Masters of Metaphor

There was an interesting article in Ad Age entitled “What I Learned From Working at P&G,” in which a number of highly placed alums reflect on the lessons they took with them. My partner, Jim, pointed out that a lot of the language was grounded in the metaphor of science–not surprising for a company that employs more PhDs than any university in the world. The key metaphors of marketing are war, science and story. P&G champions the science metaphor and does a nice job of leading by science. It is clearly their strongest suit and gives them a significant competitive advantage. But Procter & Gamble has been struggling for the past few years, leading us to speculate on the way that mastery of any particular metaphor may impart both strength and vulnerability at the same time.

For example, most of the former P&G execs pointed to a relentless focus on the consumer as a principal lesson from their time at the company. Significantly, what they describe is the focus of a scientist observing an experimental subject, not a storyteller reaching to connect with an audience. This way of thinking is a strength when it comes to identifying consumer needs and developing products to meet those needs. And it is a weakness when it comes to connecting with people emotionally. That weakness shows up in categories like beauty care, where a lot of the story energy is driven by a conflict we might characterize as medicine versus magic. The company’s strong preference for science often leads it to default to communication about efficacy and features at the expense of a richer, emotionally engaging story.

A big difference between the A. G. Lafley/Jim Stengel era and the current regime at P&G is that A. G. seemed to infuse the whole organization with heart in a subtle but important way. With Jim leading marketing, story seemed to gain traction without compromising P&G’s strength in science–a powerful combination. This is difficult to prove, but I’ve spoken with a number of people close to the company who agree. If they are right, then the waxing and waning of strategic capability in story is responsible for billions of dollars gained and lost in market capitalization.

Walmart and McDonald’s seem to champion the war metaphor. This is apparent in the way they are organized. Each is a massive organization that operates with a weird kind of agility and efficiency given its size. Like an effective army, they are more fractal than hierarchical. Each division of the organization, right down to the individual restaurants or stores, is a fractal of the whole organization and can operate with a fair amount of autonomy in pursuit of victory for the company as a whole. This ability gives these huge organizations a competitive advantage, but it also explains why they sometimes have a hard time distinguishing between what’s urgent and what’s important. It also explains why their customers may, from time to time, feel more like pawns in a giant battle than honored guests.

It’s harder to find champions of the story metaphor because even brands that start off rooted in a powerful story seem to drift in and out of it over time. We think this is because most people still use story intuitively, without understanding how it works. Story has great power to create emotional connection, but using it intuitively makes it very difficult for a charismatic leader to institutionalize the story effectively. Even companies that have used this metaphor quite powerfully (e.g., Disney, Apple, Nike) have drifted off story at critical moments in their history. In order to use story in a rigorous and strategic way, you have to consciously embrace the metaphor, and you have to understand how it is different from the war or science approach.

At the end of the day, no one succeeds in marketing without, to some extent, employing all three metaphors. But any metaphor can be a trap if you start to mistake it for truth. Companies whose previous success was powered by strength in war or science generally have a hard time articulating their story in an emotionally compelling way. And they have a particularly difficult time staying on story when they are being flanked by a more nimble challenger.

There are examples of category leaders who have rediscovered their story and used it to fight off a serious challenge–Old Spice is one with which I am very familiar. If you can think of others, I would love to hear your thoughts.

Warrior or Mercenary?

I read the Ad Age interview with Bob McDonald, Procter & Gamble’s new CEO, with great interest. Two things jumped out at me–in fact, they were the first two things he said. He started by referencing his military experience as an airborne infantry ranger trained in desert and jungle warfare. And then he launched into an impassioned discussion of P&G’s purpose, describing it as incredibly important but underexploited. This caught my attention because, in the world of marketing, the metaphor of war and the idea of purpose frequently seem to be at odds.

You may be familiar with the metaphors of marketing–War, Science and Story–which we discuss at Character Camp (if not, there is a one-page primer on the subject here). At Camp we teach that the war metaphor is the toolset marketers use to operate in a competitive landscape. Story, on the other hand, is the set of tools best suited to building a relationship between the brand and its customers. Brands frequently act as if war and story are in conflict–as if you are either fighting for share or building equity, but not doing both at the same time. At a deeper level, however, I believe there is great synergy between war and story, and the connecting link is brand purpose.

Purpose, framed as the objective of the protagonist, is what drives a story forward. Winning is often presented as the goal that drives a soldier forward. But what Bob McDonald’s interview reminded me is that in an actual war there is always an idea that is supposed to give meaning to the struggle and inspire the soldier to win. Without such a purpose, a warrior can become little more than a mercenary–motivated only by personal gain.

To underscore his point about purpose in business, Mr. McDonald cited his conversations with students at Harvard Business School who were looking for professions that would provide meaning for their lives. Interestingly, one of the first comments posted on the Ad Age website was openly cynical, assuring Mr. McDonald that, among Ad Age readership, it is not necessary to “frame CPG as an altruistic calling.” The comment concludes, “Does the world need more new Swiffers, more new Febreezes? No, of course not. Like you and 50 Cent, we just wanna ‘get rich or die trying.'”

I disagree. I not only support the Harvard MBA candidates in their search for a meaningful job, I think the evidence is pretty clear that they are more likely to be successful–both emotionally and materially–if their efforts are driven by a purpose that goes beyond just making money. This is particularly true in consumer products, because your customer can tell if you have a real interest in what you are doing that goes beyond the transaction. That sense of purpose gives your customer a reason to believe that you will be better at your business than a competitor who is just in it for the money.

It is interesting to me that the current thinking about counter-insurgency warfare is focused less on projecting power for its own sake–on killing large numbers of enemy soldiers, for example–and more on creating and securing the conditions in which the marketplace, along with the other aspects of civil society, can function. Even in war success ultimately depends on having a purpose that goes beyond winning for its own sake.

In other words, purpose is what distinguishes the warrior from the mercenary. And in the world of story, the mercenary never wins unless, like Han Solo, he turns out to have the heart of a warrior after all.

May the Force be with you,
David