public relations | brandSTOKE

Archive for the 'public relations' Category

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?

Jun

High-fructose corn syrup: a commodity fights back

By Kirk Closed

Categories: advertising, health care, packaging, public relations and retail

istock_000002171359xsmall “The public now puts high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in the same category as trans fats: poison.”

So says nutritionist Marion Nestle in a post at her blog, Food Politic.

Wow. That’s a bitter pill for the corn-refining industry, given that every American consumes on average 60-plus pounds of the sweetener per year.

Thanks to governmental subsidies of U.S. corn and an import tariff on foreign sugar, HFCS is a cheap substitute used in the manufacturing of processed foods.

And it is in just about everything — not just the obvious culprits, such as pop, candy, desserts and fast food, but also supposedly healthy foods such as bread, yogurt, salad dressings, and cereal.

Read the label. HFCS is big business.

Lately, however, due to HFCS’s association with obesity, Americans are changing their preferences. Brands such as Heinz, Gatorade, Ocean Spray and Wheat Thins are being reformulated without it. Pepsi and Snapple are introducing HFCS-free versions. In fact, sales of HFCS-free foods are approaching $1 billion.

“Consumer demand for HFCS has dropped 11 percent, says a new report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture,” according to Virginia Sole-Smith in a post at Planet Green’s blog. “HFCS makers will also buy 13 percent less corn syrup this market year than they did at the highest point of corn syrup sales in 2001.”

The Corn Refiners Association is not too happy its product’s image has soured. It maintains HFCS is “just sugar,” and launched a $30 million campaign to “change the conversation.” (Watch the TV spots below.)

Interestingly, Al Ries (who along with Jack Trout, advanced the concept of brand “positioning”) says the problem may be the category name. In a recent article in Advertising Age, he notes that. “Even today, thanks to the objections of the Sugar Association, the FDA is resisting a simple name change from ‘high-fructose corn syrup’ to ‘corn syrup.’” (The Sugar Association, which positions sugar as “natural,” categorizes HFCS as a “man-made sweetener.”)

I’m always fascinated by commodities that run brand positioning campaigns, such as the California Milk Processor Board’s “Got Milk?” and The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association’s “Beef. It’s what’s for dinner.”

Which sugar is truly “natural?” Which is the least unhealthy “in moderation?” Is it corn, cane or beet? Bring on the Sugar Wars.

Apr

How health-care reform will change hospital marketing

By Kirk 3 Comments

Categories: cause marketing, health care, interactive marketing, promotion and public relations

istock_000008683429xsmall After months of political wrangling, the health-care reform bill is now law.

What does it mean for hospital marketing?

Here are some predictions:

1) It is generally held that prevention and wellness initiatives will reduce health-care costs over time. More and more, hospitals will reach outside of their four walls to address public health issues with new education campaigns on topics such as anti-obesity and hand-washing.

2. Beyond education, actionable public health initiatives such as vaccination programs will increase and require promotion.

3. Patient self-management of chronic diseases such as asthma and diabetes also saves health-care money, but will require patient awareness campaigns and education.

4. Hospitals will be required to report outcomes and quality care metrics on their websites and in community reports.

5. Media scrutiny of quality and costs will increase. Relationships with journalists will require special handling.

6. Providers are expecting an influx of new patients. Patient communications will grow in importance, as first-time patients will need help navigating the health-care system. As many previously uninsured patients may be younger, poorer, and more ethnically diverse, communicators will explore new channels to reach those audiences.

7. New patients will likely overwhelm the system in the near term, which will heat up competition to fill new positions. Recruitment advertising and branding aimed at prospective physicians and nurses hires will increase.

8. Staff will require education about the impact of health-care reform on their jobs. With more demands on the system, staff motivation efforts will increase.

9. Philanthropic support will be required to help fund increased capability and resources to meet the additional demand for services.

10. Hospitals which haven’t already done so will open internet portals where patients can access their personal medical records and test results, as well as manage their accounts.

11. As more collaborative arrangements develop, managing and promoting relationships with payers, government agencies and social-service organizations will increase in importance.

12. Hospitals will promote their quality-improvement and cost-cutting measures. Branding will be based upon the proven success of these initiatives.

Those are my guesses for what the next few years hold in store for health-care communicators. What are yours?

Mar

Are running shoes a sham?

By Kirk 2 Comments

Categories: health care, public relations and retail

istock_000008706988xsmall If you spend in the neighborhood of $100 per pair of running shoes like I do, you may find the following statement by Dr. Daniel Lieberman, a professor of biological anthropology at Harvard University, disconcerting:

“A lot of foot and knee injuries that are currently plaguing us are actually caused by people running with shoes that actually make our feet weak, cause us to over-pronate, give us knee problems,” says Lieberman in Born To Run: A Hidden Tribe, Superathletes, and the Greatest Race the World Has Never Seen, a book by Christopher McDougall.

“Until 1972, when the modern athletic shoe was invented by Nike, people ran in very thin-soled shoes, had strong feet, and had much lower incidence of knee injuries.”

Lieberman’s study and McDougall’s book are fueling a debate within running circles (and shoe companies). Are running shoes not only not helping us, but actually hurting us? Is running barefoot safer?

“We were born to run, but maybe not with shoes on,” says The Boston Globe. “New research … shows that people who run barefoot or with minimal shoes — as people have done for millions of years — often land on their feet in a way that avoids a jarring impact. That’s very different from most shoe-clad runners, who crash down on their heels with every bound.”

Or as Popular Mechanics asks, “Could shoes — and shoe companies — be part of a $25 billion snake oil industry, covering hundreds of thousands of perfectly able bare feet?”

Lieberman explains on his study’s web site that “runners who forefoot or midfoot strike do not need shoes with elevated cushioned heels to cope with these sudden, high transient forces that occur when you land on the ground.”

McDougall isn’t quite so gentle. One full chapter of his book is an indictment of Nike and other running shoe manufacturers that he believes know their shoes are causing injury and continue to sell them anyway.

At least one shoe company, New Balance, addresses the issue head on: “After hundreds of years of walking with shoes on, is it time we relearn? There’s a movement going on that challenges the very foundation of sneaker wearers (not to mention sneaker companies) everywhere, around running barefoot. This broad grouping of perspectives includes some runners who are finding they prefer to run exclusively barefoot, some who prefer to run with minimally cushioned shoes, and others who like to vary their runs between shod, minimally shod, and shoeless.”

Nike, the inventor of the modern high-tech, highly engineered running shoe, doesn’t miss a trick. Or a marketing niche. It has introduced a new shoe, Nike Free, that for all the world looks like the flat-soled Keds, PF Flyers, and Chuck Taylor All Stars I wore as a kid. The Nike Free slogan? “Run Supernatural.” Back to the future, I guess.

In his book, McDougall builds the case that humans are built — not to run fast — but to run long. He tracks down and studies the mythical Tarahumara Indians who run for extreme distances in lightweight sandals in the remote and deadly Copper Canyons of Mexico.

And he’s a convert. Since running in Vibram FiveFingers, a neoprene sock-like foot covering, he’s seen his running injuries disappear.

Though I’m not quite ready to hit the pavement barefoot, especially in the winter, the idea of lacing up the old Chucks from high school is kind of appealing. As I remember, I was faster back then.

How about you?

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

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!”