Elastic Thought

Marketers Need To Try A New Diet

I'm not usually one to pay attention to fad diets and ways to lose weight without trying.  A pill here, more sleep there, drink more water, and voila! 10 pounds lighter.  However, there is a new string of ideas that I've been catching that seem to make sense.  So for a challenge, I thought I'd see if I could explain why my mind instantly connected it to marketing budgets.  Don't judge me.

The two ideas that sparked this are very similar actually.  The first is called the "camera-phone diet" which consists of taking a picture of what you are about to eat with the camera feature on your phone.  The theory is that by thinking of what you are eating, and documenting BEFORE munching down makes one more conscience of their choices in food, and quickly begin ordering and eating better food.  The second idea was even simpler.  The study showed that those who tried new foods frequently were apt to be healthier than the control group who ate in their typical pattern day in and day out.  The theory is relatively the same, in that the people that chose new foods frequently were more conscience of what they were eating and thought about their decisions.  The control group that mindlessly ate without thinking were trapped in a cycle of bad food choices.

So, to marketing.  I'm sure your getting the connection now.  Real simple: mindlessly doing the same tactics over and over again will not yield the same results as a "mixed diet."

And I think this goes beyond simply thinking about the marketing budget and tactics more before spending.  I'm sure every marketing person out there who is responsible for the budget and has check-writing authority thinks about their tactics.  But they continually choose the same tactics.  They are afraid of spending money on an unknown and untested tactic or strategy and will seek refuge in the comfort of known tactics that have predictable metrics.

But what about the consumer you are trying to reach?  There are two things working against the marketer who plays it safe.  One, technology continues to evolve.  Usually, to battle the intrusion of previous marketing tactics.  Tivo, Pop-Up Blockers, Spam Filters, Do Not Call Lists (OK, not technology, but fits here...right?)  And two, consumers themselves stop paying attention to the same drumbeat.  It takes something new to shake them out of that rut and pay attention to your message.

I saw a tweet the other day that said "there is no charge for awsomeness, but mediocrity will cost you."  We've seen it time and time again, that those who mix their diet up and try new things more often than not, outperform those companies that are in their same old rut of stale programs.  Try something new.  And if you can't think of anything new, ask one of the new agencies sprouting up.  I'm sure they will at least challenge your thinking.

Control (Part 2)

Who owns the brand?

I was engaged in a rather lengthy debate the other day on how companies used to have control of their brands, and that the new tools of social media have stripped that ownership and placed the reigns in the hands of the audiences those brands once used to speak to in a command and control manner. We've all probably have heard Chris Anderson talk about The Long Tail, so I had to include this video here:

I've always enjoyed showing that video. However, I've recently been thinking a lot about the sociology behind what we do, and really looking into how communication works. And it struck me how dead on we were a few years ago at a previous company when we said: "It's not about message sent, it's about message received." (If only really really knew what we were saying!)

To bring this concept to the conversation of brand ownership, what people are really saying is that companies used to have control of the message being sent. NOT how the message is being received. They never had control of that. And if you think about it in terms of message sent, they still have all the control they ever had. What they are losing some control over is the monopoly of message channels. Companies controlled the message channels and therefore had a greater influence on message received. Now, audiences have access to some of those channels and voicing their thoughts on the companies and the brands. Thoughts they have always had -- even when the company thought they "owned" the brand.

What's interesting here is that this is not a loss of control. This is not that disruptive of a medium that needs to be feared. What it really is...is a free and easy way to get a glimpse of what your audiences and consumers have thought all along--a glimpse into how the message is being received. And how great is that? They are doing it without paying for a focus group.

So what does that mean for brand ownership?

Well, it's still a collaboration of audience perception and company messaging. But if used right, the social media tools that exist are a great barometer to test how messaging is being received. Heck, think of it as an umpire calling balls and strikes. If it's a little high and inside, change the tone of the conversation and see if you can get it back in the strike zone.