Here is my response:
While I agree with Kip Voytek that, "Consumers have the tools they need to research and review products on their own... ", I don't agree that creating an emotional tie with a brand is outdated. Showcasing utility can, at the right times, be the difference maker but it is not, as Kip puts it, " The REAL difference maker..."
The most effective marketing campaigns are rooted in consumer needs and wants. They showcase utility AND the utility's emotional value with a perfectly timed and targeted mix of media. Doomed marketing efforts fail to understand that the most powerful emotions are connected to and reinforced by real benefits and vice versa.
Is Kip assuming that all products and services have utility? And in a time when technology is having a commoditizing effect on everything, is showcasing utility sufficient? Ideally, all products would have utility that is unique and proprietary enough to give them a competitive edge. Most don't.
Can any and all products' utility be demonstrated? Often times the value of a product is primarily emotional. Fashion and soft drinks come to mind. Sometimes utility cannot be showcased for legal reasons or because of the product's complexity. In these cases appealing to the consumer's emotions can make the sale or at the very least serve to pique enough interest to motivate further investigation.
In the case of the iphone, for which there is essentially no real competition, it's fine to run what amounts to a flatfooted demonstration of the product. What the iphone does is unique and revolutionary, hence emotionally impactful. I assure you that as viable competition enters the market merely relying on a demonstration of it's utility will not be enough.
We must also keep in mind that the "2009 iphone" spots do not exist in isolation but within context of the Apple brand. A brand that has been built on the back of many emotional marketing and advertising efforts including the famous "1984" spot and the very emotion based ipod "Dancing silhouette" campaigns. Switching out the apple logo at the end of the "2009 iphone" spots with an HP logo or an IBM logo would have a very big impact on their effectiveness.
The impact of the web and social networking is undeniable and has absolutely changed the way consumers make decisions and purchases. Demonstrating utility is more important than ever but humans are still inherently driven by emotions that often trump all logic and reason.
The most powerful campaigns are a perfectly mixed and perfectly timed combination of messaging that both tap into our emotions AND convey how a product fulfils the consumer's needs. Leave something out of that mix at your own peril.
The most effective marketing campaigns are rooted in consumer needs and wants. They showcase utility AND the utility's emotional value with a perfectly timed and targeted mix of media. Doomed marketing efforts fail to understand that the most powerful emotions are connected to and reinforced by real benefits and vice versa.
Is Kip assuming that all products and services have utility? And in a time when technology is having a commoditizing effect on everything, is showcasing utility sufficient? Ideally, all products would have utility that is unique and proprietary enough to give them a competitive edge. Most don't.
Can any and all products' utility be demonstrated? Often times the value of a product is primarily emotional. Fashion and soft drinks come to mind. Sometimes utility cannot be showcased for legal reasons or because of the product's complexity. In these cases appealing to the consumer's emotions can make the sale or at the very least serve to pique enough interest to motivate further investigation.
In the case of the iphone, for which there is essentially no real competition, it's fine to run what amounts to a flatfooted demonstration of the product. What the iphone does is unique and revolutionary, hence emotionally impactful. I assure you that as viable competition enters the market merely relying on a demonstration of it's utility will not be enough.
We must also keep in mind that the "2009 iphone" spots do not exist in isolation but within context of the Apple brand. A brand that has been built on the back of many emotional marketing and advertising efforts including the famous "1984" spot and the very emotion based ipod "Dancing silhouette" campaigns. Switching out the apple logo at the end of the "2009 iphone" spots with an HP logo or an IBM logo would have a very big impact on their effectiveness.
The impact of the web and social networking is undeniable and has absolutely changed the way consumers make decisions and purchases. Demonstrating utility is more important than ever but humans are still inherently driven by emotions that often trump all logic and reason.
The most powerful campaigns are a perfectly mixed and perfectly timed combination of messaging that both tap into our emotions AND convey how a product fulfils the consumer's needs. Leave something out of that mix at your own peril.
