For a while at Base One we’ve been questioning the logic of the single big idea as the basis of a brand’s campaigns. Having spent years creating consistent and compelling campaigns around a single idea, why change? It’s been proven to work and buyers are still buyers surely?
Well yes, and no. The fact is that Buyers are changing as this extract from a post by Chris Tacy, Chief Innovation Officer at Brand Experience Agency, Method implies:
… now we have an entire new demographic who have grown up not
having to take it. And as a result, the control relationship between brands and
consumers has changed. And it's not going back. Technology has helped - but
behavior is a big part of this. And at then end of the day... the chickens are
coming home to roost.
In this new world... The Big Idea doesn't really hold
water. Without the control relationship on the side of the brands, it's not
even justifiable. [http://method.com/#/thoughts/ideasculture/detail/WpPost/17/]
It’s this change of relationship that is making us rethink. Brand owners have to realise that they will no longer have control of what people think or say about them. We can influence what they say and think but not control it. And our buyers fit many Persona we know that and for each of them the brand can mean different things. Therefore, we need to start developing clusters of brand ideas that can be relevant to different groups, and yet all relevant to the brand.
Strong brands in the future (even B2B brands) need to resonate as part of the sub-cultures that exist within our markets. Sub-cultures are different yet they overlap, so too must the ideas we place at the centre of our brands.
So there I was attempting to enjoy a cappuccinolattemoccacoffee at the Landmark in Marylebone. I say ‘attempting’ because the ordering process was a little arduous and left me somewhat flustered. The Landmark is a great venue for off-site casual business meetings and the breakfast and mezzanine areas were being used extensively for exactly that purpose when I arrived to meet clients. The waitress arrived promptly and I asked for coffee. Not unreasonable, surely? I’m in business. I’m having a business meeting with other business people to talk about business things in a businesslike manner so I’d like some business coffee. Please. Well, no. There followed an elaborate and extensive coffee selection process that left me confused and feeling a bit like an arse in front of clients who were smiling smugly as they had clearly just been through the same ordeal prior to my arrival. I explained that I didn’t speak Starbucks and could I please just have some coffee?
I can’t even begin to describe the horror of the cappuccinolattemoccacoffee that arrived just as I was launching into the crux of the meeting subject. I like to think I’m in touch with my feminine side in a sensitive caring way, but this coffee was gay. No offence intended – but there’s no other adequate word. It was presented in a fluted pilsner-type glass with a wire frame and impossible to hold handle. The whole world could see the two-thirds milky coffee topped with one-third whippofroth and sprinkled with chocolate hundreds and thousands. If they’d stuck a bleedin’ parasol in it I’d have stood up and left. Coffee – in a glass. With sprinkles.
I scanned the room in alarm to see who might be watching and realised that there was a room full of business people all struggling to come to terms with the same refreshment dilemma – drink it and look like a twat, or pretend it isn’t yours.
The Landmark was trying to be different. It succeeded. But perhaps it had lost sight of the needs of its business audience. Differentiation can be good – but context is everything. Learning when to step over the line and how far are salutary lessons. He said as he lifted his glass, stuck out his little pinkie and wiped the chocolate froth from his chin.