If buyers of a brand do not think their brand is different or unique (Ehrenberg)…
And if what matters is the creation of ‘mental presence’ (Moran)…
Or ‘memory structures’ (Sharp)….
And if we define this as “The degree to which a given brand comes to consumers’ minds in the context of a particular purchase occasion or consumption occasion.” (Moran)…
Or as “The probability that a brand will be recalled early in a consumer’s consideration set, under a variety of situations and via a variety of stimuli, to the exclusion of competing brands” (Vieceli and Shaw)…
And if this is dependent on “The quantity (how many) and the quality (how fresh and relevant) of the network of brand information in memory, or the brand’s ‘share of mind’” (Romanuik and Sharp)…
And if the brain is not some rigid filing system in which memories reside as fully formed recordings but is something altogether more dynamic and malleable…
And if our brain’s networks of nerve cells or ‘neurons’ are not fixed entities, but are dynamic and continuously modified by experience…
And if thinking, learning, and behaviour all actually change the brain’s physical structure and organization, rewiring the brain, creating and eliminating new connections between neurons (Buonomano & Mezernich, Heilman & Nadeau, Schacter, Svoboda)…
Then perhaps is is not unreasonable to regard our task as the creation, expansion, maintenance, and defence of mental real estate.
And so perhaps it was Judith Williamson (Marxist and academic) who put it better than any brand expert, when she wrote that advertising’s purpose was to create
empires of the mind.”
And if she did put it better than anyone, then perhaps we struggle and jostle for memory.
And perhaps we shouldn’t be quite so shy about the language and metaphors of conquest and battle that have become so unfashionable and politically incorrect in adland.
And if we think of our task as some kind of (benign) synaptic imperialism, perhaps we’ll think beyond the mere act of contact or engagement, and think about what mental infrastructure we leave behind, maintain, and expand.
Rome wasn’t built in a day, after all.
Just a thought.
Buonomano D.V, and Mezernich, MM, ‘Cortical plasticity: from synapses to maps’, Annual Review of Neuroscience, 1998;21:149-86.
Andrew Ehrenberg, Neil Barnard, John Scriven, ‘Differentiation or Salience’, Journal of Advertising Research, November/December 1997
Andrew Ehrenberg, ‘Repetitive advertising and the consumer’, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 40, No. 6, November/December 2000
Andrew Ehrenberg, ‘What Brand Loyalty Can Tell Us’, Admap, October 2004, Issue 454
Andrew Ehrenberg, Neil Barnard, Rachel Kennedy, Helen Bloom, ‘Brand Advertising As Creative Publicity’, Journal of Advertising Research: Vol. 42, No. 4, July/August 2002
Kenneth M Heilman, MD, Stephen E. Nadeau, MD, and David Q. Beversdorf, MD. “Creative Innovation: Possible Brain Mechanisms” Neurocase (2003)
William Moran, ‘Brand Presence And The Perceptual Frame’, Journal of Advertising Research, October/November 1990
Jenni Romanuik, Byron Sharp, Andrew Ehrenberg, ‘Evidence concerning the importance of perceived brand differentiation, Australasian Marketing Journal 15 92), 2007
Jenni Romanuik, Byron Sharp, ‘Where knowledge of your brand resides: the Pareto share of brand knowledge’, in Report 44 for Corporate Sponsors, 2008, Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science
Jenni Romanuik, Byron Sharp, ‘Using known patterns in image data to determine brand positioning’, international journal of market research, Vol. 42, No.2, 2000
Jenni Romanuik, Andrew Ehrenberg, ‘Do brands lack personality?’ Report 14 for Corporate Members, March 2003
Jenni Romanuik, Byron Sharp, ‘Conceptualizing and measuring brand salience’, Marketing Theory, Volume 4(4), 2004
Daniel Schacter, The Seven Sins of Memory
Daniel Schacter, Searching for Memory
Byron Sharp, How Brands Grow: What Marketers Don’t Know
Julian Viecli, Robin Shaw, ‘A Model of Brand Salience’, in Mark Uncles, ed. Perspectives on Brand Management, 2011
Judith Williamson, Decoding Advertisements: Ideology and Meaning in Advertising
The truth is, the transformed media landscape has made incremental cost efficiencies much less compelling to clients than the value of a huge idea and a highly creative communication strategy. To an enlightened client, the scale of your resources pales in significance to the power of your ideas.”
– Carl Johnson, CEO , Anomaly
Creative intensity means stepping back from the limitless matrix of touchpoint permutation and finding a brand’s high-value communication opportunities. Why do people work from the assumption that their core idea is incapable of holding a scalable audience? What does it say about the quality of ideas in the industry today?”
– Giles Hedger, CSO, Leo Burnett
I was invited to take part in Campaign’s ‘Adland in Amsterdam’ feature. “Write about anything you want,” they said. This is the slightly longer version. You’ll find all the contributed opinion pieces and a write up of a roundtable discussion with fellow friends and inmates from adland here. My thanks to Suzanne Bidlake and Philip Smith for the opportunity of taking part.
Ours is an age of immediacy. Immediate communications. Immediate information. Immediate feedback. Immediate gratification. And the siren call of the short-term is seemingly inescapable in adland.
In such an environment, advertising could do worse than (re)learn some lessons from the product and platform builders.
Now amongst those involved in the development of digital products and solutions, the argument often goes that advertising, is a fire-and-forget solution. While building products and platforms is about building (and iterating) sustainable solutions. Campaigns come and go, platforms are “built to last”.
And indeed within the tiny world of adland, it’s easy to find evidence of a fixation with ‘ship and blip.’
Thanks to the immediate feedback loop of all things digital, our fixation with the short-term has been turbocharged. We ship. And then look for evidence of buzz. We count the views, likes, shares, +1s, pins, comments, tweets, retweets, downloads, links, follows, clicks and buys. And then we move on to the next bright shiny thing.
Our new fixation with so-called ‘real-time marketing’ with its promise of real-time optimisation is going to do nothing to encourage long-term thinking. As the novelist and cultural observer Douglas Rushkoff has argued, immediacy is more and more the central defining characteristic of our culture:
Our society has reorientated itself to the present moment. Everything is live, real time, and always-on. It’s not a mere speeding up… It’s more of a diminishment of anything that isn’t happening right now. So much so that we are beginning to dismiss anything that is not happening right now – and the onslaught of everything that supposedly is.”
Indeed so short is our collective horizon that work that forms part of a long-running campaign struggles to be rewarded by creative juries. They’re just “not new’.
Consider the Cannes Lions Festival. For all its undoubted prestige, it is patently not (with the exception of its recent effectiveness category) a festival of brand building, but of creative innovation.
So perhaps the product and platform builders have a point.
Except that those who believe advertising ipso facto to be a ship and blip, fire and forget business, fundamentally misunderstand how advertising creates profit.
For we know that sustainable value is built over the long term.
We know that pricing improvements are more likely to drive profit growth than volume growth alone.
We know that pricing improvements take longer to effect than volume increases.
We know that the most profitable of all campaigns are those that drive both incremental volume and the strengthening of margins.
And while short term (i.e. temporary) volume effects can be achieved through discount pricing, offers, incentives, incentive, or new product features, we know that longer-term effects such as share growth or reduction of price sensitivity demand creating, sustaining, and strengthening long-term memory structures.
The data from the likes of the IPA’s DataBank is plentiful, and is there for inspection by anybody who cares to look.
So while some will tell us that campaigns work like this:
We know from the work of Les Binet and Peter Field that effective campaigns actually work like this:
It is the curve that matters, not the blip.
If we cannot grasp the necessity of long-term thinking to profitable advertising, it is small wonder that agencies should stumble and fail to make the move into the development of products and platforms that have a real, enduring role in people’s lives.
So perhaps this suggests that rather than think in terms of campaigns, we should all be thinking more in terms in platforms and products. And perhaps the now-famous words of Jeff Bezos should be the ones we all create by:
If everything you do needs to work on a three-year time horizon, then you’re competing against a lot of people. But if you’re willing to invest on a seven-year time horizon, you’re now competing against a fraction of those people, because very few companies are willing to do that.”
Rather than stop-start-start spurts, we should be thinking of sustained engagement with the consumer.
Rather than looking just for short-term spikes (in buzz, ‘conversation’, and sales), we should be looking for evidence that we’re driving sustained growth.
Rather than simply counting the mute evidence of exposure and interaction, we should be using interaction as an active, on-going source of genuine consumer understanding.
Rather than thinking in terms of temporary audiences that come and go, we should be thinking of accumulating audiences over time.
And rather than thinking of strategy as a one-off event, we should be treating it as something that is continuous. As Lawrence Freedman (Professor of War Studies at King’s College London) writes in his recent magnum opus:
Strategy is much more than a plan. A plan supposes a sequence of events that allows one to move with confidence from one state of affairs to another. Strategy is required when others might frustrate one’s plans because they have different and possibly opposing interests and concerns… The inherent unpredictability of human affairs, due to the chance events as well as the efforts of opponents and the missteps of friends, provides strategy with its challenge and drama. Strategy is often expected to start with a description of a desired end state, but in practice there is rarely an orderly movement to goals set in advance. Instead, the process evolves through a series of states, each one not quite what was anticipated or hoped for, requiring a reappraisal and modification of the original strategy, including ultimate objectives. The picture of strategy… is one that is fluid and flexible, governed by the starting point and not the end point.”
Strategy, in other words, looks like this:
And like this:
Much has been made of the (rather obvious) differences between the product and its advertising, and much silly nonsense – “advertising is what you do when you don’t have a good product” – peddled.
But when we look to what makes for effective, profitable advertising, we see that effective advertising is not so different, not so divorced from good products and platforms. For both are by necessity, long-term activities.
It is of course an inevitable feature of a world of finite budgets and an ever-expanding array of possibilities and disciplines that vested interest works to silo and set into competition all the disciplines, products and approaches we are now presented with.
But recognising the shared agenda of advertising and platforms serves to remind us that marketing is not a bolt-on to product, and that product or platform development and advertising need not be antithetical.
Indeed it reminds us that sustained mental (and with it, physical) availability is as useful and valuable to people as products that meet their needs or wants. Advertising in other words, is a fundamental and intrinsic part of a product’s manifestation and value in the real world.
Speaking at an event to mark the fortieth anniversary of the planning discipline, Jon Steel, made an impassioned plea for better, longer-term thinking:
We should be angered by the accountability mindset that means we’re making more and more decisions based on what can be measured, rather than what’s really important. How many companies today are setting “Big, Hairy Audacious Goals?” Certainly not enough, and we are also culpable in their failure to do this. We need to inject more ambition into our objectives… the role for planning in the next forty years is to help clients once more to set the right objectives. The right objectives for brands and for business, not just for communications.”
It really is time for a more holistic perspective on marketing. For a more vigorous rejection of short-termism. And perhaps time that we gave up on the ‘campaign’ mindset with its attendant baggage, and adopted the perspective of long-term platform building.
Jeff Bezos, letter to shareholders, 1997
Les Binet & Peter Field, The Long And Short Of It: Balancing Short And Long-Term Marketing Strategies
Lawrence Freedman, Strategy: A History
Jon Steel, ‘Planning at 40: Solving the wrong problems‘
“It is very difficult to study history-in-the making, but what is occurring right now is the most powerful influence on the economy, the consumer and brand marketing since the Industrial Revolution. We are witnessing The Great Marketing Revolution. Our job is to be aware of it, its pattern and its destination so we can take sure, methodical steps to capitalize on it”
William T. Moran, 1956
[You don’t have to read this. It is an edited and slightly improved version of an older and longer post, written for the 50th anniversary edition of Admap. I reproduce it here only in so much as this place is also my notebook. The anniversary edition of Admap by contrast, IS very much worth reading in its entirety]
Has everything changed? Have all the old lessons and practices been rendered obsolete? Is marketing as we knew it really dead? And is it possible to move beyond rhetoric and ground the necessary speculation in at least a semblance of empirical evidence?
Yes… and no.
But let’s start with a simple framework for enquiry, something that gives us a starting point for thinking about how brands are built.
The levers of growth
It’s over a decade old, but that provided by the marketing consultant and former adman William Moran – a version of the 4Ps model – gives us a framework for evaluating marketing’s outputs, and for thinking about how marketing has changed, is changing, and must change.
For Moran the two fundamental processes which can produce change in sales, are a change in perceived Value and a change in Presence.
Change in Value he argued, can come about from a change in perceived utilities (attributes), and a change in relative price.
Presence Moran regards as “the lubricator which simply facilitates sales by reducing the mental friction in the consumer’s decision-making process.”
Moran distinguished between physical presence (being visible and easily buyable) and mental presence (being easily thought of).
Thanks to the the work of Les Binet, Peter Field, and the IPA we can identify some vital multiplying factors, namely time, investment and creativity.
We know that advertising’s ability to create value is most keenly felt in the long-term. Time, in other words is vital to success.
We know that the most profitable campaigns are those that drive both volume and pricing.
We know that campaigns require time for their effects to be felt, for while volume increases are relatively easy to achieve in the short-term, price increases take longer.
And we know that longer-term goals such as share growth or reduction of price sensitivity demand sustained brand building.
The creation of memory, brands, and sustainable business growth in other words takes time. And as such it is, like it or not, at odds with one of the defining characteristics of our age – immediacy.
This is not to deny the value of brands being responsive in the here and now.
Nor is this to suggest that short-term activity is without value. As Binet and Field note, the data suggests that the optimum balance of long-term brand building and short-term activation expenditure is on average around 60:40.
But simply delivering short-term activity does not lead to success in the long term, and long-term effects are not simply an accumulation of short-term effects. They are different kinds of effects.
Coupled with time, investment levels are a vital multiplying factor.
We know that the critical metric that determines the level of a brand’s market share growth is the degree to which its share of voice exceeds its market share (excess share of voice, or ESOV).
We know that an average of 0.5% points of share growth can be expected per 10% points of ESOV.
We also know of course that new, ‘earned’ methods of distribution marketing content have allowed marketers to extract new efficiencies.
But there is little evidence to suggest that the paid media investment and business results have been completely and irrevocably decoupled.
As Binet and Field conclude: “It is often asserted that share of voice is irrelevant in the digital era: this is not true. The correlation of SOV with market share growth is getting stronger and the returns on investing in SOV are also increasing as the level of brand choice continues to grow and the internet becomes more crowded with commercial activity.”
So to some degree, market share can be bought. However, we know that the unfair advantage that any marketer can choose to leverage is the power of creativity.
We know this from the IPA’s analysis of the 257 IPA Effectiveness cases studies for which Gunn Report scores were all available.
Creatively-awarded campaigns generate on average 5.7 points of share growth per 10 points of ESOV, compared with just 0.5 points of share growth for non-awarded campaigns.
So if the levers of brand building have been utility, price, and presence, and their multipliers have been time, investment, and creativity, where do we find ourselves today, in this, our digital age?
New forms of utility
We are seeing the malleability of software allowing for marketers to evolve, iterate and improve the product experience in response to consumer interactions in the real world, not the laboratory.
In some markets we are seeing the emergence of new models of product ownership, in which access to goods and services is rented, rather than outright ownership of goods given over to consumers.
The access, interactivity and immediacy that technology now affords us means we are able to directly involve consumers in the creation, iteration, and indeed running, of products and services.
We are seeing utility being used as a vehicle for publicity and promotion. Whereas product development and publicity occupied very distinct silos, marketing is now being “baked into” products and services.
Of course more intangible utility has not gone away. We all live and work – skilfully and effortlessly – within two worlds; the world of objects and the world of meanings. And we need this imagined world to give our identities, lives and experiences depth, significance and meaning.
But we are also are seeing new forms of utility. We are seeing new business models, new businesses, and new brands. And we are seeing product functionality being used to build and sustain the meaning and emotional component of brands.
So perhaps this new world of utility is teaching us marketing to value the sausage as much as the sizzle. And in as much as what people really need from marketers is not communications, but better products and services, it suggests that far from being ‘dead’, marketing’s original mission is very much alive and well.
New avenues of availability
Sharp, like Moran, has rightly underscored the importance of physical availability: “Being easy to notice and buy is essential, because buyers do not have strong preferences even for the brands they are loyal to.”
There was a time of course when physical shelf space and availability was the crucial factor in the quest to make brands easy to buy.
Today we are seeing digital availability being used to enhance physical availability, and we are seeing digital availability being used to replace or bypass physical availability.
We are seeing brands responding to and anticipating people’s need or interest.
We are seeing brands connect directly with customers, rather than via third parties.
We are seeing brands exploiting the interconnectedness of all things digital to create shelf space and make it easy for people to buy.
We are an explosion in the ways in which brands can create memory and meaning. Creativity is now properly unbounded, no longer constrained by media formats.
We are of course, able to give consumers the opportunity to interact in all manner of ways from the undemanding and lightweight to the participative and immersive.
We are seeing brands customize their content for different consumer segments.
We are certainly seeing brands relentlessly stalk consumers as they travel across the internet
We are able to employ consumers as advocates, ambassadors, co-creators, publicists, and media channels.
And increasingly, we are able to customize the content, timing, and targeting of our content.
New models of pricing
The economics of digital goods are allowing brands to offer consumers goods and services for free. As Chris Anderson first wrote in Wired magazine: “It’s now clear that practically everything Web technology touches starts down the path to gratis, at least as far as we consumers are concerned.”
We’re seeing brands able to employ the minority of paying users to support the majority of non-paying users, because the cost of serving that majority is close enough to zero to call it nothing.
We’re seeing brands employ ‘freemium’ pricing models in which they offer free version of their product or service as a vehicle for recruiting users, and charging for advanced features, functionality, virtual goods, or an ad-free experience.
We’re seeing some brands test dynamic pricing.
Mobile technology has of course liberated consumers from having their choice limited by what’s in front of them on shelf. Consumers are now able to treat physical stories as showrooms in which they search for a cheaper option online.
Back to the future
Even a cursory survey such as this brings home the scope depth, and velocity of change we are surrounded by. These are indeed exhilarating times. But viewed through the lens of Moran’s simple model, they remind us of two essential things.
First, the fundamental brand building mechanics of value and presence, the subprocesses of utility, pricing, and the creation of physical and mental presence – together with the necessity of time, investment, and creativity – have not evaporated. Marketers struggling to keep up with and make sense of the blizzard of change, evolution, disruption, advice (good, self-serving, and idiotic) and opinion need not despair. Look beneath the veneer of rhetoric, and one sees that the old imperatives still hold true.
But this is not an excuse for complacency. While the fundamental outputs of marketing have not been rendered obsolete, how marketers deliver value and presence is most certainly being reworked.
Connectivity, interactivity, immediacy, sociability, transparency, collaboration, prediction, responsiveness, targeting, automation, disintermediation, customization, mobility… all of these phenomenon (and more) are fundamentally remaking how brands connect with consumers. Though our choice of how is, of course, always contingent. On the nature of the task, the competition, the audience, and the brand.
There is then, as much to unlearn as there is to relearn. And as technology and code continue to remake our lives, there are inevitably, new abilities to acquire and add to the old ones. For both the individual, and the corporation.
But lest we take too much comfort from this, Moran’s model also provides us with another vital reminder. One might even call it a wakeup call. Namely that marketing is not, and has never been, synonymous with advertising. Its remit and output is far broader and more far-reaching than merely the development of communications.
So when publicity can be baked into the product, product design can be a means of meaning manufacture, distribution can be baked into the product, physical products are assuming a digital life, social channels are becoming means of delivering customer services, pricing models are being used as distribution mechanics, marketing content is no longer a dead end and is becoming just the beginning of a customer journey, the gap between publicity and purchase can be compressed, the consumer is a distribution channel, and the consumer can no longer be held at arm’s length, it really is time to let go of the antiquated (and ill-founded) notion that marketing is synonymous with ‘messaging’.
And it is high time that we blow up the mental and organisational silos that still bedevil us – story versus code, advertising versus product, utility versus image, etc.
Perhaps if we all thought of ourselves in the business of creating connections – in the mind, between people, companies and brands, and between people and other people – then we’d find ourselves better adapted to the new environments and possibilities of our age.
In an age defined by its connectedness – people to people, people to things, and things to other things – that seems a far more accurate and useful perspective on what we all do.
“Only connect”, as E.M. Forster wrote.
“The price of metaphor is eternal vigilance”
It is a truth universally acknowledged that consumers find it natural to imbue brands with human personality characteristics, such as ‘honest’, ‘optimistic’, ‘cool’ or ‘tough’.
That brands are like human beings, that they have differentiating personality traits, and that consumers have relationships with them remains still, largely unchallenged dogma in marketing circles.
And yet – the legend of Ernest Dichter, and the acres of subsequent academic theorizing notwithstanding – the fact remains that personality traits are poor at differentiating brands, within any given category different brands do not attract different kinds of buyers, and people are not that attached to brands.
Surely it is time to retire the brand-as-person metaphor.
Indeed perhaps it’s time to find a metaphor (if we must have one) more suited to our times. For while much of our inherited brand theory baggage values the intangible, as Guy Murphy has noted:
The democracy of information has allowed consumers to focus hard on the more rational and ‘real’ aspects of the product itself. Social commentary and ratings have particularly brought tangible product performance itself to the fore. The most emotionally rich brands can be undermined by a one-star product rating. This is as true for products as it is for the companies that make them… There is a shift occurring from adding intangible value to adding tangible value. Instead of adding emotion to function, brands are beginning to add function to function. We don’t have to play out a brand as a metaphor any more, when we can do it for real. Brands will seem more valuable not just because they feel better but because they work better, or serve you better. This is not a denial of the emotional component of brands, it is just a different way of generating it. It is not about the power of associations, it is about the power of reality”
In such a world, perhaps we should be seeking a metaphor and perspective that more consciously attempts to reconcile the invisible, mental dimensions to a brand’s existence with its practical, and concrete manifestations in the world.
And in world which as Marc Andreessen has argued, is being eaten by it, we could perhaps, do worse, than think of brands as software.
After all, as he puts it :
In many industries, new software ideas will result in the rise of new Silicon Valley-style start-ups that invade existing industries with impunity. Over the next 10 years, the battles between incumbents and software-powered insurgents will be epic. Joseph Schumpeter, the economist who coined the term “creative destruction,” would be proud.”
No, a brand is not a person. But it is software. Both of the mind. And in the world.
This much we know. Brands are memory structures in the mind. They are the sum total of all our memories, encounters, impressions and associations connected with a brand.
And consciously or unconsciously accessed, they work to make a brand thought of in purchase and consumption occasions.
In this way, they operate as heuristics, rules of thumb that by-pass the necessity to conduct an elaborate cost-benefit analysis of all the options available every time we are faced with choice.
Viewed through this lens, brands are decision-making software.
This of course, has always been the case – it is the oldest and indeed original function of branding. But today we are now subcontracting our mental processes to software.
For now we have technology that can remember, find, anticipate, recommend, remind, analyse, compute, manage, measure, monitor for us. And in the wake of this technological – and with it, cultural – upheaval, brands are evolving into software that resides in the world.
Brands can now can remember what we like, and what we bought.
They can anticipate when we need to restock, repurchase, or renew.
They can suggest purchases, content, and experiences we will probably like.
They can compare and recommend purchase options.
They can respond to our service, upgrade, and replacement needs.
And of course as brands become more like software, unshackled from the constraints of the physical world, they and their functions can inevitably flow through our lives with ever greater ease.
So the brand is software. Of the mind. And in the world.
The brand-as-software metaphor certainly feels better aligned than the brand-as-person metaphor to the real role of branding role in consumer decision-making.
And it certainly appears better able to encourage us to take advantage of the new opportunities technology opens up for us.
Indeed the brand-as-software metaphor is much less of a metaphor, much less than a just figure of speech than the brand-as-person metaphor. It better reflects how brands actually operate, in the mind, and in the world.
So what might thinking of brands as software actually encourage us to do differently?
Perhaps it will encourage us to think of brands as fluid, adaptable, responsive, upgradable, and permeating.
Perhaps it will encourage us to think how utility (not just storytelling) can create meaning.
Perhaps it might encourage more of a rapprochement and productive relationship between those who make products and services, and those who tell stories.
Perhaps we might demand that brands be just as useful in the mind as they are in the world.
Perhaps we will grant equal status to the creation of memory structures, and to the creation of utility in the world, rather than set them in competition with each other.
And perhaps thinking of brands as an external manifestation of human mental processes will encourage us to think of software in human terms, rather than think of humans in machine terms.
So far, so good, possibly. But we cannot talk about the brand-as-software without talking about the OS or platform. If brands are indeed software, then what do they run on?
In a multi-platform, multi-device, multi OS world, the brand-as-software must of course be able to run effortlessly on, by way of example, both iOS and Android. If brands wish to be part of the fabric of the world, then they must be able to adapt to and run on all the dominant platforms out there. And that demands a new degree of adaptability of what we build.
But there is a more important OS the brand-as-software must run on.
The human OS.
That sounds easy and obvious, but the fact of the matter is that most brand builders don’t give enough of a damn about creating for the human platform. They ignore being interesting and pursue difference. They fail to work back from human drives, needs, wants, and interests back to strategy, and instead insist on working forwards from brand and product. They either fail to reinforce and sustain long-term memory structures, or they fail to refresh them.
Brands must work on the human OS, or fail. For the human OS always takes precedence over platform-level OSs, and is the one that we should all be designing for. Always.
Special thanks to Ben Malbon for prompting me to ask some hard but good questions.
Guy Murphy, ‘Brands in the digital age: The opt-in age of brands’, Admap, December 2013
Marc Andreessen, ‘Why software is eating the world’, The Wall Street Journal, August 20, 2011