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.
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.
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.
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)
These are criteria from Landor's Brand Sliders Tool.
http://www.landor.com/index.cfm?do=thinking.article&storyid=566&bhcp=1
http://www.landor.com/index.cfm?do=thinking.article&storyid=566&bhcp=1
Don't ask why, ask "why +"
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...
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...
Great Post Dealing with the (too) Fuzzy Concept of "Brand Engagement" or "Consumer Engagement"
http://mweigel.typepad.com/canalside-view/2011/09/fashionable-yet-bankrupt.html
from the Head of Planning (I believe) at Wieden & Kennedy Amsterdam
from the Head of Planning (I believe) at Wieden & Kennedy Amsterdam
Social Media do Loyalty but Loyalty doesn't do Growth?
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.
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
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
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")
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
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
