At this years PSFK Conference NYC, I moderated the panel ‘Brand New Rules’, a discussion about whether new rules are needed to govern the behavior of brands in a world increasingly defined by changing social, cultural, technological and economic forces.
Which got me thinking. Hasn’t it always been the role of brands to break rules and create new ones?
And doesn’t that come from brand strategy ideas that create change in culture?
Is ‘new’ just another way of saying ‘good’?
I think we’d all agree that there’s no shortage of good creative thinking in our industry. So why is it often difficult to make good ideas happen?
The role of a brand is to invent new possibilities, so setting rules might seem counter-intuitive, but perhaps there are new practices we need to put in place to put more creativity into ‘creative strategy’.
With our panelists Paul Worthington, (Wolff Ollins), Paul M Taylor (Diageo), Maria Vrachnos (Peep Insights), and Doug Jaeger (thehappycorp/Art Directors Club), we started to debate what these brand new rules might be, and now we’d like to hear what you think.
Everyday this week, for 4 days we’ll be posting a new question for you to debate. Rupert Newton, (the other half of The Joneses) and myself will be weighing in and guiding the discussions, until we have 4 ‘Brand New Rules’.
Question 1:
We’re kicking off the week with a question about how MBA-led business culture has created a generation of business people focused on benchmarking and measurement.
Our industry has symptoms of Stockholm Syndrome; hostage to communication measures from audience tracking to click thru rate’s. While the intangible value we create is tied to tangible dollars and cents, you’ll never be able to benchmark or predictively measure the value of a new idea.
What should we be measuring, what discussions should we be having with our clients, and who with in the client organization?
Share your ideas in the comments section below.
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
We should be encouraging our clienits (at all levels) to try more things — to experiment with new initiatives, ideas and even new products in the in real world — and use real-world results to measure success. After all, in-market success is the ultimate measure of success. The beauty of our digital world is that you can get real world feedback on whatever you’re doing, instantly. Do. Learn. Fix. Repeat. Better than learn, learn, learn, do, kill, start over.
June 1st, 2009 at 2:36 pm
As Clayton Christensen has explained in “The Innovator’s Solution,” the distinguishing characteristics of a disruptive strategy need to be based on getting a job done, and not on product. Looking at categories of features of existing products can give misleading conclusions, but solving a customer’s problem by finding out how he uses a product is infinitely more effective than looking at categories of what product features people are buying. An example he used is the purchase of milkshakes. None of the surveys did much good until one was created that looked at the job to be done, which proved that there were various reasons that people bought milkshakes, and until those reasons were investigated, there was no way to target the markets for that product and taylor it to fit the customers. In the case of the Tango electric ultra-narrow commuter supercar, if you categorize it as an electric vehicle and then try to see what differentiates it from other EVs, you may be dismissing 99% of its market. If you look, however, at the job to be done, you find that there are 106-million single-occupant drivers, of which a large percentage get stuck in traffic, some of which could lanesplit, as in California, some of which would lanesplit, and some of them that would not ride a motorcycle. This subset may seem extremely narrowed down, but it could save an incredible amount of time that would normally be wasted in traffic at a standstill for those who fit this category. These might be the most motivated to buy the product. It’s simply a whole different set of categories, and I’ll bet that the job to be done category trumps the product-based categorization. Fear of focus is then one of the major mistakes made in target marketing potentially disruptive products.
June 1st, 2009 at 3:16 pm
“Hi Client, yes, let’s definitely measure everything. But before we do that, let’s take some time to make sure your message is on brand (i hate that phrase) and then let’s make sure we have an amazing idea. this might be a little scary because, hopefully the idea will be like none you’ve ever seen before, and the unfamiliarity might promp those around you to say “i don’t get it.” In turn, you might question the idea and the agency. But don’t, go with it. Deal with the fear. And then once we have it all in place…yes let’s measure the shit out of it then. Let’s count clicks, foot traffic, twits, facebook mentions, and let’s even use the Patriot Act to tap phones to hear what they’re saying about your brand. You’ll find with the great idea comes lots of clicks and great sound bites from unsuspecting customers.”
that’s the conversation we should be having with clients.
But advertising, as we all know, is the balance between art and commerce. Commerce is the squeaky wheel these days, so it will get all the attention. So say hello to Wallison Avenue. The guys in the suits and rep ties are here to stay.
btw – this ny times article is scary and fascinating. like watching a twister creep towards you out on the plains.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/business/media/31ad.html?hpw
June 1st, 2009 at 4:26 pm
I think that article is interesting when it suggests the media marketplace will become more like the real time stock market. But the micro measurement at a tactical level and tweaking of executions i.e. banner A has person with blond hair and banner B has dark hair, is media planners looking for small incremental efficiencies. I don’t think it’s got anything to do with the creative idea that inspires all the output.
A senior planner once said to me “advertising isn’t about sales”, sure we know what they meant, it was about the tracking and predisposition score etc, but right now shouldn’t we be standing up there in front of the CFO and confidently asserting that just because they can’t count it right there doesn’t mean it’s not accountable. That creative thinking leads to incremental profit more than their spreadsheet calculation.
June 1st, 2009 at 4:57 pm
” So why is it often difficult to make good ideas happen?”
1. Often, ‘new’ = ‘risk’ in the eyes of risk-averse clients.
2. Way too many cooks in the kitchen at agency and client side. One person needs to say, “yes” rather than 17 people in 3 cities via 14 teleconference calls where all parties have different personal agendas.
3. People need to think of reasons why something can happen as to opposed to why something can’t happen.
June 1st, 2009 at 5:45 pm
One of the problems raised by the New York Times article is that the creation and marketing of new ideas is so often seen as the mainstay of the agency. The problem with agencies is the paucity of intellect that guides both strategy and creative output. In many cases, brands have ceased to grow and change as customers have and for the most part, they have lacked the essential guidance from their agencies as well as from their own leadership. What needs to be brought back into any debate on new brand rules is the need for a grounding in intellectual curiosity, debate and experimentation. Merely copying what someone else did is no longer enough. Merely doing the same thing over and over again doesn’t produce an innovative brand or brand idea. Advertising’s obsessiveness with creative ideas that are magnified by frequency and reach is no longer resonant with consumers, just with agencies and clients. Let’s dig for fire.
June 1st, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Great brand ideas should also exist independently of marketing.
June 1st, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Well Sorrell’s comment reflects the preoccupation of the industry and the value they really place on strategy.
June 1st, 2009 at 10:44 pm