I find it interesting we ask all the right questions, yet the answers many times are too ambiguous to be actionable.  There are many reasons why we use these terms, however, ask yourself this question:  When was the last time you created successful marketing based on “value”, “price” or “quality”? 

Actionable answers lie in the grey recesses of these generic terms.  This truth is lost on many marketers.  Instead of decrypting an ambiguous term (to get to an actionable insight), we will sit around a conference room and debate the consumer intent of these ambiguous terms.  Since it is difficult to market to ambiguity the discussion tends to gravitate away from the consumer and to product attributes like price, quality or convenience.  Instead of creating marketing based on actionable insights, we repackage our current offering and expect different results.

The “Whys”
In the shades of grey lie the “whys” — the actionable insights to drive innovative marketing solutions.  It is difficult to get all the “whys” in one survey — in one focus group  — in one store visit.  The heterogeneity of consumer behavior dictates there is probably not a universal answer, probably not a perfect segmentation, and therefore not a perfect survey.

Knowledge driven organizations understand this and constantly peel back the layers of ambiguity — bypassing the “whats” and driving to the “whys”.  This requires an iterative learning loop constantly challenging the norm and surveying consumers in a myriad of ways to get to the truth – get to that relevancy point which will change attitudes and drive behaviors.

Honestly, as I interviewed the person it (the deal amount) was not what I expected.  When someone says they got a deal on shoes, my mind goes to lower prices, say $50 or $60 dollars, but a deal is relative.  A deal is within a price sensitivity range to the shopper. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that a deal for one person will be an exhorbatent amount for another.

But the word “deal” goes much deeper for shoppers.  It is a way to shop for some and a social deflector for others.  A deal can be pennies in one category and hundreds of dollars in others.  By honing in on the truth behind the different definitions for a deal we are able to understand shopper attitudes and behaviors to better market to them.  Below are six different lenses to view a deal.

The Deal Seeker
Many people seek deals, but not all deal seekers are the same.  Two ways to bucket deal seekers are planners and hunters.  The primary difference between the two is their approach to deal finding.  The planner preps and identifies many of their deals prior to going to the store.  They will use many deal tools like coupons, deal web sites and apps.  Conversely, the hunters do very little prep and mostly confine their deal seeking to the retail environment.  Within a store or mall they will seek deals, however, since they don’t canvas the market like gatherers it is questionable if they got the best deal overall.

Sale as a Deal
Sales are always a deal, but deals are not always a sale.  By definition if something is on sale it is a deal, however, it is not always the best deal.  Since deals can be by category (shoes) or by brand ( e.g. Vera Wang, Jimmy Choo), the deal is relative to the percieved price and the shopper’s price sensitivitiy.  If you want the cheapest shoes you could go to Payless or a discount store.  If you want a deal on Jimmy Choo shoes you will need to do your homework, and most likely if the deal is too good to be true (say $600 shoes for $50) a shopper will question the deals authenticity.

Deal Believability
This brings me to another topic: deal believability.  Deal Seekers are a peculiar sort. While many seek deals, they question if a deal is to good to be true.  Cognitive paralysis occurs when the deal is out of whack, making the shopper wonder what is wrong with the product.  Examples can be found on NoMoreRack.com where you will find iPad 2 for $43.20 (98% off) or a 55″ Samsung HDTV for $59.96 (95% off).  These are extreme deals which make you wonder about product authenticity.  You wonder about what is the hook, the flow, the catch.  I am a user of Woot and often question the price of certain deals.  Manuy times upon further review I normally find out the product is refurbished.

The Deal with Passion
Passion is a lens that may distort a deal seeker’s normal behavior.  We all have passions, and most people spend their discrentionary resources (i.e., time and money) on their passions.  Passion can result in an emotive spending where we shift from mind to heart.  For example, I know a couple who I would classify as deal seekers — they are always finding ways to save pennies.  Pennies they will use to spend on their passion, which in thier case is water skiing.  While they maximize coupons and their membership to Costco, they have their eye on a new Malibu boat.

The Price Blind
The antithesis of a deal seeker is a shopper who is price blind.  The reason I bring them up is that many think they are smart shoppers or deal seekers, yet they are operate in the retail environment like they are price blind.  One reason for this misconception is many buy on habit — a habit may have been initiated by a deal, but at this point they just buy the same brand or go to the same store, assuming they are getting the best deal.  This is a common phenomenon with warehouse stores.  Some deals at Costco or Sam’s Club are true deals, while others not so much.  However, in the mind of the shopper they believe they are a smart shopper and are getting a deal on everything.  After all, they wouldn’t pay a membership to pay more on products.

Deal as a Social Deflector
The last lens I want to bring up is social.  We live in a marketing world where social dominates the conversation.  Groupon and LivingSocial are methods to group buy — get a great deal.  The flip side of social is after purchase, especially when someone made a socially questionable purchase.  An example today would be the purchase of a tablet PC.  iPad dominates the market and then there is everyone else.  Imagine a person who bought an Archos Arnova Tablet talking to a friend who owns an iPad.  Instead of disussing the features of the product, there is a very good chance the person just says “I got a great deal.”

Too bad it wasn’t just a simple apology.  For Netflix members like myself, the email informed members, they are going from a single price video service to a dual purpose video service with streaming video and DVD on two different sites with two credit card entries all outlined in one apologetic letter.  Oh yeah, and don’t forget about the recent price hike. Ugh.

I imagine many Netflix members are left wondering what is the benefit to continue their relationship with Netflix, because the letter was primarily about Netflix business.  For example, Mr. Hastings explains in the email, “So we realized that streaming and DVD by mail are really becoming two different businesses, with very different cost structures, that need to be marketed differently, and we need to let each grow and operate independently.”  Why does a member care about a company’s cost structure?

In a consumer-centric society that desires instant gratification this is a confusing move.  Think about the primary benefit for a video service: the latest movies conveniently accessed for a low price.  The email not only does not speak to delivering this benefit, in fact it confuses the issue by stating members will have to maintain two different profiles on different web site to continue their membership with Netflix, er, Qwikster.

Autonomous to this email, Netflix already aggravated members by delaying the latest movie releases for weeks past their release date.  In addition to the delay, members rarely found new releases available for streaming.   So instead of dealing with some latent issues, Netflix decided to add to member’s aggravation without citing a customer benefit driving their decision (It is hard to believe the company needs to split to offer gaming downloads, which is one of the few reasons listed in the email).

Netflix lacks a consumer-centric conscious — if they do it is not evident with their actions over the past several months.  While I appreciate they don’t want to go the way of AOL Dial-up or Borders, they need to reflect on their roots on why they were successful in the first place: consumer focused benefit differentiating them from the competition.  Their mail service redefined the industry and nearly drove Blockbuster out of business.  I do agree streaming is the next logical step.  A step that is already available from my cable provider at about $5 to $6 per movie.  So if I can download the latest releases from U-verse or Comcast, how is Netflix streaming better through a Wii?  It’s not.  And while cheaper it is of a lower quality and lacks the latest releases.

Word of mouth may be Netflix’s Achilles heal.  Netflix has made their company the topic of conversations. I have had discussions with Netflix haters who will never go back.  Blockbuster members touting how their service.  Redbox lovers talking about the simplicity of the ubiquitous kiosk.  An with other members who are questioning the value of Netflix’s decisions and current service.  Will members quit the service?  Some will.  Some (like myself) may reduce their membership to one service, until something better comes along.  For many the the future membership lies with Netflix’s next move: will it be industry defining or member frustrating?

Some rituals are comfortable daily patterns we perform between dawn and dusk.  Other rituals are infrequent, possible social events that we look forward to.  For many Americans the fall is football time and time for many rituals from the wave, to dumping Gatorade on the winning coach, to tailgating before the game.  Also, football is a ritual one can celebrate alone, with friends, and as a community.   From high school games on Friday, to college Saturday, to pro games on Sunday, we discuss the nuances of the game.  We celebrate the victories.  We commiserate the losses.  Win or lose we look forward to the next game, the next tailgate, the next ritual.

Earlier this week I received an email from Buffalo Wild Wings.  While the email was about a contest, my attention focused on the word “Tablegating”.   I like the concept.  Most fans tailgate at home games, and are left to find ways to socialize for away games.  Why not “Tablegate” at a nearby restaurant like Buffalo Wild Wings.

By hijacking tailgating with Tablegating BWW could build a ritual around the place to go when your team is out of town.  While Tablegating is a nice hook, the current idea or contest doesn’t fully take advantage of the tailgating ritual.  The Tablegating Challenge (by Coke Zero) is okay, but it is still only a contest.  In my perspective, a contest (or sweepstakes) is like frosting on a cake — if the cake does not taste good, the frosting will have little or no effect.

Buffalo Wild Wings should spend more time exploring the “Ultimate Tablegating Experience”.  The concept has potential, but it has to be more than reserving a table to watch the game with your buddies or a contest.  This experience has the potential of hijacking the tailgating ritual for away games.   To highjack a ritual, you need to take the essence of the ritual and make it yours.  For example:

• Team Spirit:  Normally the school or team colors fly everywhere.  Logos abound.  How can people add spirit to their table?  Can they bring in their team flags?  Or are there special flags one could adorn the table (similar to those afixed to car windows only bigger)?
• My Tailgate:  People get to the game early to secure “their spot”.  As with all rituals, many people have a preferred space to tailgate.  Some people tailgate at the same spot for years.  Is there a way to configure the restaurant to create unique areas?  Is there a way to configure the tables to create more socialization for larger groups?
• Tablegate Streaming:  The big game is a reason for friends from out of town to come in, however, I would doubt someone would commute for Tablegating.  So, what about merging the physical and virtual worlds through a screen at the table — allowing people at the restaurant to text back and forth with friends anywhere.
• League Smack:  Fantasy leagues abound, and one of the main activities is to talk trash.  Building on the previous streaming idea, what about combining the streaming fantasy league scoring with Tablegate streaming.
• Pre-Game Games:  Sure there is drinking, but there is also activities like bean bag toss, washer toss, or ladder golf.  Can one of these games be used/adapted or is there another game here.  Of course there is paper football, but thinking a little bigger — a little more special.
• Contest: Okay, now add a contest to bring it all together.

Buffalo Wild Wings has an opportunity to create a go to experience, a go to ritual, on game day.  This is a logical and emotive extension from their current marketing.  There are very few national restaurant chains that can own Tablegating (maybe Hooters).  So the true ultimate challenge is how to take a contest idea and transform it into a ritual.

Ad 1.o has been around about 100 years, but it has run its course.  Ironically, many ad people are clinging on to 1.0 — going through some sort of denial that the glory years will be back.  Well, they’re gone. 

Before I go on, let me define what Ad 1.0 is, and why it is dead.  Simply put, Advertising 1.0 is the marketing to a single target.  This is why I refer to it as “1.0″.  The target can be a demographic, a psychographic, or an aspirational mindset.  In Ad 1.0 the singular target is the fulcrum point for all advertising within a campaign, and all ads and media are geared to this target. 

How did we get to Ad 1.0?
Without rehashing advertising history, the idea of one target is an efficiency play, a channel play, and a simple play.  Advertising began in a far simpler channel landscape — for the longest time television ruled the roost and everything was good.  Also, this was BPC (Before PCs) and analytic capabilities today put the 1960′s NASA projects in the dust.

Ad 1.o is not a bad idea and it made all the marketing sense at the time.  When ratings were high, the competitors were limited and the only long tail you would find is on a monkey at the zoo.  But something happened in the 1990′s.  Sure the Internet was a part of it, but marketing became a lot more sophisticated APC (After PCs).   Both marketers and consumers became a lot smarter.  The rapid evolution continues today with the mobile culture about to put Ad 1.0 on its place.

Why is Ad 1.0 dead?
In a cluttered brand and media landscape a single brand message, a single brand experience is not enough.  First of all, creating an ad that will resonate with everyone (and sell your product) is extremely difficult.  Probably the easiest way to appeal to most is through humor (e.g. Super Bowl Ads).  It works.  It’s memorable.  But did it change consumer behavior?

I remember seeing a media presentation a few years back.  The media person was lauding the efficiency of the buy.  They had a graph of 100 people and highlighted 10, just ten, because this was their core target, and it was an efficient use of media.  This media savvant was telling the client, they are hitting a bulls-eye (the ten percent) and receiving a bonus: 90% additional coverage.  The problem with this logic is that the ad was designed for the 10%, not the 90% bonus coverage. 

Logically, it is very difficult to create one ad that will appeal to a product’s entire consumption target.  That is why a marketer should not.  Instead in today’s marketplace it is more about creating effective touchpoints for multiple targets.  This is counter to Ad 1.0 logic, because it is not efficient, not scalable, and not done in a single ad. 

What killed Ad 1.0 is not this blog entry, rather it is the myriad of experiential and messaging opportunities in social, mobile, and the web.  A campaign must shift from a 1.0 world of a series of messages to a more progressive view where the campaign is a brand sandbox containing messaging, experiences and conversations.  To do this we need to move to Ad n.x.

What is Ad n.x?
The next generation of advertising is not 2.0, rather it is n.x.

•  ”n” is the number of targets for your product. 
•  ”x” is the relevant touchpoints for each target. 

“n” is diverse.  It includes a population of consumers who have never heard of your product, shoppers currently buying within your competitive set, and people who own or have used your product.   Each of the three sets of people (product naive, shoppers, and owners) are also motivated differently:

• Breaking through the product naive consumer in their daily life will most likely require more than 30 seconds.
• A consumer’s shopping cloud includes numerous variables from price to expert opinion to risk to routine to brand reputation to social pressure.
• Owners/users seem like the easiest to target to convert, yet many marketers invest in “filling the funnel” not retaining the people passed through the funnel. 

“x” is everywhere.  Sorry to be so nebulous but brand communication is a fluid part of our everyday.  The consumer reality of a person’s day includes:

• Intrusive media trying to pry our attention to our everyday life.
• Information we discover on our own, either through a daily task or researching a product.
• Social input from friends and family — whether we ask for it or not.
• Product trial is an important ingredient in swaying future purchase habits, but how do we induce trial?
• And prior ownership is a positive predictor of future ownership — for better or worse.

Given the dynamics of today’s marketing, you can see  why solving for “x” is not easy. A campaign must address all aspects of persuasion. 

Do I have x.n figured out?  Nope.  However, I believe it is the right path for the future of advertising.  It is not easy, because for a marketer it is very complex.  For an agency it is doubly daunting, because most agencies either live in the 1.0 world or in a channel specialty.  The future agency will figure out how to think x.n.  To generate ideas in x.n. And to deliver ads in x.n.

Usually it starts with the funnel conversation.  You know the funnel is a spiral, dead or in some cases a Yellow Brick Road (see Making the Purchase Funnel Fixation Personal).  To be honest I am tired with the funnel debate.  It seems to have turned into some zealous endeavor to find the next consumer thing — like digital people incessantly talking about Web 3.0.  Okay, enough of the funnel. 

My focus lately is on the path to purchase.  For the sake of this blog, let’s call it the consumer journey.  The theory I am working under has several dimensions:

• Not all purchase paths are created equal.
• It starts with the consumer’s shopper mindset.
• Shopping scenario affecting the mindset.

For brevity purposes of this blog entry, I am focusing this blog just on the first dimension: not all purchase paths are created equal.  This seems logical — shoppers  will take more time researching a high-consideration like a large screen TV for the man cave, a new car for yourself, or remodeling your home than a low consideration purchase like a restaurant to eat dinner, an oil change place for your new car, or can of pork and beans in aisle 3 at the nearby Kroger.  And from a macro perspective this is somewhere between “duh” and a “no-brainer”.

Even though this is obvious, it doesn’t explain why some people will go up and down the aisles at Kroger tossing items into their cart until they reach a certain food category where they pause and contemplate their purchase — say choosing a cut of meat for family dinner, a personal care product like deodorant or shampoo, or in my case a nice six-pack of beer. 

The same “pause” can be found for your daily life.  You may find yourself on auto-pilot when you fuel your car, drop of your dry cleaning, or getting a morning cup of coffee.  However, you may deliberate with the family on where you will go to dinner on Friday night. 

Predisposition drives your auto-pilot.  This predisposition is a built in mechanism we have in our purchase behaviors to avoid revisiting every purchase decision throughout the day.  While you can consider it “loyalty” to a product or service (it is), it can also be a routine.  Many are choices that  conveniently fit into our daily routine.  For example, I like Caribou Coffee better than Starbucks, however, the Starbucks is on my way to work, and I am not willing to exert the extra effort to be loyal to Caribou and drive 2 miles out of my way.  

Breaking a person’s predisposition or routine is difficult.  They aren’t looking for a reason to switch and therefore are not seeking out information to rethink their predisposition.  Therefore a marketer is limited to intrusive methods.  The most obvious one is media — promoting a compelling reason why their current decision is incorrect (i.e., my product is better so you need to try it).  This may work but the product differentiators better be pretty damn compelling.

Another popular intrusive method hits the wallet — giving them a deal.  Coupons, deals, sweepstakes, and group buying are pervasive (just ask Groupon) and a compelling deal has the potential to induce trial.   The objective of the deal is to disengage someone from their predisposition and establish a new predisposition — a new routine.   

The interesting aspect of product trial, is if you remove the stimulus will the behavior persist.  For example, Shell has partnered with Kroger to offer a cross brand loyalty program — if someone spends $100 at Kroger the shopper will get 10-cents off per gallon on their next fueling at Shell.  The program is a great example on how to redirect one loyalty program (Kroger’s) to another brand (Shell).  The question at hand for Shell is: will people frequent Shell without the 10-cent per gallon incentive?  If the program goes on perpetually, this is a non-issue.  However, Shell is normally priced higher than nearby stations, and removing the 10-cent per gallon incentive may result in a reduction in fuelers as they go back to their previous routines.

If not, pay attention.  A consortium of tuna brands and processors want to elevate the tuna –  as a fish, as a meal, as a healthy ingredient to sustain life itself.  Okay, maybe that was a little strong.  Regardless, the new campaign, Tuna the Wonderfish, is attempting to elevate the tuna to a new level — to a milk, orange juice or cheese status.

The success of the campaign is reliant on its ability to crack the four modes of how we think.  The modes are simple and straightforward:

• Daily Mode:  A person is focusing on life – daily issues.  They are not thinking about tuna, Omega 3, or tuna tacos — the person is just living their life.  BTW: this is 99% of people.
• Interest Mode: Someone takes time in their day, because they are intrigued by a product or service.  The person decides to to learn more about the product, but they are still not in the mode of  buying the product.
• Buy Mode: A person’s mindset when shopping for a product.  This mode can be months with a high-consideration purchase or seconds for commodity items.  Whether shopping online or aisle 3, the Buy mode is about closing the deal — getting the purchase. 
• Own Mode:  A person’s mindset during product usage.  Although usage is about meeting and exceeding expectations, you should also layer in did the product generate an emotional connection — a connection to the brand, a connection solidifying loyalty.

The modes vary in intensity by product.  Products with a strong advocacy (e.g. autos, fashion, electronics) tend to have a pronounced Interest mode for some people, because it is not just a product it can also be a person’s passion. 

The biggest factor for marketers is breaking through the Daily mode — a mode advertising is designed to crack.  And it can, however, it is hard to penetrate due to the overwhelming marketing noise in our life.  To compound the “noise” many marketers choose the wrong communication strategy, because they assume everyone is one degree away from purchase.  So instead of influencing the person in the Daily mode, the marketer is appealing to the minuscule Buy mode audience.

So will people Get Tuna?

The answer lies in the campaign’s ability break through the Daily mode, because there are very few tuna passionate people regularly seeking out tuna info, and by the time we get to the tuna aisle the marketing shifts from the Tuna the Wonderfish campagin to the individual tuna brands.  The novelty of the campaign may break through, however, I wonder if the gimmicks used on television can be leveraged in other media.  For example, the “Got milk?” campaign used the iconic milk-stache as an ubiquitous signature to pair with the breakthrough television.

• Is the traditional agency still vibrant?
• Is a roster of boutique agencies the way to go?
• Is the future a monolithic agency with every expertise under one roof?

As the debate rages on over who can harness the intricacies of modern marketing.  The reality is the answer is not found in agency structure. Fundamentally each agency is structured very similar.  They arranged into core disciplines, bound together through structure and processes, and supported by systems and training.  All are important, but what binds people together is a consistent philosophy — a culture.

The culture defines the agency, for better or worse.  While every agency is made up of similar DNA (e.g. account, creative, media), the dominate genes vary.  Over my career I have been a part of agencies with a dominate account gene (e.g.  the client is always right), dominate creative genes (e.g. it’s about awards, er, the work), dominate media genes (e.g. it’s about modeling the future), or a dominate channel expertise (e.g. digital is so 2005, it’s all about social now-a-days).

So, what is the answer?  What is the dominate cultural DNA that drives a successful agency?   The answer is simple and has been around for the past century: a consumer culture.  A consumer culture is a higher purpose that will focus disciplines, channels and clients.  While it is natural to view advertising through our eyes (or the clients), successful agencies view the world through the consumer’s eyes.  They are driven by a consumer empathetic view.

The following are guiding principles of a consumer culture:

• Understanding the Customer: The consumer culture is predicated on understanding consumer underpinnings that drive decision – drive action.  Often we settle for the “what’s” or attributes of our target, andwe fail to identify the “why’s” that drive behavior.
• Focus on “Win-Win” Ideas: The consumer culture will generate ideas that are a win for the brand AND the consumer.  Many ideas we become infatuated are “Win-Lose” scenarios, where it is all about the brand and there is no value from a consumer perspective.
• Converse between channels, over time:  And it’s no secret we approach marketing from a mass perspective.  We have to, because it is inefficient to talk to everyone individually.  However, we need to tip the scales from macro-messaging to micro-conversations. 
• Build Idea-centric Campains: This is a tough one, especially for large budgeted clients and agencies.  Instead of building idea-centric campaigns, we build media-centric campaigns, relying on media weight to cut through the clutter and pummel our message home.

It takes a special agency to be open-minded enough to embrace counter-points, and low-ego enough to implement them in concert with direction from consumers.  For most people, what I am suggesting is unnatural, because it is not about them, their experience, or their career. 

So can it be done?  Sure, but it  is very difficult to do.  It starts with leadership –a leader defining a consumer-centric philosophy throughout the entire organization.  This leader can be a client, a CEO, or senior leadership within an agency.   Title is less important than the clout to shift the dominate DNA from the current state to a consumer-dominate state.

The second ingredient is a passionate philosophy around the business and target consumers. Only through an in depth understanding of the client’s business and target attitudes and behaviors can an agency build “win-win” scenarios.   Historically, the responsibility of this fell onto account planning.  To be successful every team lead, every discipline needs to be involved (e.g. account, strategy, creative, media).

The third ingredient is idea-centric or conceptual thinking.  On this topic I normally offend many people because good ideas do not come from anywhere.  They come from people who have a acute thought process conducive to coming up with big ideas.   In my experience there are two types of people: people who think conceptually and people who think tactically.  Both are important.  However, they should be sequentially split apart: first conceptual ideation, then tactical ideation (channel expertise). 

Building off the conceptual  idea, channel experts are engaged to bring the idea to life in digital, broadcast, social, CRM.  Since all the channel ideas emenate from a bigger idea, the consumer feels a cohesive brand experience – each channel experience fits nicely within the campaign.   This two step process is probably the biggest failure point for most agencies, most clients.  Many times someone will come up with a clever tactical channel idea (say a TV commercial or facebook app) and then they will try to build an entire campaign around it.

The last ingredient is a mindset.  A mindset I have been gravitating to lately, but still feel I have not fully defined: Conversations.  The most effective way to persuade someone is through a conversation.  Imagine speaking directly to a person.  You can tailor the messaging to their needs and desires.  You can provide an brand examples and experiences relevant to their life.  You can read their eyes, their gestures, their verbal response to determine the success of your approach or should you take another approach.  The problem is the conversational approach is the least efficient approach to mass market a product. 

So what is the answer?  Through consumer-centric design I believe a marketer can orchestrate a conversation through a series of messages (mass and micro), driving to experiences (online and retail) to resonate with core targets and generate relevancy and buzz.  Ironically, this approach can be executed through modern marketing communication channels.  What is holding us back is an agency approach to realize the opportunity in front of us.  An approach based on the consumer culture.

For many purchases consumers lean on their Circle of Trust to assist them in making the right decisions.  The Circle is not limited to friends and family members.  It can also include people who are perceived as experts or have experience with the product category.  By and large these people are grouped into three categories: owners, experts, and brand governors.

• Owners: People the shopper trusts because they have some experience with product or service.  This may be current ownership, past ownership, or they may own a competitive product.
• Experts:  Sources the consumer acknowledges as a trustworthy source within the product industry.  This could be a knowledgeable person they know who has a passion for the product category, or a source that reviews the product category (e.g. Consumer Reports, cNet).
• Brand Governors: People who don’t have any experience with the brand or product at all, but express an opinion.   Brand governors define a brand’s social relevancy, and they are difficult to affect because they address brands emotionally not logically. 

So how can a marketer get in the circle of trust? 

Well, first you need to begin with an understanding of how much a person’s social circle influences their purchase.   You need to look at this on two levels: brand and product.  In most low consideration categories, social has little to do with the purchase  (think about most groceries, many household products, and frequent retail experiences).  In these cases, social is more about aligning the brand with the consumer.  Creating social equity by becoming relevant within their lives, their passions.

Many marketers address social with this strategy.  Think about Kingsford Charcoal’s desire to own Tailgating or Mountain Dew’s desire to own gaming (even so far as to refer to their product as gaming juice) or Dove’s desire to be aligned with Real Beauty.  The goal of of these social initiatives would become an accepted brand within the social group for a given activity.

With many high-consideration products the social circle influences the purchase in several ways.  Some people within a person’s social circle may influence intrusively by lauding or complaining about their product experience, or the shopper may request or seek out information as a part of their purchase process.  Either way, social influence could play an important role in their final purchase.

Generating social influence is difficult for many marketers because it is not a channel they control.  Actually, social is more like a cloud than a channel.  We all are surrounded by opinions, advice, and recommendations.  Some of the social conversation is a result of an experience.  Some is from product news or an expert’s review.  And some buzzworthy stories are relayed through the cloud like lightning quickly passing from person to person. 

For a marketer to be successful in the social cloud, they need to be worth talking about, and not in catchy “ad speak”.  Rather, true authentic buzz is relayed through memorable stories.  Stories worth hearing.  Stories worth sharing.  Stories that are easy to remember. 

Given the diversity of a a targets’ attitudes and motivations, there needs to be a variety of stories, coming from everyone in contact with the product — with the brand.  Think about your story sources:

• Customers:  What are the product stories worth telling?  Is there a way you can fuel the conversation?  Are there interesting ways to recognize advocates or create advocates?  How are you converting dissatisfied customers into advocates?
• Experts:  Do you know the experts within your category (people who influence product purchase either directly or indirectly)?  How are you engaging them on a regular basis?
• Employees: How are your employees embracing their role in the company?  How can you genuinely fuel their passion?  A passion for the products they create?  A passion for the post-purchase or service experience?
• Shoppers:  How are you impressing shoppers within your category (even if they don’t purchase)?  How do you get shoppers to talk about their shopping experience?  How do you invite the shopper’s social circle into the process?

These sources are just a start of your social cloud.  To figure out your social cloud listen to the conversations, understand the motivations and attitudes of advocates and customers, and then fuel the conversation through persistent engagement.