Being neither a branding expert, nor a digital master, I really get bored with discussions of what campaigns/strategies/briefings etc, should look like. It seems to always to end up being a more tactical discussion as oppose to a strategic one.
What is marketer to do? And then it hit me (right after that ouzo at Christos ). Below you will find a way to, for me at least, bring talk back to a more fundamental level, from a marketer/client/creative point of view.
Social vs Civic axis (hattip @ markearls for this one): this gives us a simple way of understanding how to strategically position the campaign when looking at conventions in the market, competitors, and stuff happening in society. It also serves as a way to reality check clients as to the consequences of choices.
Social would be well, Old Spice/Cadburry/Budweiser stuff.
Civic would look like Levi’s Go Forth
Casual vs intense axis: gives us a way of thinking about of the ways to best interact with the target group, again based on the context of society, product, etc… (stolen from @eranium at Christos while talking about gaming)
Casual would look like the stuff that Live Strong did: all we want you to do is simple, low intensity/effort stuff that could make a great difference.
Heavy: Is of course the opposite of casual in terms of complexity, commitment (both from the company point of view as from the customer point of view). Think World of Warcraft vs MaffiaWars.
From commercial points of view, it makes you think more about the painpoints in the “customer experience” (fuck me I hate these kinds of words), how to perhaps pick up groups not your core, former customers who have not seen your product as still relevant.
By combining the various possibilities one can play with ways to answer the clients problem while making sure clients aren’t overreaching, or underselling the possibilities of the situation. And in the ideal situation all elements would play a part at some point, cause humans are never on or the other all the time.
As with all diagrams/briefs the above one is simple and incomplete. Nevertheless, it can serve as a good conversation starter and a way of looking at the market in a broader sense then just catergory, or going into digital vs analogue type conversations.
5 responses so far ↓
1 Thomas // Aug 31, 2010 at 12:34 pm
Damn, you should have said this while you were still in Hamburg!
So you look at this as a conversation starter about scope in general where you can go to the client and say, “Look, that’ about the things we can come up with, what you can ask for etc.. It has this and that as implications – cost-wise, complexity-wise, commitment etc. – and these are possible outcomes, effects etc.”? (simplified of course)
Don’t quite get “making sure clients aren’t overreaching, or underselling the possibilities of the situation”, any chance for clarification?
2 niko // Aug 31, 2010 at 3:53 pm
Let me take it one question at a time:
“So you look at this as a conversation starter about scope” :
Yes. For me it just bringst stuff down to basic talk, about what it is that the client wants when looked at from the most basic of human behaviour :good vs evil and involved vs apathetic.
It helps focus the agenda, and clients expectations , because agencies can prep some stuff out in scenario’s and play out what would happen if you went for civic/complex, or social/complex/casual. It could give you a better sense of whether you have the right organisation to execute, or if ur offering is right given current conditions.
From agency points of view the brief would be focused enough so all departements/disciplines are moving towards the same goal, yet wide enough to leave specialist skills to come up with unexpected answers for the same problem.
As for you second question. It just helps all involved looking at stuff with fresh eyes.
Like the bike stuff Rob talked about where they went “there is perhaps a bigger possibility here then just doing an ad campaign for a scooter “. Of course it could also serve as a way to temper stuff..
3 Thomas // Aug 31, 2010 at 5:09 pm
I like the heavy/casual (complex/simple), civic(purpose)/social (lolcat) plane a lot obviously. Strategic scenarios that can play out of it and the direction it gives even more (we talked about that …). Great stuff to get to shared expectations but also needs a marketer/client that is somewhat familiar with thinking outside his own category …
I still don’t understand you totally though. What do you mean with good vs. evil when it comes to “what the client wants”? Is that your equivalent of “civic vs. social”?
“It just helps all involved looking at stuff with fresh eyes. ” Easier understood than the stuff before. That fit’s even into my brain.
4 eaon // Sep 1, 2010 at 2:02 am
the civic-heavy quadrant being the point where the real ‘meaning’ stuff happens. (actiontimevision)
casual-social quadrant being a fairly passive quadrant equivalent to a facebook ‘like’
Good thinking, I’m going to steal this.
5 niko // Sep 1, 2010 at 8:30 am
Very true…the only thing I’d point out is, doing civic-heavy when you aren’t set up for it (internally or otherwise) is also the fastest way to kill a company…
All I ask (and I know it is a rather large order) is some thought before people do either/or and start talking tactics over strat..
Leave a Comment