Nice and Aggressive: Post 3 of 3

We've discussed the importance of pride and desire for a brand to establish confidence and consistency. For a brand to ultimately establish a tone that is direct and positive there is one last piece in the puzzle.

Truth
The last component of success for a brand to pull of being nice and aggressive is trust. You can have confidence and create desire in the mind of consumers. You can own joy and blanket the side of every bus in North America with your message, but if you break your customers trust it is all for nothing. Breaking trust doesn't just mean lying to them. It means:

• using one price point as bate and switching it with another when customers inquire.
• setting up false expectations for a product based on the desire you've created. If you're T-Mobile and you say "life is for sharing" but fail to offer reliable or convenient service, you've failed to backup your promise. If you say you're better, cooler, happier or faster than be just that. Don't confuse customers with clutter and detailed product messages.
• allowing customers to wait for more than 2-3 minutes to talk to a representative.
• calling or emailing customers who have not asked to be contacted. Getting an email address for info about Product A doesn't mean they want to hear about Product B or C.
• failing to help a customer because you only empower your employees to follow a procedure rather than provide a solution.
• providing a warranty* or guarantee* - no *, it is either guaranteed or it isn't.
• Being aggressive in mass media and but not offering the price to the mass market.
• Using contracts as excuses to keep your customers from being treated fairly and as valuable consumers
• Using mass media to shout out offers and expecting anyone to care. For people to notice you need to build trust. If you break the points above, everything else you say will have less credibility and will reflect on your brand across the board.
  

What other ways to do brands break trust? I'd actually like to build a list.

To recap, for a brand to be positive and aggressive they need to be confident and consistent in each consumer touch point (product, advertising, customer service, etc)

To be confident and consistent, a brand needs to build on three pillars:
1) Pride
2) Desire
3) Truth

If all three pillars are covered, consumers will grant the brand permission to reach them at higher levels of engagement and will ultimately make choices to choose this brand even in the absence of a promotional campaign or even with the abundance of a rational alternative. This brand will own the consumers share of mind and stand for something greater than the features its product delivers.

Nice and Aggressive: Post 2 of 3

We started this discussion on the premise that the ability for a brand to succeed requires confidence and consistency. One of the first pillars to ensure that a brand to reach this level of confidence and consistency was for it to emit pride. The second pillar is desire.

Desire
Rule #1 in sales is to build desire with your prospect. The same goes for brand development. If consumers feel that there is pride and confidence in a brand they will start to pay attention. Step two is to ensure that the brand offers something they desire. This can tangible, like an innovative product. It can be communications based, like excellent customer service. Or it can be in-tangible, like a promise to be better or a connection to an emotion (i.e.: Life's for sharing - T-Mobile).

For 90% of the brands out there, the product or service they are selling is not massively different from its competition. The employee (if they have pride/confidence may say it does) but to most consumers it does not. This is the biggest reason why finding a desire point that is bigger than the product you sell is essential to delivering a positive and aggressive message to consumers. If we look at Computers, Soft Drinks, Mobile Phone Carriers, Furniture, Cars, Clothes - in every major product category you can find a core offering and match it to a set of needs and wants within the consumer market. It just so happens that if someone is looking to show the world that they are worth more than their neighbor, they'll buy a Mercedes instead of a Buick. Although Apple is innovative as an organization, as a brand they dominate cool. The core message they deliver is that they are cooler than everyone else. Regardless of how innovative HP is able to be, they will never (at least within the current branding landscape) be cooler than Apple.

Think about this...does your brand own a desire that is greater than the tangible features of its product?

Nice and Aggressive: Post 1 of 3

Can a brand be positive and aggressive? Can it hit hard but come off as nice in the minds of the consumer? The simple answer is yes.

The complicated answer has to do with confidence.

The next three blog posts will explore three pillars of the pillars to build a brand that will allow a brand to be positive and aggressive in brand communications and actions

If the nature of a brand is to be positive and optimistic - think Pepsi (joy), Coke (open happiness), Apple (experience) - it will have a hard time pulling of assertive messaging unless it shows consistent confidence. The brands I've mentioned have the distinguished fortune of providing exceptional products, however the core of any brand does require confidence and consistency so that consumers allow their message to be heard.

Emit Pride
The first step for a brand to combine positive and aggressive messaging is to show pride. Pride in itself, its people and its products. This should not be confused with self-centered advertising. It means that if the brand is going to communicate, each image, message and media will reflect the pride and confidence this brand believes in.

If we dig one foot deeper, the core of any brand are the people that stand behind it. Employees require pride and confidence in the brand for this to end up as a believable proposition in the minds of consumers. If an executive team/customer service department/marketing team/etc. cannot decide on a unifying message that describes the brand, pride will never resonate with the consumer, regardless of the clever tactics or creative advertising that are thrown at them.

There are a few industries that are often picked on by consumers and marketers for being wolves in sheep's clothing. They attempt to be nice but the core brand is focused on aggression. Think about some used car companies, insurance companies or telemarketers.

Look through your organization - do your employees show pride in the brand? Does your brand reflect this pride in its communications?

The best seafood in the world

A few weeks ago I took a drive through 11 states on my way to South Carolina to visit some friends. As I made my way down the East Coast the changing scenery provided plenty of entertainment for my 26 hour drive. Beyond the changing scenery, the outdoor advertising and retail signs were equally entertaining.

I was on some back road in Maine, trying to shave a few hours of my trip (unsuccessfully) and passed a small shack restaurant. It was tucked in the side of the road just outside my line of site. It had one of those back lit movable signs that allow the owner to change out the letters. You know the ones that have the arrow at the top that points towards whatever it's advertising?

On the sign it reads "Best seafood in the world". Perfect. A bold statement that could not be more clear. If it wasn't 8:00 in the morning I may have stopped in to find out what the best seafood in the world tasted like. What I love about this type of situation is that we clearly have a small business making a serious effort to market its product. This restaurant has gone out and made the greatest claim a seafood restaurant could possibly make. As a result, I'm sure they get more patrons, but more importantly, I bet they work harder to deliver on that promise. It could be argued that there just setting people up for disappointment, but I didn't try the food so I can't comment.

Side Note - this picture is not from the restaurant I'm referring to. The best seafood in the world restaurant is obviously better.

Lesson 1 from the Best Seafood Restaurant in the World:
It takes a lot of courage to actually try to be a better business than what people expect from you.

Usually making some over-the-top claim isn't the way to do it, but at least it's something. Good advertising and marketing is as much about telling a story and entertaining as it is about what you're selling. Companies reach a point where they focus so much on what they know, that they forget what makes people actually care about them. If you're in business, have customers and are actually making money - the story that captured your current customers is probably a great place to start when looking for new ones.

Lesson 2 from the Best Seafood Restaurant in the World:
Don't be so afraid to be impressive or to say something truly and unbelievably bold. In the right context and market it can be done honestly and can drastically shift the way people (customers and employees) think about your business.

Lessons from a crazy dancer

I love this video. It reflects a great lesson in marketing...



I'm sure that at some point, we've all looked like that guy dancing on his own. For whatever reason, we decided to take a step against the standard around us. When this happens it is hard to feel anything but foolish.

For example, let's say we had decided to implement a new media strategy. Something driven by what people enjoy, and something connected by what they like to share. Excited we take the leap and make our strategy a reality. We've flown out of the gate only to realize that we're completely exposed to everyone else. Now we're not quite as comfortable. The worst part about this is that for a while it feels like we'll always be it - that guy dancing alone at a concert. It is at this point that most brands give up. They've been dancing in a new strategy or social media space and the initial momentum has worn off - they're feeling insecure. They're starting to doubt if this whole strategy thing is going to work. Everyone's looking at them but no one is really joining in. For most brands (currently) that's enough. They've made their point. They've proven they weren't afraid to try. Another successful stunt that held the attention of a few thousand eyeballs and 'engaged the audience'.

Meanwhile, a smaller portion of brands (let's call them the Few Brands) will stick it out long enough to reach another level of 'engagement'. The Few Brands will have the reward of being noticed plus have the experience of being mocked. Much like the second guy who joined our wild man dancer in the video, another brand will try to pick-up on the attention the Few Brands are generating. For those copy-cats the visual impact will be less - their intention is misplace. It reflects a strategy based on brand insecurities or laziness.


Then there is the last segment of brands who will realize the most success for their patience and efforts. The Successful Brand sets out knowing it may look foolish, but is equipped with the strategic depth to ignore (or even encourage) those that mock/tag along to the idea. The Successful Brand will finally encourage that third person to join in. That third person represents the key audience the Successful Brand requires to break down the barrier between 'audience engagement' (those who watch) and 'audience participation' (those who join). Soon after that audience joins, the momentum carries itself. No longer needing the original brand presentation, these people define their interaction with each other and their own enjoyment as projections of the Successful Brand's original action. The people no longer notice the awkward foolish looking dancer. Instead they embrace the intention and experience the Successful Brand has initiated. In the end, it is the memory of that experience that will be tied to the brand: The experience being synonymous with what that Successful Brand means to the people it has connected to each other.
Hat Tip: Martin Delaney

UPDATE JUNE 10: Read Seth Godin's take on the video http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/06/guy-3.html

Scarcity

Back in March I talked about Montreal's Taverne Crescent, one of the latest to join the pay-what -you-want dining trend. The idea demonstrated by truly allowing people to give you what you are worth. A direct experience/reward strategy.

On the other side of the spectrum, there is Charlie's Burgers in Toronto. This restaurant does not have a fixed location. Customers must apply to eat there. If you happen to be one of the 30 of 250 applicants selected for the culinary experience, you don't actually find out where or what you will be eating until the day of your reservation (invited guests are sent to a public spot - like a phone booth or newspaper stand - to receive the address).

The whole setup leverages our own emotions and social behavior to build the brand. It plays with our heads and our internal sense of ownership over what we consume.

• I can't go even if I want to - I have to be invited
  
• The name of the restaurant has little to know reflection of the food it serves - so what am I getting into?
  
• The restaurant is really only an idea (it doesn't physically exist) up until the point I actually get to eat.

All this plays on another sweet strategy to gain brand fans - scarcity.

Incorporate scarcity into your business/brand
When I say scarcity, most peole jump to the luxury brand market, but it can be an awesome tool to turn satisfied customers into fans for almost any brand. One way is to limit your immediate growth by defining criteria. An example of this is Seth Godin's Triiibes. When you pre-purchased the book, you were invited to a closed (and still closed) social network. This group of people became a tightly knit community and idea of triiibes beyond the footprint of a regular book launch truly driving word-of-mouth and future growth of the Seth Godin brand.

Another way to incorporate scarcity is to take a segment of customers and give them a privilege that no other customer gets - they'll immediately talk about it. I'm talking a remarkable perk - not movies passes to the local theatre (although those too have value for some customer service strategies). You may even have regular customers complain (which will scare your executive team, and you will have to be prepared to deal with both sides of the complaint). That's not really the point though.

Adding a sense of scarcity to your brand experience changes the game.

• It usually eliminates most of the direct competition. Why? Because of the two points below.

• It automatically pulls on peoples ego's (rather than rational thought). Irrational fans are every brands best differentiator.
  

• Makes price secondary in the promise

So what's the problem?
The biggest problem brands have managing scarcity - they want to include everyone. If you have a high revenue customer segment who happens to be Mom's from 30-35, the impact to this segment diminishes for each additional age you stretch the criteria to meet. If I am one of 250 people I probably feel differently than if I am one of 250 million. Marketing scarcity is probably the most difficult tactic to undertake. Usually corporate self control and brand self-esteem, sabotage its implementation. The temptations to lower your standards or change your criteria, to second guess yourself, to think of all the reasons against it, or to gain the quick buck over building long-term immeasurable demand is always there. The minute you fall for this temptation, the investment into your customers is burned.

A final point on scarcity.
Regardless of the economic situation, a brands ability to market scarcity (either as the whole brand, a sub-brand, or segment of customers) provides a sense of control. You define who you want to be part of your club, and you make people work (emotionally, financially, or otherwise) to become a part of that club. In a recession, this usually means that your reputation and market stay relatively stable (remember irrational purchase behavior) - another benefit to this strategy.

Social Media Myth #3: Why Change?

I've talked about two other social media myths here and here. My third Social Media Myth is based on the train of thought that if my brand has been successful for the last 30 years doing advertising the way we do, then why change.

The problem with this logic is that the last 30 years have no relevance whatsoever to what will happen over the next 30 years. It ignores all the factors that can drastically impact your business - like technology, public opinion, common sense, global governments, economics and competition.

In GM's glory days of the 1950's, revolutionary auto designer Harvey Earl warned that people, although still buying behemoth's for cars, were starting to take interest in the smaller cars offered by foreign (not yet established) competitors. The public opinion was shifting. Harvey was ignored - GM had been on a growth blitz for over 20 years dominating the market place selling well over 50% of cars in the U.S. Why change? People were still buying big. They were established. They owned the market. I don't need to finish this story as the downhill slide is a favorite topic in the media. Similar examples can be found in the music/record label business, your regional newspaper mix and the U.S banking industry.

Okay, so those examples are beyond the scale of your organization. Let's try something else.

There is a whole generation of people about to enroll in university who have been online their entire lives. They never used a rotary phone, owned a record/eight track/tape/CD collection, and can text message quicker than they can call a friend. They are currently a low value consumer. Meanwhile, your primary loyal consumer base is aging and shifting their spending to match their fixed income retired lifestyle. You know them well. Their loyalty is social across their generation. Delivering on one good promise set you up for a lifetime of loyal spending. However each subsequent generation of people is less loyal. Less loyal and louder. Delivering on one promise isn't enough. They can be in love with your brand but one bad experience and they are gone. Plus that slip up will be video taped, photographed or transcribed online and archived forever. You don't get credit like you used to. You blame 'that target market'. You focus your money and attention on the dying consumer instead. Meanwhile a competitor realizes that loyalty comes at a higher price. They change their communication model. They shift their culture to embrace the criticism and react. They win.

This social media myth is the most poisonous. Not just because it ignores the opportunity that comes from talking to people who will pay your salary (and make your shareholders happy) but because it reflects a far worse, underlying problem in corporate culture.

More personality from a local brand

In February, I commented on the common-sense approach (yet one that is rarely used) that Nova Scotian Crystal used to address consumer confidence in the financial strength of the brand. A well crafted letter written like a friendly conversation - rather than the corporate nonsense we often hear from most brands- went out to customers. It discussed how the downturn in the economy has affected Canada's oldest blown glass company, made a couple of suggestions on how one could help and even made a few guarantees about the future of the company.

Well, it's now May and a follow-up letter has been sent to the same audience. It is written in pretty much the same conversational tone, but tells a story of renewal rather than recession. I've attached a copy below for you to read.

I have not seen any formal press on this yet. I hardly expect a story like this would make it into the newspaper - it just isn't scary enough. Regardless, I don't think it matters. The previous letter came out during a time of bad press for Nova Scotian Crystal. In my post there was a comment left about the importance of balancing consumer communications with the media as both impacted perceptions and ultimately word-of-mouth. However, in this case I think that Nova Scotian Crystal has continued to acknowledge the source of its success and the power in its customer base. We often say that customers will speak with their wallets and, although the newspaper is a trusted source of information, it still does not surpass the referral or reference from a trusted friend.

This letter plays to all the common-sense marketing strategies that are so often forgotten:

1. It recognizes that existing customers are easier and more cost effective to keep, and persuade to repeat purchase, than finding a new customer.
2. It recognizes that existing customers usually have a vested interest in your success (they've given you time and money - which never comes lightly).
3. The letter is about 'you' not 'us'. Although it has to communicate the 'us' story, it puts the attention on the the people that contribute to the success rather than the brand.
4. It has done something that most brands have a lot of trouble doing - recognized that there are people who are passionate about the brand. Most brands are extremely insecure about this. They fail to give their customers credit. Need an example - think of most viral participation campaigns. Even if humor has no place within the brand it is often used because it is generally thought to be an easier sell. In these cases it is just underestimates the way people actually feel about the brand and discredits the intent behind the campaign.
5. NS Crystal makes a remarkable product. This always helps. I know it sounds obvious, but there are a ton of just-good-enough products sitting on the shelves at department stores across the country. None of those manufacturers could establish the customer relationship like this even if they wanted to.
   
6. The brand has a story (that sometimes is not told well enough). To the people that buy into the brand, the remarkable product becomes part of their life. Word-of-mouth spreads easier when your product is a big part of your brand. In this letter, the story continues to be told.

I know there are a pile of other little things I could pull from this, but I think the main points resonate well. Often marketing tactics are just distractions to the truth. However it is truth and common sense which are two foundations of any good relationship.

I guarantee that for the next 300 years...

I read this post the other day. Brikolor, a new Swedish company, is making furniture"with a guaranteed emotional and technical durability of 300 years".

Timid trapeze artists are dead trapeze artists.
To misuse a quote from Seth Godin, if you're going to do something, doing it with confidence is usually the best chance of survival (Seth was actually talking about transitions in his blog post). We often talk about how we need to be more confident in our marketing efforts. Too often we settle for just-good-enough when it comes to how we position our products (although we see many companies settling for just-good-enough products...but that's another post). I'm sure that there have been thousands of furniture companies who could have claimed a 300 year guarantee - I mean I have at least one elderly relative who has a chair that is still rocking after a few generations. But Brikolor said it first - and many times in marketing that's enough to own the positioning. In this case it is a litteral description of the product, sometimes it is less to the point but equally appealing - like T-Mobile's "Life's for sharing" (which is awesome for so many reasons).

Don't forget emotion.
Notice as well that Brikolor even provide their own 'emotional' guarantee. An ambiguous statement intended to play to your own personal ego and taste. This overrides the common sense that most of the furniture I owned in college is not still in style today, or that the ottomen that sat in my childhood living room, with it's rust plaid patch work and gold wheels, is hardly going to fit todays style - but that's the beauty of emotion...it doesn't need to make sense.

Your positioning is not for your benefit.
Not only has this company gone out and made a bold statement, it has decided to make one that evokes loyalty to the customer. It is positioned to matter to the customer, rather than the industry. I'm pretty sure I will not live to be 300 (you never know) - but Brikolor's has told me that if I give them my attention and money, they will return the favor by giving me the last chair I will ever need to buy. Of course, if it's the last chair I'm ever going to buy it will take me a while to figure what style I will enjoy for the next 300 years. Basically Brikolor has tapped into the fact that people are skeptical. The guarantee attempts to bypass the history requirement that most of the competitors use to prop up reliabitly (we've been around since 1759). It also speaks to a few niche audiences, while not alienating too many people in the mass audience. Think eco-friendly, people friendly, family friendly...

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. The company is still young, but has already provided some great examples of one part of the marketing puzzle. How they service their customers and how the purchase process goes is another piece of that puzzle that will ultimately determine weather Brikolor sinks or swims for another 300 years.

We give ourselves too much credit

Yesterday I posted how we don't give our customers enough credit. That we underestimate the role our brand plays in their lives. This should not be confused with the other side of the equation. That is - that we over estimate the role our products play in the lives of our customers.

We love the products we make. We're pretty sure that everyone else who uses them feels the same. Unfortunately, there are a few problems with this.
1) We are all very poor judges of what other people think is important (don't pretend otherwise).
2) Our competitors love the products they make, and think everyone else feels the same way.
3) Our shared customer base is not buying your product. They are buying the product that fits them at that particular moment in time. To them it's not so much a choice, as social availability: its what I want at this time and it fits my current standards.

When we focus on our product our messaging changes to focus on immediacy, exploiting the weakness of the old or building a mountain of value around what is shiny and new. This increases sales by nudging consumers into a state of inadequacy. What used to pass as 'great' drops down in their standards to 'useless'. We shift their focus to filling that void with our new product. Unfortunately, this focus does nothing to build trust in a consumer base. It does nothing to stand out from our competitors. It fails to be truly different.

This may sound crazy, but people tend to enjoy feeling confident. They enjoy being praised for their decisions or comforted by their peers. The role your product plays in their lives is only as good as the narrow promise that product can make to them. Chances are, someone else's product can make a comparable promise (I mean comparable in the mind of your consumer - yes, I know your product is different, holds more value, blah, blah, blah). Shift that focus to your brand - as my last post describes - and you change the game to a relationship strategy over a product strategy. One where whoever has the most fans wins.

Of course to do this, you require significant confidence in what you are selling. Your product needs to be great. Your people need to be better. Every measure of consumer interaction has to be held to that brand promise. In the long run, this strategy will win. In the short run, you'll definitly piss off at least a couple of sales and product managers - but it will be worth it.

Two tales of brand cultural integration

There is an interesting parallel being played out in the young/hip/artsy consumer market. The new team in the game is Nissan and it's star (for now) is the Cube. The vehicles design and the approach echo the pioneering leg work that Toyota successfully laid down almost seven years ago.

In 2003 Toyota launched the Scion - a brand within the Toyota brand that tried very hard to avoid association with it's large corporate father. The car entered the 'mass' market with no traditional mass strategy. Scion knew it's consumer and half a million trying to reach this consumer - not through television, social media or billboards, but by focusing its efforts on integrating the Scion into the target consumer culture. It placed the vehicle outside raves, inside art galleries, dropped them off to a few bloggers, a few niche zine editors - and ended up winning, as sales of the Scion far exceeded the expectations and grew substantially over the next few years.

Jump to 2009 and we have Nissan tapping into a very similar market with a very similar looking car. The Cube is taking its own approach to cultural integration. Focusing on a sub-culture turned mass-cultural medium - Twitter. The Cube is running a contest to aware 50 fine citizens with a new car. I know this doesn't sound like cultural integration - but it's not really the tool that makes this story interesting - it's the strategy.

The contest was open to everyone. If you wanted a free car - if the design spoke to you or [better yet] if the brand meant something to you - it was up to you to define what the vehicle stands for and why you deserve it. As a result thousands of entrants started blogs, tweeting, producing videos, stunts, art exhibits, and other reflections of their cultural communications to spread the word and generate buzz. Then Nissan selected a short-list of 500 and have left it open for public voting. This has only increased the buzz generating efforts of the chosen 500.

The underlying impact on the Cube is twofold:

1. The brand is being defined by those who will ultimately buy into it. The catch is that it is being defined in a multitude of ways - as each contest consumer has a different opinion or connection to the brand.
2. Through generating buzz the Cube is finding its way into the consumer culture it needs to be successful. The beauty of the online space is that it can create a substantial echo that reaches far beyond the reach and time originally planned.

The Scion approached the underground culture with an aura of secrecy, hoping to intrigue the key influencers (think Gladwell's Tipping Point). By creating curiosity and allowing these influencers to own the buzz/brand - it was able to leverage the independent underground and evolve a brand within the culture. The strategy wasn't 100% driven by key influencers, but it did manage to hit all the right people at the right time.

The Cube is assuming that those who are working so hard to prove they are worthy of a free car will become influencers during the process. A more open ended approach, it has forgone the secrecy that accompanied the Scion and went for full disclosure - but in a targeted consumer effort. As a result this campaign has the possibility to reach a wider audience and be less of a strict underground/alternative brand. A mass friendly approach to grass roots advertising.

The story has yet to finish. The Cube has just narrowed the list to 500, and we are a few months away from seeing whether the strategy will lead to a win on the car lots. Regardless of the result, a contrasting case study of two similar vehicles using the tools of the hour to reach a narrow band of consumers promises to be entertaining.

The cola wars continue

When in doubt go back to basics.

This might be a line out of the marketing plans for both Coke and Pepsi as their 'natural' campaigns start to see some daylight. The proverbial stake in the ground this time seems to be kicking it old school.

Coke's decided to bring out the original personality. It's dropped the "Coca-Cola Classic" moniker, going back to the "The Real Thing" we've seen on and off for centuries. Boasting no artificial flavours or colours, talking about glass bottles and the mystery of their 1886 secret formula, we're seeing a less exciting/over-the-top side of Coke but something more genuine and relevant.

With Pepsi, they're launching Pepsi Natural (and it's coming to North America). This is a version of the world's second favorite cola with real sugar, rather than the High Fructose Corn Syrup that makes up a big portion of the liquid found in both cola brands. Besides the fact that HFCS is a blacklisted product for most health conscious consumers, not to mention a diabetics arch nemesis, it's also what helps keep these colas priced low (compared to what I don't know). A plus for consumers - this stuff actually tastes better and leaves the palette with a "smooth" feeling. Pepsi tends to bottle up branches of its brands for short sprints in the market, but you can't help but wonder if Coke or Pepsi have moved in their own directions as a result of each other.


If you look back over the history of these two brands fighting in market, their advertising is a great reflection of pop culture and consumer mindset. So you can't help but wonder if these two moves are another reflection of that environment. There has been a push towards natural, organic and healthy alternatives in many consumer minds (especially mid to high end consumers) and niche market sodas have capitalized - cutting into the market with a unique personality and the stamp of natural flavors to tie into this growing consumer mindset. Both Coke and Pepsi have left this type of messaging on the back burner, instead pursuing lifestyle advertising, sports endorsements, and high-buzz stunts. In the midst of delivering the ad some of their brand basics have been lost to the consumer.

Another point might be that in a time where consumers are eyeing corporations through a larger lens, the new campaigns may reflect the effort to be more financially, environmentally and/or health conscious. This might be a bit far fetched but stranger things have happened.

So the cola wars continue - another chapter in history defined by the mass advertising of the world's cola behemoths. I'll be in line to buy a real sugar Pepsi and I always prefer my coke in a glass bottle (it does actually taste better).

Sex with the lights on

The big companies (and perhaps not unrelated - the companies that are in the most financial trouble) have always built stuff that was made to reach the most amount of people. General Motors, Blockbuster, Circuit City, AT&T, pick a clothing company - all these companies, and most of their competitors, have all focused on pleasing - at most- the widest variety of people with the fewest products possible.

Now, we hear a lot about the Long Tail, Tribes, the Herd, and the need for new marketing and new companies to narrow their focus and do better than please people. All consumers will tell you there happy or "feel good" about the interaction. That's less of a compliment and more of an auto-response. Plus, we've set the bar so low on "happy" customers that it only means they don't hate us. Consumers need and want reasons to be absolutely passionate about the things that make up their lives.

The problem: If you are going to take your company/product past pleasing and into absolutely passionate consumer interactions you will piss a lot of people off.

Passionate = polarizing. True passion is almost blind to the opposing view.

The benefit: Passion is also an emotion that continuously drives desire. Rather than make an ad that drives a little bit desire, make a product that drives passion and desire will follow.

UPDATE: Feb 16, 2009. Turns out the Anti-Gym is a not-so-great example. Lawsuits and unpaid taxes shut it down. Lesson: every brand needs more than a reputation - it needs to have competent people behind it and needs to work for its consumer. Sound business is always a great place to start. So, I apologize for the terrible example, but it was polarizing regardless. If you're looking for another example of a more narrowed approach by brands look at: The Container Store (niche marketing), Umpqua Bank (not your grey suit bankers), Toone Guitars (get off the bandwagon), and even Toyota's choice to make the Prius (not so big news now, but considering who it was launched by and what state the auto industry is in...it is big news).

Now for the not so great example I gave of the now defunct Anti-Gym...

A great example of love it or leave it positioning is summed up well by Anti-Gym. This Denver based fitness centre understands the words "polarizing" and "passionate". It speaks to a well defined group of people. Because Anti-Gym knows who it is talking to, it can clearly speak to those people. It doesn't worry about everyone else - just the people who will be passionate about this fitness brand.

Ant-Gym is against the gym/spa culture of fun weight loss and evening leisure that currently pollute the fitness centre market. For example: Why do people work out? Is it to run marathons? Sometimes. Is it for their highly laborous lives? Rarely. Is it to look better and be attractive? Almost always. So Anti-Gyms answer: "Have sex with the lights on".

Or how about this...most people that joined their local gym in January have long returned to their evenings watching reality TV. Anti-Brand has one thing to say and it clearly narrows who will accept their message: "No chubbies allowed! A 'chubby' is not necessarily someone with a spare tire or thunder thighs, it’s an unmotivated, lazy slob who wants to blame everybody else but themselves for their shortcomings."

So Anti-Gym is a great example of a narrow focus and leveraging passion. If you end up browsing the site, their mass marketing ads are a terrible example of how to communicate the brand promise. They also push the boundaries on communication and message to the point of ignorance. But that probably won't stop this brands growth. (update - it has. This brand died after lawsuits and tax trouble).

10 steps to build a brand story

1. Find a need. Take the need to educate and combine it with need to feed the hungry.
   
2. Approach like-minded people. Find a pile of sponsors who share both those values.
3. Secure funding. Have them purchase thousands of bags of rice as their sponsorship.
   
4. Work on the mechanics. Take all you know, your need, and your funding a build a model to fulfill the need(educate and help the hungry).
   
5. Deliver an experience. Build a database of trivia questions, covering all major areas of education. Then build a really great website that's easy to use, easy to find, and provides the greatest payoff the more people use it. Associate a story, a payoff, and reach out to like-minded communities/people.
   
6. Find people who want to be a part of something.
7. Give them the opportunity to make a difference.
8. Make it worth it. Reward them for their efforts.
9. Sharing is everything. Encourage them to share the feeling of being part of something.
10. Execute. Show your sponsors and your people how together everyone has indeed been a part of something and together they have made a difference.

In case you haven't figured it out - these steps reflect FreeRice.com. An amazing story about 37 billion grains of rice going to those who need it while including thousands of people as participants in the charitable process. A win-win situation. You answer educational questions correctly and you get smarter. For every question you answer correctly we'll give some rice to a deserving person.

But that's just half the story. The really interesting twist is that FreeRice.com didn't have to go through the effort to build an experience. It could have been just another NPO that helps the hungry. In this case, I think that most of the rice is paid for in advance - so its already going to the hungry regardless of people participating. The real marketing comes from how FreeRice.com packages up the experience. It added value on both ends of the process by changing the context from we're feeding the hungry so pay attention to you can make a difference, be a part of something bigger and be rewarded.

FreeRice.com recognized that there are millions of people who want to help but don't. There is a whole generation who want to be involved, but need that first push. FreeRice took two simple ideas (education and charity) and made it a story - a true experience that engages the participant and creates a sense of action and community.

There are lots of brands that could easily survive by just doing what they do - by showing people how they do it or telling them about the brands progress. The brands will win bring people into the process. They invite participation. They look to serve a community of individuals with similar values who are as excited about the brand as they are. They focus on making the story interesting rather than the process. Everything is people/consumer facing.

Doing what you do best is easy. Making what you do best interesting enough for people to talk about is tough.

Martin offers a great post on experience marketing and connecting people to something bigger. It's not charity - but it's still emotion.

Is McDonald's successful because it's 54 years old?

What would happen if an established brand - like Coke, Marlboro or McDonald's - were to begin their brand building journey today? Would they use the same tactics, leverage the same tools, or grow as quickly? Or has the game changed? Have the smoke and mirrors that built many old brands disappeared in todays consumer connected world?

Let's look at McDonald's.

Every kids piece of paradise, McDonald's is one of the privileged brands to be globally recognizable, while being loved and hated. It's got the logo, the experience, the environment, the mobility, the scalability and the famous (but fictional) spokesperson that all work to reflect and support this established brand. It's gone so far that even the iconic Ronald McDonald has a more recognizable face to children than the Pope and some prominent political figures.

Let's take it all away and say that today McDonald's is opening its first hamburger stand in Des Plaines, Illinois in 2009. Would McDonald's be able to build its brand with the speed and profit that Ray Kroc managed to create using new media tools? Would Ronald McDonald be introduced through the corporate blog? Would Ray monitor twitter for brand remarks? How about a targeted Ad Words campaign for keyword "Cheeseburger" and "Fries"? Forget the TV investment that allowed McDonald's to enter the living room of every kid in North America - aren't kids glued to YouTube and creeping on FaceBook? Why not post some low budget videos and setup up a Fan Group.

I'm obviously exaggerating and I know that the context that made McDonald's do what it did in 1954 is different today. However, I wonder if the McDonald's brand is the result of a keen businessman, a new business model, a consistent experience and a long history? Or is it because Ray took an ordinary product, created an extraordinary experience and used the tools available to spread the message widely? It's probably both.

The key string that ties this stuff all together - the McDonald's brand always knows what it stands for and who it speaks to. The investment it made in creating the experience (think McDonald's Playland, the Hamburgler, The Big Mac song) were not just targeted sales tactics, they were adding to the foundation needed for a sustainable brand. Regardless of how much the game has changed:

• the consumer still buys on emotion,
• there is always something to be said for a good story,
• consistent service and product delivery defines value and quality for many people and
• service with a smile goes a long way.

Your thoughts?

Does Branding Kill Your Profit?

I just finished reading Geoffrey James point of view in his latest blog post.

Here's a quick excerpt for Geoffrey's "How Branding Can Kill Your Profit":

"I also believe that developing “Awareness, Interest, and Desire” (aka “Branding”) inside B2B firms is mostly just an excuse to spend money.

In fact, branding is overrated in B2C firms, too. Marketeers frequently cite examples, like Coke, where corporate branding appears to command customer preference and a premium price.

But Coke’s “brand equity” is the result of a century of providing a higher quality product combined with an efficient distribution methodology with extraordinary reach. Those are far more responsible for the popularity of the Coke “brand” than the marketing, which has frankly been cookie-cutter SPAM just like every other consumer product."

Nice polarizing post.

I might agree that a lot of 'branding' campaigns are more about waiving a company’s own flag than closing sales. But that's the fault of THAT company, not ‘branding’.

There are examples that come to mind where either branded product placement (E.T. and Reese’s Pieces), non-sales messaging (i.e. Community sponsorships on a hyper local level), and simple consistent messaging on why Brand X = need fulfillment, that have shown the benefits of 'brand' messaging.

The statement that nobody would by an LG over a lower priced Samsung may be accurate (because it’s an LG) - but pose the same questions with Samsung vs Sony. Harley-Davidson vs Yamaha. Or Whopper (world's best tasting burger - with less market share) over McDonald's.

The answers rarely lie in a consumer being logical in their choice (every sales person knows this, and marketers should to). Yes - the product must be good, priced right and distributed properly -but with all things being equal our emotions and experience often override logical choice. If all you need is 'well made, well priced, and easily accessible' then 8 of 10 new products wouldn't fail within the first 3 months.

Branding, when done properly, leverages company history, logo, color, design, fragrance, consumer memory, consumer experience, and sales impact to override logical thought and increase the chance that in that 2.5 seconds a consumer is forced to pick a jar of peanut butter in the supermarket their choice comes easy.

Hat-Tip to Martin Lindstrom. He explores the emotional brand connection much more in-depth in his latest book Buyology...and Randy Ansems for sending me Geoffrey's post.

Secrets to branding - 20% off.

I just spent 90% of my marketing budget telling you that our relationship is built on good customer service and customized solutions, rather than the bargain basement pricing of my competitors. Then I spent 10% of my budget to advertise a discounted price. Did I just waste 90% of my budget?

Or how about...

If I ask my customer to pay a premium for a best-in-class product (lets say $100), and then discount the same product a month later and sell it to a customer who would only pay $80 - which customer do I really want in the long run?

Which one feels I have more value?

Which one would be easier to convince in the future that my time is worth $100? or even $150?

Which one is less likely to jump ship for the next $80 deal?

Regardless of our economic time, a great brand competes by building its price to reflect the promise, story and experience it will provide. Every other brand competes by offering its reputation to the lowest bidder at a discounted price.

Who wants to be friends with Palmolive?

There have been a lot of conversations recently about the relevance of brands connecting to customers online. Some are saying "Who really wants to be "friends" with Proctor and Gamble on facebook?" and "What good does a viral video do when it potentially deceives the consumer?" On the otherside, we have a wave of other marketers, twitter fans and bloggers who encourage the brands they interact with to use the social tools available. Regardless of what side of the debate you're on, Peter Kim has made your life a bit easier. You can easily scan through the best (and worst) branded social media examples on his Wiki of Social Media Marketing Examples. It started out from a master list he was researching to analyize the relevance of social media. In just a few months the list has over 218 crowd-sourced entries - all of brands who are using the social media space to connect or promote to consumers. Some of my favorite examples:

• Ikea's Online Community - not for the community, but for the attempt to help thousands of people connect to assist each other in assembling furniture.
• Rubbermaids Flickr account - is it just me or is this a bit of a stretch. Apparently those who love Rubbermaid, really love it.
  
• Popeyes Chicken - on twitter. I can actually see that working. A brand in front of the consumer at a possible point of relevance/pain.
• This isn't on their but Sony just launched a relevant blog - just in time for CES 2009. This is scalable and has legs.
• One more nod to Verizon. It may not be the best company for customer service, but someone had their friendly hat on when they launched their Policy Blog. Unfortunately, we usually see this from companies as a tactic to lower the costs of customer complaints...
  

The results of viewing a list like this really exemplifies the infancy of this marketing tactic and how little is known about the triggers that will connect a brand to a consumer.

Why bother with a good design?

Don’t take this the wrong way, but will the design of your webpage, online ad, or any other marketing channel really impact your sales? I would agree 100% that it will impact your brand perception - but when it comes to sales does, sexy design trump the right message and offer?

This is a loaded question and depending which side of the conversation you’re on, will stir up some serious debate. I personally love good design. I enjoy something that is clever and pleasing to the eye. But I also like reviewing ad campaigns, reading and responding to blogs, checking out all things new online, and engaging in topics of interest with anyone willing to discuss them. In other words, I'm probably not the norm. The norm might look more like – I’m busy, I don’t want to figure out why the ad is clever, tell me the value, show me the experience, how easy is it to purchase.

We see poor design going viral - like the Max Motor Guns & Gas Giveaway. We are constantly forwarded to poorly laid-out landing pages from various Google ads or some daily newsletter. We'll even stumble upon cheesy copy that provokes an uncontrollable vomit reflex. There are endless examples of sub-par designs lurking around every corner that [perhaps unfortunately] achieve profitable results.

Without getting into the technical points or a discussion on consumer/brand connections, the basic point here is to avoid the distraction. With all the new media channels and all the discussion about 'connecting to your consumers' and 'consumer conversations' its easy to forget the single truth behind good marketing. A good message with the right offer for your audience will connect with them every time.

I’d love to see it look good, but that’s just me.

Making the world a heavy place.

Finally - a website with substance.

The Home of the Whopper has decided to blast crates of charbroiled meat patties in a sesame seed bun to remote areas of the planet that have yet to be transformed by the unsurpassed privilege of Western fast food. But the American fast food chain is not alone in its imperial quest to reach the corner's of the world - it is traveling with a comrade, the rival Big Mac. Together they promise to put an end to the long disputed title of the Western worlds best-tasting-made-in-under-2-minutes-hamburger.

Finally a corporation that is putting aside political differences and reaching out to its global neighbors. Imagine how limited and bland the lives of these targeted villages were before a helicopter landed delivering ...independence? ...economic stability? Nope. How about two patties of ground meat and FDA approved meat filler slammed between two pieces of sugar-laced bread product.

I'm interested to see how this campaign rolls out. I'll admit- its clever. It even has some captivating imagery and a very intriguing countdown clock (who can resist the countdown). It will garner some PR, build a community of new fans, and will probably give one of the companies the title belt. But we saw this with Pepsi and Coke. Nobody really cares which tastes better. Consumers have more reasons for their purchase beyond taste. Besides, if someone wanted a really good burger, I'm sure that they know a local restaurant or an uncle who makes the tastiest. Or if someone wants to be truly refreshed, they would drink a cold glass of water.

In this case, the brand is bigger than the burger.

What would be interesting (let me know if you have any info) is if Burger King has been priming these chosen markets with other advertising or communications and building the brand before the taste test.

Full disclosure: I'm not a vegan, and I do actually eat these products.