How do you get a target audience to both notice your brand signature stories and consume them? Without attention, the content does not matter.

I researched this question for my upcoming book on signature stories, and came across a helpful book by Ben Parr entitled “Captivology: The Science of Capturing People’s Attention.” Parr used academic research and case studies (by people and firms that have successfully achieved high visibility) to establish seven triggers of attention (or captivation, in his words): automaticity, framing, disruption, reward, reputation, mystery and acknowledgment. Based, in part, on his discussion of these triggers and their variants, I arrived at four keys to capturing and keeping attention to a brand’s signature stories.

The first two keys are relevant to the challenge of getting immediate or short-term attention.

1. Have a trusted story source.

A trusted storyteller can come in the form of a friend or respected expert who passed along a video with a strong recommendation – “you have to see this.” Or a familiar personality, such as Garrison Keillor of Prairie Home Companion fame or Tom Dickson host of the “Will it Blend?” challenges for Blendtec blender. Recognizable subjects are also trusted sources, like the Budweiser Clydesdales that have for years delivered a satisfying, emotional experience.

2. Send an immediate signal that the story is novel, provocative, out of the ordinary.

There must be a reason why a person will notice and process the story. It could portend an unusual character, plot or even presentation; and promise to be intriguing. It is the judgment of the audience that matters. Just because a firm executive thinks the story is intriguing does not mean a target audience will too.

The next two keys to gaining attention are around keeping the audience’s attention. To maintain interest, YouTube research has found that the first 15 seconds are crucial to getting a viewer to stay with a video. How do you keep the audience involved past the initial exposure?

Consider the following first sentence of this introduction to the McElroy “brand man” story, “It was a drab and rainy day in mid-May 1931 when 28-year-old Neil McElroy, the advertising manager for P&G’s Camay soap, sat down at his Royal typewriter and wrote perhaps the most significant memo in modern marketing history.” Doesn’t that perk up your ears.

3. Create uncertainty and suspense.

The McElroy story does this. Why the memo? Why was it important? The detail gives you a visual image of McElroy at the typewriter and gets you thinking, “who is this guy?”  It gets your attention, keeps it, and promises real rewards.

What will happen as a result of the memo? Uncertainty is not enough, it needs to be resolved and, importantly, it has to matter to the audience. Making the audience feel emotionally invested in the characters and plot will make the audience care about the outcome. The way the plot and presentation is structured also matters. It is best if the process of the story builds and leverages the suspense and its resolution.

4. During the first 15 seconds create the expectation that the audience member will be rewarded by continuing to hear the story.

There will be rewards for being thought-provoking, interesting, informative, newsworthy, exceptionally relevant, entertaining or by reaffirming an opinion or a lifestyle choice of the audience. There needs to be more than a hint or expectation, there should be a basis for believing that there is a reason to stay involved with the story. At this point, phony, contrived, salesy or boring impressions should not be emerging.

“Without attention, the content does not matter.”

Immediate or short-term attention is the first barrier a story needs to overcome. Using reputable storytellers gives your stories merit because there is an established expectation that the story will be worthwhile. This is similar to current trends toward targeting social media influencers – these influencers are trusted among certain audiences because they have established credibility on particular subjects.

Stories communicate messages better than facts: they are more arresting, persuasive, memorable and social. Most marketing executives have accepted that premise, and are hiring journalists and formalizing the task of finding or creating stories to leverage both internally and externally.

The problem is finding or creating what I call signature stories: stories that are intriguing, involving, authentic and have a strategic message. Most brands and products do not lend themselves to stories that capture attention and really touch people. Even when an occasion has a potentially emotional aspect to it, finding a story that is both involving and authentic can be difficult and finding one with the potential of a viral breakout is virtually impossible.

Signature Stories That Draw From Programs For Social Good

One solution is to find or develop signature stories drawn from social or environmental higher-purpose programs. By their very nature, higher-purpose programs tend to be arresting, inspiring, authentic, emotional and draw people in with vivid characters and significant challenges.

“Stories that are intriguing, involving, authentic and have a strategic message.”

The percentage of organizations that are developing or enhancing a higher purpose program is remarkably high and growing. They are making a difference, both to society and the organization. There are many motivations: to do the “right thing”, to inspire employees (particularly millennials) that want meaning in their jobs, and to appeal to a growing and influential customer base that prefers to do business with brands they respect and admire. Being the source of powerful stories is another unstated and often unrecognized reason.

Consider the raw power of stories such as:

• A video in Lifebuoy’s “Help a Child Reach 5” campaign shows a mother put time and devotion into nurturing a tree that we learn was planted at her son’s birth, a custom in her village. This makes us curious. The next day there is a celebration, the woman’s son has turned five – an age that most children in their village will never see as many die from water-carried illnesses. Over 30 million viewers saw this campaign for hand washing programs.

• As part of the Always “Like A Girl” campaign, a woman acts out the stereotypically assumed motion of running awkwardly and unathletic-like, “like a girl.” When she sees a 10-year-old girl run naturally, with vigor and speed, she wanted a re-do because she changed her mind about what it means to run like a girl. This story was packaged with three others into a signature video campaign that received over 85 million views. 85 million!

• Blake Mycoskie, the founder of TOMS, was vacationing in Argentina in 2006, when he was overwhelmed by the sight of children without shoes. His vacation prompted him to start a company that, for every shoe bought, gives a pair of shoes to a child in need. “One for one” became the slogan, and most who buy from TOMS know the story.

Among the major challenges marketers face in the year ahead will be creating and retaining a loyal customer group. It is a challenge because of the difficulty of brand building in an era with fast-changing media, much under audience control, and because e-commerce and digital communication make it difficult to integrate messages and deliver on-brand customer experiences.

How to Build a Loyal Customer Base

How do you create, manage and leverage a loyal customer base in this environment? To empirically address that question we leveraged the database associated with Prophet’s Relentless Relevance 2015 study in which 400 brands from 29 categories were assessed on more than 20 measures of brand relevance. The goal was to determine what drives two loyalty levels: the satisfied and the committed.

The satisfied are those who buy regularly, often out of habit, because they are satisfied with the brand’s performance over a long time period. They perceive the brand to be familiar, dependable with consistently good experiences and easy to buy. The brand has become a comfortable habit and there is no reason to change. For some low-involvement products, the satisfied are the core loyalty group.

“They perceive the brand to be familiar, dependable with consistently good experiences and easy to buy.”

The committed have a more intense, involved relationship with the brand. They are more likely to have an emotional attachment, to receive self-expressive benefits and to have a user experience that goes beyond merely functional benefits. They are also more likely to be brand supporters, even telling others about the brand and its user experience. For some high-involvement products, a brand should aspire to have a committed group.

How do these groups differ with respect to what drives their formation and nurtures them over time? From the Prophet study, indicators of the two loyalty types and five potential drivers of loyalty were identified. The extent to which each of these five indicators impacted (explained variation in) the two levels of loyalty were explored statistically.

The “satisfied” group was represented by the phrase, “one of my favorite brands,” which reflects satisfaction and a lack of motivation to change to another brand. The “committed” group was represented by the phrase, “I can’t imagine living without,” which suggests there is a functional or emotional attachment that is so intense that the absence of the brand would be upsetting.

5 Drivers of Brand Loyalty

There are five variables that have been uncovered to be potential drivers of brand loyalty; several have multiple indicators that are combined. These variables are:

• Dependable: described as “always deliver to expectations,” “I can depend on,” “I trust” and “consistent experiences”
• Better: described as “better than others,” and “only brand that does what it does”
• Social media: described as “has interesting and engaging content online”
• Light emotional connection (LEC): described as “makes me happy”
• Heavy emotional connection (HEC): described as “connects with me emotionally,” “makes me feel inspired” and “has a purpose I believe in”

Satisfied Brand Users

Consider the satisfied model. The “dependable” variable has more than three and a half times the explanatory impact as does the “better” variable. This confirms the hypothesis that satisfied loyalists are driven by habit, familiarity, comfort and satisfaction, and being better is not as important as delivering the brand promise. They are instead going to stick to the brand as long as it delivers. Controlling for “dependable” and “better” (perceived superiority), the “light emotional connection” variable has a meaningful role, about equal to that of the “better” variable, while the “heavy emotional connection” variable has zero impact. Finally, the “social media” variable, as expected, was not a driver, essentially zero.

The satisfied group included brands that do not engender much passion or emotional connection. Of the top 50 brands of the Relentless Relevance 2015 database, 15 were classic brand names that largely delivered functional benefits and were extremely high on the dependability measure. Leading the way with positions in the top 25 were Betty Crocker, Band-Aid, Clorox, KitchenAid and Folgers. All were extremely high on the “dependable” and trust dimensions as well. That reinforces the hypothesis that delivering to expectations may not be glamorous, but it can drive a brand’s ability to create and keep a loyal segment, which can be the basis of a healthy long-term business. There’s also likely some emotional benefit linked to the nostalgia of growing up with these brands. They become part of the fabric of people’s lives.

Committed Brand Users

Next, consider the committed model. The “better” variable has a large impact, about equal to that of the “dependable” variable. The “heavy emotional connection” variable has an explanatory power equal to the “better” variable and more than twice that of the “light emotional connection” variable.  Finally, the “social media” variable is now more of a player, albeit smaller than the other variables.

The committed customer group is necessary if you want to be a leader in more involving categories. This is the group that can deliver social buzz and net promoter scores. And it can defend you when you have an unfavorable incident. But to create and nurture this group, it is clear that brands must get beyond “dependable” to “better” and get beyond happy to deliver a meaningful emotional feeling that connects and inspires. The top brands on the committed scale such as Apple, Microsoft, Netflix and Chick-fil-A, also score high on the emotional connection, inspiring and having a purpose. Apple, in fact, is in the top two on each of these dimensions. They are clearly more than functional, high-use brands that deliver satisfaction. Social media also became relevant. The committed will likely include people that are influencers on social media, and they have an impact far beyond their number.

The strength of the “dependable” dimension to explain the committed status of a brand is noteworthy. Many of the top brands on the committed scale such as Apple, Netflix and Microsoft ranked extremely high on dependability and ease of use. Amazon, added to the study in 2016, was also extremely high in the committed and dependability measures. The ability of these high-tech, innovative brands to deliver an astonishing level of performance on the dependability dimensions is a crucial and largely unrecognized element of their brand strength. In general, they deliver on their brand promise without frustration or disappointment.

I have written and spoken on the importance of having brand energy, organizational values, a brand personality, and a point of difference so compelling that it forms a new subcategory. What is also true, is that a brand can develop substantial loyalty by just doing its job. Just do the basics: Deliver the brand promise. Don’t screw up and provide a reason to consider the competition. It turns out that people like brands that work…and question those that don’t.

I was again reminded of this fact when analyzing the Prophet Brand Relevance Index™. The 2016 U.S. survey tested the relevance of 325 top brands from 29 categories using respondents that were active in the category and familiar with the brand. The survey ranks brands across four dimensions: Innovation, Customer Obsession, Inspiration and Pragmatism. Two surprising results emerged regarding the Ruthlessly Pragmatic dimension, which measured ease-of-use and dependability.

Two Surprising Results from Top Pragmatic Brands

Fourteen of the top 25 brands measured on the Ruthlessly Pragmatic dimension were commonly used consumer brands such as Clorox (3), Ziploc (5), Band Aid (8), Tide (9), VISA (12), Crest (13), Kleenex (14), Dove (15), Betty Crocker (20), KitchenAid (22), Colgate (23), and Campbell’s (24). Nine of these ranked in the top 25 on trust, as well. All of these brands were in the top 75 on the overall relevance scale, ten were in the top 50 and 3 in the top 25. It is rather incongruous to see some commonplace, older brands that are not known for being dynamic (although if you look closely, they are innovating at a rapid pace) in such a rarified atmosphere. However, they all deliver on their promise, rarely disappoint and have earned remarkable brand strength.

An even more surprising result is the Ruthlessly Pragmatic dimension’s power among high-tech brands, the strongest in the survey. In fact, four of the top six brands in the survey were tech companies: Apple (1), Amazon (2), Android (3) and Google (6). We expect these brands to be strong, driven by the other dimensions such as being pervasively innovative, customer-obsessed or distinctively inspired. But it turns out that the ability to deliver in an easy, reliable manner is one of the qualities that push these brands to the top.

“The ability to deliver in an easy, reliable manner is one of the qualities that push these brands to the top.”

Amazon, which leads the retail segment by a huge margin, gets the highest marks from consumers for being available and dependable. To run such a complex service and do it so well, living up to the brand promise, is really astonishing and the company is rewarded with brand strength. The Apple iPhone and Android are visible and functionally enable customers due to their role in people’s lives. Google is given difficult assignments by their users and nearly always comes through with their search, maps and more. And both just work. Netflix’s platform is engaging and easier to use than others, delivering on another complex task. All these brands deserve a lot of credit for simplifying a complex offering and making it work so well.

I am reminded of a book, Simply Better by Patrick Barwise and Sean Meehan. In the book, the authors argued that success is achieved by delivering basic category benefits better than others. Even for complex or high-tech products and services, strategy is second-tier to exceptional execution and consistently delivering positive customer experiences.

Many brand strategists’ strive to develop points of differentiation that drive brand preference among consumers. The key to winning is assumed to be differentiation; however, your brand won’t even be considered if it’s considered to inadequately deliver on a key must-have dimension. You will not be a player – which means you have no chance of winning – no matter how compelling your point of differentiation is.

The solution is the point-of-parity concept, which was introduced to the branding world in Kevin Keller’s book, “The Principle of Positioning.” It’s defined: Points-of-Parity (POPs): Associations that are not necessarily unique to the brand but may be shared by other brands (i.e. where you can at least match the competitor’s claimed best). While POPs may usually not be the reason to choose a brand, their absence can certainly be a reason to drop a brand. The solution is to change a liability into a point of parity, meaning the brand is “good enough” at the dimension, that it’s no longer excluded from consideration. The points-of-parity concept is another perspective on how to make or keep a brand relevant. There are two points of parity types: category and competitive.

Category Point-of-Parity

A category point-of-parity means that a brand offers perceived necessary category features. For example, nowadays a consumer is likely to look over a bank or credit union that doesn’t offer a convenient and secure mobile deposit feature. In another example, German auto manufacturers resisted adding cup holders to their automobiles as they insisted vehicles are “driving machines, not open beverage carriers.” Eventually, cup holders became a must-have for many and the German auto manufacturers were forced to incorporate the feature.

“The solution is to change a liability into a point of parity, meaning the brand is “good enough” at the dimension, that it’s no longer excluded from consideration.”

The Jaguar brand lacked four-wheel-drive vehicles Jaguar executives saw their brand being perceived as irrelevant by those who wanted four-wheel drive. When the group of four-wheel-drive buyers grew to 50 percent of the purchasers in their top geographic markets, Jaguar introduced an all-wheel-drive model. The vehicles they introduced weren’t intended to be seen as superior to the Audi Quattro and similar models, but rather good enough that most buyers wouldn’t exclude Jaguar from consideration.

Competitive Point-of-Parity

A competitive point-of-parity is designed to negate a competitor’s point of differentiation. A common brand problem is when buyers perceive a competitor to have better product quality. Hyundai had a significant quality issue In the 1990s, Hyundai made cars that were overwhelmingly considered to be of inferior quality to other vehicles in the market. After fixing the quality problem in the early 2000s, consumers still shunned the brand. It took years, but through a variety of programs and communication channels, Hyundai found ways to communicate the new quality levels and gained quality parity. Their quality was perceived to be good enough that attention could turn to points of difference such as price, styling, gas mileage and warranty.

McDonald’s Loses Swells of Customers to the Competition

Mcdonald’s had a competitive parity problem when it lost customers who were concerned about the nutritional quality of their foods. Instead of giving any consideration, they began to veto the brand and purchase healthier alternatives. To respond, Mcdonald’s began offering grilled chicken sandwiches, a variety of salads, fruit smoothies, apple wedges for Happy Meals and reengineered their signature fry recipe dramatically reducing the “bad” fat. The goal was not to make McDonald’s a destination for the healthy-eating segment but to create enough parity so that the number who wouldn’t even consider the brand was reduced.

Unfortunately, that wasn’t the end of the problems McDonald’s needed to solve. Starbuck’s success presented a serious threat to McDonald’s breakfast and off-hours business. The brand saw this challenge as an opportunity. The advent of McCafé in 2007, with a line that included cappuccinos and lattés, changed the competitive landscape. McDonald’s didn’t aspire to be better than Starbucks; the goal was to just provide a close enough experience to Starbucks that they’d create a point-of-parity with respect to quality. As a result, a segment of Starbucks consumer base started to include McDonald’s in their consideration set.