What Frank Underwood and Donald Trump can teach us about storytelling

Interesting article.
I just wanted to pick up on one thing. I think it’s misleading to say the Vic Super campaign created conflict and tension. Sure, you can use behaviour economics theory to argue it created cognitive dissonance (as I’m sure Mr. Ferrier did convincingly), but this isn’t the kind of conflict Spacey talks about.
Dove is in conflict with the rest of its category. Burger King created conflict and took risk when challenging McDonalds for the peace burger in NZ.
Where’s the risk in saying “everybody wants more money and we can make it happen”? It’s standard messaging and has nothing to do with neither storytelling nor any of the buzz-words used (tension, conflict, engagement, action)

@Mmmm. I would disagree with your assessment of the Vic Super campaign. Cognitive dissonance could be cited if the people who held the money in their hands took no action afterwards to address any perceived shortcomings in their super savings plan, but they would have had to acknowledge within themselves the validity of Vic Super’s premise for a dissonance to exist. Unless the savings of a person taking part in this exercise was tracking according to their ambitions, then internal tension and conflict were exactly what might have been experienced by those taking part. This idea sounds like a great way to demonstrate in a most tangible manner how much you might need for your retirement ambitions, and my hat is off to C&P.

Most brands are in conflict with their competitive set, some such as Dove just do a better job of differentiating with a distinctive and valid USP. It would be disingenuous to say Burger King did not expect McDonalds to participate, but if they had (and that was a desired possibility) it would have been an example of the very opposite of conflict.

@Anthony G
I was probably a bit quick with regards to what constitutes cognitive dissonance, and it sounds like you know what you’re talking about, so apologies and thanks for correcting me.

However, my point remains that this internal process is an overly technical and tenuous example of risk and conflict.

As I understand storytelling, conflict is between the hero and the antagonist with the hero taking risk when taking on his/her opponent. In marketing terms, this means daring to take a position not everyone will agree with. But if you don’t dare to be different, neither will you be perceived to be differentiated. Which is what Vic Super fails to do with this campaign. Instead it’s a generic category job, albeit perhaps an effective one in the short term.

I’d argue that from customers’ perspective, most brands aren’t really in conflict with their competitors. They are individually trying to give customers what they want. The competitive conflict is only experienced internally in the businesses. So the storytelling with its conflict and tension needed to differentiate a brand, create added value, genuine engagement and subsequent action is thus largely non-existent.

@Mmmm/Anonymous. I agree that the Vic Super idea can be considered generic, but let me put some perspective on the category. Superannuation is an extremely difficult subject to market. It’s governed by very strict rules over what you can promise; ‘past performance is not an indicator of future performance’ and so on making the ‘everyone wants more money and we can make it happen’ premise effectively impossible to guarantee. Right now some countries are forcing negative interest rates on deposit holders, and the relatively recent past featured double-digit inflation so no-one really knows what’s coming. But the government have made it mandatory and for the most part that’s a good thing.

As a sub-category, industry funds have dared to be different by making a point about lower fees, which is a differentiator but their performance on the whole has not been as high as some other options. Beyond that, it’s hard to make a claim that can be considered specific to any one fund.

The timeframe for delaying gratification could be up to 50 years depending on the individual, and most people don’t have the requisite conscientiousness to attend to that, so they need to be spurred into an effortful control habit over their spending and saving. The only other campaign I can think of that does a good job of dramatising this is Clem’s Colonial ‘Museum Pieces’ which in some ways may be better at getting the message out broadly. But I like the Vic Super idea more because – though it may require a one-on-one interaction slowing its dissemination – the act of holding that money and physically comparing it with their ideal amount would resonate far more intensely within the individual. I don’t think it creates a fait accompli on the matter; people have a habit of falling into old habits so it would require a regular ‘topping up’ to maintain the effect. Whether that means returning to the bank vault or some other activations/communications probably depends on the individual. For a long time. 20/30/40/50 years is an eternity in the land of advertising.

So, as mentioned, I agree it is generic, but kudos for C&P and Vic Super for getting there first with a fantastic idea in a difficult category.

I also agree that customer don’t always see the conflict. Constant exposure to the seeing how the sausage is made probably coloured that part of my comment.

So, conflict, yes, but it has nothing to do with storytelling…

@Anthony G
It’s a very tough category, I completely agree.
My criticism wasn’t as much of the campaign in itself. My point was that it’s rather irrelevant as an example of what constitutes storytelling.

If you want to look at storytelling in that category, check out D5’s work for Prudential (http://droga5.com/work/day-one/). This is storytelling that conflicts with the category narrative, so differentiates the brand, and which provokes genuine engagement through insight into real people.
When compared to real strategic storytelling I think it’s easier to see Vic’s campaign for what it is: a tactical one-off using a clever-ish BE trick.

@Mmmm. Thanks for the link. Damn D5 do some good work. You’re right about Prudential’s approach in setting themselves up in conflict with the category narrative. And I don’t want to tear it down because that would be unreasonable (and unsubstantiated and churlish and downright impolite as well as just plain wrong) to a beautiful set of communications. But I do want to contrast it with the Vic Super campaign.

The strength of the Prudential approach is that it establishes a genuine empathy between those facing retirement and a corporate entity. From my point of view, it seems to speak mostly to the older skewed audience. It is beautiful storytelling, so hopefully these narratives might penetrate the mindset of younger skewed audience, but I’m not sure how well that part of the task was accomplished.

For me the greater strength of the Vic Super is that it is a more direct spur to action. I still maintain that the physical act of holding the money, and seeing how much more is needed in a most tangible way is potentially far more effective in prompting the behavioural change that might be required. One point I omitted in my previous comment is probably the most crucial; while superannuation in Australia is mandatory for all (or most), there is also the recognition that for most people the 9% is probably not be enough. IIRC when it was implemented during the Keating years, it was anticipated to rise to 15% but for whatever reason that hasn’t happened. So the shortfall has to be met on a voluntary basis by the super account holder.

This for me is one of the most compelling aspects of the Vic Super premise. If addressed correctly at the point of handling the money, then the account holder would have been taken through how much more they need to contribute in order to reach the desired amount. The concepts around delayed gratification come into play at this point, because the act of topping up on contributions is a voluntary one. I disagree with Caroline that we are hardwired to avoid planning for the future; there is a whole generation ahead of us that came from the privation of post-war Europe or latterly Asia, landed here and lived a relatively unluxurious life and invested in (mostly) property as a hedge against any possible future repeat of the dire circumstances of their childhoods. Some did really well at this (look at the AFR Rich 100 list), others did well enough to create a demographic class holding much wealth. Granted we are living in different times now, but the mindset of giving up a little luxury now for a more secure future is a tenet that gets lost in this hyper-consumerist present day.

So people might have to be reminded or informed of the consequences of seemingly innocuous consumer behaviours. Leveraging conflict to do so is part of the narrative. Where Prudential present a mostly externalised narrative, Vic Super prompts something more internal. The conflict between our present actions and our ideal future. WS was doing something along these lines when he had Hamlet ask himself ‘to be or not to be’, so internal conflict can be just as much a compelling driver of narrative as can external action. (I should note Prudential also taps into this with the musings of each individual within their specific stories.)

The second strength of Vic Super’s campaign is that the money serves as a blank canvas. As is rightly pointed out in the Prudential case study, retirement is not about yachts and golf and stockphoto lifestyles for everybody. So rather than assume how someone might envision their retirement, the conversation in proximity to the money can revolve around the specific ambitions of that individual. “You want to travel for 3 months a year? Okay then maybe you need to aim for $1.2 million rather than $1 million.” It establishes a narrative thread with a strong element of individualised ‘to be continued.’

This last point goes to a valid concern of yours, that the exercise was a tactical one-off. But if it is treated as the start of the story, if a continuum of engagement is maintained by Vic Super then what a great start. However this continuum must be sustained. For example, if the initial discussion around how to find savings in someone’s spending habits revolved around fewer cafe-sourced coffees, then maybe Vic Super could send the account holder some ground coffee as a reminder at some point later. This is an obvious top-of-mind suggestion, but once the narrative is commenced, then right now we have exactly the tech and channels needed to continue the story on a personalised basis. Scalability of Vic Super’s idea is probably its weakest point, but one that could still be overcome. It’s a hurdle, not a road block.

Yes, BE can be taken as a gimmick. But from my point of view, understanding how psychology plays into these things is perhaps the strongest driver of future strategies as well as tactics. There is scepticism around the replicability of some significant studies, but the giant petri dish that is facebook and google means that we can get an almost 1:1 ratio of sample to population and the behavioural insights they will be gleaning must be incredible. I just wish I had access to them.

So I still think that the Vic Super idea is fantastic, but I also appreciate your point of view. It’s been a pleasure to have a moderate and considered conversation with you on this. Cheers.

@Anthony G
You make a lot of good points. Comparing two campaign like this will always be an apple to pears comparison. The objectives, business problems, context, budgets etc will necessarily be very different.

But we agree that D5 does great work. I’d even go so far as to say that D5 on their worst day beats any Australian agency on their best. They’re certainly something to aspire to.

Just one last point on the two campaigns. We agree that Vic’s problem is scaling. How many get to physically hold the cash vs how many will view and relate to the Prudential campaign? I’d argue the latter is much harder to do, but with equally greater pay-off if pulled off. In terms of building on Vic’s story, if the beginning is indeed category generic and not seen by many people, doesn’t that mean there’s (close to) nothing to build on, so you’re back to square one?

It’s perhaps unfair to call BE a gimmick. It can be very useful, especially for tactical purposes – I remember another campaign Adam Ferrier & co did, which was a radio ad with a really low volume voice over, which triggered the listener to turn up the volume or move closer to the radio, i.e. interacting with the ad, which in turn would have greater effect (come to think of it, that is a bit gimmicky, he he). I’m a firm believer in that our intuitions and biases drives our behaviour, but I’m more interested in it at a (moral) values level (btw, a great book for this is Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind), which is when I think it becomes more useful for strategy.

Thanks for the discussion. It’s been a pleasure!

Cheers,
M

Politics may appear to be like show business, in fact, it is nothing at all like show business, and if in some remote corners it is, then it is a sad reflection upon reality.

Show business is a responsible and highly tuned set of creative processes, which culminate in a genuinely crafted attempt to create an appearance of truth, and this is driven by artists, from a known and fully recognised non realistic situation.

Many practitioners of the law also seem to think they are actors, but like politicians, they are supposed to be handling reality.

Like all retrospective studies, the Trump campaign can be interpreted in any way the reviewer wishes to “fuzzy felt” it.

Trump used nothing new or innovative, he simply stuck to the old political vehicle of centuries past, by invoking the politics of paranoia. No different to “Reds under the beds” or fifth columnists, or soviet spies etc. LBJ, Menzies and P Hansen each used it here, and it will be used many times again, whenever there is clear need to shake up the electorate and disestablish a deadlocked or crippled system.