strategy | brandSTOKE

Archive for the 'strategy' Category

Feb

Olympic scorecard: how to judge ambush marketing

By Kirk 1 Comment

Categories: advertising, event marketing, mass media, promotion, retail and strategy

For the organizers of the Winter Olympics, the pressure is on. They are fighting to defend their sponsors against ambush marketing at the Games.

(Ambush marketers attempt to attach their brand to a major event without paying for the right to do so.)

As the Vancouver Organizing Committee (VANOC) states at the Games’ official web site, “Ambush marketing is a real threat to VANOC’s sponsorship and licensing programs as it undermines the value of official sponsorship and licensing rights and impairs VANOC’s ability to attract future sponsorship and licensees.”

Only official sponsors, licensees and government partners are allowed to suggest a connection with the Olympics.

This is because nearly all of the revenue needed to support the 2010 Winter Games is derived from sales that involve the Olympic brand, such as sponsorships, broadcast rights, merchandising and tickets.

Why would a potential sponsor shell out millions of dollars only to have their moment in the sun eclipsed by a non-sponsor?

It’s happening right now. Official Olympic sponsors McDonald’s and AT&T are charging rivals Subway and Verizon with ambush marketing. (See the previous post, “Ambush marketing: dirty play at the Olympics?“)

Why is it VANOC’s job to be the police?

According to them, “One of the key conditions of being awarded the right to host the 2010 Winter Games was a commitment to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) that the Olympic Brand would be protected in Canada.”

VANOC’s goal is to ensure that consumers aren’t fooled into believing an advertiser is associated with the Olympics when it is not.

To determine whether a promotion infringes on Olympic trademarks and images, VANOC developed a scoring system. (See the accompanying illustration of how a retail promotion might be assessed.) It measures against six criteria: accuracy, relevance, commercial neutrality, prominence, use of official visuals, and unauthorized association.

The fairness of scoring systems at the Olympics has occasionally been suspect. (Remember the 2002 figure skating scandal?) How do you think this system for scoring marketing stacks up?

Feb

Ambush marketing: dirty play at the Olympics?

By Kirk 2 Comments

Categories: advertising, event marketing, promotion and strategy

Greetings Some of the most heated competition at the Winter Games is taking place off the ice.

Official Olympic sponsors McDonald’s and AT&T are charging rivals Subway and Verizon with unsportsmanlike conduct.

In Verizon’s current TV spot, two speed skaters race while the announcer asks, “What does it take to succeed … in a place with the highest level of competition?”

Subway’s spot features Olympian Michael Phelps swimming toward Canada, “Where the action is this winter.”

Neither specifically mentions the Olympics although the innuendo is clear. Neither are an official sponsor.

Ambush marketing attempts to attach a brand to a major event without paying for the right to do so. In the process, it may undermine the activities of a rival that owns the legal rights to sponsor the event.

In a post at Suite 101.com, Carrol Trosclair identifies typical ambush techniques:

Sponsor and promote athletes, both current and past Olympic stars
Operate promotional vehicles as close as possible to Olympic venues
Launch new product lines with Olympic-related names
Distribute promotional materials at Olympic-related events
Conduct events as close to Olympic sites and functions as legally allowed
Run competing commercials during programs covering the Olympics
Buy up billboards in the vicinity of the event

Jon Weinbach, in a post at FanHouse, reports on a statement released by the U.S. Olympic Committee which cites marketers who attempt to “benefit from an association with the Olympic marks without providing any financial support to America’s athletes and the global Olympic Movement.” Such marketers, the USOC says, “damage official Olympic sponsors and undermine the United States Olympic Committee’s financial means to ensure that America’s athletes are given the best chance to perform.”

In a post at Sports Illustrated.com, new USOC chief executive officer Scott Blackmun is reported as saying, “Olympism is based upon a spirit of fair play, and ambush marketing clearly violates that spirit,”

USOC’s chief marketing officer, Lisa Baird, said in an article at Reuters, “The way that we help the Olympic movement, we use the marks to raise the revenue for our athletes and when a company crosses that line, and I’ll name Subway as one of those companies, it hurts our athletes. They need to know that we feel they have crossed the line and we are going to continue to be right after them.”

“It’s actually very deviant when you think about it, because these campaigns take months to produce,” said Rob Prazmark, an Olympics marketing veteran and former sales consultant for the USOC, in an interview with FanHouse. The USOC has to take a stance against such “parasitic” campaigns, he says, because “if they can’t protect their sponsors, then the framework for the organization’s entire existence begins to break down.”

Ambush marketing at the Olympics isn’t new.

“The vulnerability of the sponsors was brought into the world spotlight at the 2008 Beijng Summer Olympics,” Trosclair says. “Li Ning, one of China’s greatest athletes of all time, was secretly and justifiably chosen to light the Olympic cauldron during the games’ opening ceremony. The honor brought him, and the sports apparel company he founded, worldwide publicity and a prominent spot in Olympic history.”

This was a problem for Adidas, which ” … had spent millions of dollars to become a major sponsor of the Beijing Olympics, then had to stand by and watch its biggest Chinese competitor steal one of the biggest moments of the games.”

The games continue. How can official sponsors protect themselves from ambush?

Feb

P&G brands … itself?

By Kirk 0 Comments

Categories: advertising, event marketing, interactive marketing, promotion, retail and strategy

Procter & Gamble, the inventor and best known practitioner of brand management, is finally getting around to branding itself.

In its first-ever corporate campaign, 17 of P&G’s brands are featured under its singular umbrella. In partnership with the U.S. Olympic Committee, P&G is running two new TV spots and an accompanying multi-channel campaign during the Winter Games.

Well known as the largest advertiser in the world, P&G has previously executed its marketing brand by brand. It is often cited as the premier example of a “house of brands.” Until now, with the exception of tags at the end of TV spots in China and Japan, P&G has never marketed itself as a brand.

“ … we do not intentionally promote our company name unless it’s to build rapport for a new product, ” says Daisuke Hase, P&G External Relations Supervisor, at J@pan Inc. ” … we don’t tag our name on a product unless necessary.”

Things have changed.

The reason? At Marketing Daily, Kirk Perry, P&G Vice President, North America, says the Winter Games are the right time and place for the company to take a unified corporate approach.

“We know the Winter Olympics are the number one sport among women 18 to 34 and the second-most watched among men after the NFL,” says Perry. “And, given the economy, people are taking vacations closer to home. The Olympics are a terrific family event. And this will be a terrific return relative to other options.”

In Brandweek, P&G CMO Marc Pritchard says, “P&G may not be in the sporting goods business, but we are in the business of helping moms. We strive to help improve her life and the life of her family, in small, meaningful ways. The common denominator between P&G and the Olympic Games is the connection with moms.”

As part of the campaign, P&G is running a Tribute to Moms video on its web site. Its Thank You, Mom campaign site is complete with mom blogs, videos, photos, and a Twitter feed from the Games, plus (of course) product information and coupons.

Consistent with the mom theme, the company is helping defray the cost of travel to Vancouver for mothers of competing athletes. The athletes will also participate in the campaign, which includes advertising, PR, in-store merchandising, mobile, digital and direct mail.

Perry says, “It’s our most-integrated marketing plan behind a single event ever.”

What do you think of this change in strategy from the originator of brand management?

Feb

And the winner is … Google

By Kirk 1 Comment

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

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 1 Comment

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

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