3.26.2009

Q&A: Targeting vs. Alienation

And I use the phrasing "Question and Answer" loosely as I ask--

Answer: "It's OK if some people don't like you, if your target loves you." - Ashley Sommerdahl, professor at the VCU Brandcenter

On the one hand, it makes a lot of sense. Don't waste dollars on fish that won't bite. On the other hand, are you shooting yourself in the foot if you close the door on second-tier markets?

Proof: I'm still stumped on this one. Of course, as with most things in this business, the veracity of this claim likely relies up on the certain unique circumstances of any given project, but my immediate gut reaction is to be hesitant to speak so exclusively to your target that you alienate others. Naturally, my brain responds that while I can't shake that reaction, you still can't be all things to all people.

Nike tried this when they attempted to build a campaign around the idea that "if you run, you're a runner." At first glance, it's brilliant. It's empowering to all the college guys who run shirtless around campus, to the moms who take a jog around the neighborhood. When they're empowered, they feel like they're a part of the community, the tribe. So they follow the creed and take part in the rituals of the tribe--the right shoes, the right clothes, the right gear, the iPod and the Shox and the whole enchilada. All of this translates into sales--success!!

But what about their core consumers, the ones who train for their health and their sport, not just the end goal of a marathon? The ones who live for the race, not just the accomplishment? Those for whom running is their sport, not their hobby? I think they felt alienated by the idea Nike wanted to sell. Runners are typically quite humble folks, and their own standards for what makes a runner are often set far far above what Nike wants those college kids and health-conscious moms to think. I'm not trying to make claim on who's right--but I will say that the embodiment of Nike, and the allure it has for those moms and college kids, is the attitude of the core consumers. Aspiration has a strong role in advertising, but I think the degree to which Nike wanted to take it went against the brand and it's loyal consumers.

On the flipside, where Taco Bell went the route of Fourth Meal and the pure enjoyment and accessibility of their product for the younger, late-roaming, harder-partying crowd, McDonald's has fallen into the trap of trying to answer to every need of existing and potential consumers. McD's rode the health-conscious wave by adding salads, yogurt, apple slices, etc. to their menu. Then, they added coffee that they poured the cream into for you, later leading to lattes and flavored drinks to try to embrace the coffee shop trend. And I'm sure they found some success in it, though much of it seemed rather weak to me, even though I would consider myself one to ride the wave in the case of both the health and coffee trends. Previously, I had enjoyed McD's for their ridiculously gross but oh so satisfying dollar menu, but I wasn't charmed by their attempts to appeal to an impossibly wider market--I usually left feeling guilty, if anything. Taco Bell, on the other hand, stuck to their guns, offering greasy taco variations and bucket-sized sodas, and yet have somehow kept my loyal patronage and even grown my feelings of goodwill toward them, both of which were evidence by my enjoyment of a Crunchwrap Supreme from TB just this very afternoon.

So? Where's your proof? If the original claim is sometimes true and sometimes false, what guidelines can we use in determining when and for what reasons? Take your turn at Conversation B in the comments.

3.24.2009

New Series: Questions and Answers

I'm regularly frustrated by bloggers who have nothing to say but somehow manage to be excessively prolific. When I began this blog, I wanted it to be used for proprietary thoughts and ideas, not reactionary ones. However, I've come to realize that sometimes I disappear for too long as I stew and consider to a point where I have something to share that you might not have read elsewhere. In an effort to allow a more steady stream of input so as to reward your loyalty, I'd like to introduce a new, ongoing series of bits and pieces I've picked up during my education and experiences that have helped shape my ideas and continue to make me evolve. I've enjoyed sharing my thoughts, but I think sometimes it might be helpful to share some of my source material as well.

Sometimes, this material may offer up a query that begs our brains to look for an answer. Sometimes, it will be an idea that we can learn to apply to our own struggles. And sometimes, it will merely be the proof we need to believe the solution. In turn, I hope you'll join me in putting the pieces together and use them as a catalyst for your own evolution of ideas.

So without further ado, please enjoy the first post for Questions and Answers.

Answer: You can't solve a new problem by choosing from a used set of solutions. 

Proof: Marty Neumeier points out in his new book "The Designful Company" a number of pieces of proof for this answer. In creative professions, we spend much of our time in the "vision-reality gap" where we have only our own creativity as building blocks for the solution to act as a bridge. We've spent much of our time analyzing what we've already done, what our competitors are doing, and what could be, but we remain steadfast in our focus on "what is," our current set of solutions. But as Edward de Bono points out, "You can't dig a new hole by digging the same one deeper." If we want to realize the reality we've dreamt of, we need to imagine a new solution. 

Precisely the kind of thinking that has been the guiding path for this site. More on Marty Neumeier's book "The Designful Company" in a few days, as well as more Q & A from other fantastic minds.