Category Archives: Branding

False Economies – if it’s cheap, there must be a reason!

Posted on by
Reply

When I was 7 or 8 years old, I asked my parents to buy me a specific brand of toy as a birthday or Christmas present. With the best of intentions, they chose instead a close approximation of the real thing – presumably because it was cheaper, and to them it was exactly the same. Of course, being cheaper, it was badly designed, poorly made, and was nothing like the toy I had asked for. From memory, it only lasted only a few months before falling apart.

This was my first lesson in false economies – cheap and cheerful can quickly become cheap and nasty, rather like some cheaper brands of peanut butter, which are bulked out with sugar, oils, fats and other additives (instead of containing 100% peanuts).

Many years ago I had some shirts made in Shenzhen, because they seemed like a bargain. Sadly, another false economy – after I got them home, I realised the cut was all wrong, and I’m sure they had substituted a cheaper fabric to the one I had chosen. They were unwearable. On the other hand, some jackets I had made in Hong Kong lasted nearly twenty years, because I had paid a bit more to go to an established tailor.

I’m not saying that more expensive branded goods and so-called luxury items are always “better” – but as a general rule, when doing like-for-like comparisons, you get what you pay for. When an item costs more to buy, it invariably lasts longer because of the materials used, the better design, the superior manufacturing and the overall higher quality.

I appreciate that in the current economic environment, consumers are even more cost conscious, and are looking for value for money, if not actual bargains. But just because something is cheap, doesn’t mean it’s the better option. Look at the true cost of fast fashion, fast food, fast money…

Next week: The Law of Diminishing Returns….

How digital brands are advertising

Posted on by
Reply

During a recent visit to the cinema, I was surprised to see adverts for major digital brands on the big screen, ahead of the main feature.

I’ve always thought of cinema advertising as falling into one or more of the following categories:

  • ads you don’t see on TV (often longer than their small screen counterparts)
  • luxury names and aspirational brands (travel, spirits, fashion, financial services)
  • local businesses (the pizzeria “just a short walk from this theatre…”)
  • movie tie-ins (highlighting the product placement in the film you are about to see)
  • seasonal themes (especially Christmas)

What struck me on this occasion were the ads by three DNBs (digitally native brands), featuring LinkedIn, Tik Tok and Audible. Despite the disparate nature of their businesses, I realised that there was a common element.

As the above-linked McKinsey report states, successful DNBs are really good at connecting with (and understanding) their audience, identifying and fulfilling very specific needs with unique solutions, and leveraging the very technology they are built on to promote their services and engage with their customers. Witness the well-timed “alerts” from food-delivery platforms in the early evening, the viral campaigns designed to enforce brand awareness, and the social media feeds designed to build customer engagement and loyalty. (Note that the report features Peleton as a poster child for its thesis, before the personal exercise brand ran into recent difficulties.)

If you look at most DNB campaigns, they are primarily generating demand via very specific human drivers:

1. Aspirational – the pure FOMO element (not unique to DNBs, of course, but they do it more subtly than many consumer brands)
2. Experiential – highlighting the tangible benefits (of mostly intangible products)
3. Socialisation – the paradox of building a trusted relationship through hyper-personalisation and constant sharing…

These three cinema ads each contained implicit “story-telling“. LinkedIn positioned itself as a platform for establishing our own narrative (telling our own truth?); Audible promoted its audio content (books and podcasts) as a means to find authentic stories that resonate with us (and this was long before the recent shenanigans over at Spotify); and Tik Tok used a well-known viral video as the basis for building community around shared stories.

Of course, story-telling is hardly a new concept in brand marketing, and has been eagerly adopted by digital brands (think of campaigns during the pandemic which have featured on-line connectivity and remote working). However, it has become an over-used technique, and is often cynically exploited in the service of corporate green-washing, jumping on social bandwagons, and blatant virtue signalling.

Call me jaded, but I’m old enough to remember the fad of consulting firms pitching their clients on building a “corporate narrative“, drawing on employee stories and customer experiences, as the foundation for those anodyne mission/vision “statements” – but they typically ended up as exercises in damage control in case the truth got out.

These particular cinema ads managed to use story-telling to create a human dimension (authenticity, connectivity, community, sharing, etc.) that is more than simply “buy our product” or “use our tech” (although obviously that’s the ultimate goal). It would be very interesting to read the briefs given to their creative agencies, given that the ads were all in the service of corporate branding.

Next week: Doctrine vs Doctrinaire

 

 

 

Looking back on 6 years of blogging

Posted on by
1

It’s that time of year to reflect on the past 12 months, the season of lists and growing wistfulness (to misquote Keats). Time to think about the year that was, and what might have been. I have been writing this blog for 6 years, and it seems like a good opportunity to take stock, as Content in Context takes a break until the new year.

First, some facts. The most popular post this year has been “I’m old, not obsolete”, even though it was published more than three years ago. In a similar vein, my most popular posts of all time could both be regarded as evergreen articles: one about crate digging in Japan, and another about the new conglomerates (update here). This year’s most popular new posts were both about Blockchain (here and here). In fact, I have mentioned the broader topic of Blockchain, cryptocurrencies and digital assets more than 50 times in the past 5 years, starting with a reference to CoinJar in mid-2013. Not too surprising, given this is where I have been focusing most of my efforts over the past two and half years.

Second, as regular readers will know, I have tried to be very disciplined about the frequency and scheduling of my posts. Whether this is purely for my benefit, or whether it helps my audience, I don’t know – but it seems to work, as I need a regular deadline, and posting on a weekly basis avoids the risk of fatigue (my own and the readers’).

Third, I realise it took me a while to find my voice – and to gain confidence in sharing my thoughts and ideas in public. Some of my early efforts didn’t quite hit the mark, as I was either trying too hard or I hadn’t yet identified what made my content have impact. Over time, based on reader feedback, the more I express my own opinions (rather than regurgitating other people’s’ views) the more that people engage with the content.

Fourth, I have always maintained two key principles in producing this blog: 1) every word is my own; and 2) no cash for comment. Over the years, I have been approached by numerous freelance bloggers who want to produce articles for me (for a fee, of course); and by PR firms who want to push sponsored content on behalf of their clients. I have managed to avoid going down that path. Nothing wrong with either activity, but it’s not in keeping with what I set out to do, and it would undermine my desire to be authentic – plus, I think it would potentially compromise my independence.

Finally, writing this blog often helps me to work out my thoughts, and develop them into ideas that I can use for my consulting work. At the same time, this platform allows me to air my views on topics which don’t immediately relate to my professional life – but which are consistent with my personal perspective and tastes. And while this blog doesn’t define who I am, it does form part of my personal branding, and I also hope it is a true reflection of my beliefs and values.

On that note, my I wish all my readers a safe, peaceful and reflective festive season. Usual output will resume in the New Year.

 

 

 

 

How Can I Help?

Posted on by
Reply

My purpose in launching this blog was to develop a personal brand, to engage with an audience, and to provide a platform for my ideas and interests, especially in respect to navigating the “information age”.

At the risk of self-aggrandizement, I’d like to think that this blog is helpful, informative and even entertaining. After two years of blogging, I have a sizeable and regular audience, my content gets shared and commented on by numerous readers, and key articles continue to be read many months after publication. (Two of the most popular articles in 2014 were actually published in early 2013.)

Several of my core followers have mentioned why they enjoy my blog, and these are some of their reasons:

  1. The content is original and well written
  2. The articles make them think about things in new ways
  3. I write about novel ideas
  4. My thinking reveals hitherto hidden or less obvious connections
  5. I’m never afraid to state my opinion

Which all suggest to me that they derive value from my analysis and conclusions.

So, my offer of help is this: If you would like access to this creative process, either in support of a specific business opportunity, or to address a strategic issue you face, or simply to help with your own content development, please get in touch via this blog or direct by e-mail. In return, I will provide you with an initial assessment of the issues as I see them, and an outline solution, at no obligation. It’s simply my way of saying “thank you” to everyone who has made an effort to engage with Content in Context.