Comments on: Minstrel marketing and the Hegarty trade-off

By: kurt

kurt — Mon, 25 Jul 2005 22:41:16 +0000

i wonder if what you are identifying is akin to jim collins’ findings from Built to Last or Good to Great (i forget which) “core values are essential to greatness, but it doesnt seem to matter what those core values are.”

i think collins is focusing more on internal values (who you are to your employees) as opposed to external values (who you are to your customer), but the operation is similar: commit to an identity.

this commitment serves the purpose of the velvet rope and bouncer, you create customers by eliminating customers.

By: Irene

Irene — Fri, 01 Jul 2005 07:11:25 +0000

I thought of your HTO post again yesterday when I saw an ESPN spot for the X Games. It was a blatant send-up of Christian broadcaster TBN, complete with a Southern evangelist and look-alike logo. Antagonistic? Maybe, on a small scale. But it made me wonder: is the HTO strategy suited best for brands aimed at a somewhat younger consumer? Or for brands that are necessarily status-related, like cars or shoes? Just wondering.

By: AdPulp

AdPulp — Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:27:15 +0000

Screw The Lowest Common Denominator

Anthropologist, Grant McCracken, considers the Hegarty trade off. At some point, almost all the important players in the world of marketing embraced the Hegarty trade off*. They stopped trying to appeal to everyone all the time. They gave up climbing…

By: steve

steve — Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:14:09 +0000

This principle applies to prodcut design as well. The car people are finding that it is better to polarize the market than leave everyone indifferent.

The general principle here is slightly tricky to model–it is that almost no one actually lives at the lowest common denominator point in conceptual space. Thus, every product that has strong appeal for someone will turn others off, and a product that offends no one will appeal to no one. Traditional spatial models don’t capture this idea, which can be summarized as “variety is the life of spice.”

By: Grant

Grant — Mon, 27 Jun 2005 16:07:43 +0000

Tom, thanks for that very interesting finding about book reviews, that very bad is better than bland. Yes, and I like mystery too. It expands the cultural universe whereas antagonism merely confirms its boundaries (and its littleness), kinda of like the present contest between Republicans and Democrats! Anyhow, thanks! Grant

By: Tom Asacker

Tom Asacker — Mon, 27 Jun 2005 15:44:29 +0000

Great post Grant. I love the line, “It was extensive when it should have been intensive.” Mind if I coopt it?

I read something a while back (can’t seem to recall where at the moment), where the author(s) analyzed book sales/reviews on Amazon.com. They found that the books that had both (and many) 1 and 5 star reviews (love it or hate it), were the bestselling ones.

It appears that the antagonsim approach not only tunes-in talk show radio listeners, but also sells books. And shoes, beer, bling, et. al.

For the record, I prefer mystery