Alexander Branding

DirecTV Is Here To Entertain

2012-01-24T19:02:00.005-05:00

The new DirecTV television advertisements have been getting a lot of attention lately. There story delivers the off-beat message of "Don't End Up In a Roadside Ditch." It's both funny and entertaining so naturally, the advertisement has people talking, making parodies and bringing DirecTV a lot of attention in the process. But does get people buying satellite subscriptions?

Despite being the catalyst for conversation, the advertisements fail to actually sell DirecTV. The ads quickly compare DirecTV services to cable but quickly diverge into a loaded nonsensical story. After an initial comparison to cable, the story transitions multiple times with "When You...," and every it does it moves the viewer further and further away from the actual purpose of the ad- to compare DirecTV to cable. If the viewer happens to not get lost in the layers of story, the message the ad ends up delivering is that if you don't use DirecTV, bad things will happen to you. It's a funny premise but is obviously an untrue one.

So I ask again, how does positioning the brand with a fictional proposition help DirecTV sell subscriptions?

Unfortunately, this misguided thinking is widespread in the industry and frequently heralded as great work. The advertising industry would be well served by reconsidering their approach, particularly as it prepares to laugh away millions of dollars of clients' money on superbly entertaining but horribly executed Super Bowl advertisements.

First Step

2012-01-23T17:15:00.002-05:00

Even (especially) when you don't know all the answers, take the first step. It's that important.

A Brand Can Only Go So Far

2012-01-21T00:18:00.003-05:00

Kodak, which is a brand synonymous with film, has been criticized for not moving to digital. However, they were digital. It's just that they name, was still synonymous with film.

In fact, no matter what non-film product they tried to hang the Kodak name on, it was a bust.

Kodak plain-paper copiers (1975).
Kodak instant cameras (1976).
Kodak videocassette recorder and cameras (1984).
Kodak floppy disks (1985).
Kodak batteries (1986).
Kodakgallery.com (2005).
Kodak ink-jet printers (2007).

So it should be no surprise that the Kodak name didn't capture the digital market.

The Next Big Thing In Laundry?

2012-01-19T17:34:00.003-05:00

If the "high-concentrated" laundry pods are the next big thing to hit the laundry room, then how come none of the brands decided to create a new brand for this subcategory?

"Tide Pods"
"all Mighty Pacs"
"Purex UltraPacks"
"Arm and Hammer Toss 'n Done"

All are extensions of the liquid detergent. If this subcategory was truly the next big thing, a new brand should be created.

Just a thought. There is something about pouring an amount of detergent into a cup that seems like it will be a tough habit to break. If you're only washing a smaller load, then why do you need an entire pod. Feels like there is a disconnect with this product.

The Problem With Ideas

2012-01-19T17:23:00.002-05:00

Most people don't comprehend the significance of an idea they are physically able to see it. Once they see it, they know its something.

It's a very special ability to recognize and believe in something that has not yet been brought to life.

Hyundai Aims for a Luxury Brand

2012-01-14T01:55:00.006-05:00

Did you hear the news? Korean automaker Hyundai has its sights set on becoming a luxury automobile brand. Cadillac. Lexus. Mercedes. Rolls Royce. And now Hyundai? The name doesn't exactly have the same cache to it.

This isn't exactly new news however. I recall tweeting some rumblings about this very topic just over a year ago on January 12, 2011. They introduced a high-end Equus priced at $60,000 and marketed it under the tagline "New Thinking. New Possibilities." Unfortunately, according to Automotive News data, the company only sold a meager 3,000 Equus models - 3,193 to be exact.

Despite such underwhelming results in their new luxury line, Hyundai was not discouraged from its continuing down the same questionable path. The brand hopes to become a "aspirational" choice on the road by becoming an undefined concept called "modern premium." It's cliche marketing jargon at its finest.

Contrast this with Hyundai's very specific and defined positions designed to take the risk out of car buying. Hyundai "Assurance" meant longer powertrain warranties for its vehichles, protections against job loss after purchasing and guaranteeing the trade-in value for its cars. Hyundai was able to make significant in-roads into the American market by providing the its buyers with such assurances. The campaign was effective because the brand was specific in what it stood for.

But the "New Thinking" at Hyundai is very different from its very successful past thinking. It's a very obvious sign that warns trouble is down the road for the Hyundai brand.

Being Wrong

2012-01-11T00:15:00.002-05:00

The worst part about not being able to admit a wrong is you are making the choice not learn anything.

Wegmans Demonstrates Real Impact of Celebrity Endorsers

2012-01-07T02:13:00.007-05:00

Recently, actor Alec Baldwin was kicked off an American Airlines flight for refusing to turn off this phone when asked. The minor controversy from this event generated some temporary negative publicity for Baldwin, who also happens to endorse numerous brands as their spokesperson.

One of those brands is the beloved regional-chain of grocery stores named Wegmans. However, this week Wegmans briefly stopped running all advertising featuring the suddenly controversial Baldwin because "a couple dozen" customers complained. When hundreds more rushed to his defense after their initial decision, Wegmans reneged and decided to continue running the ads.

Some may view this as good business because, as one publicity flack said, "Wegmans listens to their customers." I disagree. First, it's fallacy that simply because people express their opinions through social medias (or any medium for that matter), that doesn't actually make them customers. Secondly, discontinuing the ads was a drastic step to appease "a couple dozen customers" who are temporarily unhappy. However, Wegmans' flip-flop on Baldwin demonstrates the true utility- or lack thereof, of the celebrity endorsement.

It may help to understand how Baldwin became the pitchman for Wegmans. Although, he doesn't actually shop at grocer himself, the deal was a bi-product of Baldwin sharing a story on late night television that his mother refused to leave her home in central New York because she would miss shopping at Wegmans too much. Naturally, Wegmans felt compelled to reach out to Baldwin.

It's understood that a celebrity endorser is a famous face that embodies the perceived values of a brand or the benefits it delivers. However, if Baldwin can be fired then rehired without much thought, it proves just how little he encompasses the heart and soul of the brand.

All brands make real promises to their customers everyday. Celebrity endorsers pretend to to get paid. They are lazy marketing shortcuts ultimately do brands a disservice because they could be making real, genuine promises to their customers.

Brand Briefing

2012-01-06T00:01:00.003-05:00

A recap of the most interesting and insightful things I've read this week.

Supermarket chain Wegman's flip-flops about their spokesperson Alec Baldwin in the wake of his airplane tirade. Says a lot about the real value and connection a paid celebrity spokesperson has to a brand if they can be hired and fired so easily.

Jonathan Salem Baskin explores how Kodak's problem communicating, not innovating, is what sunk the iconic photography brand. Also, he demonstrates that advertising's big night, the Super Bowl, is really a humiliating one for the profession.

Tom Fishburne finishes it off with a great cartoon how the often-used product proliferation strategy is a self-defeating one.

Don't Mix Your Brands

2012-01-04T22:16:00.005-05:00

This weekend I happen to notice a new addition to the Esurance commercials that ran on television this weekend. Watch carefully and you will notice a logo that reads "an Allstate company" at the very end of the ad near the bottom of the screen. This change was made because Allstate purchased Esurance (along with another company) for a combined sum of $700 million early in 2011. The refreshed campaign for the online insurance provider launched this weekend during Sunday's National Football League games.

While the likely motivation for adding an Allstate "endorsement" to the end of the Esurance ads was to add credibility to the Esurance brand, it actually will add to the confusion between the two brands. This is the wrong strategy because both brand are unique and have different positions. In this case, they're the exact opposite positions.

Allstate is the brand at the top of the ladder. Its brand promise is that you're "in good hands" with Allstate and you know better than to settle on "cut-rate" insurance companies.

Meanwhile, Esurance is positioned at the opposite end. It's the no-fills insurance company that serves the cost-conscience consumer. Through technology and modern design efficiencies - i.e. cutting out the agent - they can serve clients at a lower cost.

Individually, each is a fine strategy. One man's "cut-rate" is another man's "no-frills." And with unqiue brands, they've done the right thing by position one at the top of the market and another at the bottom.

However, by combining them, even ever-so-slightly, they will began creating branding mayhem.

Weight Watchers Follow Up

2011-12-26T18:07:00.004-05:00

Eight months ago, I wrote that Weight Watchers was making a mistake in its marketing strategy by extending it's brand to include diet plans for men. I felt (and still do) that in order to be successful marketing to this new demographic, Weight Watchers needed a different product and most importantly a different brand name. Perhaps you remember that they chose the name, what else, Weight Watchers for Men.

Yesterday, I noticed that they made some changes to their male-targeted campaign. First, they simply dropped the "for men" from the title of the product. Secondly, went the way of Nutrisystem and added the celebrity endorsement element, selecting Charles Barkley. I guess he's no longer with Taco Bell?

It's a pretty drastic change from the original ad. These changes to the advertising represent a clear signal that the weight loss service is yo-yo'ing on how to reach their new male demographic. Although, the ads are very different, the new Weight Watchers strategy is basically the same - perhaps worse because they're using the same name. Therefore they will see the same results.

Un-like Facebook

2011-12-26T09:51:00.005-05:00

Facebook, who is preparing up to auction itself off to the public, is making a significant change to how users view the advertisements on the social networking site. The little ads that are currently to the right of the newsfeed will be moved into the newsfeed and share the same space as your friend's updates.

For Facebook to make more money, and thus be worth more, the company has to sell more of its main product, advertising. However, if advertising rates online remain flat, the only way to make more money would be to sell more. But there is a shortcut. An advertiser can charge more for the ad if they give the purchaser more visibility. This visibility makes for a better ad but often at the expense of the content (the stuff people want). In the short-term this can work; however, long-term its a solution that only perpetuates the problem it tries to solve. More ads creates more noise and less visibility for other advertisers as well as hurt traffic because they detract from the stuff people really came to see. It's the fundamental problem with making money from advertising - what worked yesterday doesn't work today.

Facebook knows there will be backlash from users. So it will initiate the new advertising slowly - limiting the posts to once-a-day - and hope people don't notice it much. However, if Facebook will continue to grow, it will certainly increase the frequency and the number of ads as well as place them in the feeds of mobile users.

The ads on Facebook are unique because they're complimented by the "like" or approval of a friend. Facebook gives the brand the ability to pay to have this put into your newsfeed. So if you like the page for "Bud Light" for instance, they can pay Facebook to have your "like" into a
"sponsored story" in the newsfeeds of your network. Interestingly, the ads won't look like traditional online advertising because they know how important it is to disguise the ad as the a friend recommendation - even though that user won't know when their interaction will be converted into a sponsored story.

Unfortunately, users are not given the option to opt out of having these ads show up in their newsfeed. Thankfully, they do have a choice if they don't want to spam their network. "Unlike" stuff. If people do this, they won't treat their friends page as collateral damage from marketers.

I'm going to treat my connections in the most socially acceptable manner and not spam them. I encourage everyone to do the same. Simply go to your page. Click on the info tab and "unlike" all the junk no one really looks at anyway.

It's the campaign to Unlike Facebook.

Fool Us Once

2011-12-25T20:51:00.003-05:00

Tomorrow British Petroleum is launching a new wave of advertising that focuses on their clean up and restoration efforts following their disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in the Spring of 2010.

The advertisements feature Iris Cross, a familiar face who became the company spokesperson in the commercials following the disaster. In these ads, Iris updates the country on what BP has done and will further do to clean up the mess that it created. The ad itself is nice. It says lots of nice things about BP while rolling images of a beautiful, vibrant and clean Gulf Coast.

However, how effective this advertising? Does advertising a brand that has been disgraced and has deservedly lost public trust really improve its perceptions through advertising this message? Are consumers just supposed to trust BP because they're cleaning up their mess? Other than saying it's working with the government, this ad doesn't really explain why it deserves the public trust back.

Eventually, they will earn it back. People have short memories so which works in BP's favor. They'll forget how the incident was preventable, the company was warned but neglected maintenance on the well's blowout preventer , they'll forget how it took months to solve the problem as 4.9 million barrels of oil leaked into the gulf and they'll forget how the company's leader Tony Hayward downplayed the "relatively tiny" problem while spending quality time floating along on his yacht.

If people don't feel like they can trust you, it's best not to remind them why they feel this way. I don't understand what BP has to gain from a national advertising campaign.

I believe the company should go about it's business quietly and clean up the awful mess it made as best as they can. Time will eventually heal the wounds but advertising won't accelerate the process when it also reminds people why your not to be trusted.

Although it goes against human nature, sometimes the best action is to do nothing.

Reality Is Simply What You Want It To Be

2011-12-21T22:48:00.003-05:00

For better or for worse, when it comes to the marketing of most things, the reality is simply what the buyer chooses to believe.

The truth is often seen very differently among different consumers. (Case in point: politics)

Broken Ad: Chex Mix

2011-12-17T22:32:00.004-05:00

Yesterday I saw an advertisement for the deliciously addicting snack Chex Mix. The advertisement features a guying using an empty potato chip bag labeled "boring" to hide his Chex Mix from everyone else at the party. The commercial closes with the tagline "Open a bag of interesting."

The final word "interesting" is key to the entire ad and I believe it's completely misused. Is the reason that the other people at the party desire this man's Chex Mix because the snack is simply more interesting than potato chips? I don't think so. So while interesting is actually the opposite of boring, it's not the right adjective to use to position Chex Mix.

At first I was unsure Chex Mix should even be positioned against potato chips. Chex Mix is a one-of-a-kind snack that leads its own salty snack subcategory. However, in order to keep Chex Mix successfully differentiated from potato chips it must consistently hammer the comparison home.

But in order to really do so I think the marketers of Chex Mix needed to take their point one step beyond just "interesting" and explain why. Is the consumer supposed to just believe Chex Mix is more interesting than potato chips (an obvious opinion) because a marketer told them so. I don't think so.

They need to back up their claim. To do so, focus on the key attribute differences that make Chex Mix a more interesting choice. The biggest difference is even in the product name. Unlike the monolithic taste of chips, Chex Mix has a variety of different flavors. Secondly, Chex Mix is eaten by the handful. Whereas chips are consumed one at a time.

Therefore, Chex Mix is the more interesting choice because its "six unique flavors in every handful that make for one delicious snack."

A Beginners Guide

2011-12-13T22:04:00.003-05:00

If your job was to write a handbook or a beginner's guide to your brand, which would detail the most important information someone should be aware of, what would it actually say?

I ask you to close your eyes for thirty seconds and think about that.

Now go look at your newest advertisement.

Meeting Expectations

2011-12-11T10:58:00.002-05:00

If you're in the business of gaining attention (and all marketers are), it's difficult to stay relevant when you simply meet their expectations.

We expect average. We reward above-average with our attention.

Alex's Weekly Brand Briefing

2011-12-08T17:31:00.002-05:00

Here's what I was looking at this week.

Not just $3.99 rugs. Don't like the talk I'm hearing from Ikea about "changing perceptions."

Arnold Palmer is looking to position his brand for the long term. Take the drink. Leave everything else. He owns the word for a lemonade-iced tea drink mixture and nothing else.

Al Ries shares with brands on how to position a brand at the top and bottom of the market. Sounds like Ikea could use his advice.

Tom Fishburne shows what PowerPoint presentations are really doing to an audience.

Broken Ad: eBay

2011-12-07T12:30:00.005-05:00

Did you detect the major shift in strategy at eBay in their latest round of advertisements? The commercials depict people using eBay to buy all the run-of-the-mill items that they can find at the mall. Whether it's a tablet computer or a new pair of jeans, eBay is the last place anyone will go for these items because of their reputation as an auction site.

These new advertisements abandon the auction-style attribute of the brand and instead push a anti-auction position of "Buy It New. Buy It Now." Isn't that the position of most retailers?

eBay was positioned different. It's the first place to find the stuff you cannot find anywhere else.

Not anymore apparently.

Follow Up: Coke Sheds The Red

2011-12-04T20:32:00.002-05:00

After a short run, Coca-Cola has decided to cease using the white can. The cans were originally slated to be on shelves until February; however, complaints over customer confusion has prompted Coke to preempt the original promotion schedule.

As suspected, a changing such an iconic and critical symbol of the brand was not shrewd choice. For more, check out Mike Esterl's story in the Wall Street Journal.

Coke Sheds The Red

2011-12-01T19:02:00.004-05:00

I caught a glance at a can of Coca-Cola earlier and did a double take. The reason I couldn't immediately recognize this iconic packaging, mistaking it for a Diet Coke, is that for the first time in the history of the soft drink, the company decided to changed the color of the can - just temporarily of course. The new can is white and features polar bears, which have been an often-used symbol by Coca-Cola during the holiday season. But it also looks similar to the latest Diet Coke packaging.

However, this is not a case of change strictly for its own sake. The white can is being used to generate awareness for the Arctic Home project, which Coca-Cola is supporting along with its partner, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). The goal of the partnership is to protect the habitat of Arctic polar bears and in particular, a 500,000 square mile territory in the far north where polar ice can survive the longest. In this effort, Coke will donate $2 million to Arctic Home and match customer donations up to $1 million.

While the Arctic Home project is certainly a worthwhile cause, I don't know if I would be brave enough to change the color of the can. Afterall, I didn't immediately know I was looking at a Coke. I'll ask all the marketers and design experts, would you generate awareness for this worthy cause by altering the iconic red can?

So is this a good or bad idea? Give your take in the comments section below, via email (alex@alexander-branding.com) or on Twitter @AlexVilleneuve. As always, thanks for reading.

Simplify

2011-12-01T18:59:00.001-05:00

People are complicated beings. And it's for that very reason that brands must simplify things.

Alex's Weekly Brand Briefing

2011-11-29T22:29:00.004-05:00

Here's what caught my eye this week. And thankfully, it wasn't pepper spray in a line at Wal-Mart.

Patagonia's cyber-Monday/Common Threads Initiative advertisement tells consumer's not to buy. Well, just not to buy a lot. It's an interesting move that will probably get discussed in more detail soon.

Jonathan Salem Baskin gives some advice to a PR professionals who are looking write a new definition for trade as it struggles to find itself in the digital age. It's insightful and an excellent read as always.

American Airlines pending bankruptcy is going to disrupt their "rebranding" effort. However, rebranding has to happen at the airport, not at an agency. Tough luck for the agency that won't collect on another new silly slogan.

Christoper Skinner calls for more story and brand building in holiday advertising in a piece for AdAge. While I agree with the message, I think more should have been said on how brands should do this.

Microsoft is rebranding its daily deals line-extension of Bing to MSN. Go figure.

Broken Ad: Acura

2011-11-29T20:50:00.003-05:00

The calender year is coming to a close and thus holiday shopping is in full swing. Although most don't don't immediately think of car shopping this time of year, car manufacturers are battling hard for your holiday dollar.

The car brand Acura has dubbed this the "Season of Reason" and their advertisements caution against "over-indulging" this season and call for customers to "over-save" this holiday season with a new Acura. Turns out that they left actual "reason" out of their advertisement because nothing says over-consumption like gifting a new car at Christmas time. Even if the car dealers are feeling extra jolly this season and one can save on a new Acura, they're more obvious and reasonable ways to over-save one's money.

I understand Acura is using satire, the ads represent poor execution of an even poorer strategy. For a brand with little relevance and differentiation, the ads do nothing but brand the cars with a pricetag.

Alex's Weekly Brand Briefing

2011-11-23T10:01:00.003-05:00

David Aakar talks about the real key to growth - creating new subcategories to make the competition irrelevant. He also recognizes the work of the late John Smale - a P&G executive with many influential contributions to their brand.

Jonathan Salem Baskin discusses what slashing prices on Black Friday does to a brand in his latest AdAge installment. I also recommend his opinion on marketing as "content curators."

I disagree with Brian Steinberg's take on Amazon. He argues that Amazon's focus on the new helps to sell the old. I really cannot see a focus at all and he even points out that most of their moves were made defensively, in response to competitors.

I recently received my answer to the question of how long before Domino's loses focus again. It was less than a month. They're introducing new a "Gourmet" cheesy bread.

Finally, I wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving and a joyous Holiday Season, but try to go easy on the gourmet cheesy bread.

Broken Ad: KFC

2011-11-20T19:53:00.002-05:00

If you have sold more chicken than anyone else on earth, it's just mindless marketing to tell your customers that "everything is better with bacon." Period. If that's the case, why not make the original recipe bacon flavored?

A Social Media Strategy

2011-11-13T17:30:00.003-05:00

Actions speak louder than tweets. If this isn't your next social media strategy, I think your brand is missing the point.

Baseball Is Caught In A Pickle

2011-11-13T17:12:00.017-05:00

A couple of weeks ago, I asked What Should Baseball Do about its problem of eroding interest in America's great pastime. The title of America's favorite game to watch was intercepted by football a long time ago.

Refusing to accept this, baseball points out that it's attendance is on an upward trend. While attendance and butts in the seats is still critical and the best indication of a sports franchise's success, it's actually television that keeps the league in business. Sports leagues desperately need their deep-pocketed friends at the television networks to commit large sums of cash in exchange for attentive pairs of eyes.

The National Football League and collegiate football are far and away the best at bringing these eyeballs to the television screen. Year after year networks rest assured that even at skyrocketing rights fees they will get a good return on their investment. Yet, that's not the case for America's pastime. Even for the biggest games like its World Series finale, a large television audience is not a guarantee.

I think television is partly to blame. There are some obvious challenges that make television and baseball not a great match for one another.

The biggest and most obvious challenge is when games are played. Its games are played mostly in the summer when the weather is nice, the nights are long and people spend more time outside away from the television. Although this presents a tremendous advantage over the other big three sports at the gate, it's an obvious drawback to consuming baseball through television.

Secondly, the geometry of baseball games presents another challenge to watching the game on television. The shape of all television sets is a rectangle, which is the perfect shape for football fields, basketball courts and ice hockey rinks. All the action is captured as the game naturally flows back and forth across the screen. But a baseball diamond is different. The wide field and diamond shape don't fit well on a television screen and while most of the action is caught on camera, there are a lot of little things in a baseball game that don't make it.

On the other hand, baseball might be the only sport that lends itself to radio. The legendary voices of baseball were able to set the scene and convey every play in a way listeners could easily digest and visualize. For the other sports, this would be impossible. It's not a coincidence that baseball's rise and decline has been mirrored by that of the radio.

However, football has earned it's dominance. Whether it's intentional or not, the football schedule is nearly marketing perfection. The games are concentrated on Saturday's and Sunday's at regular times so people always know when their own. The frequency of football is also benefit. Fewer games adds to the anticipation by fans. They wait for a game all week and know if they miss one they will have to wait another six days to see the next. This urgency means greater demand. In marketing, focus and consistency are always a good thing because it trains the mind of the consumer. Few products in the world train its consumers like football does.

So how should baseball get more people interested in watching it on television?

The answer it recently came up with was one a lot marketers mistakenly come up with - more baseball. Last week, the baseball owners agreed to expand their playoffs by two teams, moving from eight to ten. But for a sport fighting for attention, less is actually more.

How so? More teams don't necessarily mean that fans will pay more attention. In fact, it will likely divide the fans attention more. They will give less to each series compared to before. Similarly, more teams in a league mean fans become less engaged and familiar with each one. In addition, this also puts fewer star players on each team. In a sport where stars don't always touch the ball, baseball desperately needs more star players on the field. The best way to do this is put more stars on the field. Of course, that means fewer teams. Thus, fewer teams mean more stars on the field and more exciting games and teams to watch.

Although baseball never experienced a steep drop off in its ratings, a slow decline is really worse because the problem isn't readily apparent. However, when the World Series or playoff games (the best teams) are no longer desirable for fans and thus the television networks that bring them the games, it's the sign of a real big problem.

As we all know, more is never better in marketing.

Alex's Weekly Brand Briefing

2011-11-13T16:30:00.002-05:00

Here's what caught my eye this week.

Bud Light is preparing to launch it's latest line-extension. Bud Light Platinum. Bad branding at it's finest.

In his usual entertaining style, Bob Garfield dissects the art of making a terrible PR pitch.

Laura Ries points out that the marketing genius of Steve Jobs was his consistency and brand focus.

Tom Fishburne's cartoons on marketing are always filled with clever insight. This one pokes fun at the value of decisions made by committee. As David Ogilvy would remind us, you'll find no statues of committees."

Broken Ads: Burger King

2011-11-08T20:36:00.001-05:00

On Sunday evening I saw a commercial for new Burger King commercial for (I think) its new Chef's Choice Hamburger. The commercial was very similar to the other Burger King spots recently created by McGarryBowen.

While the latest round of advertising is very nice, there is one major problem with them - the Burger King experience is a far cry from its advertising. The part that really jumped out at me was the facsimile signature from their executive chef. The idea of Burger King is already embedded in our brains and few think of it in such a manner.

The advertising is only as good as the product itself. Or as William Bernbach famously said, "a great ad campaign will make a bad product fail faster."

Alex's Weekly Brand Briefing

2011-11-06T10:04:00.005-05:00

This is just a new thing I'm going to try to do every week or so. It's just sharing a recap of a few of the things I read this week and found most interesting.

Paul Adams, a Facebook executive talked about the idea of businesses sending ads to the mobile phones of people approaching their locations at a marketing conference recently. He's absolutely right on in saying that marketers who are falling in love with this idea aren't "thinking from a people perspective" and I agree with his assessment that it's "a really stupid idea." However, I disagree with the implied notion that traditional marketing is dying because "people don't listen to businesses."

I found Fast Company's story about the Zac Brown Band's "Eat & Greet" Tour very interesting and think it's a awesome idea for connecting with fans. Amazingly, he prepares dinner for fans before he preforms for them. I think the Zac Brown Band knows that truly memorable experiences may take more work but are often we'll worth the price.

Al Ries discusses why "marketers" have become limited to just making "branding" decisions in his latest AdAge installment.

As always, thanks for reading. Connect with me on Twitter @Alexvilleneuve or email alex@alexander-branding.com

What Should Baseball Do?

2011-11-03T18:49:00.004-04:00

The first thing every father tells their son about playing baseball is keep your eye on the ball. Until the age of 16 or so, I lived that rule. I was extremely captivated by the game of baseball and just like the big leagues, baseball was an everyday activity of mine. I knew all the players, managers, stadiums and statistics of the game. But as I grew older, I slowly took my eye off the ball.

Sadly, I've almost become indifferent to baseball. I don't watch nearly as many games as I once did and feel almost zero investment in them. When I do watch baseball I often fall asleep with the remote in my hand. I've shrugged off several years of big playoff contests and World Series games. Now, I can only name about half the players on my childhood "favorite" team and far fewer on all the rest.

More troubling for baseball is that I have plenty of company joining me in the baseball indifferent crowd. Sure I did change. I live at a far different pace than I did ten years ago; however, I haven't dramatically changed my consumption of other sports.

This postseason I made "an effort" to watch more baseball. I forced myself to watch and was pleasantly entertained by a great postseason which was capped off by a spectacular World Series. This resulted in the most watched baseball game since 2004 - when the Boston Red Sox were chasing down their first World Series Championship in 86 years.

Despite strong numbers for the finale, baseball has been quietly losing it's place in America's sporting heart over the past thirty years or so. Today, people often site football as the reason baseball is losing prominence in America. However, I think it would be shortsighted to forget the nearly two decades Michael Jordan played basketball and what he did for growing his game. He too is to blame I would say.

I'd want to know what you think. First, diagnose baseball biggest problem with losing share to other sports. Secondly, offer your solutions. How would help baseball regain prominence in America?

I will share my thoughts along with all of the reader feedback in the forthcoming post, Baseball Should Do This. Please respond via email (alex@alexander-branding.com), in the comments section or via Twitter @AlexVilleneuve.

The MKTG Rulebook

2011-11-01T21:11:00.003-04:00

This is so important it deserved way more than a retweet. Know and follow these ten rules and you will become a great marketer. Bravo to Steve McKee from McKee Wallwork Cleveland for the insight via Businessweek.

Don't forget them.

More Schizophrenic Marketing From Domino's

2011-10-30T19:27:00.006-04:00

Domino's has been touting it's marketing rebirth since two former employees created a gross-out video on the job that went viral on YouTube in 2009. Yet from a strategy standpoint it's still more of the same marketer schizophrenia - an approach adverse to building any brand equity for the national pizza chain.

The rebirth started with their pizza turnaround that pitched people on fresher ingredients for a fresher tasting Domino's pizza; a product attribute that has been owned by Papa John's for many years running. They also tried to carve out a market into Little Caesar's carry-out pizza business for themselves. Domino's also wandered into convincing customers how great its chicken was. They tried to sell oven-baked sub sandwiches and I bet most customers cannot even remember the days that Domino's was pushing their pasta dishes.

Now they've moved on to selling an "artisan" pizza. I'll disregard the use of an empty marketing cliche for now, yet its price tag of only eight dollars creates an even harder sell to a consumer population that still believes price and quality are directly corresponding. And from a branding perspective, it's impossible when the word "Domino's" is associated with "artisan."

This is the third time (read one and two here) since their marketing rebirth that I've discussed Domino's schizophrenic marketing approach. This approach will lead to the same death it already suffered.

Why Soda Marketing Is Going Flat

2011-10-22T12:59:00.010-04:00

By now, it's likely that you've seen the advertising for Dr. Pepper 10, which was recently launched as a diet alternative to its own diet alternative, Diet Dr. Pepper. However, this alternative is envisioned to be the alternative that male soda drinkers choose, who have not been quick to reach for a Diet Dr. Pepper.

Commentaries will make a big deal about the off-beat "it's just for men" tactic Dr. Pepper has employed in getting the message of this new variety out to consumers; however, that will not be the reason Dr. Pepper 10 is going to fail.

Along with its alternative cola counterparts Coke Zero and Pepsi Max, Dr. Pepper 10 was launched with calories on the mind - the principle culprit in why more consumers are passing on their pop.

As the American body continues to tip the scale further than ever before, much of the blame gets directed at the empty calories consumed from via colas. Consequently, sales have been trending down for almost a decade.

But regardless of whether soda is being unfairly scapegoated as the principle cause for the poor health of Americans, the parties responsible for selling it haven't done themselves any favors with their poor strategies. Diet Pepper 10 is just the latest example of soda marketers fighting the completely wrong battle.

Even diet or low calorie sodas lack the nourishment that alternatives like water or juice can provide. Therefore, soda marketers are doing nothing but cannibalizing their own sales because every new calorie-focused cola repositions the original product as lacking in some department. Thus consumers are left with an unenviable choice between "health" and "taste;" therefore they're forced to compromise something they desire. The trade-off leaves the feeling of disappointment every time they use the product.

What's a soda marketer do? When the conversation is about how unhealthy drinking soda regularly is, soda marketers should be working to change the conversation, not amplify it. The calorie-conscious line extension only furthers it.

Despite all of the research and trend reporting that are behind the health oriented strategy of soda marketers, they're a lot of unhealthy categories that are growing.

Five Guys hasn't been hurt by the fact that one of its cheeseburgers has 840 calories (500 from fat). They don't talk about it and the fast-casual burger category grew by 16.4 % last year.

The explosion of gourmet cupcake shops are no exception. While most likely less than an entire cake, a cupcake is still full of calories.

Perceived as a healthier alternative, the ready to drink iced-tea category has benefited from the misfortunes of soda marketers. However, 8 ounces of Arnold Palmer Half & Half has 50 calories. Eight ounces of Snapple Raspberry tea has 100 calories; the same amount as 8 ounces of Coke Classic. These marketers don't talk diet. Not yet anyway.

The marketers at Dr. Pepper should study their history. Mid-calorie colas Pepsi Edge and C2 were tried and failed. This will fail too. However, I just hope that soda marketers eventually learn why their products inevitably fail. Many will eventually pin the blame on their head-scratching tactics. Few will know it's because their line-extension strategy downgrades the original product and forces consumers to sacrifice something want.

If I was a marketer at Dr. Pepper, I'd think about the days when I didn't care about calories. As a kid, drinking soda was treat because it was sweet and taste good. Like most kids and teens, I didn't care about the calories because I didn't need to. If there is any saving soda, Dr. Pepper included, they need to focus on why the product makes people happy. I think it's clearly the sweet 23 flavor formula that simply cannot be improved.

This post also appeared at on Talent Zoo Media's Beneath the Brand blog. As always, thank you for reading and sharing.

Panic

2011-10-15T20:44:00.003-04:00

In hard times it's important to remember that panicking never seems to work. Stay calm and you'll thank yourself for it.

How Profit Is Tackling Amateurism

2011-10-10T18:32:00.018-04:00

My first job after college was working at another college. Four weeks after I walked the stage and was handed my diploma at Xavier University, I began working in the athletic ticket office at the University of Notre Dame. While I learned fairly quickly that a career in ticketing wasn't the path for me, I look back and know that it was the best first job I could have asked for. The University of Notre Dame was where I first learned and became excited about branding.

However, working on the business side of college athletics, it's easy to forget that the most critical component to the system is that its athletes are amateurs. The reason amateur status is so important is that it's meant to ensure student-athletes participate for non-monetary benefits - or those inherently received from competition on the field. The qualities that most associated with being derived from competition are respect, teamwork, sportsmanship, preparation, camaraderie and go as far as placing a high value on exercise. Practiced on the fields of play, the goal is that these values become learned human characteristics. It's the entire justification for athletics on the campuses of higher educators. They're not supposed to be in the entertainment business.

Unfortunately, that fact is often lost on people - even those charged with doing the educating. As critical as amateurism in athletics is to higher learning from athletics, it's becoming evident that profit is just as critical to a lot of University administrators. It's so important to them that it often clouds their judgment to the point that the mission of athletics on campuses is minimized down to an afterthought. If it's at the forefront of their attention, would such a high number of University administrators consistently act in a manner that's completely contradictory to the values that amateur athletics is designed to foster.

Camaraderie and loyalty are fundamental lessons learned during team competition. Yet, the more obvious lesson that's taught by many is to value self before team. That's what Syracuse University, the University of Pittsburgh, Texas Christian University and Texas A&M are currently teaching students. They're not the only ones guilty of this; just the ones currently guilty of it. It's also the same lesson that a college coach passes on when they break their spineless commitments to their teams in order to switch to a more personally profitable allegiance. Less obvious are lessons in solving problems versus solving symptoms of problems.

The current system is broken. I believe the first step toward fixing it is a decision on the purpose of college football. It must decide in what realm should it exist - a pure profit enterprise designed to generate cash for the University or an amateur competition designed to supplement higher educations. But I think it's clear that they don't coexist very well and should be changed, regardless of how dependent the current system is on an "amateur" labor force.

Un-Friendly Fortunes

2011-10-05T22:19:00.003-04:00

The ice cream and restaurant chain Friendly's has been exploring Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection according to the Wall Street Journal. Yesterday, the company confirmed this report and said it would be closing 63 locations.

Sadly, the company is refusing to accept blame for going bust; instead their spokeswoman offered this - "like many restaurant chains, we are feeling the impact of the economic downturn and rising commodity prices and a challenging marketplace." This coming from a company that began serving two-scoops of ice cream for 5 cents in 1935. That was the Great Depression.

Since its beginnings as an ice cream parlor, Friendly's has transformed itself through a perpetual line extension strategy. It now serves everything from burgers, chicken fingers, salads and sandwiches to eggs benedict, waffles, pancakes. Oh and ice cream too.

They've lost attribute focus as well. It's brand extension Friendly's Express was launched to lure consumers with a "same food, only faster" proposition. Unfortunately, that also would imply that their regular restaurants are too slow. There current campaign is an obscure pitch for a new value menu called the "High-Five menu," which has select meals for $5. By comparison, the rest of the menu now feels overpriced. Each of these extension winds up implying the opposite of what Friendly's is hoping to convey about its brand. It's mired in an all things to all people strategy.

But don't tell that to their Chief Marketing Officer Andrea McKenna, who says "people love our brand, but we've kind of lost relevance." She continued "people's lifestyles have changed, and they've gotten busy." Too busy to eat ice cream? I don't think so.

I'd ask Friendly's if ice cream is just as relevant today as it was when they started? What about burgers? And sandwiches? The answer to all of these is yes. But Friendly's isn't relevant to these categories because their strategy is to be in all of them.

Awareness is often mistakenly substituted for relevance, even by CMO's. But Friendly's doesn't need more blind awareness. People know the chain. They just don't have a reason to go there. If Friendly's wants to matter again then they must consistently give consumers a single most compelling reason to.

How Long Can A Kodak Moment Last?

2011-10-03T18:02:00.009-04:00

I grew up in a town on the northern edge of Rochester, New York and lived about 15 minutes from the headquarters of Eastman Kodak, an anchor to downtown Rochester. Even closer to my home was Kodak Park, a major bustling cluster of factories and office buildings located just west of the Genesee River and a short ride from the end of my driveway. Kodak employed 60,000 Rochesterians at it's peak in the early 198o's and was the largest employer in town for many years. It was impossible not to know someone who worked for Kodak.

My father told me once that Kodak used to be so busy that they had a staggered schedule to ease rush hour congestion. Sadly, jaywalking outside their State Street headquarters at 5:30 in the afternoon is no longer a challenging endeavor since Kodak has cut about 2,000 jobs out of the Flower City's picture every year for nearly thirty years. Today, about 7,000 jobs remain whispers of impending bankruptcy by have grown louder over the past week.

It's the sad reality faced by the city I will always call home and the many hundreds of cities just like mine. Dozens of major metropolises and hundreds of smaller towns have struggled to replace the jobs that vanished with anything close to what once was. The vacant factories that remain are decaying monuments to prosperity once enjoyed. Drive through one of these towns and it's truly heartbreaking.

For me, it's particularly painful to drive through Kodak park and take in the vast emptiness its become.

As the rumors of bankruptcy crescendo, I've been doing a lot of reading about the company that put my hometown on the map and which it happily banked on for over a century. Every article is quick to point out the iconic film company's slow or ineffective transition into digital technology that is used today.

One commentator said "it just doesn't have a contemporary product to match the name recognition."

I think a lot of people might agree with this perspective. I don't completely though. Despite it's slow introduction, Kodak still introduced digital products. They still do. Their new products are just as new as HP's, Canon's, Nikon's and all the rest. The high value and interest in the patents they currently hold say a lot about its capabilities. They can make a good product. And Kodak has that name recognition. They have the history of innovation and all the "Kodak Moments" and the signature yellow and red packaging. If name recognition means anything, shouldn't Kodak have the upper hand or at least be able to stay in the game?

Common sense would suggest yes and yet that hasn't been the case. Marketing is not common sense. It knows that a contemporary product (a new product or idea) needs its own contemporary brand - not a historical one regardless of how iconic and everlasting it may be. Digital was clearly a different category and strategists should know that old brands never lead new categories.

When a brand uses this strategy, the association can become so powerful that it resonates with consumers long after the category becomes dormant or dead. Just ask the leading brand in the film category - Kodak.

If Kodak ever has comeback, which I hope they do, it cannot be done carrying the family name. Thirty years of evidence would suggest that that strategy has failed.

This post also appeared on Talent Zoo Media's Beneath the Brand blog. As always, thanks for reading and sharing.

B of A's Brand Deduction

2011-10-01T17:06:00.007-04:00

When I heard that Bank of America was going to start charging customers a $5 monthly fee to use their debit cards for purchases, I wasn't at all shocked because banks raising fees is about as common as customers stealing their pens. Sadly, it's just the way most banks treat their customers.

My worry is that customers will just pay the fees because they've been conditioned to use their debit cards instead of cash for so long. Soon, the rest of banks will follow suit and it won't effect anyone's brand because the customer will be stuck. They'll just become resigned to the fact that they hate their bank.

However, I realized that I was thinking like Bank of America - without a long term perspective. While the current population may be conditioned to use their debit cards in stores, additional fees mean that the next generation will be conditioned not to. Eventually, any benefit to their bottom line will be lost.

Furthermore, this isn't a situation like rising oil prices where customers are stranded without any alternatives to debit cards. Credit cards and cash remain popular options.

Shortly after reading that Bank of America was initiating a fee on in-store debit card transactions, I came across an advertisement on television for Bank of America's debit cards. Ironically, it was offering cash back on purchases - one percent back on this and two percent on that - just so you can give it right back.

The Bank of America debit card fee serves as another reminder why customers should break this cycle and only deposit their money with someone who will respect it.

The Great Divide

2011-09-27T20:08:00.005-04:00

A person's email inbox represents a great divide. It becomes very easy to judge how important a message is when it's sent via email.

If your message truly requires the attention of someone then perhaps email not be the best way to get it. That's not to say that email isn't at all useful. The fact that get's lost on the spammer is that the attention must be shared - the message must be as useful to the reader as it is necessary that it's read. Simply put, both parties must value one another.

Ironically, that must start way before you reach one's inbox.

Decision Engine Dying

2011-09-24T23:38:00.002-04:00

Bing may be axing its position of the "Decision Engine." No surprise there. Don't know how "Decision Engine" differentiates it from other search engines.

What ways can runner up brands position themselves to challenge the leader? Maybe Bing tries harder?

Netflix Follow Up

2011-09-23T19:34:00.003-04:00

Netflix is splitting up into two brands. One for DVD by mail. One for streaming. A great idea.

Wait for it... BUT. They mess things up worse. The bad idea is what they're doing with the brand names. They are moving the Netflix name to the new streaming service and adding a new one for an old concept. So Netflix, as in red envelopes in your mailbox, is going to become the name for the company that streams movies online. And the new brand, Quikster, is going to take its place with the old concept. Got all that?

A new concept (streaming) needs a new brand which includes a new name - not a well known old one. But then they toss in a terrible new name for that product and you have a strategy disaster at Netflix.

Incredible.

Don't Marry Name and Price

2011-09-20T21:58:00.004-04:00

A great brand name is an essential quality if that brand is going to work its way into the minds of consumers. A few helpers in the process are names that are unique, memorable and easy to pronounce. It should fit the characteristics the marketer desires to declare.

However, it's a good idea that the brand name doesn't include the price. While price is an important and says a lot about it, no successful brand is defined by a number.

I recently read that the popular Northeastern grocery-chain Wegman's will reprice a few of their popular $6 takeout meals to $8. While these meals are a personal favorite of yours truly, they've unwisely been marketed under the name "Wegman's $6 meals." However, with the rising prices for food and their ingredients, Wegman's cannot downsize the meals any more just to keep their signature price. The prices have changed.

That happens - just ask your parents or grandparents. Prices are going fluctuate. But the unique attributes of a brand should not. Wegman's chose to differentiate the brand through a low price; however, that results in much higher price sensitivity by consumers.

Wegman's should identify for what other reasons people will, should, or already do care about these meals. Give people another reason to enjoy them other than the price. Step one is taking it out of the name.

Be In Search of Dissatisfaction

2011-09-15T22:03:00.005-04:00

Sifting through my newsfeed this week, an article about yoga apparel brand Luluemon Athletica caught my attention. Luluemon was born in 1998 after entrepreneur Chip Wilson became dissatisfied how athletic apparel fit when practicing Yoga. Thirteen years later, it's the leader of the category it invented, coming off a 2010 with $712 million in sales and expectations of growing that by 33 percent in 2011. Naturally, the giant brands of athletic and women's apparel like Nike and the Gap missed this opportunity to outfit yoga practitioners and are now scrabbling to catch up. The Gap recently launched a new line of athletic clothes for women called Athleta. While the name sounds strikingly similar to the originator's surname, the Gap denies any copying of Luluemon Athletica.

One of the topics I'm most fascinated by is the reasons that established brands with a larger world of resources at their disposal constantly fail to innovate to the degree of resourceful entrepreneurs like Mr. Wilson did. Is it that brands reach a point in their life when they lose their edge and become averse to taking risks? Perhaps. For companies flush with cash it's makes better sense to buy these brands once they've proven themselves worthy - think Coca-Cola or Procter & Gamble. However, these cases are the exception.

In most cases, I believe a company's desire to innovate is only derived from looking at the income statement. Therefore, the easiest thing to do is copying the competition and be an also-ran brand. On the other hand, an entrepreneur is often better equip to recognize their own dissatisfaction within an area of the marketplace. Consider Mr. Wilson's yoga clothes, James Dyson's dissatisfaction with his Hoover vacuum cleaner or Eric Ryan and Adam Lowry's dissatisfaction with the toxic chemical ingredients in their cleaning supplies as examples of ignored desires that were the launching pad for great brands.

What products or experiences in the marketplace are leaving you wanting more? Most importantly, what will you do about it?

This post also appeared on Talent Zoo Media's Beneath the Brand. As always, thanks for reading.

Sponsoring A Rememberance

2011-09-13T18:27:00.004-04:00

Its now been more than 10 years since the unspeakable tragedy and devastation witnessed on September 11th, 2001. Every American will remember that day a little differently. The places we were, the people we were with and the stunning imagery of that day will last in our minds forever. I also remember it as one of the best examples of human strength and sacrifice to stand for good against the power of hate.

However, the 10th anniversary will be a different memory for me. I'm disappointed that a part of this memory is marked by the advertisements I witnessed on television. Despite being nice displays of advertising, I'm unsettled by capitalizing on the memories of those who have perished. I recognize how many may disagree on the meaning that is behind each tribute advertisement; however, I believe that if honor and remembrance was truly the motivation of these organizations then paid advertisements may not have been the best way to show it. Even if their intentions were truly genuine, they seemed overpowered. The old marketing adage "the medium is the message" applied in this case. It was still advertising and felt as such. Perhaps there best intentions are conveyed in a different manner.

Every marketer who worked on these 9/11 themed advertisements understands how strong American's Patriotic instincts are. But I don't think that this was their best effort at tapping into them. I trust that most consumers are advanced enough to separate drinking Bud and being on the Verizon network from truer expressions of patriotism. I find any suggestion of a possible correlation by these marketers to be distasteful.

What do you think about the 9/11 tribute advertisements? Fair or over the line? Let me know in the comments section below and as always, thank you for reading.

Awareness Alone Is Not an Advantage

2011-09-08T20:15:00.005-04:00

This week, the Chief Executive Officer of Yahoo! was fired. Which got me thinking about what a great brand name Yahoo! is. Furthermore, the brand was an early mover in the internet search business. Yet, despite its quick jump on the category and a name that translated into incredibly strong brand awareness, the company is the search engine equivalent to dial up internet. To be honest, I don't know too much about Yahoo! currently. I haven't been to the portal site in years and I'm guessing I'm not alone in my confession.

Obviously, there is a massive disconnect between awareness and conversion. The reason is that awareness, while an important step in the process of brand building is not the process by itself. In fact, awareness alone does nothing. They're countless brands struggling for consumer cash despite high "awareness." It would be challenging to find people who can recall nothing about brands like Kodak, Chevrolet, Burger King or Yahoo!. The problem is that they cannot recall how each of these brands are superior to their respective competition. Consumers are not aware of their brand advantages. That's a big problem.

Developing the advantages of your brand is the first and most essential step to building a brand. They should be ingrained in your marketing and never be forgotten. In fact, they (not your logo or pretty typeface) are your brand. The next step is to make sure they're conveyed; whether a completely unspoken or proclaimed loudly in advertising everywhere, people must be able to identify them and know the ways your brand is better. It's misguided marketing to believe brand building is just a game of being seen or heard from more often.

While this sounds extremely basic, I see a lot of marketers forget this branding principle regularly.

Post-riff extra-credit note: The best brands in the world are not the ones with the most brand advantages but the most desirable and best conveyed.

This post was also published on Talent Zoo Media's Beneath the Brand.

Have Your Coke And Drink It Too

2011-09-06T20:20:00.005-04:00

Get ready to see more advertising for Diet Coke

According to AdAge, the calorie conscience cola is reorganizing its marketing to span the entire calender year rather than focusing their campaigning to the first quarter. The impetus for this decision stems from beating out Pepsi for the number two spot in the cola category - guzzling 9.9 percent of the market in 2010. It seems as if this decision is to recognize and give Diet Coke the backing that a number two brand deserves.

However, don't credit savvy marketing for Diet Coke's ascension to the category's second spot. Its "Stay Extraordinary" position is complete marketer inspired nonsense and really means nothing to consumers.

The real driving force behind the rise of The (somewhat) Real Thing is an ever-expanding consumer waistline that now counts cans of soda as a serious calorie contributor. Diet Coke is a just beneficiary of a health conscience (or at least calorie guilty) culture that still wants to have its Coke and drink it too. Evidenced by a steady decline in per capita consumption in carbonated soft drinks since 1998 coupled with the rise in alternatives like diet colas, teas and bottled water.

Unfortunately, Diet Coke's position as the anti-cola is the reason for its success and unquestionably is to the detriment of the original formula. Despite holding on to the top spot in the category with 42 percent, Coke has competition and cannibalization sipping away at its share more than ever before.

Obviously, I view the Coke bottle as half empty. I'll even take it a step further. While it may be a bold prediction, I believe its day to suffer a similar fate as competitor Pepsi will come.

Build a Friendlier Website

2011-09-02T21:48:00.005-04:00

A good website should serve as a window into your business. People can go to them and learn some basic information and get your attention if they need to. They're pretty basic, yet very useful and powerful. However, a lot of websites are seemingly not built for human interaction. I'd like to start a list of some simple fixes (sans the expensive graphics and fonts) to make your website more human-friendly.

The first is to ditch the stock photos. If you have real people that work for you, then you should take pictures of them. When I see a website that uses stock photos, I immediately ask myself two questions. First, are they trying to hide something? Secondly, if they're using stock photos just because it's easier, what does that say about the quality of their work?

The second is to avoid meaningless jargon. To say that "company X provides marketing solutions for businesses who are looking to grow their customer bases and increase returns on their growth investments" doesn't exactly tell the reader who you are and why they should be looking at your site. When building your site, it's important to remember that just because you have unlimited words doesn't mean you should use them — "Goodbye," is always just one click away.

Lastly, don't make it difficult to be contacted. Names, email addresses, phone numbers, and a physical address should be easy to find. Larger business should keep it simple, too. Making people choose from 18 different phone numbers is a pain and likely creates as much work as it saves when people still choose the wrong one. And of course, without a timely and appropriate response, this entire point is rendered useless.

If your website is designed to do all the work, I'm positive that it cannot. But strategically, you may be missing the larger picture. Websites are meant for human consumption and need humans working behind them. For a brand, the goal should be directing them from the window to the door.

As always, thank you for reading and sharing. Please keep the list growing with your own tips for a better website in the comments section below.

This post also appeared on Talent Zoo's Beneath the Brand blog.

Creativity

2011-08-31T12:30:00.001-04:00

Don't let your creativity overpower your persuasion.

Gatorade's Three for One Strategy Failing

2011-08-27T02:18:00.007-04:00

Advertising Age recently published an interesting piece about Gatorade's struggle to reposition its brand into three unique drinks- prime, perform and recover.

According to the article, a big reason that the repositioning hasn't fully taken hold with consumers is because Gatorade's retail partners haven't exactly cooperated with their effort. Gatorade's gripe is that their full line of products have been are scattered throughout the store and not displayed in one place. In the article, Andrea Fairchild, Gatorade's VP of brand marketing laments the fact that "We can't change the entire retail landscape overnight."

Sounds like their trying anyhow. The key they believe is to educate retailers on the products and why they should be sold together.

However, I think consumers still might need educating on the new Gatorade. As a consumer, it difficult to understand why what one Gatorade used to be able to accomplish now requires three different ones.

The line extension strategy cannot work unless the previous branding is undone.

When Business Gets Personal

2011-08-22T17:36:00.004-04:00

The expression is said often- it's not personal but it's just business. The chances are that the people who use this expression are not liars. It's really because most people trudge through their daily grind and to them, it really is just another resume, RFP or business plan to examine. Or perhaps it's another customer with a problem that needs a solution or the a supplier/buyer to negotiate with.

Of course, the expression can certainly be useful in that it can help ease the pain of failure or disappointment. All those needing employment now certainly know this.

But what if the expression was flipped and suddenly it's not just business, it's personal. Obviously, something that is personal requires a higher level of emotion labor. Although, it's that higher level of emotion labor that is necessary for doing work that's better than average- whether it be completing a project, meeting a deadline, pleasing an angry customer, meeting with a supplier or hiring people who are just as invested as you are.

Consider the work of a successful entrepreneur. Most new businesses are born out of a specific problem that an entrepreneur is able to recognize. But it's their impulse to internalize these problems which drive them to find and build a solution for the rest of the world.

Great things can happen when people take things personally. Even greater things can when they align themselves with people who take things as personal as they do.

What are you doing to nurture the emotion labor your employees invest in your company?

Groupon's Fatal Flaw

2011-08-18T20:05:00.007-04:00

It was reported earlier this week that the beloved social-discounter Groupon is losing money. A lot of it actually. Even a little creative accounting couldn't transform a $113 million loss with an $80 million profit.

Speaking from a financial perspective, the author makes several excellent points- mainly, be profitable small before becoming big. A common sign that the owners are angling to cash out with an over inflated initial public offering. That's the game. Flip it to someone else willing to pay for the name. However, as a marketer, I think it's most interesting to understand why Groupon is not profitable, despite achieving scale and recognition as the leading brand.

However, the graph above is a great indication of why. It tells the story of Groupon's Sales per Merchant in the Boston area. Despite gaining more subscribers, more revenue and more merchants in the area, it's revenue per merchant is dropping. Thus, merchants are trying Groupon, likely seeking the misguided metric of an increase in traffic or attention. Groupon delivers but then the merchants discover the real effect it has on a brand.

That should be an obvious problem to any marketer. Groupon's position in the market is to sell businesses on a discounting strategy, which may bring about short-term benefits of increases in traffic; however, in the end prove the problem of a discounting strategy. Brands cannot make a living off of customers who only pay 50 percent; meanwhile, customers who only pay 50 percent will almost never pay 100 percent.

That's going to be impossible to overcome for Groupon. While it's built to help customers cash in on huge savings, their customers are businesses.

As always, thanks for reading, sharing and contributing your thoughts.

Starbucks Cuts Off Its Customers

2011-08-16T19:13:00.004-04:00

It's well known that coffee shops today have moved well beyond just places to order coffee and run. Cafe's have transformed into a "third place" between home and work; a place for meetings, working, relaxing, dates and generally spending a lot more time.

Of course, this didn't just happen by accident. This phenomenon is was created as the invention of marketers. The thought behind this innovation is simply if customers spend more time in the store then they'll spend more money at the store. Therefore, cafe's and bakeries are now designed to look and feel less like restaurants and more like living rooms and backyard patios- complete with big comfy couches, area rugs covering the floors, fireplaces warming the air and coffee filling real mugs and not paper cups.

Most of the credit for sparking this revolution in coffee consumption in America belongs to Starbucks. Without question, these innovations in where and how people enjoy their joe greatly contributed to differentiating the Starbucks brand from the coffee once consumed. Naturally, consumers were more than willing to swallow the higher prices because the experience was better or at least made them feel it.

It was a brilliant strategy that not only built the Starbucks brand but also an immeasurable number of followers. Which is why the story about Starbucks customers in New York City complaining about fellow customers "squatting" in the seats for too long is so interesting. It's a problem created by the fact millions of people live and work on an 18 mile stretch of land and there is likely not enough Starbucks to go around.

Yet, New Yorkers are certainly not people that take kindly to inconvenience. One customer commented in New Yorker-like fashion, "if there’s no more space to sit, they should get up and leave.” A contrarian might offer the tried and true adage of first come, first served. If you want a seat then get there earlier.

Oddly, the decision on a solution to this problem is being left to the individual store owners, leaving the door open for the troublesome potential of differentiation within its own brand. Further, the solution that some store owners have settled on is covering up the outlets used to keep customers wired to their computers. Although, I'm not sure this a good idea for a few reasons.

First, this could initiate the problem of creating cracks in Starbucks' brand consistency. Second, squatting is ingrained in the fabric of the brand and a custom largely their own creation. If they end that, what other reason will they give customers to pay $5 per cup?

Finally, I'm inclined to trust the original equation of more time spent in the Starbucks results in more money spent at Starbucks. Perhaps viewed over the course of one day this may not be true; however, viewed over the course of a month or a year, I believe the customer who treats Starbucks as that "third place" between home and work will spend more than the average customer. These so-called "squatters" are the ones that Starbucks is more than coffee to; it's a lifestyle and are likely their most valuable customers.

What do you think Starbucks should do about the problem of too many customers? As always, thank you for reading and contributing with comments on, suggestions for and sharing this site.

A "P'Zone" For Your Trouble

2011-08-14T21:46:00.007-04:00

I was watching television yesterday and saw a very interesting advertisement for Pizza Hut. The ad said that if I was willing to "Like" Pizza Hut on Facebook or sign up to receive spam mail from the chain pizzeria that I would be entitled to a free 'P'Zone,' which is the calzone looking thing in the picture.

Slumped over in my chair, I shook my head and asked aloud what the hell these marketers are thinking about when they analyze the power of social media. How is executing a promotion that's the equivalent of begging for friends (or buying them) going to help the brand distinguish its position in a category that's nearly reduced to pure commodity? Is having a presence in my newsfeed enough to do so?

Perhaps it would help. However, a quick scan of Pizza Hut's Facebook posts will reveal otherwise; it's basically used as an avenue to distribute worthless content and pizza-related entertainment with the hope of getting anonymous friends (as opposed to real customers) to send them a virtual pat on the back- which has become habit and social custom among many in the crowd. There is very little real utility to the social tool and it's difficult to come up with a single reason why a virtual friendship with Pizza Hut might be necessary.

I'm sure the bargain hunting crowd and the marketers who hope to justify their commercially-flawed social experiments will be quick to rumble something about the delivery of coupons or Groupon-like deals on pizza.

However, this only serves to prove my argument and the flawed logic used too justify many social campaigns such as this one. If the social tool cannot work without using other tools like price discounting then perhaps it doesn't really work as well as advertised; just as if it requires a free 'P'Zone' to be called friends then maybe we aren't really friends.

Yet this is the game a lot of marketers are playing these days. These broken campaigns are justified not because of their impact on sales or market share but with completely new metrics created by the inventors of social tools and the people that push them in sales meetings. The new currency created for marketers to blindly chase are clicks, comments, likes, follows and something called impressions. Which might just be the real genius behind the invention called the social media campaign- it's fooling a lot of the marketers in the same way they used to fool consumers.

Only if there were less 'followers' among them.

As always, thank you for reading and commenting. I look forward to reading them.

But Why?

2011-08-11T20:56:00.003-04:00

Who, What, Where, When, Why. Although, for marketers, the fifth "W" should be first because building your marketing strategy is entirely about answering the why.

A brand position must answer for the customer the question of why do you exist. Your advertising should convey this reason. To develop this, it's critical to understand the specific reasons why customers buy what they do.

Successful new brands possess this key insight. Therefore, they don't generate demand but simply reveal it.

Most Interesting Guy in the Room

2011-08-09T22:59:00.004-04:00

One sure fire way to become interesting to other people is to take a serious interest in them. Remember, the guy at the party or the bad date who only wants to discuss himself gets boring/annoying and easy forgetful very fast. Being "social" is a two way connection.

Let that be something to remember next time you or your brand hits the tweet button.

I sincerely thank you for reading and taking an interest in this blog.

BlackBerry's Get Less Different

2011-08-07T16:16:00.004-04:00

The Ontario-based smartphone maker appears to be losing it's heated battle for U.S. market share to competition from Apple's iPhone and Google's Android.

So I think it's interesting to note that BlackBerry is introducing new phones that more closely resemble the competition, as opposed to differentiating them from the competition. BlackBerry is introducing new touch screen only models to attempt to improve it's position with consumers who desire improved internet browsing on their phones.

However, in doing so, BlackBerry is sacrificing a position they dominated. Their keyboard is highly regarded for it's ease of typing, which is something that's commonly said to be sacrificed with the touchscreen typing.

What does everyone think? Do you believe sacrificing their keyboard in order to catch up in internet browsing is a smart branding move in the long run? What other battlefield can BlackBerry own? Also, feel free to share you smartphone experiences for both brands. As always, thank you for reading and sharing your insights.

Backwards Bud

2011-08-05T22:59:00.003-04:00

According to AdAge, the design of the new Budweiser can is more youthful and contemporary than the last one, which will help the brewer attract younger drinkers.

Don't believe this because Bud has it backwards. The design of the can doesn't give "the brand" meaning. It's the brand that gives the design it's meaning. So the new can still says "your dad's beer."

Spark

2011-08-01T22:09:00.003-04:00

When was the last time the spark needed to innovate came from looking at an income statement?

Hype

2011-07-28T18:00:00.003-04:00

Big ideas don't require big talk. Hype is both tiresome and setting the table for someone to wind up disappointed.

Be modest. And over-delivering on your promise will work to your benefit.

Transactionists

2011-07-27T17:32:00.004-04:00

They're a lot of people who say their in sales or marketing when they're really not. It's not that they're liars; they're just a bit mistaken. What they really are are transactionists. They mistake sales for transactions. Transactions are quick and are made with a minimum effort or care by both parties.

On the other hand, true "sales" are more convincing. They require more effort, time, thought and care to make. Obviously, transactionists will tell you that this costs more too.

Technically, they're right. There is a higher cost involved. But their is also a higher return, resulting from that cost. Therefore, the extra work is really an investment.

Invest in something that will be remembered and it will no doubt be worthwhile.

Is the NFL Brand Indestructible?

2011-07-24T15:00:00.005-04:00

With the National Football League appearing to be on the cusp of a new collective bargaining agreement between its ownership and its principle labor force (football players), the football fans who pay the bills are preparing to take a deep a breathe any day now. Wait a minute, isn't that backwards? Shouldn't the NFL be begging the fans to come back after the implied threat to cancel the season? Despite taking them for an unwanted ride, I don't think the football fans ever left.

The National Football League risked losing the most by not not playing football in 2011. If that happened, millions of Americans would have to find another use for their 9 billion discretionary dollars- certainly a lot of money to lose. Meanwhile, the fans would trade potential boredom on Sunday's for more time and money. On the surface, it's an easy decision. However, humans are complex beings, especially when it comes to how they spend their dollar. For the most part, the fans have stuck to the league that chose to jeopardize a near certain 9 billion dollar gift for the hope of getting a little more out of the pot. That's one hell of a branding problem to have; customers so entrenched in the brand that if they willingly close their doors their customers will keep knocking anyway.

There should be a better way of doing business without dragging the customers and employees through the trenches- and some interesting theories have been proposed to that belief. But perhaps the NFL is willing to risk potential destruction to the brand because they too realize that it's nearly indestructible. The Shield is barely touched by multiple player arrests and conduct issues every year. It largely escapes the public scrutiny that athletes cheat the game by taking preforming enhancing drugs- despite playing a game where bodily harm is the norm and short recovery times are necessary for these athletes to stay on the field in order to make a living. Fans will even overlook self-made billionaires asking for and taking unreasonable amounts of public money from overburdened tax bases (or threatening to move the team) for their own private gain. And the Shield barely gets nicked when its labor force and retirees continually suffer from highly debilitating and paralyzing injuries sustained at work and consequently have a typical life span far shorter than what's considered normal among the general population today. That's because unlike the Shield they serve and protect, the bodies of its labor force, while built to be indestructible, always prove otherwise. It seems silly to think that we not only tolerate this, we justify it; simply for a game that serves to entertainment us.

The reason it's justified is beyond great branding. The NFL (and other sports) have learned to transform a game played into a culture. Instead of entertainment a professional team is as much a civil institution as it's a business. Through traditions and shared experiences customers develop deep and lastly emotional connections to the brand. Which is why us fans are happy to put up with all the crap that we do.

This post also appeared on Talent Zoo Media's Beneath The Brand blog.

Good Enough

2011-07-24T11:24:00.002-04:00

When is producing something that is just "good enough" every really going to be "good enough?"

People often settle for "good enough" on projects that are considered lower in priority. Although, if it's not a priority to you, why are you even doing in the first place?

Netflix Introduces a Plot Twist

2011-07-17T22:33:00.006-04:00

Last week Netflix introduced a major plot twist to the movie watching habits of its customers. The movie subscription service announced that they would be raising the price of its unlimited subscription by sixty percent- up to $16 from the previous ten. Since news of the price hike broke, the company has been paying the steep prices itself, thanks to a vocal group of angry customers.

Rightfully so I believe. What customer wants to pay more than they have to for something? This is the risk a brand takes when it chooses to raise its prices by making a giant leap as opposed to taking incremental steps toward the new prices. The new price will naturally jump out and raise eyebrows- leading to brand's getting attention for all the unwanted reasons. So unless the brand can fully explain and justify the price shocks to its customers, then raising their prices in this manner is a considerable misplay of marketing strategy. That's a tough task for any product but especially so for a discretionary entertainment product such as movie rentals. Up to this point, I don't believe Netflix has explained this to their customers well enough. Citing their own costs is simply not enough either.

While it's an everyday occurrence that businesses justify raising (or setting) prices by analyzing their costs, I think its wrong to do so. Perhaps this is a secret among marketers, but customers simply don't care about your costs and have no interests in preserving your margins. Why should they? Their bottom line approach says that if you're business cannot produce a good or service at certain price, then that's you're problem to deal with. Instead of your costs, what actually drives a customer is value. At a certain price, can your brand deliver value that exceeds the cost. In the case of Netflix, when the price becomes a lot higher than it was overnight, the value delivered by the brand will suddenly feel greatly diminished.

Despite the brand's insistence, speculation is that Netflix is attempting to move from a DVD-based rental service to one that delivers streaming content, providing obvious benefits of lower costs and faster delivery times. Although this strategy would present some major hurdles for the brand. I'd caution that Netflix should really consider the consequences of giving up its leadership position so easily. The second part would be, are they sure that they will be the leader in the new streaming video category? Personally, I believe there is enough evidence that new mediums create new category's, which also require new brands.

Secondly, if this is a strategy that Netflix is considering, I would really question the execution of it. Is the best execution for converting DVD subscribers into streaming video subscribers really by raising prices and hoping they consider Netflix's other options, despite their immediate anger? Are there ways to incentivize customers to adopt streaming video without disincentivizing them to their current products?

It's going to be very interesting what happens. Movie watching is activity in which consumers have plenty of options. Do competitors like Red Box step up? Perhaps subscription movie channels (which can be DVR'd) step up and put pressure on Neflix. Or maybe the competition will come from somewhere else- by a brand not yet to be born.

This post also appeared on Talent Zoo Media's Beneath The Brand.

Is Facebook Becoming Distracted?

2011-07-10T20:25:00.006-04:00

On the surface, the recent agreement between Facebook and Skype seems to make sense if one is judging it with broad perspective that both sites are online tools that bring people together and help them communicate. However, the deal becomes a bit of a head-scratcher you analyze how each site is used very differently.

Skype is essentially a face-to-face conversation in real time- but with the added advantage of not having to be in the same room. Communicating via Facebook is actually very different. As opposed to real time communications, all messages on Facebook get replied to when the user gets around it. Furthermore, they're not tied to a webcam in order to do so.

Perhaps a good predictor of the results of this agreement is the chat function on Facebook. While it's much closer to the original Facebook mold, Facebook chat is in real time. Personally, I rarely use the function on Facebook and my threshold for tolerating video chats on Facebook would be much greater.

Furthermore, I believe strictly from a brand perspective that this new idea will have trouble taking off because different ideas need different brands. The convergence of unique ideas with unique brands is rarely successful. For Skype it's an attempt to extend it's reach to an enormous new population of users. Yet, for Facebook it feels like another line extension that is leading the brand further off course. Isn't it fitting that they could get so distracted.

This post also appeared on Talent Zoo Media's Beneath The Brand blog.

Judged In The Court Of Public Opinion

2011-07-06T17:29:00.004-04:00

I was completely ignorant of any facts of Casey Anthony criminal trial. I still am. However, after yesterday's public outcry following the verdict, I began unknowingly formulating perceptions and opinions about the case- despite not knowing any facts of the case.

After a couple minutes of processing the public outcry that followed the case, I was reminded of the fact that people don't need to know any facts (especially gained from firsthand experience) to have an opinion. This applies in all walks of life- from courtroom verdicts to meeting new people to making judgments about a brand.

A brand is nothing more than an opinion or thought of a person. Therefore, a marketer cannot tell people what to think or how to feel. They can only try to influence through a variety of tactics. Yet, even when the facts of their case stack up in their corner, not everyone will see it the same way. That is true every time.

Disclaimer: This post is simply making a statement about human psychology as it pertains to branding. In no way is it making a statement to indict or in defense of Casey Anthony. Apologies in advance to anyone who finds the comparison to be slightly insensitive.

Hearing vs. Listening

2011-07-04T20:49:00.003-04:00

Do people want to listen to you or maybe they just happen to hear you when your talking? Their is an obvious difference between the two and the answer often lies in what is being said and how it's being said. The trick to make people listen is to respect their time and attention by making personal, relevant and important to there lives.

Persuasive communications is often mistaken as a one way ticket but it's really not that different from everyday communication. If you expect to be listened to (and not just heard), you better have a reputation for delivering information that's deemed worth listening to.

Alternatives For Monetizing Linkedin

2011-07-03T10:47:00.008-04:00

Inspired by the news that Twitter would be selling ads in your newsfeed, I suggested last week that it might be more beneficial for social sites and online-based content generators to charge their customers rather than relying on revenue from advertising. While that may sound like blasphemy to today's online user, I think in the long term it may be more efficient than pushing more ads on more people. Anyhow, I received some great feedback that sparked a couple of new ideas.

The success of LinkedIn's business model was repeatedly mentioned as something that should be emulated by other sites. However, the model is actually not new at all. In fact, it's very close to how traditional newspapers have made money for over a century. LinkedIn does charge some percentage of its users who desire the full-use of the site. The non-paying users are only allowed limited-use of the site. Additionally, LinkedIn has an advertising component to its business model. Despite its limited short-term success (a high initial public offering), I believe they're different opportunities to capitalize its position as the online home for professional networking, to make money and to make the site more social.

The basic outline starts with LinkedIn partnering up with other businesses who sell relevant products to its users. It could be anything from office supplies, flowers, lunches, thank you cards etc.

Lets say for instance that through LinkedIn you learn a colleague or friend received a promotion. You could go to a partnered retailer and get them a gift (or buy from a suggested). Maybe you had meeting or an interview and want to want thank that person while leaving a good impression going away. LinkedIn may help you find the right gift. Obviously, sales would be split up between the retailer and LinkedIn. Or why not offer lunch instead of simply asking to be introduced on the network.

I'm sure they're are plenty of other ways to monetize the site using the "gift plan." Maybe LinkedIn could "gift" free advice to young professionals which could be sponsored by a relevant company in the industry.

Social activity existed long before the internet. This engages the professional networks on LinkedIn in activities that are (actually) social and already doing offline. And it just seems like a more logical and seamless way to monetize a social activity than buying laundry detergent on Facebook.

Why Not Charge The Customer?

2011-06-28T22:41:00.004-04:00

It was recently reported that Twitter is progressing on its plans to launch advertisements in users' feeds. According to Twitter executive Sean Garret, Twitter has "been talking about Promoted Tweets in the timeline since we launched Promoted Tweets.” And who can really blame them? Something has to keep the lights on at the social network that's home to more than 300 million users. But maybe there is another way to go about making money.

Advertising appears to be the automatic default for monetizing social sites and content-related businesses on the internet; however, I believe that in most cases executing such programs dramatically lowers the users' experience. Perhaps they should approach the problem in a different way, such as charging people who truly value the service for the right to use it.

When a customer is willing to pay for a product or service, they have decided that it has real value to them. It's worth both their time and money, which is always more difficult to part ways with. Oddly enough, a lot of startups have the opposite mindset. They make the service free and completely devalue its worth in order to grow it fast (and flip the company). But this short-term thinking creates a long-term problem. Therefore, paying for Facebook, Twitter, or even the news feels absurd because these organizations have been telling us all along that they provide nothing of value. In the end, the startups bank billions of dollars and then the real problem kicks in when someone is actually charged with making real money.

Instead of trying to reinvent a broken wheel, perhaps marketers should try to improve the user experience even more, giving the services a greater value that they can sell to consumers. Consider the examples of HBO, Sirius, and Pandora Radio as companies who have taken this different approach to their brand's value. Would you consider it worth paying a premium for online news if it respected your time and attention by getting rid of annoying advertisements, stupid keyword links, filtering out irrelevant junk stories, and exceeding today's current standard of news distributors?

Lastly, it may just be me, but I believe this is a much easier and realistic task for marketers to accomplish. It's obvious marketers have become very good at selling premium values for products and services to consumers despite the existence of cheaper alternatives. However, it's becoming just as obvious that marketers are not good at hiding the fact that a product or service has little to no value at all.

Customers Have Credibility. Crowds Don't.

2011-06-20T21:22:00.005-04:00

Perhaps you heard, but McDonald's does not charge African-American customers more for their hamburgers. The fast food giant got stuck in the crosshairs of the latest internet firestorm and was forced to repeatedly remind people of this fact through its social media outlets and official press releases that silly sign was a fake. A fake, got it?

I wonder how many "you cannot be seriously asking this" tweets the flacks and social media types at McDonald's had to send out before they reached the most extreme heights of annoyance. Although McDonald's garnered a lot of media praise from the geeks who follow that stuff, siting this as a classic case of how social tools are effective at responding to crisis swiftly and directly. Although, I would offer this counterpoint. I believe that the McDonald's situation is a textbook example for exactly the opposite argument - social media contributes to creating such silliness as much as it's a useful communications tool.

If McDonald's spent even a single minute of their time dealing with upset internet crowds, then it was at least a minute too long. However, not only did McDonald's turn to social media in the wake of it's internet buzz, they turn to it everyday. Companies listen. They monitor sites daily to see what people are saying about them. I believe this is just as wasteful.

I wonder how often they learn something new monitoring Twitter and Facebook. Does monitoring the activity on the internet (and the opinions surrounding their brand) really tell them something they couldn't deduce themselves? Probably not. I'd argue that it's highly likely that the thoughts of consumers will reflect that of its employees. Walk into any workplace meeting. If the employees are visually excited to be at work then it's likely customers will feel the same about spending money there.

Secondly, how does listening to disenchanted customers and responding in an underwhelming manner actually solve the issue at hand? Sure, social media can help in the discovery phase; however, the real work should be directed at resolving the issue that caused the complaint and not just acknowledging it.

Finally, I seriously wonder if a brand can be severely damaged by someone or something which has zero credibility itself. Sure, despite its silliness, there were pockets of people took the altered photo for it's face value. Yet, if the technology is as powerful as it's claimed to be, viral topics become become discussed away from the web. Therefore, shouldn't word spread about how the picture was doctored just as fast?

The notion that brands should constantly listen to and respond to the snap judgments of anonymous crowds is partially responsible for creating these ridiculous weekly internet dust ups. Meanwhile, marketers place little emphasis on preventing even the smallest varieties from occurring in the first place.

This blog post first appeared in a slightly different form on Talent Zoo Media's Beneath the Brand blog.

The Mentality of a Spammer

2011-06-18T03:03:00.005-04:00

Well, since I was talking about hockey, here's another one.

Just minutes after the Boston Bruins finished off the Vancouver Canucks in seven games in the Stanley Cup Finals, I received two emails inviting me to buy Bruins championship memorabilia. The team had barely skated off the ice with the cup.

The organizations that sent the spam, the NHL and NBC Sports, clearly don't know my tastes. Or they don't care. If they did, they would know my distaste for the Bruins? They possess the mentality of a spammer.

They're not alone. I try to avoid it, but I too am just as guilty of it. While spam is synonymous with email, the practice of spamming our networks with an impersonal and irrelevant is ingrained in the culture of social media.

The low social acceptability standard that exists within social media has made us even more indifferent to the mindset of people receiving the message as well as what is the best manner to communicate that message.

Consequently, our filters get stronger. More noise means more gets blocked. And there is less attention that our audience can give for everything - even for the truly relevant and important stuff.

Our instincts to spam our stronger than ever. The technology makes it easy to do and it's become more a socially accepted practice. It takes more work to be personal and relevant - but the extra work will be worth it to your brand.

Help me fight my spammer's mentality. If you believe reading this blog is worth your attention, please subscribe by clicking on the right side of the page.

Marketing Sense is (un) Common

2011-06-16T21:10:00.007-04:00

I'll come right out and say it; people that believe "marketing" is simply common sense stuff are dead wrong. Truly, marketing is a very touchy and counter intuitive discipline. However, it's one that is constantly buried under misinformation and misunderstandings, which lead to misinformed opinions like those which "common sense crowd" hold. Worse yet, they lead to misguided decisions.

I believe that this condition has greatly contributed to a lot of the turmoil that the National Hockey League is currently experiencing. Although the NHL is often praised (and deservedly so) for being a forward-thinking marketers, some critics would argue that its problems are rooted in a decision that was made deep in its past. That decision was to greatly expand the league and to go south and west in order to do so. "Sun Belt Expansion" is phrase strong enough to make die-hard hockey fans from the Canada and the northern United States shiver with cold disgust. For the commissioner who has repeatedly denied it's very existence, the three words likely make his skin crawl as well.

It has been the league's official party line that there was never any direct efforts to expand into the sunny south. Regardless of the league's intentions, arguing over semantics is an absolutely pointless endeavor. Reality tells the only story that matters.

The origins of the sun-soaked expansion plans can be traced to, who else, consultants. A long time ago, the league hired some big name consultancy from New Jersey to analyze the league's business. They drew up what is known as the NHL's "Vision for the 90's." Outlined in the business blueprint is the impetus to expand the league to 30 teams by the end of the decade while making no mention of any specific locals. However, the "vision" plan would recommend expansion into cities that met two rather dumb qualifications; they new markets had to have a strong urban center as well as have municipalities willing to pick up the bill for owners to build new arenas.

Whether or not this implicates expansion into strictly sunny metros, I find it difficult to argue that those two qualifications didn't play right into there hands. What northern city possessed a "strong urban center" without already possessing a hockey team? ... Furthermore, is it making a giant leap to go from "strong urban center" to "growing urban center?" I don't think so. Therefore, anyone with a minor grasp on the population dynamic of America, which had begun shifting south 30 years before the consultants made their recommendation, could decipher what the Vision for the 90's was calling for.

So, logically, the NHL picked up and followed the people who were going south in order to put their product in bigger markets that were growing faster. It's common sense marketing, right?

Or maybe not. Oddly absent from the Vision for the 90's qualifications is a fan base that was thirsty for the game hockey. They neglected that one - instead choosing to force it. Perhaps the NHL was trying to capitalize on the masses of northerners migrating to the south. Although, if brand loyalty is taken into account, fans of those cities aren't as likely to adopt a new team.

Common sensers would argue to market to the biggest group of people; however, marketing sense tells us to target the right group. For the NHL, southerns just aren't that group. The south has unique culture and traditions which don't fit well with the NHL, relegating the sport to oddball status. That's too big of a hurdle for any marketer. In the culture of many northern cities, hockey was already a tradition; and fitting with the culture, where an important custom is they're used to going inside when the weather gets cold.

It's marketing sense that tells us to go for a smaller market and be the only show in town, rather than fight for attention among a larger group. This is the strategy used by Sam Walton, who created the biggest retailer in the world. He don't open his stores in Manhattan. Instead he chose less populated areas, and to be the only store like it for hundreds of miles.

That may finally be the strategy of the NHL again. After struggling for 12 seasons in Atlanta, the franchise is being relocated to the much smaller (and colder) Winnipeg, Manitoba. Interestingly, within 72 hours of tickets being offered, the small town had bought more tickets than the Thrashers would sell all season.

That, along with unending bankruptcy saga of the a hockey franchise in Phoenix Arizona, is providing a bit of vindication to the critics of Sun Belt expansion as well as those who believe in old fashion marketing sensibilities.

P&G Makes Second Attempt at Social Sales

2011-06-14T18:04:00.002-04:00

Procter & Gamble wants to sell its consumer goods through Facebook. According to AdAge, the consumer goods company is calling it "social network selling" and they believe that it can "accelerate their e-commerce growth," an area they aren't particularly known for. That may be for good reason, however. This is P&G's second attempt at trying to convert the social media outlet into a sales channel. The first one failed because of internal concerns of alienating their retail partners as well as technical issues with their product fulfillment partner, Amazon, creating a "poor user experience."

The second time around, they believe they have corrected all the pitfalls. Since its relaunch, their own ecommerce site handles fulfillment. Meanwhile, P&G is working with their traditional retail partners like Walmart to join in the effort as alternatives for the consumer to choose from. While P&G may have corrected the technical problems with its ecommerce initiative on Facebook, I don't believe they corrected the real issue that caused it to fail. There are fundamental problems with the strategy of selling via Facebook commerce, the true reason for its failure.

A lot of it has to do with how marketers frame their challenges. My guess is, the marketers at P&G began with the problem of how the company can leverage the social media platform to drive sales further. However, the real questions that needed to answered are: What benefit does the new channel give to the customer? Why go to Facebook for my P&G stuff and go elsewhere to buy everything all at once? Especially since "elsewhere" is a place many people already buy that stuff at anyhow? But Facebook is not that place. It was built for social stuff and has always been driven by things like party pictures and relationship statuses, not shopping carts and order confirmations.

Whether marketers like it or not, the true social experiences are going to continue to be the reason for the new media, which is a fact that isn't going to change anytime soon. Facebook commerce might as well be a square peg going into a round hole.

How I Know My Bank Doesn't Care

2011-06-07T12:36:00.005-04:00

At my youthful age of 26, I have closed three bank accounts out of frustration, anger, or flat-out indifference. I learned long ago on that my bank doesn't care about me; at least not to the degree that June Gregg's bank cares for her. Gregg, a 100-year-old woman from Chillicothe, Ohio, has had the same savings account since her birth, when her father opened it for her and deposited $6.11. Without question, Gregg's story says a lot about her brand loyalty to her bank; she's also been very blessed to live a long enough life to accomplish such an interesting feat. Yet, I cannot help but wonder if there is a marketing lesson somewhere within our very different banking habits.

After reflecting on our stories, I think that lesson to learn is that banks don't care about people. They're inherently incapable of it. Every single one. In fact, every corporation is. The reason for this? They actually cannot because they don't really exist. But what does exist are a group of people, the actual guts of a corporation, who are very capable of caring. Not surprisingly, I couldn't give you the name of one person at my bank; however I'd bet that June Gregg could if asked. They cared.

Only real humans are capable of being accountable and working hard to deliver happiness to their customers while getting the most out of their jobs. But, if it sounds so easy, why doesn't everyone love their bank or their financial planner or their mechanic like June does her bank?

I think the reason it's difficult for workers to be caring is because we often don't work like humans should. Punch that clock and we sometimes become a different species. I think it comes from a combination of settling for less and being forced to at the same time. Some "people inc." settle into a pattern of manuals, standard protocols, hierarchies, timesheets, departments, seminars, passwords, fineprint, efficiency methods, and logistical processes, thus making life way more difficult than they need to be and also less enjoyable.

For a brand to actually care, it must hire people that do. Even harder, it must let them behave, and subsequently care, as a human would.

This post also appeared on Talent Zoo Media's Beneath the Brand blog. Also, please enjoy some bonus bank brand content below. It's an alexander-branding.com exclusive!

Without question, my nearly four-year "relationship" with Chase bank has included some tumultuous moments. They main reason I haven't left them is probably that I'm close to indifferent at this point. I guess I like them enough to keep them around because their is a branch close to my house.

Regardless, I recently read an article that demonstrates the degree to which Chase is out of touch with their consumers. In an article published on AdAge.com, the CEO of Chase's consumer bank Ryan McInerney said of their new title sponsorship with Madison Square Garden, "This whole partnership is really about our customers," and he added that a goal of Chase bank is to "continuing to provide our customers preferred access to events and unique experiences."

Really, "access to events" is a goal of my bank? Okay, I refuse to actually believe that access to events at MSG is a mission of Chase bank. However, I do think the ridiculousness of that quote makes a strong statement about the real value of a sponsorship and naming rights as part of their marketing mix. Is that really the only thing that the CEO can muster about it's value to the brand for industry trade news? Well, people seem to like it, so we don't mind writing the huge check and hanging our name on everything. Does that really make people better of Chase?

Please use the comments section to actually tell these banks what they could really do to make you happier or how they could connect with a customer better?

Pay Per Tweet?

2011-06-02T23:09:00.003-04:00

If you had to pay to tweet or use Facebook, would your brand still use them? If not, what does that say about the value of the service?

But perhaps your message does have some real value to it. The unfortunate part of a free medium is that it will likely alter how people perceive its value because of the other noise they attract.

What's Good For Hulu Isn't Good For You

2011-05-30T21:40:00.004-04:00

News Corporation is going to ask Hulu to increase the number of advertisements it shows during Fox programming. I'm sorry, but someone pinch me because I'm in shock.

The formula is obvious. News Corp. is, rightfully so, in business to make money. In order to make more, they must sell more. It's a pretty easy model that every advertiser-supported business follows. Yet, I think the question of "how many is too many?" is a question that every ad-supported business struggles to answer. Viewers want zero. Businesses want more.

Perhaps you agree, but personally, I love advertising and watching what's going on in business. What I hate is the obnoxious interruption that advertising brings, which is what makes this story so intriguing. From the beginning, Hulu's attitude toward advertising was a bit different; more like a viewer. It understood that people hate the interruption of advertising and has tried to keep the ad load small as well as attempting to make them relevant to the viewer. However, their decision on whether to accommodate News Corp. (who is also a major shareholder) will tell a lot about where this brand is headed in the future.

Unfortunately, I think the answer to such a question is far less intriguing.

This post also appeared on Talent Zoo Media's Beneath The Brand blog.

Why Domino's Still Doesn't Get It

2011-05-27T17:37:00.010-04:00

In January 2010, I wrote that Domino's, after its widely-heralded "Pizza Turnaround" campaign doesn't understand marketing.

I said this because Domino's underwent a complete marketing overhaul and began marketing a new better tasting pizza, which is a very tough title to sell and a tougher one to own. First of all, taste is subjective. Secondly, taste at Domino's was always secondary- its pies were more about being made and delivered fast (in thirty minutes or less) and for a cheap price. However, after hitting rock bottom in late 2009 with a grossly embarrassing YouTube video courtesy of two idiot employees, Domino's chose to tout a new recipe with fresher ingredients after admitting past failures. But while they tried separating themselves from their past, Domino's forgot how they got there- with delivery.

In the short term things have been great. Sales shot up, the stock has been on fire, and Advertising Age honored them with the runner up position for marketer of the year in 2010. Although, with all due respect to AdAge, the award's meaning might equal that of a senior superlative in a high school yearbook. Call me skeptical, but I think the entertaining creative work and big bump in ad spending at networks and agencies when both are hurting from lean recessionary years had more to do with the nomination than the campaign's effectiveness.

Yet, despite their accolades, after a year or so long Pizza Turnaround campaign, Domino's started messing with its brand messaging by introducing a new chicken campaign. Now, Domino's is back with a different message for its carry-out business.- in response to growing competition from Little Caesars. With its new extended promotion called the "Early Week Pick Me Up" deal, Domino's is offering a three topping large pizza for $7.99, valid only Monday through Wednesday.

Aside from their lack of focus, this is an example of a strategically flawed promotion because Domino's loses twice in the end. First of all, the $7.99 price offered on Monday through Wednesday for carry-out pizzas repositions the perceived value of the rest of its menu. A Domino's pizza on Saturday or one that's delivered suddenly feels more expensive. Secondly, Domino's price and commitment to carry out pizza still cannot equal its rival's $5 Hot-N-Ready pizza, available for pick up any time of any day.

Either way, Domino's won't win. Especially without a strong brand position.

Ronald Remains McDonald's Man

2011-05-21T23:02:00.013-04:00

The world's most famous fast-food chain recently side stepped another attack from activist health care professionals and Corporate Accountability International, a consumer watchdog organization known for its influence against big tobacco companies. They're pushing for changes in how the fast feeder markets itself to children, specifically calling for longtime mascot Ronald McDonald to take accept an early retirement.

With the support of a McDonald's shareholder (the Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia), CAI was able to force a vote on the issue of Ronald's future at McDonald's shareholder meeting last Thursday. Jim Skinner, McDonald's Chief Executive stood by his mascot, saying that "Ronald is going nowhere." The shareholders backed him up; the issue failed with only 6% of the vote.

While I don't completely agree with the CAI's mission of "Retiring Ronald," I believe their mission will progress if it stays focused and consistent. It has astutely chosen Ronald as the scapegoat for an obesity epidemic and simplified the complex problem's root cause as junk food being marketed to children. Hard to argue against protecting the welfare of our youngest generation, isn't it? They picked that battle long ago and have kept fighting the same fight; while never getting mixed up in arguments about the low nutritional standards of other restaurants or their marketing practices, how the same junk food in larger portions is marketed to adults, with greater frequency or how living a more active lifestyle can curb obesity.

On the other hand, I also believe that if you're McDonald's you can make some very strong arguments for Ronald, other than the standard law-abiding rebuttal of "we offer a variety of food choices to our customers and provide nutrition information about our menu items so that families can make informed decisions." For example, it's difficult to ignore Ronald's namesake charity, the Ronald McDonald House, which provides "a home-away-from-home" for families who must travel long distances so their children can receive treatment for serious illnesses.

As an aside, I think this situation raises some interesting questions about what exactly the power of marketing is. Further, is it really that responsible to treat marketing as a low-level form of brainwashing when children are involved, yet adults are not immune from it's power either? Who is going to decide at what age we all become smart enough to outsmart the marketers?

This post also appeared on Talent Zoo Media's Beneath the Brand blog. As always, thank you for reading and sharing your thoughts and opinions on Alexander Branding.

It's Terrible Branding....For Real

2011-05-21T22:31:00.010-04:00

A recent headline in Advertising Age about the city of Buffalo's new tourism slogan may seem self explanatory; however, I think there is a deeper statement being made when AdAge exclaims that "Buffalo's Tagline Highlights the Worst of Tourism Marketing."

The easy conclusion to reach is that the new hired pitch for the city of Buffalo- For Real, is truly terrible. However, it speaks volumes that AdAge, perhaps the strongest voice of the industry and a publication of choice for defenders of this type of meaningless "branding" is trying to tell them that their work is so bad it's comical. However, these jokes are getting quite old.

Buffalo's For Real campaign is bad for lots of reasons. The words are not distinct. It takes no specific position or particular meaning to the city. Yes, it makes sense if you think about it but a good slogan shouldn't have to be thought about to be understood. It just is.

Eventually, the slogan will make sense if one thinks about for a bit. Essentially, the message that Buffalo's tourism organization is trying to convey is that their town is much more than the snow, and chicken wings and closed factories that most people know it for. They're trying to change people's the perception of the city, which is what will really sink the new campaign. That's because perceptions rarely change.

Smart marketers don't fight to change a perception. They work with it. The reason is these marketers know that people will rarely make the necessary leap that's needed to change a perception. They simply won't believe it just because some marketer said so.

Therefore, in Buffalo's case, they use what people already know. A gray, snowy, wilting rust belt city that only survives because of it's citizens ingrained blue collar work ethic, grit, determination, toughness and pride.

Buffalo is a city of hearty souls. For Real.

Free

2011-05-19T22:40:00.004-04:00

If you advertise x for "Free" and it's not, aren't you setting your customers up to be disappointed when they wind up paying for something else?

Well, you get them in the door. But what good is getting them through the doors if they are going to leave disappointed?

Don't Give Social Media All The Credit

2011-05-14T20:32:00.012-04:00

As a kid, my grandmother would always tell me: "monkey see, monkey do." If you've never heard this before, the idiom is used to express that children behave and learn from their surroundings. Although, if adults aren't just as susceptible to this condition then I think someone should investigate if the marketing world is being run by monkey's now. For every enlightened social media marketing guru wanting to pitch people on the benefits of the next groundbreaking technology or why a soap brand should consider itself a "content" publisher, they're two marketers eager to listen. It's the new ideology of the day and it's easily packaged into a magical formula of clicks, likes, retweets and followers that's far less easy to explain. But that doesn't matter because a lot of really smart marketers are being sold long before any introductory handshakes are made. It doesn't hurt that this stuff sounds great and looks good on PowerPoint presentations given watched in conference rooms. It just doesn't add up when really put to task.

Dare to divert from the day's convention and you risk being deemed socially unacceptable by the crowds making the decisions on such matters. The choice becomes feed the beast or be eaten by it. Who is asking what happens if the crowd is wrong?

Consequently, there is not shortage of brands blindly pumping significant marketing resources into Facebook, Twitter and the next social network of the hour; following the formula written to solve the problem of generating awareness simply for awareness' sake. Who cares what their being made aware of because they say their fans. The like us and that's all that matters, right? Even if this only requires a minuscule and artificial commitment to the brand on their part.

Recently, I learned about a young, small group of entrepreneurs in Rochester, New York who, dissatisfied with the current selection of energy drinks, created their own. The drink is called Vital Energy and bares a striking resemblance to Vitamin Water, being billed as a blend of B vitamins, water and as much caffeine as a large coffee. Without question, barreling on into such a crowded category takes a lot of determination; however, I question how shrewd it is to fight their daily marketing battles with what they call "social experiments."

Their first creation was an entertaining web video where the entrepreneurs filmed themselves playing a prank. They filled their parents' entire house with energy drinks when they went on vacation. Although the video doesn't actually say much about the drink or the brand, it's popularity did help garner a bit of local and national press.

So the boys at Vital Energy went back to the lab and created an even bigger experiment. This time they are giving away $10,000 in a scavenger hunt game to contestants that sign up and receive clues through their Facebook and Twitter accounts.

Yet, I cannot figure out what this will experiment will prove other than tell them that lots of people like free cash and are willing to tolerate some annoying corporate messaging for a crack at ten grand. How does this tell the story of a drink or organize a tribe of its most ardent supporters? Perhaps that's the question that all these new marketing "experiments" should try to answer.

The reason they don't? Monkey see... monkey do.

This post also appeared on Talent Zoo Media's Beneath the Brand blog.

Consider Marketing's Un-Sexy Side

2011-05-09T19:23:00.004-04:00

It's very fascinating how so many smart business people get stuck thinking about marketing in terms of advertising when it's obviously way more than that. If making a promise, either explicit or implicit, is in your job description, then congratulations, you're a marketer. Therefore, if even a simple promise is broken — for instance, if a restaurant's restroom is grungy — it's becomes a real marketing problem. These operational details never get the headlines or the credit that the new million-dollar campaign does, but perfecting the nitty-gritty stuff is vital to every brand.

The only time it becomes noteworthy is when operations go astray. The Sony Play Station's current tribulations are a perfect example of this. At Sony, the marketing department recently moved in with the IT guys after its major security breech, forcing PlayStation 3's online network to its knees and putting millions of gamers private information in jeopardy. According to AdAge, more than two weeks have passed since 77 million users have had service and early estimates suggest this problem could cost Sony $2 billion. Suddenly, its $61.4 million measured media expenditures feel far less significant.

This problem prompted Sony's marketing brass to offer customers a one year free enrollment in its "All Clear ID Plus" protection plan last Thursday. In his recent apology letter to customers, Howard Stinger, Sony's chief executive, made specific mention that the "All Clear ID Plus" includes $1 million of identity theft insurance, with the hopes of preventing angry customers from fleeing. This is certainly a nice gesture by Sony; however, I wonder if the strategy of offering extra insurance is reliable from a marketing standpoint. I'd compare it to similar "satisfaction or you're money back" guarantees. They actually imply the opposite of confidence in the brand. Offering a money-back guarantee is a brand's way of saying "we don't know if they will like us." Therefore, isn't Sony's offer of extra insurance to protect consumer identities just their way of saying, "We're not sure we can prevent this from happening again."

If they can't be sure of this, perhaps they should explain how it will try every day to make it so. The strategy should be to convince the customer that their personal information is being protected by some of the world's very most capable, um, marketers.

This post also appeared on Talent Zoo's Beneath the Brand blog.

Going Viral

2011-05-05T14:53:00.008-04:00

There is a common misconception floating around that public relations is free. It's not- at least the good stuff anyway. The costs to public relations are just slightly hidden. Consider public relations something that is earned. In order to get your word out through the media, you have to actually be doing something relevant, interesting or worthwhile.

I'm pretty sure that most people understand and accept this.

Yet, many of these same smart people think the social web is somehow different. Going viral (for brands) is the same thing. Do something interesting, relevant or worthwhile and you're far more likely to make an impact on people, who then share it. Simply spewing new content onto the web is guaranteed not to deliver the desired result.

(Hint: this could require getting off the computer too)

Question

2011-05-05T00:16:00.002-04:00

Why does a $6.50 chicken salad at Wendy's feel like you're getting ripped off but a $7.50 (ish) chicken salad at Panera Bread feels like a great value?

Marketers should be concerned with brand authenticity throughout all areas of the business. Is it a priority for you?

Trump Brand Buffoonery

2011-05-03T03:00:00.004-04:00

Without question, Donald Trump is a very smart guy with an incredible marketing mind. He has never wavered in marrying the Trump name with some very powerful and highly desired characteristics. The Trump name has long stood for uncompromising wealth, power, and luxury. Donald's carefully crafted brand is living proof of the power of focus for a brand. Clearly a man who understands the power of focus, his professional success is undoubtedly reflective of his aptitude and ability.

Of course, there is a personal side to the businessman that is not easily respectable: the qualities of a man that is uncompromisingly brash and bold, spoiled, and arrogant. Trump, like a three year-old, is sustained by the attention of others. So, his conveniently timed gimmick of a possible Presidential campaign during the airing of his struggling reality television series or the distasteful architecture of his pseudo-political warm-up act is the least bit surprising. Nor is that the fact that the drama of misbehaving celebrities in front of cameras is not what it used to be. Naturally, the only fix, in true Trump style, is an even bigger celebrity misbehaving for different set of cameras.

America has been really great for Donald Trump; however, a real political career could be devastating to the Trump brand. The campaign trail would become the unfortunate axis where an unlikeable man and a respected brand collide and become inseparable—posing a real threat to the brand. Instead of lighthearted jabs in a crowded ball room, the one-man reality show will learn what it's really like to have his credentials scrutinized beyond his net worth. He might just find that it's rather humbling.

This post also appeared on Talent Zoo Media's Beneath the Brand blog.

Idea Sale...100 % Off

2011-04-30T11:02:00.004-04:00

Do you need help building a strong brand for you're small business? If so, I am going to start making myself available to help business owners on an individual basis.

Just email me the name of your business, a little bit of background and your contact info. I will reply with some pertinent questions and some ideas to try. It's that easy; and it's 100 percent free of charge for the first ten businesses to contact me.

As always, thank you for reading. I'm truly honored to be considered a worthwhile resource of marketing information.

Alexander

Weight Watchers Discovers A New Demo?

2011-04-25T21:15:00.006-04:00

With almost a third of our citizens considered to be obese and half considered overweight, America is heavier than its ever been. Such a disturbing trend will create some serious problems of course. But where some may see problems, enterprising individuals might see opportunity. America's rapidly expanding waistline translates into a increasing population in the target market for the weight loss products, which encompasses everything from gym memberships, to work out DVD's, to fad diets and reality television shows.

The commercial diet plan Weight Watchers is a fixture in this world of weight loss world. Weight Watchers, along with its smaller competitors Nutrisystem and Jenny Craig, generate the majority of the $3.3 billion commercial weight loss plan category that has been built by the wallets of women.

Naturally, they're trying to change that. Following in the footsteps of Nutrisystem and Jenny Craig's celebrity backed campaigns for male weight loss plans, Weight Watchers is putting $10 million of marketing muscle behind its campaign for men. The ads are promoting Weight Watchers' male-specific website, launched quietly in 2007, rather than its meeting-based service. According to Chief Marketing Officer Cheryl Callan, since launching the website, "we've seen a lot more male success stories come though and that inspired us to think we have an opportunity here."

They're plenty of fat men walking around so Ms. Callan assertion of opportunity in the male weight loss market seems logical. The opportunities are just not for Weight Watchers.

Weight Watchers was able to grow into a $1.46 billion company through a strong demographic focus on women. While it may be logical to say, "if it works for women then it will work for men," customers prove everyday that logic doesn't matter in a cluttered marketplace. Weight Watchers brand doesn't have the authenticity with guys that male targeted brands like P90X or Crossfit do (although different products).

In order to take advantage of opportunities in a different market, Weight Watchers needs a different product and a different brand. By extending their core brand they didn't do either. Compare the male targeted site with the traditional female site. If the website is any indication, it appears to be the same product. Meanwhile, adding "for men" to the name isn't a new brand.

In business, the fast and easy money might look good in the short term, but like a fad diet, the brand eventually pays in the end.

Google Going Bad?

2011-04-19T02:32:00.002-04:00

It came out last week that Google missed Wall Street's forecast for it. When pleasing the Street becomes the goal, it's impossible to always win. As I have said before, I believe this to be a sign of things to come.

The Bogus Branding of ExxonMobil

2011-04-19T01:27:00.003-04:00

It doesn't matter how many times I watch their phony math and science advocacy ads; I will never have an ounce of warm and fuzzy feelings toward ExxonMobil. It's more bogus corporate responsibility branding that amounts to nothing for ExxonMobil and does nothing for the self-righteous brand gurus pitching the concept. Frankly, the overt dishonesty is insulting.

The latest advertisements are promoting ExxonMobil's support of the National Math and Science Initiative, a worthwhile cause that the corporation committed $125 million to in 2007, earning it the title of "founding sponsor." Nevertheless, it's incredibly deceitful to run a campaign that aligns the values of a hardworking student or a generous teacher with that of an oil company whose principle interest is pleasing investors. Perhaps we should consider the ad to only be reflective of ExxonMobil in terms of the price they paid to be socially "responsible." If so, it cost them a promise of $125 million in 2007. That same year, they earned $40.6 billion, a record profit for any corporation in United States history and what amounts to $1,287 of profit for every second of the year. Do the math and ExxonMobil's hat-hanger of a contribution equates to one third of a percentage point (.003) of their profit on the year. Yet, the public is supposed to believe that educating future generations is something ingrained in the fabric of the company. Spare me the branding nonsense.

Oil is a very dirty, but a very necessary business. I get that. We all benefit every day from the usefulness of oil as an energy source and a raw material in our finished products. Oil is a vital part of the planet we live on and ExxonMobil is good at finding it and getting it for us. Please say that instead. Don't lie and feed the public the BS branding line that you're "taking on the world's toughest energy challenges" if all you're doing is preparing future generations to inherit them.

This post also appeared on Talent Zoo Media's Beneath the Brand blog.

Cisco Sacrifices The Flip

2011-04-15T16:06:00.012-04:00

On April 4th via a memo to employees, Cisco Systems CEO John Chambers came clean and admitted that while under his direction, Cisco has lost accountability with customers and shareholders and that the company will need greater discipline and focus to earn it back. That "discipline" came last week in the form of Cisco shedding its Flip camcorder brand.

This sudden change of direction couldn't have been what Chambers had envisioned in 2009 after Cisco capped off a string of acquisitions in the consumer realm with the purchase of Pure Digital Technologies, the maker of the Flip, for $590 million. But even then, there were people questioning the internet networking giant's logic.

After the acquisition, the New York Times wrote "such a consumer play is still a curious one for Cisco. The company tends to operate in the background, providing products that companies use to link phones and computers to the Internet." According to one analyst quoted recently, "the Street never fell in love with Cisco's consumer strategy." So much so that Kim Caughey Forrest of Fort Pitt Capital hopes "that there are more changes pending" and is "really disappointed" if dropping the Flip is Cisco's only move to break its consumer ties.

Cisco's portfolio of consumer brands also includes Linksys networking equipment, Scientific Atlanta set-top boxes, Umi home videoconferencing and even extensions into digital stereos.

Despite his broad vision, Chambers, in typical C-level fashion, pinned Cisco's troubles on poor "execution" and not poor strategy. Naturally, marketers have been quick to doubt this overused line. Although, in Cisco's case, I actually believe the brand strategy is (was) sound.

Much like a P&G or a United Technologies, Cisco managed to keep the individual brands in tact. They didn't combine them under one name or create sub brands that eventually cannibalized one another. Yet, they kept a "portfolio" of different brands that each had a unique meaning to the consumer.

The Flip video camera was the category leader with 23 percent of all U.S. sales last year, ahead of competitors Sony (22 percent) and Kodak (12 percent). Linksys is a category leader in home networking and Scientific Atlanta is a strong name in the set-top box category.

But I wonder if Cisco isn't truly a case of poor execution by a company managing consumer brands for the very first time.

Little Things Add Up

2011-04-12T16:19:00.005-04:00

Did you know that UPS trucks don't make left turns? I didn't.

The reasons are efficiency and safety. Drivers who avoid left turns on busy roads sit in less traffic. And fleets of big trucks not crossing multiple lanes everyday is much safer for everyone on the road. Over the course of a year, a little thing like not making left turns pays off in a savings of over 20 million miles.

This discovery is a perfect example to show that it's the finest details that create the big picture of a brand.

This morning I had a very reliable source (friend who works at UPS) dispute the validity of this statement. He says UPS trucks turn left all the time. Well, it was a nice thought at least.

What's a 'Syracutie' to Do?

2011-04-12T11:34:00.006-04:00

For small businesses still in their infancy, every decision can feel magnified and carry the feeling that the entire fate of the business is at stake. It's a familiar feeling for most entrepreneurs. Now Alyson Shontell, a young entrepreneur who created the tee shirt company Syracutie, can empathize. In a blog post last week, she chronicled the fascinating story of her start-up and the difficult choice she's facing with managing her trademarked name. Shontell's problem is that Syracutie was created to capitalize on the natural market of students at Syracuse University; however, the University became less than supportive (threatening with a possible lawsuit) of their alumna's company if she doesn't hand over the trademark. Feeling "defeated," Shontell is considering whether to "give the university my trademark and become the sole licensor or hold strong and keep trying to sell Syracutie myself?"

However, with two strategically strong options, defeat should be the last thing Shontell should be feeling. By giving the trademark to the University, the door to its target demographic swings wide open. The Syracutie name is sold on and around campus in traditional orange and blue and Shontell can sit back and collect a healthy share of the profits. With this option, the logic is that it's better to share your trademarked idea or brand with the masses rather than protect your small piece of the world. Isn't the fact that an idea spread to thousands of students who wear a label created by an entrepreneur worth something? I think so.

Her other option would be to challenge her alma mater. By pushing forward with ownership of the trademark, the Syracutie brand could develop a deeper identity than tee shirts and hoodies for co-eds; one that represents young, strong, and independent women who are unafraid to challenge the establishment. The clothing brand not endorsed by Syracuse University is powerful idea that appeals to a young psychographic. It's similar to the phenomenon of Four Loko flying off store shelves after it was banned by government regulators. A rebel brand done right is often one that sells.

I believe that Shontell's Syracutie can find great success with either route if she trusts her marketing instincts. As for a University that has the audacity to attempt to trademark the color orange, they should be extra embarrassed to claim that anyone, much less one of their own, might infringe on their marks.

This post also appeared on Talent Zoo Media's Beneath the Brand blog.

Advertising to Inmates is a Marketing Crime

2011-04-06T00:27:00.007-04:00

The Eire County Holding Center in Buffalo is going to start capitalizing on the attention of its captive audience by turning it into bonus income from advertising revenue. Aided by a digital advertising services company, the jail is going to sell space on its high-definition information televisions to, who else, defense attorneys and bail bondsmen. The program is being dubbed — what else — “captive ads,” and will place one screen near the booking area and another in a lobby to be seen by friends and families waiting to visit inmates. The cost is $40 per week with a one-year commitment. The head of the ad services company told the media that "about half" of the available space has been sold and that the program will net the county between "$8,000-$15,000 a year."

In my opinion, "captive ads" are in poor taste and the branding strategy behind the program will reflect as much. The strategic pitfall to captive ads is summed up by the poplar aphorism coined by the late Marshall McLuhan: the medium is the message. That medium, designed to capitalize on the attention of people in a vulnerable state, clearly sends the message of being the criminal-defense equivalent to ambulance chasing. It's a medium that poorly reflects the truly valuable service an attorney is sworn to provide for their clients. Those that choose to market their expertise in this manner are committing a branding crime.

This post also appeared on Talent Zoo Media's Beneath the Brand blog.

Great Marketers or Terrible Journalists?

2011-04-01T14:13:00.026-04:00

I know I speak for many people when I say that I am very turned off by what I see on 24 hour cable news networks. It's understandable for anyone to be troubled by the specifics of war, the far reaching destruction of an oil spill, the human pain behind foreclosures and factory closings and the inexplicable tragedy nature sometimes deals us. However, people can accept the truth. The truly troubling part is how cable news chooses to report it.

Cable news is not designed to simply run down the day's top stories but rather design "programming" with a desired emotional response in mind. All the news is told from a specific point of view and packaged for people who share the same views. Therefore, the news is seen as being a single voice of a group wanting to be heard, instead of just being the "news." It seems so wrong for a business that was invented to report fact.

Or maybe cable news is really just well executed marketing in action? Cable News appears to share the same elements that marketers celebrate most; tell a story that appeals to and organizes a following and will trigger a response or action.

Perhaps the difference is in how each tells their story. Cable news channels work more like poorly executed marketing; to achieve results they must blur the lines between fact and fiction and confuse true perspective with a point of view.

One Big Anti Wal-Mart Ad

2011-03-29T12:18:00.005-04:00

Walmart sells stuff at very low prices. That's the very simple idea that the corporation has worked extremely hard to cultivate and its success in delivering on their low-price promise is the very reason that a small store in Arkansas can grow into the world's largest retailer. Of course, achieving perfection at passing savings along to consumers requires sacrifice from many different stakeholders. However, it's popular opinion that Walmart's non-management employees working in the store every day sacrifice the most for savings. Store employees are paid too little so few can pocket every last penny of the remaining fortune. Employees don't receive proper benefits and the working conditions are not what they should be. In general, there is zero glamor in working at a Walmart. Like it or not, these powerful sentiments are symbolic of the Walmart brand and provide real reasons people choose not to buy from Sam.

For Walmart, battling this negative perception is more difficult when reality is obvious to consumers. The world's largest retailer is in the nation's highest court, arguing to prevent six former employees from organizing millions more in their gender discrimination suit. Although the Supreme Court is not ruling on the merits of the sexual discrimination lawsuit itself, any controversy in this area greatly affects Walmart's image. In my opinion, any highly publicized court case brought on by former employees is one big anti-Walmart advertisement. This case, just like any effective advertising, reinforces an idea that people already believe to be true: Walmart mistreats employees.

Walmart's perception problems could get worse before they get better. If the court upholds the class certification of the women, Walmart is going to have to endure a rerun of its very public attack ad when the sexual discrimination merits of the case are heard. Regardless of the outcome of that potential case, the very idea of millions of women banding together to fight their one time employer is more devastating than any potential dollar amount that they risk losing in court.

The power to influence is the motive behind all advertising. This power only grows in magnitude when the realities our human experience are reinforced. For Walmart, the reality of facing millions of lawsuits or even just one as big as the chain itself are equal indications of a problem; a very grim human experience for its employees.

This post appeared on Talent Zoo Media's Beyond Madison Avenue in its original form, minus the alternate ending.

Sierra Mist Ad Failed By Strategy

2011-03-23T22:21:00.002-04:00

This month PepsiCo's Sierra Mist Natural debuted a new spot to promote the fact that it now uses real sugar to make the drink, not the more commonly used high fructose corn syrup. The change to the drink's formula provides a critical point of difference from the category leader Sprite, and will certainly appeal to the fast growing anti-high fructose syrup crowd. The bold new spot is executed very well. It's clear and simple and uses a direct comparison to Sprite, which it disregards as "fake" because of its unnatural, lab-created sweeteners and preservatives.

The ad is Sierra Mist Natural's second attempt at introducing the real sugar difference to soda consumers. In their first attempt last year, the key differentiating message was buried under pointless creative, like talking rocks and the senseless line "the soda nature would drink if nature drank soda." The new campaign fixes this and is much more clear.

However, there is still a problem with the campaign that mucks up its great message: the converted name Sierra Mist Natural. Initially, I was confused. I thought Sierra Mist Natural was a line extension and that "regular" Sierra Mist was still using the artificial ingredients. I thought to myself, "That will kill the core brand." It wasn't until doing research and reading its Wikipedia page that I realized that was the core brand now. PepsiCo has completely scrapped the original Sierra Mist — all except for the name, of course. They had to keep that. The problem with using this naming strategy is that Sierra Mist Natural is introducing a new product but with a name that maintains all the negative perceptions of the past product.

I'm sure the argument in the boardroom was that the Sierra Mist name has equity in it. Yet, through the years, the brand equity in the name has only amounted to one percent of the soft drink category. Such a strategy is even more stunning because PepsiCo clearly understands the power of a name. This very move to create a "real sugar" soft drink is a response to consumer backlash to a terrible name: high fructose corn syrup. Scientifically, it's exactly the same as sugar in every way. It just sounds terrible so consumers won't consume it. They knew that the "high fructose" name was holding their product back.

Furthermore, if you do a little digging after watching the ad, the naming strategy gets even cloudier. Sierra Mist Natural, obviously billed as a healthier alternative because of its ingredients, shares a name with Diet Sierra Mist, which contains the highly controversial ingredient aspartame. So what exactly is core to the Sierra Mist brand?

My guess is confusion. While the execution of the new ad is excellent, its effectiveness will be minimized because its strategy is off. It takes more than slapping the word natural on the end of name for consumers to believe it. It must be who you are and even who you have always been. That's why they needed a fresh start with a new brand name in order to gain significant share from Sprite and 7UP.

Premium's

2011-03-22T16:56:00.005-04:00

All non generic brands ask their customers to pay a premium. But for what?

If your brand asks its customers to pay a premium because it's a premium name then you're brand is getting it wrong. The reason customers pay a premium is the position of the brand (or what the name stands for).

Do your customers know what that is? Be sure to give them reasons to pay more for the brand.

New Fast Food Buzzwords Fool No One

2011-03-08T14:33:00.001-05:00

An article published in AdAge yesterday dissected the current trend of fast food chains using vague buzzwords like wholesome, fresh, or all-natural in ads to convince consumers that their products are healthy without risking the drawback of creating the perception of a lack of taste. Even better for advertisers? These claims don't seem to be drawing the eye of regulators like more specific health-related claims. According to Darren Tristano, executive Vice President at the restaurant consultancy Technomic, the vague buzzwords may be a problem for consumers but will ultimately "evoke a positive feeling toward the food and toward the restaurant" because "the perception is driving the reality."

However, I'd argue that this strategy is flawed. First, the perception and positioning of the brand and its advertisements will always affect the perceptions of the product. If there's a conflict between the core values of the brand and the advertising, the associations with healthy food that advertisers hope to make with their new buzzwords simply won't work. Consumers won't suddenly view a fast-food chain as an authority on healthy living when they have spent their entire previous existence serving up mountains of greasy burgers and a constant stream of colas. Without some authority in such a realm, like health, their voice will not be one that consumers will trust.

Additionally, fast food marketers and advertisers have resorted to using vague terminology because they're hoping to deceive consumers by implying something that isn't necessarily true. For instance, the "bowl full of wholesome" position that McDonald's is taking with its breakfast oatmeal doesn't match reality when, as Mark Bittman of the New York Times points out, "it contains more sugar than a Snickers bar." Such a strategy leads to the classically flawed advertising mistake of talking the talk but not walking the walk. Furthermore, any success that fast food marketers might be enjoying using their vague buzzword strategy could come to a screeching halt when restaurants are required to list calorie counts on their menus.

The problem is that Mr. Tristano and the buzzword happy marketers and advertisers are getting their strategies backwards. Instead of the theory that perception will drive reality, I believe that sustainable success is enjoyed when reality drives perception. It's the job of a marketer and a brand's advertisements to shape perception by best communicating such realities.

This post also appeared on Talent Zoo Media's Beyond Madison Avenue blog.

Proudly Made In The US of... Huh?

2011-03-06T22:59:00.007-05:00

The ABC World News with Diane Sawyer recently ran an interesting series to ask its viewers if they knew what items in their homes were made in America. Their public experiment with a family in Texas prompted me to have a discussion with my mom about goods born in American, during which I proudly declared that my New Balance sneakers were created in the good Ole' US of A.

I knew this was true because I remember once having a conversation with a coworker about New Balance shoes being made in America (near their hometown). And I even remember New Balance touting this in a recent patriotic ad campaign .

So, I was more than a little shocked when looked at the inside of my shoes and saw "Made In China" on the tag.

It turns out that only one out of every four New Balance shoes is made by American workers. Furthermore, for the 25 percent that are American, New Balance qualifies American made as 70 percent of the value of the shoe has origins in the States; whereas the Federal Trade Commission guidelines say "the product should contain no- or negligible- foreign content."

I'd like to thank the World News for opening my eyes a bit. There I was, feeling deceived, just like the family in the story that had nothing left in their home except one American made vase.