Of course it’s not an attempt to stop injecting emotions everywhere but instead a way of thinking differently depending on where you’re at. And I personally do not agree that AIDAS should be thrown over board even though I do not think it’s the one model to go by.

Fun this

Of course it’s not an attempt to stop injecting emotions everywhere but instead a way of thinking differently depending on where you’re at. And I personally do not agree that AIDAS should be thrown over board even though I do not think it’s the one model to go by.

Fun this

Rational, on the other hand, is a message based on hard fact alone. Let’s say you’re flogging a bookshelf. If you say ”50% off” you are stating a rational argument. But if you say ”Pay half now and nothing later” you are communicating to the rational parts of the brain as well as to the emotional parts.

What I saying is that you should always try to be emotional, if it’s possible. This way you can differentiate on two levels: rational and emotional.

Complex? Yes. It taps into the old fight about style and substance, which is a very enigmatic area. Especially since a lot of things these days points in the direction where style wins over substance – a view on advertising that hardly anyone dared to opinionate a decade ago.

Furthermore, the idea of emotional communication as a seduction tool is also a bit dusty. The whole point of communication is not to convince a consumer about a brand’s benefit, not even to seduce her into believing it, but to evoke a deep truth that the consumer cherish. A message that clings authentic deep in the heart of the consumer.

You know that I agree with your opinion on integration: that branding is basically built on the touchpoints towards the outer world.

But I have to agree with Leon on the demise of the AIDAS formula. Let’s bury the damned thing for good. Also I sympathize with his opinion on the lack of leadership and fascination.

And talking about what’s lacking, let me add knowledge to the list.

Rational, on the other hand, is a message based on hard fact alone. Let’s say you’re flogging a bookshelf. If you say ”50% off” you are stating a rational argument. But if you say ”Pay half now and nothing later” you are communicating to the rational parts of the brain as well as to the emotional parts.

What I saying is that you should always try to be emotional, if it’s possible. This way you can differentiate on two levels: rational and emotional.

Complex? Yes. It taps into the old fight about style and substance, which is a very enigmatic area. Especially since a lot of things these days points in the direction where style wins over substance – a view on advertising that hardly anyone dared to opinionate a decade ago.

Furthermore, the idea of emotional communication as a seduction tool is also a bit dusty. The whole point of communication is not to convince a consumer about a brand’s benefit, not even to seduce her into believing it, but to evoke a deep truth that the consumer cherish. A message that clings authentic deep in the heart of the consumer.

You know that I agree with your opinion on integration: that branding is basically built on the touchpoints towards the outer world.

But I have to agree with Leon on the demise of the AIDAS formula. Let’s bury the damned thing for good. Also I sympathize with his opinion on the lack of leadership and fascination.

And talking about what’s lacking, let me add knowledge to the list.

Following your comment I started thinking there’s room for a new event. This week Guldägget is coming up and I can’t see anything that really drives change. Most of the stuff secures peoples payrolls and positions.

Russel Davies has been running Interesting for a while. I think something in that direction but even a notch more on the edge would be great.

The stuff where touching here (cause the comment fields doesn’t allow for better discussions I think) should be debated somewhere where people dare to challenge myths and established truths…

Following your comment I started thinking there’s room for a new event. This week Guldägget is coming up and I can’t see anything that really drives change. Most of the stuff secures peoples payrolls and positions.

Russel Davies has been running Interesting for a while. I think something in that direction but even a notch more on the edge would be great.

The stuff where touching here (cause the comment fields doesn’t allow for better discussions I think) should be debated somewhere where people dare to challenge myths and established truths…

As to using Apple Computer (which everybody adores but very few if any has been able to copy) as a best practices reference, I think you are overlooking the fact that the problem of most companies isn’t the lack of innovative solutions (these are everywhere). It’s the lack of vision and organisational drive to change that’s the real problem. The code to crack is not innovative marketing/advertising solutions per se, but how to get CEOs and marketing departments to “think different” (no joke intended). Maybe that’s where your energy and passion (which I think you have a lot of) should lie: as an organisational change agent. Just a thought.

Instead of talking about of lack of integration, maybe we should be talking about lack of fascination?

As to using Apple Computer (which everybody adores but very few if any has been able to copy) as a best practices reference, I think you are overlooking the fact that the problem of most companies isn’t the lack of innovative solutions (these are everywhere). It’s the lack of vision and organisational drive to change that’s the real problem. The code to crack is not innovative marketing/advertising solutions per se, but how to get CEOs and marketing departments to “think different” (no joke intended). Maybe that’s where your energy and passion (which I think you have a lot of) should lie: as an organisational change agent. Just a thought.

Instead of talking about of lack of integration, maybe we should be talking about lack of fascination?

I think not.

But I do think I should have written a 10 times longer post when I read your comment since you you’ve seem to misunderstood it. And if you have then others will definitely do. In my brain thoughts on how copy supports SEO vs emotional messages creating interest and love for brands made this post happen. Your feedback comment is all in all based on traditional planning and that’s probably why we see this different.

For example your comment ‘A fist hits harder than five fingers’ automatically leaves out the fact that everything communicates and no matter what you think people will sooner or later touch the product. If you’ve then integrated everything like for example Apple does, those ‘five fingers’ will tickle you all the way to the bank.

Nothing! Nothing can be left out. Saying you can create communication in one channel not caring for the others is…bad.

I off course think many of your comments here are valid but you’re missing the big picture. I was not buzzing about AIDAS but instead was aiming for clarifying that brands should think about where and when they emotionalize communication vs rationalize it. Neither did I talk about creativity but instead Emotional and Rational communication. creativity was a ‘legend’. I did not intend to write about linear communication as well but it seems it turned out that way

Probably to complex to blog about but since I’m rather logging my thoughts than blogging them I had to

(Ogilvy 360° is a shitty example and if you think they’ve done integrated communication you don’t know what that is. They integrate visual concepts through many different channels. That is not integration. Integration is about treating every single channel in a way that is optimum. )

I think not.

But I do think I should have written a 10 times longer post when I read your comment since you you’ve seem to misunderstood it. And if you have then others will definitely do. In my brain thoughts on how copy supports SEO vs emotional messages creating interest and love for brands made this post happen. Your feedback comment is all in all based on traditional planning and that’s probably why we see this different.

For example your comment ‘A fist hits harder than five fingers’ automatically leaves out the fact that everything communicates and no matter what you think people will sooner or later touch the product. If you’ve then integrated everything like for example Apple does, those ‘five fingers’ will tickle you all the way to the bank.

Nothing! Nothing can be left out. Saying you can create communication in one channel not caring for the others is…bad.

I off course think many of your comments here are valid but you’re missing the big picture. I was not buzzing about AIDAS but instead was aiming for clarifying that brands should think about where and when they emotionalize communication vs rationalize it. Neither did I talk about creativity but instead Emotional and Rational communication. creativity was a ‘legend’. I did not intend to write about linear communication as well but it seems it turned out that way

Probably to complex to blog about but since I’m rather logging my thoughts than blogging them I had to

(Ogilvy 360° is a shitty example and if you think they’ve done integrated communication you don’t know what that is. They integrate visual concepts through many different channels. That is not integration. Integration is about treating every single channel in a way that is optimum. )

First of all, the AIDA model has never been empirically proven. I wrote a piece about this some time ago which sums up the last forty years of various communications theories used in advertising:
http://theplanninglab.typepad.com/theplanninglab/2008/02/read-this-if-yo.html

Turning the media strategy on AIDA into a customer journey is simplifying and therefore alluring. Yet, there are no guarantees or proof that the consumer will actually consume media/messages in this order, and what will happen if the order isn’t ABCD, but rather ADBC (as an example).
Linearity in media consumtion is also irrelevant for product categories where media exposure and consumtion are uncorrelated. Consider cars for example. The role for communications is not to funnel the customer into sales, because decision making is both complex and car purchases happen rather seldom.

Secondly, the use of integrated communications as a standard setup rather than a built solution is questionable. Remember that this concept comes from a time where clients marketing budgets were much larger than they are today and where agencies promoted this concept to get as much of the clients wallet as possible. Ogilvy 360° is a good example of a 90s business model. The main point is that one channel can have an equally big impact as eight different ones if executed correctly. A fist hits harder than five fingers.

Third, I disagree with the notion that some channels/formats are more creative than others. Why? Because the creative potential is not dependent on format/channel, but rather what happens in the mind of the customer. Therefore a banner ad can be more creative than a print ad, and POS can be more creative than TVC. Another perspective is that behavioral shifts change media consumption itself. As an example, the way radio is used today is changing a lot because people sit in front the computer while listening to radio. This opens up new possibilities to combine the two into something new. Standard way of thinking media planning gives you standard solutions, but if we really believe that creativity is key to brand building and profitability we must also challenge the traditional media planning format and use these as part of the message rather than holding them. That includes inventing new channels.

First of all, the AIDA model has never been empirically proven. I wrote a piece about this some time ago which sums up the last forty years of various communications theories used in advertising:
http://theplanninglab.typepad.com/theplanninglab/2008/02/read-this-if-yo.html

Turning the media strategy on AIDA into a customer journey is simplifying and therefore alluring. Yet, there are no guarantees or proof that the consumer will actually consume media/messages in this order, and what will happen if the order isn’t ABCD, but rather ADBC (as an example).
Linearity in media consumtion is also irrelevant for product categories where media exposure and consumtion are uncorrelated. Consider cars for example. The role for communications is not to funnel the customer into sales, because decision making is both complex and car purchases happen rather seldom.

Secondly, the use of integrated communications as a standard setup rather than a built solution is questionable. Remember that this concept comes from a time where clients marketing budgets were much larger than they are today and where agencies promoted this concept to get as much of the clients wallet as possible. Ogilvy 360° is a good example of a 90s business model. The main point is that one channel can have an equally big impact as eight different ones if executed correctly. A fist hits harder than five fingers.

Third, I disagree with the notion that some channels/formats are more creative than others. Why? Because the creative potential is not dependent on format/channel, but rather what happens in the mind of the customer. Therefore a banner ad can be more creative than a print ad, and POS can be more creative than TVC. Another perspective is that behavioral shifts change media consumption itself. As an example, the way radio is used today is changing a lot because people sit in front the computer while listening to radio. This opens up new possibilities to combine the two into something new. Standard way of thinking media planning gives you standard solutions, but if we really believe that creativity is key to brand building and profitability we must also challenge the traditional media planning format and use these as part of the message rather than holding them. That includes inventing new channels.