{"id":3107,"date":"2011-06-04T20:21:43","date_gmt":"2011-06-04T20:21:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thesocialcmo.com\/blog\/?p=3107"},"modified":"2011-06-04T20:21:43","modified_gmt":"2011-06-04T20:21:43","slug":"courage-and-minimalism-a-new-view-to-focus-on-your-target","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thesocialcmo.com\/blog\/2011\/06\/courage-and-minimalism-a-new-view-to-focus-on-your-target\/","title":{"rendered":"Courage and minimalism: A new view to focus on your target"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"Courage. Now, there\u2019s a word not often used in marketing \u2013 though often used in business. We call leaders courageous when they make unpopular decisions, usually internally, that change process significantly enough to create a turnaround. Perhaps to drive costs down, perhaps to drive morale up \u2013 but always to make a significant change. In marketing, in my humble opinion, courage is the ability to very clearly<\/em> identify, select and stick with<\/strong> a target audience.<\/p>\n

I believe those (marketers) who are most courageous are the ones who dare to dabble in the psychology of status<\/em><\/a> \u2013 a concept first introduced by Herbert Hyman (1918-1985) in 1942. The premise of the psychology of status is that individuals use groups of reference to evaluate aspects of their lives \u2013 both positively and negatively<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The idea, in marketing, is that the brand becomes so deeply a part of the group it is targeting that it becomes representative \u2013 it tastes, feels, acts like (insert group here). Think Harley Davidson<\/a> or Harvard<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

It is important to note that positive referencing is very subjective; it changes from person to person. Take for example the difference between two groups: bachelor(ette)s and married (wo)men. Neither group is good or bad, but each conjure up a very specific set of qualities, values and adjectives<\/em> that may or may not appeal to you. As a marketer, if you choose to target the bachelor(ette) group, you would want to stay away from terms like: long-term commitment, honeymoon, and matching robes\u2026 unless, of course, you were making fun of it.<\/p>\n

But therein lies the taboo behind courage in marketing. Business is about the bottom line; and we all know that marketing is a cost-centre, not a revenue generator. So, why would we dare go after a single, very defined market, at the risk of pushing away another (and potentially losing revenue opportunities)? Wouldn\u2019t it be better to be all things to all people and build the opportunity to tap into everyone\u2019s wallet? (And, wouldn\u2019t it be better to read 1 book on every subject rather than to specialize and become experts in a few?)<\/em><\/p>\n

OK \u2013 there was a time where appealing to the broadest population possible meant that you would reach people, who might not have been in that \u201cspecifically defined audience\u201d but who would spend on your brand. (Remember the days of yore \u2013 when mass marketing was the \u201cit\u201d thing\u2026) But in the world of 2010, after a recession<\/a> that changed how people and businesses invest, is the money spent on the mass appeal worth the few more consumers? More importantly, if you would spend more effectively<\/em> towards, say, that very clearly defined market<\/em>, would the others really<\/em> not spend on your brand?<\/p>\n

Let me be clear \u2013 targeting a smaller, more defined group within the population is not free. But I genuinely believe that the investment will yield more value (i.e. more return) and compared to a long-term view of investment, the overall spend could be less. I also recognize that success in this requires investment of a different kind \u2013 investment in time, because catering to a smaller group requires being part of that group. Enter social media (but that is for another post).<\/p>\n

Another point of clarity: mass marketing can still work for some brands: think Coke<\/a>, Kleenex<\/a> and McDonald\u2019s<\/a>. These big brands have been around for years and were created \u2013 from the get-go \u2013 to reach the mass population. And even they, at times, create product lines or campaigns<\/em> meant to cater specifically to more finite groups within the masses \u2013 but, despite these efforts, are usually recognized for their \u201cbeing all things to all people\u201d approach.<\/p>\n

So, unless you\u2019re working for one of these \u201cbig guys\u201d or you\u2019ve just opened the doors to some magically multi-billion dollar grossing business, you need to think about your marketing spend. To do this wisely, I suggest minimalism<\/a>: usually used in music or visual arts, and is defined as stripping the work down to its basic fundamentals.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
\n

\nFrank Stella<\/em><\/p>\n

Hampton Roads, New Madrid, Delaware Crossing, Sabine Pass, Palmito Ranch and Island No. 10<\/em>, 1962<\/em><\/p>\n


\n<\/em><\/p>\n

How? Here are a few thoughts:<\/p>\n

Basic fundamental #1<\/strong>: For whom is your brand built? (eek \u2013 proper English, but couldn\u2019t stand the squiggly line on MS Word) Think of groups of reference<\/a>.<\/p>\n