We have relocated.

We have moved our office from here to www.mentalperambulation.blogspot.com

We welcome you all to visit our new office.

Cheers!

I might be wrong.....

…but tell me, are marketers becoming increasingly arrogant? Or just ignorant? Or arrogant because of being ignorant? Almost every article/case study/ presentation on marketing that I go through these days seems to be the same jargon of standard marketing tools and techniques. Market segmentation, brand positioning, demographic/geographic/blah blah target group. Is this what marketing has finally come down to? The use of standard tools and techniques over and over again to dissimilar situations and scenarios? And when the strategy doesn’t work, blame it on the market dynamics or the changing consumer preferences et al? John Hegarty, co-founder of BBH (one of the world’s biggest advertising agencies) was quoted in today’s edition of Brand Equity saying “I work in advertising, I don’t live in advertising and the last thing I’d ever do is read a book no advertising.” While John might have said this in reference to a field such as advertising, where it’s imperative, in a very obvious sense, that the past is not a model for the future; I think it’s time the entire marketing field itself woke up to this concept.

Every year, approximately 30,000 new consumer products are released into the minds and lives of unsuspecting consumers the world over. And more than 90% of them bomb. Why? In some cases, it might be argued that the product did not have a USP, did not cater to a consumer need, was over priced, was below expected quality and so on. Fair enough. All these might be true in the same or different cases. But I also think that a majority of these products got their marketing strategy wrong. What is marketing? Marketing is a way of telling prospective consumers, “Look. I have this product here. I believe it can solve this problem/task of yours and make your life simpler/happier.” Isn’t that what all marketing is about? It’s about getting a product in between a consumer and the execution of a particular task. These tasks can be physical or emotional.

Now how can a flawed marketing strategy be developed? One clear possibility is in not understanding consumer needs. Or ever more, not even knowing who the consumer is. Almost all companies follow the standard practice. You ask them what is the TG for a particular product of theirs and they are going to tell you the TG is “Male in the age group of 20-35, SEC A1,A2 and B, minimum monthly HH income of Rs. 35,234 etc” Is this the right way to define them? No.

I am 22 years old. Belong to SEC A. Male. Now does that mean I am like everyone else in the same bracket? Definitely not. I probably don’t visit the barber’s shop as often as others in this bracket do. I probably don’t pee as often as others in the bracket do. What gives the marketer the right to classify me based on my sex, age and other demographic bollocks? The problem here is in identifying consumers based on such variables as mentioned above and not on the actual softer variables like need states, style (and not standard) of living and interest, to name a few.

I am not you. You are not me. I might be closer to a particular person/group of people in some areas like my love for all things on two wheels and have a gear box and move very fast. But you are not going to find these people in a particular bracket based on the variables in use today. Consumers should be identified based on their need states. And only on their need states.

Which creates the question, “Then why are marketers still following the standard techniques/tools/practices on every problem?” Simply because it’s easy. C’mon! Don’t tell me it’s easier to use a IMRB Pulse Plus or a AC Nielsen survey data than to sit down and figure out the essence of the brand and the ‘need-states’ of the prospective consumer whom it is aimed at and then try to position this product as the answer to that need state! I have don’t it myself before in marketing. And a lot of them are still doing it.

‘Disruptive Innovation’ as Clayton Christensen puts it is not only about product innovation. It is about every single task that goes on from consumer insight to the consumer actually using the product. This will involve market research, product development, communication development, point of sale interaction, product purchase and product use. And each one of these requires looking at the case afresh.

And not thinking because it worked on that liquid dishwash product we launched 4 years ago, it will work on this skin cream.

I am a believer again (due apologies to Smashmouth)

Thanks to the below article being published in a newspaper, I have received a ton of mails, half of them hate-mail. It has been fun to go through each one and reply to them. It has also been exciting discussing the finer aspects of the 'Axeland' campaign among others and the changing landscape of the advertising industry with some knowledgeable ones.

One of the mails included a link to another Axe campaign that has apparently been the talk of the town in North America. Curious, I checked out the links and I must say....my belief in redemption has been restored.

The campaign titled "Game Killers" gets five stars from me not only because of the perfectly distilled insights into the frustrations of the alpha male but also the daring stand against the industry itself. Marketing of deodorants has long involved trying to scare the consumer into buying an aerosol can for himself. Commercials have shown the one not wearing a deo being shunned by his group while the one using it goes home with the chick. Needless to say, the latest ‘Axeland’ commercial has gone one step further (Refer to article below for more information). The ‘Game Killers’ campaign not only doesn’t intimidate the consumer but for once, it actually is on the consumer’s side. It doesn’t talk of using the deo to be the ‘cool dude’ at all. And that is where it goes against the grain of standard deo advertising.

My favourites will have to be the ‘British Accent Guy’ and ‘The Mess’ commercials. Absolutely hilarious and beautiful consumer connect.

Check them out at http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=lil_chan

God doesn't like being called a loser.

Seen the latest Axe commercial? The one with 18 something girls in bright colourful tops and ponytails doing things as mundane as washing a car, drinking water and playing sports? I have. Liked it? I didn’t. And here’s the reason why.

Axe entered the Indian market about 7 years ago. While the entry was a low key affair, subsequent quarters witnessed heightened activity of communication. While Rexona (another product from the same parent organization) was positioned as a product designed to hide your hideous body odour under layers of musky deodorant (remember the guy smelling his armpits before going up to meet a girl?), Axe told me I would have girls swooning over me if I used the product. Remember the ‘elevator’ series of ads with the tag line, “The Axe Effect”? This series of ads was probably one of the very few on television at that time that talked about/suggested male-female attraction in a brazen sort of way. These commercials were founded on a common insight and the execution didn’t sink to the depths of taste thereby creating a visual that was funny (maybe hilarious), ensured top of mind and definitely assisted the brand.

Roll forward to the summer of 2006. I saw the latest ‘Axeland’ commercial about a couple of weeks ago and it seems to have stuck in my head like that godawful tune that won’t go away. One version of the commercial opens with a girl holding a pair of footballs against her chest and a girl friend of hers walking up behind her and groping them. Followed by two girls at a water fountain gazing into each other’s eyes. And so on. A guy visits a guitar store and picks up a gat. He starts playing it and the audience then realizes that he doesn’t know what the g- string stands for. Amidst his valiant attempts to squeeze a tune out of the instrument, we are shown girls all around him screaming the way they would if they saw Enrique on the street. The commercial closes with a voiceover telling me to visit ‘axeland’ (more on that later). Another version shows a skinny lad falling all over a football and the same set of girls piling up on top of him towards the end.

While the basic insight remains intact from the ‘elevator’ commercials, here is an example of how a clueless brand management team can piss increased sales goodbye. It is one thing to say I might get lucky in the elevator today, quite another to tell me I am a loser and that my only hope is inside an aerosol can. No one like’s to be called a loser. Especially not guys. Wonder why guys get irritated when their girl friends or wives start giving them directions while the guy’s driving the car? Because guys don’t like being told that they are incapable. That they are losers. Men are masters of the ego. And we are not apologetic about it.

The ‘axeland’ commercial suffers on two major counts. The first, as mentioned above, relates to how the brand connects with a prospective consumer (the guy). The commercial is basically telling me that I am a dumb fuck and that without Axe, I might as well strangle myself with one of those nylon strings and exit this planet. Now I don’t like being told that I am good for nothing. I might not know how to play football well, but I definitely don’t like being told that I suck at it. It’s like a group of bullies sitting on the sidelines and jeering me while I play, pointing fingers at me and laughing their guts out. How would I feel about it? I would probably ignore them. Now imagine one of them walks up to me after the game and tells me that he has this spray to sell to me that would make me a better player. I would probably punch him in the face. How stupid do you think I am?

The second point on which the commercial (and in fact, the entire campaign) is an absolute blunder is the execution itself. The cues, the imagery, the pony-tailed girls; I cannot but ask the question – Which century are we in? Yeah sure, the groping and the gazing is every man’s ultimate fantasy (maybe not!) but that is where slick execution differs from a shoddy job. As suggested by the voiceover in the commercial, I visited the mentioned website. And here are nuggets of trivia about axeland.

National Costume – “Tight tops and not much else”
National Flag – “Panties” (no kidding)
National Flower – “Lady Finger”
National Bird – “The Booby”
National Dish – You will have to see if for yourself

You can be forgiven if you thought that you were browsing a mediocre soft porn website and not something related to but a deodorant. The question that we are faced at the end of all this is – “How did this happen?” How did such an ad get created? There is more than one reason for this.

At a time when every brand is fervently trying to localize its communication and in some cases, even its offering (Nokia with its phone developed exclusively for the Indian market), Axe’s parent company seems to be swimming against the tide. Till recently, the brand team for India used to be based out of India with all the units (incl. formulation development, packaging, communication, market research) being localized. But now with the brand development (and apparently communication) teams planned to go regional (South-East Asia being one), all the work in product development will now be common for all the markets involved. If Indonesia decides to put flakes in Lifebuoy, India shall too. Why is this being done? I guess that’s a question for Mr. Harish Manwani to answer. What will happen as a result of this? I am afraid commercials like ‘Axeland’.

Though the idea was to have only the product development teams formed regionally and the brand communication team still being localized, I am pretty confident my friends in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines and Vietnam are watching the same commercial. And while their cultural ethos and sensitivities might actually find this ad funny, I don’t think the same can be said for the average Indian teenager (I find the ad as insulting to girls as to guys).

The second reason is a surprising lack of common sense amongst the communication development team. We don’t need expensive market research models to tell us this – You cannot antagonize the audience. Never. Almost every marketing handbook out there tells me customer service is paramount irrespective of the industry in which the organization operates. It tells me to treat customer like God. But when misled exuberance of a brand manager is coupled with a creative director suffering from a major mental block, ads like these are bound to come out.

Just to compare, look at the continuing “Pleasure Up” campaign by Kwality Walls (surprisingly, from the same stable). The proposition is clear and straight – “Succumb to the temptation” executed with a twist. But while both the “Pleasure Up” and “Axeland” campaigns suggest getting laid, Kwality Walls doesn’t call me a loser to get me to try their product. Couple that with brilliant execution and what we have is a campaign that is surely going to get more people eating ice cream or getting laid or both together. But imagine how easy it could have been for the Kwality Walls team to start with the same insight as the Axe team and come up with a similar output.

There are three basic ways to make a sale. Either put forth product attributes or position the product as aspirational or play with the consumer’s inherent insecurities and fears. In the short term, all three of these measures are going to affect the top line in similar ways. But where the difference comes in what each of these alternatives does to the brand and its equity. One can’t keep dissing off consumers and stay in the market for long.

The customer is God. And God doesn’t like being told he is a loser.