Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Communication Strategy, Content, Context, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Packaging, Planning, Point Of View, Positioning, Relevance, Resonance, Strategy
This is a shop near where we live.
Now I appreciate the above is basically an adoption of the TK Max strategy – reframing ‘random stuff’ to the joy of discovery and exploration – but I love it.
I especially like that it offers a far more compelling reason for people to keep visiting than simply saying ‘cheap stuff sold here’.
Now I get on face value, reframing is easy to do – but based on a bunch of effectiveness papers I’ve read – it isn’t.
Right now, the basic approach to a lot of strategy appears to be either ‘state the bloody obvious’ or ‘live in a dream-world’.
Logic or fantasy. [Though it’ll be called ‘laddering’ to make it sound smart]
But what I love about the Opportunity Shop is that it does neither of those.
What they’ve done with that name is take something inherently true and then convey it in a way that opens possibility.
Elevation rather than explanation … helping you connect to it because it doesn’t ask you to reject your perceptions, but invites you to interpret them in a new way.
It’s part of the reason why I loved living in Asia so much … because there was so much that operated in similar ways there.
When we lived in Singapore, there was a market near our apartment on Club Street.
A bric-a-brac place … full of stuff like single shoes or jigsaw puzzles with pieces missing. Totally random stuff.
But one of the reasons it was popular was because of the name it had … the ‘thieves’ market’.
How great is that?
A name that not only defines the weird shit you will find there, but also gives you a reason why you would want to keep going there.
A proper reframe. Not trying to associate with stuff they wish they were associated with but acknowledging the starting point of how they’re actually seen.
Emotional self-awareness rather than blinkered ego.
And that is why most companies get ‘reframing’ wrong …
Because they want to hammer home how they want to be seen.
So they repeat it ad nauseum … regardless of perception, reference, context or reality.
And the irony of this approach is rather than capture people’s attention, imagination and emotion, they kill it.
Pushing people away rather than inviting them in. Kind of like a lot of the effectiveness papers I’ve read.
Where I have to keep re-reading them to try and work out what the hell they’re trying to say.
What their idea is.
Why it’s right.
How it worked.
A constant stream of explanation which – ironically – never really explains.
And while I appreciate effectiveness papers require a lot of information, there’s 2 quotes that I feel everyone should think about when defining an idea, be it for an effectiveness paper or to get a client to buy.
The first is something we heard from a chef when doing research for Tobasco who said: “The more confident the chef, the less ingredients they use”.
The second is even more random.
It’s from ex-US President, Ronald Reagan, who said, “If you’re explaining, you’re losing”.
[You can read about them more here and here]
Think about those and you’re basically being given the rules to develop a reframe that can change minds, behaviours, and outcomes rather than build cynical – or just indifferent – barriers through rationality, fantasy or bullshit association.