The way we do simple, everyday tasks has changed. We no longer need to call to make a dinner reservation, or mail a letter to communicate, or take out a book from the library. We’re digitized. We have multiple options for doing the things that used to call us out from behind our desks or out of our homes. No where is this more evident than in the retail world.

Now, anyone can go online and make a purchase from the comfort of his or her own home. They can learn about product features, price, and even find out what other people are saying about it. So why do people still make the effort to physically enter a store to make a transaction? The answer is simple. They want the retail experience.

Engagement

We hear that word a lot. We measure it in clicks, views, shares, comments, likes, and votes. But in this case, what that really means is that people are looking for a conversation with the brand. It’s about the experience from the moment they walk through the door to the point when they leave the store. Consumers want to interact with the brand, touch it, hold it. This should be enhanced with point-of-sale advertising, pricing initiatives, sampling, product placement, and a great store layout. We also can’t forget the in-store sales reps, possibly the most important piece of the equation. They are the glue, and the sole differentiation between tangible, human interaction and the digital world. But in order to perform their task properly, the brand or company that employs them has to equip them properly. They need to be trained on the correct key messaging and product features, and preloaded to answer any question that is thrown their way. They also have something the online environment lacks, which is the human touch. We like to hear their candour and their personal preferences. Otherwise we would just rely on Google for all of our research needs. We like affirmation, and that’s just something that can only be achieved through a little human engagement.

Technology in the Retail Environment

Technology has the potential to create better customer interaction. Touch screens, scanners, RFID, and mobile are just some of the innovations the retail world has already toyed with. These shouldn’t replace the sales reps, rather they should enhance the conversation. By supplementing the experience with these technologies, employees can better deal with high volumes, bypassing the mundane questions and getting right down into the details of the product. Consumers are no longer asking, “Does this come in red?” but instead, “What makes this product different from the rest?” As impressive as modern technology is, we still need to balance it with function. For example, a few years ago internationally-lauded architect Rem Koolhaas’ team was asked to reinvent the retail experience for the Prada store in SoHo, New York. Part of their solution was to hang flat screen on the racks alongside their clothes. When you came upon the screen you could observe the collection you were currently browsing being shown off on the catwalk. Part surprise-and-delight, part effective merchandising.

Food for thought:

We can’t forget the customer experience at retail. Consumers wouldn’t drive to the store if they didn’t want to be greeted by a face, with real life interactions. We just need to help enhance these experiences, by leveraging the right communication, the perfect mix of people and technology, and a little bit of creativity.
What is the most effective retail experience you’ve seen to date?

Advertisers are the strategic and creative partners of the brands they represent. Mass, digital and social media are all tools in the advertiser’s toolbox. But too often, these tools aren’t honed on insight. And it only makes sense that dull tools make harder and less precise work.

As advertisers, we need to add cultural and behavioral insights to our strategic mix. This means asking those who follow your brand questions, and being prepared to learn from the answers you receive.

Why car brand “X” above all others? Why is “Y” your go-to brew of summer? What can we do as a brand to better serve you as a consumer? You don’t need to activate against every piece of advice that comes through the door, but if many of your consumers are all suggesting the same changes, making the same remarks, or asking the same questions, it doesn’t take an analyst to recognize that both brand and agency should consider the implications pretty closely.

I’m talking about asking your brand stewards, getting feedback, considering it, and asking more questions. Focus groups may point to some of the same conclusions; the trouble with focus groups is that the process is less organic. Respondants in the social space have come to the brand on their own. Sure, they may have followed a targeted link that drives to your brand’s Facebook page, but they stay and engage of their own accord. These are your real brand stewards, the people that love the brand beyond any single campaign, and may advocate for the brand in their personal lives. These are the people you want insights from.  What did the brand do to garner that type of loyalty? These cultural insights can help tell marketers enhance their ability to communicate in all channels.

Most of the time these cultural and behavioral trends connect smaller groups of people.  Tuners love Honda, for example, because they see Honda as a part of their tuner culture.

This in itself can be very useful from a CRM and consumer expansion point of view. The broadness of the social landscape hands brands the opportunity to communicate directly to smaller subcultures within their greater brand community, without alienating the larger group. Honda can reward the tuners in their community by sponsoring tuner events, while still reaching out to the family drivers that love Honda for it’s reliability.

Throughout this series, we harp on the same theme over and over: access. Access has fundamentally changed how the social order is perceived, how consumers make and consume, and how brands therefore need to change. Access to knowledge, production and communication has created much more sophisticated consumer, while access to brands has allowed consumers to influence the brands they love. People are more empowered to research and make than ever before. It’s up to brands to now access their consumers, thereby making the personal connections that made the brand successful in the first place.

The only questions that remain is how far can it be taken.

Ed. note: I put out a feeler on Twitter to find out what sort of content my followers would like to see on the Slide. We got a response from @gypsybandito requesting a post on persuasion. So today, Grip president Harvey Carroll responds. If you have any content requests of your own, tweet us @bigorangeslide or @Leicentious.

______________________________________________________________

I always find it interesting how our industry tiptoes around the reality of what we do as a business.  We like to position ourselves as creative individuals who have both the desire and capability to create things of wonder, to perhaps even create art.  While many of the people I am fortunate enough to work with have this capability, it is just not what we are here to do day-to-day.  Advertising exists to sell products and services for our clients who entrust us with their brands, and essentially their livelihood. The core of what we do hinges on persuasion. We build communication (360°, two-way, digital, social – insert any current buzzword here) to persuade consumers to choose the brand we are advertising over one of many alternative choices at their disposal.

If we were to admit that we are in the persuasion business, we are still left pondering what persuasion is, and whether it’s more akin to an art or science. The dictionary defines persuasion as “the art of persuading” and defines persuading in these terms: “to move by argument, entreaty, or expostulation to a belief, position or course of action.”  For our purposes, Wikipedia offers a more interesting definition: “persuasion is a form of social influence. It is the process of guiding oneself or another toward the adoption of an idea, attitude, or action by rational and symbolic (though not always logical) means.”  Embedded in the very definition is this notion that this argument is not always logical, potentially unscientific, and maybe more art than science.  We must of course recognize that this page of Wikipedia could have been populated by a 10 year old child as a joke, but that is a discussion for another time.

Persuasion as a science versus an art – does it matter?  In my experience, this debate is one that seems to come to life most vividly when a client and an agency sit on different sides of the argument. Clients (I can speak from experience here, having been one most of my career) want to believe it is a science. Clients want to be able to predict and quantify the persuasive impact that their efforts will have on their consumers, ideally before committing significant dollars to creating ads or other communications. This limits risk, and therefore generally makes CEOs and CFOs happy (and ultimately, keeps the clients employed). Proof? Look no further than the litany of ad testing (pre-test, post-test, in-market, concept test, idea test) available to clients. In many cases the main output of these tests is a single score (in one case actually called “The One Score”) that clients use to decide if an ad will be created or not. Here is where the debate with the agency begins.

It is difficult for people on the advertising side of the business – particularly the creative people who make the ads – to believe that this single score can predict of the ad’s potential. The score is regarded with suspicion, as the consumer testing group have not yet “seen the ad.” In a pre-test scenario, they have usually only seen an animatic (a roughly animated storyboard). By definition, this sketch expression of the ad idea glosses over the art and creativity that will come to life in the final piece. It is a creative expression without the creative detail. The creative guys would argue that its art is absent. Knowing how dramatically an idea and execution can evolve through the production process, it is easy to understand how people on the agency side of the business can believe there is more art than science in the mix when producing a persuasive ad.

So who is right? Where to from here? I am not sure there is a perfect answer but I will offer up my opinion. Persuasion, specifically in the world of advertising and communication, is both an art and a science. I believe that the people who recognize this and who use the tools at their disposal will ultimately get to better work. Pre-testing of ads can be helpful when used as a mechanism to get to better work. Use these tools to identify issues with comprehension or to optimize the idea and make the potential for the work greater. Use them to help guide the process, but perhaps not to make the decision whether or not work is produced. The science of testing is not necessarily in a better position that you are to determine if the ad will work, and if it is right for your brand. Use the science to feed the art. If you’re a client, take the information from the testing and use it to have a real dialogue with the agency to determine how the ad prototype can evolve to get to a more persuasive place. From there, let the pros do their job. Let them take this refined core idea, and apply their art to it to make it into a great ad.

Accepting that there is both art and science involved in creating persuasive advertising will provide a better framework for discussion and collaboration between the client and the agency. It will facilitate a better working environment. It will lead to greater trust and respect. It will, I am certain, lead to better, more persuasive advertising.

The advertising industry is a wild ride. With brands constantly reinventing themselves, the challenge to break through and leave a lasting impression on the masses becomes more difficult. In most cases, the challenge to engage on a personal level is even harder. Some brands are evolving beyond what we would expect and in all forms; tactically, visually and strategically. Think X-Men, but in advertising.

I’m defining these unorthodox or even radical changes as ‘avant-garde differentiation.’

In recent past we have seen a number of brands take this form of differentiation out of the agency boardroom and in to the market, leaving a lasting impression that changes how consumers see them.

Some brands represent obvious examples of these leaps in conceptual thinking. The first is an easy one: Old Spice. They have taken their brand from ‘old man smell’ to another extreme that attracts younger consumers because of their gregarious spokesman’s Tweets. Despite the many months that have elapsed since the heyday of the campaign, Mashable still links to Old Spice’s top 10 Twitter responses on their homepage.

In an effort to give their brand more visibility, Dos Equis has introduced a popular (and relatively long-standing frontman – ‘The Most Interesting Man in the World,’ an evolution inspired by such popular Chuck Norris thread gems as:

‘Crop circles are Chuck Norris’ way of telling the world that sometimes corn needs to lie the $%#! Down’

‘There is no chin behind Chuck Norris’ beard. There is only another fist.’

‘Chuck Norris ordered a Big Mac at Burger King, and got one.’

The thing that makes ‘The Most Interesting Man’ so unique is the fact that the character himself is a self-avowed “non-beer drinker.” This basically flies in the face of beer advertising as we know it, leveraging the character above the product as a form of promotion. But the appeal of the character is undeniable, as evidenced in their collection of brilliantly well-written spots.

While the word “flash mob” strikes terror into the hearts of any thinking creative now, there was a heyday which found its roots in T-Mobile. This brand takes avant-garde differentiation to the tactical realm with their Welcome Back musical flash mobs in major international airports. The impact these improvisational events have on the public leaves them talking about T-Mobile – notably without a T-Mobile logo in sight.

More recently, Perrier has taken avant-garde differentiation to a new level. For a brand that has a strong hold on the Mineral Water industry (in this case, sparkling water), they are making plenty of digital noise on YouTube with their new ‘Le Club: Can you handle the heat?‘ campaign. It is the first interactive experience that gets wilder and sexier as the number of video views increases. Intrigued? That’s what they’re banking on. See it here:   

Finally, Skittles ‘Touch the Rainbow’ campaign has evolved into an odd yet impactful user experience that is changing the way users view and interact with the brand and even YouTube itself. With more than 7.4 million views combined, their ‘Touch the Rainbow’ campaign is invigorated with left-field hilarity that somehow feels personalized.

Food for thought
Certain categories tend towards the same types of messaging, the same media plays, and the same ways of reaching their consumer. In each of the above cases, the brands abandoned typical media, tone, manner and even their tried-and-true demographics. In each case it was a risky move that paid off really well. So what does this say? Is risk always worth gambling on? Should we always strive to take our brands to a new level by differentiating from the norm?