Jun 11, 2012 | Branding, Change, Communication, Management, Marketing
Today in Sydney has been about as miserable as it gets. Rainy, cold, grey, just plain shitty, and not fair for a public holiday.
What a relief it was to find a distracting way to spend the afternoon.
After watching the replay of the unfinished French Open final, assiduously avoiding any media when I “rose” so I did not know the score, I started to clean up the hard drive of my laptop, removing some of the stuff that had accumulated to clog it up.
Amongst the “random savings”, were quite a number of advertisements I had accumulated from various sites, all of which had the common element of having struck me at some time as being enormously creative, funny, engaging, delivering a serious message, or just sufficiently different to really cut through, when flogging stuff from cars and fashion to condoms and computers. They all, in one way or another, rang my creative bell.
It also struck me that we are in the middle of a huge confluence of two enormously powerful forces, technical development, and creativity, that is changing everything. Hardly an original insight.
The technical advances of the last 15 years have reduced the costs of technology, and the distribution of content to relatively miniscule proportions, which has opened up huge new opportunities for creativity to be seen. However, the digital media has become so clogged with content, from the great to the absolutely inane, that being seen is still the greatest challenge, so creativity remains an essential element of all successful communication. It has also offered up the opportunity to focus laser-like on a very small group of individuals, delivering a compelling message that they would have been unlikely to get in the old mass communication days.
I cannot finish without offering my pick as the best ad of all time, at least the best I have seen. Perhaps surprisingly, it comes from my childhood, so is a very old ad, but is a very simple execution delivering a powerful message in unequivocal terms. Pity the companies management was not up to same standard as their communications people.
May 30, 2012 | Branding, Innovation, Marketing, Social Media
This new avenue to live broadcast, as distinct from posting a video on Youtube, seems to me to be a game-changer.
Social media lives by interaction, engagement, that is what gives it its power, and to be able to go live to an audience, even if it is just your own family at first, offers the opportunity for the networking capacity of social media to accelerate at a logarithmic rate.
For a while I have wondered at the task facing Google competing against Facebook, which has an established base now of a billion, they have built formidable barriers to exit and entry, but “on air” could just change the equation.
The momentum seemed to be moving slowly towards Google, but this innovation will give it a great big shove, particularly in the light of the facebook IPO, with the shares currently being traded at 10% less than the issue price, and 25% below the peaks reached on the big day. There appears to be a healthy dose of cynicism that has suddenly emerged as a result of the obscene amount of wealth facebook insiders have skimmed, whilst the gullible have done their dough, and this cynicism can only assist Google+ build some much needed competitive momentum.
May 23, 2012 | Branding, Communication, Customers, Marketing
The holy grail, the prime objective of billions of dollars of advertising, the wall behind which many campaigns that have failed to generate incremental sales have hidden, Brand Loyalty.
I cannot help but wonder if the label “Brand Loyalty” is sometimes just a metaphor for making the purchase choice easier. The environment we inhabit is now so absolutely over-run with messages information, and tactics to build “customer engagement”, that we all must have a serious case of cogitative overload, weather we know it or not, so we need a mechanism to sort the options.
In this context I am reminded of the old “KISS” principal, Keep It Simple Stupid.
Apple is often cited as the greatest marketing machine we have ever seen, an accolade I am comfortable with, but perhaps there is another dimension. Rather than building brand loyalty, perhaps they have just so simplified the purchase decision in an environment that is psychologically threatening by the number of alternatives, and the techno-speak that most use as communication , that they grab the sales almost by default.
Apple has successfully made buying a piece of tech few buyers understand simple, and attached a cache to that simplicity. This spoof makes the point, but mind the language.
May 14, 2012 | Branding, Marketing
Selecting the best branding option is a topic that always attracts debate, in any business I have worked with. What is usually missing in these conversations is a framework for the thinking, boundaries against which to measure the options.
This post from David Aaker offers a framework with considerable merit, and the webinar link in the post expands on the ideas.
Original thinking on marketing is hard to find, Aaker is original.
May 7, 2012 | Branding, Marketing, retail
30 years ago when housebrands were making their first inroads into Australian supermarkets, I took over management of Fountain tomato sauce. At the time it was a runaway market leader in NSW, but was being badly hurt by emerging cheap housebrands, priced a few cents less, 0.69 cents Vs 0.73 cents. Clearly to consumers there was not much difference in the products, they may as well take the few cents for themselves.
We lifted the price of Fountain significantly, the shelf price difference was then sufficient to suggest to consumers that Fountain was substantially better than any cheap housebrand, which was in fact, the case. Lo and behold, not only did our margins improve, so did our volumes.
The perception of the value delivered by Fountain overcame the rational response that sauce is sauce. Test yourself on this next time you walk into a liquor store, and consider a purchase of wine. Obviously, the greater the price, the better the wine?
In this great TED talk, Rory Sutherland, a big cheese in British advertising makes the point beautifully that decision making has three components.
- The technical considerations
- The cost/benefit considerations
- The psychological considerations.
The first two have a range of widely used and well understood models, whilst the third is often the province of the mavericks, creatives, and other assorted ratbags, and is therefore often dismissed as having a valid role in decision making. However, the best decisions are made at the intersection of these three perspectives.
Apr 24, 2012 | Branding, Collaboration, Communication, Marketing
Trust is a greatly over-used word in management conversations, and has therefore lost much of its meaning, becoming a cliché for “lets hope”.
People trust brands when they deliver consistently over time, but trust is like a bucket with a hole in the bottom, you need to keep pouring water in to keep up with the inevitable losses for a whole range of reasons. Stop adding to the bucket for a moment, and you lose ground that is very hard to make up.
In discussing collaborative structures of various types, “Trust” is grossly overused, and should be replaced by an alternative description, “Reputational Capital” which implies more of the appreciation/depreciation continuum better understood by managers.
Collaborations work only in the presence of people who individually work to ensure that by their efforts others will benefit, and the whole system remains healthy. This is consistent irrespective of the size and nature of the collaboration, from major corporate initiatives, to self managed teams on the factory floor, the local tennis club, and web based sharing platforms like Zipcar. The Reputation of all participants is paramount to collaborative success.
Amazon, Zappos and Ebay rewrote the book on reputational capital with their review systems, and the principals used are now in wide use across many web platforms to provide buyers and sellers with certainty.
How long will it be before there is a web-wide statement of our activity, that accounts for all our activity, irrespective of the platform, an accounting of our Reputational Capital, a “klout” type score that measures not activity, but the satisfaction delivered to the people on the receiving end of all the transactions an individual originates.
