Last week, my first impression of someone caused me to misjudge him. My initial belief about who he was and what motivated him was completely wrong. If circumstances had not subsequently brought us together, I would have missed meeting a fascinating person. As I thought about how my beliefs had affected my perception, I realized that the same thing happens between people and brands. Therefore, I concluded that marketers need to treat every brand contact with consumers as if it is the first one. Because they cannot afford to assume it is not.
In a recent conversation, my colleague Sue Elms, executive vice president of our global media practice, pointed out that media plans often assume a very linear path from initial contact to final sale. The implicit assumption for many major spenders is that the first point of contact will be TV ads, followed by print and online, culminating with in-store. P&G, by contrast, have espoused a different tack and suggested planning from the shelf back. But even if we start at the shelf and work back through the preceding brand contacts, I suspect many plans would bring us along a familiar path back to the television.
Of course, there is no guarantee that a particular consumer will have seen any brand communication at all. Television may be the most likely first contact for many big-spending brands, but people might come across the brand online, hear of it in the course of conversation, or simply see it for the first time at the point of purchase.
The assumption that there is a set path to purchase is an easy one to fall into. A couple of years ago, I delivered a presentation with the title, “Mapping the Paths to Purchase.” The working title originally referred to a single path, not multiple paths. I changed the title once my analysis made it obvious that there was no single path that everyone followed. However, I found it difficult to let go of the idea that there were some paths that were used much more frequently than others. In retrospect, I have come to realize that often all we can really identify are the steps where many different paths intersect. For instance, in my analysis, driving a car and remembering TV advertising for the car had the strongest relationship with purchase consideration. But beyond those two, the range and combination of contacts was too great to be easily summarized.
Realizing that there is no set sequence of contacts with a brand leads to an important conclusion. Unless marketers know exactly whom they are talking with, they must treat every contact as if it is the first. For example, let’s say you decide to promote your premium brand in-store. With the effects of the recession still hitting many people hard, a price promotion is necessary to drive more volume. Unless it is pitched just right, that promotion could leave new prospects with the belief that your brand is cheap, not premium.
Of course, there is a corresponding need to remember that not everyone who sees your communication will be coming to the brand without preconceptions. For instance, last week I saw a couple of ads for Jeep that conflicted with my existing impression of the brand. They certainly would have given me a very different first impression from many of the previous ads I have seen for the brand. Titled “It’s only hair,” the ads show women throw their recent salon coiffure to the wind as they drive their beloved Jeep.
The ads are a distinct contrast to the more rugged, outdoor approach the brand has espoused in the past. This change led one commentator to suggest that “The Jeep Wrangler is now blessed as an official mall-crawler.”
Ultimately, all communication needs to be true to what the brand stands for. We cannot guarantee how someone will learn about a brand. All we can do is make sure that when they do come into contact with it that they get the right impression. Otherwise, they may miss out on a rewarding experience, and the marketer may miss out on a sale and a future loyal customer.
(5 votes, average: 4.6 out of 5)
Loading ...
Email This Post
December 10th, 2009 at 2:46 am
It’s often said it takes six seconds to make the first impression in somebodies mind, now the communication that we make is 80% nonverbal, may soon rise to 85% as social media and aother thins coming up so fast.
Self Branding , Self Marketing are order of the day, you get premium by branding and marketing your self.
As Americans rightly say “there is no business like show business”.
Thanks & Regards
December 10th, 2009 at 8:01 am
If we consider a brand to be a contract between the manufacturer and the purchaser, then a drastic shift can be thought of a “breach of contract”. During my early years in America, Detroit, facing the fuel crisis scrambled to find more economical models. I remember vividly one of the big three shifting the nameplate from a full-size model to the mid-size nameplate. (Imagine if BMW were to suddenly designate the “3″ as a “5″ and point out the superior fuel economy.) That was a blatant breach of contract and an act of contempt towards the intelligence of their customers. It seems the lessons have not been learned.
December 10th, 2009 at 10:19 am
The Jeep example was great. Does it follow then what we always say - keep a consistent brand strategy throughout all touchpoints (with of course some variations among different targets & media - even if the execution is different), then let your brand evolve - though following the same rules at any point in time? We were just discussing Apple and GEICO with a client - both have evolved in their offering (computers to phones to multimedia devices and car insurance to motorcycle insurance to home insurance) - both have evolved in their communication strategies but were consistent at any one time.
December 10th, 2009 at 10:35 am
I think brands have to stay consistent at a point in time but I also think they need to stay true to their origins over time. In extending to multimedia devices Apple has not given up on its hip, young at heart target audience (witness the Mac versus PC campaign). In extending to new insurance needs Geico has not lost its light, humorous touch.
Brands can evolve over time but dramatic shifts in target audience and positioning are the last resort when there is little to lose.
I remember Gordon Brown doing a presentation a long time ago. He was using an overhead projector and acetates (which tells you just how long ago it was) to describe how when one targets a new audience one risks losing the old one. He drew a circle on the acetate to represent the current target audience. He then drew another one some disctance away to represent the new one. He suggested that the fundamental problem was that what might motivate one group was unlikely to motivate another. By targeting a new group and talking directly to them you risk the existing loyalists rejecting the message and the brand. And the new group probably already knows what your brand stands for so the new message does not seem that credible anyway. As a result you end up with a brand which straddles two different positionings and fails to appeal to either audience as well as it might. Many brands then compound the error by identifying a third target audience…well I guess you know how it goes from there.
Successful restages tap into something true to the brand’s origins. It may be reframed to meet contemporary needs but it does not abandon the brand’s heritage.