|
Tuesday, 31 July 2007 |
A comment by Neal M. Burns
Advertising Department
The University of Texas at Austin
Talk of a new advertising agency model is probably as dated as agencies themselves. A business that is, at its core, purposed to help other businesses succeed certainly changes as economies, values, distribution and technology change. Yet, this time seems different.
Without trying to re-write advertising agency history certainly the modifications - new agency models - instituted by Howard Gossage, William Bernbach and Jay Chiat stand out as having changed the operational philosophy and internal architecture of their peer groups at the time. Certainly the move from commission-based compensation to a professional fee structure represented a major departure from past practice. So, what will be the operating principles and the major shifts that define the new advertising agency? Here are a couple of the new organizing principles that I have noted in my recent travels and agency visits.
First, there is a shift from agency centric organizations to internal structures that are consumer or market centric. This means that the organization is not about a direct or PR or interactive division, but is rather about those that play in the outdoors or the agency having an unsurpassed understanding of the baby boomer cohort. Being recognized as knowing more about a particular market segment than the competition is an undisputed agency strength and - perish the thought - may supplant creative as king.
Secondly, initially led by a few innovative shops from the UK, the financial model and capitalizing on the value of agency developed intellectual property is clearly in play. The impact here moves from setting hourly rates and receiving so much per hour for spending 40 or 50 hours for writing "You deserve a break today" , or "Just do it", or "Reach out and touch someone" . . . agencies will seek long term payouts ( royalty-like in character) for continued use. Whoa - scary on the one hand yet fundamentally sound on the other; taking risks now describes the agency-client relationship more fully. Big hits mean more than a plaque for the wall, a pushpin or small statue - we're talking real money.
Third, the artificially created 'above and below the line' agency structure goes out the window as agencies become truly market centric. The new agency offering seamlessly incorporates these disciplines. It was an artificial distinction at best that can't be maintained and profess to offer fully integrated service to the client. The impact on corporate and brand perception (essentially the domain of PR) and the intimate relationship that perception has to the product and its sales is as true for Ben & Jerry's as it is for The New York Times . Unpaid media's effectiveness and understanding the impact and changes the web and consumer generated content has on the enterprise and its products represents a PR focused knowledge base - and it is an integral part of the brand and marketing effort.
And finally, there is the active agency incorporation of the definition that the brand is defined by the experience - and those specializing in experiential advertising now get a seat at the table. The action and participation with the brand build the bond and basis of likeability, purchase and loyalty. Equally important is the leadership experiential advertising has demonstrated in taking the brand to a virtual space. In time, three-dimensional representations will be de rigor for product sale on the web and the virtual reality created already defines the equities the brand possesses.
If readers have other new dimensions of agency behavior to add - let me know. Soon its fall - and I could use another lecture. |
|
|
Wednesday, 18 July 2007 |
A ton of folks from the record industry hover on the forum so I thought that I’d address a topic of interest to you all.
I had some great conversations when I was at the digital media conference in DC a couple of weeks ago. One of them was about what it actually takes to get people to change their behavior. What works best? What doesn’t work?
Example: “Fear” - Fear was thought for a long time to change behavior. Execution on that example was every drunk driving campaign talking to young adults. However, as MADD learned, fear doesn’t work because most young adults think they are invincible…… so the core feeling of “It won’t happen to me” trumps the threatened danger that the messages contain.
Fear, as it just so happens, also doesn’t work in stopping illegal music downloads. The industry can threaten to sue, or even sue everybody. That threat isn’t going to keep anybody from illegally downloading music.
What to do? C3 – That’s what you do!
C3 – The answer to changing behavior. CONVENIENCE - CONTROL - CHOICE
The esteemed Dr. Burns and I talk about this one at length and often.
Why are some brands getting more money for less product in smaller packages? C3
What does the record industry need to do to get you to legally buy music?
Two things. Jam the illegal downloading channels with fake files, and then turn up the C3 on the legal channels.
That’s the formula! Make one option a guaranteed pleasant experience that is C3 fortified and the customers will pay.
I did more than pose this question to a friend – I set up a little research. I had my friend promise that he would only download music (his own) from a “partner” computer that I set up for him. I took his entire music collection away from him and told him that he would have to download it from the “partner computer”.
I took around 9,000 songs and added 1,000,000 fake files. Each file appeared to be the same song.
One week. That is all that it took. One week. One week before he purchased an on-line subscription to a service to buy music LEGALLY!!!!!! He couldn’t take the pain of having to weed through all the fake files to find the actual music. The legal download seemed very appealing and very C3.
Erik Hauser |
|
|
Thursday, 14 June 2007 |
I love it when the world seems to be explode with trivial stuff to make one smile - as opposed to murders, terrible accidents, war. At those times I avoid the news and have trouble falling asleep. Well, this was a great week for me in terms of world news. To be served up the new logo for the Olympics in the UK - and the ending of Sunday's final Sopranos episode all in one week. Sweet. And, it brings advertising and expectancy theory to mind - at least to my mind.
There is stuff you expect - particularly if there is something about your business that qualifies somehow as creative. It gives you the opportunity to grab those wonderful moments to break new ground, to be innovative . . . to do things that no one has ever seen before. Your skill and experience lets you take it to the edge - with the style, elegance and confidence that has characterized your work. So, were the folks at Wolff Olins, the branding agency that did the work surprised when the crumpets hit the fan - I think not! To be an artist - to be in any creative endeavor - is to hear the dissident voice over almost anything you do. It is to be expected.
And then there is the end to a story, a film, a book - the closing moments of a TV series that is, perhaps, the most celebrated of our time. So unexpected was the ending of the Sopranos on Sunday night that not only did thousands send screaming messages to HBO and related websites, but I suspect hundreds more threw their shoes and smashed their TV screens in anger that their television had failed them - some technical mishap that robbed them of the sight and sound of the mayhem they anticipated. But it worked.
Unexpected that is relevant to the market and the product is embraced. The Olympic logo is simply considered off the wall and of no personal relevance. Unexpected - for sure; yet unappreciated because of its lack of relevance to the games, the audience and the host city. By contract, the mystery and involvement of the viewing audience with Tony and his family is sound, in place, another surprise I a show of surprises and - each of us in our own way, gets it. Cut to black worked, it socked us in the gut and we will talk about for days - like the i-pod, Honda cog and got milk ads unexpected when it is well done becomes a defining moment of our culture. |
|
|
Wednesday, 23 May 2007 |
Every once in a while I think that we need to look at some rather traditional and standard approaches to marketing decisions – stuff that has merit and has worked – and examine how experiential advertising efforts intersect with contemporary business practice. And, as the “experiential” work moves from “alternative” to become “mainstream” and expected the relationship to the constructs of premium vs. price-based, market share, growing or diminishing categories and other marketing considerations will become more important as part of the experiential proposal to new clients. Eric (if-it’s-Tuesday-I-must-be-in- New-Delhi-Hauser) and I want us all to look smart as this evolution rolls forward.
So, as we try to establish guidelines and best practices to help promote both the effectiveness and acceptance of experiential advertising what can we adapt from marketing theory that helps bring thee two disciplines together. (Whoops – Is experiential advertising a discipline – a topic for another day I suspect.) I suggest that a good starting place is to look at those categories that are dominated by a leader – e.g., beer, athletic shoes, hybrid cars – and what we would suggest for those in second – or third, or fourth - place. It is often the case that those are the most exciting and challenging assignments.
Leaders, I think, maintain their position by steadfast innovation – year after year, season after season. Thus, it is Nike who intros “Air”, and modern high tops – Coke bringing “Zero” and “Blak” to the market – and Apple brings us “i-Pod”. The next in line also need innovative solutions but must add to that approach precise targeting. Generally speaking, in the presence of strong brand preference for the leader, identifying and attracting those that are persuadeable (a term I cherish and will always attribute to Jack Supple) to consider trial is a hoped for result from any experiential campaign. For that market segment that is approachable and will participate in our campaign the relevance of the offer and its presentation are the moves that encourage not only trial, but also cause a re-shuffling of the considered set. And, the offer and presentation are the stuff of experiential advertising. The promise experiential advertising mavens can make to their potential customers must be clearly slotted in that direction and speak to the likelihood of increasing relative market share (RMS).
Embracing RMS as a marketplace reality places experiential advertising strategy and execution squarely in the marketing mind set. Neither the agency nor he product manager believe that there are hundreds of thousands of “newbies” and their families slowly making their way to major markets from Montana. The clients who move portions of their spend to experiential campaigns will quickly recognize that their agencies understand that by and large they are in a share fight and the increase in their RMS is a wonderful measure of the success of the campaign.
As always – the thoughts expressed in our blog are suggestive and, correct or not, reflect the current belief of the author. Yet, deep down, I am educable and look forward to your comments and your efforts to straighten out my thinking.
|
|
|
Tuesday, 08 May 2007 |
|
Neal is going to lead the dance this week in our latest blog adventure of the Academy and Practitioner…..:) He had a lot to say...So I kept my part short.:) E
Like many others, I spend time thinking about “brand” and the stature of that concept in an environment that sees content as king and is focused upon the strength of consumer-generated media. The significance of brands and branding today requires full exploration and research – and yet I think that on-line discussions, perhaps in blogs like this one, can help our understanding.
The notion and definition of the term “brand” has changed and in some sense reflects current advertising and marketing practice. Initially (and I’m really not sure what “initially” means – let’s assume the 1950’s), the term was considered roughly equivalent to the product and service logo – and the term itself is often seen to parallel the branding of cattle that characterized the ranching business of the Western United States. Interestingly enough, that period of time also defined the term “maverick”, allegedly named for Samuel Maverick - an attorney and early ranch owner in Texas (circa 1847) - who often had cattle that did not carry a skin-seared identification. In the 1960’s the term ‘brand’ was considered to be a promise and convey the guarantee that what was purchased was of quality. About a decade later “brand” was viewed as a road map – particularly for those concerned with retail aisle end-caps - with regard to packaged goods in supermarkets with hundreds of facings – and were used to navigate one’s way through the super market.
More recently, “brand” has become a central theme in both advertising and marketing disciplines and practice. The encounter or experience gave rise to the expression that “the experience was the brand and that the brand is the experience” . . . rather circular in terms of its syntax but clear in the general agreement that the impact of the experience was defining and persuasive regarding what it was the brand represented. And, the concept will continue to change in meaning as technology, practice and culture continue to modify the ways in which information is distributed and received.
The strength of the brand lies in large part with the community that identifies with it and refers to it as “my brand”. One can argue that without a community (e.g., regular users/customers) the brand does not exist. Equally important are a host of other factors or touchpoints that interact to produce the vital and organic construct called “brand”. In that sense the interaction and the effect of relatively small changes in the marketplace has huge impacts . . . bit reminiscent of some of the principles of Chaos Theory and the notion of sensitive dependence. Brand manifestation – its adherents, popularity, ability to maintain price point, acceptance in international markets and a host of other factors are exquisitely related. Today a major intervening variable are the on-line social communities and postings that essentially define or redefine a product or service brand. Many believe that if one wishes to know what their brand stands for all they need do is to “google it!” IN any case the traditional metrics used in advertising to determine who we were reaching and impacting were derived from mass media publications and broadcasts, generally based on CPM. The existence of highly communicative social networks was not a factor. Tied to product or service those of us growing up without My Space and PIN’s belonged to social communities that were important to us, but far less interactive and supportive than the social networks available today. At best, to acknowledge our brand associations, we smiled at those wearing PF Flyers and a few noted that others in 7th grade wore their Captain Midnight Decoder ring to class.
Thanks Neal – Test Test…..microphone check.:) While I agree that branding requires a full exploration – I also feel strongly that over-analysis leads to brand paralysis. Back in the day, around the time the earth was cooling, it took forever to go through the branding process. I think that today’s advanced branding techniques, like perceptual mapping, allow one to achieve “brand clarity” very quickly. I’m sure that you have an intimate knowledge about this since you teach it at UT.
I really like the intricate story that you wove regarding how the notion of brands has changed over the decades. You said that it has appeared to change from logo --- promise ---- roadmap ---- experience. That is quite a change in thinking. As an experience guy though, I would say that brand has always been about the experience no matter what the books from each particular time period state. I would simply argue that the thinking has evolved since the 50’s. Everything that you mentioned above was created to have audiences experience them, and to feel a certain way.:)
As you know, I always reference the quote that you gave me to present to your fellow academics at Stanford’s Media X conference.
"You cannot create experience.
You must undergo it."
Source: Albert Camus
That would seem to make those of us that brand via experience part psychologist and part philosopher, with a dab of salesman – I guess.
As for my feelings re: brand manifestation – that is going to be my next long winded post.
So, three questions for our readers:
What will determine brand growth and survival during the next three years?
Do you think that the development of social communities mark the end of the dissociation so persuasively put forward by Putnam in “Bowling Alone ?” And, most importantly, what best describes the evolution of devolution of the brand Boxing? Can it be revived against al the new MMA competitions?
See ya’
Neal and Erik
|
|
|
Thursday, 03 May 2007 |
Aspirational This and Inspirational That
A quick funny thought before I head to bed……….
I was kicking around the office today with Neal and Aaron. We began to discuss various things about branding – shop talk. We touched on the various types of brands and the positions that brands take. The conversation quickly drifted to aspirational brands – my favorite! They are the ones that make you work harder.:)
According to the collective community that we all know as WIkipedia, an aspirational brand is defined as the following:
In consumer marketing, an aspirational brand (or product) is one that a large segment of its exposure audience wishes to own, but for economical reasons cannot. An aspirational product implies certain positive characteristics to the user, but the supply appears limited due to limited production quantities.
Then, we had some visitors in from Japan and drank some tea - refreshing.
When they left we quickly picked up where we had left off. However, this time we started discussing inspirational brands. In a moment that can only be defined as hilarious I did a quick search and found this from the Hampstead Villager:
“Alec Baldwin Endorses Liv’n Out Loud! Clothing
An Inspirational Brand of Sun-Washed “Comfort-Stuffs”
Doesn’t really make a strong case for wanting to be an inspirational brand.
Do a quick search on Alec Baldwin if you need to clarify:)
Neal, having worked years on building the Harley Davidson business with CL said, “ It’s really not an inspirational brand until someone wants to tattoo it on their body”. I can’t really disagree with that.
Score: Neal 1 Erik 0
I ask one simple question. How many brands have created such a unique experience, such a cult following that people want to tattoo it on their body?
I have to know…………..
|
|
|
Wednesday, 02 May 2007 |
There will be a lot of folks checking out the forum today since we "officially" released the CPT survey data. I thought it would be a fantastic time to revisit a piece from October. It was well into the time frame when exploring brand managers started jumping into second life for their "ultimate" experiential campaigns. Experiential? I wish I had a chance to speak to the brand managers at Nissan, Pontiac, Toyota or any of the other forward-thinking strategists that jumped into the new world because there are so many questions to ask before making the choice to do so.
- Do you understand that setting up a corporate presence in second life is very different than buying outdoor in Los Angeles?
- How many people inside of second life want you there?
- Did you take any time to understand that Second Life is essentially a real world with real people that might really wish that you'd simply disappear?
- Do you know that running a marketing campaign in Second Life is like trying to run a field marketing campaign in Iraq?
- That the odds that you'll get "virtually nuked" are about 50/50?
- If your campaign is meant to connect me with your vehicle in a meaningful and relevant way - to compel purchase - then why does it take 8 seconds for the car to take a left hand turn when I've been pounding my mouse forever?
Those questions are all in good fun, but very real questions that I have been dying to ask. The real deal is that we are months away from web 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0...not to mention TV 2.0, 3.0 etc..etc... When Linden Labs opens up the source code it will be the web equivalent of girls gone wild. The 2-D web will shift to 3-D, and virtual travel agencies will thrive!
Moving right along with my typical A.D.D flow……..
As expected the social networking and virtual world craze has led everybody to go "all in". What's next? Companies that were there first will be bought for silly amounts of money, and then the buyers will realize that the got screwed. Screwed you say? Yes. Mark Cuban style. There is a reason why people bail when they do - It's called the smart money.
Hyper-saturation is here only to be followed by hyper-fragmentation. AHHHHHHHHHHH.. The paradox of choice. Soulless properties like MySpace that have been homogenized down to the lowest common denominator will realize that they can’t be everything to everyone like they thought they could be. New sites will fold.
The media will declare the death of Web 2.0, and then the smart and innovative people will emerge with the right formula. The perfect corner coffee shop formula. Give them what they want.;) They'll select an audience that they want to cater to, and they’ll empower that audience by providing them tools to pursue their passions. Sure, people will maintain their MySpace accounts. But.......let's be real. It's now FOX’sSpace, and the folks that made it what it was have drifted to these smaller passionate communities. It's the difference between Del Taco and the taqueria with your favorite salsa - where ya' gonna go?
And now to our regularly scheduled programming........................
|
|
|
Saturday, 14 April 2007 |
As Erik and I wonder what we can bring to your attention that is worthy and perhaps a bit different from the blog-fare that’s so readily available, the issue of the recent re-do of the famous Apple “1984” commercial was again discussed and its recent pirated adaptation that overlays Senator Hillary Clinton in the big screen. A brief re-visit seems to be in order. If it’s been a while since you’ve seen the spot check out this url: (http://www.uiowa.edu/~commstud/adclass/1984_mac_ad.html ) and its recent pirated adaptation that overlays Senator Hillary Clinton in the big screen. During the process of re-examination I was reminded of the original philosophy – the position really – that Apple adopted. While the rallying cry for the Apple brand in the market place was “Be Different”, one can look at it as a political statement even then. It was a creative metaphor encouraging the marketplace to bravely fight the totalitarian excess of the major computer giant of that era [“No One Ever Got Fired For Buying IBM”]. And so before blogs and message boards there was an invitation to be inventive and expressive in your own idiosyncratic fashion – as a consumer! Hooray.
But whoops. Implicit in that message was also an encouragement to be the same – find an option that others like you are adopting. The Macintosh commercial used as its platform the big brother representation of the Orwellian state – and invoked images of every dictatorship or mass following. And, if we were to do a full content analysis consideration must be given to the portrayal of the woman as heroine -- representing empowerment and liberation. At that time when many were still to purchase their first computer the woman was perhaps selected as being more approachable. Think new voters – and the need for a non-IBM candidate – one that could bring a brand equity of difference that surpasses the female candidacy and suggests empowerment and joining a new community. Hmmmm ?
"Think different!" as a slogan for both democratically disposed voters and computer shoppers suggests that a “non traditional” choice is a way to achieve individuality, rationality, liberty, and empowerment. This is of extreme importance because in 1984 – as we all understand now - advertising was not anymore about the product, but about how consumption and possession defines us as individuals. The candidate of choice – for each of us – represents a distinguishing “club” and we articulate both our difference from ‘them’ and our similarity to ‘us’ in the choice we declare. And, the development of experiential advertising and its intersection with the idea of brand makes this distinction of community and belonging clear and – more importantly – something we can work with, develop tactical executions for and attract adherents, believers – in short – a bigger share. At the end of the day, your client has to like that.
(Burns wishes to acknowledge his colleague Dr. Vanessa Vonseca for introducing him to this line of thought – how prescient our ideas were then.)
|
|
|
Saturday, 14 April 2007 |
As if the marketing landscape wasn’t changing quickly enough we’ve now added endless miles of virtual terrain with which we have to be familiar if we want to be where our customers are congregating. However, on the upside,it gives us new canvases on which to create brand interactions that engage audiences through meaningful, relevant and positive experiences. Today’s youth have grown up with new technologies at every turn, and they are the ones that are early adopters and the first to embrace new mediums.
The challenge is how do you create experiential campaigns with these technologies that don’t just entertain, but connect with your young customers and drive purchase? Many brands are jumping head first into virtual worlds without investing the time to see if it even makes sense for them. They’re operating with the mentality that if others are doing it then we all have to be there. The result is empty pockets and the question: where did all of our money go?
The proliferation of emerging media and media platforms has caused a hyper-fragmentation that requires brands to be smarter and work harder to make sure they are creating experiences in the right places. I’ve always had a saying – it’s pretty simple. Deliver the right message, to the right audience via the right medium at the right time. What I am essentially saying is that, as a marketer, I have to put my head into the intended audience’s head to figure out when they will be most receptive to the experience that I am providing. It is tougher to do, but the rewards are ten fold.
|
|
|
Wednesday, 28 March 2007 |
A short ramble from the good doctor.
In an advertising agency there has been, in a sense, the celebrated focus – and the real power. The openly celebrated are the creatives – the copywriters, art directors, producers – taking the bows and bringing home the metal and glass memorabilia that fills the shelves in the agency hallway entrances. And then, without a smirk or a nod, there is the quiet secret – where the real money is spent and where the agency’s longevity with their clients is often determined. Media. And measurement. Did they watch – how many? Did they remember – can you convince me that they got it? Is it better than the last campaign? Better than last year? Let’s use Arbitron, Nielsen . . . OK, Starch -- and show that the metrics have had a positive effect on sales. “Look . . . we sold the advertising campaign as an investment – not an expense – now we gotta show the bean counters the RETURN. Right? Right!”
Well, perhaps that’s not a perfect description of the importance of media measurement but it is painfully close. The metrics of media have become well defined and established over the past forty years and helped satisfy a need for answering the famous John Wannamaker concern about which half of his store’s advertising was, in fact, effective. CPM has ruled – and in most circumstances still does. So, how does one answer questions about measuring the effectiveness of experiential advertising and promotion campaigns – and do so in a manner the client will accept and that reflects an understanding of research practices and what it is that advertising can really do? The issue is the stuff perhaps of its own blog – but starting a discourse about it here may be a good thing.
I think that the questions of measuring interactive efforts, mall interactions with consumers, guerilla campaigns and the rest and providing some answer that encompasses anticipated or realized return on investment is now – or will soon be de rigeur. The best answer will be a three-part approach. The three areas are briefly described below and with some additional work quantifying each class of measurement for communication and comparative purposes is very doable.
First, we can measure baseline brand position or likeability within the competitive set; doing so before and after the exposure to the event or process has occurred and looking for shifts in that ranking -- or perhaps even seeing the brand now a member of the competitive set whereas before hand the brand was excluded. Another expression of that condition can be derived from examining well-designed likelihood of purchase. Secondly, a series of measurements on a convenience sample drawn from those exposed to the event or process can deal with brand message comprehension, i.e., did those exposed draw from the experience those brand attributes that the work desired to introduce or enhance. Third, web-based metrics can be designed that track traffic to the site as a consequence of exposure to the experiential campaign and the viral spread can also be well estimated. Equally important is the dwell time, interaction and information exchange that takes place and quantifying that activity with comparison to web behavior observed with previous or conventional media approaches.
In short, a dynamic and meaningful metric set and terminology – one that goes beyond CPM of impressions is needed and attainable – for so-called alternative or experiential advertising techniques. Let’s go do it.
|
|
|
