Exhibit 4: Lovemarks
Kevin Roberts’ book Lovemarks (2004) explains that in 1997, Saatchi & Saatchi was focused on ‘three great ideas’: becoming an ideas company, delivering peak performance and answering ‘the critical question: what comes after brands?’24 The answer, says Roberts, is Lovemarks. In the first days of commerce, products were simply products. Later, trademarks evolved to identify products made by specific, reputable companies. However, intense competition reduces the impact of trademarks and erodes their power to differentiate, with the result that they become commoditised. Brands provided an answer, embodying and expressing ‘the stuff that has meaning for consumers: consistency, quality, performance and value.’ But in a world where consumers are saturated with unsolicited marketing messages, even branding is no longer enough. Brands that boast about benefits (‘bigger, brighter, better, stronger, faster, easier, newer’) may command respect but can no longer cut through the media barrage that surrounds people every day. Brands are overused, lack mystery, fail to engage with consumers’ intelligence, are often formulaic and/or conservative, and compete with each other ever more fiercely. Brands, Roberts argues, are ‘out of juice… they can’t stand out in the marketplace, and they are struggling to connect with people’.
The smart response is to drive more emotion into customer interactions, working with what consumers love as well as respect. ‘People are looking for new, emotional connections… they have higher expectations’. Emotion has become legitimised as a subject for business and management thought in recent years, because executives have realised that ‘human beings are powered by emotion, not reason’. In marketing and branding, this translates into the quest for Lovemarks – brands that inspire Loyalty Beyond Reason. Lovemarks are brands that evoke or generate emotion in both the marketing of a product and its actual use (what Procter & Gamble terms the ‘two moments of truth’). On the dimensions of consumer love and respect, Lovemarks command both. Brands command respect only; fads attract love without respect or true performance and hence fade fast. Businesses, products and services that command neither love nor respect are commodities.
In line with the concept that it is consumers’ love (rather than an ad agency) that creates a Lovemark, a Saatchi & Saatchi-run website (www.lovemarks.com) allows visitors to nominate their own candidates for Lovemark status – they range from the predictable (iPods) to the unexpected and largely un-commercial (Fado, a style of Portuguese music).
Exhibit 5: Sisomo
Lovemarks (see Exhibit 4) ‘embody mystery, sensuality and intimacy’, and according to Kevin Roberts, the principal way in which they do so is through ‘sisomo’ (sight, sound and motion). Sisomo, the follow-up book to Lovemarks published in 200625, makes the case for the combination of sight, sound and motion, as delivered through media such as TV, cinema, video games, mobile telephony and the internet, being ‘the new way to engage people everywhere’. ‘The screen’ in its many forms is key, because of its penetration into every aspect of our lives and the unique ways in which we interact with it. As with Lovemarks, the critical element in connecting to customers is emotion, rather than simple technical innovation; ‘sisomo’ is about creating ‘high-impact emotional content on screen’.
According to Roberts, the context in which old-style brands succeeded was the ‘attention economy’. Brands that got attention, either through creative originality or the brute strength of mass media, also got sales. (This was, of course, the world in which the ‘old’ Saatchi & Saatchi prospered.) By creating sisomo content and building Lovemarks, marketers can carve out a niche in what Roberts terms the ‘attraction economy’, the new reality in which consumers’ choices, rather than companies’ intentions, are the key determinants of success.
Exhibit 6: Hours per person per year using consumer media in US
|
1999
|
2000
|
2001
|
2002
|
2003
|
2004
|
2005
|
20061
|
20071
|
20081
|
20091
|
Total Broadcast Television
|
797
|
793
|
744
|
719
|
696
|
678
|
679
|
684
|
678
|
675
|
681
|
Total Cable & Satellite TV
|
630
|
674
|
744
|
800
|
847
|
868
|
869
|
871
|
877
|
891
|
881
|
Broadcast Satellite & Radio
|
939
|
942
|
952
|
991
|
1,003
|
986
|
978
|
975
|
974
|
984
|
984
|
Newspapers
|
205
|
201
|
197
|
194
|
192
|
188
|
183
|
179
|
175
|
170
|
165
|
Recorded Music
|
281
|
258
|
229
|
200
|
184
|
185
|
179
|
175
|
175
|
169
|
165
|
Consumer Internet
|
65
|
104
|
131
|
147
|
164
|
176
|
183
|
190
|
195
|
200
|
203
|
Consumer Magazines
|
134
|
135
|
127
|
125
|
121
|
124
|
124
|
122
|
122
|
122
|
121
|
Consumer Books
|
117
|
107
|
106
|
109
|
109
|
108
|
106
|
106
|
106
|
106
|
106
|
Video Games
|
58
|
64
|
66
|
70
|
75
|
77
|
78
|
82
|
86
|
93
|
96
|
Home Video
|
41
|
43
|
47
|
57
|
60
|
67
|
76
|
84
|
91
|
95
|
99
|
Box Office
|
13
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
13
|
12
|
12
|
12
|
12
|
12
|
12
|
Interactive TV & Wireless
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
4
|
7
|
11
|
15
|
19
|
26
|
32
|
42
|
Total
|
3,280
|
3,333
|
3,356
|
3,430
|
3,471
|
3,480
|
3,482
|
3,499
|
3,517
|
3,549
|
3,555
|
Source: Veronis Suher Stevenson
1Estimate
Exhibit 7: U.S. advertising spending 1999-2009
$m
Year
|
Television
|
Radio
|
Newspapers
|
Consumer Magazines
|
Business to Business Magazines
|
Consumer Internet
|
Yellow Pages
|
Outdoor
|
Cinema
|
Video Games
|
Total
|
1999
|
49,375
|
17,681
|
50,689
|
11,433
|
10,492
|
4,621
|
13,196
|
4,832
|
129
|
3
|
162,451
|
2000
|
56,208
|
19,848
|
53,371
|
12,370
|
11,659
|
8,087
|
14,267
|
5,235
|
194
|
9
|
181,248
|
2001
|
50,865
|
18,369
|
49,093
|
11,095
|
10,085
|
7,134
|
15,035
|
5,233
|
246
|
22
|
167,168
|
2002
|
54,729
|
19,411
|
49,079
|
10,995
|
9,028
|
6,010
|
15,231
|
5,232
|
301
|
44
|
170,060
|
2003
|
55,863
|
19,607
|
50,126
|
11,435
|
9,263
|
7,267
|
15,366
|
5,504
|
361
|
79
|
174,871
|
2004
|
62,101
|
20,022
|
52,152
|
12,121
|
9,845
|
9,626
|
15,928
|
5,834
|
438
|
120
|
188,187
|
2005
|
65,668
|
20,571
|
54,090
|
12,788
|
10,558
|
12,629
|
16,522
|
6,144
|
522
|
178
|
199,670
|
2006
|
71,499
|
21,258
|
56,262
|
13,555
|
11,330
|
16,052
|
17,274
|
6,481
|
608
|
267
|
214,586
|
2007
|
75,132
|
22,120
|
58,126
|
14,409
|
12,115
|
20,002
|
18,067
|
6,849
|
694
|
402
|
227,916
|
2008
|
81,931
|
23,419
|
60,204
|
15,346
|
12,962
|
24,062
|
18,975
|
7,234
|
782
|
594
|
245,509
|
2009
|
86,612
|
24,565
|
62,086
|
16,347
|
13,803
|
28,198
|
19,973
|
7,623
|
863
|
800
|
260,897
|
Exhibit 8: The world’s largest media buying networks ranked by projected billings; 2006
-
Network
|
Owner Group
|
Projected 2006 billings $bn
|
Market share %
|
Starcom MediaVest
|
Publicis
|
25.6
|
7.4
|
OMD
|
Omnicom
|
24.9
|
7.2
|
MindShare
|
WPP
|
23.8
|
6.9
|
Carat
|
Aegis
|
23.5
|
6.8
|
Zenith Optimedia
|
Publicis
|
19.3
|
5.5
|
Mediaedge
|
WPP
|
18.8
|
5.4
|
MediaCom
|
WPP
|
17.9
|
5.2
|
Universal McCann
|
Interpublic
|
13.6
|
3.9
|
Initiative
|
Interpublic
|
12.3
|
3.5
|
MPG
|
Havas
|
9.8
|
2.8
|
PHD
|
Omnicom
|
5.6
|
1.6
|
Total networks
|
|
195.1
|
56.4
|
Non-network
|
|
152.8
|
43.6
|
Total
|
|
347.9
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
|
WPP total
|
|
60.5
|
17.5
|
Publicis total
|
|
44.9
|
12.9
|
Omnicom total
|
|
30.5
|
9.0
|
Interpublic total
|
|
25.9
|
7.4
|
Aegis total
|
|
23.5
|
6.8
|
Havas total
|
|
9.8
|
2.8
|
Source: RECMA 2006
Exhibit 9: Key P&L ratios for principal UK marketing services sectors on a per employee basis; 2005
|
Ad. agencies
|
Media buyers
|
Direct marketing & sales promotion
|
Public relations
|
Branding & design
|
Per employee
|
£
|
%
|
£
|
%
|
£
|
%
|
£
|
%
|
£
|
%
|
Gross income
|
97057
|
100%
|
70518
|
100%
|
77676
|
100%
|
81931
|
100%
|
78049
|
100%
|
Employment costs
|
54586
|
56%
|
38765
|
55%
|
47792
|
62%
|
48937
|
60%
|
50566
|
65%
|
Gross margin
|
42471
|
44%
|
31753
|
45%
|
29884
|
38%
|
32994
|
40%
|
27483
|
35%
|
Other costs
|
32104
|
33%
|
21231
|
30%
|
21447
|
28%
|
23949
|
29%
|
21583
|
28%
|
Operating profit
|
10367
|
11%
|
10522
|
15%
|
8437
|
11%
|
9045
|
11%
|
5900
|
8%
|
Share with your friends: |