Creating and Sustaining Loyalty: A Suggestion for Apple

We look at the top brands in the world and see fantastic products, insanely high revenue and therefore, a lot of money to create fantastic content. The Coca-Cola’s and Apple’s obviously have legions of dedicated customers who evangelize the brand. As you bring your customers along the scale, moving them from AWARENESS to TRUST to a PURCHASE DECISION to EVANGELISM, you’re growing the strength of your brand. No one has done this better over the last decade than Apple (yes, I know this is an over-used example but it’s the best one). But I foresee a peak in brand loyalty approaching for Apple if they don’t tweak their approach. Here’s why:

Observation
My mom just bought a Macbook Pro. She has no idea why, but she did because all of her friends have them. She uses her computer to check her e-mail, look at photos and update Facebook – that’s it. Remember all of those Jetta’s and PT Cruisers with the Apple sticker in the back window. That used to tell us SO much about a person before even meeting them. Apple had built a community, then an army of loyal followers that swore by the product, and if you were a “Mac” person, we knew a lot about you before you opened your mouth. Now my Mom is a Mac person – and she has no idea why. That sticker just got a lot less cool and exclusive because the army is being infiltrated and the personality diluted. Being a Mac person is starting to mean a lot less.

The second part of my observation is psychological. Let’s look at loyalty patterns outside of consumer behavior. Are you an American? Are you a Republican or Dem? Are you from the North or South? Are you a Texan? Are you an Aggie or a Longhorn? What fraternity were you a part of within that school? Notice that the questions get more and more targeted, and as they get more targeted, we become more loyal.

I’m an American. I felt an unbelievable loyalty to my country in the times after 9/11…during the Olympics. I’m a Texan. Now, I don’t swear by my state, but I know many who do. New Yorkers may be on my team during the Olympics, but outside of that, they’re competitors. I’m an Aggie. We all may be Texans, but you better believe that the Aggies do not like the Longhorns and vice versa. And then within my university, I had a specific group that did not get along with other groups on campus. During basketball games and football games, all Aggies are on the same team, but once we leave that stadium or arena and find ourselves back in our university bubble, we find smaller groups to whom we assign loyalty. This process keeps going until we’ve narrowed our loyalty to a very small group.

Interpretation
Loyalty becomes stronger the more targeted our group or team becomes – when we feel relied upon or missed if we’re not there. Why do so few of us vote? I’ll answer for you: we feel like we’re too small to make a difference. Why do we all show up for A&M football games? Well, the team needs us! Why do we join a fraternity? Because A&M has 45,000 students, and we need to be a part of something more exclusive – where we’ll be missed even more if we’re not there.

In regards to Apple, it’s just moved another rung up the hierarchy. Metaphorically, it’s not Texas A&M anymore; it’s the state of Texas. And we’ve already established that our loyalty typically dilutes the higher up we go. Now people from the state of Texas may tease New Yorkers and the other way around, but the intensity of that rivalry pales in comparison to when A&M plays Texas on Thanksgiving Day. I’m loaded up on apparel and house decorations to express my loyalty to Texas A&M. I don’t think I own a Texas flag or anything with one on it. (I do realize there are many Texans who are very passionate and loyal to the state, but I would argue the majority of even those folks are more passionate about a group they belong to within that particular group.)

Application
What does this mean for Apple? Follow Facebook’s footsteps. As Facebook expanded to include such a large percentage of the population, participation meant virtually nothing. In response to this growth, they began to focus intensely on creating groups within the overall population. Facebook is still a brand, and an incredibly strong one at that, but they’ve managed to create a hierarchy that allows people to belong to much more exclusive groups than a 500 million user population. Can Apple do the same? I don’t think it’s as simple as segmenting the community based on products. If the psychology behind what makes us more loyal is applied here, Apple actually has to create sub-communities that literally don’t like each other. Sure, they all love the brand and the products, but that’s not enough anymore (Aggies and Longhorns love the state of Texas equally but focus more on their differences than what they have in common).

I realize this isn’t easy and it’s risky. Most would assume that dividing the brand would weaken it. Once you’ve reached a level this high on the hierarchy, however, general behavior indicates dividing it is exactly what you should do to sustain that loyalty. Otherwise, the design and young adult community may decide that if Mom’s now a Mac Person, it’s time to find the next thing.

One more observation: passionate people require exclusivity. Remember in high school when you found your new favorite band, went to every show and wore their shirts? Then, the pop radio stations picked them up and everyone was listening to them. What happened? You ditched the shirt and started looking for the next unknown band you could “discover”. Apple people are passionate people. They’re creative people. They may stick with the product until something better hits the market, but you better believe the sticker is coming off of that Jetta until they’re provided with the opportunity to join a more exclusive team.

Brand Humanization: Who’s Doing Business with a Logo?

I’m sure you’ve heard it. Whether you believe it or not is a different story altogether, but piggy-backing on the prevelance of social influence marketing is the thought/saying, “consumers don’t want to work with logos – they want to work with people.”

A large number of brands have been very intentional in putting a name, face, personality and/or voice (which we were always supposed to have) behind their brand. Zappos has Tony. Apple has Jobs. GE had (and still has to most of us) Jack Welch. Comcast has….Frank?

Before we even had the option of using Twitter for a brand or developing a facebook fan page, certain companies recognized the need and capitalized on the opportunity to humanize their brand. I believe and hope I would have always argued in favor of this approach. But now, it’s getting painfully obvious. Most, including myself, would make the assumption that the face and personality of the brand should be the CEO (and if your CEO just isn’t that charismatic, you get a celebrity to do it for you).

In many cases, as I detailed above, this is the case, but the successful variations are ever-increasing. Tony Hsieh had a tremendous business model with a unique (and simple) philosophy to which he’s unwaveringly committed. But here’s the thing with Zappos: he’s not the only face of the brand – his whole company is. You can find every single Zappos employee on Twitter, tweeting about whatever their hearts desire. One would assume that there’s some level of governance, but it doesn’t come through that way. They come through as people who fit into a well-defined culture that’s about people.

Sweet Leaf Tea, out of Austin, TX, is another perfect example. CEO, Clayton Christopher, is all over Twitter. But he’s not tweeting behind a logo. I was recently in the audience for a panel with Sweet Leaf’s social media lead, April Riggs. April cites the unique culture at Sweet Leaf that allows for this model (Zappos, obviously, falls into this category of having a strong and well-defined company culture). I think she’s right. However, if we accept that consumers want to buy from and work with people, not logos, then shouldn’t brands adopt this model whether they have a unique culture or not?

Onto Frank. Frank has added a little bit of white paint to the bucket of evil jet black that Comcast has been for so long as it pertains to customer service. Use Twitter as a customer service tool! Frank proposed. Frank’s not a CEO. Frank’s not a celebrity. He’s a person, and that’s ultimately what we care about. We don’t want a logo, an automated recording or even a person reading a script. We want a person who will listen and intelligently respond. A person who may be a master in his or her industry but who also loves the Boston Red Sox.

We have a greater opportunity to humanize our brands now more than ever because we have the tools to do it. Edward Boches, of Mullen, has qualified consumer desires to work with people as a consumer trend worth blogging about, and in our interaction, he specifically makes the point to say that the CEO may not be the face of your brand. I agree with him. There may be a lot of faces behind your brand. You need to (1)trust them and (2)ensure they fit into and represent your culture (if they work for you, they should anyway). It’s yet another reason to become a student of these new tools and platforms.

As a student, I don’t have this all figured out yet. Here are some questions I’m still dwelling on:

1. Governance seems to be an obvious need for individuals representing a brand. But does that contradict what this is all about? Is governance trying to create a person that doesn’t really exist?

2. I recognize that developing a web ‘personality’ is key. If 20 people are representing my brand, am I disconnecting that personality?