NORTHERN PLANNER

I didn't finish Chip and Dan Heath's 'Switch' because it was a book that should have been an essay and seemed to contain too many generalisations to my liking. 

That said, I loved the popcorn study, where they filled some popcorn tubs with really stale crap popcorn, all in tubs too big for folks to finish, but some still much bigger than others.

Even with crap popcorn, the folks with bigger tubs ate much more. 

Conclusion one – if you want to eat less, dont just reduce portion size, reduce the size of what it comes in (a half pint of beer in a pub gets drunk slower in a pint glass than in half pint glass). 

Conclusion two – in many cases, you can't solve people problems, so look for situation problems. Instead of asking 'how do I get people to eat less' (really hard) ask 'how do I get their food served in smaller plates and bowls -easier. 

Just like getting people to stop littering is really hard, but giving people a target to AIM their litter at really easy – and reduces litter because we can't resist that target. 

All marketing is supposed to be about people, what they are doing, what they care about. You would be amazed how many don't think they have a people problem, they have a brand problem, or an awareness problem. 

But actually, maybe a 'people problem' isn't the right way to look at things either.

Perhaps one should looks for a situation one can affect. 

Many moons ago, I was tasked tby a retailer to get people interested in buying a new bed, which is of course very, very hard.

But we found that there was a much easier situation to solve. There were plenty of people who knew they needed a new bed, but couldn't be bothered with the hassle of getting rid of the old one. So put it off .

All we did was change the situation by promising people in the market (no one was doing this at the time) we would get rid of their old bed for free. Because we all choose the path of least resistance. 

Then another time, we realised people were LEAVING the store because they didn't know how to choose a bed, and hated talking to staff. So we created a free guide to buying beds so they didn't have to, and made them feel like they had the upper hand when eventually a conversation had to happen. 

Put another way, choose a fight you can win. Not always sexy, but very effective. 

Seriously, Dan Pink's selling book is ace, a treasure of little insights. You should read it. 

I liked the story of how Amazon makes sure it's plans always have proper customer input. 

It's simple, they're in the room whenever any decision is made. 

Because a spare chair is always allocated as the customer chair.

It's empty of course, but the fact they always have it there forces them to remember who the ultimate decision maker in business success really.

The customer. 

For some reason, both clients and agency folk, who live close to normal lives outside of the office, seem to forget their frame of reference as a human being when they enter it, pretending any one gives a monkeys about their brands or their ads and stuff. They somehow think people are paying attention. 

Even planners. Who have the job primarilly as the voice of the consumer. 

Especially planners who get lost in the construct of the idea rather than if anyone will care. 

You get it with client presentations too. It's easy to convince yourself the client has changed. Will sign off on the risky execution, loves obscure Polish cinema references, relishes clever aphorisms. 

When really, you've got someone who's work is 90% nothing to do with you, works in faceless office in Slough and is under pressure from the board to deliver x% growth is sales this quarter. 

So I reckon every agency should have two spare chairs in the room. 

The consumer, owned by the planner. 

The client owned by the suits. 

They may not say much, but having them their forces you consider them as they really are. 

It stops you pretending they're something they're not. 

That they care about what you care. 

They don't. 

 Rosser Reeves gets some stick these days. Mostly from being the father of the Unique Selling Proposition.

Maybe the USP is outdated, but my own point of view is that you should always find something unique about you offering.

 Byron Sharp’s work corroborates this  – brands need to build distinctive memory structures and so on.

That doesn’t always have to be product function of course, but it should have some relevance to what the product is, what it does, who makes it, why it was made, who it’s made for or how it’s made, how it makes you feel or what it does for you.

Even all that great Cultural Strategy work tells us we need to make our work relevant to what we’re offering or it’s just not credible.

Even the Gorilla was linked to the truth about product experience – joy.

In fact, I’m useless at writing and should leave it to perhaps the greatest, or at least the one who delivered the truth with wit and charm, David Abbott. “Say something about the product in a way that cannot be missed”.

Colour Like No Other.

Some people hate our product but those that love it, really love it.

Our cars are reliable.

Our car has a clever remote controlled start.

We all know the basics, build distinctive fame, reach as many buyers as possible, remove reasons not to buy, outspend market share to grow it, but get a disproportionate return by investing in creative work that moves people and gets talked about.

But these are still general rules. Success comes from being specific, about what makes your brand unique. 

The USP isn’t dead, that's just the excuse of the lazy to try kill it off. The ones who just work to soft brand scores rather than shifting unit. 

Unique propositions, unique problems, unique solutions. 

Creative sensibilities usually mean the end of an ad should be a pure as fresh snow. Somehow, the convention is that it’s more creative without a call to action.

The end frame in a film, the bit at the end of the way the eye peruses print – after headline/visual idea and copy (if any).

It’s generally accepted that what wins awards is nothing but a tiny logo.

But maybe, creative convention aside, this is the wrong approach.

Here’s why.

Let’s take first of all the argument doing the rounds in some of the creative guide books. It usually goes, “But if you’ve done your job properly and got people excited, they’ll go LOOKING for you”.

When of course, we know by now the arguments that the people that advertising needs to reach tend to be light buyers, the least engaged who are the least likely to bother, even in the days when a Google search is a second away from viewing an ad of any format.

You have to assume people can’t be bothered.

Of course, that can be taken as a brief to just finish with a miniscule logo, because the folks that can’t be bothered won’t be moved by a call to action either.

But that’s not true.

Various experiments by psychologist have shown that even the people LEAST likely to respond to a given message, are ten times more likely to respond if they have a clear understanding of what they’re supposed to do next (the best example is charity letter sent to people who agreed they were not your typical donation giver, yet 3% responded to a letter with no call to action, against 30% who got a letter with a clear instruction of what they should do next).

But a call to action doesn’t just work for ‘activation’ in my view. These days (rightly or wrongly) ads are part of richer story including other channels and experiences.

It’s true that participation doesn't make immediate commercial sense, as those that bother are a tiny fraction of any significant numbers that really matter. The folks most likely to respond to this and go deeper are the ones who are already  heavy buyers – but if they interact, they become the ‘carriers’ to spread your marketing virus, not just in the Gladwell-esque sense of this, they also spread peer reviewed recommendation, social proof – and we all tend to buy stuff people like us like.

Even then, if the engaged few doesn't help you reach more of the indifferent many, having a call to action is still worth considering.

Because it adds depth and, in this cynical day and age, authenticity.

Just as not everyone cares about reading the (vast) back story to Lord of the Rings, knowing it’s there adds depth and meat to the story. The backstory poking through the narrative makes it feel more real. You don’t need to bother with it, you just need to know it exists. 

Just as the mini-webisodes launched before HBO dramas are for the geeks mostly, but they add a real credibility to those who just bother with the broadcast.

Just as I never bothered with all the ‘find your greatness' content when Nike launched the fat kid running ad, but the fact I knew about it’s existence made the add more real and more powerful.

Just as I’d never "Tell Magnet what happens in my kitchen" (you'll know it if you're from the UK), but the fact they’ve asked makes me believe I’ll consider them next time I’m in the market for one.

Back to the 20% of buyers that probably might bother doing something. If you've developed a big showstopper that cuts through, why stop there?

Why on earth give them an erection and then not something to do with it?