Charting A Shift from Communications to Engagements
The nature of advertising and branding is changing.
The dictionary definition of advertising, “the act or practice of calling public attention to one’s product, service, need, etc.” is starting to feel pretty quaint. In fact, even the term “advertising” is starting to feel off the mark.
In all honesty, marketing is starting look a lot less like marketing communications and a lot more like service design. So to put a stake in the ground, I propose that a more accurate description of modern advertising is “engagement design.” My definition, (heavily based off Live | Work’s definition of service design) is “the design of [branded] experiences that add value through many different touch-points over time.” The culmination of these experiences creates a “brand,” the general impression left with a consumer.
What does that mean? The old advertising model, the one predicated on message dissemination, was designed to use multiple touchpoints to convey an idea about a brand. In that model, a brand positioning is planned and communicated through repetition, creativity and ubiquity. That’s not what we’re talking about here.
The new marketing is about creating 360⁰ brand experiences, not messaging. Consumers should buy into to your brand’s ideas, not just your product. Instead of defining “Reason’s To Believe”, you need to define “Reasons To Be.” Why shouldn’t your product be a commodity? Why does it deserve a brand (and the pricing premium that goes along with)?
The Starbucks Brand circa 2006 (click to enlarge)
The figure above from John Grant’s 2006 book, “Brand Innovation Manifesto,” looks at the totality of the Starbucks brand as a series of built up, connected touchpoints and experiences. Its age fails to represent and credit the brand’s digital touch points as part of the Starbucks molecule.
Regardless, its insight is right on point — the Starbucks brand isn’t contained in any communication or campaign, but rather is understood through its many touchpoints. This means that the Pizza Hut ordering app is just as much a part of their brand as the TV spots. A Mercedes Benz financing tool as much as the print ad. Gmail as much as those cute Google Chrome adverts. Of course, the difference is… some of those are advertising, the others add real consumer value. That’s not to say advertising doesn’t have a role to play, just that it should play a small part in the larger picture of brand planning.
In 2009, brands are finally warming to the digital age of branding. It’s challenging, because the communications age of branding is coming to a close – but it’s also loaded with opportunity.
Follow the author: @brianchiger Follow AgencyNet: @agencynet
Mark Sanderson…
Brian,
I linked over to your article from your comment on adage.com (your posting worked!). I agree that brand experiences are a major part of advertising success. However, messaging is still needed. Otherwise, consumers are left with experiences, but with no direction. The messaging keeps the brand connected with the product rather than letting the experience run away to its own separate domain.
Brian…
I think we’re in agreement, though I would argue that “message” may be the wrong word for it. Certainly a positioning and a point of view.
In my experience, many “messages” become too rigid to be successfully deployed in the digital space. So simple messages like “CHEWY is the gum with the BIG flavor!” which worked great in traditional media tend to feel pretty flat in the interactive and social space.
On the other hand, there’s no reason CHEWY gum couldn’t build a positioning around “big” and create experiences, social interactions, touchpoints, and yes, traditional adverts that play off that space.
“CHEWY is the gum that thinks about, cares about, supports, creates, admires, brags about, and immerses itself in OUTLANDISHLY BIG things!”
It seems like semantics at first, but the later is loaded with action verbs and things for the brand to do vs. things for the brand to say. Brands need to build that kind of thinking into their core identities and deploy it across the full spectrum of their brand experience.
(BTW, I’m glad you found my post! Debate is a wonderful thing!)
Mark Sanderson…
Hey Brian!
I think my concern was more about the “experience” running away from the product or the purpose of the experience. To use your example, if CHEWY came up with an experience to promote their gum (such as a fun computer game), if they weren’t careful the experience could become disconnected from the gum and cease functioning as an advertisement. The experience would then just be an experience without anything pointing people to the product. Hence, their needs to be some kind of message to accompany the experience. Does that make sense?
And, yes, I do think we are in agreement.
Brian…
Totally. The need for careful brand planning remains paramount. Otherwise, like you said, the experience becomes fragmented and confusing.
Brands still need to remain consistent!