Rory Sutherland reminded me of a Bill Bernbach maxim.
Bernbach said we deal in ‘unchanging human truths’.
I’d forgotten that, I think we all have.
We’re so wound up in chasing the latest marketing gimmick, the latest jargon, the latest trend, the latest theory.
We’re so scared of missing out, of being left behind, we’ve forgotten the basics.
The unchanging human truths.
Because those unchanging truths are too simple we need to dress them up.
We need the credibility of complicated language.
But when that language becomes too well known we get bored with it.
So we invent a new set of language.
And our job becomes about learning new language.
And the language keeps changing.
And the language moves farther and farther away from the unchanging human truth.
Just because the human truth is unchanging.
Let me give you an example.
The most basic of all briefing start-points is to decide whether to go for market share or market growth.
This sounds complicated, but it’s just a human truth.
Suppose you go into a bar full of other blokes and see a girl you like.
Which approach would give you the best chance.
Would you say “Men are strong and can carry things for you, they’re handy for husbands and settling down, they can provide a home if you want children, and they make good sexual partners. You should get yourself a man.”
That’s a market-growth strategy for men.
If you are clearly the best choice of all the men in the bar (better looking, better dressed, richer, wittier, more confident) then market growth may be your best strategy.
Because if you convince her she wants a man, she’ll probably pick you.
You are the market leader.
However, if like most of us, you aren’t automatically first choice, if you’re a challenger brand, you need to go for market share.
Instead of selling the case for men in general, you decide what your strengths are, then position yourself against other men, as a better alternative.
This is pretty basic.
Especially for anyone who’s ever sold a car in Exchange & Mart.
When you write the ad, you don’t tell people why they need a car “Cars are better than public transport. You don’t have to queue, cars are more private, you can go exactly where you want, and cars can carry more. You should get yourself a car. ”
That wouldn’t make sense because people have an almost infinite variety of cars to choose from other than yours.
You don’t own the car category, so you don’t go for market growth.
You’re talking to people who are already interested in buying a car.
So you tell them why your car is a better deal “Low mileage, beautiful condition, one careful owner, new tyres, full service history, taxed and MOT.”
So market-share v market-growth is a simple unchanging human truth.
Some brands: Nike, iPhone, Specasavers, are market leaders.
So what they do is grow the market.
Because they take a bigger share of any growth.
Some brands who aren’t market leaders copy the market leader, and then wonder why their advertising doesn’t work.
The reason is, they didn’t ask the question, market-growth or market-share.
So they ignored a simple, unchanging human truth.
Dave, thanks 4 explaining it in a way even an ape or a planner can understand.
Grilla Login - 31 October 2012 12:16 pm
As we know Grilla, apes are closer to normal human beings.
Dave Trott - 31 October 2012 1:33 pm
U know it, Dave, I know it, Dave, but protocol insists we still need 2 run some groups 2 test it.
Grilla Login - 31 October 2012 4:30 pm
I’ve just worked at an agency where a script was tested, tweaked (in other words change the bits that no one liked and try to make the bits that people liked, make sense), tested, tweaked, tested, tweaked and so on, in 5 markets, over 8 months at 60,000 Euro a pop until the script was deemed (by groups, not the agency or client) perfect. At that point they found they had spent the budget and could no longer afford to make the ad nor run it. Worse than that, both the client and agency considered this a victory. It had passed the testing. The rest was irrelevant to them.
I shit you not.
Andy Brittain - 31 October 2012 5:07 pm
I’ve been there Andy, I know it’s true.
It’s safer to be proved right than to actually do anything.
If you don’t do anything, you can’t be wrong.
Dave Trott - 31 October 2012 6:09 pm
Damn, I was waiting for the market share man to sway the pretty bird at the bar.
steakandcheese - 31 October 2012 7:19 pm
The last time I followed your advice in a briefing I was branded “Militant Creative.” I am probably only a couple of questions away from being fired.
Rampaul - 31 October 2012 11:25 pm
Yup that’ll happen Rampaul.
I can tell you how to do better ads, but not everyone wants that.
So this isn’t career advice.
I was never any good at agency politics.
Dave Trott - 31 October 2012 11:59 pm
The worst thing is that most clients always ask for both because they don’t actually understand the difference
Geordie - 1 November 2012 2:41 am
Geordie, just like the suit who answered my question ‘Which single point is the most important on in the brief?’ with ‘They’re all the single most important’. Sometimes asking the right question doesn’t always get you the right answer…
tom - 1 November 2012 6:59 am
Dave,
Recently I was told to shove my Sun (Tzu) quotes where it don’t shine. I enjoyed that. You know you’re onto something when you get up people’s noses.
john p woods - 1 November 2012 8:50 am
Geordie,
You might find the concept of Binary Briefing comes in handy with planners/suits/clients.
At least as a conversation.
In their language, it’s what sets a Marketing brief apart from a Comms brief.
There are 6 posts on this blog describing it.
Between Jan 16 2009 and Jan 29 2009.
It’s a good discipline for the briefing process.
Dave Trott - 1 November 2012 9:56 am
It’s not the problem of them asking for both. The problem is people give it to them. Agencies lack a clear principle or process that they can explain how they work. Can’t we explain the difference between quality and quantity.
@Tom -I see what you mean but that is no answer. Nobody would except that answer, would they? Outside of business you certainly wouldn’t.
If you think the question is worth asking then you have to believe that it is worth answering. You question is clear and specific. We can’t except swerves can we? I tell people to sit there till they answer the question asked. You can do it and still be nice.
Jim Powell - 1 November 2012 11:01 am
@ JIm, of course no-one would accept that answer. The point is that someone asked the question. Someone being paid a salary, presumably for writing a brief that would lead to effective work. Common sense, really. But as Frank Zappa said, it’s amazing how uncommom common sense is…
Tom - 4 November 2012 1:00 pm
Dave,
Perhaps it’s more a case of ‘unchanging simian truths’? Over to you Grilla. http://gulfbusiness.com/2012/10/from-chimp-to-champ-what-we-can-learn-from-the-olympics/#.UJZYp67jP9M
john p woods - 4 November 2012 1:58 pm
John, humans will never tame their inner monkey, tho feeding it a banana from time2time will keep it docile for a while.
Grilla Login - 5 November 2012 10:45 am
Thanks Dave! Will take a look.
Geordie - 5 November 2012 10:52 am
Hi Dave,
Say, a lesser-known sports brand decides to become the main sponsor of various small running events throughout a racing calendar year. Would that be a “market-growth” strategy?
If it’s then supported by advertising that sells the advantages of its running shoes, would that be a “market-share” move?
If the combination of regular sponsorship and product-specific ads would increase runners’ awareness of the brand and thus lower their resistance in “allowing” the product-specific ads to talk to them…would that then make it alright for a non-market leader to have both a market-growth and market-share strategy?
Or am I confusing branding with advertising?
Thanks!
DL - 16 November 2012 9:11 am
Hi DL,
Sounds like a market share strategy, top-to-bottom to me.
Can’t see where it’s about market growth.
Dave Trott - 16 November 2012 9:49 am
Ah ok, I thought the sponsorship would have been about growing/supporting the development of a run-crazy culture within a country. Thanks, Dave!
DL - 19 November 2012 5:25 am
Dave,
I have a question about this strategy:-
Market Growth.
“Men are strong and can carry things for you, they’re handy for husbands and settling down, they can provide a home if you want children, and they make good sexual partners. You should get yourself a man.”
v
Market Share
“Low mileage, beautiful condition, one careful owner, new tyres, full service history, taxed and MOT.”
What happens if the woman decides…
“Hmmm…I like the sound of that!
I’ll get one to repair the home
two to take me on holiday
a fourth to wash the car…
Apparently this is the best of both worlds according to the Tyra Banks Show where some American businesswomen dont have time to date so they just dial-a-shag.
Isn’t this denegration of the male brand to the lowest common denomenator?
Kev - 10 December 2012 9:57 pm
Kev,
I think it was Talulah Bankhead who said “A woman needs a man who’s handsome, a man who’s rich, a man who’s cultured, a man who’s a good husband and father. And she need to make sure all these men never meet.”
Dave Trott - 11 December 2012 10:28 am