I've always agreed that for some brands the right thing is to nail the codes better and more appealingly than anyone else, not to ignore or break them.

Could even argue that some big salient, old-school brand films like Sony Balls, pretty much do exactly that… Colour, like no other, wasnt new news, just a mass message greatly out-executed vs competition.

Free Software Download

Web development SEO Email Marketing

Web development SEO Email Marketing Virtual Assistant

Email Marketing

Email Marketing

http://www.zeusjones.com/blog/2009/diffusion-co...

Great observation about the mismatch between mass media and niche ideas – I think this is probably a fairly common mistake.

You've definitely got me thinking though, there's more going on in your question than I can figure out right now. I think there may be another post here. Rogers adoption model and communications theory tell you to do different things. There's something interesting in that.

I wonder how media plays a role in this discussion. You note, “The skills and ideas that grab small groups of people are very different from the skills and ideas that grab large numbers of people.” The same could be said of media venues.

To move mass quantities of goods, one might presume you need mass quantities of impressions.

Yet it seems that we're moving, in some instances, towards a desire for quality or intimacy or strict relevancy of communication–which contradicts the old “reach/frequency” model. Is there a contradiction in developing “innovative” ideas then displaying them in mass media? Is that the crux of BK and the post cited by Geoff Northcott?

Thanks, as always, for the brilliant insights.

Tim

Moore focused on selling high-tech products to mainstream customers, but the basic idea–that what appeals withing one segment (of the curve) may not appeal in the next and that a marketer should focus on one segment at a time–seems like it applies here, too.

You're onto some meme with the Ego piece. A couple thousand years ago, marketing meant building a Pyramid to make your mark for all time. Now it's just a brand mark refresh to say you did something for a product.

BTW, congratulations, Mrs Ho – you have a very bright son.

That's a great solution a hybrid model where “innovation” is supplied by the buyer. I wrote about this tangentially a while ago – basically the information to create a thing and the thing itself can be separated in some instances and manufacturing can happen at point of sale. This would be a scenario where your model would be possible. In fashion, I think it's probably coming. Levis tried it in the early 90s but it was a bit before its time. I think it's probably much more feasible technically now and we're also probably more likely to want it today.

http://www.zeusjones.com/blog/2009/information-...

But you do have a great point – we need to be aware of all segments and target parts of our business to different audiences otherwise we run the risk of losing relevance among opinion leaders.

Interesting post as always. I’d definitely agree that often priorities can get skewed, and we’d do very well as an industry to start celebrating tangible results at least as much as we celebrate brilliant creative that never actually ran.

However I think there’s still a place for disruptive or influencer-targeted activity that won’t necessarily scale, yet.

One reason is on that adoption scale above, technologies and trends that become mainstream start off as niche. Companies that innovate around new technologies and platforms like say RFID, mobile applications, or Facebook, may not see dollar-for-dollar results in the next quarter, but the learnings they gain from their exploring may well provide the foundation for true business innovations in the years that come.

Brands that only focus on what reaches the mass now may find themselves on the back foot in two years time when the masses have moved on, and their competitors or challenger brands in the space have all the domain experience as well as an pre-installed influencer audience base. We’re in an age where a platform like Facebook can reach 225 million users in three years, where mobile phones are becoming portable computing devices with all the inherent possibilities that come with that, where kids are growing up with digitally-enabled toys and expect everything to be connected. The pace of change is still accelerating, and ideas are becoming mass quicker than ever. Brands need to be thinking about where things are heading and trying things with the early adopters now that will be ready to scale when the moment arrives, not years too late.

Also, I think in *some* circumstances early adopter and influencer buzz can have a halo effect that reaches and influences a mass audience. Google and Red Bull are examples of brands who do marketing that seems like it’d have negligible ROI when looked at in isolation, but en masse the activity creates significant perceived energy and an image around the brand that radiates strongly enough for the masses to pick it up and be influenced by it. And the fact that the chatter around the brand is coming from influencers rather than from the brand itself does give that activity a disproportionate weight with the mass audience.

However I think overall your point is spot on and the balance is skewed, but had to weigh in on the devil’s advocate side!

Also here are a few posts I've seen recently that I thought were related and might be of interest:

Planning Lab blog discussion on awards-driven creatitvity vs results driven creativity: http://bit.ly/rKHit

Modern Marketing post on breaking the campaign mentality. Key point for me here is the link back to client-side priorities: http://bit.ly/13t9Fk

eConsultancy post on Burger King's marketing garnering all the attention and PR but sales dropping vs McDonald's: http://bit.ly/F8dkY

Cheers,
Geoff

Microsoft and Apple are archtypes, but Gap in the day had some of the same power of pure explorer brands. Gap sold you beautiful elements like jeans and tee shirts, which you then could customize in cool ways with your stuff—a suit jacket or a scarf. You could become like one of the “persons of distinction” as they called their celebrity campaign.

Explorer brands could also include Target, Home Depot, and AT&T. These are brands that not only let you do things, but empower you to do them. I think the concept of an explorer brand is one model for a large consumer company to partner with the consumer in an active way so they aren't invisible, but do so by putting the customer in charge.

I remember when I moved into my first apartment by myself, I went shopping at Room + Board. They were kind of the Ikea of the day. They didn't sell me stuff–they sparked ideas in my head. Great ideas came to me because of them.

You're right about the challenge of understanding the client's point of view. Someone once told me that advertising is about making things different, strategic consulting is about making things better.

I think we need to find out how to do both. Thanks for a great post, as always.