Showing posts with label brands. Show all posts
Showing posts with label brands. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Playing to the Audience

For completely unrelated reasons, I have been learning a little about book publishing, and more particularly, about how to get your book published. It should come as no surprise to any of you marketing savvy folk out there that it’s all about, well, marketing. The first step to getting a book published is pitching your idea to the publisher with a clear and concise description about the book and why the proposed audience would be interested in it. Ultimately, it is about convincing the publisher that you understand your audience well enough to create something that will interest them. And to a publisher, this means a good shot at sales, and more importantly, profit. Marketing 101, right?

Right.

Yet sometimes I think this simple truth - that the foundation of marketing success lies with knowing your audience well enough to create something that will appeal to them – gets lost amidst the flurry of branding templates, marketing processes and our seemingly pathological desire to make things more complicated than they need be.

Yes, of course execution matters. A lousy writer with a good idea for a particular audience is not going places, most certainly not on display at your nearest Dymocks. Execution matters a great deal. But if execution is the building, then audience is the foundation. And if the execution is not flowing directly from a deep understanding of the audience, we’re going to get into trouble.

Imagine starting with your audience. Spending time up front understanding them and their needs before you do product development, and most certainly before you do advertising development. Imagine the advantage of designing your product with their specific needs in mind. Imagine the clarity such single-minded focus might bring to the creative development process?

The problem is, we tend to work back to front. We start with our brand or product and say, “Right, who will this appeal to?” And that’s understandable. After all, there are factories to fill, assets to use and brand growth targets to hit. Hopefully, though, we then seek an “insight” about that audience on which we can hang our marketing efforts. However, quite often, that insight development phase (or, consumer understanding phase) is short-lived, or worse, skipped over, as timelines tighten and the focus turns to execution. Heaven forbid, we may even find ourselves re-engineering the consumer need to fit the product or brand (or advertising idea), so that we can just get on with the creative development. Not a recipe for a smooth creative process or success, by any account.

Maybe we don’t always have the luxury of starting with our audience, but if we don’t have a very clear understanding of who our audience is and how our product meets a real and meaningful need, before we embark on our marketing development, its bound to end in confusion about what works and what doesn’t. And we end up in this creative development quagmire where we are not sure if consumers are rejecting the very basis of our offering (the insight or strategy) or the execution of that strategy.

Can you sum up your product idea in a 30 second elevator pitch that captures who its for, and why they want it, in a simple, clear and compelling sentence? If not, its probably time to learn more about your audience.

Monday, August 13, 2012

Golden Expectations

I've been thinking a lot about expectations recently. Must have been brought on by the dearth of gold for Australia and the subsequent sense of crushing disappointment that pervaded our nation. Well, our media outlets, anyway. Granted, we were beaten by Korea (13) and Italy and Hungary (8 each), which you hardly can imagine had the same budgets as Australia. But still, it is not the position (10th) on the Gold Medal Podium that is the problem, it is that we expected to have done better. It suddenly occurred to me that "expectation" pervades every part of our lives. How many relationships stumble because expectations are not being met? And of course, brands really are just a sum of "expectations". We set up those expectations in our communication activities and we work hard to make sure the brand can deliver on those expectations. Well, I hope we do, anyway. And we should, because a brand is not just the communication we thrust at people. Every time we interact with that brand, our expectations are either met or not, and our opinion of that brand adjusts accordingly. Brands are not, no matter how much we may wish they were, entities in their own right, created and maintained in the sterile environment of an advertising agency. They are living, breathing relationships. And like all relationships, when expectations aren't met, they begin to founder. The very concept of "value" is also entirely dependent on expectation. In the modern marketing environment, the economical model of setting price based purely on supply and demand has long been superseded by the idea that the ideal price is set based on what people would expect to pay. Value for money is determined by the difference between what people expect and what they get. When their experience with the brand is better than they expected, you get perceptions of excellent value. Conversely, when the brand experience is worse than they expected it is considered poor value. And in both these cases, this is regardless of the price people pay in the first place. Managing brands, then, must surely be a matter of managing expectations? When we take time to understand the gap between our consumer's expectation (which of course can be vastly different from our own) and their experience with our product, we may well be able to better deliver brands that people love to keep on using.