I was conducting a media training refresher session with some experienced communicators from a major company when one of them expressed frustration that the marketers wanted to over-emphasize the company name or the product name in a press release. “It doesn’t always fit,” she said. “What do you say to them?” That led us through a discussion of the logic train of thought about problem and solution. We also touched on motivation behind the communication and premise regarding the receiver of the communication. With more time to think about it here’s my expanded take on the issue she raised. First, the marketers are not wrong to want to get out the brand names in the communication. What’s missing is a discussion with those marketers as to just what the communication (press release) is supposed to accomplish, and who exactly is it aimed at? If the answer comes back that “it’s everyone and we want them to buy the product or services of the company,” then there is a problem. If it comes back that the target is only those aware of their own need who are ready to choose a supplier to satisfy that need, then you’re fine. Here’s why. Years ago I had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Walter Lindenmann, the head of research at Ketchum Public Relations. Walt used a model to explain the process that the brain of the receiver goes through to act upon the satisfying of a need. Basically he said they have to be aware of the solution, have to develop an attitude of acceptance of the solution and then have to behave in such a way as to choose the solution. The receiver, he said, harbors ‘latent readiness’ to move through the different stages of awareness, attitude and behavior. Typically, a trigger must be present to move the receiver to the next stage. An urgent need can be the trigger to swift movement though all three stages. So let’s apply this model to the press release problem. I would argue that the brand solution, in the absence of a problem statement and generic solution, would mean the receiver is aware of the need (problem statement) and has decided that the need can be satisfied by a particular solution (generic solution) represented by a number of brands (branded solution). The receiver has just not chosen the solution yet. Therefore, almost all that is required for this segment of the broad audience is the communicating of a brand name solution. This would make sense to this qualified audience and might trigger the desired behaviour of having them choose your brand. But what about the rest of the broad audience exposed to the press release?Where are their brains in terms of latent readiness? Some of that audience does not know they have a need. They haven’t thought about it. Just throwing a brand solution at this audience is unlikely to elicit the desired behavior. They are likely to ignore the communication altogether because it doesn’t trigger their awareness of the need. It doesn’t really speak to their stage of interest. Some of the audience may know they have a need but aren’t settled on the solution that the brand can deliver. So, they need more than a brand mention, they need an argument to influence attitude formation and acceptance of the desired choice. The truly amazing thing is that when time and effort is spent on the first two, then often the behaviour is self triggered by the receiver. They say: “Yes, that is my problem (need, want, threat, etc.). And that kind of solution would certainly take care of it. So, where do I get this solution?” Bingo! Time for the branded solution. Why waste the few opportunities we get by mis-constructing the communication because of lack of analysis of the receiver’s brain and thinking process?I believe that if PR people can have this discussion with their marketers, they can reach a clear understanding of the target audience, understand their stage of latent readiness, and shape the structure and language of the release so that everyone can feel better about it. If, however, the marketers say no, we want everyone as a target, then a discussion of how the brain works using a model like Lindenmann’s will clearly show that that takes more than a brand reference without the ‘problem – solution’ logic train. It’s not easy. What we learned as we grew up and received our education and practised as communication gives us a base of knowledge, but it is not always full enough, or attuned enough, or applied properly enough to ensure we communicate well. More research and analysis will help. I referenced Lindenmann’s model above. It is a useful and practical way to look at the receiver’s brain. But many will take issue with it. Gerald Zaltman in his book How Customers Think: Essential Insights into the Mind of the Market says the logic argument only touches a small group of customers. Most are not logical because that suggests conscious processing and he argues that much of the brain processing of market behavior is sub or unconscious. My point is not to promote one thesis above another. What I can argue and would suggest to any communicator who is frustrated with what a colleague is proposing should go into a communication such as a press release, is to challenge the premise of their opinion. Simply ask questions that will bring out the thinking behind the opinion. Get clarity. Get at the research that supports the opinion. There is quantitative and qualitative research. And there is brain research. And sometimes the quantitative and qualitative are looking at brain related issues – psychology and sociology. But we won’t get what we want to send from our brain to the receiver’s brain right unless we know how the receiver’s brain is going to receive what we send them. Copyright 2004 Patrick McGee
I was watching a documenary on K-tel International recently. They blitzed TV with ads for compilation music albums and kitchen and home gadgets. When they stuck to their knitting they were extremely successful. A former marketing manager says in the documentary that they estimated it took four solid exposures to get a consumer to buy. So they purchased about 150 spots a week on TV and radio to drive buying behavior in the stores. This is just one bit of street proof that you should get to the consumer more than once. They also created engagement. I was just on the net researching K-tel and came across comments from bloggers that once they heard the ads for the albums they couldn’t get the songs out of their heads. Drove them crazy. But they bought the product. The K-tel guys also used the strategy to get into stores. In the UK, where no one had heard of them, the main stores refused to carry their product. So K-tel ran their ads and listed the desired stores where they wanted their product carried: “available at ….”. When people came into the stores looking for the product the stores reconsidered and placed orders. So, a combination of repetition and engagement gets most consumers to behave the way we want them to. A powerful story that draws them in helps to overcome a lack of repetition.
