London Advertising Agencies on Foursquare (28.05.2010) [Infographic]

    So given that the last London Foursquare Agency graphic was a bit more graphic than info, I decided to add a little bit on the current version. I've posted the current infographic in both .pdf and .png formats. Also, thanks to Sinead Doyle for publicising the last Foursquare ranking post on her blog.  

Click for Larger Version....  As always, if you think that I've missed an agency or location to add to the search list, just email/DM or comment.

When is an outdoor ad actually a homeless person?

Happy New Year everyone. I'm back from a restful holiday and aside from a snow related cold, 2010 is starting off well. As I'm currently in bed recovering from the effects of a cold and scouring the Sunday morning interwebs, I noticed this story on a few sites and Fark.com which seemed to ask an interesting point.

Source: Link

      The story behind all of these articles is based on promotions for the new Michael Cera movie "Youth in Revolt". David Permut, a television and movie producer associated with the film, has paid Ronald, a homeless man he passes on the way to work, $100 dollars to hold the movie's poster for the day under his normal sign.


     The reaction to this new media channel's creation hasn't yet been widespread or uniquely loud as a Google news search turned up 0 references of this and a Technorati search pointed to two blog entries (the original Nikki Finke story and Gawker). However, when comparing the opinions in both the articles and posted comments of the few sources that have covered this, there seems to be a rather defined split between those that view using a homeless individual in this way is exploitation and those that view $100 as a useful benefit to someone who normally makes $.50 to $1 a donation.

      Looking at it, my first reaction is to say that because Ronald isn't in a position to say "no" to $100, there is a small bit of exploitation. That being said, the more I think about it, the more I think that it truly is job creation for the man and it doesn't seem to being doing him any harm. People on the whole (especially in large cities like LA, NY & London), tend to ignore the transient, so anything that gets some response or moment of attention without degradation is useful. It could be argued that this may dehumanize the individual in a way, but I think society has done that to a much greater degree way before this was conceived.

     The risk in this situation is truly on the film, the producer and the associated brands. If this were to be done on a larger scale, or if this one occurrence were to be widely publicized, then the quick first reaction of the consuming public may be closer to what I initially thought, over what I came to with rationalization.

         Overall, is this different than paying someone to wear a sandwich board and stand on the street? No, and it's probably more lucrative as someone would have to work longer than a day to make $100 at minimum wage after taxes. Is this a signal of things to come? Probably not, as I highly doubt (using London as an example) that I'll see some homeless individual holding a sign next to Tesco reminding me to pickup a certain brand of pasta.

            What does everyone else think? Is this exploitation or a useful way to help the less fortunate?

Social Networks, Geolocation, Recommendations and Double Jeopardy....

      Warren Buffet was attributed to once saying "Your premium brand had better be delivering something special, or it’s not going to get the business”, but is this necessarily true? While logic would dictate that those brands which charge more must deliver a greater value in return, theories such as Ehrenberg's "Double Jeopardy" highlight the power larger brands have in the market place."Double Jeopardy" as described by William Mcphee and more famously, Andrew Ehrenberg, describes the concept that lower market share brands face a double challenge in competing with larger brands as they lack market share and brand loyalty from consumers. In such situations, the advantage large brands have from such jeopardy may encourage consumers to repeat purchasing behavior on factors beyond the value delivered by a specific purchase.

     To combat the advantage large market share brands have in the market place, smaller brands much differentiate. However, as large brands hold the advantage of possessing the promise of a standardized consumer experience, smaller brands must assure the consumer of quality, while still differentiating in tangible ways from larger competitors. Certain sectors allow for this more so than others, with clothing and food retailers serving as an example where double jeopardy and large brand advantage is chipped away by factors such as convenience, location, product differentiation and varied cost. In an example of such, Pizza Hut may provide a standardized dining experience over the Italian bistro down the corner, but consumer taste may eschew what is seen as pedestrian fare for a more personalized experience.

      Using the food retailing example further, it becomes clear how smaller market share (i.e. non-chain) restaurants face the dual challenge of differentiating in image while still assuring the consumer of quality vs. larger chain restaurants. Segments of consumers may always ignore larger brands out of principle (I for one irrationally loathe Arby's), but attracting the majority of consumers hinges on convincing them of not only an interesting and different product, but also of a level of performance and quality. The development of social media use within the last decade provides a unique opportunity for such retailers. Large brands have the challenge of convincing users to trust them in a way small brands don't. The "corporate stigma" of such means that smaller brands have the opportunity to gain consumer trust quicker. While these brands still have to convince consumers of their standard of quality, they have the ability to confer an earnestness to their image that goes well with the communication model found in social media.

The ability of recommendation sites to get the word out about smaller retailers works both ways....

        Sites such as Qype and Yelp operate as a network of consumer reviews and recommendations with an established and growing database of users and locations. Having been established since 2004-2005, these sites have become a hub of user generated information for consumers, providing third party recommendations on the standards of quality provided by smaller/medium brands. Where smaller restaurants lacked the ability to widely spread their message of differentiation and quality, these recommendation sites have taken on the job for them. These recommendations chip away at an already weakened double jeopardy concept (due to the sector's composition and nature), allowing small food retailers to speak with a verifiable quality larger than their size.
    
        With the benefits of sites like Qype, the next issues for smaller brands and reputation in social media becomes the level to which user recommendations are trusted by others. A recommendation from a trusted source or with demonstrable elements can hold more impact than a glut of others. With the advent of microblogging sites, reviews have become much more instant, allowing users to confer a level of immediacy to their thoughts on smaller brands and retailers. While sites like Twitter may trim the amount of detail that can be given about a business or consumer experience, it does allow for opinions to be disseminated while still in the retail experience. Furthering this, geolocated services such as Gowalla, Foursquare, Rummble, Loopt, Dopplr, etc. add perhaps the highest level of authenticity to consumer reviews, confirmation that the reviewer is currently there or was in the past. By demonstrating consumer action, these services extend the depth of consumer reviews, as well as opening new avenues for promotion through their network.

Just a few of the many networks that are driving the ability of small brands to establish big loyalty

      The opportunities afforded by social media channels may challenge the traditional idea of brand loyalty and scale, but they can be co opted in both offensive (small to medium brands) and defensive (large brands) ways. For small to medium companies attempting to use social media advocacy to build their brand, its important to remember a few concepts:
          1.) Make sure the product delivers on its claims....no amount of advocacy will help (or actually be present) if the consumer experience is negative
          2.) Be honest about how your product fits into the consumer's mind.....performance and reputation building will function differently for different products. People are more apt to recommend certain product types overothers.
          3.) If the product fit is right, take advantage of the enthusiasm of networks and network users to grow their community....Just monitoring what people are saying is fine, but to actually chip away at large market share brand dominance, offensive measures promoting consumer involvement are useful. Programs such as Foursquare's "Foursquare for Businesses" initiative are useful to go beyond user recommendations to user interaction.

Larger companies face a more defensive structure when dealing with social networks and their brand loyalty. Without the organizational agility of smaller to medium sized brands, loyalty has to be protected through more thoughtful measures:
           1.)  Make sure the product and the surrounding associated products....no amount of advocacy will help (or actually be present) if the consumer experience is negative or if brand perception is firmly entrenched. Larger brands with multiple locations are at more of a disadvantage when it comes to standardizing the consumer experience.
           2.) Use the scale of the brand to respond robustly to consumer comments. Unlike smaller brands, large brands aren't as likely to be able to build up earnest consumer recommendations as quickly without overcoming perceptions about corporations and size. The increased resources of big brands means that one can go beyond reacting to consumer reviews and opinions and actually respond, rectify and encourage advocacy.
            3.) Don't simply match what smaller brands are doing to increase advocacy, surpass it. If the resources are present to dwarf smaller brands interaction with the consumer, do it. Consider social network partnerships (as long as it fits the brand identity) or cross network promotions. The more users that can be gathered through the brand's scale effectively, the better.

        While the points made about double jeopardy and social media don't easily extend to all market categories, the original concept stays the same. Consumers may be more apt to review bars, pubs, restaurants and other retailers more than cereal brands, but that doesn't mean that something like smaller FMCG breakfast products can't leverage some consumer sentiment to affect distribution and retailer adoption. Within the above example, double jeopardy and brand loyalty is affected by inherent factors within the restaurant market, however the idea is clear that the way brands maintain and generate loyalty and adoption is changing rapidly due to the ongoing advancements in social media.

Can brands pull? Consumers, Brands, Relationships & Love

"Love is an irresistible desire to be irresistibly desired." Robert Frost 

  "I love Mickey Mouse more than any woman I've ever known." Walt Disney 

Introduction 
     Whenever anyone mentions brand interaction with consumers, the term "relationship" seems to inevitably be used to describe the interaction between a firm a possible/current customers. Within such conversations, its usually stated that brands want consumers to engage in a relationship that involves "loving" (or at least consumer affinity) for the product or brand. If consumer affection is truly what brands seek, then some interesting similarities may exist between consumer-brand relationship dynamics and interpersonal (i.e. consumer to consumer) relationships. However, is what a brand obtains truly affection in any manner similar to personal relationships?

Why and how do people form relationships? or a quick overview of all of human behaviour....
        In comparing relationships across individuals (as both people and consumers) and brands, one first has to ascertain what the nature of both relationships are. The possible goals of forming personal relationships takes on a scale too large to fully discuss here. However, generally, one could say that people form three general categories of relationships with others: romantic, friendship/acquaintanceship and formal/functional.

       Romantic relationships at their most basic level aim to facilitate love (something we'll attempt to quantify loosely below) in its various manifestations, along with alleviating what could be argued are biological/evolutionary instinctual needs and sociological pressures (That's a seriously large concept to quantify). Friendship in its exclusively platonic form can be basically quantified as alleviating pressures for companionship and societal acceptance/esteem, as well as fulfilling instinctual drives for social behavior. Finally, functional relationships are generally formed based on a shared goal, position or objective and at their base fill the need to achieve the goal at hand.

       Along these rather basic and somewhat transitory categories, goals overlap and relationships may migrate. Exclusive friendship may transfer into a romantic relationship (or vice versa) and functional relationships based initially on a task or common goal may take on or migrate to additional categories. Proximity (literal or increasingly virtual) is said to play a large role in relationship building and it can be reasoned that it functions as an integral part of how relationships are formed in varying degrees by category.

         Along this rough framework, we can see how George Levinger's (1983)  theory of interpersonal relationship development may illustrate the transitory nature of relationships. Levinger theorized (initially for heterosexual adult relationships, but with later application to other groupings) that relationships had 5 steps:

Click for Larger Version..

      Through basic analysis of the model, we can see how interpersonal human relationships develop and relate to the roughly created categories.

How do interpersonal relationships differ from the basic consumer relationship model?


     While interpersonal relationships can quickly change their intended goal throughout development, consumer relationships are much more rooted in a fixed point. At the heart of all consumer/business interaction is the delivery of value. From a consumer's perspective, this makes the goal of the relationship alleviating a need or drive, while from the brand perspective this involves delivering the desired product or solution and completing the transaction. The general consumer buyer decision process states that 5 stages occur before, during and after the a consumer decision/purchase:

Click for Larger Version....

         Within the model of consumer purchase and interaction, value is what drives a repeat purchase. The brand must deliver on expected value to minimize post purchase dissonance and ensure that the consumer continues to keep the brand in a strong position within its consideration set.The failure of a brand to deliver on its value proposition may represent a possible "Termination" of an ongoing brand/consumer relationship, if the failure is strong enough. In this sense, the consumer decision model represents one interaction in what will hopefully be a string of interactions, while Levinger's model represents the development of an overall interpersonal relationship.

Is value an underlying force in all relationships?

   While both models seem to describe different aspects of varying relationships, there exists similarities between the two. Both the consumer/brand relationship and interpersonal relationship models rely on value as a driving force.While value may manifest in different ways between the two relationships, the overall implication is the same. Just as a consumer will prefer products that meet with expectations of performance and value, an individual will continue to develop relationships with other individuals that meet an individual's expectations of interaction. Logically then, it can be assumed that as value underlies both models, a combination of the two, with the consumer model describing micro interaction and Levinger's describing the macro or overall relationship development can be applied to both categories of relationships, as shown below.

Click for Larger Version....

If relationships develop similarly, does it mean a brand or product can progress down the model to love?

     While both categories of relationships can utilize a combined model, differences between the two mean that the rate of progression through the model and the final destination within it depend upon a variety of factors. Within the three stated categories of relationships, brands and individuals are most similar within the functional category, due to the limited distance traveled within the model to achieve such a relationship and the lack of complex emotional ties involved. Within friendship and romantic relationships however, a complex interaction of external factors and internal preferences and emotions drives the development of the relationship.

        Therefore, to understand the interplay between brands and love, we need to first look at how love can actually be defined. To define love fully is something that hasn't been accomplished in the course of human history and I highly doubt I'll be the first to do it. Love can be defined along scientific, religious, anthropological or psychological lines and even within the field of psychology, amongst multiple perspectives. For our purposes, love is defined amongst Sternberg's triangular model.

     Sternberg's model divides types of love amongst three main aspects (Intimacy, Passion and Commitment). The combination or absence of these key factors allows for the distinction of 8 different types of love, ranging from "Non Love" (the absence of all love) to "Consummate Love" (a perfect type of love involving all aspects of the overall concept).

     Though brands and individuals may share similarities in the combined model for development, their performance in evoking various components of love is different. This doesn't mean that brand's can't evoke some of the emotions involved in love, it just means that the limited performance in some categories effects what types of love a brand can possibly create.

The green area represents an approximation of a brand's possible positions within Sternberg's love model, based on the ability to evoke primary components from the consumer. It is admittedly,a very rough estimation. 

     Analyzing the three primary components, it becomes evident that brands can most primarily evoke "commitment" from an individual. By delivering value on a consistent basis, a necessary part of facilitating relationship development, a brand naturally develops commitment over time. "Intimacy", as Sternberg defined it, entails feelings of connectedness and bonding. While a brand or product can't achieve such feelings with a person the way another individual can, through marketing communications tools, a bond can be established between a brand image (and its stated values) and a consumer. "Passion" as Sternberg utilized it, entailed physical and sexual attraction and romance.While traditional elements of "passion" are possible for a brand to achieve, such as in the relationship between a luxury car and a auto enthusiast, the brand's inherent limitations keep it from achieving deeper levels of such.

      By generalizing a brand's performance in evoking the three core components of Sternberg's love, it becomes evident that out of the 7 types of love possible in interpersonal relationships, the consumer-brand relationship is assumed to achieve 4 of them (as shown above). The ability to create any of the 4 possible types of love with the consumer depends on a variety of factors, such as product, price and buying context.

Does a sports car evoke the same type of possible consumer love as a can of beans?

        If we follow the heavily generalized model created above, then it stands to reason that different categories of products can achieve different types of consumer relationships based on their inherent properties. A sports car may evoke passion in the consumer in a way that a can of beans wouldn't (barring the power of the bean lover's lobby)

A grid showing examples of the different categories of Consumer Involvement Theory (Laurent & Kapferer, 1985)

         In analyzing different products, Consumer Involvement Theory (CIT) can provide some distinctions between product classifications that will be useful in detailing the different types of love possible. CIT divides products across two axis, High/Low involvement (the amount of importance or effort allocated to a product) and Rational/Emotional decision basis (the context in which the product was evaluated). As shown in the above example, the matrix generated by CIT allows for products to be classified on a range varying from high end luxury items to routine FMCG purchases.

Approximating the location of examples of the 4 CIT categories on the Sternberg triangle shows how different products may interact with the consumer in affinity based relationships.

        Subsequently, approximating the position of CIT category examples on the branded section of the Sternberg triangle illustrates how different product categories form differing types affinities with the consumer.  

Low involvement/emotional purchases such as a music cd or other quick impulse purchases are rooted firmly in a passionate type of affinity. Forming such a relationship with the consumer may prove difficult for such products however, as the proximity and trust needed to work through the consumer relationship model to continuation aren't normally found in quick decision purchases. This lack of commitment is also found after affinity is formed, due to the fleeting nature of low involvement emotional purchase enjoyment.

Type of affinity evoked: Infatuation

Low involvement/rational purchases such as routine FMCG goods like a preferred breakfast cereal or cola hold a commitment of affinity with the consumer due to their extended relationship. The products in this category have delivered value to continue the relationship, but have failed to evoke passion from the consumer.

Type of affinity evoked: Empty Love

High involvement/ rational purchases such as Financial services are rooted in a high commitment, low passion type affinity with the consumer. The high involvement factor of products such as life insurance, mean that a commitment can be fostered through the consumer relationship, but that emotional elements are largely avoided within the product interaction. Products such as this also possess the possibility of forming a partnership type relationship with the consumer, increasing "intimacy" and allowing for the brand to take on a collaborative role.

Type of affinity evoked: Companionate Love

High involvement/emotional purchases such as a luxury sports car are primarily rooted in the passionate/emotional nature of the purchase. Interestingly though, this product category, much like High involvement/rational purchases, can build commitment or intimacy with the consumer though shared experiences and routinized use.

Type of affinity evoked: Infatuation or Fatuous Love

     Of course, these example classifications aren't static in their positioning within the Sternberg model. Approximate locations can move based on specific consumer perceptions, effectiveness of marketing communications and the overall performance of the product.

How can Marketing Communications tools shape the development of the consumer relationship?

 

       Since product positions within the Sternberg model of love aren't entirely static, the role of marketing communications tools extends beyond the basic consumer relationship model and has implications within shaping affinity types as well.

        Within the consumer decision model, marketing communications helps to shape favorable consumer perceptions of the product's value and ensure repeat purchase. During problem recognition, mar-comms helps to encourage consumers that a need is present and that such a desire is valid. Tools such as Advertising, DM & PR are useful during the information search & evaluation of alternatives through informing consumers of product features & promotions. Further, Sales promotions and DM can be utilized through the evaluation of alternatives and purchase to increase the value perception of a product. Finally, marketing communications efforts in the post purchase stage are utilized to reduce cognitive dissonance and convince the consumer the correct purchase was made (and should be repeated).

       Beyond this basic consumer journey however, marketing communications plays a role in the evolution of the consumer relationship. While its primary capacity is to aid in the consumer value perception, which continues the relationship, it also helps in aiding proximity. As was demonstrated earlier in the Levinger model, proximity plays a large role in the development of interpersonal relationships. Within the modified consumer model, product awareness plays the largest role in a consumer's search for information and evaluation of alternatives, which allows the brand to stay within a consumer's consideration set. In addition to this however, maintenance of product awareness between purchasing cycles may function in the same capacity as proximity for interpersonal relationships, helping to further along the development cycle of the relationship.

     Within Sternberg's model, marketing communications tools help products and brands to achieve capacity greater than that allowed by the product's characteristics. Once a brand has managed to reach a continuation within the consumer relationship, the product's general classification and characteristics should dictate what type of affinity develops. Marketing communication efforts can help to extend the position of the brand in the consumer relationship by increasing commitment from something initially classified as an impulse purchase or attempt to give passion to a routine FMCG relationship.

      For example, through mascot based advertising a breakfast food brand aims to add depth to a routine purchase decision by putting a personalized face on the brand interaction. Alternatively, a luxury car company may offer after purchase extras (i.e. free maintenance) to minimize dissonance about the purchase and create commitment in the relationship.

Not all mascots humanize the brand as much as others...but there's no denying Domo-kun's magnetic personality - Who wouldn't want to be on this guy's good side...

 Conclusions

        In response to the initial question of this thought piece, it seems that brands can evoke "love" from a consumer. However, as shown above, the types of love a brand can generate in the generalized consumer relationship are incomplete in comparison to love in an interpersonal relationship. Such a conclusion seems to be common sense, as brands will eternally be handicapped by their avenues of communication and personal assets. A milk brand may, with time, develop to be a comforting breakfast time partner, but it won't develop into any other dimensions, either emotionally or in different aspects of the consumer's life.

        When looking at the similarities between brand and interpersonal relationships, it becomes evident that personal perception, continued communication and the delivery of value are key in any type of relationship. Just as avenues of communication, personal attraction and emotional value are key in developing a relationship with another person, proper marketing communications, a favorable brand image and key value delivery are necessary to foster a proper brand relationship. By analyzing the type of relationship a brand hopes to form with a consumer (i.e. functional vs. more complex) and rationalizing what emotional and involvement the product is capable of, marketers can hope to coordinate a strategy that forms the optimum type of affinity based relationship with the consumer.

        Paying for love jokes aside, it becomes evident that in any type of relationship, continued interest, perception of a partner's emotional/intellectual position and effort are necessary for development.....so go message Aleksandr Orlov on Twitter before he gets all upset again.


Suggested Reading:
Sternberg, Robert J. (1988). The Triangle of Love: Intimacy, Passion, Commitment
Curtis P. Haugtvedt, Paul Herr, Frank R. Kardes (2008). Handbook of Consumer Psychology
Dwyer, Diana (2000). Interpersonal Relationships