loyalty | brandSTOKE

Archive for the 'loyalty' Category

Aug

Polaroid: The brand that won’t die

By Kirk 3 Comments

Categories: art direction & design, brand essence and loyalty

The photos are grainy and often out of focus. The colors look faded. You can’t zoom and you can’t make extra prints without scanning. And the film is expensive.

Digital, the new instant photography, does it all better, faster and cheaper.

So why won’t Polaroid, which filed for bankruptcy in 2001, just go away?

One reason is that people love its imperfect look. Photographer Larry Fink says, “The color combines with soft focus to create images existing in the suspended time of a dream. The everyday appears to us as if from a great distance.”

At Fink’s blog, photographer Annalisa Gonnella says, “(Through) this faded, dull tone, you are instantly presented with the reverse of your vision, that is, with a memory.”

In fact, the Polaroid look is so popular it has inspired digital impersonators, such as the apps Polarize, Polarock and ShakeIt for smartphones, which allow users to give photos a similar retro look.

Plus, there is something about the Polaroid picture-taking experience. The camera ejecting the print. The image slowly and magically emerging before your eyes. Your hands cradling a just-happened moment in time. Polaroid, with all of its imperfections, provides a palpable experience that digital doesn’t.

Failure to address the impact of digital technology led to Polaroid’s bankruptcy. The company’s successors stopped making cameras in 2007 and film in 2009. Spurred on by nostalgic fans all over the world, The Impossible Project saved the last Polaroid film plant and restarted production. In early 2010, it announced the availability of a new analog instant film, saving millions of perfectly functioning Polaroid cameras from going obsolete. (Take a Polaroid snaps tour of The Impossible Project plant in the Netherlands here or buy film here.)

At the 2010 Consumer Electronics Show, Polaroid announced Lady Gaga will serve as special projects creative director, a move consistent with its history of featuring professional artists in its campaigns. She said, “I’m interested in bringing (Polaroid) back … (and) combining it with the digital era and making something new.”

So why is this analog dinosaur back from the dead?

First, it is one of the most recognized brands in the world. Second, its hopelessly square and muted look induces nostalgia. In these times, its familiarity is comforting. Third, it’s instant fun. At a party, you can hand people prints on the spot.

Fourth and most important, it has cracked the branding code. It is not the tangibles of the product — it is the intangibles of the experience.

Aug

Do artisan brands lose their fans when sold to conglomerates?

By Kirk 0 Comments

Categories: authenticity, brand essence, cause marketing, loyalty and public relations

Burt’s Bees was started in Dexter, Maine, in 1984 by Burt Shavitz, a beekeeper, and Roxanne Quimby. Their lip balm and other natural products were an offshoot of Burt’s backwoods honey business.

Similarly, Tom and Kate Chappell decided to make and sell the first natural toothpaste, Tom’s of Maine, in rural Kennebunk in 1975. They started with a $5,000 loan and the philosophy that their personal care products would not harm the environment. (See post.)

In Santa Cruz, George Steltenpohl and two fellow musicians, Gerry Percy and Bonnie Bassett, launched Odwalla from a shed in Steltenpohl’s backyard in 1980. Their idea — selling fresh fruit juice and giving back to the community.

Many consumers are drawn to brands that stand for something other than profit-making. Called affinity brands, a community of diehard evangelists forms around them, drawn by a common cause or set of values. For these, it’s an enthralling concept — the little guy fighting the good fight. (For more on affinity branding, see post on Patagonia and its founder, Yvon Chouinard.)

But what happens when an artisan brand sells out? (And many do.)

Burt’s Bees sold in 2007 for $925 million to Clorox.
Tom’s of Maine sold in 2006 for $100 million to Colgate-Palmolive.
Odwalla sold in 2001 for $181 million to Coca-Cola.
Ben & Jerry’s sold in 2000 for $326 million to Unilever.
Naked Juice sold in 2006 for $450 million to PepsiCo.
Kashi cereals, the favorite of millions of healthy breakfast eaters, sold in 2000 for $32 million by Kellogg.

A case can be made for spreading the gospel by going big. In The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Gene Kahn, founder of Cascadian Farm, is quoted as saying, “You have a choice of getting sad about all that (selling) or moving on. We tried hard to build a cooperative community and a local food system, but at the end of the day it wasn’t successful.”

Cascadian Farm is now owned by General Mills, where Kahn is the global sustainability officer. “I wanted to leverage that position to redefine the way we grow food — not … how we distribute it.”

Yet, while taking advantage of the distribution channels, buyers often keep quiet about their acquisitions so as not to upset the brand loyalists.

In a post at AlterNet, Lara Christenson of Spins, market researchers for the natural products industry, is quoted as saying, “There is frequently a backlash when a big cereal package-goods company buys a natural or organic company. I don’t want to say it’s manipulative, but consumers are led to believe these brands are pure, natural or organic brands. It’s very purposely done.”

Can conglomerates maintain the values held by the original brands while expanding distribution? Can they do so while being transparent about ownership? Are consumers open-minded to this possibility?

Jul

Does Geico’s multi-concept strategy work?

By Kirk 1 Comment

Categories: advertising, loyalty, promotion, simplicity and strategy

images How many creative strategies can one brand successfully execute at one time?

Conventional wisdom suggests one and one only. Be focused. Be consistent. Hammer it. You’ll grow weary of the campaign long before the audience is even aware of it.

Geico has broken this rule of thumb again and again. With seeming success.

Martin, the talking gecko, is most closely identified with the Geico brand, but he no longer has to do all of the heavy lifting.

The cavemen characters handle some of that, unintentionally and tragically reminding us how simple it is to switch insurance companies (”so easy a caveman could do it”).

There is also the stack of money with googly eyes, called Kash, representing “the money you could be saving with Geico.”

Now, actor Mike McGlone, playing a tough-guy reporter, asks rhetorical questions, such as “”Is a bird in the hand worth two in the bush?” (Learn the answer to, “Did the little piggy cry, ‘wee, wee, wee,’ all the way home?,” below.

And there’s more. Deadliest Catch boat captains, Jonathan and Andy Hillstrand, have appeared in numerous TV commercials, some of which costar the cavemen and Kash.

Even, Bear Grylls of Man Vs. Wild recently happened upon Martin the gecko in the bush. I was expecting Bear to eat him, but no such luck.

Other creative approaches focus on individual insurance products for motorcycles, boats, RVs, etc. (Many of Geico’s current spots are available to view here.)

Fielding multiple concepts simultaneously seems like a recipe for disaster, but the strategy appears to work. How? Three reasons:

Lots of budget. Geico spent $751 million on advertising in 2007, $561 million in 2008, and $473 million through October of 2009, per Nielsen. The commercials run endlessly.
Integrated concepts. To help connect the executions, characters frequently appear in each other’s commercials. (See Mike McGlone and a caveman in this spot, for example.)
Simple messages. While Geico’s creative execution is not focused, its messages regarding cost savings and ease of switching are simple and consistent. Most spots open or close with “15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance.”

So far, the gecko seems to have more staying power than the Budweiser frogs.

Jul

To inspire brand loyalty, ask why, not how.

By Kirk 0 Comments

Categories: authenticity, brand essence and loyalty

“People don’t buy what you do. They buy why you do it.”

This quote by Simon Sinek eloquently captures a key concept I’ve presented in previous posts (“‘Why’ uncover strategic insights?“). That is, the strongest brands (sometimes called affinity brands) are centered around intangible attributes, not tangible ones. They stand for some greater purpose or ideal than simply making money. Being true to some inner value is attractive to those consumers who share the same value.

Previously, I have used Patagonia as an example of a loyalty-inspiring affinity brand. It seems to sell outdoor clothing practically as an afterthought to environmentalism. “For us, a love of wild and beautiful places demands participation in the fight to save them.”

In this video at TED.com, Sinek discusses why some organizations inspire loyalty, while others don’t. The goal, he says, is to sell to people who believe in what you believe. To understand, ask why your organization exists, not what it makes. His examples of inspirational leaders include Apple, the Wright brothers, and Martin Luther King, Jr.

Thanks to @emilystoddard of DVQ Studio for pointing me toward this presentation.

For more on this topic, read:

Jun

The true value of your brand and how it should be figured

By Kirk Closed

Categories: brand essence, loyalty, management and roi

You already know intangibles are the difference between one brand and another. But do you know how much those intangible assets add to the financial value of your brand?

It used to be that brands were valued based primarily upon their hard assets, such as buildings, equipment, and inventory. However, in the last several years, valuation has changed in favor of intangibles, such as intellectual property, business processes, market share, and brands.

This shift is discussed in a recent article in Advertising Age by Bob Liodice, president-CEO of the Association of National Advertisers, Jez Frampton, global chief executive of Interbrand, and James Gregory, founder-CEO of CoreBrand.

They point out, as an example, that Coca-Cola’s total hard assets, according to its 2009 annual report, were $48.6 billion, yet its year-end market capitalization was $132.8 billion. The $84 billion difference “represents the value of the company’s intangible assets, largely its brands.”

In another oft-mentioned example, Volkswagen bought Rolls-Royce in 1998 for $790 million, but didn’t buy the Rolls-Royce name. BMW snapped it up for a mere $66 million. Today, BMW’s Rolls competes head-to-head with VW’s Bentley.

So how is the value of an intangible determined?

A number of methods exist, which consider everything from how much the brand has spent on marketing in the past to how much cash it might generate in the future.

Brand valuation companies such as Interbrand and CoreBrand have developed their own proprietary formulas. However, there is no universally accepted method.

Liodice, Frampton and Gregory would like to change that. They ask, “Isn’t it time for the marketing and financial communities to establish generally accepted brand-valuation standards?”

Seems like a good idea for a lot of reasons. Here are three:

A standard would change the perception by some business managers that marketing is an investment in the future value of the brand, and not simply an expense.
A standard would inform marketing strategy, such as the trade-off between achieving short-term cash flow vs. building long-term brand value. Discounting to drive sales would be viewed in light of its impact on brand equity.
A standard would guide decisions to merge, acquire or partner with other brands.

Not to mention that, with a generally accepted valuation standard, CMOs would wield more power and shoulder more accountability.

Note: For more on how intangibles differentiate brands, see “Why intangibles are the more sustainable competitive advantages” and “The 9 criteria for brand essence.”

May

For brand authenticity, look inside.

By Kirk 3 Comments

Categories: brand essence, cause marketing, loyalty and strategy

Even before the recession, numerous gurus, books and websites explored the concept of brand authenticity. The theory behind this recent buzz-phrase is that cash-strapped consumers gravitate toward those brands which feel more “real.”

So, what is authenticity? Can it be created? And if so, is “faking it” a sustainable marketing strategy?

Don’t buy a book. The answers are simple.

Authenticity simply means being true to one’s own character or values in the face of external pressures. It means the brand stands for some greater purpose or ideal than making money.

In reality, most consumers believe most brands exist to earn profits, which makes any claims suspicious from the start. However, a few brands are perceived to be true to some inner value or tenet, some principle, which endures over time. This genuineness is attractive to those consumers who share the same value.

Whole Foods, for example, stands for:

selling organic foods
promoting nutrition
buying local
sustaining agriculture and seafood
recycling
saving energy
giving back to the community

Customers who are in sympathy with these causes reward Whole Foods with loyalty.

For Patagonia (see recent post), selling outdoor clothing seems to be practically an afterthought to environmentalism. “For us, a love of wild and beautiful places demands participation in the fight to save them.”

From day one, Ben & Jerry’s included social responsibility as part of its mission. Tom and Kate Chappell started Tom’s of Maine with the philosophy that its products would not harm the environment. Both brands have since been purchased by conglomerates, but neither has abandoned its values. If they did, they would lose customers.

Strong brands don’t have to stand for social issues. Harley-Davidson, for example, stands for independence. Its vision statement includes, “We fuel the passion for freedom in our customers to express their own individuality.”

Despite what some branding consultants say, standing for something is not something that can be faked. At least, not for long. (See “Authenticity can’t be faked … can it?“)

What does your brand stand for? To find out:

Look to the founder. Perhaps you will get lucky and find a Tom and Kate Chappell who started the brand based on a belief.
Examine your brand’s vision and mission statements. What need does the brand address? What problem does it solve? What is its lofty goal? Are these ideals the brand can stand for? (Unfortunately, most vision and mission statements are lengthy, poorly worded, and probably of little help.)
Ask yourself. What principles of doing business have never changed?
Ask your employees. What do they get excited about? What values do they share? What customer problem would they like to fix?
Ask your customers. What issues matter to them?

Hopefully, deep inside, you’ll unearth what is authentic about your brand. When you do, embrace it. Expand it. Own it. Be famous for it.