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.

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.