At CloudRaker, our mantra is to build unique and useful strategies for brands. We aim to get consumers to truly engage with brands; to develop a meaningful relationship with brands. It’s about telling stories that reflect a brand’s DNA and that will be relevant to consumers’ day-to-day.
Working with these ideas in mind, I wonder if the “useful” factor (as I call it) could be considered an evolution of the old well-known Unique Selling Proposition? A benefit that is no longer based on a product’s attributes but rather on a tangible experience in our consumers’ life?
Let’s take the NY Times Free archives as an ed useful purpose. The brand instantly offered a useful service to consumers – free access to its archives. Consumers who may not have visited the site before were now doing so because it could benefit their day-to-day lives. Being useful became the NY Times’ USP.
Post by Isabelle Quevilly, Apr 22nd
Tags: brand, new york times, unique, useful branding, USP
I think USPs are, by definition, useful. It’s the element of differentiation that one brand offers the consumer vs another brand in the same category. That said, I think we will start seeing a decay in USL (unique selling language) because consumers are increasingly literate to the smoke and mirrors brands use to differentiate themselves when there is no actual difference. If anything, it is the “packaging of hot air” that will be extinguished in the coming years. And good riddance.