December 3, 2004
More Lovemark-Cluetrain Deathmatch Action
Okay, so there’s this big debate in the blogosphere about Kevin Roberts’ whole lovemarks thing.
I haven’t read the book yet, but I recently obtained a copy of it from a former Saatchi employee. Since the bloggers are calling Roberts out — or any Saatchi employee for that matter — so far without any response, I figured that this might be the closest we get. So I asked this person when I got the book. It went down like this:
have you read it?
“skimmed it”
what’d ya think?
“i really like the way it looks haha”
what about the message?
“as in, do i believe in lovemarks?”
yes.
“yeah! haha… i guess i have to after [working there]”
well, you don’t have to.
“well not that i have to, but i dunno, it doesn’t seem like a remarkable concept to me, don’t u feel like they always existed?”
…
yeah exactly!
“haha yeah, i guess he just branded it”
That’s it. It’s right there in that last line. Roberts got so sick of “branding” that he went off and he fucking re-branded it. It’s the same shit all over again.
It’s very simple, Kevin. When you stop saying things like
“we realized there was an opportunity to take Cheerios to a higher emotional ground, moving it from being part of the kitchen cupboard to part of the family,”
then people will stop laughing at you. Thanks to Johnnie Moore for the link.
Cheerios: mystery, sensuality and love.
WM_ROFL
thomas woelfer
so is he basically saying, “fuck cheerios”?
i can’t imagine cheerios being part of my family unless it starts yelling and cursing at me, bursting into tears and slamming the bedroom door.
Hugh, thanks for the mention.
What annoys me is how people (including Kevin himself) act as if Roberts is the first person to ever talk about “emotional connections” with brands. Give me a break.
p.s. you left off a ‘g’ at the end of my name
Damn, Hugh, for a man who is so forward thinking about business, you sure are backwards when it comes to women (or is it just those folks who inhabit your cartoons?). These days, you can usually just ask for “snatch” (though I wouldn’t phrase it quite like that), and if she likes you, she’s quite likely to give it up willingly – and honestly.
Nina, the cartoon is about male psychology, not female
Indeed! Thanks for the clarification
Dinosaur in Sheep’s Clothing
Hugh:
Lovemarks. Total Bullshit.
Hugh, I love your blog. Keep it up. You’re about the only cat in the ad biz that has the balls to tell the truth.
Let’s face it, most advertising is 99.9% complete shit. After working in this biz most of my life, I’m still amazed that the agency’s clients haven’t caught on yet. They continually eat the same crap being fed to them from the assholes in the ad biz; same crap, different packaging.
The question the clients need to ask themselves:
“Is the fucking I’m getting worth the fucking I’m getting?”
notes on lovemarks
I just finished attending the lovemarks live meeting, with Tom Peters and Kevin Roberts. It was an interesting experience, I had not attended a live meeting before. It was fairly boring compared to the audio of the seminar, which came…
When lovemarks are clueless
When lovemarks are clueless: : One of my lovemarks is suing one of my cluetrain sources.
Bravo! Maybe this schmuck can get on the P&G roster and help their computer program pick out creative agencies. After all, it’s nothing more than zeros with a few ones thrown in.
Hans