With ‘ideas’ being a dominant currency and in fact something that agencies are able to sell as a separate offering to execution; more thought and clarity is needed around the distinction between a strategic idea (a strategy, a strategic direction, etc) and a creative idea (creative territory, creative platform, etc). Having read and enjoyed this, and this (again), it dawned on me that there is one fundamental difference:

A strategic idea can be channel agnostic, a creative idea can’t.

A strategic idea can and sometimes should be totally void of any consideration of channel or execution, because it needs to be based on a holistic view of the brand, business, and communications context and how these pertain to the brief and objectives within it.

Creative ideas, however, while ideally should be underpinned by a strategic direction, are conceived in the context of a visualised execution, which will naturally sit within or lean towards a particular channel. That’s just the way our minds work.

Again, just food for thought. But I feel that definitions and associated meanings of certain everyday terms is one of our industry’s major stumbling blocks. So, whenever I can draw a very simple and coherent distinction between two terms that are used interchangeably on a daily basis, I will, because it helps my little brain make sense of everyday tasks.

Nicolas Moerman’s deck on ‘Why Planners and Creatives should become best friends’ brilliantly explains the difference between a strategic idea and a creative idea, with loads of perfect examples.

It’s great, you should have a look: http://bit.ly/eGDhps

Moerman offers a definition of a strategic idea, what it always is, always has, what it can do (seriously, it’s well worth a read); but above all it got me thinking – where do strategic ideas come from, where should they come from, where do we look?

Here’s a start. For me, a strategic idea should appear at the intersection of three separate bits of thinking around a brief:

Just a thought starter, really. What do you think?

According to Oxford Economic Research (Sept, 2007), hosting the London 2012 Olympics will cause a number of economic displacement impacts. As such, due to overseas visitors staying away because of the perceived expense (160m), domestic tourists heading abroad as a result of the games (124m), and Londoners leaving the capital due to overcrowding fears (91m), our economy will have a 375m deficit to deal with before the games even start. When you add this to the many tangible costs associated with hosting the games, you get a big number.

No big deal, providing the economic benefits derived from an increase in the number of visitors as a result of the games compensate for this, and some, right?

That’s what I thought, until I learned that The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has been told to cut 88m from its communications budget over the coming year, and the government intends to slash its overall adspend by 160m. I can only hope that these budgets are being cut with a view to putting some aside to ramp up the activity during 2012 and 2013, but I’m not convinced. I fear we’ll see more cuts in the run up to 2012 and the actual spend will be a fraction of the budget promised, compounded by unrealistic expectations in terms of how ‘efficient’ those responsible for campaign execution can be with the remaining budget.

Yes, there are other economic benefits of being the host nation, but to my mind, the financial viability of hosting the games relies largely on encouraging the rest of the world to visit the UK prior, during, and after the games. As such, the key objective must be to ensure that the Games are used as a vehicle to communicate a clear, compelling and unique reason to visit the UK as a tourist – that sticks for many years after the games.

A couple of questions on my mind:

To what extent will the traditional/existing media coverage of the games achieve this?

With such a challenging objective, and a mass audience (i.e. the rest of the world), is there any substitute for the right level of investment?

Who has an opinion on this?

[Originally written for and published on The Headstream Blog]

Here’s a question: is there any other channel where a sound working knowledge of the tools involved can compensate for a poor understanding of the audience?

I’m not entirely sure what it takes to be labeled a social media ‘guru’, ‘expert’, or ‘ninja’ these days; but I’m willing to bet that the ability to develop an informed understanding of a brand’s audience doesn’t feature on the checklist (There isn’t a checklist, is there? I’m not ruling it out, but it would definitely be written by a guru!).

This imbalance is a problem, on a number of fronts.

Ninjas aside, it is increasingly concerning to hear that in some commercial environments it seems that as long as someone can display that they ‘get’ social media, then that is considered a good enough foundation to be developing social media strategies for brands – and worse, to take a view on what kind of content is going to be compelling to its audience.

As such I can sense a touch of arrogance creeping into our industry, and a self propelled crystal ball-ish feel surrounding what social media people do. The result: Strategies and campaigns are less consumer centric than in other channels. The answer: Insight, insight, insight. Every strategy and campaign should be grounded in as much relevant consumer research as one can get their hands on.

An example of a campaign that seemingly underestimated the importance of insight is Motrin’s ‘Mom Babywearing’ campaign. In case you missed it, a Web video ad for the painkiller (Motrin), a Johnson & Johnson owned brand, was pushed out via YouTube targeted at mothers and talking about the physical pain involved with carrying an infant in a sling. Watch it here.

The clear intention was to speak empathetically to moms, strengthening the bond between the target audience and the brand by demonstrating that the folks at Motrin understand the challenges of being a mother. Unfortunately, however, they only managed alienate much of their audience and had to deal with some very offended moms, who felt like they had been blatantly insulted for “wearing their babies”. A flood of angry blog posts and tweets followed. While I’m sure no offence was intended, they definitely hit the wrong nerve of their target audience with this one. Undoubtedly, this is a mistake that could have been avoided by paying a bit more attention to the consumer during the planning stage.

Attempting to communicate and engage with any audience without an informed understanding of their habits, preferences, desires, and above all – what is important to them, and what isn’t – is a waste of time, money, and good ideas.

A simple message, but a vitally important one. Insight is king, even in social media.

This time last week I would have confidently asserted that although some have dipped their toes in the water, no other car manufacturer is more deeply embedded in social media than Ford. On Wednesday, (July 28th), however, Ford well and truly became the mayors of their market. They are now the first car manufacturer to unveil a new model (The Ford Explorer) via Facebook rather than at an automotive show. A fairly bold move, even for a brand with one social media success story (The Ford Fiesta Movement) firmly under their belt.

How did the Ford Explorer reveal work?

Pre-launch; Ford drummed up excitement and anticipation through the Ford Explorer Facebook page by promising that they would give away a new Explorer if the page grew to 30,000 fans; while driving traffic to the page with strategic interactive online media buys (including sites like AOL, Yahoo, Washington Post).

On the day; Ford delivered a considered performance, kicking off with a pre-reveal video featuring celebrity brand ambassador Mike Row and CEO Alan Mulally. Soon to follow was a very dramatic official reveal video in true auto-show-reveal style, detailed tours of the car, photo gallery, live Q&A session with the CEO and subsequent live chat with featured Ford employees.

To anyone who works in social media, the car industry, or indeed any industry that involves product launches – this is exciting. Ford seems to have embraced the concept of giving their consumers a voice, and turning up the volume. They clearly understand their audience, and where they spend their time. What’s more, their apparent willingness to invite unmediated feedback and commentary around their brand and products creates a much deserved sense of credibility and authenticity.

Exciting as it may be, the Explorer campaign is by no means over, and interestingly it still has the potential to be a flop. Why? Because there is still six months before consumers can actually buy the vehicle. The challenge for Ford – keeping the 56,552 Facebook fans engaged over the next six months. Extending the conversation, and ultimately converting some of these into customers. Six months is a long time, so I suspect that many other car brands will be closely watching how this pans out, hoping for some proof of concept before they embrace this new way of thinking about product reveals.

Time will tell, I guess. That said, I’m sure Ford aren’t the only car manufacturer to have considered doing it this way, and when it comes to experimenting with digital and social media, in my eyes, doing beats thinking. So, I think Ford should be admired for taking on uncertainty, and for their commitment to using social channels to shake up more traditional methods of bringing new models to market.  Bravo.

Originally written for and published on the Headstream blog.

(Originally written for and published on the Headstream Blog…)

Yes, it’s a great concept, yes, the simplicity is genius, and yes, it demonstrates sound channel selection and a smart approach to engaging with celebrities, influencers and the likes of you and me in equal measures. Loads of ticks in loads of boxes, but if I had to hang my hat on one factor that contributed above all to making the Old Spice campaign a roaring success, it would be the creation and construction of a character that on the whole:

Appeals to everyone
Alienates no-one

Sounds obvious doesn’t it? Plenty haven’t received such a positive reaction. The Frosties singing kid… The Go Compare opera singer… Anyone who’s ever appeared in a Halifax advert?

Aside from causing men to spontaneously drop down into the press up position and want to make wine racks out of oak, the ‘Old Spice Guy’ has the same affect on both men and women. It’s too obvious to say that he’s envied by men and adored by women etc, etc. When in fact, the key to his popularity is that both men and women simply ‘get’ the over the top humour, self mockery and ‘I know someone exactly like this’ bravado. What’s more, the tone, style and delivery humanises the brand without taking itself too seriously, and it goes without saying that showing a humorous attitude towards your own brand is likely to breed appreciation and create advocacy.

Ok, so the construction of this particular character is genius, but let’s strip away the humour for a second…

[Old Spice turns to social media as a channel to market]
It realises that Old Spice wasn’t built to be social. It wasn’t created to converse.
Yet, it’s recognised that the future success of the brand is dependent on how quickly it can evolve to meet the desire of a connected people to engage with it.
Acknowledges that people would rather engage with people (in social spaces) than brands.
Queue funny, entertaining, and accessible human.
[Overwhelming success]

It makes sense really. It also suggests that the use of human brand characters is the most effective method we currently have to close the gap between a static juggernaut of a brand and the lightning pace of the social web.

What’s impressive about this particular example is that it created genuine engagement without abandoning what the brand stands for. They haven’t had to reinvent their sturdy positioning, and at no point have they shoved the brand into viewers’ throats. Perfect.

I’m on a horse.

People look to brands as identity resources – as bits and pieces that all contribute to building a sense of themselves and how they wish to be seen by others. People also tend to align themselves with brands that stand for similar values as them, or, of course, values that they aspire to stand for. This is why I can never quite get my head around why more brands don’t opt (and yes, it is a choice) to stand for something more meaningful, of more substance, or at the very least, of something relevant to what is going on in the world of their consumer.

In my eyes, one thing all outstanding brands have in common is they tend to address collective cultural or national anxieties with their communications, and what’s more they address the dominant anxieties in culture that their audience resides in, at that particular point in time. This is a strategy best described as cultural branding – a term coined by Douglas Holt (very clever chap, and author of ‘How Brands Become Icons’).

Probably the best example of cultural branding is the Dove ‘Campaign for Real Beauty’ – which celebrated the natural physical variation embodied by all women and. Picking up on a dominant anxiety among the Dove audience and inspiring them to have the confidence to be comfortable with themselves. Another great example is the Budweiser wassuuuup campaign, which came at a time when the American economy wasn’t in great shape, unemployment was high, and found a creative way of saying ‘it’s ok to be a slacker right now, don’t beat yourself up about it, just have fun’. Stay with me, this is going somewhere…

Historically this kind of thing has been quite tricky to pull off, but with the proliferation of social media and the shift towards a two way conversation between brands and consumers, this is easier than ever – and I see it as a huge opportunity for brands to create more resonant and meaningful dialogue. So what am I saying?

Dear brands, rather than using social media channels as broadcasting towers for useless bits of information, shameless self indulgence and throw away promotions, why not say something that is relevant, timely and meaningful about a source of anxiety for your audience? Either in a very literal sense (hints, tips, discussion), or from a brand positioning perspective (the overarching theme/proposition of the campaign).

Most brands strive for greater engagement with their consumers, my advice would be to give them a reason to appreciate what you stand for, and engagement will follow.

So, cultural branding; just set aside some time to think about the basic cultural processes that might be affecting your audience right now, and then consider how you might address those with your communications. Then say some stuff about some stuff that means something to your audience.

Any thoughts? More than welcome.

In an era characterised by evolving communications, brand research is vital. Qualitative research and focus groups in particular can be extremely useful strategic tools for businesses of all sizes. You can read why in this previous post. It goes without saying that in commissioning a research agency to plan, manage and conduct a focus group on your behalf comes with a number of benefits. That said, providing a few general principles and guidelines are followed, there is no reason why you can’t gain the same level of insight by running one yourself. (This comes with obvious cost benefits). Here are a few useful tips on how to do so:

1.    Arranging a facility: Many envision focus groups being held behind a one way mirror in a fancy viewing facility that costs the earth – this is normally for the client’s benefit, so providing there is enough trust in your relationship I would recommend not inviting the client to view the group. This means you the session can take place in your office, or even your lounge; anywhere with enough space and seats for 8-10 people.
2.    Finding respondents: Local paper or even Gumtree might do the trick. You can find professional recruiters for this kind of thing but it comes at a cost.
3.    Write a screener: The best way to ensure that your group represents the demographic and any other criteria it should do is to write a short screener questionnaire; a series of simple yes/no questions for all potential respondents to complete. This way you can find out whether their experiences and opinions will be relevant to the research objectives.
4.    Write a discussion guide: Essential for making sure you cover all topics and stay on track. As a general rule, try to make your questions open ended (e.g. Please tell me about…, to what extent do you think…, etc), start with general and move towards specifics, and try to decide in advance how long you are going to spend on each topic.
5.    Plan projective techniques: these are known as ‘enablers’ as they are used to get the respondents past social barriers when asked to talk about issues that they might not normally talk or think about. A great one is to place the respondents in the third person (e.g. If you were X, what would you think?), this disassociates them from the context, providing a safer place to reveal what they really think. Another useful technique is to use brand personification (e.g. If brand X was a celebrity, who would they be? If they were an animal/colour/country, etc, etc). There are plenty more, but I’m sure you get the picture.
6.    Have some probes in your locker: Very useful if the conversation is going dry. (e.g. Can you expand on that? Can you give an example? Why do you think that?)
7.   Preparation on the day: Arrive early / give the incentives (if needed) to someone else to sort out / set up the room before the respondents arrive / double check any recording equipment.
8.    Last but definitely not least – some handy moderation tips:
a.    Make sure you know your discussion guide inside out and remind yourself of the objectives
b.    Make the respondents comfortable by introducing yourself and reassuring confidentiality
c.    Set the right tone by letting them know that there is no right or wrong answer, and it isn’t a test or any form of sales
d.    Always ask permission to record (if you are going to)
e.    Never rush, and don’t be afraid to get clarification on important points
f.    Consider your own body language; lean forward slightly with an open posture and constant eye contact with whoever is speaking
g.    Remember – you should be doing more listening than talking!

I hope this helps. Anything I’ve missed? Got a question? Please comment.
What’s more, there are plenty more ‘blog-worthy’ elements of qualitative research, so if you would benefit from a similar guide on something else, just ask.

Please note: I am aware that this post invites criticism from research professionals who work hard at their craft. I have stated that commissioning an agency comes with numerous benefits – I know that there are many, as I used to work for one, but that simply isn’t what this post is about. It is aimed at marketing professionals whose clients don’t have a budget for research, but would benefit from the insight.

Reading back over my last couple of posts with a mixture of pride and recoil, I realised that my perspective so far on the relationship between brands and digital media has been a little bit rosy. Inspired in part by a brilliant post from @Tom_Messett, I concluded that if I’m going to be blogging about the role digital media can play in brand building, I’m going to have to throw in a big DISCLAIMER. This could well be my pillar of truth from here on; that’s right, you guessed it – if a brand is sh*t offline, it will be probably be sh*t online.

There it is, I said it.

I’m sure many of you have also had a recent flood of clients asking to ‘go social’, and while I largely approve of the intention, I strongly believe there are a number of basic things a brand needs to get right offline before a social media presence becomes worthwhile.

1.    Is the customer experience right? Can the promises made online be delivered offline?

2.    Do the owners/employees know their brand well enough to distill its promise into the simplest possible terms? The central problem of brand-building is getting a complex organisation to execute a simple idea.

3.    What are the core values? The transparent nature of social media makes it vital that a brand stands for an enduring set of principles.

4.    Is the brand positioning right? Differentiation is a critical step in building a brand.

The list could go on, but as a general guiding principle, I think business/brand owners should be able to answer three simple questions with one sentence answers before they begin to represent their brand with online conversations. 1) Who are you? 2) What do you do? 3) Why does it matter?

Social media is a fantastic strategic tool, but it’s definitely not magic.

Many aim for true integration when it comes to advertising campaigns. Some might argue that this is becoming harder with the increasing number of effective and measureable online channels available; others maintain that the best online campaigns will include an element of offline activity. Here’s my two cents…

Consider senses: Online only calls upon two senses (vision and sound), so if an offline element can add any further depth to that experience with touch or smell then better results will follow.

It’s all in the planning: There is no reason why online and offline can’t complement each other in additional ways when thrown into the mix together – Can a print campaign pay for itself by increasing ROI on paid search? Can a launch event & PR pay for itself by increasing e-DM open rates?

Physical engagement tools could be the missing link: I was very interested to learn about how companies such as Kyp (www.kyp.com) are bridging the gap between physical media and the digital world. Kyp have developed technologies such as the iKyp webkey with a view to physically engage consumers. The webkey is a business card sized/shaped cardboard promotional item, which allows the user to swivel out a webkey, place it in a USB port, and view a webpage that appears instantly and without any clicks. Now that is what I call integration!

The above [kind of] implies that we should think physical engagement first when planning how to meet online goals…

What do you think? Just a whim or the next big thing?