by Andy
January 22, 2010
The most-used construct in marketing communications is the problem/solution format. This timeless format is used everywhere and across all industries — from consumer TV and radio communications (e.g., “I need more coverage” and Verizon provides it) to internal case studies (e.g., “How we solved a client’s problem similar to yours”). The articulation of this format varies by medium (TV, radio, print, collateral, web, etc.), but the construct remains.
Since marketing’s role is to help influence and facilitate sales, I completely understand how this format has become entrenched in communications. Marketing efforts should be about converting sales. Those that do not sell enough are subject to corporate Darwinism and eliminated from the market. This reality demands communications to be swift and compelling.
Here’s my beef. The problem/solution marcom construct works fantastically for B2C as most consumer purchases involve little risk or deep consideration (e.g., food, gas). B2B purchases, on the other hand, are much more involved and filled with risk. Here, purchase(s) can last many years and involve millions of dollars. Make a mistake and it could be fatal to the whole company!
Unlike most B2C purchases, the B2B buying cycle is long, involves deep consideration and many levels of sign-off. It demands a different approach that’s focused more broadly on expertise, not just product attributes. B2B customers want assurance that the solution you provide will help them over the long-term. Yes, they have a problem and you have a solution. But this is far more involved than choosing between Coke and Pepsi.
To create deeper influence at a more meaningful level, companies should own the broader issues that breed the problems you solve for. Now, you’re seen as an expert beyond the product or service you provide and with that perceived expertise comes an assumption that you likely know how to solve the problems inherent within the category. Plus, your company is viewed as a market maker because it plays a meaningful role to the broader industry – not just the sub-category within it. You’re not only influencing the market toward your products, you’re also reducing the size of your competitive set to those that really matter while supporting a higher price point.
In the B2B space, those that solely rely on a problem/solution marketing communications construct only rise to “vendor” status. Unfortunately, vendors are rarely viewed as experts and regularly beaten up on price — and eventually succumb to corporate Darwinism.
I like this observation. If this were the beginning of a conference presentation, you’d have their attention….
I like this observation. If this were the beginning of a conference presentation, you’d have their attention….
Rethinking traditional constructs is a brave, and often unrewardin, thing to do. Marketers and customers have trained their brains to receive information in a certain way – delivering it differently requires them to think differently. Perhaps the best way to do this is to introduce the concept in a new channel to make it easier – maybe it should be a blog entry or a twitter feed linked back to a video.
Rethinking traditional constructs is a brave, and often unrewardin, thing to do. Marketers and customers have trained their brains to receive information in a certain way – delivering it differently requires them to think differently. Perhaps the best way to do this is to introduce the concept in a new channel to make it easier – maybe it should be a blog entry or a twitter feed linked back to a video.
This post is spot on. I couldn’t agree more. We live in a time of radical change. The old ways of thinking are obsolete. Traditional constructs are approaching extinction. In order to survive (and more importantly, thrive), enterprises must adapt. Otherwise, they’ll perish.
This post is spot on. I couldn’t agree more. We live in a time of radical change. The old ways of thinking are obsolete. Traditional constructs are approaching extinction. In order to survive (and more importantly, thrive), enterprises must adapt. Otherwise, they’ll perish.
Great post, and very consistent with what you’ve been saying for a while about changing the thought process, not just what you’re thinking about. Though I’d say that the choice between Coke and Pepsi is a fairly easy one 🙂
Great post, and very consistent with what you’ve been saying for a while about changing the thought process, not just what you’re thinking about. Though I’d say that the choice between Coke and Pepsi is a fairly easy one 🙂
Interesting point. It’s the difference between cultivating a relationship and competing for an immediate sale. But when considering any message marketers have to be clear in their minds what they want the target to do, the call to action. For the B2C example it’s “buy me now.” For B2B it may be “go to my website” or simply “keep me in your consideration set for next time.” That can be a big investment but it can pay big as well. So the actual message itself carries even more weight. This is where knowing your consumer thru segmentation is key.
Interesting point. It’s the difference between cultivating a relationship and competing for an immediate sale. But when considering any message marketers have to be clear in their minds what they want the target to do, the call to action. For the B2C example it’s “buy me now.” For B2B it may be “go to my website” or simply “keep me in your consideration set for next time.” That can be a big investment but it can pay big as well. So the actual message itself carries even more weight. This is where knowing your consumer thru segmentation is key.