Concept writing is a key exercise allowing you to move from the state of reflection on the different components of a product to the value proposition to be addressed to the consumer. A stage where what has been developed inside must be seen outside. How to best manage this phase?
A concept constitutes the value proposition that an advertiser and/or their agency arrive at and therefore conveys the key messages that we wish to send to the consumer in order to obtain the best possible insight between their needs and the benefits that the product will bring them. The proposed speech or its variants must aim to be as accurate as possible, both in substance and in form.Note that ourtraining in writing insights and conceptscan allow you to improve your skills in this practice.
Who writes? The concept is, depending on the working methods, written by the advertiser (in marketing, studies or communication) or by his agency (by a copywriter). Good collaboration between all the players in this value chain is essential (r&d/innovation, product manager, studies, agency) regardless of the editor. The agency has natural mastery in the design of messages, and the advertiser, through its consumer insight management department, has a real perspective on the consumer tensions to be addressed.
What methodological approach? Whoever writes it, the concept must invariably satisfy the following framework:
It is not limited to a presentation of the characteristics of the product, which would reduce the message to a purely functional expression,
It does not yet constitute an advertising argument.
It is therefore in this space that the editorial latitude is located. The concept test (whether qualitative or quantitative) will make it possible to validate the substance and form of the value proposition and therefore to arrive at a “secure” communication brief, that is to say whose key arguments are well connected with real and demonstrated market potential. Who could afford to make a mistake today? It is not a question of curbing the creative momentum of the agency, but rather of integrating it into a strategy that is relevant to both the market and the brand.
There are different types of models for building such a value proposition. USP, CBI, disruption, etc. In spirit, these models respond more or to the same perspective, offering the consumer the possibility of being taken from a current (unsatisfactory) experience, towards a future experience (which will bring them greater satisfaction). This experience can relate to the product itself or to the consumer's apprehension of the category itself (notably in the disruptive approach).
To carry out such a movement, certain components are essential:
the consumer's motivations linked to the world of the product or service (and therefore the associated tensions),
the possible benefits of the product or service (and different from the competition),
the territory of the brand with proof of its superiority.
More precisely, we will make sure to articulate the following “ingredients”:
Consumer insight (see our definition of consumer insight), which will constitute a sort of reference situation to express where the consumer is (current experience), and where they would ideally like to be on board (desired experience). The gap between these two points constitutes a tension factor. It is this tension which, if it is very real on the market, constitutes the space of opportunities that the brand will be able to address with its offer (or even our SMT editorial method),
The product benefits which must be chosen in a relevant way in relation to the tensions that we wish to address, but also in relation to the competition and the internal constraints of the advertiser (production, politics, etc.)
The elements of reassurance (RTB: reason to believe) which concern both the real capabilities of the product to deliver the announced benefits and the brand to credibly deliver on this promise. The concept therefore ultimately constitutes the story of a dialogue between a consumer and a brand, “two personalities”. Such a dialogue therefore implies that: the consumer's desires (conveyed by the insights) are truly relevant, the benefits in response to these desires are supported by biases consistent with the brand's identity.
The concept test will therefore have to focus on validating and optimizing the clarity, relevance, credibility and attractiveness of this value proposition put into perspective in the form of a dialogue that the creative avenues can translate into a story. Balancing consumer motivations, product benefits and brand credibility territory is therefore essential.
Some traps!
Most of the pitfalls that we identified in this strategic editorial exercise in fact constitute “offenses” in the quality of the dialogue staged.
Here is a selection:
The omission of insight. The consumer and his motivations are then absent from the discourse. The brand engages in a monologue which during tests will be well perceived as such. This monologue is often seen as pontificating, and too general, often depicting a lifestyle and not a real tension,
The choice of insights with little connection to reality. Consumer desires appear disguised and out of step with reality. The tensions supposedly exploited are not those operating in the market. During the tests, consumers will reject the relevance of the “lived experience – desired experience” trajectory towards which the brand proposes to take them, particularly when implicitly or explicitly this trajectory is already an answer (the insight therefore appears as an overly obvious a posteriori construction...),
Benefits poorly articulated with insights. In other words, a dialogue of the deaf... It is both the relevance but also the fairness of the speech that consumers will question, and even the usefulness of the proposition. We must not forget that most of the time, the offer is plentiful and the consumer already has solutions available to cover his needs. Not only do you have to get him on board, but above all you have to make him want to change his habits, which is a much more difficult process!
Poorly prioritized or selected benefits. Any offer naturally has several benefits. Selecting benefits is naturally a difficult renunciation, but which is nevertheless the guarantor of the clarity of the speech, its memorability but also of the key elements of differentiation which embody the biases of the brand,
Reinsurance elements not or poorly taken into account. “Locking” the discourse is essential because brands operate in territories where consumers, saturated with promises, may be distrustful and where trust must continue to be cultivated. The choice of RTB elements is key because it must resonate with the type of arguments that the target concerned can hear, the product benefits announced and the territory of legitimacy of the brand.
To start well
To avoid these pitfalls, it is necessary to establish very close collaboration between r&d/innovation, product manager, research management, and research agency/company. It is when the validity and attractiveness of the positioning conveyed by the concept are secure that creative and artistic expression will make it possible to give all its power to the discourse through impactful communication.