If a brand falls in the forest... does anyone care?

So the results are out. And apparently CBA's gamble on a US ad agency campaign has been a huge success. Well that's according to Mr Buckman at CBA anyway. He touted figures of brand awareness of 90% (peaking at 95%) and perhaps more importantly that media spend had fallen by 30% YOY. Apparently prior to the campaign, brand awareness was at 70%. Personally I find this pretty darn hard to believe. It's like saying that only 7 out of 10; people in Australia know who John Howard is. Putting aside the veracity of the figures for a moment, could perhaps the measure of brand awareness be a red herring? Or as I put rather callously in meeting the other day, brand awareness is completely meaningless, awareness of cancer is around 100% that doesn't mean I want it!

Moving on from awareness figures, the bit I found most intriguing about Mr Buckman's defence of the marketing strategy was this quote, "We set out to achieve three things -- impact, comprehension and likeability. We have achieved two out of three so far and we are well on our way to getting our third."

This idea of likeability I thought was where the real gold is. Think of it this way, awareness is basically the number of friends you have on Facebook, whereas likeability is more like the actual the friends you keep in contact with. Which raises an interesting question... Do we really want to like brands? Does anyone really want to have a relationship with a brand? Firstly brands aren't even real they're a concept, an idea. And secondly who wants to be friends with bank? Or an insurer? Or a biscuit for that matter? I mean really, are we asking a little too much of consumers to be friends with, or have relationships with our brands?

The answer? No we aren't. The fact that brands are just concepts is why consumers form such powerful connections with them. When you buy a Ferrari you don't just buy a fast red car. You buy 100years of racing history. You buy a piece of Italian culture. You buy all sorts of intangible emotions. Girls want to be with you and guys want to be you, and the rest of us just think you're wanker. One of the most powerful brands in the past couple of years is shining example of the fact that consumer want a relationship with brands. Just do a Google search for Apple tattoos and trawl through the 3.3million mentions is serves up. I doubt these people are tattooing themselves with Apple logos purely because they think the iPod is good mp3 player. It's because they see parts of themselves in the brand, and what that brand choice says about them as a person. It's all the intangible, emotive stuff that makes a great brand, not an arbitrary figure about how many people can remember your name.

The Best idea in the room Wins

Over the past months in various industry seminars and publications I have seen a particular case study pop up again and again. It has been held up as a best in show example for almost anything. From social networking, to conversational marketing and Web 2.0, to content strategy and consumer participation, to emerging, non-traditional media, to consumers in control. Any guesses as to this phantasmagorical marketing example? It is of course Nike+, (I suppose the picture might've been a giveaway) possibly the most successful mash up of all time. The meeting of super brands- Nike and Apple, to create a product offering linked to an online portal come social network for runners from all over the world. So what is it really?

Well the short answer is, all of the above.

The longer answer, and the more interesting answer, is that it is just a great idea. It grows out a very a simple equation. What is the consumer need or want that the brand can fulfill? The most important piece of the puzzle is that the consumer is at the heart of the equation. Take a pre-existing brand and product offering and seek to make it a better experience for your customers. From a consumer point of view there was a pretty obvious need, "wouldn't it be nice if I knew how far and fast I was running. This is where the second piece of great thinking kicks in. There were already products on the market that solved this need/want. Companies such as Polar and Garmin already had products on the market that could tell you this data, with even more detail to boot, including heart rate, calories burnt, even linked to GPS to give an altimeter and mapping facilities. The problem with these applications is that they were expensive and lacked universal appeal. They were too niche. So how could Nike solve this need with universal appeal? What Nike did was to add additional insights on top.The second important insight? That a huge number of people these days were running listening to music on their IPod. Wouldn't it make sense to utilise this pre-existing behaviour to solve the consumer want? And use it they did!

Now people are using it as an example of marketing 2.0 or next generation marketing (or whatever other buzz word you want to call it really). But it isn't a marketing or media execution at all. Don't get me wrong, it is now being used to generate communication with the consumer and in turn market NIke products. But essentially it is a just a really good product offering driven by what was then an unmet consumer want. What came first was the value created for the consumer. What resulted was the connection with the brand. Firstly Nike creates an offering that enhances the running experience, off the back of this they build elements into the portal so that consumers spend more time with the brand and also so that Nike call sell them more products.

Importantly if you want to create a relationship with your consumer, give them a reason, give them some value. Here Nike gives you ra eason to spend time with their brand. The take your current behaviour- running, and build something to make it better. Sure you have to buy the product first, but the rest you get for free! The portal, the data housing of your personal stats, the facility to challenge your mates (and the data to prove you are the fastest!), not to mention the ability to link with other likeminded people- all this is value add. And in an added twist Nike also took an important step by making the technology available to all runners. The product can be used on shoes other than Nike. OK so Nike made sure the experience is that little bit better on Nike shoes but they did something very clever by making the product inclusive not exclusive- Authentic even?! (See previous post)

But above all the key to the success of Nike+, is that is a great idea where the consumer was put first.

Brand Authenticity- How to do it well.

I have been banging on about Authenticity (amongst a throng of others) for a while now as being of the upmost importance to brands. Not only is Authenticity important because of the digitisation of media, or as I put it in an earlier post the fact that the deer now guns (if you don't believe me check out this Comcast example from the US, an oldie but a goodie!) BUT also because current consumers are savvier than their historical counterparts. Credit where credit is due, consumers these days are generally better at wading through the masses of marketing messages they get bombarded with on a daily basis. Look there is still a sucker born every day but on balance I think the general consensus is that we are a more informed, savvier bunch than in previous years.

So authenticity is important, but how do we do it well? I saw this one in a Springwise newsletter last week and thought it was one the best examples of brand authenticity I have ever seen. The brand is Icebreaker from New Zealand. They basically built their brand on the sheep's back. Outdoor apparel made from 100% pure Merino is their focus. Yes they're expensive but this is a quality not quantity approach to business. Their latest initiative is basically a clothing version of the Slow Food movement, where you can trace back the origins of your wool garment to the actual farm where the wool came from. They're calling it "BAACODE", cute name- Great idea.

The thing I liked most about this example was that it was nice idea that got me sucked me in at first, but the more I delved into the brand, the culture the people, the more excited I got. The quite lofty values they extol, they actually deliver on. Not only in the rhetoric and the nice fluffy stuff on their website but also in the way they conduct themselves with their business partners.

Compare this to, say, Commonwealth Bank, "determined to be different". A new position, a new ethos, and an expensive new advertising campaign, but is it authentic? A lot of media people have leapt at the chance to stick the boot into Commbank over the new position and the ad's (check out Singo's scathing response!). I don't want to just jump on the bandwagon of CBA bashing and I'm going to steer clear of comment on the actual creative (I think this in particular has been done to death). What interests me is the brand position. In my mind Commbank unfortunately set themselves up to fail in this regard. For one key reason;

When you are a company the size of CBA and operate in financial markets, it is very hard to be truly different. Smaller privately owned companies are much more likely to actually succeed on a promise to be "different". One of the largest, slowest moving publically listed companies in Australia is unlikely to ever be that different. Perhaps their level of customer service has improved; I have heard anecdotal reports of this. And my latest interaction with Commbank (yes I'm a customer) was quite good. But sometimes fate has a funny way of showing things what they truly. Just days before the brand re-launch Commbank was given the perfect opportunity to prove how truly determined they were to be different. The RBA increased the official cash rate and Commbank passed on the rate increase and then some. This seems to me to be a clear example of a disconnect between your brand promise and what your brand actually delivers.

The moral of the story is actions speak louder than words. You need to be authentic in everything you do. Saying one thing and acting another is just not good enough. And a note to Commbank, if you're going to make big claims, you'd better have the courage to back them up!

The Consumer is at the Heart of it all- Sounds simple doesn’t it?

Why is it only now that marketers have begun to see that the consumer is at the heart of unlocking marketing in the age of media fragmentation? The "rise of the prosumer" some are calling it, or the age of consumers in control. Technologically enabled by the internet, consumers now have more control than ever over your brands and your brands stories- essentially the deer now have guns! How has this happened?

Firstly the Google and social networking generations of Gen Y and the Millennials, the so called digital natives, have access to any and all information about your brand, so you can't tell any lies anymore or you'll be found out. Just ask Ribena about how much vitamin C is really in their blackcurrant juice compared to orange juice.

Secondly, blogging, reality TV and social networking has given rise to a "me" orientated consumer who's given viewpoint is important purely by virtue of the fact that they exist. We have a current crop of "celebrities" who are famous for nothing, apart from being essentially themselves. Don't just blame Big Brother, You Tube can share the blame along with Jackass and any number of "reality" programs. And don't worry Gen Y it's not your fault, Sociologists are laying the blame squarely at the feet of your parents. Workaholic divorced baby boomers who shower you with attention, gifts and affection in an attempt to make up for never being around.

Formally you used to have to be an expert in your given field to be published. Now all you need is an internet connection (and if you have any questions a rudimentary use of Google). Correct spelling is not even a pre-requisite. And no topic is safe, they are more than happy to share their opinion on virtually anything. And thanks to wiki's, Google and Yahoo search among others we can actually find all this useless information quicker and easier than ever. I call it the cult of mediocrity, but don't quote me on that as I'm sure somewhere in the blogosphere that has been said before. It has been said before by Andrew Keen, The Cult of the Amateur, and very eloquently too! Have just finshed reading his book, fantastic. http://andrewkeen.typepad.com/the_great_seduction/2006/10/my_book_now_not.html

Not that I'm anti this proliferation of viewpoints- in fact I've joined in! Starting my own little blog/ shrine to myself and my view on the world, (been feeling lately that Facebook just isn't focused quite heavily enough around me). To be honest all this isn't really a new phenomenon, consumers have been influencing brands stories for some time. Long before the internet consumers were involved in the anti-cigarette movement in the early 1960's as soon as research surfaced about the associated health problems. It's just that current technology makes it easier for consumers to unite and publish giving them greater power.

How with all our consumer insights and segmentation studies did we lose sight of the fact of consumers are ultimately in charge. That they actually decide what to spend their hard earned cash on. Whatever happened to R&F? If I tell 50% of "my" consumers (there's that feeling of control again) 3 or more times to buy my product, then I'll make my sales target. You telling me this equation doesn't work anymore? Engagement is the new measure I hear you cry. But how do we possibly measure engagement!? Does 'time spent' equal engagement? Or is that approach like trying to measure the beauty of a rose with a ruler?

It's a complicated equation

Media's new Value Exchange

Well considering it is the tile of my blog I thought it would be a good place to start my posts.

This was a theory I stumbled upon while working on presentation about Mobile media. I was struck by the fact that although mobile phones are probably the pervasive media vehicle in the world, numbering over 6billion (depending on which figures you use) or 1 for every 2 people on earth, there is such limited take up in terms of marketing. And most of this limited take up is due to consumer hostility. Yes mobile service providers attempting to create walled gardens of vertical integration and technology problems have also hampered mobile take-up BUT I believe consumer’s resentment is at the very heart of the matter.

Looking at the results of internal research, consumers were overwhelming against having advertising messages on their mobile phones. But this attitude took a complete about face when the messages ticked either all, or some of the following boxes;
· It was very relevant to them personally
· The advertising subsidised features or content for the consumer, i.e You get $20 free credit/ month, in exchange I get to serve ads from time to time.

It occurred to me that this was really about “buying time” with the consumer. If marketers where willing to give something of value to consumers then consumers would give the marketers some of their time in exchange.

Before, if you put your message out there, consumers would, at the very least acknowledge it. This is no longer the case. The digitisation of media gives consumers even more ability to choose and even switch off of actively avoid marketers messages. Now, consumers must be convinced to spend “time” with brands, or view marketing messages.

In the era of exchange...

Consumers have a finite and fragmented amount of “time” (meaning interest, actual time, bandwidth etc). To gain some “time” marketers must give consumers something of “value” and in exchange consumers give marketers “time” to share messages. One of the most important things to note, is that not all media channels are created equal... Not all media channels require the same level “value” to be exchanged for the consumers “time”.

The above diagram is a simple explanation how the value needed to be exchanged varies by media vehicle. The smaller the screen size or time spent with the screen, the larger the value needed to be exchange. Hence TV with it's large screen and lean back type media consumption requires a relatively small amount of value, whereas mobile with it's tiny screen & lean forward mentality requires more value. Online would fall somewhere in between the two.

The size of the screen is really a bit of an oversimplification. But it is useful as it relates to the way the screens are consumed. TV (large screen) is usually a lean back experience, often shared with friends of family where media messages are not exactly welcomed but are not as intrusive as they take up proportionally less of our time spent with media channel.

Compare this to mobile which has a much smaller screen, and when we use it as a channel for accessing media it is in small snack sized portions. Advertising in this space without value exchange is very poorly received!

So how does value exchange work?

Take ANZ's approach to mobile advertising. Building an application for iPhones so that you have access to your online banking account. In exchange for this value, ANZ gets a prime piece of advertising real estate on your mobile- that most personal of devices. Value of the branding in media terms, I'm sure most sales reps would describe this as a money can't buy opportunity!