The two drivers of Brand Salience

The two drivers of Brand Salience

 

The best place to start this discussion is some sort of definition of ‘Brand Salience’. To me it is the extent to which your brand comes to mind. This might be unprompted, as in ‘what brands of beer can you name? That first question may be followed with a prompt such as ‘which of these brands are you familiar with? A brand with strong salience will be identified quickly, those with none will remain anonymous.

A common phrase in marketing is ‘build a brand’. The actions taken by marketers to address this often-mouthed objective differ. There is no template to build a brand, but there are well established principals.

Most young marketers would struggle to think past Instagram and Tick Tock, believing the way to build a brand is to do stuff that gains attention and eyeballs. The reality is that doing so barely scratches the surface of what is required.

Building a brand is a long-term proposition, inconsistent with the very highly targeted digital capability we now have. Building a brand requires that you create and leverage distinctive visual, verbal, and aural assets. On encountering one of these assets, a current or potential customer has the brand immediately brought to mind.

The first task is to identify any distinctive assets your brand might have on which to build. In most cases this is after years of zigzagging and bouncing around. The potentially distinctive assets of most brands are a bit like the jumble in the bottom of a kids toy box. Lots there, bits and pieces, but nothing that has been picked out and made really distinctive.

As a marketer it is your task to pick those pieces and build them into a distinctive asset of the brand.

The Ehrenberg-Bass institute has developed by grid that captures the essence of all the above by reflecting two factors: Fame and Uniqueness.

  • Fame quantifies the percentage of category buyers brains where the brand has an immediate and salient link to the brand asset being tracked.
  • Uniqueness quantifies the brands level of ownership of that asset versus competitor brands.

The challenge for marketers is that to build such a matrix that has real relevance can cost a lot of money. It is one thing to do an audit of an existing brand, entirely another to audit a market category to identify holes in the competitive profiles which can be leveraged.

Understanding the factors that will drive distinctiveness that are relevant to the consumer is the first point of call. There is often the debate about the role of creativity in determining what is distinctive and relevant, and how that distinctiveness is captured by the combination of visual, aural, and verbal characteristics.

For example, what I regard as being a truly great example of Australian brand building is Meadow Lea margarine. While it is now relegated to the discount bins through stupidity and poor brand management, the tagline ‘You ought to be congratulated’ would bring ‘Meadow Lea’ straight into the mind of most Australian women over 50. Early in the process of building Meadow Lea, qualitative research identified that women were still doing most cooking and housework while increasingly holding down a job and managing the family. They were sensitive to criticism in all these areas, and were looking for acknowledgement. Meadow Lea acknowledged the emotional need and addressed it by telling them they deserved to be recognised and congratulated. The advertising captured the essence of that acknowledgement, visually, aurally, and verbally. Over the course of a couple of years Meadow Lea went from being one of many brands of margarine, to being absolutely dominant. I would suggest that the remnants of that brand salience remains. 30 years after the idiots who inherited Meadow Lea after the usual multinational financial engineering occurred and the advertising stopped, most still correctly associate ‘you ought to be congratulated’ with Meadow Lea.

Typically, the steps to build a brand cost a lot of money in advertising, and importantly in the initial stage of identifying those elements that can be built into distinctive brand assets.  Most small businesses do not have the resources to even begin. However, two points are relevant:

  • If you are a local plumber, accountant, architect, whatever you may be, you need only be distinctive in your local market, however you define that market.
  • AI is throwing up tools that locals can use that promise to deliver at a relatively modest cost, and with some marginally compromised accuracy, the sort of understanding previously only possible after big investments. Mark Ritson, Marketing Prof at large recently wrote a very useful post in which he labels this data as: ‘synthetic data’.

Thinking strategically and acting creatively is the foundation of identifying, building and leveraging distinctive brand assets. You should try it!

My thanks for the catalyst of this post, and the outline for the header graphic goes to the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for marketing science.

 

How fast can the development beat of AI become?

How fast can the development beat of AI become?

November 30, 2022, will be remembered as the day AI was unleashed upon a largely unsuspecting world. Dall-E had been around for some months, but it was OpenAI’s launch of ChatGPT that opened the floodgates.

Yesterday, November 6, 2023, OpenAI announced they are launching custom versions of ChatGPT that users will be able to customise for specific purposes.

No coding required, the code-monkeys in the background will be doing that for you.

As is now a common strategy, there will be a ‘GPT Store’ where community developed bots will be made available for sale.

This press release from OpenAI gives the story and provides food for thought.

For those few in businesses who have not spent any time figuring out how to use at least a few of the deluge of AI applications and platforms that have sprung out at us in the last 12 months, better get on with it. Your time will be limited.

 Header: was created by Dall-E in about 30 seconds, including writing the instruction.

The six essential copywriting tips.

The six essential copywriting tips.

 

Over the course of writing 2,500 plus blog posts and many articles and presentations while reading widely on the advice to copywriters, usually published by those desperately seeking to sell some sort of course, the commonality of advice is clear.

  • Without an attention grabbing headline you are toast. David Ogilvy noted: ‘On average five times as many people read the headline as read the body copy. When you’ve written your headline you have spent $0.80 out of your dollar”. Find a way to insert your key benefit into the headline
  • Have an early hook in the copy. This could be a question, surprising fact, contentious observation, a statement of the bleeding obvious, or even a one line joke. All of these will encourage the reader to get further into the copy.
  • Employ the bouncing magnet. Everywhere use the device of bouncing from positive to negative, to positive, back to negative, back to positive. For example, copy selling a cash flow service might read as follows:

Imagine a future where your business is thriving, cash flow is strong, and financial freedom is beckoning.

Sadly, the reality for many business owners is quite different.

Cash flow problems seem endemic.

Payment of unexpected expenses, slow debtor payments, losing a significant order, can make life a nightmare.

Don’t despair, we’re here to help you regain control.

Our proven financial management solutions have empowered many businesses to turn the cash flow challenges into opportunities for growth.

It is a fact that many financial advisors and software tools promise the world and deliver little. You’ve been burnt by these claims in the past.

Our approach is different.

We do not offer quick fixes or empty promises, we provide a tailored, data driven plan that aligns with your unique business goals and challenges.

You have a right to be hesitant given the previous promises made and broken.

That is why we offer a satisfaction guarantee: if within 60 days you are not experiencing a noticeable improvement in your cash flow, we will refund your investment in full.

Take control of your financial future today, join our satisfied clients who have seen their cash flow transformed, and dreams become a reality.

  • Consider the ratio of copy to surrounding whitespace. Blocks of dense small font copy tends to be intimidating and uninviting to the casual visitor. It is much better to have lots of white space surrounding the copy with numerous paragraph breaks to make the reading of it easy and inviting. If you need evidence of this, copy the above cash flow tool sales pitch, remove the paragraph breaks, and see how less readable it is then!
  • Say more with less. Enough said.
  • Recognise the first draught will be rubbish. First draft is what you’re setting out to say, the 3rd or 4th is how you really want to say it. There are editing tools in Word, and other commonly used writing software and AI is throwing up new editing and copy improvement tools like mushrooms after rain. Use them to assist the development of your copy. Good writing like anything that is good takes time and effort on top of some level of talent for the task.

I try and do all this in my writing, but generally I’m only able to reach a level I would consider OK. I’m a scribbler rather than a copywriter.  However as a means of organising and extracting from between my ears all the stuff going on, it is an absolutely necessary exercise. The quality of the writing in technical terms is an entirely different matter, and ultimately up to the reader

PS. Where do I buy that cash flow tool?

 

 

Are FMCG brands facing an extinction event?

Are FMCG brands facing an extinction event?

 

 

When I was a boy in this business, back in the seventies, having a brand was table stakes to be in the game. At that time, there were a number of supermarket chains, and every one was stocked with a suppliers proprietary branded product.

There were many types and scale of brands. From the small producers hoping for a modest segment in the market that would provide a living and employment in their modest factories, to the multi-national, mass market giants. There were no ‘House brands’, until Franklins as an experiment ranged ‘No Frills’ margarine, packed by my then employer Vegetable Oils Ltd, which later became Meadow Lea foods.

Over time, the number of supermarkets reduced to the two gorillas and Aldi that we have today, and the number of brands reduced from the many hundreds down to the few MNC brands, with a very few exceptions, which are slowly being squeezed of life today.

If the trends of those 40 years continue, a brand extinction event is getting closer every day.

The latest victim is Sara Lee.

Originally the brand came from the US, and at its height had diversified into a wide range of products from the initial frozen cakes to clothing, and real estate. The Australian business has been through several owners, the most recent being a Dutch company nobody outside the industry would have heard of.

Manufacturers have been their own worst enemies.

They have failed to recognise the long-term impact on their profitability of the increasing power of Woolies and Coles, with the recent addition of Aldi. Retailers do not care about proprietary brands; their goal is their own profitability. If they cannot have your product on shelf, they are just as happy to have an alternative.

Increasingly over the past 30 years that alternative has been a house brand.

When retailers own the shelf space from which consumers pick products, and also ‘own’ the sales margins from half the products for sale, guess who wins. Retailers have used their muscle to squeeze out proprietary brands, taking the proprietary margin for themselves. The stupidity is that manufacturers have aided and abetted this quest to destroy them, by supplying the products and stopping the long-term brand building that made them successful. The funds have been redirected by manufacturers from advertising and brand building back into price promotion. Selling with price being the only differentiator is a sure way to destroy a brand.

To explain the resilience of a few brands, and some that resisted the retailer pressure for years before succumbing, you need look no further than effective, long term brand building advertising. The Vegemite jingle is in the brains of most Australians over 40, and Vegemite persists. Aeroplane jelly is also there, and I would guess the brand could be rejuvenated by a return. Similarly, Meadow Lea is a shadow of its former self, but 30 years after the great ‘you ought to be congratulated’ advertising finished, the positioning of Meadow Lea remains viable, and could be revived with investment.

To explain the failure of FMCG management to continue to invest in their proprietary brands over the years, allowing house brands to take over, you need look no further than the lack of understanding of the contrary dynamics at work.

Advertising is a long term investment, over numbers of years. Advertising is treated as an expense, one that is accounted for on an annual basis in the accounts of businesses. These two contrary forces, when allied to executive KPI’s dominated by accounting thinking, and the increasing power of the retailers to demand discounts as a necessity for distribution has drained the capital necessary for brand investment. The retailers are happy, they have the margin. The short term executive profitability goals of a few executives may be reached, so they are happy individuals. However, the brands have been destroyed, and the long term viability of their manufacturing operations been compromised, in most cases, terminally.

That in a nutshell, leaving aside questions of the operational efficiency of the Sara Lee business, is why it is now on the discount block itself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is Dunbar’s number still relevant?

Is Dunbar’s number still relevant?

 

Throughout human evolution, we have existed in small groups, tribes and clans. Individuals have worked together for the common good of the small tribe, and often, perhaps most often, been at odds with the tribe across the river.

British anthropologist Robin Dunbar introduced his theory that humans can maintain stable social relationships with no more than 150 people. This is a theory now so well accepted that ‘Dunbar’s number‘ has almost become a cliché.

The phrase ‘Stable Social Relationships’ has particular relevance in the age of social media platforms. How many friends do you have on Facebook, connections on LinkedIn, followers on Instagram?? For many, it is way beyond 150.

Question: How do you maintain ‘Stable Social Relationships’ with that number of people?

Answer: You cannot.

Social media gets the blame for all sorts of things, rightly so, but it is not the fault of the platforms, it is the fault of evolution.

Our application of technology has run well ahead of our evolutionally capacity to manage it and retain the relationships that made us the most successful species ever.

It seems to me that the growth of private messaging, reversion to personalised even handwritten notes, and emotional engagement of ‘Local’ things is a response to the ‘platformisation’ of our social relationships.

I think it is a trend that will continue and grow.

Now we have the relative unknown of AI coming at us like a train, changing again the basis on which we interact.

Dr Dunbar has little advice on that score.

I wonder if ‘friends’ will ever include Robbie the Robot?