The Era of Brands With a Balanced Pace
If in the beginnings advertising had the only goal of creating interest in people for them to take an action, usually going to a store to buy something, nowadays advertising seeks to drive interest and also take people by the hand until they get to the so much desired last click. This unceasing effort to do the whole conversion funnel's journey hand by hand with consumers challenges marketers, strategists and digital (fill the term you like the most here) until today.
This change also brought the confusion that the most important thing in communication is the last trigger that takes people to the shopping cart. Or to the register now button. Or whatever other bottom funnel's lead. Of course all that is important, not to say very important, but time (and some cool studies that i'll point it out here) helped to show that this way of thinking doesn't seem to be the best way to go. Adidas also helped to show it recently, in case you haven't read anything about it.
Brands that focus on short term tend to become beggar brands that people only have an interest when they offer a direct benefit. And right after they received the benefit, "which brand was it anyway?" The thing that doesn't seem to be known by the majority of marketers, strategists and digital ______ is that the effects of a conversion trigger (i.e: price/offer/promotion) are directly related to brand building efforts.
Brands that have positive and clear associations in people's heads make those offers look something more natural, with higher potential of generating interest and making people take an action.
There are studies that measure this relationship in a more specific and detailed way, thinking about lasting of investment and also related to budget and communication efforts. Like the chart below, from the article "The Long And The Short Of It".
According to this study, it means that if a business or event needs a campaign with less than 6 months of duration, the efforts seeking short term results should be total priority. From 6 months on, the most effective is to have a balance between both kinds of communication efforts. The study also suggests an ideal distribution, 60:40: 60% brand building (long term) and 40% conversion efforts (short term) to be the most effective and have the highest growth possible.
While short term efforts are vital for immediate responses, efforts focused on long term results are the ones that sustain the growth of a business, while building brand at the same time.
The exact numbers of 6 months and 60:40 end up being an average, of course. They change when we look to different categories and specific goals, but they don't change much. What matter the most is that this constant balance between connecting with the head and the heart of people is the most effective and profitable strategy. There's also a study that have an own term for that combination: "brand response".
One of the most interesting things about it, is that it is kind of obvious. And obvious is great. It's such a simple thought that when i started to read more about the subject i got a bit bothered for still not having this clarity.
It's not about polarizing attitudes and opinions as happens a lot in the world nowadays. It's not always about one thing or the other. In this case, it's about constantly having a balance between both things, being fast and short sighted and slow with a long term vision. Mixing initiatives with focus in conversion with brand campaigns. Delivering rational messages and emotional messages. Seeking sales activations and also brand building.
Always knowing when to be fast seeking immediate results and when to be slow with patience to obtain long term results. But always being both.
__
Sources:
-Les Binet and Peter Field "The Long and the Short of It".
-IPA "The Crisis in Creative Effectiveness".
-IPA/Google/ThinkBox "Effectiveness in Context".
-WARC "Anatomy of effectiveness".
-Marketing Week "Adidas: We Over Invested in Digital Advertising".
