Russell Davies

Semi-retiring
About | Feed | Archive

the uncanny valley of relationship marketing

Carping

I've sort of written about this in Campaign (over here) but I don't think I quite got what I meant. So here's another version.

One of the perpetual interactive marketing memes is the idea that somehow, one day, we'll make marketing that's so relevant and so well targeted that it'll stop being advertising and become pure and delightful information. This idea has been re-ignited by the advertising plans of the various social networks; using what they know about their users to enable more effective targeting.

I've always just assumed this was true. This was going to happen. Bound to, it makes so much sense. But then, this evening, I had another thought. Because there are some prototypes for this kind of activity already knocking around. And they're working really, really badly.

Here's what I was thinking:

For this super-target advertising idea to work you need to know a lot about the individual you're talking to. You need to know their interests. What they do. What they buy. What they like and don't like.

The kind of information you might get from a blog. That might be the kind of rich but unstructured information you'd be hoping to mine.

And, if it's going to work, it's presumably going to work best for high-cost, high-specificity items. Things that it's worth spending some effort on marketing to exactly the right person, in exactly the right way. So not baked beans. But maybe high-end technology or services like conferences.

I think you might have worked out where I'm going.

Because it strikes me, that, if this perfect marketing-disappearing-itself stuff is going to happen it should be emerging in the interactions between people who've shared a lot of information about themselves and people who have a lot of interest in reaching them effectively. It should be happening in 'blogger outreach'. And is that going well? No, it's not.

There's a lot of information about me on this blog. I get lots of emails about conferences I'm going to want to attend, new advertising I'm going to love, and new websites I definitely need to check out. And is this stuff transmuting from spam into information as I share more and more information about myself? No. It's not. Because most (not all, I do have to emphasise not all) of the people emailing me cannot be arsed to think, for one second, about who they're emailing. It's mostly just spam.

And, what's both worse and more interesting is that the people who can be arsed to do a little bit of research send even more annoying and frustrating emails. They plunge into a kind of direct marketing uncanny valley where the more desperately they try to personalise their message the more I'm reminded that they're not really my friend. The more 'personal' information they utilise the more it freaks me out. (But again, not always, and maybe it's in the 'not always' where salvation lies, but I doubt it.)

And this is a person doing this, not an algorithm. This is someone who's going to email maybe 1000 people about their conference or website or whatever. They've got common sense. They can read my blog and understand it. (To the extent that anyone can.) And they're mostly delivering pointless spam. And yet it seems we think that we're clever enough to write genius marketing software that will analyze social network profiles, deduce what folk are interested in and create such targeted and relevant communications that people will be delighted to click on them because they're overwhelmed with their percipience and utility. I'm not sure that'll happen. I suspect we're going to get flashing, dancing, animated equivalents of the mis-spelt welcome message you get on your hotel TV when you check in.

November 18, 2007 in brands | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBack (1)

new contender for best tagline ever

Quality

October 31, 2007 in brands | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack (0)

sacrum is onto something

Brand_warmness_02

Brand_warmness_04

My only question for Sacrum, what if there are two consumers, one negatively charged, one positively charged, what should the brand do then?

March 06, 2007 in brands | Permalink | Comments (8)

hi-ee-i-ee-i on emotion

Emotion

I often think that all this marketing 2.0 stuff is all very well, but it's just a new set of tactics. Many of the embedded assumptions are the same as marketing 1.0. It's all about message delivery and new news and imparting information. Don't get me wrong, they're good tactics, very good tactics. But I keep waiting for the thinkers and neuro-scientists and evolutionary psychologists to give us the new theory that will inform the new strategies, based on the way people really think and behave.

John's making great strides in that direction. Mark's new one will contribute mightily. And I suspect a crucial element will come from Robert Heath of low-involvement processing fame (do you think he gets introduced like that at dinner parties?). Jon points out that Mr Heath has a new research paper out, in which he shows that  'Creativity and emotion are what make advertising successful, not the message it is trying to get over'.

Many of us have believed this for a long time. Oh lord how we've believed it. But we've never been able to prove it. Now, maybe, Mr Heath is making a start in doing so. You can get the full release about the research here. Hurrah.

December 12, 2006 in brands | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack (0)

brand-free until 2007

Holdup

I’ve got nothing left to say about brands and advertising. It’s not that complicated. I don’t think the blogosphere needs any more pontification about that sort of nonsense from the likes of me. And, frankly, I’m beginning to bore myself with it. So I'm going to take the rest of the year off and not talk about brands. Hopefully I'll have some new thoughts in the new year.

In the meantime I’m going to try and write about other things. Not sure what. Just other things. Just to discover what I think of them. It’s only for a month and a bit.

(Though I will acquit myself of my responsibilities on the School of the Web and Post Of The Month, if brands come up there I guess we can talk about them.)

And it looks like I'm not the only person who suspects we need to reduce the amount of blogging noise about brands. Or at least increase the quality.

November 23, 2006 in brands | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBack (0)

what is a brand?

What

The Staufenbergers are on a mini-roll, (as opposed to a mini roll). They've just posted a scan of Stephen King's 'what is a brand?' which is well worth reading. (Though it's the worst bit of photocopying/scanning I've ever seen. Come on Patrick. Get it sorted.) And they've also found this fantastic (but tiny) archive of old films at the BFI (only available in the UK I suspect). I'm very much looking forward to Let's Go To Birmingham.

November 01, 2006 in brands | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

nested brands, minimal brands

Dsc00658_1

Love Saves The Day is a little coffee shop inside Vox Pop records in the Northern Quarter of Manchester. It's a great place. And it's a great example of something I've been thinking about ever since Fruitstock - the phenomenon of one brand nesting inside another. It's not a new thing, think Starbucks and Borders or er, another example that doesn't come to me right now, but I think it's a skill that more and more brand owners are going to have to learn.

Lovesavestheday2_2

Because it's not particularly easy for either party. I think Innocent got it very right at Fruitstock - the other brands there seemed right and appropriate and I think Nike have tended to get it right at Run London. But I've also seem horribly inappropriate partnerships and nesting arrangments. (Though none of these examples occur to me right now either.) The other thing I like about Love Saves The Day (and it is only a coffee shop, I mustn't get too carried away) is the way they've created an effective brand with a really small amount of physical stuff. One logo thing, some bags, some stickers.

Lovesavestheday1_1

The bags make the sign.

Lovecups_2  

The stickers turn generic cups into branded cups.

It's clear adding sustainable value is going to be a core skill in building brands over the coming decades, so creating attractive brands that are about maximum idea and minimum stuff seems another good discipline to learn.

October 21, 2006 in brands | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack (2)

pizza privacy

Pizza

Click here for a brilliant animated presentation by George Toft about the future of pizza delivery (making a larger point about privacy). A) it's a fantastic way to illustrate a point. Relatively easy to do but hugely compelling. B) it's a great point to make. Goes to show that just because we can do something, doesn't mean we should. And customer service can do easily tip over into customer abuse.

It's been about for ages, but I just heard about it on Culture Shock and found it via this LSE blog. (Culture Shock also features Piers and is well worth listening to.)

October 12, 2006 in brands, presentations, sites | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

expertise

Coffeeseminar

Was in a Starbucks in Kansas City this morning and saw this on the blackboard. It reminded me that I'm increasingly convinced of the importance of brand expertise. Expertise feels like a potentially important component of interestingness. In a world where brand size is increasingly un-useful expertise is one of those things where scale really helps. If you're really big and focused on one thing you ought to know a lot about it, and you ought to get a lot of value out of sharing that with people. Especially if you can make the sharing human-sized.

Coffeetasting


September 28, 2006 in brands | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

connect big

Gervais

Fantastic advice from Ricky Gervais on how to do something global. (Ignore the bit in yellow.)

September 25, 2006 in brands | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

Next »