ACCOUNT PLANNING METHODS

Online is about reach as well (?)

2012-01-30T16:17:00.005+01:00

found on think with google!
http://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/quarterly/speed/branding-in-mind.html

Corporate Strategy Styles from BCG

2012-01-27T09:45:00.024+01:00

The 3 Dimensions:

Unpredictability: Can we predict the state of "our world" in the future?

Malleability: Can we ourselves influence how our world will be in the future?

Harshness: How hard will change hit us?

read BCG's explanations here

What do percentages tell us?

2012-01-17T15:51:00.019+01:00

Oh dear, this one is so hard to talk about. There's so much to say and so little fun to talk about it. Boring it is. But not to me. And maybe someone else cares. So let me pick one aspect that especially drives me mad.

What really puzzles me is the interpretation of the typical bar chart that is supposed to help understand consumers' motives. They go somewhat like this:

Consumers get asked what is "important to them, when it comes to XYZ". Let's leave aside that this is a very naive question. What I want to talk about is just the numbers and what those quantities tell us.

What happens almost all the time is that we go: "Quality is most important, "Knowledgeable Stuff is second", "Selection seems to be least important." Right? Again, forget about the stupid variables, just go by the numbers. Quality is more important than Selection, right?

Well I don't get that. How can those bars tell this kind of story? The questionnaire obviously must have worked this way: "Tel us how important the following blabla are ... etc" and then each variable could be rated (not ranked, unfortunately!). Now, 80% of the respondents said Yes, or have chosen the Top-2-Boxes when it came to the Quality factor and 50% did that when it came to the Selection factor. But how do we know that for each person, or even for most of the them that the Quality factor is more important than the Selection factor? We have never asked them! What we have measured is not the relative importance but the distribution of high importance of each factor in the population. This tells us that salience of Quality is more frequently found, not that it is literally "higher" than that of Selection.

You see, we just do not know by looking at those bars how many percent of the 80% "Quality Seekers" also find Selection very important. There might be up to 50 percent points of them among those Quality Seekers. So probably most of the people who find Quality important would find Selection just as important. Both factors are rather equally important to most of the respondents! How can we than say that Quality was more important, then?

What could it probably mean "Quality is more important?". What they mean is: if you improve your quality perception this would appeal to more people than when you improve your perceived selection. So the underlying assumption behind that kind of bar chart is: "The more people you target the more successful you will be." Thus, the primary imperative is Reach. You can easily evaluate if your task at hand is in-line with this imperative. If it is - than there's nothing wrong about those bars and their interpretation.

Let me give you three examples:

Task 1) "Differentiate our brand from the competitors in the industry."

Task 2) "Create more loyalty for our brand. Raise the re-purchase rate."

Task 3) "Position our new product as the first of its kind and leverage first-mover advantages fully."

Which of these tasks is the one that is in-line with the assumption "The more people you target the more successful you will be"? Give it a try!

---------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------

Obviously, it's Task 3. Being the first mover means grasping and owning the most popular, most obvious factors. Task 2 is not primarily about reach because it is rather about depth. Task 1 is not primarily about reach because it's rather about partitioning. Of course, in the sub-segments you are sort of aiming for reach, you could argue. But even that doesn't always have to be true: loyalty could very much be about individual, not popular priorities. Differentiation could is probably more focused on less popular yet energetic, unoccupied territories to make them popular. E.g. Axe/Lynx occupied "smell" probably not because it is the most "important" factor in terms of it's statistical distribution in the total population. But it makes a stronger brand positioning than going for "antiperspirant effect" which probably is slightly more frequently rated as "important".

The most important bias at work when looking at those percentage bar diagrams is a visual one. We are automatically attracted to the longer bar. To us it seems more potent, thus more effective etc.
And we all make use of this bias. Especially because planners often rather abuse than use data. They abuse them "to make the point". i.e. to soothe clients' worries, to make them think less.

Instead of making us think more data - especially simple descriptive percentages - make us think less. That's a pity. We should think much more about what data tell us. Not exactly because this would always make us read more out of the data. In the stupid case above - the very first pic I found on the Net - there's not much to be read. It's not very useful. All planners know that. But we should think more about data e.g. in order to learn how to design better surveys. I would start with the question: "How can we measure how important one thing is compared to another?"and "What needs to be known before we can measure that?". But maybe we just can't know what's important?

I like Repertory Grid

2012-01-16T11:54:00.003+01:00

Planning as problem solving? Brands as tension resolvers?

2012-01-06T12:19:00.030+01:00

In an earlier post I wondered if problem-centered thinking really is the best description of how planning works or even should work. You can find that article here & here's Mark Pollard's article that triggered my doubts back then. Let me quote some of the doubts I've had: Do we need a Big Problem to arrive at a Big Idea? Can a lasting brand positioning always be built based on an actual problem the brand has right now? Or take another example: do we need a problem to outline a christmas promotion? Or when a brand is not there yet, its problem is so to say that it doesn't exist, yet. Is this really helpful to find the Big Insight into a Human Truth?
My answer to all that tended to be "no".

In recent times my thinking about those questions evolved further. Two things changed in my mind:
1) I stopped understanding "problem" as just our client's problem but involved consumers' problems as well.
2) I stopped calling it "problem" and tend to call it "tension" - though I'm still looking for a better term.

At the moment I seem to believe that we really could frame any useful information used for strategy as a tension - a.k.a. problem. Firstly, there are client problems communication is supposed to solve. You could also call them "objectives" and that is the way they are codified most of the time. (Let's postpone the discussion if a "negative" framing is better than the "positive".) Secondly, there are consumer motivation phenomena which in Mark Pollards infographic are rather called "Insight". Well, my main point is that those again can all be framed as tensions - a.k.a. problems, although the word problems works less neatly.

Some insights and ideas are tension-driven in a very obvious way:
- "Real Beauty" is built on the tension between what women look like and what society/advertising wants them to look like.
- "Dirt is good" is built on the tension between parents' laissez-faire vs tidiness motivations. Or put it less intellectually, every detergent brand is somehow built on the dirt induced tension: "I want it to go away somehow".
- Avis's classic positioning was built on the tension between being second in the market and people thinking that the Nr.1 is always better than Nr. 2.
Problem! Dilemma! We need a Solution with a capital S!

But for months and even years I have been struggling with other great insights/ideas/positionings that seemed to be of no problem-centric nature at all. Examples of those stubbornly "positive" insights/ideas are:
- "Johnnie Walker. Keep walking."
- "Felix cat food. For cats with character"
- "Ebay. 3-2-1-mine" (the latter being built around the thrill of auction shopping).
There are many more examples out there. Actually more of this "positive" type than of the obviously tension-centric type. So how can we deal with this? Could these positive framings be re-framed in a tension-centric way? Would this help in any way if they could?

What I found out is: these "positive" insights/ideas are not built upon lines of tectonic tensions but they always derive their value from tensions. Simply because there is no value without deficit and no meaning without opposition.

Let's take "Johnnie Walker. Keep Walking." Very obviously, the idea came from the brand name. Probably most of the psychology around it has been made up in retrospective. But that doesn't matter on the level of Truth. (It really doesn't matter if Truth has been discovered in a "proper" linear-chronological, methodical way or accidentally or even in retrospective. Actually, it always happens accidentally, but that's another story.) Back to "Keep Walking". It's an expression of an attractive psychological proposition: probably it's something like Personal Development or Life Success, maybe even Societal Development or Human Progress. Well if every person would develop herself to the max there wouldn't be any value in personal development. If all societies got better anyway there again wouldn't be any value in referring to it. So the value of "Keep Walking" lies in the scarcity of progress - thus in Human Inertia!
Ha! I like it. So maybe we don't exactly need a Big Problem to arrive at a Big Idea but the presence of a Big Problem reassures us that our Idea actually is Big.

Ok, where does the value in "Cats with Character" come from? You see, this is the trickiest one! And again - it doesn't matter how those ad guys actually arrived at that idea - probably by having an Old-Fashioned at the bar. The question is rather - where does the power of the idea reside? My feeling is - and this might sound weird - that the true power of the "Cats with Character" idea lies in the opposition to dogs. Character is what dogs lack if you ask cat lovers. The value of having a cat and not a dog lies in the cat's independence and weirdness.
On the other hand you actually do not need the opposition to dogs to get to that notion. You could really get there in a very straight way: "What do you like about cats?" or "What kind of love relation is there between you and your cat?". But my point is not how you get there but what makes a notion a real issue, a really significant notion. And the issue here is: I'm a cat lover. Cat lovers nurture character not devotedness - as dog lovers do. And here you have your tension. The tricky thing is: the tension seems to be outside the category, somewhere you wouldn't have thought of. Who thinks of dogs when he works on a cat account? Well I do now. I try to look for oppositions - even if there are no obvious oppositions involved. Oppositions constitute meaning. Cats vs dogs? Old cats vs young cats? Cat vs cat owner? Having cats vs having children? It's less a motivational tension, it's more of a tension in terms of "meaning". (Also read my older post about "meaning" as something to be found between two poles here.)

Let's try to apply this oppositional thinking to Johnnie Walker. You could start of by asking yourself: What's the difference between Whisky and Vodka. One of the answers will be: maturity issues. Maturity of the product and maturity of the drinker. Well, that's already quite close to Personal Development or Life Success, isn't it? Fascinating stuff.

The main question remains: Does all this help us planners? I actually believe that almost none of those ideas has actually been derived or discussed that way. They have not been discussing Human Inertia before the idea of "Keep Walking" was there, have they. Once it was there - they might have. Though probably not - managers tend to be allergic to negative formulations. Most people are.

Well you see - I don't care if they had talked about it. Their brains had processed it that way anyhow. "Tension = interesting. No Tension = less interesting." It doesn't matter if others use these patterns explicitly - maybe you could. So, keep it secret and practice a bit.

Tension here: if it doesn't work I shouldn't tell anyone about it. If it works... maybe I shouldn't tell anybody?

Also read this text here about problems as primary objects of good planning by Martin Weigl.

Love Rory Sutherland's anti-strategic notion of big change through tiny things.

2011-12-22T10:37:00.006+01:00

Rory's TED talk & the challenge to find the right word for this kind of stuff.

Very nice story about people's inability to tell you what they want products to be like.

2011-12-21T11:24:00.002+01:00

CP&B Creative Strategy Principle

2011-11-30T10:55:00.002+01:00

found on http://oneslide.org/

Campaigns or Community?

2011-11-17T18:32:00.005+01:00

The Basics of Strategic Frameworks & Decisions: The MECE Principles

2011-11-16T17:30:00.001+01:00

Impressive Theoretical Work: The Universal Principles of Persuasion

2011-11-04T19:25:00.001+01:00

You will find a really interesting text as a PDF here. Obviously, it is less interesting if you are not into metatheories of what planners do. I find it impressive and have never read anything like it. You will need an hour or so to properly read it... Well, just check it out.

Sources of Revitalisation for a Company's Strategy

2011-11-03T16:22:00.008+01:00

Maximum Difference Scaling Provides Better Survey Results

2011-11-01T12:55:00.000+01:00

We are quite used to survey results to tell us nothing of particular insight or even clarity. I know a lot of people in agencies who are so disappointed by market research that they think it doesn't work for them.

But most market research studies are conducted with very conventional and flawed methods although those flaws are well known among researchers. Unfortunatelly, most clients (and planners) don't know much about research methods beyond basic "qualitative-quantitative"-talk. Not to mention limited statistical skills.

I love quantitative if it's done with some methodical wit. But the kind of stuff I like is hardly ever conducted. And if it is - it should be kept in secret, actually. Because in my opinion, research methods are a way to competitive advantage. And there is NO competitive advantage if research is done the same way as everybody does it.

Here's an example of what I mean. A simple scaling method that delivers different (= "truer") results than the ones we usually get. Watch the video here:

From Competitive Advantages to Adaptive Advantages?

2011-11-01T11:37:00.003+01:00

BCG's Martin Reeves on the Future of Strategy in an Uncertain World.
Listen to or download the interview here:

3 examples of well researched & defined business problems to be solved.

2011-10-28T13:24:00.007+02:00

Very often a brand's business problems are described in a fuzzy, unspecific way. Lots of planners even believe, "real problems to be solved" arise rather on communication or "customer perceptions" level. So one level "after" business problems. The reason for this thinking is mostly not laziness but rather the lack of time, money & tools to asses & nail down concrete, distinct business problems. (Though I must admit that young people are just not taught to think in terms of business problems beyond - or rather beneath - "The brand needs more awareness" or "The brand needs to engage the target group".) Bain & Co show us how this could be done in a more skillful way. I wish, planners in agencies had access to such insights.

Example quoted from Bain & Co's paper:

"The insight:
The Bain Brand Accelerator process revealed a series of surprising insights that helped explain why the brand's growth had slowed and why past efforts had not gained traction.

First, the team found that the company needed to reassess its strategy for where to play. Fully two-thirds of Delicious Co.'s actual sales were coming from usage occasions that were flat or shrinking due to changes in consumer behaviors that were unlikely to reverse. The behaviors that had driven growth for decades were now in decline. In the past, the majority of advertising spend and innovation activity had been aimed at breathing new life into these core occasions. Now, a deep understanding of why the occasions were shrinking made it clear to Delicious Co. that this strategy was unlikely to be successful.

But there was good news. The decline in the core was being mostly offset by organic growth and momentum in emerging occasions where loyalists and younger users were using the brand in new ways, such as in recipe ingredients and ready-to-eat snacking. It was especially surprising to see growth of the brand as a recipe ingredient—which had not been formally developed at all. Delicious Co. realized it had an opportunity to capitalize on these emerging pockets of momentum.

The team also found that despite conventional wisdom, the recipe ingredient occasion was the right place to focus—not ready-to-eat snacking. When the Delicious Co. team rigorously evaluated Snacking—for example, by studying the true competitive set, occasion by occasion—it became clear that the winnable portion of the ready-to-eat snacking option for Delicious Co. was much smaller than the company anticipated. Further, the economics were less attractive, and the operational investments to be made would be substantial.

In contrast, the recipe ingredient market was very large, the behavior was growing and it presented attractive margins. More important, Delicious Co. had distinct assets in this occasion, as its product had unique advantages over the competition. But the existing product portfolio was wrong for recipe ingredients—there were significant barriers in taste, consistency, education and packaging. A deep dive into consumer behavior in these areas, using such techniques as statistical cluster analysis and ethnographies, identified the key dishes to focus on and precise issues to address with innovation and advertising."

Read the whole article here:
Also read my short text about setting communication objectives - which deals rather with issues AFTER real business problems have been nailed down. But it still talks about being specific and knowing your main lever. Read it here:

Social Media vs Social Influencers.

2011-10-20T10:27:00.005+02:00

The following research report from Ogilvy on "social media" effectiveness is rather impressive. Methodically impressive - because it works with pre-/post-exposure comparisons and contrasts them simultaneously with other channels' influences. Quantitatively impressive - because the effects of what is called "social media" seem to be huge. And very fast (thus maybe even less sustaining). And can go in both directions (positive & negative, which other channels tend not to do). And... have rather low reach.

You can read the report here: but that's not exactly what I want to talk about. What made me think is the slightly misleading understanding of what actually is effective about "social media" that often guides our thinking. So read my thoughts beneath the report if you like.

Ogilvy ChatThreads Social Media Sales Impact Study 2011

View more documents from 360 Digital Influence, Ogilvy PR Worldwide

I do believe in what the study tells us because a) it appears quite smart & trustworthy, b) I myself have been strongly influenced by what happens around me on facebook and even more so on twitter.
But frankly, I do not believe that what we usually discuss as a companies social media "presence"/"engagement" produces these marketing effects. The reverese arguments apply: a) most of the social campaigns from companies are stupid & not trustworthy, b) I myself never participate in commercial attempts to "engage me with their brand" - I also don't know anyone who frequently and actively participates in such campaigns.

How can that be?

What is corrupt about the common concept of "doing social media" is the notion of people wanting to have conversations with a brand and being involved. To be precise - even if this was the case - the result would not be "social". This still would be something like an in-bound and out-bound call-center. Social is when people talk among themselves. And that's a major difference.

When we read a study like the one above and have an understanding of "social media" as the "owned media" & "stuff" a company has implemented we are probably mislead about what is at work here. My guess is - it's the social influence from people to people that works for brands & products - it's not so much the "social media stuff" a company produces. They might have to produce something from time to time to legitimate their presence in the social spaces - but very often they even don't have to. It is even possible to "do social media" without having any owned media or even content in place - if you have to say something of real substance for example. But then they wouldn't win any awards and couldn't have fun screenshots of their "cool stuff" that "engaged the target group".
I believe the effects occur not so much between a brand's content and its so called "fans" (are you a real fan of any single brand?) but between them and other people plus (!!!) between people the brand never reached with its "social media activity" and other people it never reached. So "Social Influence" is actually when the "Socium" influences. The huge effects of "social media" must come from social influence between people. That's at least what seems plausible to me. In so far the title of the report is a bit misleading because it tries to link a firms investments in "social media" to marketing effects which gently implies that it's the stuff the firm does that has impact. - The more WE do the more effective IT is. - But it should rather be: - The more people out there do for us the more positive effects we will have from their connectedness -.

It is helpful for me to see it this way:

If we can get people to expose & mention our offerings to other people in a positive way more often this will sell more of those offerings. If we can prevent them from doing so in a negative way we will at least hedge your brand and sales (see Taco Bell example in the report above). That's it.

But we should let go of the whole ideology of "engagement", "whole new understanding of what a brand is", "storytelling", "participation", "new marketing age" (it's rather "New Age Marketing", actually) etc. It makes everybody feel dizzy and sweat a lot.

Decision criteria Mono Brand vs. Multiple Brands (Branded House vs. House of Brands)

2011-10-19T17:43:00.002+02:00

These are criteria from Landor's Brand Sliders Tool.
http://www.landor.com/index.cfm?do=thinking.article&storyid=566&bhcp=1

Don't ask why, ask "why +"

2011-10-12T18:55:00.001+02:00

Asking consumers (or yourself) why something happens or why they do something seems to be a legitimate question. It's your approach to the question behind it: "what shall we do?"

However, you probably will not get insightful answers. I suggest the question should be slightly tweaked to make it work better. I call it "why +". (I could have called it somehow less disgusting, but it helps me remember the technique.)

Why+ works like this: you put another meaningful word behind "why", that points somewhere and guides the respondent's attention.
E.g.:

Why now?
Why him?
Why not at the airport?

Isn't this magic?

I love this kind of things...

Advice from planners for planners

2011-10-04T10:28:00.001+02:00

Developing your own planning style

View more presentations from adliterate

How effective insights are structured

2011-09-30T10:29:00.006+02:00

http://www.brainjuicer.com/xtra/ESOMAR_Innovate_2010_Insights_Paper_-_One_Part_Resonance_One_Part_Edge.pdf

Great Post Dealing with the (too) Fuzzy Concept of "Brand Engagement" or "Consumer Engagement"

2011-09-26T12:11:00.011+02:00

http://mweigel.typepad.com/canalside-view/2011/09/fashionable-yet-bankrupt.html

from the Head of Planning (I believe) at Wieden & Kennedy Amsterdam

Social Media do Loyalty but Loyalty doesn't do Growth?

2011-09-22T14:53:00.016+02:00

This might be vastly oversimplified but "social media" - e.g. according to Millward Brown's findings on social ROI - seem to work upon loyalty measures. To be more exact: being a fan (or somehow digitally engaged) is correlated with more positive attitudes towards the brand and a larger share of wallet.

This is a typical result for loyalty programs. It suffers from the typical "correlation-criticism" that says that loyal customers are simply extremely overrepresented among participators in a loyalty program. In other words: they probably have been loyal before their participation already. And that's why they participate. In the case of social media this is even more plausible because e.g. becoming a fan on facebook is exactly that: being a fan already and expressing that.

This whole notion of loyalizing the already loyal customers also is the main doubt many marketers have (or should have) when it comes to loyalty as a lever for growth: it doesn't bring you new customers but it also doesn't effect the buying behavior of existing ones much. Why?
(Apart from this being well proven empirically, ...) because when people buy you brand a lot (are loyalists) it's hard to make them buy much more or more often. (They will rather not buy a third house insurance from you, they will not buy a third refrigerator, will probably not wash their cloths more often in order to buy more detergent from the brand they are fans of - simply because there are natural limits for purchase frequency and often also for volume.) This differs from category to category but most often the plans to raise volume or frequency significantly, sustainably and profitably (!) are quite unrealistic. You might argue that cross-selling is generates growth but cross-selling is rather a matter of selling than of emotional brand loyalty and by the way also has natural limits - e.g. through already owning those products from a competitor brand.

Summary:
Social media - such as facebook sites - are rather loyalty programs than customer acquisition programs and as such they tend not to contribute very much to a brand's growth.

Please read a newer post on how social influence - as opposed to "social media" - can on the contrary be a great force - probably even when it comes to gaining new customers: read it here.

An eye-opening must read

2011-09-19T12:16:00.005+02:00

"How brands grow" is an absolutely fascinating and revealing book for marketers. Everybody who really wants to generate growth and not just perpetuate existing marketing ideology should read it. I will read it twice.

Here's a link to the German amazon site:
http://amzn.to/q7Np3a

And here's one to the US one:
How Brands Grow: What Marketers Don't Know

Why differentiation, positioning & persuasion are overrated

2011-09-18T17:06:00.004+02:00

Today's marketing and even academia seem sure about one thing when it comes to brands:

A brand contributes to the firm's success by "standing for something...uniquely valued by consumers". A brand has a certain position in the minds of consumers and this position makes it "work"... so we are used to think - explicitly or implicitly.

That's why we all believe in specific benefits and emotional territories we want to "own".

Extensive research shows that
a) Brands tend to be not very differentiated in the minds of the consumers. I.e. in brand trackings most often there are hardly any really specific attributes attached to a brand exclusively. One of the reasons for this is probably that consumers do know that most brands and products are equal. Basically we do know that as well, we just not allowed to say it.
b) This "image parity" doesn't hinder market leaders from being far more strong and successful compared to competitors and also those competitors from making good earnings. There is no proof of meaningfully differentiated brands being systematically more successful as "undifferentiated" ones. The classic textbooks on positioning haven't even tried to prove it scientifically. Aaker, Ries & Trout etc. assume they are simply right in their over-obsession with a differentiating positioning just because it sounds so plausible. It's just as plausible as e.g. the model we all use: that attitudes guide purchase behavior - which is scientifically wrong most of the times - the reverse connection being measurably much stronger. (see also point d in this list.)
c) There seems to be no consistent evidence of specific benefits or values being attributed to brands by consumers even if they have had really insightful positionings or campaigns aimed at attaching those things to the brand. And brands are also not really used as advertised. Knoppers is not skewed towards a consumption around 8:30 in the morning, HSBC is not mainly used for global tasks, Kitkat is not necessarily eaten as a break filler.
d) Ads without a persuasive message are just as effective as those conveying such a "unique persuasive message". This is uncomfortable to admit - and for all pretesting researchers this seems insane (or just dangerous). But when you look at lots of the successful pieces of brand communication of commercially successful brands - lots of them don't persuade anyone of anything specific about their product. They might show or deliver specific stuff to the audiences but don't tell you that they are good or better than others at anything (e.g. Coke ads, or almost all social media activities which even avoid persuasive messaging on purpose.)

So what am I saying here? That there's no brand effects at all? No I'm not! It's just that lots of data and experience imply that there are other ways how brands and communication can work without stressing a differentiating positioning (message).

This alternative model stresses memory rather than persuasion and mental availability rather than differentiation or positioning. It also thinks of purchase not as a choice made by consumers using attributes or "benefits" that they "compute" to choose the right brand - but rather as a unwanted mental task that is performed half-unaware by using different heuristics that make the choice easier.

Instead of thinking of a brand as positioning you could think of it a something that eases choice by being present at the moment when this choice has to be made. This view is not new. In fact, it's the most basic and agreed upon "function" of brands. The sting about this notion is that mental availability is key - not differentiation. The brand that is more mentally (and physically) present at the decisive moment wins. Not the one with the most differentiating positioning! Whatever makes the brand Top of Mind in a certain situation is alright. Persil does not have to have a non-generic message if the branding is strong, popularity and familiarity are high, etc. It could but it doesn't have to. There's no "differentiate or die" here.

Now, is there no value in being different? YES, there definitely is! It's just that a distinctive idea, style or pattern doesn't work per se, but AS A MEANS TO MAKE A BRAND MORE MENTALLY PRESENT at the moment of choice (or recommendation). If you consistently look differently as a brand you will be recognized and memorized more easily. If you have a unique story that people
want to hear you will be remembered better. But it's not the difference itself that sells. It's the easier retrieval from memory, the familiarity & attention that are at work.

That's why you can tell that KitKat is for having a break and broadcast excellent commercials built around this notion and be successful doing that and still have a sales increase not connected to the break occasion. In fact, it would be stupid to limit yourself to one occasion. And still, those ads worked brilliantly. How? By being remembered and correctly attributed. And maybe - but just maybe - by implying certain moods relevant in the moment of choice. Note: not necessarily at the moment of consumption, but of choice! I think the most important thing about the KitKat break is he cracking/splitting of the Kitkat bars when they say "have a break". Which is basically intricate branding - visual, auditive, behavioral branding. It's the breaking of the bars not taking a break that makes it so brilliant. The break you take is the story around it that makes everything plausible, interesting, memorable & fun. There needs to be plausibility and category fit of such a story but it isn't more than that, maybe. Just a plausible story that you keep telling because it builds memory structures for you. Not necessarily because you want people to use it exactly when they have a break. Well, if it helps - yes, if not - screw it.

Same with brand personality (as part of positioning). Personality makes you stand out and be recognized. It's not that people buy the brand because they WANT exactly THIS personality. They buy the brand because its personality makes them remember and recall the brand. It's seems to be a too slight difference. But it's not! This alternative view frees us from stupid esoteric retrofitting arguments why exactly THIS personality, design etc is "relevant" and not another. It also frees us from pretending to find "unique" propositions let's say for insurance companies whatever it takes - which probably will end up in something generic how hard you may try. Try to make an interesting, resonating one instead. Or take the one they already have and make it resonate and being remembered and attributed right. Make the branding work!

Things people recall when they buy and that stick to your product or brand and don't get misattributed. That's what works. Call it positioning? Call it differentiating? No problem, go for it if you like. Clients want to hear it anyways. But don't forget that they are just a possible means to a necessary end: to being vivid in the minds of people at the decisive moment.

As my former boss once said (Peter, I do remember): "There was an era before the positioning concept and there will be one after. It's just a concept."

(This post is largely influenced by this book here: "How Brands Grow")

Social Media as Relationship Marketing

2011-09-15T23:18:00.006+02:00

What is the chain of cause and effect that makes social media work (or not work) in terms of "brand building"? It's quite obvious how it works in terms of promotion / sales support (making the right offers to people who are interested and getting in touch with their friends); but how exactly does it work for brands?

I have come to the conclusion that as soon as we say it works upon the brand's image (like eg advertising often does) - we are probably wrong. Or to be more precise - we use the wrong intermediate construct - image (some inner representation of the brand's qualities and traits).
If I were to measure social media effects I would rather not go for image profiles in terms of attributes connected to a brand. Why?

1. Because image is mostly about what a brand stands for and is good at and social media is about how a brand behaves on a daily basis and who it can relate to. What we normally want to express when we use the word "image" is not about brand behavior as a "persona" or its real-life relations to others. We could alter our concept of "image" but that's simply tweaking a concept to make it work somehow. I'm convinced social media doesn't need this tweaking.

2. I personally think social media doesn't change much about the perceived strengths or weaknesses of a brand's offerings as long as they don't get better in reality. Simply because it can't just go and make claims about them. People won't listen and will even make the brand look worse than before making those "image" claims.

3. It doesn't have enough reach to alter perceptions in the mass market. And that's what we normally mean when we think "image". We mean something we can measure in the whole target group, not in minor fractions of the target group.

I would frame social media in the field of relationship marketing where reach has never been the big question, where noone has even tried to create a juxtaposition between advertising and e.g. loyalty marketing. Once we do that new metrics come into play: brand loyalty measures, recommendation measures, share of wallet measures, even satisfaction measures and so on. It's also possible to classify it In the field of public relations or customer service or even market research. All of these disciplines/functions would never be staged as candidates to "replace" advertising or to try to claim that they alone can market products.

For me this very simple and un-fancy categorization was very helpful and resolved a lot of cognitive dissonances.

Maybe it will help some readers as well.

Metaphors of brand strategy

2011-09-15T16:17:00.010+02:00

Metaphors are not quite conscious frames in our thinking that generate a certain kind of perception, throughput and output in our minds. Metaphors work through drawing a parallel between concepts thus transferring attributes fom one concept to the other. Planners usually are not aware that their thinking is guided by metaphors so that their output tends to be influenced but also unconsciously limited by them.

One of the well known metaphors in strategic thinking is "marketing = military/battle". So that words and images of Targeting, Forces, Impact, Strength, Penetration, Reach arise.

A metaphor that nobody is talking about as far as I know is that of "space". Leading to concepts such as Positioning, Territory, Moving from here to there in the positioning space, "The world of" etc. It's clearly connected to the metaphor of "battle" but has it's specific impacts on our thinking.

The "space" metaphor is static in its nature even if movement is possible on "the terrain". Think of positioning - THE branding concept of the last 30 years. Positioning is about settling down. Where? In the minds of the consumers - which again implies that minds are a space where you just decide "where" to place your brand. Set your claims "here". Positioning is obsessed with differentiation: it is allergic to sharing space with other brands. Positioning is positioning gainst the positions or other brands.

One limitation of this extremely powerful framing is: it does not acknowledge the active character of brands. Brands do things all the time and don't just sit in one certain spot in the brain. Not the brands as collective perceptions but brands people interact with. Thinking of brands as movements and not positions could generate different kinds of ideas.

Another bias of the "space" metaphor has to do with the human reluctancy to imagine a space with more than 2-3 dimensions or a curved space or a non-continuous space. On a PowerPoint slide three-dimensional spaces often exceed the viewer's visual capacities so we rather stick with two crossed dimensions. Within such a space brand positioning seems to be a choice of coordinates on the two dimensions. This systematically undermines our ability to think outside the box (again a spacial metaphor) and to open up new dimensions. Secondly, such a continuous positioning space implies that you could maybe move a brand "a bit" along those dimensions, whereas it might well be that in the mind of the consumer there is no such "a bit" but only gravity centers of attraction with a vacuum between them. There is a post in my blog dealing with the issues of "crosses". (here's another more detailed post about the issues of positioning crosses.)

What could be alternative metaphors that foster a different kind of thinking?
I wish a had simple and revolutionary answer at hand. All I have to offer right now are intuitions. Here are some of them:
- "energy", not space
- "organism", not space
- "motivation", not space

What do you think? And which metaphors do you use thinking it?

Recap: 10 Digital Communication Phenomena that Impact How Brand Building Works.

2011-09-13T10:48:00.020+02:00

Communication in the digital space is often described in terms of platforms, formats and certain media touch points. (See illustration on the left - which I found here.) But what are the forces created by those platforms that impact brand leadership in the digital space?

1 Emancipation

Passive audiences become rather agents & producers (though by far not all of them!). People are better informed & media savvier than ever before & accept less bullshit (at least from corporations).

It's not true that brands cannot communicate messages to audiences any longer - they still can. It's just that their messages lose unopposed credibility & share of voice in this emancipated world. Communicating one-way messages TO people becomes more difficult.

  2 Voluntary Choice 

The vast variety of media & content makes people free to choose but also overloaded by available options.

Brands – in the digital world – should rather deliver content / utility that will be chosen by people voluntarily. On the other hand they have to be found - since people use all sorts of filters to make their choices (social filters, search engines, ...)

  3 Transparency

 Little can be hidden. All sorts of information can be found, compared and shared in the digital space.

Brands can not just rely on "lean messaging" that highlights certain positive aspects. Other aspects will come up even if they don't want them to.

4 Humaneness

Digitally mediated communication happens between more and more between people - although not exclusively so.

Brands in the digital social space rather should acquire a more human, personal touch and tone: less abstract, less perfect, less efficient, less "official", often more rooted in actual employees.

5. Collaboration

There's not just communication but also conjoint value creation going on. Between brands & people even less than between allied people. E.g. when they start sharing things instead of buying them.

Brands could use people as cooperation partners not just consumers. I'm not very fond of this notion (I think there's too much democratic ideology to it) but I believe that at least on thing is definitely true: "people out there" often produce far more interesting & beneficial stuff than brands do. So brands need to cope with that or benefit from that somehow.

6 Social Diffusion 

Content travels - through peoples' hands. 

Brands have the possibility not just to attract people but also to distribute their communication through being interesting or useful to people. - instead of buying media space.

7 Users 

"Content" or "format" of communication used to be rather text, pictures, sound, moving pictures. Now "Software" is a new kind of "content"/"format". Apps, Games, etc. Instead of being read or watched of listened to, these media objects are being used.

Brands can engage in software creation (in it's broadest sense, of course).

8 Mediatization of Everything

Before there was "life" (and consumption an that kind of stuff) and there were media. Now life and media are much more interwoven. Think of mobile internet, augmented reality, eCommerce as such)

Brand communication could start caring more about the different contexts of life in which communication occurs.

9. Speed

Communication in the digital space is faster.

Brand & organizations should develop a capability of deciding, reacting & communicating faster. (Being reactive in this field is a far less negative term compared to the world of classical brand comms.)

10. Hypes

Social mechanisms and speed of innovation generate "hot stuff" every second. They mostly come and go. New formats become talked about, then disappear. People talk of the "Age of so and so", but most of those "Ages" can be replaced by another one within 2-3 years.

Brands should not panic. Most things don't work for them. No ned to participate in every hype out there. Entering a game late does not necessarily mean losing the game.

Experience Design Approach

2011-09-09T14:47:00.003+02:00

from: http://www.poetpainter.com/thoughts/category/Experience-Design-Strategy/

Possible Visual Representations in Channel Planning (1)

2011-09-09T13:44:00.001+02:00

Opportunities for Brand Building via Social Marketing...

2011-09-09T09:49:00.012+02:00

...seem to be bigger when ...
1. Potential to improve your offering digitally is high
2. Sales happen online
3. People talk about your brand already
4. Your brand is well known enough to be talked about
5. Your brand is not well known but the awareness figures you need are minute compared to those of
mass marketing brands.
6. Your brand can't afford classical mass media
7. Involvement with the product category is high
8. Involvement with the brand is high at least in some TGs
9. The brand's or its products' benefits are not trivial for people & society
10. The focused TG is highly digitalized
11. You explicitly & deliberately want to loyalize and emotionally bind of your fans / most valuable clients
12. Your brand's image would be rather damaged by not taking part in new media / new trends
13. ...???...

I think i have something here I REALLY like

2011-09-08T22:47:00.000+02:00

http://antonbreman.wordpress.com/

Jobs-to-be-done Paradigm: A Typology of Sub-Tasks in Every Human Behavior

2011-09-08T21:57:00.007+02:00

Analysis of hundreds of jobs has revealed that all jobs consist of some or all of eight fundamental process steps:

define
locate
prepare
confirm
execute
monitor
modify
conclude.

The POST Method of Social Media Planning

2011-09-05T15:47:00.006+02:00

POST-Planungsprozess

von Stefan Stumpp (Student Master MBU, Hochschule Anhalt)

„Die Medien sind nicht mehr ordentlich in kleine Kästchen unterteilt, die Zeitungen, Magazine und Fernsehen heißen. Die Leute stellen Verbindungen zu anderen Leuten her und ziehen daraus Kraft, insbesondere als Masse.“[1]

Mit diesem Zitat beschreiben Charlene Li und Josh Bernoff in ihrem Buch Groundswell : winning in a world transformed by social technologiesaktuelle Herausforderungen, mit denen Unternehmen in Zeiten der sozialen Technologien konfrontiert sind. Die neue Interaktion ermöglicht es erstmals auch den Konsumenten, persönliche Ansichten und Einstellungen über Unternehmen zu verbreiten. Daraus resultiert eine Notwendigkeit für Organisationen, ebenfalls an den Gesprächen teilzunehmen.

POST-Methode

Charlene Li und Josh Bernoff liefern mit dem POST-Planungsprozess einen systematischen Rahmen für eine Social Media-Strategie. Das AkronymPOST beschreibt die vier Planungsschritte people, objectives, strategy und technology.

People

Zunächst muss vom Unternehmen die Zielgruppe für das jeweilige Produkt oder die Dienstleistung definiert werden. Anschließend ist eine Prüfung der Internetaktivitäten der Zielgruppe erforderlich. Dieser Schritt ist notwendig um zu erfahren, welche Social Media-Kanäle wirklich von den potentiellen Konsumenten genutzt werden. Eine Betrachtungsweise für die Internetaktivitäten der User liefert die Social-Technographics-Leiter von Forrester Research.

Abbildung 1: Social-Technographics-Leiter [2]

Diese Abbildung liefert eine soziotechnografische Sichtweise und klassifiziert die Konsumenten nach ihren Internetaktivitäten. Je höher sich die Sprosse befindet, desto aktiver sind die Nutzer. Die Verteilung der Internetnutzer auf die definierten Gruppen der Social-Technographics-Leiter variiert je nach Geschlecht, Alter und nationaler Herkunft. Forrester Research hat das Consumer Profile Tool entwickelt, welches auf Grundlage von Datenanalysen eine genaue Zusammensetzung der Nutzergruppen darstellen kann.

Objectives

Der zweite Schritt sollte die Unternehmen dazu veranlassen, spezifische Ziele zu definieren. Li und Bernoff benennen fünf Hauptziele, welche nicht primär auf betriebswirtschaftliche Zwecke gründen, sondern auf den Aufbau von langfristigen Beziehungen mit den Konsumenten:

Zuhören

Unter Zuhören versteht man die Analyse der Verbraucheraktivitäten im Internet, um Aufschlüsse über Kundenfeedback, Unternehmensreputation etc. zu erhalten. Verbraucher bloggen ihre Erfahrungen in Diskussionsforen oder geben Bewertungen über Produkte ab. Durch Zuhören lässt sich überprüfen, inwieweit Markenbotschaft und die Einstellung der Konsumenten zur Marke übereinstimmen. Es ist möglich, Informationen über Wettbewerber zu erlangen oder Reputationskrisen im Internet frühzeitig zu erkennen, um schnellstmöglich darauf zu reagieren. Letztendlich können die Verbraucher sogar Anstöße für neue Produkt- und Marketingideen geben. Für die professionelle Analyse dieser Informationen existieren zwei Vorgehensweisen: Die Gründung einer Private Community oder Brand-Monitoring.

Sprechen

Um mit den Verbrauchern in den sozialen Medien einen Dialog aufzubauen, existieren verschiedene Handlungsvarianten. Li und Bernoff beschränken sich auf die am häufigsten angewendeten Methoden. Dass sind die Verbreitung viraler Videos, eine Beteiligung an den sozialen Netzwerken, Blogs und die Gründung einer eigenen Community.

Energisieren

Dies beschreibt das Verhalten von Unternehmen, eigene Kunden als virale Vermarkter zu gewinnen. Diese verbreiten den Nutzen der Marke bzw. des Produktes, ohne dabei größere Kosten zu verursachen. Dies geschieht auf dem Wege der Online-Mundpropaganda und hat wesentliche Vorteile. Empfehlungen von Kunden sind glaubhafter als Werbekampagnen und aufgrund der viralen Verbreitung verstärkt sich der Werbeeffekt. [1] Ziel der Energisierung ist es, aufgrund von Weiterempfehlungen neue Kunden zu gewinnen. Bewertungen von Produkten, wie man sie beispielsweise auf Amazon findet, sind ebenfalls eine Form der Energisierung.

Unterstützung

Diese Zielstellung soll es ermöglichen, dass sich die Konsumenten bei Support-Fragen und technischen Problemen gegenseitig online unterstützen. Dadurch können aus Unternehmenssicht enorme Kosten für Call Center oder Hotlines eingespart werden. Für die User muss eine Grundlage, z.B. ein Support-Forum, geschaffen werden. Diese Foren sind geeignet für Unternehmen, welche Produkte anbieten, die besonders viele Fragen aufwerfen (z.B. Technologieprodukte). Eine noch engere Form der Kollaboration findet man bei einem Wiki. Dies ist eine Website, die inhaltlich auch von den Konsumenten bearbeitet werden kann.

Durch die kollektive Nutzung können Unternehmensbeschäftigte und Kunden eine enorme Informationssammlung erstellen. Das geistige Eigentum aller Nutzer ist zu jeder Zeit abrufbar und kann erweitert werden. Voraussetzung für beide Formen, Wiki und Support-Forum ist, dass ein Unternehmen genug Kunden besitzt, welche auch Beiträge liefern.

Integration

Li und Bernoff deuten Integration als die wirkliche Einbeziehung der Kunden in die Entwicklungs- und Innovationsprozesse von Produkten. Somit werden die Kunden ein integraler Bestandteil im Gesamtprozess der Produkterstellung. [1] Kunden können aus ihrer externen Sichtweise und in kollaborativer Zusammenarbeit schneller Informationen liefern als Forschungs- und Entwicklungsabteilungen. Dies liegt daran, dass die Konsumenten unvoreingenommen mit dem Produkt interagieren und Verbesserungsmöglichkeiten oftmals direkt erkennen. Ein Kundenkontakt über das Internet verläuft zudem schneller als eine klassische Umfrage oder Studie.

Strategy

Der POST-Planungsprozess bildet bereits eine grundlegende Strategie für Unternehmen, um ihre Kommunikationskanäle in die sozialen Medien zu integrieren. Li und Bernoff beschreiben in ihrem dritten Planungsschritt (strategy) die Veränderung der Beziehungen zwischen Unternehmen und Kunden sowie die Einbindung der Kunden in das Unternehmen. [1] Allerdings wurde die neue Rolle der Konsumenten bereits ausreichend, im Zusammenhang mit den von Li und Bernoff genannten Zielen, erläutert.

Technology

Nach Li und Bernoff sollte die Betrachtung nicht ausschließlich auf der Verwendung einer bestimmten Technologie liegen. Unternehmen müssen ein Verständnis für die Technologie und deren Nutzer entwickeln. Dies ist von Bedeutung, da sich die Technologien ständig weiterentwickeln.

„Erstens verändern die Technologien sich schnell. Zweitens sind sie nicht der entscheidende Punkt – das sind die Kräfte, die im Groundswell am Werk sind.“ [1]

Die folgende Tabelle gibt eine Übersicht über die Technologien, klassifiziert nach der Art der Partizipation der Onlinekonsumenten und nach ihrer Bedeutung für die Unternehmen:

Tabelle 1: Technologie-Übersicht in Anlehnung an Li und Bernoff [2]

KUDOS-Modell

Der vorgestellte POST-Planungsprozess von Li und Bernoff soll für Unternehmen ein Leitfaden, für die Integration ihrer Kommunikationskanäle in den sozialen Medien, bieten. Die angebotenen Inhalte sollten darüber hinaus folgenden qualitativen Eigenschaften unterliegen: Das KUDOS-Modell [3] beschreibt die Kriterien:

Knowledgable,
Useful,
Desireable,
Open,
Shareable

Die Eigenschaft knowledgable besagt, dass die Social Media-Aktivitäten für den Konsumenten einen Wiedererkennungswert bieten sollten. Eine Kampagne, die keinen Zusammenhang zum Unternehmen aufweist, bietet somit auch nur einen geringen Wert.

Außerdem sollte mit dem preisgegeben Inhalt ein Nutzen für die Konsumenten geboten werden: Useful. Dadurch kann die Wahrnehmung einer Kampagne gesteigert werden. Social Media-Aktivitäten können z.B. einen Nutzen stiften, indem sie für den Konsumenten wichtige Informationen liefern.

Eine Ergänzung zum Kriterium Useful stellt die Eigenschaft Desireable dar. Hierbei sollte der Inhalt, neben der Orientierung am Nutzen, als begehrenswert gestaltet sein. Dies kann beispielsweise durch Spiele-Applikationen oder Gewinnspiele realisiert werden.

Ein weiteres Erfolgskriterium unterstreicht die Offenheit und Ehrlichkeit aller Maßnahmen in den sozialen Medien des Internets (Open). Dies schafft eine Grundlage für das Vertrauen der Konsumenten. Eine authentische und transparente Kommunikation gehört laut Weinberg zu den Verhaltensregeln der sozialen Medien. [4]

Zuletzt sollte es für Konsumenten möglich sein, auf dargebotene Inhalte problemlos zugreifen zu können (Shareable). Somit kann eine schnellere Verbreitung gewährleistet werden. Sinnvoll für die Verbreitung von Content sind Download-Möglichkeiten, RSS-Feeds oder Social Bookmarking-Dienste.

Referenzen

[1] Li, C., Bernoff, J. (2009), Facebook, YouTube, Xing & Co – Gewinnen mit Social Technologies, Carl Hanser Verlag München

[2] Michelis, D., Schildhauer T. (2010), Social Media Handbuch , Baden-Baden

[3] Gruber, G. (2008), Planungsprozess der Markenkommunikation in Web 2.0 und Social Media, VDM Verlag Dr. Müller, Saarbrücken

[4] Weinberg, T. (2010), Social Media Marketing: Strategien für Twitter, Facebook & Co, O’Reilly Verlag, Köln

The Role of Advertising in High-End Luxury Marketing. Is great advertising any good?

2011-09-05T14:48:00.005+02:00

The Patek Philippe advertising case study.

"You never actually own a Patek Philippe. You merely take care of it for the next generation. - Begin your own tradition."

Now, this is obviously belongs into the planners' Hall of Fame. At least 3 great insights can be detected here in retrospective:

1) Buying a watch for $70.000 can make you feel guilty, thus needs to be justified.

2) Really good watches have a really long life - longer than your's is.

3) Most millionaires are self made men. But they long for some sort of dynastic touch to their family.

Apart from the execution style this is really great work. If I would have done this one I wouldn't question my capabilities ever again. Well, I haven't. Next time maybe.

But this is not the story I want to tell here. My thoughts revolve around a doubt that I have about all this. Is maybe even the greatest manipulative advertising idea rather diminishing the super-premium aura of the brand?

You see, we are not talking about a bag for $3000,-. These products cost up to $300.000. They really are luxury. They are so luxury that they even wouldn't use the word luxury because this sounds cheap. These brands (Patek Philippe, A. Lange & Söhne, Breguet, etc.) have an average price at least 3 times higher than a Rolex. Can you raise their perceived value through adding a psychological twist to it? Does the twist itself (the ad idea) have an impact on their propensity to want or buy the watch?

Maybe you think "Yes, where's the problem". Well, the problem is: the strategy techniques used are absolutely borrowed from premium-price or even mid-price products like let's say a Nissan:

1) There is a positioning thinking behind this ads: "Patek Philippe. The Inheritance."
2) There is an appellative lifestyle claim that tells you what to do: "Begin your own tradition"
3) There are models depicting "You" as the brand thinks you are
4) In some of the executions there is even an attempt to trigger your love for children visually (= "to emotionalize the brand")

This is almost perfect - say- for a Nissan. Or Nike. But this is exactly the point: don't people who pay 80,000,- for a watch simply feel that this is "just advertising" - or even mass advertising? And can you sell absolute exclusivity with a mass advertising appeal? What does this tell them about the brand? That they "need" advertising, an "advertising trick"?
Just in case you think I'm advocating some sort of "new, 1on1, digital whatever conversations" as opposed to mass advertising principles - not at all! At this prices, conversations are face-to-face and carried out by professional jewelers in suits we could probably never afford. There is enough conversation going on about Patek. Online as well. The difference being: those who blog and talk about watches don't have the money to buy them - at least not 1st hand from Patek. And besides: the whole conversational, digital etc. marketing is even more typical for mass-market brands.

Let's rather stress some strategy concerns rather than channels & mechanisms.
Is the notion of "positioning" or "proposition" applicable here?
Should a brand like Patek talk to "you" and "your life" overtly?
Should Patek "emotionalize"?
Can or should Patek "add" anything to what they already are?

I guess the problem is that enhancing product perceptions through an emotional proposition or some sort of life style promise to some degree implies that there is room for improvement. If it really is the absolute high END of luxury and quality - why do they advertise? Isn't an emotional promise rather there for brands that need to promise something more than the product delivers? Coca-Cola needs an emotional promise because it's caffeine water and sugar. How can the most perfect mechanical jewelry need an "added value"?

I don't know if my concerns are justified. What do you think?

Don't Ask Them How to Improve Your Product.

2011-09-03T16:16:00.005+02:00

Excellent piece about the nonsense of asking people how and why they do things

2011-08-31T19:07:00.007+02:00

read it here

Rory Sutherland in an interview about

the sense and nonsense of research.

To change or not to change?

2011-08-25T10:43:00.003+02:00

found here

Behavioral, not Attitudinal

2011-08-19T10:31:00.021+02:00

Don't look at the date - there's no hot new stuff on this blog. Rather think how they might have gotten to that idea. What kind of talks they might have had with the management... Why Fun? Why legal driving? Why behavior change?

Strategy Quotations - Behavioral Creativity & Brands as Platforms

2011-08-18T12:57:00.007+02:00

"They start thinking 'What kind of behavior do we want to own?'. And by 'owning' I mean 'What sort of behavior do we want to make better? What kind of behavior do we want to transform?"

- from a presentation given by Ana Andjelic, planning director at HUGE -

McKinsey's Alternative to the Purchase Funnel

2011-08-04T17:19:00.010+02:00

Though McKinsey's "new" consumer decision journey model is out since a couple of months, I still have to read it over and over again. And now I even have to post it here - just in case anyone has not seen it, yet. The model has absolutely striking implications when you think about all the existing measurement and management tools in use right now.
Here is the link to the article and educational videos on McKinsey's website. Just register, it's for free. http://bit.ly/mW8nQF

A simplistic insight paradigm that rocks: "jobs to be done"

2011-08-02T16:53:00.021+02:00

The "jobs to be done" or "products hired to do the job"
paradigm seems very old. But something strange
happens when you rather use the question "what job
does the product do for them?" instead of "what do
they want?" or "what is their benefit?".

Soon I will post something about how this paradigm
leads to different results compared to benefit-thinking or
consumer-expectations-thinking. Listening to this talk
helps to get a first understanding for this very simple
but effective way of thinking.

Here is a link to a short article in HBR: article

An here is a link to Professor Christensen's book on how innovation becomes successful when jobs-to-be-done-thinking is applied:
The Innovator's Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth

Digital vs Analog Creative Brief - Different Key Questions

2011-08-02T10:15:00.047+02:00

This is a slide shown at an APG conference in Germany. It features different approaches to planning of Digital and Analog disciplines. Basically, there is nothing new, but a lot of symptomatic stuff to say about it. But first of all, let me translate briefly into English. This scheme juxtaposes Key Questions to be answered:

Analog: What is the consumer's motive (to buy/use)?, What is the message of the brand/ad? Why should she believe us? How do we stay recognizable? How do we gain attention?

vs.

Digital: What is the user's behavior (in the digital space)? What is our offer/experience? Why should she take part? How do we make space for sharing & for new stuff to be created? What do we offer to make them spread our story?

While this really is a helpful introduction into basic differences between digital planning (experience planning) & analog planning (brand planning), there's a gap that always strikes me. And I mean not the one between digital & analog but the one between digital & purchase. The digital planner - at least according to the scheme above - does not explicitly ask herself how the digital experience connects to purchase or usage motivation for the PRODUCT to be sold. It starts off with the question about user behavior in the digital media space rather than in the product usage space. Of course, some digital experiences are directly related to purchase or usage like it is the case of e-retailers, airlines, etc., but clients like e.g. detergents, burgers, canned soups, etc. are not used or even bought online. So how would this kind of planning actually plan for purchase?

The major challenge for digital planning is to show how this non-message- & non-motive-approach is connected to purchase. Classical brand planning or account planning connects to purchase via a model of consumer motivation which the communication tries to evoke or to alter. What is the purchase influence model used by digital planners? I'm sure there is one - but has not been formulated clearly, yet. Up to now it seems that the mere fact of brand exposure & experience as such is supposed to drive propensity to buy. This well may be the case but on the other hand it would mean that it makes almost no difference what exactly the experience elicits in the minds of the users as long as the familiarity with the brand increases. In other words: "As long as people are engaged in any kind of experience - it sells". Is this true? Has this been researched properly? This is a big opportunity for academic studies to come.

Communication objectives that help and those that don't

2011-07-21T14:01:00.001+02:00

Why objectives are important

Objectives give direction.

Giving direction is crucial for marketing and communication strategy. It's obvious why:
1) it helps people understand, what they have to develop in terms of ideas & actions
2) it provides a basis for evaluating the success of those actions.

Now, as a planner I have been searching for an answer to the following question for a long time: How to set objectives so that they help people to develop their marketing activities? A simple question - in theory.

Common but futile knowledge:

Most of the pieces of literature and informations on the internet I've found refer either to the notion of SMART objectives (see graphic) or to the difference between marketing and communication objectives. There's nothing wrong about both of these notions. But they did not really help me. While I was mainly developing communication objectives with marketing objectives already set by my clients very I rather wanted to know:
A) how are communication objectives set best = so that they help?
B) how can communication objectives be derived from marketing objectives or "goals"?

SMART doesn't work very well:
A) I tried to apply SMART criteria to communication objectives - e.g. in a creative brief. This was not wrong, but it was not the right thing to do as well. Why?

Yes, "Specific" is crucial, "Realistic" is important, "Achievable" is great, but things get worse for most planners when they come to "Measurable" and "Time-Bound". The problem about these criteria is that they seduce the planner's brain to think quantitative. The next thing that happens to a lot of people is that they state the communication objectives in terms of impact on certain dimensions tracked by the brand management. Most often these are brand awareness, brand likeability, brand preference, certain - not insightfully chosen - image dimensions etc. Again, this is not exactly wrong - measurement is good - it just doesn't help to understand what exactly to develop! What would help is to know The How of "Achievable"! "How can we achieve whatever needs to be achieved?" is the question creative and account people want to be answered - and they don't care, actually, about the market share or brand awareness figures. Why should they? These don't help them.

Marketing goals don't help much:
B) What about deriving communication objectives from marketing objectives? It happened to me - so I guess it happens to other people, too: I really believed for a while this might be possible. It is not! Why?

It's simple: because marketing objectives in most cases are built as SMART objectives and focus on the evaluation of actions. There's no way to derive a helpful communication objective form a marketing objective described as "increase market share to 45% in the SME-segment in the next 12 months". The only things you can derive from such objectives is the target segment and the offerings to be marketed. This helps you to conduct market research with the right respondents or to buy the right media and target the right people at the right time. But it doesn't tell you (directly) what kind of communication and message is needed. Now I believe that there's no direct if-then-relation between marketing goals and communication objectives. Not even the slightest! But there might be one between communication objectives to be set and the problems ON THE WAY TOWARDS the marketing goals proclaimed by the client.

Conclusion & Proposal:
Overall I learned that there seem to be two types of objectives: those to evaluate how things went in retrospective and those that really help a planner.
The problem is: nobody will tell us the objectives. We have to set them ourselves. But the questions remain: how do they have to be if not SMART?

I believe that one of the simple ways to think in a more helpful way is to ask "what to change?" instead of "what to achieve?". Even if it's true that sometimes change is not required, still this perspective helps in most cases when planners are involved.
I believe that choosing a certain form of statement helps a lot. So here are some useful ones.
A communication objective is more helpful when it is stated e.g. in the form of
"from ... to ..." or "convince them that ..." or " or "dissolve the connection between ... and ... ".

Branding vs. Communications Planning

2011-07-19T15:57:00.001+02:00

Sometimes people don't quite get the difference between a brand strategy as fixed in a brand book and a workable idea for communications.

"We had that whole brand thing already with another agency. Some brand guys - Soandso and Soandso. So we know perfectly well what our brand is. We have to use what the brand bible says. So why are you telling us we need a real idea, now. Are you crazy? We have it already."

So this is how I once tried to explain why there are two views on "doing the brand thing" and why the brand book doesn't always give you the strategic campaign idea - not even for an image campaign. Not always? I mean almost never.

The Mechanisms behind Emotional Propositions in Advertising (2)

2011-07-07T18:04:00.005+02:00

A quick follow-up on my post on emotional propositions and why they might be good for. I just found this interesting insight from McKinsey. Sorry, the pic is in German. It basically says that emotional beats rational in the consideration phase of the "lifecycle", whereas rational rules in the purchase phase. The curve is not the same in each product category, obviously. This one here is calculated for health insurance.

read the old post here:

How to Define Problems

2011-07-05T10:21:00.005+02:00

Sample text from the article:

"1. Rephrase the Problem. When an executive asked employees to brainstorm “ways to increase their productivity”, all he got back were blank stares. When he rephrased his request as “ways to make their jobs easier”, he could barely keep up with the amount of suggestions. Words carry strong implicit meaning and, as such, play a major role in how we perceive a problem."
(click here to read full article)

"We need more Target Group Engagement?"

2011-03-21T17:53:00.002+01:00

Single-minded Propositions vs. Brand Sustainability

2011-03-21T12:34:00.001+01:00

I got inspired watching a documentary about the nature of money & currencies. An economist who develops new currencies for the world quoted an insight from sustainability research:

"While efficiency is highly appreciated in our world, it's not very good for the sustainability of a system if it goes too far." In his field this means that different, only partially exchangeable currencies would make the financial systems more sustainable and crisis-resistent.

So I just transformed the diagram he has drawn to explain this into one that is rather about brands and their sustainability. So if we see brands rather as "meaning systems" and not as "meaning points" the curve goes like this:

Brand sustainability is highest when there's enough diversity in the brand's "meaning layers". Single-mindedness as an absolute goal of brands kills them in the long run.

Well, obviously, this is merely hearsay and just a hypothesis. But it's nice to see it as a simple curve.

Tell me what you think...

Strategy as seen by creative people?

2011-03-17T11:47:00.001+01:00

Sinus Milieus in Germany

2011-02-24T10:47:00.000+01:00

While all planners in Germany have seen the graphic of the new Sinus Milieus very little is really known about those new clusters. Maybe this transition chart I found on the net helps a bit. However, the Sinus institute definitely needs to explain all this in more detail and also in a more scientific manner.

Brilliance of the 30-Second Spot

2011-01-12T17:38:00.002+01:00

So Contrarian, AdContrarian!
Brilliance of the 30-Second Spot

Strategy Quotations - Marketing Warfare

2011-01-09T13:30:00.002+01:00

"The key to marketing warfare is to taylor your tactics to your competition, not to your own company."

- Al Ries/Jack Trout in Marketing Warfare -

Insights through letting people tell stories

2011-01-05T13:18:00.007+01:00

In the description of their narrative based methods Cognitive Edge describe important qualities of moderating a group session. They apply these rules to anecdote gathering techniques. (link to document here)
But I believe these STORY ELICITATION TECHNIQUES & general rules for moderators are useful far beyond that:

"Extremes. People should be talking about best and worst moments, not about everyday things. What you are looking for is the boundaries of experience, not the midpoint. You are not interested in what a "typical day at the office" is like; you are interested in the best and worst days in a career spanning forty years. And importantly, these extremes must include the negative as well as the positive. It is much easier to get "success stories" out of people than it is to get stories of failure and disappointment; but it is the latter that is usually more fruitful.

Events. People should be recounting things that happened, not lecturing or giving opinions or complaining. You are looking for stories, which are a qualitatively different type of data than any other kind of statement. All stories describe events; if nothing happens, it is not a story. This is a major obstacle and one that can produce bountiful amounts of opinions, statements, facts, and instructions - but no stories. Whether you get stories or not depends on how you frame the things you ask people to do. It can be as simple as making sure to ask "was there a time you felt proud" rather than "what were your accomplishments". Always frame your introductions to natural storytelling in terms of events - times, moments, experiences, instances, things that happened, and so on. Avoid mentioning things that don't have a time element, like conditions, beliefs, rules, expectations, memory, and so on.

Emotions. In every situation there will be some issues that people are going to be at least a little passionate about. If that isn't happening you haven't found the issues yet. Sometimes it takes a while for people to open up and start talking about what really matters to them. You need to find a balance between using techniques that help move this along and just having patience and letting things take time. You can help people too much. Sometimes you will get all of your useful anecdotes in the last quarter of the anecdote circle's time. That's fine, as long as it happens.

Experiences. You want to hear about people's real experiences, not what they believe they should be saying, or the company line, or what they heard on the news. You need to cut through all that to get to what has actually happened to them, because that is where the real potential of narrative disclosure is realized. The several techniques for fictional exploration described below can help with this obstacle. But outside of any technique, you also need to convince people that you really do want to know what their experiences have been and that their perspectives are valuable to you. You can do that in how you talk about what the anecdote circle is about and why you need the perspectives the people in it have to offer. Your reasons for this will of course differ based on why you are holding the anecdote circle; but in nearly every case you will be truthfully able to say that you are after something deeper and more meaningful and signficant than what can be found out by reading official stories or news stories or instruction manuals, something that only the people in the room know about. Knowing that what they will be talking about will be valuable will help people to volunteer what they know.

Exchanges. Naturally occurring storytelling lives in a habitat of conversation. It is not a "thing" you ask for but an emergent property of discourse. Whether you get emergence or "things" will depend entirely on how you present the anecdote circle. Watch your language. Never "ask" for a story. Never tell people "we want your stories" or in any way refer to a story as a thing. If you do that, you will tap into a lot of misperceptions about what a "story" or an "anecdote" is, including a novel, a movie, a comedy routine, a lie. You don't want people to get the idea that you want them to perform or make things up for the sake of the things themselves, because the focus will shift from process to product (and thereby destroy the product). What you want people to understand is that you want them to talk together about the past, about times and events in the past, about things that happened to them, about their experiences. If that happens, there will be much better anecdotes produced than if people believe they are "producing" anything."

Touchpointing

2011-01-04T11:28:00.004+01:00

Is Account Planning about Problem Solving?

2011-01-04T11:16:00.008+01:00

http://www.markpollard.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Approach-to-strategy-Mark-Pollard-2010.jpg
http://www.markpollard.net/how-to-do-account-planning-a-simple-approach/

Have a look at this nice introduction to planning. It's really good. Thank you, Mark Pollard!
Look at the left of it: it is build around the notion of "THE PROBLEM". Lots of account planners stress that planners need to identify the problem first. And it works really well for lots of tasks at hand. My concern with this, nevertheless, is: I this always the case? What if it's not about a campaign that has to change attitudes - but e.g. about long lasting platforms for brands? Haven't you also encountered situations in which the work just doesn't seem to be problem based? When you might be able to formulate a problem but this would just be a verbal trick of stating something negatively? Or you would arrive at very generic "problems" like "the brand could be positioned more clearly" or "not enough competitive advantage" or "communication in this field is stereotyped, the challenge is to find new ways", etc. But these are obviously not those kind of smart problem discoveries planners are eager to find.

I personally like the problem based paradigm. It helps a lot. It helps to teach juniors for example: "Don't think solutions first. Think problems!", etc. It's a clear advise how to work and those advises are scarce in our business.
Bit sometimes I guess problem-based is wrong or rather not necessary. Do we always need a problem to get to the Insight? Do we need a Big Problem to arrive at a Big Idea? Can a lasting brand positioning always be built based on an actual problem the brand has right now? Or take another example: do we need a problem to outline a christmas promotion? Or when a brand is not there yet, its problem is so to say that it doesn't exist, yet. Is this really helpful to find the Big Insight into a Human Truth?

I would guess, problem based is right for maybe 60% of the cases given. (Don't ask me where I have this number from, It's pure guessing - and just a number. And what is "right" anyway? Probably nonsense as well..)

Read the follow-up on this post here.

How to handle complexity - or how to unplan planning

2011-01-03T17:47:00.016+01:00

Strategy Quotations (5) - External Factors Rule Market Success?

2011-01-02T22:12:00.002+01:00

In fact, very few companies lose market share in head-on competition. In my experience, in the majority of instances a corporation loses market share because of structural changes, i.e. the faster growth of its weak segment compared with its strong segment.

- Kenichi Ohmae. The Mind of the Strategist -

Proposition and Positioning

2010-12-16T10:34:00.003+01:00

Positioning (= mental response) is the effect of making a proposition (= brand stimulus). That's it.

Strategy Quotations (4) - Asking Questions in Research

2010-12-15T15:21:00.005+01:00

In his book Ogilvy on Advertising, David Ogilvy relates an experience from his days as a researcher for the Gallup Organization, when Gone with the Wind was a bestseller. Ogilvy’s assignment was to find out how many people had actually read the book. After too many positive answers to the direct question, "Have you read Gone with the Wind?", Ogilvy made the subtle but brilliant change to, "Do you plan to read Gone With the Wind?". Having provided respondents a way to admit not having read the book and still save face, false positive answers dropped dramatically.

Desired Responses to Communication

2010-12-14T12:22:00.003+01:00

Strategy is not intuitive - not entirely

2010-12-13T18:03:00.004+01:00

Ads are for retention (?)

2010-12-02T12:58:00.000+01:00

In a Book called "Habit" which deals with habit as main behavior driver of consumers the author makes the following point:

Since 95% of behavior is gouverned by habit ads are and should be designed to reinforce habitual behaviors. In other words: you don't do ads to alter attitudes or improve "images" but to implement or more often rather to reinforce brand related habits. If a brand doesn't "own" such habitual behaviors - too bad. A brand should own them he says.

Now, we rather assume that ads are for news and CRM is for retention. This guy says ads are rather for retention (since habits as such are for retention)

It's an interesting point,don't you think?

Die Quellen von Insights sind in unserem Kopf!

2010-11-24T14:22:00.013+01:00

lesen Sie den Artikel zum Thema "Insight-Generierung" hier (auf Deutsch):
http://www.apgd.de/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/APG-NB-22.11.2010.pdf

Strategy Quotations (3)

2010-11-22T09:56:00.005+01:00

"Corporate strategy thus implies an attempt to alter a company's strength relative to that of its competitors in the most efficient way. Of course, the condition of the business itself can be improved by reference to absolute criteria. For example, a company may seek to reduce the costs of its products by using value engineering or seek to improve its cash flow by shortening the collection periods of receivables. (...)
These "operational" improvements can be regarded as a part of business strategy.
I believe, however, that it will make for clearer thinking if we reserve the term 'strategy' for actions aimed directly at altering the strength of the enterprise relative to that of the competitors."

- from The Mind of the Strategist - by Kenichi Ohmae

Strategy Quotations (2) - B2B CRM

2010-11-12T15:40:00.007+01:00

"When we look at loyalty programs and we’ve done them as well, it is our operating theory that the thing that drives loyalty as strong as or stronger than anything else is the ability for us to help our customers make money. Where there are many schemes for measuring loyalty, we rather think the most powerful way to engage our customers in this kind of conversation is better served by talking to them about their ability to make money."
— Bob Harlan, Director of Business Insights, Owens Corning

Strategy Quotations (1)

2010-11-12T12:33:00.004+01:00

"There is always a leading competitor in any area. The classic segmentation forces that specific competitor to choose between parts of the segment. If he chooses either alternative, he must abandon the rest or serve it at a loss."
- Segmentation and Strategy, Seymour Tilles, 1974

Resonance vs Relevance

2010-09-12T17:25:00.004+02:00

Resonance vs Relevance. Two Concepts for Planners.

It's mysterious how words used to describe what we aim for in planning can change planning itself. Normally we think that there's "reality" which we deal with but very often there are just terms and concepts. Like e.g. "relevance" and "resonance". Let's dig deeper into that.

Resonance is a concept widely accepted in the Anglo-Saxon advertising community. Less so e.g. in Germany. The word "relevance" here in Germany is used all the time. "Resonance" hardly ever. This is quite revealing, but the cross-cultural thing isn't the main point.

What's the difference between those two terms? They both point towards the impact power of a communication that "presses the right buttons". But what's the difference between them?

Let's take a look at the syntax that goes with them. We say "relevant to" or "relevant for" - but we say "it resonates with". So it's "for" vs "with". Basically, that's it. That's the difference. Let me explain why.

Relevance is instrumental. No, not the opposite of acapella:) Instrumental in the sense of usefulness for some sort of action or goal. There is no relevance per se. There's only relevance in relation to something a specific person in a specific intentional state aiming for. E.g. good tyre grip is relevant for safety and sportivity, less so for self expression of the driver. Which driver? Right, for car enthusiasts good grip - on the contrary - might be relevant for self-expression when meeting other enthusiasts for a chat about cars. (This is why all those questioannaires asking all sorts of people about "how relevant is this or that for you?" - IN GENERAL - don't make much sense.)
So, relevance is instrumentality related to something on a higher level. Something is important because it's connected to something bigger that is important. Basically, when something is relevant you could ask "what for"?

It's different with resonance. We say "resonate with something". There's no direct expression of beeing "good for...". Resonance is much broader than that. Relevance could be one sort of resonance - a utalitarian one - but there could be other ones. Resonance with cultural preferences, with matters of style, with shared beliefs, with shared dislikes, with memories etc. Resonance as a communication outcome could be even simply about liking. Resonance is more about brands as communicators and less about products as relevant offerings. A product can have relevant features but you would hardly say that the feature resonates with the audience.

Resonance is a musical term. It's also about physics, but specifically physics of waves, e.g. soundwaves. The phenomenon of wave resonance in music is about causing a wave movement in an object by eliciting the right wave frequency with an other object. It leaves you swinging in its wave. Relevance doesn't do that.

What's interesting in practical terms for planners is that you need to find the right frequency, the right chord. I think there are two sorts of such frequencies or wavelenghts. The ones most people resonate with when it comes to a certain field in life. Those are the values and meanings that are widely used and seen as a must have chord to be played. "It's all about you", "wholesome food", "naturalness", "self-expression" all that canonical things considered "right and good" in a given era. And then there are frequencies that cause new, more striking resonances. They do so because they don't re-resonate the "safe" wavelengths that are already swinging in the audience but hope to have found one that is not in their repertoire, yet. OK, that's nothing new - this seems to be about differentiation. But it's more helpful than just that: it shows us where to look for a differentiating frequency to resonate to. Watch out for slight dissonances and tensions between resonances, look into margnal (subcultural) resonances on their way to become dominant ones, resonances in other cultures, and also changes in wavelenghts over time, and most of all into your own brand and it's own "wavelength"!

Let me explain the dissonance thing. Dissonances appear when there are negative "vibes" when you strike a chord. They might come from negative connotations or from conflicts (interferences) between different "waves". An example is Saturn's "Geiz ist geil". Another example? If you look into what's resonating in the airline industry it's clearly the chords of "personal, caring service", "ease & comfort", "big, global network" and "simple and affordable". And it works actually. The problem is: it works for every brand. Let's look into a certain brand and the dissonances caused by it's origin and heritage. The brand i talk about is Lufthansa. It delivers all of the stuff above and it talks about it - just like everybody else. But the dissonance with Lufthansa is that they are German - i.e. cold, unemotional, pricise but like a machine. Here you go: you've found something. It strikes a dissonant chord. It resonates - dissonantly. Now the job is to arrange this wavelength in a way that people resonate more positively with it. Not by striking the common safe chords, but to find Lufthansa's own, resonating wavelength based in thier Germanness. Is Germanness relevant in the market? Doesn't matter here: it's more about resonance, not relevance for a brand.

The Mechanisms behind Emotional Propositions in Advertising

2010-09-05T18:56:00.006+02:00

There's a strong tendency - esp. in the Anglo-Saxon world of advertising - to favour extrinsic, emotive propositions over intrinsic, product driven ones.

To clarify what I mean, here's one first example: BMW is all about "Joy (...in life)" as an extrinsic, emotive proposition, Mercedes claim "The best or nothing" which is far more intrinsic and product/usage driven. While such wide umbrella brands tend to overarch their diverse products with very broad - thus most of the times emotive - concepts, the difference between emotive vs product/usage driven is more striking on product level or for very lean brand portfolios. Gatorade could be about enhanced performance in sports or about the spirit of perseverance in sports. The latter would be an emotional proposition. Coke Zero in Europe dramatises "Life as it should be" rather than the product related "Real Taste, Zero Sugar - (as it should be)".

Now, we all learned for decades that since products don't differ on product level any longer they must become differentiated on an extrinsic, emotional level. This is the sensible widely accepted thinking and - honestly - there would be little to do for planning if there was no quest for the emotive lever. Yes, it's true that there's often no alternative to that - e.g. because there's no other differentiator or because you are looking for an overarching idea for a whole portfolio of products. But still, sometimes I just don't fully understand how this actually is supposed to WORK - I mean how this influences purchase behaviour.

People would hardly really believe that Coke Zero delivers on their promise of a perfect life as it should be. I would also assume that they don't really seek for "perfect life in a bottle". The usual answer to that is: "well, people are not that rational, things work beyond ratio". Absolutely - but how does this actually work? "Beyond ratio" is not an explanation, nor is it a sufficient description.

Here are some scenarios how emotive propositions, or say brand ideologies might work:

A) they deliver a noteworthy and legitimate "Reason-to-talk to consumers" - you could pick any plausible and entertaining "story" to be heard and seen
B) they imply certain purchase relevant attributes on product level
C) they just increase the likability of or the respect for the brand - it's cool that the brand tells such a "story"
D) they deliver an emotional post-justification for a purchase - a good feeling IN ADDITION and maybe AFTER having chosen something
F) they become real reasons-to-buy - people buy the product in order to gain the promised emotional benefits (= often unlikely)

Most clients - and agencies - seem to assume it's F) that is at work. And it is in lots of cases. E.g. Smokers do buy cigarettes in order to "inhale" a certain lifestyle. But the problem is that promising all sorts of life- and self- improvements is often an extreme overpromise - causing even reactances. This is often apologised by saying "that's advertising. It's about exaggeration". Well, it depends...
Let's take a look at Coke Zero again: it does not really have to differentiate itself emotionally from equal competitors. There's only one Coke Taste with zero sugar. So why sell it as an enabler of a perfect life? Were emotive propositions not just a way out of the factual parity on product level - as e.g. In the cigarettes market?

It seems to me that we tend to believe that emotional propositions are per se "stronger" than product-level ones. They are considered the standard procedure of "proper" brand leadership. But this simply can't be always true! Product related cognitions are stronger at the shelf than vague emotional tendencies for most of the advertised categories.

This is why I would think that for product advertising scenario B) is the most likely and practicable one. The emotive proposition here would be the nice, enhancing packaging for clear and purchase relevant product or usage attributes. On the other hand sometimes ads explain too much of the emotional benefits of features; people could feel patronised by the brands "instructions" how tu enjoy and value those features. E.g. Insurance companies constantly "explain", how financial safety contributes to life quality when you are old. But really, they don't have to explain that - it's banal.

So there's a thin line between strong, relevant emotional propositions on the one hand and blunt overpromising on the other. It's defintely not true that "emotionalising" a brand is the best way to improve clout. If done without a real insight it's a good way to diminish brand appeal. Sometimes the results of such "emotionalising" attempts are typical ad bullshit and consumers feel that.
And there's a not quite thin line to be crossed between emotive claims and consumer's actual purchase and usage behaviour. Maybe the effect of emotional propositions on purchase behavior is an indirect one. This would change the way we discuss them in client meetings.

Market vs Culture

2010-08-13T12:44:00.005+02:00

Basically, the real key difference between the "Old School" & "New School" planning & advertising is the following core belief:

"Old School"            >>>         "New School"

Believes that      >>>          Believes that
brands operate in markets         brands operate in culture

Now, you're probably used to planning blogs glorifying "the new way" as the substitute of "the old way". That's not what I'm trying to say here. Kant doesn't substitute Plato.
Practically, if you work in the UK for British clients, which I don't , you should embrace "the new school" every now and then. If you work somewhere else - e.g. in Germany - it's healthier for your bottom line & new business to think of brands as operating in markets and being a means to sell products:-)
Same difference could be drawn between different businesses you work for. Etc.

Of course the two views overlap all the time. Markets are embedded in culture and all that. You could also mix the two views. But then my headline loses "vs". And I like "vs".

Learning from Planning Cases

2010-08-13T11:10:00.004+02:00

Planning & communications are often seen as art rather than science. And it's absolutely true. (Though this implies a slightly wrong picture of science as unimaginative and repetitive in its methods.)

Taking on from here I have been thinking about how "art" is tought. Not "art hostory" but art itself. As far as I can see, it's tought through letting people make art and then criticizing it, and secondly through making people look at art - no, rather see art. For some art forms there naver has been any other form of learning than through looking. For instance in hip hop spraying when it took off. You simply looked at what others did and went on from there.

The first method is exactly what we do in an agency all the time: we let people simply "do strategy" and then criticize it - if we get money for this, we call it "workshop" or "bootcamp". The second method would be to let them read case studies. It's hard to find authentic cases studies with little retrospective rationalising. But it actually doesn't matter if they have been polished or claimed by planners though it was a creative's idea, etc. It's like with fine art - very often we actually do not know how and who painted those pictures (There are around 12 versions of my favourite painting ba El Greco.Most of them not made by El Greco but by his pupils. Mozart's Requiem might be not composed by Mozart himself but by a "Junior in his team"- seriously, he was too sick at that time. This doesn't matter much, his apprentice must have studies Mozart's "case studies" pretty well.) We also don't know how messy the process has been in reality. (Lots of paintings have 3 layers of paint - hiding different versions and the artists insecurity.) Doesn't matter, it's the brillance of the result that will influence us.

So this is it: case studies, or rather "study cases!". It's hard to get them, I know. Here's just one link that could help. SOME CASES HERE. There are probably other sources out there. I wouldn't go for the Effie cases and prefer planning cases dealing with planners' insights and ideas.

By the way: can anyone help me out with the APG UK awarded cases/papers? I don't have any WARC access any longer:-(

The Birth Of A Grand Strategist By Waqar Riaz

2010-08-12T11:57:00.008+02:00

Check out this SlideShare Presentation.
It contains rather "classic" planning frameworks - esp.the JWT planning model from 1974 - starting from the middle of the presentation (after the "planning-is-like XYZ"-talk). Lots of interesting details in that one. Thank you, Waqar Riaz

The Birth Of A Grand Strategist By Waqar Riaz

View more presentations from Waqar Riaz.

Strategy as Distinction & Connectability

2010-07-27T13:19:00.015+02:00

...or, a megalomaniac attempt to be
a smaller version of Schopenhauer.

Inspired by:

The World as Will and Representation

&
The Work of Niklas Luhmann

Years and years of thinking brought Schopenhauer to the result, that the world - as experienced by man - consists of two factors: "Der Wille" & "Die Vorstellung". "Striving" & "Mental Representation". Forget the details, it's not about his work, it's more about the endeavor to factorize things "as high as can get". Everything is embodied in the two factors. So lots of information about reality "gets lost" in them.

The advantage of such a model of Strategy would be: it would be universally true - always! The disatvantage would be: because it's always true it does not help to solve any particular case in its singularity.

Nevertheless, there is a certain drive in man to look for the universally true - though this might be a false, misleading & impractical "strive". So let's try. It's fun.

Shopenhauer himself did not help me at all in finding the content of such a universal formula for planning. He gave me the form: two factors with no chance for a third one. The content came from Niklas Luhmann. A German systemic sociologist, or to be more precise, the only systemic socilogist - world wide... ever. (There is no systemic sociology, there's just Luhmann and people studying Luhman who call themselves systemic sociologists.) They don't understand it, I don't understand it, probably noone really does for longer than a minute or so. But there are two basic, more or less understandable things about his thinking that could directly influence planning: a) a system is a system due to the one basic distinction it draws between what belongs to it and what doesn't, b) communications communicate with communications, not people; i.e. they work ONLY through being ignited by preceeding communications & through being connected to subsequent communications.
The first notion is actually quite well accepted in the form of Bateson's "An information is a differecne that makes a difference".
The second notion is particularly obscure, I know, we can loosen that up a bit and maybe say: communications work through connection to something before and after it. Also see my post on the "meaning in-between things"

Luhmann's two insights could be translated in a Schopenhauer-like formula of Account Planning: "Communication Strategy is about drawing a Distinction based on its Connectability". Strategy is Distinction & Connectability. "Unterschied & Anschluss". I really do prefer the German one in this case.

Now, it's quite important not to understand "Distinction" as the widely used "Differentiation" and "Connectability" not as "Connection Planning" or "Touchpoint Strategy" although these terms are interrelated to some extent.
In this blog I try to draw attention to things happening in the planner's mind. Differentiation and Connection Planning are not a mode of thinking or a technique that could be used by a planner - they are rather judgement criteria, tasks or deliverables. Whereas "Distinction" and "Connectability" could be seen as the two universal things the planner should be looking for, thus also being two modes of working.

"Distinction":

The Planner shapes the strategy as a Dualism between A & B
(or several such dualisms)

"Connectability":

The Planner can prove that The Distinction he has drawn between A & B is

seamlessly connectable to existing, salient representations, behavior & communications in the past
will elicit salient representations, behavior & especially communications in the future

I'm deeply in love with the notion of "Distintion" so let me explain a bit more. Once again, "Distinction" is not "Differentiation"! Here's a conversation showing why:
Junior Planner:
"The strongest differentiating feature of this mobile phone is the number of Megapixels of it's camera.."
Senior Planner:
"Yes, great, so what is The Distinction that YOU draw? Lots of Megapixels vs little of them? or good images vs bad images? or maybe close to reality vs far from reality? or for experiences worth good documentation vs experiences not worth it? or maybe real photocamera vs regular phone cam?"

Distinction is a really strong "mental tool". I have not encountered it being used explicitly. I also like the English verb "to draw" a distinction. Its really very much about drawing a separating line with a pen...

As for Connectability... next time:-) It's probably related to "Research" & "Objectives", I guess.
This is really way too long as a blog post. I will follow-up later.

Thanks for reading.

Why brand consultants are not into ideas

2010-07-25T21:05:00.000+02:00

What is an account planner and what is a brand consultant?

In the job I have now I have to be both. And these two roles do differ. It goes roughly like this:

Brand consultant:
Likes schemes and models (circles, process charts, 4quadrants, even 6!).
Wants projects to last and likes project phases on slides.
Believes brands are complex and need more than 50 words in geometrical forms to be described.
Uses words like "trust", "partnership", "future", "innovation" in writing without being ashamed.
Thinks advertising is not very important.
Claims to be able to manage every aspect of the brand.
Believes research can "identify" "drivers" and "triggers" (through asking consumers) to which a brand should be aligned to... And calls all this "consumer insights" (plural!)
Earns fees starting from € 20.000,- per project

Account Planner:
Doesn't.
Likes to have one idea based on one insight.
Prefers having an idea over idea generation processes.

The problem of planners is often the fact that their ideas have limited scope in 90% of the cases: they are not very realistic for the organizations to be implemented as a guideline for the whole brand experience and product development. But they do have ideas. Brand consultants don't. Ideas are not born in consensus - and consulting is about creating consent. Planning is about creating edge.

So here's a planners idea (project phase 0, working time: waiting for a beer):
ACCOUNT PLANNING. WHEN YOUR BRAND REALLY IS IN TROUBLE. Otherwise: get a consultant.

Behavioral Insights / Behavioral Ideas (3)

2010-07-21T16:26:00.012+02:00

One of the most obvious behavioral approaches in planning or brand management is when "occasion based" thinking is applied.

So for example a brand portfolio manager might think something like "Cannibalization between the 12 toothpaste flavours will be strong because they all compete for the same usage occasion." What happens here is that his frame of thinking switches from attitudes and propositions to "slots of behavior". Brushing teeth. Not "the need to brush teeth". Actually, there is no such need. But there is the brushing. And effects of brushing. So "need based" talk is actually misleading in this case.
So, the manager assumes that whether the products differ in their appeals to certain taste preferences, sensual expereinces or values is secondary to the fact that they serve the same occasion - say behavior.

So in order to create a behavioral positioning space a behaviorist would rather ask for different behaviors - or occasions - within brushing teeth. Brushing in the morning might be different from that in the evening. That's "occasion based" thinking. This might have been the starting point for Elmex & Aronal toothpastes in Germany. What they claim - or proclaim - is 100% behavioral: "Aronal in the morning. Elmex in the evening". It's just a behavioral program. Of course, there's some medical rationale behind that, but I guess it also could be RtB-retro-fitting to a simple behavioral insight: people brush teeth twice a day.
...some people do...

Ok, what about those who don't? How many don't? Is there a product that doesn't require twice-a-day? Or a product that encourages & rewards the second brushing? So, I guess, that's behavioral thinking about the problem. It's not necessarily the best way to go, maybe "teeth problems" is a better way to segment and position products: Prevention, Repair, Whitening, Pain Protection, Bad Breath etc. But that's what all brands do already, so...

Just from reading the above it seems to me that this sort of thinking works better for products & product development than for e.g. umbrella brand positioning. You wouldn't position a whole umbrella brand on just one occasion / behavior, would you? In the case of toothpaste you usually would go for "From Medical Professionals" or "Fun Experience" or something like that.

I will continue to write about this whole topic - behavioral, not teeth - because I have a strong feeling that there is much more interesting stuff to come. Thanks for reading, again.

Time Orientations

2010-07-14T17:58:00.003+02:00

Behavioral Insights / Behavioral Ideas (2)

2010-07-13T10:37:00.013+02:00

Following up the issue of behaviorism in account planning I'll quote a rather randomly picked text on how behavior modification might work. It's just as good as any other source to get a first idea. The text has been quoted from http://www.ryerson.ca/~glassman/behavior.html .

There are interesting and quite obvious parallels to altering behaviour (=purchase or usage behaviors) through communications. Obviously, the methods move away from BIG BRAND IDEAS towards small steps and schemes of reinforcement. It's also interesting to notice the importance of defining CONCRETE behaviors to be altered and of researching CONCRETE behavior triggers and reinforcers instead of e.g. vague "positioning spaces" or other abstract constructs. Have a read:

The theories and research of the Behaviorist Approach gave rise to therapies designed to change behavior by using learning principles. Many of these therapies have been remarkably successful for several people who have specific behaviours or habits that they want to alter. Research has found that once you understand the principles of learning, you may even be able to modify your own behavior. Here's how it's done:

STEP ONE: IDENTIFY A PROBLEM BEHAVIOR

The first step in habit change is to identify a behavior that you wish to alter. Decide on the one most important problem which you would like to change. Now check to see that your problem is specific. If you are having trouble stating your problem in this form, you might try making a list of concrete examples. So, rather than saying, "I procrastinate", try rephrasing it as "I put off studying for a test until the day before". Rather than saying, "I'm physically out of shape", try restating the problem as "I avoid going to the gym" or "I drive my car instead of walking two blocks." If the problem you selected is too general, look for a more concrete form to describe it.

STEP TWO: SELECT SPECIFIC TARGET BEHAVIORS

Now that you have identified a specific problem which you would like to address, the next step is to state the goal. Like the problem, the target behavior should also be specific. Decide on what behaviours you would have to change in order for you to attain your goal. For example, if your goal is to lose 10 pounds, the behaviours you may need to employ to reach this goal are exercising more and eating less or different foods. In addition to being specific, the target behavior should also be realistic. Thus, if you haven't exercised much and your goal is to do 100 sit-ups per day, it is probably unrealistic (and unhealthy!) to set a goal of being able to do that many sit-ups by the third week of the program. If your goal is to stop procrastinating and study more consistently, you may be tempted to aim immediately for 8 hours of studying, 7 days a week. But this schedule may be such a drastic change from your present behavior that you may risk burning yourself out within a few days, and then dropping the whole program because you feel that you have "failed". It's important to ensure that you do not set yourself up for a failure by making the goal too strenuous at the beginning of the program. So check to make sure that your target behavior and the time-frame to achieve it are realistic. If they are not, try breaking your goal into smaller steps– the steps can never be too small, but they can be too big .

STEP THREE: COLLECTING BASELINE DATA

Often, although we have identified a problem behavior, we aren't really aware of how often we do it or if it is more likely to occur in some circumstances than others. This type of information is called baseline data. For example, if your problem behavior is smoking, are you aware of how many cigarettes you smoke each day or if you smoke more at certain times or places or with certain people? In order to effectively change behavior, we need to be cognizant of what we are doing now. For a week or two before you begin a behavior change plan, keep track of the occurrence, the antecedents and the consequences of your behavior. For example, "Monday afternoon, felt anxious about a test, smoked two cigarettes, felt more relaxed. Monday evening, had a drink with a friend, smoked three cigarettes, felt relaxed", etc. In this example, we might conclude that feeling tense and drinking with a friend are stimuli that cue smoking behavior (i.e. discriminative stimuli), and the behavior is reinforced by a feeling of relaxation. In some cases, we alter our behavior simply by being aware of it. Thus, you may stop your nail biting habit while collecting baseline data just because you have become conscious of this habit. If you achieve your change in this way, keep collecting the data to make sure that you don't revert to the old behavior.

STEP FOUR: PLAN YOUR PROGRAM

When you have collected sufficient baseline data to identify the discriminative and consequent stimuli, the next step is to plan your program. To be maximally effective, your program should do the following:

1. Control discriminative stimuli. This might be accomplished by eliminating, avoiding, or reducing the incidence of these stimuli. For example, if you bite your nails every time you watch television, you might want to avoid watching television for a while.
2. Develop small, realistic steps for accomplishing your goal. You should already have done this in Step Two.
3. Provide a schedule of frequent reinforcement. Your program should emphasize positive reinforcement and minimize punishment. A structured way to do this is to create a contract in which you specify what reinforcer(s) you will receive for particular accomplishments. So for the first week of a smoking reduction program, the contract may read "For each day I smoke 25 or fewer cigarettes, I will allow myself 60 minutes of TV watching. If I smoke 26-30 cigarettes, I will allow myself 30 minutes of TV. If I smoke more than 30 cigarettes, I will not watch any TV but will spend the evening studying. Further, if at the end of the week I have smoked 25 or fewer cigarettes on at least 5 days, I will have dinner at a restaurant of my choice." Notice that the contract includes both short-term and long-term rewards,
(...)

STEP FIVE: CARRYING OUT THE PROGRAM

Now that you have collected baseline data and all the planning has been accomplished, it is time to execute your program. As you carry out your program, you may find that you have to make some adjustments. You may have identified new discriminative stimuli, found that the steps you have outlined are unrealistic, or realized that the reinforcers you have selected are not sufficient or are not delivered with enough frequency to change the undesirable behavior. However, give your program some time to work- at least a week or two. The behavior you wish to change has probably been around for some time; don't expect it to disappear overnight.
(...)

Reference:
Martin, G. L., & Pear, J. (2002). Behavior Modification: What It Is and How to Do It, 7th ed. New York: Prentice-Hall.

Strategy - Going upstream with your questions

2010-07-11T18:00:00.001+02:00

Dave Trott on the Art of Persuasion Part 1 from accountplanninggroup on Vimeo.

Dave Trott on the Art of Persuasion Part 2 from accountplanninggroup on Vimeo.

Dave Trott on the Art of Persuasion Part 3 from accountplanninggroup on Vimeo.

Dave Trott on the Art of Persuasion Part 4 from accountplanninggroup on Vimeo.

Dave Trott on the Art of Persuasion Part 5 from accountplanninggroup on Vimeo.

Dave Trott on the Art of Persuasion Part 6 from accountplanninggroup on Vimeo.

Dave Trott on the Art of Persuasion Part 8 from accountplanninggroup on Vimeo.

Dave Trott on the Art of Persuasion Part 9 from accountplanninggroup on Vimeo.

Dave Trott on the Art of Persuasion Part 10 from accountplanninggroup on Vimeo.

Behavioral Insights / Behavioral Ideas

2010-07-11T16:02:00.009+02:00

Just a quick note before the thought gets lost. And it's a question so far, rather.

What is meant when some people talk about a new "behavioral" perspective in research and strategy? (BBDO for example)

As far as I understand it, behavioral is the natural opposite of attitudonal in classical psych. Everybody who checked in literature about attitudes remembers the shockingly low correlations between attitudes and behavior. Nevertheless, attitudes are the main object of research and insight in comm strategy.(Behaviorism beeing considered sort of a fascist misconception from the 50ies). But today, there are some voices adding a new flavour to this classic discussion.

Now, two first examples that come to my mind when approaching this whole issue are the following:

a) BBDO's rituals study/white paper
b) a case from Martini in the UK (as I heard about it - probably it's a bit hindsight biased)

a) BBDO claimed that products should relate not to values or benefit perceptions but to ritualised sequences of everyday behavior. Like getting up in the morning and preparing for the day "out there". http://www.bizcommunity.com/Article/196/12/26341.html

b) Martini had launched a campaign called "put Martini in the fridge". The insight behind it was that most people kept Martini where the other spirits were - not in the fridge - which made it a seldomly consumed beverage whereas those in the fridge - like white wine - have been consumed and repurchased much faster. Thus, Martini have raised purchased frequency without any attitudonal or image-related claims. (Most alcoholic beverages rather go for image.)

Both examples give us a first idea of what "behavioral" is or might be. But is there more to it? How can we transform this into a more complete and systematic tool for planning?

Personal Style in Planning

2010-07-09T11:41:00.007+02:00

Just a quote from the PSFK-videos on planners' skills:

"A great planner is someone who would tackle a problem differently from they way I would"

Katie Harrison
BBH, Head of Strategy

Media-Neutrality vs Pre-Testability

2010-07-07T13:33:00.032+02:00

Three things revolve in my head today:

a) how pre-testing practice helps discrediting AtL advertising as a whole

b) how helpful it is to present trans-media or digital-centered communications - not for the usual reasons, but because they are NOT TESTABLE

c) that b)-sort of ideas are actually rather wishful thinking for most real-life jobs I'm involved in.

a) Pre-testing's role in ineffectiveness
Now, this is certainly not a hard fact and certainly not the main thing about the "crisis of AtL advertising". But it's interesting to see how there's no decrease of income for market research firms testing AtL while AtL itself seems to be in a crisis. To put it more harsh: testing went up and ad effectiveness seems to go down! Ooops.

Certainly, the common explanation why AtL ads got weaker says that "the channels" (TV and Print) lose reach and involvmenet power while the internet gains both. The target groups' media habits changed - and all that. That's true to some extent. It's true for me, personally. I hardly watch the telly or read as well. But I want to stress something different. And it's about those times when I do watch the telly or read a magazine.

If you watch German TV and see WHAT KIND OF spots they run you start wondering if this is really just a "channel problem". I mean, most ads are awful. Crappier than the usual German stuff. Strategic, creative, cultural garbage. But I'm sure it passed the pre-tests.

I don't want to complain about the testing methods again. Well, I do want, but I won't. All of that has been said already. And certainly, I'm not the one to think that work in Cannes represents advertising as it should be. Some of it, maybe, most of it not at all.

I just experience how people start writing for the test and not for people or brands. I know that people who can't write advertising themselves have more to say when it comes to deciding how to advertise because they know "how advertising works". (e.g. "The product needs to play an exact, non-interchangeable role in the plot, otherways branding can not be ensured.") And that is exactly what I recognize in the advertising on TV. It's advertising that "passed". It's advertising that is ruled by conventions of quant testing.

b) Non-classical ideas = Bypass the test

There are no Millward Brown benchmarks for interactive or trans-media ideas.

I guess I can leave this one uncommented since it is a very powerfull insight in itself and everybody will see its value for an agency:-)

c) Non-AtL campaign ideas not truly wanted
Why don't agencies present more non-classical formats? Mostly you hear that it's because agencies haven't learned how to do it, yet. This is just one possible explanation for it.
The other one is: I believe most clients don't want true "un-AtL" sort of thinking. And lots of them don't need it as well.

Now, this is a strange one since the only thing you read about in publications is that clients want integrated cases, non-classical ideas, media-neutral ideas, etc. But in my experience behind closed doors the conversation might go like this:

......"Yes we will apply all sorts of non-classical channels, internet and ... , but first we want to see
the idea. It's the idea that counts! We are in an idea business. Agencies have to learn to
understand this. It's not about a 30seconder any more. etc. etc."
...... Question: "Is it going to be tested?"
...... Answer: "Yes, most probably"
....... "Quant as well?"
....... "Yes, if there's enough time left"

BANG! There you go: they want a TV animatic as the representation of the idea. Or an outdoor motif. All the specialst desciplines (promo, digital...) probably will hesitate to start working untill there's agreement on the TV - everybody will wait for the film being tested, etc. And maybe this is even still the right way to do it - I'm not per se against it. I'm just saying, that most companies demand for AtL ads first - it's not a genuine agency problem! They don't say it loud, but that's what they demand for implicitly. They demand for it because managers can show and explain ads to their bosses and their bosses' bosses; but most of all because ads are testable, thus seemingly predictable.

To sum up:
Whenever you can: try to give them the non-classical, trans-media stuff since you will have more freedom from the smart guys.... and girls.

"The In-Between" - Where meaning is created

2010-06-24T17:55:00.021+02:00

There is no meaning in anything. There is only meaning in relations between - or in relating to - other things. And maybe we can use this for planning.

Yesterday I read in a book on semiotics how "meaning" is possible. The summary: meaning resides in the realtion of one mental concept to other mental concepts.

What really left me stunning was the following notion: "A thought by itself - which is basically just a feeling - has no intellectual content or value by itself". Now, read the middle part again: "A thought is basically just a feeling"! ?????? Now stop reading and try to literally observe the thought you have in mind. Not the flow of thoughts but the one single thought you have in your brain at a given moment. Now! ..................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
.................................................

Right, there is none! There is a feeling of "thinking" but no thought. I love all that Zen stuff I have to admit. First of all because it's true and real. But let's leave that aside.

Back to semiotics: What the semiotician was saying (and it was Peirce himself by the way) is that meaning is between the thoughts. That what you think in a given moment is meaningful through the thoughts preceding it and following it. Now this sounds somewhat reasonable. Really seeing it happen in your mind is stunning!
If you didn't have this effect in your mind, try again because it's by far more interesting than my writing about it and all what follows below.

How can we use this insight in planning? Just two quick guesses how this might help. Don't know, really, but maybe it makes sense...

a) A slight change of perspective in research? We tend to ask people about "things" and the meaning of "things" to them. We also tend to attribute the meining to things when we interpret what people tell us. Now, if that's not where meaning resides we should refocus - or rather unfocus. Let's try and not ask people about "things" but about relations between "things". A simple technique could be contrasting things with other things or situations with situations etc.
When listening to what people say we could listen less to why and how people perceive or do something but how what they perceive or do becomes meaningful through relations to other concepts or actions. For instance, when someone tells us how nice it is to come home and be welcomed by the dog, maybe now "home - dog" is the relation to explore, less the "nice feeling". I guess normally we would go for the feeling side of that revelation.

b) A simple thinking technique to use for ourselves? When we get stuck, start relating to something. Because being stuck is the nature of a thought (which is not there as you might have experienced in the "Thought Experiment" above). Meaning will arise when we relate things to other things, findings to other findings, etc. We could do this quite without obvious logic behind it. For instance, "How could I relate the fact that this gadget is too big for a mobile device to the fact that its launch will be in September?" ... "Would any other month have been different or better for us?" It's really stupid, I know. But it might tell us something about possible meaning of "big". Maybe not... You should never let anyone know that this is the way you work, though.

I will think about it a bit more and try to come up with better ideas. It's very crude so far.

Creative Brief Workshop (stolen from DARE)

2010-06-08T16:51:00.001+02:00

Check out this SlideShare Presentation:

Creative Brief Workshop

View more presentations from Nick Emmel.

Why Segmenting (Pt. 2)

2010-05-22T11:33:00.004+02:00

My thinking about segmentations went on. I became less critical when seeing it from the brand portfolio perspective. Obviously "campaign idea type of planning" has not awfully much to do with portfolio strategy decisions (for which segmentations seem to be quite helpful:-)

Nevertheless, there are still serious issues with the generation of a concrete segmentation model and the data behind it!

Please check out these very interesting pdfs on the latter topic!

http://www.fearp.usp.br/fava/pdf/Hoek1996.pdf

http://events.roundtable.com/Event_Center/VOC05/Segmenting-for-Innovation-Ulwick.pdf

The Media Neutral Idea

2010-03-11T12:08:00.026+01:00

The medium is the message.

I never understood this message, by the way.
Lately I had a discussion with another planner about the notion of media neutrality. And like almost every planner he advocated media neutrality - or channel neutrality. Media neutrality is a concept opposite to McLuhan's provocative statement and simply says that an idea is independent of the media in which it gets placed.
How else could planners go from market conditions and consumer sentiment to a communications idea? A good idea is media neutral, they say. That's what I think most of the time, too. Simply because we would go insane if we had to come up with different ideas for different channels.

But sometimes I wonder... how neutral can it be?

Let's remember how it is to come up with a creative planning idea. When evaluating that idea we start assessing if the idea works well in execution. Actually we can not even think of an idea without having its executional potential in mind. (At least if you're working in an agency that sells communication and not brand consulting or research.) So idea generation is influenced by our intuition of it's executional potential. And an exectution is by no means channel neutral, is it. So depending on which kind of execution channel you have at the background of your mind you will probably come up with different kinds of ideas. Can we really make our brain think media neutrally?

It's at least not easy. Even the basic principles of idea formulation that serve best print and TV ads don't apply well to e.g. building a user community or running a PR campaign. Communities revolve around designing interaction, PR around engaging opinion shapers in stories to be spread, ads revolve around single-minded MESSAGES. Single-mindednes makes not much sense in good dialogues, human relations & real story telling. What does that mean for the formulation of ideas?

I think that all over the world lots of planners started to technically think and write in a different way. Ideas become more broad and less about messages, thus aiming for inspiriation across channels. But still - is real media neutrality feasible? And is it always the very best solution? Could it be better to have one idea for some channels and for others to have another idea that is "not too far away"? (It will happen like this anyway, you know:-)

No idea works equally splendid in all channels. What we all do, we have an assumption about where an idea will "have to go" and if it seems to work well in those channels, we give it a go. That's fair enough. Noone needs all channels. Noone pays for all channels. Noone would simply drop a great idea just because it works less breathtakingly in - let's say - sponsoring or community buliding. You just invent something in addition (like e.g. apps are often on-offs, viral clips are almost always one-offs).

"It depends on the idea" is one of the most used sentences we hear when it comes to media. If it does depend on the idea, than the idea can't be that neutral. The media agency usually wants to know the idea before media planning! If ideas were truly neutral they would not have to know.

The other extreme position - equaly non-neutral and radically McLuhanist - is that of a channel planner. As far as I understand, they even think of an idea starting from what is, should and can be done in the mediascape. So no thinking without meida in mind.
= No media neutrality in thinking!

On the other hand, there are ideas that are very broad and really fit in almost all the channels. But they often are rather frameworks for idea genration still to come. Is this what they mean when saying "territory"? Do we rather need to develop two levels of ideas from now on?

To sum up: The holiness of media neutrality can at least be challenged. But it's of course a very helpful notion to challenge the way classical ad agencies think!

I'm more confused than before writing this. But that's how those things are: mighty fuzzy and confusing. One sentence you write is just a sentence, and another one - almost the same one - suddenly is an idea. It's more than confusing, it's magic!

If we all were more honest in admitting that often enough we don't know for sure what those big words - "idea", "territory" etc. - technically mean and how they are "built"... if we all were more honest and would start talking about it in public - maybe then our whole guild would make a step further and become a true profession.

At least in that conversation I noticed that it's impossible to develop a better understanding if both try to appear as "planners". I.e. as persons who know it all - because they are so clever.

Let's stop being clever!

Be stupid!

(That's Diesel's latest idea. it's sort of media neutral isn't it? :-)

Why Segmenting

2010-02-08T09:54:00.006+01:00

Everyone who ever started building a brand positioning using segmentation studies or profiles of consumers in different countries must have experienced this moment of despair when you wish you would not have started from that kind of data.

Well, what's the problem with knowing the differences between groups of people? It must be good. It's hard data, isn't it.

First of all we have to consider the statistics a research agency applies to get to consumer segments. In most cases it's about a cluster analysis that tries to explain variances in data. (This is incorrect terminology-wise but a very good metahpor for what they do.) So, even if later on segments get those simple names like e.g. "Traditionalists", we have to understand, that they get their names based on some variables that make them statsitically different from other clusters of people. In most cases it's the variables of minor "strength" that make them different since the universal dimensions rather tend to unite groups of people. But the statistics of cluster analysis favour the over-average-index and devaluate the absolute figures within a segment. Later on, clients look at "Traditionalists", as if this segment was really mainly and only driven by "Traditionlism", whereas it's just the statistical analysis that was driven by it. The thinking in index vs "real" percentage is always a logical problem for a planner and there is no easy way out. The index characterses a group quite well vs others but does not depict which traits and expectations PREDOMINANTLY drive perception and consumption of those people.

Secondly, we have to see that segments imply that positioning a brand is about making an offer to a specific, homogeneous group of people. That's almost the exact opposite of the task we most often get as planners: GROWTH, meaning finding new people who could want our brand for some kind of reason. So, when using segmentation studies as a basis for positioning, in most cases you start to look out for combinations of segments that could be united by a brand proposition despite the differences between them. So basically you start by finding differences to then look out for similarities. Why do that? Why don't start with similarities straight away?

Another big problem about most segmentations is that you will hardly ever be able to recruit exactly those segment members for a concept test or to target them precisely through media. Just because it's absolutely not practicable to use all those dimensions and differences in dimension scores to represent the segments in other quantitative tools. So, bascially you pretend to target specific needs of specific people but will never "meet them in person" again.

Am I too critical about the segmentation approach? Yes I am, probably. Segmentations are a good way to check positioning concepts if they are really really simple. And a very good way to make them simple - and usable - is to NOT cluster people but occasions! Once you accept the fact that people are just bodies carrying around potential behaviours, you instinctively start being interested more in those behaviours than in the carriers of those behaviours. I know the dominant ideology of marketing today is "individualism" and the believe that people make their own decisions and every one is special. But that is just an ideology, not a fact of nature.

There are major advantages of such an occasion-based segmentation approach. First of all: occasions as opposed to people are easily separable, whereas people are hard to separate into completely distinct groups. So a party drinking occasion is definitely different from a drinking-alone-at-the-bar-occasion; whereas a person who drinks often at the bar AND at parties would be a problematic case when grouping people as in meaningful consumption segments.
Secondly, you can always ladder up benefit-wise starting from occasions but you can never do that starting from people. Of course, laddering is not the only way to arrive at a brand's proposition, but it's one of the most powerful... still.

Same thinking applies partially to finding a global positioning starting from country differences. Though countries, of course, are more "real" than statistical segments. But nevertheless, we would automatically start looking for similarities after the differences had made us crazy and dizzy enough. And the problem with that is that similarities are common denominators between segments - say the most general notions you could think of. Well, actually this is not a real problem as such. We just could start there straight away and work out how to make the brand special - though in touch with universal drivers of behaviour, instead of thinking about how to make it "fit" into contries ...or segments ...or other boxes.
(Of course, if your title is "international planner" or sth. alike you should rather emphasise differences between countires to justify your job and travel cost:-)

Insight or simply "Seeing"

2010-01-25T13:15:00.002+01:00

OK, that's definitly a big one.

When talking with clients we use the term "insight" all the time. Every brief does have this paragraph. Even the client's brief does have it in place. The one that's written in captions and starts with the word "I", thus imitating a consumer speaking.

When did you have your last insight that lead to an idea and then to a campaign? When did it start with the word "I" the last time?
I haven't had a big one since months and even before it never started with "I , the consumer...".

Let's forget what an insight is used for or why it is important to have one, let's think about what exactly it IS and how to get one.

What an insight is:
An insight is a psychic event in your mind. It is not something in the consumer's mind. You even get paid for having an insight. It happens within you!
And yes, an insight is an event, not a statement. It is the event of seeing and becoming able to express something you have not been able to see/express before.

Exactly like Buddha. He gained insight into Human Nature and the Nature of the Universe! Not too bad, is it. And his budget for market research was quite scarce at that time, too. Just like mine always is. No envy here, but he just had more time than we normally have for this Universe thingy. Especially given his personal concept of "time".

This is all banal? Yes. And not at all! Most people I know assume an insight is "information about the consumer and his motivation". My point is: it is NOT that! An insight is about the limitations of your acknowledgment being dissolved for a moment. Whatever the limitations are - insights are all about those limitations, not about consumers. Side note: That's the nice thing about Disruption (TBWA) - the change of perspective is considered to be more powerful than information about the consumer.
So if you need some kind of standardised beginning for an insight statement try this one: "We first thought that ..., but then we realised that ...". But better don't use any form at all.

Still don't know where to start? Me neither. Espceically the starting point is the one with the most panic involved. It's comforting to know that e.g. in the Hermeneutic Circle we are instructed to start "somewhere" to gain insight. In other words: just start. In my case: I just start talking. In your case it might be googling, or sth else.

What sometimes helps me with insight is a bunch of obscure techniques I have developed over time. Here are two of those contemplation techniques.

The first notion is called "Distinctions". No, not differentiation. Distinctions in a wider sense. It's all about drawing distinctions and comparisons between concepts, things, points in time, etc. Start thinking by finding the most promising distinctions & comparisons. Why were sales higher at point in time Y then now? How is Whisky different from Vodka? And is Whisky different from Whiskey? You get the point.
It's a very simple and broad notion but it can be powerful. So don't ask just "why do people buy X" but try "What is the difference between times when people buy X and those when they don't?". Even in consumer research: help respondents by letting them compare two or three things. You know this cat food insight: "Cats are loved because of their disobedient character"? That could have come from a comparison of cats to dogs.

The second one is the opposite of Unique Selling Points. It's about The Generic & Obvious. What is NOT the hidden but the most obvious, essential thing in the category? As you know in cosmetics it's - .... Yes, exactly, so if you start from "Beauty" you can arrive at "Real Beauty". In Vodka it's ... no, not clarity, more obvious ... getting drunk, maybe. Probe from there. Is getting drunk a no-go theme? Interesting!

There are several other approaches, of course. Maybe You'd like to share those You like best with us? Then write a comment below, please.

Thanks

Kirill

Mistrust Crosses

2010-01-24T11:37:00.001+01:00

This is not going to be an anticlerical one although this a critique of an almost sacred and unquestioned positioning technique.

Here is a brief summary why positioning crosses are stupid.

First of all: what's good about them? Everybody understands them quite instantly if the axes make sense.
What's bad then? Same answer: Everybody "understands" because the axes make sense. So you try to make them make sense, don't you. Junior Planners keep coming and offer solutions and you go "no, give this one another name", "what about this brand here, it doesn't fit the logic", etc. So basically you do not think about reality any longer. You just try to make the axes fit the brand logos somehow. You make things up. That's alright if everyone is aware of its fictional character but noone ever is.

It's important to understand four things about such crosses.

1) The world is not two-dimensional; a powerpoint slide is.

2) It might very much be the case that the particular slice-of-world you are looking at is not dimensional at all! This means that positioning might not be about finding a space on a continuum or being "somewhere between A and B". Simply because there is no "space" with a coordinate system similar to the physical space we live in. An example might help here: Seeing your DYI market as a place with widest product range & best advice (OBI) is simply a different kind of thing than seeing it as a transformational offer for personal development (Hornbach). There simply IS NO continuum between them to slide along, and if you make one up it will not help much. Just like there is not much land to build your house on between Ireland and Iceland. (I hope this is geographically right.)

3) The axes are derived from the objects / brands analysed. So they vary depending on which brands you throw in. This is even more striking if you have crosses derived by quantitative methods (MDS, Factor Analysis etc.) They simply vary with every brand you add or take away. But what the picture of the cross suggests to the viewer is something different: it says "there is a space prior to the objects located in it". That's just the metaphor of "space" working in our brains: Space must be prior to and independent of objects. Well, that is exactly the way a positioning cross is not be read!

4) By using such a cross you just build a box you then try to think outside of.

So beware of positioning crosses when you see them! Be much more sceptical if market researches present them ... as valid representations of reality, of course.
We actually don't need a space between brands. Just care about the chunks/clusters more than about the dimensions inbetween. Al Ries just picked a wrong word. What he meant is "owning a concept in people's heads". By calling it "positioning" he evoked the space metaphor which does not help much.

If you enjoy reading about "The end of planning as we know it"... please read about it somewhere else!

2010-01-23T15:57:00.000+01:00

Opening Confession and Mission Statement.

At the place I work... planning is still quite an unexplored territory and undefined undertaking - and now it's already declared dead. I don't even "know" planning - like most people around don't - and now what I don't know is already wrong... Confusing this is, indeed.

There are more or less thought through explanations why planning as we know it is dead. These are summarised briefly & slightly satirically below:
1) The mediascape has changed so the consumer has changed so we have to change. This is the most common and - as you will admit (in private)- most meaningless mantra we have to nod to all the time. Bascially, what is suggested here is "Audiences can not be reached through old channels (=TV). We have to master new touchpoints to stay relevant." Given the fact that account planning never has been about message placement but about the message itself, this is not very relevant, yet...
2) The search of a short positioning message (the Big Essential Idea) has been an adpatation to an ancient media landscape - some say wisely. We had to target an unscattered audience via expensive "airing" of a message. The simpler and more repetitive this was the cheaper and memorable it got. This is said not to be the case today. Some have proposed lots of small ideas instead of one Big Idea. & that sounds interesting, actually. The term "Long Tail" has been borrowed for that - and then forgotten ...mostly because of its phallic associations. The "Integration" discussion became less about uniformity but about complexity management & diversity.
3) The need to plan for Interactions instead of Messaging requires a different aproach to planning. Yes, obviously. Lots of Big Ideas like e.g. "Think Small" or "Keep Walking" are of limited use for the development of apps, social network activations, mobile promotions & "experience platforms".
4) There are more message senders and content providers out there than ever. Everybody is sending and recieving messsages! This is called the Conversation Age. So audiences either will stop being "audiences" at all or at least it will be difficult for brands to get heard because there's just so much private chatter going on.
5) Since budgets are being shifted away from "classical", "non-classical" thinking is the thing to be into. Well that's remarkably honest. We do have to adapt to that, don't we.

Scary shit if you really think about it! People who don't get scared at this point are either...
a) not really responsible for coming up with strategic ideas
b) or work in disciplines that benefit from the budget shifts (That's luck not virtue by the way)
c) or are wise enough to know that propaganda always sounds like this and tries to scare you (it's oversimplified, biased & in denial of the present day in favour of a new world to come)

Now, as we are a bit scared and have heard partially good arguments why planning as we know it must die ... soon at least. What shall we do? How shall we change our input and output now? Well, here we are left on our own by the prophets of the new world. There is hardly ANY advise on that out there despite the proclaimed spirit of "open source" and sharing. And let's be honest, why advise someone who's already dead? We simply don't need that old planning any more! It's time for something new. In most cases this rhetorically means "it's time for someONE new". Now you're scared, aren't you.

In this blog I will try to transcend the duality of "Old" and "New" planning without ignoring the changes of media landscape & agencies' output. I will not pretend to "know" planning - I don't. I will try to write for planners who need and want to do planning not those who dream of being somewhere else (with google & apple mostly). I will write for planners who have their permanent problems with performing the planning task - because it's a bloody tricky thing to do. ...& I will change my opinion & style whenever I want to or you convince me to change it.

Happy to have you here.

Kirill