Creativity and coffee shops: an example of balancing message, brand and objective
Even point of sale creatives require strategic thinking
I didn’t set out to make The Dispash focus on coffee shops. But somehow there’s just so much to unpick as a marketer in this sector (and a fair bit of my disposable income goes towards this sector) that this can be viewed as a coffee shop analysis part two.
I’ve also had some nice comments from regular readers. If you’re one of them, please do invite friends and colleagues to subscribe.
The Dispash would have been two days earlier but I made the mistake of starting to watch Stranger Things 4 and I’m still traumatised by episode 4.
Onwards
Good and bad creative isn’t always clear cut: a story of two coffee shops.
Creativity is one of the hardest parts of marketing to get right. Some of the best adverts - think the drumming gorilla - often require a leap on faith on all sides.
Even those that are a little more literal - Snickers' You're Not You When You're Hungry - often require a bit of a mental leap from the insight (Snickers is one of the best chocolate bars at quickly tackling hunger) to saying "Hey, let's put Betty White on a team of college footballers."
Good creativity is rooted in good strategy, insight, and a clearly articulated product benefit - and a good brief, obviously. But it's also subjective.
I've seen clients reject ideas because they personally disliked a breed of dog or pick a concept that is the exact opposite of the brief because it seemed more in keeping with what they expected from a campaign, even when the brief and the data was clearly pointing in a different direction.
But creative can also be over lauded without actually delivering much for the brand. Burger King has a pile of awards and critical acclaim but have also dropped behind Wendy's in terms of market share.
Cannes' awarded creative does not necessarily equal effectiveness. Clients may not always get creativity, but creatives don't always get the brief.
Probably one of the best examples of creative subjectivity was recently highlighted by industry veteran Dave Trott.
"Whose POS [point of sale] stands out and is more appetising?" asked Trott, when he Tweeted a picture of two coffee shop street signs next to each other, one for the chain Paul, and one for an independent called Intermission.
Creativity wins?
At the risk of overthinking what is, essentially, two coffee shop signs, it also pulls together a number of consistent threads in marketing debates.
Intermission, which I would default towards, is a quite lovely design. It's very brand heavy: if I didn't buy a coffee today, I'd be tempted to go back to it another day.
Judging by Trott's Twitter replies, a lot of creatives also preferred intermission: the design suggests an experience tailored to a more creative audience than Paul.
But personal preference for creativity doesn’t necessarily mean that the creative hits the goal. When we say adverts need to be good, good is a relative term.
So while I prefer Intermission’s design to Paul, does it mean that the design is more effective?
Advertising strategist Claire Strickett’s response neatly summed this up: if you’re after coffee, you would probably be more attuned into intermission. If you wanted food, then you’re in no doubt that Paul will fulfil your need. It’s not clear that Paul does coffee or Intermission does food, or what the quality of either will be.
It’s telling that one respondent cited a relative who immediately lent towards Paul as the sign was completely clear what the cafe was selling. Sometimes literal is good.
Sales messaging wins?
If Paul’s objective is to drive sales from the hungry customer then it’s probably well over halfway there. Similarly, if that’s Intermission’s objective, then they’re probably the less effective of the two.
Or does either work? One sits more in a branding space, one is very much direct response.
Intermission may start to build repeat customers through the well designed branding and an experience that matches expectation.
Paul’s POS may bring in customers looking for a good deal for lunchtime. There’s a high probability Paul’s customers have also purchased from Intermission and vice versa.
So there’s no winner? Both are equally good or bad? Maybe. But, design preference aside, Paul’s POS is - in my opinion, for what it’s worth - far less successful.
Firstly, Paul is, relative to Intermission, a big brand. It already has an advantage. A chain should, in theory, have some advantages because those brand associations have already been built to some extent. The brain requires fewer leaps to make a purchasing decision.
Paul is - as somebody who last lived in Europe five years ago - a relatively upper-middle end chain that does good pastries and patisserie at slightly too expensive prices that's an occasional treat. I don't associate it with sandwiches per se, but that may just be me.
Paul's logo, font and white text and white box on a black background should be distinctive brand assets but the POS design commits the somewhat cardinal sin of obscuring the logo in favour of the product.
Even the Paul wording isn't immediately obvious - the eye has to work a little before it comes into focus.
From a distance, Paul is completely lost amongst the baguettes. It reduces itself to Intermission's level, or perhaps even below Intermission, and becomes an unknown commodity.
This is what Mark Ritson means when he talks about brand codes. A small tweak in design and et voila, suddenly it's clear to anybody familiar with Paul what you can expect from the product and experience. It's not a mistake you would ever catch a competitor such as Pret a Manger making. You know you're in the vicinity of a Pret long before you get anywhere near the shop door.
Brand familiarity also gives Paul the opportunity to play with price. Stronger point of sale branding does more than convey the concept of quality, it allows more elasticity around the pricing.
Would a regular Paul customer view £6.75 as a bargain? Would the occasional Paul customer view the lunch deal as a bargain? Is there an option to move the special offer to £7? Or not run the special offer at all, but still convey a more purchase-orientated product message?
It’s both creative and not creative
At this point we are far beyond the creative discussion and into considerations that really matter, namely margin and profit.
Sharp, and others, have plenty of evidence that suggests that while offers can drive short-term sales volumes, they can also create long-term problems.
Those customers who buy on offer are unlikely to continue purchasing when the product returns to full price. Less price sensitive loyalists, meanwhile, often trade down, undermining the price premium that comes with being a strong brand. Some may even trade across to Intermission if the pricing is similar.
Is this overthinking a simple point of sale poster? Perhaps. But strong businesses have a grasp on where they can eek out that extra few pennies per customer that increase the margin and a strong brand gives the marketing team more flexibility around pricing.
Ultimately, Intermission has a lot less to lose. In one Point of Sale poster, it positions itself in a different space to Paul.
Perhaps Intermission's lunch offering is just as good value for money and gives better margins. Perhaps it doesn't. But while it might not appeal to the lunchtime baguette brigade, the cafe's design suggests that's not necessarily their target market.
Of course, if Intermission becomes wildly popular, then the queue might be enough to drive people into Paul for a coffee. Come for the lunch, stay for the caffeine.
Interesting reads
Unwanted marketing advice
The UK government has urged brands to cut marketing spend so they can pass on cost savings to consumers. Granted, plenty of companies do this, especially in a downturn. It also seems like a simple, populist solution (who needs advertising and nobody likes the marketing department). Understandable when you see some of the largesse at Cannes, but the really good marketers are probably upping their brand budgets right now. LINK.
And if one government job is to ensure a healthy economy tomorrow, they could do worse than read this McKinsey piece on retailers in a recession. LINK.
Netflix tries to stop you bingeing
Turns out letting people binge entire popular series in one go is not a good way to keep people sticking around on a streaming service when you can cancel at will. Netflix isn’t doomed but the strategies that got them where they are today aren’t necessarily the ones that will sustain them tomorrow. The solution is increasingly resembling old school linear TV. Turns out scheduling is quite an important job. LINK.
Big data meets old healthcare systems
A decade ago I was working for a PR agency specialising in healthcare and went to a lot of talks about how technology and open data was going to revolutionise the NHS. There were a lot of genuinely good ideas that still seem like good ideas today but have never really got anywhere. Rory Cellan-Jones’ piece on data sharing between GPs highlights the challenges anything health tech faces: internal bureaucracy and a very skeptical public. Covid may have been a turning point, but this is as much a marketing challenge as it is a health one. LINK.
Should journalists be influencers?
Fascinating report from POLIS at the London School of Economics on how journalism and influencers intertwine. Social media did a very good job about blurring the line around journalist and personality and nobody seems quite sure where that line should be in the first place. There’s a bit of differentiation work to be done here. LINK.
Why CashApp is a social network
CashApp is a product that’s largely passed me by, but this piece argues the success of the app is because it grasps that money is as much a social proposition as it is an economic utility. CashApp and Venmo are more closer to a decentralisation vision that cryptocurrency. LINK.
BNPL meme stocks
Adam Schwab’s rather brutal takedown of the Buy Now Pay Later sector. The next twelve months is going to be a difficult time for scale-ups that are nowhere near profitability and are up against a competitor who doesn’t have the same constrictions (in this case, Apple). LINK.
The same principle also applies to the gig economy. LINK.
Why stopping aristocracy marrying changed the economy
An academic paper gem, highlighted in Ben Evans’ newsletter. The short version: Queen Victoria’s mourning shut down the debutante season, forcing aristocracy to look further afield for partners for their offspring, setting in motion a change in influence at high levels of power. LINK.
Thanks for reading this far. Hopefully you’ve found it mildly diverting. Like what you’ve read? Forward it onto somebody and ask them to subscribe.
Playing us out this week: Bicep’s live performance of the tracks Glue and Apricots. I’m liking that two people in front of a large array of keyboards and decks are coming back into fashion. I still have a lot of Orbital records from the 90s.