Has the brand-chronicle concept, as employed by McDonald's, outlived its usefulness?
In 2003, Larry Light, then the CMO at McDonald's, introduced the brand-chronicle idea in the form of "I'm lovin' it." Its job was to tell many different stories in many different ways. Larry's thinking was that no one message can convey everything about the brand, so the brand statement shouldn't even try to sum up what the brand stands for.
Larry said at the time that "a brand is multidimensional. No one communication, no one message, can tell the whole story." This kind of thinking, as you'd imagine, was anathema to the "positionistas," as Larry called them, and Chief Positionista Al Ries said then that Larry was "turning back the clock, not winding it forward. In the good old days, every brand tried to appeal to everybody. Even if everything Larry Light says about McDonald's is correct, I would hate to see other companies that have strong competitors adopt similar strategies. Companies that appeal to everybody wind up appealing to nobody," Al said.
The everybody trap
What made McDonald's a special case that justified the
brand-chronicle treatment was its vast customer base and product
lineup. Because it provides a different brand experience to its
varied constituency -- kids, teenagers, adults, employees -- and
serves so many different items, from burgers to sliced apples,
multiple messages under one brand statement might be appropriate.
But the question remained: If other marketers without such a broad
reach and product offering employed the same tactics, would they
become ensnared in the "everybody" trap?
McDonald's this spring was inducted into the Advertising Hall of Fame for its memorable advertising over the years ("You deserve a break today," "Nothing but net") and I talked with Neil Golden, who was CMO of McDonald's USA at the time but is leaving early next year, about its ad strategy.