Performance var snabba att fatta always on – dags för Branding att komma ikapp

Taktisk digital performance marketing har levt och frodats i 15-20 år nu, men fenomenet är ändå en ungtupp i relation till reklam överlag. Det är en disciplin som absolut har sina utmaningar, men som trots sin ungdom nått fram till vissa insikter som den mer traditionella reklamen har svårt att konsekvent förhålla sig till.

Den digitala reklamen är bokstavligt talat nedlusad med data, data som inte bara går ner på detaljnivå utan dessutom flödar kontinuerligt över tid. Den digitala reklamen har dessutom mycket lägre trösklar än den traditionella. Det krävs ingen tryckkostnad som för en utomhus-serie, det krävs inget årsavtal i mångmiljonklassen som för TV, det krävs ingen dyr fotoproduktion för en glossig printannons. Dessa faktorer har lett till en ny typ av insikter..

Jag arbetade själv med digitalt på den tiden sök började bli en del av mediemixen. På den tiden hade man kanske en kampanjperiod i breda medier på 4 veckor, sen lite banners i 6 veckor, och köpt sök i 8 veckor. Sen stängde man ner söket för den kampanjen. Det kändes ju lite barockt; Vi kunde köpa in trafik från massor av intresserade människor, vi betalade bara per klick.. och så skulle vi sluta efter 8 veckor. Datan visade ju att det fanns mer intresse att fånga upp på Google?

På samma sätt som det kändes konstigt att inte vara närvarande när det fanns ett intresse att fånga, gick det inte heller att lägga hur mycket pengar som helst på sök. Fanns det inga sökningar kunde man ju inte köpa synlighet på dom. Till skillnad från ”push-reklam” där man kunde bränna enorma summor på att skrika ut sitt budskap.

Dessutom fann man sig i en ny situation där det handlade det om att välja söktermer att köpa. Att man inte kunde bara välja branschtermer att trycka på konsumenter, utan behövde se vad de faktiskt sökte på. CHOCKEN när det då visade sig att folk inte sökte på exakt produktens korrekta namn, varumärkets korrekta stavning, eller fraser från TV-reklamen..

Kort sagt tvingades man till en ödmjukhet inför konsumenters faktiska beteende. Inför hur mycket konsumenter struntar i vad reklam och varumärken försöker få dem att tycka, eller i vilka veckor ett företag vill att man intresserar sig för ett kampanjbudskap, hur de är otrogna mellan varumärken och utgår ifrån sina egna liv, inte en kampanjplan.  Man ägnar minimal tankekraft åt reklam, och plockar bara upp de mest basala och simplistiska delar i reklambudskap – om några. Och man ger sig i stort sett uteslutande in i köpprocess när man har ett tydligt behov, inte när det ligger en reklamkampanj. Alltså behövde man finnas tillgänglig kontinuerligt, och ligga live parallellt med alla relevanta erbjudanden man hade mot marknaden,

Vad kan då varumärkesvärlden lära sig? Jag tror man kan se två huvudspår:

Dumb it down / no one cares. När man hela tiden översköljs av data som visar hur konsumenter agerar tvingas man att bli ödmjuk inför konsumenter. I det mer storslagna kampanjarbetet har man mycket mindre och mycket långsammare data. Att få en kampanjmätning kan ta en månad, att se resultat i en brand trackning kan ta ett halvår. Då finns en risk att man redan gott vidare till nästa projekt. Och att man utgår allt för mycket från inifrån ock ut-perspektiv, att man utgår ifrån vad man vill att konsumenter ska tänka och tycka, inte vad man realistiskt har en chans att få in i konsumenters tankevärld. Man hamnar med I detaljerande differentierande budskap, snarare än att bara gå på ryggradsreflexer och distinctiveness. Man utgår för mycket sitt eget språk, och antar att konsumenter har lika mycket förkunskaper om varumärket och dess konkurrenter som man har på marknadsavdelningen. Man pratar eget språk och använder sitt eget lingo, istället för att förenkla.

Always on Att ha ett utifrån in-perspektiv innebär också att vara ödmjuk inför att folk påverkas av reklam kontinuerligt. Dels byggs varumärkesassociationer och ”mental avaliability” upp över flera års tid, dels kommer konsumenter (för de flesta produkter) in i aktivt köpbeteende under hela året. Att därför ha en möjlighet att vara närvarande över hela året, alltid finnas tillgänglig, skruva upp och ner volym beroende på behov, är helt enkelt logiskt. Ett always on-tänk har dessutom flera andra fördelar; Genom kontinuerlig närvaro ligger grejer live länge nog för att kunna hinna utvärderas och optimeras innan de byts ut, man får möjlighet att A/B testa saker. Man ser till att alltid ha relevant content att ta ut till marknaden, så man blir inte beroende av kreativ produktion för att snabbt kunna skruva upp volymen i medietryck. Eftersom man är live kontinuerligt tvingas man att tänka kring var som skall vara konstant och gemensamt över tid, och vad som skall uppdateras, vad som är distinctive brand assets och vad som är kampanjspecifikt, vilka hierarkier man kan ha i budskap, vilka saker som behöver en kampanj och vilka som löser sig automatiskt genom halo effects.

Visst finns det mycket performance-världen kan lära sig av varumärkes-sidan, men det finns också mycket lärande i andra riktningen. Om båda sidor arbetar efter samma principer kring förenkling och kontinuitet, finns det dessutom avsevärda synergier att skapa. Mer om det en annan gång.

Build Distinctive Brand Assets!

The other day I had the pleasure of listening to Jenni Romaniuk speaking at our offices.

Jenni spoke about the findings in her recent book “Building Distinctive Brand Assets”. Below I will try to summarize some of my key takeaways for this. It is really potent stuff for people working with advertising and branding. As per usual, I have gravely oversimplified everything and concentrated it all to four key points:

Understand how the human brand builds associations

The human mind is complicated, illogical and lazy. It is bombarded by messages every day, and tries to take shortcuts to structure, simplify and make sense of the world.

In this, it links associations together in clusters. Take, for instance, the Apple brand. If you think of Apple, a number of associations spring to mind. The logo, the iPhone and perhaps the MacBook, Steve Jobs. The white headphones perhaps? But also things like “the device for FaceTime with my grandmother” and “Apple as in the actual fruit”. Some of these associations are stronger, some are weaker. Some remain close to the apple brand, some lets the mind wonder on to other associations.

The same is true for categories of products or services. When thinking about booking a summer vacation, a set of associations spring to mind. The sun, the beach, the blue colour of the sea. The taste of Sangria. The hassle of air travel. Memories of hotels I’ve visited. Perhaps travel being expensive? Perhaps carbon emissions?

Understanding that the human mind functions in this way is an important starting point.

Understand the associative map for your brand

The general principles for associations of course also apply to brands. When people think of your brand, they perhaps link it to assets like the logo, the tagline, the package design, and advertisements for the brand. But also past experiences, friends they know who like the product, memories, competitor brands etc.

It is important to understand what assets are linked to your brand. In understanding this, it is important not to look to your own association: No one is more biased and less representative of the target group than someone working full time with the brand. Instead, you need to ask actual representative consumers.

Manage and develop your set of brand assets

When you know what assets consumers connect to your brand, you need to start actively with that set of assets. A few things to consider;

  • A strong asset ranks high in both fame (all consumers know it) and uniqueness (they associate it only to your brand). (Nike Swish is high on both parameters, Nikes link to the game of soccer may be high on fame, but is low on uniqueness)
  • It is positive if consumers link your brand to the things that come to mind when looking to purchase a category (e.g the sun from the travel example above).
  • There is a difference between branding assets (consistent, distinctive, building a system) and messaging (adaptable, creative, grabbing attention)
  • Good assets serve a purpose, ancoring the brand to something present in consumers lives, being easily used in niche media channels, creating uniqueness relative competitors)

Utilize assets for bridging across channels, markets and time

This part I think is very interesting for advertising professionals. In a lot of advertising work, the traditional way has been to start with creating the 30 second TVC. From that, one has tried editing and squeezing that video into different channels and formats.

What I think is super relevant, is the idea of using distinctive assets as a bridge between channels. As long as the asset creates linkage, you can be freer in creating communication that is truly adapted to the channel. (not only advertising channels, but also touchpoints like instore, packaging, web design, e-commerce etc etc)

This also allows for creating bridging across different markets and segments. Where culture, language, preferences may vary, you can still create a red thread by using distinctive brand assets.

Distinctive assets also allow for bridging over time. From one campaign to the next, from one season to another, from one concept to the next. Even from one CMO to the next.

This final bit, about bridging, feels so relevant. In today’s media landscape – where a brand might want to be present in TV and print, on YouTube AND as a sponsored snapchat filter – finding principles for linking those efforts without missing channel relevance is extremely useful.

One example from Sweden is Triss (scratch card lottery).

If we start with their current TVC, there are a lot of elements in there. There is a reverse timeline, a protagonist (the lady) and an antagonist (car salesman. There is dialogue, humor, a cool sports car etc etc. But almost all of these elements are of little value as brand assets. They lack fame, they are difficult to build uniqueness on and they are not conveniently transferred to other formats.

But if we look at the final 4 second, the good stuff gets revealed:

  • The colour yellow
  • The “scratched area”
  • The logo
  • The font
  • The logo
  • The sound of scratching

Suddenly you have a great set of assets for bridging.

In OOH, instead of using a photo from the TVC, they go for a copy-based solution: They use colour, scratched area, font, logo, and are able to get the humorous effect in in short copywriting which is adapted to the media. The same setup works for mobile, for snapchat.. Establishing the scratching sound as an asset enables a link to radio advertising.

 

So that is a short summary. I really recommend you buying the full book.

P.S. In a panel discussion after the seminar, I asked Jenni about channels where branding is less salient. (Some people advocate that the “correct” way of working with things like influencers and native is to tone down branding as much as possible.) She was clear in her opinion, that channels where you cannot have tour brand assets present are not relevant channels.

P.P.S. we also briefly touched on the currently discussed Carlsberg Probably [not] the best beer in the world campaign. There has been some debate as to whether tampering with the Probably the best beer in the world tagline asset. Here, Jenni argued that the distinctive asset for Carlsberg is actually just the word probably. That means that the rest of the sentence can be considered message, rather than branding. I had not previously made up my mind on the matter myself, but after hearing this thinking, I would have to agree. Very cleaver reasoning indeed.

thx to Carat and ClearChannel for making the session happen!

Marketing strategy in four simple (?) steps

The other day I had the pleasure of listening to a line up of international marketing gurus. Mark Ritson, Wiemer Snijders, Rory Sutherland, and JP Hanson had all come to Stockholm for a marketing event (SprintAd-dagen). While none of the stuff was perhaps new or revolutionary, it served as an important (and entertaining) reminder of the principles and frameworks that apply to marketing. As all of the ideas are adjacent and inter-linked, below are my take outs area by area rather than speaker by speaker. So below, I give you the foolproof guide to marketing in four simple steps:

1    Start at the right end

Sounds simplistic and basic but is something often forgotten when we get caught up in day to day operations. We need to be stringent in first analysing the market as best we can, then formulating our strategy, and last executing our tactic measures.

The diagnosis phase is to establish all we know about consumers, competitors and trends. It may also have the benefit of reminding you that nobody cares about your brand.

The strategy phase includes goals, KPI:s, prioritised segments etc.

The tactics phase is where we use the classical tools of marketing (Product, Price, Distribution and Comms).

This area was touched upon by JP Hanson and Mark Ritson. JP added that we are all subject to confirmation bias and halo effects. That means we are prone to post rationalising decisions and making isolated observations into rules of thumb when it suits our purposes. He also reminded us that a lot of new trends appearing are potential tools in the tactics phase, rather than something that should affect strategy.

Mark Ritson added a few really interesting remarks;

  • As the results of your market becomes the multiplication of the three phases, it is better to do all three at an ok level, than to excel at two and fail at a third. Distribute your efforts accordingly
  • Comms is one third of one of the three phases. CMO:s should allocate efforts accordingly (dialling back a less than healthy over- focus on this area).

 

2     Base your prioritisation of segments and goals on science

 

Under this headline, there are a lot of different studies and models basically pointing to two factors:

  • Loyalty is very weak, with most product buyers buying very rarely
  • Long term emotional branding advertising and short term sales driven advertising serve different purposes, imply different strategies, and have different KPI:s.

The first point was addressed by Wiemer Snijders, who used the banana as a model to illustrate the data. The banana effect in essence mean since a lot of people by your product rarely, you must be broad in your communication. He also talked about how brands have a meaning that to some extent is only useful if it is universally known. Imagine if Rolex only communicated their values to a niche group of frequent buyers. The whole status effect of a Rolex would vanish, as no one in the general public would understand the value of what was on your wrist.

 

Regarding the long term versus short term, there seems to be a unanimous vote in the community that the work of Binet & Field is the strategy model to follow. Even Mark Ritson grudgingly concluded that Binet & Fields work was probably the best combination of his own ideas on segmentation and Byron Sharps thinking of mental avaliability.

Also, Mark stated a strategy should be no more than one page, and include no more than 2-3 KPIs/goals

 

3    Be consistent

Daring to be consistent across channels, markets and time was an important take-away.  Advertising and marketing people are only human, and it is natural after working in a brand for a couple of years to get a bit bored with the brand appearance. But, as argued not least by Byron Sharp, distinctive and recognisable brand assets are key to being noticed in a cluttered communications landscape.

Mark Ritson added a few interesting notes from his many years as a consultant to major brands. He mentioned brand “codes”, elements that should be present in all advertising. He went so far as to instruct advertisers to refuse to pay agencies unless they included at least 2 of the brand codes.

He exemplified with Kenzo, where ads always had to include red elements, the signature poppy flower, and the brands ambassador/model against a Paris backdrop. Easily recognisable as Kenzo even if the brand name is removed from the ad, right?

4    Allow for a bit of crazy experiments

 

The final piece I took away was around experimentation. As we as advertisers are dealing with the human mind, which is subject to confirmation bias, post-rationalisation and a whole host of inconsistencies, we must never let 100% of our efforts be data driven. If we do, we will be solving the problems of today, but not hedging against the future.

There are different models related to this, One is the 70/20/10 model (70% of marketing towards optimising bread & butter, 20% towards testing new things, and 10% totally experimental). Another model is the dumbbell model as presented by Rory Sutherland: 80% safe, 20 % crazy, and nothing in the middle. They key element to these models is not getting them mixed up. The purpose, ideation process and KPI:s should be completely different for the two different efforts.

Rory also questioned why creative peoples’ ideas are always audited by structured people, but structured peoples’ ideas are never audited by creatives.

All in all, the collected insights of these speakers gives a comprehensive roadmap on how to address marketing. If you are in marketing, you really should read up on these models and se how they may apply to your business. Or as Wiemer Snijders puts it: Eat your greens!

 

 

 

 

P.S. Speaking were also Dr Emma Frans and Kapero consulting. As they were not on the topic of marketing theory I have left them out of this.

P.P.S. Only one woman speaker?