Lovemarks - good theory or snake oil?

Kevin Roberts, Global Chief Executive of Saatchi and Saatchi, speaking at the IoD Annual Convention outlined his agencies' approach to marketing based on the concept of Lovemarks.

It is based on a traditional two by two matrix with the axis labelled Respect and Love as shown in the image.

Anything in the lower left hand quadrant is simply a commodity with no respect and no love. The top left is where most brands belong. They have respect but little love. Fads are in the lower right hand quadrant. They are loved but not respected. Lovemarks in the top right quadrant have both respect and are loved.

The key according to Roberts is to engage your client's emotions. The Return on Investment argument is replaced with Return on Involvement. Move from irreplaceable to irresistible to overcome the Weapons of Mass Distraction.

All heady stuff that had most of us marketeers salivating. BUT, is it the new marketing paradigm that Roberts believes it is?

Entertaining it most certainly is and Kevin argues it with the ferocity of an All Black. But I can't help but think that it is not a paradigm shift but the traditional marketing ideas repackaged.

After all doesn't every marketeer start with the idea that their products are perceived by the client in such a way as to generate loyalty? Don't we all start with the intention of building the relationship with clients in such a way that they are delighted and as such become irresistible?

So I believe it is not so much in the theory that it works but in the implementation. Getting the product or service packaged in such a way that it helps clients to remain loyal.

Roberts has successfully argued that Lovemarks is the best game in town but in my book it is simply a way to package sound marketing theory in a way that makes it inaccessible to most and as such a premium based service. Which is not bad marketing when you think about it!!