Tag Archives: strategy

Marketers’ Quest for the Infinite Conversation

conversationThe most important dynamics of the modern marketplace flow from our moving ever closer to a world of infinite choice. As consumers, we’re both overwhelmed and delighted by the expanding ability to obtain whatever we want, at almost every possible time and place. As marketers, we’re both overwhelmed and delighted by the expanding ability to connect with whomever we want, at almost every possible time and place. So consumers and marketers alike face the conundrum of a world of infinite choice – infinite channels, infinite competitors, infinite sources of influence, and infinite decisions.

In that context, we see a marketing universe still defined by the finite thinking of campaigns. It’s become embedded in our culture. It’s not an unusual cocktail party topic to recall “that great campaign that so-and-so did” back in the day. Lord knows marketers think in campaigns too. We give each other awards for campaigns; nominate colleagues to various Hall of Fames based on their association with great campaigns. Even sophisticated marketers think this way most times, referring to the launch of social programs much like most do about TV shows.  A campaign is a natural way for us to talk about what we do because it fits an easy narrative arc – it has a beginning and an end.  But that is why campaigns have become less useful as the way to think about marketing. They come from a time when the brand was the sole storyteller – deciding the story, the pace, and the order of the narrative arc.

But if you look at the marketers who are succeeding in our evolved marketplace, they’re not bound by a campaign mentality. They’re crafting their stories to come from many places besides directly from the brand. Brands like Zappos, Heineken, and Über are benefitting in different ways from  surprise and serendipity more than from crafting clear consistent narratives. Their stories unfold on different threads spread across time and channels that defy neat categorization into well-defined beginnings and ends.  As the different authors intersect, contradict, and overlap each other, the metaphor of Brand as Storyteller falls short.  Stories are still an essential part of brand building, but the emphasis is on the plural.  Brands are drawing power from the energy generated by the exchange of new stories  from multiple sources.  When you exchange stories, and share your reactions to them, that is more than storytelling. For the brands that do it best, it’s a conversation that never stops, that is constantly building on itself and moving in different directions.  In today’s environment, it turns out the power of stories to build brands is as much in the sharing as in the telling.

So, adroit marketers push to build and refresh a continuous conversation for the brand. Their real measure of success is not in the initial impact of what they put out into the world, but in the total amount of interactions, sharing or responses that it provokes. We too often only measure the initial impact of a message delivered  (ASI score, 2+ Reach, Ad Views) when we should be measuring the total impact of the secondary effects it generates. The goal is to create and shape a growing stream of exchanges that make the brand the subject of an infinite conversation. In this model, the best marketer is not the one who creates the biggest splash but the one who consistently makes the most waves.

Leave a comment

Filed under 21st Century Marketing, Innovation, Uncategorized

Is this the New Apple?

Apple eMailI recently received this promotional email from Apple for the iPhone 5. It brought to mind some of the recent chatter about Apple’s legacy and future. I’ve tended to dismiss the talk from naysayers who’ve said the Apple reign appears over. This pronouncement has been made many times over many years, and their culture, values, and willingness to take risks has consistently brought them back from the inevitable setbacks.

But this email gave me pause. Its content and tone made me think there may be a turning point afoot after all. I couldn’t recall seeing something from Apple that was working so hard to sell. Obviously, few companies have mastered the art of selling better than Apple, but the best of their work did it in a way that was less about selling and more about enticing you to buy. It wasn’t going after you as much as it was inviting you to come to them. This email has none of that flirtatious quality. It is selling and selling hard.

It lists multiple features, and the word “lists” is intentional. Feature after feature scrolls by like a spec sheet. The Apple way had been to romance a particular feature to give you a sense of what wonder lay in store for the lucky user. No such alluring Fan Dance here. Every distinguishing feature is laid out with nothing left to the imagination. Yet the most telling indicator to me is the headline – “Loving it is easy. That’s why so many people do.” I’ve never seen Apple proclaim it’s popularity. Even as it came to dominate the smartphone market, it always carried the sense of being a club for the discerning person who appreciated design and creativity. This line brings them a step closer to the car companies and other  product makers who revel in claims about “best-selling” and “most popular.” Forget the club, bring on the bandwagon. I tempered my initial reaction to this shift in tone by arguing that it may be a by-product of the email channel. Maybe they gave themselves permission to go a little bit more hardsell in a direct response oriented channel. But the iPhone website has the same line so it seems it’s the basis of a broader campaign, not just email copy. If so, this signifies a different approach than we are used to experiencing from Apple, and makes the talk of a turning point for Apple a lot more credible.

1 Comment

Filed under 21st Century Marketing, Branding, Mobile

Planning is Everything. Plans are Nothing.

The title above is from a quote usually ascribed to Dwight Eisenhower.  Though he was referring to battle plans, it is an apt lesson for business plans as well. His point was that the battle never goes as planned. Weather conditions, enemy reactions and human mistakes conspire to ensure that every military action usually goes off plan before the first shot is fired.  But if the planning process is done with the proper rigor, leaders can react more effectively to unexpected developments. They can assess how changes impact their overall strategy, and better judge the consequences of their subsequent decisions.

I recalled this quote after seeing an interesting discussion on LinkedIn debating the value of business plans for new companies.  Some potential entrepreneurs were dismissing the value of business plans for start-ups because they rarely had any relevance to the business once they hit the  realities of actually going to market. General Eisenhower reminds us how this argument misses the point. The value of a business or marketing plan is not in the plan itself, but in forcing you to think in a rigorous way about how best to deploy your resources. Who is your target? What’s your value to them? Who’s your competition? What kind of human and financial resources will you need to make a go of it? Of course, unless you are the first true psychic, most of what you come up with will be wrong.  The details of the plan may be mere historical artifacts within months of launch. But if you planned well, you are better able to identify and react to what you were wrong about.

The same lesson was delivered in another context by an accomplished climber I once heard speak. He described the meticulous planning process that his team followed before a major climb. They literally mapped out every step. He went on to say that they almost never followed the predetermined path once the actual climbing began, but it was the planning that allowed them to make intelligent choices under stress about what they could afford to change.

Whether you are crafting a business plan for a new company or a marketing plan for an established brand, there are three important lessons in this.  One is that a plan is worth what you put into it.  If you just go through the motions in order to be able to point to an official-looking plan, it will be of no value. Second, you shouldn’t dismiss the planning process just because the plans themselves are rarely executed.  A well-constructed plan will make you a smarter leader and manager for the unexpected turns that inevitably come your way. The final related lesson is that you should not treat the plan as anything but your best current guess. If the plan isn’t working, don’t be afraid to change it. Too many marketing managers disregard new information and new opportunities because it’s “not in the plan.” A plan is not a substitute for thinking. Plans should be treated more like boyfriends than husbands. You should always be open to a better one.

Leave a comment

Filed under Activation, Business Management, Market Strategy

How Markets Create the Need for Tea Parties

As the anti-incumbent story rumbles  across the mediascape, there is a familiar theme — call it the “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore” movement. Congress is at its lowest approval ratings of all time, political distrust is at an all-time high, and new activist fervor is sweeping the land. Politics as we know it is about to change.

Don’t believe the hype.  Whether it’s the Know Nothings of the 1840’s, the Term Limit supporters of the 1990’s,  or today’s Tea Party, they are all a response to the fundamental structure of the American political market.

I worked on political campaigns, and it is important to learn that there is a fundamental difference between the political marketplace and the consumer marketplace.  Both are ruthlessly competitive, so it is not a difference in ethics or morality. It has to do with what I call “category effects.”  Consumer markets have them, and political markets don’t.  Here’s why.

In simple game theory terms, there are four general outcomes between two competitors in the consumer marketplace:

  • Both gain
  • Both lose
  • Competitor 1 gains, Competitor 2 loses
  • Competitor 1 loses, Competitor 2 gains

For an example where both gain, look at Adidas and Nike. Both doing well financially, both well-regarded major brands, and benefiting to a large extent from the fact that they have a major competitor helping them drive the market and mythology of athletes and athletic gear.

For an example where both lose, look at United and American Airlines. Even before the recession, the two largest US carriers were losing share to Southwest-like competitors on the discount end and Virgin on the high-end. Neither gained from the struggles of the other, and both added to each other’s  problems by pricing and service policies that soured people on the airline travel experience.

In both situations, individual players face consequences for how the whole category performs.  If companies compete in such a way that the category grows, they may both win.  If they compete in a way that the category suffers, they may both lose. It is in their self-interest to have people think well of the category.

By contrast, political competition has only two outcomes:

  • Competitor 1 gains, Competitor 2 loses
  • Competitor 1 loses, Competitor 2 gains

In a campaign, it does not matter if you have two great candidates or two terrible candidates, one person gets elected.  There is no outcome where both gain or both lose.  There are 100 Senators in the US Congress, and short of a change to the Constitution or an overthrow of the US government, that number is not going to change based on people’s approval ratings.   In other words, there are no category effects for politicians. If doesn’t matter if people love or hate the category, 50 people still win the same prize either way. There is no self-interest for politicians to make people feel better about the category.

That is why negative advertising is frowned upon in the consumer marketplace, and embraced in the political marketplace.  In politics, if people hate the category I’m in, I can still win as long as they dislike my opponent more than me.  It doesn’t matter if the population is so put off that only 3 people even bother to vote. If two of them vote for me, I win.   In the supermarket, if people hate the my category, it does not help if they hate me less.  I still lose. If two people buy my product  and only one buys my competitor’s, we both go out of business.

As long as there are no category effects in politics, there is no incentive within the system for the candidates to improve the institution.  Efforts like the Tea Party represent an external effort from outside the system,  attempting to impose category effects on a market that inherently lacks them.  If patterns are true to form, one of the political parties will absorb their key tenets into their platforms, and the system will continue to chug along as it always has.

1 Comment

Filed under 21st Century Marketing, Branding, Market Strategy, Uncategorized