Australia’s communications problem: ‘Ownable’ trumps relevance and insight stands no chance

awesome

My head hurt reading this and I’m a planner. Less is more.

There are some valid points here regarding riskier campaigns and some more examples would be useful, yet your point of view doesn’t seem to take into account the commercial or strategic imperatives brands face:

– the service brands you do mention are built as much from the inside out, as they are for consumers so they need to give a shorthand for how a company behaves and set expectations for customer & staff.
– the brand platform for many Australian companies are based in tackling deep rooted perceptions of a category (telco, financial services etc) and therefore the need to change them.
– You have a population who are deeply cynical towards brands, therefore see above point
– We have a highly competitive marketplace with a relatively small population – the need to make an impact (hence differentiation & ownable) trumps others.
– Risk-taking and creativity is abundant in Australian advertising (see awards etc.) it just doesn’t happen or have to happen as part of a brand platform)

The real issue is that there is a yawning chasm between what marketers & consumers think about brands. Nobody has strong feelings or longs to engage with brands. Consumers want the exact opposite: the road of least resistance to getting their needs met.

We buy for a shifting mish-mash of reasons; impulsively, lazily & randomly. We think about ourselves & our lives much more than the brands we buy. People are not paying attention to the noise of marketers through the seemingly endless numbers of executions in multiple channels. They don’t care that much at all. Our challenge is not nurturing enthusiasm but overcoming complete indifference.

Be part of what interests people. Give more than you take. Take a position. Don’t just have a “positioning”. Always remember, nobody loves brands!

People love brands, People are loyal to brands. Take Birds custard powder and wrap it in plain white card box with the word “Custard” printed on it in black ink. Advertise it, and it becomes that black printed Custard Brand. people will love it and become loyal to it , but it will never be as popular as the can with the stylised “cut-out ” Birds.

The death knell was sounded for opera, once every man and his dog was allowed to go and slump in a seat in jeans and a baggy sweaty sweater, once plastic talent quest shows, invented to boost ratings by opening the doors to every non thinking “Oh Wow that’s freaking amazing” non entity, and started promoting anyone who could sing two lines of Nessun Dorma to a backing track, and sustain the high B natural for, not only longer than it is written, but even longer than has become standard in the opera house. The same is happening to advertising, television and theatre in general, I fear film will be next.

Stop hunting for corporate smarty pants answers, bigger ratings, University educated planning and development models, and get back to brave creativity.

Be bold and brave enough to say “It’s a good fridge” or “someone’s parent has got a whirlpool”

Very good Marius.

“• Advertising must evolve from a disruption-persuasion model to one of managing perceptions (watch Inception again)”

Brand and communications that not only seek to change what the customers want based on shared values in what the they think and perceive but also what they do and I believe will win.

“• Brands must seek to connect with people based on a purpose and shared values, not irrelevant functional, or arbitrary emotional, benefits”

Absolutely!Defining the core purpose of the brand and for whom is one of the key challenges communicators and and marketers face, Increasingly clients andagencies lose sight of this in the drive for interactivity/engagement (especially over digital platforms) is clouding out the relevance and context of the brand and its message searching for measurement and immediate ROI. Sometimes we confuse “awareness” for actually “caring” about what the brand stands for and to whom.

“• Brands must be treated as cultural symbols – used by people to express identity, belonging and status – not as scientific formulas.”

“• The brand and organisation must become one – everything from product development to employee uniforms must be part of a coherent whole.”

Totally agree . Brands that develope an inside/out approach that aligns the brand promise to the brand and customer experience/service alignment deliver a greater impact and meaning

“• Creative and strategy must be developed in tandem. The current torch-relay is a counterproductive byproduct of the evolution of the agency model.” Agree of sorts but we have to have some functional and are expertise otherwise we will all be dabbling in strategy and creative before the client has their chance to have a dabble. Whilst collaboration is neccessary and required a good insightful brief will lead to a solid strategic creative response within the defined territory or playing field. Collaborate Yes. Abdicate. No

A thought provoking piece. Good effort

Cheers

Garry

@Thomas – thanks for your comment and hope your head feels better.

You can find several examples in any given commercial break. I talk about a few here: http://bit.ly/UP0jiU (although the point I make is slightly different).

If a service brand in 2014 isn’t built for the customer I’d say it’s time to take a long, hard look at the entire business, not just the latest slogan. The point is Yes and Can have no real meaning, neither to customers nor staff. Saying it a million times doesn’t change this fact. It just hurts your head.

I get that platforms aim to tackle deep rooted perceptions, I just don’t think they do a very good job of it. Optus and CBA have both improved their products and services, which is great. But their communicate this in what are essentially retail campaigns. When competitors inevitably catch up product-wise it will become apparent that these ‘brand-platforms’ did not create any type of relevance or emotional connections.

I’m not exactly arguing against impact and differentiation. Of course it’s needed. What I’m saying is relevance is required to achieve both, and that our concept of ‘ownable’ is simplistic and technical, and fails to consider people’s behaviour and motivations.

There are some creative campaigns, but if they’re not part of the brand platform, what’s the point? To win awards? Not sure the public cares. Great campaigns these days are largely tactical, with limited reach and effect.

ANZ’s GAYTMs is a good example. Great campaign, but totally unrelated to the rest of the brand and communication. With such a limited reach, one may of course also question how much risk was really taken. Expand this worthy sentiment to the entire brand and we’re talking.

@Tony Simms – absolutely agree. Our industry is deeply biased and refuse get its head around the fact that people don’t spend as much time thinking about our brands and products as we do.
Position vs positioning is also a very interesting idea I wish more brands took to heart.

@ Thomas. You’ve been owned, from what i can see.
TY Marius , you win the internet today.

@Richard – thanks for your comment

People have a limited capacity for love and we fortunately reserve it for other things than brands. Fascinating though the custard powder category no doubt is, I’d love to know how you reach the conclusion that people will love, and be loyal to, a generic brand just because it’s advertised.

It sounds like you’re an opera enthusiast who prefers it to remain an elitist activity.
Opera is a great brand, used by its customers to differentiate themselves from the masses. This is now under threat.
Reality shows are the Richard Bransons of the arts and by challenging every single category convention they have repackaged the generic product (singing) in a way that appeals to the masses. Tuxedos have been replaced by onesies; $300 tickets by an SMS vote and Pavarotti by a Scottish woman on the dole.

In other words, a masterclass in marketing.

Shakespeare was the mass-culture of the 17th century the way reality shows are today. Times are changing, culture is changing, and brands must keep up and adapt. There are no absolutes, only smarty pants marketers who realise that saying ‘it’s a good fridge’ is neither brave nor creative.

@Garry and @Bogan Brouhaha – thanks for the compliments!

Cheers,
Marius

Great stuff Marius, hope all is well with you.
Good to see you still banging the drum, will be watching your next moves with interest!

@Chris Costin

Thanks mate! Hope you’re well too!

Don’t underestimate the cynicism.

I suspect part of the reason we live in the world of the one word campaign is that the consumer is so utterly hostile to unwelcome messages that they can’t be bothered to listen to 2 words anymore. So time is still going to be a problem, but you’ve rightly pointed out that the consumer doesn’t’ respond to meaningless words either.

The ultimate “bold” approach in that no-one does it anymore….it’s telling the consumer “This is the product and these are its features (or these are its benefits if you really think they’ll pay attention to you that long)”

@Hugo – thanks for your comment

I believe it’s an attempt to make marketing a science, in order to streamline and standardise the process. Problem is we’re dealing with human minds that are too complex for rigid formulas.

I don’t think the number of words has anything to do with people’s attention span. When you consider the actual messaging, the word count gets pretty high. We just have to make stuff they find interesting.

Brands have tried simply talking about product features fails to take into account the psychology behind purchase behaviour, which is anything but rational.

Interestingly, talking about product features is essentially what the vast majority of brands are still doing today. It’s just more difficult to notice as it’s all wrapped in jokes and metaphors, or spoken by comedians with funny voices.

We all know people make decisions emotionally, but we’re failing to translate this knowledge into effective communication.

Cheers,
Marius

There is good stuff here, but what this piece fails to take into account is the stratification of brands in our lives. Some brands, such as Beats headphones or BMW cars are an emotional purchasing decision; whereas others, such as private label milk, are pure price point commodity. There is no stasis in this relationship with the consumer; at present loyalty towards a product is shifting towards loyalty to the retailer – Kogan, Woolies, Coles. Understanding where your product fits in this stratification determines how much you can exploit the emotional aspect.

Where I agree with you the most is the disconnect between the creative and the brand essence. We have over-promised our abilities to our clients and have failed to inform them that most of the work in delivering a brand promise must come from within. How different is NAB really?

I do think marketing is a science…

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02.....&_r=0

We may not make our purchasing decisions ‘rationally’, but the decision chain in our minds can still be traced. And as time moves on, increasingly so. The creative solution will become the wallpaper covering the scientific framework. For the most part, that is. There will still be those like Droga who have an ability beyond scam and who will produce work or strategy that genuinely resonates, but the majority of creative product out there is still shooting in the dark and will ultimately undermine itself as the science become more exact.

When Big Blue beat Kasparov, the writing was on the wall.

Great article, Marius.

@me – thanks for your comment and compliments.

I totally agree there are different categories of brands and the article did generalise.

Those brands that are low involvement and only have functional value (as opposed to identity value) must get better at understanding their role in people’s lives. We then wouldn’t have to suffer 1000s of FMCG brands bribing us to ‘participate in the social media conversation’ and snack conglomerates spending billions on innovation for the sake of innovation (bit.ly/1nxbw35).

However, I also completely understand the desire of someone with only one brand to look after to be involved with everything new and exciting. It is the agency’s responsibility to be the sober one.

That said, I think a strong brand strategy has the potential to move any brand towards higher involvement and higher identity value. And that’s where we fail.

Re marketing being a science.
To a degree I suppose you’re right. We’re getting closer. But we have to separate between marketing and branding/creative development, for which science fails to deliver much in terms of genuine insight. While incredibly valuable in defining problems and finding opportunities – telling us what people will buy and do; how and where – it’s use is largely limited to retail, media and digital strategies. To develop reliable tricks and to optimise and refine marketing efforts. Getting the brand in front of eyeballs.

But it doesn’t help us develop brands that can thrive in, and relate to, a complex cultural context. Science cannot streamline complex motivations based on identity, status and belonging, and it is in this sphere that brands should aim to solve problems for their customers.

And it is all this crucial complexity and uncertainty that ‘scientific’ models seek to remove.

So to develop relevant brands and ideas that solve problems other than the generic and functional, we will have to keep relying on intuition, educated guesses and creativity. In other words, we should all aspire to be a bit more like Droga5 (NY).

Thankfully! It would’ve been boring otherwise.

Ps. I highly recommend the book ‘Cultural Strategy’ by Douglas Holt (I’ve conducted an interview with him which will be published on my blog (mariusforplanner.com) very soon!).

Cheers,
Marius

@Marius.

You’re right about the distinction between marketing and branding/creative development. I do think some of the creative process will be subsumed, see Instagram for a crude version, Keynote and Canva as more advanced versions of pretty much the same principle. With the democratisation of the ‘black art’ of design (and writing), my feeling is much of the back end of a marketing comms program will eventually be in some way automated.

That still leaves two things; getting the eyeballs and brain attracted to the brand via a very engaging piece of communication, and maintaining the engagement continuum once the eyeball and brain have been captured. For that, we will still need flesh and blood brilliance.

To borrow from genius, I think marcomms are moving towards 1% inspiration and 99% automation. Thanks for the Douglas Holt suggestion.

@me

Sounds like we on the same page!

The democratisation of craft is truly great news for our society. However, it means more is demanded from those of us who expect to get paid for our creations. And the only edge we will have lies in strategic thinking, which is what ultimately makes communication achieve an objective.

If you end up reading it I’d be very interested in hearing what you make of it!

Cheers,
Marius

I know this makes me a very old bugger. But dear Editor, is there any chance that Marius’ post could be elevated to a printed page. Maybe part of the fine booklet produced for 360? Or the man himself as a guest speaker?

I’m just worried that this post will miss many who it should reach.

great stuff Marius, honest, provocative and thoughtful, well said

@Jörn & @Sven

Thanks for the kind words!

Hi Marius, very interesting article!

I found your analysis of the problem really insightful and actually quite thrilling.

But in an article of 1053 words you wrote 861 words about the problem and only 192 about the solution. And compared to the brilliance of your analysis of the problem, I have to say your suggestions on solution were (to me) underwhelming, e.g. “let’s learn from the world’s most iconic brands”, “every stage of the process…must be reviewed” and “do things differently, take risks”.

Would love to see the same article, but a Part 2, with equal brilliance around the solution side of the debate…

@ Scamp – thanks for your comment.

You make a good point, so challenge accepted!

I’ll write a follow-up article focusing on the solutions (I’m away on holiday, so please give me a few weeks). I can’t guarantee it will feature on Mumbrella, but it will definitely be on my blog: mariusforplanner.com. I suggest you subscribe to it or keep checking in. I’ll look forward to your comments!

Cheers,
Marius