In response to the social post that dives into Nike’s overall problems from a former Nike Sr. Director making the rounds in the last few days, I responded on X of all places to someone who wrote about that Nike post, that it “depicts direct response marketing as being in diametric opposition to brand building, which it isn’t.” I responded in a longer way, but basically wrote, “You are 100% wrong.” That was the first time I responded to anything posted on X in a long time. Normally I just let others do the shouting and responding. But the more I thought about it, I realized how strongly I feel about this. The person posting on X is wrong. The author of the Nike post is spot-on. Why? Direct response and brand building are in opposition. At least, when you hit the now clearly defined infliction point Nike just defined for the rest of us.
You can build a Direct-To-Consumer business from the ground up using the democratized tools that are now available in a way you could never have before, using the direct response digital ecosystem as the foundation. Or you can decide you want to sell differently to your current and future consumers because it is in theory easier, cheaper and more effective (i.e., Nike). But here’s the thing we just learned. There is a finite number you can build to.
I am going to call it 30%. While there is likely going to be a good amount of discussion about the actual percentage, I am putting a stake in the ground at 30%. You can build a total of 30% of a brand’s possible consumer base through this direct response ecosystem. That’s the number. That’s it. It can’t get bigger than that if you hope to be a brand that sticks around for the long term. That means you will still miss 70% of your audience.
There are many reasons, but the first and most obvious is Nike just gamed-out the system and found the last level where it was revealed the wizard wasn’t hiding behind the curtain. It was a server. To the chagrin of everyone who has a vested interest to never finding out the answer to this question, Nike just proved there is a clear limit.
Put another way, no matter how much money you throw into the system, there is a clear point where it can no longer deliver new customers or sales. If it did not have limits, there not only wouldn’t be a need for this post, Nike (and other companies of that size) would have an endless supply of sales simply by putting more and money into the machine. It would be good money invested with a clear return repeatedly until the end of time. This did not happen. And on top of that, Nike found out something more important for all of us – i.e. the limit of this direct response system. Even if it was a very painful and costly exercise to go through.
Why is this such a big deal? Because of the false promise that data was going to solve the question that every brand marketer wanted to answer, and still wants to answer–does my advertising/marketing work? Can you make the math make sense. The ecosystem promised it can not only do this, but it can also do it more effectively than any other system that came before it. All while building your brand. So, the promise was made. The ecosystem was built. The money followed. Lots and lots and lots of money followed. To the tune of billions if not trillions of dollars when you consider all the different players with a vested interest in this direct response ecosystem. And what was promised is not true. The system, like every other system that came before it, has its limits.
So, the controversy is the digital emperor only has 30% of his clothes. That has been confirmed by Nike. And once you hit this 30% threshold, direct response and brand building are in fact in complete opposition. You cannot simultaneously race to the bottom with your advertising to sell someone a product as quickly as possible inside a media channel–while also getting them to pause, think, internalize, enjoy, and start connecting with your brand. The other 70% needs to come from actual top-of-the-funnel brand building anchored in human truths and shared through emotional storytelling. Human truths that engage and move consumers to care about not only what your brand is, what it stands for, and what it sells, but to care more about it than the competition that sells similar products.
This is in my opinion why that person on X was so adamant that you can build brand using direct response. Because they really need it to do both things. To deliver on this promise. Otherwise, the glaring limits of the system will become clearer and clearer, to a wider and wider audience. Which…it now has.
As for where you should put your budget to capture the other 70% of your audience, that is another post, for another day. Spoiler alert: It can be a lot of different things, but a lot of them are not digital.
