Dump the thrill of the new if the old still works best
There are few more enthusiastic than myself in extolling the worth of experimentation, testing, trial and validation of all aspects of commercial communication.
If we could get a consistent and maintained application of better scientific methods in marketing communication, our business would be more strongly placed to withstand the economic downturns and rebut the threats of budget cut backs et all.
So when advertisers set out "to boldly go where no one has gone before" my attention increases and I watch with eager anticipation. I accept the thrill of the new opportunity is most attractive. Manitaining the conventional rarely holds attention.
But what possesses advertisers to announce proudly that the revolution must continue when the evidence mounts that it isn't working. Do we have to embrace the ostrich in the sand mentality? Are we sometimes just not clever enough to admit we just got it wrong?
A recently reported example highlights the phenomena.
A major US advertiser, with Brand A and Brand B in the same category, appointed a new style agency to handle the newly acquired brand A. The new media strategy included new packaging, a pop up store in downtown Manhattan; a YouTube video generating loads of responses, plus additional spend. The campaign won international awards and the advertiser placed further business with the agency
The advertiser appointed a conventional agency to handle the launch of Brand B using conventional media.
Sales of Brand A declined 32% and Brand B market share reached all time high. The double digit sales growth of Brand B was offset by declines in Brand A.
The advertiser's CMO is reported to conclude as follows: -
"The revolution must continue. We really think we've moved the needle on innovation and creativity and we are not going to stop. The world is changing and we need to change with it"
You just have to gasp in awe at this nonsense. I wonder what the company's FD has to say? I wonder how the company CEO reacts when his stock price falls?
Still they are in good company. Our political leaders in the UK as well as the US maintain a blinkered fetish in believing the intervention in Iraq is "working" despite bucket loads of evidence to the contrary. At least Blair is gone and Bush wont be far behind. How much longer for this CMO? Not long I sense.
Please cut your losses if its not working and don't throw out convention if it still works
(first published on New York's Mediapost website - www.mediapost.com - February 11th 2008)
If we could get a consistent and maintained application of better scientific methods in marketing communication, our business would be more strongly placed to withstand the economic downturns and rebut the threats of budget cut backs et all.
So when advertisers set out "to boldly go where no one has gone before" my attention increases and I watch with eager anticipation. I accept the thrill of the new opportunity is most attractive. Manitaining the conventional rarely holds attention.
But what possesses advertisers to announce proudly that the revolution must continue when the evidence mounts that it isn't working. Do we have to embrace the ostrich in the sand mentality? Are we sometimes just not clever enough to admit we just got it wrong?
A recently reported example highlights the phenomena.
A major US advertiser, with Brand A and Brand B in the same category, appointed a new style agency to handle the newly acquired brand A. The new media strategy included new packaging, a pop up store in downtown Manhattan; a YouTube video generating loads of responses, plus additional spend. The campaign won international awards and the advertiser placed further business with the agency
The advertiser appointed a conventional agency to handle the launch of Brand B using conventional media.
Sales of Brand A declined 32% and Brand B market share reached all time high. The double digit sales growth of Brand B was offset by declines in Brand A.
The advertiser's CMO is reported to conclude as follows: -
"The revolution must continue. We really think we've moved the needle on innovation and creativity and we are not going to stop. The world is changing and we need to change with it"
You just have to gasp in awe at this nonsense. I wonder what the company's FD has to say? I wonder how the company CEO reacts when his stock price falls?
Still they are in good company. Our political leaders in the UK as well as the US maintain a blinkered fetish in believing the intervention in Iraq is "working" despite bucket loads of evidence to the contrary. At least Blair is gone and Bush wont be far behind. How much longer for this CMO? Not long I sense.
Please cut your losses if its not working and don't throw out convention if it still works
(first published on New York's Mediapost website - www.mediapost.com - February 11th 2008)
This article suggests we must either experiment, or stick with what we know works.
In my opinion, this presents a false choice: neither wild-eyed experimentation nor cold-blooded conservatism alone is likely to produce strong results over the long term.
The advertiser in question ought to be commended for having the guts to try some new things AND for having the good sense to place more conservative bets at the same time.
Learning to walk (and then run) inevitably leads to bruises and skinned knees. Sticking purely to crawling because that’s what works may be a safer option, but it won’t get us very far. Nor will it provide a different perspective.
The purpose of experiments is to teach us not just about what works, but about what doesn’t work.
With that said, I agree entirely with John when he says we should not throw out convention when it still works. The tightrope we must all walk is to learn all we can about the future, while doing enough conventional things to make sure we survive today
Reply to this
Since writing this item, I picked up strong evidence of dumping the non-working new and re-embracing the old, from the UK radio medium.
Fru Hazlitt, the new CEO of GCap, the largest commercial radio group in the UK has completely abandoned it’s large investment in Digital radio and closed the exclusively digital stations. The evidence from the market is that consumers aren’t prepared to dump analogue sets and replace them with new digital sets, because the “improved” sound just isn't there and what there is isn't worth anything.
So rather than contiunue this government inspired new medium Fru has said let’s dump it and spend the money on programmes and stations listeners actually like and switch on.
It’s not rocket science but just plain sensible commercial reality.
The digital radio emperor has no clothes and Fru Hazlitt gets what the listeners are saying; they just prefer analogue sound.
A welcome reality check. There's no fru fru with Fru
Reply to this