Give experiences, not ads

I believe people are intelligent and act rationally. So sue me.
Thus I advocate building brands based on value, not on advert pillow talk.

Globalisation permitted lowering production costs to the minimum possible, so every product is tendentially a commodity. Either it is soft drinks or electronics. Actually, even more if we are talking about electronics!

On the other hand, mass media advertising is losing effectiveness, whether we like it or not. People have been bombarded so much they lost sensitiveness to it. It is just a natural reaction. Younger generations are even "ad cynical", and see right through the inflated promises.

How then to motivate these disenfranchised customers?
Simple, give them experiences!

The most obvious example to associate your brand with "their world" is sponsoring music concerts or radical sporting events, which will itself provide the (positive) experience needed. A more refined way is to get those people to interact in a more brand-controlled environment. "Brand theme parks" have spouted, and some became tourist atractions in themselves.
For instance, a football game is excellent to provide experiences to the customer/supporter. Simple things like being selected to shoot penalties with old stars, or winning free tickets to the VIP lounge, can indeed make a big difference. The idea would be to so, even the team loses, "oh well, at least they had a good time"! And it is a very effective way to build a brand, because the costs for the club will be close to nothing.

The idea behind this is working by word of mouth. Research shows 70% of important (read, "very expensive") buying decisions are motivated by a reference from a close person. Of course! Who has time to read all the magazines? Just ask a "tecchie" friend or someone in the industry!
"Buzz marketing" is hot, and I recommend it. Just remember that your brand has to fit the "young, hip, and trendy" market, and that it must look like it is a coincidence the event is happening just there when they were passing by. If youngsters suspect they are just being fed "hidden advertising", you can bet your money they will spread "bad buzz". "Buzz" is wounderful: if it is positive, we spread it in average to 4 people; if it is negative, we will spread it to 8 people!
Don't you just love rational people like I do?

Brand. What is it good for?

Future looked nice in 1993. I know, "the Internet" was not a household name, SMS had just been launched as a side feature, but the good news were that brands were soon to disappear.
How come? Because we would live in a brave new world of commodities, where the power would be on the hands of big distributors, which would sell "white products" (without any brands), their taste and feel were basically the same, at very low prices.
Well, that idea did not stuck. People were just not used to all-too-descriptive, no pictures packages. Maybe the images of XIX century pre-branding economy were too harsh...
Hence big distribution started to sell products with their own brands. In fact, with labels emulating the category market leader.
So now it would be the same stuff, only cheaper. Oh goody goody!
Let's face it, people would understand that the discount corresponded to the producers' profit margin, which the consumer no longer needed to pay.

Why then in the future (i.e., righ now) we still see brands, or better, why are the brands so strong and alive? Basically because the economic powerhouses refused to yeld that power to distributors. At least not all.
So they had to reorganise their cost structure (do I hear relocation and outsourcing?), and used the savings (just guess) in advertising their brands! Thus the brands became values in themselves, and not because the product would be so much better physically.

To the point that nowadays you should indeed price yourself up, because people still think that more expensive means better quality.
One Finnish example, because it's so obvious it hurts: the coffee market is dominated by a brand which has its products marked-up relatively to competitors. At the same time, blind taste after blind taste gives the 50% market shareholder the worse results. Yes, it is that unbearable!
At the same time, they flood the market with ads, finishing with the ironic "Naturally [brand name]".
Yet people do not realise that coffee tastes BAD if they look at the package (or even if they do, one said "I just put more milk on it"), on the contrary, they say "this really must be better, because it's more expensive". NO, they must keep that price high to pay for all the advertising, you tasteless morons!

So I don't believe in brands? Oh yes I do, but only if I see any aditional benefit on it. There is a soft drink in Portugal called "Sumol". I am a total addict, because not only it tastes GREAT, it has almost 10% of fruit juice. Yes, that much. So much that the world leader has to put 8% of juice in Portugal, while in Finland it puts only 4%. And guess what, the Finnish leader (a local brand) puts only 2%. Read your labels, people!
Thus I don't mind paying that premium; after all, fruit juice costs more than water. So I'm not paying a "pure brand premium", but instead a "objective quality premium".

My point is: brands are good, only if there is substance to support them.

Consumer 3.0 Beta

Value for money.
That is what I want. And I hope I am representative of the "new" consumer.
I am impervious to advertising. Well, not to all advertising, but to about 90% of the ads that come from TV, interrupting the enjoyment of my favourite series, or even worse, movies.
Don't get me wrong, I grew up watching movies "the old style": big theatre, potato chips, and one break. Let's face it, most of the times it was a relief, as it meant a quick visit to the boys' room, eventually a bag of crisps.

So I learned to accept one break. But for a good reason!
Nowadays the studios which offer us the latest Hollywood piece of crap blockbusters do not have breaks. Good! Or is it...? That was not done for people like me. In fact, that was the way to make people store jumbo-sized baskets of "cinema food". Of course! How else could they handle 1,5 hours without breaks?
The "Cinema experience" became a "Munch Croc Munch concert". And people like me stopped going.

With 30+ channels and a "home theatre system", one could enjoy a good movie. But not from most open signal commercial TVs. In Portugal, one channel started the trend of cutting the ending credits (what a lack of respect for the Assistant Key Grip!), but in Finland, one channel fades in the last 2-3 seconds of each part (and any phrase occuring) while cutting to commercial! Nothing is sacred anymore!
And for what? For me to amuse myself zapping to other channels where there are no ads showing. I hate them! And you know what is surreal? That there are commercial breaks in that channel telling people how effective TV ads are if passed there!

I am a person with above average consumption power. But believe me, less than 5% of my purchases is motivated by TV ads. So much for their effectiveness!
When will they learn that "interruptive marketing" is braindead, and stop insisting in maintaining its coma? Be brave, pull the plug!
We, the new consumers thank you heartly!