The Bolin Marketing Blog

I remember a time when photography was a carefully crafted element of communications. When art directors endlessly perused portfolios to find the shooter that was just right for the job. Today, not so much.
So, is stock photography (often doctored up with photo-shop) good enough? The argument is made that in many applications (online) resolution is too small to really care.  And in an era where consumers have turned into producers, authenticity, no matter how ugly, is beautiful. I disagree.
Inspirational imagery builds brands. It’s our responsibility as marketing consultants to carry this torch in the face of declining budgets and declining expectations. If we don’t believe that it’s worth making the investment in original photography, no one will.  But there’s more: advertising, websites, retail experiences all are part of the pop cultural vernacular. Call me naive; I believe that our responsibility as “commercial artists” doesn’t stop at selling whatever needs to get sold. We can and should make the world a more  beautiful and, ultimately, better place.
Don’t take my word for it. I know you won’t. The argument is better made in Elaine Scarry’s “Beauty and Being Just”.  This elegant manifesto argues that beauty does press us toward a greater concern for justice. Beauty makes us more honest, more judicious, more humble, nicer people. Read it, and next time, talk to a photographer before you go to the stock site.

Take a stroll down the aisle at your favorite mercantile or peruse the Sunday FSIs and you will be bombarded with “new” products. However, you will be hard pressed to find many that bring innovation to their category or the consumer. Many new products are simple flavor extensions to existing brands; these products require little R&D and companies will continue to churn them out as long as retailers continue to accept them as evidenced by Pomegranate Fruit-O’s, Hot Dog flavored potato chips, etc. Okay, those aren’t real items that I know of but that’s not far off. Most of these new flavors are just replacing last year’s new flavors.

When a retailer is determining its shelf set, they are looking for what is new and different. They want to provide customers excitement (and, preferably, charge a premium for it). However, some manufacturers shy away from innovation because of the perceived difficulties (research & development, consumer testing, etc.) and risks. Full disclosure: developing an innovative product is riskier, but the rewards are higher. An innovative product may secure wider distribution more easily and may command a higher profit margin than a simple flavor extension; or its retail acceptance may be incremental rather than replacing last year’s flavor.

One way to minimize risk and still innovate (pragmatically) especially in the CPG world is to step out of your category and look at what is happening in others, e.g., delivery systems, ingredients, etc. Look for things that would be useful for you in your category. You don’t have to invent the wheel to be innovative – you just have to come up with a new use for it. For example, foaming action gel is a staple in the shaving category but it was unknown in the toothpaste category until recently. GlaxoSmithKline created a line of foaming action toothpastes (under their AquaFresh and Sensodyne brands) that claim to help clean between teeth in ways that other toothpastes can’t. It’s a simple concept with believability that manages to bring something new to its category.

There is (and likely always will be) a place for simple line extensions, but if a manufacturer wants to be a category leader; they need to innovate or be prepared to be left behind.

When the words “Pragmatic Innovation” first came up in a recent agency management meeting as a way to describe what we do for our clients, the group fell silent for a minute, each person around the table deep in thought as to whether the words made sense or not. The words individually fit; but together, was it an oxymoron? 

 One the one hand, innovation, while such a broad term meaning different things to different people, makes perfect sense because Bolin is all about bringing new ideas to our clients. Ideas for leveraging their current assets, for bringing new partners to the table, for doing more with less, for how to think about their business differently, possibly even borrowing what worked in one industry and applying it to theirs.

 Being pragmatic, on the other hand, is all about doing what works, being bottom line oriented and realistic. And that’s certainly what our focus is as a marketing and business consultant. So are the two words polar opposites?  Or could they truly communicate the value we as an organization provide for our clients?  As we worked through our thoughts, the answer became increasingly clear that innovation that isn’t pragmatic isn’t very useful. And being pragmatic without bringing fresh and innovative solutions to the table doesn’t add much value in moving a company’s business forward.

 How Bolin brought together Radisson Hotels with Select Comfort to put Sleep Number beds in every Radisson is a great example of pragmatic innovation. Radisson needed a way to differentiate from the competition; Select Comfort needed a new distribution channel, one that allowed consumers to “try before they buy.”  The partnership Bolin forged created an innovative win-win combination that gave Radisson a point of difference and a whole lot of exposure for not a lot of money while Select Comfort sold a lot of beds to a new channel and a new set of pre-sold customers that had already tried out the bed on their last trip. Clearly both innovative and pragmatic at the same time!

 As we thought through other examples of the work we do for clients, we realized that this tends to describe most of the work we do, bringing clients innovative new ideas that ultimately work and move the needle.  What do you think of the concept and can you think of some other high profile examples of pragmatic innovation?

As experts in digital marketing, we often find ourselves talking a lot among peers about social media – what it is, the  value it provides, how we leverage it for our clients, and so on. And we find ourselves (generally) nodding in agreement.

But that’s not always the case with people outside the realm of the social media industry, practice or study.

We firmly believe that social media strategies and tactics can have huge impact for specific clients. But we also erroneously assume that everyone around us also understands the imputed or explicit value it can provide. It goes without saying that many marketers are skeptical about social media, especially when they’ve grown accustomed to traditional measures for marketing activities in the mix.

After all, it all comes down to dollars, comfort with what people know, and discomfort with what they don’t know.

Definitions like reach, awareness, frequency, preference, recognition and recall are generally understood by seasoned marketing folks. Social media, however, requires new definitions and new measures, like conversation, sentiment, velocity and online share of voice. These new definitions need to be matched against old ones and compared and contrasted regarding their value. Social media has the ability to take customers deeper into the product, service and brand experience. There are varying discussions on how to measure it objectively and subjectively, too. We’re finding that comparing the value of traditional media and social media is an apple-versus-orange argument.

We are not only talking about different types of measures for different types of consumer activities, however. In true Gerald Zaltman fashion, I came up with another metaphor (a little more elaborate than apples and oranges) to explain what I think is also happening with social media. For instance, consider the effect the alternative fuel car (social media) will have (or, is having) on the infrastructure and market for gasoline and gas-powered cars (traditional media and marketing).

For example (here’s just one), the electric car will soon make up a significant mix of all road-bound vehicles. Why? The very existence of the electric car challenges the infrastructure of gasoline distribution, not to mention the market for oil itself, by reducing demand for gasoline and the need for gas stations (presumptively, because people are more carbon-footprint conscious and are coming to terms with the inefficiencies of the gas-powered car). There’s a (presumptive) growing demand for alternatively fueled vehicles which is fundamentally changing the way we perceive and measure value in our commuting and consuming lives. (Reference what’s happened in Detroit).

Let me take that same paragraph and substitute some language:

Social media will soon make up a significant mix of all media spends for many marketing initiatives. Why? The very existence of social media challenges the infrastructure for media distribution, not to mention the market for traditional media itself, by reducing demand for traditional media and the need for media placement (presumptively, because more people are understanding the benefits of social media’s efficiency in connecting with consumers, dollar for dollar). There’s a growing demand for social media which is fundamentally changing the way we perceive and measure value in our marketing mixes. (Just look at this tiny example of efficient local marketing).

I’m not saying traditional media (on and offline) and gas stations will go away entirely. And I’m not saying social media has evolved as much as the alt-fuel car. There is a lot of change happening, however. And this is just one metaphor to help explain it.

What do you think?