Last time I demonstrated how the same (or similar) three win-conditions of marketing (Integrity, Relevance, Difference) show up across other advertising frameworks and brand valuation models. This time, we’re going further. From advertising to brand strategy and beyond. Starting with two of the world’s most popular marketing writers.
At the heart of our creative strategy model are the ‘marketing win conditions’ of Integrity, Relevance and Difference. I often refer to that part of the model as ‘The Paradigm’.
I use ‘paradigm’ because I believe it reflects one of the most prevalent and fundamental concepts in business and marketing. I admit that is an outlandish claim. Probably second only to attempting to create a unified model of creative strategy. But I stand by it.
A quick reminder: the paradigm defines how brands win in markets. Typically, they use aspects of their core competence to create a proposition for an audience that stands out from the alternatives (and against the general noise of the world). To do that, you need to get as close as you can to the audience (Relevance) and as far away from the rest (Difference). Often a balancing act. It’s deceptively simple.
Here is a small collection of quotes and references that may sound different at first, but all reflect the same or quite similar three factors/aspects. This time we start with examples from Advertising and next time we’ll move beyond (it was too much for one post). Emphasises are mine.
So, to recap — last time I had the cheek to suggest a unified model of creative strategy. This time, I’m going to get a little bit nerdy to unpack that model and the thinking behind it.
That model (name pending I guess, any ideas?) didn’t come out of thin air. I have complained in the past about our industry’s tendency to present models as orphans. So on some level part 2 is me being the change I want to see in the world…
I could have tagged all the people mentioned, many are on LinkedIn, but I’d like to think I’m not THAT kind of LinkedIn user. 🙂
Marketing and advertising are suffering an effectiveness crisis. Experts and practitioners both agree that creativity plays an important part of the solution.
But to make it work, we need to bridge a rarely addressed gap.
People often think creative strategy is ‘fluffy’ or irrational. Especially compared to business strategy, marketing strategy or other X strategies. The worst examples certainly are. Still, the best practices of creative strategy are deeply rooted in marketing and align perfectly with classic business strategy. Here’s how I believe it works, looking back on my practise, while standing on the shoulders of giants*.
(* See notes in a separate post, where I also expand on some of my choices. Leaving the ‘scaffolding’ in made this post too long)
Layer 1: Fundamental market elements (Company, Customer, Context)
At a fundamental level, brands meet their audiences and stakeholders within a market context (typically including a competitive landscape). This concept is close to the well-known 3Cs model of strategic thinking popularised by management consultancies: Company, Customer and Competition. Small tweaks can be made to match sectors. For consumer brands, for example, the interaction is typically between Brand, Consumer, and Competition/Category (which sadly ruins the 3Cs memetic, unless we rename ‘Customer’ as ‘Audience(s)’ and get ABC). In our model, context replaces ‘Competition’ to expand into the wider category and broader cultural landscape.
(This is the written version of a talk developed during 2020 between IsolaTed Talks, CIPR annual conference and the BMC podcast)
Last year, as I watched family, friends, clients, students, and myself adjust to the pandemic, I found myself thinking a lot about how people and organisations react to a crisis. The way they react shares a lot in common. Sometimes, our reactions shape us just as much as the crisis does.
Humans react to danger in instinctive and distinctive ways: fight, flight, freeze and fawn. Typically we show a predisposition to some over others. Evolutionary speaking, those mechanisms have positive roles too. To an extent, we can see them as ‘generic strategies’. To survive, our species needed this diversity. Taking the crisis heads on — fighters risk death. On the other hand, you can’t have a society of ‘flighters’ or they’ll run out of energy or options and die out too. Rigid templates weren’t enough even in prehistoric times. What remains is that when stress is high, people switch to ‘survival mode’ and default to their ‘type’, with the feelings that come with it — the fighters get angry, the flighters feel fear and anxiety, and so on. The go-to templates tend to become even more entrenched when a combination of high or persistent stress results in trauma. This type of rigid behavioural pattern is, in fact, an attribute of PTSD.
Organisations are like people in that sense. Once traumatised, even if the automatic response originally aided survival, it becomes ingrained. And then you get what I call ‘the post-traumatic organisation’.
Here are some symptoms I’m sure you’ll find familiar:
Marketing Babylon 