When it comes to branding, marketing and communications, developing effective strategies is as much science as art. Many consultants emphasize the art, the touchy-feely. But it’s the science behind the cute stuff that has the teeth. They are both important. But without the science, there’s no accountability, no hard-based strategic science, no real basis for analysis and evaluation of the approach or the results. Without the science, there’s no way to duplicate the things that work well, no way to measure accurately, no way to identify exactly what didn’t work and how to fix it.

Ask a consultant why they recommend a particular strategy, and you will likely get a response along these lines: “This represents best-practices, industry-based standards.” That’s fair, and hopefully, true…but ask them to take it further. Ask them to break it down to the science.

Here’s an example to illustrate my point.

An engineer asked a consultant if he should purchase advertising in publication “X”. They said no, it didn’t look like a good investment, wasn’t a top publication in their view. He asked why, and was told that for the cost and the payoff, it was not a good investment. He pressed for why; got the same vague, but consistent answer…not a good investment. He rather liked the publication and felt frustrated that he didn’t get a better explanation.

He came to me and asked the same question…should he purchase advertising in publication “X”. I said no, it didn’t look like a good investment. And here’s why. More than 65% of the publication was devoted to advertising, much higher than the normal split of editorial vs. advertising in publications targeting the engineering industry (typical ratio is advertising pages 44%, editorial pages 56%). Roughly 75% of the editorial was provided by companies, rather than by paid editorial staff. The content provided by those companies was edited only for grammar and punctuation, meaning the editorial content was allowed to be subjective, not impartial. The value of publications is their third-party neutrality, their fair and impartial point of view, untainted by the prejudiced views of the companies who produce and market products and services. The reason people purchase and read industry and business publications is because they are objective and unbiased. Lose that objectivity and you lose credibility. That explanation is the science of the issue vs. the art.

It’s a simple example, but illustrative of my point.  Whether it’s a one-time ad placement or a global brand management plan, whether you’re spending $1,000 or $1 million on your branding, marketing and communications, a consultant must be able to provide data and analysis, as well as art and imagery. Touchy-feely is fun, but without the science it’s hit-or-miss.

I recommended to the engineer that he avoid advertising in that publication, and instead submit editorial content to them to get exposure for his views, his name and his brand. And spend his advertising dollars with publications that had credible editorial and real influence with his target audience. It worked well and we were able to provide measurable return on investment for his efforts.

Don’t settle for dazzle alone. Peek behind the pretty curtain and make sure the dazzle is grounded in science.

Contact COS, LLC.