A couple of months ago, I attended an event on brand building. The gentlemen who presented had a lot of experience between them – agency and client side, as well as across domains ranging from baby care to FMCG to jewelry to auto to e-commerce. The attendees were all from new economy companies. During his talk, one of them pointed out that though digital offered the capability to target an audience of one, brand communication was better done keeping in mind a larger base. To elaborate, while the product might work for many user personas, brand building would be focused on specific buyer personas.
A lady in the audience asked a version of the question I wanted to ask. Precisely because digital gives us the capability to target an audience of one, shouldn’t brand communication follow? In other words, shouldn’t all user personas be buyer personas? The speaker stuck to his original point, his contention being that communication needs to be for an audience and not each individual. This is a topic I have spent quite some thinking time on, and have simplified into the 3 points below.
My definition of ‘brand’ is that it is a perception in the mind of the customer.
- Message: I agree that communication should be focused, but not at an audience. It should be unique to the individual. The tools of traditional media did not allow targeting an audience of one, therefore brands had to go with one messaging that appealed to the largest base – a buyer persona. However, digital allows precision targeting. (hold the “cost of reach” thought) So why shouldn’t the communication be focused? It gives the brand an opportunity to be much more relevant to the customer.
- Money: The other advantage that digital gives is the ability to test and scale, something that mass media will shy away from. I would probably not advocate 100 different (say) videos for user personas, but between 1 and 100, there could be a 10 or 25. I am reasonably sure that the RoI would work out. Not to mention measurability.
- Perception: For the longest while, brands have been stuck on consistency. I think that made sense in an un-fragmented media world. Maybe it is still relevant for some aspects of the brand. For example, the visual identity. (Though Google does a great job of killing the argument with its daily play, it’s not for everyone.) But for a while now, I have been advocating cohesion. That’s because while mass media has forced us to think of audiences as a collective, the consumer is really an individual. It is the perception in that individual’s mind that matters. Despite the massive intermingling of thoughts and ideas among minds, I don’t think there is anything as an objective reality. Reality is subjective, but let’s not get philosophical. The individual’s perception of a brand is built based on primary or secondary interactions with the brand. In the case of the latter, I think there are limits to demographic intermingling that could cause dissonant perceptions. Hence the more unique and relevant the message is, the sharper the perception.
To sum it up, here’s my general (there are exceptions) contention. I think brand building and traditional media have been conflated even after pretty much everyone has acknowledged the inevitability of digital media’s final dominance. It’s understandable – after all, segmentation and positioning would be heavily influenced by targeting capabilities. Thus the thinking on brand is still largely dictated by the (message) distribution tools of a previous era. I am not really including the brief blip that was free social media, because I think it’s busy taking its last gasps now. I am also not including random tactical activities.
I have swung completely towards the digital brand building arguments above to show the possibilities. These obviously need to be recast when considering a traditional + digital brand strategy.
Note: I have also kept this to demographic targeting. Psychographic and behavioural targeting add complexity and warrants a separate post.