Continuing my theme of Reason and Emotion as complementary sources of customer value, this post deals with the problems that arise when the two are deemed to be at odds with one another.
A belief that Reason and Emotion cannot coexist leads directly to two fallacies:
- The first is that “good products sell themselves”
- The second is that marketing is there to compensate for some weakness in the product
The first is what I call “The Field of Dreams” fallacy because it is based on the belief that “if you build it, they will come” – this may work for mythical baseball players, but it is the reason why many technologically superior products have failed to gain traction in the market.
The second is the “Lipsticking the Pig” fallacy – the belief that the role of marketing is to create an emotional appeal for products that are functionally inferior (as is “this product is not selling well – let’s get marketing to produce a glossy brochure and a promotional event so we can shift our inventory”).
As I mentioned in my last post, the mark of good brands is that they offer a value proposition that is as compelling to our heads as it is to our hearts. Reason and Emotion are both sources of customer value.
