The #1 Tagline Mistake To Avoid When Branding A Business

I can still recall (okay... I'm not that old, I just have a really good memory...) that "Winston tastes good, like a cigarette should" and that "I'd walk a mile for a Camel." Numerous spins off have resulted from the "Got Milk?" campaign to the point where it has become part of pop culture. Apple implores the world to "Think Different," Avis promises to "Try Harder," and M&Ms will always "Melt in your mouth, not in your hands."

An effective tag line is much more than a catchy slogan -- it serves the added role of defining the company's positioning statement. It highlights why the company is different, faster, less expensive or better than all the rest. If you want something that "Tastes great," and is also "less filling," then you know to reach for a Miller Lite. The old Timex ads convinced us that their watch "Takes a licking, and keeps on ticking." In this case the positioning revolved around reliability and durability.

So why then, (and here's where I give out my #1 tagline pet peeve) do we still have taglines that apologize for a company's main product or service? I sometimes call them non-statement statements, and here are just a few past and present examples...

"We're more than great coats" Burlington Coat Factory

"We more than just staffing" Advanced Staffing

"We're more than a bus company" Pacific Western

"We're more than just computer sales" Discount Computer Sales

"More than a bank" Arkansas Valley State Bank

You probably get the general idea. This type of tag line double speak is usually indicative of a deeper problem, the company brand name itself. In the case of Burlington Coat Factory, they had grown to a point in the late 90's where coat sales only accounted for 20% of their total revenue. Rather than rebrand, they launched a $48 million advertising campaign with the tag line "We're more than great coats." There are a few problems with this type of strategy...

1. It takes an apologetic stance for the company's main product line.

What's wrong with being a bus company, or a bank, or a staffing company? And if there is something inherently wrong, then perhaps it's time to re-examine the company name. If the name is too confining, too narrow, why spend $48 million to try to overcome a self made obstacle? It's often less expensive and more effective to rebrand than to carpet bomb the media in an attempt to overwrite the literal meaning of a company name.

Page 2

Phil Davis is president and owner of Tungsten Branding, a naming firm specializing in brand creation, product naming, tag line development, corporate identity and comprehensive brand repositioning. Phil's client list includes PODS, TeamLogicIT and Coghead.com to name a few. His complete client list and company naming philosophy can be viewed at www.PureTungsten.com.