Brand experience is the experience of the brand that companies want to give. Customer experience is the experience of the brand that customers get.
Unfortunately, these two are often not the same.
Showing posts with label Brand. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brand. Show all posts
Think big, think different - and then do it
"The purpose of this design is to create a low-cost portable computer so useful that its owner misses it when it's not around – even if the owner isn't a computer freak..." This is how the vision of the Macintosh was described in an internal Apple memo in January 1980 (Source: Rolling Stone, 1984).
Funny enough, this is exactly how I felt about my Macintosh a few years later - and still do, by the way. It wouldn't have passed as a 'proper' positioning or mission statement at most companies yet it's obviously so much more precise and useful.
Key to the success is of course also the fact that the Apple team was able to actually execute against it. It was never 'just words'.
Funny enough, this is exactly how I felt about my Macintosh a few years later - and still do, by the way. It wouldn't have passed as a 'proper' positioning or mission statement at most companies yet it's obviously so much more precise and useful.
Key to the success is of course also the fact that the Apple team was able to actually execute against it. It was never 'just words'.
What Steve Jobs and Michelangelo have in common
According to Fast Company Steve Jobs gave the following business advice to Nike a few years back when they launched the iPod/Nike collaboration: "Get rid of the crappy stuff".
"I expected a little laugh," Nike president and CEO Mark Parker says of the exchange. "But there was a pause and no laugh at the end."
Jobs' comment is akin to one of my favorites, namely Michelangelo's when he was asked how he could create a sculpture as magnificent as David. He said, “I carve away everything that isn’t David.”
(This post was originally published in April, 2010)
"I expected a little laugh," Nike president and CEO Mark Parker says of the exchange. "But there was a pause and no laugh at the end."
Jobs' comment is akin to one of my favorites, namely Michelangelo's when he was asked how he could create a sculpture as magnificent as David. He said, “I carve away everything that isn’t David.”
(This post was originally published in April, 2010)
Vækstdagen 2011
To my Danish readers: I will be speaking at the annual Vækstdag February 10 in Copenhagen about Brand As Strategy and why Branding is dead while the Brand is very much alive. More info and registration at Vækstdagen 2011. For an immediate view on the topic, pls read the post below.
Branding is dead, long live the brand
Branding is dead, long live the brand. What do I mean by that?
All companies are building their brand(s) every day, it's inevitable. But many don't realize it and have no plan or system for it which can have dire consequences. Perhaps even worse, many think that building the brand has to do with simply raising awareness of it and spending a lot of $$ on campaigns, and much less with delivering value to the customers in a specific and consistent way.
The word 'branding' has come to mean slapping a logo and a cute name on an expensive piece of packaging and then promoting the bejesus out of it. It has come to mean something we do at the end of the product development process, when we are about to launch. It has become superficial, disconnected from the product, the company and the people behind it. This saddens me so, because when approaching the brand this way, we cannot leverage it, we cannot maximise its potential, we cannot serve customers, and we cannot create or develop a business around it.
This is why I say that 'branding' is dead. The brand, however, is very much alive, and in fact more important than ever.
But does brand really matter these days, you might ask, when more and more marketing takes place between people eg on social media networks?
Why yes. Indeed, in a me-too marketplace where everybody has access and can express themselves about any brand any time (and this openness, in my book, is a great thing), the importance of developing and managing a highly differentiated brand - which starts with delivering distinct and superior customer value consistently - is more critical than ever.
We can only do so by putting the brand at the heart of our business strategy. Apart from simplifying the complex, making objectives clear and realistic, and giving direction for everyone in the company, putting the brand at the center ensures that everyone understands the brand promise and works on delivering this to customers every day. And it helps broadening yet clearly specifying the options for business development and growth.
The brand is what people buy. The product, the promise, the experience, and the conviction behind it. Meet and exceed customers' expectations and maximise business potential by putting the brand at the heart of your business strategy.
NB. To my Danish readers: I will be talking about this at the annual Vækstdag February 10 in Copenhagen. More info at Vækstdagen 2011.
All companies are building their brand(s) every day, it's inevitable. But many don't realize it and have no plan or system for it which can have dire consequences. Perhaps even worse, many think that building the brand has to do with simply raising awareness of it and spending a lot of $$ on campaigns, and much less with delivering value to the customers in a specific and consistent way.
The word 'branding' has come to mean slapping a logo and a cute name on an expensive piece of packaging and then promoting the bejesus out of it. It has come to mean something we do at the end of the product development process, when we are about to launch. It has become superficial, disconnected from the product, the company and the people behind it. This saddens me so, because when approaching the brand this way, we cannot leverage it, we cannot maximise its potential, we cannot serve customers, and we cannot create or develop a business around it.
This is why I say that 'branding' is dead. The brand, however, is very much alive, and in fact more important than ever.
But does brand really matter these days, you might ask, when more and more marketing takes place between people eg on social media networks?
Why yes. Indeed, in a me-too marketplace where everybody has access and can express themselves about any brand any time (and this openness, in my book, is a great thing), the importance of developing and managing a highly differentiated brand - which starts with delivering distinct and superior customer value consistently - is more critical than ever.
We can only do so by putting the brand at the heart of our business strategy. Apart from simplifying the complex, making objectives clear and realistic, and giving direction for everyone in the company, putting the brand at the center ensures that everyone understands the brand promise and works on delivering this to customers every day. And it helps broadening yet clearly specifying the options for business development and growth.
The brand is what people buy. The product, the promise, the experience, and the conviction behind it. Meet and exceed customers' expectations and maximise business potential by putting the brand at the heart of your business strategy.
NB. To my Danish readers: I will be talking about this at the annual Vækstdag February 10 in Copenhagen. More info at Vækstdagen 2011.
You don't need a social media strategy
"You don't need a social media strategy - you need a brand strategy that leverages social media. Don't get off the brand strategy just because there's a new communications channel, that's how you lose the plot as a brand. Technology is the tail, not the dog." (Chris Kirubi, Chairman of Coca Cola Nairobi via Tim Sanders).
This quote made my day today. Not just beacuse I agree - we always like to know that our own brilliant thinking is shared by others - but also because I've seen the shiny objects syndrome at play only too many times. We get so caught up by new possibilities and 'so ein ding müssen wir auch haben' that we take our eyes off the ball; this tendency is particularly prevalent when it comes to new technology, media and communications vehicles.
When I was European digital director at Levi's I would, among many things, work closely with the country marketing teams to plan and execute digital programs. I was met time and time again with all sorts of ideas from the teams on new stuff/things/apps/widgets/gadgets etc that somebody - often a local agency - had suggested.
While I really appreciated the creativity, my main role in these conversations quickly came to be Chief Sense-Making Officer, ie challenging them to test the ideas and their validity against the digital brand strategy - which of course was in place to support the overall brand strategy.
At some point, I developed a simple litmus test tool for the teams called 'Testing Your Idea', with the sentiment that all good marketing starts with an idea, however, not all ideas make for good marketing and with the purpose of encouraging strategic thinking. (I think I'll post this tool in a blog post soon, it's still pretty good!)
Anyway, as the digital protagonist in the company I was somehow expected to jump at and promote any new tech thingy that would pop out of the blue and often the teams just didn't get why I was so, in their eyes, conservative.
And this is why I love Chris Kirubi's quote above. Because it isn't about all the new shiny objects. It's about sticking to the brand strategy, having the courage to do so in the flurry of all things new, clever, cute and seductive, and having the judgement to filter out what isn't relevant and to frame within your strategy what is.
And btw, I'm not saying that social media isn't important, it's extremely important. But first and foremost the importance for a brand lies in finding the relevant and sustainable way to make use of it, whether for communications, research or other purposes.
Tim Sanders himself says it brilliantly: 'Don't let social media glam you out, causing you to waste time and money on keeping up. Confirm your brand promise and how you fulfill it, and find ways that social media can complement it. It's about being human, not techy.'
This quote made my day today. Not just beacuse I agree - we always like to know that our own brilliant thinking is shared by others - but also because I've seen the shiny objects syndrome at play only too many times. We get so caught up by new possibilities and 'so ein ding müssen wir auch haben' that we take our eyes off the ball; this tendency is particularly prevalent when it comes to new technology, media and communications vehicles.
When I was European digital director at Levi's I would, among many things, work closely with the country marketing teams to plan and execute digital programs. I was met time and time again with all sorts of ideas from the teams on new stuff/things/apps/widgets/gadgets etc that somebody - often a local agency - had suggested.
While I really appreciated the creativity, my main role in these conversations quickly came to be Chief Sense-Making Officer, ie challenging them to test the ideas and their validity against the digital brand strategy - which of course was in place to support the overall brand strategy.
At some point, I developed a simple litmus test tool for the teams called 'Testing Your Idea', with the sentiment that all good marketing starts with an idea, however, not all ideas make for good marketing and with the purpose of encouraging strategic thinking. (I think I'll post this tool in a blog post soon, it's still pretty good!)
Anyway, as the digital protagonist in the company I was somehow expected to jump at and promote any new tech thingy that would pop out of the blue and often the teams just didn't get why I was so, in their eyes, conservative.
And this is why I love Chris Kirubi's quote above. Because it isn't about all the new shiny objects. It's about sticking to the brand strategy, having the courage to do so in the flurry of all things new, clever, cute and seductive, and having the judgement to filter out what isn't relevant and to frame within your strategy what is.
And btw, I'm not saying that social media isn't important, it's extremely important. But first and foremost the importance for a brand lies in finding the relevant and sustainable way to make use of it, whether for communications, research or other purposes.
Tim Sanders himself says it brilliantly: 'Don't let social media glam you out, causing you to waste time and money on keeping up. Confirm your brand promise and how you fulfill it, and find ways that social media can complement it. It's about being human, not techy.'
- More about social media on my blog, click here for the post 'It's the mindset, not the media'.
- About being human as a brand, click here for the post 'Brand-bonding'.
- And to read a terrific article on the strategic use of social and other media in Harvard Business Review, click here - 'Branding in the Digital Age'.
Attention all media folks
Brilliant article in Harvard Business Review, Branding In the Digital Age, on the new and necessary approach to media spend and paid vs owned vs earned media, among many many interesting things.
All media folks should read this. Brand and marketing folks may knock themselves out, too.
All media folks should read this. Brand and marketing folks may knock themselves out, too.
Brand-bonding
Brand-bonding is the new brand-building. Where 'building' is a one-way thing, something the brand does on its own and for its own sake, 'bonding' denotes a relationship that involves participation from both parties and for the good of both parties.
And no, don't mistake bonding for bondage - that's exactly what we do not want to do. It's tempting to tie our customers as closely to our brand as possible, I know. Like telcos. Like where customers can't break the ties to the brand no matter how hard they try.
Rather, continuously give customers a good reason or better yet, several good reasons to stay with the brand out of their heart's content and bond with the brand over time. There's nothing more important than to be human, and that goes for brands too.
And no, don't mistake bonding for bondage - that's exactly what we do not want to do. It's tempting to tie our customers as closely to our brand as possible, I know. Like telcos. Like where customers can't break the ties to the brand no matter how hard they try.
Rather, continuously give customers a good reason or better yet, several good reasons to stay with the brand out of their heart's content and bond with the brand over time. There's nothing more important than to be human, and that goes for brands too.
Music and Branding #7
This is a translation of the column I'm writing for Danish industry publication Markedsføring (Marketing). Music and Branding deals with the trinity of brands, bands, and fans. It looks at how brands use (or don't use) music as part of their brand building efforts and how bands collaborate with brands.
This column (# 7) was published in issue #15 out Dec 14th, 2010 and focuses on brand and artist associations. Please find links to the first six columns at the bottom.
In the previous column we examined one of the major barriers to a more strategic approach to music as brand building tool. The one about the difficulty of parking one's personal opinions outside the office door when it comes to the selection of music.
When we use music in the brand building, we need to take brand essence and brand values into consideration as well as target audience and context, make sure that there is a level of congruence and in general base our decisions on actual insights about all of this.
In this column we'll take a closer look at the results of a study that was carried out in the UK on exactly these matters.
The purpose and methodology of the study
In 2007, Millward Brown, Mindshare, MEC:Access, Ogilvy Action, and Hill & Knowlton decided to analyse a range of artists, genres, brands, and target audiences in order to improve the advice they'd give their clients on music sponsorships and properties. And, I suppose, also to influence their clients to think a bit more coherently and strategically about these things.
Now, this column is about music and brand building in general, not sponsorships specifically, but just the same I think we can gain interesting insights from reflecting a bit on the results.
The agencies carried out the study in 2007 among 10,000 people in the UK. They looked at the values associated with certain genres, key music events, and artists. Then they matched the data with select brands as illustrative examples.
Let's take a look at what they found. The following is taken from the study.
Brand and artist associations
Coldplay fans like movies and a socially/environmentally responsible attitude; this reflects front-man Chris Martin's own stand points. They like fair trade and will compromise in order to support the cause. They expect their brands to do the same.
Madonna fans are interested in designer fashion, believe that money is the measure for success, and aren't too concerned about the environment.
Starbucks customers like indie, R&B, and soul music. They have an expensive taste and appreciate inspiration from other cultures and life styles than their own.
Apple customers generally are more occupied with music than PC customers and tend to think of themselves as protagonists of good taste. They are concerned with how they dress and think it's important to present oneself as attractive as possible to the opposite sex.
Music taste and beverage preferences are also closely knit: Heavy metal fans prefer Coca-Cola to Pepsi. The indie folks, on the other hand and especially those who like Coldplay, go for Pepsi. Dance and club peeps don't really care, they go for either.
And folks who are 3 customers are more into music in general and more into dance/electronica specifically than O2 customers. Reversely, O2 customers are bigger fans of Eurovision Song Contest than any other telco customers. How about that!
Ineffective and effective collaborations
The study also looked at select brand/artist collaborations and whether they worked out well. Here's a couple of them:
Previous columns:
Music and Branding #1
Music and Branding #2
Music and Branding #3
Music and Branding #4
Music and Branding #5
Music and Branding #6
This column (# 7) was published in issue #15 out Dec 14th, 2010 and focuses on brand and artist associations. Please find links to the first six columns at the bottom.
In the previous column we examined one of the major barriers to a more strategic approach to music as brand building tool. The one about the difficulty of parking one's personal opinions outside the office door when it comes to the selection of music.
When we use music in the brand building, we need to take brand essence and brand values into consideration as well as target audience and context, make sure that there is a level of congruence and in general base our decisions on actual insights about all of this.
In this column we'll take a closer look at the results of a study that was carried out in the UK on exactly these matters.
The purpose and methodology of the study
In 2007, Millward Brown, Mindshare, MEC:Access, Ogilvy Action, and Hill & Knowlton decided to analyse a range of artists, genres, brands, and target audiences in order to improve the advice they'd give their clients on music sponsorships and properties. And, I suppose, also to influence their clients to think a bit more coherently and strategically about these things.
Now, this column is about music and brand building in general, not sponsorships specifically, but just the same I think we can gain interesting insights from reflecting a bit on the results.
The agencies carried out the study in 2007 among 10,000 people in the UK. They looked at the values associated with certain genres, key music events, and artists. Then they matched the data with select brands as illustrative examples.
Let's take a look at what they found. The following is taken from the study.
Brand and artist associations
Coldplay fans like movies and a socially/environmentally responsible attitude; this reflects front-man Chris Martin's own stand points. They like fair trade and will compromise in order to support the cause. They expect their brands to do the same.
Madonna fans are interested in designer fashion, believe that money is the measure for success, and aren't too concerned about the environment.
Starbucks customers like indie, R&B, and soul music. They have an expensive taste and appreciate inspiration from other cultures and life styles than their own.
Apple customers generally are more occupied with music than PC customers and tend to think of themselves as protagonists of good taste. They are concerned with how they dress and think it's important to present oneself as attractive as possible to the opposite sex.
Music taste and beverage preferences are also closely knit: Heavy metal fans prefer Coca-Cola to Pepsi. The indie folks, on the other hand and especially those who like Coldplay, go for Pepsi. Dance and club peeps don't really care, they go for either.
And folks who are 3 customers are more into music in general and more into dance/electronica specifically than O2 customers. Reversely, O2 customers are bigger fans of Eurovision Song Contest than any other telco customers. How about that!
Ineffective and effective collaborations
The study also looked at select brand/artist collaborations and whether they worked out well. Here's a couple of them:
- Justin Timberlake got $ 6M in 2003 from McDonald's to promote the tagline 'I'm Lovin' It'. Unfortunately the crowd didn't love the collaboration at all, despite the seemingly shared youthful, energetic and broad appeal. The athletic Timberlake was not considered a credible McDonald's fan, his fans felt he was being downgraded and McDonald's brand image didn't improve either.
- Rolling Stones have on several occasions agreed to lucrative tour sponsorships from big league brands like T-Mobile. Some Stones fans find that the band focuses too much on profit, as they aren't showing any interest in, goodwill towards or shared values with the brands they make deals with.
- Take That worked with Marks & Spencer on their 2006 come-back tour where they posed as models in M&S campaigns and openly thanked the retailer at their gigs. This was very well received by the fans.
- Paul McCartney's collaboration with Starbucks from 2007 onwards means that Starbucks operates as McCartney's record label. Indeed, some McCartney fans didn't approve, nevertheless his first album with Starbucks, 'Memory Almost Full' from that year, entered the Billboard top 200 at #3.
Previous columns:
Music and Branding #1
Music and Branding #2
Music and Branding #3
Music and Branding #4
Music and Branding #5
Music and Branding #6
Music and Branding #6
This is a translation of the column I'm writing for Danish industry publication Markedsføring (Marketing). Music and Branding deals with the trinity of brands, bands, and fans. It looks at how brands use (or don't use) music as part of their brand building efforts and how bands collaborate with brands.
This column (# 6) was published in issue #14 out Nov 30th, 2010 and focuses on brand fit and relevance. Please find links to the first five columns at the bottom.
In the previous column we looked at the barriers that seem to exist for brands working more strategically with music as part of the brand building. We concluded that immaterial rights management, measuring effect, and professional objectivity are three major barriers that are keeping brands from working wholeheartedly, systematically, and strategically with music.
I actually think that professional objectivity is the biggest issue. How do we ensure that the selection of music is done on the basis of pragmatic and strategic considerations rather that unfounded feelings about what we personally like?
We know that values match between brand, music and target audience is critical for success - fit and relevance. That's what we'll look into in this column.
There needs to be a purpose
A 'brand' is not something we attach at the end of the marketing process when we're, say, launching a new product; it's the starting point for the entire strategic planning. 'CSR' is not something we do once in a while; it's something we are as a brand and company, all the time. Similarly, music needs to have an equally meaningful role for any brand that wants to use music in its brand building efforts.
By 'brand building' I don't mean the individual campaigns and advertising. I'm talking about the continuous effort internally in the organisation and externally in the market involved in positioning, differentiating, and maximizing the brand and its value for the company, owners, customers and all other stakeholders.
There's nothing more cringeworthy than a brand that comes up with a CSR activity which they then run as a campaign, and which by the way has nothing to do with the company's area of business. That's as bad as a brand with music glued onto it without any apparent coherence with whatever the brand is delivering in the market, or with its inherent values.
It makes sense if Best Buy is associated with music. Does it make sense if Whole Foods is? It makes sense that Tuborg is associated with music. Does it make sense if Danish Crown Bacon is? It makes sense that Apple is associated with music. Does it make sense if Google is?
Brand, band, context - does it all fit?
Rather than starting out with genres - our brand is 'jazzy', our brand is 'rock-ish' - start with target audience match and values match. What's the brand's target audience, what are the brand values, what music holds these values - and is there a match with the target audience?
The choice of music also needs to go hand in hand with the context in which the music will be used and what's practical and appropriate for that particular touch point.
Copenhagen's biggest and most enduring department store, Magasin du Nord, hosts a juice bar at its bottom floor called Joe & the Juice. It's right next to, or part of, the make-up and perfume department. Joe & the Juice have a habit of playing very loud club type music which seems out of place for the intimate and quiet make-up and perfume department, and for the fact that most people more than anything come to the juice bar to vegetate after a hectic shopping safari. Joe & the Juice's lack of sensitivity reflects badly on themselves, and on Magasin du Nord.
These decisions on coherence should not be taken randomly according to a moment's gut feeling and what 'I kinda feel like today', but be based on insights.
And when we dig deeper and look at collaborations between individual artists and brands, the coherence becomes even more important.
For example, I was a bit confused by the collaboration between Danish dance duo Infernal and McDonald's some time ago. On the surface it seemed just right and bang-on: Brand and artist share target audience and the values of joy and energy. But when one part of the duo is a declared health nut, then I struggle to see the point. It's as if both parties just hadn't quite thought it through.
Fragmentation requires facts
Music is a lot more complex to associate a brand with than eg sports. This is due to music's strong inherent emotional dimension which can have a different effect on different people.
Music is more fragmented than sports as far as genres and segments go, and one of the biggest pitfalls for a brand is lack of research into how or if a music activity - eg a sponsorship or the music played in the stores - is congruent with 1) the target audience of the brand and 2) their perception of the brand in the various markets, at that point in time.
For any music initiative started, driven or sponsored by a brand, sincerity and authenticity is crucial. And if we don't know what that means to our target audience from deep immersion into the culture we as a brand represent - ie their culture - then we better find out, and fast.
But how do we find out what our target audience likes and which values are associated with which genres and artists? How do we find out what makes sense?
In 2007, a group of agencies in the UK incl. Millward Brown and Mindshare did some research into these exact questions. In the next column, we will look at what they found.
Previous columns:
Music and Branding #1
Music and Branding #2
Music and Branding #3
Music and Branding #4
Music and Branding #5
This column (# 6) was published in issue #14 out Nov 30th, 2010 and focuses on brand fit and relevance. Please find links to the first five columns at the bottom.
In the previous column we looked at the barriers that seem to exist for brands working more strategically with music as part of the brand building. We concluded that immaterial rights management, measuring effect, and professional objectivity are three major barriers that are keeping brands from working wholeheartedly, systematically, and strategically with music.
I actually think that professional objectivity is the biggest issue. How do we ensure that the selection of music is done on the basis of pragmatic and strategic considerations rather that unfounded feelings about what we personally like?
We know that values match between brand, music and target audience is critical for success - fit and relevance. That's what we'll look into in this column.
There needs to be a purpose
A 'brand' is not something we attach at the end of the marketing process when we're, say, launching a new product; it's the starting point for the entire strategic planning. 'CSR' is not something we do once in a while; it's something we are as a brand and company, all the time. Similarly, music needs to have an equally meaningful role for any brand that wants to use music in its brand building efforts.
By 'brand building' I don't mean the individual campaigns and advertising. I'm talking about the continuous effort internally in the organisation and externally in the market involved in positioning, differentiating, and maximizing the brand and its value for the company, owners, customers and all other stakeholders.
There's nothing more cringeworthy than a brand that comes up with a CSR activity which they then run as a campaign, and which by the way has nothing to do with the company's area of business. That's as bad as a brand with music glued onto it without any apparent coherence with whatever the brand is delivering in the market, or with its inherent values.
It makes sense if Best Buy is associated with music. Does it make sense if Whole Foods is? It makes sense that Tuborg is associated with music. Does it make sense if Danish Crown Bacon is? It makes sense that Apple is associated with music. Does it make sense if Google is?
Brand, band, context - does it all fit?
Rather than starting out with genres - our brand is 'jazzy', our brand is 'rock-ish' - start with target audience match and values match. What's the brand's target audience, what are the brand values, what music holds these values - and is there a match with the target audience?
The choice of music also needs to go hand in hand with the context in which the music will be used and what's practical and appropriate for that particular touch point.
Copenhagen's biggest and most enduring department store, Magasin du Nord, hosts a juice bar at its bottom floor called Joe & the Juice. It's right next to, or part of, the make-up and perfume department. Joe & the Juice have a habit of playing very loud club type music which seems out of place for the intimate and quiet make-up and perfume department, and for the fact that most people more than anything come to the juice bar to vegetate after a hectic shopping safari. Joe & the Juice's lack of sensitivity reflects badly on themselves, and on Magasin du Nord.
These decisions on coherence should not be taken randomly according to a moment's gut feeling and what 'I kinda feel like today', but be based on insights.
And when we dig deeper and look at collaborations between individual artists and brands, the coherence becomes even more important.
For example, I was a bit confused by the collaboration between Danish dance duo Infernal and McDonald's some time ago. On the surface it seemed just right and bang-on: Brand and artist share target audience and the values of joy and energy. But when one part of the duo is a declared health nut, then I struggle to see the point. It's as if both parties just hadn't quite thought it through.
Fragmentation requires facts
Music is a lot more complex to associate a brand with than eg sports. This is due to music's strong inherent emotional dimension which can have a different effect on different people.
Music is more fragmented than sports as far as genres and segments go, and one of the biggest pitfalls for a brand is lack of research into how or if a music activity - eg a sponsorship or the music played in the stores - is congruent with 1) the target audience of the brand and 2) their perception of the brand in the various markets, at that point in time.
For any music initiative started, driven or sponsored by a brand, sincerity and authenticity is crucial. And if we don't know what that means to our target audience from deep immersion into the culture we as a brand represent - ie their culture - then we better find out, and fast.
But how do we find out what our target audience likes and which values are associated with which genres and artists? How do we find out what makes sense?
In 2007, a group of agencies in the UK incl. Millward Brown and Mindshare did some research into these exact questions. In the next column, we will look at what they found.
Previous columns:
Music and Branding #1
Music and Branding #2
Music and Branding #3
Music and Branding #4
Music and Branding #5
What's an influential brand in the UK vs in the US
Interesting comparison between the top 10 most influential brands in the UK and ditto in the US, posted on Treehugger' site here.
Not only does it show the growing importance of the ethical brand, it also shows that national brands - still - play an important role, despite globalization.
Not only does it show the growing importance of the ethical brand, it also shows that national brands - still - play an important role, despite globalization.
Music and Branding #5
This is a translation of the column I'm writing for Danish industry publication Markedsføring (Marketing). Music and Branding deals with the trinity of brands, bands, and fans. It looks at how brands use (or don't use) music as part of their brand building efforts and how bands collaborate with brands.
This column (# 5) was published in issue #13 out Nov 9th, 2010 and focuses on how brands are using music and to what extent they are dedicating the resources to make it a success. Please find links to the first three columns at the bottom.
In the previous column in Markedsføring #12 (column #4 here), we looked at the link between the interest of brands for using music as part of their brand marketing and the resources that they dedicate to it. And found that in fact there isn't much of a link.
Many brands want to use music and think it's important for brand-building but don't invest risk, time, money, hands, skills, or thinking to do it properly, ie in a purposeful, value creating way. In this column we will investigate the reasons for this. What are the barriers?
Rights management
Rights management, in this case intellectual property rights (IPR), is an area of increasing importance and ditto complexity when working commercially with music. Not only is IPR fundamentally complicated, new digital platforms and tools, the fragmentation of sales and distribution channels, and the difference in national legislation increase this complexity.
There really is a lot to be aware of and be buttoned-down about, and we can't blame brands for saying 'No thanks, we'll pass'. After all, commercial use of music is not their core business.
When I was European digital director at Levi's - where music is in an integral part of the brand marketing and a central element in consumer engagement - I had good use of our in-house lawyers who are IPR specialists. But even their insight and my experience from the record business wasn't enough - quite simply because music IPR is so intricate and because new opportunities emerge constantly which the legislation hasn't quite caught up with yet.
Many brands try to manage the IPR stuff themselves or ask the ad agency to do it. But a layman is a layman, and the consequence often is that the brand fails to secure all necessary exploitation rights, and fails to clarify liability. Both can be very costly.
At Levi's we would work with external experts to assess rights costs, formulate and negotiate the deals and manage payment to the various rights societies etc. I strongly recommend doing it this way.
Measuring effect
Another barrier for brands to using music strategically is measuring effect or ROI. How do we know if the investment comes back, how do we measure it? And this is just the right question to ask. But it starts with establishing the right objectives. Without objectives, there's nothing to measure against.
The reality often is - as previously described - that the brands haven't clarified for themselves why they want to use music. What is the purpose and what do we want to achieve? See column #3 for more about music strategy.
So before you start whining about the difficulties of measuring ROI, get your success criteria in place, find out what you want to measure and why.
As we saw in the previous column (#4), precious few brands have customer loyalty and even fewer have sales as objectives. There is a lack of commercial focus which really is the place to start. When you have your objectives and success criteria in place, you establish the KPIs and then you start tracking them, just you do with the other marketing activities.
Objectivity
Rights management and measuring effect is stuff you can do something about pretty easily. It's much more difficult with the third barrier.
The third barrier is this nonchalant or random approach to the use of music. An approach deriving from bias and personal opinions within the marketing departments and/or the agencies. In other words: Objectivity is still a scarce resource.
It's as if music is not viewed as a credible, serious and valid strategic brand-building tool: Professionalism is allowed to put its feet up and relax, while decisions on music is taken on the basis of personal points of view and not according to what's appropriate for the brand and the target audience.
But as with any other marketing activity it's necessary to be concscious of the effect that our messages/activities - in this case, the music - will have on the brand as well as understand the target audience's preferences and possible reactions.
We might think to ourselves that we're one kick-ass fabulous music guru, but it's not our knowledge of music that makes us a good music marketing strategist - although some interest in music and music culture obviously helps. What makes someone good at using music strategically for brand-building purposes is the ability to place music in the bigger brand picture in a way that consistently benefits the brand and supports its strategic goals.
In the next column we will focus on the important objectivity and take a closer look at relevance and brand fit, ie the part of a music strategy that deals with values match.
Previous columns:
Music and Branding #1
Music and Branding #2
Music and Branding #3
Music and Branding #4
This column (# 5) was published in issue #13 out Nov 9th, 2010 and focuses on how brands are using music and to what extent they are dedicating the resources to make it a success. Please find links to the first three columns at the bottom.
In the previous column in Markedsføring #12 (column #4 here), we looked at the link between the interest of brands for using music as part of their brand marketing and the resources that they dedicate to it. And found that in fact there isn't much of a link.
Many brands want to use music and think it's important for brand-building but don't invest risk, time, money, hands, skills, or thinking to do it properly, ie in a purposeful, value creating way. In this column we will investigate the reasons for this. What are the barriers?
Rights management
Rights management, in this case intellectual property rights (IPR), is an area of increasing importance and ditto complexity when working commercially with music. Not only is IPR fundamentally complicated, new digital platforms and tools, the fragmentation of sales and distribution channels, and the difference in national legislation increase this complexity.
There really is a lot to be aware of and be buttoned-down about, and we can't blame brands for saying 'No thanks, we'll pass'. After all, commercial use of music is not their core business.
When I was European digital director at Levi's - where music is in an integral part of the brand marketing and a central element in consumer engagement - I had good use of our in-house lawyers who are IPR specialists. But even their insight and my experience from the record business wasn't enough - quite simply because music IPR is so intricate and because new opportunities emerge constantly which the legislation hasn't quite caught up with yet.
Many brands try to manage the IPR stuff themselves or ask the ad agency to do it. But a layman is a layman, and the consequence often is that the brand fails to secure all necessary exploitation rights, and fails to clarify liability. Both can be very costly.
At Levi's we would work with external experts to assess rights costs, formulate and negotiate the deals and manage payment to the various rights societies etc. I strongly recommend doing it this way.
Measuring effect
Another barrier for brands to using music strategically is measuring effect or ROI. How do we know if the investment comes back, how do we measure it? And this is just the right question to ask. But it starts with establishing the right objectives. Without objectives, there's nothing to measure against.
The reality often is - as previously described - that the brands haven't clarified for themselves why they want to use music. What is the purpose and what do we want to achieve? See column #3 for more about music strategy.
So before you start whining about the difficulties of measuring ROI, get your success criteria in place, find out what you want to measure and why.
As we saw in the previous column (#4), precious few brands have customer loyalty and even fewer have sales as objectives. There is a lack of commercial focus which really is the place to start. When you have your objectives and success criteria in place, you establish the KPIs and then you start tracking them, just you do with the other marketing activities.
Objectivity
Rights management and measuring effect is stuff you can do something about pretty easily. It's much more difficult with the third barrier.
The third barrier is this nonchalant or random approach to the use of music. An approach deriving from bias and personal opinions within the marketing departments and/or the agencies. In other words: Objectivity is still a scarce resource.
It's as if music is not viewed as a credible, serious and valid strategic brand-building tool: Professionalism is allowed to put its feet up and relax, while decisions on music is taken on the basis of personal points of view and not according to what's appropriate for the brand and the target audience.
But as with any other marketing activity it's necessary to be concscious of the effect that our messages/activities - in this case, the music - will have on the brand as well as understand the target audience's preferences and possible reactions.
We might think to ourselves that we're one kick-ass fabulous music guru, but it's not our knowledge of music that makes us a good music marketing strategist - although some interest in music and music culture obviously helps. What makes someone good at using music strategically for brand-building purposes is the ability to place music in the bigger brand picture in a way that consistently benefits the brand and supports its strategic goals.
In the next column we will focus on the important objectivity and take a closer look at relevance and brand fit, ie the part of a music strategy that deals with values match.
Previous columns:
Music and Branding #1
Music and Branding #2
Music and Branding #3
Music and Branding #4
Why we 'like' a brand
This report which can be found on PSFK's website looks at why Facebook users choose to 'like' a brand on Facebook. The bad news is that most people do it to get a discount or other price offer, the good news is that just as many do it to show their support for the brand in question.
The last reason people list for 'liking' a brand on Facebook is 'to share ideas, provide feedback'. Interesting, considering Facebook is a social network where people meet to share ideas and provide feedback.
But (still) not in a commercial context, it seems. Or maybe the brands just (still) aren't good enough at using Facebook in a way the benefits both brand and consumers.
The last reason people list for 'liking' a brand on Facebook is 'to share ideas, provide feedback'. Interesting, considering Facebook is a social network where people meet to share ideas and provide feedback.
But (still) not in a commercial context, it seems. Or maybe the brands just (still) aren't good enough at using Facebook in a way the benefits both brand and consumers.
One of the best definitions ever of a great brand
Some 10 years ago or more I came across this way to describe what a great brand is. Scott Bedbury came up with it (wish I had!) and my friend Alan Webber wrote about it in Fast Company:
- A great brand is in it for the long haul.
- A great brand can be anything.
- A great brand knows itself.
- A great brand invents or reinvents an entire category.
- A great brand taps into emotions.
- A great brand is a story that's never completely told.
- A great brand has design consistency.
- A great brand is relevant.
One of the terrific things about Bedbury's 8 rules is that they are void of tactics and executions, like 'A great brand uses social media', 'A great brand focuses on CSR', or 'A great brand has distinct packaging', a tail-wagging-the-dog trap that a lot of folks fall into.
Not that any of these tactics are necessarily wrong, they're just not what you start with. Bedbury stays at exactly the right level of abstraction while being very concrete.
Not that any of these tactics are necessarily wrong, they're just not what you start with. Bedbury stays at exactly the right level of abstraction while being very concrete.
Read the full story here.
Music and Branding #4
This is a translation of the column I'm writing for Danish industry publication Markedsføring (Marketing).
Music and Branding deals with the trinity of brands, bands, and fans. It looks at how brands use (or don't use) music as part of their brand building efforts and how bands collaborate with brands.
This column (no. 4) was published in issue #12 Oct 10th, 2010 and focuses on how brands are using music and to what extent they are dedicating the resources to make it a success. Please find links to the first three columns at the bottom.
In the previous column (issue 11 of the magazine), we concluded that there are almost endless possibilities for brands to use music. To that end, it's critical for those brands, who do use music, to do so in a systematic way that is on-brand and to describe this in precise terms in a music strategy. And we established that brands as a minimum must define their music profile - step 2 on the music staircase (see column 1).
So ein music ding müssen wir auch haben
Music and branding is nothing new. Lots of brands have used music as branding tool for decades, and with great pleasure. The last 10 years the trend has been on a sharp rise due to the 'so ein ding müssen wir auch haben' syndrome ('we need one of those').
The fact is, brands love music just as much as their consumers and think it's really cool.
But how seriously are they taking it? Do they dedicate the thinking, time, resources and boldness? Are they interested in taking a bigger, more strategic step? Or put in another way: Are they putting enough energy into maintaining the love?
Let's turn to a study done in 2008 by the bright folks at Heartbeats International. This study shows that there's a big difference between the importance that brands attach to music and the level of resources they put into it. Let's take a closer look.
Where should the finger be pointing?
In 2008 Heartbeats Intl asked roughly 70 of the biggest B2C brands in the US and Europe: What's your view on music as brand building tool; how relevant is music to your brand; how do you use it; and how will you be using it in the future?' The study shows that:
Because money isn't enough. There has to be people in the organization to manage a music strategy. People with the right skills to carry it out or manage an agency who does it; who are placed close to where the decisions are made; are part of the brand team; and who have music and brand building as part of their job description and KPIs.
So really, where should the finger be pointing when the marketing director states that 'our music strategy has failed, we're getting no ROI, we're dropping it'. That's right, you have to give something to gain something.
Lack of commercial focus
Seemingly forgetting that brands must be prepared for dedicating resources in several ways to the project and over a longer period of time, means that they miss out on the benefits of strategic use of music.
And this might well be the reason why we see so much tactical and short-term oriented use of music.
Thus, it isn't surprising that Heartbeats Intl's study shows that the brands here use music primarily as complementary marcoms element:
The majority use music in TV ads, followed by music on website. On the 3rd place we find music in stores and showrooms, and only on the 4th place we have artist sponsorship/collaboration. Then follow events, radio spots, music products (promo CDs, ring tones) and coming in last is sound logo. It's worth mentioning that sound logo has gained significantly since 2008 but the others are more or less static.
The study also asked the 70 brands in what way music is important. And reveals that the majority (68%) believe that music is important for brand image and differentiation purposes. Only 20% mention customer loyalty and a measly 12% mention sales. Obviously, if there isn't a clear commercial objective with the marketing efforts incl music marketing efforts, then it's pretty darn difficult to advocate.
Altogether we can conclude that there's quite a bit of road to be traveled before we get to a systematic, useful and sustainable approach to using music.
But in many way this is the wonderful thing about it - there is so much potential still in the relationship between brands and music. It just requires awareness and a dedicated effort to be part of it. Or as the Beatles so simply put it in 1969: 'And in the end, the love you take / is equal to the love you make'.
Next time we'll look at some of the concrete barriers that brands experience as fas as working strategically with music is concerned.
Previous columns:
Music and Branding #1
Music and Branding #2
Music and Branding #3
Music and Branding deals with the trinity of brands, bands, and fans. It looks at how brands use (or don't use) music as part of their brand building efforts and how bands collaborate with brands.
This column (no. 4) was published in issue #12 Oct 10th, 2010 and focuses on how brands are using music and to what extent they are dedicating the resources to make it a success. Please find links to the first three columns at the bottom.
In the previous column (issue 11 of the magazine), we concluded that there are almost endless possibilities for brands to use music. To that end, it's critical for those brands, who do use music, to do so in a systematic way that is on-brand and to describe this in precise terms in a music strategy. And we established that brands as a minimum must define their music profile - step 2 on the music staircase (see column 1).
So ein music ding müssen wir auch haben
Music and branding is nothing new. Lots of brands have used music as branding tool for decades, and with great pleasure. The last 10 years the trend has been on a sharp rise due to the 'so ein ding müssen wir auch haben' syndrome ('we need one of those').
The fact is, brands love music just as much as their consumers and think it's really cool.
But how seriously are they taking it? Do they dedicate the thinking, time, resources and boldness? Are they interested in taking a bigger, more strategic step? Or put in another way: Are they putting enough energy into maintaining the love?
Let's turn to a study done in 2008 by the bright folks at Heartbeats International. This study shows that there's a big difference between the importance that brands attach to music and the level of resources they put into it. Let's take a closer look.
Where should the finger be pointing?
In 2008 Heartbeats Intl asked roughly 70 of the biggest B2C brands in the US and Europe: What's your view on music as brand building tool; how relevant is music to your brand; how do you use it; and how will you be using it in the future?' The study shows that:
- 97% believe that music can strengthen their brand
- 76% are actively working with music
- 68% believe that music is important to build a unique and consistent brand, also in future.
- 7 out of 10 brands spend less than 5% of the marketing budget on music
- 4 out of 10 brands have defined a music profile
- 2 out of 10 have a sound logo.
Because money isn't enough. There has to be people in the organization to manage a music strategy. People with the right skills to carry it out or manage an agency who does it; who are placed close to where the decisions are made; are part of the brand team; and who have music and brand building as part of their job description and KPIs.
So really, where should the finger be pointing when the marketing director states that 'our music strategy has failed, we're getting no ROI, we're dropping it'. That's right, you have to give something to gain something.
Lack of commercial focus
Seemingly forgetting that brands must be prepared for dedicating resources in several ways to the project and over a longer period of time, means that they miss out on the benefits of strategic use of music.
And this might well be the reason why we see so much tactical and short-term oriented use of music.
Thus, it isn't surprising that Heartbeats Intl's study shows that the brands here use music primarily as complementary marcoms element:
The majority use music in TV ads, followed by music on website. On the 3rd place we find music in stores and showrooms, and only on the 4th place we have artist sponsorship/collaboration. Then follow events, radio spots, music products (promo CDs, ring tones) and coming in last is sound logo. It's worth mentioning that sound logo has gained significantly since 2008 but the others are more or less static.
The study also asked the 70 brands in what way music is important. And reveals that the majority (68%) believe that music is important for brand image and differentiation purposes. Only 20% mention customer loyalty and a measly 12% mention sales. Obviously, if there isn't a clear commercial objective with the marketing efforts incl music marketing efforts, then it's pretty darn difficult to advocate.
Altogether we can conclude that there's quite a bit of road to be traveled before we get to a systematic, useful and sustainable approach to using music.
But in many way this is the wonderful thing about it - there is so much potential still in the relationship between brands and music. It just requires awareness and a dedicated effort to be part of it. Or as the Beatles so simply put it in 1969: 'And in the end, the love you take / is equal to the love you make'.
Next time we'll look at some of the concrete barriers that brands experience as fas as working strategically with music is concerned.
Previous columns:
Music and Branding #1
Music and Branding #2
Music and Branding #3
Good brands
"Being a genuinely good brand in 2010 takes more than a widely used product and an ubiquitous global presence. Though there is no precise formula, what the ten good brands on our list have in common is a penchant for imagination, innovation, environmental responsibility and social consciousness".
So says PSFK's new Good Brands Report 2010 which apart from listing their top 10 brands, provides 10 key learnings about what helped these brands obtain a place on the list. Highly recommended reading.
So says PSFK's new Good Brands Report 2010 which apart from listing their top 10 brands, provides 10 key learnings about what helped these brands obtain a place on the list. Highly recommended reading.
Music and Branding #3
This is a translation of the column I'm writing for Danish industry publication Markedsføring (Marketing).
Music and Branding deals with the trinity of brands, bands, and fans. It looks at how brands use (or don't use) music as part of their brand management and marketing efforts and how bands collaborate with brands.
This column (no. 3) was published in issue #11 Sept 28th, 2010 and focuses on the importance of having a clear purpose for the use of music as part of the overall brand framework and a strategy for fulfilling that purpose (column no. 1 and 2 is here and here).
In the previous column (issue 9 of the magazine) we looked at how music influences our emotions and physical well-being as well as encourages social interaction. We established that music provides a variety of options for strengthening the emotional relationship between brand and consumer. And we concluded that this is the reason why brand managers must decide and define the role - big or small - that music should be playing within the overall brand strategy.
Eliminate the danger of too many options
Music is both media and content. Music delivers the broadest array of touch points than any other entertainment category and is hands down the most-consumed category across the board. So the opportunities for both reach and engagement are almost countless.
Exactly this fragmentation increases the risk of grasping at these opportunities arbitrarily. The best case scenario of which is an incoherent experience. This way, we obviously don't leverage the potential of music to build the emotional bond to the consumer, nor to deliver ROI.
So in order to achieve the desired return, we need to take a more considered approach. Just like we have a portfolio strategy, product strategy, distribution strategy, pricing strategy, marcoms strategy etc as parts of the overall brand strategy, we need to define the music strategy. And how do we do that - what is a music strategy?
Music strategy 101
The elements of a music strategy are the same elements as in any other strategy:
It's about relevance, not what we personally like
As you can see we do not start by saying 'What kinda music do I like'. Neither with musical genres although most people intuitively start there by saying that the brand is 'jazzy', 'hiphop-y' or 'rock-ish'.
Brands are not defined this way, rather by values like 'safe', 'modern' or 'edgy'. Hence, the brand values are usually best expressed across genres. Danish fashion label Noir are consciously using classical as well as German 70s soul in their shows.
The values match is essential for a music strategy but it's only one out of a number of key components and must never be defined on the basis of personal preferences.
Start with the music profile
We cannot and should not all be Starbucks, Apple or Levi's who have invested many years and $$ in their music association. A practical place to start is by establishing a music profile (step 2 on the music staircase, see column 1).
When we have that in place, we have the creative framework for all subsequent activities and media in which music will be used.
A music profile is the sound dimension of the brand, just like a graphic profile (aka visual identity) is the visual dimension. A music profile defines the unique tone of the brand and is used in all touch points where sound plays a role, eg TV/radio/online ads, stores, showrooms, website, presentations, and IVR/waiting tune.
In addition, a music profile defines each component of the total profile (eg sound logo, 'tag music', riffs or other specifics parts/fragments, number and types of music pieces, sound scape), the hierarchy between these components, and where the profile and each component is to be used and not used.
There's plenty reason to spend some time defining the brand's music profile - remember that brands with music that matches their identity boast 96% higher recall rates than brands with mismatching or no music.
In the next column we will look at the state of the nation as far as brands' use of music as brand building tool is concerned, and their dedication to making it a success. No doubt, brands love music as much as consumers. But are they dedicating enough energy to make the love grow?
Previous columns:
Column #1
Column #2
Music and Branding deals with the trinity of brands, bands, and fans. It looks at how brands use (or don't use) music as part of their brand management and marketing efforts and how bands collaborate with brands.
This column (no. 3) was published in issue #11 Sept 28th, 2010 and focuses on the importance of having a clear purpose for the use of music as part of the overall brand framework and a strategy for fulfilling that purpose (column no. 1 and 2 is here and here).
In the previous column (issue 9 of the magazine) we looked at how music influences our emotions and physical well-being as well as encourages social interaction. We established that music provides a variety of options for strengthening the emotional relationship between brand and consumer. And we concluded that this is the reason why brand managers must decide and define the role - big or small - that music should be playing within the overall brand strategy.
Eliminate the danger of too many options
Music is both media and content. Music delivers the broadest array of touch points than any other entertainment category and is hands down the most-consumed category across the board. So the opportunities for both reach and engagement are almost countless.
Exactly this fragmentation increases the risk of grasping at these opportunities arbitrarily. The best case scenario of which is an incoherent experience. This way, we obviously don't leverage the potential of music to build the emotional bond to the consumer, nor to deliver ROI.
So in order to achieve the desired return, we need to take a more considered approach. Just like we have a portfolio strategy, product strategy, distribution strategy, pricing strategy, marcoms strategy etc as parts of the overall brand strategy, we need to define the music strategy. And how do we do that - what is a music strategy?
Music strategy 101
The elements of a music strategy are the same elements as in any other strategy:
It's about relevance, not what we personally like
As you can see we do not start by saying 'What kinda music do I like'. Neither with musical genres although most people intuitively start there by saying that the brand is 'jazzy', 'hiphop-y' or 'rock-ish'.
Brands are not defined this way, rather by values like 'safe', 'modern' or 'edgy'. Hence, the brand values are usually best expressed across genres. Danish fashion label Noir are consciously using classical as well as German 70s soul in their shows.
The values match is essential for a music strategy but it's only one out of a number of key components and must never be defined on the basis of personal preferences.
Start with the music profile
We cannot and should not all be Starbucks, Apple or Levi's who have invested many years and $$ in their music association. A practical place to start is by establishing a music profile (step 2 on the music staircase, see column 1).
When we have that in place, we have the creative framework for all subsequent activities and media in which music will be used.
A music profile is the sound dimension of the brand, just like a graphic profile (aka visual identity) is the visual dimension. A music profile defines the unique tone of the brand and is used in all touch points where sound plays a role, eg TV/radio/online ads, stores, showrooms, website, presentations, and IVR/waiting tune.
In addition, a music profile defines each component of the total profile (eg sound logo, 'tag music', riffs or other specifics parts/fragments, number and types of music pieces, sound scape), the hierarchy between these components, and where the profile and each component is to be used and not used.
There's plenty reason to spend some time defining the brand's music profile - remember that brands with music that matches their identity boast 96% higher recall rates than brands with mismatching or no music.
In the next column we will look at the state of the nation as far as brands' use of music as brand building tool is concerned, and their dedication to making it a success. No doubt, brands love music as much as consumers. But are they dedicating enough energy to make the love grow?
Previous columns:
Column #1
Column #2
How to sell more bread - letter to my bakery
This is an email I recently sent to one the bakeries where I buy my bread. 'Lagkagehuset' is an excellent bakery chain in Copenhagen who has become very successful with their baked goods and retail concept.
But a crucial component is missing which not only annoys me every time I go there but also would help them sell even more:
Dear Lagkagehuset,
I love good bread, therefore I buy a lot of it at your bakery. I also love to know what's in the bread - after all, it's the ingredients that determine which bread(s) I buy.
Unfortunately there is no information in your stores or on your website about this. So I have to ask the shop assistant every time. They don't always know what's in the various breads, it takes time to ask and (perhaps) get answers, and this just makes the queue behind me even longer.
Thus, I often don't ask - I hate to waste the other customers' time - and the result is that I sometimes come home with a 'wrong' bread because I've just chosen the nearest one. This is a great annoyance. Most likely I'm not the only one who's experiencing this.
So here's a few ideas on how to solve that issue, using your greatest asset and your two primary customer touch points:
Kind regards,
Helene Venge
But a crucial component is missing which not only annoys me every time I go there but also would help them sell even more:
Dear Lagkagehuset,
I love good bread, therefore I buy a lot of it at your bakery. I also love to know what's in the bread - after all, it's the ingredients that determine which bread(s) I buy.
Unfortunately there is no information in your stores or on your website about this. So I have to ask the shop assistant every time. They don't always know what's in the various breads, it takes time to ask and (perhaps) get answers, and this just makes the queue behind me even longer.
Thus, I often don't ask - I hate to waste the other customers' time - and the result is that I sometimes come home with a 'wrong' bread because I've just chosen the nearest one. This is a great annoyance. Most likely I'm not the only one who's experiencing this.
So here's a few ideas on how to solve that issue, using your greatest asset and your two primary customer touch points:
- Talk about the bread on your website - tell us about them, what's in them, why, and what makes each of them special. You'll delight your customers, and you'll also create more interest.
- Same thing goes for your stores. Use them to tell us about what you're selling. Don't put up tiny little signs at each type of bread - the customers can't see what's written anyway. But you could develop small hand-outs, like set cards, about the breads which the customers can read in the store and/or bring home. Use them as bagstuffers, too. Customers will happily put it on their fridge at home if it's handy, stylish, and interesting enough and voila - instant in-home advertising 24/7.
- You could also consider large nicely framed posters in the stores that introduces each bread. Put on the right wall in the customer area where everyone can see it, it'll not only look good, it'll make for interesting reading and passing of the time as customers wait for their turn. Need I mention, they'll be prone to buy more and be happier with their purchase.
Kind regards,
Helene Venge
It's what we do that makes the difference
We are what we repeatedly do (Aristotle). In other words, if you want to be something else, do something else. Yes, this also goes for companies and brands. If your customers are experiencing your company in ways you are not happy with, you have to change your company's behaviour.
It's the mindset, not the media
A friend of mine told me the other day of a roundtable he'd been in with a number of the biggest companies in Denmark to discuss business issues. He told me that one of the most prevalent issues among these companies was: What do we do with social and digital media?
In this post, I will put forward my humble take on the issue, based on my experience working with business and brand strategies over the years including the elusive answer to the above mentioned question. The thing is, the question is actually wrong. It's not a matter of media but of mindset. Let me explain.
Why are we still discussing this?
You see, I was surprised by the prevalence of the issue. And then again not. Surprised because we discussed the issue already back in 2005 and surely we are pretty clear by now, aren't we?
Not surprised because indeed big companies are built by complex structures that complicate the strategic utilization of social and digital media and all other activities that are two-way between company and consumers. I know this from having been in several large corporations, including one of the Danish companies participating in the roundtable.
The very same day I came across this recent TED talk which concludes that:
But then I need to remember the 1st point. Or as John Lennon put it: 'Life is what happens when you're busy making other plans'.
He wasn't talking about business but often this applies to corporations, too. So busy planning their business that they lose sight of what's happening and they find themselves being distanced from real life, their consumers' life that is.
And this is probably part of the reason why social and digital media is still an unsolved mystery for many of them and why they're uncertain and unsettled about embracing it. And why, unfortunately, many are downright scared of opening up to their consumers, thinking of the risk of quick dethroning - the 2nd point. Well, we only have to fear it if we've got secrets to hide.
I went back into the annals and dug out a conference talk I did in, that's right, 2005 - excuse me one second while I dust it off, achoo.
It was an IPA conference in London, and as European Digital Director at Levi's I was asked to talk about how we used digital media to build the brand and cut through the clutter. I ended up talking about how to harness your consumers' engagement in the brand - or distributing brand energy as the TED talk would call it.
Let me re-state a few key points from the talk which I believe hold true today and maybe, hopefully, they can be useful to you.
1) The way we talk about it shapes our perception and thus our reality
When I prepared my talk back then, I was puzzled by the language that the conference programme was using. It talked about:
That's problem no. 1 right there. It's not a 'we vs. them'. It's not a fight. But if you keep putting on those glasses, that's what you'll see.
2) If the mountain won't come to Moses...
Companies exist to fulfill a consumer need. Consumers pay companies to fulfill it. Herein lies the symbiotic relationship. Interestingly, there's a number of opposing forces within this relationship that makes it difficult for companies and consumers to get along, summed up in the brand paradox:
As responsible managers we align with company policies, governance, processes, and planning cycles because they are there so that the company can operate. It's just that consumers don't really give a hoot about this and why should they. And because they now have a voice, or rather a lot of voices, we need to also align with their way of doing things. Indeed, Moses needs to come to the mountain.
3) Social and digital media are means, not an end
It's not about using social or digital media or not. It's about whether your company is willing and able to open up to its consumers. A Twitter stream does not make a company more open or cool (or social or digital). Saying 'We believe we can learn from our consumers and we want to thank them for buying our products and show them respect by being transparent and honest in everything we do' and behaving accordingly does.
Once you've decided that you're ready to do this, are clear on the purpose and what you aim to achieve, understand the implications, and have a strategy for doing it - then you can start defining the tactics. Among these tactics may be social and digital media, but they are not the strategy and should not define your objectives. Be very careful of the tail wagging the dog.
4) Join up and align the touch points
Social and digital media enable a faster and more efficient roll-out of your strategy towards more openness and of building that deeper relationship with your consumers.
But by all means, don't think that openness and a deeper relationship means 'Let's have that creative young fellow in the digital marketing dept create a Facebook page for us, and maybe a Twitter stream and then he can write some stuff when we launch the next product'.
Don't forget that 'the new openness' must also manifest itself in internal communication and information-sharing and similarly in all external contact points. You can tweet all you want but if your customer has a bad experience with a sales rep, it doesn't really help.
The internal information flow must be constant, efficient, and substantial so the left hand knows what the right hand is doing: Customer service, sales/retail, product quality, legal, marketing, research, and so on, they all need to have the same (detailed level of) information about the happenings in the company and about the consumer in order to support the openness objective.
5) It isn't easy but the returns can be great
Don't worry, be happy. See social and digital media as a blessing. Understand that social and digital media allow your consumers to engage with your brand and your company in ways that were impossible before. Think of it this way:
6) Learn from the learnings
As a final note, a few Do's and Dont's and remember that the democratization of media is here to stay, so you might as well get used to it, with all its challenges and opportunities:
In this post, I will put forward my humble take on the issue, based on my experience working with business and brand strategies over the years including the elusive answer to the above mentioned question. The thing is, the question is actually wrong. It's not a matter of media but of mindset. Let me explain.
Why are we still discussing this?
You see, I was surprised by the prevalence of the issue. And then again not. Surprised because we discussed the issue already back in 2005 and surely we are pretty clear by now, aren't we?
Not surprised because indeed big companies are built by complex structures that complicate the strategic utilization of social and digital media and all other activities that are two-way between company and consumers. I know this from having been in several large corporations, including one of the Danish companies participating in the roundtable.
The very same day I came across this recent TED talk which concludes that:
- The bigger the corporation/brand the more force is required to change it (think Titanic),
- While it takes time to build a brand, it can be quickly dethroned (think BP),
- While many marketeers lie sleepless at night at the thought of consumers gaining control of the brand, the (for marketeers entropic) brand energy that consumers create is actually a good thing (think Lego).
But then I need to remember the 1st point. Or as John Lennon put it: 'Life is what happens when you're busy making other plans'.
He wasn't talking about business but often this applies to corporations, too. So busy planning their business that they lose sight of what's happening and they find themselves being distanced from real life, their consumers' life that is.
And this is probably part of the reason why social and digital media is still an unsolved mystery for many of them and why they're uncertain and unsettled about embracing it. And why, unfortunately, many are downright scared of opening up to their consumers, thinking of the risk of quick dethroning - the 2nd point. Well, we only have to fear it if we've got secrets to hide.
I went back into the annals and dug out a conference talk I did in, that's right, 2005 - excuse me one second while I dust it off, achoo.
It was an IPA conference in London, and as European Digital Director at Levi's I was asked to talk about how we used digital media to build the brand and cut through the clutter. I ended up talking about how to harness your consumers' engagement in the brand - or distributing brand energy as the TED talk would call it.
Let me re-state a few key points from the talk which I believe hold true today and maybe, hopefully, they can be useful to you.
1) The way we talk about it shapes our perception and thus our reality
When I prepared my talk back then, I was puzzled by the language that the conference programme was using. It talked about:
“Advertising is on its deathbed and will not survive for long”
“A fatal case of new technology”
“Confronting the challenge”
“As the reality of opt-in sets in”What is this, the emergency room? Or are we at war? Are we all about to die? Should we pull out the first aid kit? What's going on? Clearly, digital and social media was seen as a curse, something to fight so that 'we' could survive.
That's problem no. 1 right there. It's not a 'we vs. them'. It's not a fight. But if you keep putting on those glasses, that's what you'll see.
2) If the mountain won't come to Moses...
Companies exist to fulfill a consumer need. Consumers pay companies to fulfill it. Herein lies the symbiotic relationship. Interestingly, there's a number of opposing forces within this relationship that makes it difficult for companies and consumers to get along, summed up in the brand paradox:
3) Social and digital media are means, not an end
It's not about using social or digital media or not. It's about whether your company is willing and able to open up to its consumers. A Twitter stream does not make a company more open or cool (or social or digital). Saying 'We believe we can learn from our consumers and we want to thank them for buying our products and show them respect by being transparent and honest in everything we do' and behaving accordingly does.
Once you've decided that you're ready to do this, are clear on the purpose and what you aim to achieve, understand the implications, and have a strategy for doing it - then you can start defining the tactics. Among these tactics may be social and digital media, but they are not the strategy and should not define your objectives. Be very careful of the tail wagging the dog.
4) Join up and align the touch points
Social and digital media enable a faster and more efficient roll-out of your strategy towards more openness and of building that deeper relationship with your consumers.
But by all means, don't think that openness and a deeper relationship means 'Let's have that creative young fellow in the digital marketing dept create a Facebook page for us, and maybe a Twitter stream and then he can write some stuff when we launch the next product'.
Don't forget that 'the new openness' must also manifest itself in internal communication and information-sharing and similarly in all external contact points. You can tweet all you want but if your customer has a bad experience with a sales rep, it doesn't really help.
The internal information flow must be constant, efficient, and substantial so the left hand knows what the right hand is doing: Customer service, sales/retail, product quality, legal, marketing, research, and so on, they all need to have the same (detailed level of) information about the happenings in the company and about the consumer in order to support the openness objective.
5) It isn't easy but the returns can be great
Don't worry, be happy. See social and digital media as a blessing. Understand that social and digital media allow your consumers to engage with your brand and your company in ways that were impossible before. Think of it this way:
As consumers take (more) control, we can create meaningful collaborations with them on both parties’ terms. If meaningful enough for them, they will do the marketing for you.There will be lots of comments out there that you won't like and that you feel are huge misunderstandings, but see them as a reflection of your company's behavior and adjust so your consumers experience you the way you intend.
6) Learn from the learnings
As a final note, a few Do's and Dont's and remember that the democratization of media is here to stay, so you might as well get used to it, with all its challenges and opportunities:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
