Comments on: Hairsay

By: Karthik

Karthik — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 14:32:58 +0000

Aiyo…that’s what I’m saying also 🙂

If the ‘assumption’ is that a product is in an interchangeable product category (meaning, relatively low involvement in selection), it could help if the brand plans engagement tactics away from the product’s seemingly low involvement topic and use other, people-centric themes…and hence make it high-involvement by message.

It’s a thumb rule to help in planning what topics may work better – paste/chewing gum…we don’t talk about the experience as much as a brand manager wants us to. So, talk of oral hygiene (convincingly). Mosquito liquid – we don’t debate on it’s efficacy as much as the brands wants us to – so, talk of mosquito breeding season, malaria-related help etc.

By: manu prasad

manu prasad — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 11:21:34 +0000

Precisely. Rather than lump a category into one level of involvement, i think social platforms allow brands to find and empower the people highly involved in their category to experience the brand and spread the word, and thereby (many a time) increase the levels of involvement of the people in their network….

By: Surekha Pillai

Surekha Pillai — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 11:11:08 +0000

since the comments seem to have taken the debate to high and low involvement, here’s a thought. those who break the clutter stand a greater chance to stay ahead in the race. can social media not allow opportunities to actually create high involvement for these supposedly low involvement products? doesnt it present an opportunity to brand managers, which i am assuming is also a point manu was trying to make. i havent studied the shampoo market, but for me head & shoulders is still number one in the anti-dandruff category. it may not be a fact but a consumer’s perception. clearly others are trying to gnaw into that market/mind share..now.. isnt there an opportunity for H&S to make it high involvement through social media to create brand loyalty and at the same time not lose out on that anti-dandruff edge therefore reiterate that product benefit? i would like to believe yes.

By: manu prasad

manu prasad — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 11:08:30 +0000

Hmm, so should Pantene or any of the others consider theirs a low involvement category? Isn’t that precisely what must have made Pantene do a ‘hype’ as opposed to a ‘value’ campaign? But if they had understood that involvement was subjective, they might have done things differently, especially in their use of social platforms?
My point about Hippo was regarding the thumb rule. In what might not be seen as a ‘taken seriously’ category, it doesn’t stick to ‘people using the product’, it talks product, utility value, people, topical things and adds a tone to it.

By: Karthik

Karthik — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 09:55:41 +0000

Agree about context when it comes to arriving at low/high involvement.

On this topic, however, it’d help if brand managers assume it based on larger numbers and common sense. Shampoos like Pantene, Clinic or Head and Shoulders are almost on a similar price levels and have very similar chemicals listed on their bottles 🙂 The benefits they offer are advertising-perpetrated and cannot be decisively proven by anyone – it is hence highly personal. So, when Head & Shoulders says it removed dandruff, we believe it as much as we believe Clinic All Clear!

On Hippo, aren’t they using topical humor in a specific lingo as the leverage, while plugging Hippo and hunger occasionally? If it was all about Hippo alone and hunger (which is an advertising-created message and can only go so far), they could not have come so far!

By: manu prasad

manu prasad — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 09:05:41 +0000

Like i said, i think all factors play an important part – who, where, when and what. Involvement is extremely subjective and contextual. Shampoo is extremely low involvement for me, justifiably :), but seemingly not so for say, Naina.
So I’m not sure if its really as simple as that thumb rule, because ‘people’ are the differentiators on social platforms. eg. Hippo talks about itself, the people who talk about it AND hunger, depending on context.

By: Karthik

Karthik — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 08:35:28 +0000

Having exhausted a weekend (some of it), 2 blog posts and much of my breath on this, let me just add that ascertaining low involvement/engagement will only help in arriving at the message. Old spice was not talking breathlessly about how super it’s product was; instead, it used it’s product merely as a backdrop to talk about something that people enjoy(ed).

A seemingly high involvement/engagement product need not do this explicitly and can talk directly about it’s products.

Simple thumb rule…if you think/know people take your products seriously, talk about the product. If they don’t, talk about the people who use your products/product category.