Elastic Thought

When it's all said and done, did the Old Spice Guy WORK?

If nothing else, we've (mostly) all heard about the media darling that is the Old Spice Guy.  And we've heard countless debate on the effectiveness of this campaign.  There are two camps and they bolster themselves with plenty of data.

One of the first in the camp of "it didn't work" was MaggieMcGary1 on socialmedia today.  Citing an article in BNET she states that sales were down.  "Shocking."  The BNET article actually has corrected itself recently, but they stated:

"But sales of the featured product—Red Zone After Hours Body Wash—aren’t necessarily tracking with that consumer appeal: In the 52 weeks ended June 13, sales of the brand have dropped 7 percent according to SymphonyIRI. (That amount excludes those rung up at Walmart.) P&G execs were not available to comment."

This was quickly followed up by BL Ochman: "The bottom line: there is no such thing as a social media strategy. There is business strategy incorporating social media. But if that strategy doesn't include sales, it's nothing more than a tactic. Tactics don't move markets."

On the other side of the debate is PR Week who are reporting:

"The brand's ad agency Wieden + Kennedy developed and coordinated 186 customized video responses that contributed to a 107% increase in Old Spice Body Wash sales over the last month, according to Nielsen data from Mike Norton, director of external relations for male grooming at P&G."

So which is it?

Media Bistro asks us to wait and see.

But the interesting thing is to actually look at the numbers.  The "sales slump" was a 52 week number ended June 13,  PRIOR to the social media blitz.  The 107% figure is a monthly figure for the previous 30 days.  (measured by Symphony IRI in June).  This would include early data AFTER the recent blitz.

So we can assume it "worked," right?  Well, Ad Age also points out that the campaign was bolstered with a high value coupon.  It also notes that the other P&G body wash in the category, Gillette, rose 277% in the same space in the same time.  And they didn't have Mr. Mustafa pitching them.  (Granted, they are a smaller player in the space).

Back to Media Bistro, we will have to wait and see.

If we are defining "worked" by sales register data.

And that is the rub here.  Is it all about immediate sales data?  Kevin Green of Digital Influence Group said:

"Doesn't the increase in connected consumers create significant opportunity to market products? Don't get me wrong... I agree that more direct integration could have been included, but the value of the connection has to be worth a significant amount and the effort. Does engagement always have to include conversion? I would argue that it does not."

And here is how I tie it back to Elasticity and a few opinions from our side of the debate.  First, let's go back to the numbers.  Actually, let's go to a comment on an NPR story they did on the Old Spice campaign.  A follow up to a popular story read that not everyone is comfortable and liking the "Old Spice Guy."  One listener complained that Old Spice was the "scent of gentlemen," and represented countless men for generations prior to ours that were true gentlemen.

Perhaps that is why the brand was on a slide.  (back to the 7% decline).  Today's consumers thought of the brand as their grandpa's brand.  One they didn't want.  So to hold steady or even gain in a period is a good business outcome.  Even better, to appeal to a broader audience and begin to walk away from that perception is even better.  The business objectives may never be public, but they seem apparent.

When asked by our clients about ROI, we always ask what they are trying to achieve.  It may not always be about conversions.  It may be reputation, it may be perception, it may be search results, or numerous others.  Not all of which are measured by sales.  That said, they are measurable and we can prove results on any objective with true data, relevant and timely.

Second, let's look at Triangulation.  The original Old Spice commercial was slapped up to YouTube after it appeared and garnered a modest amount of hits (a few million I think).  After a traditional media blitz (NPR, Good Morning America, etc.) and social media engagement that linked the 3 pillars of the model, views went over 90 million.  True proof in action.

And finally, to sales.  There is a link from social media to conversion.  It often times appears in overlapping data points to draw the connection.  A client of Elasticity often employs several tactics to push sales campaigns and drives to an online channel.  When taking the social media component out of the mix, there is a trend line that can be drawn that shows a boost in traffic and conversions from the norm.  But when you layer in the social media components of the program in a week later, the trend lines spike and map back to spikes in social media activity.  This has played out multiple times in their conversion charts as well as those of other clients.

So at the end of this lengthy analysis, did the Old Spice Guy work?

I would argue that it, indeed, has.

1. It reached new audiences
2. It brought awareness to a brand that was beginning to slip into obscurity
3. It stopped and began to reverse a negative sales slide
4. It has shown signs (along with coupons) of turning sales into a profitable trend
5. It has shown the value of the oft-misunderstood social media "channel" (for those that think it a channel)
6. And it showed that slapping a video on YouTube won't cut it.  You need the additional "topspin" of a well-thought out campaign with multiple parts that feed on each other.  It's Triangulation and the highest visible example of its power yet.

Marketers Need To Try A New Diet

I'm not usually one to pay attention to fad diets and ways to lose weight without trying.  A pill here, more sleep there, drink more water, and voila! 10 pounds lighter.  However, there is a new string of ideas that I've been catching that seem to make sense.  So for a challenge, I thought I'd see if I could explain why my mind instantly connected it to marketing budgets.  Don't judge me.

The two ideas that sparked this are very similar actually.  The first is called the "camera-phone diet" which consists of taking a picture of what you are about to eat with the camera feature on your phone.  The theory is that by thinking of what you are eating, and documenting BEFORE munching down makes one more conscience of their choices in food, and quickly begin ordering and eating better food.  The second idea was even simpler.  The study showed that those who tried new foods frequently were apt to be healthier than the control group who ate in their typical pattern day in and day out.  The theory is relatively the same, in that the people that chose new foods frequently were more conscience of what they were eating and thought about their decisions.  The control group that mindlessly ate without thinking were trapped in a cycle of bad food choices.

So, to marketing.  I'm sure your getting the connection now.  Real simple: mindlessly doing the same tactics over and over again will not yield the same results as a "mixed diet."

And I think this goes beyond simply thinking about the marketing budget and tactics more before spending.  I'm sure every marketing person out there who is responsible for the budget and has check-writing authority thinks about their tactics.  But they continually choose the same tactics.  They are afraid of spending money on an unknown and untested tactic or strategy and will seek refuge in the comfort of known tactics that have predictable metrics.

But what about the consumer you are trying to reach?  There are two things working against the marketer who plays it safe.  One, technology continues to evolve.  Usually, to battle the intrusion of previous marketing tactics.  Tivo, Pop-Up Blockers, Spam Filters, Do Not Call Lists (OK, not technology, but fits here...right?)  And two, consumers themselves stop paying attention to the same drumbeat.  It takes something new to shake them out of that rut and pay attention to your message.

I saw a tweet the other day that said "there is no charge for awsomeness, but mediocrity will cost you."  We've seen it time and time again, that those who mix their diet up and try new things more often than not, outperform those companies that are in their same old rut of stale programs.  Try something new.  And if you can't think of anything new, ask one of the new agencies sprouting up.  I'm sure they will at least challenge your thinking.

Control (Part 2)

Who owns the brand?

I was engaged in a rather lengthy debate the other day on how companies used to have control of their brands, and that the new tools of social media have stripped that ownership and placed the reigns in the hands of the audiences those brands once used to speak to in a command and control manner. We've all probably have heard Chris Anderson talk about The Long Tail, so I had to include this video here:

I've always enjoyed showing that video. However, I've recently been thinking a lot about the sociology behind what we do, and really looking into how communication works. And it struck me how dead on we were a few years ago at a previous company when we said: "It's not about message sent, it's about message received." (If only really really knew what we were saying!)

To bring this concept to the conversation of brand ownership, what people are really saying is that companies used to have control of the message being sent. NOT how the message is being received. They never had control of that. And if you think about it in terms of message sent, they still have all the control they ever had. What they are losing some control over is the monopoly of message channels. Companies controlled the message channels and therefore had a greater influence on message received. Now, audiences have access to some of those channels and voicing their thoughts on the companies and the brands. Thoughts they have always had -- even when the company thought they "owned" the brand.

What's interesting here is that this is not a loss of control. This is not that disruptive of a medium that needs to be feared. What it really is...is a free and easy way to get a glimpse of what your audiences and consumers have thought all along--a glimpse into how the message is being received. And how great is that? They are doing it without paying for a focus group.

So what does that mean for brand ownership?

Well, it's still a collaboration of audience perception and company messaging. But if used right, the social media tools that exist are a great barometer to test how messaging is being received. Heck, think of it as an umpire calling balls and strikes. If it's a little high and inside, change the tone of the conversation and see if you can get it back in the strike zone.