I came across this post on the Zeus Jones blog the other day, in which the author, Adrian, draws a parallel between his experience of daily life in Minnesota and our experience of brands. It got me thinking about the importance of the brand experience as the bedrock for a strong brand. Is it enough, I wonder, to make people feel good about interacting with a brand, rather than making them think good things about it? Or do you need to do both?
Adrian opens by comparing the quality of life he now experiences in Minnesota with what he’d previously experienced in major cities like London and Los Angeles. In big cities, he’d learned to value the special moments, such as those experienced in theaters, night clubs, and museums. For Adrian, Minnesota under-delivers on those moments, but, in comparison to the big cities, over-delivers on all the moments in between, which actually make up the vast majority of his daily life. So he now finds that 85 to 90 percent of his life is better than it was in the big cities.
He goes on to suggest that a similar shift in perspective might apply to marketing:
I think we’ve typically thought about marketing as the creation of moments - communications, events, spectacles, launches, etc. Similarly, I think these moments make up only a very small part of the view customers have of a brand. Instead the vast majority of what informs a person’s view of a brand is the day in, day out usage of the product/service.
So our focus as marketers is on the minority of moments under our control while the consumer’s focus is on the majority of the time spent with the brand. Adrian supports his case with a delightfully simple pie chart which shows one 15 percent segment labeled “marketing,” and the remainder labeled “usage.” The work we have done studying brands supports Adrian’s case. From D&A™ and similar work, we have found that experience of the brand is the dominating factor behind brand loyalty.
But the problem with Adrian’s pie chart is that it implies that 100 percent of someone’s time is devoted to a brand. The proportion between usage and marketing may be correct with regard to the time they do spend with the brand, but what about all the time spent elsewhere?
Most brands have in-between moments too, and marketing communication serves to help people remember the high points, by focusing attention on what is good about the brand experience and steering attention away from its less appealing aspects.
In my post “Rehearsing reality,” I tried to summarize the important interaction between communication and experience as follows:
Advertising can cause people to anticipate (or remember) what it is like to use a brand, and the reality of the experience – shaped by the advertising depiction - will determine their lasting impression of it.
So while I believe that Adrian is correct that we often overvalue communication, we must also be careful not to undervalue it. After all, consumers buy into what a brand stands for as well as what it does for them.
Of course, maybe my viewpoint is self-serving. There is no denying that actions speak louder than words, but as a blogger I have to believe that words have importance too! So what do you think? Do we overvalue marketing versus experience? And is this even a worthwhile distinction to make? Don’t we experience a brand through all touch points, controlled and uncontrolled? Please share your thoughts.
(2 votes, average: 4 out of 5)
Loading ...
March 28th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Nigel
Adrian’s post has been one of my favourite new thinking on how much more brands have to do than highlight their positives experiences.
This post in German amplifies this view more than ever
http://pundo3000.com/werbunggegenrealitaet3000.htm
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:00 am
Hi Nigel,
I really enjoy your Blog! Thank you for sharing your thoughts and insight with us!
From the perspective of impressions, I feel brand messages that are built before a person experiences the brand are most important. First impressions are lasting ones. Words and thoughts are so powerful they lead us to experience, they call out to us!
The actual experience is the reinforcement, the glue which can lead to long term brand loyalty. Just the idea alone of a brand like Coca Cola, you can see the red of the can, the fizz, and the bubbles without having tasted it. Gerber is an even better example because though I don’t eat it! I can remember the giggle and the smile of the baby.
What can be argued here is, do brands live up to the messages they send? Are they actually what they portray? And what is most important to the brand, being the best or saying “we are the best”. My brand, we are the best then we show you why! Through our example we show you how! That is the power of brands!
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:06 am
Hi Tiffany, thanks for the feedback and the comment.
Great examples and I think you hit the nail on the head. A product experience which meets, preferably exceeds, the promises formed by initial contact (whether that is marketer-controlled communications or not) will confirm the intial impressions and predisposition toward that brand. It is a virtuous circle.
All the best, Nigel
April 5th, 2008 at 12:13 am
Hi Nigel,
I feel the contribution of brand experience is dependent on the category.
In case of services like telecom, banking etc. you find an increasing contribution of interaction at various touch points, while choice of FMCG brands is becoming more advertising led, due to the surfeit of choices and declining product differentiation.
Thinking through the entire array of touchpoints as potential communication opportunities & aligning them with the central mass communication thought could work for service brands.
April 11th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Good question: Is it enough, I wonder, to make people feel good about interacting with a brand, rather than making them think good things about it? Or do you need to do both?
There seems to be a good deal being talked about in terms of experience design for brands.
But what guides the experience design?
Clarity around brand promises ought to inform the kinds of creative experiences we construct for a customer. Just as clarity around brand promises ought to inform marketplace messaging.
It is as you say above, “a virtuous circle.”
Keep creating…a message worth repeating,
Mike
April 11th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Good point, Mike, the guiding principle ought to be the same, otherwise it will merely confuse peoples aprreciation of what the brand stands for. Thanks, Nigel
April 15th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Its been well over a decade ago that I stopped looking at brand from a messaging perspective and shifted to a holistic view where I defined brand as:
The sum of all perceptions resulting from every point of contact consumers, employees and the public, have directly or indirectly with a company, product or service over time.
It surprise me to see that marketers are still talking about telling consumers what a product or service stands for then hoping that the product or service delivers on that message. Its almost as if they have been asleep for the last decade. Clearly marketing and messaging contribute as touch points but to suggest that they are the single most important component seems naive at best.