2009 July | brandSTOKE

Archive for July, 2009

Jul

Tour de Tweets

By Kirk 2 Comments

Categories: cause marketing, event marketing, health care, interactive marketing, promotion, social media and strategy

The 2009 Tour de France, highlighted by Lance Armstrong’s return, may be remembered as much for being the first sporting event in history to fully integrate social media into the competition and the coverage.

Nearly every one of the 20 teams blogged and tweeted (e.g., Garmin-Slipstream and Astana).

Numerous riders and team managers tweeted as well (e.g., Levi Leipheimer, Andy Schleck, and Johan Bruyneel. (For examples of Twitter use by riders, see Dara Kerr’s post at CNET News.)

Active.com combined tweets from all of the participating riders and managers into one stream.

Armstrong, a skilled promoter, was most prolific. In Becky Ebenkamp’s post at Brandweek, Richard Rosenblatt, CEO of Demand Media, which owns the Livestrong.com community, said, “(Armstrong) called up and said, ‘I … want to broadcast through Livestrong.com exclusively and use Twitter to make sure people can not only see the tour, but actually feel it and hear it directly from my mouth — unedited.’”

His Twitter and Facebook posts regularly included behind-the-scenes videos and photos. A skilled promoter, he leveraged his celebrity and his celebrity friends to raise awareness for Livestrong, such as a video of Ben Stiller clowning on Lance’s warm-up bike.

Traditional sports media relied on Twitter for leads. The Daily Mail published Lance’s Twitter diary. And while many of the riders’ posts were banal, some provided real insight into the action, such as this comment by multiple-stage winner Mark Cavendish, “Yesterday with 3km to go, Piet Rooijakkers (skil shimano) kidney punched me.”

The official Tour de France site included a fantasy team competition as well as blogs and Twitter.

Versus.com, the site of the TV network which broadcast the race, incorporated a dazzling array of fan-friendly features, including live coverage, mobile alerts, daily blogs including Armstrong’s, a message board, a widget providing updates, podcasts, an ask-the-expert feature, a serialized graphic novel, a sweepstakes, a virtual library of video and photos, trivia quizzes, and games.

One of Armstong’s sponsors, Nike, donates proceeds from the sale of Livestrong products to the Lance Armstrong Foundation. Its tour site provided visitors the opportunity to post their own stories in words or video of hope in the face of cancer.

It also featured an ingenious innovation — the Chalkbot. Messages of encouragement and remembrance, texted by site visitors, were spray-chalked thousands of miles away on the roads of the tour during the event by the Chalkbot. Who could resist memorializing a loved one in this way?

The 2009 Tour was perhaps the most connected athletes, teams, sponsors, charities, media and fans have ever been. Where do you think it will lead?

Jul

Don’t just sponsor events — brand them.

By Kirk 4 Comments

Categories: cause marketing, event marketing, identity, promotion and strategy

The backs of most event T-shirts look like the one on the left — a jumble of sponsor names and logos.

And that’s just how the event organizers like it.

The proliferation of community fund-raising events, such as runs, walks and golf outings, is good for all parties. The more sponsor money the better!

The sponsors, however, may be choosing to participate for reasons besides charity. Some, of course, are sincerely engaged in the cause. Some are playing the role of community citizen. Some may feel personal or political pressure. Some may be fulfilling employees’ interests. Regardless of their motivations, all donors should be profusely thanked and recognized for their generosity.

However, if one of their goals is to generate brand awareness, they are likely getting lost in the crowd.

Instead of making a nominal donation to multiple events, brands should consider moving to a less crowded venue — the front of the shirt.

Being the title sponsor of an event is consistent with recent trands in corporate giving; that is, giving larger amounts to fewer charities in order to make a greater overall impact. Take a page from Panera‘s book — own the event.

Jul

Brand essence by every other name

By Kirk 3 Comments

Categories: brand essence and client-agency relationships

In an effort to brand themselves, marketing consultants have done a disservice to their clients by creating a multitude of words and phrases that describe essentially the same thing — brand essence.

At least, that’s what I call it. You may call it something else.

Some firms have gone so far as to trademark their terms and the processes they use for determination. End result: confusion.

The forerunner of brand essence may have been the Unique Selling Proposition (also Unique Selling Point), a concept developed and named by Rosser Reeves of Ted Bates & Company.

In a post, “The USP: Still unique 50 years on?“, Digby Richards, CEO of Bates 141, argues that the USP is still relevant. He admits, however, that due to the advent of product parity, it has evolved into the Emotional Selling Proposition. ESP is a concept much closer to our common understanding of “brand essence,” as its focus is on the brand’s intangible differentiator.

Here is a collection of words and phrases used to describe what is unique about a brand as perceived by consumers:

Brand Soul
Brand Heart
Brand Mantra
Brand Promise
Signature Strength
Core Strength
Core Attribute
Brand Description
Brand Differentiator
Brand Personality
Brand Experience
Brand Connection
Brand Persona
Brand’s Life Force
The “-ness” of the brand
Brand Uniqueness
Brand Individuality
Brand Meaning
Brand’s Central Nature
Brand Proposition
Brand Essence
Brand DNA

What terms can you add to this list?

A note to purists: I admit that there may be shades of difference between some of these terms. You could make a case that brand personality and brand promise, for example, mean two completely different things. My point is that the differences are largely semantical and do little to advance the branding process.

Jul

Private labels: the new brands?

By Kirk 3 Comments

Categories: brand essence, identity, loyalty, packaging, retail and strategy

Retail trade media is abuzz over the hypothesis that consumers will shift their loyalties permanently to private labels after the recession.

Private labels have been around since the late 1800s, but consumer attitudes toward them are changing, perhaps even faster due to the downturn.

More than 30% of consumers polled are now “buying more store brand products” compared to a year ago, according to research conducted by the Private Label Manufacturers Association (PDF).

Is there really a sea change? Here are some perceptions and realities to consider:

Perception: Private labels are cheaper than manufacturers’ brands.
Reality: According to Fortune, private labels cost consumers 5-20% less than equivalent manufacturers’ brands.

Perception: Retailers make less money on private labels than manufacturers’ brands due to the lower prices.
Reality: Margins are an average of 10% higher on store brands than manufacturers’ brands.

Perception: Private labels are perceived to be of lesser quality.
Reality: It depends on the label, of course, but many are now perceived to be of at least equivalent quality, such as Sears Craftsman tools, Saks CLOTHES (Real) women’s apparel, and Kroger Private Selection foods.

In Private Label Strategy: How to Meet the Store Brand Challenge, a book by Nirmalya Kumar and Jan-Benedict E. M. Steenkamp, the authors say the concerns about quality and the social stigma attached to store brands have disappeared.

Perception: Private labels are perceived by consumers as generic commodities.
Reality: For the most part, those days are over.

Some private labels are perceived instead as extensions of the store’s brand. Loyalists to Trader Joe’s, for example, sometimes drive hours to the nearest store to stock up on its products, about 85% of which are private label. Barry Silverstein in a brandchannel.com post, “Trader Joe’s: Quirky Mart,” describes the retailer as “less a grocery store and more a brand with a cult-like following.”

Other stores disguise their relationship to their private labels, often as part of a multi-pronged strategy to appeal to different customer segments and compete in different product categories. A few examples: Macy’s offers fashionable INC, traditional CHARTER CLUB, and trendy Style&co. Nordstrom sells under the classiques entier and Halogen labels. Kohl’s features sonoma, urban PIPELINE, apt. 9, and Croft&Barrow. All private labels.

Perception: Private labels are increasing their market share primarily due to the recession.
Reality: The downturn may be speeding up the trend, but retailers have been growing more sophisticated in their positioning strategies and gaining ground for quite some time. They want to offer consumers a range of options and prices for shoppers. When they notice a niche missed by the manufacturers, they often fill the gap with their own label.

Perception: After the recession, consumers will migrate back to manufacturers’ brands.
Reality: More likely, consumers will stick with the brands they prefer, whether manufacturers’ or retailers’.

According to an article in The Wall Street Journal by Julie Jargon and Ann Zimmerman, Sara Lee’s CEO Brenda Barnes says, “… (manufacturers’) brands are not dead. The question is: How do you make sure your brand is the No. 1 brand? There will be consolidation, over time, with only the No. 1, No. 2 and private-label brands remaining.”

This is a brand-by-brand battle, taking place in the minds of the consumers. Strong store brands, such as Sears DieHard and Walmart Great Value will likely be able to continue to transfer brand equity to their private labels. Smart retailers with differentiated brand names, such as Macy’s European-influenced ALFANI and Target‘s Archer Farms, will likely succeed, if they pay attention to their customers’ preferences and position their brands accordingly.

In other words, strong brands will succeed and weak brands will die, regardless of who owns them. It is the law of the jungle.

Do you perceive a difference in quality between manufacturers’ and store brands?