We're living in a complex modern world and this is certainly not as complicated as things will get! People are being bombarded with messages from all over the place 'Don't smoke', 'Spend your money, please' - so no wonder people are running scared and don't know what to do for the best. How do we keep it all together?
We want to keep people committed. We want them to think something and stick to it. In the world we're living in today - that's becoming ever increasingly more digitised and we as consumers are mediating and creating our own rich media identities, does that help or hinder brand loyalty? Is it easier for brands now than say, fifty years ago, to reduce churn and maintain a commitment with consumers because of the complex media environment that is consistently emerging?
I don't really know the answer to this, but I thought I'd raise the issue about what brand commitment is for consumers and whether it is more or less easily achievable these days. As the world's oldest brands continue to plug their wares in this changing landscape and stay consistently strong despite media evolutions and economic turmoil - is this because successful adaptation and appeal fuels this longevity?
Digging around a second-had shop recently I found a little book called 'Discrimation and Popular Culture' - basically a collection of Cultural Studies essays from the early 60s, which, as is often the case with these things, reveals both how much and how little things have changed.
I'm actually in the middle of it right now - it's first essay, tellingly, is on Advertising , and is written by someone called Frank Whitehead. He makes an interesing point about how " the standardization made inevitable by modern mass-production methods has meant that increasingly the most heavily advertised products are indistinguishable from their nearest competitors - apart from their brand name".
He goes on to talk about agencies' increasing reliance on associations and "emotional auras" over science and innovation; on 'newness' as the most commonly posited angle on a product; and on how 'the persuaders' exhibit caution when it comes to their supposed persuasive powers, preferring to build on existing beliefs and trends rather than overhaul really tough attitudinal obstacles.
Essentially, difference is found in the story a brand chooses to tell about itself.
This was 1964. Now think about multidinous ways a brand has at its disposal in order to tell that story nowadays. Back then, a strapline, a moody shot, a clean-cut actor/model, maybe some Ogilvy-approved bumph at the bottom of a press ad. Now: not just what you say but how you say it, where you choose to say it, who says it on your behalf, etc etc.
Is this more competitive? Absolutely. Does it contain endless opportunity for reinvention and creativity? Definitely!
That sounds like an interesting book, I'll take a look. I guess my issue was that in the world of multitudinous ways to tell a story, telling a consistent, relevant and interesting one is obviously still top of mind. But because there are so many different avenues, media is fragmented, consumers are more difficult to grasp - does this make telling the same story harder?
Actually there is a whole field of market research dedicated to this, two key proponents of which are Jannie Hofmeyr and Butch Rice, who founded The Conversion Model, a tool to measure customer commitment. Their approach is detailed extensively across a range of product categories in their book, Commitment Led Marketing: The key to brand profits is in the customer's mind'. You can also visit the website for paper downloads http://www.conversionmodel.com
You're right, of course, having a good story to tell isn't a guarantee of people wanting to hear it. The proliferation argument also highlights that there's no guarantee of them even paying attention when you're telling it...
How we secure commitment, and measure it, feels like a far more relevant (fundamental?) question to ask of ourselves than 'awareness', or perhaps even 'response'.
Advertisers are getting to grips at least with Word of Mouth - is people's propensity to talk / persuade / be listened to about categories or brands a measure of their commitment, do you think?
This makes me think of how we could characterise the general trend in communications/marketing as an instinctive urge to map or harness whatever new understanding we uncover of people and their behaviour. Word of Mouth is a case in point - it's no more or less likely than it was 50 years ago, though it's of course more powerful.
I didn't make up that term, promise. It's something I've been thinking about recently though
Louise Kennedy
Blogging for:
Member since: 03 Jun 2008
Last login: 26 Nov 2009
Total Posts: 94
