Brand Loyalty?

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.

Advertising: cost or investment?.

The costs of advertising only get counted when you do lousy advertising.

When you place an ad, and you get a great response, the costs are never considered, but place a lousy ad, getting little response, then the cost is alarming.

Therefore the task is to be sufficiently compelling to a targeted audience to bring a quality response, then the cost is not considered,  because you get an outcome that (presumably) makes commercial sense.

My son recently sold a car on line, it was a good car, but not one that would be for everyone. He thought  he would just put up an ad, and it would just sell, easy, because it was a good car, and the price offered good value.

Failure, this first ad got almost no response, and those that did respond were not interested in the car, just getting it at half the advertised price.

We had another shot at writing an ad, putting in much more detail, and then placed it more specifically to attract a specialised buyer, one to whom the particular characteristics of the car beyond the provision of a transport device would be of value.

It got a number of responses, several very good ones, and it sold very quickly at the full price.

The cost of the second ad was irrelevant, but he is still complaining about the first placement.

Reputational Capital.

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.  

Digital marketing or marketing in a digital world?

It is all a matter of perspective.

Digital marketing implies an application of the existing disciplines of marketing, just tweaked a bit to accommodate the presence in the environment of digital options, facebook, linkedin, Pin it, and the rest.

Marketing in a digital world implies a pivot, the old rules no longer apply, because the world has changed.

Comscore has released their latest research, summarised and commented on in Mike Stelzner’s great Social Media Examiner blog. The impact of on line shopping, our seeming addiction to social sites and the opportunities to find new ways to engage with consumers as they conduct their digital lives, is delivering a host of new businesses, business models, and service opportunities not on the radar  just a couple of years ago. Just look at the sudden emergence of cloud computing,   the question is not where in the organisation responsibility for operating the cloud interactions should reside, but how can we best leverage the opportunities thrown up by this piece of the digital revolution.  

Digital is no longer an option if medium term commercial survival is an objective, weather it be marketing, managing manufacturing, customer relationships and inventory, or just doodling, it is the other side of the inflexion point.

Not every body is there yet, but it will not be long, so don’t be late.

 

 

Common language and common understanding.

In a recent negotiation, a good faith, and non confrontational negotiation conducted in English between one of my clients and a prospective investor from East Asia who spoke virtually fluent but non colloquial English, we suffered from a misunderstanding emerging from differing cultural interpretations of the same words.

We discovered, again, that communication is only completed when the intention of the speaker is clear and unambiguous to the receiver of the words. It is very easy to assume an understanding of the meaning of a word or phrase, simply because they register. 

 

“We must be on Facebook”.

This is a pretty common call amongst the junior marketing staff of my clients, most of them are familiar with facebook, they use it in their personal lives to fill a whole range of functions.

When asked “Why must we be on Facebook”? there is usually an awkward silence, and the standard response is likely to be something like  “just because!”

Facebook, Twitter, and all the others are just tools, they are able to deliver an outcome, but it is the outcome that matters, not the tool, used to get there.

You measure the performance of a car on a journey in many ways, petrol mileage, comfort,  handling, and so on, but the reason you get in the car is to get somewhere. Social media is no different, measures of the media themselves are just measures of efficiency, not measures of the outcome.

To make it worthwhile, to create engagement, to build a relationship, there must be something for the traveler at the end of the journey.