Make fragmentation your friend

Brand owners' nightmare not so spooky

August 2008
Steve Shearman, Touchpoint

Media fragmentation has long been promoted as marketing's worst nightmare, adding cost and complication to a job that was once satisfied by casting inviting messages in the right general direction. With consumers now looking and watching in so many different places, joining the dots between subdivided attention and positive action is advertising's biggest headache.

But rather than lament the diffusion of audience mass, brand owners should instead embrace the opportunity for continued conversations that fragmentation has created. Instead of simply asking, "How are we going to reach our consumers?" and engineering creative for the media judged most likely to reach the largest number of target consumers, consider asking a broader question: "What journey do we need our consumers to take so they actually end up wanting to buy our product?"

The question is a nod to the rapid emergence of digital tools and a certain appetite for interaction that weren't evident 10 years ago. So while 'one-way' messaging - most television advertising
- continues to work as an impression maker, its inability to seamlessly link impression with action ignores many of today's consumers primed to take things into their own hands.

Take car buying, for example. Brand advertising still has its place, acting as a buying compass of sorts, but on its own it is unlikely to spur an interested customer to make an on-the-spot purchase. Buyers will usually seek out more information first, speaking to dealers, digging around websites, and comparing cars on the lot. It is only when a certain information threshold has been reached that the chequebook appears.

Information and response mechanisms should populate a number of channels, so customers can interact on their own terms - where and when they see fit. The process is a journey and campaigns must concentrate on staying with potential buyers through this journey, appearing at the right points along the way, so that when consumers are ready to buy, brand owners are still in the frame.

An example of a campaign that did this well is the Turners True Market Challenge. It used press and radio advertising to introduce consumers to a new sales-based valuation service. The ads were shown to the masses, but would-be buyers could choose to respond through a number of channels, depending on the line of conversation they wanted to pursue. Allowing consumers to request historical vehicle sales information, via either their mobiles or the web, put them in control.

A 30 second TVC or radio ad on its own isn't going to cut it. While certainly good bait for 70 percent of the country, it wasn't going to fulfil the information requirements of the 10 to 30 percent of 'hot'consumers Turners was looking for.

But the idea of showing up in lots of different places poses new challenges to message delivery. Rather than using one sheet of A4, a multi-pronged approach is tantamount to leaving messages on lots of bits of paper, which must be brought together to form a coherent whole. Selecting the right transfer mechanism - the glue - is key to preserving campaign continuity.

Seeing a web address on a billboard is tough to remember until you're next online, so leading consumers to your website via a text message is probably going to be more effective. Similarly, asking consumers to respond via text to an online banner advertisement won't work as well as an online link, which is just a mouse click away. It's only through the correct combination of these mechanisms that the entire story can be told. The trick is understanding which media types are best at driving interim interaction with their target markets. However, this is no mean feat. Comparing the effectiveness of different media is elusive.

It is rather pointless comparing the media cost of a 30 second TVC with that of an online banner. Sure, a 30 second TVC might reach 70 percent of the population, while an online banner ad might reach a seemingly paltry five percent. But then the TVC campaign might cost you $20,000 whereas the banner could cost as little as $2,000. However, it is the outcomes that determine value. The TVC might drive 100 requests for additional information and theoretical impression building, while the $2,000 banner advertisement might drive 200 people directly to your website. Comparing impacts rather than absolute cost or number of eyeballs is the only true measurement of effectiveness.

So as marketers, don't be scared of fragmentation. Instead, use it to keep the conversation flowing. Rather than mumbling to the masses, use the right media to truly interact with the people who really matter.

<< Back to Media Releases
<< Back to In The News