Weapons again?

I find it curious that two of the five books we read this semester referred to marketing and/or persuasion as weapons. Is this how people feel about marketing in general I wonder. I know it can be irritating and only relevant when you are in the market for the specific product being advertised, but a weapon?  We do live in a capitalistic society in which anyone has the right to develop, market, and sell products. That is a reality we all must come to grips with. After all, the alternative is much less desirable.

Guerrilla Marketing for Nonprofits was, in my opinion, the least interesting of the books we read this semester. However, I did take a very important lesson from it - never stop learning about your target audience - in fact, never stop learning in general. It may seem obvious to some, but the point that a company's audience continues to evolve makes a lot of sense. Especially today when everything seems to be changing at lightning speed.

For example, a popular mode of communication can be here today and gone tomorrow. This makes it very important for the Guerrilla marketer to keep up with current trends. In fact, the book made it clear that the more the Guerrilla marketer knows, not only about h/her company, but about the target audience, the market, the economy, the political climate, h/her competitors, etc., the better. I couldn't agree more. It is difficult to deliver on-target messaging without the most current facts in hand.

Too often, however, the knowledge gathered by the marketing team ends up sitting in a 3" binder on a book shelf in the CMO's office. There's no sense in doing the research if it's only going to gather dust. Plus, the longer it sits there, the more antiquated it becomes. This information is incredibly important to the marketer, with out it s/he can only make guesstimates which may work, but only by chance.

One problem I have had over the semester as I developed the brand strategy for HELO was getting all the information I needed to make informed decisions. This proves a simple point. In all of my experience in the marketing industry, all of the different types of information the authors discuss in Guerrilla Marketing for Nonprofits have come in piece meal, if at all. So the situations the authors talk about is not fallacy, but a very common practice. I'm referring to a lack of research to create effective marketing strategies.

This brings up an additional question. Who's responsibility is it to conduct this type of research when the branding team is acting as an outside vendor? The better the research, the better the branding strategy. Should it be included in the contract? Or, should it come from the client? The best case scenario would be for the branding firm to gather as much secondary, and any primary research from the client, figure out what is lacking, and conduct the rest of the research on behalf of the client. This method would ensure that nothing has been overlooked, which in turn, will uncover the appropriate direction(s) to pursue for the best impact, which is after all, what Guerrilla marketing is all about.

Using Social Media to Ignite Social Change

I find it interesting how many humanitarian efforts have emerged since the onset of social media. Often, I wonder if they are exasperated reactions to a seemingly indifferent government, or if they are a celebration of the new reality that we, as individuals, can finally make a difference from a grassroots level. Perhaps these efforts existed all along, hidden from the global audience. Or, perhaps, they were tucked away in our hearts, just waiting for the means to act. Either way, they are springing up by the dozens, and social media is the mechanism for at least a portin of their success.

I am working with a nonprofit organization called HELO whose mission is to provide higher educational learning opportunities to inner city youth. Historically, this group has not been provided the same types of educational achievement tools as their suburban counterparts. The money is not there because of the socio-economic circumstances existing within these school districts. HELO is committed to providing these much-needed tools as a means of breaking the norms these communities are accustomed to. But like most humanitarian efforts, HELO's passion outweighs its means.

Enter social media. I have been working on this project with HELO thinking in terms of how I can build an online community that will provide the most bang for the buck. Their survival depends solely on donations. So as I read Kanter and Fine's book The Networked Nonprofit I began to visualize all kinds of possibilities, and I became excited! What I realized is that we can start building HELO's social media ecosystem now, and for free! Part of building a brand strategy for HELO is building a preliminary marketing strategy as well. All the variables accounted for, social media is definitely the way to go to start developing a strong network of peers. It will of course be a learning process but I feel like Kanter and Fines' book serves as a good jumping off point.

My outtakes from the book, pertaining to the strategic development for HELO, include starting to build a network of online hubs to use as virtual partners. Initially, I envision these partners will include organizations who support at-risk youth in any capacity, but could expand exponentially as the ecosystem grows. I also liked the tools they provided for tracking social media networks. It seems to be a great way to get a strong hold on the company's current ecosystem, as a means to develop a strategic path towards a more equitable network of allies, peers, and supporters.

The only problem I had with the book, and this may not be a problem in action, is asking people for help on specific tasks. It may be completely different for those folks who are invested in the cause, but asking for free help seems a little out there for me. It makes me nervous because there is no accountability. My main issue, which the authors discussed, is letting go of the control issue. I love what they are saying, but I can see myself worrying about consistent branding, messaging and so on. But when I step back, I realize the strength of social media is its word-of-mouth, which is the best kind of messaging a company can have.

I can certainly empathize with the hesitancy established companies have with the whole idea of social media. Companies who have experienced sustainable growth over the years using "tried and true" methods find themselves lost in the new digital age and are not sure how to respond. The newspaper industry is a prime example. Embracing new technologies which completely change the way things have operated for centuries has got to be difficult. Fortunately, I understand the benefits of social media and know, if executed properly and strategically, it can fit successfully within a company's integrated marketing program. I certainly hope it does for HELO.

I've been hoodwinked!

When I first started “Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion” I felt a little sleazy, like I was being groomed for the fine “art” of conning. However, the further I read the more I realized what a great tool it was. Even though the cover includes a quote from Journal of Marketing Research that proclaims, “For marketers, it is among the most important books written in the last 10 years”, I feel the book is more tuned to a general consumer audience, the author serving as an ally. I clearly saw myself in many of the situations he used throughout the book and how true they are to real life.

It was however relevant to my current studies as well. All the “weapons of influence” Cialdini talks about are tactics used within the marketing industry. I just didn’t know the psychology behind them. I’m not sure if knowing this makes me like marketing more or less. The techniques Dr. C talks about are all ways of persuading people to act. I suppose if I use these proven tactics honestly in my work, I’ll still be able to sleep at night.

The main thing I took from the book was that consumers depend on shortcuts to make decisions. I’ll speak only on purchasing decisions here since it’s relevant to my field of study. Because of the rapid pace of modern life and barrage of products being marketed to consumers on a daily basis, I think two things will become increasingly important. First, branding will become more important than ever, and second, marketing will need to be even more precise and more thoughtfully targeted.

Consumers generally tend to buy brands they are familiar with. However, when it comes time for larger, high involvement purchases people spend more brainpower comparing similar products, pricing, shopping around, etc. Still, the brand(s) they are most familiar with are always in their consideration set. So for a brand they are not familiar with to “out-do” one of the brands they already have positive feelings about, the unfamiliar brand will have to offer up a far superior product at the exact moment the consumer is in the market. In order for the unfamiliar brand to increase its chances of serious consideration, it needs to do most of its image-building legwork far ahead of time. Not only do I think this will become more important as the pace of life continues to increase, but I think it will be in the best interest of companies to build even stronger brand images to accommodate for this escalation. By building stronger brand images, consumers can confidently resort to purchasing shortcuts for even higher priced items simply because they already know most everything about the product short of trying it on for size.

I propose a couple ways of doing this. First, I think companies need to focus extensively on what is unique about their product(s). I realize this is already common practice, but I'm suggesting upping the ante. The uniqueness needs to be so strong and so memorable that it will create a brand association quicker than ever before. For example, many car manufacturers have succeeded in creating single word associations with the cars they produce. For BMW the word is "performance". For Toyota, the word is "reliability". For Volvo, the word is "safety". These are very strong identifiers. If you want a performance car, you automatically think of BMW. If you are concerned with safety, the first car that comes to mind is Volvo, and so on. The more unique, strong, and memorable the brand association, the easier it is to recall.

Companies like Nike and Apple have already built the types of brand images I'm referring to. For someone looking for a pair of tennis shoes, Nike is most likely automatically in their consideration set. Highly resonant Apple users have only one decision to make, "Which model should I buy?" Other companies who don't have the brand strength to compete should rethink their branding efforts, or they could die trying.

The same applies in other industries as well. I think, for example, packaging will become more important in the future. For example, I recently realized I like What-a-Burger because of their cups. I like the texture of them. In a world that is becoming more slick and sterile as a result of the digital tools we use (constantly), I think touch will increase in importance. If we're no longer holding books in our hands as we read them, thumbing through CD inserts to figure out song lyrics, or reading the cardboard movie boxes at BlockBuster to decide which movies we want to take home and watch, the sense of touch will become more pleasurable when available. As I mentioned above, What-a-Burger is a great example. What better way to increase brand recall than by associating the cherished sense of touch with their textured styrofoam cups?

To point two above, marketing will need to be even more precise and more thoughtfully targeted. Marketing is obviously the way in which brands are created. Here however I will address the message strategy. Having a simple and precise message in your advertising and marketing will help create a precise brand image. The shorter and stronger the message, the easier it will be to understand and hopefully recall. Increased recall equals more confident shortcuts for consumers. However the visual uniqueness of the advertising or marketing piece plays an equally important role. For example, most car commercials look pretty much the same, to me anyway. In order for companies to do their due diligence in building a truly unique brand, they must pay attention to every detail both visually and textually. They must truly stand out in the minds of an increasingly busy audience. Companies must present themselves in such unique ways that the audience knows at a glance what company the ad is representing.

Zeroing in on a smaller target audience will also help gain the attention of today's on-the-go consumer. By narrowing your audience it is easier to develop creative strategies that quickly grab their attention. Like Cialdini discusses in his book, people respond better to things they are familiar with. They respond equally as well to people who seem to have similar interests, lifestyles, values, etc. The smaller the target audience, the more focused, relevant, and personal the creative strategy can be. Admittedly, target audience specialization works more cost effectively online. I'm always amazed when I'm shopping for something online and an ad appears promoting the exact type of product I'm looking for. This will only continue and I would imagine in an even more fine-tuned fashion. That is after all the beauty of the Internet for marketers.

Of course the above is all speculative. I haven't done any consumer focus groups or research to support the trends I have proposed. However, it is a fact that the pace of modern life continues to increase while the number of products entering the market each year is astounding. Factor that together and what you have is more products competing to grab the attention of an increasingly preoccupied consumer population. What this boils down to is a split-second of time to subconsciously stamp a brand impression on as many people as possible. Product placement has become popular in movies and TV shows. Jennifer Lopez sits on the judging panel of American Idol with a large cup shouting out Coca-Cola - Stamp. But not all companies have the brand recognition that Coca-Cola enjoys. However the "stamp" part is the important part, I believe. Marketers will have to become quicker and wiser in the ways they market their brands. A snapshot will have to tell the story, and using what Cialdini calls the "weapons of influence" will have to be relied upon more than ever to tell those stories...but the really short versions. The more brand stamps a consumer has on his/her subconscious mind, the more brand associations and the more likely they will rely on their preferred shortcuts toward purchase. It's all a matter of psychology.

Marketing in its Finest Moment...

Marketing 3.0 is a welcome change. Not only is it my favorite kind of advertising, but it may just do some much-needed good.

The concept of Marketing 3.0 has been around for a while, only on a smaller scale. Typically referred to as "cause marketing", it's objective is to touch the consumer on an emotional level that helps to build or improve the image of a company. If done properly, over time and in conjunction with the company's product advertising, it works wonders. It creates good faith and moves products - the end goal for any company. Philip Kotler takes the idea of "cause marketing" and applies it on a much larger scale, and for good reason. It's in very high demand.

The world has experienced much change over the last 10 years. Financial crisis, increased environmental awareness, a constantly changing digital environment have all fueled a growing state of instability. Consequently these issues have also caused shifts in consumer behavior, and when consumers change behavior, marketers must revisit their strategies. Kotler, "The concept of marketing can be seen as the balancing concept to that of macroeconomics. Whenever the macroeconomic environment changes, so will consumer behavior change, and this will lead marketing to change". In other words, major events occurring over the last 10 years have dominoed, causing a high demand for socio-economic and environmentally responsible companies - the guiding force behind Marketing 3.0.

This isn't as bad as it sounds. Granted, companies not inherently values-driven must do some major overhauls to their business models to include an altruistic initiative or two. Surely they can just pick a cause and say they support it.

Unfortunately, that's not quite the way it works. According to Kotler, the company must be knee-deep in the cause. It must be at the heart of the business. Employees must represent the cause, as must the company's channel partners and the company's spokespeople. It must be addressed on the company's website in its own special section, and any company-driven social media must present it as a key business concern. In order for Marketing 3.0 to be successful, a company's cause must be unifying and well documented as often and to as many people as possible.

A particular type of company that actively subscribes to the principles of Marketing 3.0, Kotler refers to as "The Innovator". In his book Marketing 3.0, Kotler uses DuPont as a prime example. He says, "DuPont, the science company that has existed for more than two centuries, has dramatically transformed itself from being the worst U.S. polluter to one of its greenest corporations...". Today, DuPont invents and manufacturers products that not only do not harm the environment, but have the potential of reversing the damage already done. This is a great example of a company redefining its entire mission to honor a universal human cause - not a small task. Redefining a company's business model, thereby redefining its core mission after it's been in business for awhile is quite costly. But as DuPont proved, it can be done, and successfully.

In today's socio-economic environment, companies must act responsibly. Consumers demand it and the Internet is too powerful to ignore it. Companies must leverage their online intelligence so they can discover the values that mean the most to their customers, and then honor those values as loudly and as often as they can. If they don't, they may find themselves in a state of decline. Companies have to remember that not only do their customers own their brand, their customers are also still king. Only now, their customers have friends - and lots of them.

I think the reasoning behind Marketing 3.0 is wonderful. Regardless whether a company's humanitarian efforts are sincere or not, at some point their contributions will do some good, some where. Whether they provide food and shelter to remote communities on the other side of the globe, or deliver higher education learning opportunities to inner city kids right here at home, these acts are still selfless, even if the bottom-line business objectives aren't.