The alternative to ‘stimulus-response’ is to assume that, generally speaking, individuals buy and use marketing as they do any other product or service – when it adds value to them … and they ignore marketing that doesn’t add value.
That begs a load of questions, especially questions relating to ‘what exactly does value look like in this context?’. The underlying conclusion is very simple however. Without a Mad Sheep analysis of every element of marketing strategy and tactics (what the ‘wins’ and costs are for both sides, through every step of the engagement process, and the discliplined relentless focus on building win-wins), you can’t avoid the traps of marketing schizophrenia and you will never be able to predict which of your balls will bounce or squidge.
There’s more. If individuals only really ‘buy’ marketing that adds value from their perspective, then the most important metrics in marketing effectiveness are the consumer’s metrics – their benefits minus their costs.
Yet these are metrics that ‘stimulus-response’ marketing completely ignores, because it’s only interested in one side of the equation – how big the desired ‘response’ is; what the benefits and costs of marketing are to the marketer.
Conclusion: as long as we remain wedded to persuasion paradigm stimulus-response marketing, we will never gain any proper understanding of what works in marketing and what doesn’t … because the measurement agenda it sets only ever tells half the story.
Alan Mitchell ww.ctrl-shift.co.uk
