Welcome to the latest installment of our Designalytics Spotlight series, where we connect with thought leaders who are helping to drive growth through design.
Today’s spotlight is on:
Mary Zalla
Global President, Consumer Brands at Landor & Fitch
With 30 years of experience in design and brand strategy, the best question to ask about Mary Zalla probably isn’t “What has she done?” but “What hasn’t she done?”
To wit: She’s led brand development in virtually every CPG category imaginable, and she’s worked with a veritable who’s-who in the space: Abbott, Kraft/Heinz, Lilly, Procter & Gamble, Rich’s, Sara Lee, and S.C. Johnson. (We’ve truncated the list, but you get the idea.)
In talking with Mary, you can see why she has become a leader at both her company—the esteemed branding agency Landor & Fitch—and in her industry. She brings a rare combination of bottom-line pragmatism, a knack for cultivating creativity, and keen, why-didn’t-I-think-of-that insights into the best ways to unleash a brand’s true potential. Perhaps that, in part, is why she’s been quoted in publications like the New York Times, AdWeek, and the Wall Street Journal and presented at the Cannes Festival of Creativity, the Hub Brand Experience Symposium, HOW Design Live, and more.
We caught up with Mary over Zoom and talked about how consumer journeys have evolved, the problem of subjectivity in design, the power of “play” in the creative process, and how learning to ride a dirt bike taught her a valuable lesson about getting outside of her comfort zone.
What are some recent developments in the CPG world that you’ve taken note of?
Well, consumer journeys are more complex than ever. Brand systems need to be so deep and rich, and you really need to meet consumers in the channels where they are. In noting how much times have changed, a client said to me: “I used to need a pack structure, some graphics, and a 30-second commercial and 90% of my marketing was done.” That’s just not the case anymore.
But I think the opportunity is what the opportunity has always been—and it's certainly our philosophy at Landor & Fitch—which is to be brand-led in everything you do. A brand with strong foundations can create experiences that are broad enough and deep enough to meet consumers where they are and engage them.
Speaking of engaging: You’ve been a proponent of being bold and diverging from the status quo in design. What are some ways you have done that in your work?
I'm not into disrupting for disruption's sake. But I do think to have a strong brand, you need two things: differentiation and relevance. I think a lot of people today chase relevance, asking things like “How can we be topical? How are we part of the conversation?”
In today’s world, brands are expected to respond to prevailing conditions and adapt. We did a brand study at the very beginning of Covid and found that a vast majority of consumers expected a brand to play a role in helping them deal with this difficult time. And as we saw, a lot of brands did.
The harder part is differentiation, especially in mature categories. There’s often not that much difference in functionality between brands, so we try to help our clients’ brands operate on a higher plane as well—offering a bigger, broader benefit to consumers.
Can you give an example?
Old Spice is a good one. Everyone knows it as an aftershave and deodorant brand. Over time, we partnered with them to move beyond that narrow definition and expand it as a male grooming brand that celebrates authentic masculinity.
It still offers the functional benefits of sweat protection, odor protection, and making your hair look good, but it is also about a higher-order purpose.
[Note: You can see some of Landor & Fitch’s work with Old Spice here.]
Brands often take a very subjective approach to design, and you’ve regularly disagreed with that. Why?
I don't think there's any room for subjectivity in design at all. Design is intended to communicate. It needs to be beautiful, but also brutally practical.
Sometimes when we get feedback on a design, a client will say “I like this” or “I like that.” Well, that’s great, but there’s a reasonable chance what you like won’t correlate with market performance and efficacy.
Now, if you put what you like in context, it can be a different story. If you’re working with a client that makes over-the-counter sleep aids, for example, and they say: “I like blue because it indicates a sense of calmness.” Great. That may be good for the design. But it isn’t good because you like it, it’s good because it aligns with a color theory and a code that communicates to consumers.
How do you think subjectivity became entrenched in design development and testing?
If I had to guess where the industry first got tripped up on this, it would be when they adopted the same qualification methodologies for design as we do in advertising.
Liking is of critical importance in advertising. The more you like an ad, the more likely you are to buy a product. But there's absolutely nothing, anywhere, ever that has proved a link between liking a design and the validation or success of that design.
I also think most marketers are far less conversant in design than they are in advertising. And that's a shame, because I think design is only increasing in relevance.
Design is a creative endeavor, and you’ve promoted the idea of “play” as a catalyst for creativity. What, in your mind, does this concept do for the design process?
Play is generative, and I think the most creative and innovative people are very generative.
Too often we think of play as childlike or naive. In the business world, we become experts in our field, and we feel we need to be right most of the time. But being right isn’t associated with being innovative. If you’re worried about being right, you’re automatically going to stifle the flow of ideas. But if you’re just playing, you can come up with ideas without the usual restrictions we place on ourselves.
Speaking of play… did I read that you enjoy riding dirt bikes?
Yeah. It is so much fun. My son, who is a freshman in college now, begged me for a dirt bike for his sixth birthday. He finally wore me down, but I didn’t sleep for two weeks after I got it for him because I was worried he was going to hurt himself. I decided I wanted to ride with him. I grew up on a farm, and I have never even been on a motorcycle before. So I decided to go to motorcycle school.
When I took the written test, I aced it, but on the skills test—when I actually had to ride the motorcycle—I was terrible. It was the scariest thing I’d ever done. But somehow I passed. And then as weeks went by, I just got really interested in it.
Sounds like it took you out of your comfort zone a bit.
Right. And that’s another thing—the older and more experienced we get, the more we know what to do in the situations we’re used to. Professionally, for example, I walk into most rooms thinking: I’ve got this. I know what to do. I may not win, but I know what to do because I have experience with it.
But in the situation with the motorcycle, I didn't know anything. And that was a good thing, challenging myself in that way. It kept me humble, which I think relates in an indirect way to design.
There's no room for arrogance in design. Because design is empathetic—it's always done for somebody else. We design it to make a connection with the consumer.
That’s great! So are you undertaking any new challenges?
Yes. My 16-year-old daughter and I are trying out clay pigeon shooting. I’m just starting out and, again, I’m terrible at it [laughs]. I have no natural ability. It remains to be seen if I can develop a capability!
