« Behavior as Communication | Main | Ball of Brand Confusion »
I've just read that PepsiCo is evolving away from traditional mass market advertising towards an approach that connects with its audience in a direct and more meaningful way (WARC News).
According to Frank Cooper III, chief consumer engagement officer for PepsiCo's US beverage arm, "We want to become a catalyst in the culture rather than act like a big brand announcing something."
This is big, big news. It may be a sign that the ship of big brands has finally become aware of the changing environment and is beginning to turn.
In Better than Rational: Evolutionary Psychology and the Invisible Hand, Leda Cosmides and John Tooby explain that “form follows function: the properties of an evolved mechanism reflect the structure of the task it evolved to solve.” So what is the structure of today’s marketing task?
Yesterday’s marketplace was a much simpler environment. People were easy to find, easy to reach and easy to persuade. The marketer’s task was simply to make people “aware” of their new and improved offering. And they did just that, primarily through mega spending on mass media advertising. But the marketplace has evolved. And it appears that it has changed faster than most marketers have changed.
While the marketplace pendulum has swung from a fascination with image and consumption to a preoccupation with experience and value, marketers continue to focus on exposure, messaging and other extinct concepts. But mere awareness is not the nature of the task today.
The marketer’s new task is one of clarity: “How do we make it clear to our audience that we’re in business to help them (and not to hunt them)? How can we get a clearer view and understanding of our audience, so that we can design a business that best feeds their hungers? How can we provide them with a clear view and appreciation of the value of our offering? How can we make it clear to our people that their activities define our brand?”
Clarity should be the guiding principle behind every marketing effort. Clearness of thought. Clearness of appearance. Clearness of purpose. Clarity should inform every campaign, drive every question, and rationalize every dollar spent and every piece of data captured and analyzed.
Whether you’re launching a large scale branding effort, producing an event, or simply crafting an email message, follow these two steps to marketing clarity:
That’s it. Until marketers understand and embrace the concept of clarity, we’ll continue to witness millions wasted on new logos, goofy ads, irrelevant viral campaigns, et al. Open your eyes marketers! Your marketing plans are a smorgasbord of expensive and misguided tactics that collectively fail to add up to a clear and compelling idea -- a reason to believe and to choose. We can see it. Why can’t you?
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c684b53ef0133ef50eb92970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Evolution of Marketing:
The comments to this entry are closed.
(Rest assured, we will never provide your email address to anyone. Period.)
RSS feed
Tom on Twitter
@tomasacker
Tom is timely, thought provoking and all about the new brand vision packaged as a Seinfeld stand up. I went to school on his ideas.
Jeff Taylor, Founder, Monster.com and CEO, Eons.
I wonder how much this evolution changes the marketing scene for B2B marketers. Most of the case studies I see involve B2C. B2B still seems to be focused on content/inbound marketing, which, sure, can have a social media component, but still aren't "all about the customer".
Posted by: Alison Heath | June 01, 2010 at 07:07 PM
Hi Alison. Thanks for the astute observation, and I agree. B2B marketers currently view information as value. But that's only true when information is scarce.
In the next few years, I think you'll begin to see a shift away from content and towards more strategic, value-added activities, especially sense-making of the abundance of "valuable" information. :)
Posted by: Tom Asacker | June 02, 2010 at 11:52 AM
The notion of clarity is valuable. My sense is marketing in larger organizations (like the 1000+ software company that I was employed with a time back) is based on a lot of historical/collective knowledge and less about understanding the current target market behavior. Clarity means you have to understand how a person behaves today, not on how they behaved a few years back.
Posted by: Dag Nybo | June 05, 2010 at 10:02 PM
Great point Dag. And I look at that "historical" knowledge as conventional wisdom, or as Robert Louis Stevenson called it, "pocket wisdom:"
“Most of our pocket wisdom is conceived for the use of mediocre people, to discourage them from ambitious attempts, and generally console them in their mediocrity.”
Posted by: Tom Asacker | June 06, 2010 at 09:34 AM
Though I would’ve loved it much more if you added a relevant video or at least pictures to back up the explanation, I still thought that your write-up quite helpful. It’s usually hard to make a complicated matter seem very easy. I enjoy your weblog and will sign up to your feed so I will not miss anything. Fantastic content
Posted by: Robbins | June 07, 2010 at 05:19 AM
I agree with most of the above post. Brands and companies do need to evolve to create movements, not campaigns.
That said, without numbers, using Pepsi as an example may be a bit premature. It's true they say they are diverting funds away from mass media, but within the last week I have seen them a lot on TV, and in-stadium (an inefficient buy) touting the Refresh Project.
I would caution any marketer to dismiss awareness. (Just ask your sales team.) And let's keep this in mind: Pepsi wants to "become a catalyst in the culture rather than act like a big brand announcing something" because they feel this will help them sell more soda.
Don't mistake tactics for intentions. If the numbers are down, Pepsi will be back on TV, radio, outdoor, etc.
Posted by: Jeff | June 10, 2010 at 08:56 AM
Very good points Jeff. Thanks. And I'm certainly not holding Pepsi up as an exemplar. I'm simply using their own words as an example that the historical model is losing its effectiveness.
Posted by: Tom Asacker | June 10, 2010 at 12:00 PM
Not sure Pepsi is the best example, nor did you say it was either, but your larger point is well taken.
The game has changed. How can I create imagery and campaigns has evolved to how can I imagine and create new value for customers, companies and shareholders.
In the absence of this mindset, brands will find themselves slowly but surely fading into the sunset.
But creating this value requires part b. of your post - Execution. And it's a shame that more marketers don't appreciate/place the value they should on brilliant execution (as their customers do).
Eric Brody
www.twitter.com/ericbrody
Posted by: eric brody | June 10, 2010 at 03:15 PM
"And it's a shame that more marketers don't appreciate/place the value they should on brilliant execution (as their customers do)."
Great point Eric. But stay tuned. That ship is turning too!
Posted by: Tom Asacker | June 10, 2010 at 04:03 PM
It's hard for big brands to turn to social media and online marketing because they are corporations.
Before, they used their brands (a clear and consistent message) to appear "human". In Pepsi's case, not just a cold soda company but a brand Pepsi: blue, refreshing... Pepsi and other brands used branding to become more accessible to masses.
Now the game is changed. Social media requires authenticity, community, clarity and transparency. Qualities that only a real human can possess if you really think about it.
That's why I agree with you when you point out that "Clarity should be the guiding principle behind every marketing effort." Until the people who run those big companies get into the game, they will stay out.
Posted by: Sophie Davis | June 30, 2010 at 01:00 PM
"Social media requires authenticity, community, clarity and transparency."
Indeed Sophie. Great points. And I would argue that business, in general, requires the same. And with a healthy dose of creativity and daring tossed in.
Posted by: Tom Asacker | June 30, 2010 at 01:12 PM