the problem with the big idea, contd.

Last week after I posted this, I continued the conversation about the decreasing importance of the "big idea" in marketing campaigns with Noah, and I figured that the conversation is interesting enough to post here. And, of course, as many many other things invented on the Internet, this format was first seen at NoahBrier.com :) Ok, so this is how the story goes:

From: Noah
To: Ana
Date: June 23

on your big idea post:

Interesting ... Will need to noodle on it for a bit ... I generally agree, though I think the reality of the situation is that you often need a big idea to sell a series of small ideas in, even if you back into it.

Also, check this out: http://www.doohan.com/kdoohan-blog-kevindoohan/2009/6/21/does-your-brand-rent-or-own.html ... Interesting client perspective on where/how a brand should live.

And do you think this is dependent on the brand at all? Can you make a blanket statement about telling stories versus building utilities? (I honestly am asking ... I don't know the answer.)

From: Ana
To: Noah
Date: June 23

um, weird re: posting on my blog - thanks for letting me know. hope it's a temporary problem, because i like having your comments there :) 

And yeah, I completely agree -- I am not sure what the right answer is myself. This is something I have been thinking about a while ago, and now resurrected it. At the time, I was convinced that the big idea makes sense. Yesterday, I couldn't find a valid justification for it.

Here's the thing: utility of whatever idea/tool an agency develops is bound to its context of use; there are ton of different contexts people will use the tool/API. Then, the contexts then also range from very specific to very general (people's life). In that situation, we are designing for the context -- and not for the idea. 

How those things are tied together is bound by 2 dimensions: how do you connect diverse contexts horizontally, and how you connect them vertically, going from specific to general. Ultimately, it's patterns of use that tie them, not some abstract idea. And if we know how people use stuff, track it, and measure it, that's what defines success of individual solutions. Where does the big idea come in here?  

Idea can be helpful as an internal communication device for the team, to get everyone on the same page. After that, I'm not sure.

Re: brand, I found this yesterday in some presentation (the link is below): "Today's audience prefers brands to seduce them little by little, revealing themselves slowly, intelligently, and teasingly. Brand is a cluster of efforts all working towards a common goal ... The future of brands lies as much in the creativity of the communication as in the uniqueness of their value" This is nothing new or original, but I ultimately believe there isn't ONE answer or one solution or one blanket statement. I think that is the whole point of digital branding; you can't say what exactly it is or what's not. And that's okay.

http://www.slideshare.net/helgetenno/a-bigger-idea-branded-context-and-brand-situations

From: Noah
To: Ana
Date: June 25

Okay, a few things.

1. I don't totally get what you mean in what you're saying about utility, but I ultimately see your question in where does the big idea come in?
2. Yes to idea as internal communication device.
3. I still think everything is ultimately built off some basic brand idea, right? I mean you can't stray so far from the brand (at least not without context to explain it). So there is some big idea there.
4. On that level I think a big idea does hold some value, it helps keep the brand together across multiple touchpoints so that at least there is some consistency and you're not spending a bunch of money building different brands in consumer's minds (that are actually just one).
5. I don't know that any of this is specific to the web either. I think Geico does it on TV.

From: Ana
To: Noah
Date: June 25

just a quick reply.

While I did not had this in mind when I was writing that post, this crossed my mind just now: Nike+ created different tools around the idea "be a better runner". All those different tools (chip in the shoe, ipod, tracking online; community of runners; inspirational stories by running professionals; Nike running stations; Nike Human Race). While the "big" idea is "be a better runner", how those different "touchpoints" are interacted with and connected with each other depends on individual behavioral patterns (serious runner, casual runner, and everyone in between). Some people use tracking and community; some use just events; some go there to watch videos. There is continuity between points but it is up to individual use. Brand coherence is similarly achieved, through users themselves connecting different points to fit their running style.

While Nike claims that this system is the brand, I do not necessarily agree DailyMile does the same thing for runners as Nike, minus the shoe. Only shoes are branded in the traditional sense, everything else revolves around users' patterns of interacting with different tools on the site.

From: Noah
To: Ana
Date: June 26

That's a good point ... Honestly I think the bottom line is it doesn't matter that much (and never really did). Lots of people talk about the value of total brand coherence, but I can give you good examples in both directions. Ultimately the big idea was always a better story than fact and lots of the very best ideas likely backed into something big, especially on the web.

Comments

[Alan Wolk]

Ana/Noah: This might help push your conversation along: the traditional advertising Big Idea was often a very granular notion; the new, post-social media Big Idea will be a very broad notion that you can hang a variety of brand communication on.

To wit, the old school Cheerios Big Idea might have been "Cheerios is a healthy and nutritious breakfast cereal the whole family can enjoy."

The new school Cheerios Big Idea might be "Everyone loves Cheerios."

(Those are off the top of my head and likely flawed, but you get the idea- a broader notion that allows for many more styles of execution without sounding disjointed. Geico is an excellent example.)

[Noah Brier]

@Alan: Yes, that's a good point and I do think there can be value there. I just think that it can go either way. I would guess just as many big ideas got backed out from small ideas.

[Alan Wolk]

@Noah - I think we're in agreement then. It's not that every campaign starts with a big idea-- sometimes we back into them from the small ones. It's just that what passes for a big idea is far broader now than it was in the days before cable TV started splintering the media monolith.

I think that there's an idea behind every tactic a brand puts out. And the great thing about the current digital climate and social media is that we can fine tune constantly and use that to figure out what the big idea should really be.

[Ana Andjelic]

@Alan: yep, re: the broad notion of the Big Idea -- but once the big idea starts to mean everything, the danger is that it means nothing anymore (like, what does "Everyone Loves Cheerios" mean? It can mean million different things, which is exactly your point. But I think that we are then not talking about the idea anymore here). And I think the interpretation of the idea is very different from the concept of the big idea: as with my Nike+ example, there's some idea but it's more of a an internal communication device so designers, UX, and strategists could come up with tools useful for the activity of running (I think you point that out when you say that each tactic should reflect the big idea. I say it should reflect the SAME idea).

So yea, there needs to be something that aligns execution - but i think it's ultimately user practices (running, breakfast routines, etc) that do so.

@Noah - when a small idea grows into a big one, that's a movement. It has a completely different dynamics than developing one big idea and making people buy into it. But good point: it made me think of social systems of the past and present: for example, Nazism and Communism were both built around a single ideology, or one "big idea". In contrast, civil rights movements in the sixties (not just in the US but in Europe, too), and recent upheavals in the post-communist countries are ground efforts, so to speak -- a lot of small ideas consolidating into a big movement, with a single purpose. The problem with this is that - as soon as the purpose is fulfilled - the movement falls apart.

So no, I still don't believe in the relevance big idea :) I think it's the social and cultural hang-up from the past.

[Matt Daniels]

Great to see that you provided more context on the "big idea" post.

Rob Walker, interestingly, discusses "big idea" strategy in his book [it's a bit complicated, bear with me].

He contends that some companies purposely eschew an overarching marketing message.

He used the example of Red Bull, which originally was marketed using random sports/bar/event sponsorship. There was no big idea or meaning behind the investments, just a logo for participants to see.

Walker argues that the lack of a marketing proposition allows the consumer to contrive the meaning of the product. To the party-goers, Red Bull is fun. For the athletes, Red Bull is active. It's the lack of a consistent marketing message that allows the consumer to individualize the brand.

Food for thought.

[Justin]

Hey - Im a little late to the party here, but I just saw this on twitter.

Any way, I think these two posts are great, and it's something I've written about too. My take on it is roughly this: I think the issue is less about the concept of a big idea, more about the definition of what constitutes a big idea.

Traditionally, the owner of the "big idea" has been the ad agency, and their world view basically breaks things down into a campaign cycle consisting of closed media executions where they're competing in an essentially symmetrical battle with other agencies, working for similar brands in the same channels.

Online though, the equation is in fact a different one: media is open to anyone, it's worldwide, it's asymmetrical, and the timelines are quite a bit longer than they are in advertising. I say this because even though there is a sense that the web speeds things up, because there are so many options for people, they will only engage long term with those that offer them something they can build some level equity in. Participation bandwidth.

From this point of view, the big idea around Nike+ is turning what is mostly a solitary exercise trying to exist in a world of social experiences into the worlds biggest multi-player online game. By making a long term investment into the platform, Nike has basically created their own channel where they can talk to their customers as a trusted coach and team mate rather than as a brand.

The issue I see for agencies is this: without the tactical, strategic and cultural infrastructure to create experiences like this for their clients, which they do not have, they will end locked out of what is ultimately the best platform for developing actual brand experiences outside actually owning the product.

[Ana Andjelic]

Hey Justin, thanks for your comment! Great thoughts.

Yep, I think you are absolutely correct: it's an asymmetrical situation where the original intention (of an advertising/branding/marketing campaign) gets accommodated, appropriated, adapted, to people that it is targeting. "The purpose of the system is what it does", as Stafford Beer famously said.

And if people are interested in something longer-term, that's because of all adaptations and modifications that an original idea (or product/service online) went through.

Bigger problem that I see for agencies is that a) they don't have incentive to invest in creating "the tactical, strategic, and cultural infrastructure" as a basis for creating experiences (a typical creative deliverable in the form of the :30 spot or a minisite or a banner is much faster/easier to do), and b) they are simply not systemic thinkers; they know how to deliver discreet (rather than continual) campaigns that are active a short period of time and are not connected with other forces in the system (in this case, the web).