« radio blog | Main | quite pleased with these »


Mr Heath For President!

Couldnt agree more (& thanks for the strider comment).

My word for the week is ENTHUSIASM

The trouble with emotion as a word to rally behind is it can put in you quite retrograde company (Lovemarks...)? And at the risk of sounding like RH, I have found quite a few people who say 'it is all about emotion' quite woolly, which I know you are not, but I suppose it can be a kind of refuge for those who actually dont want to engage with strategy?

But I think we are saying the same thing; yes to briliant ideas that excite people and spread, no to technocratic tactics with no soul.

I must read that latest Heath stuff; perhaps it will write my Admap thingy on effectiveness for me?

While I'm on, is coffee morning happening this week?

This is brilliant.

I couldn't agree more.

My example is Stella. Who really cares about the 'message' that it's supposedly an expensive beer (it isn't anyway). What works on people is the loveliness of the films and the cleverness of the ideas.

The message could be 'Stella contains fish eggs' it would make no difference.

I feel like a lone voice campaigning for "product passion"...and wonder if I should just give up when I see comments like "Stella could contain fish eggs, it would make no difference". A distinctive product, premium price and a business model built on driving the on-trade business are key to Stella's success. (The IPA awards case shows this). If the beer had been average, weak UK lager back 20 years ago when the campaign started, the whole thing would not have worked.

Isn't emotion in brand communication at its most powerful when it builds off an authentic product truth? "Sausage and sizzle" working together as I call it:
http:// wheresthesausage.typepad....s_the_saus.html

Brands forgetting product and relying on emotional "sizzle" is a big factor in own label share of UK grocery going from 30% to almost 50%. And no amount of work on big brands' "image wrappers" will save them if Tesco, Sainsbury et al have a better product for 20% less (though Tesco Finest is now often MORE expensive than the leading brand).

Push the emotional argument to its extreme, pure emotion without any product "brand added value", and you get "sponsored entertainment"? The quote says this sort of communication "enhances how people felt about brands"...but does not go as far as saying if it builds business, which I doubt.

This year's IPA grand prix winner was M&S, and is great example of sausage/product (e.g. the food porn ads on choc puds) delivered with emotional sizzle. And many of the most successful brands of today are passionate about their products. Innocent blind-test MONTHLY. Try telling Nike their shoes are just average, the same as everyone elses. Or that the $1billion that Gillete spent on the world's leading razor was wasted....

Oh well. You can take the man out of P&G, you can't take P&G out of the man....I'll now get back in my box.

couldnt agree with you more David.

As a creative, (i'll get that out the way now, as i feel slighlty sheepish writing on a planning blog)

whenever we work on a product the best work always seems to come from a truth.

It seems in this research (admittadly i have only read the pdf) you are testing either a brilliantly told emotional ad, or a lifeless infomercial.

Neither for me are the best route, get a true insight and dramtise that. you can hold this against all the greatest ads i can think of (guiness, honda, avis, VW , Nike).

as you said its The sausage and sizzle.

As for the stella ad, as a writer you have to work to some sort of framework, there has to be a point to convey, whether that point is true now (stella isnt that expensive) is probably something the strategists need to look at. saying it could be anyhting like 'Stella contains fish eggs' doesnt work for me. That's only something you can say once youve seen the film that wouldnt of existed if that had been the proposition.

Did anybody actually suggest that marketing 2.0 should ignore the basic tenets of marketing 1.0? If so, I missed that.

To me marketing 2.0 is a reaction to some irreversible changes in both the supply and demand sides of the marketing equation. Tactics sure, but with a definite strategic underpinning in the sense that it has to recognise the altered environment in which we're all operating.

The increasing importance of product development in all this is a reflection of the altering importance of the basic foundations of marketing theory, but it doesn't indicate that all the rules have changed. Just that certain things aren't going to work like they did before.

Agree with the Daves. (And of course, the Davies.) The best thing that people working in communuications can do is tell the truth about a brand or product in an interesting way. But it will all fall down if the brand doesn't produce something which actually means something to people. Or doesn't seem true. Or just isn't any good.

The best ads tend to come from good brands and products. And the fact that communications need to be engaging and interesting should be a given. And yes, that's way more important than delivering the 'message' to ensure stand-out. And hopefully Heath will be able to prove it conclusively so we can all get on with doing great work without having to forcefit a load of product bullet points in there. But emotion or enthusiasm in ads should never be used by brands to cover up bigger, more fundamental, failings with their product or business strategy, or avoiding exploring the truth that lies behind the product and brand.

It seems we keep finding new ways to prove the same thing. Ehrenberg made the point about creativity and salience driving advertising quite a while ago (well, 10 years at least). Why then, has this failed to take hold outside of the ad industry? Perhpas the UK situation is a little different, but this stuff just doesn't seem to seep into US business culture.

The comments to this entry are closed.