It's not about having the best (creative) idea.
Twelpforce: Participatory, saves money, and provides a creative solution. It's crowdsourcing done right.
It's getting the best idea to market (and effectively framing your message). In other words; the best business idea.
Great marketers tell stories. Constraints help shape them. Great stories break constraints.
Ouch. Makes your head hurt doesn't it? This is the current situation that marketers are dealing with. Now compound this with attention scarcity, a broadcast mentality and an afterthought on digital? You have one heck of a mess.
Stop trying to figure it out.
This short film from Johnnie Walker by all intents and purposes of traditional marketing shouldn't work. Yet it does (and it's beautiful to boot).
You should have only two qualifications for creating a marketing program: a) Is it useful? and b) Is it awesome?
If the answer to both those questions is yes? Congratulations, enjoy Cannes. (No seriously.)
Those two traits are at the heart of every great campaign, program and brand for the last one hundred years (and will be for the next one hundred years).
Defining Utility
This may save your life.
Utility needs to provide a direct tangible benefit to the consumer of your content. However, the key is providing valuable, useful marketing that doesn't want to make your consumer take a drill to their head to break up the boredom. Utility isn't so much about the medium as the end result.
Lower barriers to entry, providing brisk service and a solution that works all take precedence (not complete control mind you) over content style/creation. Sometimes, the most effective utility is as simple as an informative print ad. Utility is a true example of the ends needing to justify the business means.
Utility is essential. It won't truly take off though unless it's awesome.
Defining Awesome
If I have to describe why this is awesome to you? Get the hell off this blog. No, seriously.
What is "awesome"? It's a harder question than you might think. After all, we all have different interpretations of what it's made up of. Faris Yakob puts it better than anyone I've ever heard before in this summation:
"And technology isn't just about utility.
It can be about emotion - especially awe.
As I allude to above, the NYTimes has done a study of the most shared articles on their website and they all trigger awe - which makes sense because
AWE IS SOMETHING YOU WANT TO SHARE
Which is why it incumbent upon us to always be looking for the awesome."
Thus in order to want to share something; your content needs to be awesome. "Want" shouldn't be anywhere the equation; you need to share this content. Consumers don't share marketing with their friends because they care about brands, they share that information because they care about their friends.
All Shapes, All Sizes
Don't be constrained by medium though. In order to be effective you need to be able to think beyond mediums, length, constraints and anything else.
The Lord of the Rings trilogy has a run time of 558 minutes (683 minutes in the extended version). It also has the honor of being the most lucrative film trilogy of all time.
By your powers combined...
All marketing (that works) can be boiled down into awesomeness and utility. The key is figuring out to to combine the two in the most effective manner and how it directly relates to/satisfies your business objectives. How do you think marketing will evolve moving forward? Will it still adhere to these two tenets?
If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment, showing us some social love or subscribing to the feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.
tagged as advertising genius, awesome marketing, business utility, creative ideas, creative solution, marketing constraints, marketing utility, medium independence, tell stories
Variability and flexibility Teams appreciated the opportunity to be creative in how they addressed RoLEx. Some programme teams produced documentation in refreshingly helpful formats which conveyed clearly the information <strong><a href="http://www.barwatches.com/breitling.html">breitling superocean</a></strong> required in ways appropriate to the programme and showed full engagement with the vision and principles of RoLEx. However, the documentation provided to STRAP panels was variable in coverage. In some cases it did not respond to all the headings in the template provided and thus came across as incomplete. Some staff experienced the latitude offered by RoLEx (at least initially) as an absence of direction and prescription, which left them feeling unsure and/or unable to act in the resultant vacuum. In some programmes there had been considerable <strong><a href="http://www.barwatches.com/breitling.html">breitling bentley</a></strong> flexibility in the students’ experiences of learning available prior to the RoLEx initiative and this was built upon. In other cases, new practice in relation to flexibility was introduced. Students were not necessarily sufficiently prepared in order to take full advantage of the flexibility available to them through RoLEx. Student engagement Many students who participated in RoLEx supported it, believing that it could enhance their learning experiences. The students in the interview group reported that <strong><a href="http://www.barwatches.com/breitling.html">breitling navitimer</a></strong> a large number of students did not know about RoLEx. Variability in the students’ experience of consultation and involvement was noted. While the documentation presented to us indicated extensive and effective student engagement, the evidence of this was less strong from the student interview group in terms of both quality and quantity of engagement. There has often been a focus on informing students (for example, documents sent by e-mail) rather than involving them (for example, through workshops with their course coordinators and staff team). Some students seemed to have been satisfied with very limited involvement which may have accorded with the way in which RoLEx had been framed for them. There was some evidence of student anxiety about RoLEx; for example it was reported to us that some students had cancelled their sandwich placements in order not to be affected by RoLEx. Most programme teams reported engagement with employers. Engagement was particularly well detailed where existing (pre-RoLEx) relationships were firmly established. Most consultation appeared limited in scope, reported as mainly confined to the sharing of plans and the receiving of feedback. However, some co-creation of programme design was apparent. Where co-creation of programme designs with employers was evident, this was often reported as being mainly located in the placement element of the programme.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like