Platforms

I had to write a text about the use of multi-platforms to optimize creativity.

And that’s my opinion about the theme (under 25 lines).

Optimize the experience

I dare to say that the changes we lived in the media landscape in the last ten years were unique and exposed us, agencies, to communicate in new and unexpected ways. Mass media rapidly lost its reign to new channels and tools because people are in charge now.

Their demands are active and happen through lots of platforms because of a simple reason: they go after what is appealing and interesting to their eyes. And it doesn’t matter if this is on TV, on the internet or at a live event.

In this way, the concept of using multi-platforms to optimize creativity bothers me a little bit. Because it sounds to me as if we were still thinking on the message perspective and not thinking on how best use a mix of platforms to come up with a strategy/creativity able to make people engage and relate with an idea (be it an experience, a storytelling or a product, for instance). To make my point clearer, I’ll use the launching of Halo 3 to explain the difference.

Thinking about Halo 3, you could see that lots of platforms were used to articulate not only the advertising of a new game, but the experience of a mythical and heroic storytelling. The campaign wasn’t proposing a message, but an idea big and powerful that people could engage and participate. They did films, internet, live actions, promotions, PR and more, using the power of each platform, combining them to offer different experiences and opportunities for people to join the story.

This is opposed to the use of multi-platforms leveraging one single message. When it happens you are just reaching people by different touch-points, but it doesn’t mean you are engaging and connecting to them. What is, definitely, not an optimization.

Look at Nike and Red Bull

Everyday new powerful creative ideas emerge on the marketing field trying to empower the brands behind it. A lot of them make me feel very pleasant on the way some companies and agencies are walking the walk, by the way.

But nothing makes me feel so enthusiast as when I see brands doing differently on its strategy to connect and engage with consumers as a result of its inner belief on how to be more meaningful for them.

Two brands that I believe do differently because of their beliefs and behaviors are Red Bull and Nike.

Red Bull has always had its own particular way to build the brand. It ever knew what it was all about. And to communicate its values and spirit, there was no best way than to focus on the targets’ lifestyles, promote the integration between the brand and communities and offer incredible experiences only reached via Red Bull.

You can say that events, athlete sponsorships and PR coverage were the main pillars to deliver the Red Bull experience. But if we look more carefully, we see that digital marketing, and even advertising, were also important to complete the whole brand experience (delivering different messages as well).

Nike is another brand that has also always created its own culture, but is now putting more importance on the experience with the brand. What is most interesting about Nike today is how it is changing its marketing approach to connect with consumers.

The brand that once used tv ads to be at the top and to immaculate a bunch of sports stars is now more concerned on creating bonds with real people. Doing that through programs and strategies anchored on an idea of how the brand could provide experiences and services that are more useful. Moreover, using the power of its own brand and products combined (e.g.: Nike ID and Nike Plus).

For me, it’s the perfect example of a brand that understood that the age of brand image has passed away (as John Grant defends with Brand Innovation). Relevance and differentiation today have more to do with the way you connect linking brand experiences to what consumers can take from it.