I started my research by ogling Goggle, then tired of this and rang around a bit, doing what we know here as fixing; finding experts, asking dumb questions and squeezing them of opinion. I kicked off lucky with a particularly assertive Prof. telling me that “benefit selling is history and a 1970s hangover”, and that “marketing departments should grow up if we think this is going to continue”. I ended with a very friendly man in Halfords HQ explaining to me the difference Wefit has made to them both culturally and as a business.

If you agree that differentiation is competitive advantage, and you probably should do (unless you are a member of a swarming species). You should know that the world of how we differentiate is one that is on the move. Academia is leading marketing is some instances, and those commoditised product marketeers are providing us with loads of practices we can learn from.

The decline of product-based differentiation can be attributed to a couple of factors that both have some relevance to the brands we work with.  Firstly, new levels of transparency are coming back to haunt us, the massive amounts of competitor intelligence is making us all morph into the same. We no longer can claim, be or propose product advantages without our competitors seeing them. Advantages that are now seen to be successful can be emulated, approved and broadcast in breakneck speed. I see claims and message data across a disease area, that tells me what’s working, what’s not, what’s hitting home and what is being discarded all the time. Those days of studying materials to try to figure out a competitors marketing strategy are long gone. The research guys, are pushing us towards what Mike my old economic teacher would call a perfect market – all of us seeing all. No geographical or physical divides to hide behind. We are all faster to react and as a result its simply much more competitive.

Alongside this it’s taking us a shorter time to develop products. The ability to shorten the product development cycle means that product based differentiation declines further, in essence we develop products that’s are at least as good as our competitors faster. In this environment,  yesterdays prescription winner is today’s prescription qualifiers or whats we now relegate to ‘hygiene factor’ status.  Our environment is pushing us towards a saturated state where product differences are homogenizing. So where does that lead us as  marketeers?

In the commodised consumer world they have been investigating new concepts and techniques of differentiation for ages. And the results are challenging the character, substance and stability what we know as marketing. It’s forcing marketeers to look to new models, to look beyond the clichéd  set of rational and emotional benefits to a brave new world where we look for other ‘stuff’ to bolt close to our offering. In this world many consider product benefits (those hygiene factors)  and seek differentiation in the strange world of utilising service components within their offer. Giving us a new equation of marketing Product benefits + service components = differentiation.

In healthcare we are no strangers to service offerings. Having spent a few hours last week in a room of clients discussing this evolution, ,the over arching feeling was one of frustration. Service offerings have been used ad infinitum to little effect in our world. From nurse training, to patient materials, to service redesign packs. The view was one of  anti-ROI and the massive need was how to wrap service offerings in something beyond corporate social responsibility. Tie them closer to marketing and kick the CSR approach, which tends to hope for some halo effect on relationship improvement into touch.

I dug out a couple of old masters. Levitt and Quinn. Both shouted this stuff all the time. 1972 saw Levitt giving us choruses of “There are no such things as service industries. There are only industries whose service components are greater or less than those of other industries. Everybody is in service”. And Quinn this time in 1990 who came over all Harvard with a “Management must break out of the mindset that considers manufacturing as separate from the service activities that make such products possible and effective” cry. Perhaps it’s time we took a good look at service, and saw what it could offer those of us who rather desperately need differentiation. Me too products queue up this might be the answer.

With this in mind, I thought here we should come to some consensus about service offerings, their development, how they interact, how to tie them into ROI. Actually make it ownable. More than just a composite of the competitors activities or a scavenger hunt of what’s good and glossy but actually a process to derive and develop a service offer that’s worthwhile, ownable, and evolving.

It’s been interesting stuff, and for those of you who haven’t fallen asleep by now. I think we have found a few sensible principles. This world of service differentiation requires us to evolve our approach from adding added value services to integrating service offerings. Rather than consider them as tactical activities, designed to bolt on alongside branded promotion, filling gaps, brought to us by reps, and advisory boards, we need to consider them NPD. Treat them like a product in the making. Give them the largess they deserve, they are after all going to be the big shifter in terms of sales. So we need to shift them upwards and alter our strategic development process to facilitate and develop them. There a whole process behind this – but it’s all seems to still make sense even when I give this the overnight test.

Additionally to this, service offerings need longevity, need to be active and genuinely fulfilled. Lessons from first Direct show us that it’s enough to get the delivery of a call centre experience bang on to make a tangible difference to the product experience.

The term experience dangles and interesting carrot here. I have been wanting to write a biggie on the role of experiences for some time I am not sure that this is the place. But it’s a interesting place where service offerings meet a planned user experience – it’s progressive planning and for me really sexy.  Moving from the transactional world of benefits, requires us to assess and evaluate the experience around our products, and see whether elements of this experience can be influenced, improved and owned. It’s daunting to realise that what we must know is the sum of all experiences our customer has with a supplier of goods or services, over the duration of their relationship with that supplier. From awareness, discovery, attraction, interaction, purchase, use, cultivation and advocacy. Mapping consumer journeys is a tough task for us, and it rare that we are provided with a idea topographically of what’s around for us to get involved in. But it’s one that for the time being at least can provide us with the lead on the competition. An unrealised insight found here can lead to the all together important objective connection that the benefit game has failed to deliver.

Anyone who chomps through business books is bound to have read at least the first half of either  Permission Marketing, Tribes, All Marketers Are Liars, and Purple Cow. He is healthily intolerant of widgets, NPD, and patents, and lends a good deal of confidence to marketeers striving to achieve the ‘remarkable’.

I can understand this portrayal of what we do as airy-fairy-nonsense. Last night I tried to explain branding to our old IT guy Tony, who errs on the side of functional to say the least.  He just wasn’t convinced. Despite wearing Nike, carrying blackberry, and swearing by Persil, outside The Blue Posts it became apparent that I was never going to convince him on any decision making other that rational. It was the source of some frustration and much cider. But then he loves Carling because its tastes better than any other lager. (A belief I am still staggered by)

Returning to the bankers, it’s possible the view of the man in the (city) street is of the Gucci loafer wearing, Hoxton types, designing for an hour a day in-between their table fussball games that they really object to. I think also it’s the thought of a group of individuals earning  ”footballer wages” (sic), miles always from any market forces that further angered these guys. These guys just didn’t get what it’s all for. Yet when you speak to them about ads – these seem to be a result of some higher power – that clearly has never been near to a fussball tournament or infantile hand shake.

We need to dissect the elements of creativity, how a piece works, which elements are working  which need work. Assessing ideas requires words borrowed from an emotive/artistic dictionary. Which is why a collection of (daft) terms surrounds us and why often this collection of terms makes very little sense to the un-initiated.  We are immersed in tone, value, emotion, function, all elements of an idea that does something to its viewers. Perhaps this is “not the sort of thing anyone believes for a nanosecond in the real world”. but it’s a reality of our life we need the words to do the job.  I have a feeling that these are totally important to us, it’s their public outings that tend to persuade non – industry bods that what we do is just nonsense. Looking around the 5,000 member Facebook group – “Don’t tell my mum I’m in advertising – she thinks I play piano in a brothel” perhaps sums it up. A good indication of the shame those in our industry feel. Perhaps?  Perhaps not?

Why we shy away from just telling it like it is I don’t really know. Basically all that stuff we talk is for one real aim – to better connect in some way with an audience. The creation of an idea is about savings, it’s budgetary. Really it is.  Whether you are a planner, creative or suit, the business is about efficiency. We just seem reticent to tell others that by doing it this way we connect cheaper. We find ways of developing  relationships with audiences and brands that would otherwise cost more. Agree or disagree, I am not sure why the industry continues to be scared of this – hire us we will save you money seems a blinding recessionary position.

Simple as that.

Ps. No rhyming slang has been used in this blog.

Despite what you may have been told – idea generation is far from a formal thing – miles from a black box of inspiration, realization or genius. It’s just bloody hard work and very scary. It’s late nights and nervous presentations; checking sanity alongside evolution, scrapping the dull, the inflexible, smoothing the rough and moulding the soft. Its a craft.

At its best it’s all of us hands dirty, at its worse its one of us, sheets of A3 and buckets loads of Coke, weeping into our pencil cases.

Client requirements, agency briefing, wrangling positioning, all have their place in this process, but mostly it’s down to intolerant alliance, a few of us bouncing brains and nurturing waffle.

This drive to idea tends to stop by a few service stations;

Please wait will we connect you…

Our requirement for the idea to connect with its audience is challenging. Subjectivity, culture, and just plain personalities always get in the way. “I know it when you see it”, is a pretty standard approach. But connection tends to be a different thing, healthy doses of empathy and often audience hugging are needed.Seeking connection reminds me of a stand up gig the other day. A female comedian expressing naïve mystery about her husband’s excessive use of Original Source Mint & Tea Tree shampoo. Leaving half the audience completely mystified and the other half aching with connection. Genius. A true connection, no where near big enough for one of our tasks – but a pretty good demonstration?

We seek whoppers

Once we have stumbled across a  wrapper for a brand, its task and audience understanding it all gets a little bit more practical. How can it work in a sales conversation, ad land, could it stretch enough to be experiential, what about a direct mail campaign. A huge expectation from something we often struggle to define. We know it’s wrong when it fails to live in these channels but are often not sure how right it needs to be – or what amount of forcing the idea is allowed before its bin fodder.

Nice and tight

Despite needing to stretch and connect the damn thing also needs to be compact enough to be a saleable, rather than a sprawl of desperation to meet the previous two. This is thesaurus land for many, finding encompassing words to reduce down the flabbiness, and its often this stage that benefits from the creative team honing it as part of the creative process. Encapsulation in visual concept can at times save our bacon.

Finally when something presents itself, and checks the above criteria you allow yourself a moment to exhale. In the meantime the next mountain appears on the horizon; how to make this big thing live in the here and now. Its ridiculous – like having a baby, marvelling for 2 seconds and expecting it to start fitting the kitchen –  the little fella keeps swallowing all the Allen keys.

It’s a far from  linear journey and this week has seen us arrive at a place that we should have started from more than once.

I am sure there are a few more  idea assessments and I am going to endeavor to give this a little more time, and perhaps stop distracting myself from my wodge of A3 paper and scribbles I have in front of me.

Brand induction materials are normally not known to be the most fascinating of documents. Yet are pretty bread and butter stuff for us here, whether writing them or following their guidance.

I have been reviewing the standard approach to these documents for a pitch coming up on Friday and alongside this forming some ideas about some internal training on branding for us bees. Whilst researching away I stumbled across a stack of materials that I thought were pretty cool.

Those of you who are familiar with the puckerisation of cooking in the last 12 years will know Jamie’s rise from chef, to restaurateur to social benefactor charity man. It’s been a fascinating diversification from TV personality into product, into full fledged global phenomenon. As a case study it could be  great to teach, and even easier when you can review the collateral that accompanies the structure of the Jamie offer. I thought it was pretty interesting.  Have a look and see what you think

This amphetamine paced tour of senseless consumption spans Viking cookers to custom high-tops.  And along the way  walk I been introduced to a diverse cast of characters like Red bull entrepreneur Dietrich Mateschitz, and an assortment of white guys without any discernable urban credibility who’ve managed to build clothing empires around hip-hop and street culture, and even viral marketers who pretend to be customers, proselytizing to others about the merits of products (and apparently not always disclosing their affiliations).

By presenting both uber-consumers and the professionals who deal with trying to sell us the stuff to fill our endless appetites, or the holes in our souls, Walker indirectly addresses what he coins the “pretty good” problem: What distinguishes a product when assembly lines or underpaid third-world workers can make even the cheapest products “pretty good?” Since quality really isn’t much of a criterion any more, there must be other signifiers, and that’s where our subconscious steps in.

Walker’s key point echoes many in the intangible brand benefit camp often written about in the planning world. Most of us have been inundated with advertising for our whole lives, so on some level we know that we’re being sold … which is why some hipster crowds gathered around PBR (a cheap red neck beer – cheers Google) precisely because they weren’t being given the hard sell. So if somebody cracks open a can now, knowing that the trend is played out, what does that act of consumer disobedience say about them? Now that PBR is so “yesterday,” shouldn’t that make it cool again? If a hipster cracks open a can in the forest and there’s no one around to hear it, are they still being cool?” It all gets pretty meta.

And that’s Walkers thesis. He coins his own portmanteau for the way that advertisers can take advantage of that and calls it “murketing.” Murketing, then is that nexus between murkiness and marketing where buyers can project their own desires or aspirations on to the products that they buy. In examining the psychological motivations that drive this rampant consumerism, Walker references some of the best psychologists and researchers on the subject, including Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, who’s Flow should be required reading for anyone with an interest in being happy and who’s The Meaning of Things happens to be a little more topical.

The conclusion is that objects are only as totemic as we let them be. Walker even begins to hint at what might be a really interesting corollary, but it is left largely unexplored. For us, as product and communications guys, if we’re pondering the future, one must wonder what sort of value we can add to society.

In a potential post-consumer future, where we’ve harnessed algae to transform sunlight into electricity and where every home has a rapid prototype machine that uses organic compounds, how will we define wealth? Suddenly when everyone has access to flawless and pristine stuff, it’s that scuffed up and worn armchair that has real value. Because even though I may love my sleek modernist furniture in ways that might not quite be healthy, if my house was burning down I’d rescue the painting I found in a junk shop.

We got talking about briefing and about how we need to reframe expectations of briefs to be more understandable; to drive to what is special, where the stand out come from, and what’s its going to do for you.

4 (or is could have been 5) in we stumbled upon the conclusion that a good metaphor is the job market. In many cases, a brand like a candidate competes to become occupied, it competes against other candidates, it needs to be relevant to the role specified, to have experience and stand out amongst a crowd.

We thought this was amazing. Writing this on this very bright morning  having woken up in my clothes it seems to make sense but it’s not as brilliant as it was at 1 am – but it’s tidy.

It’s a biggie, a parent proof product. “Oh I’ve heard of that” replacing “What’s Commerce Anxiety Disorder”. My mum even wanted to star in the behavioural change application mock-up.  She got her dream. She had to be 67 and meek and mild – which caused a few issues as she has been 47 for as long as I can remember.

Today we visited a big glass building with fountains and manicured gardens, went to discuss examples of our work that correlated to their problem. “Makes sense but where has it worked before” – A cry we can now answer with examples and metrics.  Team back at the office nervously waiting. Hoping we closed the deal. Jackets on and shoes all shiny. We got it. This afternoon I made up our 15^th and 16^th chair.

Our new clients mentioned the passion (probably more nerves and need than anything) and about how different our offer is. It got me thinking and wandering around the web on my return in post win daze and stumbled back across a blog I haven’t been to for ages http://headrush.typepad.com/. The blog champions passion in business. The blog that I crashed into covered the difference between what we now consider “old-school marketing” (otherwise known as The Four P’s — product, price, promotion, and placement — heavy on advertising and “branding”) and the “neo-marketing”  which we consider our end of town.

Here are a few ideas on some of the differences all a light read on a Monday am.