Skip to main content

We Need An Enemy

Rabbi Nachman of Breslov was a Hasid, a mystic, who sought in the forest holiness.

His thinking could be considered existential psychology. He knew that humans are prone to despair. He offered   pragmatic self-help techniques like meditation, music, and direct personal dialogue with G-d.

Along the way Breslov left a body of insightful writings about human nature. 

He taught: Man (humanity) is perpetually at war. If not with an external enemy, then on the inside, with himself or herself.

Think about what this means, really.

We not only ARE at war against something all the time.

Rather, we NEED to have an enemy.

In politics it's well-known that the quickest way to galvanize people is to invent a crisis.

But the need is really deeper than that.

If you want to win a PR war, sell a product or change a culture (all of this is marketing) you have to understand the fighting nature of a person. Of the group. 

We are always and forever at war. We want to vanquish the enemy -- whoever they are and whatever they may be. We don't care; it's biological!

The smart leader recognizes that fighting spirit, validates it and unleashes it toward a worthy cause.

If you use that fighting energy for the wrong thing, in the short term you may win till people catch on to you. 

That is why marketers (of every stripe) find their products sell temporarily, but over time customers walk away in disdain, disloyalty, distrust. 

Why? Over and above the failure to deliver on a "brand promise" -- they haven't made it a war of good versus evil, truthfully. And if they do, it's a superficial, short-term sell at best, or worse hypocritical.

Marketing is a war that mirrors day-to-day existence and has a parallel in the human brain. 

It is up to the marketer to not only take sides, but to create them. 

Ideally in a way that truly results in weakening (if not killing altogether) some fundamental injustice.

* All opinions my own.

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 …