And it needs to differentiate that compelling thought from all other brand choices available. It needs to touch consumers with a relevant, compelling thought about a particular product or service.
Let’s step back and think about the fundamentals of what a brand is supposed to do. Strategic brand thinkers need a rallying cry to take back the creative high ground that marketing once owned in organizations. However, I do believe that if you integrate more original thinking into a disciplined process, your chances of success dramatically improve.
Now I don’t think that we should throw out all of the discipline of good marketing thinking. How could such a catastrophic drop in sales occur in our scientific era? Why couldn’t anyone fix brands like Oldsmobile or Plymouth that have been around for decades? Even famously successful brands like Levi’s have suffered tremendous losses with sales dropping by some $2.5 billion between 19. New product failure rates are still over 80% according to some studies. Even the language of marketing has changed to reflect the logical, disciplined process we have developed to arrive at brand strategy, i.e., we come to strategic conclusions rather than daring to have strategic ideas.īut has all this science made us better marketers? Unfortunately, there isn’t much evidence that it has.
Very few serious marketing companies would ever consider bringing a new product to market without some sort of stage-gate process that ensures every aspect of the “bundle” surpasses the pre-set hurdles. You can pay research companies to give you a quantitative (and therefore presumably “true”) measurement of virtually anything. Over the last 30 years the practice of marketing has become increasingly scientific. Strategic Ideas: The Failure of “Marketing Science” by Bruce Tait, for Brandweek
0 kommentar(er)
