March 29, 2007

buying space in someone else’s brain is far harder than buying space in someone else’s media

123999ppp.jpg
How Wei­den & Ken­nedy lost some Nike busi­ness– From Brand Repu­blic:

Some inte­res­ting spe­cu­la­tion from AdAge on why Nike has deci­ded to expand its crea­tive agency ros­ter and begin moving some pie­ces of busi­ness away from W+K:
A cru­cial fac­tor is Nike’s intent to build on the stun­ning suc­cess of its inte­rac­tive ven­tu­res…
…inc­lu­ding the Nike ID web­site crea­ted by R/GA and the company’s part­nership with Apple for the Nike+iPod, which has vir­tually trans­for­med run­ning and demons­tra­ted how a brand can mar­ket itself by offe­ring something use­ful to a com­mu­nity rather than just com­mu­ni­ca­ting its assets.

The ita­lics are mine. I put them there for a good rea­son. Behold the future of adver­ti­sing etc. Buying space in someone else’s brain is far har­der than buying space in someone else’s media etc etc.
[Nice follow-up from Rik:]

And it shows once more that mar­ke­ting should be built into your pro­duct from the start, rather than slap­ped on after­wards in the from of adver­ti­sing. The same can be said for design. And bran­ding. These things should not be an afterthought, but built into your pro­duct right from its birth.

11 Responses to “buying space in someone else’s brain is far harder than buying space in someone else’s media”

  1. Crawford says:

    I read the ita­lics. I read them again. PR, thought I. That’s what used to be thought of as the play­ground of PR. Hmmmmm. So more lines are blu­rred. Good. More blur equals more oppor­tu­nity. Dontcha love this new digi­tal life?

  2. Jem says:

    Is it just me or are you car­toons pla­gued with cyni­cism, swear­words and anger rather than humour of late?
    Is something fes­te­ring old chap?

  3. Nice one Hugh — just right for my audience. Should con­fuse them no end!

  4. Nathan says:

    Given the last quote about buil­ding mar­ke­ting into pro­ducts from the start– of which I wholly agree with– what of com­pa­nies that got off on the wrong foot, so to speak? Those that didn’t inte­grate mar­ke­ting into their pro­duct. As a stu­dent, I ask– what are those com­pa­nies to do? Are they to re-invent the pro­duct and lose some of the brand power? Are they to re-organize the entire struc­ture of that pro­duct? Etc.
    Not to say that either of those approaches would be a bad thing, as it may still cost less than adver­ti­sing. But really, I am curious.

  5. Kimber says:

    Not a fan of the c word. A bit too crass for me. But it does make an impact.
    Com­pa­nies are moving towards com­prehen­sive media plans. Adver­ti­sing, pro­mo­tion, pr, via every medium from one source. Takes the co-ordination hea­daches away. So if their current pro­vi­ders can’t offer all that…

  6. Dr Snowboard says:

    ‘which has vir­tually trans­for­med running’…nothing like good old-fashioned hyperbole.

  7. robert says:

    yes, I must say that my ini­tial reac­tion was; “duh!”
    crea­ting a pro­duct, or “offe­ring something use­ful” to a “com­mu­nity” is the defi­ni­tion of mar­ke­ting.
    If what you are saying is that com­pa­nies ought to invest in mar­ke­ting and not adver­ti­sing, then I agree. But this is not a Web 2.0, new-meeja, “future of adve­ri­sing”, etc. issue. They spot­ted a need and crea­ted a pro­duct to satisfy it, pro­fi­tably. Mar­ke­ting job done. The pro­per job of adver­ti­sing is to get the word out, not to create the ‘need’.
    I agree with your head­line, but is this not simply an old fashio­ned argu­ment for ‘pro­per’ mar­ke­ting and against adver­ti­sing?
    The real web twist here is how Nike (or any other com­pany) can use the web, blo­gosphere, etc. to get feed­back on what peo­ple ‘need’ today, and to create pro­ducts to match that.

  8. Kathy says:

    Hugh, I just finished a 3-day con­fe­rence for inn­kee­peers where mar­ke­ting is one of the key topics (“how do I get my 8-room B&B known to the world?”). Some atten­ded the ses­sion Steve and I pre­sen­ted on inn­kee­pers with blogs, so some of them will undoub­tedly visit your site. For us, rea­ding mar­ke­ting and busi­ness blogs is darn hard – the con­tent and con­cepts are far remo­ved from what we do every day. But I hope they per­se­vere and mine those gems from your posts, like “buying space in someone else’s brain…” to me means crea­ting such impres­sive qua­lity and cus­to­mer ser­vice that it would entice a guest to choose a small pro­perty over a tra­di­tio­nal hotel; and Rik’s reply that “mar­ke­ting should be built into your pro­duct from the start.”
    The trick for us is remem­be­ring these gems as we’re clea­ning a stai­ned car­pet or doing that 12th load of laundry, so keep ‘em coming.

  9. Funny how big agen­cies “get it” now.

  10. Clive Birnie says:

    “buying space in someone else’s brain is far har­der than buying space in someone else’s media”. Quote of the week. But wasn’t it ever thus? I recall “share of mind” dis­cus­sions 15 years back. The point for me is that “buying” media space was (and lets be clear ‚still is) the domi­nant method by which a desire for share of mind was com­mu­ni­ca­ted. Shou­ting down the megaphone media narrow. Before mass media adver­ti­sing word of mouth, peer recom­men­da­tion, the advice of your friendly local shop­kee­per were the unmea­su­red norm. Being in busi­ness with a pro­duct to sell was mar­ke­ting. For me this has not chan­ged. Busi­ness is mar­ke­ting and mar­ke­ting is business.