You wouldn't believe how much of an impact the weather can have on the short term stability of brand value. In UK high street baker Gregg's case there doesn't seem to be any other plausible reason for a recent 7% decline in sales than the UK July Summer heat wave.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23585083
You will have to forgive The Brand Avenger for a slight degree of skepticism but I feel Gregg's may have slightly exaggerated the impact of the weather on this occasion. No matter which way the high street baker wants to paint it their current strategy and product offering is just simply not giving the UK consumer what they need.
Of course for the sake of fairness we should try and understand if the weather could of had an impact on the major brands on the UK high street? Could it be that instead of hitting the stores the UK consumer has decided to spend the majority of their days lazing on a coast line beach bumming it up and down the Country instead? Well interestingly enough all results would suggest that to the contrary of Gregg's view most major and minor brands on the high streets have enjoyed considerable growth during the uncharacteristic summer months.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23583825
So then it must simply come down to product offering? For whatever reason customers are simply not buying what Gregg's are cooking. Who wanted to supplement their Saturday morning sunbathe with a steak slice pasty? turns out not too many people. Who wanted to jump into the pool with a chicken bake or a hot sausage roll? Even less by the looks of it. Gregg's lack of understanding has quite simply led to a fall in profit. This can almost certainly be seen by the fact that despite the slump in sales customers perception in the brand remains largely unchanged.
http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/brand-audit-greggs/4007572.article
You may feel that a 29% year on year fall on profits is enough to suggest that something just isn't working with the perceived brand value of Gregg's with their consumers. However the fact of the matter is that brand perception scores remain fairly positive, clearly demonstrating a major positive factor for the brand. Their battle is not to try and change the perception of the consumer or gain trust following a PR disaster. Their major challenge now has to be built around something far more fundamental.
The key question the chief executive Roger Whiteside should be asking himself is how has Gregg's allowed themselves to become so out of touch with the UK consumer when major competitors such as Pret continue to prosper? The answer all lies with the knowledge the baker has of its consumers, or lack thereof in this instance. Gregg's shouldn't be in a position where their ranging is fixed throughout the year. The product portfolio and product offering should be flexible enough to allow for fluid and fast paced changes. Gregg's know what they have to do to build this important knowledge bank but so far they have been slow to release there much hyped 'loyalty scheme'.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/questor/10026151/Questor-share-tip-Greggs-will-only-be-a-tasty-proposition-if-loyalty-scheme-works.html
Why is a loyalty scheme so important for the long term stability of the Gregg's brand? First of all it will help Gregg's build a fundamental understanding of their customers and will help with decisions such as when, what, where and how many products should be stocked across the thousands of stores that make up their estate. It can allow the high street chain to surprise and delight their most valuable customers with rewards and offers for the products they most buy. I would wager a bet that at least half of their sales are generated by their most loyal customers. Generating surplus income from these customers shouldn't be an uphill battle as these are the guys who want to shop with Gregg's in the first place.
But if Gregg's are looking to loyalty to build a sustainable long term viable strategy they need to do it right. We are long past the days where free coffee stamp cards or random, un-targeted product discounts are enough. If the scheme is to work it needs to be linked to customer information, pick out this info on and actual purchase behaviour and offer attractive discounts and marketing strategy based on what customers want.
Showing posts with label dot com. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dot com. Show all posts
Sunday, 11 August 2013
Wednesday, 26 June 2013
Ryanair doesn't care about customers!!! And that works fine for their brand strategy
Ryanair is an
interesting brand to place under an evaluation microscope. The fact that it has
established itself as an consistent offender when it comes to negative brand
perception hasn't seemed to of damaged its stability. In fact if you didn't
know the low cost no frills airline recently announced a record £481 million in
profit for 12/13.
The more passionate
customer service connoisseurs among us would argue that Ryanair as an
entity should really not be doing this well. How can a company, which spends so
little time on customer satisfaction, and so much resource on squeezing extra
revenue out of its customer base, continue to enjoy expansion, growth
and substantial market share?
Let's be crystal clear
on Ryanair’s brand perception. If you thought Ryanair
scores positively as a brand with a strong focus on satisfying
customers through a low cost model you would be wrong. One of the most common
words you will find linked with Ryanair brand perception is 'deception'. Take
for example the company website which ranks the worst in terms of ease of use
for all UK travel companies.
Virgin might focus on
the Rockstar holiday, JetBlue may pride itself on its on-board customer comfort
but Ryanair makes absolutely no bones about the fact that first and foremost it
is a low cost, high revenue margin operation. You will notice that whereas
Virgin is noted as taking a more customer-centric approach Ryanair instead
focuses on driving traffic to the website, currently in the tune of 1.2 million
customers a day. Makes sense when you consider a complete lack of consideration
when it comes to customer service strategy or any investment in understanding
how the rising influence of social media will change the way consumers behave.
You might think that in this day and age a CEO would take time to listen to its
customers. It's clear from the below blog that Ryanair have no time to liaise
with 'idiot bloggers', a strategy which some have described as 'analogue
marketing in a digital world'.
Surely this defies all
logic? A brand can't place so little emphasis on the customer and continue to
enjoy strong profit and growth. How can this model be sustainable? Surely
sooner or later Ryanair will suffer for a complete lack or respect in
maintaining a strong and loveable brand?
You would certainly hope
so however that depends on a few factors changing in the market it currently
operates in. The Brand Avenger would argue that in order for Ryanair to begin
to feel the pain in terms of sales then one, or a combination of all
three of the following things would have to happen.
1) Price would have to
decrease in importance when it came to choosing an airline to travel.
It is far too easy
nowadays for a consumer to use a search engine such as Skyscanner and search
for the cheapest possible option when it comes to flying. There is no denying
the fact that holidays are expensive and as many see the flight as a
means to an end it will normally be travel where customers look to tighten the purse
strings. Would many be willing to pay extra dollar dollar bills for a promise
of better service or increased comfort? Has any brand connected so well with
airline consumers that it justifies an increase in spend? The answer is no.
When it boils down to it Ryanair will always continue to win if they can
successfully maintain a lower price than the nearest competitor. Brand
reputation maybe in tatters but then again the consumer isn't really buying the
brand in this instance.
2) There would need to
be an increased number of competitors serving the same routes as Ryanair to
give the customer more choice.
More competitors, more
options and more choice for the consumer. It is a simple case of supply and
demand! The Brand Avenger would assure you the service could be much worse if
the market continues to lose suppliers.
Let's take the above
example into consideration. Ryanair purchase AerLingus, swallow up all brand
assets and the consumer has to fly with the same company to reach their
destination. This of course leads to complete control for the company and
complete loss of power for the consumer.
If Ryanair are ever
going to pay for its non-existent investment in brand strategy it will only be
when customers have a choice. They have a choice of supermarket, of restaurant
and of clothes store but when it comes to airlines how many companies can truly
offer the routes and price Ryanair currently do?
3) A competitor would
have to truly embrace a customer centric strategy to retain the loyalty of
customers.
We should be careful
when using the term customer-centric in any sense when analysing the aviation
industry. Whereas it is true Virgin invest a considerable amount of time and
resource on marketing strategy focusing on service and comfort it does little
to truly win the loyalty of its most frequent flyers.
Despite significant lip service and hefty marketing budgets focused
on service Virgin have yet to understand the full value of the customers that
spend the most on their service. If they did then Virgin would be tailoring the
lowest prices fares and significant promotions with the
largest discounts to the most frequent of flyers rather than trying
to acquire new flyers. The largest retailer in the UK knows that three quarters
of sales revenue is generated from customers who stay loyal to their brand. In
a market heavy on competition and with the rising power of word of mouth
marketing there is no reason why the same concept couldn't work for an airline
as long as they were willing to fully embrace a customer-centric ethos.
Let's finish with a
quick review of the above article. The Economist argues that 1 in 5 of
Ryanair's passengers are travelling for business, which equates to 17.5 million
customers a year. This is a segment of customers who is clearly a significant
revenue generator but also one of the segments that Ryanair could be in
greatest risk of losing if market conditions change. At the start of this
article The Brand Avenger wondered why Ryanair continued to do so well despite
such poor brand perception and I think the analysis of the business
consumer sums up the reasons quite nicely. Until someone, somewhere can come in
with a matching price with a greater emphasis on customer service with minimal
hassle much like the rest of Ryanair's customer base the business trade will
continue to flow. However, Ryanair need to realise that this model cannot be sustainable
in the long term. The only way it would be is if they were to become a complete
monopoly and competition authority bodies won't allow them to do so. Sooner or
later some brand, somewhere will do what Ryanair does cheaper and better and
when that happens, much like the 1 in 5 business crowd all of Ryanair's
customers will leave the brand without an ounce of regret or any feeling of
commitment. After all, it’s nothing personal, it’s just business.
Wednesday, 19 June 2013
Flogging a dead horse? Can Myspace rise from the ashes?
MySpace is back! If you didn’t know that then you
should check out the below Youtube clip
In many ways MySpace’s fall was more impressive
than its rise. The brand should have been able to hold onto its position of
power in the Social Network space. The fact that unique visitors fell from 78.9
million per month in 2006 to 34.8 million three years later clearly
demonstrates how big its decline in popularity was.
There are many theories as to why MySpace
ultimately failed to maintain its dominant market position. Many blame the sale
of the Social Media site to News Corp as a preliminary blow that was hard to
come back from. De Wolfe himself has cited a pressure to monetize the site
following the sale as a step in the wrong direction. Whatever the cause it is
clear that De Wolfe’s earlier claim that MySpace would have 400 million users
by 2015 is just not obtainable.
So why would a group of investors try and salvage
this social media ship wreck? Is it even possible to reposition a brand and
restore it to its past glory following such a public fall from grace?
There are examples of companies that have
successfully repositioned brands and there are examples of companies which have
failed and gone out of business. Clearly the success will depend on a number of
factors but most importantly a clear and viable long-term brand mission will be
important.
MG Rover had once enjoyed a healthy position in
the UK car market. However, following years of decline the Birmingham based
brand was left in a perilous position by the turn of the 21st
Century. Following a buy out in 2000 there was hope that a brand refresh and a
product re-launch would be enough to save the company. But when it came down to
it Rover reputation was too damaged to recover and it wasn’t long before the
car maker was confined to the brand graveyard.
However before we begin to assume there is no
hope for MySpace we should consider the tale of Apple. In 1993 you may have
been forgiven for believing the rise and rise of Microsoft would lead to a
permanent burial of the company responsible for the Macbook in the 80’s
But Apple wasn’t about to lie down and die an
easy death. Apple carefully evaluated its position in the market, where
technology was going and most importantly stuck to its gun on its brad strategy
moving forward; Apple would be the icon of doing things differently ad this
couldn’t have been anymore evident in its unique differentiated approach to
releasing MP3 players and phones with a clear focus on usability and a rebel
image. And in terms of brand success the rest is history.
Reading the above review which details some of
the key changes in Myspace strategy it is clear that it is going to take more
than the removal of a capital S in the logo to create success. You can’t argue
with the ambition of the new owners and the clear focus they are placing on
music, personalized radio station content, etc. And if nothing else early Brand
scoring metrics will probably be music to the investor’s ears as negative
perception continues to fall as detailed below.
It is clear that Myspace can go one of two ways
in the future. It can stick to a strategy look to offer a differentiated
product portfolio and have a clear aligned band strategy or it can jump from
one strategy to another in a desperate search to provide a purpose and meaning
to the target audience. Whatever way it goes there is no doubting it is a
massive task and a warning to all powerful brands in any market that you can’t
forget about your brand strategy.
Tuesday, 12 March 2013
hip hop and brand segmentation
Since its humble origins in the the streets of New York in the 80's there is no doubt the hip hop movement has shaped the face of not only the music industry but also fashion, dance, art, so on and so forth. Not only has hip hop influenced so many different aspects of western society but it has also made companies billions of dollars. Not only has it made companies billions of dollars but it has also given The Brand Avenger many a frustrating Friday night trying to simultaneously fight crime and memorise the words of a fresh new beat, ranging anywhere from Eminem's 'lose yourself' to Mystikal's 'shake that ass'. But enough about me and back to the point- Hip hop is big business or 'bizznesss' as some in the industry would put it, therefore the branding artists have created for themselves deserve special attention.
Hip hop's growing influence as a valuable source of marketing investment is testament to a constant evolution of what it meant to be a hip hop artist over the last 30 years. If we think back to the turn of the 21st Century although there were clean signs of growth there were also considerable barriers which were decelerating the chances of an association with big companies and the mainstream. Market leaders have always spent considerable money on understanding how to appropriately market their brands and will use a number of mechanics to carefully alter brand reputation, positioning and image as they see fit. But what do you do when your cash cow is a volatile self proclaimed gangster with the tendency to occasionally start a riot in a night club every now and then?
That's right folks- the rap industries branded talent assets was also the root cause of its constraints in realising true investment potential. Lack of diversification, controversy and unpredictability are not stable foundations for anyone to even try to build firm brand foundations on. There is no doubt hip hop stars popularity stretched far across a world of young adults but at the same time this created a scenario where hip hop brands like 2 Pac, Ja Rule, Notorious B.I.G, Eminem and Dr Dre consistently appealed to one 19-34 demographic. Simply put the industry was in danger of polarisation and completely cutting itself off from any kind of long term financial stability across other demographics.
Now you might say who cares? What's the issue with hip hop brands only appealing to a certain demographic especially when you consider how valuable that demographic is. Check out a great blog on hip hop segmentation and the power of the 19-34's across the world here.
http://www.audiblehype.com/blogs/business/2008/aug/04/the-no-bullshit-guide-to-hip-hop-demographics-part-one/
This article contains two of The Brand Avenger's all time favourite stats...
1) The collective spending power of the 19-34 year olds is $500 billion annually in the U.S. alone.
2) 37.1% of 15-25 year olds in China love hip hop, the point being that globally there is a potential audience for hip hop in China of 296 million.
Powerful stuff and a great argument for focusing on one demographic across the world, especially when you consider the size of this segment in emerging markets such as China (although I would imagine censorship might play a small issue here). What is undeniable is the fact that hip hop should always see a large chunk of its sales growth attributed to the youth of the times. The themes of rebellion, partying, independence and overcoming adversity tie in well with the general state of mind of this group. Nothing wrong with that right? A significant number of entertainment companies realised a long time ago that if you are going to focus your product on one group of consumers it is best to target those with the highest levels of disposable income.
However, as I am a symbol of brand value, diversity freedom and justice let's consider the other side of the argument. One thing all big manufacturers, suppliers, retailers, and anyone who has anything to do with branding knows is that if you want to maximise your sales you have to offer a rich and diverse brand portfolio. Taking this as an universal marketing truth you could therefore argue although hip hop was successful within one demographic it was also missing out on what could truly be realised through targeting the mainstream and what comes with the mainstream... The vast majority of the corporate investment pot.
This was a legitimate issue and concern for a number of years until something amazing happened. You see through that mysterious process of human ageing the artists began to grow up, the content began to clean up and with it came opportunities for a hip hop segmentation if you like- brand diversification, mainstream acceptance and corporate investment.
Right in front of our eyes the hip hop industry has fragmented and it isn't only the hip hop artists who have benefited from the expansion.
Let's use record label The Island Def jam as an example. Now chances are you might not have heard of Def Jam. Formed as part of a merger in 1999 the entity is a relative new comer to the music scene. However, if you aren't familiar with them check out the Island Def Jam artist page to see how many of the 'products' in the brand portfolio of the company you do recognise...
http://www.islanddefjam.com/artists/default.aspx?labelID=74
Let me pick out a couple of names in case you may have missed them, specifically what I like to call the big three.
Jay-Z
Jay-Z reported earnings from 2012 was $38 million dollars. This year every major festival he will be headlining has already sold out, the key word here being 'headlining'. There is no doubt that as Jay-Z's rap content has evolved around his experiences as a 40 plus male so to has the demographic who buy his product. 10 years ago Jay-Z couldn't dream of headlining Glastonbury; now it is a regular occurrence. Add this to lucrative sponsorship deals with Duracell and Budweiser and you can begin to see how big manufacturers like P&G now use hip hop brands to engage their own consumers.
Rihanna
Rihanna earned $53 million dollars in 2012 thanks in part to a non stop touring schedule but mostly down to the spend generated from her loyal fan base of 12-30 year old male and females. Rihanna's brand is supported with a fully integrated social media strategy which last year saw her rank 2nd in social media influence. Through careful PR guidance and sublime brand management Def Jam has created a brand which can cater for a wide audience while at the same time attract engagement from all industries.
Nas
Although not a top earner Nas deserves an honourable mention as an example of a man who has evolved his brand to cater for an older audience. Songs which deal with the complication of divorce 'Bye Baby' and the difficulties which come with raising children 'Daughters' saw his album 'Life is Good' sail to number 1 in the US Billboard and has so far sold 349,000 copies across the world according to Nielsen SoundScan.
You can't easily determine how much Universal Music Group (the owners of Island Def Jam) have made over the last few years. But when you consider 6 months ago they purchased EMI for $1.6 billion let's just say it's not small change.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/business/global/universal-takeover-of-emi-music-is-approved.html?_r=0
There is no doubt that the diversification of Universal's artist portfolio under Island Def Jam and the evolution of individual artists brands has been a major contributor to the bottom line. Whereas there will always be a fresh supply of new brands to cater for the 19-34 year olds the question now becomes will the older demographics continue to rap along with Jay-Z and wipe that dirt off our shoulders whilst grasping to our Zimmerframes in 40 years time? But then again that's more your problem. As i'm immune to ageing I've got 99 problems but getting old aint one.
Hip hop's growing influence as a valuable source of marketing investment is testament to a constant evolution of what it meant to be a hip hop artist over the last 30 years. If we think back to the turn of the 21st Century although there were clean signs of growth there were also considerable barriers which were decelerating the chances of an association with big companies and the mainstream. Market leaders have always spent considerable money on understanding how to appropriately market their brands and will use a number of mechanics to carefully alter brand reputation, positioning and image as they see fit. But what do you do when your cash cow is a volatile self proclaimed gangster with the tendency to occasionally start a riot in a night club every now and then?
That's right folks- the rap industries branded talent assets was also the root cause of its constraints in realising true investment potential. Lack of diversification, controversy and unpredictability are not stable foundations for anyone to even try to build firm brand foundations on. There is no doubt hip hop stars popularity stretched far across a world of young adults but at the same time this created a scenario where hip hop brands like 2 Pac, Ja Rule, Notorious B.I.G, Eminem and Dr Dre consistently appealed to one 19-34 demographic. Simply put the industry was in danger of polarisation and completely cutting itself off from any kind of long term financial stability across other demographics.
Now you might say who cares? What's the issue with hip hop brands only appealing to a certain demographic especially when you consider how valuable that demographic is. Check out a great blog on hip hop segmentation and the power of the 19-34's across the world here.
http://www.audiblehype.com/blogs/business/2008/aug/04/the-no-bullshit-guide-to-hip-hop-demographics-part-one/
This article contains two of The Brand Avenger's all time favourite stats...
1) The collective spending power of the 19-34 year olds is $500 billion annually in the U.S. alone.
2) 37.1% of 15-25 year olds in China love hip hop, the point being that globally there is a potential audience for hip hop in China of 296 million.
Powerful stuff and a great argument for focusing on one demographic across the world, especially when you consider the size of this segment in emerging markets such as China (although I would imagine censorship might play a small issue here). What is undeniable is the fact that hip hop should always see a large chunk of its sales growth attributed to the youth of the times. The themes of rebellion, partying, independence and overcoming adversity tie in well with the general state of mind of this group. Nothing wrong with that right? A significant number of entertainment companies realised a long time ago that if you are going to focus your product on one group of consumers it is best to target those with the highest levels of disposable income.
However, as I am a symbol of brand value, diversity freedom and justice let's consider the other side of the argument. One thing all big manufacturers, suppliers, retailers, and anyone who has anything to do with branding knows is that if you want to maximise your sales you have to offer a rich and diverse brand portfolio. Taking this as an universal marketing truth you could therefore argue although hip hop was successful within one demographic it was also missing out on what could truly be realised through targeting the mainstream and what comes with the mainstream... The vast majority of the corporate investment pot.
This was a legitimate issue and concern for a number of years until something amazing happened. You see through that mysterious process of human ageing the artists began to grow up, the content began to clean up and with it came opportunities for a hip hop segmentation if you like- brand diversification, mainstream acceptance and corporate investment.
Right in front of our eyes the hip hop industry has fragmented and it isn't only the hip hop artists who have benefited from the expansion.
Let's use record label The Island Def jam as an example. Now chances are you might not have heard of Def Jam. Formed as part of a merger in 1999 the entity is a relative new comer to the music scene. However, if you aren't familiar with them check out the Island Def Jam artist page to see how many of the 'products' in the brand portfolio of the company you do recognise...
http://www.islanddefjam.com/artists/default.aspx?labelID=74
Let me pick out a couple of names in case you may have missed them, specifically what I like to call the big three.
Jay-Z
Jay-Z reported earnings from 2012 was $38 million dollars. This year every major festival he will be headlining has already sold out, the key word here being 'headlining'. There is no doubt that as Jay-Z's rap content has evolved around his experiences as a 40 plus male so to has the demographic who buy his product. 10 years ago Jay-Z couldn't dream of headlining Glastonbury; now it is a regular occurrence. Add this to lucrative sponsorship deals with Duracell and Budweiser and you can begin to see how big manufacturers like P&G now use hip hop brands to engage their own consumers.
Rihanna
Rihanna earned $53 million dollars in 2012 thanks in part to a non stop touring schedule but mostly down to the spend generated from her loyal fan base of 12-30 year old male and females. Rihanna's brand is supported with a fully integrated social media strategy which last year saw her rank 2nd in social media influence. Through careful PR guidance and sublime brand management Def Jam has created a brand which can cater for a wide audience while at the same time attract engagement from all industries.
Nas
Although not a top earner Nas deserves an honourable mention as an example of a man who has evolved his brand to cater for an older audience. Songs which deal with the complication of divorce 'Bye Baby' and the difficulties which come with raising children 'Daughters' saw his album 'Life is Good' sail to number 1 in the US Billboard and has so far sold 349,000 copies across the world according to Nielsen SoundScan.
You can't easily determine how much Universal Music Group (the owners of Island Def Jam) have made over the last few years. But when you consider 6 months ago they purchased EMI for $1.6 billion let's just say it's not small change.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/business/global/universal-takeover-of-emi-music-is-approved.html?_r=0
There is no doubt that the diversification of Universal's artist portfolio under Island Def Jam and the evolution of individual artists brands has been a major contributor to the bottom line. Whereas there will always be a fresh supply of new brands to cater for the 19-34 year olds the question now becomes will the older demographics continue to rap along with Jay-Z and wipe that dirt off our shoulders whilst grasping to our Zimmerframes in 40 years time? But then again that's more your problem. As i'm immune to ageing I've got 99 problems but getting old aint one.
Monday, 25 February 2013
And the award goes to.... hmmm, maybe not anyone!!
Last night the glitterati of Hollywood graced
the red carpet for the prestigious Academy Awards. Dressed to impress and doing their best to
enhance their public brands, the stars in attendance were hoping to scoop the acclaim
and accolades of the industry. However, the cream of Hollywood’s exclusive crop
weren’t the only ones looking to grab the media spotlight last night.
It should surprise little that last night The
Brand Avenger cared less for A-list Movie Directors, actresses tripping up over
their fine silk dresses, or the planned alcoholic consumption of George
Clooney. As we live in a world where
needless brand expenditure is rampant and businesses plunge into bankruptcy
daily my attention is always fixed firmly on how business use events such as this
to position their brands. After all, the sheer size of audience the Oscar’s
attract also brings with it a huge slice of premium priced ad space for the big
brands to fight over.
As it turned out 2013 would be the year the
metaphorical ‘asking price’ bar was raised. Reports from my trustworthy
sidekicks on the interweb suggest Disney charged anywhere between $1.6- $1.8
million for advertising space during last nights ABC coverage of the event; the
highest asking price for 5 years.
Despite the massive price tag it was also reported that demand was the
highest it had been in years! Seems like the premium pricing did little to
dampen the spirits of enthusiastic brand managers. Indeed some of the brightest
brand stars in the land strutted their stuff last night including but not
limited to Coca’Cola, Samsung, McDonalds and Neutrogena.
As a protector of brand identity I can’t
help but looking deep within myself and asking the essential question everyone
should be asking- Was it all worth it?... Was it all worth it? Well, first of
all it certainly wasn’t the most extravagant ad purchase one could have made
this year. Of course the honor of that goes to a little thing called the
Superbowl and the television time devoted to ads before, during and after said
event. If you choose to pitch your brand tent in NFL space you are looking to part
ways with $3.7 million before even knowing if the investment was worth it!
Seems like a lot of money? That’s because it is nub nuts! Especially if your
campaign isn’t integrated across media platforms meaning you have little chance
of measuring ROI.
Why are integrated campaigns better for the
health of a brand? The explosion of social media use over the last 7 years has
led to what industry experts describe as the ‘second screen’ phenomenon, As
consumers watch TV they are less likely to be paying their full attention to
one screen and more likely to be at least partly engaged in what’s happening on
their smaller screens as well. Since your consumers attention is most likely to
be split between a handset, laptop, TV or tablet it seems to me it would make sense
to follow up the message you have just spend millions of dollars on across
multiple channels… I don’t know, maybe its just me.
Maybe this type of spend is only suitable for
brands with strong online presence. At least this way the effectiveness of the advert
can be measured through the very delivery channels. Which is the brands bread
and butter Darren Rovell’s account in the below article speaks volume on how
important this can be. Reebok won acclaim for the Terrible Terry Tate campaign…
that is until only 55% polled remembered it was advertising Reebok. Compare
this to Monster.com and the success of its
‘When I grow up’ campaign. No one can deny an increase in resume uploads
from 83,000 to 2.3 million on its website 24 hours after the advert aired was a
all out success for the brand AWARENESS if not anything else.
This is why my sizeable blood pumping heart
muscle belongs to those companies who realize the value in creating a
multi-channel communication strategy and the synergy between TV and subsequent
social media or dot-com campaigns. At least this way companies give themselves
more of a fighting chance for strong brand advocacy, brand building and overall
buzz for the brand.
In closing I’m not going to sit here in The
Brand Avenger Ivory Tower and tell you not to invest $4 million in a 30 second
advert. But if you are going to follow the other companies and jump off the big
TV spend cliff at least make sure you either have wings in the form of an
integrated message or a padded cushion in the form of an adequate measurement
method.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)