Knee deep in work

This has been the theme from the last few weeks. However, on my cold walk to work I made a comittment that I would make a focused reentry into the blogosphere. And while my phone is filled with snapped pictures begging to be released from their iPhone purgatory, for now I deny their crys.

A while back I wrote a post about manufacturing authenticity which I still believe in as a last resort. But I came across two interesting posts this morning that made me consider the general lack of culture through which things are emerging.  The first is an interview from the newly discovered A Continuous Lean in which Mr. G. Bruce Boyer discusses Ivy League style and how it emerged from a class culture and came to signify it. He makes the assertion that today’s fashion is a mash-up but that it is all about costuming rather than authentic references.

Second link comes from Daily What and is a very authentic list of what it takes to be cool. I’m moving my way up the cool scale as we speak and I’m currently seeking individuals who can speak “European” so that I may learn from their skills.

The problem with digital media.

Abstract : Digital Bokeh Effect

Originally uploaded by tanaka13 – Créations du Net

Or perhaps more appropriately titled, “The problem with people who work in digital media.”

Digital is a fantastic medium for doing some really interesting and creative things. The outstanding question though is whether it is indeed the equivalent of discovering a new galaxy or whether it is more like finding a pair of pants that you thought you had lost.

Follow me here for a bit. See, from my perspective digital media isn’t any different than traditional media in how consumers interact with it. For marketing it still breaks down to a few fundamentals:
• the appropriateness for the audience
• appropriateness for the brand
• the ability to get a message across
• and drive engagement and purchase

Within this realm of digital media we also have social media. Still conducted online the entire industry has been created by providing socially relevant tools and paying for them with advertising. But then marketers decided that they wanted to use these tools as well. But one can argue that they still don’t quite know what they are doing with these tools. They like to say that they are creating “brand engagement,” and some are, but others are attaching social media to existing plans like Frankenstein’s limbs. Twitter Wolf Blitzer anyone?

But on to the issue of “digital/social media” purveyors. I’ve sat through one to many conferences that feel like religious revivals. The self-appointed guru of media stands up, or more appropriately slouches, and says that “Obama is recreating the Presidency by reaching directly out to the people through YouTube” without taking time to understand that this has been going on since FDR started his fireside chats. That the only thing that has changed is the medium, not how it is being used.

Likewise, Razorfish has published a paper on how social media is influencing purchase behavior that is getting a lot of buzz. When I read the paper it seems to suggest that actually social media works just like regular media. Perhaps that the whole industry is still in the self validation stage and will start talking about real differences soon. I can only hope that it does and that it gets some intelligent voices in the mix as its champions.

hat tip: propagationplanning.com

Brand rejuvenation, without even trying

Workers place the final “S” of the Wal-Mart Supercenter in Waveland, Mississippi
Originally uploaded by cabraham

Brand consultants love to present analogues of the hip, cool companies that have transformed their category.  Target, Apple, BMW Mini, Prius, Dyson, Cirque du Soleil. It becomes sort of a circularly successful argument. Consultants want to work on cool brands, they convince their client that they could be a cool brand by pointing at other cool brands that they had worked on.

I remember having some conversations with Wal-Mart a few years ago. It was during the big Target surge and at least half of the room wanted to go into chase mode and start the style revolution from Bentonville. As the heads shook, there was some steep dissent from those who wanted to stick to the guns, noting that they were far more profitable than Target and that they owned a compelling proposition.

Today, it looks like Wal-Mart did the right thing. They stuck with their price centric positioning and only slightly moved toward a benefit orientation from “everyday low prices” to “save money, live better.” Yes, they also put in some wood paneled flooring and such, but as Wal-Mart has proven, if you own low-prices credibly you will always be in consideration. And increasingly in this economy, they are winning share of the wallet because price trumps cool.

No, they aren’t quite as hip and edgy as Target, but they continue to be far more profitable. Had they done what most marketing consultants would have recommended, they would likely be in a poorer situation today. It’s just a nice reminder that at the end of the day branding isn’t about making a brand hip and cool. It is about making it relevant and enduring. Right now Wal-Mart is looking pretty relevant.

A crisp, green, Apple

I loathe using Apple as an example for anything. Not because it is wrong to do so but it is just so damn obvious. Regardless, they have done a pretty good job of greening up their notebook line and then announcing it to the world in a manner that suggests they have always been green.

The environment has always been a sticky issue for the boys and girls from Cupertino. When I was at Sterling Brands we did a pro-bono project for Climate Counts. We were rather surprised that of all of the examined consumer electronic companies, Apple ranked the worst. There were also YouTube videos from folks like GreenPeace lambasting Apple for it’s environmental policy.

The new Apple campaign (here), is the advertising equivelent of a plea bargin deal where they pay the fine but don’t admit guilt, and that’s exactly the way that it should be. When a company updates it’s formulation or product line it shouldn’t feel as though it needs to shame itself for it’s past choices. It rather needs to present new and relevant reasons for purchase and if the environment or health or whathaveyou becomes part of the value equation then you talk about it. I’m still surprised how many brands, especially food stuffs, feel the need to say things like “now with no transfats!”, when a simple “no transfats” would do the trick.

And now a word about sponsors.

Will Work for Corporate Sponsorship
Originally uploaded by Morningstarphoto

MediaBistro got me thinking this morning when they announced that GM had jettisoned their relationship with  Tiger Woods due to the economic climate. My question is, what is the value of these relationships/associations/sponsorships anyway?

I’m sure there are some computer models out there but looking at it from a brand pov I’m not sure I see the point. Three examples for debate.

GM cuts it’s ties with Tiger.
Did any of us believe that Tiger actually drove a GM?
Does anyone believe that it would have been his choice car if they didn’t pay him?
Did you have a more favorable view of GM since it parked itself next to Tiger Woods?

Joseph Abboud signs a 3-year deal to provide free suits to NBA coaches. (no signage or credit during broadcasts)
Does anyone pay attention to what NBA coaches wear, and if so, are coaches emulated?
How many times do you see a coach during a game looking cool, confident and collected, and not sweaty and pitted out?
If someone does pay attention, how are they supposed to know who makes the suit?

Sprint Halftime Report
What does Sprint have to do with halftime or football?
Do you have a different or reinforced perspective of Sprint after halftime?

Flick your Bic, and call me

O telefone celular descartável da Bic – BIC PHONE
Originally uploaded by eaymichel

I seem to spend much of my time lately deriding brand extensions. Despite that fact, I do believe in extensions and I do believe that brands can grow in to new markets by leveraging their fundamental brand values and engineering technology.

Unlike that awful Vasoline extension, I do like the new move by BIC to enter into the reusable mobile phone market. The phones don’t pack much of a punch in terms of apps but they do what phones used to do…allow you to talk. Seems great for International business, low-income consumers and folks in the developing world. It also fits into BIC’s primary brand equities of being disposable and easy to use.

As important, is how the extension integrates into their business objectives of pushing fuel cell batteries. More here courtesy of BusinessWeek.

When Brands Attack – Modern Marketing Trends

Aggressive.

Originally uploaded by
Porcelaingirl° {enthusiastic foolish}

The economy is in the crapper, pocketbooks are tight, there are way too many brands in the world all competing for less money. The old terms like share-of-wallet only worked when the wallets were open and there was money in them ready to be sent out in the world to satiate our needs, wants and desires…if only temporarily.

As outlays shrink, brands HAVE to get more aggressive with their marketing to even maintain share. For that to happen, it helps if brands have been thinking about this all along.

In comfortable times, brands should still be managing their equities, building their customer base, creating loyalty and solidifying differentiation. This is all what really defines something as a brand. But as a great Warren Buffet quote goes, it is “in the times of low tide that you find out who has been swimming naked.” (Or something to that effect.)

The brands that are successfully playing offense are doing so on product differentiation. To simply scream louder and behave as a schoolyard bully will not win you points in this market. Playing the trump card that you have been holding will.

Apple is aggressively going after Microsoft by not just using product differentiation but now using Microsoft’s own advertising against them. Clever, witty, truthful and Apple has built up the equity and credibility over the last few years to play some hardball.

Progresso is going on the offense against Campbell’s with full page ads noting that they have no MSG, whereas Campbell’s does. Taking one product advantage, leveraging it and making it matter. This is how brands play offense. Campbell’s retort that Progresso tastes watery by comparison is subjective and sounds less authentic. Ironically, General Mills owned Progresso likely only removed MSG from their soups after previously being attached by Campbell’s sub-brand.

Dunkin Donuts is going after Starbucks with a taste test campaign touting its better tasting coffee. In this case the claim works better since the perception is that Dunkin Donuts is also cheaper. Whereby cheaper and better tasting always sounds better. Dunkin is also still perceived as an underdog which generally get more traction out of aggressive marketing.

Bottom line: when times are tough and money is tight you have to have clear product differentiation supported by a strong brand. Consumers aren’t going to take a lot of risks with their limited resources and therefore want to be more confident and have a clearer rationale for purchase.

Badvertising: Ortega, Fire Your Son and Hire an Agency

More Authentic Commentary

Vintage Motel Sign

Originally uploaded by photo316

Steve Portigal has some photos over on his blog from Celebration, FL, the Disney founded community that appears to try to bring back the closeted perfect veneer of the 1950s for the modern world.

Coudal also has a nice link to the Draplin Project which echos what many of us have found to be true when driving America’s lost highways. “What happened to great American roadside signage?” And appropriately making the point that new doesn’t always mean better.

explicative-laced video here:

Manufacturing Authenticity

Picture 8

Originally uploaded by distillerymedia

Writing authenticity into a strategy deck is sort of like putting on the applause light in a sitcom. Everyone nods in agreement and comments on your ability to speak the truth. I suppose if my goal in life was to simply be rehired again and again I would probably write it in more often. Then again, there is a distinction to be made between an authentic brand and a brand that simply markets authenticity.

When it comes to marketing authenticity brands typically pursue one of three strategies:

1) Since 19XX
Brands are good at making up arbitrary dates in time and being since then. Granted, you may have never heard of the company and they say they have been around since 1827… but just trust them. They’ve been a small cottage industry and have just decided to advertise in Vogue.  Check out 8-year-old Hollister for a great example of this ploy.

2) Associate with authentic people
Book Willie Nelson, Sofia and Francis Ford Coppola or Johnny Depp and watch your sales soar! When in doubt borrow credibility and you can pay it off later at 12% interest. Musicians are particularly good for this since they advance an image of not caring what anyone thinks. Louis Vuitton tried this recently with Keith Richards.

3) Tell a great backstory
This story need not actually be authentic but needs to seem authentic. Brand X was created by ex-Iditarod racers to combat the elements so it should be be good enough for your kid to wear going sledding right? Charles Shaw wine benefited from this early on as consumers and the press perpetuated a backstory for the brand that spoke of a scorned ex-wife who wanted to humiliate her winemaking former husband by putting his name on cheap wine. The truth behind Two Buck Chuck is slightly different, of course.

These examples notwithstanding, Showtime appears to have taken the backstory to the next level. Now, I’ll go ahead and make all apologies in advance to the Duchovny family should David actually have a sex addiction. On the other hand, I will shake the hand of the Showtime executive if he doesn’t. See, David stars in a pretty great little show over on Showtime called Californication about… wait for it… a man with a sex addiction. Oh yeah, and the new season premieres next week. If you’re going to remind people about a series that may have taken too long to come around again… why not do it by suggesting that the whole thing might actually be true?