In brand communication theory, the key points that are focussed on are 1. Attention capture 2. Brand centric communication 3. Image creation
Here, while attention capture is something that each and every piece of communication needs to deliver on, we can classify communication into two broad classes.
1. Communication which targets brand recall. This kind of communication has its primary objective as making the brand visible. This is not to say that the communication does not need to have an image creation objective. It must confirm to the imagery that the brand requires, but having said so, the main objective is to make the brand visible and reinforce it in the consumer's mind.
2. Communication which targets imagery creation. Here the primary objective is to create the imagery of the brand.
Communication of class 1 would target a much wider reach in terms of eye balls and the media strategy would be deviced accordingly. Class 2 communication would be much more communicative and the media used needs to provide for that.
Now if we want to launch a niche brand with below the line marketing, this model of looking at brand communication becomes very powerful. All communication budgets need to be divided into two parts. One part devoted to creating scale visibility for the brand. The other for a much more focused imagery creation excercise for the core target group.
Drilling one level down still, if the marketing is bootstrapped, without extravagant budgets to start off, below the line methods for brand communication need to be devised. In such a scenario, for scale visibility, a powerful symbol or logo taken across a variety of diplay mechanics would be very effective. For creating brand imagery, the most powerful way would be to create sticky content, both online and offline.
A sample of the first point on a powerful logo or visual. Its a marketeers dream.
http://adage.com/shared/includes/spotwin.html?vid=bonjovi-niceday05.asf&type=sow%2527,%2527SpotReview%2527,578,500,0,0,%2527scrollbars%2527
A sample on sticky content, both online and offline
http://www.freesticky.com/stickyweb/interesting_facts.asp
http://www.freesticky.com/stickyweb/onthisday.asp
Kash
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
uniqueness, originality and some totally wierd thoughts ...
Each and every work of art in the world is something created in the mind of some idiot. That idiot has obviously seen loads of other things made by other idiots. Of course, that work of art then, is not free of influences from the works of all those other idiots. It is a wierd mosaic of borrowings from a million works by a million idiots. In that sense it is not original. It is only unique, as it is a distinct combination of various peices.
Lets talk about the first man on the planet ... Adam or whoever ... cause I'm sure he was too much of an idiot to name himself. I mean, he was the first man for gods sake ... and that is the same as an ape!
Now when Adam made something by himself, was that original? I think not. He did not see anything any other man did. But he did see loads of wierd things done by loads of wierd animals. And so what he did was not original.
Now if we think of the first life form capable of creating anything in the world. What that idiot created ... can we call that original. Again, I don't think so. Before creating anything, he obviously had some forms of sensory organs. And if he had sensory organs, he did see/hear/smell/feel something out there that was a part of his creation. It wasn't original then.
Whats the point to all of this?
Only this that every creation is unique but not original. It is unique because there has been none like it till then. Its not original because nothing is. Everything has something from the seconds of time before the second in which it was created. The past lives on in the present and the present moves on into the future.
More importantly, the entire creation cycle is progressively growing to be more complicated. As each passing second leads to new wisdom being imbibed by life, all of this is definitely building up to something.
While we don't realise, all of this has got to be tied up to the fate of the universe. Till now the view of the universe has been in terms of matter and energy and space and time. It started as nothing and moved to energy, space and time. Energy moved to matter. Matter moved from just plain mass to mass and charge. All of this moved to hydrogen atoms. This grew to heavier atoms and more complicated forms in which energy was trapped. As we move up the periodic table, energy is trapped in more and more complicated forms.
And then we come to the origin of life. What is life if not the most complicated form in which energy can be trapped? And as it keeps evolving, it keeps trapping energy in more and more complex forms.
Think this - if you were to see and atom, you would see an electron going round and round the nucleus. Dont think of reasons for now. You would see just an electron going round and round right?
Now if someone out there were to see you in the city where you stay? If I were to see you, I would see a very complicated molecule staying inside another very completed molecule and getting into motion at defined times, using some very complicated molecules that keep moving along certain defined paths, and going to a fixed complicated molecule and buzzing around for a decided period of time, and then moving out and going to meet another complicated molecule, spending variable periods of time there and then coming back to the complicated molecule where it started from. Sorry, that was a description of your daily routine.
Is that not a much more advanced version of the hydrogen atom?
Ok, I guess its getting really wierd. But I quite enjoyed thinking it up. And it sounds plausible too.
- Kashy
Lets talk about the first man on the planet ... Adam or whoever ... cause I'm sure he was too much of an idiot to name himself. I mean, he was the first man for gods sake ... and that is the same as an ape!
Now when Adam made something by himself, was that original? I think not. He did not see anything any other man did. But he did see loads of wierd things done by loads of wierd animals. And so what he did was not original.
Now if we think of the first life form capable of creating anything in the world. What that idiot created ... can we call that original. Again, I don't think so. Before creating anything, he obviously had some forms of sensory organs. And if he had sensory organs, he did see/hear/smell/feel something out there that was a part of his creation. It wasn't original then.
Whats the point to all of this?
Only this that every creation is unique but not original. It is unique because there has been none like it till then. Its not original because nothing is. Everything has something from the seconds of time before the second in which it was created. The past lives on in the present and the present moves on into the future.
More importantly, the entire creation cycle is progressively growing to be more complicated. As each passing second leads to new wisdom being imbibed by life, all of this is definitely building up to something.
While we don't realise, all of this has got to be tied up to the fate of the universe. Till now the view of the universe has been in terms of matter and energy and space and time. It started as nothing and moved to energy, space and time. Energy moved to matter. Matter moved from just plain mass to mass and charge. All of this moved to hydrogen atoms. This grew to heavier atoms and more complicated forms in which energy was trapped. As we move up the periodic table, energy is trapped in more and more complicated forms.
And then we come to the origin of life. What is life if not the most complicated form in which energy can be trapped? And as it keeps evolving, it keeps trapping energy in more and more complex forms.
Think this - if you were to see and atom, you would see an electron going round and round the nucleus. Dont think of reasons for now. You would see just an electron going round and round right?
Now if someone out there were to see you in the city where you stay? If I were to see you, I would see a very complicated molecule staying inside another very completed molecule and getting into motion at defined times, using some very complicated molecules that keep moving along certain defined paths, and going to a fixed complicated molecule and buzzing around for a decided period of time, and then moving out and going to meet another complicated molecule, spending variable periods of time there and then coming back to the complicated molecule where it started from. Sorry, that was a description of your daily routine.
Is that not a much more advanced version of the hydrogen atom?
Ok, I guess its getting really wierd. But I quite enjoyed thinking it up. And it sounds plausible too.
- Kashy
I hate Napoleon ...
I've just finished Animal Farm by George Orwell. Amazing book. I absolutely love the sarcastic way in which he has brought out the plight of the common man in the middle ages ... moving from one tyranic reign to another ... a revolution being nothing but a violent change of captaincy.
Another take to it is the age old saying; "Power Corrupts". However noble may be the intentions of a group, finally the forces of hate and jealousy always manage to create havoc.
Yet another take to it is the school of thought that a group can lead a team to success. This book illustrates the folly of this belief in great style, stressing the point that the leader is always one man/woman. To suggest that a group can lead is inviting disaster.
What strikes me most is the depth of the entire plot, and the way in which it has been converted to a great read for children.
If you haven't read the book, all of this is a lot of crap to you. So go read it.
- I hate Napoleon.
Another take to it is the age old saying; "Power Corrupts". However noble may be the intentions of a group, finally the forces of hate and jealousy always manage to create havoc.
Yet another take to it is the school of thought that a group can lead a team to success. This book illustrates the folly of this belief in great style, stressing the point that the leader is always one man/woman. To suggest that a group can lead is inviting disaster.
What strikes me most is the depth of the entire plot, and the way in which it has been converted to a great read for children.
If you haven't read the book, all of this is a lot of crap to you. So go read it.
- I hate Napoleon.
Friday, December 8, 2006
Selling soap and all that ...
I met a few people today, quite senior to me in terms of years. One of them mentioned the funda of core-competence and went on on it for quite some time.
His take was that a person starting his own business should do so in the field that is his core-competence. Thats where he can do best, knows all the pit-falls and so on. I've been thinking about it and somehow what I see going on around me makes me wonder.
Lots of questions really. Do you really need to focus on doing something you are good at? If you are good at something will you also get an idea that you would want to give a shot in that field? If you get an idea that you think works in a field which is not your core competence, should you let it pass or should you go and give it a shot? What exactly is a person's core-competence early in his career? Is an intelligent person good at everything he puts his mind to? Or rather than intelligent, a person with the right attitude. Will he be good at one thing or will he in general be good at whatever he takes up?
I think the core question then resolves to the very definition of core competence. Do you define it as industry knowledge, or more fundamentally as a set of traits which are conducive to broad career groups.
Reading through what I've typed, I get the feeling that if converted to a visual this post would be like a deformed amoeba ... in one word "confused". Anyway, cutting through all of that, let me put down what I believe in.
I believe that if a person sets his heart to do any one thing single mindedly, he will do well whether he has any experience in that particular field or not. What is important is his conviction in what he is doing and his drive to fight for it.
- amen
His take was that a person starting his own business should do so in the field that is his core-competence. Thats where he can do best, knows all the pit-falls and so on. I've been thinking about it and somehow what I see going on around me makes me wonder.
Lots of questions really. Do you really need to focus on doing something you are good at? If you are good at something will you also get an idea that you would want to give a shot in that field? If you get an idea that you think works in a field which is not your core competence, should you let it pass or should you go and give it a shot? What exactly is a person's core-competence early in his career? Is an intelligent person good at everything he puts his mind to? Or rather than intelligent, a person with the right attitude. Will he be good at one thing or will he in general be good at whatever he takes up?
I think the core question then resolves to the very definition of core competence. Do you define it as industry knowledge, or more fundamentally as a set of traits which are conducive to broad career groups.
Reading through what I've typed, I get the feeling that if converted to a visual this post would be like a deformed amoeba ... in one word "confused". Anyway, cutting through all of that, let me put down what I believe in.
I believe that if a person sets his heart to do any one thing single mindedly, he will do well whether he has any experience in that particular field or not. What is important is his conviction in what he is doing and his drive to fight for it.
- amen
Saturday, December 2, 2006
To Chandratal and back
All about the 4 of us, our tent, our trek into wilderness, our spinning heads on reaching 15000 ft, the most beautiful lake i've seen, and a great time!
Of Innovation and our education system
Yesterday there was a Pan IIM conference in Delhi and I, being an entrepreneur looking for investment, happened to be there. A well organized gathering it was too. Kiran Karnik the NASSCOM chairman was there as the keynote speaker. His speach was very insightful in some aspects.
He spoke at length on India's edge over other countries, what it is now and what it can/should be in the times to come. He said that India currently has its huge literate population as its major edge over other countries. The major revenue earners for India in international trade right now are outsourcing services, which rely on mainly efficiency. Here India has been able to attract business to its shores mainly because of a supply demand situation, where the work can be done in India at a fraction of the cost needed abroad.
Kiran mentioned that efficiency is not a great strength of ours as a culture. There is disproportionate importance given to ideas in our culture as opposed to doing something perfectly. Secondly, a huge strength of our culture is the amount of openness towards different perspectives and the ability to consider them simultaneously. This point is also captured in the book Argumentative Indian by Sen. His point then was that these cultural traits are very conducive to developing innovation as an edge and drive growth in the future. Equally, these traits made it an uphill battle to win in an efficiency game, as we have neighbours (China) who's culture is more adept for the efficiency game.
He therefore stressed that the Indian education system should be geared towards bringing out the ability to innovate.
His observations on the education system were three fold. One, our education system drives individual behaviour as opposed to team behavious which is most important in business success. This is brought by the lack of team evaluation. All scores are individual scores, save a few institutes like the IIMs which have group work projects. Two, our education system does not invite perspectives. If what you write matches the text you get 10, else a big fat 0! This is not conducive for an innovative mindset. Three, our method of teaching does not have any scope for experimentation. A school is either an ICSE, an SSC or a CBSE school, each with a rigidly defined curriculum and no leeway for experimentation in either teaching material or teaching methodology.
Of course added to this were the two oft discussed issues of primary education not being available to millions of Indians and the pay scale for teachers being so low that quality in education was an excercise in futility without raising the salary bar first.
All of thats fine I guess; the comments on innovation being a cultural strength for Indians and efficiency being a cultural weakness; that was the high point of the talk to me. An interesting insight.
He spoke at length on India's edge over other countries, what it is now and what it can/should be in the times to come. He said that India currently has its huge literate population as its major edge over other countries. The major revenue earners for India in international trade right now are outsourcing services, which rely on mainly efficiency. Here India has been able to attract business to its shores mainly because of a supply demand situation, where the work can be done in India at a fraction of the cost needed abroad.
Kiran mentioned that efficiency is not a great strength of ours as a culture. There is disproportionate importance given to ideas in our culture as opposed to doing something perfectly. Secondly, a huge strength of our culture is the amount of openness towards different perspectives and the ability to consider them simultaneously. This point is also captured in the book Argumentative Indian by Sen. His point then was that these cultural traits are very conducive to developing innovation as an edge and drive growth in the future. Equally, these traits made it an uphill battle to win in an efficiency game, as we have neighbours (China) who's culture is more adept for the efficiency game.
He therefore stressed that the Indian education system should be geared towards bringing out the ability to innovate.
His observations on the education system were three fold. One, our education system drives individual behaviour as opposed to team behavious which is most important in business success. This is brought by the lack of team evaluation. All scores are individual scores, save a few institutes like the IIMs which have group work projects. Two, our education system does not invite perspectives. If what you write matches the text you get 10, else a big fat 0! This is not conducive for an innovative mindset. Three, our method of teaching does not have any scope for experimentation. A school is either an ICSE, an SSC or a CBSE school, each with a rigidly defined curriculum and no leeway for experimentation in either teaching material or teaching methodology.
Of course added to this were the two oft discussed issues of primary education not being available to millions of Indians and the pay scale for teachers being so low that quality in education was an excercise in futility without raising the salary bar first.
All of thats fine I guess; the comments on innovation being a cultural strength for Indians and efficiency being a cultural weakness; that was the high point of the talk to me. An interesting insight.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
