I have written about it. I have read about it. I have listened to people talk about it and I have made my voice heard as well. Marketing and advertising are going through many changes, many big changes. Just as you think you understand one new development, three more come out. Some take a while to find traction and wide usage, augmented reality for example. Others take off flying with no real reason to ever look back. Are you pinning on Pinterest yet?
But as we all discuss all the changes... we also continue to discuss or debate some of the same old things.
A lot of experts have been talking lately about the growth of brand advertising online. It was a medium that was initially considered the sole domain of direct response advertising but now many are talking about how effective the frequency of message that you can achieve online can help create tremendous brand awareness. They're talking about this like it is one of the most important new developments today in marketing. And they are facing a great deal of resistance.
Just the other day I read online a long, carefully reasoned dissertation about how brand advertising is a complete and irresponsible waste of marketing budgets and efforts. The author, a successful sales/marketing consultant boldly declared that the only effective advertising is the advertising that sells. It needs to ask for an order. It needs to directly result in a transaction.
Are we still going on and on about this?
Twenty years ago I remember being involved in discussions with retailers about whether their stores should run brand advertising or price/item ads. Those discussions were heated, often loud.
Ten years ago I sat in a large conference room filled with news directors and marketing directors of all the television stations owned by Gannett Broadcasting. One side shouted (really... they were shouting) that all advertising should be topical (promote a specific story for a specific newscast... "Watch Us Tonight!") while the other side shouted back that we needed to build strong, distinctive brands, reasoning that this was impossible when all the stations in town covered and promoted the same news.
Yes. We are still going on and on about this. That crazy post that, that dissertation that I read a few days ago is just the most recent evidence. Why are we still going on about this?
It's just like congressional dead-lock. The more effort one spends arguing one side of an issue, the less likely one is willing to consider the merits of the other argument.
The debate pushes everyone to one side or the other leaving very few to consider a position in the middle.
I became one of those very few long ago. I came to believe that the best answer is never found in an extreme position. I don't care what side of the case you're on. It never really is just one side or the other.
Brand advertising can be (when done well) effective in creating positive, memorable differentiation. It creates loyalty that can over-come higher prices (and profit margins) and occasional lapses in service. It's been said that people don't buy brands, they join them. And that can't be done with "price/item," "watch us tonight" advertising.
But the consultant who made me shake my head last week when I read his idea that advertising must sell, he should be considered as well. Brand advertising does not sell, but it can and should reduce sales resistance so that when you do run ads that ask for the sale, they can be far more effective. They are selling something that people have "joined."
It's not one or the other. It's both. Those grocery store managers from the 20 years ago couldn't leave their entrenched positions to consider that. Neither could the broadcasters from 10 years ago. Neither, it seems, can people like this consultant.
Branding vs. Selling. They work hand-in-hand. They are both elements of Marketing. Let's stop arguing about it.
But as we all discuss all the changes... we also continue to discuss or debate some of the same old things.
A lot of experts have been talking lately about the growth of brand advertising online. It was a medium that was initially considered the sole domain of direct response advertising but now many are talking about how effective the frequency of message that you can achieve online can help create tremendous brand awareness. They're talking about this like it is one of the most important new developments today in marketing. And they are facing a great deal of resistance.
Just the other day I read online a long, carefully reasoned dissertation about how brand advertising is a complete and irresponsible waste of marketing budgets and efforts. The author, a successful sales/marketing consultant boldly declared that the only effective advertising is the advertising that sells. It needs to ask for an order. It needs to directly result in a transaction.
Are we still going on and on about this?
Twenty years ago I remember being involved in discussions with retailers about whether their stores should run brand advertising or price/item ads. Those discussions were heated, often loud.
Ten years ago I sat in a large conference room filled with news directors and marketing directors of all the television stations owned by Gannett Broadcasting. One side shouted (really... they were shouting) that all advertising should be topical (promote a specific story for a specific newscast... "Watch Us Tonight!") while the other side shouted back that we needed to build strong, distinctive brands, reasoning that this was impossible when all the stations in town covered and promoted the same news.
Yes. We are still going on and on about this. That crazy post that, that dissertation that I read a few days ago is just the most recent evidence. Why are we still going on about this?
It's just like congressional dead-lock. The more effort one spends arguing one side of an issue, the less likely one is willing to consider the merits of the other argument.
The debate pushes everyone to one side or the other leaving very few to consider a position in the middle.
I became one of those very few long ago. I came to believe that the best answer is never found in an extreme position. I don't care what side of the case you're on. It never really is just one side or the other.
Brand advertising can be (when done well) effective in creating positive, memorable differentiation. It creates loyalty that can over-come higher prices (and profit margins) and occasional lapses in service. It's been said that people don't buy brands, they join them. And that can't be done with "price/item," "watch us tonight" advertising.
But the consultant who made me shake my head last week when I read his idea that advertising must sell, he should be considered as well. Brand advertising does not sell, but it can and should reduce sales resistance so that when you do run ads that ask for the sale, they can be far more effective. They are selling something that people have "joined."
It's not one or the other. It's both. Those grocery store managers from the 20 years ago couldn't leave their entrenched positions to consider that. Neither could the broadcasters from 10 years ago. Neither, it seems, can people like this consultant.
Branding vs. Selling. They work hand-in-hand. They are both elements of Marketing. Let's stop arguing about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment