actions speak louder than words

I have always strived to live by this adage. Its one thing to say something and its quite another thing to live your life by it. I could tell you what I’m good at but if nothing in my life demonstrates it – I’d be tripping on empty words. And so philosophically speaking, while we’re ever keen (especially it seems in the world of advertising) to blow our trumpets and shout the loudest, know that people will expect the same promises reflected in your behaviour.

 

via Edward Boches Presentation on Making Digital Work

I read an article recently which asked the question of whether the way we tackle a brand’s position should evolve in the same way that the landscape has. Taking in to account the notion of the purchase funnel turning upside down, with loyal customers being more important than prospects and the affects of social media where a brand talking about itself won’t be able to have a credible engagement with a community because essentially its consumers who own the media.

via Edward Boches Presentation on Making Digital Work

What does this mean for positioning? David A. Aaker defines Positioning as “…part of the brand identity and value proposition that is to be actively communicated to the target audience and that demonstrates an advantage over competing brands.”

Building strong brands is hard these days; price competition (directly affecting the motivation to build brands), proliferation of competitors reducing specifically the positioning options available, media fragmentation plus internal pressures such as organisational bias against innovation and pressures to invest elsewhere mean that there are growing challenges in ensuring your brand is preferred.

Well with new, vigorous competition coming from various sources and even those entering different categories through brand extension strategies (such as Weight Watchers food or Dove Shampoo), new product development (think Coke providing alternatives to carbonated drinks such as bottled water and juice) and innovation, there are fewer holes in the market to exploit. These competitors not only contribute to price pressures and brand complexity, but also make it harder for brands to hold their position.

Some interesting points are made about the idea of key benefit “As products become less distinctive, benefits are more likely to reside in the brand experience than in product performance or image characteristics. Differentiation now is as likely to lie in ‘our customer service rocks’, ‘we have great apps’ or ‘we support the same causes you do’ as in better, faster or cheaper.” While I doubt product differentiation is going to lose importance and by virtue of Moore’s Law statistically impossible as we continue to innovate and I like to think, co-create culture (doesn’t that sound wanky?!) – the brand needs to behave in a way that articulates what it stands for. As Carol argues; "new strategic tools are needed to helping a brand understand how to connect with customers at an individual, human level."

To me this is the brands vision/ambition, the brands “why” we connect with our customers, its noble purpose. Behaviourally this goes beyond a one-way message, it is the expectation that brands ‘walk the talk' and position themsleves in a place that connects with the customers not just by what they say, but also what they do.

via Edward Boches Presentation on Making Digital Work

One of the first vital lessons I learned in advertising is that everything communicates and as we all know, what we say is only 10% of what we communicate. Hence, actions do speak louder than words.

brand insights: just an idea

What happens when you overlay SWOT analysis with an insights chart (for want of a better name)? Something I was doodling at the cafe as I tucked in to my brunch on a lazy Sunday morning. Probably not what you should be considering over a sunny weekend, but I felt the theory warranted articulation and sharing.

Insights are obviously beyond facts or info, they are the "Sparks in the dark", "Eureka's" or "Flashes of genius" and the beauty is that when applied correctly, creating alliances across Company, Consumer, Culture and Category, you get a big fat bottom line to thank you for it.

One of the things I like about this approach is the opportunity to treat your company and your consumers as an Internal influence. Increasingly we are appreciating that consumers are your brand stakeholders as essentially a brand exists in the mind of its audience - a brand is the views, attitudes and opinions that individuals have about a company or product - so it important to recognise how a company and its customers converge. Never before has the relationship between customers and brands been so tangible.

Culture gives way for so many fabulous opportunities. We live in such a fragmented time amongst niche micro cultures, fads, fascinations, multi-cultures, technologies, movements in all directions. There's ample opportunity to pinpoint inspiring and emerging expressions and values that could be leveraged far enough to redefine a brands category (great example is the recent Tontine pillows campaign)

Lastly but not least there's Category. Perhaps wrongly or rightly associated with "Threats". You could argue that Category segmentation provides more positive opportunity but I quite like looking out for "threats". It find the opposites. And while we can better understand the 'why' behind a divers set of brands/products existing in a category, looking out for "threats" broadens the scope beyond what's on your doorstep to what may be round the corner on the other street. Its a great way of looking out for substitutes and gaps in the market while ever aware of the competition to work on ensuring your market difference and advantage.

Oh dear, I feel like a royal nerd. I should probably get out more... while I work on that, I hope the above was useful ;)

why we choose?

Dan Ariely the author of Predictably Irrational uses interesting optical illusions to demonstrate our thought process (and decision making). Our intuition fools us in to thinking things in a certain way. Like an optical illusion even when we know what the right answer is we still don’t see it.

Which is longer?
(They're both the same)

The idea of illusions is that our senses feed us information however it is not a true reflection of reality. Information is provided to us courtesy of our brain, which has a set of rules for dealing with situations so that what we see is actually very different from reality in specific, repeatable, predictable ways.

The same thing applies to consumer behavior. For example, when something costs more and people expect it to be better, they actually end up seeing and experiencing it as being better. One of my favourite (and equally frustrating) product examples of this is Tiffany. Oh the weakness. But why? Well a brand is considered premium when we believe it is worth the price. And to feel that good with a shining Tiffany bracelet on is oh so worth it. Remember 'perceived quality' is one of the key brand associations that has proven to drive financial performance.

It’s like an illusion, the way that we process the information is not a function of what is out there, it’s a function of what is happening in our brain. Most of our understanding of the world comes from our brain not from our senses. We think we see with our eyes but much of what we see is happening within our brain even the way we feel about it.

Ariely uses a great example; when you lie on your back and look at the sky, you believe you’re seeing blue however the reality is that only a small part of your eye can detect that colour. If you extend your arm out in front of your face and hold your hand in a fist, that’s the only portion of your eye that can detect blue. The rest of your eye isn’t supposed to see blue. We don’t see blue because of our eyes, we see it in spite of our eyes. It’s our brain that is doing all the work to help us detect blue. The same thing happens when we process other information: Price, quality, etc. In all those cases, it is our brain that drives our expectations and determines much of our final experience.

Ariely believe that we have two types of rules for our behavior. One type concerns market norms which involve how much you pay for things, how much people charge you and so on (a banking rate for example). The other type is social exchanges that have to do with fairness and warm fuzzy feelings (the 'why', the connectiveness we feel, the empowerment etc). Both of these relationships are perfectly reasonable and have advantages and disadvantages. Marketers need to understand the particular advantages and disadvantages that come with both of these relationships and perhaps more importantly the failure that can occur when the relationship is in the middle and not compelling enough in either direction.