Comments on: Let’s get engaged http://www.mb-blog.com/index.php/2006/03/21/lets-get-engaged/ A blog and forum by Nigel Hollis Thu, 09 Sep 2010 08:13:13 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Nigel http://www.mb-blog.com/index.php/2006/03/21/lets-get-engaged/#comment-21 Nigel Fri, 24 Mar 2006 14:07:21 +0000 http://198.178.239.196/index.php/2006/03/21/lets-get-engaged/#comment-21 It seems that this post struck a chord, thanks for the comments everyone. To Trevor's point, about engagement being part of a strategy to build long-term brand value, I am reminded of a conversation with an executive at a major packaged goods client recently. She said, "everything we do is designed to drive short-term sales", and yet her company has some of the most valuable brands out there. Her point that marketing activities should work in the short-term as well as the long-term is valid. We cannot make an artificial judgement of what is meant to work when. If a marketing activity is to be effective it should evoke a positive response from people ready to buy now. The distinction is then becomes how the activity effects people not ready to buy the category. If the activity is a price cut its impact will be transitory. If the activity is an engaging event that creates a positive disposition toward the brand then it is likely to have a long-term impact as well. It seems that this post struck a chord, thanks for the comments everyone.
To Trevor’s point, about engagement being part of a strategy to build long-term brand value, I am reminded of a conversation with an executive at a major packaged goods client recently. She said, “everything we do is designed to drive short-term sales”, and yet her company has some of the most valuable brands out there. Her point that marketing activities should work in the short-term as well as the long-term is valid. We cannot make an artificial judgement of what is meant to work when.

If a marketing activity is to be effective it should evoke a positive response from people ready to buy now. The distinction is then becomes how the activity effects people not ready to buy the category. If the activity is a price cut its impact will be transitory. If the activity is an engaging event that creates a positive disposition toward the brand then it is likely to have a long-term impact as well.

]]> By: Brian Jacobs http://www.mb-blog.com/index.php/2006/03/21/lets-get-engaged/#comment-19 Brian Jacobs Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:57:34 +0000 http://198.178.239.196/index.php/2006/03/21/lets-get-engaged/#comment-19 i'm with Maddie on this. there seems to be a view that a metric will solve everything. it won't - what's needed is a change in mindset, an understanding of consumer needs from marketers. meanwhile it would be a good start if the US media industry caught up with the rest of the world and provided ratings by commercial rather than by programmes. if you have minute-by-minute exposure data you can hypothesise (as the current ad age interview does) that a lack of channel switching implies attention and engagement. of course it could also imply that the viewer is asleep, or so drunk that they're trying to change the channel by pressing the dog, but then that's a whole other story! i’m with Maddie on this. there seems to be a view that a metric will solve everything. it won’t - what’s needed is a change in mindset, an understanding of consumer needs from marketers. meanwhile it would be a good start if the US media industry caught up with the rest of the world and provided ratings by commercial rather than by programmes. if you have minute-by-minute exposure data you can hypothesise (as the current ad age interview does) that a lack of channel switching implies attention and engagement. of course it could also imply that the viewer is asleep, or so drunk that they’re trying to change the channel by pressing the dog, but then that’s a whole other story!

]]> By: Philip Herr http://www.mb-blog.com/index.php/2006/03/21/lets-get-engaged/#comment-12 Philip Herr Wed, 22 Mar 2006 21:51:59 +0000 http://198.178.239.196/index.php/2006/03/21/lets-get-engaged/#comment-12 It seems as if brands that have successfully embraced the consumer -- fully engaged them -- have eschewed mass advertising. Pabst BR, Starbucks, and for the earliest period before they went with outdoor so well -- Mini Cars. This suggests to me that marketers need to equivilant of "boot camp" where their old ideas are totally broken down and new ideas are infused. Can marketers make the transition and step entirely away -- if only for a while -- from the tried and true, long enough to embrace brand engagement? We could call it "naked marketing". It seems as if brands that have successfully embraced the consumer — fully engaged them — have eschewed mass advertising. Pabst BR, Starbucks, and for the earliest period before they went with outdoor so well – Mini Cars. This suggests to me that marketers need to equivilant of “boot camp” where their old ideas are totally broken down and new ideas are infused. Can marketers make the transition and step entirely away — if only for a while — from the tried and true, long enough to embrace brand engagement? We could call it “naked marketing”.

]]> By: Trevor Godman http://www.mb-blog.com/index.php/2006/03/21/lets-get-engaged/#comment-11 Trevor Godman Wed, 22 Mar 2006 18:08:31 +0000 http://198.178.239.196/index.php/2006/03/21/lets-get-engaged/#comment-11 Isn't this just a new form of the old sales versus marketing debate, but in a slightly different forum? If you take the view that marketing should really be aiming to build long term brand value, then engagement becomes more obviously part of the strategy. The good thing for researchers is that building engagement means understanding more about consumer's, their needs, priorities and motivations. So it needs research. And measuring long term brand value means looking at something other than simple sales data as well. This needs research and consultancy as well. So I hope the engagement proponents win for 3 reasons: 1. Because it should mean there's still work for me to do. 2. Because I am philosophically on-side. 3. But mainly because I should be better served as a consumer. Isn’t this just a new form of the old sales versus marketing debate, but in a slightly different forum?

If you take the view that marketing should really be aiming to build long term brand value, then engagement becomes more obviously part of the strategy.

The good thing for researchers is that building engagement means understanding more about consumer’s, their needs, priorities and motivations. So it needs research. And measuring long term brand value means looking at something other than simple sales data as well. This needs research and consultancy as well.

So I hope the engagement proponents win for 3 reasons:

1. Because it should mean there’s still work for me to do.
2. Because I am philosophically on-side.
3. But mainly because I should be better served as a consumer.

]]>