mackalski on marketing

Strike Up the Brands Bands

2012-01-21T08:00:00.000-08:00

Happy New Year everyone.

I've been extremely busy with my research, corporate projects, and of course, teaching. The good news is that along the way I've come across a bunch of really cool marketing topics. The trouble is simply finding the time to put down a few thoughts on this blog. Let's kick off this year's entries with some musical fun.

Question 1: What do these songs have in common: Hotel California, Big Girls Don't Cry, Ice Ice Baby, Come Together, and Freeway of Love?

Answer 1: One of the most obvious answers is that they were all #1 hits.

Question 2: What else do they have in common? For some hints, fill in the blanks below.

Eagles, Hotel California

Her mind is ____________ twisted ,
she got the ___________.
She got a lot of pretty, pretty boys she calls friends

Fergie, Big Girls Don't Cry

Like the little school mate in the school yard
We'll play jacks and _____ cards
I'll be your best friend and you'll be my Valentine

Vanilla Ice, Ice Ice Baby
Yo -- so I continued to A1A Beachfront Ave.
Girls were hot wearing less than bikinis
Rockman lovers driving __________
Jealous 'cause I'm out getting mine

the Beatles, Come Together
He wear no shoe shine
He's got toe jam football
He's got monkey finger
He shoot _________
He say "I know you, you know me"
One thing I can tell you is you got to be free

Aretha Franklin, Freeway of Love
Goin' ridin' on the freeway of love
Wind's against our back
Goin' ridin' on the freeway of love
In my __________

Here are the lyrical answers:

Eagles: Her mind is Tiffany twisted, she got the Mercedes Benz.
Fergie: We'll play jacks and Uno cards.
Vanilla: Rockman lovers driving Lamborghinis.
Beatles: He shoot Coca-Cola.
Aretha: In my pink Cadillac.

So to answer question 2, what else do the songs have in common? All the lyrics contain brand names. That shouldn't surprise anyone given that this a branding and marketing blog. But just how common are brand names as part of lyrics in songs? Do artists get paid for singing about brands are or they just part of the lyrical narrative? What brands are most commonly referenced in lyrics?

So how common are brands in song lyrics? Very. The web site AmIRight identifies hundreds of musical artists from different genres who use trademarked brand names in their lyrics. What is interesting is just how diverse the brands and their categories are. Bruce Springsteen's all American songs have Chevrolet in them. LMFAO sings about Red Bull energy drinks and Vans. In an unlikely match, Little Wayne appears to be a fan of Orville Redenbacher's popcorn. Lady Gaga, Hannah Montana, and Bryan Adams might not look good in Armani suits, Gucci shoes or designer boots but they sure sing about them. Shock rocker Alice Cooper sings about Colgate. Simple Plan wants Skittles and Slurpees for Christmas. Frank Sinatra mentions Fords. The Andrew Sisters sing about how they like to mix their Coca-Cola. Katy Perry smacks her lips with Chapstick. Nelly's proud of his Nikes. Mariah Carey packs her Louis Vuitton and includes Windex in her lyrics. Black Eyed Peas care about Cocoa Puff, Dolce and Gabbana and DK. The deeper you investigate, the more you realize that brands in songs have and are - a staple of pop culture musical lyrics. Brands name mentions are in classic songs by classic artists and continue to thrive in 2012. So just how old are brand-placements in song lyrics?

From a pop culture perspective, the answer here is at least since 1908. That's when this little number was written and gained popularity:

Take me out to the ball game,
Take me out with the crowd.
Buy me some peanuts and Cracker Jack,
I don't care if I never get back.
Let me root, root, root for the home team,
If they don't win it's a shame.
For it's one, two, three strikes, you're out,
At the old ball game.

Think about this. Cracker Jack has been immortalizingly linked to baseball, America's national game because of this song. As Terrance Mann (James Earl Jones) said in the movie Field of Dreams: "The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It's been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt, and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game, is part of our past, Ray. It reminds us of all that once was good, and that could be again." And linked to this constant of America there is Cracker Jack. So over the hundreds of thousands of live baseball games that have been played, in the excitement of the baseball stands for millions of watchers, the brand Cracker Jack has been sung by fans for over 100 years. That's worth millions and millions of dollars in brand building for sure. The lyrical placement is also a reminder to pick up a package from the concessions during the game.

So, if there is value for brands for being included in songs, do the artists get money for lyrically including the brand names in their songs? Let's look at a few examples that can help shed some light on this question.

Smells Like Teen Spirit, Nirvana - Teen Spirit is a deodorant brand (insert jingle: byyyy Mennen). The story of how the brand got into the song title goes like this. Kathleen Hanna, then lead singer of a punk band where Kurt Cobain (lead singer of Nirvana) was dating a member, spray painted "Kurt Smells Like Teen Spirit" on a wall. Cobain thought the grafitti was cool and wrote the song, "Smells like Teen Spirit", which eventually climbed to #6 on the Billboard charts. In the process, Nivana's grunge anthem inadvertently skyrocketed sales of the fledgeling Teen Spirit brand. According to Wikipedia, Cobain -who a grunger with a known anti-corporate/anti-estabilishment philosophical bend, had no idea that the brand even existed and when he did find out, he was upset that the song had been named after a line of deodorant. Of course, the brand folks at Mennen weren't upset at all. They took advantage of the situation and crafted a slogan, "Do you smell like Teen Spirit?" Given Nirvana's anti-corporate attitude, the band did not license the song to the corporates and did not make any money from the brand mention.

Here's another classic story of The Kinks song Lola. In 1970, the BBC had a monopoly on radio in the United Kingdom. It also had a strict ban on advertising in music and refused to play songs with commercial reference. Deep down this had something to do with the fact that the BBC wanted all ad revenues to go through them and having a "brand in a song" would have made it tough for the BBC to extract "ad revenues". So when the Kinks had the following lyrics in their lyrics, "You drink champagne and it tastes like Coca-Cola", the BBC wouldn't play it. So, the Kinks rerecorded the lyrics "You drink champagne and it tastes like cherry cola." The song became a top 10 hit. Of course today, the BBC radio monopoly doesn't exist and brand-lyric'd songs are blared across the airwaves. The Kinks didn't have a relationship with Coke that would have influenced the original lyric.

The Nirvana example is from the 90s and the Kinks story is from the 1970s. But what about today? The music industry has changed a lot since then. With declining revenues for artists from crashed CD sales, wouldn't it make sense for artists to grab some cash from an advertiser by adding their brand as part of the song lyrics? AdAge did some investigation on this and says, "not so fast". Examining rap music, a genre that has been most prone to incorporating brand placements in videos, AdAge asserted this:

"In almost all cases, a brand has found its way into a rap song because of artist preference or through an organic, creative predilection and not because of a record label dictate to appease an advertiser..."

Their quote also means, in some cases, that artists are making some coin from the lyrical brand placement in the songs. mu-sik.com suggests that deals involving lyric placement would be part of a larger product placement/sponsorship agreement. But there is also some hard evidence of active solicitation from agencies. An e-mail from the Kluger Agency, the music industry's leading product placement agency, was accidentally sent to Jeff Crouse of the Anti-Advertising Agency. Crouse posted the exchange on his blog (some of which I am incorporating below) - so we get a glimpse into how this lyrical brand integration occurs:

"I’m writing because we feel you may be a good company to participate in a brand integration campaign within the actual lyrics of one of the worlds most famous recording artists upcoming song/album.

Lyrics play an important part in the use of music as marketing, Just as a catchy tune could assail your senses, a good “jingle” or cute lyrics could become a part of society for quite some time, imagine your brand name being a part of that." See the rest of the exchange here.

But when you consider how "creative" the music industry can be, little should be surprising. Remember this is the industry that paid and sent busloads of girls to scream for the Beatle (as a publicity stunt to create "Beatlemania") as Paul, John, Ringo, and George walked from the plane to the terminal.

What brands appear most frequently in songs?

Using the list from AmIRight, I sifted through 125 randomly selected artists who incorporated brands in their lyrics to get a feel for which brands appear most frequently in different songs. Six brands reoccur more than the others and I am only listing a few of the songs that lyrically incorporate the brand. Let me know what you think of the results!

Cadillac
(Aretha Franklin -Pink Cadillac, Rihanna - Shut Up and Drive, Chuck Berry - Maybelline, David Bowie - Young Americans)

Chevrolet
(Kiss -Hooligan, Lenny Kravitz -I Don't Wanna Be a Star, Bon Jovi -99 in the Shade, Bruce Springsteen* -Racing in the Street) *I came across 3 songs from Springsteen using Chevy

Gucci
(Bryan Adams -The Only Thing that Looks Good on Me, Lady Gaga - Fashion, Fergie -Labels or Love, Hannah Montana - The Good Life)

Coke
(Barenaked Ladies - Alcohol, Beach Boys - All Summer Long, ACDC, Neil Young - This Note's for You, the Beatles - Come Together)

Ford
(Beach Boys - Fun Fun Fun, Eagles - Take it Easy, Chuck Berry - Maybelline, Bruce Springsteen - One Step Up, Poison - Talk Dirty to Me)

Mercedes Benz
(Eagles Hotel - California, Queen - It's a Miracle, REO Speedwagon - Don't Let Him Go)

The Rise of the Underdog

2011-12-11T19:03:00.000-08:00

by Anushka Pinto

Underdog/challenger brands are some of the most interesting brands out there. These brands, more often than not, are brands which are a lot smaller than their competitor counterparts. As a result, they have fewer resources for their brand building. However, there is something very likable about these brands because of their authenticity and feisty “can do”attitudes. In fact, the mood is right for a lot of growth for these underdog brands.

This underdog idea is not limited to the business world and can be seen everywhere from animated movies to sports figures. People like to support the ‘little guy’ who defies obstacles and has far-reaching goals. This seems to be a universal theme that people all over the world can relate to. Here is one point of view about underdog branding and Occupy Wall Street.

The Occupy Wall Street movement is the result of some deep-seeded anti-corporate sentiment that many consumer have. For the Occupy Wall Street protesters and sympathizers (which number in the millions of consumers in the USA, by the way), there is a perception of the unfairness of wealth and a lack of transparency of the wealth creation. As a result, their grass-roots movement has caught on. The movement, which takes a vocal stance against commercial giants and financial behemoths in favour of firms that advocate transparency, values and support a sustainable business purpose. Those involved with the movement (and sympathizers with the movement) are increasingly value-aligned with brands that emphasize honesty, integrity, and authenticity. These brands are more often than not, the smaller, underdog brands- they are the local coffee shops versus the coffee conglomerates; the credit unions versus the multinational banks. Especially in tough economic times, brands with these values will gain favor with consumers who are seeking an alternative to “profit at all expense, business as usual”. Millions of consumers with these values potentially mean millions in business to underdog brands.

Brands as a Facade

2011-12-10T03:57:00.000-08:00

by Pearce Tibbles

Brands are often a symbolic badge and provide confidence for consumers when they make their purchase decision. But sometimes a brand can be a facade; the brand reality of the product is can be very different than what the consumer expects- or is led to believe! The following narrative illustrates this point.

Historically, the aerospace division of Rolls-Royce (which manufactures jet engines) was part of the same company as the auto brand by the same name. These two divisions split up and the car company that spiraled out was purchased by the British conglomerate Vickers. In 1998, Vickers put the Rolls-Royce automotive company up for sale and it attracted a bidding war between two German firms, Volkswagen and BMW, who were trying to expand their brand portfolios into the ultra-luxury market. Although BMW was the likely buyer (it had a longstanding supplier relationship with the company), Volkswagen ended up bidding close to £100 million more and won the auction. With the purchase of Rolls-Royce, Volkswagen received a well-past-its-prime aged factory where most of the assembly was done by hand. Rolls-Royce cars were still using a licensed 1938 Buick engine which was extremely inefficient as the company had not been able to afford an upgrade. After the deal had gone through, BMW came upon an interesting discovery. Rolls-Royce PLC, the aerospace division and an independently listed company, was the owner of the Rolls-Royce brand name and logo. BMW jumped on this opportunity and purchased the naming rights for cars at a bargain price of £40 million (much less than Volkswagen originally paid for the car company). BMW started fresh and built a brand new factory with state-of-the-art equipment, hired a designer to recreate the vintage look of Rolls-Royce cars, and gave the new vehicles an efficient BMW-made engine. BMW is now the sole legal manufacturer of Rolls-Royce cars and Volkswagen is stuck with an old factory capable of producing old, "unbranded" cars.

What this story highlights is the fact that from a consumer’s vantage point it is not always easy to see what stands behind a brand name. Most consumers likely have associations to Rolls-Royce that include legacy, timelessness, and elegance. Many may be startled and even upset to learn that Rolls-Royce, by most measures, is a new car company created by BMW. The only thing linking the Rolls-Royce cars of today and those of the early 20^th Century is a trademark to the naming rights. With this example in mind, it is perhaps necessary for consumers to view brands in a different, albeit more jaded, light. Although brands can be useful as a symbol of brand values and legacy, they can also act as a facade intentionally set up by a parent company in order to exploit and leverage brand equity.

Going Guerrilla at the Street

2011-12-10T03:50:00.000-08:00

by Abigail Berkley

Across the world there has been a proliferation of street guerrilla marketing. In Santiago Chile wall after wall is covered in colourful graffiti. Unitas advertising agency used this in their new promotion of Faber-Castell pencil crayons. Walls covered in graffiti appear to be peeled back to uncover a line of colourful pencils laying in a row.

In Copenhagen, Denmark the Bates Y&R agency performed a stint for the 4x4 Jeep. They traced out parking spots in unconventional parts of the city to display that Jeeps really are off-road vehicles.

This trend goes further than companies; even government entities have employed this marketing tactic. In Auckland, New Zealand street chalk was placed specifically to encourage pedestrians to make safe choices on main roads, while promoting the number of road crashes that involve pedestrians. The picture of shark-infested waters was created on the ground with the captioning “Don’t Step Into Danger. In Auckland city over 70% of road crashes involving pedestrians occur on main roads.” with the Auckland City Council logo painted beside it.

These forms of marketing, although different, share similar characteristics and purpose. Part of their effectiveness stems from their unexpected presentation. Each ad appears in targeted areas of the city, but on "media" where you do not expect to see advertisements: the ground, city walls, and places used by street artists. Some street art has gotten very popular too. For example, the popularity of some street art has attracted international attention (e.g. Bansky's work). His work and the work of other street artists have yet to be completely commercialized by the re-selling of prints. Street Art is innately cool. It is exciting, it breaks conventions and it breaks the rules. By appearing as street art, Guerrilla street marketing automatically becomes attention grabbing and absorbs all the excitement and edginess that its non-commercialized counter-part is endowed with.

It is easy to understand why marketing and advertising firms would then want to take advantage of this new method of contact with their consumers. Textbook after journal after newspaper has repeated how congested the marketing world has become, and how consumers are subjected to thousands of advertisements on a daily basis. The problem has always been “how do we grab their attention now,” and street guerrilla marketing has started to become the answer. Not only is it attention grabbing, it stimulates discussion, people talk about “that cool thing they saw on their walk to work.” They share it with their friends, they take pictures of it, thus creating this exponential force that reaches a greater amount of eyes and ears than just the people that walk by it. Marketing firms have a great advantage as it can be difficult at times to decipher whether a piece is authentic street art or a marketing ploy. Guerrilla street marketing has yet to hit its peak, it has not yet been overused and abused. In the next couple of years this method of marketing will become more prevalent as it is a short-term solution for stealthily grabbing consumers’ attention.

The Balance of New Balance

2011-11-13T05:17:00.001-08:00

Friday afternoon I had one of those "ohhh that is cool" marketing moments.

A buddy of mine wanted to pick up some new running shoes. He liked New Balance so we went to the New Balance store. And right at the entrance, I saw a machine that tested your weight distribution. Naturally, I had to try it. I found (like pretty much everyone) that my weight balance was not 100% even. I put more weight on my left foot than my right one.

The idea behind the machine is that it drives sales and brand. The machine diagnoses different types of foot needs. Some feet are normal, some need arch support, and some need more stability. Based on the diagnostic, the machine (and sales person) then customize the shoe and sole. The benefits: proper foot stability, more stepping comfort, and athletic performance. I'm not really sure if the foot can notice a difference, but psychologically, I think most consumers get an extra boost knowing they bought the "right shoe" for themselves.

The thing that I really liked about this marketing effort is how this information (or what some might call "gimmick") is true to the brand New Balance. The name says it all. The machine reinforces the balance.

Loco with Logo changes- or is about being fresh?

2011-10-24T07:24:00.000-07:00

by Karl Biunno

A couple of years ago, I graduated from Bob's Brand Management boot-camp. Since that time, my love for the topic has continued to grow, so when Bob asked me to contribute to his blog about a year ago, I decided to describe my shock at how a well established brand like Pepsi could so "cavalierly" change their logo - and consequently their identity. My first reaction, was to write how short-sighted the brand managers of these companies must have been when conceiving their first logo. Logo changes can be expensive in terms of time and money- and jeopardizing the brand awareness that the logos create for the brand (especially a packaged good brand) may come with a risk to sales. In my initial writing, I found myself criticizing their lack of forecasting abilities, as in my view; they failed to create a logo that would be able to timelessly represent the values of their customers. But the deeper I thought about that, my views got refined and a new perspective emerged. Today I will share my insight and will try to explain some of
the underlining principles behind logo change. This is a short post which is really about this: “Which brands are most frequently updating their logos- and why?”

Perspective 1: Which brands are updating their logos most frequently
When looking at brands that are frequent logo updaters, there is a clear trend. It's the non-leader in the market who tend to tinker with their brand logo most. Here's example number one coming from the top 2 brands in the athletic footwear industry, namely Nike and Adidas. According to Sporting Good Intelligence, in 2008, Nike’s worldwide market share is 36 percent compared to Adidas 21.8 percent share. In other words, Nike is the leader/dominant brand (by market share) and Adidas is the non-leader/non-dominant brand. Since its existence, the core of Nike’s logo has always been the same – the famous “swoosh”.

As you can see below, the same cannot be said about the Adidas logo.

(Interesting enough, as a side note, although Adidas’ website clearly showcases their latest logo on their front page, each previous logo is still used on products within their various divisions in the business.)

Let's go to the credit/debit card industry.

In both credit and debit cards, Visa overtakes MasterCard in terms of circulation.

Guess which one has changed their logo more frequently with more changes? You guessed it – MasterCard. The visuals speak for themselves.

Trying doing some searches on this yourself. The results are pretty consistent. The dominant brand is less prone to changing what works. The evidence is there from Toyota to Chrysler, and McDonald's to Burger King. (Google is the exception to this rule.)

Perspective 2: The Fresh Brand Value

Now move on to the more interesting question of “why?” I'll look at one specific example here.

To help us answer this question, let’s focus on Pepsi and their various changes in their logo over the years compared to Coca-Cola.

If we travel back in time at the height of the cola wars in the mid 1980’s, Pepsi poured in substantial amounts of money in order to steal market share from Coca-Cola by building
a brand that could relate to the youth of the time. With prominent product placements in hit movies such as Back to the Future or the unforgettable Pepsi celebrity endorsement by Michael Jackson’s Billie Jean, Bad and Black and White, “the choice of a new generation” campaign was at the upper end of what the Pepsi could have hoped for. The positioning, reinforced by the slogan was so significant that it ultimately set the tone for Pepsi’s image and consequently values up until this day – a brand that is synonymous with fresh, lively and young at heart. Youth is cool. Pepsi is cool. Cool is ever changing. Pepsi is ever-changing.

Ultimately, if you are a brand that proclaims to be the choice of a new generation, it is important for all aspects of your marketing campaign to be consistent and suit every new generation. So, for Pepsi, I'm making the case that the logo update keeps the brand fresh and appealing to youth. In other words, the strategic reason why some companies decide to change their logo, is that it enables them to attack or defend their desired or current position within the market place by depicting the companies rejuvenation of their core values.

In the Minds of Consumers...at any cost!

2011-10-20T14:35:00.000-07:00

Tonight we have a real treat- a special guest blog entry from one of my current students! It's a first, so share your comments below!

Special -guest blog entry by Josi Brown

U.S. based Apparel Company, Abercrombie and Fitch is no stranger to controversy. In fact, management seems intentionally create moments to stir social media firestorms. These controversies stem from the people who wear their products - to the store employees- to the actual products. It seems that the company has embraced the position that no publicity is bad publicity.

Back in August the retailer released a statement asking MTV’s Jersey Shore cast mate, Mike ‘The Situation’ Sorrentino to stop wearing their clothes after he sported their lime green sweatpants in an episode the night before. They even stated that they would pay him a substantial amount of money to stop wearing the brand. Following the statement, Abercrombie and Fitch mentioned that ‘The Situation’ does not represent the ideals and values of the company and that they do not want to be associated with the character.

The MTV show follows a bunch of twenty-something Italian Americans as they party and engage in various made for TV moments, such as girl fights and incessant drinking. Search Jersey Shore on Google and you will get videos with the cast mates going to jail rather than information about the seaside town. Abercrombie and Fitch, who uses genetically gifted young men and women in their advertisements, is no first timer at creating controversy. By firing out at a show, which reaches the same demographic, Abercrombie and Fitch assured itself that the right people would be targeted. Its demographic, late teens to early twenty-somethings, is a tech savvy bunch. They have instant information at their fingertips and tend to be very brand loyal. Abercrombie has, by constantly creating buzz, at no cost, ensured that that are always talked about among their consumers.

I believe that blacklisting ‘The Situation’ was a brilliant move. Overnight publications nation-wide, from Perez Hilton to Forbes and the U.K. Telegraph, picked up the story and ran articles potent with controversy. Social media sites were immediately abuzz with the Jersey Shore cast tweeting about the current ‘situation.’ With Mike himself tweeting "Looks like Abercrombie got themself into a Situation!" The story reached thousands of the retailer’s target market, who are also conveniently fans of the MTV reality show.

Abercrombie and Fitch has a history of pursuing ‘no publicity is bad publicity’ campaign strategies. Back in March, CNN ran an article about the triangle push up (swim suit top) Abercrombie and Fitch was marketing to young girls. Socially conscious groups immediately jumped on this wondering why a company would sell this product for little girls who have nothing to ‘push up’ yet; social media again was talking about the retailer. Prior to that, Abercrombie and Fitch had another controversy. They were in the news for allegedly only hiring ‘attractive’ looking sales associates from their target market. We'll see what controversy A&F conjures up next.

The 5 Most Difficult Branding Decisions #3 Measuring the Brand

2011-10-13T07:26:00.000-07:00

Let's recap our countdown of the Top 5 Most Difficult Branding Decisions.

#5 Branding a Late Entrant
#4 Branding the Boring
#3 Measuring the Brand

Whenever I teach a brand course, I like to ask the question: How valuable are brands? Pretty much every undergrad, MBA, manager or exec jumps on the “brands are valuable” bandwagon. Some will cite some famous quotes from business titans like Warren Buffett: “brands are economic castles protected by unbreachable ‘moats’ (Kuper, 2008) . Others will comment how 2/3rds of Coca-Cola’s value is brand-based. Still others will make the case that brands create the bulk of worth for business to business brands like GE.

So then I follow up “If a brand is so valuable, what is a brand anyway?”

A lot of product managers (or those schooled in product management) discuss brands in the context of “a differentiated product”. Academically trained brand managers tend to provide an answer like “a brand a network of meaningful associations linked to the brand name in the customer’s mind”. I’ve heard accountants say that “a brand is a pretty good proxy for ‘goodwill’ on a balance sheet. Finance folks view the brand as an asset to leverage financially. Many senior executives talk about a brand to be acquired or sold. Directors of charities view brands as drivers of accountability. Ask 10 managers from different departments that question and you’ll likely get 10 different responses.

So who’s right?

Here’s the thing. All those responses are correct. A brand is all of the above and more. Brands function at different levels (consumer, product, and firm levels), have several different dimensions (awareness and loyalty, for example),and have dollar value impact on the organization. Where this gets especially tricky then, is measuring the brand.

In one of my papers, I developed a thorough taxonomy of brand measures. I scoured pretty much every academic journal, book, and professional magazine to find any way that brands can- and are being measured. But, I also went beyond that. In one of my studies, I approached brand guardians (VP marketing, brand manager, global brand managers etc) directly to see how they measured the brand. I found lots and lots of measurements – some that measure the brand, some that measure part of the brand, and some that don’t really measure the brand at all! The thing that was so surprising was just how imperfect even the best measures are. This is hardly surprising because what is a brand is is so hard to pin down.

Let’s look at a couple of the highest profile brand measures that approach brands from opposite ends of the spectrum.

On one extreme there is the Interbrand approach, made famous from its annual Business Week “The Top 100 Global Brands”. This approach is great for dollar valuing the firm level of a brand- and this makes it attractive to CFOs or CEOs who are viewing the brand as a balance sheet asset. Think of the measure this way. A brand’s value is estimated on the basis of projected profits discounted to a present value. The discount rate is a subjective rate determined by Interbrand and Wall Street equity specialists and is a function of the brand’s risk profile, market leadership, stability and global reach of the brand (Chu and Keh, 2006). Intangible assets like patents are subtracted to assess what portion of the earning are due to the brand alone. Qualifying brands must be publicly traded, have at least 1/3rd of revenues outside the home country, and not be a purely business-to-business brand (Interbrand 2011).

There are lots of reasons why this is a cool measure (you can benchmark your brand against the best-in-class brands, for example) and lots reasons why this measure is so tough to use. I’ll just comment on a couple points. First, most brands aren’t publically traded so for a non-public company, a forced hypothetical “market cap” would be required to execute this measure and figuring this data point out is not simple to do. Second, the folks in organizations are more interested in finding out the value of product level brands (e.g. Tide and Crest ) than the firm brand valuation (e.g. P&G.) It is incredibly complicated to get to the dollar level product level using this type of measure.

On the other extreme is what I call the Keller model. In the Keller metrics, measures are taken at the consumer level. The idea behind it is that brands with high levels of awareness (ie familiarity) and a strong, favourable, and unique brand image (as defined by strong, favourable, unique associations)have high brand equity. So to uncover the associations in the consumers’ minds, a bunch of tests like free associations, in-depth interviews, and projective tools are administered, and then scaled to validate. It’s time consuming, costly, and requires lots of brand-specific expertise to do this.

The Keller approach is a preferred choice for hard-core marketers because it helps the managers compare the brand directly to competiors. Uncovering associations is also a great diagnostic tool too. If you track the brand over time and you see association favorability slipping, then you can take action to reconstruct the associations. That being said, there are lots of problems with this type of brand measure as well. I’ll highlight a major one here. Consider the CMO of Coke using this approach to measure the brand. The outcome of his study would provide a series of word associations. So, the CMO from Coke, comparing his customers’ associations of Coke to customers’ brand associations for Pepsi, would see near-identical consumer associations (Silverman, Spott, and Pascal, 1999) leading to the conclusion that Coke and Pepsi have similar levels of brand equity. Yet, an Interbrand measure will evaluate Coke’s brand at around $55 billion more than Pepsi’s. Which takes us to the obvious point- are they really measuring the same thing?

So what does all this mean to a brander? Brands are multi-dimensional, hard to define, and can be costly/time consuming to measure. Then there is the added complexity of measures not jiving with one another. Having said that, there are a few ways to remedy the measurement challenges. Using multiple measures is one- which increases cost and complexity. I designed Brand Mojo as a key piece to remedy these (and other) brand measurement issues. But for the manager who realizes that the brand is the most valuable asset that she has, the brand ought to be measured so it can be managed. This is not an easy thing to do and for this reason it is #3 on our list of the Top 5 most difficult branding decisions.

Brand Prime Cuts. Best Brand Books

2011-09-09T06:21:00.000-07:00

There are a lot of good branding books out there. And, there are some GREAT brand books out there. These are the Brand Prime Cuts: the books that give perspectives on brand building, brand loyalty, brand value, and brand importance.

BEST NEW BRAND BOOK: Brand Like a Rock Star

What do Bob Dylan and Whole Foods have in common? How come so many down-n-out artists were able to mount comebacks? Would KISS have sold as many albums had they kept their name Wicked Lester? Read on.

Hands down, this is the best fun-read brand book in a long while. Author Steve Jones loads up this 240 can't-put-it-down pocket book with examples on how some of the world's strongest "rock star" brands (e.g. AC/DC, Aerosmith, Johnny Cash, Elvis, Bob Marley, Bob Dylan, U2, the Beatles) built their brands. He relates their "lessons" to issues facing more traditional businesses. The book also deserves an award for "best book title."

BEST CLASSIC BOOK: Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind

A few years ago, one of my branding mentors, DemetriosVakratsas, lent me his copy of Ries and Trout's book: The Battle for Your Mind. It's a fantastic and insightful read. Although the original issue is approaching 25 years old, the book got a 20th anniversary update a few years ago. If you want an evening read that is a perfect blend of anecdotal stories and theory, this book is for you. It's the book that I recommend most (and have handed out most) for folks who need a really quick study on branding.

BEST TEXT BOOK: Strategic Brand Management

In my opinion, every brander ought to have a definitive "go-to" brand resource. There hasn't been a better one published than Kevin Lane Keller's Strategic Brand Management. Now in its 3rd edition (pictured left, 2008), this book is based on Keller's 1993 Journal of Marketing Article: Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customer Based Brand Equity. The text (and research) focuses on the brand as an information node that exists in the consumer's mind. Therefore, to build a strong brand, that brand information node can be enhanced by improving awareness of the information node and associations linked to it. The text gives a pretty good summary of many of the ways to measure the brand (particularly in the consumer's mind) and an outstanding text book summary on approaches to build the brand. The author of the book, Kevin Keller, is also the defacto Godfather of modern branding. Brilliant works.

BEST 30,000 FOOT OVERVIEW: Brands and Branding

The Economist publishes a lot of good stuff and this book is no exception. Editor Rita Clifton grabs a subset of the "who's who" of brand experts and compiles her book with a lot of insights on brands at the 30,000 foot level. Chapter 1, written by Clifton herself, is maybe the best chapter that I have ever read on the importance and value of brands to businesses, non-profit organizations, and society. It builds a compelling case for why brands are a wonderful part of our society. The book also covers other less-written about topics like brand protection and ends with perspectives on the future of brands.

MOST CONTROVERSIAL: Buyology

One consumer-insights manager from Loblaws who has a deep interest in how the mind works put me on to Buyology a few years ago. In this book, Martin Lindstrom shares his perspectives and research on the subconscious reasons people buy. Some of his methods and perspectives are controversial too. For example- according to his research, the hideous pictures on tobacco packages actually excite a lot of smokers- the exact opposite of the pictures' desired effects. Lindstrom has a new book out (Brandwash) and we'll see how he follows up on his Buyology bestseller.

L’Oreal Lights it Up

2011-09-05T11:45:00.000-07:00

It's always fun to get my readers contributing to mackalskionmarketing. The write up below gives some insights by Bianca Labelle on cosmetics branding. Let's take a look.

I’m a big fan of cosmetics. When applied and worn properly, cosmetics can beautify and glamorize its wearer- and transform her looks and her attitude.

I am not alone of my interest in cosmetics. Cosmetics are loved from Japan to Argentina. One British study (Britain is not usually a country associated with heavy cosmetics usage) found out some interesting things about women and cosmetics:

The typical woman spends an average of $150,000 in her lifetime on cosmetics (source).
From the age of 16, a woman will shop for mascara, foundation and lipstick at least five times a year, spending at least $50 each time. (source)
The average woman spends nearly 20 minutes a day perfecting her look. That is almost a complete year of her life getting ready to look great!(source)
70 per cent of women never leave the house without applying some form of cosmetics, and that a fifth of the nation's boyfriends have never seen their partners without make-up.(source)
Two thirds of women surveyed said they would rather buy make up than go on a dinner date. (source)

Such a large demand for cosmetics naturally attracts competition. Not surprisingly, the cosmetics industry has a lot of competitors. Walk down any cosmetics aisle in a drug store and you’ll see product after product and brand after brand selling beauty. eBeauty.com lists over 300 different cosmetics brands- and that number explodes when you consider all of the sub brands. My point is this. If you manage a cosmetic brand, it is really tough to get attention in when there are so many competitors. That’s why L’Oreal impressed me a lot with something they have done.

I was checking out the new eye shadow and I noticed L’Oreal’s new in-store brand presentations. You can see a picture below.

I find this display to be very effective for many reasons.

It is the brightest display in the store, helping to attract attention to the L’Oreal brand and its products.
The orderly alignment of the hangers/shelves means that there are no obstructions to the L’Oreal brand and product presentation. The brand name and logo are easy to see because the design of the display forces the retailer to present the brand name/logo/packaging facing the consumer.
The presentation aligns the brand to what the brand is about. L’Oreal is selling beauty and glitz. The vibrant lighting reflects off of L’Oreal products’ shiny packaging- giving a jewel-like sparkle to the packaging (and by transitivity, to the L’Oreal brand).
The brighter light makes the “small print” of the packaging easier to read. This is a very important point. Watch women make cosmetic purchases. They spend a lot of time in the store examining brands and products. Why? Most women purchase cosmetics because they want to feel that they are looking great. Therefore, reading packaging for instructions, product benefits (e.g. transform your lashes from dull to full), and ingredient information is a pivotal part of the purchase process.
Finally, by contrast, other brand displays look dark (almost unclean) compared to the bright, glamorous, perfectly presented L’Oreal. It is almost as if L’Oreal is saying, “if we can present our packaging this perfectly and cleanly, think of how good we can make you look!"

Brand Lovers and Haters part 2: The Wrath of the Hater

2011-08-08T20:40:00.000-07:00

While in San Francisco to attend the American Marketing Association conference, I stopped in to a souvenir shop on the wharf to inquire about directions to a nearby supermarket. The employ said, "There are two supermarkets around here. Both are about 4 blocks away. Safeway and Trader Joe's." Another shopper who had overheard our conversation blurted, "Don't go to Trader Joe's. They suck. Bad selection. They support fringe political agendas. I hate them." I had come across a self-professed brand hater.

Brand haters are the exact opposite of brand lovers. The won't buy the brand (or will do so very unwillingly) and go out of their way to disrupt brand building activities. They talk against the brand to family, friends, strangers, or anyone who will listen. Sometimes their efforts are organized and can lay a powerful punch to an organization; sometimes they are not. Some efforts are legit (think PETA on KFC cruelty to chickens); some are not (think rumors on the P&G being satanic propagated by Amway representatives). But haters have to be handled carefully especially given new technologies and social networks that make hater-activities easier, more sophisticated, faster, and effective. Since hater activities (negative blogging, writing scolding brand reviews, organizing boycotts etc.) are increasingly easier to do, there are more and more of these activities. With every "hating activity" the hater becomes more committed to the hate position- and the more hate positions that are out there can also translate into the position being further legitimized. The result: a group of entrenched, motivated haters.

Let's look at some hater stories and their weapons of choice:

Thomas Hawk the blogger (excerpted from futurelab):

Briefly, Thomas Hawk was shopping for a camera, found what seemed like a great deal, and tried to place an order. The company pulled some nasty stuff on him. Rather than just take it, Hawk wrote a detailed post to his blog. The post got picked up by a few other blogs and community and Internet news sites, and the whole thing absolutely erupted. There were reports people were constantly calling PriceRitePhoto to tie up their phones in support of Hawk. Hackers attacked the site. Consumers rallied and went on a rampage. They ultimately got PriceRitePhoto removed from PriceGrabber, CNET, and Yahoo! Shopping.

Then, PriceRitePhoto changed their name. Hawk busted them again by posting the new name to his blog. The story was picked up by "New York Post," Forbes.com, and "The New York Times." Hawk had e-mail exchanges with the Better Business Bureau and the New York Attorney General's office.

The result? PriceRitePhotophoto.com doesn't seem to be live any more. It seems that Hawk chased the company into oblivion.

Angry Marine Viral Video

How full of rage do you have to be to steal bullets from your government, fire an automatic weapon on a printer, film it, put it on YouTube, and risk upsetting your Sargent?

That's what happened in the video above, which made the viral rounds. It features a disgruntled U.S. Marine based in Iraq who is infuriated by HP's demands to be paid for consultation on how to fix his inoperable HP printer. So, he opens fire with his Uncle Sam issued weapon and blasts the printer to bits. HP spent lots of time and effort diffusing the viral video - including posting up this marketing department scripted response video. (Just think of the effort HP went through to get to this point). But no matter how marketing likes to spin it ("we are that much better now...", the trouble with haters, is that there is no upside. It's never pleasant to be forced to pay to neutralize bad things.

Brand Hate Sites

A lot of haters are willing to go beyond what is rational to get some brand retribution. Some haters develop brand hate sites - and the best ones can get ranked by international press. Think of it, some haters are disgruntled enough to buy a domain name like McSucks.com, Screw-Paypay.com or Verizonpathetic.com, pay money for hosting, and invest time and effort in generating ongoing content. Some sites have gotten pretty sophisticated over the years. This means that the brand hate site gets high search engine rankings and visibility. If you are a brand manager of Bell Canada for example and search a Bell related term, there is a non-trivial chance that one of these sites pop up. Try Google searching "Bell Canada sucks." You'll get close to 11,000,000 returns for the regional Canadian brand. That's more than the 9.2 million returns that the international brand McDonald's gets. There are clearly a lot haters out there. (click to enlarge Google image below)

Do you really control your logo?

If you are a brand manager, here is some food for thought: In the USA, the 1st Amendment shields the operators of brand hate sites from liability, unless they are selling products, deriving advertising revenue and/or in some other way engaged in "commercial" speech. If the brand hate site is strictly non-commercial in nature, the operator's freedom of speech will generally override the trademark owner's interest in controlling the use of its company name or trademark. So images like the one you see on the left are, broadly speaking, protected as free speech. Of course, well financed corporations can initiate legal threats to have their brand elements (logo, characters etc) removed. But sometimes haters take on the challenge in court, and unless they are benefiting financially from the corporate hate site, they generally win. (click here for some more thorough explanations and court case precedents)

Old School Tactics

But some of the most interesting hater stories are old school tactics. The Net is loaded with stories like this next one.

One woman hated her bank after it wrongfully bounced a bunch of her cheques. The bank reps were highly uncooperative and refused to take off $200 in fees. In typical hater fashion, she was going to abandon the bank but hesitated because she wanted revenge. She publicized her saga, and got vengeful. Since she had free check cashing, she started writing cheques out for "CASH" for one penny. She wrote 500 cheques and sent her obliging friends to cash them at the various branches. Eventually the bank called her to stop, paid her $200 in fees back- but only after the bank spent hundreds and hundreds of dollars processing cheques. In a follow-up to the story, she withdrew all of her money from the bank except $100 so she could continue to be a thorn in the side of the bank. She's learned to love hating her bank brand.

In some of my research on haters, I spoke with a man was dissatisfied with the way his telecom brand was sending him unexpected charges. Antagonized by this, he paid off all of his account except for $50, signed up with another carrier, and began his retribution campaign. When the call center began calling for late payment on the $50, he asked to organize an installment plan to pay off the bill. Of course, the call center employees did not understand how to deal with this- and his installment request made its way to middle management. Through a negotiation with the manager, $3.50 was the monthly amount agreed upon. But then he started sending cheques for $3.505 (that's right, half cent amounts on the cheques). None of his cheques have been cashed because the half cent messes up the accounting balance. But think of how this hater has cost the brand money. It straddles many departments- call center, accounts payable, management, accounting- and there is zero upside with this customer. From a hater perspective, this is "checque-mate".

I started this blog by saying how the web and social media have made it easier for brand haters to engage in the their brand hater activities. It took me about 5 minutes to find the above examples. There are just so many of them. Many of them are effective. This brand hater world is the new reality of branding and few managers know how to deal with them. This is why I've dedicated a good chunk of my research in this area.

Brand Lovers and Haters part 1: My love Replay'd

2011-07-30T07:56:00.000-07:00

A good chunk of my research involves work on Brand Lovers and Brand Haters. The concept is a simple one. If you manage a brand, you want consumers (or customers in a BtoB sense) to love it. What you don't want is consumers to hate your brand. The power behind the lovers versus haters theory is rooted in this: Lovers are extremely loyal to the brand, buy more of the brand more often, are willing to pay more for it, talk-up the brand to family and friends (becoming a free marketing department for the brand), are the first to try new extensions of it, and are more inclined to overlook minor brand transgressions. Haters are the exact opposite.They will be the least inclined to try or purchase the brand and will even try to disrupt or sabotage the brand's brand-building efforts.

In this first of a two part blog entry, I'm going to share a personal anecdotal story on my "love" for the Italian brand Replay. In the second entry (which will likely be posted after the American Marketing Association conference), I will share some intense anecdotal "brand hater" stories that I've come across through my research. Think of part 1 as "how far a consumer will go purchase a brand he/she loves". Think of part 2 as "how far a consumer will go to retaliate to a brand that he/she hates".

Last week I just returned from Miami. Although I am not a big shopper, one of the highlights of my trip was buying Replay jeans. I’ve truly loved the brand ever since Lisa and Laura (two spectacular sales girls from a now-closed Montreal boutique store Venus) got me to try them on by asking, "Why don't you try these new Replays?" The jeans just fit. The material was soft. The pockets were in the right places. The hang-tags looked cool. They were made in Italy. I thought that the in-store displays for Replay were cool and not trashy like so many other designer brands that try too hard. While the Replay brand was quite a bit more than I wanted to spend, I was happy to pay the premium because “they spoke to me”. It was love at first sight.

Since that time, Replay brand became a lot more difficult to purchase in Canada. Its high price point and weak distributor promotional support led to sluggish sales. (The brand continued to sell pretty well in Europe.) And a couple of years ago, Replay distribution ceased in Quebec and Ontario. I was confronted with an uncomfortable reality: I would have to look for a new brand of jeans. But for me, trying, buying, and wearing other brands just didn’t feel right. I had become a lover of the Replay brand. To use brand researcher Susan Fournier's lingo, I was married to Replay jeans.

But, marriages are meant to last and I decided to fight for mine. Two things needed to be done. First, since I was reticent about buying other jean brands, my old Replays would have to last longer. One pair has been patched up by the seamstress on 3 separate occasions. Second, I would have to look for a new Replay outlet. Since I never a fan of purchasing jeans online, I researched Replay outlets via search engines and blogs with very limited success. (Replay really needs to improve its online representation.) I decided to contact Replay corporate office in Italy. They advised me that there was only one retailer carrying their products in Canada- and that retailer was in Winnipeg. (I'm pretty sure the Replay rep didn't know Winnipeg is almost a 3 hour flight from Montreal. This Winnipeg retailer was also pathetic about responding to purchase inquiries). Beyond those effots, in every city that I visited for work or for fun, I also sought out retailers carrying Replay. Last week, I discovered a Replay flagship store in Miami South Beach. I called my friend who was visiting Miami with me and said, "Come with me to the Replay store."

When we walked into the store, I was greeted by two charming sales people-Alexandra and Jennifer. I told them I had been all over looking for Replay. They laughed, showed me the new jean lines and asked, "Why don't you try these new Replays on?" The jeans just fit. The material was soft. The pockets were in the right places. The hang-tags looked cool. They were made in Italy. I bought more than I originally thought I would buy, and spent more than I thought I would spend. But, I was happy to do this because it was for my marriage. It's love Replay'd all over again.

__________

For other Replay lovers out there: I've come across two Replay flagships in North America. SoBe and NYC. Below is an excerpt from NYMag on Replay.

http://nymag.com/listings/stores/replay/

Italian label Replay is all about aggressive mixing and matching. Plaid is paired with floral designs, grungy, masculine pieces are combined with feminine beading, and even the store itself—a large, immaculately clean space—is littered with tattered garage-like artifacts. And in keeping with the dinge-chic esthetic, Replay focuses strictly on not-for-the-office attire. Even the higher-end We Are Replay line—which boasts handmade items often emblazoned with the word “replay”—primarily consists of jeans, patched sweaters, shirts, and boots, most of which soar well into the three figures. The results are predictably eclectic, with some items that look like an arts and crafts teacher took a glue gun to them, and others that appear one step ahead of tomorrow’s fashionista. — Melissa Noble

Guest blog: Ewwwww. How is that man dressed?

2011-07-17T18:29:00.000-07:00

Tonight we have a real treat- a MackalskionMarketing guest entry. I invited one of Montreal's fashion consultants (Avia) to serve up a few heuristic do's and don'ts of men's fashion. Take it away Avia.

"Eww how is that man dressed???"

Let me tell you about the 10 rules men should know about fashion.More specifically, I'll share some insights on the most violated fashion "rules". But before we get in to that, let's start with the basics of looking sharp. First you should determine your style, what kind of man you are, and how you would like to present yourself. Your style tells a lot about your personality and who you are. How you present yourself is especially important for your first impression. Psychology Today journal reminds of this important fact: "Even if we are presented with lots of evidence to the contrary, we're attached to our initial impressions of people." Men need to be especially ready when creating that first impression. In the business world, this is part of your personal branding- marketing yourself. Regardless of your personal style and personality, there are some fashion rules that hold:

1) Match your shoes and belt. Wear a belt that is the same color of the shoes you are wearing.

2) Never wear socks with sandals.

3) Never wear a work suit with white socks.

4) Running shoes should be only worn during sporty activities.

5) Forget about the black dress shirt and white tie combinations. It is tough to pull this combination off.

6) Invest in a good watch. Watches quickly add sophistication.

7)Do not wear too much of the same pattern.

8) Do not dress from head toe in the same color. Match colors that blend in nicely together.

9) If you wear glasses, keep your glasses up-to-date.

10) Do not wear over sized clothes thinking you will look thinner when, in reality it give the opposite effect.

Ready for a good Google cry? Google's brand building ads.

2011-07-17T17:50:00.000-07:00

A couple of years ago, my BrandMojo website picked up on how very loved the Google brand is. Last year, Interbrand’s annual global brand valuation showed how Google’s financial brand valuation was surging. (A key point of Brand Mojo is showing that the more loved a brand is, the bigger the brand growth. ) A lot of online brands are strong brands (e.g. Facebook, Twitter) but Google is in a league of its own. Google just “gets” branding better. I’ll give an example below.

Unlike other online powerhouse brands, Google does quite of bit of traditional media buys (e.g. Superbowl 2010 advertisement). Many folks will argue that Google doesn’t need to do this. Why bother? Google can advertise for “free” through its own properties. According to the bean-counters that keep track of this sort of thing, while Facebook is the site with the most online traffic, Google properties (by traffic) are ranked second (Google), third (Gmail), fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh. Those are world-wide stats and you can check it out here. (Click the image below to see the top 5 traffic sites.)

What this means is that Google has unprecedented contact points with consumers. These contact points are themselves opportunities for Google “self-advertisements” and brand building experiences. Think just how good the Google experience is. When was the last time that Google’s main search site had crashed on you? I’ll bet never. How blown away were you when you saw Google Earth for the first time? A lot. Google Translate? Amazing. Direct experience with Google builds its brand in a most powerful way.

So why would Google even bother to reach out to mass audiences when it can reach them directly online and super effectively already? And, what would a company with such a boring utilitarian search function even bother to communicate? The answer to the 2^nd question is contained in the two links below. Oh yeah, they are YouTube links.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnsSUqgkDwU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4vkVHijdQk

So now we have our answer to question 2. (By the way, how are the heart-strings? Don't be ashamed to say that you cried. I did too - along with most of my branding students. Hey, who needs to watch "the Notebook" for a good cry?)

These advertisements demonstrate that the folks at Google “get branding.” The Google marketing folks took the most utilitarian online product ("search" in and of itself is pretty boring) and emotionalized the Google brand. The campaign message: Google is part of your life. Google is your trusted friend to help you through your personal journey.

So what's the impact Google? The ads aren’t going to drive anymore traffic to the site or have site visitors stay longer at the site. It is even hard to expand the percentage of “lovers” of Google. The ad campaign doesn't have short term goals. The ads are designed to shape Google’s brand image for the long term. The campaign is building the brand- fortifying the Google lovers (maybe making a few more) and immunizing the brand against bad things that might happen in the future. For example, how could I bet upset at Google, my trusted BFF for some minor privacy violations? Google anti-trust, nah leave Google alone. (see http://www.vancouversun.com/Ganging+Google/5116751/story.html) A few mistakes by our best friends are easy to overlook.

One mistake Google is not making is traditional brand building.

The Game: Where winning is losing.

2011-07-08T08:41:00.000-07:00

My best friend cancelled lunch with me one day. Instead, he was going to meet up with Sarah, a former undergraduate classmate of his. Sarah wanted to catch-up after more than 9 months of radio silence. She said it was "urgent" and needed advice on a situation with a boss.

Immediately following his lunch, my buddy called:

"Bobby, you won't believe what just happened?"

"What?"

"I just had lunch with Sarah. I went 45 minutes without her asking me a single meaningful question."

"What did you talk about?"

"Her. You should try it sometime."

And thus began the game: How long can you have a conversation with someone without him/her asking a you single, meaningful question about you. We call it The Game. It's measured in minutes and Sarah was the big winner.

Everyone's got an interesting story

I've met a lot of interesting people while flying. For example, I've sat by the former drummer of Ozzy Osbourne (he was running a .com at the time); Don Cherry and Ron Maclean (Don was not happy about our delayed flight); and Rob Van Winkle aka Vanilla Ice (a very bright, heavily tattooed guy!). But it's not just celebs who are interesting. The most interesting stories often come from the unsuspecting individuals. Just a few weeks ago I sat by a runner who runs up to 189km in a single day. I felt the deep remorse of a UN worker heading home on sick leave because she had just witnessed a pile of hundreds of beheaded people in a Darfur. From students to celebrities- grandmothers to priests and rabbis- there is a wonderland of interesting stuff. I've kept in touch with some of the folks I've met along the way. Some I've helped- some have helped me. A few have even become guest speakers in my classes. Some would call this networking but I do it because I like meeting people and learning about their experiences.

The Game on Flight Me Me Me

A few weeks ago, I flew into Winnipeg for a surprise birthday party. After a 30 minute nap in my airline seat, I woke up to find myself sitting beside Tara, a 24 year old woman with an undergraduate business degree and a penchant for fashion. She saw me pull out my iPhone and play Angry Birds. Within seconds, she did the same thing, then glanced over to me and said, "I love Angry Birds. But yours looks different than mine."

"I'm playing a different version. I'm playing Angry Birds Rio."

Tara didn't have Angry Birds Rio version but proceeded to tell me how it was her dream to travel to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and South America. I asked her why. She loved the vibrancy and extravagance of Carnival fashions and sought a career in fashion marketing. In fact, she aspired to work in South America for a designer- to better understand the Brazilian "feel". Tara and I shared a similar perspective- that the "Brazil country-of-origin" label is on the rise, because of the rapid pace of development of the country- and its international likeability.

Tara felt that her background in costume making, part time modeling, and her undergraduate degree in business had prepared her well for such a career. We chatted about some of her courses and profs (a couple of which I knew), and of her desire to do an MBA at McGill University. She had a lot of concerns about getting accepted at McGill (she had been rejected for undergraduate studies) and admitted that she was having trouble writing an MBA application.

Since we were both heading to Winnipeg, she transitioned her thoughts to the Winnipeg Jets- what they should be called and why... what their logo should be...how the sweaters should look... and the team's overall impact on the city. Sadly our 85 minute chat came to an end as our flight landed. But, at the baggage pick up, she saw me waiting for my bag, walked up to me and said, "Thank you for interesting conversation... I really enjoyed it. I'm sorry but I forgot your name..."

"Bob", I replied.

She didn't forget my name because she never knew it. In fact, this was the first question (which it technically is not even a question) that she asked me over our 85 minute conversation. Equally as interesting, she pretty much volunteered a huge chunk of her life history.

As she strutted away, I waved goodbye in my green Brazilian flag shirt. I couldn't help but thinking, had she asked a few professional questions in the right way, I most likely would have happily advised her on her McGill MBA application, introduced her to some influential people at the university, advised her about the MBA level Global Branding on my Study Abroad Brazil program that I have taught for 9 years, shared my experiences on working with some Brazilian fashion companies, and made recommendations for her future South American travels.

Sadly, Tara became the newest, biggest winner in The Game. The 85 minute champion.

Flow of Funds: Expense Reimbursement

2011-07-05T12:41:00.000-07:00

If you are a manager, odds are you are going to be spending a lot of money out of your own pocket for work-related purposes. After you incur your expenses, your firm reimburses you. That's the standard way most firms work.

I remember talking to one of my former MBA students about his new job. Right after his MBA he was loaded with student debts. The pressure was on to find a job. He was an outstanding candidate and within a few weeks he found a marketing and strategy job that he loved- at a firm that loved (Bombardier). In month two, he was sent on exciting assignments to the UK, Germany, and Mexico. He told me how he incurred large work-related expenses and when he had to extend a stay in London in his 2nd month at the firm, he couldn't pay his hotel bill. He complained that his firm still hadn't paid off his first month's of expenses. I told him, "I've been there". Quite frankly, a lot of people I talk to have been there.

This blog today relates to something that many managers have faced and wondered about. What happens to my expenses? Of course, every firm is different, has different needs, different cultures, different checks and balances, and different processes. I'll compare two "opposite ends of the spectrum" that I've had in my life. The first experience is my entrepreneurial experience. The second involves my work at a university.

As many of my readers know, immediately following my MBA, I started up a company with my best friend. Within days we added a 3rd partner. Via a merger/acquisition a 4th. Decisions were made fast. Decisions with money were made equally as fast. Most of the time we didn't have money to spend which made the decisions that much easier (*entrepreneurs will appreciate that sentence.) But here is a typical way that we operated with expenses:

If I visited clients in Washington, Pittsburgh and Houston one week, the day I'd come back, I'd see my business partner Neil, with expenses prepared. Neil always had a pulse on the company receivables and payables. Assuming our cash flow was ok, Neil would issue me a reimbursement check that he would sign . Then we'd get a 2nd partner signature (any expense over $100 needed two partner signatures- any expense under $100 was petty cash honor system). Reimbursement was on the spot. Sometimes, Neil would say, "Cash flow is tight right now. We're waiting for company X to pay us ... as soon as they pay us, we're good for payroll and your expense will be right after." Sometimes I would have to wait 2 months, which was an eternity especially when you are not taking a salary. All partners understood sacrifice and appreciated the the prioritization of personal expense reimbursements.

Entrepreneurial Example of Expense Reimbursement (click image to enlarge image)

My entrepreneurial experience anchored me on how processes and reimbursements worked and should work. Reimbursements were informal and mostly instantaneous (although sometimes delays were painfully unpredictable). At my firm, each partner had bought into the concept of integrity and frugality in such a way that frivolous spending was not part of the culture. Checks-and-balances beyond that of 2 partner signatures on a check were not necessary. Quite frankly, one signature would have been more than enough. We would all sacrifice personal pleasures if it would help the firm.

When our company grew, we brought in professional talent. We hired the best- from a record breaking salesman from Kellogg's to a superstar EM from McKinsey. Travel rose significantly with our new high-priced talent, and expense reimbursement would occur formally twice a month. Thus began our introduction to formal expense reimbursement processes. As you can imagine, this entrepreneurial experience is opposite to most large organization's formalities.

The Large Organization

When an organization has hundreds of employees who incur work-related expenses, formalities have to be introduced. It is pretty obvious why that is. First, not everyone is honest. The large organization is a lot more impersonal and so personal relationships within the organization matter less. It seems like a lot less of a crime if you cheat a bureaucracy than if you cheat someone you know. Second, some honest folks just might not know the boundaries of work-related spending. Third, the sheer volume of expenses that need to be processed requires order. So, the need for bureaucracy and checks and balances rise.

Here's an example of the "formal end" of the spectrum. To the best of my knowledge this is how the process works for my expense reimbursement for the Study Abroad program that I run at a university. Different color boxes represent different individuals involved in the expense reimbursement process. The grey arrows represent the step-by-step flow of the process. The smaller black arrows represent "send backs" if there are issues with the expense file. (click image to enlarge image)

In the above process, eight different individuals (including the expense bearer) are involved with the 12-step process. Given the amount of individuals reviewing the file, this process can be a very slow (just think if someone is away how reimbursement can be delayed) and costly too. It will never win an award for efficiency. At the same time, its rigor and robustness will catch dishonest expense reporting and will ensure a tightly run balance sheet.

Of course, there are many different processes for firms to do their expense reimbursements. Most organizations want a balance between efficiency and rigor. I submit that laying out a flow chart like I have done above is a good starting point. It can help firms introduce checks and balances to guard against fraud and bad expenses - but also find ways to streamline inefficient, expensive processes.

Brand Mojo quick update

2011-07-04T06:35:00.000-07:00

To my faithful readership: Thank you for your patience. I've been busy preparing (and presenting) some of my research at conferences. I'm back from my hiatus with a lot of fresh content for this blog. But first, here's a quick Brand Mojo update. Let's look at the top 10 most loved corporate brands on the leaderboard:

Some quick observations:
1. The top ten continue to be very stable. Since the site began - Google has been dominant (although it is starting to slip from the overall 4.8 rating that it once had). The other brands in the top 20 have never been outside of the top 20.
2. The top 3 most loved brands are all free brands. Google, YouTube and Wikipedia give unbelievable value for money (free!)
3. One gender can drive up a brand. Check out the rating discrepancies between women and men on Tiffany. I ran a quick t-test and (surprise surprise) the rating gap is significant.
4. There seems to be a nostalgia impact on the most loved brands. Lego, Disney, and Warner Bros (via Looney Toons) are all endowed with rich, playful, emotional childhood associations.

What about the most hated corporate brands?

Tobacco, controversial and scandal-ridden brands (Halliburton, Bratz) continue to bottom feed on the leaderboard. Here's something new. MySpace became a new entrant into the most hated brands. With so many "haters" and "ambivalents" towards the brand, is it any wonder that MySpace recently sold for a dismal $35 million (representing a $500million loss for NewsCorp)?

This raises a question. If the lovers to haters ratio shifted so much so fast for MySpace, how is FaceBook doing? While still strong, the Facebook ratings are falling significantly, particularly around men. The summer 2011 ratings are below, down from an average of over 4.0 just 6 months ago.

This takes us to a quick recap of the most loved not for profit brand and celebrity brand. The Red Cross continues to be the most loved not-for-profit brand. On the celebrity front, Halle Berry has replaced George Clooney as the most loved celebrity. This switch may be more to do with Clooney's declining ratings which seem to correlate with his recent movie flop (the American). Clooney's ranking is still #2 but his ratio of lovers has fallen substantially.

That takes us to the most hated celebrities? Former American president George W. Bush and Hugo Chavez continue to battle for this position.

You can rate brands at www.BrandMojo.org and check out the leaderboard for more rankings.

Brazil Rising: 3 observations from the street view

2011-06-01T06:36:00.000-07:00

Karen Hughes and Karl Rove were both senior advisers to the George W Bush administration. They used to argue about how to take the pulse of the country. Rove would look at detailed surveys street by street and data-mine the hell out of them. Karen Hughes, in contrast, would “talk to moms” to get a feel for the mood of the voting electorate. Both approaches are legitimate. The difference is that the Rove approach provides the “hard evidence” that most decision makers want. The Hughes approach tells stories to help viscerally understand what is going on.(Note: I am not endorsing their political policies.)

As I write this, I’m waiting for my AC 91 flight at GRU, and have a few minutes to share my Hughes-esque anecdotal observations on the rise of Brazil. I’m going to by-pass the numbers and econometrics that papers widely report. You can check out those facts and figures in the Economist magazine “Brazil takes off”, American Chamber of Commerce Sao Paulo, or government publications. You’ll get numbers on the growing employment rate, the rise of the middle class, the surge in commodity exports, increases in tax revenues, government surpluses, and falling crime rates. Here, however, I will share 3 observations that weave a telling story.

MEDIA: FROM SKETCHY TO SEXY (WHAT A DIFFERENCE 3 YEARS MAKES)
Brazil is perhaps the hottest country brand in the world. We all know that it won the bids to host the world’s largest sporting events: FIFA World Cup (2012) and Summer Olympics (2014). It has also been widely reported that this is the first time that a South American country will be hosting the Olympics. That’s a big deal. Brazil is getting a world stage with an intense spotlight. Even before this happened, however, Brazil’s image in the media had been changing. Somewhere around 2009, Hollywood got enamored with Brazil. For example, 3 blockbuster movies in the last year have emphasized Brazil in their story-lines and have done so in a much more glamorized way (Rio, Fast and the Furious V, and the soon-to-be-released Harry Potter sequel). Of course, the motion pictures only are the starting point of the positive exposure for the country. The video games like THQ’s hit videogame Rio and Angry Birds Rio- and mega-media coverage from the Entertainment-Tonight’s of the world further cultivate the desirable brand image of the country.

But, there is still more “love” coming from the entertainment world for Brazil. What do you get when Shakira, Rihanna, Coldplay, Jay-Z, Elton John, Kay Perry, Lenny Kravitz, Metallica, Red Hot Chili Peppers and about a dozen other headliner bands get together to play a 6 day concert extravaganza? A festival called Rock in Rio. More massive exposure to country which is already red hot.

Let’s go back just a couple of years to 2009. (eg. Obama had just taken oath of office) If I was in 2009 and posting a blog about films set in Brazil, I would be writing about the Hulk (2008) which highlighted a Brazilian slum, Tourista (2006), which depicted brutal violence against tourists, City of God (2002), which told a gritty account of poverty, corruption and crime, and the Simpsons, which had Homer kidnapped by violent Brazilians and featured corrupt police (see 5:30 minutes). These are not exactly the messages coming out of the media these days. What a difference 3 years makes. Don't get me wrong, Brazil still has a tremendous drug, crime, and violence problem - but its international image has changed a lot faster than the change Obama followers dreamed about having for the USA post Bush.

SHOPPING IT AND STOPPING IT.
Every been to Times Square on New Years eve- or Mardi Gras on Bourbon Street? Packed streets, right? Well, put those crowds carrying shopping bags and you will get a sense for how crowded some of the Brazilian malls have become. These consumers are not just buying clothes and food. They are purchasing consumer durables like microwave ovens, refrigerators and couches. As tens of millions of impoverished “D-class” Brazilians begin their climb into a “C middle class”, there is pent up demand for consumer durables. One stat about Sao Paulo (a city with approximately 20 million people), says that 1,000 new cars hit the street every week. The upwardly mobile society is spawning production, new jobs, and a lot of wealth creation. A prominent Brazilian business magazine ran some analysis and announced in their cover story that there is a new millionaire created every hour in Brazil. This is likely a very conservative statistic.

Headlines like this have a psychological effect on society: “If I play by the rules, I can win”. In other words, some of the entrepreneurs working in the “grey market” are shifting to honest lines of work. I had an interesting conversation with a former drug dealer and arms runner from a favella. He had gone back to school and had started up his own business. He said, “Dealing was always a sure way make money but now I have opportunity to do it honestly. I feel better about myself.” Leo told me that he not the only one who stopped. For folks like Leo, it seems that the fear of bullets is not nearly as good a motivator as the promise of opportunity from legitimate work.

BRAND BUILDING IN BRAZIL
Every year I check out a soccer game in Brazil. This year I noticed something different. All advertisements around the field were sold out. I remember going to the games in 2004 and there would be one lone, shabby beer advertisement surrounded by empty advertising spaces. Some keen observers of advertising in Brazil would say, “That could be Bob, but all outdoor advertising was banned in Sao Paulo so advertisers needed a new place to advertise…soccer stadiums are the natural place to go to find crowds.” This is true, but other Brazilian cities did not ban the outdoor advertisements and their soccer stadiums are loaded with crisp, thoughtful, brand-building advertisements. A lot of these ads are regional brands as well- suggesting that advertisers are not just national who are looking to spend their budgets. (I only saw 1 multinational brand ad at the soccer game: Pepsi)

At the macro level, what is going on is this: more, better advertising means stronger Brazilian brands. Stronger brands generally mean more stable sales. Stable sales means more, less-risky investment. This translates into jobs, growth and more societal stability. This is exactly the state where Brazil is at now.

And the winner is... Face validity of the polls 2011.

2011-05-04T06:16:00.000-07:00

"Research shows that 90% of research is wrong." – Bob Newhart

Polling is one of the rawest forms of market research. Unlike market research for business which is not cost-effective to properly validate (managers just want data that is “good enough”), polling numbers get validated on election day. The trouble is there is so much excitement about what happened once the election results are tallied up, that few folks circle back to check out which polling firm provided the best prediction for election day. Today, I am going to do exactly that. I am going to revisit four of the big market research firms (Ipsos, Nanos, Leger, Ekos) who published polls immediately before the Federal Canadian election. Which firms got it right? Which firms got it wrong? Are there any polling biases? How good is the poll-of-polls?

The federal election polls that I am looking at are these ones:

Apr-29 IPSOS sample size: 1,710
May-01 NANOS sample size: 1,068
Apr-30 LEGER sample size: 3,521
May-01 EKOS sample size: 2,988

All look at national public support for each political party brand. By the way, Leger and Ekos have the largest sample sizes (3521 and 2988) and, theoretically (all things being equal), they should have the most accurate responses. We'll see below this is not the case.

Assumption

In the analysis that follows, I am making the assumption that voters did not change their political party brand voting preferences between date of data collection (which is done prior to the date of poll publication) and election time. This is not a trivial assumption to make in this year’s election because on May 1st, a major geo-political story broke (the killing of Bin Laden) that could have affected some voters. Nevertheless, this poll-validating is an opportunity we get once every few years- so we better capitalize on it.

How accurate are the pollsters? The poll-of-polls?

The first thing I'll check out here is the face validity of results. Who got the rank order of popular support right? Overall, Ipsos, Nanos, Leger, and the poll-of-polls (Average) predict the popular support rank order of all political brands accurately. Ekos got the major political party ranks right, but switched the ranks of the Green and the Bloc.

Let's get a little bit more serious now and look at some numbers. In this check, I summed up the discrepancy between the % votes that each political party received on election day and the final poll numbers that were assigned to each political party by each polling firm. Here we see a clear “winner” and “loser”. Ipsos only had a 5.3 point total discrepancy. Ekos had a 10.3% discrepancy. That’s quite a difference. Interestingly enough, the poll-of-polls is not the most accurate, although it is pretty close to being so.

Starting to scratch a little deeper now, we can look at how each polling company fared at the individual political party level. The graphs speak for themselves. “Actual” is the actual % of votes on election day.

Again, the Ipsos poll tends to be the most accurate. It was dead-on for predicting the Liberal brand vote and the Green brand vote. Ipsos was also the most accurate on predicting the Conservative brand vote. That being said, Ipsos blew it on the NDP brand support. (Check out the Ipsos NDP inflation. That result appears to be well outside the margin of error.) Nanos appears to be the next most accurate poller. While Nanos underplays the Conservative support, it’s still a lot less "less accurate" than Ipsos is when it is off on NDP support.

Polling Bias or not showing up at the polls?

Here's an interesting observation. The Conservatives brand support was the only brand that was consistently under-reported in all of the published polls. In contrast, NDP support was (generally) over-reported in the published polls. This suggests a few things. Most obviously, there may be sampling bias in the polling. For whatever reason, Conservatives may just be tougher to reach and NDP supporters more accessible. Second, it could also mean that NDP (and to a lesser extent Liberal, Bloc and Green) supporters were a lot less committed to voting. Prevailing wisdom, however, is that when citizens want change, they are more committed to voting.

Is the the Poll of Polls the King of Kings?
The poll-of-polls keeps getting more and more share-of-airtime. So how good is it? Looking at the graphs above, only once (the Bloc graph)does the poll-of-polls provide the most accurate reflection of political party support (compare this to Ipsos which is 3/5). That being said, by smoothing outlier results (e.g. Ipsos NDP, Ekos on Conservatives), we see that the poll-of-polls gives reasonable bounds for each political party. In hindsight of this election, the poll-of-polls provides a useful tool to see what is “not likely to happen”. (IE it caught the Ekos error on Green brand support exceeding the Bloc's).

Political Party Branding: Liberals vs. Conservatives 2011 election

2011-04-24T19:36:00.001-07:00

One of my favorite ad agencies is Sid Lee. I’ve had the pleasure of hearing my advertising buddy Eric talk about the Sid Lee philosophy a few times. One day he made a presentation to my class and made a remark that went something like:

“We often prefer working with challenger and tier II brands.”

The idea behind this thinking is that the front-runner brands have more to lose, take less risk, and like to grow market share incrementally. From a marketing perspective, this usually means the marketing is “stay the course” and communications become less innovative and fun. (Sid Lee prides itself on bold agendas.) In contrast, challenger/tier II brands have a lot less downside and a lot more upside. Therefore, these brands are more willing to try bold initiatives to shake things up. That’s why most, though not all, of the boldest campaigns come from 2nd rank players. Let’s do a couple comparisons.

Coca-Cola (a quintessential Tier I brand) has made excellent ads throughout its history, but generally speaking, their campaigns followed non-risky scripts around cute polar bears and attractive international people singing in“perfect harmony.” Pepsi (historically, a tier II brand), was not on the cola radar screen until they made bold moves in the 1980s to shake up the cola market. Pepsi’s daring “More people prefer the taste of Pepsi, Pepsi Challenge” and “The Choice of the New Generation campaign with Michael Jackson” campaigns created the cola wars directly at the expense of Coke. (By the way, both of the Pepsi campaigns were incredibly innovative at the time). If you still need more examples about the tier IIs making more brave marketing efforts, consider the Apple campaigns back when Apple was a tier II brand. The 1984 and Mac communications were incredibly bold gestures. Today, of course, Apple is the tech leader largely through smart products and branding. But, with more to lose, Apple now stays closer to typical incumbent brand strategies and communications. All that to say, Apple is a great example how a tier II brand can become tier I.

This takes us to political party branding in Canada. What I’m going to write in this blog is not about any political view. It is about how the Conservatives and Liberals have managed their brands in this 2011 election campaign.

When the election was called on March 26th, the Conservatives were the front runners (tier I ) and polling somewhere around 35% national support. The Liberals, the “natural governing party of Canada” and main challenger, held the tier II spot with around 25% national public support. While all parties knew an election was at hand, very quickly, the Conservatives put forth their brand positioning which centered around two core brand values:

1) Economic stability through measured, cool-headed, calculated policies;
2) Tough-on-crime.

I picked a day (April 16th) to check out the Conservative party leader’s Tweet as a proxy for positioning support. Take a look at how focused the official Steven Harper Tweeting is on the message about crime:

Punishing human smugglers. Victims count and criminals must pay their debt. Conservative tough on crime vs. the coalition (unstable government) soft on crime. Tough on sex crimes. This is tight, narrow, risk-free messaging to support the Conservative brand position. There is nothing bold or exciting here. It is classic market share leader branding messaging- with the tone you would expect from Tide or Crest. What about Harper limiting press questions? That is classic front-runner election tactics if you are risk averse. It might not be desired in a democracy, but it is effective brand management.

Now, let’s check out the Liberal leader’s Tweets on the same day.

Ignatieff's Tweets are about "rising up". What the hell is he talking about? By the time Ignatieff was Tweeting these comments, had already be panned in the press. (His “rise up” comments were being compared to the Howard Dean scream in main stream press.) Trolling through other Liberal Tweets and you find ad-hoc, helter-skelter messaging that rarely has consistent purpose. Translation: The party appears adrift. The Liberal party doesn’t have (or isn’t communicating) its brand values. That’s a classic brand positioning problem.

So what should the Liberals be doing/have done? Refer back to my friend from Sid Lee. If you have a clear market share leader that is tough to dislodge, the challenger needs a bold move. Unlike Pepsi which has years to claw at Coke, the election cycle is only a few weeks long for the Liberals to overtake the Conservatives. So if you run a party brand, you have to pick something that is going to resonate with voters right away. This year the bold move ought to relate to the economy. Ignatieff, would have been wise to revisit Clinton’s 1992 cliche: “It’s the economy, stupid.”

How about this for a bold move for challenger party? “It’s time to start connecting Canadians with efficient high speed rail from Windsor to Quebec City, through Toronto and Montreal. In the west, let’s start with Edmonton to Vancouver." This type of effort could support a Liberal position of “smart economics” by creating jobs now and lowering future transportation costs - and “national unity” by linking the country just like Sir John A MacDonald did. By doing this, it would also bite into some tasty Conservative underbelly (e.g. environmental issues, the party's limited vision).

Now the high speed rail idea may not be the right one, but taking a position (ie. 2 brand values) that is supported by a daring idea (e.g. the high speed rail) will set the news agenda, capture the imagination of Canadians, and attract votes. But the Liberal party seems to be content as the 2nd place party. As a Canadian, I am frustrated by this because I am a firm believer in competition and choice. I want all of my national leaders to generate healthy ideas to be incorporated in the national dialogue and agenda. But right now, the Liberals have a highly intelligent man heading a party that does not have a position. Ignatieff may very well have the abilities to lead the nation, but without a proper management of the Liberal brand during the election, he is not in the game to get that chance. In contrast, Harper has, for the most part, effectively managed his party's brand by employing a classic "front-runner-risk-averse" campaign throughout the election. By the Obama standard, if you can (brand) manage your campaign well, you are (largely) qualified to lead the country. You may or may not like what the Conservatives do (or do not do), but the Conservative leader has a better understanding of party branding than his nearest rival. And that is a fundamental reason why the Conservatives are going to be re-elected.

The weirdest & worst of the web: Handerpants

2011-04-16T06:28:00.000-07:00

Here's another contribution to "The Weirdest and worst of the web" from one of my readers.

According to the brand's web site, there are hundreds of uses for Handerpants.

Hey, I use mine for day blogging too.

Career Advice to Graduating Students

2011-04-04T13:36:00.001-07:00

It’s the end of another academic year. For profs, this means that there are 3 certainties: final assignment grading; mark submission; and a lot of students swinging by for career advice. Tonight, I dedicate this blog to my graduating students, friends, and readers who are embarking on a new career journey. By the way, get ready for some clichés tonight. But as my good friend (and branding mentor) Professor Demetrios Vakratsas says, “clichés are usually true.” (Demetrios gives it 110% every time that he teaches).

What a lot of students do not know is that their profs really care about them. The entire teaching proposition is predicated around the idea that the prof (and his/her course) will make the student better on exit of the course than he/she was on entry to the course. For the prof (to use another cliché), teaching is about molding the future leaders of society. It is a privilege and a wonderful responsibility to be entrusted with this purpose.

When students seek advice from me on career, I tell them that my perspective (which you will see below) is only one perspective. It is only to be incorporated in to the mix of advice which should come from parents, siblings, employers, mentors, friends, other profs - and insights from personal reflection.

Having said that, career launch for a graduating student is a very exciting time. It’s one of the very few times in life when the career chalk board is blank and there are very few career choice constraints. Picking a career path is a tall order for anyone, much less a 23 year old (or younger), who has limited experience and exposure to industry. A lot of what I write about tonight will be based on advice given to me from others and some of it is based on what I wish others had advised me. Nothing that I write is rocket-science, but my hope is that it will be helpful to my readership.

So, here goes:

1. Love what you do
Any sports-caster would be proud of me for starting off with a cliché, and this line is about as cliché as it gets: Love what you do. As Confucius said, “Find a job you love and you'll never work a day in your life.” It’s profound and simple- and the ancientness of it suggests that ever since Adam (or at least Confucius), people have searched for their role in life. But the idea of getting paid for what you would otherwise be doing is an awesome concept. I remember watching Sylvester Stallone on Oprah (just writing that line is going to cost me a lot of readership!) and he spun this ancient concept as “Find out what you would do without pay, and do that for your career.” In other words, if you love coming up with zany ideas, work in advertising or new product development. If in your spare time you love drawing- make advertising storyboards or write comic books. If horses are your thing, work with horses. The underlying assumption, of course, is that if you really like what you do, you will want to do it more, likely be better at it, and as the experience accrues, so too does the expertise.

How do you find out what you really love (or like) doing? If you don’t already know, here are a couple reflection exercises. One: Keep a detailed hour-by-hour diary for a week. See how you spend your off-time. Revisit the entries and examine where your leisure time is enjoyed. Two: Answer this question. If you never have to work another day in your life, what would you be doing day-to-day and month-to-month?

2. Be good at something, and the bad stuff, fahggetabout it
Like it or not, the market rewards expertise. If you are the world’s fastest runner- you’re going to be sought out for races and endorsements. Now very few folks will ever be the best in the world at something (Kudos if you are!), but if you are the best waffle maker in your town, you are likely going to sell a lot of waffles. Before you know it, you’ll be attracting customers from the surrounding areas and beyond. Make yourself the better mousetrap.

A good friend of mine did a lot of hiring at McKinsey. According to him, their staffing involved hiring based on “spikes”. Spikes are nothing more than areas that people are really good at. Imagine that, the world’s top business consulting firm hiring on this simple principle. Your spike might be problem solving. It might be motivating people. It might be something else. But, if you are good at something, it is easy to be successful doing it.

It is usually not too hard to identify the spikes- just think back on life when you constantly were “winning” at something. Maybe you won public speaking awards all your life. Maybe your friends always ask for your interior design advice. Still need a little more help finding your spike? Try a Myers-Briggs test). It can be a useful tool to help align personality types with spike- and careers.

I’m not quite finished on this "be good at something" either. The concept (which is not my line- but comes from a friend of mine) puts the emphasis on what you are good at. There is a natural flip-side to it too. If you are investing time and energy at being good at something, it also means that you are doing less stuff that are naturally bad at. I remember having drinks with a former MBA student of mine. He had really bought in to this idea of knowing what he was really good at and focusing on that. Over drinks one night he said, “Bob, I just focus on what I’m best at – which are operations and leading people. The stuff I am not good at, I leave for others who are competent in those areas.” I remember “cheers’ing" the glasses while saying, “Dude you’re going to be my first former student CEO.” He’s now 3rd in command of one of the world’s largest alcohol brands. Guess what he’s doing? Leading a massive operations team.

3. Suck the Marrow out of Life
When I was a teenager, my sister Jacqueline, who was master of hooky one-liners, told me, “We’re just renting life.” If we are LUCKY, we are able bodied long enough to do some cool things. But, one day, we all get the call of failing health/death. Marrying this reality with my dad’s favourite cliché, “Son, no one ever wishes that he spent more time at the office when he is on his deathbed”, we can get a life orientation. In other words, work comes second to the most important things in life: family and friends (and relationships and experiences with them).

There are two exercises that I encourage everyone to do. First, make a list of the “cool things to do before you die.” Then, make the list happen. There is ZERO reason to put this off. I’ve been doing this for over 10 years now (because of one of my friends had mentioned that he was doing it). What I find is that the more stuff I cross off my list, the more stuff I want to do. The more stuff on the list that I do with family and friends- the stronger my relationships with them become. It's solid winning. Lists can include anything from “spending 3 months volunteering in an impoverished area” to “writing a cook book.”

The second exercise comes from an academic. A couple of years ago, I had the pleasure of hearing Professor Marshall Goldsmith speak at a business conference. Marshall is a super-premium coach for Fortune 500 CEOs. I can’t be as eloquent as he is, but the gist of the exercise is this.

“Picture yourself as a 99 year old man (woman) taking your last breaths of life. You’ve got time to write one last letter to yourself. What would that wise 99 year old man or woman write to you today?”

Thinking about that still gives me goosebumps.

4. Baby Steps
Here is another cliché question that those entertaining new jobs ought to ask themselves.

“What is your ideal job? Describe it.”

These perfect jobs are often “a few years down the road”- especially for those starting off on a career. But there is no time like the present to lay the foundation for that career. Once that ideal job has been reasonably identified, take some baby steps to reach it. Are there any skills to pick up to help you get to that position? Every term, I tell my students to use their university projects as a platform to develop industry expertise and relationships with potential employers. If you are still in school and cosmetics rock your world, why not do all of your projects on L’Oreal, Maybelline, Mac and Mary Kay? You are doing the work anyway. Plus the prof will likely give you constructive comments on the projects. If your paper is a “rockstar”, then present it to the company. If you are the Human Resource Manager at L’Oreal, who would you rather hire? Young woman #1 who has a marketing degree- OR – Young woman #2 who holds a marketing degree but over the course of that marketing degree used Market Research class to investigate consumer shopping patterns of cosmetics, Brand Management class to audit cosmetic brands, and Advertising class to create communications for a cosmetic brand?
If you are out of school, these baby steps still work. Start a blog on a topic related to a topic that you are interested in, for example. Consistent baby steps help you become "good at something".

5. Have the right philosophies
There are two philosophies that I would like to close off with tonight. While not directly related to life choices and career, they still support the notions that I wrote about above. The first relates to dreams. The second relates to gratitude.

Dreams:
My last blog post was about brand Rebecca Black. She’s the 13 year old child who put out a video that has around 90 million You Tube views. Her video gets ravaged by commenters on YouTube with hundreds of comments like, “Go kill yourself. Your music is so bad”. Reading these comments deeply troubled me, so I wrote the following as a comment on Rebecca Black's YouTube channel.

“To all the haters out there, please spend time pursuing your own dreams, rather than trying to destroy someone else’s.”

If you “support the dreams” of others, there is a selfish spillover benefit too. There are a lot more celebrations to go to and that's a lot of fun.

I’ll share a personal story about how supporting the dreams of someone else came back to reward me personally.

A few years ago, a former student of mine asked me to oversee an independent study. For profs at McGill, these requests are a pain-in-the-ass because independent studies are time consuming (due to bureaucracy and actual study mentorship) and you don’t receive any compensation or credit for it. This student, however, had a dream to work in professional sports (hockey or football) marketing. (He understood points 1 and 2 above). As such, I chose to support his dream. His independent study was excellent and he used it as a platform to launch his professional sports marketing career. Since then, he has been excelling in sports marketing and growing professionally ever since. But here is the kicker. On my "list of things to do before I die", I had listed: “Learn how to play the guitar, write a song and have it played in a stadium.” (What a long shot, right?) Well, the song that I wrote for my nephew’s 5th birthday about his imaginary friend was played at a the sold-out Family Day at the Calgary Stadium. (Check it out here). My former student (totally an awesome guy) became the director of marketing of a professional football team and volunteered to support one of my dreams. That's gratitude and takes us to a discussion of gratitude.

Gratitude
Last year a former student of mine asked for a letter of reference. I hadn’t heard from her in 7 years so I was pretty surprised she asked me for a letter of reference. I dug up her file and realized that she had performed at the top of her class. Thirty minutes later I had finished her letter of reference- and it was a beauty. Since this was a non-confidential letter, I forwarded it back to her. A week later she replied this:

“Since it is so nice I need two more. Make them out to these addresses:”

I complied. Another week later this note:

“I need one more. It goes to this address:”

I did that again, and forwarded it on to her. What was incredible was this: Over the 4 correspondences that I had with her, I did not receive a single “Please” or a “Thank you”.

A week later, the phone rang. It was one of the potential employers advising me that my former student was about to be made a lucrative offer. The manager responsible for hiring said, “We read your letter of reference for xxxx and it was really strong. As part of our hiring routine we follow up." After reinforcing the letter in a phone conversation, the employer asked me, “Is there anything you think could be improved on from this candidate? “To which I replied, “As I wrote in my letter, based on my in-class experiences, she is a highly competent individual with world-class abilities. The only thing that disappointed me was that I did not receive a thank you after writing her reference letter.”

The manager on the other end of the phone said, “Say no more. We won’t be making her the offer.”

You could argue that this former student was unprofessional. But in reality she lost a job because of a lack of gratitude. Her failure to say “Thank you”.

Rebecca Black: Who Dat Girl?

2011-03-30T10:28:00.001-07:00

One of my readers sent me this one for "weirdest and worst of the web". It's Rebecca Black's viral "hit" Friday. I'm pretty sure you've all seen it and heard someone mock it. But if you haven't seen it (or if you want to watch it again ;-) )you can check it out here.

So far, the teeny-bopper's Friday video has 82 million (and counting) YouTube views and has been featured on a number of late night talk shows. Even Stephen Colbert sang it on Jimmy Falloon Late Night. But here is what my reader thought was weird. Rebecca's official vanity-made video has an 8:1 ratio of dislikes to likes on YouTube. Numerically, there are 1.6 million You Tube dislikes and 200,000 likes. My reader is right. It's an anomaly when entertainment is so wildly unliked but still gets popular.

Just for the heck of it, I thought I would run my own quick and dirty brand equity experiment. The traditional brand equity experiment is this. You take a branded product and compare it to a non-branded equivalent product. The non-branded product is considered "zero equity". The differential between the branded and the non branded is the brand equity. Pretty simple stuff. So I asked this question:

You have the choice to listen to only one of the following "pop" music artists all night.

Rebecca Black (Singer of the Friday song)
or
Rebeca Jackson (A singer you have never heard of)

Which musical artist will you select?

Here are the results from 60 responses.

According to my unscientific results of the survey, Rebecca Black has negative brand equity. In other words, her brand is a liability. Given the YouTube dislike ratings, this finding is hardly surprising. The comments on YouTube give some additional perspective on where this "negative equity" comes from. Some argue that her song is just plain bad. Some post that the lyrics suck. (But, I Got a Feelin', We R Who We R, and We're Not Gonna Take it aren't exactly Shakespearian.) Others criticize her voice. (Bob Dylan's voice is iconic but is a lot wierder) Others trash Black because they speculate that she is a spoiled kid whose parents purchased her song production and video for vanity purposes. (Music being made vanity purposes and an artist's desire for adulation! Wow, that's never happened before!) I'm going to argue that the traditional brand equity measure is missing something- the platform that Rebecca has created via her brand awareness.

I've spent quite a bit of time on this blog commenting on how difficult it is to capture consumers' attention. Developing brand awareness has never been so competitive - and keeping it more challenging. But Rebecca has got it- and now can leverage it. In a world of sexually explicit music (eg. Akon, Katy Perry, Enrique Iglesias), Rebecca has a refreshing angle to work: clean, catchy teenage pop. Through a carefully orchestrated public relations campaign and a little help from a polished producer, Rebecca can be on the highway stardom. Think of it this way, if only 1/9 of Black's YouTube visitors come back to check out her next single (in keeping with the ratio of her likes:dislikes), that's still around 10 million downloads- more than the number of downloads that veteran performers Flo-Rida/ Akon's hit Who Dat Girl has. That's not a bad platform for Rebecca to start from.

The wierdest & worst of the web: online branding stuff

2011-03-29T13:54:00.000-07:00

I was checking out retro brands today for an upcoming post. I ended up at the Mission Company web site. How anyone thought this home page makes a great impression of the brand is beyond me. Feel free to send me the wierdest / worst / ugliest brand pages on the Net - or other off-the-wall-stuff - and we'll make this part of a regular feature.

The war of names within war

2011-03-29T08:20:00.000-07:00

Here’s an addendum to yesterday’s post on names.

Next time you watch the news, check out the branding (and naming) of military ideas and terms. The examples below are overly simplified- but they are there to make a branding point.

Throughout the 1980s, the Americans were supporting the Afghan “freedom fighters” in their fight against the Soviets. A space shuttle launch, which was super cool back then, was even dedicated to the “freedom fighters”. For the last 8 years, this same “freedom fighter resistance” has been renamed the “Taliban” and “Al Qaeda”. I support the “freedom fighters” but let's kick some “Taliban” butt.

In Libya, the American led military coalition is supporting the “rebels”. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the troops are fighting the “insurgents”.

It seems not a lot of people support “torture” but “enhanced interrogation techniques” can gain quite a bit of support.

We went from the hard line “war on terror” (Bush) to the milder “overseas contingency operations”(Obama 1) although it appears not a lot has changed in actual military ops.

Let’s not forget the Patriot Act (which is an acronym for Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act). Which American wouldn’t want to be a patriot immediately after 9-11? It is unlikely such an intrusive and sweeping act would have passed (or mostly renewed by Obama) under a more “neutral” brand name.

Words mean things- especially brand names. In the military and politics, the name alone can rally support around an idea or group- even though sometimes, not much has really changed.

What makes a great brand element?

2011-03-28T11:57:00.000-07:00

The beauty(and problem) with a branding/business/marketing blog like this is that there are so many things to write about. Canada's got an election coming up and there is so much to say about political party branding and positioning. There are geopolitical developments around the world that are shaping the future of the business climate. Furthermore, I still have to present #3, #2, and #1 of the most difficult branding decisions. Add on to all of that- several guests have agreed to provide their perspectives on marketing topics in the upcoming months. Indeed there are so many topics- and so little time. Tonight everything gets bumped because a good friend asked me a question related to brand names. Instead of cranking out a long email to him, I'm blogging on it for his benefit - and for others who are making naming decisions.

My friend is senior exec of a major corporation who is heading up a chunk of his organization's new branding. The company is most likely coming up with a new brand name, logo, slogan, and color scheme. These aspects of the brand (name, logo, slogan, colors, characters, jingles, scent) are what academics call brand elements (or brand identities). Keller (1993, 2008) defines brand elements as trademarkable devices that are used to identify the brand. And my friend's question, "What makes a great brand name?", is one that I've been asked by a leader of a political party, brand managers, a managing director of a non-profit organization, 2 supermodels, 2 pop stars (no not Beiber), a philanthropist who donated millions to a university, entrepreneurs, and presidents of companies. "Brand elements" is one of the sexiest marketing topics out there and is also one my favorite topics. SK, this one is for you dude!

I've looked at a lot of frameworks to evaluate a great brand element. The best framework that I have come across so far is what I call the Montreal Map (MTL MAP) framework. (It is largely based on Keller's 2008 Strategic Brand Management work)

A great brand element should be: Meaningful, Transferable, Likable, Memorable, Adaptable, and Protectable. Take the first letters of each word and you get MTL MAP. (I owe this insight to a former student of mine.)

Meaningful: If I say "Speedy Muffler" what do you know about the service just from the name? It's fast muffler repair. If I had a company that competed against Speedy in fast muffler repair services and called it "Bob's Muffler", I would have to spend lots of money advertising linking "Bob's Muffler" to "fast service" (see Seth Godin's Guerrilla Marketing for more extensive discussion on this). Speedy Muffler doesn't have to spend that money because the brand's value proposition (fast muffler service) already embedded in the name. But, a name doesn't have to be as descriptive as Speedy Muffler (We will see below that it shouldn't be actually). In North America, Haagen Dasz sounds exotic, European and imported - so it conveys an upper-end brand with out being too descriptive of the product offering. "Ok", you might say, "we think that only because we know Haagen Dasz." I disagree. Let's go to another example. As far as I know there is no brand out there called "Finnissio". Give the name some cursive writing and I'll bet you anything that it will conjure up refined, European, feminine imagery for most North Americans. That's what I mean by having a name that is meaningful to the brand.

Transferable: Why can Nike cross over into so many categories and countries? Nike, as many of us know through the company's promotion, is the Greek God of Victory. But when it comes to the name, "Nike" can be spoken/written reasonably well in many different languages. The name is also flexible enough to extend from running shoes to yoga pants and hockey skates. If writing the name Nike runs into problems in some other language's script (say Chinese), for example, Nike can just use its logo. The swoosh is extremely transferable logo across categories and geographies. Generally speaking, logos are more transferable than names. That being said, the overall idea here is to make sure that the brand element is not going to be incongruent with new categories or have a bad interpretation in other geographies/languages/cultures.

"Ahhhha," you say. "Speedy Muffler fails here". You're right. Names that are too descriptive run into trouble if the brand expands to other product categories. For example Speedy Muffler does not work as a great brand name if it provides transmission overhauls or brake pad servicing. To get around that Speedy could become Speedy Auto Care") So think about the categories your business is going to be in- and the geographies that it will be operating. A little extra prep time here can save all sorts of headaches down the line.

Likable. This is the most subjective part of the criteria. A great brand element should just "feel" right. Call this the emotional side of selecting an element. I ask my class: how many of you like the London 2012 logo below? About 2/50 usually give it a thumbs up. About 48/50 say "it sucks really bad". Even after explaining the descriptive nature (look closely and you will see "2010" written in the shape of the city of London) one student asked me if the logo was a joke. The real joke is that the London Olympic committee spent about 400,000 British pounds on just the design of the logo. Jokes and expenses aside, selecting brand elements gets people within the organization passionate. I've seen this time and time again. Quite frankly, there are a lot of bad brand elements out there that not only do not help the brand- but hurt it - precisely because some folks get emotional on the selection.

Memorable. A brand element ought to be easily recalled and recognized. The aim of the brand element is to have the identity of the brand stick in the customer's brain. My professional recommendation (generally) is that the logo ought to be distinctive for recognition purposes- and the name/slogan should tend to use familiar words so they are easier to retrieve when the customer is given a cue. This combination can be tricky, but understanding the nuances between "recognition" and "recall" is very important.

Adaptable. Times change. Customer views change. Company brand values evolve. The elements need to evolve over time to stay relevant. Unless you were going for the retro-feel, would the original Tony the Tiger work today? The original Tony was such a wimp.

Protectable. Remember the Keller definition of the element? Trademarkable devices used to identify the brand. Organizations need to have trademark searches in the regions where they plan to trade the brand - and legal protections filed for the brand. This part of the job is getting tougher and tougher to do as more and more brands have international trade territories. Of course, protectability goes far beyond the trademark. Consideration has to be given to protecting the elements online. I learned this one from personal experience. One of my company's brands: Peachtree had full trademark protection in Canada for the space it operated in. But when it came time to reserve domain names, someone had beaten us to the Peachtree.com punch. The online aspect includes consideration for commonly mis-spelled url entries - and even being proactive to block hater web sites. For example, why wouldn't Wal Mart want to take ownership of WalMartsucks.com (and derivatives) to prevent haters from developing nasty sites? That's part of brand element protection.

Best of luck with Brand Elements!

The Magical Branding of Disney

2011-03-21T22:31:00.000-07:00

I just came back from Walt Disney World (Florida) and I’m tanned and stoked. I'm stoked not just because Disney is truly a magical imagination playground for kids and kids at heart- but because Disney has done an exceptionally excellent job at branding. There are so many directions that I could take tonight’s post- but I’ll focus on just one key part: the consistent and integrative promotion of Disney brand values. But first, some fun facts that would make David Letterman proud:

• Walt Disney World size: 47 square miles of property.(2) That’s about double the size of Manhatten.
• One third of Disney World property is developed, one quarter will always be preserved in its natural state. (1)
• More than 75 million Cokes are consumed each year at Walt Disney World Resort along with 13 million bottles of water.(1)
• 62,000 employees work at Walt Disney World Florida (1)
• About 47 million visitors visit Walt Disney World per year. (2) That makes it the most visited tourist attraction on the planet. Incidentally, Times Square is #2 at 45 million.(3)
• Since 1971, an estimated 1.65 million pairs of glasses have been returned to Walt Disney World's "lost bin".(1)
• There is a tree farm on site so that when a mature tree needs to be replaced, a thirty-year-old tree will be available to replace it.(1)
• More than 30 tons of fruits and vegetables grown at The Land pavilion at Epcot are served in Walt Disney World restaurants.
(1)

The Magic of Walt Disney
The Disney brand is about magic, memories, and Americana wholesomeness. Each of these intangible values are intertwined and impeccably guarded through Disney’s brand building measures. Very little of the brand is left to chance- and so much of it is steeped in Walt’s vision. I watched a video on the founding of Disney at one of the pavilions. Walt started Walt Disney parks where children and parents could be whisked away into a world of imagination. He resented the foul language and “dirty” living habits of carnival people. In a world that has been desensitized to “immoral living”, when you walk in a Disney park, you won’t hear foul language, see R-rated attire, drunkards, or litter.

But it is the “magic” value that drives the Disney brand. Anyone quasi-familiar with the Disney brand viscerally understands that Disney magic does not mean what David Copperfield magic means. Disney magic refers to that imagination zone- where anything is possible. It is the magic of adventure, childhood escapism, cartoon dreams and never having to grow up. It involves the magic of being in a world of innocence and make-believe- a place where goodness triumphs and fun flourishes.

I tell my students that “there are 3 ways to build a brand” (theoretically they are brand elements, marketing programs, and secondary associations). These brand builders largely refer to consumer touch-points and Disney masterfully executes on all of them. Check out this quick selection of how “magic” is constantly emphasized in Disney's branding efforts.

• Walt Disney World’s Flagship Park: Disney’s Magic Kingdom
• Walt Disney’s World’s Flagship Pavillion: Magic Castle
• Magic Kingdom’s official slogan: The Most Magical Place On Earth
• Walt Disney World’s Bus: Disney’s Magical Express Bus
• Walt Disney Cruise: Disney’s Magical Cruise
• Disney/Coke co-brand drink machine (click here): Where magic is real.
• Employee greetings at the Disney Boardwalk hotel – “Have a magical day”

Of course, the Disney characters, pavilions, promotions (“Welcome to Walt Disney World. Come and enjoy the magic of Walt Disney World Resort in Orlando, FL”),signage, and employees (“Have a magical day Bob") support this magical brand value. Heck, even Aladdin asking me if I wanted to go on a magic carpet ride reinforced the notion. By the way I accepted under the condition that I could go alone with Jasmine. Instead Aladdin and Jasmine agreed to the picture below.
As a kid I was a fan of Disney. As a marketing professional, I am impressed with its branding.

Tablet Wars – iPad vs Everyone Else

2011-03-16T13:10:00.000-07:00

A while back I put out a call to some industry captains. These are folks who have rich experiences with brands and deep knowledge in a particular industry. I invited them to do some guest lectures. Today I am proud to post the tablet-thoughts of a tech-captain. Take it away Greg.
* * *
As someone who has been deeply involved with the high-tech industry and as an all-around avid gadget consumer, Bob asked me if I would write a guest blog about the burgeoning tablet “wars”. I'm happy to share my thoughts with you today.

Some background: At CES 2011 in Las Vegas, it seemed almost every company - and every brand- was announcing an iPad “killer”. The most serious threat to the iPad’s market share dominance was emerging from the Android 3.0 Honeycomb tablets such as the Motorola Xoom – a big winner at the show. Of course, there are others as well – the HP TouchPad, RIM’s Playbook and let’s try not to forget the Microsoft based tablets – but today we will focus Google’s Android platform.

Recently, the tone from the pundits has changed from touting the new tablets to a discussion on what they need to do in order to pose a more serious threat to the iPad. I’ve been struck by how these professional opinions often miss the key marketing components of the iPad’s success.

Communicating the Brand's Value Proposition
The Apple of today, perhaps better than any other company, knows how to create and communicate a value proposition. Take a look at the marketing of the iPad2 – everything from Steve Jobs’ keynote address, to the Apple website, to the TV commercials – clearly communicates what an iPad is and why you want one - See: http://www.apple.com/ca/ipad/#video

These reasons – a blend of emotional and cerebral – focus on:

• The beautiful and practical design
• The cool things you can do with it
• The ease with which you can do cool things

Marketing For and By Techno-Geeks
Next, let’s take a look at the Motorola Xoom’s Super Bowl ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgOX9mb7V4o
This ad references the ground breaking 1984 ad that Apple used to launch the Macintosh. But how well does this commercial communicate the product’s value proposition? In general, I’d say it does a poor job. While it provides a glimpse of two features that the iPad does not have – 1) vector based maps (definitely a techno-geek feature); and 2) the cameras – the main message is that you should buy a Xoom because it will “empower you”. It’s not super clear what you will be empowered to do but apparently the loveliest of the drones will be impressed. I suppose the commercial is designed to appeal mostly to hardcore techno-geeks.
Let’s compare it with this TV commercial for the iPad2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9tXJ5UqXsg

This campaign is all about the cool things you can do with an iPad. If you didn’t know why you wanted an iPad, you probably now have a good idea.
Which brings me to CNET’s Top 5 ways that Android Tablets can beat the iPad (according IDC Research’s survey of app developers – do you already sense this is going to be problematic?) Click here.

#5 More Places to Buy Apps
I really don’t understand this one – how does the consumer benefit from having more places to buy apps? More apps - yes, better apps –sure... but, as far as I’m concern having more “places” to buy apps only serves to fragment and complicate the user’s experience. (More on fragmentation below).

#4 Honeycomb OS
This refers to Google’s latest operating system Android 3.0 (a.k.a. the Honeycomb OS). It’s designed specifically for tablets and offers the user greater flexibility to customize their workspace. There is definitely a segment of the market that wants more control over their devices – and the complexity that comes with it - but I think most people are interested in using their tablets to do cool things – like consuming or creating new media.

For example: You want to watch a movie. On the iPad you can rent or buy it from the iTunes store. Alternatively you can sign up for Netflix. It seems much more complicated with Android Tablets. Netflix is not offered because of the lack of copyright enforcement mechanisms and there is nothing that rivals Apple’s ecosystem of content from iTunes and apps from the App Store.

#3 More bells and whistles
This is where the pundits and the marketing of Android tablets miss the point. It’s not about bells & whistles per se, it’s about what you can do with those bell and whistles.

#2 Control Fragmentation
Ah yes, fragmentation... Android is more open, flexible and offers more freedom to developers and hardware manufacturers. The result is somewhat chaotic with multiple versions of the Android OS competing in the wild along with the possibility that the hardware manufacturer will add their own customized skin. It’s somewhat of a mess but yes, it could be tamed. However, it will never be able to match Apple’s well developed ecosystem where everything works together seamlessly and simply.

#1 Be Cheaper
It seems competing on price would offer the best potential to vanquish the iPad. If only someone would offer a similarly spec’d tablet at a lower price, perhaps it would make a real dent in Apple’s market share. However, it seems Apple has anticipated this strategy. While Apple has traditionally charged a premium for its products – a Macintosh usually costs 2 to 3 times more than a similar PC – it has decided to price the iPad very aggressively. Clearly, Apple’s intends to dominate this market through volume and the purchasing power that it bestows.

So far we’ve covered: Product, Promotion and Price – 3 of the 4 P’s of the marketing mix. What about Place? Well, where would you rather try, buy, and learn how to use a Tablet? Show of hands please:
1) Wal-Mart
2) Best Buy
3) Rogers Wireless
4) Apple Store

Given Apple’s advantage on all 4 Ps – a superior product with better promotion, at a very competitive price, through a more convenient distribution place – I believe Apple’s dominance in Tablets will continue and that it will be next to impossible for any competing tablets to outsell the iPad anytime soon.

Think I’m wrong? Feel free to let me know your thoughts – comments make a blog interesting ;-)

The scourge of government on brand MBA McGill.

2011-03-15T19:37:00.000-07:00

McGill University got hammered with a $2-million fine by the Quebec government. The "crime": raising its tuition for an MBA – from $1,700 to $29,500. Premier Jean Charest's Education Minister Line Beauchamp argued that keeping universities on equal financial footing is crucial to making them accessible to all.

There are many reasons why the overall government decision is wrong. We could list them alphabetically, chronologically, by order of importance... A few of the reasons are presented in McGill University's press release below, but before I reproduce that, I am going to say a few words on McGill University and branding.

McGill University is THE crown jewel of Canadian university brands. It's the brand that gets a proud Canadian shout-out by William Shatner at the closing ceremonies of the Vancouver Olympics; it is the emblem that the Canadian men's hockey coach insists on wearing during the gold medal game at the Olympics; it is the name that appears in international photos in the New York Times; and it is the brand that gets knocked -along with Ivy league schools- on the Simpson's. The school is anything but just another university. Its notable alumni include nine Nobel Laureates, one hundred thirty-one Rhodes Scholars, three astronauts, two Canadian prime ministers, four justices of the Canadian Supreme Court, three foreign leaders, nine Academy Award winners, three Pulitzer Prize winners, and twenty-eight Olympic medalists (Wikipedia). In management, Henry Mintzberg is easily considered one of the world's best management minds. Who wouldn't want to study at such a school?

But let's get back to the McGill MBA program and its economic realities. Currently, the cost of educating an MBA student is about $10,000 more than the combined revenues from government grants and tuition fees. Take a class of 100 students and that is a $1,000,000 funding shortage per year. So how can the McGill MBA (at the Desautels Faculty of Management) maintain a competitive brand with its natural international competitive set (London Business School, Insead, HEC Paris, etc) when it is financially disadvantaged relative to its privately funded counterparts? Dollars mean better profs, better facilities and better marketing to attract the best students. Private tuition means more accountability to the students. Collectively, these help to build the MBA school's brand. If governments are unwilling to crank up education funding rates to a competitive level so the brand can be supported, an injection of funds through privatization is a necessary option. Furthermore, an MBA is the natural degree to privatize. Why? Most MBA students are already in management positions and, by nature of what they study, they realize the fundamental concept "Value = Benefits - Cost" more than students from other disciplines. Paying $30 k per year for 2 years to get a pay hike of $30 k immediately on graduation happens all the time in business. This doesn't happen in art history, theology or psychology.

Here is a glimpse of the MBA mindset from MBA360: "The average cost for an MBA is between $80,000 and $130,000 for the two-year course. With MBA courses the more you pay, the greater the benefit. The more prestigious the school, the more expensive the tuition. This is one area where the brand name, or the name of the academic institution that you choose, will definitely make a difference, both in the type of education you receive and how potential employers perceive your degree."

If this is the mindset of an MBA student, then the McGill MBA program price hike may not even be enough to support where brand McGill MBA is - or is going. The applying students and the firms hiring from McGill will ultimately make that call. But McGill "gets" this. Applying students understand this. The provincial government doesn't. Ironically, Jean Charest was the one who said, "In politics, common sense prevails, but it is usually the last option." Well Jean, my friend, on that you are right.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, March 15, 2011

McGill disappointed by government’s response on MBA

Program has made remarkable progress since self-funding model adopted

McGill University is perplexed and disappointed with the response of the Government of Quebec to the changes made by McGill to transform the University’s MBA program.

Rather than celebrate the dramatic progress and success McGill has achieved in a short period of time with its renewed and self-funded MBA, the government has imposed a significant fine against one of its own universities.

This action puts an arbitrary, elective and unprecedented exercise of authority of government as a priority over demonstrated quality and program performance.

Since McGill moved to a self-funded program, it has developed an MBA that is attracting top-calibre students from Quebec (some of whom would have otherwise gone outside the province for their MBA), and from elsewhere.

The McGill MBA’s improvements include: leaping from 95th to 57th in the prestigious Financial Times rankings; maintaining stable enrolment rates; having McGill graduates enjoy the highest job placement rates and highest starting salaries in Canada; being ranked by FT as the only Quebec MBA program in the Top 100 in the world.

To sustain the University’s increased investments in its program, McGill moved last fall to a self-funded tuition model under which it does without any government subsidies for its MBA students, thus saving Quebec taxpayers about $1.2 million annually.

McGill has created, at the same time, student aid at a unique level of support for any Quebec university program, on a per-student basis. The McGill MBA program provides an average of $12,000 per student in financial aid.

Quebecers deserve better than to have a top quality program fined. Quebecers deserve a world-class MBA program and McGill is providing it. McGill has demonstrated that it can do so without limiting accessibility, and without doing so on the backs of our undergraduate students.

McGill’s rejuvenated program, now with better facilities, improved student-teacher ratios, top-level professors, improved advising and novel educational elements, costs significantly less than top MBA programs elsewhere in Canada, and the world.

McGill will continue to meet the interests of our students, and of Quebec.

The unCanadian values of the NHL and Zdeno Chara

2011-03-12T07:33:00.000-08:00

In some countries, sport is more than sport. In Brazil, soccer is religion. In Pakistan, cricket reigns supreme. In Canada, Canadians bleed ice hockey. To illustrate this last point, Canada’s 3 largest markets for professional sports all drive at Canadian notions: Montreal Canadiens, Toronto Maple Leafs, and Vancouver Canucks. Further evidence of Canada’s link to hockey- according to TSN, nearly 80% of Canadians watched the Canadian men’s Olympic hockey game.

If a brand sponsors ice hockey in some way (like Tim Horton’s sponsors the NHL and minor league hockey), the brand gets endowed with intensively visceral Canadiana notions. This endowment then stirs up patriotic notions in the consumers’ gut – which increases the likability of the brand. Of course, the reverse is also true. Brand sponsorships reinforce hockey in Canada, furthering interest in the sport. But the brutal back breaking hit by Boston Bruin Zdeno Chara on Montreal Canadien Max Pacioretty shows a deep wedge in “brand values”.

Yesterday, Air Canada pulled its $6 million NHL sponsorship of the NHL after the league failed to consider disciplinary action (beyond the in-game penalty) on Chara. As the Montreal Canadiens’s player lies almost motionless in hospital, there is a debate waging in marketing rooms, Parliament, sports bars and law-enforcement offices about what to do. Let’s be very clear. This is a national story that goes the heart of Canadian values - and has an interesting relationship to brands.

Canadiens and Canadians
Let’s begin with the 3 organizations involved in today’s headlines: Montreal Canadiens, Air Canada, and the NHL. The Montreal Canadiens, as the name suggests, is a Canadiana brand. Air Canada is Canada’s national airline. The NHL is, of course, the guardian of Canada’s national game. But the blurring of Canadiana and brands runs deeper than just business and hockey. At stake are the values of the brands, the players, and of the Canadian people. These public statements issued over the last 24 hours shows just how far apart views on the handling of the hit are.

Air Canada issued this statement:
“From a corporate social responsibility standpoint, it is becoming increasingly difficult to associate our brand with sports events which could lead to serious and irresponsible accidents…”

Gary Bettman, NHL commissioner responded:
“Air Canada is a great brand as is the National Hockey League and if they decide that they need to do other things with their sponsorship dollars, that is their prerogative, just like it is the prerogative of our clubs that fly on Air Canada to make other arrangements if they don’t think Air Canada is giving them the appropriate level of service.” (Globe and Mail, March 11)

The values of Air Canada and the NHL are clearly not in sync.

THE NHL AND PLAYER ALIGNMENT

The NHL is the pre-eminent custodian of Canada’s game. It is the organization that makes the rule of fair play and sets the parameters around player conduct. These rules affect the “values” of the players. In its handling of this situation, the NHL is saying that serious injuries- even death can result from playing in the NHL game. The commentary is cool and rational.

"After a thorough review of the video I can find no basis to impose supplemental discipline. This hit resulted from a play that evolved and then happened very quickly -- with both players skating in the same direction and with Chara attempting to angle his opponent into the boards. I could not find any evidence to suggest that, beyond this being a correct call for interference, that Chara targeted the head of his opponent, left his feet or delivered the check in any other manner that could be deemed to be dangerous...This was a hockey play that resulted in an injury because of the player colliding with the stanchion and then the ice surface. In reviewing this play, I also took into consideration that Chara has not been involved in a supplemental discipline incident during his 13-year NHL career." -

With the NHL's frigid “it’s part of the game” response, should we be surprised, then, that its player Chara (who also belongs to the same players' union as Pacioretty) has (at least to this point) not reached out to Max Pacioretty or his family? I find it hard to believe that any mainstream Canadian who participated in the back-breaking injury of another person – who would not be constantly expressing deep sorrow about the injury, immediately conveying sympathy to the victim’s family, and offering prayers of hope for a recovery. That’s the decent thing to do. These are the values of humanity that Air Canada expected. These are the values that the NHL and its players seem to miss. You see, it's not really about the suspension, this is about the values of sympathy, caring and respect. How unCanadian of the NHL, Canada's guardian of the national game.

Ladies of the 80s . What the hell?!?! and Music video product placement

2011-02-26T16:50:00.000-08:00

God Bless former students

I was having drinks with a former student of mine and he said something really interesting to me: "Every 27 years the fashion cycle repeats itself."

I asked him, "Where did you get that from?"

"The readings you assigned us in Brand Management."

2011 and the 1980s.
If you were around 27 years ago (the mid 1980s), you probably remember it as a very upbeat era. The economy was great and both personal and financial optimism were high (See Theodore Caplow, Howard M. Bahr, John Modell). Upbeat pop and spirited glam rock (e.g. Madonna, Bon Jovi, Starship, Michael Jackson, Journey, Def Leppard, Poison etc.) dominated the music scene. The era's optimistic mood was reflected by the period's music. I remember reading the liner note of the Nelson's After the Rain at the time. They argued that it was music that made the change to a better world. I suspect they are right too. Ultimately, optimism fuels upbeat art. Upbeat art drives optimism.

So what is 2011 like? The 80s style glasses are cool again, women's tight black stirrups and boots are in vogue (and have been for a while), and upbeat pop music is again dominating the charts. A lot of the bands that dominated Billboard's charts in the mid 1980s are mixed in with the best selling artists of today on iTunes. Journey, Heart, Iron Maiden, Pat Benetar, and David Bowie all have best selling iTunes songs. Sometimes both the original 80s and the 2011 remake are selling side-by-side. (e.g. Heart Alone and Alyssa Reid Alone Again) In addition, many of today's artists(especially the ladies) are throwbacks to the 80s. Lady Gaga seems to be Madonna reincarnated. Kesha is Cindy Lauperesque. Katy Perry's melodies are classic, catchy, commercial 80s with a Snoop Dog twist.

So what follows the upbeat, optimism of today's music? If the research proves to be correct, in 4 or 5 years we will be feeling the grays of the dark, anti-establishment, gloomy grunge era. But, for the time being, commercial is cool.

It's (not) About the Music
True artists like to be pure to their art. Watch interviews with new musicians and and you will likely hear something like, "For us its about the music. We don't want to sell out to the corporate pressure." Very few artists, however, don't 'sell out' when they realize that the music business is "80% business, 20% music" (Metallica) and that "the listener is more important than the song" (e.g.Rob Thomas, Def Leppard). Even artists like Avril Lavigne who started off with an 'independent brand value' eventually accept corporate sponsorships. How much has Avril gone corporate? Check out the product placements in her music video "What the Hell". I counted 4 distinct still shots with product placements, including her own fragrance line. I am a little bit bewildered how much Sony product placement there is in the video given her ongoing sponsorship deal with Canon. (Check out her product placement music video here). By the way, if a 90 minute motion picture served up product placements at the rate that Avril is doing here, there would be more than 100 in the film. I'm sure audiences would say "what the hell?!!" to that.

Despicable Celebrities

2011-02-17T12:27:00.000-08:00

The following is an excerpt from Melissa Leong's work in the National Post. Since yours truly had something to say on the topic, I thought I would give a shout out to the article here

"On the weekend, Chris Brown appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live, arguably his highest-profile gig since he pleaded guilty to assaulting then-girlfriend Rihanna in 2009. Meanwhile, it was recently announced that Mel Gibson’s latest film, The Beaver, will finally premiere at the South by Southwest festival in Texas next month. We thought they were untouchable, but now they’re back in the limelight. In this week’s edition of the Post’s Culture Club, we ask whether you can successfully rehab a widely loathed celebrity. Melissa Leong moderates the discussion."

This week’s Culture Clubbers:
• Robert Mackalski, McGill University professor and branding expert.
• Jen McDonnell, managing editor of Dose.ca.
• Laura Kipnis, cultural critic and author of How to Become a Scandal: Adventures in Bad Behaviour.

Robert: Regardless of how despicable the actions, the reality is that celebrity rehab is almost always possible. The public has consistently demonstrated its willingness to forgive the deepest, darkest sins and crimes of celebs. In music, Ozzy Osbourne urinated on the Alamo and attempted to murder his wife. He came back with a hit TV show. In sport, Mike Tyson was convicted of rape and bit off a boxer’s ear only to star in The Hangover. In movies, Robert Downey Jr. became Iron Man after spending time behind iron bars. Why does this happen? People have a love affair with redemption. Literary works — from the Bible to Macbeth — have relied on these universal themes.

See the rest of the discussion here: http://arts.nationalpost.com/2011/02/14/culture-club-forgive-forget/

Getting Value out of Values at $100,000 per second.

2011-02-08T06:12:00.000-08:00

This weekend I heard a comedian quip, "the Superbowl ads are as big as the game". Was she right? A search of "Superbowl commercials 2011" gives "515,000,000 results" while plugging "Superbowl 2011" into the search site gives "46,600,000 results." That's more than a 10 to 1 margin for the ads...

The thing about ads is that everybody has got an armchair expert opinion. It makes sense too, because everyone is a consumer. Some in the media even have a formula. So who are the "winners"?

Christian Science Monitor says that the Chrysler video is a big winner. They cited a metric created by bunch of experts (Mullen, Radian6, and Boston.com). "The two-minute Chrysler spot featuring rapper Eminem received both the highest volume and the most positive content in a stream of 250,000 tweets on Twitter."

CBS News gives their nod to VW's Darth Vader commercial. Hey, 15 million YouTube downloads can't be wrong. If it goes viral, it must be good.

Yet, something is off here. The best ads are not necessarily the ads that have the most Tweets or YouTube downloads. They aren't usually the ads with the funniest storyline. The best ads are ones that drive sales and build brand in accordance with company goals. Sales are the short term metric. Brand power is the most powerful long term meter. To look at the best ads of Superbowl 2011, we don't have sales data to analyze - but we can draw some conclusions on brand.

At its brand-building core, ads are designed to created awareness and link relevant, favorable, unique associations (values) to the brand. With an audience of about 100,000,000 Americans, a Super bowl is nice vehicle to develop awareness. But what is a lot tougher to do is to create an ad with a message that sticks. One of my old advertising mentors used to say "Bobby, the target has got to sum up the message in one word." That may be pushing the limit, but linking the brand to one central idea (or a couple of values) is where its at.

Chrysler’s comeback 2 minute ad has a $12 million air time price tag. The ad's images are gritty. The tone rebellious. The script: "What does this city know about luxury? huh? What does a town that has been to hell and back know about the finer things in life?... We're from America... We're certainly no one's Emerald City..." It concludes with Eminem defiantly stating, "This is the Motor City and this is what we do."

There is a lot of brand value communication in this ad- and these relate to grassroots American values: Honesty. Hard-work. Tradition. (note the flag at 20 seconds and the American monuments). A lot of these values were presumed absent only 2 years ago when Big 3 CEOs flew their private jets to Washington for taxpayer bailouts. Chrysler clearly wants them back. By the way, Eminem was an excellent celebrity endorser for this – given his Detroit roots and gritty, honest, hard-core persona. But there is still something about this ad that doesn't work. The ad emphasizes luxury and I am bewildered how anyone can link luxury to the Chrysler brand given this gritty gritty execution.

The VW Darth Vader ad has an adorable storyline. It's got a lot of the ingredients to make it go viral (click here for previous blog). But what is the key point of this ad? Is it to communicate the remote car start? If it is, the execution is great BUT that is a poor feature advertise on. Why? The best brand building conveys something unique about the brand - especially intangible associations. Almost every car in that class has an optional remote starter.

One of the best ads for communicating a brand value is one that is not getting as much online chatter. That's the Bridgestone Beaver. The message here is extremely clear. Bridgestone gives you control. It gives you traction. It increases your driving performance. The tag line at the end reinforces the message too: "For drivers who want to get the most out of their cars, its Bridgestone or nothing." This ad is not the most Tweeted or downloaded on YouTube - but it conveys the proposition (performance) of Bridgestone extremely clearly. That getting the value out of the values!

The 5 Most Difficult Branding Decisions #4 Branding the Boring

2011-01-30T10:42:00.000-08:00

Branding can be a very glamorous field. A lot of my students tell me how much they would like to name a new fragrance for cK, develop an ad campaign for BMW, organize a Victoria’s Secret Fashion show, or select the newest celebrity endorsers for Adidas. What do these brands have in common? It turns out- a lot. First they are from categories that are naturally appealing to most consumers (cosmetics, performance sports cars, fashion, and sporting goods, respectively). Second, these brands are aspirational and target the mid-to-luxury ends of the market. Third, brands in these categories often make public statements about the individual consuming them. Because of this, it reasonably easy to capture the imagination of consumers and pull their heart strings when marketing these brands. There are a lot of intangible levers to pull.

However, not all brands have equal category opportunity. Some products are functional goods that are privately consumed. In these cases, the category is often boring and the brands so undifferentiated that finding out more about them is not worth a consumer’s while. Price becomes the single driver of purchase. These are areas where private labels thrive. Think of aluminum foil, paper, dishwashing detergents, cans of beans, and plastic food wraps. To the marketer, functional goods that are privately consumed translates into branding the boring.

Branding the boring also relates to B-to-B brands. I recall lengthy discussions with one of my former clients in the mining space. Their issue: Branding their offering of a commodity. It is pretty hard to get customers excited about one type of mud vs. another- or one type of paper over another. Here too functional needs of the client and price dictate the purchase orders. It is a tough gig to brand bauxite, for example.

There is also a double whammo for the branding of the boring too. Talent flocks to companies with the strongest brands. I often ask my students, “Let’s do a poll. Where would you rather work- L’oreal Cosmetics or Laporte Cosmetics? The response is usually about 9:1 for L’Oreal. The stronger brand carries weight for attracting talent, a problem that is all too well known for organizations competing in the boring.

The reality is that branding the boring doesn’t have to be that way. Take batteries, for example. Here is a category that is purely functional and is not only privately consumed- it is always hidden when it is consumed. Very recently, Duracell developed a campaign to excite its boring- and decided to endow Duracell with trust. It could have been marketed only along functional lines (ie how long it lasts.) So what does "trust mean"? When things really matter, when life and death is on the line, when you really care, Duracell is the brand you can rely on. It’s the brand that makes sure your smoke detector will go off to save your family in a fire. It is the brand that is committed to working for you when you need it. It is the brand that understands and cares. It's the loyal friend who won't let you down. This brand from one of the most boring categories of all (batteries) is all of a sudden a lot more exciting. These concepts apply equally well to commodities (think Juan Valdez and Columbian coffee or Chiquita Bananas) and some can be applied to business-to-business branding too. But developing the intangible link in categories that are functional/private – is tricky.

How well can you predict a You Tube hit?

2011-01-27T06:14:00.000-08:00

Here are a few videos that have some legs for viral. Which one is going to have the biggest growth curve? Send me your predictions. Keep in mind, they all have different load-dates and the screen captures indicate how many downloads they have had so far.

Just for fun, let's track the number downloads to see what the growth will look like.

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cSudpyEU9w (the "no no baby")

2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNkLMrROgSk (spanish live TV)

3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWcV5YwFwKk (abercrombie skit)

The next post will be "the 4th most difficult branding decision".

The 5 Most Difficult Branding Decisions - #5 Branding a Late Entrant

2011-01-14T21:07:00.000-08:00

Over my years as a marketing guy, I’ve come across a lot of branding problems for clients. I’ve looked at issues for Fortune 500s companies and start-ups, for-profits and charities, and Canadian firms and international organizations. I thought it would be both fun and insightful to share my experiences and teaching. Tonight will be part 1 of a 5 part series I will call "The 5 Most Difficult Branding Decisions".

#5 Branding a late entrant:
Marketing text books often play up the importance of being first. They call it the first mover advantage and list a bunch of reasons for it- (preferential shelf space, ability to generate more free publicity, first choice of selecting partners etc). While all of this can be true, a real battle, particularly for consumer branding relates to what’s going on in the consumer’s mind. When I talk to my class about this, I sometimes start off with a quiz. Let's do one here.

1. Who was the first president of the United States?
2. Who was the fourth?
3. Twentieth?

The correct answers are Washington, Madison, and Garfield. But if you are like most people, you got Washington, maybe got Madison, and think that Garfield is a cartoon.

In the off-chance that you are a history buff and got the correct answer for Garfield, let’s make the quiz a bit harder. Who was the first American woman in space? Answer Sally Ride. The second? Judith Reznik. But I’m betting you got Sally but not Judith- who also died on her second ride into space in the ‘86 Challenger explosion. By rights, Judith should have received more "mind space" (pardon the pun) - but nope, for most of us she didn't.

Here's an easy one. Who won the most Olympic gold medals in the last summer Olympics? I bet you answered Micheal Phelps (which is correct). But who won the 2nd most? Who cares? (Except for the guy's parents). Ries and Trout have given similar examples in their book “The Battle for Your Mind”. But let’s get some 2011 perspective on why this is. In 2006, the American Academy of Pediatrics published an article saying that the average consumer may be targeted with up to 3000 advertising communications a day. Over the last 5 years this number has gone up as marketers have new ways to reach consumers (e.g. smart phones, ads on applications, more sophisticated internet advertising, fragmentation of media etc). Furthermore, the average consumer also is exposed to tens of thousands of brands as soon as he/she enters a mall or supermarket (A typical supermarket has around 45,000 SKUs). The point is this. It is a brand jungle out there. Accessing the increasingly jaded consumer by breaking through advertising/brand clutter is tougher than ever before. We just saw how much easier it is to “own” some mind space if you are the first. Of course being first is not a prerequisite for success (Google followed Yahoo, Northern Lights, Excite, Infoseek, Webcrawler, Altavista, Lycos and others- and still prevailed) but if you are not first, you have to be significantly faster, stronger, bigger, craftier - or have to spend a lot more money to buy your way into the consumer’s mind.

The best of the best: CES 2011

2011-01-10T07:44:00.000-08:00

Over the last 3 days, one of my clients asked me attend the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. This annual show, which is not open to the public, features more than 2700 companies showcasing their newest technologies and product lines. All of your favorite brands that develop or use technology were there- from automakers to kitchen appliance manufacturers, major television network to designer brands, software companies to university research teams, fitness equipment makers to sound system manufacturers … well you get the idea. The show is a nerd’s playground and a marketer’s dream.

Keep Walking: How big is this show?
I’ve been to a lot of trade shows and conventions before, but nothing comes close to the size of this one. The exhibitor space sprawls over 1.7 million square feet. That’s about the equivalent of 30 football fields (A typical football field including the two end zones is about 57,600 square feet) or 17 square city blocks (Engineers use a typical city block as 100,000 sq. ft. for calculation estimates, which is about 17 blocks per mile).

In Montreal terms, that takes you just about from about Guy street to St. Urbain - and Notre Dame to Dr. Penfield Avenue. In that space there are parks, apartment complexes, hotels, office buildings, and almost 2 complete university campuses. It's a big convention.

The Crowds came: Attendance
This year close to 200,000 people attended the show. Teams of journalists and buyers crawled all over perusing the exhibits and new products. There is no shortage of show coverage on technologies – or the company announcements that major media cover from the show. For example, this year Ford unveiled its first electric car, Motorola introduced it Xoom tablet running Android 3.0. But, my perspective is always on the branding, promotion and products. I visited the lion's share of displays over 3 days to bring you the best of marketing of the show. And, while this was an extraordinarily fun task, it was by no means an easy one. Consider some of these options: I visited the Blackberry booth to play with the Playbook tablet and hung out with Adrian Grenier from Entourage. I blasted amplified guitars with no strings, took pictures with state of the art high-definiton 3D cameras (e.g. Kodak), heard the crispest audio sounds on million dollar theatre speakers, received private tours of wide screen 3D TVs (Panasonic, Sharp), got my picture drawn by one of the world’s most renowned cartoonists (Intel), played with new packaging, steered the car from the Green Hornet motion picture (Sony), demo'd the world’s largest 3D stadium screen (Samsung) and saw presentations from some of the best advertising creatives and special effects guys in the business (Polaroid, Canon). Indeed, it’s been an amazing time. So today, I’ll share my perspective on the best of the show.

BEST MARKETING

Of course sales are the true test of the impact of “best marketing”. But since that information is impossible to have, the criteria that I am using here is a mix of the following: 1. WOW factor; 2. How well the booth communicates the values of the brand; 3. Likability with the audience.

#1. The Canon Circus. (Japan)There are so many “WOW” exhibition booths, but Canon was a cut above. The centerpiece of their presentation was an elaborate (and complete) jungle stage with a full 15 minute Cirque-de-Soleil style theatrical show. Acrobats dressed in wild animal prints bungeed up and down, flew above the crowd in butterfly costumes and dazzled in elaborate costuming. Midway through the show, a discreet photographer appeared (as part of the show) to capture the acrobat’s images on film which were then displayed in high definition on the large screens above. Check out the video here for a 45 second video clip. The communication of the brand’s values and features were even clearer than the high resolution images taken by the photographer: Artistic creativity, stability of the camera, and vibrant color capture. Interestingly enough, Canon’s booth was located directly beside Polaroid’s booth, which also tries to own the “creativity” and “self expression” brand values (hence the Lady Gaga endorsement). At their booth Polaroid had famous ad execs present their works using Polaroid’s cameras, which is cool in its own right. But what would you rather see? Put it this way, I hung out at Polaroid for 10 minutes and Canon for 90.

#2. The future is Audi (Germany).
Even before stepping into the booth you get the brand’s messaging. Audi is the future. You enter into a sleek, spacious booth with an illuminating bright white display. The environment is exactly how movies depict the future. But here you feel the future. In the future things are just working out right. There’s harmony. There’s tranquility. There’s a carbon-fiber Audi R8. In the back, a dazzling (but somewhat discreet) presentation by a guy with a German accent (everyone wants a German engineer) who thoughtfully explains how the future of driving works. You’ll see how Audi has networked sensors to help the driver avoid red lights (saving you up to 15% in fuel costs) and traffic. You’ll hear how your wipers beam with other drivers for immediate weather reports from other drivers. The future looks illuminating. The future looks German. The future is Audi (I should really sell them that copy). I’ve never been a fan of Audi. Today I am a disciple.

#3 Visit Avatar with Nvidia.(USA)

This show had so many much emphasis on 3D technologies: Cameras, printers, video cameras, projectors and stadium screens. Each brand making seemed to blur into another one in this category. I’m definitely no guru on this and quite frankly near the end of the show I was getting nauseous watching 3D (which I understand is a common complaint for viewers of 3D TV), but one brand didn’t stand out here- it leap out. Nvidia makes video cards for graphics. They were showcasing their involvement with 3D and had characters from Avatar present. You could engage with the Avatarians in fake combat and have your photos taken with them. Of course, your photos (both 3D and 2D) are retrievable on the web. At this booth, the actors and actresses were tons of fun. But this brand linked to the masterpiece of 3D theatre- Avatar, giving the brand a lot of credibility in this space. For nerds, a functional thing that differentiated Nvidia was that their technology can take legacy computer games and present them in 3D. To the gamer that is really cool stuff.

#4. Check your heart iDesia (Isreal). It’s not fair to lump the small guys in with the firms that can spend millions of dollars on their convention presences. So, here I am going to recognize the best "small" booth. It's an Isreali brand that makes small sensor plates to extract and interpret heartbeats. It turns out that this information is unique to each individual and can be used for 2 broad purposes. First, it can help individuals have a baseline of heart measures to monitor heart-related issues. Second, it can be very useful for secure bio log-ons. Read that sentence again. If you lost interest then you know how difficult it will be to attract attention of a targeted technology – in a small booth- in a sea of multi-million dollar booths. iDesia’s solution? They hired two pretty actresses to play iDesia nurses and take baseline heartbeats of volunteering (and adoring) males. You could then get a quick heartbeat evaluation which assessed your mood. (My readout said I was “happy”) Some might argue that the use of models in booths cliche, but when they are knowledgeable about the brand – and purposeful for communicating the brand’s values, sometimes it just works. The company's execution of its simple booth got it a nice color spread in the LA Times. At any rate, the iDesia brand was well linked to unique heartbeat and health in an appealing way to the overwhelmingly male audience.

#5 Ear, Eye, Skullcandy. (USA) That takes us to my final "best of exhibit" marketing for the show. The headphone space is saturated but Skullcandy developed a high-octane energy, irrelevant, fun and youthful brand. Their technology may (or may not be) up to snuff but there booth emphasized the intangibles that makes the brand stand out. Centerpieces of this booth were Mike Bless, a live DJ spinning upbeat tracks (ear candy) and fun loving models energizing participants with fun interactive Plinko-type games (of course everyone won something). Once lured in by the energy, you could check out Skullcandy's portfolio. But, what made this exhibit so great is not the technology- but the intangible, hard-to-replicate energy and intangible associations that it linked to the brand. It was the rawest form of image marketing that you could find. You couldn't leave this exhibit without really liking the music of Mike Bless and the brand.

MOST HORRENDOUS MARKETING

#1. Flush it by Yootechpro. At a minimum, firms spend tens of thousands of dollars for their presence at this convention. These costs relate to space rental, staffing, flights, accommodations, design of the booth, printing of the booth, collateral, shipping of equipment etc. The purpose of course is to make sales, brand the build, get publicity, find potential business partners and (sometimes) find investors. There were a few exhibitors that really seemed to miss the point. Check out Yootechpros, maker of tablet accessories. Could someone please explain this to me? Someone at the company had the idea to stick a toilet in the center of the booth and display the Yootchpros product line on it. The message here : “Our product is crap and good enough to flush.” I’m sure this made a favorable impression on sales, partners and investors.

COOLEST PRODUCTS

Anyone taken a marketing course will likely have gone though the 4Ps of marketing. The first “P” is “product” and so here I’ll give my version of “coolest of” what’s coming. And, once again there is a deep well to draw from. Hyundai’s (Korea)hybrid concept car (currently branded as Nuvis) certainly deserves consideration for it style and spaciousness. Blackberry (Canada) unveiled its long awaited Playbook tablet with great fanfare and expense. Cobra (USA) showed its radar detector application for the iPhone. A credit card with a combination lock to prevent fraud was also attracting a lot of attention. All very cool new products...

#1. Bright Packaging. Packaging and distribution are among the lest sexy topics in marketing. But check this out. Fulton Technologies (USA) gives us a glimpse of the future of a grocery store. Consider walking down the aisle to buy cereal and a box of Cheerios lights up. That’s right, through energy conducting shelving- and intelligent packaging, a regular box of Cheerios can light up to attract the attention of the shopper. (It will turn off as soon as you pick up the box) and you wouldn’t even notice any difference in the packaging. Click here for the video. The applications of this go far beyond the example that Fulton demonstrated: dynamic pricing directly on the package, customized information for each shopper (SUGAR FREE could be advertised to a diabetic), customized couponing. Of course the tech could also be helpful on the reordering end. There are clearly a lot of promotional opportunities with this packaging but a lot of water has to go under the bridge before this becomes widespread in retailers. Retailers will have to reshelve their grocery aisles with expensive shelving, manufacturers will have to change their packaging operations which have been honed for decades for efficiency, consumers may resist may resist higher costs/electronic gadgetry/additional waste with this new option.

#2. Snake Camera. Courtesy of some clever graduate students at Carnegie Melon University, here is a remote-controlled snake camera that can climb trees and get into all sorts of tricky places. Check out the video here. An obvious application for this item relates to search and rescue.

#3. Angry Mattel. (USA) What do you get when you have an iPhone game that flutters around 10,000,000 downloads? You get the attention of a major toy company. Coming May 2011, Mattel (USA) Angry Birds (Finland). If you are familiar with the application, the game is self explanatory. Check out the demonstration here. In fact, this game is antithesis of high-tech, but its so cool that it needs to receive a reward!

CRAZIEST PRODUCT THAT JUST MIGHT SELL...
Once in a while you get a product that defies conventional wisdom and sells well. Think of the Snuggie or the SlapChop and you'll know what I mean. Here's a hat branded TV Hat that is designed for viewing NetFlix/media on an iPhone/Droid. Underneath the peek of the hat you'll can secure your iPhone (or other device) for nice distance viewing. Plus, the peek and sides of the hat keep it dark so you can watch your iPhone media in the brightest sunlight. I'll bet we will see this on an infomercial pretty soon.

Hockey cards, Hair, and Happy New Year

2011-01-01T10:26:00.000-08:00

Happy New Year.

This morning was doing a bit of a walk-down memory lane at my parents’ place and came across an old treasure - my hockey card collection. When I was about 3 or 4, I would lay on the floor, line up 5 players on either side, grab two pencils for nets and a marble for a puck, and have a hockey game with the cards. I battered up a lot of cards – some of which are being sold for $500 on eBay (when they are in mint condition). Personally, I’d rather have my “worthless” battered cards with my memories.

Looking at the cards today, there are a few fun anecdotal observations about players that I am going to share today. Be prepared, today’s entry is content lite with a whole lotta of sugar.

1. Players today are a lot younger. Players back then were a lot older. We can all think of reasons why this is (faster game, more games wear out the old guys faster, more injuries etc.) but check out how old some of these guys look. I intentionally took cards from the same season to emphasize the point.

2. Back then, a lot of players had more colourful names. Buzz Bol, Turk Broda, Butch Goring, Chico Maki, Bobby Schmautz, and Dino Ciccarelli. I think the modern NHL and NHLPA marketing has lost something here. Unusual names like these can help with memorability of the individual player, the relevance of the player to the fan (e.g. the “renegade” Butch Goring) and the likeability of the player (e.g. Dino Cicarelli’s name sounds so cute, doesn’t it?) For the last 15 years the NHL has had a lot more players with European names that are tough (if not impossible) to pronounce. But even so, a little marketing acumen could go a long way. Just think of Myroslav Satan who has the phonetical pronunciation “Shat- tan”. I mean really, the guy’s career has been with the New Jersey Devils. Tons of marketing opportunities around this guy that have been left in the dust (or ashes).

3. The hair, moustaches, and sideburns were a lot better back then. This is only partially a joke. Ever since the NHL introduced the helmet requirement (and players starting using visors) each individual player has become a lot less identifiable. Compare this to football where players wear helmets but take them off on the sidelines- or basketball where the full head and face is always exposed. Cameras get a lot better shots of these players. As a result, there is more exposure to each individual- and better quality footage. I’ll argue that bushy-haired Troy Polamalu would not have gotten the Head and Shoulders endorsement had he been wearing his helmet all the time. The NHL players’ association would be well advised to find more opportunities for their players to have more visible hair, moustache, and sideburn time. Check out some classic looks of the past- from Bobby Clarke's toothless smile to Lafleurs flowing and balding locks- from Ramsey's lambchop side burns to Rick Hampten's unibrow.
to

Reigning in Christmas with Deere. The new Rudolph.

2010-12-28T07:21:00.000-08:00

In 1998, Sue Fournier did a lot of research on people's relationships with brands. Through 3 in-depth life-history case studies Fournier intrusively investigated and interpreted the respondents’ brand usage histories. She described consumers' relationships with brands and concluded that consumers’ relationships with brands are remarkably similar to relationships consumers have with other people. Her categorizations of brand relationships ranged from committed marriages(on the positive side) to indemnities (on the negative side). Here’s the citation:

Fournier, Susan (1998), “Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (March), 343-373.

This takes us to Christmas.

Christmas consistently ranks as the favorite day of the year for Canadians. It is a day (better described as a season) that is glued together by relationships. For the vast majority of Canadians, Christmas is the day when family and friends get together to wine, dine, and exchange gifts under a tree; it is one time of the year when donations and volunteerism sky rocket as the most generous inclinations of people are unleashed; it is the season when childhood memories surface and when "kids of heart" relive their past Christmases through the excitement of the kids. Of course, the day is even more important to Christians, who mark the birth of their personal savior and Christ. To put it in perspective, at its core, Christmas is about love for the Christian and secularist, for the Buddist and the agnostic. And, for most Canadians, Christmas is the most intimate day of the year.

There are many directions that I could take this blog tonight. We could look at how high-end purchasing patterns change (e.g. Consumer “upgrade” to Haagen Dasz from Nestle), we could examine how some brands got linked to the holiday traditions (e.g. Pot of Gold, Butterball, Crown Royal), or we could look at holiday advertising (any guesses what the most played Christmas carol has been on advertisements?). Tonight, I am going to give an pristine example of just how right Fournier was with her research.

Check this out. A few days ago I went to one of the largest grocery retailers. On display: John Deere Christmas ornaments for $6.99. I was told they sold pretty well too. This means, there are a group of folks out there who are decorating their trees with a farm/lawn equipment manufactuer’s logo. A quick Google search shows you could deck out your tree with Harley Davidson, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Apple and the University of Western Ontario. The “ah ha” moment here is this. Just think how emotionally invested a consumer is in a brand to spend money to purchase a Christmas tree ornament, and place it on the centerpiece of the home Christmas decoration. The tree is the place where families and closest friends exchange and open gifts. This is the place where many Christians place their Creche. This is the most popular spot for an engagement ring to be opened up. This is the most intimate place in a home - on the most intimate day of the year. For some consumers, John Deere is right there. That’s exactly the kind of relationship stuff that Fournier was talking about.

400,000,000

2010-12-04T08:33:00.000-08:00

Just a quick follow-up on a recent post. Bieber's Baby video crossed over 400,000,000 views this week. His tally grows at around 1,000,000 views a day. I`m not sure if I should congratulate the Canadian munchkin - or cancel my hope for a better future for the world - but this is the most viewed video online. It's a pretty good bet that his career has peeked and its all downhill after 16...

Boring, babes, and a boy on a horse.

2010-11-28T21:20:00.000-08:00

(Thanks to Demetrios for leading me to this discussion.)

Hello ladies. Look at the Old Spice data. Now look at Axe data. Now look at Old Spice data. We don't have privileged access to all the data, but the info below gives us a snapshot of what is going on in the male deodorant/body wash category.

I'm going to make a pretty reasonable assumption: for most men, the male deodorant /body wash category is pretty mundane and the the use of it is very functional. It is the "Give me something so that I don't stink after a workout" kind of mentality. In order to make purchasing more interesting, however, Unilever's Axe launched a more emotive campaign. It came up with tongue-in-cheek and sexually-overt (many would argue trashy) claims to draw young males to its brand. The Axe value proposition is simple. Axe helps you get girls- and lots of them.

Of course when Unilever chizzled out a large niche with its branding, P&G had to get a bigger piece of the action. P&G tried rehabilitating its Old Spice brand using the suave Isaiah Mustafa. The "perfect man" riding on horseback was a lot more experienced, sensitive and mature than any of the Axe characters. Very quickly, the Old Spice ads became a pop culture sensation and total YouTube downloads of the Mustafa ads exceed 120,000,000 views. But who's the biggest winner in the sales category- Old Spice or Axe?

The numbers above suggest neither. The real winner seems to be the Gillette brand. Here lies a simplified and powerful finding. When more attention is drawn to a blase, boring, and base category, the winner can be the category leader. In this case, P&G's portfolio (Gillette and Old Spice) won the most.

But, when there is a winner, there has to be a loser and in this case, Axe took the hit. I'm not going to delve deeper into this topic, but I thought I would leave the last word with Axe.

Bieber Tube and what You watch on the Tube.

2010-11-23T06:51:00.001-08:00

We're on the advent of a historic first. YouTube is about to have its first 400,000,000 viewer video. In a little over a year, Justin Bieber went from obscurity to the reigning king of You Tube downloads. I'm pretty sure most of us know the story how the Biebs was discovered (by accident) on YouTube by Scooter Braun. But, Biebers isn't obscure anymore. He owns the most downloaded YouTube video of all time- and there isn't a video on the horizon that is close to catching up.

BIEBER: 400,000,000 views (Rank:1)

The Bieber phenomenon - and other You Tube data points, can tell us quite a bit about a lot of things about online marketing and YouTube visitors. By counting down the top 5 most downloaded YouTube videos - and cherry-picking a few examples, let's take a look.

The Titanic Effect is alive and well
The teenage heart-throb's main audience is tween girls. So, Biebs is likely benefiting from the Titanic effect. The Titanic ruled the box office (until Avatar came along), not so much because the masses loved it- but rather because the tweenie girls went to the show over and over. Titanic was LOVED by a narrow audience. I'm speculating here that the Bieb's YouTube reign here can be at least partly attributed this this phenomenon.

Entertain Me Effect
Four of the five most downloaded videos on YouTube are pop-music based: Bieber, Gaga, Shakira, and Eminem/Rihana. This next point is pretty obvious. People who are going on YouTube are going primarily for entertainment purposes. Note the disproportionate weight of musical entertainment.

GAGA 310,000,000 views (Rank:2)

SHAKIRA 245,000,000 (Rank:4)

EMINEM 215,000,000 views (Rank:5)

The Awwwe Effect works online
There are some videos that just "go viral". Generally speaking, these are feel-good videos like the Charlie finger bite, the JK wedding or the dramatic chipmunk. Unlike their pop music counterparts, these videos are not made by celebrities with existing brand equity. These videos tend to be the "slice of life" videos that get posted on social networks. These virals tend to have a universal emotional appeal (the "awwwwwwwe" factor). (This "awwweee" effect reminds me of a line from my old advertising mentor who said, "When in doubt, stick a cute puppy in the ad. At least you get the warm fuzzies...")

CHARLIE 250,000,000 views (Rank:3)

WEDDING 60,000,000 (plus 10,000,000 in other formats)views

Traditional Media Support helps
We just seen multi-platinum videos. Anyway you look at it, the highest viewed YouTube videos all receive traditional media support. Just think of the PR Gaga gets on MTV, Opera, TMZ and Access Hollywood type programs. Even the JK wedding video is not entirely an internet phenomenon. YouTube views skyrocketed after the video appeared on national morning shows.

15 minutes of fame and the new celebrity
The YouTubes and MetaCafes of the world have facilitated a new type of journalism: video blogging. A lot of the video journalists get their "15 minutes" of fame by posting up something very timely. Take this example. This young man was among the first to post up commentary on the Kanye/Taylor swift fiasco. When word-of-mouth spread about Kanye's "sorry Taylor but Beyonce had the best video of all time" line, this blogger, by virtue of being first, had already gotten a jump-start on YouTube and Google rankings for "kanye west taylor swift" searches.

But video bloggers can become celebrities in their own right. Take Zuzana from BodyRock, for example. Her routine posts on fitness receive millions of downloads each, making her a contender for the most popular video blogger. While my trainer goes to BodyRock for grueling work-out ideas, I suspect that Zuzana's fan base is mostly there to be entertained.

A couple surprises
You'd expect that a lot of young guys would tune in to YouTube to catch key highlights of the Victoria's Secret fashion show. Yet, Zuzana the trainer receives millions of viewers more for her weekly work-outs than the much-hyped annual fashion show featuring some of the "best looking women" of one of the strongest brands. I'd like to hear my readers' thoughts on this.

VICTORIA'S SECRET 3,000,000 views

In 2008, we witnessed one of the most historical presidential elections in American history. President Obama was elected. His election victory was largely attributed to his use of online campaigning. But, for some reason, this did not translate into high viewership of his acceptance speech on You Tube. Why not?

OBAMA 1,500,0000

Whatcha see ain't what I see....

2010-11-20T08:49:00.001-08:00

Remember the first time you came across these images. What did you see? The skeleton or the girl looking in the mirror?

What did you see in this classic? The old woman – or the young woman?

Or here, the rabbit- or the duck?

The point is that different people can see (and interpret) different things while looking at the exact same image. So when it comes to logos, the same idea applies. What may start off as a well-intended meaningful design to communicate associations relevant to the brand can be sometimes receive unintended interpretations. This can result in the logo being mocked (which is a rampant phenomenon online) - or worse yet, the brand becomes subject to rumours that are difficult to squash. The bottom line is this. Brand building efforts can be crushed based on ambiguous logo design. Let’s look at a few examples.

What do you see in this logo? This logo was originally designed for a Brazilian university's Oriental studies program. The purpose of the logo is to give an "Asian" vibe through the Asian architecture that rests ahead of the rising sun. Of course, there is a much nastier interpretation to this logo. To add irony to this logo, the Institudo de Estudos Orientais is part of University Catolica Portuguesa.

Here we see a logo for Safe Places. Safe Place provides access to immediate help and supportive resources for all young people in crisis through a network of sites sustained by qualified agencies, trained volunteers and businesses. What's your impression of this logo? Is it the safe hands of a protector - or the perverted hands of a groper? The two interpretations are communicating opposite messages.

Sometimes fonts or spelling blow it for the brand. Consider Kids Exchange- a brand that allows consumers to buy and trade previously owned kids' toys and clothing. It is almost comical that this name could as easily be read KidsExchange as KidSexChange. All that the designer needed to do here was exaggerate the size of the K and E - or have a bit of a space between "kid" and "exchange". The brander who signed off on the logo design here was just asleep at the switch.

Logo misinterpretations often have a double entrendre of a sexual nature (e.g. Islamic Understanding Institute). Sometimes, however, folks can go out of their way to mock the logo. Zune gets mocked in its mirror image which circulates over the Internet. Once you see this, you'll probably never think of Zune the same way.

The granddaddy logo fiasco belongs to P&G. Procter and Gamble trademarked its man in the moon logo way back in 1851. According to P&G, the 13 stars in the logo paid homage to the 13 American colonies. According to Snopes, the man in the moon was used just because it was a popular design of the time. In those days, brands traded a lot more under graphical images (rather than names) so the distinctive graphic could help consumers recognize the P&G brands of packaged goods. Incredibley, rumors surfaced (many fuelled by Amway salespeople) that P&G had links to Satanism. The bearded-man logo was offered up as evidence. Hidden within the beard are a series of 6’s- marking “666” – the mark of the beast. The 13 stars, "of course", refer to Revelation Chapter 13 which discusses the mark of the beast. The rumor spawning from the logo cost Procter and Gamble unspecified sales and extensive public relations counter efforts, while forcing the company to redesign it world-wide company logo.

There is a simple take away from this post. Logos are intended to convey meaningful associations about the brand. For some reason, poor logo designs sometimes sift through the approval process. Sampling a few employees- or consumers- for their interpretation of the meaning the logo is clearly in order. I'd bet that the brand managers of the brands presented above all wish that they had spent a little more time on this screening process.

Celebrating the best of the worst: negative political advertising.

2010-11-05T12:43:00.000-07:00

Most academic advertising textbooks analyze advertising messaging by breaking the ads into categories. Usually the breakdown involves groupings something like: rational, emotional, or slice-of-life appeals. Rational ads target the mind by making logical appeals. Emotional ads, are designed to “hit you in the gut” with an appeal to feelings. Slice-of-life ads try to give a snapshot of reality. But, I think the more interesting field of study involves negative advertising. Nowhere is this more prevalent than in political advertising.

In the latest American mid-term election, more than $3.3 billion dollars
flooded into advertisements. Yep, that is billion with a "B". Heck, there are rumors that former eBay CEO Meg Whitman spent $140 million of her own money trying to capture the California Governorship. (It is an interesting curiosity that those candidates who spend their own money are not usually successful in their bids. eg. Mitt Romney (2008 primaries), Steve Forbes (1996 primaries). Perhaps, this is due to the perception that they are trying to “buy” their electoral seats.) But in politics, some estimate that close to 50% of political advertisements have negative tones. That is about $1.5 billion worth of negative ads this past American election cycle. Some of these ads are down-right nasty too. We’ll “celebrate” the best of the worst at the end of this posting.

The case for going negative and the spirit of Socrates
In a previous blog posting, I commented that the result of negative advertising is
depressed voter turnout. Proponents of negative advertising, however, will argue that negative ads are a good thing. After all, if there is relevant negative information that the voting public should be made aware of, that information should be available for consideration. They will also argue that there is a self-regulating mechanism. If the negativity gets too much, the voters will reject the candidate running the ads. (We saw evidence of this in a 1993 Progressive Conservative attack ad on Jean Chretien). Regardless of the case for running negative ads, depressing votes runs counter to the spirit of democracy. Socrates would feel vindicated.

Political Campaigns – the natural home for the negative ad:
We can’t be naïve. Negative political advertisements are not going away any time soon. The big question is why are there so many negative ads in politics?
1. Negative ads can be extremely effective. The most effective ones work on
emotional levels and often target voters’ fears. The best example is this one run by the Democrats in the 1964 Presidential Election. Johnson was facing off against Goldwater and Johnson wanted to paint Goldwater as a trigger-happy-war-monger. Click here for the ad: “ DAISY” Think how terrifying (fear) that this ad would have been to a non-jaded, less-sophisticated 1964 TV viewing audience. This Democratic ad took nasty advertising to a level never-before-seen. And, it was a big contributor to Goldwater’s loss. Note, I am not saying Johnson’s win.

2. Election cycles have short term objectives. Unlike, traditional brands which have long term sales horizons- and longer term horizons to recoup losses or take competitors to court, political advertising spending is ramped up to peek within days of voter decision. So, if a fraudulent claim is made against a candidate in an ad 5 days before the election, the “victim” candidate can resort to a defensive “that is not true” which makes him look weak, or she can go on attack and demonize her opponent. The latter of course fuels the next wave of negativity. In a zero-sum game (which can deteriorate in to a shrinking-sum game), with a short election cycle, there is a no-holds barred approach to advertising. Industries have self-regulated rules of conduct and “truthfulness in advertising” which holds the brands accountable in the longer term. These apply a lot less in a 3 week advertising campaign.

3. Unlike business, politics is mostly a zero sum game. In business, if Burger King spends millions of dollars reminding consumers that McDonald’s has uber-high fat content in its fried burgers, and McDonalds retaliates by dissing BK’s fat mayo level on the Whopper, the consumer would come to the conclusion that the entire category sucks. The category shrinks. So, BK, McD’s, Wendy’s and company have a mutual interest in growing the entire category. If BK has a slight reduction in market share- but the entire category is growing well, BK is still going to be pretty happy. But, when it comes to an election, there is no comradory among competitors. My win is your loss. It is as simple as that. And, if the candidate is having trouble raising his poll numbers, drag down the opponents. This argument explains why in the 2006 and 2008 election Republicans ran the bulk of the negative ads and why the Democrats outsleazed the Republicans in 2010. Neither party has a monopoly on sleaze.

4. The press likes to pick up “the new negative attack ad.” This goes to the concept that “bad news sells more.” (See Bad is Stronger than Good) Translation, the free publicity from the attack ads gives incentives to make meaner, nastier ads.

5. The rise of the unaccountable endorsements. Despite the well intentioned efforts of McCain and Feingold (who just lost, btw)- recent campaign finance reform has led to soft monies funding more and more American elections in larger and larger capacities. The result, proxy political party “independent groups” get involved in developing ad campaigns. These “independent” 3rd party groups create ads that the Republican and Democratic brands would be ashamed to assign their party brand approvals to. Just think of the punishment John Kerry took fromthe Swift Boat Veterans.

So, now let’s "celebrate" the best of the worst.

Canada's lowball political moment.
End of the Empire Democratic Smears on Republicans
Taliban Dan ads
“Aqua Buddah”

Republican Smears on Democrats
Ron XXX Kind
Willie Horton ad

Doubles. Diamonds. Damn, I would pay more for that.

2010-10-11T20:23:00.000-07:00

Tonight I'm going to bloggify some academics.

About a month ago, I was shopping in my local supermarket and noticed a new product- Kellogg's Fruit Loops Doubles. Yes, they are Fruit Loops- complete with Toucan Sam on the packaging- but the "innovation" here is that the "Doubles" are two regular Fruit Loops bounded together to make 8's instead of "o"s. This reminded me of another cereal that embarked on another innovation. About 18 months ago, Shreddies introduced Diamond Shreddies. In the Shreddies case, the square Shreddies were "rotated" 24.5 degrees and branded as Diamond Shreddies. Both of these examples fit into a category called "irrelevant differentiation" and this is one of the more interesting (and under-explored) brand research streams. The seminal article is by Carpenter, Glazer and Nakamoto and I'll provide the citation in case you want to check it out.

Carpenter, GS, R. Glazer, and K. Nakamoto (1994). Meaningful Brands from Meaningless Differentiation: The Dependence on Irrelevant Attributes. Journal of Marketing Research. 31 (August), 339-35.

The premise behind modern day branding is this: A brand does not achieve a high level of equity without developing a strong, favorable, and relevant point of uniqueness. Sometimes, the basis of the uniqueness may be meaningless in reality - but in the consumer's mind the irrelevant uniqueness can sometimes imply purpose. In the case of "Diamond" Shreddies, for example, Shreddies didn't change the Shreddies recipe, texture or taste. But "diamond" conjures up premiumness, sophistication, royalty, and superior images to the kid-shaped square Shreddies. If you actively think about this, everyone knows that a square Shreddie is the same as a diamond Shreddie, but in the subconcious part of the mind, a different part of the brain is lit up. The result, many consumers are drawn to the irrelevant attribute (diamond vs. square) - at least up to a point.

Let's look at a few classic examples of irrelevant attributes and then bloggify Carpenter experiments.

1. Corinthian leather in the Chysler Cordoba. (Sorry, but corinthian leather is a made up term) Check out this vintage ad.
2. Folgers Flaked Crystal coffee. (Newsflash: flakes imply they disolve faster, but in reality this is not the case)
3. Alberto Natural Silk Shampoo. (Awwwe. The presence of silk in no way impacts the performance of the shampoo)
4. Mountain grown coffee. (Guess what? Almost all coffee is mountain grown) see Kellogg on Marketing.

Carpenter and pals were among the first to catch on to the irrelevant differentiation and they ran some experiments.

The basic set up went like this. Consumers were presented with two identical jackets. The jackets had the same color, shape, fit, stitching, style, brand etc but one jacket was "down filled" and the other jacket was "alpine down filled." But if consumers were advised in advance that alpine down filling was exactly the same as regular down filling- would they choose the alpine down filling? (The premise here is that "alpine down filling" implies more warmth and better quality than regular down filling.) What would happen if pricing was raised on the jacket with the "alpine down filling"? Let's look at a selection of manipulations that illustrate the researchers' findings.

SET-UP 1:
Remember, consumers are advised in advance that the alpine down is 100% the same as the regular down. At the same price point, which jacket do consumers prefer?

Result: If you thought that consumers prefer the alpine down filled jacket, you're right. Ok, that makes sense. If alpine down filled ingredient implies great warmth, why not get it if there is no price penalty for it? But what happens if the price goes up a few dollars for the alpine down jacket?

SET-UP 2:
Consumers are again advised in advanced that the alpine down is exactly the same as regular down. With a modest price premium, which jacket do the consumers prefer this time? Will they will flock (pardon the pun) to the regular down because they perceive the marketer to be taking advantage of them? Or does the irrelevant attribute effect still kick in?

Result: Consumers still prefer the implied warmth and benefits from the alpine down filled jacket. But what would happen if the price of the alpine-down filled jacket was cranked up a lot?

SET-UP 3:
Consumers are again advised in advanced that the alpine down is the exactly the same as regular down. With a large price premium, which jacket would consumers prefer?

Result: This time, consumers selected the regular down filled jacket. The authors argue that when the price goes up significantly, the consumer starts paying more attention to the irrelevant differentiating factor and hone in on the fact that it is indeed irrelevant.

There are a bunch of conclusions that can be drawn from these experiments on everything from consumer manipulations to marketing strategies. I'm going to bring this discussion back to the cereals.

In the Shreddies example, my local retailers did not elevate the price of Diamond Shreddies relative to regular Shreddies. Most likely, this was the decision of the makers of Shreddies. The experiments suggest that both Shreddies and the retailers left "margin on the table". Some would argue that Diamond Shreddies positioning was actually making light of the irrelevance of the attribute (see ad here). I'll argue that the marketing campaign which makes light of the irrelevant attribute makes the brand more honest and likable- but the images of "diamonds being better, more precious" still would be conjured up in the consumers' minds. Of course, margin is not the only benefit that Shreddies could receive from such an initiative. The diamond campaign created some excitement around a stale brand in a stagnant growth category. Furthermore an extra facing in a store shelf enhances consumer exposure to the Shreddies brand and can displace a competitor which can only help sales. In short the campaign around the diamond differentiation helped to revitalize a brand but missed the essence of the price premium.

This takes us to Double Fruit Loops. On this one, I am stumped. I can't think of any reason why Kellogg's would push "doubles" as an irrelevant attribute. What could possibly be the advantage in the "dark side" of the consumers' minds related to the "8"s vs. the "Os"? "O"s are more fun for kids to play with - and from my breakfast experiment at home, I can't get more "Doubles" on my spoon than the originals. Because there is a lack of implied benefit to the 8s, Doubles probably won't be joining Corinthian leather, flaked coffee crystal and silk shampoo in the "winning" irrelevant differentiation category.

Canada's Most Loved & Hated Brands - press release

2010-10-06T04:47:00.000-07:00

Montreal, October 6, 2010 - BrandMojo, a not-for-profit brand rating site that explores the most loved and hated brands, today announced Canada’s most loved and hated brands. The results are based on more than 68,000 ratings by more than 1,000 Canadians over a 9 month period.

As of October 6, 2010, below are some key Canadian brand rankings extrapolated from the site:

RANK BRAND NOTE
#1 Google - Most loved brand of Canadians
#16 Cirque du Soleil -Canadian's most loved Canadian brand
#20 Tim Horton’s - the other "dearly loved" Canadian brand
#290 TD - most loved Canadian bank brand
#302 Fido - most loved Canadian telecom brand
#606 Halliburton & Enron - Canadian's most "hated" brands

#1 Red Cross / Habitat for Humanity Canadians’ most loved charity brands.

BrandMojo presents visitors with a logo of a randomly generated brand. The visitor then rates the brand from a scale of 1 (Hate) to 5 (Love). After rating the brand, the visitor can then see how other visitors rated the brand. The rater can skip the brand if he/she is not familiar with it. The BrandMojo site ranks more than 600 corporate brands and 40 non-profit brands through visitor ratings. Recently, sports teams, universities and celebrities have been added for rating.

Brands are rated at www.brandmojo.ca or www.brandmojo.org. Real-time rankings of all brands can be seen at the BrandMojo leaderboard.

________________________

The BrandMojo site is a not-for-profit site that explores the most loved and hated brands. It was created by Bob Mackalski as part of his doctoral dissertation research at the Desautels Faculty of Management at McGill University. The research is overseen by a team of professors who serve on his supervisory committee.

A Society of Sissies and a Bloodthirsty lot

2010-09-28T20:29:00.000-07:00

One of the most interesting questions that I ever received during a job interview was from an ad agency. The question was “Talk to me about a trend…” Of course, there were obvious trends that I could have talked about: the baby shortage, the aging population, and obesity. I can’t remember my answer at the time, but the question stuck with me. Tonight, I will comment on something that impacts the obvious trends.

It was 19 something
When I was a kid growing up in the 70s and 80s, I remember racing my wagon down steep hills, building forts which were later used as defensive empires in mud-ball flights, swinging from ropes of the tallest trees, amassing giant artilleries of snowballs to be used in snowball fights, jumping off cliffs on motor bikes and bmxing off ramps. I remember traveling in the back of my parent’s wood-grained-panel station wagon (where there was no seat), sitting in between my parents in the front of our old Ford where there was no seatbelt, and cuddling with our sick dog on the way to the vet. I remember lighting firecrackers to blow up ant hills, playing organized ice hockey in -40 outdoor stadiums and competing hard to make hockey teams. Some times I made it, sometimes I didn’t. But, along the way, I collected my share of scrapes and a lot of bruises - but they all forge an extremely happy collective of my childhood. Even the bloodiest moments would end up well because of a loving hug from my mother, a “This is what it takes to be a man, son” command from my dad – or a cup of hot chocolate from my grandmother.

We’re now in 2010. I don’t need to say a lot has changed but I will say that a lot of the trend lines are absurd. Schools have been on the attack against basic child-hood games. Dodge-ball, tag , soccer, and even balls have been banned from school yards. Sparklers have banned from public places. There are movements to assign warning labels to Coca-Cola, Big Macs, and iPhones. Law suits are sure to follow. There are campaigns to ban preservatives on apples. There are fines for not wearing a bike helmet (1,2) or riding in a car without a seatbelt. By today’s standards, most of my family’s trips of the past would have been illegal.

So what are the implications of this? We’re becoming society of sissies and driven by fear. Kids’ favorite games have been taken away from them resulting in less exercise and more inside time. Instead of playing dodge-ball, a lot of kids are dodging fiery bullets in bloody, violent video games. Instead of competing and learning how to be gracious winners and losers on a soccer field, kids ain’t doing what kids ought to be doing. Worse yet, kids become conditioned to accept the big brother mindset on things that are incongruent with their nature.

But, this trend of “big brother knows best” has a lot of far reaching implications. Just think what a simple regulation on mandatory child restraint seats means to a new family. To have a 3rd child, the family requires larger cars for transport- which is a financial tax on having an extra child- exacerbating our already low birth rate. This, in turn, has implications on the nation’s aggregate future tax base which impacts social policies for dealing with our aging population. And what about warning labels and bans? Well, reduce the preservative and the supply of available apples will go down - driving up prices. Of course this will affect the poor and working classes disproportionately while the affluent shift to organics. All of these rules are part of the "big brother knows best" mindset. But as long we do not resist this mentality, we become compliant in its issue - and complacent on regulations that intrude on individual freedoms and personal responsibilities. We accept laws that limit choice and by "being boiled slowly" (starting in our school system), we get sissified, and lose our gumption to resist attacks on individual freedoms and personal responsibilities. These are precisely the values that our ancestors shed blood to defend.

Jackass.

2010-09-18T08:21:00.000-07:00

In 1828, a bitter American presidential campaign was waging. The vicious personal attacks and spin doctoring going on at the time would make James Carville very proud. Andrew "Old Hickery" Jackson, an outsider, was running against an establishment incumbent President John Quincy Adams. Jackson was "a man of the people" and was the first leader of the newly formed Democratic Party. Quincy was portrayed as an "elitist" and represented wealth, establishment, and the status quo. But the campaign between the two leaders was a rerun. They had faced off in in the presidential election of 1824, and Adams won. Some historians tag the Adams victory as “The Corrupt Bargain.” In short, since the election was controversial, the House of Representatives determined the winner. Speaker of the House Henry Clay allegedly used his influence to give the victory to John Quincy Adams.

With that background in mind, here is where we get into branding. During the election of 1828, the mudslinging escalated and Adams group labeled Jackson a "jackass" (which was a particularly derogatory term back then). In responses, Jackson "spun" the insult into a positive- taking the image of a donkey and used it as his symbol. Jackson's point was the he was like the "strong willed" donkey. It didn't take too long before political cartoonist Thomas Nash took the donkey idea and ran with it. Democrats became donkeys in the mass media. The Democratic symbol had taken root.

Since that time, the Democratic National Committee has used the donkey as a shortcut to represent their candidates - from the local level to presidential candidates. It has been along side Democratic presidents over 171 years, through 14 different presidents and 15 presidential victories. (Astute history readers will know that Harrison interrupted consecutive terms for 2 time winner Cleveland). Throughout its history, donkey logo has been endowed with some of the most amazing times in Democratic-inspired American history (Jackson's win for "the common man", Kennedy's inspiration to have Americans walk on the moon, Obama's win as the first president of color) and has served as a short-cut to Democratic positions during some of the most challenging times(Civil War, World War I & II, Korean & Vietnam wars, 9-11, the Great Depressions and civil strifes). And, just because times are challenging doesn't mean positive associations can't flood to the brand. Some of the most endearing bits of hope are associated with the donkey. After all, Democrats using the donkey coined the iconic lines: "The only thing to fear, is fear itself" (Roosevelt); "And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country" (Kennedy), for example. Of course, in addition to the rich history endowed on the donkey, it also serves as a short-cut to today's Democratic positions on social policy, taxation, war etc. In a world that is unsettling both economically and geo-politically, the Democratic Donkey provides a sense of Americana, tradition, stability and current relevance. In short, the donkey is loaded with a lot of positive brand equity.

Usually when a brand element (a trademarkable device like a name, logo, slogan, symbol) is so iconic, custodians of the brand will go through great pains to preserve it. Sure, it might need updates to give it a more modern feel- but common sense tells you to preserve as much of its relevant design as possible. Think how crazy it would be for Coke to all of a sudden to abandon its red and make all of its its bottles green- or for Apple to throw away its apple-with-a-bite-out-of-it logo. For 171 years the Democratic Party has understood the value of its donkey and appropriately adapted it over time.

But a few days ago they unveiled their new logo.

I do not understand in any way why the party abandoned its high awareness, richly-association endowed donkey - and replaced it by an ill-conceived logo that lacks any imagination or captures any of the Democratic party's rich legacy. This, of course, occurred under an Obama presidency- by the same folks who engineered a masterful "elect-Obama" marketing campaign. It makes me both frustrated and sad to see how cavalierly an iconic brand element can be abandoned - and how the Democrats could throw away a wonderful piece of American history.

The legacy of the Jackass Bad-Ass: (About.com) Jackson Bio

Jackson appears on the American $20.
By 13, Jackson was orphaned. He lost his father at an earlier age and then lost his mother and two brothers during the Revolutionary War.

Jackson bore scars from a British officer’s sword on his skull and hand, and bullets from duels in his shoulder. In an 1806 duel, Jackson had killed a duel opponent.

When commanding troops in 1815, he had ordered the execution of militia members accused of desertion.

Hey, isn't that the Old Spice Guy?

2010-09-12T08:38:00.000-07:00

Here's a brain-candy blog post. It came to me after watching the movie the Expendables on a guys-night-out. One of the guys said, "Hey the guy with the big gun, wasn't he the Old Spice Guy?" (There were many big guns in the Expendables but one gun was bigger than all others so we all knew what he was talking about.) Read on to see how this relates to marketing and brands...

Being an aspiring actor is a tough gig. The cliché is that aspiring actors move to L.A, take on minimum wage waiter/hostess jobs in order to pursue their acting dreams, and audition for roles- most of which do not materialize. Along the way, some actors are able to pick up some advertising gigs which provide relevant experience ahead of the camera, exposure, and money to pay the rent. In addition, ads help actors develop their network. A lot of the directors of ads become A-list directors and producers. (e.g. Ridley Scott, director of the famous 1984 Apple ad went on to produce blockbuster films like Robin Hood, Gladiator, Blade Runner, American Gangster; Michael Bay worked on ads for Dairy Producers, Nike, Budweiser/Miller, Levi's and Coca-Cola and before moving on to producing Transformers, Armageddon, Pearl Harbor and Miami Vice.) For the actor, ads can be an effective springboard to launch their movie/tv careers. How common is this? John Travolta started off in Band-Aid ads, a young DiCaprio pitched Honda, Wesley Snipes modeled Levis and repped Western Union, Keanu Reeves drankCoca-Cola, and Jodi Foster got her start as the Coppertone baby. But every once in a while, an advertisement connects with the public and the actor’s career becomes overshadowed by his/her performance in the ad. Below is a fun top-5 list of actors whose fame is intimately linked - and overshadowed - by the role they played representing brands.

#5 Tom Bodett. Here’s a guy who has done a lot of narration, but he’s most remembered for the folksy award winning radio ads for Motel 6 that feature the line, “We’ll leave the light on for ya”. Bodett allegedly ad-libbed that line during the commercial recordings. Evidently Motel 6 is now using Tom's voice for wake-up calls.

#4 Vince Offer. Offer is a comedian whose writing, acting, and directing skills did not earn him critical acclaim but he found his niche as a quirky, fast-talking, irreverent pitchman for Slap Chop and Sham Wow. According to Wikipedia, Offer is going to use his advertising celebrity to re-release some of his past film work - but he's been framed by audiences as the SlapChop Guy.

#3 Jonathan Goldsmith. Here’s an actor who has been working the tv/movie circuit since the 1960s. IMDB lists Goldsmith as having more than 100 different working credits - including a prominent role on Dallas - but his acting career is clearly eclipsed by his work as “Dos Equis’ Most Interesting Man in the World.” Check out the lengths that Jonathan goes through to say that he is not the most interesting man in the world - but rather the “the actor who plays the most interesting man in the world.”

#2 Isaiah Mustafa. Here’s an athlete-turned-actor whose career got a huge boost via P&G’s Old Spice campaigns. Although he has been cast in Jennifer Aniston's upcoming film "Horrible Bosses", it is likely that he’ll always be remembered as the Old Spice Guy. By the way, contrary to internet rumors, Mustafa was not cast in the Expendables, but Old Spice model Terry Crew was.

#1 Justin Long. Long’s had quite a few roles in feature films including Live Free or Die Hard and Dodgeball - but he’s clearly most known for the laid-back, casual likable guy that personifies Mac. A rep for Long confirms that Long's ties with Mac are over: "Justin’s a movie star, not a commercial guy."

I'm going to close this blog with a cheesy observation: Bodett, Offer, Goldsmith, Mustafa and Long share brand-characters who are anything but Expendable.

When Product and Celebrity Placement gets Dirty

2010-09-09T22:56:00.000-07:00

Every marketer and student of marketing knows all about product placements- a type of advertising where brands are given cameos in movies, tv programs, video games, songs and literary works. The idea is that product placements are more stealth than more traditional ads and can powerfully convey brand associations into the audiences’ minds. (Think why so many brands line up to get secondary association spillover benefits from the suave, sophisticated, and exciting James Bond.) And, since most media is international, a movie or hit tv show can be a fast way to reach a global audience quickly. For the producers of the media, product placements are a nice way to co-finance their work and, at the same time, provide realism to the story (e.g. think of FedEx in Castaway). It is not surprising, then, that global brands plow money into product placements at a rate of 3.6 billion a year. By the way, a typical product placement is between $50,000 and $100,000 (Keller, Strategic Brand Managment P.253).

Of course, product placements have been around for a long time. Wiki reports that the first product placement was in 1873 (Jule Verne's classic book Around the World in 80 Days) - and the success of the Reese’s Pieces in Spielberg’s ET ushered a new demand for product placements. Since that time, product placements have evolved and “celebrity placements” have grown in popularity. A lot of star (and starlets) are paid to “be seen” with certain brands (ie. celeb placement). Miss Sixty and Rock & Republic pay celebs to sit in the front row of their fashion shows. (Rihanna gets $100k to attend a fashion show, Beyonce $90k, Kim Kardashian $40k, for example). New York Daily News and Brand Channel speculate that when Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner nonchalantly pose for the paparazzi with their Starbucks cups or when Kate Hudson and Cameron Diaz parade about the town in their Uggs- they are getting well compensated from the brand. The going rate appears to be around $100k. The point is this- brand presence around celebs is often orchestrated by the brand.

But it appears celeb placement has evolved. One of my readers who has his ear to the ground on new marketing trends sent me a beat on celebrity placements with a twist: negative product placement and negative celebrity placement. The rumor is that some luxury brand companies are sending their competitors' products to celebrities who they think will create a negative associations with the brand. The flagship example involves certain luxury brands that are “aggressively gifting” “undesirable fashionista” Jersey Shores star Snooki with competitor products. The idea is that Snooki has terrible fashion sense and if she is seen with a brand, then the brand will suffer. Since bad is stronger than good and consumers weigh relevant negative associations stronger than positive associations (there is a lot of evidence about this and I will have a blog entry about this in the upcoming weeks), there is the potential for a lot of fast damage to the brand.

Some might think this negative celebrity placement is a good competitive idea, but I’m going to argue that this is a big mistake for two main reasons. First, there may be legal (and certainly ethical) implications if a firm of the competitor can prove that the competitor maliciously sought to damage its trademark. Second, and more importantly, negativity can damage the entire category. This argument sounds like this: If you hit me, I will hit you back harder. We've seen this before in politics. When campaigns go “negative” the result is increased voter cynicism, apathy, and ultimately lower voter turn out. Luxury brands watch out- it is a dangerous game you are playing that can quickly backfire.

Powers of Personality: Lambo and Ferrari

2010-09-06T08:02:00.000-07:00

Last week I went to the Vegas Speedway to race some Lamborghinis and Ferraris. While waiting for my track time, I had the pleasure of speaking with my new bud- Peter, a professional racer from Exotics Racing. It didn’t take long before the conversation shifted over to brands. (Gee, I wonder why!) I couldn’t resist asking Peter the question, “Peter, what’s the difference between the Ferrari brand and the Lamborghini brand?” Since Peter is a professional driver, I expected a response related to the technical specifications/performance metrics of the brands- like some of the data presented in the chart below. But, his answer really surprised me: Brand personality. (Check here for a 10 second excerpt from his answer.) The prof in me had to probe a little deeper so I followed up with a few “brand audit” type questions related to brand personality. Peter held very clear distinctions between the brands as is evident by these responses.

Anyone who studies brands is familiar with Jen Aaker’s work - The Dimensions of Brand Personality. In this ’97 classic, Aaker suggests that brands take on human traits and characteristics. Using the psych literature as her launchpad, Aaker argued brand personality can be broken into 5 distinct dimensions: Sincerity (down-to-earth, honest, wholesome, cheerful); Excitement (daring, spirited, imaginative, up-to-date); Competence (reliable, intelligent, successful); Sophistication (upper class, charming); and Ruggedness (outdoorsy, tough). To hear that brand personality is the key differentiator between Lambo and Ferrari - from a technical expert – shows just how relevant brand personality is. From Peter’s “quick and dirty” response, we can project that Ferrari would score higher on competence and sophistication dimensions- and Lamborghini would rank higher on the “excitement” scale.

Of course, brand personality is not only relevant to automobile brands. Consumers have clear perceptions, associations, and attitudes towards intangible aspects of many brands. The intangible stuff is the stuff that makes the brand valuable. Just think of some competing brands and do some quick brand personality comparisons (e.g.Energizer vs. Duracell, Nike vs. Adidas, Apple vs. Microsoft...) Very quickly we see just how relevant and common brand personality is in creating brand differentiation. If you have some time, add a few other brands with stark contrasts in their personalities in the comment section below.

Ferrari and Lamborghini: A few selective technical/performance/attribute comparisons:

sources:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrari_F430)
(http://www.rsportscars.com/lamborghini/2009-lamborghini-gallardo-lp560-4/)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamborghini_Gallardo)

Retro advertising

2010-08-23T22:07:00.000-07:00

Ads are both a reflection of the culture and impact culture. The latter gives justification (for some) why there ought to be laws and regulations on advertisers. Today's regulations include everything from fines for misleading claims - to regulations on the diversity of models appearing in catalogs - to when, where, and how certain products can be promoted. If you ever don't think the world has changed, take a look at some of these vintage ads. They speak for themselves.

What is so interesting about the ads above is that both cocaine and heroine are branded products. Of course the products were legal back then. In 1885, Parke-Davis sold cocaine in various forms, including a cigarette version, powdered format, and a mixture for vein injection. (Of course, the mixture came bundled with a needle). The ads promised that its cocaine products would “supply the place of food, make the coward brave, the silent eloquent and ... render the sufferer insensitive to pain.” (Wiki) I'm pretty sure their claims are not false advertising but it is amusing to look at the ads of a product that is so known to be so dangerous and illegal now. Furthermore, check out the price of cocaine in the ad presented above. If the size of a "cocaine tablet" was 500 mgrams at today's value at $110/gram, that's $55 to "fix" a toothache. (A typical $10 bottle of aspirin contains 100 35g tablets so if the cocaine tablets were sold in 100s, it would be $3850 a bottle). If cocaine was still an ingredient in Coca-cola, the price of Coca Cola would either be a lot higher (pardon the bad drug pun) or the ingredient would have been removed due to cost. Even at Columbia's $2 per gram price, it is by comparison, about 3000 times as expensive as sugar. Sugar is about .06 cents per gram. (Please stay away from drugs :-) )

Who's your brand daddy of this ad? Chase and Sanborn in 1952.

CREEPY. Arguably, this ad is no more distasteful (or immoral) than the Calvin Klein 1995 campaign- or many of the 2010 American Apparel ads.

Thorazine was the first drug developed to specifically combat antipsychotic behaviors. It was marketed by Smith, Klein and French Labs which is still in business under the name of Glaxo Smith Klein.

If you ever think that times haven't changed, look at this 1979 ad for Pakistan International Airlines. Pardon another bad pun, but this ad just wouldn't fly post 9-11.

Good old Santa likes a Coca-Cola and a good cigarette. If this ad ran today, how loud would the outcry be from the anti-tobacco lobby? Heck, even when James Bond lights up, there are some very vocal upset people. Considering James is dodging bullets everyday, smoking is not his biggest problem - or most probable cause of death.

A Tribute to Consumer Choice. Boardwalk ice cream's 56 flavors

2010-08-11T23:50:00.000-07:00

Its summer time and I miss my BCom and MBA students. So tonight, I’m going to start off with a multiple choice question. Here goes:

According to a recent poll, which of the following is the more preferred way Canadians like to cool off on a hot summer day?
a) A dip in a pool or lake
b) Hanging out in an air conditioned mall
c) Having an ice cream

If you answered “c”, you got yourself an “A”. So on this hot summer’s night, I’m going to make a content-light entry on the ice cream cone business – in particular, consumer choice at ice cream scoop shops.

Earlier tonight, I visited The Boardwalk on Clear Lake ice cream scoop shop in Riding Mountain National Park. This independently owned scoop shop is located on lake front property of a touristic town of Wasagaming, Manitoba. The location is indeed picturesque but the offering is a tribute to consumer choice. This scoop shop offers 56 different hard ice cream flavors on top of a bunch of soft ice cream flavors and dips and gelatos. (I always liked Baskin Robbins "31 flavor" offering and its marketing of the offering which is cleverly
infused in the brand's logo.) But to put the Boardwalk's 56 flavors in perspective, let's do some stats. With 56 flavors, there are 3080 unique combinations of regular double scoop cones that can be ordered before having to repeat an order. In other words, you could eat different 2 flavor-scoop-ice-cream-cones every day for 34 years of summer before ever having to eat the same combination of scoops again. Of course, you still wouldn’t have touched the gelato or the soft ice cream flavors (and their many dips). That's a lot of choice.

But this raises an interesting marketing question. Why are there so many flavors of ice cream available at scoop shops? You would be hard-pressed to find another category that has such a plethora of flavors (save for chocolate bar confectionary). But, ice cream distribution is far more complex than distribution for any packaged good. For one, ice cream has to remain within a narrow temperature band for its entire distribution - from manufacturer to transit- to scoop shop. In addition, this distribution has to be done on some of the hottest, humid days of the year. And there are still more complexities. Due to the nature of the frozen good, regional production is required which makes huge scale more challenging. (By contrast, all LifeSavers sold around North America are manufacturer in one Montreal location.) Furthermore, the ice cream business is heavily consolidated by a few large international brands (Nestle, Unilever, Breyers, for example) so we can rule out multiple flavors coming from a bunch of competing brands.

So why are there so many flavors?

A good starting point is to look at the unique set of purchase dynamics at scoop shops. First, almost all scoop purchases are social. Visit a scoop shop and you’ll see couples on dates, young families out for a treat, seniors enjoying an indulgence etc. In other words, the purchases are made by groups, emotional (hedonic in marketing jargon), pleasure-filled, and perhaps even romantic. The more flavors then, reduces the risk of having a bad date for the boy trying to woo a girl, or for Aunt Edna trying to “wow” her nephews. Add on to that the fact that scoop shops are a destination location which means that consumer want selection. (Think of going to a donut store and finding only 2 types of donuts). Furthermore, the consumers of the scoop cones straddle a very broad and diverse market who have widely varying taste preferences. (According to the Boardwalk management, “Tiger Tiger” and “Bubblegum” are among the most preferred flavours for kids, Maple Walnut for seniors, for example.) Finally, since the scoop shop purchases are heavily consumed only in summer months, there is value for the consumer in variety. For example, if a consumer visits the scoop shop 7 times over a month, he will derive extra pleasure in changing up his/her order from time to time. Plus, she will like to take a bite out of her ice-cream partner’s other-flavored cone too. In sum, scoop shops have a unique purchase dynamic that lead to many varieties being offered in spite of distribution challenges.

Of course, the demand side can only be realized if the “supply side” is feasible as well. Here too, ice cream manufacturing seems to lend itself well to flavour diversity. The same production process that works for vanilla ice cream manufacturing seems to work for other flavour production as well(save for some recipe alterations). And, unlike chocolate bars manufacturing which all has different shapes, weights, and unique packaging requirements, ice cream manufacturing for scoop shops can be done in uniform packaging and sizes. In short, the marginal cost of new varieties is essentially the ingredients and stopping the production line to change recipes.

This takes us to brand. When perusing flavors of ice cream, you'll probably notice brand-centric ice creams like: Smarties, Aero, Caramilk, Coffee Crisp, and Rolo (see "The Kids Did What"). Well developed confectionery brands are relevant and easy-to-extend to ice cream flavors. If a chocolate bar is a treat, then even better is a "chocolate bar ice cream" to cool you down on a hot summer's day. The point is this, easy-to-extend chocolate brands help to crank up the variety of ice cream flavors.

So, tonight’s entry is a little bit more content light. I thoroughly enjoyed my visit to the Boardwalk and reviewing its 56 flavor offering. I can see how some would find the choice overwhelming. But I didn’t. Tonight I intentionally ordered a vanilla. 3079 more combinations to go.

Some fun facts on ice cream:
Best selling Boardwalk flavor: Rolo
Best selling ice cream flavors?
What flavour of ice cream are you?
Bacon Ice Cream?
A cute blog post on brand flavor ice cream.