanged circumstance of the past, with Obama. Obama branded himself as your favorite uncle. Simply saying he’s different than the negative without articulating why, forced the masses to think and figure it out on their own. They figured out that he was going to change all bad into good and was going to enable you (or America) to accomplish things you never did. The vacuum technique is so strong because a) it can’t be misinterpreted and b) the target personalizes it. Whatever went wrong in your past will change for the good. Whatever you personally couldn't accomplish in the past, you can now accomplish. Quite a feat. The sound of silence is loudest!
