Read on Twitter
A thread, on something that underpins so much of media planning, that so few people talk about:
Costly signaling.
Costly signaling.
Think of a peacock. Nice feathers, right?
Here's the thing:
- bright feathers are costly to produce (takes lots of energy and makes you conspicuous to enemies)
- therefore, only the strongest can produce them (if you are alive, and have them, you are strong)
- therefore, bright feathers are a signal of high quality
- bright feathers are costly to produce (takes lots of energy and makes you conspicuous to enemies)
- therefore, only the strongest can produce them (if you are alive, and have them, you are strong)
- therefore, bright feathers are a signal of high quality
Wtf does this have to do with media?
Well, have you ever wondered why so many DTC companies buy so many big billboards?
Well, have you ever wondered why so many DTC companies buy so many big billboards?
For RXBar, the obvious benefit of this ad is that people think 'no B.S.' brand = 'no B.S.' ingredients.
The subliminal benefit is that people think you must be credible and trustworthy, because you have enough money to spend it on expensive formats for really obvious statements.
The subliminal benefit is that people think you must be credible and trustworthy, because you have enough money to spend it on expensive formats for really obvious statements.
For Hims, the obvious benefit is that you increase brand awareness.
The subliminal benefit is that people think you must be credible and trustworthy, because you're showing up with a big splashy ad in the cultural epicenter of New York City. And small brands don't do that.
The subliminal benefit is that people think you must be credible and trustworthy, because you're showing up with a big splashy ad in the cultural epicenter of New York City. And small brands don't do that.
Now urban tweeter, I hear you say 'but New Yorkers hate Times Sq.?'
They do...but locals aren't the audience.
For everyone else, Times Sq. is still dripping with prestige and cache and glamour and for a small brand wanting to feel big, that's all that matters.
They do...but locals aren't the audience.
For everyone else, Times Sq. is still dripping with prestige and cache and glamour and for a small brand wanting to feel big, that's all that matters.
Which is why they share it online.
They don't buy 100 billboards for extended reach against audiences in different markets, they buy one or two for clout, and tell the world they did it.
They don't buy 100 billboards for extended reach against audiences in different markets, they buy one or two for clout, and tell the world they did it.
And now we come to today, and what I think is a fundamental shift in how we plan OOH media.
I think brands will slash the quantity of billboards they buy, in favor of only choosing:
1. Expensive formats in prestigious urban cities
2. Unique formats which allow for customization
I think brands will slash the quantity of billboards they buy, in favor of only choosing:
1. Expensive formats in prestigious urban cities
2. Unique formats which allow for customization
TL;DR.
1. One great billboard is enough to start a fire, provided you use social to keep fanning the flames.
2. Brands are peacocks. Sometimes the price we pay to look attractive is the only reason we look attractive in the first place.
1. One great billboard is enough to start a fire, provided you use social to keep fanning the flames.
2. Brands are peacocks. Sometimes the price we pay to look attractive is the only reason we look attractive in the first place.
Final caveat: none of this stuff is super new, it all begins with behavioral science, and people like Rory Sutherland who have been spreading the gospel.
It's just noteworthy that the oldest principles seem to get more and more relevant with time.
It's just noteworthy that the oldest principles seem to get more and more relevant with time.
