I’m a bit of a sucker for decent evidence behind marketing campaigns – both to inform campaign development and to work out afterwards whether it was actually worth doing in the first place.
But commercial considerations mean that it’s usually only when a campaign has gone really well that a company or agency wants to brag about their work. After all an unsuccessful campaign doesn’t make for much of an award entry does it?
A piece on The Drum in late January on the “Share a Coke” campaign caught my eye as it was based on statistically valid research into brand awareness and perception as well as actual advertising exposure.
The case study gives a really good insight into how the campaign worked – with two things standing out to me.
The first is a recognition of the value of personalisation in a marketing campaign as well as the difficulties of getting this right in a data-sensitive consumer environment.
The reason good personalisation works is that it taps into an emotional connection between a brand, an individual and their networks. The “Share a Coke” campaign demonstrated this is possible without taking a heavyweight big data approach to personalisation in marketing campaigns.
And secondly the data highlights that social isn’t simply another marketing channel that you consider alongside other channels. It highlights the value of a social approach in maximising impact from every marketing channel.
That’s because social is a pervasive force that is relevant across all marketing channels – as genuine social is about connections, networks and people – all of which exist independently from the marketing world.
So that means that an integrated marketing campaign needs to exist across multiple channels according to objectives and audience, but also be developed with the socially-connected audience in mind.
This which means understanding the human pyschological and emotional responses involved in the marketing mechanic – meaning marketers need to think more about whether the campaign should work on Facebook or not.