Original Madison Avenue Journal Article here.
In one sense, a brand means trust, the comfort of knowing
that you probably won’t have to buy the same thing twice. Back in the old days
(you know, like the 80’s), built up trust was much easier to retain. Bad brand
experiences could generally be confined to small groups in small areas if
handled correctly.
But in the age of hyper-connectivity, the age of endless,
easily-searchable information, these small groups can efficiently find each
other and connect.
A new Deloitte study revealed what most of us probably
already knew, consumer generated online reviews received insanely high trust
scores. 99% of internet users find them either very or somewhat credible. Which
begs the question, where the hell do we fit in? Strategy doesn't mean much when
the product has a fatal flaw, and no matter how deftly we build up a media buy,
it falls flat if the product happens to, let's say, poison children. But it's
even scarier in the un-extreme cases where brands mean less because they
signify less. Lower priced items still have to beat the quality barrier to have
a shot of making it past the reviews, so it starts to become much like the
pharmaceutical problem of two identical products with different labels.
So again, where do we fit?
Seems to me we sit now in the middle, somewhere between useful and totally
inept in a world that little else matters than the voice of the people. But
luckily many of those people are still vain, so brands as badges still holds
true, keeping us afloat on the relevancy scale for now.
But it looks as though there will be a split in objectives. Some agencies will
satisfy the need for business strategy, a direct response, ROI driven model
that is all about immediate needs of the marketplace, while more closely tying
together with logistical business demands and CEO vision.
And the other side will focus on the need to capture imagination, to gain
attention, to give permission for companies to be talked about. And here,
experience will be more important than ever.
The difference in strategy with experience is that we’re not
just creating ads for the sake of informing the publics, but we’re leading the
loudest 10% into deeper relationships, while giving them permission to discuss
these with the other 90%. This is what makes integration so vital. You don’t
walk away from awareness and reach for a deep connection with a few, just like
you don’t walk away from the few for the many. It’s the advertising equivalent
of the balance of faithfulness and promiscuity.
If we look at average number of searches for certain product
before and during larger campaigns, you’ll notice that with the added
awareness, an obvious thing happens, the search queries for that product
increases. You’ve intrigued enough people that at the very least, they’d like
to hear more.
At that point, you have to be there waiting for them with
the kind of experience that makes sense for that target and that market, and
then supply those people with the tools to tell their friends, all those people
stuck back in the ‘awareness’ stage.
So, the traditional part is easy. Buy enough media and
enough people will hear about you. But, finding the right message that allows
people to open up to not only what you have to say, but what their friends say,
is more important than ever in an environment in which those conversations
carry so much weight.
But, back to my point. We hear a lot about agencies
re-integrating, and companies consolidating their marketing dollars with fewer
agencies. And while all this is probably for the best as creative and media
have already become more deeply connected than ever before, it may not be far
enough. The kind of integration we need is the meshing of ROI and Attention
models. Both are fantastically important, and neither one will be going away.
Unfortunately you’ll find too often that it’s one or the other, not a balance
of the two.
While our strategies are becoming more involved, and
expanded to include more methods, it’ll be even more important to have steady
hands to guide the process, understanding not only what makes people tick, but
what makes business tick and finding happy balances that bring both these goals
into alignment. That’s the kind of integration we need in order to stay
relevant.
So can we really affect what a person writes in a review? Maybe
not. But by understanding the delicate balance of business objectives and the
new marketing environment, we will be much better positioned to have greater
impact on the direction and craft of creating products that succeed in this
marketplace.
In an earlier post, we found out the Dallas is full of stupid people and saggy pants, and now, with a special thanks to rabid Rad Sox fan Lori Magno, we have confirmation on both counts.
