What happens when you try to follow Simon Sinek's direction and "Start With Why" but fail at it? You end up with Women Laughing Alone at Salad:
http://thehairpin.com/2011/01/women-laughing-alone-with-salad/
"Making healthy choices. Taking care of me. Feeling good. Living good. Healthy and clean. I like that. For me. Because I matter. Loving myself because someone has to, right? Who? Oh right, me. Loving me for living good and eating good. Loving myself."
Here's the thing: When lifestyle marketing is bad, it's really, really bad.
On the other hand, what would happen if you started with "what" and just knocked it out of the park?
http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/how-arbys-broke-its-marketing-slump-and-became-one-todays-beefiest-brands-167625
"I had to take a stark stance and really sell what I sell and say what I want to say and break away from a lot of the happy-people-running-along-with-sandwiches-in-their-hands kind of advertising," Lynch said.
This opens up one of the most important advertising/marketing debates of our time. Is the emotional benefit always the most fertile creative ground? Is there something to be said with an old-school, romancing the product and nothing but the actual product approach? Let's discuss.