Nostalgia, Self-reflection, and Old-School Marketing
Having recently set up as an independent marketing consultant following 17 years at the world’s largest OOH media owner (and an additional 20+ years in radio and TV) I suppose a degree of nostalgia and self-reflection is acceptable.
The media landscape has changed beyond recognition since I first stumbled into it, fresh from a rather less than relevant Electrical Engineering degree. I won’t tell you exactly when that was, but if I say that my first week consisted of “putting back pre-emptions” and “late-selling” TV airtime then older readers will be able to hazard a guess.
But, whilst the infrastructure and available comms platforms have evolved dramatically, I find myself wondering whether the job of selling media has evolved or is it the same as it ever was? My mantra has always been that whatever you’re selling, if you can follow these five steps – your efforts are likely to prove effective.
1. Convince the prospective buyer that your platform delivers the target audience they’re after – and, ideally, plenty of it. Sometimes (but not always), with minimal “wastage” – just the people they’re seeking to influence.
2. Show them that your audience will be particularly receptive to messages delivered on your platform - more receptive than on other competitive media options. Right time, right place, message landed.
3. Bring out your catalogue of available formats, large and small, digital and non- digital, long and short, premium and “value”. Identify the one that’s most appropriate for the brief. I’ve seen a lot of media owners lead with this step, and it really doesn’t work.
4. Dazzle the prospect with ample proof that similar brands who’ve previously used your platform have seen appropriate increases in whatever they were looking to boost.
5. Finally, do the deal – everything you’ve shown in steps 1 to 4 is available to the buyer at a one-off special low, low price.
So, does this all still hold true? I’d like to think so, but increasingly I can’t help feeling that step 2 has become sadly neglected, which is a real shame as I’ve always felt it to be the most interesting part of the whole debate. It’s about perception not programming, qual not quant, art not algorithms, and perhaps that’s why it’s fallen off the radar? If we accept that all impressions are not in fact created equal, then surely there’s more to effective planning than delivering the largest number for the lowest cost?
Step 2 is what’s made media fascinating for me since day one, but maybe I’m looking at past best practice through rose tinted glasses? What do you think?
