Dela sidan:

Does innovation play a role?

In 1994, the success of Dumb & Dumber (Box office close to 250M USD) had a lot to do with the performance of Jim Carrey. In that same year, John Travolta made an iconic comeback role from a career slump with his iconic portrayal of Vincent Vega in Pulp Fiction (box office 220M). I think it would be safe to say that although each played their respective roles with great aptitude, they could not have switched roles and performed as well.

An even less feasible idea would be to have one of them play both roles, not to mention the idea of having one of them take on ALL roles in both productions, from lead actor to lighting assistant. Yet that is how we often look at innovation and new technology. On one side the evangelists, claiming AI/AR/Voice/Chatbots will revolutionize every aspect of marketing. On the other side the sceptics, who say this is not feasible and therefore dismiss the new thing in its entirety.

As with actors, a lot of tools within marketing can work fine in one role but be lost in another. This is true of classic campaigning (an emotional 45 second TV ad is great at driving brand but poor at driving short term conversion, DM or SEM is the opposite). It is also very true when it comes to innovation.

Over 10 000 Google hits for stuff that will change marketing forever

I would argue that innovative techniques, platforms and tools can be very useful, as long as you are careful in what role you cast them. Of course, this all relates back to the principles of strategy vs tactics. “Look at the script before to assign an actor to a role” is easily translated to “look at your strategy before implementing tactical activities”. (See  JP Hanson , Mark Ritson  among others).

So, what are the potential (tactical) roles for innovation?  On an overall level, I see a handful;

Advertising distribution channels

A very clear and concise role; Getting your message in front of consumers in efficient and effective manner. This is an area where innovation is discussed a lot, AI supported programmatic buying, new social media targeting opportunities and formats, as well as influencer marketing being topics du jour. A few words of caution

  • The new innovation happening within media channels has an impact primarily in tactical communications, rather than broad reach channels. Don’t confuse the two, as Pepsi did in 2010 when they shifted millions in TV spend to a Facebook Social Good project, loosing half a billions worth in market share to coke.
  • New channels need to have some sort of reach and need to supply relevant ad formats in order to be a significant part of media strategy. (No, Smart Speakers is not a Distribution channel strategy. Skip down to Storytelling instead

Creative fuel / Storytelling

This is an interesting segment, and something often overlooked by the sceptics. Even if a new shiny thing has no potential impact on the overall business, the media or the customer experience, it may be useful as a tool to tell a story. Look at how Amazon have used drone deliveries and stores without checkout to promote their image of them as driving the future of retail. A recent example from Sweden features a direct heating company using AI and smart speakers to talk about heating and human warmth.


While this involves new tech, the message is distributed through old fashioner PR, TV and online video, so no media innovation. The effort does not really involve product or user experience innovation. It is just an innovative way to tell a story. Which is not a bad thing!

(Just look at Volkswagens’ use of (very basic) door lock technology from “The Force” to tell a story about creating nice cars that fit family needs.)

Another curiosity, which has perhaps not generated anything really significant yet, is the AI creative director. Both McCann

and Lexus  have tried it, and it seems to render either fairly generic or fairly crazy stuff.


Product and business development

Of course, new technologies can disrupt industries and improve products, or render them obsolete. The classic case in this field is photographic film company Eastman Kodak, who went from peak at 31 billion USD value in 1996 to filing for bankruptcy in 2012. However, this is a rare and extreme case, too often taken as proof that all companies must “innovate or die”. Also, Kodak showcases a need to innovate core product offering. That does not automatically mean they needed to innovate their creative or media strategies.


IKEA Place. Actually useful AR, rather than just PR content. 

Another interesting field is the ecosystem surrounding a product and service, the users’ interface: support and customer service, user guides and inspiration, all things aiming to make using the product a delight.

In this field we are seeing a lot of talk about chatbots and AI, as well as mobile app developments to make the interaction with your bank/car/consumer electronics smoother. Everything from automated customer service bots to smart home IoT-apps can probably create real impact and valuable change within a relatively short time frame.


So, there are relevant uses for a lot of new channels, technologies and innovations in different aspects of marketing. The key thing to understand is that there is not one thing that will revolutionise everything from distribution to user experience and media. The key is to write your script first, and then examine each new thing against the potential roles it could play.

Dela sidan:

Worthless creativity?

Creativity, the ability to make or otherwise bring into existence something new, whether a new solution to a problem, a new method or device, or a new artistic object or form.

Creative communication engages, occupies and pays the salaries of many in our industry. But does creativity really create value? Let’s dig a little into the issue ..

The problem

Is the effectiveness of creativity declining or even disappearing? It has been discussed for a some time, and increasingly so after a new study from Peter Field, ”The Crisis in Creative Effectiveness” was released.

The research compares data on marketing performance (PIA Effectiveness Awards: share of the market, brand equity, profitability etc.) with data on success in advertising from WARC Rankings (Cannes Lions, Clio, D&AD etc). The study covers 600 cases between 1996 to 2018 and the result is bleak to say the least. A prize winning campaign in 2018 is less effective than ever during the 24 years that the study covers, and it has no advantage compared to a non-prize winning campaign. In other words: Usually a Cannes Lion meant that the awarded company would gain success but that correlation can no longer be established.

Is this true?

In my humble opinion, there are a few questions you could raise. Marketing Guru Mark Ritson has touched upon this as well, mainly on these grounds;

Correlation vs causality? The study compares two sets of data (success on the market and number of creative awards) and shows a that the connection between the two have become weaker. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that there is a causality between the two. Does prize winning campaigns give commercial success or is it companies that are in a “flow” of commercial success that can afford prize winning advertising? Or, are there other external factors (distribution/legislation/state of the market) behind the success?

Selection The campaigns that enters IPA Effectiveness Awards and major creativity awards has been through a selection. It costs both time and money to enter awards and some companies do not participate for reasons of principle. So are the campaigns that enter advertising awards representative for the market in general? Some people consider (Rory Sutherland for example) that advertising awards is an arena for advertising agencies showing off to the advertising industry, rather than an award show for effectiveness)

On an overall level (and also confessing I don’t know enough about the methodology) I would say that Peter Fields study has empiricism and that the trend in it is so pronounced it cannot be denied. I also feel that there are small indications on other data points that supports the theory. For instance, the TGI survey carried out in Britain where consumers were asked whether the find advertising on television as entertaining as the actual TV shows;

The reason behind all this?

There are of course a number of things causing this, but most originate from the conflict between short term vs long term. This discussion in turn originates from the Binet & Field study “The Long and the Short of it”.  This study shows that communication based on short term KPIs (sales/awareness/digital engagement) over time is essentially different from communication built on long term KPIs (share of market/price etc.) It has also been known that companies focus too much on campaigns and other efforts with short term goals.

When looking at creative awards, it also appears that an increasing share of awarded campaigns base their submissions on short term results (6 months or less).

What might be the underlying reasons for this short term focus?

The sheer number of short term KIPs Digitisation has increased the amount of short-term KPIs one can look at, while the long-term ones are fairly constant. It is of course easier to base you work on data that is easily available, updated in real-time and often free.

Career acceleration CMO:s are said to change jobs most often than any other members of the C-suite. If you are in a position for three years and want to make your mark it is easier to do so focusing on short term optimisation projects.

Short attention span A personal reflection: In a time where we are expecting faster information, news and updates – are we more reluctant to judge campaigns on whether they are fresh and compelling or not? A consistent, strategic and long-term campaign might feel out of date when it is presented to the jury?

What can be done do about this?

This is basically a two-part answer: First of all, how do we create better advertising that builds real value. And then how do we make sure we reward and highlight good advertising in a better way, in competitions not least.

If we look at the first part there is a lot of interesting literature, from Binet & Field to Byron Sharp and Mark Ritson. (I have tried to gather some interesting thoughts in a brochure available for download here).

Among all these, I think it may be interesting to highlight Jenni Romaniuk, who has done some solid research on how to use brand assets to link separate (short term) campaigns and channels to build synergies and value over time.

There is no shortage of facts and arguments that support a more long-term overall thinking. The difficult thing seems to be to get it implemented in practice. It does, however, feel like we are now in a bit of a trend where these topics are being debated more and more, a discussion which hopefully can create an impact at the CMO level.

When it comes to the relevance of competitions and how we make sure to pay attention to the right things, Peter Field suggests in his study that two separate disciplines should be created in award shows: Prices for short-term efforts and long-term campaigns should be kept apart. It’s an interesting thought. Long term categories may be more planning-driven than creator-driven. More strategy than crafts. More models and figures than execution and wow-factor. One can only hope that we are an industry that has long-term vision and patience to sit through those categories. We might learn a lot.

Dela sidan:

Värdelös kreativitet?

Creativity, the ability to make or otherwise bring into existence something new, whether a new solution to a problem, a new method or device, or a new artistic object or form.

Kreativ kommunikation engagerar, sysselsätter och betalar lönen för många i vår branch. Vi hyllar och dissar, har prisutdelningar och skapar FB-grupper dör att dryfta vad som är bra kreativ reklam. Men skapar kreativiteten egentligen något värde? Låt oss gräva lite i frågan..

Vad är problemet?

Den stora frågan är om effektiviteten i reklam har försvunnit. Diskussionen har funnits ett tag men har verkligen tagit fart efter en ny studie av Peter Field, ”The Crisis in Creative Effectiveness”.  Studien går ut på att korsköra data kring företags marknadsprestanda från PIA Effectiveness Awards (marknadsandel, varumärkesstyrka, lönsamhet etc) med data kring hur framgångsrika företag är i reklamtävlingar från WARC Rankings (Cannes Lions, Clio, D&AD etc). Studien täcker 600 case mellan 1996 och 2018 och resultaten i den är nedslående. Prisvinnande kampanjer 2018 ger mindre effektivitet än någonsin under studiens 24 år på marknaden och de har nu ingen fördel jämfört med icke prisvinnande kampanjer. Kort sagt, tidigare kunde man koppla ett Cannes Lions till att annonsören skulle gå bra men nu ser man inte den korrelationen längre.

Diskussionen har också varit närvarande i Sverige. Dels ur ett slags allmänt ”visst är reklamen tråkigare idag än för 10 år sedan”-perspektiv, men också kopplat till kreativa byråers lönsamhet. Argumentet där är att om kreativa byråer inte längre kan få gehör för värdet av sin kreativitet, kommer deras omsättning och lönsamhet att dala (se exempelvis nedgången på sistone för Honesty som varit erkänt starka på att bygga kreativa bärande koncept).

Stämmer det verkligen?

I min mening finns det en del att fundera över kring studien, även reklamprofilen Mark Ritson har visat på ett par frågetecken kring Binet & Fields forskning generellt. Främst handlar dessa frågetecken om två områden

Korrelation vs kausalitet? Studien jämför två uppsättningar data (framgång i marknaden och vinst av kreativa priser) och konstaterar att sambandet har blivit svagare. Men bara för att det funnits ett samband behöver det ju inte nödvändigtvis vara ett orsakssamband. Ger prisvinnande reklam kommersiell framgång eller är det företag som är inne i ett ”flow” av kommersiell framgång som tar sig råd att satsa på kreativ reklam? Eller finns det utomstående faktorer (distribution/lagstiftning/konjunktur) som ligger bakom påverkan?

Urval Både de kampanjer som skickas in till IPA Effectiveness Awards och till de större reklamtävlingarna har ju gått igenom ett urval. Det kostar i både tid och pengar att skicka in bidrag till tävlingar, en del företag tävlar inte av principiella skäl. Är de kampanjer som finns med i tävlingar representativa för marknaden i stort? Vissa (exempelvis Rory Sutherland) anser också att tävlingar blivit mer av en arena där byråer försöker imponera på resten av branchen, än faktiska tävlingar för effektiva kampanjer.


Överlag skulle jag nog ändå säga att Peter Field-studien är så pass stor och trenden så pass tydlig att den inte går att förneka. Jag tror också att man kan hitta små indikationer i andra datapunkter som stödjer den. Se till exempel TGI:s brittiska enkät där man frågat konsumenter om de tycker reklam på TV är lika rolig som själva programmen;


Vad är orsaken?

Det finns såklart en mängd bidragande orsaker men de flesta har sin grund i problematiken kring kortsiktighet vs långsiktighet. Diskussionen om detta kommer ursprungligen från Binet & Fields studie ”The Long and the Short of it”. Där visar man att kommunikation som baseras på kortsiktiga KPIer (försäljning, awareness, digitalt engagemang) över tid blir helt väsensskild från kommunikation som bygger på långsiktiga KPIer (marknadsandel, prispremium etc). De har också visat att företag på senare tid fokuserar allt för mycket på insatser som riktas mot kortsiktiga mål.

Det framgår också att allt fler bidrag som vinner priser i tävlingar får sina priser baserat på inskickade resultat som sträcker sig över mindre än 6 månader. (intressant exempel är Volvo Cars E.V.A. kampanj. Den är troligtvis ganska bra på att bygga långsiktigt värde. Både logga och bil syns tydligt i filmen. Den har gått i breda räckviddskanaler. Den är i linje med målgrupp och långsiktigt varumärkeslöfte kring säkerhet. Men casefilmen trycker på KPIer som Social media views och PR-värde)

Vad kan då vara underliggande anledningar till det här kortsiktiga fokuset?

Det finns allt fler kortsiktiga KPI:er. Digitalisering har ökat mängden kortsiktiga KPI:er man kan titta på, medan de långsiktiga är ganska konstanta. Då blir det enklare att titta på den data som är riklig, realtidsuppdaterad och ofta gratis

Snabba karriärer. Marknadschefer sägs vara de i ledningsgrupper som byter jobb oftast. Sitter man bara på plats 3 år och vill hinna genomföra något som visar tydligt resultat, då är det klart enklare med kortsiktiga projekt

Kort uppmärksamhet. En personlig hypotes: i en samtid där vi förväntar oss allt snabbare information, uppdateringar och nyheter, blir vi kanske då också otåligare i att kampanjer vi bedömer i tävlingar skall vara nya innovativa och fräscha? Ett konsekvent, strategiskt genomfört och långsiktigt kampanjarbete riskerar kanske att kännas gammalt redan när det hamnar hos juryn?

Vad kan man göra åt det?

Det här blir ju i grunden ett tvådelat svar: Först och främst hur skapar vi bättre reklam som bygger värde. Men sen också hur ser vi till att belöna och uppmärksamma bra reklam på ett bättre sätt, i tävlingar inte minst. 

Tittar vi på den första delen så finns det mängder av intressant litteratur, från Binet & Field till Byron Sharp och Mark Ritson. Sätt strategi innan taktik. Håll nere antalet målsättningar. Var distinkt och konsekvent.  (jag har försökt samla en del intressanta tankar i en broschyr som finns till nedladdning här ).

Bland alla dessa idéer tycker jag det kan vara intressant att lyfta Jenni Romaniuk som har ett bra tänk kring hur man använder brand assets just för att knyta ihop olika kampanjer och kanaler för att bygga synergier och värde över tid.

Det saknas inte fakta och argument som understödjer ett mer långsiktigt tänk överlag eller som understödjer att man rollsätter olika kampanjinsatser mot olika syften och håller isär äpplen och päron. Det svåra verkar vara att få det att fungera i praktiken. Här känns det dock som att vi nu är inne lite i en trend där de här ämnena debatteras allt mer, vilket förhoppningsvis kan skapa genomslag ända upp på CMO-nivå.

När det gäller tävlingars relevans och hur vi ser till att uppmärksamma rätt saker föreslår Peter Field i sin studie att man bör skapa två separata discipliner: Priser för kortsiktiga insatser och långsiktiga bör hållas isär. Det är en intressant tanke. Svenska 100-wattaren belönar ju ”Långsiktig Varumärkesvård” (som en av totalt tio kategorier). Den typen av priser blir kanske mer planning-drivna än kreatörs-drivna. Mer strategi än hantverk. Mer modeller och siffror än hantverk och storslagenhet. Man får bara hoppas att vi är en branch som har långsiktighet och tålamod att sitta igenom de kategorierna. Det skulle antagligen vara mycket lärorikt.

Dela sidan:

Build Distinctive Brand Assets!

The other day I had the pleasure of listening to Jenni Romaniuk speaking at our offices.

Jenni spoke about the findings in her recent book “Building Distinctive Brand Assets”. Below I will try to summarize some of my key takeaways for this. It is really potent stuff for people working with advertising and branding. As per usual, I have gravely oversimplified everything and concentrated it all to four key points:

Understand how the human brand builds associations

The human mind is complicated, illogical and lazy. It is bombarded by messages every day, and tries to take shortcuts to structure, simplify and make sense of the world.

In this, it links associations together in clusters. Take, for instance, the Apple brand. If you think of Apple, a number of associations spring to mind. The logo, the iPhone and perhaps the MacBook, Steve Jobs. The white headphones perhaps? But also things like “the device for FaceTime with my grandmother” and “Apple as in the actual fruit”. Some of these associations are stronger, some are weaker. Some remain close to the apple brand, some lets the mind wonder on to other associations.

The same is true for categories of products or services. When thinking about booking a summer vacation, a set of associations spring to mind. The sun, the beach, the blue colour of the sea. The taste of Sangria. The hassle of air travel. Memories of hotels I’ve visited. Perhaps travel being expensive? Perhaps carbon emissions?

Understanding that the human mind functions in this way is an important starting point.

Understand the associative map for your brand

The general principles for associations of course also apply to brands. When people think of your brand, they perhaps link it to assets like the logo, the tagline, the package design, and advertisements for the brand. But also past experiences, friends they know who like the product, memories, competitor brands etc.

It is important to understand what assets are linked to your brand. In understanding this, it is important not to look to your own association: No one is more biased and less representative of the target group than someone working full time with the brand. Instead, you need to ask actual representative consumers.

Manage and develop your set of brand assets

When you know what assets consumers connect to your brand, you need to start actively with that set of assets. A few things to consider;

  • A strong asset ranks high in both fame (all consumers know it) and uniqueness (they associate it only to your brand). (Nike Swish is high on both parameters, Nikes link to the game of soccer may be high on fame, but is low on uniqueness)
  • It is positive if consumers link your brand to the things that come to mind when looking to purchase a category (e.g the sun from the travel example above).
  • There is a difference between branding assets (consistent, distinctive, building a system) and messaging (adaptable, creative, grabbing attention)
  • Good assets serve a purpose, ancoring the brand to something present in consumers lives, being easily used in niche media channels, creating uniqueness relative competitors)

Utilize assets for bridging across channels, markets and time

This part I think is very interesting for advertising professionals. In a lot of advertising work, the traditional way has been to start with creating the 30 second TVC. From that, one has tried editing and squeezing that video into different channels and formats.

What I think is super relevant, is the idea of using distinctive assets as a bridge between channels. As long as the asset creates linkage, you can be freer in creating communication that is truly adapted to the channel. (not only advertising channels, but also touchpoints like instore, packaging, web design, e-commerce etc etc)

This also allows for creating bridging across different markets and segments. Where culture, language, preferences may vary, you can still create a red thread by using distinctive brand assets.

Distinctive assets also allow for bridging over time. From one campaign to the next, from one season to another, from one concept to the next. Even from one CMO to the next.

This final bit, about bridging, feels so relevant. In today’s media landscape – where a brand might want to be present in TV and print, on YouTube AND as a sponsored snapchat filter – finding principles for linking those efforts without missing channel relevance is extremely useful.

One example from Sweden is Triss (scratch card lottery).

If we start with their current TVC, there are a lot of elements in there. There is a reverse timeline, a protagonist (the lady) and an antagonist (car salesman. There is dialogue, humor, a cool sports car etc etc. But almost all of these elements are of little value as brand assets. They lack fame, they are difficult to build uniqueness on and they are not conveniently transferred to other formats.

But if we look at the final 4 second, the good stuff gets revealed:

  • The colour yellow
  • The “scratched area”
  • The logo
  • The font
  • The logo
  • The sound of scratching

Suddenly you have a great set of assets for bridging.

In OOH, instead of using a photo from the TVC, they go for a copy-based solution: They use colour, scratched area, font, logo, and are able to get the humorous effect in in short copywriting which is adapted to the media. The same setup works for mobile, for snapchat.. Establishing the scratching sound as an asset enables a link to radio advertising.


So that is a short summary. I really recommend you buying the full book.

P.S. In a panel discussion after the seminar, I asked Jenni about channels where branding is less salient. (Some people advocate that the “correct” way of working with things like influencers and native is to tone down branding as much as possible.) She was clear in her opinion, that channels where you cannot have tour brand assets present are not relevant channels.

P.P.S. we also briefly touched on the currently discussed Carlsberg Probably [not] the best beer in the world campaign. There has been some debate as to whether tampering with the Probably the best beer in the world tagline asset. Here, Jenni argued that the distinctive asset for Carlsberg is actually just the word probably. That means that the rest of the sentence can be considered message, rather than branding. I had not previously made up my mind on the matter myself, but after hearing this thinking, I would have to agree. Very cleaver reasoning indeed.

thx to Carat and ClearChannel for making the session happen!

Dela sidan:

From Barbells to Bananas

A while back, I attended a seminar with a great array of speakers on strategy and marketing (Mark Ritson, JP Hanson, Wiemer Snijders and Rory Sutherland). That experience resulted in a blog post that got a lot of appreciation. So, I went on and extended that blog post and structured it a bit more, resulting in a booklet summarising a few interesting ideas and models on marketing.

Below is an outline of the content, if you would like a copy of the full booklet drop me an email at (avaliable in English or Swedish)

FROM BANANAS TO BARBELLS – Six models to guide you in the modern marketing Jungle lists over 50 000 books on the topic of Marketing and Sales. The top 20 books average over 300 pages each. I would venture a guess that most of these millions of pages are bought but never read.

The booklet I put together is just 30 pages. It is an attempt to keep it simple: six easy models or ideas on marketing. Most of them are borrowed. All of them are simplified.

For each chapter, there are recommendations for further reading. There is a great amount of good reading out there. This is just a quick nibble to get your appetite going.

1. Starting at the right end


The first model is about doing your research and thinking before getting to work. Studying the map before rushing out into the world.

Sounds simplistic but is often forgotten when we get caught up in day to day operations. We need to be stringent first in analyzing the market as best we can, then formulating our strategy, and finally executing our tactic measures.

The outcome of your marketing efforts becomes the multiplication of the three phases, meaning it is better to do all three at an ok level, than excelling at two and failing at a third.

2. Weighing your efforts


In this section, we explore two important things to consider when allocating marketing budgets:

  • Loyalty is generally very weak, with most product buyers buying very rarely
  • Long term emotional branding advertising and short term sales driven advertising serve different purposes, imply different strategies, and have different KPIs.

The first model illustrates how frequently the buyers of your brand actually make a purchase. Here, research finds that across almost all categories, the majority of purchases are done by people who buy very rarely. The banana serves as as a model to illustrate the shape of the diagram: Almost all volume to the left (less frequent consumers) with a much smaller longtail to the right (frequent buyers).

The second model needs no introduction, it is perhaps the most famous one in marketing today. Binet & Fields model illustrates the duality between short-term and long-term marketing efforts. The key takeout is that if you focus on KPIs that measure short term marketing (sales, clicks, ROI) your efforts will steer towards that type of marketing. In this there is a clear risk of neglecting long term brand building.

3. Consistency, consistency, consistency

What you see here is not a model per se, but it is a good illustration of the third idea in this lineup, consistency. None of the icons above include a brand name but are all instantly recognizable to the majority of consumers. This is a super relevant aspect in a cluttered media message where consumers are bombarded with messages and generally try to avoid advertising. Consistency, to establish recognition in consumers minds, is usually more important than adapting to short lived trends or making sure your advertising feels new and fresh.

4. Looking at the full cost / reward

There are plenty of models describing the amount of reach (and correspondingly media investment) you need to drive consumers from brand awareness to actual purchase. They are known as funnels, just because reach needs to be the biggest at the awareness stage at the top, and then gets narrower as communication gets more tactical and targeted further down.


As these funnels are so universally accepted, it is a common mistake to assume that their ratios apply not only to media spend, but to all costs and efforts. But the cost of content creation, tech resources etc can show different patterns. It is therefore important to not just assume that some investments are cheap because the media investment is low, but too look at all costs and resources drawn by any initiative.

5. Who calls the shots

Ambiguity of mandate and decision making in the relationship between client and agencies is present in a lot of marketing work. This is because there is no set formula for decision making and mandate. At what stages of the process does the client, the creative agency, the media agency or the performance agency have to take responsibility – and get to call the shots?

There are a couple of potential pitfalls as a consequence of this: Lack of direction, Over-analysis or flat out Paralysis

6. Putting Innovation Into perspective

As marketers are dealing with the human mind, which is subject to confirmation bias, post-rationalization and a whole host of inconsistencies, it is a mistake to let 100% of efforts be data driven. Those who do may be solving the problems of today, but not hedging against the future.

There are different models related to this. One is the Barbell model. It states that 85% of your efforts should go to low risk, low reward safe bets. 15% should be aimed at high risk high potential reward. The most important bit: Nothing in the middle. Keep your bread and butter work and your experimental efforts well separated, there should be no grey area,



A disclaimer: This is a list of six interesting ideas around marketing. It is not the list of marketing ideas. There are many others, and of course a huge amount of detail and data underpinning them. But I hope this list may be thought provoking, and get some thinking going around structure and prioritisation in the marketing process.

A very interesting and relevant thing about these models: They are not brand new, not secret or complicated. Yet, they seem very difficult to follow. This is actually a shortcut to success: If you are able to make sure you really follow at least three of the ideas listed here, you are probably doing a better job than the majority of the marketers in your industry.