Things I DO know, things I DON'T

This much I know. Brands live in people’s memories.

They’re also in companies and on balance sheets. But they’re primarily a set of associations that people remember, consciously or not.

What I don’t fully understand is how memory works, despite the best efforts of folk on LinkedIn who try to explain it to me.

I get that memory is dynamic. It’s rebuilt in the moment it’s needed. So context matters, as does relevance to your needs, all shaped by prior expectation.

But what makes something stick in our minds? I’ve long had this idea that we remember what we want to remember. Thinking about it again, that only makes sense if we remember we may not be aware of what we want.

Then there’s attention. I know brands have to be noticed. Otherwise they’re invisible.

And people need to recognise the brand through its distinctive features, which is why they’re called assets. They’re valuable.

I also know mental availability is simply salience with a better marketing campaign. Strictly it’s a probability. Something either comes to mind or it doesn’t.

What I don’t know is whether you can argue it’s all-important. In fact, I watched a Kantar webinar the other day warning how expensive salience-led strategies can be, particularly for smaller brands.

The big question for me is why is a brand mentally available, to that person in that situation.

Then there’s targeting. I know it’s not just about your regular buyers. Devoted brand loyalty is rare, even for bikers with Harley-Davidson tattoos.

So you have to think about all your potential buyers - regular, light, non, lapsed - the majority of whom will be buying or using other brands in the category as well.

But what kind of connection are you trying to make with this disparate group? A bond? A relationship? A simple link to a common need?

I’ve always called it an emotional connection. But does that sound too impassioned, particularly if, in reality, ‘consumers don’t give a shit’?

I’ve also tried calling it a moment of closeness. That still works for me. Don’t know about anyone else.

So then positioning. I know all brands need one. You can’t be everything to everyone. Strategy is choice.

It’s also vital for the internal audience, to keep the team on the agreed path. Call that whatever you like, although be careful around ‘purpose’.

Positioning is what you want your brand to mean to people, what it should stand for in their minds. It’s back to memory.

It has to be a benefit they value and are prepared to pay for. That may be functional or emotional or, best of all, both. I know this.

What I don’t know is if you have to find an insight before you find a positioning. That’s the way it’s meant to work. But genuinely revelatory insights are as rare as hen’s teeth.

And is positioning as central as I believe it is? Sometimes I feel we marketeers are guilty of making a simple job complex to make ourselves feel better about what we do. Which is an insight in itself, maybe.

And finally I know that marketing has four P’s and you lose power with each P you surrender. Pricing power is called that for a reason, the whole point of a brand is to be able to charge more than you could for the product alone.

In fact, Promotion is probably the weakest P of the four. Advertising, in particular, has always been ignored by the vast majority of people who encounter it.

So another thing I now realise I don’t really know is how advertising actually works. Paul Feldwick lays out the options as well as anyone - from salesmanship to showmanship, persuasion to salience. But there are no guarantees.

Which means the debate goes on ad infinitum. Is the Pepsi Super Bowl taste challenge ad with the Coke polar bear brilliant or rubbish?

Is a polar bear that strongly associated with Coke? Do people really want a better taste or the taste of happiness? Does Pepsi taste better over the whole can or just on first sip?

And will anyone even remember the ad by this time next week?

I honestly don’t know.