What's New

YOUR ACTIONS CREATE YOUR “BRAND NARRATIVE.”

Think for a moment about all the different types of “experiences” a typical consumer might have with your brand.

She might see a commercial on TV. She might read a press article that mentions you. She might see your product on the shelf at retail. She might read a post in her Facebook news feed from a friend. She might run across your brand while conducting an unrelated web search, or on a third-party website (such as Amazon). She might receive an electronic coupon at the point-of-sale. She might even hear your name mentioned in a news story (let’s hope it’s not for the wrong reasons). Or, she might proactively seek out what previous customers have to say about you on Yelp. Or she could do her own Google search.

Wow, that’s a ton of touchpoints.

With so many ways for consumers to get “exposed” to you (and the 5,000 other marketers they’ll run across today), does that make it more likely she’ll purchase from you? Or is it just a bunch of clutter that confuses matters, and makes it harder to break through?

Tough question.

The best definition of a “brand” I have heard is “the sum of everything you know, hear, believe, feel and experience about a particular product or company.” If we accept this definition, then we can see how every way your brand “touches” your consumer or prospect contributes to your “brand” in their view.

So how do you make sure that the customer hears a consistent narrative across all these possible touchpoints?

While there is no controlling everything that’s said/written/shared/experienced about you, there is one powerful tool you have at your disposal:

Rottenecards_33474212_3s4bhyvdwc

Walking the talk.

Find out what your most devoted fans love about you. Why they’d never leave you. Why they feel you can’t be replaced. (This is your “talk”.) Then take that one thing, and amplify it every way you can throughout your value chain. And live by it, no matter what. (This is the “walk” part.)

If you conclude your competitive difference is that you offer the best service, see what you can do to kick it up a notch. For everyone, everytime, whether they are a customer or not. No phone trees. No “let me talk to my supervisor.” No “that’s not our policy.”

Southwest AIrlines found that fans flocked to them because they were the “low fare airline.” So they found dozens of ways to amplify and demonstrate that, from offering ridiculous “super saver” fares, to not charging for bags, to not offering food service, to having the industry’s simplest frequent flyer program, to keeping their planes in the air 20% more than competing airlines (cutting downtime).

By uncompromisingly walking the talk, you are creating consistent perceptions, experiences and stories that are passed forward. These are the “tidbits” that go into formulating your “brand” in consumers’ minds. The more consistent you are, the more consistent the stories will be, and the more consistent your brand narrative will be.

And yes, the more you’ll break through the morass of clutter out there.

CAN TRANSPARENCY HALT THE “SLOW LEAK” OF SODA SALES?

Posted
May 20, 2013
Categories
Brand
On Clients
Strategy

These have hardly been salad days for the sugary drink category.

According to a report released this month by Beverage Digest, consumers are swilling less soda, leading the category to decline for the eighth straight year. The amount of soda consumed worldwide in 2012 is down to 1996 levels. Here in the U.S., it has fallen to 1987 levels. In fact, the only brands that haven’t experienced a significant sales drop are Coke, Sprite and Diet Dr. Pepper (sales of these brands were flat–at least they didn’t lose ground).

The reasons for this category-wide dip are mainly over health concerns. With two-thirds of American adults now labeled as “overweight to obese,” the major soda companies have been held up as major culprits.

This seems to be one problem the category isn’t able to spend its way out of. Ad spending for major brands is at an all-time high, In fact, PepsiCo’s global ad spending for the first quarter of 2013 is up a staggering 11%. Yet the snack and beverage giant’s profits have fallen 5% for the same period.

So what are the soda companies to do? They have mountains of cash at their disposal. Their brand names are some of the most recognized in the world. And distribution? They’re about as ubiquitous as the air we breathe. Both Pepsi and Coke are acknowledged leaders in both mobile and social media (Coke, in fact, has the most Facebook fans of any brand–more than 61 million).

For clues as to what might help them and what probably won’t, let’s look at what the category’s two biggest players are doing.

Pepsi has doubled down on tying the brand’s future to well-known celebrities. The takeaway from its advertising and promotion seems to be “if you like this celebrity, then you’ll like Pepsi.” This strategy worked like gangbusters in the 1980s. Celebs like Michael Jackson, Madonna, Michael J. Fox and others made Pepsi the “cool” soda choice. Today, however, their much-publicized “creative partnership” with Beyonce is proving to be a multi-million dollar dud. What’s more, the brand’s big-money forays into social media promotion have yet to cause a sales ripple (more on that in this post).

Coca Cola on the other hand is taking a different tact. They are associating the brand with the mantra of “happiness.” The brand’s advertising is “including” users, not talking (or performing) at them. Associating a brand with a positive emotion is going to be more effective every time.

Another interesting tact Coke is taking is its attempt to be more transparent, and actually address the obesity issue head on. The world’s most valuable brand has openly acknowledged obesity as “the issue of this generation.” It launched an ad campaign aimed at “reinforcing (its commitment) to finding meaningful solutions to the complex challenge of obesity.”

Will this approach work? It definitely has proven to be somewhat controversial. Critics claim it’s no more than an attempt to distract from the real issue. My view is that it never hurts to acknowledge the truth (at least the truth most people accept). So long as there is a meaningful commitment to improve things.

We’ve yet to see how Coke intends to follow up its ad campaign. As a next step, I’d implore Coke to put its money where its mouth is, by creating and supporting events and promotions that reward people for lifestyle changes. Even if it means they drink a few less cans of Coke a week. Don’t simply treat this as a “health initiative.” Tie the health aspect into the whole “happiness” hook the brand has latched on to.

Even if effective, will such a program work to reverse the trend of faltering soda sales? Highly unlikely. However, even declining categories have their “good guys,” and Coke is primed to be that company.

Committing to help people address the “challenge of a generation” will, I believe, do more to promote the brand that a halftime concert at the Super Bowl.

MORE BRANDS FEEL CONFIDENT SHOWING THEIR “HUMAN SIDE.”

Posted
May 20, 2013
Categories
New Media
On Clients
On Customers

This week, two big cases were heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, both having to do with gay rights: California’s Proposition 8, and the Federal Defense Of Marriage Act.

In anticipation of these cases going before the highest court, an LGBT lobbying group called Human Rights Campaign (HRC) turned to the Internet to drum up support in favor of overturning of both cases. They asked well known celebrities (such as Ellen DeGeneres, Lance Bass and George Takei) to change their social media “avatars” to the group’s pink-and-red-equal-sign logo for the two days of arguments. Almost immediately many other sympathetic people did likewise, and Facebook and Twitter were awash in HRC’s logo. This was a simple way ordinary people could show their support to the causes.

Then something interesting happened. Versions of the HRC logo started turning up on brand pages and in brand tweets. Major ad players like Bud Light, HBO and others adopted the HRC logo, if only for a day or so.

A few years ago, a major brand going out on a political limb like this would have been unthinkable. Communications were in a “corporate voice” and left little room for supporting anything other than “politically safe” causes, if any. Seemingly overnight, brands have started letting their “human side” show through. Brands have discovered that people crave authenticity, and seek out stories from organizations and companies that “sound” like they do. Brands are ditching the management-approved “corporate speak” of not so long ago, and are now talking to customers as if they were people (because, well, they are).

Customers and fans have embraced this switch. One need look no farther than the Facebook timelines of some amazingly large companies (Starbucks as an example) to see how this plays out. And brands? They’ve seen how “brand stories” go a long way towards stimulating new purchases and building customer loyalty.

Looked at in this light, it’s a no-brainer to see how brands could glom on to a real-time meme like this. Brands know a lot more about their customers now than they used to. Not just in regard to their products, but in regard to life. They’re getting in tune with their fans’ likes, dislikes, what’s important to them, what gets them excited, what turns them off, and yes, even their political preferences.

So when you see Bud Light or HBO’s “True Blood” “coming out”, so to speak, it’s not so much about taking a political stand as it is marching with their customers.

If you’d feel a little queasy about having your brand step out on this ledge, just know this is a trend that’s going to gain momentum. People like to do business with “people who are like them.” And sometimes your brand can demonstraate that it is that person.

WINDOWS 8: WHERE’S THE BUZZ?

Posted
November 2, 2012
Categories
Brand
Customer Experience
Marketing
On Customers
Comments
0 Comments

It’s not that often we get the chance to watch a monumentally successful company in effect “reinvent itself” in real time right before our eyes. Yet that is what software giant Microsoft is poised to do.

The launch this past week of its newest operating system, Windows 8, along with its newly introduced Surface tablet, gives the company its first foothold in the mobile computing market. It is the key piece in CEO Steve Ballmer’s proclamation that Microsoft needs to evolve from being a software company to a “products and services” company.

Microsoft has a lot riding on Windows 8. With PC sales falling 8.3% worldwide (and 12.4% in the U.S., according to IDC), Microsoft can ill afford being forever tethered to the desktop. Yet it is years behind companies like Apple and Google (and even Amazon and Samsung) when it comes to mobile computing.

The product itself, relying on such accepted tablet features as touch screens with “live tiles” seems to be worthy of buzz: analysts proclaim Windows 8 represents the most radical redesign of the operating system since 1995. And according to Forbes, the budget Microsoft is putting behind the Windows 8/Surface launch could be as high as $1.8 billion. Here’s an example of one of the launch spots you may have seen.

Yet somehow, this buzz isn’t getting through to consumers.

A telephone survey by The Associated Press of nearly 1,200 adults in the U.S. found 52 percent hadn’t even heard of Windows 8 leading up to Friday’s release of the redesigned software. Among the people who knew something about the new operating system, 61 percent had little or no interest in buying a new laptop or desktop computer running on Windows 8, according to the poll. And only about a third of people who’ve heard about the new system believe it will be an improvement (35 percent).

More troubling for Microsoft is the fact that the company’s bread-and-butter, its business customers, are equally skeptical. One poll reported that while more than 50% of enterprise users upgraded to Windows 7 upon its release in 2009, only 33% are saying they intend to upgrade to Windows 8.

So let’s recap: Sexy new product. Loyal fan base. Tons of money behind it. Yet so-so consumer acceptance. So what’s the big disconnect here?

In looking at the launch, it seems to me there are a few missteps Microsoft made.

Microsoft picked the wrong name. “Windows 8” sounds as if it’s an iteration of Windows 7–if anything an incremental improvement. With such a “company redefining” product, Microsoft owed it to itself to let the name reflect that. Perhaps “Windows 8″ is fine for the desktop and notebook upgrade. And the tablet platform should go by a more edgy name (and have its own separate launch).
Microsoft so far has failed to make its case for the new software. The fact that more than ⅓ of Windows users believe upgrading wouldn’t be an improvement, and that 70% of enterprise users see no reason to upgrade, is a giant red flag. The software business is a crazy-making industry where you’re continually trying to make your existing products obsolete. To do that, you not only have to demonstrate the additional value a user will get from an upgrade, but you have to create some kind of “I gotta have it” moment. Which leads me to my next point.
Product messaging has been about lifestyle, not functionality. If Apple proved anything in its simple product-as-hero demonstration ads, it’s that there’s a little geek in all of us. And that geek is swayed by features and functionality. The quick-cutting, rock soundtrack-backed commercials introducing Windows 8 (to the theme “Your life. Playing live.”) give us glimpses, not reasons. Compare that to the Apple iPhone spot where Apple demonstrated how Siri worked.
Failing to make the sales proposition easy to understand. Windows 8 is a tablet/mobile platform. But what if you don’t want to buy a new tablet? Does that mean it doesn’t run on my notebook? Do I have to spend the $500 for a new Surface tablet to even use it? These questions are fundamental, yet somehow they aren’t answered in the launch campaign. Even upon visiting Microsoft’s web site, a Windows 7 user is greeted with statements like “Windows has been reimagined to focus on your life” and “Windows 7, only better…Windows 8 was designed with Windows 7 apps in mind, because you probably have older apps you need to use.” Such a sales pitch is hardly enough to make me line up outside the store the night before the launch.
Microsoft hasn’t yet justified the Surface price. Upgrading from Windows 7 to Windows 8 is only $40, no huge expense. But if you want the mobile computing part of the equation–the new Surface tablet–be prepared to shell out $500. While Microsoft insists it would be a mistake to insist on calling it “only a tablet,” that’s how consumers are going to view it. And when they do, they’ll see iPads priced $100 less, Amazon’s Kindle Fire priced at $199 and Android tablets also under $200. Google even sells its Chromebook cloud computer for $249. So in 12 words or less, tell me why I should spend the extra $250?
Failure to launch with a single focus. It seems like Microsoft is trying to catch up in the world of tablet computing with one gigantic gesture. But consider the “moving parts” to this launch: a new operating system for desktops and notebooks; a new tablet product that can serve as the hub of your online world; a new app store (and all the questions surrounding that); the promise of a free pony with every upgrade (okay, I’m kidding about that). In short, not one announcement, but at least three HUGE announcements. Saying it louder and with more bucks behind it doesn’t make it any clearer, either. If Microsoft had put all this emphasis behind the Surface (ignoring Windows 8), it would be more likely that people would buy in to Ballmer’s idea of Microsoft as a products and services company. No need to eat the whole apple in one bite.

I’m really pulling for Microsoft to succeed in this venture. It’s one of the biggest employers here in the state, and bring a lot of prestige to our area. It can’t afford to be left behind as the mobile/tablet market hits hyperdrive. The key is to not let these missteps become setbacks.

Posted by Mickey

Bookmark It

DID IT SELL RED BULL? OR JUST PLAIN BULL?

Posted
October 25, 2012
Categories
Brand
Creative
Customer Experience
Social Media
Comments
0 Comments

Last week I wrote about why it’s never a good idea to cheap out on guerilla tactics. This past weekend gave us an example of one marketer who not only didn’t cheap out, but may have set a record for spending on a one-time sponsorship event.

The example I’m referencing is this past Sunday’s “free-fall skydive” of Austrian Felix Baumgartner. “Fearless Felix” jumped out of a capsule suspended by a balloon 128,000 feet (24 miles) above the earth. He not only smashed the record for the highest ever free-fall, he also became the first skydiver to go faster than the speed of sound, reaching a maximum velocity of 833.9 mph before touching down safely just outside of Roswell, New Mexico.

From a social media standpoint, the numbers are pretty incredible. A reported 7.3 million people watched the event live. Soon after, a Facebook photo generated nearly 216,000 likes, 10,000 comments and more than 29,000 shares in less than 40 minutes. And on Twitter, it occupied half the worldwide trending topics, pushing past seven NFL football games. The blogosphere continues to buzz about it. And the major news networks, newspapers and magazines have run stories on the stunt.

Mr. Baumgartner’s feat was not your ordinary extreme stunt or quest for a world’s record. Rather, it was a promotion bought and paid for (and managed) by Red Bull.

The question that begs asking here is a simple one: despite all the attention the event received, did Red Bull get a good value for its participation? Did it get an ample bang for its buck?

This is where the spin meisters come in. Barely 12 hours after the stunt, Huffington Post’s Janean Chun calls Red Bull’s sponsorship of Baumgartner’s jump “the most successful marketing campaign of all time,” noting that the brand “broke the traditional barriers of marketing, sponsorship and social media.” And a CEO of a digital agency opines that Red Bull stands to rack up “tens of millions of dollars” in sales because the stunt, although in typical social media style, he fails to quantify where those sales will come from.

But let’s back off the social media hyperbole for a moment. There’s no arguing the event generated a ton of social media eyeballs for the brand. But these are “social media” eyeballs. Eight million live views is big news in social media, but in the world of marketing it’s nothing special. By way of comparison, Sunday’s season opener of AMC’s “The Walking Dead” attracted over 11 million viewers–and this is basic cable.

And while the promotion is consistent with the “extreme stunts” Red Bull has become known for (at least within a select vertical market) and with its “Red Bull gives you wings” tagline, we need to remember Red Bull isn’t the lead in this story, Felix is. And while the stunt generated a ton of “free media” (specifically TV and newspaper stories), how much of it haloed onto Red Bull? I saw a one-minute story on NBC news that never bothered to mention Red Bull. I got a quick glimpse of the Red Bull logo on the parachute, much like you’d see a sponsor’s logo on a NASCAR driver’s suit.

While Red Bull has yet to release any spending figures on the sponsorship, one could easily envision an investment of $20 million or more on the stunt, plus all the advance promotion (check out this slick CG “movie trailer” that teases the event) with no guarantee of a happy outcome.

I’m not arguing that Red Bull shouldn’t pony up for events such as this. They’ve sort of primed their audience to expect such things. But the real measure of whether or not it was successful can’t be ciphered by social media buzz alone, no matter how much it gets. At some point, it has to be about sales. Good old fashioned ROI (remember that?). “Soft metrics” like mentions, hashtags, likes, shares, sentiment, etc. might make you feel all warm and fuzzy. But did the $20 million+ spent on the event generate incremental sales? Did it help drive distribution? Did it increase market share? Did it allow Red Bull to charge a premium for its product?

To be clear, I’m not saying we needed to see 40 million cans of Red Bull fly off the shelves in the hours after the stunt. Give it time. But for the cost of running a spot in each of the next SEVEN Super Bowls, it’d be a shame if all Red Bull got in return was a few million YouTube hits and some news photos with an incidental logo splashed across a parachute.

Success in the world of social media isn’t about dreaming up outrageous ideas that’ll get attention. That’s the easy part. The currency of a social media program is how well it marries to an organization’s business objectives. And in this case, we’re yet to see how that works out.

A side note to this campaign: a marketer that seems to have successfully “coat-tailed” on this sponsorship was Mars, who sent a Kit Kat bar into outer space to give Felix a “break” during his jump. You can view that one-and-a-half minute video here.

Posted by Mickey

Bookmark It

WHY NOT CREATE A ‘BRANDED EXPERIENCE’?

Posted
September 28, 2012
Categories
Brand
Creative
Customer Experience
On Customers
Comments
0 Comments

Every day, we have dozens or even hundreds of transactional experiences with products, businesses or organizations. Everything from using their products, to visiting their websites, to interacting with them in the flesh. And it’s a pretty safe guess that in 80-90% of cases, these experiences are “unbranded.”

By “unbranded,” I don’t mean to imply there was anything wrong with the experience, or that you came away with a negative view of the company. Rather, an “unbranded” experience in this context simply means there was nothing within the experience that made it unusual or special in the view of the customer. What you ended up with was an experience that could have been provided by any number of different suppliers.

Now let’s talk for a moment about “branded experiences.” These are the ones that bring a smile to our faces days after the transaction itself. The ones we somehow acknowledge and validate who we believe we are. The ones our friends talk about on Facebook. And the ones that come up unsolicited in conversations we have with friends and colleagues.

Branded experiences are associated with only one provider in the customer’s eyes. A few examples? Starbucks and Ikea come to mind, as does Harley Davidson and Method cleaning products. The experiences these companies give is unlike what anyone else in the category can deliver.

The thing is, though, that for most categories, the existence of a branded experience doesn’t exist, either because the marketer isn’t providing that “something special,” or because customers aren’t in a position to experience it.

Is there a secret formula to providing or architecting a branded experience? There are a few elements they seem to have in common. A uncompromising understanding of what’s important to the customer, for one. An authentic passion about what what’s being provided, for another. And generally within the experience somewhere lies the element of surprise.

Branded experiences are generally built by transcending the functional side of what you do and focusing on customers’ emotional needs. By knowing the values you wish to impart (your Brand Vision) and reconciling that with how your products or services fit into your customers’ lives, you should be able to find ways to add a wrinkle to your customers’ experiences that will surprise and delight them, and give them a story they will enthusiastically share with others.

Posted by Mickey