RITSON ON MARKETING: THE ANSWER IS YES

On Thursday night, 700 of New Zealand marketing’s best minds filed into a room at SkyCity to hear from a marketing genius. Thanks to the Comms Council and Bauer Media, Mark Ritson had flown in to share his take on effectiveness, codification and marketing in general. All up, it was awesome. And also a little frustrating. 

Ritson used a comprehensive study of 6,000 American Effie entries over 50 years to take us through his top ten drivers of advertising effectiveness. In a world where opinion is accepted as fact – Ritson used fact to back up his opinions. Some interesting stuff, some obvious stuff and all of it wrapped in infectious passion with a strong side of sweary. Here’s my top five on Ritson’s top ten:

The long and the short of it is: Yes

Building on the work of Binet and Fields, Ritson tested their thinking through decades of Effie entries. Should you use short term sales drivers or long term brand builds? The answer is yes. Ritson outlined the importance of sales promotion in driving sales spikes. It works. But it only works “with your foot on the gas” and stops when you stop spending money.

But weave your promotions with long-term brand building activity and the brand fuels the short-term stuff making your sales spikes bigger, better and more resilient over time. “But which is more effective?” You ask. The answer is both – over time.

Tight targeting or mass marketing? Yes

We heard the same fundamental answer on segments vs mass. Counter to popular thinking, segmentations are only really useful in short-term sales activation. Bigger picture, the goal is grabbing a bigger slice of your customer’s brain and mass marketing does that better.

The example on the day was dog food. It’s useful to narrow your market to ‘people with dogs’. But any level of deeper segmentation, is most likely money spent in naval gazing with no significant impact on sales. Like everything, it’s about understanding the job at hand and picking the right tools from the shed.

Should we be distinctive or different? Yes

Here’s where the balance changes. We learned about the value of product differentiation. But we largely discovered it doesn’t help that much. It’s useful comparatively within category, but bigger picture it takes a long time to clearly differentiate a brand and not very long to get copied. Layer in the challenge of nuance in differentiation. And the subtlety of your ‘youness’ is always far stronger in your brand bible than your customer’s minds.

Distinctiveness is something else. “If no-one knows your ad is you, there’s no fucking point having an ad.” That was the thing that hit me between the eyes. Because, like, obviously, right? And having spent the first ten years of my creative career passionate about shrinking the logo, I now feel like something of a dick.

Ritson’s rant about codification and his dodgy example from KFC hammered the point home to the point of extinction. He himself is a strongly codified brand. Obvious smarts and passion wrapped in brutal common sense with pops of expletive. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.

And he’s right. Our post-match chatter decided the best local example is Pak ‘n’ Save. You see the yellow screen and you know the story – even when the telly is on mute.

Broadcast, Digital, Social or Trade? Yes

As we went through his research, themes became clear. The more channels you buy, the more people will take in your message. Yes, media matters, but creative matters more. Or as Mark put it: “don’t over-think where, get sorted on what – if you don’t have a great ad, it won’t fucking work wherever you put it.” I paraphrase, but it was something like that.

And so it went on for just over an hour. It was great. Stating the obvious, highlighting the contradictions and wrapping it all in academic research. He loosely touched on purpose and majorly shat on Simon Sinek – but Ritson’s bag is driving brands to make money. “Ask ten people if they’d buy your thing because of your purpose and ten people will say yes.” He said. “But none of them actually fucking do it.” - again not a direct quote, but you get the idea.

If there is a silver bullet, it’s time

In an industry that always wants the answer, this was my take out from the day. Ritson’s trawl through the Effies tells the same story as Binet and Fields - and my mother in law. People don’t engage with ads, they soak them up over time. And the very best way to get into someone’s head is to keep saying the same stuff with minor topical tweaks and a side of charm.

It makes sense because people really don’t care, right? They buy things they want or need from brands they remember in the moment. Ritson’s clear message was that making those memories takes time, craft and patience. And if the fundamental math of marketing is science plus magic over time – the hardest of those is time.

How long? Too long. And that’s the frustration. All these great facts we learn from outspoken sweary professors are telling us something we already know. Great brands are built over years not months – and it takes bravery to consistently invest on that timeframe.

Of course fortune favours the brave. So it’s there for the taking.
And if all else fails, Simon Sinek has done a new Ted Talk.

That’s what I reckon, what do you think?