Spent my day doing the offline edit of my viral to promote Twestival Amsterdam (which I'll post soon), the conversations we had in the editing room got me to thinking about what makes a great viral and where that balence exists to engage people before revealing the brand...and making both elements work...
I think Greenpeace do an excellent job here in this piece, I was drawn in my this thoughtful piece of, what I call, "film-making" the reveal of Greenpeace was an "a-ha" moment that made the meaning of the viral even more poignant and did a supreme job for both the brand and the artistry/meaing of the film-making..
Showing posts with label strategy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label strategy. Show all posts
Monday, February 2, 2009
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Getting to the root of things
Been listening to another great Jaffe Juice podcast from Joseph Jaffe. He interviews the authors of the book Answering the ultimate question
The book proposes a simplification of our brand evaluation methodologies by asking one "ultimate" question - "Would you recommend this company to your friend" and pursuing "real life" responses - i.e. not artificially staged, focus groups or sterile interviews. Rather using a "Net Promotor" methodology that exposes and leverages true customer experiences and attitudes.
The authors group 3 types of consumers - promoters (who score a 9/10 on the ultimate question), detractors (who score 0-6), neutrals (who score 7/8). The authors studied consumer behaviours in relation to responses given on this question across a range of product categories and an interesting finding was indeed this scale - which they mention is influenced by "positive bias' - essentially in asking a question, people try to give a positive response - and rating a 6 isn't really positive rather it is "damming by faint praise".
So really in asking this "ultimate question" and then digging deep to understand the drivers and personal experiences that have led to this response, we get a really rich territory to understand how our brands are performing in the real world of consumer experience.
With this methodology of brand evaluation, it's clear that the marketing focus should indeed start with customer experience rather than relying on advertising to drive brand performance.
But in order for organizations to be able to leverage the power of "Net promotors" they need to tackle their own organizational issues. With so much old school "wisdom" entrenched in their business, it's difficult for large companies to adapt to a new way of approaching their marketing. A business' internal branding, it's people, and the collective culture and philosophies and communications networks, need to be addressed before putting innovative strategic communications in place.
As Jaffe succinctly puts it COST = Culture, Organization, Strategy and Tactics.
The way I look at it is this - how do employees relate and communicate with each other? and from there - how do departments? Is there a communications network in place which enables the organization to interact naturally and behave as a community? Is there a flow of communication and ideas? Are we developing and enhancing a rich internal culture and philosophy?
Addressing these important internal issues will enable organizations to benefit from their frequent & rich yet under utilised customer interactions. Customer experience employees have a relationship with the end customer and the knowledge they acquire on a daily basis must not be squandered. Rather these employees could be connected to executive level employees via an internal community. In joining these organizational dots - we empower not only employees, who will feel more passionate about the brand and become far better brand representatives, but also empower customers as they should no longer be frustratedly talking to a bored and disconnected customer service rep.
I could go on, but my blogs are long enough already - listen to this great podcast to get more detail on both the authors thoughts on evolving organizations to leverage "Net Promotor" and focus on the "Ultimate question".
The book proposes a simplification of our brand evaluation methodologies by asking one "ultimate" question - "Would you recommend this company to your friend" and pursuing "real life" responses - i.e. not artificially staged, focus groups or sterile interviews. Rather using a "Net Promotor" methodology that exposes and leverages true customer experiences and attitudes.
The authors group 3 types of consumers - promoters (who score a 9/10 on the ultimate question), detractors (who score 0-6), neutrals (who score 7/8). The authors studied consumer behaviours in relation to responses given on this question across a range of product categories and an interesting finding was indeed this scale - which they mention is influenced by "positive bias' - essentially in asking a question, people try to give a positive response - and rating a 6 isn't really positive rather it is "damming by faint praise".
So really in asking this "ultimate question" and then digging deep to understand the drivers and personal experiences that have led to this response, we get a really rich territory to understand how our brands are performing in the real world of consumer experience.
With this methodology of brand evaluation, it's clear that the marketing focus should indeed start with customer experience rather than relying on advertising to drive brand performance.
But in order for organizations to be able to leverage the power of "Net promotors" they need to tackle their own organizational issues. With so much old school "wisdom" entrenched in their business, it's difficult for large companies to adapt to a new way of approaching their marketing. A business' internal branding, it's people, and the collective culture and philosophies and communications networks, need to be addressed before putting innovative strategic communications in place.
As Jaffe succinctly puts it COST = Culture, Organization, Strategy and Tactics.
The way I look at it is this - how do employees relate and communicate with each other? and from there - how do departments? Is there a communications network in place which enables the organization to interact naturally and behave as a community? Is there a flow of communication and ideas? Are we developing and enhancing a rich internal culture and philosophy?
Addressing these important internal issues will enable organizations to benefit from their frequent & rich yet under utilised customer interactions. Customer experience employees have a relationship with the end customer and the knowledge they acquire on a daily basis must not be squandered. Rather these employees could be connected to executive level employees via an internal community. In joining these organizational dots - we empower not only employees, who will feel more passionate about the brand and become far better brand representatives, but also empower customers as they should no longer be frustratedly talking to a bored and disconnected customer service rep.
I could go on, but my blogs are long enough already - listen to this great podcast to get more detail on both the authors thoughts on evolving organizations to leverage "Net Promotor" and focus on the "Ultimate question".
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Brands that connect have a human story
I was simultaneously listening to this podcast about Obama's marketing strategy while perusing Sid Lee's blog. Both talk about Obama but from different perspectives. Jaffe talks about the communications strategy but Sid Lee hit the nail on the head when, in reference to his half hour "commercial" (below) they call Obama a "storyteller".
Indeed this is really what great communications are about - human stories. Tales that people can relate to.
Things are meaningless without a human context.
Brands are born from people, and draw from human relevance to be successful, politicians are brands and Obama exploited the power of the people on the ground and their stories in his campaign.
What also struck me is how this thought links to the phenomenon of "celeb". Britney Spears is hugely successful brand - and is this because we have such access to her story...and in fact, for her brand relaunch - a warts and all documentary was released and aired recently on MTV
Stars indeed have catapulted to fame after reality TV shows - after they displayed their humanity, their personality, their mistakes & their emotions on screen.
So successful brands have a sense of grounded-ness, of reality, of identity, maybe even making some mistakes along the way.
The main thing is that you have a human story that people can relate to.
Indeed this is really what great communications are about - human stories. Tales that people can relate to.
Things are meaningless without a human context.
Brands are born from people, and draw from human relevance to be successful, politicians are brands and Obama exploited the power of the people on the ground and their stories in his campaign.
What also struck me is how this thought links to the phenomenon of "celeb". Britney Spears is hugely successful brand - and is this because we have such access to her story...and in fact, for her brand relaunch - a warts and all documentary was released and aired recently on MTV
Stars indeed have catapulted to fame after reality TV shows - after they displayed their humanity, their personality, their mistakes & their emotions on screen.
So successful brands have a sense of grounded-ness, of reality, of identity, maybe even making some mistakes along the way.
The main thing is that you have a human story that people can relate to.
The Power of Rituals to drive your brand
I'm currently listening to a very interesting article on Brand Fast Trackers podcast where they're talking to Martin Lindsrom author of the new book Buyology which by all accounts seems to be a very worthwhile read.
He starts off by talking about the smash-able brand, a familiar story and concept illustrated by the fact that the Coke bottle was designed to be recognisable even when smashed into many pieces.
Martin also set up an experiment with fake billboards in the LA. 1 billboard with a Marlboro cowboy on one billboard and a Marlboro logo on another. When they looked at the craving in the brain, there was much more craving when they looked at the logo free poster they craved a lot more. Consumers were turned off by the logo as they felt that they were being marketed to. Tobacco brands are the ultimate smashable brands given the stringent restrictions on the use of logos etc. They are successful because they have been smashed.
But the really interesting part of the discussion was about mirror neurons and rituals. If you've read HERD you'll be familiar with mirror neurons. Essentially it was discovered in 1989 that there are "empathy" neurons which fire when you observe someone doing something. For example if you watch a football match and your brain is scanned, your brain scan will be the same as that of the footballer.
But how do all these points link up? Well we all know how successful the iPod was in it's rapid conquest of the market and we all have noticed that the white headphones are and obvious brand statement. Apple's stroke of genius was to break the category rules by creating white headphones - they are a smashable brand. In this wa the brand is more of an experience, a tribal identity badge than a product.
Moving more towards explicit rituals Martin Lindsrom gives us an example of Corona's success with it's lime ritual. He mentions how the product also exists in a lime version but consumers still prefer the original version when they put the lime in themselves and find the product 62% tastier once they've carried out this ritual.
Essentially it's monkey see monkey do...but for us thinking, consuming monkeys it's monkey see, monkey do, monkey tells himself he's done it for himself, because it's better.
Another great example he mentions is about a large cosmetics brand he worked on and built in a particular ritual of how to apply the cream. The ritual is only 7 years old but now 91% of it's consumers use the ritual and feel that the cream works better when they do it...and with this placebo effect, it most likely does!
He starts off by talking about the smash-able brand, a familiar story and concept illustrated by the fact that the Coke bottle was designed to be recognisable even when smashed into many pieces.
Martin also set up an experiment with fake billboards in the LA. 1 billboard with a Marlboro cowboy on one billboard and a Marlboro logo on another. When they looked at the craving in the brain, there was much more craving when they looked at the logo free poster they craved a lot more. Consumers were turned off by the logo as they felt that they were being marketed to. Tobacco brands are the ultimate smashable brands given the stringent restrictions on the use of logos etc. They are successful because they have been smashed.
But the really interesting part of the discussion was about mirror neurons and rituals. If you've read HERD you'll be familiar with mirror neurons. Essentially it was discovered in 1989 that there are "empathy" neurons which fire when you observe someone doing something. For example if you watch a football match and your brain is scanned, your brain scan will be the same as that of the footballer.
But how do all these points link up? Well we all know how successful the iPod was in it's rapid conquest of the market and we all have noticed that the white headphones are and obvious brand statement. Apple's stroke of genius was to break the category rules by creating white headphones - they are a smashable brand. In this wa the brand is more of an experience, a tribal identity badge than a product.
Moving more towards explicit rituals Martin Lindsrom gives us an example of Corona's success with it's lime ritual. He mentions how the product also exists in a lime version but consumers still prefer the original version when they put the lime in themselves and find the product 62% tastier once they've carried out this ritual.
Essentially it's monkey see monkey do...but for us thinking, consuming monkeys it's monkey see, monkey do, monkey tells himself he's done it for himself, because it's better.
Another great example he mentions is about a large cosmetics brand he worked on and built in a particular ritual of how to apply the cream. The ritual is only 7 years old but now 91% of it's consumers use the ritual and feel that the cream works better when they do it...and with this placebo effect, it most likely does!
Sunday, November 16, 2008
And again...thanks Google
Great new tool from Google - Google trends - this FREE tool lets you analyze historical Google history data around key words and even compare key words...fantastic!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
