GSW Worldwide

Brand Liberators

Victor Zambrotta

Author Archive for Victor Zambrotta

vzabrotta

Delete the “and”: Positioning is all about making difficult decisions

Published by Victor Zambrotta on October 18, 2010.

Many years ago (more than I care to count), I was given a copy of the book Positioning: The Battle For Your Mind by Al Ries and Jack Trout.  At first, I thought this was some type of new scientific suspense novel. “Why are they fighting for my mind and what are they going to do with it,” I thought to myself. But upon actually reading this 200+ page book, I found a treasure trove of insight and understanding that I continue to apply to my job almost daily. Of course, we are talking about brand positioning and how we want our product to be viewed by our target audience in relation to our competition. And while that seems like a relatively simple proposition, what has evolved (or devolved, as the case may be) has complicated an otherwise empiric concept.

In my straight-forward mind, a brand positioning can and should be able to be expressed as a very brief, 2-3 word statement. I think of these as not just the “elevator speech” we sometimes challenge ourselves to develop and practice for our sales forces, but the kind of thing you say as you pass your target audience going into or out of that very same elevator. Yep – it can and should be that brief and quick. Once a day. More powerful. More effective. Greater safety. Less of this.  More of that. You get the idea.

But what has happened in the crazy world of pharma marketing is that we clutter it all up.  We have a brand unique selling proposition, a brand essence, and a brand commitment. They are all important, all inter-relate, and many times are inconsistently and erroneously applied to the work that occurs between agencies and their clients. We have different processes and formats for developing and displaying these tools. And we constantly force square pegs into round holes by making new hybrids in an effort to satisfy both clients and agencies so everyone can be satisfied and go home with a smile. Pure positioning has gotten weaker and weaker as the years have rolled by.  And I would suggest it is time for some old-fashioned thinking.

If you have not yet read the aforementioned book by Trout and Ries, you are missing out. Even though the examples are quite dated (it was written in 1981), the principles and concepts are not. Think of brand(s) you manage as you sift through this easy read. I have been in the industry for almost 30 years, and I still pull that book off my shelf (when people are nice enough to return it after borrowing it) and draw examples and thoughts from it. Truly a landmark read for anyone entrusted with marketing a brand.

I have often told members of my teams that positioning is all about making difficult decisions.  If you aren’t feeling stress in this job, you are probably not doing it right. No….everyone can’t be right.  No…..everyone can’t be happy.  No….you can’t focus on three things about your product.  NO….you can’t have an “and” in your positioning.  And yes….some of you will be disappointed, frustrated, and sad.  Like a colleague once told me….if an arrow had two points, it will never penetrate the target as well as a single pointed arrow.  And so it goes with positioning.

That is not to say you still can’t have your various sundry of brand-ware tools to fill out your brand book and PowerPoint slides. But among them, ensure your positioning can be declared as a simple 2-3 word statement.  There is nothing more powerful or able to serve as a guiding light for your brand than a simple, clear, concise axiom that embodies your reason for existing on Earth.  Don’t complicate-it-up. Make it your mantra. Yell it down the halls at work in the middle of the day (or when your boss is not there). Force your teams (and yes, that includes trusted agency partners) to make the difficult decisions that lead to THE most important thing you will ever do for your brand. To plagiarize from the folks who make A-1 Steak Sauce, “yeah…it’s that important”.

Great….so hopefully we are on the same page when it comes to positioning.  Remember the old adage/acronym of KISS – keep it simple, stupid! But how do we get there? Catch me next month when I will throw out a few thoughts and ideas on what to do….and what NOT to do….to get to positioning nirvana.  Until then….what challenges have you faced when developing brand positioning? Have any horror stories?  Amazing successes? Don’t be shy….shout ‘em out!

Categories: Break-through advertising
Tags: , , , .
0 Comments
vzabrotta

Is Knott’s Berry Farm really that good??

Published by Victor Zambrotta on September 7, 2010.

That is what was asked of people in an experiment designed to explore the power of the right brain when making decisions. It came from a book I recently read entitled How We Decide by Jonah Lehrer. The book is written in much the same style as Malcolm Gladwell and Daniel Goleman – meaning it is chock full of scientific anecdotes that accompany more of a laypersons explanation on how to relate the findings to everyday life.

When I read these books, I try to process them through the lens of my role as an advertiser. I seek to apply the stories and learning to the work our teams at GSW Worldwide experience on an almost daily basis. In the case of this particular book, a passage caught my eye that really resonated. It had to do with how we justify the decisions people make and how asking them to justify those decisions is much more difficult than one might think. Think of it….making a decision about whether you like option A or option B – and then not being able to REALLY tell someone why you picked one versus the other. Seems improbable. Likely impossible – right? Here’s how Lehrer described decision making in the world of taste testing jams….

Timothy Wilson, a psychologist at the University of Virginia, replicated a taste test previously performed by Consumers Reports. From the CR report, he selected those jams that were ranked as the first, eleventh, twenty-fourth, thirty-second, and forty-fourth best tasting jams. He then asked college students to rank these jams for preference (with no guidelines) and much to no one’s surprise, the statistical correlation between the two rankings was impressive. The order pretty much confirmed what CR had found. It seems that when asked to judge jams, we are all natural experts.

Then Wilson went on to repeat the same test with different students, this time asking them why they preferred one jam over another. As they tasted the different jams, they were required to fill out questionnaires forcing them to analyze their first impressions – to consciously explain their otherwise impulsive preferences. The result? Would you believe that the statistical correlation plummeted to the point of there being no connection between the CR report and this second test. In fact, the jam that was judged worst by Consumers Reports, was now judged to be the best!

Lehrer explained that forcing people to explain why they prefer one brand over another makes them analyze their first impressions, to consciously examine their impulsive preferences. This extra analysis alters their judgment – to the point of almost reversing the preference order. The author suggests that “thinking too much” causes us to focus on our rational brain. And that when we do this, we cut off the wisdom of our emotions which are better at judging preferences. In essence, you lose your ability to know what you really want. And in case you think this experiment might be flawed, or that jams taste testing is an unusual, unqualified stimuli, the author provides a few additional supporting experiments using different methods to test the theory. All of which support the central theme that we are at our best when we accept our emotional judgment vs rationalizing our preferences.

So…think about all those times you spent in conference rooms judging creative concepts, messages, or positioning. Remember when you were behind the glass in research, asking respondents to provide their thoughts on why they selected one creative concept over another. Are we forcing them, as Wilson suggests, to warp their preference? Are we really getting the information and insight we need to enhance our advertising stimuli? And more important, is there a way to get at what we need as advertisers without triggering that negative process? Or is all this a bunch of baloney? What do you think? What has your experience been?

If nothing else, might I suggest you read How We Decide and process it through our industry and the way we market research and think about brands, campaigns, etc. I think you will find it to be interesting, to say the least. Just don’t read it when you are shopping for jam!

Categories: Break-through advertising
Tags: , , .
3 Comments
vzabrotta

Selecting an agency partner for the long term

Published by Victor Zambrotta on June 30, 2010.

Over the past few years, I have had an opportunity to attend more than a few pitches for new business at my agency.  We have had between a few days up to 4 weeks to prepare and address the questions that were posed as part of the RFP (request for proposal).  I realized that when looking for an agency partner, pharma marketing teams tend to focus mostly on their brand problems and challenges….and how an agency would solve them.  Now that is not all that bad.  I mean, after all, this is a partner you will conceivably be working with for years.  So ensuring they are adept at helping to solve your problems is an important skill.  And that had me thinking…..

The focus should not simply be centered on problems are faced by the brand today, but also on finding the right agency partner.  But, you might wonder, are the two intertwined?  After all, if the prospective agency can solve my problems with smart thinking, they are the right partner for me.  I would suggest that while that may be true today – or at best, for the initial 6 months – there is a consideration set to help ensure a long term relationship.  Turn your agency partner into one worth investing in over the short-term so they can become a long-term asset… and dare I say, a competitive advantage?  Consider the following thought:

The agency world is one of people and relationships.  And I am not talking externally, but within the four walls of your new partner.  It is worth time inspecting the relationships that exist within the team you are evaluating.  This will help ensure the leaders on the team work well together and have a rapport that allows ideas to bubble up, grow, and develop. It helps ensure they have a mutual respect for each other that powers problem solving.  When crunch time comes, and you need your agency partner to step up, you need leaders who can rally their troops into late nights and weekends.  That interplay, those relationships, are an important piece to your agency puzzle.  And it is one that is rarely explored by prospective clients. 

So how can you scrutinize the leadership team of your agency selection?   Here are a few thoughts to help get you started:

  • How long have they worked together? 
  • How do they solve problems they have no answers for?
  • Have they partnered on other brands or is yours their first?
  • How would they describe each other? Their relationship?
  • When was the last time they disagreed? How was that resolved?
  • What has been their experience at the agency?  Is it too similar or different?
  • How do they describe their team? How would they rate it within their agency?

Once you get rolling, I’m sure you will start to think of other questions that play off of the responses you get.  Just keep looking for the dynamic between leaders on the team.  If you feel like these people work well together and respect each other, you likely have a strong foundation for an excellent agency partner.  If not…I would suggest looking elsewhere.

Categories: New ideas and approaches

0 Comments
vzabrotta

The same old-same old is just advertising noise

Published by Victor Zambrotta on April 20, 2010.

Last week, I found myself and two colleagues sitting in a taxi traveling to a client meeting when a discussion broke out about advertising…imagine that! Being steeped in the pharma industry, we often look at a broader range of consumer brands to explore trends, opportunities, and case studies. To me, advertising is advertising – the good and the bad, inside and outside of our industry.

I am continually intrigued by some of the attention-getting campaigns that hit consumers through various communication channels.  When you look at it, there are quite a few markets that have heated competition for our mind and soul.  Because after all, we have to spur people to act differently than what they would normally do – that’s what advertising is all about….right?

It all started with a gecko.

Anyway – back to the taxi….the conversation settled on the insurance market and what the titans Geico and Progressive have been doing.

Is there anyone who is not familiar with the Geico gecko?  Or their cavemen? And what about Flo, the spokesperson for Progressive – the latest entry into the market that has clearly struck a vein with their innovation pricing?  But what really had me and my colleagues fired up is what Nationwide has been doing to enter the fray.

Not the greatest spokesperson.

The “the World’s Greatest Spokesperson in the World” campaign has just kicked off…and if the three of us crammed in that ride were the final arbiters of life or death for this new campaign, it would die a slow death.

You see, other than an oddly interesting spokesperson, it seems the Nationwide message is really no different than what others are offering.  They are too late to the party of leveraging a consumer insight that says be memorable and catchy, make pricing a central theme, and people will beat a path to your door (or website, as the case may be).

In some ways, our triad felt Nationwide was perhaps trying too hard to drive recall and interest.  For our money, their character /campaign pushed too hard on that line between cool and annoying (assuming there exists such a line).

We need to be a little uncomfortable.

Which brings me back to the pharma industry….and the campaign work that we so consistently see in our marketplace.  Do we see connectivity in pharma campaigns that leverage a customer insight….or efforts that seem to repeat the same old thing regardless of the brand? Are we truly pushing to gain interest through new visuals and copy….or wind up repeating the same thing that is seen page after page?

Are we okay getting nervous about campaigns….but in a good way that allows strong advertising to do what it can: open doors (literally and cerebrally)? Don’t wait until you are in the back of a taxi to start your own conversation on this….in fact, let me know what you think!

Categories: Break-through advertising
Tags: , , , .
0 Comments