What's the difference between a claim & an idea?

After months and months of listening to Big Idea bashing and all kinds of attempts to discredit the honorable practice of creating powerful overarching ideas...

...I decided to shed some more light on this beloved art...

...since I know that there are thousands of people out there who have to come up with some ideas.

When I started working as a planner, this was actually my main question: "Idea? What is it?"
Everyone was talking about "the power of ideas" back in those days. Well, nobody could answer or say anything helpful. In that respect it is difficult with any of the advertising key terms but this one simply seemed impossible to be talked about - at all!

To make a short story short, here's a simple way to at least get at a sense of how a fertile idea feels like.
For this purpose I suggest to think of ideas as words grouped together to create a "line" or sentence. Yes, forget about insights, relevance, differentiation, all of that. In the end, it's a group of 1-5 words.
A sentence used as a briefing... as something to work with.

So what I am suggesting here is a distinction between two types of sentences:


 THE "FINISH-TYPE-OF-LINE" vs. THE "BEGINNING-TYPE-OF-LINE"

The "FINISH Type of Line" sounds like most of the last sentences you would hear in a TV commercial. Yes, that is what we normally call a claim or slogan - the latter being a less misleading and more honest term from the old days. here are some examples of such a sentence:

Nike. Just do it.

Ford. Feel the Difference.

L'Oreal. Because I'm worth it.

Such sentences make sense when you've seen what happened in this piece of film - they make much less sense when they come by their own and are not explained by a piece of advertising or manifesto or whatever. This is why I suggest to call them The "Finish Type of Line". They finish-off and summarize what you have explained before - in a memorable and striking manner. These sentences are not very good to express an idea. Mainly because the idea precedes the work. And this brings us to the "Beginning Type of Line". The kind of sentence that precedes and predicts the work that is yet to be done. An i don't mean something like "once upon a time...", but rather something like a title of a text.

The "Beginning Type of Line" sounds similar but has a rather different relation to the story you want to tell or the elements you use in communications. These sentences rather determine the elements and stories to come - and they do it even if you don't tell which elements and stories this will be. Once you say this kind of line - possible implications, stories, images, AND POSSIBLE CLAIM ALTERNATIVES are evoked.

That is the reason why "Just do it" is not an idea. If you wouldn't know how Nike looks and talks you would not know what "Just do it" could mean. For instance you would have difficulties writing an alternative claim to "Just do it" if this was the only thing you knew.

This distinction seems obvious and banal. But in everyday work it gets forgotten all the time because we are so used to hearing and saying slogans - and very often don't know how the original idea expression might have sounded like.

So let me try to come up with some possible freestyle "Beginning Type of Lines" for the 3 brands above to make the distinction even clearer. Please excuse me if these don't match with the notions the teams working for those brands actually came up with. I just really don't know for sure what their idea sentences are or were. It doesn't matter actually, since I rather want to make clear the difference between the two types of sentences. Here we go:

Nike: The Will to Win.

Ford: User-oriented innovations that matter.

L'Oreal: Ego Cosmetics.

I really do hope this text was not too common sense and doesn't sound somehow patronizing. I really believe that our minds often get lost in slogans - even if we know that they aren't ideas. The distinction above might be helpful to catch the right kind of words.

Consumer Insight: Cultural vs Human Truth


















Stephen King on Gap Analysis & Positioning Spaces

In one of the very first posts in this blog I wrote about my doubts about the usage of "positioning crosses" to find a "free positioning space". Now I'm glad to have found someone important who also has something to say about it. That's why I give you both texts: Stephen King's one and then my old post below if you are interested in recapitulating it.


Stephen King, in "A Masterclass in Brand Planing", 2007 - originally held as a speech in 1982:

"Brands of shampoo are plotted on two scales - a strong/gentle scale and a medicated/cosmetic scale. You can see that there are three brands seen by people as strong and medicated, four as gentle and cosmetic, one as gentle and medicated and one more or less in the middle.



But there are none in the strong and cosmetic sector; therefore says Gap Analysis, that is your opportunity. But it seems to me that however much this is all dressed up with phrases like "n-dimensional concept space", the main reason for most of these gaps is that no one actually wants something in that combination. If we are not careful, Gap Analysis is a very elaborate machinery for saying that if there is already a market for hot coffee and a market for cold coffee, the gap for us is in selling warm coffee."


My text from 2010 or so:

"Here is a 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 no one 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."

http://account-planning-confessions.blogspot.de/2010/01/mistrust-crosses.html

Ten types of challenger narratives

Challenger Type: The Real & Human Challenger
A ‘real’ people brand in a faceless category. Real people visible behind the brand. Often accompanied by the perception of ‘small’ in stature.

What is it challenging? The impersonality and facelessness of the market leader or category.

Why does its consumer respond to it? ‘At last some real people who understand what I am all about’.


Challenger Type: The Missionary
A challenger fired up with a view about the world it has to share, wearing a strong sense of purpose on its sleeve.

What is it challenging? The belief system or foundations underpinning the category the way the category has thought and behaved to date.
Why does its consumer respond to it? Identification with the challenger’s beliefs about category (and the way category ought to fit within the wider world).


Challenger Type: The Irreverent Maverick 
Poke beige in the eye.

What is it challenging? The complacency and narrow-mindedness of the status quo and those who keep to it.

Why does its consumer respond to it? Engagement with its attitude, character and irreverence.


Challenger Type: The Game Changer
A brand and product with an entirely new perspective on the possibilities of a category, which invites the consumer to participate in the category in a whole new way.

What is it challenging? The fundamental drivers and codes of the category to date. Not the beliefs or values – more the dimensions of the consumer experience it has played up and played down.

Why does its consumer respond to it? They are engaged by fresh perspective on a familiar market: ‘Wow, I’d never thought of this experience like that before’.


Challenger Type: The People’s Champion
A challenger that consciously sets itself up as on the side of the consumer, often specifically against the ‘cynical’/ fat cat market leader.

What is it challenging? The motives and interests of the market leader.

Why does its consumer respond to it? ‘They are fighting for me; if they win, I win’.


Challenger type: The Democratiser
A challenger that takes something previously exclusive (stylish, luxurious, expensive, hi tech), and makes it much more broadly available to the masses.

What is it challenging? ‘Elitism’, the idea that something should be available only to the privileged or wealthy.

Why does its consumer respond to it? The brand has given them access to a world that they hadn’t thought accessible to them.


Challenger Type: The Next Generation That was then, but this is now. New times call for new brands and services.

What is it challenging? The relevance of the Market Leader (and perhaps every other existing player in the market) to the modern world, or to the current generation.

Why does its consumer respond to it? ‘New times call for new brands, and I as a person am part of the new times’.


Challenger Type: The Enlightened Zagger
The enlightened brand deliberately swimming against the prevailing cultural or category tide.

What is it challenging? A prevailing and commonly/ unthinkingly accepted aspect of contemporary culture.

Why does its consumer respond to it? Through being provoked and stimulated by the surprising stance the challenger takes.


Challenger Type: The Visionary
Sets out higher vision of the brand benefit that transcends category nature.

What is it challenging? The mundanity of the way the category thinks about its (functional) nature and role.

Why does its consumer respond to it? A personal identification with the aspiration set out in the vision. 


Challenger Type: The Feisty Underdog
Stick it to Goliath.

What is it challenging? The dominance of (and unthinking consumer preference for) the market leader. 

Why does its consumer respond to it? Everyone loves an underdog – Oh, and given the choice between those two options, that does look like one to try…

(from http://eatbigfish.com/challenger-brand-narratives)

Some useful questions for improving or inventing products & services

  • Can the job (the consumer is trying to execute by using the product) be executed in a more efficient or effective sequence?
  • Do some customers struggle more with executing the job than others (for instance, novices versus experts, older versus younger?)
  • What struggles or inconveniences do customers experience because they must rely on multiple solutions to get the job done?
  • Is it possible to eliminate the need for particular inputs or outputs from the job?
  • Is it necessary that the customers execute all steps for which they are currently responsible? Can the burden be automated or shifted to someone else?
  • How many trends affect the way the job is executed in the future?
  • In what contexts do customers most struggle with executing the job today? Where else or when else might customers want to execute the job?

Opportunities at the step level

  • What causes variability (or unreliability) in executing this step? What causes execution to go off track?
  • Do some customers struggle more than others with this step?
  • What does this step’s ideal output look like (and in what ways is the current output less than ideal?)
  • Is this step more difficult to execute successfully in some contexts than others?
  • What are the biggest drawbacks of current solutions used to execute this step?
  • What makes executing this step time-consuming or inconvenient?

When people do things, they do them in 8 steps.

According to the so called "jobs-to-be-done" framework of positioning and product innovation, every "job" carried out by a person when using a product has the following 8 stages:

1. Define: Customers determine their goals and plan resources.
2. Locate : 
Customers gather items and information needed to do the job.
3. Prepare : 
Customers set up the environment to do the job.
4. Confirm : 
Customers verify that they’re ready to perform the job.
5. Execute : 
Customers carry out the job.
6. Monitor: 
Customers assess whether the job is being successfully executed.
7. Modify : 
Customers make alterations to improve execution.
8. Conclude: 
Customers finish the job or prepare to repeat it.




Evaluation of Brand & Service Experience

http://landor.com/#!/talk/articles-publications/articles/measuring-brand-experience/