Transcript Brands & Branding in a

Brands and Branding
in the
“Push and Pull”
Marketplace
IU Communications and Marketing
Conference
Don E. Schultz, PhD
Northwestern University
28 November, 2011
Indianapolis
First,
Before Delving into the
Educational Arena,
Let’s Look at the Overall
Field of Branding, Marketing
and Communication
Marketing, Communication
And, Even Branding, Used to
Be Soooooo Easy!
Just Look At The Way It
Used To Be Done
Marketing, Communication
and Branding Were Based on
Systems and Content the
Marketer Controlled
It Looked Like This
Agency → Media → Sales Force Retail
Products and Services
Marketer
Messages and Incentives
Consumer/
Prospect
And, We Assumed It Worked Through
a “Hierarchy of Effects” Model
One-Way
Media Attitudes/
Knowledge Preference Conviction Purchase
Adver- Awareness
Behavior
tising
Linear
“Influencing and Persuading Consumers”
Source: Adapted from Lavidge and Steiner
Lots of Assumptions Were Made
 People want what we have made
 They will use the processes we control
 Behaviorist psychology “works”
 Stimulus  Response
 Attitudinal change  Behavioral change
 We can interrupt whenever we want
 Unconnected, separate and distinct functions
work best
In Short,
We Talk, They Listen…and…Respond !
Unfortunately,
Too Many Colleges and
Universities “Bought Into”
This One-Way, Outbound
Marketing System
Everyone Tried to Find
Something Unique About
Their College or University….
A Continuing Search for a
Brand USP!
We Tried Lots of Things…
 Only major research university in the Tri-State Area
 More Nobel Prize winners than any other






Community College
Our graduates make more money
Six NCAA Football championships in the last five
years
More student aid than the funding for the UN
Seventy-four new buildings in the past two years
Free tuition, free labs, free housing, free food for
under-qualified students
Etc.
And,
We Distributed Them
Through Outbound, Linear
Communication Systems We
Controlled….
And, They Seemed to Work….
 Enrollments grew
 Funding exploded
 Honors and accolades rained down
 Students seemed happy, although they
were deeply in debt
 Donors still wanted to fund bricks and
mortar
And, Then the World
Changed…..
 The Economy “went South”
 And, Technology exploded
Since I’m Not from the
University of Chicago, I Have
No Magic Economic Elixir to
Offer
Milton Friedman
So,
Let’s Focus on
Marketing, Communication
and Branding
First,
We Must Think of
Stakeholders,
Not Customers or Consumers
or Users……
They’re People,
Not “Targets”
Second,
Innovative Technology Has
Changed the Entire Game
Internet – WiFi
Mobile Telephony
Consumer
iPods/MP3 -- podcasts
Social Networks
Cable/satellite
Blocking Systems - TIVO/DVRs/
Filters/Pop-up Blockers/etc.
Employees/Recommenders/Distributors/Influencers
Marketers No Longer Control the
System, Stakeholders Do!
Web Search
Competitors
Agency 
Competitors
Media  Sales Force
Products and Services
Marketer
Customers/
Prospects
Messages and Incentives
Competitors
Competitors
Word-of-Mouth
New Forms of Media
We’re Must Re-invent Branding
Communication Just to Cope
Brand
Experiences
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Web sites
Customer Service
Tech support
Retailers
Distributors
User communities
Blogs
RSS
Influencers
Recommenders
Organization
Brand
Experiences
Internet Systems
Agencies
Messages
Electronic Systems
Audiences
Here’s the World Our
Stakeholders Live in…..
Customer Service
Channels/Distributors
Product/Service
Direct Mail
Press
Coverage
Stakeholders
View of
Marketing &
Communication
Package/Displays
e-commerce
Sales
Promotion
Pricing
Advertising
Here Are Our Communication
Planning Systems
Brand Marketing
Media
Advertising
Public
Relations
Direct
Marketing
Sales
Promotion
Stakeholders
Attitudes
Behaviors
?
Events/
Sponsorship
Result?
We Have to Move Beyond the
Old-Fashioned, Linear,
Marketer-Controlled Systems
of the Past…..
To a New, Interactive,
Networked, Reciprocal
Branding System for Today
and Tomorrow!
And, Nowhere Are These
Changes More Evident Than
on College and University
Campuses
Just Look at Today’s
Students
Our Stakeholders Don’t Think
Linearly, But, We Do!
 Monochronic -- sequential processing
 Polychronic -- parallel processing
We’re Only Just Beginning to
Recognize the Changes
We Must
Re-Think College and
University Brand
Communication
Programs……
One Approach:
Service Dominant Logic
Evolution of Marketing Thought
To Market
(Matter in Motion)
Historic
R. Lusch, 2010
Marketing To
Marketing With
(Management of
Customers
& Markets )
(Collaborate with
Customers & Partners
to Cocreate &
Sustain Value)
1950-2005
2005
G-D Logic: A Logic of Separation
Producer
R. Lusch, 2010
Separation
Experienced
Knowledgeable
Innovative and Creative
Produces /Creates Value
Consumer
Inexperienced
Unknowledgeable
Passive/Dull
Consumes/Destroys
Value
S-D Logic: A Logic of Togetherness
Firm
Cocreating
Sensing & Experiencing
Creating
Integrating Resources
Learning
Sensing & Experiencing
Creating
Integrating Resources
Learning
Cocreating
R. Lusch, 2010
Customer
Core Foundational Premises
Premise
Explanation/Justification
FP1
Service is the fundamental
basis of exchange.
The application of operant resources
(knowledge and skills), “service,” is the
basis for all exchange. Service is
exchanged for service.
FP6
The customer is always a
co-creator of value
Implies value creation is interactional.
FP9
All economic and social
actors are resource
integrators
Implies the context of value creation is
networks of networks (resourceintegrators).
FP10
Value is always uniquely
and phenomenological
determined by the
beneficiary
Value is idiosyncratic, experiential,
contextual, and meaning laden.
R. Lusch, 2010
Push and G-D logic
New
Organizations
Platform Enterprises
Bureaucracy
Learning
Promotion
Conversation
Factory Production
Co-creation
R&D Labs
Marketing Channels
R. Lusch, 2010
Open Innovation
Resource Integration
Pull and S-D logic
Old
Emergent, Co-created, Resource
Integrating, Dynamic
WEB 1.0
WEB 2.0
Speak to Customer
Conversation with Customer
Customer is Passive
Customer is Experiencing
Customers Locate Content
Customers Offered Service
Push Messages Out
Pull Customers In
Standardized Mass Produced
Messages
Customized and Relevant
Exchange of Messages
Seller Control
Customer Control
R. Lusch, 2010
With Service-Dominant Logic
in Mind, Let’s Look at a
University
First, Think of the University
Holistically
People Factors
Students
Academics
Administrators
Staff
Supplementary
Services
Process Factors
Application
Registration
Exceptions
Support Systems
Adapted from Irene Ng and Jeannie Forbes
Core Service:
Learning
Co-created,
Emergent,
Unstructured,
Uncertain
Physical Factors
Facilities
Accommodations
Learning Material
Equipment
External Factors
Alumni
Government
Contributors
Communities
Teachers/Counselors
Indiana University Is a
“Service”
Not a
“Product”
Services Are All About
Relationships
 Internal
 External
 Continuous
 Evolving
 Shared
 Reciprocal
Communication Is Not
Something You Do…..
It’s Something You and the
Stakeholder Do
TOGETHER!
This Idea of Reciprocity
(Shared Value)
Challenges Most of Our
Traditional Marketing and
Communication
Measurement Systems
Traditional Measures of Brand
Marketing Returns
Three Pathways
Customer-Based
Brand Equity
Short-Term
Incremental Sales
Branded
Business Value
Attitudinal
Data
Cash
Flows
Present/Future
Brand Value
Hierarchy of
Effects
Marketing Mix
Modeling
Discounted Cash
Flows
Brand Tracking
Studies
ROCI
Brand
Scorecards
Marketing
Sales
Shareholder
All Those Measurement
Systems Are Based on
Returns to the
Organization…..
One Way, Outbound, What
Did We Get Back?
Good Measurement Starts
With Clear Planning……
What We’re Trying to Do
Determines What We’ll Get
Back!
Here’s One Approach:
Stakeholder-Focused Planning
S




Solutions
Information
Values
Access
I
V
A
S Is for Solution to Stakeholder
Problems and Concerns:
S 
Stakeholder Question:
 How can I solve the problem I have or
expect to have?

Brand’s Answer:
 Here’s our solution to your problem
I
I Is for Stakeholder Need for
Information

Stakeholder Question:
 Where can I learn more about your
Solution to my problem?

Brand’s Answer:
 Here are the answers to your questions
– ways to get the information, plus the
products and services you want or need
V Is for Stakeholder Questions
About Value
V
 Stakeholder Question:
 What is the total sacrifice or cost to get and
use your solution to my problem?
 Brand’s Answer:
 Here’s the total cost for “our solution” and,
here’s the value you get for the price you
pay
A Is for the Stakeholder Needs for
Access
A
 Stakeholder Question:
 Where can I get or find “your solution” and,
how easy will it be to obtain?
 Brand’s Answer:
 Here’s where you can find “our solution” ,
here’s the total cost and the experience you
will have in obtaining and using
S
I
V
A
The Difference Between
Inside-Out and Outside-In

4 Ps View





Product
Price
Place
Promotion
Selling/marketing at the
end of the process

SIVA View




Solutions for Stakeholders
Information for Stakeholders
Value for Stakeholders
Access for Stakeholders
 Marketing/branding driving the
process from the beginning
We Need to Know Where
Stakeholders Get Their
Information, Not Just How
We Send It Out!
 Media/message consumption, not
media/message distribution
A Media Consumption Model
Response
Potential Fragmentation
Of Attention
(Message Impact Diluted)
Media
Exposure
Media
Consumer
Media
Exposure
Potential Synergy
Via Simultaneous Media Usage
(Messages Reinforced)
Media
Exposure
Foreground/Background Media
Time Allocated To Each Media Form
Interestingly, Media
Consumption Is Easier to
Measure in the New Media
Forms Than the Old
Social Media Applications and
Performance #1
Social Media
Application
Brand Awareness
Brand Engagement
Word of Mouth
Blogs








Number of
re-tweets
Number of references to
project in other media
(online/offline)
Number of additional taggers
Number of Unique visits
Number of return visits
Number of times bookmarked
Search ranking



Number of tweets about the
brand
Valence of tweets
Number of followers
Number of visits


Number of members
Number of RSS feed
subscribers
Number of comments
Amount of user-generated
content
Average length of time of site
Number of responses to polls,
contests, surveys
Number of followers
Number of @replies

Number of creation attempts


Number of tags

Number of followers




Number of page views
Number of visits
Valence of posted content +/-

Number of relevant
topics/threads
Number of individual replies
Number of sign-ups








Microblogging
(e.g., Twitter)
Cocreation
(e.g., NIKEiD
Social Bookmarking
(e.g., StumbleUpon)
Forums and Discussion
Boards
(e.g., Google Groups)








Number of references to blog
in other media (online/offline)
Number of
re-blogs
Number of times badge
displayed on other sites
Number of likes
Incoming links
Citations in other sites
Tagging in social bookmarking
Offline references to the forum
of its members
In private communities; chatter
pointing to the community
outside of its gates
Number of likes
Social Media Applications and
Performance #2
Social Media
Application
Product Reviews
(e.g., Amazon)
Brand Awareness





Social Networks
(e.g., Bebo, Facebook,
LinkedIn)





Brand Engagement Word of Mouth
Number of reviews posted
Valence of reviews
Number and valence of others’
responses to reviews (+/-)
Number of wish list adds
Number of times product included
in users’ lists (i.e., Listmania on
Amazon.com)



Number of members / fans
Number of installs of applications
Number of impressions
Number of bookmarks
Number of reviews/ratings and
valence +/-










Video and Photosharing
(e.g., Flickr, YouTube)


Number of views of video/photo
Valence of video/photo ratings +/-




Length of reviews
Relevance of reviews
Valence of other users’ ratings of
reviews 9i.e., how many found
particular review helpful)
Number of wish list adds
Overall number of reviewer rating
scores entered
Average reviewer rating score



Number of comments
Number of active users
Number of “likes” on friends’
feeds
Number of user generated items
Usage metrics of applications /
widgets
Impressions-to-interactions ratio
Rate of activity (how often
members personalize profiles,
bios, links, etc.)
Number of replies
Number of page views
Number of comments
Number of subscribers












Number of reviews posted
Valence of reviews
Number and valence of other
users’ responses to reviews (+/-)
Number of references to reviews
on other sites
Number of visits to review site
page
Number of times product included
in users’ lists
Frequency of appearances in
timeline of friends
Number of posts on wall
Number of reposts/shares
Number of responses to friend
referral invites
Number of embeddings
Number of incoming links
Number of references in mockups or derived work
Number of times republished in
other social media and offline
Number of likes
We’re Developing New
Approaches to Determine
What Media Forms
Stakeholders Access
One Unique Approach: SIMM Studies

A method of understanding how consumers access, use and consume
media today

Methodology
 Conducted twice per year since 2002
 19 separate waves (20th being gathered now)
 302,000+ individual responses (22,000 more in Wave 20)
 Drawn from on-line interactive base of 60 million U.S. individuals
 Double opt-in methodology
 Captures media usage, retailer preference, influence of media, past
and future purchases, etc.
 Includes 31 media forms
 Accuracy of .01 level
 Benchmarked to non-online studies
 Weighting and balancing of 14 U.S. Census age-sex cells

Operative in China since 2006. Testing in Mexico
Here’s an Example of Some
Recent Work in Healthcare
to Demonstrate the Process
Consumer Reported Health Related
Conditions
(Sorted by Incidence)
Allergies
Overweight
High Blood Pressure
High Cholesterol
Acid Reflux
Headaches/Migraines
Arthritis
Depression
Anxiety
Heartburn/Indigestion
Asthma
Insomnia/Difficulty Sleeping
Diabetes
Restless Leg Syndrome (RLS)
Heart Disease
Chronic Bronchitis/COPD
Osteoporosis
IBS/Chrons
Enlarged Prostate/BPH
Total Sample
Percent
36.8
25.7
23.6
20.3
16.8
16.2
15.2
14.0
12.5
11.6
10.3
10.2
9.6
4.3
3.2
2.9
2.6
2.6
2.3
100.0
Age
44.5
47.1
54.0
54.4
48.2
41.8
54.2
42.9
41.5
46.9
41.5
45.2
52.7
45.9
56.0
53.0
56.1
44.8
58.4
45.3
Income (000)
55.7
55.1
57.5
59.7
55.5
52.0
54.4
47.7
49.8
55.0
50.5
52.5
56.3
50.7
49.3
45.1
54.4
54.5
66.9
54.4
Pct Male
41.5
39.8
56.7
58.1
49.0
32.5
45.3
47.2
41.8
47.4
43.0
42.8
61.6
46.0
69.5
62.0
25.5
32.8
100.0
48.4
Factor Analysis
(Explains 42.2%)
Depression
Anxiety
Insomnia/Difficulty Sleeping
High Blood Pressure
High Cholesterol
Diabetes
Overweight
Heartburn/Indigestion
Acid Reflux
Osteoporosis
Chronic Bronchitis/COPD
Enlarged Prostate/BPH
Heart Disease
Asthma
Allergies
1
Worry
0.78
0.76
0.57
0.72
2
Diet
3
Digestive
4
Old
5
Environ
0.67
0.63
0.44
0.75
0.72
0.60
0.53
0.46
0.41
0.79
0.64
Health Conditions by Age, Income and Size
59
Diet
58
57
Digestive
Environment
56
Arthritis
55
Income 54
Old
Headache
53
Worry
52
51
50
49
40
42
44
46
48
50
Age
52
54
56
58
60
Traditional Media Usage by
Health Conditions
Acid Reflux
Allergies
Anxiety
Arthritis
Asthma
Chronic Bronchitis/COPD
Depression
Diabetes
Enlarged Prostate/BPH
Headaches/Migraines
Heartburn/Indigestion
Heart Disease
High Blood Pressure
High Cholesterol
Insomnia/Difficulty Sleeping
IBS/Chrons
Osteoporosis
Overweight
Restless Leg Syndrome (RLS)
Total Sample
TV
138.8
131.3
140.4
144.6
132.3
161.1
147.7
146.7
146.6
136.7
146.2
152.5
141.4
142.0
152.6
136.7
144.9
138.2
141.4
124.4
Radio
73.0
75.2
73.7
70.1
75.5
60.8
71.9
66.4
68.3
78.0
75.9
63.9
66.4
67.1
74.7
75.3
71.9
72.6
70.8
70.0
Newspaper
58.0
57.3
59.3
60.8
57.9
60.3
59.3
59.6
66.7
57.9
61.5
60.5
58.5
60.0
62.2
61.8
67.7
56.0
57.5
53.7
Magazine
49.1
50.5
52.8
51.1
48.8
48.4
51.0
48.8
55.3
50.7
52.1
46.8
47.4
47.4
53.0
56.6
59.5
48.1
50.0
45.4
Direct
57.5
57.7
58.6
58.2
57.5
58.5
57.9
58.2
60.6
59.5
59.9
58.3
57.2
58.8
59.0
59.3
62.2
56.7
58.5
54.0
Media Influence on Purchasers
Word
Read
Coupons
TV
Instore
Cable
Insert
Magazines
Direct
Newspaper
Internet
Placement
Email
Social
Radio
Yellow
Mobile
Blogs
Outdoor
Medicines
23.0
16.6
15.0
14.3
11.1
9.0
8.8
7.9
6.5
6.5
6.5
5.5
4.9
4.3
4.1
3.1
2.8
2.8
2.4
All Categories
33.7
19.1
28.4
21.8
24.7
14.3
19.2
15.3
18.7
16.8
14.3
9.9
14.8
8.6
12.2
6.7
6.0
5.2
7.8
We Can Then Convert that
Data to Identify the Best
Media Forms to Reach Each
Group
Best Media Influences for Worry Segment
(R2=.143 -- Standardized Coeficients)
TV
0.042
Word of Mouth
0.037
Email
0.036
Internet
0.030
Yellow Pages
0.027
Read Article
0.025
Magazines
0.025
Coupons
0.024
Blogs
0.018
Social Media
0.000
0.014
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
0.035
0.040
0.045
Best Media Influences for Arthritis Segment
(R2=.093 -- Standardized Coeficients)
Read Article
0.045
TV
0.035
Email
0.020
Newspaper
0.018
Insert
0.016
Direct Mail
0.015
Magazines
0.000
0.014
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
0.035
0.040
0.045
0.050
Here’s a Test Run on College
Students in the U.S.
The Results Look
Promising….
Certainly Better Than
Pasting Posters on the
Sidewalks
In an Interactive Marketplace,
We Must Develop New
Marketing, Communication and
Branding Approaches and
Methodologies……
The Tools Are Becoming
Available…..
But,
We’ll Have to Put Them to
Work!
And,
That May be a Bigger Mental,
Than Physical Challenge!
Linear Communication
Systems No Longer Work in
an Interactive and
Networked Marketplace
It’s Time to Move Forward!
Don E. Schultz Ph.D.
[email protected]