Posts Tagged ‘Marketing’

Marketing 2.0, but not Company 2.0

Friday, October 16th, 2009

companycomputer

Interesting thoughts came up while listening to the Podcast Brand Fast-trackers with Peter Hirshberg, Co-Founder and Chairman of The Conversation Group.

Or, maybe not as much thoughts as a “my creator, he might be on to something here” experience.

They conversation concerned that companies must work hard to keep their brand updated to the ever changing market. Though this is a not new finding, what struck a chord with me was when Peter Hirshberg said that too many companies are now updating to Web 2.0 and will soon understand that they need to use Marketing 2.0 (applying social media in their marketing) as well. However, what a company must do while doing all this, is to update their company to COMPANY 2.0.

I never heard anyone talk about it, and that might be the reason for why I became so excited. It is easy to say that one should update to web 2.0 and marketing 2.0, because that only means to exchange one part of the company structure or plan, for another. The old marketing plan can be changed of the course of a month or maybe a long weekend at some hip resort.

But, can your company take all this? Does your customer get all this, or will they be lost because too much of what they once knew about your company are now lost due to all of this.

Think of your company as a computer that you bought in the year 2000. Think about the design, the size of the hard drive, the processor, the CD-ROM and all other features.

Now think of the same computer today. To make it work, you have probably updated the hard drive to get more size since files are bigger, and you need more data. You have bought more RAM to operate the huge programs you are running everyday. This means that you have probably update the programs, and the operating system.
The only thing that is still what it was is the shell that surrounds all this.

You might work or started your own company a few years ago, and up until now you have done these changes that one have to do. When the market grew, so did you – more people being hired, and you had to get educated on how things that you ones knew by heart, work in today are setting. The company has a website, if you are a hip company you might have a Facebook group or a blog that is used to communicate to your customers. And right about now, it is time to operate the marketing plan as well.

The problem is, that no one of your customers sees this, or the market. They just see the same company that ha been there for many years. Same CEO, same theme, same logo. The attributes that forms the structure of the company are still the same, and people might find that as negative.

IBM found themselves in a situation were their company was not needed anymore. They had changed everything INSIDE the company, but to really make that leap that they needed, they had to change the outside, the shell as well.

It is easy for a author, researcher or mr/mrs Know-it-All to use expressions as “2.0″. But what about the ones who are supposed to do all this, the companies? It is time that some one stopped talking about “all the cool” things, and focused on what this means for the market.

For more on this subject, read these posts from other blogs, Carl Rosenberg & Passionate.

Attached Files:

Sponsoring – Get more bang for your buck

Tuesday, September 22nd, 2009

Prof. Eric Olson gave us four articles to read concerning sponsoring, and it touches upon something I have written about before, namely here.

Here’s my question that I asked for the class, with some-what of an answer. I will come back to this later, since this will be part of my master thesis.

By introducing two forms of sponsorships, one time or ongoing, could companies receive maximum out of sponsoring?

Question will be answered by using all four articles, plus an additional doctorial thesis by Fredrik Törn, How established brands can enhance their strength, interestingness, and vitality”. In his report, he conclude that incongruence in sponsoring might work better than if there is a connection between the brands, however, this only works once since the person who views the commercial a second time then has had the time to make a connection, thus won’t react the same once again. This is a slight opposite finding than the Cornwell et. al. article.

This lead me to think that an event could have two different kind of contracts, depending on how the actual sponsors that are plausibly related to the sponsored property, are more likely to be correctly identified an recognized. Fredrik Törn uses the example of Red Bull, the energy drink, sponsoring a Shakespeare play. Though there is no connection between the formats, nor would an avid Shakespearian viewer bring a Red Bull to the play, this would work as an eye-opener for a viewer, thus earn Red Bull more brand recognition, than if they were to sponsor another sport event.

Thus, at a sport event, sign a contract with a company that will give them mayor exposure at one particular time, but make it clear enough that people will recognize it. At a Baseball game, put a sign for ballet classes, at the ballet, why not for a WWE match on pay-per-view? Then, as mentioned in the Johar et. al. the more a person watches the commercial/ad the more likely is it that the person will recognize the company as a true sponsor. Therefore, one should have another contract that companies can sign if they wish to get a lot of exposure but for a longer time, in case of sports an entire season, etc. Ad this to the Olson et. al. 2009 about different spots to have the company logo and the connection to the event.

Japan – Tokyo…

Sunday, September 13th, 2009

…it’s just something about it that makes me want to throw all the knowledge I have ever learned in marketing & branding, and rethink everything.

Fredrik Törn – Challenging Consistency

Monday, August 3rd, 2009

I do not know how much, but ask any professor in communication and s/he will tell you that any human being in the western world are attacked every day with different kinds of attention-seekers. Be it commercials, other humans, and what not.

Fredrik Törn released his doctoral thesis on “how established brands can enhance their strength, interestingness, and vitality.

All in all, it is six articles and I do believe he might have broken some new grounds in this one.

Notes:

Incongruent: When ad and brand are not corresponding with each other.

Quote from Keller on the importancy on maintaining consistency in ads:

It is important when building it, however, not crushial

It takes time to understand the incongruency

To uphold realism in a brand study, one should follow what McQuarrie (1998) found in order to get a result as close to reality as possible, using the

The Six Factors of Reality

  1. Advertisements are embedded and not the focus of attention
  2. Advertisements attempt to influence choice
  3. Advertisements are subject to competitive interference
  4. Advertisements must influence choice after a delay
  5. Advertisements may be repeated, and
  6. Much advertising is for familiar brands
  7. Effect of student sample (Fredrik Törn added!)

The methods which are successful to build brands equity (for new brands) may have to be revised when moved to enhance well established brands.

A brand with an incongruent connection between ad & brand will get more

  • Attention,
  • Emotional response,
  • there is a more sophisticated process of brand association,
  • a better brand recall
  • it is more latched into the viewers memory, and
  • the belief will be largely unchanged

Ad attitude and Brand attitude is weaker for familiar brands than for unfamiliar brands

An incongruent ad works less the second time, since the viewer has connected the ad to the brand, thus it is congruent in this person’s mind.

Though most studies done by mr. Törn showed that this will help a brand to be recognized and get attention, one study, however, showed that the brand attitude and the purchase intentions were remained unchanged.

Using an incongruent celebrity endorsement worked for market-leading brands, as well as for a second-tier brand, however, as with the other, the connection has to make sense. Tiger Woods being an endorser for diapers makes sense if people understand that he has children, but not if he’s a bachelor running around “getting tail and being protected”.