Same but different: channel strategy & 360 vs. omnichannel

At the turn of the millennium the concept of a 360 was popular. It was visualized as a circle with containing segments which showed the various types of media to superficially explain the scope and range of the agency’s reach to the market, impress the client and shake loose some budget for media spend. In greater depth, it is used to show and manage the touchpoints at which the customer interacts with the brand. The 360 is best described as data-driven inventory of media assets promoted with a very colourful and detailed pie chart.

Omnichannel arose beginning 2010 and was deeply influenced by the growing awareness of the need for good experience and observation of different digital behaviour that arose with ecommerce. It recognized that customers would not necessarily be reached by the full set of media, as idealized by the 360, and instead focused on the consistency of the customer experience at the touchpoints.

In case you missed an earlier column, touchpoints are points at which the consumer interacts with the brand in the customer journey, from the pre-sale consideration set, through acquisition to post-sale service and retention.

Although omnichannel and 360 both focus on reaching consumers across the full universe of touchpoints, the key difference is experience across touchpoints with omnichannel and reach through inventory with the 360. The 360-inventory approach does not focus on experience, so to my mind the omnichannel approach wins the day. Implicit to this is that both approaches acknowledge the all-important touchpoints.

The ability to bring media to bear on an objective is less efficient than the ability to harness a great experience. Look at it this way… if the experience is good, the customer is more likely to return; however, the ability to bring media to bear is no guarantee of a good experience and retention. Overreliance on the 360 will probably be intertwined with expensive push marketing. Use of the omnichannel approach will be accompanied by value-creation and pull marketing.

The intriguing idea in the omnichannel approach is that the individual chooses the nature of her / his value. Channels can differ wildly from customer to customer. One customer may choose to interact online with minimal tactile experience. Another may prefer the tactile experience of entirely physical in-store interaction, from the point of making the decision to resolving post-acquisition matters and customer support,

Every brand has a unique set of facets that constitute identity, yet the choice of channel also affects identity. Imagine for instance advertising a luxe perfume in an industrial magazine focusing on tractors. The channel will fail to produce for want of matching the identity of the brand.

Could that luxe perfume be sold on a website for general perfumes? Possibly but the presence of the luxe perfume alongside cost-conscious perfumes may be damaging to the perception of a brand premium. However, the temptation will be there to tailor the luxe identity in pursuit of sales. If you are a brand manager, you will do better to resist the pressure.

The two takeaways are that the channel must be appropriate to the category, and even if the channel is superficially appropriate, the original identity must be maintainable in terms of its segment. Don’t choose a channel merely because it exists.

The complexity of maintaining value creation in terms of what the consumer wants, must be factored into the equation. It will take a bit of work, but the reward in the form of the return will be justified.