In the movie 'Bruce Almighty', while explaining His powers to Bruce
Nolan, God gives out a caveat: Bruce couldn't affect free will.
Affecting free will, or causing someone to change his behaviour, is
perhaps the most difficult goal to achieve. The reason is pretty simple:
the moment you try to influence it, the other person pushes back to
ensure it remains free will.
Because behaviour is so
difficult to change, this goal becomes the acid test for good
advertising. Consumers have their routines already set. They are already
making so many decisions day in and day out, that they will gladly go
for their 'default' choices wherever possible. They will habitually buy
the same toothpaste, shaving cream, shirt, and even tyres and engine
oil, unless something influences them to change those habits.
Now,
only if a brand makes choosing itself as a more convenient or a more
gratifying option than the default choice, it is able to show that it
understands the consumer, and stands a chance of being bought. This
proves to be beneficial too, since this brand will now be the default
choice till the next 'behaviour-changing' communication comes along.
So what kind of change in behaviour should the brand go for?
There
are multiple alternatives here. A brand (or brand manager) might
believe in cutting to the chase, and aiming straight for the brand
choice decision: switching from existing brand to new brand. This is
called the 'better mousetrap' approach. The argument (and even the ad)
usually explains rationally: 'Buy us because we are better'. Duracell
has been using this approach for years.
Some other brands want to
take a high ground and showcase the brand or users as ones that would
make the world a better place. Brands like Google and Coca Cola can make
these claims, and even deliver on them using their dominance in the
market, and omnipresence in consumers' lives. Procter and Gamble's
Olympic Games campaign was on similar lines - creating a new aura around
household goods brands.
These two approaches are at extreme ends
of a spectrum, and none of them are sure-shot ways of success. Research
and testing can help brands choose the right cues and ultimately help
create behaviour-changing communication. When they do, the result is
nothing short of extraordinary!
---
Views and opinions are my own. They do not reflect my present or previous employers' stand on the topics.
Jan 28, 2015
Nov 12, 2014
Consumers need brands too
As marketers, advertisers and brand owners, we are pretty weird. We talk of brands as lovable and significant entities: adored by consumers, playing an important role in their lives, making a difference in the world, and so on.
And at the same time, we also talk of marketing as mostly 'interruptive' - things that stop consumers from going about their daily lives and pitch sales stories to them. From this lens, brands are seen as desparate entities fighting for survival. When consumers notice our brand, and recall it from our ad campaigns, we celebrate. When consumers recommend our brand, and talk about it through their social media profiles, we earn the title of industry experts.
But how can an entity worry about relevance, and talk about affinity at the same time? Perhaps, it is led by our perception we aren't too willing to admit - Brands need consumers, consumers don't need brands. "We" need "them" because they buy our products, prefer dealing with us, pay more for our services, etc.
But we never think that consumers need brands too.
We don't discuss from this perspective. We don't have conferences or conclaves from this point of view. We are busy proving advertising effectiveness, calculating social media ROI using grand metrics, even creating new metrics, all in an effort to justify the existence of our brands.
Of course, we are taught all the right theories on how to tap into consumer needs, and building great brands. But the perspective is always that of a survivor. Books and speakers address their audience as people struggling with identity crisis.
Perhaps it's time to change this point of view.
Perhaps it's time to treat brands on an equal platform with consumers.
And perhaps, with that stance, brands will truly make a difference in the world.
--
Crossposted on LinkedIn
And at the same time, we also talk of marketing as mostly 'interruptive' - things that stop consumers from going about their daily lives and pitch sales stories to them. From this lens, brands are seen as desparate entities fighting for survival. When consumers notice our brand, and recall it from our ad campaigns, we celebrate. When consumers recommend our brand, and talk about it through their social media profiles, we earn the title of industry experts.
But how can an entity worry about relevance, and talk about affinity at the same time? Perhaps, it is led by our perception we aren't too willing to admit - Brands need consumers, consumers don't need brands. "We" need "them" because they buy our products, prefer dealing with us, pay more for our services, etc.
But we never think that consumers need brands too.
We don't discuss from this perspective. We don't have conferences or conclaves from this point of view. We are busy proving advertising effectiveness, calculating social media ROI using grand metrics, even creating new metrics, all in an effort to justify the existence of our brands.
Of course, we are taught all the right theories on how to tap into consumer needs, and building great brands. But the perspective is always that of a survivor. Books and speakers address their audience as people struggling with identity crisis.
Perhaps it's time to change this point of view.
Perhaps it's time to treat brands on an equal platform with consumers.
And perhaps, with that stance, brands will truly make a difference in the world.
--
Crossposted on LinkedIn
Aug 26, 2014
Truths about ‘insights’
Let’s get the most agreeable truth about ‘insight’ out of the way – it is a much often used, overused, and abused word.
Agreed! But since we haven’t learnt to discuss advertising without this word, let’s continue on this topic.
There are two more, perhaps equally obvious, truths about insight. But they don’t get talked about much; hence, this post.
One, not every ad campaign needs an insight.
Sometimes, a great ad campaign is great simply because it’s a fresh idea or fresh storytelling. The first TVC of Sony Bravia just showed colourful balls filling up the streets of a small town; it was brilliant art direction. ‘Chal Meri Luna’ and ‘Dum Laga Ke Haisha’ became path-breaking campaigns because of brilliant copywriting. Calling a memorable moment a ‘Kodak moment’ is brilliant marketing. There’s no consumer insight in the ad. Creatives, planners, and servicing people know this, understand, and even accept this truth. A few clients would, too. Most others can’t. They would probably get nightmares if they were told that their ad agency would be presenting a script without an insight behind the idea. Nevertheless, if it’s a fresh idea, it would work even without an insight.
The second truth: Insights don’t and can’t exist in isolation.
Have you ever tried to think of insights without a brand or product in mind? Try it... in vain.
Because we think insights are about consumers, we believe that they are independent of brands and products. But they aren’t. When CEAT Tyres said “the streets are filled with idiots”, it said so because the brand offer was safer tyres. When Tata Sky said “Poochhne mein kya jaata hai”, it said so because consumers considered the brand so premium, they didn’t ask about its packages and prices when they were out to buy an inexpensive DTH service. Olx says ‘Bech De’ because it relies on people growing distant from their possessions to the point that they want to dispose them of, at a small price. Would these insights mean anything without the brand offer?
This brings us to the most controversial aspect of insights – their definition.
Based on truth no. 2, we know that we would have to consider both the brand / product and the consumers to be able to arrive at an insight.
Hence, here’s what I propose:
An ‘insight’ is an already-known truth about consumers that makes the brand proposition compelling and irresistible to them.
This truth could be how consumers use the product, how they buy it, or even the emotions and imagery around the brand that is offering the product. But it can’t be bereft of the brand / product. If it is, it’s just great storytelling at work, not insightful.
What do you think?
---
This is my post on LinkedIn. It has been cross-posted here so that it has its own URL.
Agreed! But since we haven’t learnt to discuss advertising without this word, let’s continue on this topic.
There are two more, perhaps equally obvious, truths about insight. But they don’t get talked about much; hence, this post.
One, not every ad campaign needs an insight.
Sometimes, a great ad campaign is great simply because it’s a fresh idea or fresh storytelling. The first TVC of Sony Bravia just showed colourful balls filling up the streets of a small town; it was brilliant art direction. ‘Chal Meri Luna’ and ‘Dum Laga Ke Haisha’ became path-breaking campaigns because of brilliant copywriting. Calling a memorable moment a ‘Kodak moment’ is brilliant marketing. There’s no consumer insight in the ad. Creatives, planners, and servicing people know this, understand, and even accept this truth. A few clients would, too. Most others can’t. They would probably get nightmares if they were told that their ad agency would be presenting a script without an insight behind the idea. Nevertheless, if it’s a fresh idea, it would work even without an insight.
The second truth: Insights don’t and can’t exist in isolation.
Have you ever tried to think of insights without a brand or product in mind? Try it... in vain.
Because we think insights are about consumers, we believe that they are independent of brands and products. But they aren’t. When CEAT Tyres said “the streets are filled with idiots”, it said so because the brand offer was safer tyres. When Tata Sky said “Poochhne mein kya jaata hai”, it said so because consumers considered the brand so premium, they didn’t ask about its packages and prices when they were out to buy an inexpensive DTH service. Olx says ‘Bech De’ because it relies on people growing distant from their possessions to the point that they want to dispose them of, at a small price. Would these insights mean anything without the brand offer?
This brings us to the most controversial aspect of insights – their definition.
Based on truth no. 2, we know that we would have to consider both the brand / product and the consumers to be able to arrive at an insight.
Hence, here’s what I propose:
An ‘insight’ is an already-known truth about consumers that makes the brand proposition compelling and irresistible to them.
This truth could be how consumers use the product, how they buy it, or even the emotions and imagery around the brand that is offering the product. But it can’t be bereft of the brand / product. If it is, it’s just great storytelling at work, not insightful.
What do you think?
---
This is my post on LinkedIn. It has been cross-posted here so that it has its own URL.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)