16 BANDT.COM.AU NOVEMBER 21 2008

No one likes a big mouth – you know, that reallyannoying friend you’ve got who always talks overyou and never shuts up, going off on tangents thatdon’t interest you. It’s like they live in their ownbubble and are not in tune with how their actionsaffect the people around them. In their own world,they’re the life of the party, the centre ofattention, the one without personality flaws or aneed to ‘adapt’.

A relationship with a person like this isdestined to fail. It takes too much energy and hardwork to foster friends like these and what usuallystarts with patience, ends in avoidance.

The same can be said for big-mouth brands. We all know the feeling when a repetitive,

loud-mouth brand keeps yelling at you. Going onabout stuff that really doesn’t interest you. Itshows they haven’t taken the time to listen and getto know you.

It’s even worse when you have an establishedrelationship with a brand and they go and dosomething that ruins what you had together. I wasa Sultana Bran fan, eating it religiously everymorning until they came out with the “Sultana’s onthe grapevine” ad a couple of years ago that mademe want to drown myself in my cereal bowl. I can’tbring myself to forgive them. Just when you feelyou’re really getting to know one another, they dosomething that makes you feel embarrassed toknow them.

Brands should take a lead from our ownpersonal relationships. The traits that humanspossess in developing long-lasting relationshipsprovide a good foundation for marketers to thinkabout. Human relationships get better over timebecause you get to know one another intimately. Astrong brand relationship should do the same. Butit requires brands to get off their pedestal, listenand get to know you. When a brand stays true toitself while adapting to its consumers, it creates amore personal connection that makes everyconsumer feel special. And isn’t that exactly whatevery marketer tries to achieve?

I get the feeling that we’re going to refer to thebrand guidelines or ‘brand bible’ less and less in thefuture as brands become more accessible andadaptable to their surroundings.

It’s not surprising that we’re seeing thehumanisation of brands because people lovebrands which show more of a human side.

For a discussion on my column, go tofromthepopulation.blogspot.com

One of the most thought-provoking presentationsfrom last month’s Australian Marketing Instituteannual conference was delivered by Kathy Hatzis,head of marketing planning at St. George Bank.

Hatzis demonstrated how her department hasrepositioned the role of marketing with the St.George senior management team over time. Key tothis was shifting marketing to be seen as aninvestment rather than a short-term cost whichcould be trimmed when the going got tough.

She outlined five simple principles. The firstwas to speak the language of money. When talkingto finance people, terms like ‘brand recognition’,‘engagement’ and ‘TARPS’ do little to convince the money-minders of the direct contributionmarketing makes to the bottom line. A 10% rise in brand awareness sounds great, but howmuch money does that actually bring in this yearand next?

The second principal was to position marketingin investment terms. On this point, Tim Ambler, aLondon Business School professor, definedmarketing as “the sourcing and harvesting of cashflow” in his conference presentation. Sheddinginsights into the differentiation between sales andmarketing, he suggested “sales deals with theimmediate cash inflows and marketing with theultimate source behind that, i.e. consumer demand”.

The third principal Hatzis adopted was settingup common ROI measurements for all majormarketing campaigns. Financial benefits wereassigned to elements typically perceived as“intangibles” and these results were publishedinternally across all departments involved in theplanning and delivery of customer programs.

Principal four was using brand valuations byreferencing league ladders and other work byexperts Brand Finance. St. George must be one ofthe few Australian companies to report brandequity value in their annual results.

Principal five was talking about marketinginvestment outcomes and the contributioncampaigns made to incremental profits. This wasmore meaningful for most stakeholders than justtalking about outcomes in terms of brand, loyaltyor that old-school marketing favourite, “number ofbeautiful ads produced”.

This was a great case study of what Amblerreferred to as “marketing marketing” – promotingour profession to finance-savvy seniormanagement executives and the wider Australianfinancial community.

comm

ent

A BIG MOUTH MARKETING – A COST OR AN INVESTMENT?

TO MAKE A COMMENT EMAIL EDITORIAL@BANDT.COM.AU

Tony ThomasManaging director,The Population

Adam JosephInsights manager,Herald Sun Melbourne

BTNOV21_16.pdf Page 16 11/11/08, 2:08 PM