iMedia Connection
September 26, 2014Insights-driven marketing is the current rage. Facebook, Amazon, and Google (along with countless others) are tracking consumer behavior and using that data to more effectively communicate with and influence shoppers. Even offline, our movements can be tracked (and not just by the NSA) so that advertising is location-relevant and therefore has a greater likelihood of success.
The rationale is that relevant ads work better; this is hardly a surprise to anyone, but recent data proves that consumers prefer to see advertising for things they are actually interested in, versus products they have no use for. We just try not to think too much about all the things these companies know about us as they track and segment our activities to make these ads more appealing.
The growth of big data and related analytics makes the ability to target down to the individual level a possibility, although most of the data remains at the segment level. This capability is so robust that questions have been raised about the ongoing need for creative. If we can get the right offer, for the right product, to the right person, at the right time, does the target consumer care how "pretty" the offer is? That is, does design matter any longer?
Let's go back half a century to the late 1950s, when Ford was in the process of developing its newest car—originally called the "E Car"— and ultimately named (after Henry Ford's son) the Edsel. Yes, that Edsel, which is today a euphemism for failure.
Ford Motor Company spent several years gathering consumer feedback and asking questions about what people wanted in a car, claiming that the styling and features offered by the Edsel were the result of their sophisticated marketing research. While this is hardly the depth of data we can get today, it was far from standard practice in that decade. Indeed, the Edsel touted some very innovative features not offered elsewhere, e.g., warning lights, standard seat belts, child locks on rear doors, and even a push-button transmission.
As we all now know, the Edsel was a debacle of epic proportions. Only about 100,000 were built and sold over the short three years it was offered, an abysmally small number for a new car (the company's Mustang sold over 300,000 in its first year alone). Ford lost nearly a quarter billion dollars on the car.
What happened? Why did the Edsel do so poorly, especially when it had all the research and innovation going for it?
There are competing theories on this topic, but the two most widely accepted are:
1. It was ugly. Really ugly. Apparently the design wasn't part of the research.
2. The name. Poor Edsel Ford never really recovered from that blow; he died of stomach cancer at the age of 49.
What is the upshot of all this? Even with all the right components, solid information and a crystal ball to track consumer trends, poor design will turn people off and push them away. This is true for cars, clothing and advertising. We are attracted to attractive things, and we turn away from those things that are unappealing to us. And that's just the creative component.
Good design encompasses far more than just nice creative; it gives the viewer a path and draws the eye through it. It establishes an emotional connection, and relates the value of the offer or the product in a clear, concise and compelling manner. Good design boils value down to its essence, and allows the viewer to absorb it without having to think hard, or read paragraphs of facts.
Very few people want an ugly car with a bad name, no matter how great it is. And very few people will stop to look at an ugly ad, no matter how relevant it might be. Beauty may be only skin deep, but it's the beauty that we see and respond to first.
The growth of big data, insights, loyalty programs and database marketing will ultimately make advertising more effective and compelling—that's already happening. As marketers get more adept with the tools available, and the tools themselves continue to improve, so will the effectiveness of the ads. But all that is wasted if no one looks at the ad in first place.
Try as we might, humans will never be truly rational creatures. We connect best (and are most effectively influenced) through emotion. Big data may have all the facts and figures, but design carries the emotion and ultimately determines the success or failure of the communication overall. The best outcome will be design that is informed by data and insights, not replaced by it.
Jeff Weidauer is vice president of marketing at Vestcom, the leading provider of customized shelf-edge communication for the retail industry, driving sales and reducing costs for the nation's top retailers and their suppliers. Mr. Weidauer can be reached at jweidauer@vestcom.com or 501.663.0100.
