And I use the phrasing "Question and Answer" loosely as I ask--
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.
Posts
6 comments:
My general rule on interacting with people is only worry about being liked by the people I want to like me. Also, staying indoors a lot.
a general guideline: studies show about 17% of the population will NEVER warm up to your brand. (They also thought their orange juice tasted weird, thought EVERYONE cut in front of them and didn't like the songs on the radio this morning.) About an equal number will be zealots for your brand unless you really alienate them. So the opportunity is to attract and build loyalty with that 66%. Those are the fence sitters who can be courted and can mean huge gains. Trying to win over the pissy 17%'s is not the placer to spend your time or budget.
-The thin man
Thin Man, I really liked the way you've framed the situation we're in on any given project. Just curious, what's your source? I think I'll be sharing this in the future.
So we can't win those 17%, but does that mean brands should still always try to win the entire 66% that are on the fence? I could see where it could be beneficial to only target a portion of those folks.
The thing that matters is....well, the thing that matters.
It's hard to invent organizational culture, but not so hard to spread attitudes that already exist, especially among key leadership. In other words, trying to be something you're not by nature pretty much always ends up perceived as not very sincere to all but the most obtuse consumer.
While targeting is a good refinement tactic, I think a better approach is to move past the notion that business functions should be separated in terms of focus. It is becoming such that EVERYTHING a company does is marketing (even how you acquire resources, where you acquire them, from whom you acquire them). That ought to be obvious, as business is nothing but relationships...how your processes relate to your customers, how you communicate with employees (internal customers if you will), the decisions you make based on what philosophy and ethical framework...and so on.
I think where we're headed is an era where True Believers will flourish. Companies that do something well and are fanatical about creating and projecting a culture that is uniquely theirs--and not one business coaches that once worked on Wall Street or for the latest giant start-up suggested they should project. Why? Partly because consumers have an ever-increasing range of technology and awareness that allows them to successfully refine their desires, habits and practices to such an extent that they will embrace increased focus simply because they can.
Be true to yourself as an individual or company and consider all of your communications and business practices as your marketing. If you can't be an evangelist about your company, product, brand, job, the dog you brought home from the pound...it doesn't matter...you won't be as successful as those who can.
The numbers are just reflections of how many people like who and what you are, and they aren't applicable to every company, nor every industry, nor every individual and their likely results.
Sean, I think you're absolutely right. Everything that we are and do as a company/brand is part of our communication with consumers. You spoke of "...companies that do something well and are fanatical about creating and projecting a culture that is uniquely theirs..."--the problem we advertisers often find is that clients don't know their point of differentiation, or more often they don't know how to translate that into everything they do. Consumers are getting smarter--many brands have a bit of catching up to do! Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Claire, I definitely lean towards what you have said regarding reaching a core group of users among the broader audience. The benefits of doing this far outnumber the benefit of trying to measure how many people do or don't respond to brands.
John Steel's quote can help make this point: "We should be angered by the accountability mindset that means we’re making more and more decisions based on what can be measured rather than what’s really important.”
Which reminds me of another great quote by Albert Einstein: "Not everything that is important can be measured, and not everything that can be measured is important"
Sorry for all the academic citation :o
Post a Comment