Archive for December, 2009

22
Dec

The North Face dilemma: spank the Butt or turn the other cheek?

logo

images-4

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?

15
Dec

Indies vs. chains, and how to win

istock_000001734570xsmallThe 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

07
Dec

Why so few brands get it right

istock_000008284147xsmallWe 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.

Certainly there are more reasons why so few brands succeed at brand-building. Which ones can you add to the list?

03
Dec

Best posts of 2009

istock_000007990142xsmallThis month BrandSTOKE is one year old.

I’m honored that you take the time to read and comment. My goal for 2010 is to engage more conversation. If you have any suggestions for topics or improving the blog, please let me know.

Thanks for your interest and support. I’ll try to do better next year.

Here’s a list of some of the most popular posts as well as a few personal favorites from the last twelve months:

On brand building:

On brands vs. commodities:

On simplicity and effectiveness of messaging:

On smarter strategy:

On getting hired:

Just for fun:





Subscribe to the RSS feed

Archives


“9 Criteria for Brand Essence” Deck

The 9 Criteria for Brand Essence



twitter grader

Add to Technorati Favorites
Featured in Alltop

Invesp landing page optimization
Chris Brogan says I'm a Rockstar!

Top 100 Blogs Award
Brand Management featured writer