When Brands ‘Trash-Talk’ by Bernard Okhakume

YES, Brands can and do engage in purposeless communication. If we permit street-level vocabulary here, such engagement can be classified as either trash-talk(ing) or arrant nonsense. For purpose of professionalism, though, we shall run through the systematic indictors that guides our classification of brand communication, against established benchmark, that will lay bare where certain types of brand talk self-indicate their character and position in the scheme of renditions.
Before we continue, please permit us to formally announce the introduction of our CARTOON SPEAK column in this page, for a more robust market influence, with consumer satisfaction in mind. Our readers shall from now, get 2-in-1 from every of our weekly publication. We await readers’ reaction or contributions, as we continue to engage in market monitoring, analysis and professional comments in CARTOON format.
Brand messages should be products derived from a process of careful distillation of a brand’s essence and promise, guided by (identified) consumer expectation. Essentially. Brands are constantly faced with points of achievement and disconnect. So brands’ successes are rated by the extent to which they resonate with the target market (at their critical value touch-points). Interestingly, it is very easy to
determine the success point of any of such brand-consumer engagement because it is value-based. It all depend on the interpretation of the consumer-experience; it’s either the consumer is satisfied and kicks off a relationship with the brand offer or it sparks off a sharp disconnect as a result of negative after-experience.

We know brands can be emotive of rational. So we are considering a basic principle here, without being unmindful of the existent shades of interpretation; the point of divide is blurred between rational and emotional brand scenes, to the extent that market reaction is more instant and distinct in one case than the other. But interestingly, it must happen in all cases, not minding the market. So we are saying whereas consumer in consumer-goods market (households, for instance) react to a brand’s offering much readily and faster, compared to that in the leisure and tours market, they will all react at some point based on their experience.
That responsibility of ensuring a positive consumer experience for the brand, drive professional brand managers critical engagement in the process of developing brands’ marketing communication (and advertising) products. Marketing communication should of essence, either sell a new experience or enforce an existing one. But poor efforts have found the grey area in-between. Within the grey area, laggards thrive, taking advantage of poor value rating & appreciation on the part of consumers, uninformed purchase decision-making process, low-end competition, small value purchase power and institutional failure.
SO, we get to be faced with advert messages without promise. At best (in the case of audio-visual messages) we get muffled montage, self-profiling, deceitful positioning, and amplified forced endorsement. A toothpaste brand now has the guts to use models depicting of a doctor, fully kitted to serve the purpose of endorsement by a medial authority…against the law/rule! Bank CEOs would come in a TV commercial to read the brand’s corporate profile, leaving the audience (targeted or not) more confused. Most of the GSM brands have confused the market so much so, they have ended up confusing themselves, entertaining themselves and making unkempt promises (robbing themselves of credibility and CREDULITY.
The most annoying are those brand/sales promotion messages. Most of them are bold deceit! When the public do not pay attention, concerned brands lose the message, which is that ‘we don’t care anymore, do whatever you like’. How do you explain promo-messages in which models come on air to announce their names and pronounce prize-money won in an on-going promotion, without verifiable facts? Because the institution and system that should help straighten culprit-brands are failing in their responsibilities, concerned brand run wild in disgust and shamelessness. We cannot continue this way and think all is well.
Let us take a cue form MAKE IN INDIA campaign on cable TV (definite promise), see Turkish Airline…these represent professional marketing communication products. Any marketing communication effort that does not establish its promise inside 15 seconds (not minding the format or medium) is a waste. Same vein, any campaign message that does not enjoy credibility and therefore TA believability, is a waste and poisonous to the brand. The process of developing a brand message must take ample advantage of research findings, critical analysis, and scientific derivation of promise; it must carefully define its offer and engage the target market, spot-on. Until brands engage professionals and obey institutional guides, regulations and established quality standards, many of them will be missing the point in their communication, losing return on investment and share of market. Telling a brand’s story requires professional involvement from start to finish. The Advertising Practitioners’ Council of Nigeria, Advertising Agency Association of Nigeria, Consumer Protection Council of Nigeria, National Lottery Regulatory Commission and even the Standards Organisation Of Nigeria should all collaborate to assure quality control in marketing communication practice (and among practitioners) in Nigeria.

Do You Know
RADIO Stations in Nigeria have systematically passed a percentage of their operating cost to the listeners by their CALL-IN PROGRAMS. Mass communication is about content development; CALL-IN PROGRAM of Radio Stations, form a major portion of their broadcast contents. Radio stations have devised operational system by which most of their programs are listener-sponsored, in form of phone-in programs, which constitutes about between 15-25% of an average radio stations, in their new order of programming.
If the Radio stations must run audience participatory programs, they must step up to the responsibility of funding them, and not pass the cost to the listeners. Radio stations should build in toll-free system billing system to support audience call-in, instead of systematically passing the cost to listeners; they must fund them by absorbing the cost of phone calls during audience-participatory PHONE-IN programs. Callers’ contribution make up about 75% of the inputs into these programs. Consumer Protection Council, CPC, and the Broadcast Commission should take note, and do something about this evident consumer abuse/professional practice standard compromise!
Please visit our Blog www.brandmechanics.blogspot.com for more incisive contents

ctredit:http://leadership.ng