brandSTOKE

Feb

And the winner is … Google

By Kirk 0 Comments

Categories: advertising, copywriting, interactive marketing, mass media, search engine marketing, social media and strategy

In its Super Bowl commercial, Google tells an engaging little story of romance with simplicity and elegance. Appropriately, it uses keywords and search results only.

Its logo is onscreen almost the entire time, while it demonstrates several of its features and benefits. It effectively offsets Bing’s recent efforts at malignment.

Not only was the spot inexpensive to produce, but it stood out from the sophomoric humor and over-the top production of the majority of the commercials.

Erik Sherman, in his negative review of the spot at BNET, misses the point that by airing the spot in the Super Bowl, Google reached millions and millions who haven’t already seen it on YouTube.

Smart marketing all the way around.

Which spot do you feel was most effective?

Feb

Advertising’s swimsuit competition: the Super Bowl

By Kirk 1 Comment

Categories: advertising, event marketing, mass media and roi

istock_000010686107xsmall Let’s be honest.

This week, when we chat online or around the water cooler about the Super Bowl commercials, we will not be judging them based upon which are most effective at doing what they are supposed to be doing, which is actually selling something.

Instead, we will talk about which spots we “like,” which spots we find most entertaining. We’re judging style, not substance.

In pursuit of being popular during and after the game, advertisers and their agencies push the limits to engage us. And we reward them with a couple of week’s worth of buzz.

But how successful are these creative efforts really? Long-term, how many widgets do they sell?

In Advertising Age, Tom Denari blames online ratings. “Super Bowl ads are now dangerously close to a series of Saturday Night Live skits, designed to bombastically amuse the viewer. While I would admit that an ad’s biggest crime may be to be forgotten, Super Bowl ads have become a contest where each competitor sees who can out-gross, out-animal-talk or out-uncomfortable-body-part the next ad. The hype and ratings have continued to erode the quality and integrity of ideas.”

There does happen to be a venue for recognizing the most effective advertising. It’s called the Effie Awards. Effies are given based on results rather than entertainment value. Additionally, the Effie organization shares with the industry its accumulated wisdom by showcasing great ideas that work.

Heard of the Effies? Probably not. They don’t have a football game.

Feb

The branding of electricity

By Kirk 0 Comments

Categories: advertising, brand essence, budgeting, identity and strategy

Electricity is a commodity. And therefore, it sells on price alone.

But in 1998, local electric cooperatives from around the country, all of which operate independently, got together to distinguish the electricity they serve from that served by investor-owned utilities.

A brand was born.

The catalyst: energy deregulation. Since the late 1990s, many states have rewritten the rules in order to increase competition among energy providers. Facing the prospect of competing head-to-head with large, well-financed utilities, electric co-ops decided to unite their individual brands under one banner.

“Touchstone Energy” became the national brand identity for participating electric cooperatives.

Because members own the co-ops which serve them, cooperatives have a unique advantage in a competitive environment. Market research conducted during the development of the brand identified the following differentiating attributes:

Co-ops are active members of the local communities they serve.
Co-ops are directly accountable to their member-owner-customers (not to investors).
Co-op members have a voice in how things are run.
Co-ops are perceived as more people-focused.

After developing the Touchstone Energy name and identity, participating co-ops adopted the tagline, “The power of human connections,” and launched a national branding campaign (See current campaigns here.).

Correctly, the co-ops didn’t try to brand electricity. Instead they branded the co-op experience, based upon intangibles including integrity, accountability, and commitment to community.

Today, the Touchstone Energy brand represents an alliance of nearly 700 cooperatives in 46 states. Touchstone Energy co-ops collectively deliver power to more than 30 million members every day. They distribute power for 75 percent of the U.S. land mass over 2.4 million miles of power lines.

And the brand lives up to its promise. Industry research indicates electric co-ops rank well ahead of their industry counterparts when it comes to customer satisfaction. Data from the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), one the nation’s most recognized measures of customer satisfaction, gives Touchstone Energy cooperatives an average score of 81 out of a possible 100, outclassing the utility industry satisfaction score of 74.

Co-op electricity — it’s a powerful brand.

Jan

The rise of community bank brands

By Kirk 2 Comments

Categories: advertising, loyalty, public relations, retail and strategy

The customers of George Bailey’s “wonderful old building and loan” rallied to defend it from the money-grubbing Mr. Potter in It’s A Wonderful Life.

Although the circumstances are different, small banks across the country are attempting to arouse the same kind of passionate community support. Hoping to attract consumers angry and disgusted with big banks due to the Federal bailout, the huge bonuses, and the arrogance in general, community banks are urging big-bank customers to switch accounts to them.

The New York Times reports a number of local uprisings:

a credit union in Texas running a campaign, “Real Texans bank locally.”
a single-engine plane, hired by a small Colorado bank, towing a banner over a Rockies’ game, reading “This is the closest thing we have to a private jet.”
a credit union in Washington running an ad that asks, “Why should your bank’s CEO get a golden parachute while the rest of the bank nosedives?”
a consortium of banks in Ohio advertising together as The Community Bank Connection, where “Every banker knows your name.”

Hundreds of community banks and credit unions from around the country have combined their marketing budgets for a campaign created by BancVue, a marketing consulting firm. It promotes a variety of products and services under one cryptic brand name, “Kasasa.” The joint effort is aimed at attracting deposits from large institutions.

Arriana Huffington of The Huffington Post and some friends set up Move Your Money, a grassroots campaign encouraging customers to switch their accounts. (They produced the attached mashup of It’s A Wonderful Life.)

Is it working? Yes, according to The New York Times. “So far, the campaigns appear to be helping banks attract new customers. According to an analysis by the Independent Community Bankers of America, small banks were the only segment of the industry to show growth in net loans and leases in the second quarter.”

Likewise, Bancvue reports significant success from its pilot campaign in ABA Banking Journal.

Once, the big-bank brands of Wall Street seemed the trustworthy haven for one’s savings. Now, for many, small banks look like the safer choice.

Do you believe a fundamental shift in where people bank is occurring?

Will the big banks eventually earn back the public’s faith?

Will the small banks sustain any advantage?

And most importantly, will you move your money?

Jan

Warning: Your brand is being commoditized!

By Kirk 1 Comment

Categories: brand essence, loyalty, retail and strategy

Remember the old days when coffee was a commodity? We may be headed there again.

Starbucks, with its expansion in 1987, revolutionized how we drink and think about coffee. It convinced us to buy whole beans instead of grounds. It familiarized us with espresso, cappuccino and latte. It introduced us to an American version of the European café experience.

Following Starbucks’ success, imitators, such as Caribou, The Coffee Beanery, and others, proliferated. McDonald’s, feeling the heat, changed its bean, ran a “Four bucks is dumb” campaign, and added its McCafé lineup. Tim Hortons and Dunkin’ Donuts followed suit. Now, Speedway is on the attack with less expensive, make-it-your-way coffee beverages.

Although these are very diverse retail models targeting different audience segments, they are clearly all responding to and offsetting the influence of the Starbucks’ brand experience.

It happens in every category.

No matter how hard a successful brand works to be different, it’s competitors are working just as hard to cash in by replicating it. Commoditization is a never-ending reality. It makes products and services indistinguishable and interchangeable. It levels the playing field after a brand has built a lead.

And yet there are some iconic brands that, despite competitive copycatting, manage to sustain their long-term “ownership” of a differentiator in the minds of consumers. Brands such as ESPN, Mountain Dew, Google, Volkswagen, Quaker Oats, Nike, Harley-Davidson, and Apple. How do they do it?

As discussed in a recent post, tangible advantages can quickly and easily be duplicated. Beyond the tangibles, strong brands have succeeded at bonding with their customers around an intangible attribute.

Starbucks’ defense against commoditization may not be the quality of it’s coffee, but rather the warm, comfortable, friendly intimacy it has created around the coffee-drinking experience. Is this an advantage they can sustain?

Jan

Imagine if every brand was as honest as Domino’s

By Kirk 3 Comments

Categories: advertising, loyalty, public relations, retail and strategy

In its new campaign, Domino’s ‘fesses up to having served “crust like cardboard” and “sauce like ketchup” for years. Then it asks pizza lovers to forgive, forget, and try its new recipe.

“By doing that they are basically saying, ‘We’ve been shoveling you crap for years and now we want you to trust us,’” says Kelly O’Keefe, managing director of the Brand Center at Virginia Commonwealth University, in an Associated Press story.

Or like your partner saying, “I cheated on you, but now I’d like to try to make it work.”

Could other brands benefit from this confessional approach? These, for example?

GM: “When we heard that what you really want are well-designed, fuel-efficient cars that are affordable and fun to drive … well, frankly, it was hard to face. But now, after working night and day, we’ve changed everything. We think you’re going to be surprised.”

American Airlines: “We’ve made you wait in long lines, pay for your luggage, sit on the tarmac for hours, and miss your connecting flights. But learning how you felt about it hit us right in the heart. Now, we’ve completely reinvented ourselves. It’s what being great is all about.”

Budweiser: “As you have switched your taste preference to microbrews and imports, we have had to accept the criticism that our beer is watery and flavorless. Even after brewing it that way for generations, there comes a time when you have to step up, face reality, and make a change. That’s what we did. We can’t wait for your reaction to our new flavorful beer.”

NFL: “You told us our athletes play like they don’t care. Let’s face it — they’re spoiled. We pay them too much money and they spend it all on drugs, sex, and toys. That’s why we’ve decided to go back to the basics and air high school games instead. Unpaid players playing solely for the love of the sport – you won’t believe the difference! It’ll put excitement back into the game. Check it out this Friday night!”

Which other brands should ask you for a second chance?

Jan

Why intangibles are the more sustainable competitive advantages

By Kirk 0 Comments

Categories: brand essence, loyalty and strategy

Once upon a time it was possible to differentiate a product or service by having a tangible advantage. “Tangible” means it can be seen, heard, tasted, smelled, or touched. Like a more powerful engine. A sleeker design. A secret recipe.

The problem with tangible advantages is, with today’s technology, they can quickly and easily be replicated. Companies that base their brand essence solely on material differences struggle to keep a step ahead of competitors.

Apple is a case in point. Known for its innovative technology and design, Apple commands worldwide attention with every new product announcement.

Yet Apple’s innovations are quickly duplicated. Copycat brands, by eliminating tangible advantages, tend to commoditize a category and cause consumers to buy based upon price alone.

As a result, the iPhone competes for market share in the smartphone category with numerous manufactures, such as HP, HTC, Motorola (Droid), Nokia, Palm, Research In Motion (Blackberry), Samsung, Sony Ericsson, and others.

Same with the iPod. Revolutionary in design, it faces competition from Archos, Coby Electronics, Cowon Systems, Creative, iRiver, Microsoft, Philips, RCA, Samsung, SanDisk, Sony and scores more digital audio player makers.

However, while the competitors play catchup, what Apple can and does sustain is an intangible competitive advantage: friendliness.

Based upon its design philosophy of making technology simple and easy to use, Apple has positioned itself as the friendly brand of personal technology. This brand essence is well portrayed by the approachable and laid-back character Mac in Apple’s TV spots.

Another case: FedEx differentiated itself by offering overnight package delivery in 1973. At the time, it owned the category. Now it competes with UPS, Airbourne, DHL, Emory, and the U.S. Postal Service. It’s initial advantage was matched by competitors.

FedEx didn’t sustain an advantage based upon delivering overnight. What it did sustain is reliability.

In each case, the intangible brand essence is perceived by customers as creating superior value and thus serves as an obstacle to competition.

Imagine, as a competitor, attempting to be more reliable than FedEx or friendlier than Apple.

Dec

The North Face Dilemma: Spank the Butt or turn the other cheek?

By Kirk 3 Comments

Categories: identity, loyalty, promotion, public relations, retail and social media

Okay, it’s a little bit funny.

At least the first time you see this parody of The North Face’s familiar logo.

But The North Face is not laughing. It is, instead, suing young Jimmy Winkelmann, founder of The South Butt brand, for trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition.

Winkelmann isn’t subtle about the inspiration for his line of casual apparel. The South Butt’s tagline is “Never Stop Relaxing,” a play on The North Face’s “Never Stop Exploring.”

On his web site, Winkelmann says, “I thought of The South Butt in response to a growing number of people who continued buying gear and clothes from a brand they really didn’t relate to, but were buying because ‘everyone else was.’

“After seeing the same people wearing the same brands, I decided to create a way to poke fun at the norm, while making an affordable and quality product.”

Despite his disclaimer (”If you are unable to discern the difference between a face and a butt, we encourage you to buy North Face products.”), he’s not just having fun. He’s selling merchandise — much more now due to the media attention provided by the lawsuit.

An article by Jim Salter of the Associated Press quotes the suit: “They (The South Butt) are marketing apparel that directly and unabashedly infringes and dilutes The North Face’s famous trademarks and duplicates The North Face’s trade dress in its iconic Denali jacket.”

“While defendants may try to legitimize their piracy under the banner of parody, their own conduct belies that claim,” the suit said. Supposedly, The South Butt has twice attempted to register its trademark and once offered to sell The South Butt to the The North Face for $1 million.

Winkelmann is capitalizing on the attention. He’s launched a game on his Facebook page, entitled “Can you tell tell the difference between a face and a butt? Take The South Butt Challenge.” He’s making media appearances. He’s leveraging a brand built by someone else. He’s making money.

“This is bigger than facing down a bully in the school yard,” said Albert Watkins, attorney for The South Butt and Winkelmann. “This goes to the heart of competition, the concept of an open marketplace, and the freedom of the public to make their own choice.”

So which is it? A parody, free enterprise, or a rip-off?

Are The North Face customers confused? Not likely.

Are they switching brands? No.

Is The South Butt a long-term threat to The North Face’s market share? No.

For The North Face, this is not about money.

It’s about demonstrating, for legal reasons, that they are willing to defend their brand. One of the ways a brand keeps its trademarks defensible is by proving it will not tolerate copycats. Putting Winkelmann out of business would send a message and serve to scare off other potential interlopers.

But there’s a risk. Legal action and continued media interest may make The North Face look humorless, corporate and stodgy. A heavy-handed handling of this frat-boy joke and the accompanying bad PR may not appeal to its younger customers. (Currently, The North Face does not respond to questions about the lawsuit and does not reference the issue in its social media. So much for transparency.)

How do you think The North Face should handle this?

Drop the lawsuit and be a good sport?

Or scuttle the Butt?

Dec

Indies vs. chains, and how to win

By Kirk 1 Comment

Categories: loyalty, retail and strategy

istock_000001734570xsmall The eternal struggle: little vs. big.

The independent hardware store vs. Home Depot.

The locally owned grocer vs. Kroger.

Everybody vs. Walmart.

The differentiators?

Sam Walton said, “The secret of successful retailing is to give your customers what they want. And really, if you think about it from your point of view as a customer, you want everything: a wide assortment of good-quality merchandise; the lowest possible prices; guaranteed satisfaction with what you buy; friendly, knowledgeable service; convenient hours; free parking; a pleasant shopping experience.”

Can independents compete with the chains? On most of these attributes, the answer is yes.

Price: Most consumers perceive that the big guys leverage their power to buy at lower prices and pass the savings on to the consumers. Walmart’s “Every Day Low Prices” position is built on this. Chalk this one up for the chains.

Service: No matter how hard the big boxes try to convince us otherwise, most consumers believe they get better service from smaller businesses. Local owners tend to live in the community and work in their stores everyday, whereas big boxes are owned out of town and tend to have higher staff turnover.

To maintain the edge, independents must focus constantly on delivering better service. There is great opportunity for differentiation here. Score this one for the little guys.

Selection: This attribute is in the eye of the beholder. Let’s say I want a pair of running shoes. Walmart offers Starter and Dr. Scholl’s. Huh? My locally owned running store features Adidas, Asics, Brooks, Ecco Biom, Mizuno, New Balance, Nike, Saucony, Under Armour, and more. No comparison.

Of course, chains tend to offer a broader selection of product categories. But if selection within a particular category is important, an independent may be the better choice. Let’s call this one a tie.

Quality: The same goes for quality. Chains tend to offer the more popular brands, which are often less expensive. If higher quality in a particular category is important to you, you will likely have better luck at an independent that specializes in the category, whether it be high-end cookware, apparel, home theater systems, or collectible comic books.

Here’s an example: Mad River Outfitters is one of the top fly-fishing shops in the country, offering quality brands such as Orvis, Sage, R.L. Winston, Scott, and Temple Fork Outfitters.

Of course, the brand categories that warrant better quality are a matter of personal taste. A brand to one is a commodity to another. (For more on this, see You say tomato. I say Fox’s Fine Gourmet Ketchup.) Accordingly, we’ll call this one a tie.

Convenience: This one also depends upon your your needs. If convenience to you means having lots of product categories under one roof for one-stop shopping, then the chains are the choice.

But shopping at chains can be an inconvenience if you need only a few items. The lines may be long and the parking lots crowded. Mom-and-pops may serve you faster. Let’s call this one a tie as well.

Final score: a tie.

The Davids will have difficulty beating the Goliaths on price. But in every other category the indies are competitive. To win, they should:

Avoid trying to compete in every product category. Instead, indies should carry more selection in fewer categories.
Accept that they can’t compete at the low end and carry higher quality merchandise than the chains.
Feature well regarded brands that the chains don’t carry.
Emphasize convenience throughout the shopping experience. Some independents offer free delivery, for example.
Service, service, service. This one above all others.

Which other ways can independently owned retailers compete favorably with the chains?

The message

Dec

Why so few brands get it right

By Kirk 7 Comments

Categories: brand essence and loyalty

We swim in a sea of commodities — cell phones, insurance, big-screen TVs, Angus burgers, airlines, banks, grocers, car dealers, etc.

Except for their names, we can’t tell most of them apart.

Why is it so difficult for brands to stand out by standing for something?

In theory, every brand ought to be chasing the ring. After all, strong brands reap huge rewards — loyal customers, competitive barriers, bigger margins, and greater equity.

And certainly, we have some admirable contemporary models of branding success — iPhone, Google, Harley-Davidson, Walmart, Whole Foods, Southwest Airlines, Starbucks, etc.

But these champs are the exceptions. For every one of them, there are literally millions of lookalike, sound-alike brands-that-aren’t.

Why can’t they bottle the lightning? Because:

Some managers believe branding is mumbo jumbo and dismiss it.
Some won’t invest in it.
Some confuse it with advertising and run “branding campaigns.”
Some departmentalize it. They relegate branding to the marketing staff.
Some dismiss it as “soft.” They focus instead on the “hard” tangible attributes of the brand, which are easily duplicated by competitors.
Some believe consumers care about price only. They commoditize their brand, stripping away its uniqueness, in order to cut costs.
Some spend their resources matching their competitors’ innovations.
Some chase short-term results with non-stop discounts, coupons, and specials, instead of building long-term loyalty.
Some attempt to be all things to all consumers. They fear that focusing means giving up customers to competitors. And by standing for everything, they end up standing for nothing.
Some can’t deliver a unique brand experience consistently.
Some may be content to follow the leader.
Some can’t or won’t take on the daunting task of identifying the essence of their brand.