There's a lot of talk right now about the trend for marketing folk to focus their efforts on short term 'activation' projects, taking their eye off the ball of longer term 'brand building' stuff.
Now, in the first instance, it's probably best to look past the IPA Data, one which many are making the case for creativity and long term thinking.
It's made of Effectiveness Case Studies, meaning it's mostly made of case studies where clients are happy to share the data, where there is an econometric model and the writer feels they have something new to tell the industry. In other words, outliers.
It's kind of the same with stuff like WARC reports, made of their own awards, with entries from folks with especially good work (or at least they think so) and something new to say.
Of course it's worrying if the trend in these cases is towards less creative payback and more short term thinking, but it's still not the entire world.
Even more robust studies from the likes of Ebiquity are less than bullet proof, as they come from brands big enough, or with the kind of culture, that requires an auditor. Take the much quoted study Ebiquity did for Thinkbox...
Its hugely valuable to the difference, by channel, for long and short term, really useful as an argument for long term thinking. But it's an average that doesn't take into account creative impact (according to Neilsen 50% of payback depends on creative, while Omnicom's own bank of case studies shows that innovation can double payback by as much as 100%) - when I saw the study presented, the Ebiquity guy actually said you should prioritise, "Fucking good creative".
But the study doesn't take into account social media, as the incidence of case studies wasn't big enough. In other words, a study of TV centric clients tends to say put most if your money into TV and forget the channel so many are beginning to prioritise!!! The IPA work is better, but as we've discussed, the sample is VERY biased.
Furthermore, like Brexit in the UK, or most debates in the world we're in right now, I find it strange folks seem to on one side or the other, or believe you need to make some sort of choice.
Obviously, just focusing on short term payback is dumb. No wonder Adidas are looking to go back to more brand building for example, as Fred says, I'm sure there will be more. Fred is far cleverer that I ever will be, so take his view seriously.
The thing is, I get a little impatient with brand babblers too. Maybe I've spend too much time with organisations who give their all to moving a target from awareness to familiarity, or making sure people take out a specific personality trait in a tracking study.
My own view is that it's really simple. At all costs, don't follow rules based on averages that don't exist in real life.
It's a little like dieting. The science is unlocking new understanding, where the average guidelines on what to eat are a complete waste of time. The same two people can eat the same stuff and the weight on one can ballon while the other can lose it. Soon, we'll all be able to have personalised guides to what we eat that will transform our lives.
Just as its fair to generalise that women are biologically different to men, but it's also unhelpful as the difference within each groups are greater.
It's the same for organisations doing marketing. There is little point following rules derived derived from an average of companies who are actually from a pretty low base anyway.
What I'm saying is that input and rules of thumb are fine, but you can't beat in my opinion the words of David Abbot.
'Tell people something about the product that shouldn't be missed". You need great creativity to stand out, you always did. You need great creativity because people can't be bothered to think about brands and most of communication isn't about what is said, it how it is said.
But without relevance to what you are selling, or at least to specific problems you need to solve, the best creative in the world won't do the job you need. Because the brand won't be remembered when it's time to buy.
So what to do?
Basically, to mis-quote good old Byron Sharpe, reasons not to buy, in a way that reaches as many people as possible, in a way that captures the imagination, in a way only your brand could credibly do.
- Agree what the commercial task is. You know, grow share, reduce price sensitivity.
- Understand what the barrier is to that. Sometimes it is brand image, usually it's not.
- Define who this is among, and what they are doing, or not doing that's driving the problem.
- Define the right plan to change this, including where and when this should happen.
- But do it in a way people will thank you for, that no one else could credibly do.
Don't think of of campaigns, real people don't live in campaigns, they live in moments. Most of which they forget. It's simple and really bloody hard, but the more you find a moment in real life that is driving the issue and deal with that you're on to something. The trick is to deal with the moment in way that isn't forgotten, that deals with the short term but adds to the how people feel about the brand.
I'm saying think of your brand as a series of moments that will have different roles and jobs. Make each moment add up to one powerful whole.
Think of a basketball. From a distance, it's just a ball. But it's made up of little dimples that allow you to grip it. Think every little dimple as a change to deal with a short term issue, but if each dimple doesn't help people grip the whole thing, they (and you will drop the ball).
That's how I do it, but because I'm different to you, do it your way.
Final point. Load of strategy types like to talk about long term and brand building because it gets them out of solving real problems hampering business performance. In my view, if your thinking isn't going to actually drive a commercial outcome you can define, it's not strategy, it's sophistry.
Comments