Johnnie … I agree with much of your comments and some of Chris Lawer’s comments on Lovemarks. (Chris didn’t hold back with his comments, did he?)

Does Kevin Roberts over-simplify a complicated emotional/rational-based relationship to explain his Lovemarks concept? Probably so.

(On a side note, why do we marketers over-complicate what we do? Yes, we get paid to over-think. But, is great branding and great marketing really that complicated? Do we have to rely on complex words and complex models to develop complex strategies that resonate with consumers at the uncomplicated gut level? I don’t think so. Great branding and great marketing go beyond fulfilling consumer needs, they also fulfill consumer desires. Did I just over-simplify what we do?)

Back to Lovemarks … I will contend if you strip away Roberts’ thick advertising agency varnish, you uncover a killer branding concept: Brands that connect emotionally with customers and forge loyalty beyond reason transcend from being just a brand. There is a place where few brands earn the right to evolve to by emotionally connecting with consumers to forge loyalty beyond reason.

That is the crux of Roberts’ message in Lovemarks.

It’s a shame that he (and his book editor) allowed Lovemarks to read more like an ad agency pitch deck than a good book on branding.

John, I'm with you of course on the need for organisations, their products and services to fulfil deeper connections and holistic, unique experiences with their customers - as long as it is done authentically on more mutual terms, with integrity and transparency, high commitment, high trust and high performance.

My problem with Lovemarks is that it overemphasises the roles of branding (i.e. not brands per se) and advertising to achieve these goals. These two are only superficial to this challenge. Not only does Lovemarks trivialise the complex nature of the brand-customer relationsip and connection into a simplistic 2x2 matrix, but also it make some highly delusional claims as to the ability of the concept (a brand in itself despite Roberts claiming it is "Time to get past brands") to fix the human condition too!

Finally, on Johnnie's narcissism point.

http://www.saatchikevin.com/media/photos.html

Yep ... Lovemarks does overemphasize advertising in creating meaningful brands. That is why so much of the book reads like an ad agency ptich deck.

And, I agree with the narcissism point ... those images are 100% EGO.
[OUCH!!!! - http://www.saatchikevin.com/media/images/KR_billy_apple_view.jpg]

I still like the idea Roberts conveys of brands that connect emotionally with customers and forge loyalty beyond reason transcend from being just a brand into something more meaningful and more powerful. I just don't like it in the dressing of Lovemark rhetoric.

Thanks for your comments John and Chris. That additional link to Kevin's photos is quite funny. And I see else where in "Saatchikevin" that he's quite proud of machine gunning a Coke vending machine at a Pepsi conference - I wonder where that fits on a Love-Respect matrix?

A small minority of brands do connect with surprising resonance... but we all knew this already. Of course, for each of this small number of brands, there are legions of consultants, like Roberts, claiming to know how... and he is clearly not a shrinking violet when it comes to putting himself forward. But I'm not very convinced he really offers much new insight.

Stop complaining! Roberts' book is a refreshingly illustrative read, attractively layouted to convey messages in the strongest possible way. That in itself makes a great point: theoretical, over-complicated (and boring) textbooks on branding ever so often fail to actually connect with the reader. 'Lovemarks' achieves this connection right away, nicely illustrating how text and image together can move and inspire to new action.

"We all new this already" says Johnnie. What a silly remark. To my knowledge, most subjects that are already known clearly benefit from being analysed and presented again every now and then. In a new light, with fresh eyes - and hopefully to a new public.

Ok, Roberts may appear a narcissistic self-promotor. Noone can possibly miss the fact that Lovemarks is indeed a Saatchi promotion, you get that on the first page. But hey, what's wrong with creating a nice portfolio? It's not like they're trying to cover it up.

Thanks Katarina for your instruction to stop complaining. Having reflected on it carefully, I prefer to support a dialogue in which people are free to praise or complain as they see fit, including yourself.

I agree that the book is well presented and that this is in refreshing contrast to most marketing textbooks. I think Kevin does make his thinking very explicit; and as I disagree with much of it, I've said so.

I've been studying Kevin's book on Lovemarks and felt only inspiration and clarification. The concepts are fundamental and yet so many people miss the point. I've struggled for years to find a vocabulary that helps express ideas about better ways to be creative in the marketplace. It's not just Kevin who has stripped away the chatter and revealed the essence of holistic partnerships. Foreward thinking professionals are defining how community, consumers and businesses can develop synergy in a complex global context. Kevin's book speaks to the heart of what we want to keep focused on: people and their core needs.

Jasper, thanks for your comment and for making sure this post is more of a two-way street. It's clear that you and many others feel inspired by Lovemarks. I suppose you could say I am too, albeit in a rather different way. I give Kevin Roberts credit for speaking his mind in public, even though I don't agree with much of what he says.

And you're right about their being a wider context in which marketing is being challenged to redefine itself. I certainly see my own little blog as part of that context.

You find the book clear and it seems that others don't. I'd like more clarification on how Lovemarks are "Beyond Brands" when every single example given is a brand; and when I see nothing resembling a consensus on what is and isn't a Lovemark. I see this as an example of the sort of over-promise that disillusions me about marketing.

Also, I keep returning to the example Saatchi's give of Cheerios as a Lovemark - see my original heated post for more on this. If we are going to invoke the word Love in organisations, I'd like us to be more discriminating in how we use it.

That's my two cents, and I'd welcome any further comment/criticism/exploration.

what isn't narcissistic, like having a weblog for example?

despite that have to say I enjoyed the comments and the pics even more.

Whatever the content I think Kevin deserves some credit for having a go, and bringing an important issue to the dabting table. And before we have a go at him consider how many other heads of global marketing networks are as concerned about the emotional content of brands?

last time I looked they were only concerned about their revenue.

For sure the book looks like an apology of Saatchi & Saatchi, but aren't we all able to read beyond that ?

I'd say thanks to Kevin for having a go at how to read consumer emotions and use them to strengthen brand communication.
A lot of this book reads like common sense to me, and yes there are simplifications made here... but doesn't that actually help to understand the whole game ? I have just finished the book, and I am not considering it to be the evangile of Marketing, but I found it refreshing and stimulating...

Jem, Jean-Philippe: Thanks for your comments. Looking back months' later I realise my orginal posts on Lovemarks are blunter and more vehement than I would want to write today.

I think Roberts is onto themes that are very important. I am just very disappointed by the practical examples he gives of how companies can respond. In common with many business books, I guess it's a case of better diagnosis than solution.

This "Kevin" guy has to be the biggest tool I have ever seen in this business. And trust me, that is saying a lot.

If anyone can make any practical sense of what he is saying here in some of these clips (e.g. "Act Local, Go global") please let me know what that is – I'd like to personally send you a complimentary set of steak knives.

http://www.saatchikevin.com/talkingit/multimedia.html

These are hilarious.

Hi MJayC: I suppose we might be mistaking context, but I was surprised by the most recent video on the page, dated March 2004. Kevin says in it: "Our view is that television is going to be the most important medium in the next decade... In the developing world, TV is going to be 90% of the spend"

I wonder if Saatchi still think this way?