Energy versus focus

Brands require huge levels of energy. They need to be promoted, they need to be maintained, they need to be serviced … just to keep them going. And that can lead some to believe that that is all they need. Surely, if you invest enough energy in this brand, it will succeed.

You see this in those interesting exchanges which begin, “We’re going to spend this … and we want to achieve this”.

I would argue that the emphasis needs to be reversed, “To achieve this, we’re going to have to spend this …”.

There are some important distinctions in the order of these statements. The first emphasises the spend (energy) and ties it, hopefully, to an outcome. The second statement begins with the outcome and attributes a required level of energy to achieve it.

A lot of marketers put their hope in the first approach. Egged on by the planners, they spend up and then wait for the tide to come in. It’s a little like saying that you’ll put a certain motor in a car and aim for it to reach a certain speed. It may work. It may not.

The other approach is much more mechanical. Start with the outcome, and then determine the level of energy required to achieve it, both in ideas and spend. But it’s an approach that makes the creatives and the planners sweat because the emphasis is on actions and results rather than impressions. And it shifts the focus – from “what shall be spent and where?” to “why should that amount (or more) be spent?”

For the most part, the business model of communications agencies is not geared up to make that shift. Their ROI champions the power of ideas and the excitement those ideas generate. A great idea, the argument continues, will require energy to make it work. And when you agree, they’ve made their money. But – and it’s an important but – awareness or even excitement is a means to a return not a result in itself. And until you get the result, you haven’t made yours.

You might like to think about that next time the lights are off and the showreel is running.

The power of patterns

I have little doubt that news of a study by Facebook and Università degli Studi di Milano showing that Facebook has reduced the degrees of separation from six to four will inspire many to post advice on how and why to push everything Facebook’s way.

According to the study, “99.6% of all pairs of users are connected by paths with 5 degrees (6 hops), 92% are connected by only four degrees (5 hops),” and the average “distance” between users is getting smaller over time.

But I agree with Marc Schiller of Bond Strategy and Influence who pointed out in a recent interview posted on the AdWeek site that the key customer insights in a dynamic marketing environment come with brands adapting to movements in behaviours not shifts in technology.

What really matters here is not that Facebook has reduced the separation between people, it’s that people have continued to employ Facebook to reduce the separation between each other.

If you just focus on the how and not the why, there’s a very real risk of counting the dots at the expense of seeing the patterns.

Making the most of game dynamics

In a helpful article in Fast Company, Seth Priebatsch provides his insights on how brands can use game dynamics to forge new levels of engagement with customers. He cites three robust principles:

The power of we. Marketers talk a lot about individualising these days, but Priebatsch reminds us that people also find huge reassurance in being part of groups and that creating and motivating such groups can be a game-changer. The dynamics of a customer base change, he suggests, when people see themselves within a group setting rather than just the context of one-to-one. There’s more than group-think at play here. The reason this works, I think, is because communities themselves combine bonding with form and mass which in turn adds the all-important elements of momentum and endorsement. So perhaps a more accurate way of describing this is Seth Godin’s concept of tribalism.

Visible progress. Everyone loves to think they’re getting ahead, and as Priebatsch reminds us, the many progression metrics that brands use – points, status, benchmarks, levels, progress bars – “all help users visuali[s]e and keep track of successes in small increments”. In my mind, progression strategies parallel the ‘upgrade culture’ because they’re all about short-term incremental gains. They’re immediate and they give people small but valued things to work towards. Priebatsch’s advice: “Businesses should constantly strive to devise new and creative ways to allow their customers to visuali[s]e and track their success. Hitting goals and making progress is fun.”

There is a downside of course – and that is that consumers who don’t make the progress they feel they deserve (or would simply like) can feel let down or even abandoned. I remember when I was downgraded on my airline loyalty programme that the drop seemed an awfully long way down. In fact, in some ways, not having them, turned me off flying even more.

Tell me when. I don’t necessarily agree with the examples that Priebatsch gives for his third dynamic, but I absolutely agree with the principle. Priebatsch suggests that having happy hour every Thursday at 5 p.m. is a great example of the appointment dynamic because it “provides reason and immediacy, two ingredients that the customer needs in order to change their behavior.” To me that’s an example of a limited place-and-time offer at work. But the other opportunity here is to establish a habit that people link inextricably with your brand and that may, or may not, be tied to an offer. Starbucks’ third place is a classic example of this type of appointment dynamic because it provides people with a regular thing they can do at a regular time of their day. Coke, too, makes great use of the appointment dynamic, implying that the brand should be included any time that people get together and want to have fun.

Learning 1: Give people something to belong to that enhances their sense of identity. (Association)

Learning 2: Provide carrots. (Incentives)

Learning 3: Look for simple ways to get into and stay in your customers’ diaries. (Priority)

Two leaders kissing. A killer app or a sex tape?

I always grin when people do that whole “any publicity is good publicity” thing. Because it’s simply not true. That observation it seems to me is predicated on a belief that awareness is the doyen of marketing, whereas I would argue that, in most cases, perception overwrites straight recall in terms of bankability.

The temptation, if you follow the former line of thinking, is to assume that successful marketing is just about gaining attention. It’s an attitude that the advertising industry and the online world has done much to encourage. Gain attention and the business will follow. But a sex tape will get you plenty of eyeballs. It doesn’t necessarily mean that you have the foundations of a durable commercial model.

Notoriety does work if your brand is built on a ‘bad boy’ reputation. As I’ve noted before, if you’re Gordon Ramsay, for example, or the Sex Pistols, then outrageous behaviours are both scandalous and intriguing. In these circumstances, people love to be shocked. Antics are in fact part of what people expect and buy into. 42 Below were past masters of outrage as a marketing tool, but the permission to do so was predicated on them being perceived as an outrageous vodka – as outrageous as a vodka from New Zealand in actual fact. Occasionally such brands do overstep the boundary, but a quick apology where necessary – and it’s soon business and brand as usual.

So what to make of the new Benetton campaign “Unhate” that features a number of the world’s leaders smooching? The most controversial of these is probably the Pope kissing a leading Muslim cleric, which quickly got both the Holy See and the imam hot under the collar (sorry!).

Cue: outrage. The official explanation from the Vatican was that the use of the Pope’s image in a commercial setting was an unacceptable use of his image (which probably means copyright infringement or something) and that the faithful would be upset.

Pretty much what you’d expect.

Now what?

Surely Benetton will be banking on the fact that the pushback from the ‘establishment’ to their campaign translates into a viral storm that in turn pushes more people to the racks to express their solidarity with Benetton’s position (the killer app). Just like they did last time with the label’s world issues campaign. But this is a 20 – 25 year old technique and it remains to be seen whether shock alone is enough to make Benetton the force it once was in a sector that is now much more competitive and well used to publicity stunts. The concern must be that the new campaign may gain a lot of attention and swallow acres of media columns but then, just like its sales over the last decade, largely flatline (the sex tape scenario).

As many of you will be aware, I’m a huge believer in a brand having a strong worldview and for that view to be inculcated into everything the brand stands for. In a world packed with bland advertising and me-too claims, I applaud Benetton for once again going out on a limb. The images are certainly arresting. But whilst I’ve always loved the audacity of Benetton’s marketing and refer to them often as an early mover in the bid to politicise consumers, one of my reservations is the lack of a direct link between what Benetton publicises and what it stands for as a brand. How does buying the clothes promote Unhate? Because if there is no cause and effect, the risk is that Benetton have simply linked their brand to a universal (and nicely named) principle, and that principle itself is not that disruptive or controversial, even if its expression is.

We’re talking about world peace, people.

In other words, what makes this more than a universal principle expressed in an edgy way, and why will edginess alone incite a buying frenzy and, even more importantly, sustained and accumulating loyalty in a market that is packed to the changing room walls with talented people and wonderful designs?

It’s a concern well founded. According to the Wall Street Journal Online, Benetton has been losing ground over the last decade to competitors such as Inditex SA’s Zara and Hennes & Mauritz AB’s H&M. The label is struggling to find its place in fashion which is why it has revisited its publicity strategy. The “Unhate” campaign is part of a three-pronged plan to relaunch Benetton’s brand, product and retail network. The label is streamlining its collection and focusing on knitwear and colours—two of the company’s 1980s staples. It is also firming ties with franchisees to better control brand image.

But going back to what worked once is not usually a sign of a brand in charge of its destiny. And as Robert Bean is quoted in the article as saying, “Fashion lends itself easily to pushing boundaries. But one won’t be rewarded just for making controversy. The product must fit the advertising.”

Attention seeking is not a brand strategy.

Attention converting is.

And that’s the real challenges it seems to me for this brand: not just getting the attention (relatively easy), but getting the leverage and being able to link all the kerfuffle back to the brand, what it sells and what it stands for. Turning that attention into bottom-line commitment. Mentions and likes cost nothing – but they earn nothing either.

The media love scandal because it absolutely works for their business model – it sells papers.

It doesn’t necessarily or automatically work for yours.

Lady Gaga’s found a relatively simple way to make that conversion. Gain attention and build intrigue in public – convert that to dollars in album sales and live concerts. The Kimmed One too has managed to do it (actually off a tape ironically), because her business model, it seems to me, is predicated on converting the attention and intrigue generated on TV into what fans buy from a store or what companies pay for live by way of personal appearance fees. But then there’s always the risk, as per the wedding, that outrage tips the other way.

And so, here’s the irony. So many brands let opportunities pass them by because they fail to see the potential in a message or a position or an idea. Because they fail to see that a seemingly ordinary concept has the potential to change their audience, their bankability, their reputation – if it’s handled in an exciting, inspiring and disruptive way … But just being interesting without a clear corridor to the money will not be enough.

Can Benetton turn Unhate into Unbeatable?

We’ll have to wait and see.