Evolution for the Marketing Species: Time for "Consumer-Centric Management"

Like the weather, many marketing professionals talk about following a consumer-centric marketing program, but few do anything about it. Many marketers continue to focus on what they want to say. Typically, their messaging does not reflect how humans tick nor does it address what the consumer wants to hear. Their concepts of "USPs", and target segmentation reflect a brand-centric approach. And these very concepts limit the potential for greatness!

Evolving beyond the USP

The concept of the USP (unique selling proposition), as seen by the brand manager, is to focus on one main selling benefit of the brand versus those offered by competitors. The strategic thinking which goes into selecting a brand's USP resembles warfare versus competitive brands, with imagery maps reflecting the battle field, and positioning statements as the weapons. But where is the consumer in all of this?

Consumers do not want one characteristic or one USP. Why should a consumer have to choose between the longest lasting pain reliever versus the fast-acting, or the safest, most gentle, or the strongest or cheapest? The concept of marketing a USP is not a consumer-centric view. Nor is it a realistic, relevant reflection of how consumers operate. Consumers want it all! I want the brand of pain-reliever which is strong, fast acting, safe, and really cheap, please! Furthermore, a USP for a brand limits opportunity by the very definition of trying to sell one main benefit to the one segment of consumers which most values that one benefit. Narrow, narrow, narrow!

The reality is that strong brand equity does not require uniqueness. We see this in our Ipsos data-bases. We do not find a strong relationship between great brand equity and "unique" brands. For example, consumers tell us that the top two colas are not so different, nor are the top two disposable battery brands, nor top sparkling water brands, but all six of these brands have strong consumer empathy/brand equity. This is because Brand Equity rests within consumers. Brand desire does not come from the brand; It comes from the consumer, based on their attitudes. This is not about some brand manager in some office wanting uniqueness.

Beyond `Benefits' to Emotional Associations

Smart marketers appreciate the key role which emotions play in brand choice. Consumers consciously and subconsciously evaluate choices based on the expected emotional pay-offs from their choices. This is simply a case of being human which represents our genetic characteristics. With this in mind, perhaps marketing should be oriented more to consumers' self-centered emotional pay-offs which are associated with experiencing the brand; And less oriented to the features, performance, and price of brands. Emotional elements are the ultimate brand drivers in brand choice. Brand characteristics are simply the ingredients which support the consumers' self-centric emotional assessment. In turn, the emphasis should be on the consumers' emotions and not the brands' characteristics.

From our Ipsos' data-bases, we observe ...

1. Some well established brands are associated with offering many emotional pay-offs, while other known brands lack such associations;
2. Brands which offer many emotional associations have higher brand equity and stronger purchase interest than brands which offer fewer such emotional associations;

Emotionally rich brands such as Starbucks, iPod, Hallmark, eBay, Blackberry, Nike, Viagra, and Virgin have earned great equity and business success. These are brands satiating many emotional desires while avoiding one strongly stated USP. They also seem to avoid reference to product features, and prefer to support the attitudes and emotions associated with the brand experience.

...And Beyond the USP into the "BSP" ("Broad Selling Proposition").

These great successful brands also avoid narrow definitions of their target groups. The power of their vagueness invites all types of consumers to approach the brand, and to create their own (varied) emotional pay-offs. This is a "BSP" (Broad Selling Proposition)! In my mind, a wonderful example is the "silhouette" campaign of iPod. The vagueness of the black silhouettes avoids defining who or what an iPod user looks like. This brand has done a wonderful job of avoiding being perceived as only targeting one age group, one gender or cultural group, or any one type of music lover. In turn, this avoids alienating any potential customer, and allows all consumers to see themselves as being a brand user. We can all approach the iPod brand to form our own personal emotional benefits. Apple is not telling us which one narrow USP should be considered and by which ideal target group. That would be very alienating and narrow. It would not be all-welcoming and broad..

Replacing Consumer Segment targets with "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" Marketing

Although segmentation research allows us to place consumers into distinct groups, and to put a descriptive label on each person, this is not a stable reality. All consumers have all emotional needs within them. To simply pick one strongest psychographic or attitudinal profile to label each person grossly misrepresents the multitude of values/beliefs we each hold, and how our moods alter them weekly. Our emotional desires fluctuate such that what appeals to one person in one need state might be less appropriate for the same person for a different need state. Instead of segmenting people into distinct groups (Is he Dr. Jekyll, or Mr. Hyde?), brand managers should be identifying the different need states in all consumers. The goal is to promote which emotional needs the brand can satiate. And hopefully it is more than just one emotional need! We need to evolve away from the concept of targeting individuals to accept the idea of targeting the different emotional needs states within each person. Appealing to Dr. Jekyll and to Mr. Hyde is the role of satiating different need-states in the same consumer. This is a consumer-centric approach.

Triggering What Is Already in the Consumers' Head

So many established mature brands continue to spend money telling consumers about product features that they already know. Such brands need to change their goals towards activating or triggering these brand beliefs at the right time, with the right emotional promise. If a consumer knows some fact about a brand, but fails to think of the brand's emotional promise then the brand will not be considered. The brand must be triggered and come to mind in order for it to be evaluated. This is well beyond a focus on brand features, and a USP. It is about highlighting when you want the consumer to think of your brand with the emotional pay-offs they seek. An old but great example is the "Miller Time" campaign. This advertising stopped talking about the beer, and instead focused on establishing the trigger of "Miller Time". The advertising built the link between the end of a long day's work and the emotional associations of relaxing with a Miller beer, all tied to the brand in a neat easy-to-remember `thought unit'. To this day, many over 35 years of age still remembers what "Miller Time" represents, and you can't miss the branding! This is great triggering in action.

A consumer-centric approach to marketing requires a better appreciation of how emotional associations drive consumer behavior, with less emphasis on USPs, less focus on segmentation, and a better appreciation of triggering.

Learn more about the facts behind successful advertising, and how it follows our genetic wiring by visiting: www.gimmebook.com