Dec 15, 2023 | Branding, Innovation
A year ago I stumbled across ChatGPT for the first time, had a poke around, and wrote this post. Over the following few months, I tried to keep up with what was happening, but at addendum 20, called it a day.
Generative AI became the fastest growing product group in history, with ChatGPT the leading runner by several furlongs, a lead that has been cemented over a year of frantic activity.
The release spawned several major competitors from the neighbours, and hundreds of unexpected applications built on top of the core (Large Language Model LLM) technology. This is a trend that will continue to accelerate.
Depending on who you listen to, we are either a year or two from ‘sentience’, the passing of Alan Turing’s test, or at least several decades away, and possibly will never get there.
The corporate rumble at OpenAI is a bit like Mad Uncle Henry turning up at your kids birthday party, drinking all the red cordial, and going bonkers. The structure as it was set up could not absorb the unprecedented growth. One lot wanted a slow orderly, and safe evolution of AI that did not repeat the mistakes of social media, the other basically said ‘stuff it’, let’s make a few billion!!
It seems like order was restored between the warring parties when the landlord stamped and said ‘Enough’. Capitalists won, and Mad Uncle Henry has been carted away to a comfortable retirement. Who would have guessed?
So far, the resurrection at OpenAI, the return of Sam Altmann (it was 3 days) seems to be working, but who knows what is going on in the minds of those in charge. This blended family model was bound to have difficulties, it just happened way faster than anyone anticipated.
Meanwhile, those not invited to the party continue to rave about the output, while complaining that it is wrong a lot of the time. They just do not understand the difference between an answer that is fact checked and therefore accurate, which is what we expect, and one based on probabilities, which is what your ‘artificially intelligent’ probability models are giving them.
There is no list of pre-programmed answers available from a database as is the case now for the various precursors like the Alexa’s of the previous generation. You are based on a huge volume of stuff on the web, which is why they are called LLM’s, and as we know not everything on the web is checked for accuracy. If it was, my bank account would now be in the billions after all those Nigerian princes I have helped.
Your answers are, as I said, based on the probabilities of an approximate answer built up as you trawl the training sets extracted from the web.
Alexa will give you an answer to your question, so long as the question has been anticipated, and the answer programmed in. You by contrast, will give an answer, but it will not necessarily be the ‘right’ answer. Many questions in life have a range of potential answers, sometimes that is all that is needed, they can be helpful, but AI machines cannot give ‘The’ definitive answer, the one and only, to many of the complex questions we are tempted to ask.
No silver bullet there!
This is very difficult territory for many, as the answers given are in natural language, the language we use every day, so they appear to be exactly as expected. This gives confidence in an answer that does not deserve that confidence. Without critical examination any so called Artificial Intelligence will deliver you rubbish as often as not. However, it can be extremely useful rubbish, able to provide a framework, provide ideas, and do much of the ‘grunt-work’ so often shuffled aside.
Smarter people than me are unable to offer much insight into what might happen next, and it is of no use whatsoever to ask Chat or any of his mates. They have no idea either. Two things I do know. It will be fun, and somewhat scary watching. Secondly, our world has changed, and becoming a dinosaur in your market can now happen almost in the blink of an eye.
Don’t blink first.
The header is courtesy of DALL-E, the sibling of Chat. I asked it to give me an impression of the OpenAI logo exploding, with a Gothic/surrealist feel. I chose this one from a pretty scary lot generated in about 15 seconds.
Nov 27, 2023 | Branding, Customers
Every time I go through a supermarket checkout, I find myself surprised at the total of the bill. Should be used to it by now, but no, I’m not!
The two supermarket gorillas, Coles and Woolworths have both released their annual results in the last month, and shareholders, which via superannuation is most of us, should be very happy.
Woolworths pocketed $1.6 billion on significantly increased margins, and Coles managed $1.1 billion on similarly better margins. The percentages are way above those generated by peers in developed countries, for the simple reason that they are an oligopoly and leverage that power to generate profit. Aldi has made an impact and continues to do a good job of ‘keeping the bastards honest’ but the fact remains, profit comes from market power. It is also fair to acknowledge that both have done a pretty good job of optimising their current operations, which also contributes to those juicy profit numbers.
Supermarket retailers, and other retailers in a position to exercise market power, are in two businesses that together make a powerful business model:
The first is renting retail real estate to their suppliers.
The second is selling products to consumers.
Both are transactional, with constant negotiation between the retailers and their suppliers. Sadly, there is an unequal distribution of power between the retailer and the supplier, so the use of price on both sides of the equation by retailers has become ubiquitous.
They extract maximum ‘rental’ for the shelf space, while being relatively unconstrained at the checkout by competitive pressure.
As a result, suppliers are screwed down so hard that even the very best of them have trouble returning the cost of capital, and price competition that benefits the consumer is a myth.
The price-based promotion programs deeply embedded in the psyche of both retailers and their ever-decreasing pool of suppliers destroys brands. Over the time I have been watching, the supplier margins from which springs the innovation that keeps categories fresh and interesting to consumers, has disappeared.
Retailers are lousy marketers. Ask one to explain the drivers of purchase and they have only one answer: price. Anyone who has ever bought anything knows that is rubbish.
For long term commercial sustainability of both retailers and their pool of suppliers, there must be a balance between tactical promotion and the innovation investment that generates category and brand growth, and there must be serious competition.
That no longer exists. Marketing and behavioural research over many years is unequivocal. Healthy markets need both.
Retailers have used price as their only tool because they can. In the process they have killed off almost all proprietary brands, replacing them with house brands, which are no more than carbon copies. There is no longer category or product innovation, and no suppliers willing to invest in brands, just a conga line of copycats.
The cost-of-living crisis facing many consumers today will become a strategic crisis for the retail gorillas as they fail to evolve their business model.
Nov 13, 2023 | Branding, Customers
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.
Sep 20, 2023 | Branding, Marketing
Many of my clients are SME’s whose businesses are localised in some way, usually to the boundaries of the city they are in. The budgets they have for marketing are limited, so they must make every dollar count.
A very common and deadly mistake they make is to not be aware of the distinction between ‘Sales activation’ and longer-term branding role of advertising.
They are very different, and impact your business differently.
I am old enough to remember the ‘Pink pages’ business directory. A phone book of all registered businesses in which you could advertise. Local shops, tradies, piano tuners, and hundreds of other types of businesses were listed. When you needed one, that is where you went to find them.
The pink pages is dead, replaced by Google.
You go to Google when you need to find something, today. Google does not sell anything beyond access. Other sites like Shopify and Amazon do sell stuff, but are focussed on the transaction, the immediate sale. You only go there when you are looking to buy, now.
Advertising is the opposite end of the stick.
Most of the times you see an ad, you are not in the market for that product or service. The objective of the ad is to be remembered, to leave a positive impression, so that when you are in the market, the product comes to mind as the saviour. In the jargon, you build up ‘brand salience’, the recall of the brand and the value it delivers when the need arises.
Local businesses cannot afford large scale media, so must be more creative. However, all the disciplines that large advertisers use to get their message across and embedded in the minds of their potential customers can be used. All come from the marketing 101 basics book, and often after a set-up cost, are then free.
Following are some of the advertising ‘media’ that have proved successful over the years in generating revenue for ‘Localised marketing’
-
-
- Vehicle signage.
- Local sponsorships, such as the kids soccer team.
- Local collaborations. The shoe shop and dress shop jointly cross promoting.
- Testimonials from well-known locals, an even unknown ones who are identified as ‘local’
- Local social media.
- Branded collateral, from stickers, to fridge magnets, shopping bags, T-shirts and caps.
- Local signage,
- Participation in, and sponsorship of local events
- A ‘locally optimised’ website, and use of the ‘Google Business Profile‘. The GBP is essential, and free.
- And, the best of all, referrals from locals to other locals.
You do not need to be a large business to be a successful advertiser, but you do need to think about advertising with a different mindset to the usual ‘grab a sale today’ that dominates the thinking of most local businesses.
Header credit: Windows Factory. The branding of Windows Factory vans have paid for themselves many times over, just from people stopping them in the street.
Sep 15, 2023 | Branding, Strategy
Qantas is at the centre of a political, legal, and social bunfight.
On Tuesday 13th, (Sept 2023) Qantas lost an appeal in the High Court, being found guilty of sacking almost 1,700 Qantas workers illegally, replacing them with staff from labour hire businesses. This whack across the corporate chops comes behind outrage at Qantas selling tickets on flights they had already cancelled, lost baggage, failure to refund ticketholders, last minute cancellations of flights, and lousy service inflight and on the ground.
Alan Joyce is the prime target of the outrage, having just walked away a few months early with a pile of cash in salary and bonuses. Then there was another pile from the sale of shares at a time when he must have known the ACCC was investigating ticket sales, but the investing public did not. By most definitions, a clear case of insider trading.
Yet, in all this, should he shoulder all the blame?
Throughout his long tenure Joyce has aggressively cut costs by making radical and most ‘unQantas-like’ choices. Always he has had the support of the Qantas board. It is reasonable to assume the board endorsed all the strategies Joyce has implemented to cut costs, as well as waving through his compensation packages over the years. The chairman at least, must have also agreed to the $17 million share sale into a buyback scheme in the first week of June.
The Qantas board have clearly tied Joyce’s package to short term profitability with little regard for much else. It is therefore understandable albeit morally bankrupt, for him to optimise his personal wealth, arguably at the expense of the long-term commercial health of Qantas. As Peter Drucker observed ‘You get what you measure’.
The board is, or should be, the voice of shareholders. Qantas would be held in the portfolios of most superannuation fund managers in Australia. Therefore, we are all shareholders who will benefit from the profitability of Qantas. We have already benefited from the negotiations that squeezed $2.7 billion in various forms of support from the government over the covid period.
The morality of the governance of Qantas can be questioned, and the courts have found them guilty of illegally sacking workers, for which they (and us as shareholders) will pay a large price. There should be accountability and retribution for this sad state of affairs to be handed out. Some should go to Joyce, but a substantial majority of it should be directed to a board that has failed in its governance role as the guardians of the long term health of the business.
Note: I do not know Joyce, although did meet him once at a function, and did not like him at all. Probably because I was of no use to him, so he was abrupt (bloody rude) as he moved on to a juicier target across the room. Good riddance.
Header credit: cartoon by Lewis, from a Pinterest board by Janice Bell
Aug 30, 2023 | Branding, Marketing
Marketers have outsourced creative development to specialists from the beginning of media advertising in the late 1800’s. Correctly, there was a realisation that it was a specialist skill, not easily found, nurtured, and leveraged.
Amongst the daily advertising dross have been creative gems that have built great brands. At least they were great for a while before stupid management cut the creative advertising budgets in favour of short-term sales activation, a quantitative dead end.
Over the last 8 months another monster has emerged, and suddenly the conversations I hear about are all how to get A.I. to do your creative for you, and save a heap.
Well, here is the news: It cannot.
AI should be called EI. Enhanced Intelligence, not Artificial. All it does is build on what we already have, make connections, do drafts, take what has happened in the past and extrapolate.
Creativity has no role in AI, at least not yet.
Would AI have come up with the great 1964 Volkswagen “Snowplough‘ ad, the one voted the best ad of all time by the Cannes panel? Could AI have maintained that creative standard culminating in the 2012 Darth Vader series?
If there was anything that pushed the disastrous Volkswagen software rort off the front pages, it was this 50 years of brand equity built up by the brilliant, creative advertising.
A.G. Laffey when CEO of P&G recognised that the creativity had been stifled by the rules set in place by a right brained organisation. As a result, everything was stale and boring, as were P&G’s results. He removed the quantitative hurdles, and challenged their agencies to break the rules they had previously been bound by, and demanded that P&G marketing personnel became less risk averse. A new age of creative advertising supported by a tsunami of new products emerged. P&G doubled in size from the early 2000’s, $US44 to 85 billion revenue, increased margins, and earnings/share increased fourfold.
A few months ago in a SME workshop that had a decidedly older demographic, every person in the room knew the brand when prompted by: ‘you ought to be congratulated’. It is 35 years since Meadow Lea was advertised using that piece of creative genius.
Could AI have come up with that?
Header cartoon credit: Gapingvoid.com
