One of the themes to which we return again and again in our work with clients is that in today’s world, easy access to previously unparalleled levels of information means that, in many cases, businesses end up asking the same sorts of questions of the same sorts of consumers – and getting the same sorts of answers. It’s a recipe for the generic: for blanding, not branding.

So I was interested to come across an article in Intelligent Life recently, arguing that the internet is now in danger of damaging that curious blend of fortunate accident and wisdom that we call ‘serendipity’.

From Fleming’s serendipitous discovery of penicillin when he noticed how mould in his petri dish had killed off the bacteria through to the vulcanised rubber used in tyres, microwaves, Scotchgard and even Coca-Cola, many of the world’s most important innovations have come about through the combination of accident, luck and – most importantly – the ability of their creators to recognise the potential in their mishaps and misdirections. It’s that ability to recognise and apply the learnings from one sphere to another that characterises serendipity, and that is in danger of being stifled by the internet, argues author Ian Lewis.

According to Lewis, the massive amount of content  now available on the internet – and the concomitant rise of brands that can organise and present that content to us in an easily digestible format – is leading us to spend less and less time stumbling onto new sites, pathways and information that can sow the seeds of new innovations. As he puts it:

“The internet has become so good at meeting our desires that we spend less time discovering new ones. To update the Rolling Stones, you can always get what you want. But you may not get what you need.”

It’s a worrying thought for those of us who want to see brands that are genuinely different in the marketplace, and not a slow creep back to brands as just owners’ marks. Marketers have been accused of many evils over the past decades, but I believe they’re still a critical component in driving forward innovation in products and services, and in ensuring that businesses deliver more than simply what the consumer knows to ask for at that moment in time. Time and time again, I find myself returning to that hoary old quote attributed to Henry Ford:

“If I’d asked people what they’d wanted, they’d have asked for a faster horse.”

It’s our job as marketers to hear, interpret and move beyond our consumers’ words in research: to find the insight and apply it. Anything that helps us turn insights into innovation is a bonus – and that most definitely includes serendipity.

So here’s your challenge for the day: the next time you go onto the internet to look for something specific, spend five minutes looking at some of the less relevant results. Go to a site you’d never normally visit (but don’t pick one that’s going to get you into trouble with your IT department!) and spring off from there.  You never know what you might find…

A litter of hungry pigs pushing and shoving, trying to get fed, seems an unlikely source of inspiration for one of the most important innovations in modern retailing, but according to Willaim Sitwell, author of ‘A history of food in 100 recipes’, it gave Clarence Saunders an idea.

In 1916, Clarence was on a train travelling from Indiana, when the train slowed down at one point while passing a pig farm. From his window, Clarence saw a large number of piglets gathering round their mother sow, all trying to get fed. It made him think of a strong similarity with the grocery stores he knew. In busy times there were never enough clerks, so that people would crowd around the counter trying to get served. He thought that there must be a better way of doing things – and had an idea.

Within a few months, Clarence Saunders opened his first store: a store with no counter and no staff to take orders. Instead, customers served themselves from the shelves and paid on the way out. Self -service had been born and was an immediate success. Fast forward seven years and there were 1,268 stores in his chain, which he had named Piggly Wiggly in honour of his source of inspiration.

(Unfortunately not long afterwards disaster struck and a combination of financial mismanagement and poor stock trading saw him go bankrupt. Clarence lost everything, including a house complete with pig-pink rendering)

A few weeks ago, we published the first in a series of papers looking at some of the meaty issues facing marketers today.   Each paper was first presented at our 25th Anniversary conference in London in June 2011:  ‘Back to the future of branding - A look at what the past 25 years of brand marketing tell us about what the next 25 may have in store’. 

Our aim was to encourage new thinking, make a few predictions and perhaps even challenge some of today’s orthodoxies.  We wanted to show that we remain as committed as ever to helping our clients out-think, out-compete and out-perform their competition.

For those of you who weren’t able to attend the conference, I’m delighted to present the second
of our anniversary papers, entitled ‘Variations On The Role & Measurement of Brand’.

Co-authored by Sony Ericsson’s Nigel Turner and The Value Engineers’ Paul Durrant, the paper examines how marketers can provide consistent brand cues to help people navigate the exploding universe of mobile technology, while measuring the effect of their activities with discrete, purpose-built tools.

We hope you enjoy it.  If you’d like to discuss any of the issues raised in the paper, why not submit a comment below, or get in touch with us directly?

In 1986, among other world events, The Value Engineers first opened its doors for business. In 2011, we celebrated 25 years of helping our clients build successful, profitable brands.

For us, it was never a time to look back, but rather a time to look forward and think about the coming challenges and fresh opportunities presented by an ever-changing and increasingly competitive landscape.

On 9th June, 2011, we hosted a seminar in London, entitled: ‘Back to the future of branding - A look at what the past 25 years of brand marketing tell us about what the next 25 may have in store’. 

During the seminar, we presented six papers alongside some of our past and present clients, addressing a few of what we felt were the big issues facing branding and marketing. Our aim was to encourage new thinking, make a few predictions and perhaps even challenge
some of today’s orthodoxies. We wanted to show that we remain as committed as ever to helping our clients out-think, out-compete and out-perform their competition. Over the next few months, we’ll be sharing some of the papers that were presented that day.

Here you’ll find the first of these papers, co-authored by The Value Engineers’ Katy Mousinho and Confused.com’s Mike Hoban. In a time when every market research company is repositioning itself as an insight provider, their paper asks: ‘What’s beyond insight?’

We hope you enjoy it. If you’d like to discuss any of the issues raised in the paper, why not submit a comment below, or get in touch with us directly?

2011 sees  The Value Engineers celebrate its 25th anniversary. As an homage to the branding world which has been our life for the last quarter of a century, we will be posting a blog on the 25th of every month, discussing everything ’25′.

To start our year of twenty fives is a story from 25 years ago but one for which the moral is as central to branding today as it was then. It’s a story of when 250,000 people were wrong and involves the world’s most valuable brand; Coca-Cola.

In the early 1980s Coca Cola (which according to some surveys is the second most recognised word in the world after ‘ok’), was in trouble. It faced the frightening prospect of losing its number one spot in the American soft drink market.

Pepsi’s aggressive ‘Taste Challenge’ campaign was winning market share and Coke had to rely increasingly on its dominance in restricted markets such as vending machines and fast food outlets to maintain its market leader position. Adding to the problem was the success of the brand’s stable mate, Diet Coke. As sales of Diet Coke increased and people become converted to the new brand, the pool of available sugar cola drinkers was getting smaller.

The team in Atlanta embarked on a mission to beat off the Pepsi challenge. Blind taste tests, whereby people are given samples to drink and rate but are not told what brand they are, were conducted. They showed – horror of horrors! – that people preferred the taste of Pepsi.

So the team decided to develop a new Coke. The new formulation they settled on was based on Diet Coke but instead of artificial sweeteners, high fructose corn syrup was added to create a drink that was sweeter and smoother than original Coke and in fact more like Pepsi.

It is reputed that Coke then undertook the largest ever programme of taste panel research, interviewing over ¼ million people.  A clear and significant majority of these preferred the taste of New Coke.

So what should the executives in Atlanta do, launch New Coke alongside ‘Old’ Coke or replace it outright?  Worried that if they retained the original alongside the new it might split sales and give the leadership of the sector to Pepsi they chose to replace the old with the new. The need to maintain secrecy, however, meant that this decision had been taken without ever asking the consumers whether they wanted a new, improved Coke.

On April 23 1985 New Coke was launched and production of the original formulation was halted later that week. And everyone in Atlanta lived happily ever after. Well no, not exactly….

America was outraged. Rather than welcoming the better tasting New Coke, millions of Americans decided they hated it, even before they tasted it. Even amongst those who did taste it, the vast majority were convinced they still preferred the original! (So much for the 250,000 people with whom it had been researched!)

For so many Americans, Coke was much more than just a product: it was an institution, a way of life. It was something they had grown up with, something with which they felt they had a relationship. It was their brand. They reacted with horror to this change. They protested long and loud.

In the end senior executives were forced to hold a press conference to announce the return of the original – now called Classic Coke.

Perhaps luckily for Coke, the real surprise was that after the outrage came forgiveness and then celebration and while Coke did lose leadership to Pepsi in 1985, Classic Coke, the re-launched original regained its leadership in 1986 and kept growing. New Coke faded away.

And the moral of the story? Today, as well as back in 1986, a brand is much more than a product; it exists in the mind as much as it does on the ‘shelf’.