Del modello AIDA ho già discusso e ri-discusso (nel senso di confutarlo) in diversi posts pubblicati su questo blog:
Quale futuro per la pubblicità;
Quale futuro per le agenzie pubblicitarie;
Ancora sul futuro delle agenzie pubblicitarie.
Ci ritorno perchè Marco mi ha mandato un interessante articolo che trovate qui sotto.
Io continuo a pensare che le tesi espresse nell’articolo sono fondamentali per l’ESECUZIONE efficace ed efficente della strategie, ma poco utili per la loro IDEAZIONE, dove invece la scansione logica, e qui vado a ritroso, per cui l’Azione deriva da un Desiderio, cresciuto per l’Interesse che nasce dall’Attenzione.
Questa analisi (il marketing è sempre analitico prima che deterministico, repetita iuvant) ha due vantaggi:
- mi permette di valutare a priori la bontà delle attività di marketing pianificate in base al loro scopo principale (ottenere Attenzione, stimolare Interesse, far crescere il Desiderio, condurre ad un’Azione.
- spinge a ricordare e considerare che ogni attività di marketing in ultima analisi condurre ad un’azione e quindi a chiedermi: Quale azione mi aspetto di generare con questa attività (investimento)? Che contributo darà questa azione al risultato finale che voglio ottenere? L’ho già detto che il marketing “istituzionale”, quello che ha l’obiettivo di dire “esisto”, mi sta antipatico?
Tutto questo l’ho visto oggi da Peratoner a Pordenone, e ve lo mostro:
Di seguito l’articolo che confuta il modello AIDA (o lo descrive con altre parole?).
Leggetelo che vale la pena, anche con calma perchè per un po’ il blog resterà zitto.
Why the action, desire, interest, awareness model needs to be replaced to reflect our modern marketing world
We frequently read about companies that are failing fast as a result of trying to create the most innovative brand campaigns. It is almost as if company leaders are seeking to fail for the sake of being disruptive. Personally, I don’t seek to fail but I understand it can be part of a healthy innovation process that enables success.
Since we live in a Millennial-inspired participation economy, old schemas are often less predictive of future success. As a result, those (successfully) disruptive brands are becoming the most loved and the most sought after among millennials.
We believe the AIDA model is less useful and actionable today than it was in an era when brand awareness – largely achieved through traditional advertising to a target audience — seemed to connect increases in awareness to improvement in financial performance.
This model needs to be replaced by one that is more reflective of a marketing world where consumer co-creators are a lot less like a target audience and a lot more like a consumer partner. In tomorrow-land, brands that create meaning, intrigue and offer an experience will consistently outperform brands that use more tried and true traditional marketing models.
New Models For Innovation
Many successful, mature companies tend to have a lot of equity in old schemas. That is a significant piece of why companies often fail when engaging a Millennial Mindset consumer. We’ve seen titans like Kodak disappear and companies like Gillette get caught off guard by start-ups like Dollar Shave Club (after a good long head start Gillette has introduced their own subscription of direct-to-consumer razor blades).
We think there are two key questions that must be asked and answered when it comes to innovation:
1) Is this idea within your brand authority? It is important to note that we are not asking, “Should this idea part of your product portfolio?” You have more reach within your brand authority than you expect. For example, I should be wearing a FitBit from my healthcare company but they failed to understand their brand authority so Nike stepped up to the plate.
2) Can you afford to make this bet? A percentage of your investment should be on “Blue Ocean” ideas – those ideas that do not have a predictable outcome that can either be widely successful or fall short. However, you cannot use traditional ROI metrics when measuring the success of these ideas. You must adapt a bifurcated view of metrics where traditional metrics are applied to core and emerging opportunities and new and different metrics are applied to “Blue Ocean” opportunities.
Your brand must allocate a percent of time and money to each category in order to maximize your innovation pipeline. If your brand is more conservative in your approach, you have the option to allocate a smaller amount of resources to Blue Ocean ideas. However, having no Blue Ocean ideas invites other more disruptivebrands to take over your market.
New Schemas for Communication – Take A Brand Stand
The most successful brands have embraced a fundamental shift in their communication strategies. There is now a greater proliferation of consumer channels compared the traditional model that focused on shot gunning an idea through one very targeted channel. We often talk about a Brand Stand as being a single uniting theme spread across the entire ecosystem of your brand. Now, that Brand Stand must be communicated through a web of channels that includes both internal and external partners and online and offline environments.
The key is that this new communication model implies both telling and listening. The most engaging brands are the ones that successfully listen to their consumer partners in order to answer questions like, what can we learn, what can we share what can we solve for and, most importantly, how will we respond. They are then using what they are hearing to create insightful and actionable communication engagement.
Leah Swartz, a Millennial Account Coordinator and Greg Vodicka, a Millennial Consultant at FutureCast, contributed to this post,