May 23, 2010, 20:11
Brands are reputations: A brand bundles everything a person knows, perceives, and assumes about an organization and its products. Brands are also promises (or threats): A brand is a symbol in a person’s mind of the expectations s/he has in dealing with an organization or experiencing its products.
Some would say that a brand is “everything”. Clearly this is not so, for the product or service that a brand represents is not the brand. However, it is arguable that successful branding is a key contributor to the achievement of organizational and marketing aims. This post seeks to identify and briefly describe literature and research that supports, in various contexts, the statement: “Brands are critical to marketing communicators”.
The “Brand” Defined
A brand’s most literal definition, in the corporate world, is of a symbol, word, or mark that represents an organization and its products and differentiates them from competitors. BusinessDictionery.com expands upon that by incorporating the dimension of time: “Over time, this image becomes associated with a level of credibility, quality, and satisfaction in the consumer’s mind (positioning). Thus brands help harried consumers in crowded and complex marketplace, by standing for certain benefits and value.”
Continue reading ‘Branding: Almost Everything’ »
May 23, 2010, 20:02
A marketing communications professional will be better equipped to develop coherent and appropriate messages if s/he possesses a deeper understanding of the extent, type, and level of involvement among his/her target groups. Understanding the involvement of one’s target group naturally flows from the foundation marketing principle of knowing one’s customers and meeting their needs.
This post will briefly define involvement and its types; broadly discuss the implications for high- and low-involvement product categories; identify a means of measuring involvement; and discuss the importance of understanding involvement in the context of corporate social responsibility (CSR).
Involvement Defined
Involvement is more than an academic concept. The “mainstream” web-based BusinessDictionary.com, for example, defines the “level of involvement” as the intensity of interest that a buyer shows for a certain product in a particular purchase decision. Involvement has been embraced by marketing practitioners and is increasingly of concern to boards of directors.
Continue reading ‘Terms of Involvement: Know These to Know Your Customer’ »
March 21, 2010, 15:49
BusinessDictionary.com defines the “level of involvement” as the intensity of interest that a buyer shows for a certain product in a particular purchase decision. Involvement, as a concept, has been embraced by marketing practitioners and is increasingly of concern to boards of directors.
Cho et al (2005) describes how they have devised a means of testing levels of values-, outcomes-, and impressions-relevant involvement for specific subjects. It seems that these three types of involvement are more inter-related than some scholars may have previously thought.
To simplistically summarize the differences between the three types of involvement:-
- Values-relevant involvement is related to belief systems. “I want that car because it has a small carbon footprint and it is made in my country.”
- Outcomes-relevant involvement is related to consequences. “I want that car because it is more economical to run and it supports local jobs and the economy.”
- Impressions-relevant involvement is related to one’s concern about others’ perceptions. “I want that car because I want my peers to see me as environmentally-conscious and/or as a patriot.”
Continue reading ‘Constructing Messages with Audience Involvement in Mind’ »
March 6, 2010, 16:10
The development of a business plan should be based on a customer- (or “publics-”) centric strategic situation analysis, which will include SWOT-PEST analyses. A customer- or publics-centric approach to business design, strategy, policy, and indeed marketing communications, ensures that the organization remains focused on its raison d’être. SWOT-PEST refers to internal Strengths & Weaknesses; and external Opportunities & Threats in the Political/regulatory, Economic/competitive, Social/cultural/media, and Technological environments.
The business plan shall lead with (and be led by):-
- Mission/Vision
- Strategic Goals
- Strategic Objectives
Operating within that broader strategic framework, marketing communications professionals as well as all other strategic management functionaries must continuously be on the look-out for changes or trends that may affect the organization. Changes or trends may be short-, medium-, or long-term. They may have positive or negative consequences for the organization. And they can stem from customers themselves or any of the PESTs. Thus they can be viewed as possible opportunities or threats.
An effective response to opportunities or threats perceived as having significant medium- to long-term consequences may be an overhaul of the business plan, entailing a strategic change of course across the whole organization. An accumulation of smaller changes and trends in a short period of time may also necessitate a review of the business plan. In any case, business plans should be considered “living” documents as they are only as sound as the information available to the author(s) at time of writing.
Continue reading ‘How to Swat Pests: Planning Tactical Marketing Communications within a Strategic Framework’ »
February 15, 2010, 20:35
The development of a marketing communications strategy, while it may draw from theory learned at universities, must be grounded in the situational and objective reality of the organization. However, there is only one guarantee in any “reality”, and that is change. The common thread in everything the University of Canberra has asked me to read so far is change. Adapt or die; the survival of the fittest. And for the marketing communications professional, the most critical agents for change are past, present and future customers. But even change itself is changeable. It can accelerate or hit the skids, outpace expectations or not move fast enough, incrementally shift or disruptively transform. In order to stay profitable, an organization must anticipate change or at least adapt to it.
Adapt or Die
According to Slywotzky & Morrison (1998), the scramble for market share supported by mass marketing campaigns, which served the post-World War II production-oriented manufacturers well for about two decades, is now a strategy destined to create “no-profit zones”. Going all out for market share entails investing in size, scale, and capacity and leaves an organisation vulnerable to subtle shifts in customers’ preferences and expectations and/or the emergence of disruptive technologies. Smaller, nimbler, or more adaptable competitors, or upstarts unburdened by entrenched cultures, may be better positioned to exploit these changes to make quick gains in more profitable areas. Slywotzky & Morrison identify companies in both high-growth and low-growth industries that have pursued market share at the expense of profitability. And they identify companies that have successfully adapted to remain high-growth, high-value, and highly profitable. Each case offers important lessons for marketers, the main one being: KNOW YOUR CUSTOMER!
Continue reading ‘A Brief History of Change and Marketing Communications’ »
