Engagement vs Interruption - Amended


Published on

Simply an updated version.

Again, it's just an attempt at making the debate a little bit more accessible...

Published in: Business
1 Comment
  • Great argument (and I work for an agency where the majority of work is digital). It feels like there's a rising tide of people fed up with the hype around engagement and participation.

    I think the digital industry needs to be a bit more honest about what digital is great at (capitalising on or amplifying interest that already exists) and also what it's not (creating interest from scratch). The idea that everything is inherently better when it's interactive is just a bit silly.
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Engagement vs Interruption - Amended

  2. 2. Why am I doing this?!Itʼs an important debate, but also a complex one.!Itʼs a lot easier to go along with jargon and sound-bites thaninterrogate the data, the essays and the facts.!It seems that a lot of people are doing the former.!And so Iʼve tried to make it a bit more lighthearted and bite-sized.!Itʼs not perfect, but hopefully it helps having a proper look atall this a little bit easier.!
  3. 3. Me!Iʼve spent half my career in agencies that primarilydeal in “engagement”! And in making this thing, Iʼve also plundered enormously from Martin Weigel, Ed Booty and Bob Hoffman..! Iʼve spent half my career in agencies that primarily deal in “interruption”! Iʼm trying to be fair from the start…!
  4. 4. Both interruption and engagement are confusingwords.!Couldnʼt both be interruptive?!Couldnʼt both be engaging?!Whatʼs the meaningful distinction?!
  5. 5. Socrates said…!the beginning ofwisdom is the PRETTYdefinition of terms SMART FOR A FOOTBALLER
  6. 6. Engagement marketing is a marketing strategy that directly engages consumers and invites and encourages consumer to participate in the evolution of a brand.Advertising, in its purest form, is just Rather than looking at consumers asgetting attention ! passive receivers of messages, engagement marketers believe thatAlex Bogusky
 consumers should be actively involved in the production and co-creation of marketing programs, developing a relationship with the brand.
 Frederic  P  Miller,  Agnes  F  Vandome,  John  McBrewster   h9p://books.google.nl/books?id=__1fYgEACAAJ&hl=nl&sitesec=reviews  
  7. 7. The difference!Interruption: ! Engagement:!Marketing that Marketing thatcommunicates to its communicates to itsaudience via audience viaprojecting a something that peoplemessage to people.! participate with.!
  8. 8. The definition!Interruption: ! Engagement:!Marketing that is Marketing that isfundamentally fundamentallyone-way! two-way!
  9. 9. Big brands need to communicate to significantnumbers of people in order to grow.!This is a comparison of communication.!Iʼm not talking about improving the product, orthe necessary conversion or service tools likewebsites, or shops.!Iʼm just asking:!Which is a more effective means for big brandsto market to significant numbers of people?!
  10. 10. One-way Vs Two-way!Is there a moral difference?!Which is more effective?!Why?!
  11. 11. One-way Vs Two-way!Is there a moral difference?!Which is more effective?!Why?!
  12. 12. Sometimes, the people who believe in two-way marketingcan come across as a bit self-righteous!“Interruption marketing is doomed as a mass communication tool”!“Everyone wants a conversation. They want inspiration. Inspire people with yourwebsite. Donʼt just interrupt, but interact. Asking about Return on Investment is thewrong question today. You should be asking about Return on Involvement”!“Many people in traditional marketing roles and organizations may not realizetheyʼre operating within a dead paradigm”!“Interruption Marketing leaves a bad taste in the mouths of your target audience”!“And spending millions feels good. Seeing your billboard downtown, or yourcommercial on television seems like a strategic win. At least youʼre doingsomething, right?”! Sources are sometimes in the appendix!
  13. 13. But we all have the same end!Making a business richer.!Brands are not altruistic champions of the people. !They are businesses.!
  14. 14. Whether you impact people with a one-waymessage, or a two-way idea, itʼs not, primarily, forthe benefit of people.!Itʼs about creating something that steals intohuman attention / action for the benefit a brand*! *Thatʼs not necessarily evil, although it often is – but thatʼs for another debate!
  15. 15. Marketing is always about interruptingpeople with ideas!
  16. 16. One-way Vs Two-way!Is there a moral difference? No.!Which is more effective?!Why?!
  17. 17. One-way Vs Two-way!Is there a moral difference? No.!Which is more effective?!Why?!
  18. 18. Yes. Itʼs a whipping boy.!But in terms of a two-way marketing replacing one-way marketing,PEPSI refresh is a robust example:! BIG BRAND! +! $20m SPEND!2009: Pepsi spend the $20m on one-way Superbowl ads !2010: Pepsi spend the $20m on a two-way campaign and actuallyGAVE THE MONEY AWAY TO GOOD CAUSES. !
  19. 19. It didnʼt work.! TheW StreetJournal reported that Pepsi-Cola and Diet Pepsi had each a! lost about 5% of their market share in the past year. $ For the Pepsi-Cola brand alone this represents a loss of over $350 million. $ For both brands, the loss is probably something in the neighborhood of 400 million to half-a-billion dollars.$ For the first time ever Pepsi-Cola has dropped from its traditional position as the number two soft drink inAmerica to number three (behind Diet Coke.)$ In 2010, Pepsis market share erosion accelerated by 8 times compared to the previous year.$ Source: Wall Street Journal andAdcontrarian – see appendix!
  20. 20. 80+ million votes registered; almost 3.5 million "likes" onthe Pepsi Facebook page; and almost 60,000 Twitterfollowers arenʼt enough.!These numbers arenʼt that big really…!3.5 million fans arenʼt so relevant when your competitorserves Americans 335 million drinks every day.! Source: See appendix!
  21. 21. A few killer stats…!Of 200 brands studied, Ehrenberg-Bass have shown thaton average less than 0.5% of Facebook fans engage withthe brand they are fans of. Only 10% of brands manage toget over the 1% of fans engaging mark.!80% of branded apps get less than 1,000 downloads, andmost have barely any active users.!50% of click-throughs on online ads come from the same6% of people, who tend to come from low income groups.! Sources: See appendix!
  22. 22. Sure there have been a fewawards.
But the transformationaleffectiveness case studies fortwo-way campaigns areconspicuously lacking.!
  23. 23. There are too many of these instead*!*This is lazy, and naughty. More on this later."
  25. 25. It is of course also true that people are also pre-disposed to reject one-way marketing.!And indeed, they do. !Dave Trott tells us that of the £18.3 billion spent onadvertising in the UK last year, 89% is not evennoticed or remembered. 7% is rememberednegatively, leaving 4% to be remembered positively.!Looking at some of the work, Steve Henryʼsanecdote that the average return on a UK advertisingpound is 56p seems plausible.!
  26. 26. But the recent success stories arethere for all to, robustly, see!Hovis – 2010 IPA Grand Prix!Chrysler – 2012 Grand Effie!Johnnie Walker – 2008 IPA Grand Prix!The list goes on… Audi, Old Spice, Bravia,Compare the Meerkat (Go Compare, even), O2,Ovaltine…!
  27. 27. 250 Case Studies from the last 7 years:
Traditional “one-way” fares pretty well Vs.“two-way”! Putting the models to the test: IPAdataMINE 2011!
  28. 28. One-way Vs Two-way!Is there a moral difference? No.!Which is more effective? One-way. Often.!Why?!
  29. 29. One-way Vs Two-way!Is there a moral difference? No.!Which is more effective? One-way. Often.!Why?!
  30. 30. Think about it…!
  31. 31. I can remember watching afootball match at University.!When the ad break came on,the Cadburyʼs Gorilla advertstarted to play. People actually“shussshed” other people. !The bar was quieter than atany other point in theafternoon. !People watched with realanticipation, genuinelyentertained – made happyeven. Some remarked uponhow good it was, and then theywent on with their day. !That was the moment Idecided I might be ok withworking for brands. !
  32. 32. To be fair, thereʼs also a lot of this!
  33. 33. But there are, undeniably, these!
  34. 34. Iʼve never seen someone (normal) talkabout a two-way idea in the pub!
  35. 35. Whatʼs going onhere?!
  36. 36. 1. People donʼt care. 
Especially about brands. 
One-way marketing doesnʼt rely onthem caring much. 
Two-way marketing does.!
  37. 37. Anyone who has evercontemplated getting amuch-loved picture framed,or going to a colleague-that-we-actually-got-on-well-withʼs leaving drinkson Tuesday night, knowsthis. !We can barely be botheredto engage in two-waybehaviour with most thingswe like and most peoplewe know. !
  38. 38. Only 17% of people in the UK are“intensely” participating with anything online !
  39. 39. Shouldnʼt we consider relationships with brands…!…as scaled back a thousand times from even this?!
  40. 40. Ehrenberg-Bass have shown, across 145 brandsand 13 categories: !Just 20% of a brandʼs customers hold about 40%of the image associations. !The rest of knowledge about the brand is spreadhazily across the other 80%. ! Source: Ehrenberg Bass / Martin Weigel – see appendix!
  41. 41. For that 80%, who make or break a business, brandslargely exist as a low-involvement processingfunction, that allow us to make easy, safe choiceswithout the burden of “engaged” thought or activity. !They are more likely to function as a well-remembered red berry on a bush than a good friend. !A light guarantee of reliability and generalfavourability, not a deep or meaningful connection. !
  42. 42. Most of us are polygamously promiscuous with virtually everybrand we ever buy. !Why?!Because not caring is a natural, human way of relating to a brand. !
  43. 43. In short, success for mostbrands is largely dependentupon people who wouldprobably find the thought ofparticipating in two-waycommunication with thatbrand quite horrible.!
  44. 44. Which feels pretty instinctively spot on!Think about all the brands that you interact with,even buy and use, every day. !When was the last time you wanted to engage inany two-way interaction with any of them?*!*It doesnʼt count if you had to do it for your job. !
  45. 45. This kind of thing is starting to look alittle bit shaky…!
  46. 46. Are there any exceptions? Maybe…! Thanks, Sell Sell!
  47. 47. Nike have done amazingly well to build upaudiences on things like Facebook, and nowspend less pushing out content through paidmedia !
  48. 48. But at its biggest and best, itʼs still light, one-waystyle communication in a slightly two-way channel! *Yes, I know people have to seek this stuff out, and they do like it and share it." But you have to wonder…" How many people explored the tunnels, compared to the tens of millions that watched the film?"
  49. 49. Nike are actually quite similar to most brands:
They donʼt benefit to any extraordinary degree from loyalcustomers! Source: Professor Dawes, UK SPORTSWEAR MARKET 2009, TNS Superpanel Via Martin Weigel – see appendix!
  50. 50. Because not even most Back of fag packetcustomers of the ultimate high Nike calculations!interest brand are all queuing upto engage at a deep level. ! Sell 200,000,000 shoes alone perI love football, and running. I have year!Nike football boots, and running Nike + has less than 5,000,000shoes. ! active users.!I have watched their films on TV It seems unlikely that deep two-way communications are driving all ofand online, and enjoyed them.! their success!! In fact, it seems unlikely that it isI have never deeply engaged with driving the majority of it.!Nike though. ! *Iʼm not saying current one-way communication is either – 30 years ofIʼd argue that the majority of their great branding, sponsorship,customers still fall into that camp.! advertising and distribution and some two-way marketing are, probably"
  51. 51. Can push two-way a lot The real point is that a further than brands like rare brand like this:! this:!Almost NO brands are like this! AlmostALLbrands are like this!
  52. 52. As usual,Sell Sell hitthe nail onthe head… !
  53. 53. After consulting the facts, and consulting ourinstincts, does it not appear that most people,quite reasonably, donʼt care very much at allabout most brands?!Therefore, does it not appear that most peoplecould well be largely pre-disposed to reject mosttwo-way marketing with most brands?!
  54. 54. One-way Vs Two-way!Is there a moral difference? No.!Which is more effective? One-way. Often.!Why? !1.  Most people donʼt want two-way with most brands!
  55. 55. 2. Two-way marketing often seemsfocused on what some people cando.
Not what all people actually do do.
Which is doodoo.!
  56. 56. Where the heads of the new marketing gurus are…! Where the behaviours of actual people are… ! Stolen from Ed Booty!
  57. 57. All of advertising is not all of people!
  58. 58. A lot of one-way related media still has majority reach! 1981! 2011! Average Brit watches 4 hours of TV a day. ! Average Brit watches 4 hours of TV a day. ! Favourite British show is a soap. ! Favourite British show is a soap. ! Favourite British news source is The Sun.! Favourite British news source is The Sun.! Americans get most of the video they watch Americans get 98% of the video they watch via TV! via TV! Americans with TVs watch almost all of their Americans watch almost all of their TV live, TV live! only 7% of total viewing is “timeshifted”! Americans sometimes make a sandwich Americans with TiVo skip 11.2% more ads. while the ads are on! But thatʼs only 1.2 - 5.6% of total ads*! Americans donʼt even know what Americans do 5% of their total purchasing Ecommerce is! online! *Americans also still eat sandwiches, possibly more – Other less funny footnotes in the appendix"
  59. 59. A lot of two-way related media is still niche! Non-majority take-up! Not working for marketing! OR INTERACTIVE TV! FACEBOOK
 Only 5% in the UK have bought it, and less than Almost nobody interacts with brands on 50% of them have bothered to connect it – that Facebook! leaves almost nobody to even collect data from regarding interaction with brands! APPS! SMARTPHONES! Almost nobody downloads branded apps, or Even in the US, only 38% of people have the uses them more than once! Android or iOS phones that can offer good two-way experiences! ONLINE! TABLETS ! Click-throughs are dominated by relatively 11% of people in the UK have them! small numbers of generally less affluent people. Itʼs rare that large numbers go to THE NON-FACEBOOK SIDE OF SOCIAL! micro-sites or campaign pages.! No other network has close to 50% of people on it! QR! Do we really need to go there?! Sources: See appendix!
  60. 60. Success for brands comes fromgrowing with the many, not with thefew! Source: Charles Graham 2010, TNS Superpanel Via Martin Weigel – see appendix!
  61. 61. Two-way also targets the interested minority whoare likely to buy your product anyway !
  62. 62. Whilst one-way can impact the disinterestedmajority who deliver growth ! SALES! Pantene:! Sales split by Customer Frequency! Most sales come from the most infrequent buyers! FREQUENCY! Source: Professor Dawes, 2009, TNS Superpanel Via Martin Weigel see appendix!
  63. 63. Which explains why two-way communicationsdidnʼt work for Pepsi Refresh…
It failed to impact the disinterested majority whomake up the majority of Cola sales! Source: ByronSharp,HowBrandsGrow!
  64. 64. Even great onlineproducts and services that“engage” people in deeptwo-way behaviour everyday are using one-waymarketing to drive growthvia penetration!
  65. 65. If weʼre being harsh…!One-way! Two-way!Uses mass media! Uses niche media!to! to!Give you a shot at Reward small numbersgrowing sales with the of loyalists for what theymajority! were already doing!
  66. 66. Social media, the internet and technology has changed things for people.!But that doesnʼt mean that lots of things havenʼt stayed the same too.!And that certainly doesnʼt mean that the way brands can market tosignificant numbers of people has changed overnight.!
  67. 67. One-way Vs Two-way!Is there a moral difference? No.!Which is more effective? One-way. Often.!Why? !1.  Most people donʼt want two-way with most brands!2.  One-way can reach and impact the majority!
  68. 68. 3. One-way communication hasbeen practicing making realisticpitches to large numbers of peoplewho donʼt care about brands foryears!
  69. 69. Maybe two-way marketing is oftenstruggling because people thought thatit could play by different rules?
It began with a reversal of how weʼdalways thought about marketing.
God knows, weʼve all heard it…!
  70. 70. The world has changed. Everything is dead.The smart people are engaging consumerswith co-creative content that allows them toshare because people are in control of mediawhich is always on like them and brandshave to move all the time and never sleep andyour handwash product is not a product it isa perpetual quantum service that the peoplewant to participate in via transmedia likeeverything else and everything has changed.!
  71. 71. The gurus who still espouse this makeit all sound so easy…! "...become social thru Pinterest ..." all of a sudden you become a magnet for whatʼs hot!”" Go to the appendix if you donʼt believe me!
  72. 72. And then all of a sudden youʼvespunked a load of money on this…!
  73. 73. Or this…!
  74. 74. Or this…!
  75. 75. Or, 
youʼre justcontinuallyfilling theworld withdrivel likethis…!
  76. 76. Surely thinking that people willever want to do stuff with brandswill always be a very self-involved,very unrealistic, very lazy and veryarrogant thing for marketers tothink.!
  77. 77. At its best, one-way marketing understands that it makes aplay for attention-lite from a position of enormousdisadvantage.!It sets out to throw something out to people that is goodenough to overcome the odds so steeply stacked againstit. !At its best, it remembers that its primary mission, if it is tohave any chance of making any impact, is to win theprecious and rightfully reluctant attention of people byoffering them something incredibly distinctive, beautiful,interesting, funny, poignant, or all of these things.!Without asking for something back. !
  78. 78. One-way Vs Two-way!Is there a moral difference? No.!Which is more effective? One-way. Often.!Why? !1.  Most people donʼt want two-way with most brands!2.  One-way can reach and impact the majority!3.  One-way can often actually feel more generous!
  79. 79. One-way Vs Two-way!Is there a moral difference? No.!Which is more effective? One-way. Often.!Why? !1.  REALISM!2.  SCALE!3.  GENEROSITY !
  80. 80. REALISM
Accepts that it begins at a position of very great disadvantage!Is ridiculously mindful of the human disposition to disregard it !SCALE
Maps to actual, not potential, human behaviours!Reaches the majority who make or break a brand!GENEROSITY!Rewards and entertains people to the nth degree!Asks and expects as little back from people as possible!
  81. 81. What next?!
  83. 83. Secrets of successful Stumbling blocks of badone-way communication?! two-way communication?!-  It recognises that most -  It depends upon mostpeople will never care much people caring about mostabout most brands! brands – they really donʼt!-  It works with, not against, -  Is often too focused onthe likely human behaviour of possible, not likely, humanmost people! behaviour of most people!-  Is extremely generous and -  Isnʼt often not beingasks very little back from generous enough, and ispeople! asking too much back!
  84. 84. The irony is…
That two-way marketing couldprobably do better by learning fromthe very principles of the“traditional” one-way marketing*that it has so often declared to bedead. ! *The amazingly good examples"
  85. 85. Is two-waysuccesspossible?
Of course.
Thereʼs beenan examplethis month… !
  86. 86. REALISM
SCALE – this might change, a bit
  87. 87. REALISM – this wonʼt 
SCALE – this might change, a bit
GENEROSITY – this wonʼt!
  88. 88. If it is to succeed, two-way marketing will haveto seriously raise its game, and seriouslylower its opinion of itself.! And it will only do so by following the same, traditional, paths to success as good one-way marketing…!
  89. 89. REALISM
  90. 90. Appendix !
  91. 91. Slide 12!Seth Godin!Permission Marketing. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999.!(I donʼt disagree with everything Seth Godin says. I do disagree with this. I singledhim in the picture because his glasses matched the halo)!Read more athttp://www.thedrum.co.uk/news/2012/04/25/marketing-dead-says-saatchi-saatchi-ceo#IVB5r9HUhly5YEqK.99 !http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/bill-lee!http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/Advertising_doesnt_work_anymore_for_your_brand_11895.aspx !http://www.catalystmarketers.com/tag/interruption-marketing/!http://www.copyblogger.com/advertising-is-dead/!
  92. 92. Slide 19!http://adcontrarian.blogspot.nl/2011/03/social-medias-massive-failure.html !
  93. 93. Slide 20!http://www.businessinsider.com/facts-about-coca-cola-2011-6?op=1 !
  94. 94. Slide 21!1. http://martinweigel.org/2012/07/09/lightweight- and-generous/ !2. Deloitte TMT 2012 Predict & http://digital-stats.blogspot.nl/2011/07/80-of- branded-mobile-apps-have-been.html !3. http://www.netpaths.net/blog/6-percent-of- surfers-generate-50-percent-clicks/ !
  95. 95. Slide 23 (and 61)!http://wearesocial.net/blog/2012/07/putting-facebook-fan/ !
  96. 96. Slide 40!Source: Ehrenberg Bass / Martin Weigel!http://martinweigel.org/2012/07/09/lightweight-and-generous/ !
  97. 97. Slide 49!http://martinweigel.org/2011/09/12/fashionable-yet-bankrupt/ !
  98. 98. Slide 58!1.  Ed Booty - http://bbh-labs.com/majority-report-looking-through-the-digital-hype !2.  Ed Booty - http://bbh-labs.com/majority-report-looking-through-the-digital-hype !3.  Ed Booty - http://bbh-labs.com/majority-report-looking-through-the-digital-hype !4.  Adcontrian - http://adcontrarian.blogspot.nl/2010/09/amazing-invisible-tivo-effect.html & http://www.admavericks.com/2012/05/14/lessons-from-the-ad-contrarian/ and http://www.scribd.com/doc/92847814/The-Cross-Platform-Report-Q4-2011-Nielsen-May12 !5.  SEE BELOW FOR THE MATHS: Adcontrian - http://adcontrarian.blogspot.nl/2010/09/amazing-invisible-tivo-effect.html & http://www.admavericks.com/2012/05/14/lessons-from-the-ad-contrarian/ and http://www.scribd.com/doc/92847814/The-Cross-Platform-Report-Q4-2011-Nielsen-May12 !6.  SEE BELOW FOR THE MATHS: Adcontrian - http://adcontrarian.blogspot.nl/2010/09/amazing-invisible-tivo-effect.html & http://www.admavericks.com/2012/05/14/lessons-from-the-ad-contrarian/ !7.  Adcontrian - http://adcontrarian.blogspot.nl/2010/09/amazing-invisible-tivo-effect.html & http://www.admavericks.com/2012/05/14/lessons-from-the-ad-contrarian/ !http://www.dukeresearchadvantage.com/laura/2010/05/04/tivo-is-not-kryptonite-for-tv-ads-after-all/#more-1166 !About 35% of households have DVRs. !They time-shift 5% of the time. !Total amount of time-shifted TV is 1.7%!People skip ads while time shifting 70% of the time.!Total percent of TV ads being missed in America is 1.2%.!(Ball Uni study actually has the figure at less than 5% of TOTAL viewing shifted.)!http://www.scribd.com/doc/92847814/The-Cross-Platform-Report-Q4-2011-Nielsen-May12!Nielsen report above has TVR shifting at 16%.!35% of people have TVR.!They time shift 16% of the time.!= 5.6% of total viewing is time shifted.!For the 35% of Americans with TiVo:!Those that do time shift do it 16% of the time, and when they time shift they skip ads 70% of the time.!So even the TiVo crowd are only skipping 11.2% more ads!!
  99. 99. Slide 59!1. Ed Booty - http://bbh-labs.com/majority-report-looking-through-the-digital-hype !2. ComScore Smartphone Penetration cut by iOS and Android share of market!3. Ofcom UK study: http://media.ofcom.org.uk/2012/07/18/uk-is-now-texting-more-than-talking/ !4. Sfheat.com !5. See slide 21!6. See slide 21!7. See slide 21!8. Use your brain! !
  100. 100. Slide 60!http://martinweigel.org/2011/09/12/fashionable-yet-bankrupt/ !
  101. 101. Slide 61!http://martinweigel.org/2011/09/12/fashionable-yet-bankrupt/ !
  102. 102. Slide 71!http://nilofermerchant.com/2012/04/04/what-replaces-marketing/ !