Is marketing an art or a science? It’s an old question, but still relevant.
When we talk of creativity, we often think of flashes of genius that cannot be predicted or controlled. But in recent years there has been a push to introduce a more scientific approach to marketing. And clients are listening.
Most creatives will not be aware of Andrew Ehrenberg. He’s not up there with the likes of Bill Bernbach, DDB’s founder, in the industry’s pantheon. But the ideas of this economist, who died in 2010, are increasingly winning converts. The Ehrenberg Bass Institute, which he co-founded, works with some of the biggest brands on the planet. Its staff of ‘marketing scientists’, among them Professor Byron Sharp, has written some of the most influential marketing books and journal papers of recent years.
It is crucial that the advertising industry understand the arguments they make, for two reasons:
- They talk in terms of growth, and how brands grow – and growth is the number one concern for any marketing director. And if you have read my other posts - you will know I believe - if the creative industry is to present a convincing case to clients, it must understand this growth agenda.
- At a time when the advertising industry is losing influence, it is crucial to show that creativity is a worthwhile investment. By presenting creativity in a more ‘scientific’, more predictable light, agencies will be better placed to justify that investment.
So what can creative agencies learn from this ‘marketing science’? And does it support a case for investment in creativity, or undermine it?
It’s all about the consumer
Ehrenberg’s starting point was not advertising, but buyer behaviour. He looked for recurring patterns in consumption behaviour, and the way people purchase brands within a given category.
It is hard to sum up decades of analysis in a few lines, but some key points include:
- Patterns of purchasing and brand loyalty are very similar across categories and markets. Big brands tend to have slightly higher rates of purchase frequency than smaller brands. The big tend to stay big, and it is very hard for a small player to grow significantly.
- Brand loyalty is rare. Consumers switch between brands, and tend to have a repertoire of brands they choose from.
- Penetration should be a brand’s goal; success is most likely to come from persuading the mass of infrequent buyers of a brand to buy it slightly more often. Reaching this mass of light buyers is key.
- Consumers rarely remember much about a brand. Certainly, most of a brand’s finely honed work to create differentiation versus the rest of the category is wasted. It is more important for consumers simply to remember the existence of a brand when they come to make a purchase in that category.
- It is better to pursue ‘salience’ rather than ‘differentiation’. This means the role of advertising is to remind consumers that a brand exists and to get the brand into the consumers’ ‘repertoire’. It is about nudging more than persuading.
The theories are complex, but compelling. So how do they link to creativity? On the surface, a focus on reach and ‘salience’ seems to favour a numbers-driven, media-led approach. And it is certainly worthwhile for creatives to understand the importance of reach. Brands have to know they are talking to as many of the ‘right’ people as possible. That is why so much emphasis now goes on the media plan before anything else.
But ironically, a better understanding of the ‘science’ of marketing supports the case for creativity. The great mistake many clients make is to assume that, basically, any creative treatment would work within the ‘right’ media schedule. That is definitely not the case!
Being distinctive sells
As Andrew Ehrenberg wrote 10 years ago in the Journal of Advertising Research, the need for a brand to be ‘distinctive’ elevates brand storytelling above concerns such as brand differentiation and selling propositions:
"… Advertising a better mousetrap is fairly easy if it is in fact a bit better. One can, for instance, just say so. But having to center your advertising on adding year after year some indiscernible 'Whiter and Brighter' product-boon can restrict the kind of creativity that aims at memorable impacts for the brand.
"In contrast, publicising a brand gives ample scope for imaginative insights ('The Big Idea') and for disciplined marketing communication skills ('Always Coca-Cola'). This can stimulate creativity, that is, distinctive and memorable for the brand out of next to nothing. This seems the hallmark of good advertising as we know it.”
So creativity can create the ‘distinctiveness’ a brand needs to enter a consumer’s buying repertoire. If the goal is ‘telling a brand story well’, that should place creativity at the heart of marketing.
And there’s more good news for the creative industry. Marketing scientists also make the point that consumers need to know which brand an ad is for. That does not mean a pack shot in every frame. It means building a distinct look and feel that can act as a shortcut to remind the viewer about the brand. That requires consistency. It requires a long-term approach where creativity builds a recognisable identity over time.
Our work with Devondale, dairy co-op in Australia, is a great example of client and agency working together to build a distinctive character for the brand. To establish an emotional connection with our customers – rather than selling them on rational product benefits – we decided to use humour in a category that would generally not. The work won Devondale and our DDB Melbourne agency Ad Campaign of the Year. A call for a more effective marketing department
Another of our client’s, Mars Incorporated is one major brand profitably pursuing some of Ehrenberg’s principles. It has tested the theories, and found they fit the categories they work in around the world. It has retrained its marketing teams around achieving growth, and is seeing business rise as a result.
Wrigley's, a subsidiary of Mars Incorporated, Eclipse, through the ‘Hello’ campaign, is one of the brands that has benefited. Mars’ Snickers, ‘you’re not you when you’re hungry’ is another. As Bruce McColl of Mars and Rachel Kennedy of the Ehrenberg Bass Institute wrote in 2012: “Grabbing the attention of light users of a brand demands that the advertising gets noticed. The goal is to engage—to pull viewers’ heartstrings, tickle their funny bones—but not to do so at the expense of branding. Both creativity and science can—and should—work together.” The result? A more effective marketing department. “One of the great benefits of applying the laws of growth across the business has been the increase in credibility of the marketing function,” they continued. “When marketing becomes fact-based, it is dramatically more compelling for general managers and chief financial officers to “trust” the marketing recommendations.”
I have no doubt that creativity’s future lies in the heart of a business. Creativity, with its role properly understood, becomes a key investment for growth. And our industry -- with it’s knowledge of consumers and human insights -- is best placed to drive this growth if we properly practice creativity and prove to marketers that we do more than make ads.
Indeed, the need to be distinctive, and to find new stories to tell that link a brand with a particular category in people’s minds, opens up new opportunities for the creative industries. It means requiring deep knowledge of categories or consumer segment. It may also mean engaging with the client differently to understand the potential. Ultimately it means reassessing our current model and changing it to reinforce and deliver creativity to a growth agenda. I feel confident this will happen, mainly because it is already happening in many agencies, but wouldn’t our world be a better place if more clients understood the case for creativity and the impact this had on growth.
发表于 2015-3-15 19:18:59
|Archiver|手机版|小黑屋|热处理之家
( 湘ICP备16021836号 )公安部备案号：43010302000896