Every Thursday and Friday I have the privledge of enjoying my lunch on the steps of Pioneer Square in downtown Portland Oregon. And with regular frequency, especially during the summer, there seems to always be something to watch . Whether this be street performers or petitioners, the life of Portland Streets is experienced as a unique kind of poetry. Today, however, there was something that I hadn’t ever seen before; Sand in the City. Yet, despite the amazing sand sculptures something more, well, intriguing caught my attention.

Subman!

At first I was shocked to see a walking sandwich, something I thought was left To Jared, but I stand corrected. As I continued to gaze on in amusement I began to observe more of the context surrounding why this personified deli Happy Meal was even present at this event. This walking delicatessen was trying to take advantage of the spirit of civics surrounding Sand in the City. This brings me to the question at hand, “What is the real value of a brand mascot?” But before we dive too deep into this discussion, lets establish a core metric that will help us clarify any ambiguities, what is a brand mascot?

For the purposes of this post a brand mascot will be anyone wearing a branded costume excluding Sports Teams. These costumes can be any intentional representation of a brand from a logo to an archetype. Most importantly, a brand mascot is a person in a suit. Now, let us dig a little deeper into why I personally think “Brand Mascots Suck”.

It could be easily said that, “Mascots provide an opportunity for our actual and potential customers to interact with our brand personified.” On the flip side it could also be mentioned that, “Brand Mascots appeal to children. Enough said.” It doesn’t really matter which strategy or approach you take to brand mascots, they are essentially clowns in Superman capes. This being said, the greatest difference between the Superheros and brand mascots is message and time period.

Brand mascots are attempting to provide two core messages to the public (primarily children). These would be as follows:

1. Our brand is real, really.
2. Come play with us!

During the “Fast Food Renaissance” of the 50′s, the brand mascot was truly invented, at least in the context that we know it today. Here is an example of that.

But there has developed a disconnect between the origin of brand mascots and the present purpose they serve. There is an important point to be made here, “It isn’t the fault of the costumed sandwiches but their puppet masters for this falling from glory.” Subman isn’t to blame for being a poor brand representation, it is the marketers that designed and dispatched him. This is the point. Brand mascots fail to deliver any meaningful message to the public because marketers, in general, have failed to educate themselves on the changes occurring in the outside world.

Here are a couple of lessons that I have learned about brand mascots, having been reinforced in the past month (thank you Old Spice Guy).

1. Brands don’t need clowns, they need Circus Masters. Instead of relying on a one act performer to sway an audience, put your faith in a conductor of sorts. Brands, if they are to continue using live spectacles, need to be able to summon and fluidly integrate the environment into their efforts. This can take the form of a staged event or the crowd itself.
2. Children are off limits, period. From the time I was a child to this very day, I have always loathed advertising geared towards any age demo under 14 years old, especially with parental consent. Brands must begin to give children the freedom from coercive messaging. Focus on decision makers directly and stay out of school.

There is little that can be done to salvage the typical brand mascot, that ship has sailed. Let us understand very clearly, marketers need to be more creative than dancing sandwiches.

Related posts:

1. group Y Industry Roundtable On August 11th, there will be a group Y Industry...