Marketing Amnesia

When I first read about Segmentation, Targeting and Positioning, I was seriously impressed. It was fundamental, it was simple. You had to define different segments of consumers, decide one that you will target (TG) and then position your product favourably to satisfy that consumer segment.

This then becomes the basis for designing the product and advertising it. All cues subtle or overt are intended to convince your TG(target group) to buy into your proposition.

Ok, so every marketer worth his salt knows this.

Let me tell you why I am talking about it. When you ask any marketer to define the consumer, they seem compelled to define one. It can either be too broad or too narrow.

Too Broad
Like children, between the age group of 4-8, or SEC A housewife between the age of 25-45, who wants the best for her family.

Now if I called out to you saying "Hey female between the ages of 25-30, who wants to have the best man in her life, can I take you out for dinner tonight", I would probably be inviting half the world for dinner. But would I manage a date?

Too Narrow
The all intelligent marketer who knows his consumer like the back of his hand would tell you that their consumer likes fine wine, world movies, jazz music, holidays in different parts of the world, appreciates art etc.?

This comes with its own perils, try defining a Coffee Shop consumer or the Pringles consumer. Most marketers will have a single definition, it makes life easy while briefing any creative agency on the next big advertising campaign.

The ad campaign is launched and resonates fantastically with one segment, and suddenly all the other segments are wondering if your brand is meant for them.

Any solution?
The first step is to definitely define multiple target groups. It makes your life difficult but that is required for the acceptance of a brand.

Additionally you might want to abandon the mass media ad campaign?

Red Bull has done this successsfully, they stand for energy right. So they sample in offices to folks who have had a long tiring day, they also sample at rock concerts and at clubs / discs. No mass advertising, but each group individually believes that this drink is for them.

Imagine a mass media campaign from red bull which targets the office goer. It is sure to alienate the party animal and one that targets the party animal is never gonna stick with the hard working bread earner.

In the era of the mass media campaigns, the rule was target one group or loose all. The reason was simple, you had a TV ad which reached the entire nation. You have to choose to alienate.

In the current era of digital advertising, you can remain contextual to different TG's without alienating others. In fact remaining contextual will endear you to all of the TG's and widen your market.

What say?

So here was this company with a strong insight. They went onto brief their agency about this insight and develop a new age super fast commercial that weaves in and out of text and visual.

This seemed inspired from a snakes and ladders game where going up and down can be rather dramatic and sudden especially when executed with flair and enthusiasm for the game. Looks great right!!

Small mistake. They got the insight wrong and angered a whole lot of mom's who had enough free time to retaliate against silly ads which are created with absolutely no research.

So poor Motrin who was under the impression that they made a great ad, was in for a rude shock when they saw the effort mother's took to beat down their ad and convey the right message to vulnerable young mom's who might actually believe that wearing a baby would be the wrong thing to do.

So the attempt at creating brand which understands and empathises was shot down by videos from hurt mothers. This turned Motrin into a brand that doesn't do their homework and certainly doesn't empathise. That is as drastic a brand redefinition as possible.

Any others that you know off? Any brands you would like to redefine?

Source: Speak Media Blog

Lets cut the fluff and get straight to the point - Brand redefinition is certainly a significant possibility, considering that marketers are no longer the only people capable of creating communication which reach the masses.

The more difficult question is when can it be termed as dangerous.

The way I see it, ultimately a brand exists in the mind of its consumers. Different segments take away different experiences from your brand and your brand could mean something unique to each of them. It could be positive or negative, but on the whole it is probably different from what you intended.

Social media only amplifies this existing opinion & brings it to light, so in that sense it is free market research.

With social media a crazy fan could end up portraying your brand in a different light. Similarly an angry consumer can really create havoc especially if his post appears on the first page of google.

The key task of a brand manager is to understand when to interfere and when to let your consumers ride you.

It is more than advisable to have a sense of humour as a brand at this stage, learn to laugh at yourself if the social media adventures of your consumers are not blatantly malilcious.

"There is no such thing as bad PR" still applies in the above case.

Of course, when consumers lash out online, you probably don't have a choice but to step in and address the issue to the best of your ability. Resolving issues publicly is better if you are confident that you can actually resolve the issue, otherwise try to take the conversation offline.

What do you think? Should you interfere in the social media adventures of your consumers or should you lie back and let them shout