Skip to main content

Two missions, one tagline

Ideally companies are driven by a single mission, to be expressed in a single tagline. But life is not always ideal and a situation may come about where you have multiple missions, each one begging to be expressed. What do you do?

Essentially there are four choices. You can:

  1. Choose one of the missions and elevate it to “most important status,” expressing only that in your tagline
  2. Choose two or even three of the missions and express them all in the tagline
  3. Go higher-level than all of the missions and express a vision
  4. None of the above—just say something memorable

Strategy #3 seems to be the most popular if you look at the “top 10” taglines described at (quoted below; my interpretation after the dashes)

“1. Got milk? (1993) California Milk Processor Board – very direct and product oriented; no vision here

2. Don’t leave home without it. (1975) American Express – vision-oriented; the idea of being “indispensable”

3. Just do it. (1988) Nike – vision-oriented

4. Where’s the beef? (1984) Wendy’s – just memorable

5. You’re in good hands with Allstate. (1956) Allstate Insurance –vision-oriented

6. Think different. (1998) Apple Computer –vision-oriented

7. We try harder. (1962) Avis –vision-oriented

8. Tastes great, less filling. (1974) Miller Lite –mission-oriented

9. Melts in your mouth, not in your hands. (1954) M&M Candies –mission-oriented

10. Takes a licking and keeps on ticking. (1956) Timex” – mission-oriented

I myself prefer a more literal tagline, one that sounds almost like a mission statement, if only because a company name rarely describes what it does, and it’s a crowded market: you have about two seconds to make it clear what value you contribute, and your name probably doesn't signify what you do. (Not everybody can be a superbrand and go abstract.) But I can see where option #3 works – it has a unifying quality that brings out a higher-level purpose to all the diverse things the company does.

Bottom line: If you’re stuck for a tagline, go higher. But try to keep it memorable AND distinctly related to the product or service.

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between brand equity and brand parity?

Brand equity is a financial calculation. It is the difference between a commodity product or service and a branded one. For example if you sell a plain orange for $.50 but a Sunkist orange for $.75 and the Sunkist orange has brand equity you can calculate it at $.25 per orange.

Brand parity exists when two different brands have a relatively equal value. The reason we call it "parity" is that the basis of their value may be different. For example, one brand may be seen as higher in quality, while the other is perceived as fashionable.

All opinions my own. Originally posted to Quora. Public domain photo by hbieser via Pixabay.

What is the difference between "brand positioning," "brand mantra," and "brand tagline?"

Brand positioning statement: This is a 1–2 sentence description of what makes the brand different from its competitors (or different in its space), and compelling. Typically the positioning combines elements of the conceptual (e.g., “innovative design,” something that would be in your imagination) with the literal and physical (e.g., “the outside of the car is made of the thinnest, strongest metal on earth”). The audience for this statement is internal. It’s intended to get everybody on the same page before going out with any communication products.Brand mantra: This is a very short phrase that is used predominantly by people inside the organization, but also by those outside it, in order to understand the “essence” or the “soul” of the brand and to sell it to employees. An example would be Google’s “Don’t be evil.” You wouldn’t really see it in an ad, but you might see it mentioned or discussed in an article about the company intended to represent it to investors, influencers, etc.Br…

Nitro Cold Brew and the Oncoming Crash of Starbucks

A long time ago (January 7, 2008), the Wall Street Journal ran an article about McDonald's competing against Starbucks.
At the time the issue was that the former planned to pit its own deluxe coffees head to head with the latter.
At the time I wrote that while Starbucks could be confident in its brand-loyal consumers, the company, my personal favorite brand of all time,  "...needs to see this as a major warning signal. As I have said before, it is time to reinvent the brand — now.  "Starbucks should consider killing its own brand and resurrecting it as something even better — the ultimate, uncopyable 'third space' that is suited for the way we live now.  "There is no growth left for Starbucks as it stands anymore — it has saturated the market. It is time to do something daring, different, and better — astounding and delighting the millions (billions?) of dedicated Starbucks fans out there who are rooting for the brand to survive and succeed." Today as …