Is Your Brand A Leader in the 1% Club?
Posted by heatherrast on November 5th, 2008Everything Has It’s Own Purpose
When I think about 1%, or 2% for that matter, the top-of-mind association is milk. While I don’t care for milk personally, my family consumes about 1/4 of the daily General Mills cereal production. Some are soakers (let cereal and milk stand until achieving a soggy Lazy Acres Senior Community type consistency-bleh!), and some are crispers (just enough milk to wet the cereal), and to that end we have the Whole. We have the Skim. We have the Chocolate. And no, we can’t just go with Whole (no matter what that might mean in terms of grocery shopping efficiencies and resource management). It really isn’t all-purpose. It just isn’t appropriate for all of our cereal consumption needs.
Tying the concept of “all-purpose” (one size fits all) with a classic post from the Church of the Customer blog is something I’m mentally wrestling with right now. A germ of an idea, I immediately see two applications:
- All-purpose, traditional marketing strategies deployed with a presumption of interest and relevancy on behalf of the consumer audience (the shotgun effect to a relatively captive audience).
- All-purpose, organizational roles where innovative thinking isn’t explored or leveraged, due to a failure to understand (and maybe a fear) how that type of approach might fit within standardized schema.
I’ll stick to item #1 for this post. I’m long-winded as it is, no reason to go on a rant and swarm you.
Good For Everything
The “All-Purpose” marketing approach rests on the premise that the message originates with the brand (the in-house team, the agency, some variable). After rounds of options and decision-making, a campaign may get crafted around a message the brand wants to push out (I refuse to get sidetracked by pointing out that the final creative and messaging likely result from subjective preferences by the senior stakeholders of said brand and not based on primary research findings, as recommended by their agency. We already know that if the Big Guy likes blue, its gonna be blue).
So these messages get pushed out through campaign venues like TV, radio, print, and direct mail. Tactics might even get a little crazy and include an email or e-letter to a database segment. A Facebook app might get thrown in, something everyone is wide-eyed and excited about. Wowzers, now we’re makin’ advancements.
And by sheer mass, or inertia, or laws of statistics (maybe all?) there could be some activity on the sales front. Maybe even a competitive response of some type. Gratuitous self-promotion press releases ensue, backs are slapped. Just don’t ask anyone what the return is or if the campaign was perceived as genuine. Whether there was a measurable effect.
I Beg Your Difference
This “All Purpose” approach is faulty on many levels. It’s antiquated in execution. It perpetuates a methodology that can’t carry ROI water (and in these economic climes, that’s critical). It inherently lacks accountability measures. It’s disjointed, trend-seeking and authentically shallow.
But worst of all, the brand’s most egregious strategic error is that its plan was not consumer-centered.
For a brand to strongly appeal to consumers, a deep-seated understanding of their interests, needs, applications, and use cases is imperative. Only then can products be designed to deliver ease of use (efficiency increases, productivity shifts, etc.). Folding consumer data into a positioning and messaging methodology ensures opportunity for a meaningful connection. By then matching a product (solution) with a receptive consumer base, only then can a brand resonate in the minds of its consumers. By then it’s earned the position.
Do It Your Way
But yeah, you could continue down the same comfortable path, with the same well-established roles and practices. Throw in something hip every now and again when there’s pressure to be like the Other Brand. You might even move some product, won’t that validate everyone. For awhile.
Or Do It The 1% Way
Alternatively, you could examine data and accept that your current efforts are not performing. That you’re losing some share or public sentiment. This is not a path you can continue to travel, lest your brand become obsolete.
You can instead make a conscious commitment to get in touch with your consumers and targets, and find out what really matters. How you’re perceived and what they want from you. What isn’t working.
And you can go back to the drawing board, and with the help of some smart problem-solvers on your team, think about how to reach your consumers in an emotionally compelling way.
Now that’s an elite 1% club capable of a cult following. Or at least significant sales success.
Tags: 1%, Brand Promise, Consumer Connections, evangelists, Marketing Strategy, Mavericks
Consumer-centric is so critical – and yet so hard for so many companies. I’m wrapping up a consumer research study for a client, then taking it into marketing strategy. It’s clear to me what needs to change to more effectively position the product, and it’s also clear that it’s going to be hard to get my client to make the needed changes – even with the research. We’ll take a baby step forward, then drift back into the way it’s always been done – then do it all over again in two years. Sigh.
Reply
Twitter: heatherrast
Argh. I struggle with that line of thinking. In my opinion, brands that don’t build themselves around the changing atmosphere of consumer needs and interests are effectively shouting “You don’t matter!” to them. How can there be any reasonable aspirations for loyalty and stewardship, much less evangelism, then? Consumers sense the products don’t wholly suit them; when there’s a gap like that it essentially inhibits movement from “I might buy that again” to “I always buy that.” And in times when price/value evaluations and commoditization is a given, how can any brand afford to take a presumptuous stance?
Rant over (sorry!).
Reply
Twitter: heatherrast
Second time I’m adding a comment to my own blog w/o actually responding to someone else’s comment. But I think it’s worth mentioning (I’ll try to make a post later)—
Gary Vaynerchuk of Wine TV fame is an example I’d like to suggest fits well here:: http://garyvaynerchuk.com/2008/11/04/giving-a-presentation-vs-working-the-room/
Gary’s approach is to cultivate consumer interest in his products, albeit in a passionate, focused way. He’s direct, he’s exuberant, and he pulls no punches. This style may not be appropriate for all brands, but there’s a lesson to be learned from his ability to energize people. I think that places him in the 1% because that’s a feat most can’t achieve.
Reply
Heather, you nailed it. I think the issue is most companies, no matter how large or small, aim to hit multiple targets with a shotgun instead of hitting small targets, one by one, with an arrow. Spray and pray has never been a good marketing habit…and yet, it happens all the time. (My we sound like a violent lot with these analogies!).
Gary is a perfect of example of what to do right! It can be any product or service as long as you are passionate. Gary’s use of social media has also enhanced his marketing efforts (via his panel at the recent MarketingProfs Digital Marketing Mixer).
Here’s the thing…companies no longer own their brand and they need to wake up and realize that. Once they do and let go of their control over their brand (which, they also don’t have) they can better interact with consumers and deal with them in the 1% way.
Great post, Heather!
Reply