It’s ‘And’ Not ‘Or’

Validation is naturally the first derivative of data availability. What is measured can be tested and proven. It has made the ‘marketing is science’ votaries more powerful than ever before.

With rapid technological development, analytics has enabled real-time segmentation and the discovery and nurturing of precisely defined audiences. This leads to a futile debate on marketing priorities. That of targeted precision versus thematic broad reach.

To me, it’s a no brainer, always maximize reach and use precision targeting down the funnel.

Business is about maximising returns. The market matters more than marketing. Any brand that aims to flourish must feed the mouth of the funnel better and then do a better job in landing conversions. There is no reason to be fixated on specific marketing modalities. After all, consumers live their lives unconcerned with a specific brand’s activities or media mix.

It is not about traditional or new media. Both are needed. It is not about legacy channels or media innovations. Both have their place in the mix. Reach, impact, costs are good metrics to compare and assess.

My experience is that this emphasis on making an either/or choice is due to confusion between the short- and long-term priorities. Those who are locked into sales metrics often see the world differently from those who chase brand equity metrics. This difference is in terms of scope of activity, tenure, periodicity and results. It has been a tripping wire for many CMOs.

I don’t appreciate how segmentation came to be about targeting an individual. Data-driven, precision-targeting solutions are making it look like developing reach is against the science of seeking granularity. To call one-way ‘mass’ and another way ‘targeted’ is to confuse scale in the relative sense. What is targeted for Nike is mass for a Louis Vuitton.

The issue with reach predicated models is wastage whilst targeting makes a habit of chasing those intenders who have the highest conversion value. ROI cannot be only about sales generation as they lead to a focus on buyers with a high likelihood to convert. It looks good for a campaign-specific evaluation on boosting sales but doesn’t grow the baseline.

Brands have been built through advertising because they reached those who weren’t aware or didn’t care. I have seen renowned marketers getting confused between medium and message. They confuse the creative target with the prospect. Evolved customers are not swayed by offers or advertising. A brand needs to reach more prospects.

But time and again, brand managers mistake their core segment with their media target. You might want to show young, adventurous, trendy riders in motorcycle advertising, but the likelihood is that a lot of your buyers will be older, plain vanilla commuters. If it hurts your vanity as a brand manager to reach prospects who are different from your celebrated core, you’re foolishly setting up for shrinking your base. Those who prefer to drink Red Bull need not be jumping from cliffs for the thrill. There are segments that are meaningful to a category, and they must be known in order to define your reach and structure media operations. The strongest brands build categories in their entirety.

Ultimately, a brand’s target is the market, so targeted means should be used to boost relevant segments, manage budgets in lean periods, create an affinity specific campaign if so required.

Today the media environment and technology are allowing us to find out more about who we're speaking to, and thus make sure the message is more aligned with their needs. It is down to specific behaviours associated with an interest in your category, or even with different levels of category involvements. I saw this clearly as I led a Google Analytics implementation at Royal Enfield. But it doesn’t mean fragmenting campaigns for multiple sub-segments. A brand should own a big idea that resonates with many people. Then social/digital, always-on creativity can keep the content coming under an arc of grand meaning. For example, Dove owns body-positive feminism. Patagonia owns environmental concerns. Marlboro owned frontier masculinity. Consistency is key for branding and an addressable media world is not forcing any contradictions.

Long-term effects are generated in fundamentally different ways from how short-term effects are produced. A succession of myopic, short-term response-focused campaigns or promotions will not succeed as strongly over the long term as a single brand-building campaign. A focus on short-term results will not maximise long-run profitability. Most short-term volume growth stresses price elasticity over the longer term. A clear distinction and a balance of brand based long-term, and activation-dependent short-term elements are needed.

Creatively acclaimed campaigns seem to produce considerably more powerful long-term business effects than merely rational persuasion campaigns.

The most optimal approach is to develop powerful thematic campaigns supported by resonant activations to drive short-term sales. 

And hence, it’s not ‘Or’ but ‘And’.

Shubhranshu Singh

Guest Author Shubhranshu Singh is a stalwart marketer and business leader presently serving as CMO at Tata Motors. He is a published author and columnist writing extensively on brand building, consumer lives, economy, politics and technology. He is a speaker and jury member on the global apex marketing circuit.