Lovemarks vs Brands That Grow : ‘The Gloves are Off’
Posted: June 16th, 2011 | Author: J A M E S | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: brand development, Byron Sharpe, Emoday, How Brands Grow, Kevin Roberts, Lovemarks | 5 Comments »One of the perks of writing for great magazines like Second Sight is that you can sneak into conferences under the cover of journalism. This week i blagged into EMODAY, an event organised by the excellent Tijdschrift voor Marketing about the role of emotions in marketing. Speakers included ING Insurance’s Chris Kersbergen, Roland & Rogier van Kralingen, celebrity AkzoNobel CEO Tex Gunning and ‘keynote’ showmaster Kevin Roberts.
Like many other people out there, i’ve been interested in the Saatchi ‘Lovemarks’ concept since i first heard about it a few years ago. The opportunity of seeing Mr Lovemarks himself present it was my main reason for going. In the good tradition of ad agency brilliance, the model was conceived late at night, at a bar. The essence is a seductively simple framework of 2 axes: (a) Respect and (b) Love. Naturally and instinctively, we all want to be in the top right-hand corner: to be loved AND respected. Why? Because, as Roberts argues… this will get you millions of ‘likes’, increase loyalty and boost your margin.
Sounding good so far? Hold that thought…
Although i was also glad to hear the van Kralingen’s tell their story, my favourite presentation was by the inspiring Tex Gunning talking about the global turnaround for the Flexa paint brand. His convincing story about the transformational power of colour, and his imperative of the brand and its behaviour being the ultimate essence of a brand’s vision… great. When i grow up, i want to be like Tex. But his best move was to bring along his friend and favourite author Byron Sharpe. Sharpe is speaking today at MARCOM11, which i unfortunately cannot attend. He was introduced by Gunning and invited to speak for 5 impromptu minutes as a ‘special guest’.
In these 5 minutes he succeeded in two things (a) making my visit worthwhile and (b) explaining why all the other speakers are perhaps amusing but essentially ‘barking up the wrong tree’. His 5 minute synopsis put an image in my head that was so strong, even Kevin Roberts’s much applauded and best-selling Lovemarks story, supported by a bunch of award-winning Saatchi Ads could not beat.
I’m yet to finish Sharpe’s book ‘How Brands Grow’, but the fact that Tex Gunning has pronounced it mandatory reading at AkzoNobel means i’ve now blocked my weekend to do it too. His main premise, though, is that we as marketeers and branding experts are running blind. We’re not facing facts, he compares it to the practice of bloodletting, which was practiced for centuries until someone made the effort of measuring the results. Remember the pareto-rule from school? 80/20? Fascinatingly, he argues… that although it feels right… research data from most categories show that it’s wrong! Top 20 customers are on average only 50% of turnover, not 80% – still substantial, but totally different from 80/20… He also suggested that even though we may ‘Like’ an ad campaign or ‘Love’ a brand… this has remarkably low impact on our actual purchase behavior, because in most cases we have no idea which brand is which – they all seem alike. FACTS suggest that much of our efforts in research, testing, brand development and communication are pretty much futile…
“I’ve never heard a larger load of academic nonsense in my life” Kevin Roberts replied; “We just KNOW instinctively that great ads sell more stuff”. But it was like a pub landlord saying “ciggies and beers are good for you”…and then coughing up blood. The more – admittedly, great – ads he showed, the more Sharpe’s comment came to mind (do i really know which brand this is?did this really sell more stuff?). Most poignant was the Dutch T-mobile example of Guus Meeuwis calling someone’s grandma to sing het happy birthday. Great campaign, well embedded and activated… but did anyone stick with or switch from T-mobile afterwards? I didn’t know it was T-mobile, but more importantly, could anyone have switched providers, even if they wanted to? Did it make anyone run to the telcom store and buy a T-mobile widget?
I know which book i’m reading this weekend. It’s not Lovemarks, despite Robert’s great presentation and amazing ads. It’s Byron Sharpe’s ‘How Brands Grow’. I look forward to discussing it with anyone interested to do so, once i have a better understanding of exactly what he’s saying.


Kevin Roberts definitely said he’d never heard such scientific claptrap, but then I don’t think Kevin’s heard much science ever.
He seems a nice guy but he clearly didn’t like me pointing out that loyalty was natural behaviour and wasn’t the outcome of deep emotional commitment.
Unfortunately he never presented a counter argument. He largely just showed lots and lots of TV commercials. Lovely creativity, but often miserable branded TV commercials.
My summary was that he loves a good story and doesn’t let the real world get in the way.
James, an excellent article. I read Kevin Roberts book and for a while there I believed the concepts. Then I did a postgraduate program (based on Prof Sharp’s work) and realised that there’s little evidence to support the “Lovemarks” philosophy.
Enjoy the book, I’m happy to discuss it in further detail when you’re ready.
I work with Byron. I analysed brand metrics for one of the brands Roberts says is a ‘Lovemark’ – namely, Nike. I analysed real purchase data on Nike and competitors from the TNS consumer panel. And guess what, Nike doesn’t get “loyalty beyond reason”. It gets about as much loyalty as a brand of its size should get*. Not super-loyalty compared to Adidas, Puma, Fila etc. So, so much for the idea of Lovemarks. These brands get loyalty about in-line with their size, as predicted by the Dirichlet model.
Lovemarks is all just a story dreamed up by Kevin Roberts to sell advertising.
*The study was published in the International Journal of Market Research in 2009.
[...] What did I say that perturbed Kevin? Well a few things, here is an account I found by someone in the audience. [...]
Wow, what an honour to get a reply from the man himself. Thanks Byron, sorry to have noticed it so late. Fascinating to hear about John dawes’s research too, i will definitely look up the article. Also thanks for your offer to discuss, Andreas; i’ll take you up on it !
I need to reread it all first though. It feels like some of it is so fundamentally contrasting with many deeply held marketing convictions, practices and dogmas its hard to judge which to drop and which to pursue/investigate in more detail. Fascinating stuff, really inspiring as well as unsettling.
Mainly though it also feels like a huge, exciting challenge to find ways of beating the theory!