Brave New Year

Two instant lessons from Christmas retail:

1) The move to online is accelerating.

2) Consumers are squeezing brands and retailers viciously by demanding deals and discounts.

Next's figures (a reasonable barometer of the High St) are down, blaming both "extreme weather conditions and increased competitor discounting". But its the discounting - not the snow - we have to worry about, for that's where the pressure on margins lies. The snow may come and go, but in a cut throat retail environment, with so many companies in weak positions, the discounting is sure to go on.

The move to online is the obvious root cause of HMV's woes. This is the sharp end - how much future is there, really, in high street music and video selling? Will shutting 60 stores really save their business? Does a 20% drop in share price adequately reflect the possibility of the company collapsing?

Online shopping on Christmas day itself is predicted to have reached £153m in the UK - and been a more popular pastime than attending a Christmas church service. That's where we're at, people. (A very effective piece of PR for IMRG).

So first priorities for 2011:

1) Make sure your brands' online presence is right. Invest some time reviewing Search Engine performance - and doing something to improve it. And ensure your online retail distribution is sufficiently broad.

2) Think - hard - about how to compete in a perpetually discounted world. How can you offer discounts without undermining your brand? (because simply refusing to discount is probably suicidal). And how do you demonstrate and justify the added value that will make consumers buy the premium variant when low cost alternatives exist? Time to shine a bright light on brand architecture - so often the darkest recess of marketing strategy.

High definition optics

The Chile mine rescue was a perfectly formed moment of global media. Respect due to Oakley for spotting the opportunity for a bit of product placement. As Oakley's press release explained it:

The rescue team in Chile is relying on Oakley eyewear to protect the miners’ eyes when they are brought back to the surface... Based on their requirements and full product specifications, Oakley donated 35 pairs of Oakley Radar® with Black Iridium® lenses in Path™ and Range® lens shapes

A good deed... and with it the certainty of appearing on every TV set in the world (33 times!), as well as a chance to convey their scientific credentials. I was in New York this week, and witnessed coverage of Oakley in both the US and UK - and no doubt there was coverage elsewhere round the world too.

Crucially, the mine rescue was perfect PR fodder: compelling, but with no hint of exploitation. Oakley don't seem to have invited any backlash by getting involved. In a poll on The Huffington Post, 90% of respondents thought it was a good thing for Oakley to have done. Smart stuff. I want some.

All change please

Plan Phoenix had a little r’n’r over the summer, while I’ve been too engrossed in projects to look up long enough to reflect. Ah well. A moment of calm descends.

Every time recently when I talk to others in the marketing services industry, I’m struck by how much has changed in the last 2 years. Tighter budgets have made budget holders think deeply about what constitutes effectiveness (hallelujah!). And I see a lot of evidence of changing priorities. We shouldn’t be fooled by profit growth at WPP into thinking that “traditional” advertising is on the way back. I suspect the headline disguises a number of factors. For a start, the services delivered by the big agencies are changing, and anyway, the growth of consumer markets in Asia means there will be room for the traditional advertising industry to grow in size even as it declines in importance. (Presumably the global market in desktop computers will continue to grow for ages. Yet the future is mobile. This isn’t a contradiction, just a reflection of an expanding universe of consumers.)

Its 8 years since Al Ries published The fall of advertising and the rise of PR. It’s still a good read – though it was never compelling. One problem is that we use “advertising” to mean both creative content and interruption based executions (the TVC, for example). And while TVCs are palpably in retreat, we’ll continue to need more, and better, creative ideas. Another problem has proved to be that PR doesn’t seem to provide the structure or discipline to actually drive marketing plans. Inviting the PR agency to the top table is one thing, asking them to lead the whole programme is quite another. But anyway, I wouldn't be the first to announce the “death of advertising”. Google that and you’ll find articles dating back decades!

Of all the changes in play, two stand out to me:

1) Experience.
In a multi-channel, fragmented world, where the cacophony of offers gets ever louder, passive communications no longer cut through. The TVC is dead if it isn’t part of something richer, touchable, immersible. Ideally, that richer experience has some relevance to the brand – I’m no fan at all of sponsorships which simply plaster brand logos on things. Barclays Premiership is just a form of – probably overpriced – media buying. But at the same time, the experience won’t get far off the ground if it’s only about the product. The advertising campaign for Pantene, encouraging women to share your swish makes me laugh. But not for the right reasons. The better path is to find or create a property which bridges both the brand’s distinctive experience and the consumer’s existing interests. If you build your activity (advertising included) round that, you’re on the right track.
We used to argue about whether to brief creative first, then channel planning or the other way round. Answer? Media before creative (of course). But crucially, it was the wrong question. The real answer? Experience before media before creative. I shared a platform at a conference a while back with one of the marketing team at O2. I continue to admire their use of music as a platform. It’s a great way to reach consumers through something they care about. And they are able to create content – from downloads to ticket purchasing and VIP exclusives – tightly integrating the activity back to their product. There’s no earthly reason that I can see why most brands – even at the commoditised end of fmcg (yes, even shampoo) – can’t build relationships this rich with consumers. We just need to start from the right place in order to find the right connection.

2) Interaction.
The second thought builds on the first (because it’s difficult to interact without an experience). But this is a major adjustment in mindset for those of us trained in command and control marketing. We can no longer (could we ever?) dictate how brands are portrayed – just look at any social media website. I’ve worked with brands grappling to overcome negative associations, and it’s not easy. The answer, I think, is to relax a little. Brands exist in consumers minds. We may direct, manage and guide them but we cannot control them (the consumers that is, or the brands). We can continue to fight reality – encapsulating our message in a single-minded one-way campaign which we then inflict mercilessly on consumers, bringing in the lawyers when things get out of control (remember the MasterCard “Priceless” send-ups?). Or we can change our way of thinking – creating content with the intent that the audience manipulate it, and being prepared to go on a journey with them. It requires bravery because it involves real-time judgements and because it’s difficult to “sign off the brand plan” when you don’t know where it’s going. But I’m certain brands that embrace this philosophy own the future.

Well, that's the basis on which I'm planning my business. And you?

#iagreewith[insertyourbrandhere]

Cleggmania shows up a couple of interesting things about the political party brands.

Firstly, it shows how brittle brand reputations can be. Despite all the obvious product performance problems the major parties have experienced in the last few years (from unpopular wars to unpopular expenses claims), they - and the pollsters - didn't see this coming. The polls over the last year or two have been misleading, showing relative share without identifying how fragile (maybe even broken) the relationship between voter and party has become. Have the polls really moved so suddenly, or have people begun to engage with the question differently? Its pretty obvious - even with only a week's hindsight - that the signs were there, but they weren't understood by strategists or commentators.

Secondly, the fevered buzz on websites shows just how far the relationship between people and media has changed, with the media now playing catch-up with popular opinion rather than leading it. Preference has spread like wildfire, fuelled by Facebook, Twitter, blogs and comments. It is the peer-peer response to what has happened that is most interesting, and that is driving events. Ironically, a digital era phenomenon has been triggered by a TV event.

Of course its entirely possible that in a few days this will all have blown over and the political parties will be doing their best to forget it as a bad dream. But it raises interesting questions:

1) What's the relative importance of tracking brand preference versus identifying emerging trends and deeper motivations? Are we sure we're not driving with our eyes fixed on the rear-view mirror?

2) In a much more volatile media environment, is there any longer a role for "incremental" marketing strategies? Are we building plans that might catch fire (+10%), or still trying to "play safe" (+3%)?

Any good news? The lowering PR barrier.

Sitting recently in the lounge at Chicago airport, watching 'The Situation Room' on TV was not a joyeous experience. Statistics crashed down relentlessly on screen. This is, for example, we were told, the first time on record when all 50 states have seen simultaneous rises in unemployment. And, to get the point home it was backed up with voxpops of the recently redundant from across the country. The unavoidable conclusions was simple: there's nowhere to run to.

But, equally, there's plenty to run from. The front page in St Louis announced that a million people in Missouri alone received food stamps in January - the highest number ever, and Missourians make up only 6m of the 300m in the US.

The same story is true in every 'developed' market I visit - horrific headlines, often with the added implication that the situation is at its most acute just where you, the reader/viewer, are sitting.

The problem with PR plans has always been that no-one wants to publish what brands want to broadcast - or at least, not on the news pages. This is, clearly, the moment to challenge that wisdom. A deftly delivered brand-good-news story (maybe linked with the CSR agenda to give something back in hard times), could capture disproportionate column inches and airtime.

Is PR planning the driving cog of 2009 marketing?