Brand Building + Brand Busting

November 02, 2007

Victoria's Other Secret

If you’re male, I’ll bet you’ve been accused more than once of “having just one thing on your mind.” If you’re female, I’m willing to bet that you’ve made that accusation, yourself. Do men deserve this stereotype? You don’t have to ask women to get consensus on this issue; ask any father who has a 16-year-old daughter what he thinks. Contrary to comic male stereotypes, men aren’t completely clueless about what animates their nature, even if we act that way sometimes. In addition to helping assure the survival of the species, our impulses have also helped assure the survival of comedy clubs everywhere, and also the lingerie category.

As I’ve worked in brand strategy over the years, if I’ve learned anything of vital importance, it is that nothing trumps the brand promise. When it comes to the lingerie category, the category leader - Victoria’s Secret - found itself in a very funny situation recently - well, at least it’s funny to me.

Now, let me confess that I’m not privy to Victoria’s Secret’s actual brand promise, but I have my own ideas about what it is: “If you want to ensure that your mate has just one thing on his mind - YOU - shop here.” Let’s face it. Victoria’s Secret is not in the undergarment business, they are in the romance business. If there is any company out there that should understand the role that the sex drive plays in driving their business, it is Victoria’s Secret.

So, when well-intentioned Victoria’s Secret executives changed their customer associate closing question to “Have I been able to satisfy your needs today?” surely they might have been able to anticipate that this question might be heard differently than it was intended.

Think about it. You’re moving from one sexy undergarment to another to another, et cetera. You’re seeing these apparel-apertifs displayed in variously evocative settings. You’re imagining these satin, lace, and silk delicacies on the object of your desire, or imagining yourself playing that role.

The whole shopping experience has been a long, visually-inspired, and imagination-enriched set-up to a saucy, if inappropriate, retort. When you finally decide to pay for those silk-and-satin-promises-of-paradise-to-come, then head to the payment counter, whereupon you are asked “Have I been able to satisfy your needs today?” it is no wonder that shopping needs aren't the only needs that come to mind.

I’m not implying that customer associates should have to put up with hundreds of people all channeling Rodney Dangerfield. I tried to imagine whether or not I could resist uttering some witty aside if I were asked that question. I would probably say nothing, but I know myself well enough to know that I’d grin, raise my eyebrows, and laugh. I can also imagine the withering look that my reaction might inspire. I’m talking about the “Grow-up-and-act-your-age-not-your-IQ” look that my junior high biology teacher wielded so masterfully upon me and my adolescent pals.

This is why Manuel Diggs, Victoria’s Secret Direct Customer Service Director advises that customer-service employees should be involved in developing and approving key customer-service messages. In a Frost and Sullivan Customer Contact Conference last month, Diggs reported that the question lasted about a week before it was changed. (Here is a link to my source article)

Cultural sector managers can take a great lesson from Diggs’ insightful, if amusing, advice. We need to involve more of those people who keep the brand promise in the process of making it.

"The customer service organization really needs to be involved with every organization that's involved with the customer," said Manuel Diggs, Victoria's Secret Direct Customer Service Director, in a panel discussion. As an example, he explained that customer service agents proofread upcoming catalogs to check for verbiage that might be confusing to the customer. That way they can prevent issues that might cause a customer to call. He added that agents also provide input on packaging and feedback about upcoming promotions.

His division is also heavily involved in customer interactions, so customer feedback plays a big role in company strategy. Diggs relies on post-purchase surveys to gain customer insight. In addition, associates hold regular roundtable discussions to share what trends they're seeing on calls and offer suggestions to management on how to improve the customer experience. "Feedback is a gift," he said. "Associates like the opportunity to share with the leadership team what customers are saying."

Thanks to Catrina for the link.

Posted at 10:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Bookmark with: del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, digg

October 23, 2007

Flying SUX

There’s an old aphorism that says “When life hands you lemons, make lemonade.” Apparently, that’s what officials at the Sioux City airport have decided to do with their 3-letter identifier: SUX.

Until very recently, Sioux City’s civic leaders have endeavored to have their airport designator code changed. They petitioned the FAA in 1988 and again in 2002. The FAA – exemplifying the beaurocratic elan and taste that one might expect from the current administration – gave the city 5 other options including GAY, “not that there’s anything wrong with that,” to use the ubiquitous Seinfeld line.

GAY? SUX? What is this, payback for being Tom Daschle’s home state?

Well, City Councillor Dave Bernstein proposed to make the best of a situation that “SUX.” Bernstein argued that the identifier might not be ideal, but it’s memorable. It sure is. I can think of other identifiers that are also memorable (one rhymes with SUX) but are they really desirable? Should an airport and a city accept a word that, for many people, signals bad manners or poor taste? My dear, departed mother would raise more than an eyebrow were I to have used this word in her presence. She was no prude; she was a lady and expected me to act accordingly.

I’m no expert when it comes to marketing issues as they relate to the commercial aviation category, but I do know that airport-airline relations matter. These days, when airlines are cutting routes to small cities like Sioux City, I cannot help but think that this identifier won’t help. SUX sucks when it comes to setting a tone. (Sorry, Mom.) Not only that, but it also not-so-very-subtly is just a little too close to the truth. For many travelers today, Sioux City's designator describes the whole air travel experience in one word.

I may not admire the identifier, but I do admire the gumption of Councillor Bernstein and his crew. The hat depicted here demonstrates that the airport intends to wear its indignity like a badge of honor. Maybe the marketing campaign will sufficiently embarrass the FAA - and its Republican Family-Value-Quoting Leadership - enough to force a polite reconsideration.

How about a brand new 3-letter designation for Washington’s Reagan National Airport? WAR?

Posted at 04:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Bookmark with: del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, digg

September 16, 2007

The Birth of a Brand

I penned this article for the current inaugural issue of ArtsMemphis Magazine. My client, ArtsMemphis (formerly Greater Memphis Arts Council) is good enough to let me publish it here for my blog readership. Thanks to Susan Schadt and ArtsMemphis for a memorable engagement and for an amazing brand launch!

Those who are interested in reading the announcement - as it appeared in the Commercial Appeal, Memphis' leading newspaper, can click here to read the story.

__________

These days, facelifts, remodels - even extreme makeovers - are common. Whether it is faces, houses, or relationships, people hanker to renew and improve things. It may come as a surprise, but this has been going on in business for as long as business has been going on. It’s called “re-branding”, and if it is done right, the changes extend far beyond an enhanced appearance. The winning game is all about working better and working smarter to achieve better results.

If you are reading this magazine, you have already gathered that the Greater Memphis Arts Council has re-branded. It has a new name, which is ArtsMemphis, a new look, and a renewed commitment to making both the arts and Memphis stronger than ever. Memphis’s Assisi Foundation has been a great friend in this effort by providing both moral and financial support. Jan Young, Assisi’s Executive Director, declares, “With this new brand identity they can step into the 21st century with style. This new name – ArtsMemphis – is more than a marquee name. It’s who they really are."

Why re-brand now?

Why in the world - after 45 years of successfully supporting the arts in Memphis - would the Greater Memphis Arts Council completely re-engineer its identity and change its name? As a natural-born skeptic myself, I understand why people with common sense roll their eyes and hide their wallets when another “flavor-of-the-month” business strategy comes along. If you read business books and magazines, you will find more branding stories in business publications than weevils in cotton. There is, however, a reason for all the hoopla. Branding is big because branding - done right - works. It works because it harnesses human nature.

When a brand refresh is comprehensively accomplished - especially in the arts and entertainment, which is our company’s specialty niche - the relationship between an organization and its audiences is re-invented and re-energized.

If you want to understand why branding is powerful, observe a child. When you give a young child a teddy bear, in a few days you will be told that its name is Hazel. A child doesn’t see that bear as cotton, rubber, nylon, and plastic, but rather loves that part of the bear that lives in her imagination. In human terms, organizations such as ArtsMemphis are just like Hazel the teddy bear. We endow them with human traits and, as is the case with people, likable organizations have more “friends” than their cold, aloof counterparts. This is an important lesson for both organizations and people to learn; you’re not loved because you’re important; you’re important because you are loved. So, one of the first things we set out to do in our work was to find out how people felt about the organization.

Contrary to popular belief, brand is perception-driven, and it lives in the hearts and minds of the people who know an organization. So, to understand your brand, it is essential to talk to people who know you, your product, and your organization. To this end, we conducted some 50 in-depth interviews with a variety of Memphians who each see and interact with the organization in unique ways. We interviewed arts company executives, audience members, donors, foundations, corporate executives, sponsors, educators, community leaders, elected officials, and directors from the boards of both the Arts Council and Memphis’s arts organizations.

We discovered that the organization was perceived as trustworthy, efficient, innovative, competent, and even “fun”. At the same time, some viewed it as aloof, insular, and elitist. Most importantly, we learned what it is that people want from the new ArtsMemphis, and out of this knowledge, the new brand strategy emerged. It will touch everything-- from publications and the web site, to office furnishings, to the fundraising messages being transmitted, and even to the “tone-of-voice” used to deliver these messages.

You don't have to be sick to get better.

In its close to a half century in operation, the Greater Memphis Arts Council can point to countless achievements. Though Memphis is only the 17th largest city in the United States, it boasts the nation’s sixth largest arts funding organization. That’s a pretty significant accomplishment, but it pales next to its “pass-through” rate. It is a fact that fully 95 cents of every dollar that the organization raises is directed to the Memphis arts organizations that it funds.

Compared to similar organizations with rates that are, on average, three to four times higher, ArtsMemphis’s efficiency is unparalleled. Plus, the organization has the highest average gift dollar amount of any united arts funding organization in the United States. It has one of the strongest boards in Memphis and, with their leadership and dedication, ArtsMemphis recently completed a successful capital campaign, Memphis for the Arts, which resulted in total commitments of more than $27 MM. With so much good work and a solid record under its belt, some people might question the need for re-branding the Arts Council.

CEO Susan Schadt recognized the need to build the number of donors contributing to the organization. For years, because the Arts Council had focused its efforts on major gifts campaigns, the organization garnered a hefty return of $3 million annually. It reached this goal, however, with only 1,300 donors. When compared to peer cities with donors numbering ten to twenty times that amount - mostly because of significant workplace-giving campaigns - Schadt saw an opportunity to build from strength. The organization had effectively tapped the top of the pyramid. The time was now right to expand the base, so she sought expertise to help her learn how to grow and what would be necessary to create success.

With the help of a nationally prominent arts research and strategy firm, she went on to learn that, despite a strong fundraising record, awareness levels of the organization’s name, programs, and services were low. The study also demonstrated that the organization’s acronym - GMAC - was frequently confused with an automotive financing company. Among other findings, it was recommended that the Arts Council strongly consider a name change.

What! Change your name?

When our firm was engaged, we approached the idea of changing the organization’s name with more than a little trepidation. Unless they are very carefully handled, name changes can confuse the public, with people left wondering whether a new entity is being created. We recognized that there were a lot of good memories and impressions associated with the Arts Council over the years that might be sacrificed with a name change.

Continue reading "The Birth of a Brand" »

Posted at 12:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
Bookmark with: del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, digg

June 08, 2007

Keep it fresh.

Keeping it fresh is one of the most difficult things any creative director or art director has to accomplish, especially when it comes to repositioning something with established and strong brand equities, like Shakespeare.

This morning, as I was reading the Washington Post on-line, I came across this banner ad for Shakespeare Theatre’s production of “Hamlet.�?

In my line of work, I see a lot of ad creative. I’m jaded at this point. So, when I take a short breath, look hard and go “Wow,�? it’s a great thing for me. In my opinion this is terrific work. Its simplicity - coupled with how powerfully the photographer captured the sulking, narcissistic, and cruel elements of Hamlet’s character - just bowled me over.

Too often, attempts to energize or update the iconic come across as lame or cynical. So often, the results of these “freshening�? efforts are eye-rollers. Nothing is less hip than something that tries too hard to be hip. This gets there.

The Boomer Markets may have grudgingly accepted the inevitability of aging and mortality, but they sure haven’t given up on finding the Fountain of Hip. If this ad is any indication, maybe they should make their way to Michael Kahn’s production of Hamlet.

Posted at 08:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
Bookmark with: del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, digg

June 06, 2007

Olympics Logo Kerfuffle

Yesterday's unveiling of Wolff Olins' new logo for the 2012 London Olympics was slightly less than laudatory.

The mark, reportedly costing some $800,000, was described in terms ranging from "multi-colored vomit-spray" to "hideous" to "ridiculous." Celebrity athletes and public figures, e.g. Tony Blair, were considerably kinder. "When people see the new brand, we want them to be inspired to make a positive change in their life," Blair said.

Needless to say, an event as prized as are the Olympic Games inspires ownership and pride on the part of the city that is picked to host the games. It would seem that the logo is indeed inspiring, but unfortunately it is inspiring derision, scorn, and contempt. As a brand mark, people don't seem to want to see and feel themselves within it; that's what a logo's job is. Affinity, like consumption, is a primary mode of self-expression. If people can't or won't find themselves and what they like or value within an identity, the logo - the face of the identity - fails.

It is difficult to imagine that the brilliant designers and creative directors at Wolff Olins (a great brand firm by anybody's standards) could have failed to predict how the mark would be received. With a price tag in this price range, surely there was a research budget. Was the logo tested? I hope that Wolff Olins speaks up and lets us know that they were diligent in ensuring that a mark this important was not only carefully crafted, but diligently vetted.

Posted at 09:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)
Bookmark with: del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, digg

April 10, 2007

How to think about testing new creative

When you’re developing new creative work - new branded imagery, new tag lines, new campaign lines, or new messages - how do you find out whether your your creative work resonates with your target audience?

Do you use your gut instinct? Is your hunch enough? If you’re uncertain (or risk-averse), you have a variety of options to choose among to support and inform your decision-making. Bullet-proof marketing management is increasingly all about the quality of decision-making that is taking place.

When it comes to making strategy decisions, there is a continuum that runs from “hunch�? to “certain.�? There is a lot of territory between those poles at the opposite ends of that continuum. Hunches are useful. Most marketers use their “gut�? on a daily basis to make decisions. We can’t test everything and we shouldn’t try. Good quality research isn’t free.

So when should we pull the trigger and hire research professionals? I believe that research becomes increasingly important when we must absolutely trust that we're making the right decisions.

Good decision-making has always been important, but most of us know that the sheer power of a big marketing budget can make up for poor creative strategy. Put enough money behind a mediocre idea for a long enough period and the idea seems to get better. I might get unpopular for suggesting this, but I think the Aflac Duck wouldn’t fly for two seconds with a nonprofit arts marketing budget. (Yes, I know all about how well this campaign has work in raising awareness of Aflac.)

Fundamentally, that’s our problem in the nonprofit arts sector; our ideas have to be amazingly good to make up for our small wallet. We have to stick at low budgets. So, how do we decide whether our idea is good or we’re temporarily delusional?

For decades, focus groups have been used for this purpose and to good effect. But, with focus groups, there’s always that nagging concern in the back of one's mind: findings from focus groups are not definitive because they are not statistically reliable. The sample size is too small and the process - as useful as it is - can (and often does) influence respondents.

In addition to this concern, increasingly I see organizations trying to do their own focus groups, thinking that something is better than nothing when it comes to consumer feedback. I couldn’t disagree more. A reliable and credible process requires a trained professional moderator who knows (and who will tell you) how the information you glean will be useful and what the limitations of the focus group process are. I wouldn’t base organizational strategy on amateur research any more than I would start a medical treatment regimen based on the advice of a snake-handling witch doctor. Forgive the bluntness, but resources are just too scarce.

When focus groups are convened, run, and interpreted by a professional moderator, even then findings are not definitive in statistical terms. In other words, what you have is an enriched, textured, and more vivid set of opinions. In my opinion, groups are most useful in refining or elaborating on creative strategies and product, and 2) figuring out what to test using quantitative methods.

Speaking of quantitative methods, the web-research company Zoomerang has developed a web-based platform for testing creative product. Ann Murphy, creative director of the New York-based firm, EMG, recently suggested using this platform to test new brand tags for our mutual client. This process is reliable because Zoomerang has recruited respondent pools that are robust enough - per market - that they have the ability to mirror the demographics and lifestyles of various consumer target groups. For additional money, you can even use your own database to enrich and compare against Zoomerang’s test group.

Our process was relatively inexpensive, very fast, and generated a response rate that was high enough to suggest statistical confidence. The finding were clear enough (there was a big enough difference between tested approaches) that I believed we had conclusions we could trust.

For those organizations that want to run quick processes and who haven’t queued up a place with their own research firm to do so, this is a reasonable option. Is this approach as good as custom market research? No. Is it reliable enough? Yes. Does it beat focus group testing in reliability? Almost certainly. Is it better than a hunch? You decide.

Changes in strategy disrupt longitudinal comparisons. Basically, when you change strategies, the results from what you were doing before can’t be compared against what you are considering doing. The outcomes can be directly attributed to the strategy.

If your decision rises to the level of “strategic�? - and by that I mean that you are building and considering a new strategy - then by all means you should use research. Consider calibrating the intensity of your research program by three dimensions: 1) the degree of certainty that you think you need to move forward; 2) the degree to which you believe you are making a significant change in messaging and/or imaging strategy; and 3) the amount of resources you intend to invest in prosecuting the new strategy.

Posted at 10:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
Bookmark with: del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, digg

March 05, 2007

Shakespeare and Signature Theatres Seize the Moment

Despite the fact that theatre audience numbers are down from last year, two Washington-area theatres are mounting strategies to grow their audience share.

Shakespeare Theatre (no affiliation) and Signature Theatre (a former client) both recently opened new and improved venues for their productions. According to a Washington Post article by theatre critic Peter Marks, both theatres intend to reposition themselves by offering not just additional productions but productions that are likely to attract greater attention, not just here in the Washington area, but on the national theatre scene as well. The arrows in their quiver include more star power on the development, directorial and acting fronts.

The strategy here is not only clear, but is likely to be effective as well. Both organizations are forceful on the Washington theatre scene. Michael Kahn’s reputation for mounting memorable productions of the classics makes him a force to be reckoned with. Likewise, Eric Schaeffer’s Signature Theatre has been perennially magnetic, especially for those audiences who love new and refreshed musicals.

These are smart moves. All too often when companies open new venues - often in a state of complete physical, mental, and emotional exhaustion - everybody thinks that the sexy new facility will be enough. Well, as the line goes, “it ain’t necessarily so.�? It’s true that shiny new buildings do tend to attract more people, but they are also usually more expensive to operate. The revenue bounce doesn’t always offset unanticipated cost increases, not to mention the time and attention that staff must spend creating fixes for the inevitable problems that new buildings bring with them. Performing arts venues are very complex facilities and — as good as the theatre designers, acousticians, and architects are who create them — there are always issues to address.

I have to tip my hat to Shakespeare and Signature here. Their moves signal that they understand that in order to win audience share, the whole experience has to improve. That translates to working hard on the quality of what’s on-stage, not just the quality of the stage, itself. A wonderfully made, comfortable theatre venue accelerates the rate at which audience members forget about the venue and focus on the work. Signature’s Eric Schaeffer’s greatest strength has been that he has been very adept at making productions that so engage you that you forget about the torture device upon which you’ve been forced to sit. Attention in his new spaces is going to be easier to get; he’s wise to ensure that it’s not going to be squandered.

In timing terms, Shakespeare and Signature have it right. The venerable Arena Stage (former employer and client) is expected to break ground on their new Bing Thom-designed complex in the coming months. For over 50 years Arena Stage has attracted the lion’s share of audiences and revenue. Even if Arena’s producing strategy keeps them at experience parity while they’re building their new venue, they will be at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to hanging on to their category leadership. In timing terms, they’re ripe to be bumped out of first place. I wonder if Molly Smith’s artistic agenda — as good as it may be — is enough to defend Arena’s leadership against these savvy and aggressive competitors.

In theatre as in other categories, timing and strategy matter. Clearly Shakespeare and Signature understand that. They’ve seized the moment.

Posted at 09:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Bookmark with: del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, digg

February 28, 2007

How Values Drive Brand Strategy

The new business, culture, and design magazine, Monacle, and its companion website have put up a terrific interview with Lego CEO Jørgen Vig Knudstorp about his drive to reconnect Lego with its raison d'etre and its values.

You can watch a high quality version of the video here. It's really worth the time you'll invest.

I am increasingly convinced that brand values are the wellspring of brand relevance and long-term robustness. It's possible to operationalize a brand promise - to "live the pledge" - without an emphasis on the brand value construct, but a great deal of meaning is sacrificed when that happens.

Thanks to DOXA's Tim Walker for the heads up about this new magazine and site.

Posted at 10:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Bookmark with: del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, digg

February 13, 2007

Advice for the Young and the Brilliant

Interbrand’s 2007 Brand Marketing Report has recently been released. The report is persistent in its proof of the importance of sound brand strategy to profitability and to competitive advantage.

While there are not many surprises in the report, there are a few. I want to focus on one particular finding:

“Strict adherence to brand standards creates brands with customer impact, but few companies have been able to secure consistent compliance across their organizations.�?

We learn in the narrative of the report that the most profitable and effective companies are the ones that exercise discipline for the sake of continuity.

Help me understand: why would a company - or an employee - choose to be less effective on purpose?

I don’t understand it, but I’ve seen it for decades - over and over again.

I thought that the non profit sector was unique in being unable to persuade employees and colleagues to put the organization’s interests ahead of their parochial desire to do their own thing. Evidently, I have been laboring under a misconception that the private sector’s command-and-control organizations are capable of brand discipline. It seems that capability and competence are very different things.

It never ceases to amaze me that otherwise intelligent and effective people either don’t understand (or choose to ignore) the critical strategic importance of disciplined brand communications continuity.

Give somebody a budget to create their own communication product and they will all too often decide that they’re going to make a unique, special statement - something that will stand as a monument to their taste and brilliance. They imagine that their unique product will be a monument to the rule that rules should be broken. They believe that exceptions must be, by definition, special and effective.

These exceptions are monuments all right - to ineffectiveness, stupidity, and often, to arrogance. (Can you tell that I don’t like this?)

What amazes me more is that the brand renegades who create these off-brand rogue projects find creative people and firms who are willing to produce these aberrations for them. Do these firms think that they’re doing themselves a favor? Do they think that some senior marketing executive is going to look at this work and have an experience akin to the angel Gabriel suddenly appearing? (Oh my GAWD....I’ve found my brand-refresh ephipany!)

If somebody came to me and asked me to produce a communications product for them, the first thing I’d ask for would be their style guide. If my prospective client told me to produce something off-brand, I would politely but firmly decline to take the work.

It doesn’t take a genius to understand that the people who control the really big budgets are going to feel something between annoyance and anger that somebody’s gone off the reservation yet again. When that invoice comes in, they’re going to associate the renegade's creative-firm name with lack of discipline and cluelessness. It’s not going to matter whether it’s good work or not, whether it’s well-executed, artfully conceived, or even effective at producing some results.

It is bad by definition.

I would not want my creative agency’s reputation to be one that is complicit in undermining the larger brand objectives of any organization — especially if I nursed within my breast some tiny hope that I might get a shot at some real business with them.

In my experience, it is often young, inexperienced, impatient (and creative) program or project staff who become brand renegades. These people don’t like convention and they don’t like constraints. They want to exercise their creative muscles, and be given a chance to show what they can do. They take great satisfaction in accomplishing creative tasks and in making things happen. I know these people well because 1) I was once one of them and 2) many brilliant communications professionals emerge from their ranks.

Here’s some advice from someone with a well- and often-kicked ass: Find a way to show your stuff, staying within brand strategy, and you will really go places. It will be you, instead of the research wonk across the hall, that will get promoted.

The brilliant and zany Canadian comic, Sandra Shamas, has a great line: “Are you some new kind of stupid!?"

Take projects off-brand and you’ll answer the question most definitely in the affirmative.

Posted at 08:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)
Bookmark with: del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, digg

February 06, 2007

Managing Meaning

The people who work on building the Red Bull brand never cease to amaze me. They understand the “brand-strategy-is-everything-and-everywhere�? principle better than most companies that dwarf them in size.

This morning, as I worked through my daily regimen of brand strategy reading I came across yet another Red Bull strategy nugget that reveals just how ingenious and relentless the Red Bull branding brigade can be.

Marketing professor Joel Steckel of NYU’s Stern School of Business described how, when Red Bull was starting out, they would place empty Red Bull cans in trash containers outside New York’s hippest, coolest night-spots (Building your special brand identity, Jamie Herzlich, Newsday, February 5, 2007).

So, whether you’re walking into the club or out of the club, one thing you figure out is that the other cool people who are showing up drink Red Bull. Amazing. It’s subtle. It’s cheap. It takes advantage of Red Bull’s distinctive can shape and design.

Because most people don’t know how to manage evidence of “cool,�? they default to just claiming it. Of course, anybody who really gets the essence of “cool�? understands that claiming “cool�? is uncool. What works better is to create the evidence that leads your target audience to draw that conclusion for themselves.

The - and I do mean THE - core strategy principle underpinning brand-building is management of evidence. Success comes from understanding and working the dynamics of inference. When your target customers draw a conclusion, they do the making of meaning; you don’t. You can’t compete with them. You shouldn’t try.

Posted at 08:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Bookmark with: del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, digg

January 07, 2007

Stronger Brands Boost Fundraising Performance

There is a compelling post on Time, Treasure and Talent currently about how a strong brand empowers fundraising.

Usually when organizations contemplate strengthening their brand, considerations are prompted by earned income challenges or a belief that strengthening brand will improve earnings. A strong brand improves performance across an organization. Results often show up first in fundraising.

Improved earning ability matters. No question about that. But in strategy terms, bolstering ticket sales (and associated revenue improvements in merchandising, parking, and concesssions) improves the bottom line incrementally. Of course, improving audience participation (and the ticket sales that manage the evidence of increased interest and participation) strengthens the case for support.

A stronger brand position that garners just one additional $50,000 contribution equates to selling 1,429 more tickets at a $35 average ticket price.

The really good news is that a stronger brand drives both earned and unearned revenues upward.

Posted at 11:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Bookmark with: del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, digg

December 27, 2006

Sometimes It Pays to Advertise

Several weeks ago when I was on my way to a brand interview in Memphis, I happened on this little banner sign. It says it all, doesn't it?

Seeing this sign gave me a big laugh. I imagined the story that made it necessary. Memphis is, first and foremost, a city of the Old South. Making a public declaration in the form of a sign like this is a desperate measure in a city whose business and civil culture is defined by gentility and politeness. I wondered whether the new owner struggled with making the decision to put this banner up. I wondered how long she or he drummed their fingers on the counter-top, wondering when (or if) the customers would arrive?

So often, a brand is destroyed by something as simple as the attitude with which customers are served. For so many people, life is just too short for surly people no matter how timely, good, or productive they are. If that fantastic product doesn't come with a smile, it doesn't measure up.

Later that evening, in a conversation with my clients, I brought up the sign, wondering if they might know something about this printer. One young woman spoke right up: "That printer had a terrible attitude!" she remarked.

Word gets around, it seems. It makes me wonder how many other signs like this might be necessary, especially in the arts and entertainment where we carry so much elitism and snootiness baggage.

Posted at 10:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
Bookmark with: del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, digg

December 20, 2006

Say-It-Ain't-So Joe.

A very interesting article in today's USA Today about alleged anti-competitive and predatory business practices by Starbucks. The article reports that a small independent operator in Bellevue, Washington decided she'd had enough and isn't going to take it anymore. She's not going to be pushed out, squashed, taken over, or driven out. I don't blame her.

Analysts (and stockholders) will watch this action very closely, indeed. If the published allegations prove to be true, the coffee-bean behemoth's reputation and valuation are both likely to suffer. Based on the story, I can't help but believe that Starbucks' strategies are not only nasty and aggressive, but that this suit will successfully attain class-action status.

It appears that a lot of small business-people have been hurt and, worse, that a lot of consumers are being deprived of the choice to support diversity of choice among independent coffee venues.

What is it about Washington State and the metro-Seattle area, anyway? First, Microsoft and now, Starbucks. Are success and empire synonymous? How much money and power are enough?

In both cases, bullyish business practices are not only seething with aggression and coercion, but the objects of empire have personally had to endure threats and intimidation. Evidently, if you find yourself competing with the big boys, when you stand up for yourself you find yourself on the receiving end of thuggish behavior. What a turn-off!

As of late, I've come to wonder whether my own instinctive impulse to support the underdog has become anomalous in the broader USA culture. I've always thought that standing up for the little guy and insisting on fairness and a level playing field are part of what it means to be American. Maybe things have changed and I just didn't get the memo.

I can't help but think about the "greed scene" in the movie, "Wall Street," and Michael Douglas' brassy "greed-is-good" speech. It turned my stomach then; it turns my stomach now. I wonder, "Am I alone?"

When it comes to brand, I've been an admirer of the Starbucks story. Their championship of growers and the fair treatment of coffee workers (including benefits for their people) have heartened me. But, a lot of that good brand equity has been undone as of late. Today's news can't help but propel that feeling further.

I read about these alleged predatory practices - and I admit that I believe them to be true - and I don't want to spend another cent in Starbucks, no matter how grandé their aspirations, successes, or lattés may be.

I don't associate with thugs and I don't drink their coffee - caffeine jones or no caffeine jones.

Posted at 03:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
Bookmark with: del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, digg

December 08, 2006

Newark: Brand, Place, and Context

I've been spending this week in Newark working at New Jersey Performing Arts Center. As usual, it's been a great week. I love working at NJPAC. It is an organization full of good, smart people and there is no end of opportunities to learn and grow. It's a tough place, too, and not for the faint-of-heart. Unlike most big arts organizations, NJPAC doesn't rest on its laurels. If it were a person I'd describe it as restless and driven like some character the Victorian novelist Thomas Hardy might have invented.

Earlier this week, when I was at lunch with NJPAC's Marketing VP, Catrina Boisson, I serendipitously met a Rutgers University history scholar and professor: Clement Alexander Price. Professor Price—an expert on the history of Newark—offered to spend some time with me giving me his perspective on Newark and on NJPAC's trajectory within its current context.

A couple of days later, as I was leaving my hotel to schlep over to the Rutgers campus, I asked myself, "Why I didn't arrange the appointment at NJPAC?" It would have been so much easier and I wouldn't have had to search for a place I'd never been. But, as I walked through the neighborhoods, looked around and explored, I was so glad Professor Price had suggested his campus office for our meeting.

I experienced a real sense of place, a sense of difference and uniqueness. I liked how I felt and what I saw. Newark's neighborhoods feel more real and less contrived than many Eastern cities that I've walked through. Unlike the trendier parts of New York, there is not the relentless onslaught of commerce-propelled hipness and come-hither coolness. Every hair is not in place. There are mom-and-pop pizza joints on the corners, leaves blowing around brownstone lime-slab steps, and assymetrical shrubs left to their own devices. There are also awe-inspiringly beautiful manses, stone-piled houses of worship, and art deco temples of commerce that whisper, "This was a great city, once — and it will be again."

Seeing this part of Newark is like encountering an old chorus girl. I could see and sense the bones, beauty and fire through the veil of age. You find yourself musing, "if only I could have met her in her prime." But, that's the great difference between cities and people; you can renew and restore a city and a place. People, you take them where and when they are.

I realized how seductive one's familiar environment can be and how familiarity and comfort are just prettier faces for insularity and laziness. Had I stayed in the reassuringly familiar environs of an NJPAC conference room or office, I'd have seen or sensed nothing new or different. A sense of place and history wouldn't have spiced the conversation to come and—in terms of meaning—I'd have supped on a pretty bland stew.

My meeting with Clement Price was simply quite incredible. Like most accomplished scholars, he can guide one over a dynamic and complex ideational landscape with clarity and brevity. He described, with penetrating insight, how Federal transportation and housing policy in the 1950s propelled Newark's decline and set the stage for Newark's infamous 1967 riots. I heard how racism, classism and a burgeoning love affair with suburbia and the automobile turned policy-makers' heads from keeping cities vital, and allowed them to reimagine some cities with large numbers of immigrants and populations of color—like Newark— as warehouses for the poor.

Further, Dr. Price explained how Newark's corrupt and inept leadership failed to safeguard the city against these external interventions. It would seem that venality and cluelessness can ruin with the equivalent effectiveness of the most pernicious intentions. (It should go without saying that any mistake or distortion in my representation of Dr. Price's very brief tutorial are mine, not his.)

Dr. Price also explained how the riots were not only a flashpoint in the city's history, but how, when the embers cooled, the ashes made their way into the Newark soil and refreshed Newark's ability to nurture growth, setting the stage for what is now Newark's inevitable comeback. The story reminded me of what I know about Wyoming's evergreen forests: fire renews and refreshes, restarting the cycle of life. Like all low points, Newark's riots were also a turning point — in Newark's case they were the beginning of a steep trek upward toward renewed community and vitality. The New Jersey Performing Arts Center is a lynchpin in Newark's journey toward renewal.

Price could be an avatar for what an urban historian and scholar should look, sound, and talk like. Articulate and urbane, language rides Clem Price's honeyed baritone like a world-class horseman. Even his laugh sounds like it is cask-aged. He is no rumpled, tweedy academic. He's a natty dresser with a warm, sensitive demeanor, a razor-sharp intellect, and a quick laugh. More to the point, he's generous.

As busy as Dr. Price is — and we had to promptly end our meeting so he could stay on schedule — Price offered to contribute to my work with NJPAC. Somehow he sensed that I needed his help, and he was right. The brand campaign that I'm working on for NJPAC must be ensconced in the long arc of Newark's historical context. Price wanted to make sure that I had a chance to understand the context from someone who both knows and cares about it.

Brand strategy, when it works, helps people decode identities, create meaning, and make sense of time, place, and players. Can you imagine how much I benefitted from listening and learning from a a leading Newark-history scholar? People wonder why I love my work so much. It's because opportunities to learn and grow come my way. I'm damn lucky.

Posted at 06:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Bookmark with: del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, digg

November 26, 2006

Exit, Stage Right

When Jerry Seinfeld characterized actor Michael Richards' behavior as "a mistake," he is considerably more generous than I would be. But, then again, he has reason to be. When Michael Richards launched his racist rant against two men in his audience, his was not the only reputation ruined; Cosmo Kramer died in that set, right alongside Richards.

As I have pondered Richards' mean-spirited behavior and seemingly mendacious amends, I have wondered about the social and financial consequences that Richards' actions have wrought. Will viewers turn off to Seinfeld? If viewers flee Seinfeld, royalty checks to the show's creative team cannot help but plummet. No show, no dough. It's amazing that a principal in a franchise like Seinfeld can so thoroughly stink it up long after its creation. Talk about brand damage. Tell me, what advertisers out there might want their brand associated with Michael Richards?

I was surprised how hard Michael Richards' actions hit me. Among all the characters created on Seinfeld, Cosmo Kramer was far and away my favorite. His brilliant recipe mixed the goofy, the geeky, elan, and savoir faire. Kramer's affection for the uncool, his enthusiasm for the weird and the wacky made him incredibly funny, uniquely lovable, and a kind of heroic anti-hero.

Kramer's occasional ability to score big with the babes gave dim hope to a many of us otherwise hopeless and clueless men. Richards' physical comedic skills were without peer when he was on-screen. Nobody made an entrance like Cosmo Kramer. It would appear that nobody makes an exit like him, either.

Goodbye, Cosmo. I'll miss you.

Posted at 10:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)
Bookmark with: del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, digg

November 23, 2006

Cosi Not Cozy

Earlier this week, I ducked into the Bethesda, Maryland Cosi to grab a light lunch and a latte.

Last month, when I was facilitating a day-long meeting of the Textile Museum's advisory board, they brought in baked goods from Cosi for the participants. Those scones just knocked me out; they were so delicious.

I made a note to myself to start going into Cosi more and Starbucks less, mostly because of those scones, but also because I have observed a steady decline in Starbucks service standards.

Starbucks service is now so poor across the giant coffee purveyor's chain that to call it service at all is to pay Starbucks an undeserved compliment and turn "service" into a malaprop.

The service-standard strategies that Scott Bedbury refers to in his fabulous book, A New Brand World have not been in force for years, presumably since Bedbury left. So, I'm a Starbucks customer only when my caffeine addiction decides that there is no other choice.

Sadly, Cosi - at least the Bethesda operation - doesn't look too promising in the service department. The problem can be summed up in the following equation:

Long Line + 4 Cashiers + 1 Barrista = Bad Service

Cosi's message was pretty clear: "We care a whole lot about getting your money and a whole lot less about delivering value for it. We know that once you've given us your money, that we can force you to wait for your order."

Whoever manages this place is not thinking about how the staffing strategy makes their service philosphy visual. Talk about managing evidence of poor service. I only had to look at the long line of annoyed people waiting for the drinks they'd ordered, while behind the coffee machine was one frazzled, hassled, bedraggled, and SLOW barrista making coffee drinks.

All that good will that those great scones created? All that resolve to bypass Starbucks and find someplace where the devotion to service is at least in the same universe as devotion to customers?

Cosi had a chance to capture me. They blew it. I can't help but wonder if anybody but me can see just how bad the execution of the service-profit chain is in the coffee category as a whole. And in case anybody wonders, it is a very high-margin, very profitable business - especially when you don't pay people to actually deliver service.

For me, there's one notable exception among chains: Caribou Coffee. These people know what they're doing. Their product is amazing and their service is every bit as good. I only wish I could find them at more locations. (I have no interest in or affiliation with any of these firms, by the way)

Of course my overall preference is to find the small sole proprietor who has a single coffee joint and who expresses his passion for the beany brew by putting out coffee beverages and the occasional yummy baked good that will even make the Coffee Gods smile.

Posted at 10:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)
Bookmark with: del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, digg

November 15, 2006

Apple Understands How Consumers Co-Create Value

If any success story offers crucial strategic insights to marketers now, Apple's iPod is the best example I know. Apple keeps getting it right, over and over again.

So what makes Apple's strategy to hard to beat?

Apple understands that success just begins with the design and development of a great product. But, they take their strategy much further. Unlike many other companies that focus on continuous and incremental product improvement, Apple adds value to its product by continuously enriching the channels through which users derive value from their iPods. In other words, the product may be a value engine, but the environments in which the product is used are being enriched and extended.

Here again, we see Ted Levitt's augmented product strategy: compete through enrichment and surprise.

Apple's announcement today that they are commencing a connectivity initiative with airlines gets right to the value-creation point. When iPod owners take flights in the near future, some airlines (Air France, Continental Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Emirates, KLM, and United Airlines) will provide connections that will allow users to recharge their iPods during flight. Apple scores big psychologically because it's the fear of boredom on the longest flights that make an iPod most attractive to consumers.

Cooler yet, users will be able to watch downloaded videos and movies on their seatback flat-panel screens. These screens are considerably bigger than the iPod's small screen, and will improve the movie-watching experience. Apple further announced that it is will be working with Panasonic Avionics, the world's category leader in the development of in-flight entertainment electronics, to innovate further in the future.

What's the point here?

More value isn't being created by improving the iPod, itself. The value is being created by enriching an iPod owner's ability to use the product more optimally (a larger viewing screen), longer (continuous recharging will keep an iPod video player going for hours), and in a setting where owners really want to make use of the product. (Hey nothing helps pass a long flight faster than access to music, movies, games, and more!)

Strategically, Apple is taking smart advantage of its category leadership. More vitally, this move also very effectively defends that leadership. Because iPod is far and away the leading portable digital entertainment device, anyone who's looking to add value to their own product or services (i.e. the Airlines listed above) wants to collaborate with and add value to the largest cohort of people - iPod owners.

In terms of category leadership defense, Apple is making yet again another argument why consumers should choose an iPod over Microsoft's new rival product, the Zune.

Apple's move makes a good case why marketers must extend their strategies well beyond making the product quality case to enriching the channels and environments in which consumers create their own value. Because consumers control how, when, and where products are used, they co-create the value proposition with the product or service's creator.

Once again, Apple rocks.

Posted at 12:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)
Bookmark with: del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, digg

September 03, 2006

True Lies

It seems that everybody's jumped on the brandwagon as of late. Sometimes the results are nothing short of inspiring - mainly because brand messages and images transmit essence and truth - and sometimes the results are so offputting as to be laughable or disgusting.

Clearly, not everybody's interested in essence and truth.

Many bloggers - especially political bloggers - spend most of their time ranting about this or that. When I started this blog, I decided I wasn't going to do that but today I'm going to make an exception. This is too good an opportunity to make a point about what not to do when you're creating brand messaging.

If you don't like a rant with an edge to it, I suggest you go somewhere else and read a kinder, gentler post. This ain't it. I can't tell you how hard it is to hit the "publish" button....I just keep thinking about how my mother advised me "If you can't say something nice...."

Sorry, Mom.

I spent the day yesterday in airplanes, winging my way back from the spectacular environs of Rocky Mountain Utah - Park City, to be exact.

When I arrived at Dulles, I spent my obligatory 50 minutes waiting at baggage carousel number 3 for my luggage. The airport authority has a television monitor going there where all manner of politicians ranging from Speaker Dennis Hastert to Senator John McCain welcome tourists to Washington, DC. They're smiling, warm, and friendly. They positively ooze comity and collegiality.

Then the television monitor (that is supposed to distract us from thinking about how the Pleistocene era went faster than our baggage delivery) coughed up Washington, DC's brand new tag line:

Continue reading "True Lies" »

Posted at 01:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)
Bookmark with: del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, digg

July 19, 2006

An Object Lesson in Brand Ownership

Ad Age published a story yesterday about Wal-Mart's attempt to create a MySpace social networking equivalent. Unlike MySpace, however, Wal-Mart's site, dubbed "The Hub," has a few rules.

"Wal-Mart's site disqualifies any video with "materials that are profane, disruptive, unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, vulgar, obscene, hateful, or racially or ethnically-motivated, or otherwise objectionable."

Wal-Mart will also e-mail every registered teen's parent and let them arbiter submissions. Plus, content is limited to a headline, favorite songs, and a fashion quiz.

In other words, Wal-Mart's Hub is MySpace without the My. Wal-Mart is confused. It thinks it can own the Hub, and still get teens to participate by simply offering prizes.

Uh, I don't think so.

Like them or not, MySpace pages are channels for their owner's self-expression. These pages are impressionistic, word-image collage-avatars. They're all about identity, and teens are not going to cede control.

So what's motivating Wal-Mart?

They're concerned, among other things, about the bad feedback Wal-Mart is getting when it is compared to Target with teen girls. In my opinion, this isn't going to help. Social networking is not exactly core to the Always Low Prices brand Wal-Mart has cobbled together.

When it comes to brand, it's important to understand "ownership." Trademarks, products, and brand names may be owned by companies, but brands are "owned" by consumers.

Wal-Mart thinks it can "own" a social networking site.

Teens don't.

Posted at 07:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
Bookmark with: del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, digg

July 15, 2006

The Corcoran: Art Museum or Think Tank

Jacquie Trescott reports in this morning's Washington Post that David Levy's successor intends to recast the venerable Corcoran Gallery's role from art galllery to think tank.

Paul Greenhalgh (pronounced Green-halsh) declares:

"I think one way to see the Corcoran is as an art research center, a think-tank-type organization," he says. The combination of a museum with a historic collection and a college is rare in the art world. "We are in a perfect situation here to be exploratory about the nature of visual arts, and that will be the way we carry ourselves."

Innovation vs. Tradition

In something that struck me as both unusual and gutsy, Greenhalgh framed the collision between innovation and tradition as a branding issue that often gets over-simplified:

"The idea that you would brand yourself with one message is, of course, the idiot's approach to museums," he says. "Museums are complicated places. There is no reason we can't be the edgiest institution and the most experimental over a period of years."

Greenhalgh comes to the Corcoran from Nova Scotia College of Art and Design, one of the respected contemporary art centers in Canada and certainly an institution that has walked Greenhalgh's talk when it comes to both complexity and edginess.

I, for one, will be very interested in seeing how Greenhalgh's think-tank positioning plays out here in the Washington metro area. I confess that I'm intrigued, but I've never set foot in Rand or Brookings, and the only time I was ever in the Urban Institute was as an interview respondent for an arts research development project a few years ago. Do gallery audiences frequent think tanks? It's an interesting positioning strategy with tension between traditional frames of reference (art gallery vs think tank).

Good luck, Mr. Greenhalgh. And great story, Ms. Trescott.

Posted at 09:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)
Bookmark with: del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, digg

July 13, 2006

Straight Talk About PR

Anybody who's seriously interested in building their brand has to master public relations. Unless you're a mega-entity in your category with more money than you know what to do with, you're not going to get much traction just advertising. Don't get me wrong. Advertising can be a powerful tool in maintaining, refreshing, and defending a brand, but as they say at the War College, "It ain't the infantry."

Public relations professionals are the "grunts" who take hills in the brand-building wars. (Apologies to those readers who get queazy with these military metaphors.)

Brand is a lot of things. A promise. An identity. A history. But mostly it's a story. A long story that has attracted more than a few listeners. Any good story must be crafted. And your story has to have a point. It has to be memorable, credible, and durable. If you do your job well, that story is going to stick around for awhile.

Make sure it's the truth. But don't be afraid to make the truth interesting. One of the things I learned while reading Mark Twain is that the truth tends to be a bit boring. It's mighty tempting to gussy up the truth a bit to enhance its "interesting" factor. Obviously, this can come back to bite you and it takes a very long time for a bite like this to heal.

Writer Matthew Stibbe offers great advice on developing effective Press Releases on his blog site. I'd urge you to read the comments, too. One young PR writer was forthright enough to express depression in response to Stibbe's admonitions. This person is probably going to go far.

She or he has figured out that doing PR effectively is tough. Like most things that are difficult, the effort is worth it.

Journalists and their editors need good story ideas. Like most people, they appreciate someone who approaches them with some understanding of their needs.

Stibbe's blog is a good read. I've been following it for awhile. Unlike many blogs out there, what he's got to say isn't just interesting, it's also useful. He practices what he preaches.

Posted at 08:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Bookmark with: del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, digg

July 06, 2006

Connecting at a Deeper Level

If building your client or customer base is a prime objective of your brand strategy, tailor your strategy to boost your brand's emotional appeal over its rational appeal.

Artists have been telling us this in a roundabout sort of way for centuries. When the mind and the heart do battle, reason is almost always vanquished by emotion, even when choosing the heart means the destruction of both.

Gallup Organization research suggests that all satisfaction is not created equal. Emotionally satisfied customers spend more than rationally satisfied customers. In a July 2005 Harvard Business Review article (Manage Your Human Sigma), neurological research suggests that customers with intense levels of emotional attachment to a specific company or organization also demonstrated significantly more activity in those areas of the brain that are related to emotion – when customers are thinking about that organization or company.

Emotional attachment and self-reported share of spending are also strongly correlated. In brand terms, this means that those customers who are giving your organization a bigger share of their wallet are probably doing so as a result of emotional attachment.

In message terms, this is profound. So many organizations make their case for value in rational terms alone. They dismiss or minimize the importance of emotional appeals or emotional bonds. Their language and their tone are sterile, clinical, business-like, and logical. And they wonder why they're passed over.

Obviously, the choice is not one or the other. Overt emotional appeals or messages that are without substance can easily seem manipulative or pandering. They insult the customer's intelligence.

Clearly, savvy brand strategy builds on both rational and emotional equities. In my experience, buiding emotional equities is much more difficult than building rational equities. One can always find reasons where genuine emotional connections are like fugitive mists. Better and more nuanced research and development are required to develop emotional appeals. Authenticity as a brand value becomes superordinate in its importance. And finally, there is no substitute for telling a great story.

When all is said and done, that's what a great brand becomes: a great story. You just want to keep reading or listening.

Posted at 09:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Bookmark with: del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, digg

June 27, 2006

Extending Brands & Barriers to Product Adoption

Coca~Cola BlaK

I'm almost always skeptical about brand extensions. Coca~Cola's new cola-coffee concoction BlaK is no exception. Why, I wonder, would anyone want the implied caffeine infusion that this beverage seems like it would deliver? Anybody, except Red Bull-drinkers, that is. (For a comprehensive chart comparing caffeine content of beverages, foods, pills, etc., go here.)

I ask myself, "Who is the target consumer group? How will the brand be repurposed without eroding the parent?" These are all tough questions for those who launch a brand extension.

Well, the brand managers at Coke are famous for their extensions. Good-famous and Bad-famous. We all remember New Coke. Coke Classic is now just coke. Well, if wisdom is a function of experience, and experience is a function of erring - and then learning from it - Coke's brand managers must have chops.

BlaK's France website underscores Coke's brand management skills. It is cool like only the French can be cool. A completely different visual language set and color palette. Take a look, it makes me want to buy this stuff and drink it just so I have a shot at living inside their advertising gestalt.

Advertising: Marcel République. Web Design: Publicis Net

Barriers to Innovation

The current issue of Harvard Business Review includes a must-read article by John T. Gourville, Eager Sellers and Stony Buyers: Understanding the Psychology of New Product Adoption.

The article lays out research findings that elucidate why so many product and service innovations are doomed to failure. Gourville explains that consumers over-value what they have by a factor of three, and that sellers over-value their innovations by the same factor (x3). Success in introducing products, Gourville posits, requires a perceived improvement factor of ten times or more. Obviously, this is a high threshold.

Gourville refocuses and clarifies consumer change-aversion. While most marketers think of consumers as risk-averse, Gourville explains that they are, in fact, loss-averse. They simply do not want to lose the benefits and features of a product they already know and value, even when a case is made that the new product is demonstrably better - according to their own standards!

Posted at 09:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
Bookmark with: del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, digg

June 08, 2006

Presentations: What's at stake?

Most people today work on the margins of overwhelm. We all have too much to do and too much to think about. We’re not only concerned about getting our must-do tasks done, but most of us would occasionally like to attend to our like-to-do tasks also. Even the smartest of us are forced to parcel our attention out like a miser handing out dimes. So, when we walk into a room to discover yet again another PowerPoint presentation, many of us cringe.

We’re afraid that the information about to be presented might actually be important. We might have use for it, and may be expected to understand and remember what’s being presented. We’re afraid because there is almost always too much coming at us too fast. If the presenter hasn’t prioritized, organized, and sacrificed, our sense-making filters are likely to overheat. We’re afraid we may not be up to figuring it out.

Some of us feel like veal calves about to be force-fed. Though we haven’t even met the presenter or seen the first slide yet, we’re already wishing we were someplace else – anyplace else! Ineffective presentations make their presenters look not only ineffective, but irrelevant.

Making a presentation can really add value to your personal and professional brand, but it can just as easily destroy value. Frankly, if you’re not going to prepare well, you’re better off letting somebody else make the presentation.

In my experience, just about any presenter these days starts the race at least 20 feet behind the starting line. Most people expect presentations to be mediocre. Believe it or not, this is good news. When superb execution confronts low expectations, a “wow�? is more likely to occur.

If your presentation is clear, entertaining, relevant, and useful, then so are you. By making your presentation stand out, you stand out. Your stock goes up and so do your future prospects. It’s sad, but there are very few effective presentations being made these days, so when one comes along, whoever created it strengthens their personal and professional brand.

You just might be thinking that this is a stretch. Why would making an effective presentation accomplish so much? Especially for an emerging leader?

Continue reading "Presentations: What's at stake?" »

Posted at 07:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Bookmark with: del.icio.us,