The folly of categorisation...

Harsh, but fair.

In recent years, I've become a bit of a muso, as the odd post on this blog (and how I spent my student loan) should testify.

And, in no other part of my life do I get as much pleasure as recommending a new band, or an old band that no-one else knows.

There's the old horse chestnut when you have to describe a band to someone else, and compare them to others. I'd argue that there are bands or artists who take such a right turn from their usual sound (though I don't like him, witness Plan B recently, or say Radiohead for Kid A) that they defy categorisation.

This sort of thing is why I worry a bit when people apply arbitrary labels to people to explain their behaviour. An 'early adopter' for one product doesn't necessary apply to the next one they release. I love the iPod, but would I buy a Mac? No, and there are a variety of reasons. I would consider Nike for running shoes, but fashion trainers? Not a chance.

Segmentation is fine when it works for broad behavioural patterns, but the whole Gladwell bell curve attempt by agencies to neatly fit people into an assumptive model, or to assume buying patterns somehow have a rational pattern is bullshit.

Much as I find him to be a grumpy bastard when he writes, this is something I cede to Taleb. People are too chaotic, and life is too random, to assume that the most middle of the road strategies are going to work. Why not do a combination of the safe and highly dangerous when planning or executing campaigns?

Middle of the road means your market share will atrophy. Grouping consumers as early adopters means your values will parallel theirs; witness brands which chase an ideal too strongly; one which has gone out of fashion (say most mobile phone brands and having an eye on the future) - or those which succeed by re-harnessing an ideal which has come back in (say, Old Spice or Hovis).

Daily, people defy audience segmentation. So why do we bother? Increasingly, it looks like something which results in jobs for the boys; a lazy back up plan for weak-willed Marketing directors.

I'd far rather be a brand which did the basics brilliantly and hedged its bets on consumer behaviour, rather than executing a strategy which has been passed around so many people that it now bears no resemblance to what was first presented.

Given these trading conditions, strategies either have to be so, so basic (I'm thinking of a certain jeans brand's recent work) as to seemingly insult the intelligence of its audience and not really say anything, or contain a lot of mixed messages which don't DO anything.

We talk in hushed tones about a 'purpose idea' or a 'brand ideal', but all of this is bullshit if it relies on the sort of Stone Age segmentation which a lot of marketers seem to be so fond of. People just aren't a brand character; they have more interesting little niches or jagged edges - it's those which'll make money going forward, those fascinating gaming inspired Easter Eggs (like Google's Pacman display, or Dole's approach to labelling) which tell you more about the people who are going to be your consumer for the next twenty years, rather than an empty current figure.

In fact, gauging the lifetime value of a consumer is interesting these days. A Facebook 'fan' is obviously not a reliable metric here. As discussed on twitter, there's quite a gap between being a fan and being an advocate, someone who will keep on buying.

A personal example - I love Adidas trainers. I like the style, I admire the Predator connection, and love their golf clobber. Yet, I think their marketing (compared to Nike) is often a bit amateur hour. I wouldn't favourite their stuff on Facebook, but give me some money off some Stan Smiths, and I would buy. Nike, I'd love the thinking behind the work, but would I buy their trainers? Not a chance.

Digital metrics are great. I think it's wonderful to be able to gauge the sentiment behind work, and see how well it's been received online. But would I rely on them to knock out a segmentation, or be able to tell how easily my product would fly off the shelves? Not a chance. Would I use them to figure out how to place my budget, and how much of it is for straight promotional activity and how much of it is for more chaotic activities? Damn right.

Adidas or Nike?

I've never owned a pair. Lovely though. Via davesneakers. Usual rules apply.

Which side are you on?

Words to live by, via the Dropkick Murphys.

Nike v Adidas is kind of like this. Sure, there are pretenders. Your Reebok, K-Swiss, Converse or New Balance.

But none come close to the main rivalry. I've had friends who were so strongly Nike it hurt. I think for Seb, it'd be like i'd slapped his face if I told him Adidas were better. I think the same applies to Age.

Both of these guys are about my age (*coughs* older), with vaguely similar interests and within the same professional world. But I completely and utterly disagree with them as to who is the 'better' brand.

I love Adidas. Always have, and recently, it's turned into a bit of an obsession (my new ones, sniped off ebay are here). I love the professionalism, the styling, the sports heritage (they are strong supporters of football, tennis and golf, the three sports I most enjoy watching and playing).

Nike, for me, denotes basketball, running (no thanks) and a different culture all together. Those of you who have met me will realise i'm about as far from being 'street' (or 'urban' or whatever the kids call it) as it's possible to be - I even helped organise a tweed meetup last Friday.

And it's strange, no about of communication will really change how I think. I love the new Nike 5 a side work W&K have made:



Well done Doug and co (also, check out the Rooney nutmeg on youtube, it's genius). The work manages to capture just what I love about football, and about how it can be so social, yet so competitive, even for the bigger players. I love the old Parklife spots for Nike as well, and the 'Eric 1966' print work:

Despite these being wonderful spots, I still love Adidas more. I admire Nike, but I buy Adidas. I trust that the Germanic precision applied to my trainers will mean even someone of my limited talent will be able to kick a ball like Muller or Beckenbauer (or at least, give me a fighting chance). Plus Stevie G wears them, so it's good enough for me.

Adidas have just launched a new website too, which amalgamates all of their content in one place. I like the football spots, and the little interactive Liverpool bit I fooled around with. I think, in its way, it communicates WHY people like football, though I do wonder about uniting the originals content (which, like Nike's hip hop allegiances - features artists who love/have customised Adidas).

To be honest with you, when it comes to how i'd use the site - I don't care about the originals/hip hop bit. It's nice, but i'm more interested in the sport. I'm sure others will be, and Adidas do well when they use their 'straight' trainers and embed them in popular culture, though I'm sure Run DMC helped a lot. Heh.

Perhaps what i'm trying to say is that I view Adidas as professional, with a real history. Nike seems to me to have that for running, but not for football. Now, it got me thinking - what would cause me to switch to Nike? What would they have to do, or how could Adidas strengthen the bond?

I'm not a fully paid up believer in Gladwell esque Mavens, but I do think both brands could do a lot worse than using their trainer heritage (and 'something from nothing' mentality, if you check out their histories - do, it's worth a read) to help others realise their goals. Not just big sportstars, and not just 'fashionable' sportspeople or celebs (though those are naturally, important).

Again, though I think defining a brand in one word is largely bollocks, for me - if Adidas is all about professionalism, and Nike is all about perseverence, what does it mean? Well, if Adidas values professionals, why doesn't it do more in this area? I like the fact they sponsor Garcia and Goosen, two of the more expressive and thoughtful golfers on the circuit - and that the footballers they get into bed with tend to be the more Germanic, sparing variety. Could they not run initatives off their new site in some way?

You could see how it could apply for Nike as well, and something like Run London came closest to putting this perseverence into practice. Amateurs may never be pros, but they can damn well train and try like them. What happened after? Did they capture the stories of people north and south of the river? How has it changed their lives?

In short - I prefer Adidas to Nike, and like what both brands have recently communicated to me. But to both - deepen the relationship. I love 5-a-side, but i'm not sure i'd sign up for the Nike event (i'd get blown away), nor order a customised football shirt for Adidas, much as I had fun shooting at Pepe Reina.

How about you? Which side are you on? Why?