« A view of the flattening world | Main | On the road again »

February 27, 2008

Comments

Deb:

This discussion is the central point behind the role of experience in today's corporate world. It's no longer about what you say, it's about what you do. And while there have always been examples out there for people to see (I mean, Disney changed the entire amusement industry with his parks by creating a compelling, authentic and relevant experience), it's taken a long time for the economic elements to come into play. I mean, Joe Pine & Jim Gilmore kicked off the economic impact back in '99 with "The Experience Economy."

But I will disagree somewhat with Scott Cook. After all, the discussion starts with what the brand says it is. The consumer might tell you if you're a good product or bad, but do they really define the brand? I mean, if consumers thought that P&G should be in the car business, would that make P&G become an auto manufacturer?

But, where I also think many people miss the mark is that all of the "traditional" channels and any channels we create in the future will remain important, as long as you're delivering a consistent and exceptional experience. It's not enough to be OK as a brand today. You might survive, but you won't thrive.

So the new brand building models are exactly as they've always been. Make a great product, tell a great story. Use the channels that are appropriate for who you are and who your audience is. Remember the neighborhood butcher shop of long ago thrived or failed on these principals. We've worked on brand projects where the audience was 55+ and lower income and I'm telling you, that audience -- and it's a big audience -- isn't twittering or playing on social networks. There's still value in "old" media for that audience!

The advertising industry faces problems because like so many other industries (think record labels), we've become focused on specific distribution channels and we've forgotten that it's about telling great stories and delivering great experiences. Too many times we get enamored by a tactic without knowing how it becomes a part of the brand story. That's why so many companies have failed at things like blogs and Second Life. Not because those channels don't work, but because they've been used as a tactics.

OK, probably going on to long! Just my probably 10 cents! Holler when you're out eat again!

Deb:

This discussion is the central point behind the role of experience in today's corporate world. It's no longer about what you say, it's about what you do. And while there have always been examples out there for people to see (I mean, Disney changed the entire amusement industry with his parks by creating a compelling, authentic and relevant experience), it's taken a long time for the economic elements to come into play. I mean, Joe Pine & Jim Gilmore kicked off the economic impact back in '99 with "The Experience Economy."

But I will disagree somewhat with Scott Cook. After all, the discussion starts with what the brand says it is. The consumer might tell you if you're a good product or bad, but do they really define the brand? I mean, if consumers thought that P&G should be in the car business, would that make P&G become an auto manufacturer?

But, where I also think many people miss the mark is that all of the "traditional" channels and any channels we create in the future will remain important, as long as you're delivering a consistent and exceptional experience. It's not enough to be OK as a brand today. You might survive, but you won't thrive.

So the new brand building models are exactly as they've always been. Make a great product, tell a great story. Use the channels that are appropriate for who you are and who your audience is. Remember the neighborhood butcher shop of long ago thrived or failed on these principals. We've worked on brand projects where the audience was 55+ and lower income and I'm telling you, that audience -- and it's a big audience -- isn't twittering or playing on social networks. There's still value in "old" media for that audience!

The advertising industry faces problems because like so many other industries (think record labels), we've become focused on specific distribution channels and we've forgotten that it's about telling great stories and delivering great experiences. Too many times we get enamored by a tactic without knowing how it becomes a part of the brand story. That's why so many companies have failed at things like blogs and Second Life. Not because those channels don't work, but because they've been used as a tactics.

OK, probably going on to long! Just my probably 10 cents! Holler when you're out eat again!

Deb:

Can I agree with you more strongly than you agreed with yourself? ;) I don't think you need any qualifiers on the statement that a brand has always been defined by the consumer. The fact that advertisers used to feel more in control of the conversation was just because of their a) heavy presence in the information distribution channel (as you mentioned), and b) the old model's single direction-ness (is that a word?). But, most importantly, just cause corporations couldn't hear consumers doesn't mean they weren't talking.

Our answer to one component of the new branding models is here: here. Love to get your feedback.

The comments to this entry are closed.