In the previous part we introduced the notions of Data Availability vs Established Bias, and Media Inputs vs Competing Interests, as the opposing tensions that we all manage in our lives as shoppers, and as digital citizens in general. We exercised the model a bit by showing how it responds to 5 completely obvious questions, and then we discussed a “Better-Best-Good” approach to data-driven marketing that balances a generally targeted approach vs. a highly personalized execution.
For those of you particularly adept at reading between the lines, you can see we’re aiming more for relative accuracy than a direct hit. “Why,” you may ask, “with all the power of data and measurement at my fingertips, should I settle for ‘close’ when I can have ‘perfect’?”
The answer to that very good question brings us to another question.
When Was the Last Time You Told A 5-Year-Old to Put On His Shoes?
If getting a small child ready for school is part of your daily routine, then you know what I’m talking about. There are times when you — who should be in complete control of what seems like a very simple situation — can do almost nothing to effect a particular outcome. Except repeat your request. Over and over again. Until you break through, somehow. But at that point you’re not the driver, you’re the passenger and a 5-year-old is at the wheel. And yet, after all this struggle, yours are the arms they run gleefully into when they emerge from school.
As a marketer working in an age with the competing tensions we discussed earlier, we have increasingly less ability to compel a consumer to buy what we’re selling. You don’t want to believe this and you cannot let your boss know this, but it’s true. Before you collapse into a sobbing, heaving mess and spill out this confession to the higher-ups, let’s look at the real problem. And it’s not you.
Both the Purchasing Funnel and Consumer Journey models imply an agreement between a buyer and a seller:
I, the buyer, am dedicated to making a purchase and, if I do not follow through, it will have been because you did something wrong, or didn’t do something at all.
This doesn’t exist in the real world. Consumer behavior this tidy and focused is rare if not nonexistent. We here know that e-commerce converts at about 10% of traditional retail, but that e-commerce is a much more efficient channel. The notion of efficiency in digital marketing means simply that digital makes it much less costly to be wrong.
Being negative is no fun. Let’s take digital’s efficiencies and combine them with the ways that mobile access to content, information and connections between people have impacted consumer behaviors, and hammer out a reasonable strategy:
“Increase sales (over some reasonable period, like 2 quarters) by delivering the right information about our products through the channels that are best for each of our audience segments, so that when the time is right for the consumer we’ll be ready to do the transaction.”
This strategy seems acceptable except we have removed our accountability for the element of time. We can define a measurement period but we don’t promise to shorten the duration between “discovery” and “transaction” because we simply can’t. The consumer’s competing tensions show there is no easy 4-step funnel or clearly defined milestone-driven process governing the way they take decisions.
What we are promising with this strategy is:
To optimize our use of all relevant channels and media inputs, and…
…either negate or leverage the consumer’s competing interests and established biases…
…to be the consumer’s preferred option when she is ready to make the purchase.
Our strategy is to not expect results by endlessly repeating the same message to an audience that may have other things occupying their focus. It is to position our products and brand as that company they run happily toward when the time comes. To accomplish this, we need to be able to see the world as the consumer sees it, tensions and all.
Enough talking. Let’s have a look at the model in 3-D.
In this model the point of initiation of activity that could result in a transaction is shown by the cube in the bottom right position, which is our starting point. Because everything has to start somewhere.
Our end point — when the transaction actually happened — is shown by the cube at the farthest, top-most part of the whole assembly. This is a good place for us to look a bit more deeply.
Visualizing our experiences as a cube of cubes revealed itself as very effective because a consumer’s progression from a starting point to a transaction is rarely defined by a single experience. Instead, over a period of time that we have precious little impact on, the consumer balances different individual influences and moments — micro-experiences — that end somewhere. This end may or may not be the transaction retailers or brands desire. Sometimes the consumer gets stuck short of our goal. But this doesn’t reduce the value of the experiences she had getting there, and it gives you, the marketer, a clear goal for getting her from her endpoint to your desired conclusion.
It is worth mentioning that there is no scientific reason why is this a 5x5x5 cube. Given the amount of peripheral noise and adjacent influences that happen in each one of our lives, a standard 3x3x3 cube wasn’t sufficiently granular, and a 7x7x7 cube was harder to visually read at a smaller size. The notion of 123 potential ways to be distracted in the time and space between start and completion — given my experience at having a 5-year-old put on his shoes — feels about right.
And now you have a snappy answer for the question, “What’s five to the 3rd power?” A start and a finish plus 123 equals 125.
You’re welcome.
TL/DR Alert: All the thrilling details can be found in our Medium.com blog, click for more.