Read mor here:https://hbr.org/2014/06/why-smart-people-struggle-with-strategy/
"The problem with smart people is that they are used to seeking and finding the right answer; unfortunately, in strategy there is no single right answer to find. Strategy requires making choices about an uncertain future. It is not possible, no matter how much of the ocean you boil, to discover the one right answer. There isn’t one. In fact, even after the fact, there is no way to determine that one’s strategy choice was “right,” because there is no way to judge the relative quality of any path against all the paths not actually chosen. There are no double-blind experiments in strategy."
"Unfortunately, you can’t nail down your vision/mission statement (or what I refer to as your Winning Aspiration) without having made your where-to-play/how-to-win (WTP/HTW) choice. Spending time wordsmithing a vision/mission statement before making a WTP/HTW choice is a colossal waste of time."
Check out this short but insightful article:
1. You encounter a choice. But narrow framing makes you miss options. So … Widen Your Options. How can you expand your sent of choices? …
2. You analyze your options. But the confirmation bias leads you to gather self-serving information. So …Reality-Test Your Assumptions. How can you get outside your head and collect information you can trust? …
3. You make a choice. But short-term emotion will often tempt you to make the wrong one. So … Attain Distance Before Deciding. How can you overcome short-term emotion and conflicted feelings to make better choices? …
4. Then you live with it. But you’ll often be overconfident about how the future will unfold. So … Prepare to Be Wrong. How can we plan for an uncertain future so that we give our decisions the best chance to succeed? …
I stumbled upon a very simple expression that might help understanding what an insight is. And goes like this:
"We woke up to the fact that ..."
I believe that's it. If you can say this about your idea than there has been an insight behind it.
The analysis identified four types of integration in campaigns:
1. No integration where a campaign either used a single advertising channel or took a laissez faire approach to merging
2. Advertising-led integration around a common creative platform. This ranges from visual identity only -the so-called ‘matching luggage’ approach – to a full-scale advertising creative idea across multiple disciplines, including non-advertising channels.
3. Brand idea-led orchestration where there was unification around a shared brand concept or need-state platform. Within this segment, the creative work does not look united by a common advertising idea, yet the audience is able to decode the strands as part of one brand’s message.
4. Participation-led orchestration where the goal between brand and audiences is to create a common dialogue, co-creation, experience or ‘conversation’.
- Not-integrated campaigns don't turn out to be as ineffective as one usually assumes. In fact, they are just as effective in terms of hard business objectives (sales, market share, etc.) as the 3 remaining types of integration on average. Integration rather seems to pay-off on the soft objectives level (fame, likeability, etc.).
- The campaigns integrated by a "Big Brand Idea" seem to be most effective.
- Participation-lead campaigns are rather effective for market share defenders and rather in terms of (re-) creating fame. The main reasons for that: they tend to engage existing customers and often have to rely on pre-existing brand love.
But let's not forget - the results above stem from an analysis of campaign effectiveness with no direct implications for communications that cannot be categorised as campaigns.