SF and the Church of Denmark have a problem in common

In my view, a clear brand required choosing who you wanted to matter to. In May 2012, I used SF and the Church of Denmark as examples of my concern about brands trying to appeal too broadly.

A clear brand with a well-defined core

I thought SF struggled to maintain a clear profile when the party had to make compromises in government. That was my political assessment of the situation back then.

I compared it with the Church of Denmark, where I thought various activities could make its central story unclear. My statements were opinions, not a survey of what members wanted.

You couldn’t please everyone

I argued that a brand needed to excite a particular group, even if others weren’t attracted to it.

In my view, that applied to businesses too. If you constantly adjusted to avoid every objection, explaining why anyone should choose you could become harder.

Who was it actually for?

My encouragement was to make the audience and the promise clearer. What should people associate with the brand? Who would particularly enjoy it? And which wishes could you accept not fulfilling?

I used Apple, among others, as an example of a profile that could provoke strong reactions. That was my interpretation in 2012, not a current assessment of particular products.

The video also contains political stories retold to me and figures I hadn’t checked. They aren’t evidence of particular people’s statements or the population’s views.

A programme on P1 got me thinking about brands

I’m listening to P1. Yes, if you’ve wondered who listens to P1 in Denmark, it’s me. The programme discusses Enhedslisten, among other things, and it gets me thinking about SF and what happens to a brand when it becomes less distinct.

It isn’t only interesting for a political party. It’s interesting for a business too. I think those doing best often have the clearest and most focused brands. You know who they matter to and what they stand for.

From opposition to compromises in government

My assessment in May 2012 is that SF had a very clear profile in opposition. They were the party of the little guy, workers, the vulnerable and the sick. I caricature it wildly in the video: The unemployed would almost be carried around in golden chairs, with the rich bearing them on their shoulders.

When SF entered government, the party had to be responsible and make compromises. I mention early retirement as an example of something that disappointed its audience. Voters could suddenly feel everything had become muddied. I also joke about Villy now wearing a jacket and looking like an evil capitalist.

That created room for Johanne and Enhedslisten, I thought. They weren’t part of the government themselves and could therefore maintain a sharper profile. I say provocatively that they could promise what voters wanted to hear without the same responsibility for compromises.

A second-hand story I couldn’t recount precisely

I tell a story I’d heard from a friend about a debate on P1 between Johanne and, as far as I remembered, a chief executive from DSV. The story concerned very high tax rates for high earners.

I say myself that I can’t recount it with complete accuracy and don’t have the figures straight. I mention various percentages and income amounts while trying to remember it. They shouldn’t be read as verified proposals or documented quotations.

According to the story I retell, a remark was supposedly made after the programme that this was what voters wanted to hear. It’s a second-hand story I used to illustrate my point, not evidence of what anyone actually said.

My point is the difference between speaking directly to your audience and having to negotiate with others. In a democracy, you can’t simply dictate everything. When you compromise, the profile becomes less distinct, and some voters are disappointed the promises don’t become reality.

A clear brand: What story does the Church of Denmark tell?

That thought takes me on to the Church of Denmark. I’m not religious and say quite directly that the church interests me very little. I don’t know a damn thing about all the religious stuff either, which is of course my limitation. But as a brand, I find it interesting.

The cross must be one of the world’s best-known trademarks. People associate it with religion, Jesus and God. I compare the Church of Denmark with religion in Muslim countries and with some American churches I see as far more focused.

In the video, I describe Muslim communities very simplistically as characterised by extremely strict laws and rules. I also point to some American churches’ strong views on abortion. Those are my broad, provocative comparisons from 2012. What I’m trying to show is a brand whose audience knows exactly where it stands.

Apple also chooses not to meet some needs

I use Apple as my business example. In my description, they aim for aesthetic, attractive, user-friendly and functional products. They don’t just make a cheap product that’s hard to use to satisfy a different audience.

They focus on people who appreciate precisely those qualities. Customers then have to accept the product might not do everything else they’d like. You can’t meet every need and remain equally distinct.

Gospel and Christmas markets or a clearer core?

I’d heard on the programme that around 30 per cent of churches were more or less empty on Sundays. That’s a figure I refer to from the programme, not something I’d investigated myself.

I criticise the church’s attempts to broaden its appeal with gospel, Christmas markets, dancing and a funkier vicar. I also mention female clergy and gay people as examples when discussing the church opening up and taking a less rigid view of things.

What goes on in church is their business, I say, as long as they don’t proselytise to me and others who don’t want to hear it, or break the law. I’m discussing the brand: If the church becomes a sophisticated after-school club, youth disco, soft-drinks dance or community centre, in my view it risks alienating its core audience.

My assessment is that you won’t bring back the old days when everyone used the church. But I think you should go the other way and be more consistent about the basic ideas. I mention the Ten Commandments as a kind of mission statement. Otherwise the concept can become irrelevant both to those who were never interested in church and to those who actually were.

I don’t have a ready-made answer for SF

That’s why I say SF and the Church of Denmark suffer from the same malaise: Their profiles become too bland. I know SF can’t simply return to its opposition promises when it’s in government. I also admit I don’t have a ready-made recommendation for what they should do.

I think they’ve lost something to Johanne, who can hand out gifts others have produced. If Enhedslisten itself took on the same government responsibility, I expect it would face the same problem. If it stubbornly stuck to everything, on the other hand, negotiations could fall apart.

I touch on the difficulties of securing parliamentary backing for a finance bill and the possibility of having to ask Dansk Folkeparti. That’s the political situation I’m discussing back then. But let’s not make it all about politics.

Sharpen your business if the concept becomes bland

Think about your own business. If things are going badly, my advice is not to become bland. Sharpen your focus and target your audience. Perhaps you need to trim the business so it costs less to run but means a hell of a lot to your target audience.

There are alternatives to almost anything. What we don’t want is bland, irrelevant concepts. Better to have a smaller audience willing to pay a fortune for a sharply defined product than to mean a little to lots of people who couldn’t give a damn. Also read E-pusher about selling and marketing online.

Also read about choosing a clear target audience.

Best wishes, Martin

Historical reference from 2012: Here I linked to an interview on Amino TV about selling golf balls online. The interview link could not be opened during the review.