More on new targeting models.
My search for new targeting models today turned up my post from a couple days ago as the first result. Sadly, I don't think this is because of the massive reach of this blog, instead I think it probably has more to do with the fact that not too many people are writing about this subject.
I'm sure this has some to do with the fact that targeting has never been the most interesting or sexiest part of the marketing discipline, but I also wonder if it's because targeting is losing relevance with marketers these days.
I know from my own experience that targeting plays a huge role in the creation of a brand idea, but on a day to day basis, it's not something that drives the creation of separate programs. At Fallon, I took the target description off the creative brief in the last couple of years I was there and no one really raised an eyebrow.
Perhaps the biggest reason is that, in an era of conviction brands - or brands held together by a central belief or purpose - that belief or purpose ought to drive behaviour, rather than simply relying upon customer insight to tell you what to do. Great brands tend to create their own audiences, rather than simply serving an existing group. If the role of a brand is to attract like-minded customers then being true to yourself is the best targeting approach of all.
5 comments:
Wow, lots to think about here. I will agree with the notion that the target is a very critical point in the development of the branding idea. That said, there is also something cool about removing the target from the brief. I don't quite know why, but I'm feeling you. Perhaps it's because the idea, if right, should be bigger than the target. Bigger than the purchaser. Thoughtful stuff.
I couldn't agree more Adrian. I've been struggling with the whole concept of segmentation and targeting since my marketing degree. How do we segment a market that doesn't exist. How do we reach them.
Interestingly one of the more interesting conversations I've had in digital with a well respected marketeer in the States is the Non obvious data relationships that Russell posted about.
My brunch companion's assertion was that the auto industry can pretty much pick up who wants to buy a car even if they state categorically they don't. Another nail in the coffin for a lot of research.
Good to catch up finally in San Fran!
Good meeting you too Charles, hope your trip is going well. Let me know if you do make it to Minneapolis, you should definitely visit.
Also thanks for the tip - missed this the first time http://russelldavies.typepad.com/advertising_practitioner/2008/03/non-obvious-sur.html
It might just be that you are the first one to give it that name? :o)
Can it be that the traditional Target Group thinking leads us on a more obvious path of what Stephen King defined as “Old Science” in his article Advertising Art or Science? And what we need to do is remove ourselves from this a bit to scientific and linear approach on how to create solutions and become more imaginative.
Of course we need knowledge and insight in order to create attractive advertising, but the Target Group approach might be a bit to old-school academic? We might end up looking for solutions in all the wrong places. Places that don’t really exit outside our research.
OK, I’m rambling here :o) I’ll try to gather my thoughts and repost :o)
I would of course recommend having a look at what Indi Young is doing with her Mental Models. It’s a bit of area, but she has some great insights.
http://www.rosenfeldmedia.com/books/mental-models/
Thanks Helge, just ordered the book!
I agree, activity based targeting is the future which is why I think that the mobile phone will be the dominant advertising platform in the future. Am writing about this today.
Post a Comment