Tag Archives: Branding

The Tribe has Spoken – Are You Listening?

March 2, 2010 – 2:00 pm

I met Marty Neumeier (renown speaker and author of Zag, Brand Gap) when he was conducting a workshop at the Design Exchange. In conversation, Marty shared that he began his career implementing brand strategies only to realize there were a lot of flawed strategies that execution couldn’t fix. This prompted Marty to focus his effort on brand differentiation – the #1 strategy of a successful brand in Marty’s eyes. If you’re looking for verification of the power of differentiation think IPOD. 4th to market in the MP3 player category, Apple has 72% market share, a price point that is 2 to 5 times higher than the competitors….well I think you get the idea. High performance brands are way out in front in terms of loyalty, profitability and they’re tough to beat – unless of course you find your own unique way of differentiating.

One of the first rules is you can’t be all things to all people. In the session Marty talked about knowing your “tribe”. I caught up with Marty to get further clarity on why the tribe matters. “You have said the emphasis today needs to be on the Unique Buying Tribe rather than the Unique Selling Proposition. Can you explain that?”

Marty Neumeier: The Unique Selling Proposition was the brainchild of Rosser Reeves, an advertising genius from the “Mad Men” days. He worked for the Ted Bates agency and wrote a bestseller called, “Reality in Advertising.” His thesis was simple: Advertisers need to focus all their energy on one strong claim or one strong concept. In a time when the industry believed “the more you tell, the more you sell,” this was a refreshing idea that caught on almost immediately. It was so powerful, in fact, that to this day advertisers search high and low for “the big idea” to hang their campaigns on.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with this inclination, as far as it goes. Without a unique value proposition, your campaign—and your business—will lose focus and have no compelling point of differentiation. The problem is that the principle now seems dated. Customers today don’t like to be sold. What they like to do is buy, and they buy in tribes. Every brand has a tribe that supports it. If you talk WITH your tribe, they may well continue to support it. If you talk AT your tribe-using manipulative one-way conversations-they’ll tune out in a New York second.

So rather than focusing on a Unique Selling Proposition, focus on a Unique Buying Tribe. If you find the right tribe and give it the right stuff, you’ll get enough love to sustain your brand. People crave tribal identity. What they want to know is, “If I buy this product, what will this make me?”

Thanks Marty for sharing your insights. Marty is currently Director of Transformation at Liquid Agency.

By Shelley McQuade | Posted in Alberta Business | Comments Off

Who Won the Superbowl?

February 8, 2010 – 2:00 pm

Okay, I admit it. While you’re reading this during the week at some point after the SuperBowl aired and know who won, I’m sitting here writing this blog entry on SuperBowl Sunday instead of watching the big game. And while I’ll be interested to hear who won (Go Saints?), I, like you, will go online tomorrow to find out who advertised and which spot was the funniest or most outlandish. And then I’ll go on with my day and probably never think about those spots ever again.

However, the Superbowl is the most watched televised event of the year with some 100 Million people expected to watch. According to a recently televised report, a 30 second spot on American TV during the Superbowl will go for between $2.5 and $2.8 Million. That’s about $80,000 a second!

But the larger question being asked these days, especially by a lot of young people I know, is whether that money could be better spent. Especially with everything that’s going on in the world right now.

Now after years of producing some of the most memorable Superbowl ads in history, PEPSI is asking the same question and has decided not to run an ad. Instead, they’re going online with “The Pepsi Refresh Project”. http://www.refresheverything.com/

According to their “refresh everything” site, they’re looking for people, businesses, and non-profits with ideas that will have a positive impact. “Look around your community and think about how you want to change it.” Submit your ideas and vote on your favourites. Those chosen will be awarded up to $250,000 in grants in categories ranging from Health, Arts & Culture, and Food & Shelter to the Planet, Neighbourhoods and Education.

And the so-called Pepsi Generation is eating it up. This is just one example of what’s going on right now. We saw the impact the internet and social media had and is having post-Haiti. This is more of the same great trend. The NetGeneration is getting involved and looking for something more fulfilling than a gratuitous 30-second spot where the money spent to buy the media could eradicate so many issues affecting Haiti, Cambodia and the Congo to name a few — and those affecting us right here at home. Pepsi is on to something and other brands ignore the trend at their peril.

By Bryan Tenenhouse | Posted in Advertising | Also tagged , , | Comments Off

Green Marketing and Brand Strategy

November 25, 2009 – 2:00 pm

The latest research indicates that uncertain economic conditions have resulted in a decline in the core group of “Green Involved” consumers who would pay a premium for green products (17% in 2008 to 15% in 2009). The study (nationally representative sample of 2,465 adults, ages 18+) indicates that 2.7% of shoppers account for 70% of “informed and conscious green” purchases. Moreover, only 1 in 10 “green” shoppers is an “organic” shopper. Grocery transactions tend to be larger when green products are in the cart. In addition, 38% (45% in 2008) of Canadian consumers feel “highly concerned” about environmental issues. Even though consumers who feel “highly knowledgeable” about these issues increased to 29% (26% in 2008).

Transition to the mainstream

The transition has been driven by mainstream brands. Today, green has become another product attribute in a matrix of good-better-best benefit hierarchies. Tide has “biodegradable” ingredients. Others are labelled concentrates and cold water detergents. These are add-on benefits and enhance the core value proposition of the brand. They do not replace that core value proposition (superior product performance).

Today’s customers are more demanding. They don’t believe all the claims being made by marketers- a fall out of greenwashing. Consumer scepticism has led marketers to include eco labels in their communication strategies. North America has over 350 eco-labels offered by trusted third parties. Marketers have laucnhed blogs and social networks with “fans” who contribute new product ideas. Method has its own Facebook page complete with a wall of comments from many of their 7,415 “fans” and a Twitter following of 3,284 users. Tide has 104,235 Facebook fans.

Please email me for additional insights from Arcus Consulting Group’s studies on changing market drivers & successful strategic responses.

By Merril Mascarenhas | Posted in Alberta Business | Also tagged , , | Comments Off

“Confirmation Bias” and Brand Loyalty

November 18, 2009 – 2:00 pm

Our minds hate change. Several studies have shown that people are twice as likely to seek information that confirms their beliefs than they are to consider evidence that contradicts them. This “confirmation bias” can influence how consumers and marketers make decisions.

Henry Ford famously said, “If I had asked my customers what they wanted, they’d have asked for a faster horse.” In other words, the road to true innovation is rarely illuminated by customers telling you what to do next; they may often not know what they want next or rely on a “confirmation bias” about their preferences.

We see this behaviour in all our decisions. A case in point is how retail investors hold on to stocks in a falling market, believing that the markets will rise, without any empirical evidence that this is likely to happen. Consumer confidence is a big driver of purchase behaviour. If consumers believe this recession will last a lot longer than it will because they recently lost their jobs, they are likely to scale back discretionary spending even after they find a new job because of a “confirmation bias”.

In short, the human mind acts like a compulsive yes-man who echoes whatever you want to believe. Psychologists call this mental gremlin the “confirmation bias”. A recent analysis of psychological studies with nearly 8,000 participants concluded that people are twice as likely to seek information that confirms what they already believe as they are to consider evidence that would challenge those beliefs.

Why is a mind-made-up so hard to penetrate?

Psychologists say its easier for consumers to repeat decisions than to take new ones. Whatever decisions consumers are inclined to make, are the decisions consumers are likely to go about justifying. It’s simply easier to focus our attention on data that supports our preferences, rather than to seek out evidence that might disprove it. “Confirmation bias” is one of the biggest drivers and often under reported influencers of brand loyalty. It transcends the usual influencers such as product performance, emotional empathy and brand recognition.

It also is easier for people to rationalize than to be rational. Consumers and marketers are very good at cooking up post-hoc explanations of why our predictions didn’t work or why we made some decisions. We tend to reinterpret our failures as near-misses.

The more you learn, the more certain you become that you are right. While gathering more data makes people more confident, it doesn’t make their predictions much more accurate. Each new fact makes you more inclined to find another fact that resembles it, reducing the diversity and value of your information.

Confirmation bias contaminates the thinking of brand preferences of consumers. A lot of psychological traps can be combated with humility, but on this one, that doesn’t help. For example, several North American auto companies missed the significant growth opportunity in fuel efficient cars because they clung to outdated strategies for gas guzzling SUVs and eroded brand value with carrots such as ‘employee pricing’.

So how can marketers counteract confirmation bias?

A way to approach it is to imagine that you have looked into a crystal ball and have seen that your strategy has gone bust. Next, come up with the most compelling explanations you can find for the failure. This exercise, which some of the most innovative and successful marketers have integrated into their research process, can help you realize that your beliefs regarding why consumers might or might not prefer your brand might not be as solid as you thought.

Try estimating the odds that your analysis is wrong. Let us say that you reckon there is a 20% chance of an adverse outcome; that is like saying you will be proven wrong one in every five times. This way, if the investment does go awry, you will be less likely to dig in your analytical heels and desperately try to prove that you are still right. This procedure provides “psychological cover for admitting that you’re wrong.”

Show your ideas and strategies to another person you respect whose ego isn’t already invested in the decision. Ask: If you didn’t have to take this decision, would you still agree with it?

Run an imaginary strategy alongside your real one. There, you can change it at will, with no risk to your brand portfolio. On that blank slate, would you do more—or less—of your existing approach to strategy and consumer engagement? Some strategists requires each team member to run a stress test of their brand portfolio and to justify any differences between their paper strategies and the company’s real-world plans. It helps senior executives know what people really think.

Before you decide on a marketing or business strategy in the first place, write down a statement of what would compel you to change your view of the strategy. If any of those influencers come to pass, the written record will make it harder for you to pretend nothing has changed or that you don’t have to do anything in response.

Most innovative marketers say that fighting confirmation bias is a never-ending battle. But if you can’t conquer this gremlin of your own mind, you don’t stand a chance of outwitting your competitors.

Please email me if you would like to receive Arcus Consulting Group’s series on “Better consumer engagement strategies”.

By Merril Mascarenhas | Posted in Advertising | Also tagged , , , | Comments Off

“Confirmation Bias” and Brand Loyalty

November 18, 2009 – 2:00 pm

Our minds hate change. Several studies have shown that people are twice as likely to seek information that confirms their beliefs than they are to consider evidence that contradicts them. This “confirmation bias” can influence how consumers and marketers make decisions.

Henry Ford famously said, “If I had asked my customers what they wanted, they’d have asked for a faster horse.” In other words, the road to true innovation is rarely illuminated by customers telling you what to do next; they may often not know what they want next or rely on a “confirmation bias” about their preferences.

Most innovative marketers say that fighting confirmation bias is a never-ending battle. But if you can’t conquer this gremlin of your own mind, you don’t stand a chance of outwitting your competitors.

We see this behaviour in all our decisions. A case in point is how retail investors hold on to stocks in a falling market, believing that the markets will rise, without any empirical evidence that this is likely to happen. Consumer confidence is a big driver of purchase behaviour. If consumers believe this recession will last a lot longer than it will because they recently lost their jobs, they are likely to scale back discretionary spending even after they find a new job because of a “confirmation bias”.

In short, the human mind acts like a compulsive yes-man who echoes whatever you want to believe. Psychologists call this mental gremlin the “confirmation bias”. A recent analysis of psychological studies with nearly 8,000 participants concluded that people are twice as likely to seek information that confirms what they already believe as they are to consider evidence that would challenge those beliefs.

Why is a mind-made-up so hard to penetrate?

Psychologists say its easier for consumers to repeat decisions than to take new ones. Whatever decisions consumers are inclined to make, are the decisions consumers are likely to go about justifying. It’s simply easier to focus our attention on data that supports our preferences, rather than to seek out evidence that might disprove it. “Confirmation bias” is one of the biggest drivers and often under reported influencers of brand loyalty. It transcends the usual influencers such as product performance, emotional empathy and brand recognition.

It also is easier for people to rationalize than to be rational. Consumers and marketers are very good at cooking up post-hoc explanations of why our predictions didn’t work or why we made some decisions. We tend to reinterpret our failures as near-misses.

The more you learn, the more certain you become that you are right. While gathering more data makes people more confident, it doesn’t make their predictions much more accurate. Each new fact makes you more inclined to find another fact that resembles it, reducing the diversity and value of your information.

Confirmation bias contaminates the thinking of brand preferences of consumers. A lot of psychological traps can be combated with humility, but on this one, that doesn’t help. For example, several North American auto companies missed the significant growth opportunity in fuel efficient cars because they clung to outdated strategies for gas guzzling SUVs and eroded brand value with carrots such as ‘employee pricing’.

So how can marketers counteract confirmation bias?

A way to approach it is to imagine that you have looked into a crystal ball and have seen that your strategy has gone bust. Next, come up with the most compelling explanations you can find for the failure. This exercise, which some of the most innovative and successful marketers have integrated into their research process, can help you realize that your beliefs regarding why consumers might or might not prefer your brand might not be as solid as you thought.

Try estimating the odds that your analysis is wrong. Let us say that you reckon there is a 20% chance of an adverse outcome; that is like saying you will be proven wrong one in every five times. This way, if the investment does go awry, you will be less likely to dig in your analytical heels and desperately try to prove that you are still right. This procedure provides “psychological cover for admitting that you’re wrong.”

Show your ideas and strategies to another person you respect whose ego isn’t already invested in the decision. Ask: If you didn’t have to take this decision, would you still agree with it?

Run an imaginary strategy alongside your real one. There, you can change it at will, with no risk to your brand portfolio. On that blank slate, would you do more—or less—of your existing approach to strategy and consumer engagement? Some organizations require each team member to run a stress test of their brand portfolio and to justify any differences between their paper strategies and the company’s real-world plans. It helps senior executives know what people really think.

Before you decide on a marketing or business strategy in the first place, write down a statement of what would compel you to change your view of the strategy. If any of those influencers come to pass, the written record will make it harder for you to pretend nothing has changed or that you don’t have to do anything in response.

Please email me if you would like to receive Arcus Consulting Group’s series on “Better consumer engagement strategies”.

By Merril Mascarenhas | Posted in Advertising | Also tagged , , , | Comments Off