Can there be a model for building attractiveness?

The answer is - 'Definitely'. Attraction is more scientific than most would have you believe. 

Every time a Brand has a human interface, it arouses deep-rooted physical, psychological, sociological and cultural reactions in the person, exerted as a ‘force of attraction’ by the Brand. This intrinsic capacity of a Brand to arouse the audiences’ interest and create a magnetic pull towards itself is Brand Attractiveness, also called Brand Appeal. Appeal (appropriately derived from the French word adpellere, meaning ‘to drive’) may be described as the inherent force of attractiveness of the Brand that interests, pleases or stimulates, and it is this force that makes a Brand desirable (or not).

Brand Attractiveness is a powerful, intangible force, which goes much beyond its physical appeal. It is an invisible, overwhelming pull, which subliminally, but irresistibly draws audiences towards itself.

Communication plays a dual role in building Brand Attractiveness. First, it embellishes the inherent force of attraction of the Brand, and secondly, it helps transport this inherent appeal to audiences who have never directly experienced the Brand. Good communication is the telescope which brings Brands up-close and personal, enhancing attributes to make them more noticeable. It is also the microscope that helps bring out the internal intricacies that may need deep delving to be experienced. Nevertheless, for this appeal to work, the force of attraction has to be natural and intrinsic to the Brand.

The Brand Attractiveness Model has four pillars on which it is founded, namely Rational Appeal, Emotional Appeal, Communication Appeal and Aspirational Appeal. 

(Adapted from the book 'Decoding Communication')

God’s trick

Communication must have a profound impact on survival for it to be as abundant as sight in humans and animals. It is an innate function present at birth and many of the neonatal responses that are hardwired into the brain manifest as instinct. Humans, animals and even some plant species communicate with each other. 

The most basic communication in all animals remains instinctual and reactive, i.e. in response to food, danger and sexual stimuli. The more evolved the communication used, the more efficiently information gets transmitted, resulting in a better outcome. For example, in the case of food, evolved communication can give an idea of the direction, taste and source; when representing danger, a sophisticated language can indicate the degree, type of danger, or methods to overcome it.  And when it comes to symbolizing sexual stimuli - well, let me just leave that part to your imagination.

Human communication is unique; it is not just biologically inherited but is also learnt. Other animal species communicate mainly through behavior, ritualized calls and gestures, whereas humans possess highly evolved linguistic systems that can express an infinite variety of diverse thoughts and intricate ideas. The human language system, with advanced semantics and syntax, has the ability to communicate myriad concepts with precise detail. Little wonder that this evolutionary leap distinguishes us from every other organism on earth.

The four-sided argument about the development of language in humans remains indeterminate. It may have developed as a normal byproduct of a well developed brain (called Spandrel), or on account of natural genetic selection (as an Adaptation), or because of the idea information system pressures (known as Memes), or due to the neurons in humans that facilitates imitation (Mirror Neurons).  A few other interesting ideas also give stimulus to new theories; like a suggestion that language developed as a 'social technology' to eliminate visual idea-theft.

Whichever way the above arguments go, the fact that language developed due to a blend or a combination of several factors including those stated above, cannot be argued. It advanced as different species realized that production of sound was useful and gave them a distinct competitive advantage, leading to the development of sophisticated variations of sound to communicate better. Language is only an exaggerated variation of natural communication capacities.

At the same time, language, the basis of communication, is also at the center of conflict and confusion by mere virtue of multiplicity. The 7000 or more human languages seem to have their origin in God’s ploy against humanity. The Book of Genesis speaks of how God tricks a united, single-language human race (who had resolved to build the heaven-touching ‘Tower of Babel’), by confounding them with the ‘confusion of the tongues’ - languages.

(extract from the author's recent book, Decoding Communication)

Is trust a must?

Imagine a room packed full of people, each jostling for space, food and survival. There's a door to the room, but it only works one way - people can come in, but cannot leave. And, the room keeps filling up, cramming more after more. The people in the room face paranoia, fear, aggression and as time progresses and as the crowd grows, only one objective remains - to survive. Now, imagine the crowded room to be your mind and the teeming people to be brands that enter incessantly. This, perhaps, is the closest picture of the chaotic state of the stakeholder's mind in a brand stuffed world.  

Businesses are 'transactable ideas' that need their stakeholders' trust to even exist, let alone endure. A trusted idea automatically becomes an accepted idea and in its degree of acceptance lies its transmission quotient. And so, when a business establishes strong trust bonds with its stakeholders, through its offerings, communication or existence, it continually reinforces its brand - its life-force. Ideas which combat trust and promote morbidity, eventually getting snuffed by the stronger trust forces. As brands establish trust in those they engage with, they become a very part of the stakeholder's mind, almost reflecting it in their brand persona.

As hundreds of thousands of brands battle for the stakeholder's mindshare, one can only imagine the gruesome outcome. Warring brands often take dangerous and undesirable shortcuts, and victories, if any, are mostly pyrrhic - maiming the victor's brand as much as it does the losers. More than anything, the unfortunate result of negative brand action most often is that the reward being fought for - the stakeholders mind - also gets severely injured in the battle. Brands must therefore remain very aware of two things; firstly, that they are capable of wounding the stakeholder's minds by what they say and do, and secondly, that the minds of the stakeholders' are already in much agony due to previous brand actions. Brands which tread carefully and build trust help alleviate the pain and find a permanent place with stakeholders, and those that do not, may get noticed, but will be associated by the stakeholder with anguish and grief.

Machiavelli's wrote in his book 'The Prince', what seems most appropriate for Brand Trust as well- "Princes who acquire their principalities with ease, keep it with difficulty, and those who acquire it with difficulty, keep it with ease." Drawing a Brand Trust analogy from his book - if a brand acquires trust with much effort, it will keep it with ease, and if it acquires Brand Trust without much effort, the brand will keep it with difficulty.  This, however, is not to say that one must focus solely on gaining trust, for such unilateral focus is counter-productive. Instead, it requires the brand to go about its action and communication as normal, so that each such is infused with trust enhancing ingredients. 

With every brand trying to mean everything to everyone, if there's any differentiator between closely competing brands, it is trust. As trust becomes more ephemeral, so does the need to hold on to it with greater care and caution. And, if a brand acquires the trust of its stakeholders, those that impact it in the now and in the future, such a brand is destined for eternal greatness.