The future of television, Agora Media

Great presentation for the BBC that clearly sets out the issues, shape and battlegrounds for TV in the future.

BBC Presentation - Future of TV - Orchestrated Media - New Gatekeepers in the Living Room Means More Disruption (Or Democratisation) of TV Industry from Richard Kastelein

BBC research reveals participation online is now the norm rather than the exception

six striking themes emerged:

1. The model which has guided many people's thinking in this area, the 1/9/90 rule, is outmoded. The number of people participating online is significantly higher than 10%.
2. Participation is now the rule rather than the exception: 77% of the UK online population is now active in some way.
3. This has been driven by the rise of 'easy participation': activities which may have once required great effort but now are relatively easy, expected and every day. 60% of the UK online population now participates in this way, from sharing photos to starting a discussion.
4. Despite participation becoming relatively 'easy', almost a quarter of people (23%) remain passive - they do not participate at all.
5. Passivity is not as rooted in digital literacy as traditional wisdom may have suggested. 11% of the people who are passive online today are early adopters. They have the access and the ability but are choosing not to participate.
6. Digital participation now is best characterised through the lens of choice. These are the decisions we take about whether, when, with whom and around what, we will participate. Because participation is now much more about who we are, than what we have, or our digital skill.

Through these insights we have developed a new model of digital participation: The Participation Choice.

The model of Participation Choice identifies four key forms: passive, easy reaction, easy initiation and intense participation. These are illustrated in the graphic below and discussed in more detail in the talk I'm giving at the BBC Online Industry Briefing today. As with my previous briefings (Beyond the Screens and Changing Audience Behaviours), the video of my presentation will be available for all to view on the BBC Internet Blog, next week.

The Participation Choice of 7,500 UK adult online users surveyed over 18 months from September 2010.

Together, these insights help us at the BBC think anew about both the nature and the potential of digital participation - and pivotally, inform how the BBC creates the most rewarding programmes, products and services for our audiences.

Banks have a responsibility to business and brands not just the people

The sorry saga of the banking crisis and the latest instalment courtesy of Barclay's and their pals rigging interest rates is destroying people's confidence in brands and businesses in general. Trust in banks sector is shot, we know that, but what makes it even more galling is that given the size of the sector and fact that finance is central to people's lives, we have no choice, they are all the same to a large extent.

But the impact of this goes far further than merely banking, it has contributed to a lack of trust in business and brands in general, in essence all brands are taking the rap for the banks.
There's a lot of talk about a new model (no I don't mean Big Society) that draws up a new contract between people and brands, which is genuinely equal and fair, and which is open and honest and mutually beneficial. GifGaf and Hiut Denim spring to mind.
You would hope that Virgin could fill that space or maybe Co-op ... we'll see. What if John Lewis opened a bank (maybe they are planning one), what would it be like? What values would it be founded on? What will Tesco Bank become if anything at all? Who knows, but one thing is for sure we really, really need a genuine alternative, and whoever gets it right will do everyone a massive favour, and begin to rebuild confidence in brands.

Hurry up ... please.

Why Culture is a Source of Energy for Brands

Part 2. of "Forget about brand Equity, brand Energy is what really matters"

The brands that stick in our minds tend to be built around culture, and rarely the attributes of the brands themselves, unless they genuinely are leaps and bounds ahead of the competition as in the case of the iPhone. That is because culture is all around us, it washes over us every day, and provides reference points and social currency that bind us together as people. It has the potential to attract and move us in a way that brand messages in general cannot. That’s why I believe we have been focusing on the wrong thing for so long. To use a football analogy, we have been watching the ball, and have missed the bigger picture of what is happening in the game.

This means that measuring brand equities is misleading and not a true reflection of people’s feelings towards a brand or their intentions to consider and purchase it. The goal of communications should be to create cultural constructs around a brand, which make it vibrant and energetic, get it talked about and keep it top of mind. The job of measurement then is focused on the cultural context and the associations that surround it, and the extent to which the communications have moved people and made them to stop and think for a moment.

What I mean by culture

In the context of communications, I'm referring to three types of culture; a cultural truth, a cultural phenomenon, and a created culture.

A cultural truth

This is something that is ingrained in the collective conscious of the nation, things like ‘good things come to those who wait’. It’s a truth about life and indeed being human that is hard to argue with, yet there’s a tension there because we all know that we would rather have things now than wait. That’s why so few of us make sufficient provision for our old age, and why we’re happy to take on credit card debt even though we know we’re being exploited.

A cultural phenomenon

This is something that is of the moment, a passing phenomenon which is prominent within the media and conversation, yet not necessarily as deep and profound as a cultural truth. Think of T-Mobiles ‘Life’s for sharing’ flash mobbing campaigns.  Whilst Flash Mobbing is probably a fad, it taps into a fundamental human truth that we are social animals and sharing performs a vital role in giving a sense of self worth and affirmation.  The cultural reference however is very relevant, and also surprising. In that example the participants were mainly actors with some ‘real people’ looking on in amazement. They then followed this by inviting people to a gathering in Trafalgar Square which triggered a slightly different response, one of shared experience, feeling a part of something, creating a spectacle and a first.

Created culture

It is possible for a brand to create its own unique view on the world, Disney is a case in point; it’s a world where everyone is happy, everything is fun, princes and princesses live in castles, and dreams come true. Honda on the other hand has created a playful world where advances are possible if you have dreams.

I would argue that communications that are founded on one of these cultural platforms will be more distinctive and engaging than those focused on merely brand attributes, product demonstration, or endorsement alone.

Challenger brands create cultural tension                          

Challenger brands provide further proof of the power of culture to transform brands. There’s a reason why we love Virgin, Innocent Smoothies and Ben & Jerry’s, as Challenger Brands they are by definition are cultural phenomenons. They draw their energy from disrupting the status quo, shaking things up, asking questions and offering an alternative ‘better’ view on the world. In so doing they have an attitude that disrespects authority and are audacious in their ambition. More importantly they embody a fundamental human truth; that we like to support the little guy, the one who is prepared to stick his neck out, who has ambitions and dreams, a desire to improve and who is hungry and eager to please. They are a product of the cultural landscape that they seek to challenge, creating a cultural tension by being subversive and asking questions of the market, the brands within it, and their audience.

The decision to adopt a challenger position is often borne out of the fact that to achieve their lofty ambitions, they have no option but to be bold and do something new and different. You can see their challenger attitude in their DNA, and a desire to constantly evolve and remain one step ahead of the competition. And they’re having fun with it too, and this playfulness subconsciously draws us closer to them because deep down we respect them and they make us feel good.

How Toyota missed an opportunity to leverage a powerful piece of cultural capital

Toyota launched a campaign for their Hybrid range of cars through a campaign platform ‘Get their energy back’. This is a logical claim since their Hybrid system redistributes the energy when braking back into the engine. All well and good, but why should I care? What has it got to do with me and my life, and why should that make my life better?

Great benefit, but what is lacking is a cultural context. This is a shameful waste of an enormous opportunity that currently exists due to a cultural tension that is at the heart of our existence (or not). The preservation of our planet is the biggest challenge facing humanity, and yet they chose to talk about energy transfer.

The cultural truth which is ingrained in the world’s collective conscious is that the earth’s resources are finite, and the growing demands on them mean that we're going to run out because of greed, ignorance, procrastination or fear of losing out, and we all know from the banking crisis the kind of havoc this combination of factors can lead to.

These are all powerful themes in their own right because they get right to the heart of our existence; they are all aspects of human nature. But flipping the Hybrid concept on its head, there's a couple of really interesting things Toyota’s engineers have managed to do. Firstly they have tackled the bigger issue head on, grasped the nettle so to speak, rather than shy away from it, or wait for someone else to try and learn from their mistakes. That requires courage, vision, leadership and commitment, and we all respect those qualities in people, but rarely associate them with brands. Secondly, they have been ingenious and creative in finding a solution; energy transfer is not a little gimmick, it's genuinely clever stuff that has a profound effect in dramatically increasing fuel efficiency.

This is all powerful stuff which has cultural value, however perhaps the most interesting aspect of this is that given this backdrop, Toyota have changed the rules of the game, and that's really, really interesting. Life these days is not as straight forward as it used to be, we are independent, some might say liberated, which means that we are constantly making choices. Some good ones, others less so, but at least we have choices. To some extent life is becoming a game, and the people best at playing it will win ... And nobody wants to be a loser. I think you can see the myriad of cultural themes that have rich potential to engage Toyota’s audience and create energy for the Toyota brand.

This demonstrates how culture can be far more interesting and relevant than merely brand features and benefits, and why culture is the most potent source of energy for brands.

The implications for research and brand positioning

This then challenges the way we develop brands in a number of ways, most significantly in terms of brand positioning, and brand and advertising propositions. The traditional approach is to develop a range of positionings based on a superior combination of attributes and benefits, which are then ‘exposed’ to people who have bought products within the category before to determine which they find most appealing. There are a number of incorrect assumptions here, firstly that we are rational, and secondly that we make decisions in our day to day lives with the same kind of rigour and attention levels in which we are asked during the research. This form of research follows a logical approach that forces respondents to focus on the system 2 side of their reasoning, but in reality our system 1 forms our opinions, sometimes aided by system 2, and to articulate their feelings in a balanced way on the spot is a difficult task for most people. Yet we create an artificial situation, and even if it were not, respondents would find it impossible to reason this aspect of their feelings.

The second implication is that positionings based on attributes and benefits are of little use for developing powerful communications platforms because this approaches the task from the wrong place. The focus should be to identify some creatively rich cultural capital that surrounds the category or the brand experience first, and then match aspects of the brand to it.

A more effective way of monitoring the effectiveness of communications

If you’re leveraging a cultural truth there will be evidence that it is relevant and motivating to people. Look hard for evidence and build a strong case.

Then when assessing either a positioning, territory or advertising, give it to people to view in their natural environment, let them discuss it with friends and peers and play with it. Then listen to the conversations they have between one another, because these conversations are a truer reflection of how they genuinely feel about it.

Finally, when the campaign is launched use social media monitoring to gauge the extent to which the campaign is being picked up and played with, who’s talking about it? What are they saying? What are people saying in-store? What’s the feedback amongst friends and colleagues? How can we encourage them to pass it on? What have learnt that can be fed back into the next stage of the campaign? How can it be evolved?

This is more forensic than absolute, which might make some clients a little nervous, but in the hands of a planner with a nose for eking out the nuances and patterns in social media, and creative teams who are attuned to building on them, surprising and original campaigns can be developed.

It also means accepting that developing campaigns is an iterative process, and that a core theme will have to evolve and develop to achieve its full potential. Paddy Power has adopted this approach in its latest campaign ‘We Hear You’ with a participatory idea that makes fans of the brand the content of the ads via their comments in social media, which the brand responds to.

Conclusions

If you want to maximise the return on your marketing investment, don’t start with brand equity, start with the things that could create energy for your brand. It means taking a broader view than merely the product, the business and what you think makes your brand unique. Look at the cultural landscape and find a fertile territory that could be a springboard to get your brand noticed and talked about, and which by association could reinforce the equities of your brand. Maybe by following this approach we might make marketing a bit more interesting.

Further Reading

Herd: How to change mass behaviour by harnessing our true nature – Mark Earls, John Wiley 2009

Cultural Strategy – Douglas Holt, Douglas Cameron, OUP Oxford 2010

Chief Culture Officer – Grant McCracken, Basic 2010

Cuturematic – Grant McCracken, Harvard Business Review Press 2012

Thinking, Fast and Slow – Daniel Kahneman, Allen Lane 2011

Hoopla – Crispin, Porter, Bogusky, and Warren Berger, PowerHouse Books, 2006

Eating the Big Fish – Adam Morgan, John Wiley 2^nd Ed 2009

Nudge – Richard H Thaler & Cass R Sunstein, Penguin 2009

Grow: How Ideals Power Growth and Profits at The World’s 50 Greatest Companies – Jim Stengel, Virgin Books 2012

Velocity: The Seven New Laws for a World Gone Digital – Ajaz Ahmed & Stefan Olander, Vermilion 2012

Why Experience Architecture is the future of planning – Nick Hirst, Admap Gold Prize 2012

Hovis: As Good Today As It’s Ever Been – IPA Effectiveness Awards 2010 http://www.ipaeffectivenessawards.co.uk/Entrant.aspx?id=209

Feed Your Family For a Fiver: How a communications idea helped Sainsbury’s through the recession - IPA Effectiveness Awards 2010  http://www.ipaeffectivenessawards.co.uk/Entrant.aspx?id=277

Why Being Interesting Might Be More Important Than Being Different – Martin Weigel from his blog Canalside View March 2012 

http://mweigel.typepad.com/canalside-view/2012/03/why-being-interesting-might-be-more-important-than-being-different-part-1.html

BrandZ Top 100 Most Valuable Global Brands 2012, Report 

http://www.wpp.com/NR/rdonlyres/4B44C834-AEA8-4951-871A-A5B937EBFD3E/0/brandz_2012_top_100.pdf

Forget about brand Equity, brand Energy is what really matters

PART 1 - Why the way we develop brand positioning and communications has to change 


It is accepted wisdom that the goal of marketing is to build brand equity in the belief that a brand with strong equities is more appealing than one with weak associations. Tracking studies rule as a way of monitoring the effects of campaigns and ads and determining if a brand’s standing in the market is moving forward versus its competitors. This approach has become the key tool in assessing brand health and has spawned a massive industry in continuous historical data.

My definition of brand equity is simple; the sum of perceived attributes, benefits, associations, brand personality, and claimed loyalty.

But two things always confused me about this approach; firstly that the levels are always low, even for big well established so-called ‘strong’ brands, and secondly the key components of brand equity move little over time.

Until now tracking equity was the best option we had, but I believe that it has led us to focus on the wrong things, and a different approach is now required for a number of reasons …

1. The communications landscape has changed

Brand tracking was designed to measure the effects of broadcast campaigns over the long term which is fine because the campaigns rely on repetition; continually forcing messages (or using media jargon impacts) at a broad group of people. But this kind of ‘silver bullet’ approach is losing favour to more personal 'social' media that has allowed us to involve people to a far greater extent through storytelling and experiences, rather than advertising aimed at a passive audience with simple propositions. People are no longer merely passive receivers of messages, they can now if they choose become active participants, evolving and distributing ideas sponsored by brands. 

So if the way brands communicate with people has changed, why then hasn’t the way we plan and evaluate campaigns changed?

2. The focus on consistency and repetition has held brands back and stifled fresh thinking and creativity

Most CMO’s KPI’s are founded on brand equity measures, and in today’s incredibly fickle short-term business environment maintaining these measures are their key priority; it’s how they keep their jobs and earn their bonus. As a result doing something radical is often too great a risk unless it can be proven that it will pay off. In short it’s safer to tweak an existing campaign idea, than risk getting fired for being the guy that changed a winning formula.

There is an exception to this rule, and that’s when a brand has been steadily declining and it has nothing to lose, but that’s a rare exception. Marmite radically turned round their fortunes when a brave marketer realised that rather than try and broaden the appeal of the brand amongst a sceptical audience, they would build affinity amongst users by celebrating the polarising nature of the product. ‘Love it or hate it’ forced the viewer to have a point of view and take sides. What’s interesting is that this bold approach did result in broadening the appeal of the brand because it created intrigue amongst curious people for whom the brand had slipped off their radar, and got people who had never tried it because they had convinced themselves that they wouldn’t like it to do so.

I will talk about this effect later, but to illustrate the pitfalls of failing to evolve a campaign idea let’s look at Tesco and 'Every little helps'. It's a powerful proposition that had huge cultural relevance and energy at its inception, but it has become tired and irrelevant in the cultural landscape people now live in. It began with good intentions, a genuine organising idea that was both a statement of intent and a rallying cry to constantly find ways of improving the supermarket experience.

That was interesting, because Tesco could tap into the mood of the nation, and orientate their innovations around the things that were important to people at that point in time. But after 20 years Tesco lost confidence and took the desperate move of competing head-on with Asda through a low price message, rather than following its own added value agenda. They turned ‘Every little helps’ into a value proposition, and in the process diluted its appeal.  The problem is that value is a hygiene factor; it’s what supermarkets do. Yes it's good to know that Tesco recognises that we are all looking for good deals, but it is a given and everybody’s doing it.

In contrast, Sainsbury’s realised that there were two cultural phenomenons that could be tapped into which could demonstrate a real understanding of the mood of their audience with two separate campaign platforms; firstly our new spirit of adventure when cooking, and secondly a desire to maintain a good life for our families in today's financially challenging times. They adapted and in the process created relevance and energy for their brand.

Try something new today - focusing on exploring new foods and making the process of cooking and eating more fun, inspiring, and exciting.

Feed the family for a fiver – demonstrating how you can make great meals for the family on a reduced budget due to great value ingredients and offers.

This illustrates the main problem with the traditional approach to building brands and developing communications, and that is that it is based on the flawed belief that if possible a brand should stand for one or two things (attributes or benefits), and communications should continually reinforce this, even if creatively it is not the most interesting thing a brand could say. Sticking consistently to the same theme very quickly becomes tired and boring and communications become increasingly less effective.

To appreciate this fully we have to consider the way our minds work, and specifically memory and associations. Advances in our understanding of the way the mind works has allowed us to determine what attracts our attention and how we form beliefs about brands. We now know that there are two parts of the brain which work in very different ways, known as system 1 and system 2. System 1 is our subconscious and is always ticking away in the background, guiding our actions sort of like an auto pilot. When we talk about a ‘gut reaction’, that's system 1 at work. It’s fast, efficient and instinctive. We feel something and we are attracted to it, but we can't quite explain why, it feels right but we can't find a logical reason for it. System 2 on the other hand is our conscious mind, or put another way our attention. It kicks in when system 1 can't explain something and needs some help. This explains why we can lock our car and walk away, then a minute later can’t remember whether we locked it or not. This is because it’s a familiar ritual that is automated. Thanks to system 1 we’re not even conscious we’re doing it. System 1 governs the locking of the car, but occasionally system 2 has to check by asking the question. So what does this mean for communications?

One definition of creativity is the combination of two things that don't normally go together; this approach was very effective for Cadbury’s Dairy Milk when they featured a gorilla on a drum-kit, or 118 118’s used twins in running gear to establish their new brand. Our attention is instantly drawn to these ads because they are not right, there’s a problem that confuses our system 1 and forces it to ask system 2 (our attention) to help explain it. That's why we remember these ads and talk about them afterwards with our friends; it's crazy, doesn't make sense, but is interesting all the same, and deep down it is making a point about the brand. But witnessing somebody merely experiencing the product is not (think Dove); it’s familiar, it’s what we expect to see, and it simply reinforces what we know about chocolate, so why should we care.

Another creative approach is to subvert culture, i.e. take a familiar notion about people or the world, and present an alternative view. A good example of this was the campaign that launched the Orange mobile phone network. “The futures bright” campaign sought to allay people’s fears of technology and offer a new, bold and positive vision of the future, where people are liberated, rather than stymied by technological progress. Both approaches are powerful because they challenge the viewer thereby forcing their system 2 to make sense of it.

Ads that merely repeat a message which we already know to be true are less successful at attracting attention, unless they are executed in an unexpected way. Consider the approach Apple has taken; product as hero on a plain white background, and a simple demonstration. This is in stark contrast to the conventional hyper-real visual effects approach technology companies take. Apple is making the statement that in a world of hyperbole their products perform tasks simply and beautifully, allowing people to express their creativity.

3. The focus on brand equity is based on the brand’s agenda, not the people it seeks to influence

The problem with brand’s pushing their own agenda is that in most cases people don’t think or care enough about them to give them much thought. Highly involved and self expressive purchases like cars and fashion are to some extent an exception, but even then brands in these categories do not occupy a great deal of our time. Let’s take Hovis as an example, a great brand but at the end of the day its bread, and a sliced brown loaf is not very interesting; it doesn’t move us, and it certainly doesn’t make life worth living. Despite Hovis being a brand with decades of history and the most famous brand of bread in the market, we don’t give it much thought, and if it were replaced on shelf with another comparable brand was people who would claim to be regular buyers of Hovis wouldn’t think twice about buying the alternative – nobody died, the world moves on.

Hovis had a hugely successful campaign that chronicled the trials and tribulations of the nation over the last century, but its success was not due to the brand itself, it was due to the cultural context of the ad that the brand sat within – that’s the interesting bit, and not the fact that the brand had been a constant reliable presence throughout.

The truth is that the culture that surrounds us is far more pervasive and quite frankly interesting, engaging and powerful than any statement the brand could make. As a reference it instantly strikes a chord because it's part of our collective conscious, whether it's a current issue, or something deeper rooted that is a fundamental human truth.

You could argue that all advertising has a cultural component, and on some level that is true, however it is the choice of cultural context the brand associates itself with and what you do with it that determines its ability to strike a chord. If you are merely playing back to someone something they are already familiar with then it will wash over them without their system 2 kicking in and will become merely wallpaper. That’s not to say that it hasn’t made an impression because system 1 has soaked it up, but it is less likely to be top of mind in the short term and the brand will be less likely to be considered. So we can say that to attract attention we have to reframe culture in a way that subverts it in some way, or makes a comment on society that compels people to view the brand in a new way.

4. Ideas are a series of associations, rather than single-minded propositions

Ad agencies worship ideas because they are neat and easy to digest, and big ideas are the currency that they trade in. Cognitive psychologist Daniel Kahneman in his brilliant book ‘Thinking, Fast and Slow’ reveals that when we see something that attracts our interest it triggers a set of multiple associations in our minds, which magnifies the impact, rather than merely taking in snippets of information, and this can be very powerful indeed.

To illustrate the point, let’s take the Hovis example. The cultural context is rich in references that have numerous positive associations:

The boy – innocence, youthful optimism, courage, energy

A quest – to get home despite challenges being placed before him

Play – interacting with events in a child-like playful way

Marching – purposeful, strong, disciplined, going into battle and being up for a fight, resolve

Urban regeneration – continual improvement

The nation’s people – a sense of community, all in it together

What’s interesting is that not a lot of this has anything to do with Hovis or indeed bread, other than the fact it was there throughout – not really a motivator in itself.

Another example is Omo’s ‘Dirt is good’ campaign. The brand is defined in efficacious terms, and yet the power of the campaign is the brands ability to legitimately attach itself to a cultural truth; that children have a richer and more rewarding childhood if they have the freedom to do things that might get them dirty. Or put the other way getting dirty is good for your child’s development. It takes us back to when we were young, who we were with, where we were, what stuck in our minds, as well as reminding us of our newer experiences as parents and our desire for our children to experience the liberated feelings we enjoyed when life was simpler and safer.

The changes in the marketing landscape that I mentioned earlier mean that a brand can as Mark Earls puts it “light lots of little fires” that in themselves are quite small, but added together create a rich tapestry of associations that create energy and dynamism.

5. Energy has a halo effect on brand equity

One thing that tracking has told us is that campaigns that create brand energy have the effect of inferring positive values on the brand which were not necessarily explicitly communicated. Energy makes a brand appear popular and creates an expectation that it will be of good quality. This is another example of the two systems in our brains working together – if we feel moved by something that has captured our attention by triggering our system 2 then we logically deduce that it must be good.

Another factor here is that we all want to associate with success, and that’s why we are drawn to successful people and are prepared to be led by charismatic leaders, and conversely feel let down when they disappoint us. And it’s the same with brands. A brand on the way up and that is talked about positively gives us confidence that it will perform, and that people will respect us for choosing it.

What’s interesting is that it’s the opposite of the way we think people consume advertising. It’s convenient to think that a message is taken on board, considered and people see the brand in a better light as a result. But the most successful campaigns first and foremost make us feel good and we then attribute positive associations to the brand as a result.

To Follow:  Part 2 – Why culture is a source of Energy for brands

Further Reading

Building Strong Brands – David A. Aaker, Simon & Schuster, 2002

How Brands Grow – Byron Sharpe, Oxford University Press 2010

Thinking, Fast and Slow – Daniel Kahneman, Allen Lane 2011

Nudge – Richard H Thaler & Cass R Sunstein, Penguin 2009

Grow: How Ideals Power Growth and Profits at The World’s 50 Greatest Companies – Jim Stengel, Virgin Books 2012

Velocity: The Seven New Laws for a World Gone Digital – Ajaz Ahmed & Stefan Olander, Vermilion 2012

Hovis: As Good Today As It’s Ever Been – IPA Effectiveness Awards 2010 http://www.ipaeffectivenessawards.co.uk/Entrant.aspx?id=209

Feed Your Family For a Fiver: How a communications idea helped Sainsbury’s through the recession - IPA Effectiveness Awards 2010  http://www.ipaeffectivenessawards.co.uk/Entrant.aspx?id=277

BrandZ Top 100 Most Valuable Global Brands 2012, Report 

http://www.wpp.com/NR/rdonlyres/4B44C834-AEA8-4951-871A-A5B937EBFD3E/0/brandz_2012_top_100.pdf

'Why' brands do what they do is more important than 'What' they make

According to Sinek, it explains why we would buy an mp3 player from Apple and not from Dell.
They're both computer companies and yet Dell makes computers and Apple pursues an ideal that people identify with. What you do is simply proof of what you believe.

Opinions drive engagement

Simple is a new type of bank in the US. It's invitation only, and seeks to simplify banking by getting rid of all the hassling that banks do to try and sell to you, and in doing so making things simpler and easier to use.

The cool thing is that they have had 90,000 applications for an invitation to join despite doing any advertising, and some people have been waiting for 2 years. They have a simple opinion on banking and are seeing it though at every touchpoint. Great stuff, and a brand with an ideal.

They are currently keeping it small so they control and fix as quickly as possible and discover as much as they can about the sector whilst they can be at their most nimble.
DeRouchey puts this success chiefly down to ‘opinion’. By having an opinion Simple can create engagement with their consumer. They go as far as saying that a lot of companies try to be human, using real world language and imagery, but unless you create engagement you are still just a “fictional entity” with a friendly tone. Engagement he believes comes from having an opinion on the world, this means that people will have to think.

So they believe “…that banking sucks. So, what if it didn’t suck? Actually what would it be like if it was awesome?”

In order to achieve this goal Simple really has considered every single touchpoint. From ‘safe spend’ totals instead of just your actual balance, to “ridiculously searchable” instantly updated (well within 5 seconds) accounts that make your accounts your life story. So when you need to know what you ate for lunch in the last week and how much it cost, that is completely do-able.

On their mission they are also more than willing to sacrifice official banking methods and out of date tech.

“We refuse to spend time on outdated media. Spending resource on backward capability media means we cant use it somewhere else”

And to anyone who has ever designed a website, you will understand and get down on your knees and praise them- this means they don’t support Internet Explorer. They want it right and working. Simple.

Portland/CreativeMornings - Bill DeRouchey from CreativeMornings/Portland on Vimeo.