Brand Autopsy

Citizen Marketer Hater Fallout

There’s lots of worthy chatter riffing off of ad agency honcho David Jones’ strident take that brilliant marketing ideas must come from ad agencies and not from everyday people (i.e. Citizen Marketers).

Former Brand Autopsy blogger Paul Williams refutes my take with his take and I return volley with more musings. Troll the comments section for more sharp musings from a slew of smart-thinking marketers.

And Spike Jones, from Brains on Fire, stokes the conversation with more fire which elicits more smokin' comments on the super-worthy Marketing Profs Daily Blog. In his post, Spike directs us to a blue flame Ad Age blog missive from another ad agency pro deriding the passions of everyday people who are compelled to create amateur marketing messages. The comments in this blue flame are priceless. Enjoy the fodder.

A Citizen Marketer Hater

CITIZEN MARKETERS: When People Are the Message is the much anticipated follow-up business book from Ben McConnell and Jackie Huba. I’m an unabashed McConnell/Huba fan which began when I read their first book, CREATING CUSTOMER EVANGELISTS, back in December of 2002.

CITIZEN MARKETERS looks to be right on trend as a continuation of the CREATING CUSTOMER EVANGELIST message. After all, it’s the customer evangelist turned citizen marketer that’s driving much of the social media we are exposed to on YouTube, MySpace, podcasts, and blogs.

However … not everyone in the marketing biz is thrilled to see the rise of the citizen marketer. One such citizen marketer-hater is David Jones, global CEO of Euro RSCG.

At the recent IDEA CONFERENCE put on by Advertising Age, David Jones blasted the concept of everyday people creating marketing ideas. Instead, he steadfastly believes it’s the advertising agency that must be the entity to create brilliant ideas and that consumers should consume the ideas agencies create rather than try to create marketing ideas of their own.

Money quotes from David Jones’ address at the IDEAS CONFERENCE
include …

“Our industry cannot delegate the creation of brilliant ideas to consumers. That has to be our job.”

---

“What’s been quite a prevalent trend in the lazy agencies over the last two years is to go, ‘I know. Consumers can now create ideas so what we'll do is get them to come up with the idea.’”

---

“If you look at and go play around on the ‘YouTubes’ and ‘MySpaces’ … well, there are a few entertaining things there but there is so much utter crap there. There are only so many times you can watch someone dance in a crazy way or mime badly to a song. And so firstly, consumers aren’t that brilliant at it and secondly, what they will do is not all that relevant.”

---

Oh my … so much fodder for us marketers to feast on.

And since I’m going to be out of pocket for a few days, feast on more of David’s diatribe by reading this article and watching the accompanying video clip. Or, you can simply click below and watch a hastily reproduced version of the video clip uploaded to YouTube.

---

RSS READERS … click here to view the video.

The No Asshole Rule

Intrigued by my earlier post mentioning Bob Sutton’s THE NO ASSHOLE RULE? If so, learn more by watching this short video of Bob explaining the concept courtesy of 50Lessons.com. You can also read more about it from Bob’s blog and from this CIO article. Plus, Guy Kawasaki shares his smart-thinking on Bob's book.

Fiskars Crafting Ambassadors

While visiting with the Brains on Fire crew, they shared with me some work they're doing with Fiskars. I’ve only known Fiskars as a maker of scissors. But Fiskars is much more than a scissor maker. They are deep into the whole scrapbooking thing.

Did you know scrapbooking is a THREE BILLION DOLLAR business? (I didn’t.) Seems all the patterned paper, ribbons, scissors, fabrics, and embellishments add up to being a HUGE business. (Give this marketer a break for being scrapbook business ignorant. I’m a guy after all. Thanks.)

Anyway … Brains on Fire has helped Fiskars to identify some of its customer evangelists and in turn, crafted a Fiskars Brand Ambassador program cutely named, “Fiskateers.” Not only can other Fiskars evangelists become Fiskateers, they can also participate in a Fiskateers blog.

On the just-launched blog, four Fiskateers are actively blogging and sharing their love for all things scrapbooking. Recent posts include Father’s Day book ideas and “get-well” love from Fiskars Sisters.

This Fiskateers Brand Ambassador program is a customer evangelism case study-in-the-making. Nice work Brains! And kudos to Fiskars for embracing customer evangelism.

Hey Dunkin’ … Accentuate the Hate!

”Dunkin' Donuts last year paid dozens of faithful customers in Phoenix, Chicago and Charlotte, N.C., $100 a week to buy coffee at Starbucks instead. At the same time, the no-frills coffee chain paid Starbucks customers to make the opposite switch.

When it later debriefed the two groups, Dunkin' says it found them so polarized that company researchers dubbed them "tribes" -- each of whom loathed the very things that made the other tribe loyal to their coffee shop. Dunkin' fans viewed Starbucks as pretentious and trendy, while Starbucks loyalists saw Dunkin' as austere and unoriginal.

‘I don't get it,’ one Dunkin' regular told researchers after visiting Starbucks. ‘If I want to sit on a couch, I stay at home.’” [SOURCE: Wall Street Journal article (sub req’d)]

---

Armed with this research, Dunkin’ is in the beginning stages of remaking its nearly 5,000 U.S. stores to be more like Starbucks without feeling like Starbucks. Huh? Is that even possible to be similar yet dissimilar at the same time? Given the research findings, why isn’t Dunkin’ accentuating the differences rather than blurring the differences between the two?

Take a look at the new prototype Dunkin’ Donuts … sure does resemble a typical Starbucks, right?

In addition to the new pastry case displays and granite-like countertops, Dunkin’ is also taking a page from the Starbucks playbook and playing music in its stores where previously it didn’t. While there will not be comfy chairs in the remodeled Dunkin’, there will be upscale sandwiches with a decidedly downscale name. Feedback from Dunkin’ customers was that “Panini” was too fancy a name to call a hot sandwich so instead, Dunkin’ will call this menu offering a “stuffed melt.”

And get this … Dunkin’ marketers are considering ways to allow its customers to text message their orders in. Wait! If “Panini” was too fanciful a name for Dunkin’ Donuts’ working-class customers to call a hot sandwich, then why would Dunkin’ marketers even bother with fanciful text messaging ordering ploys?

Furthermore, according to this Wall Street Journal article, internal Dunkin’ Donuts research also revealed just how uncomfortable Dunkin’ customers were inside Starbucks. Seems as though loyal Dunkin’ customers didn’t enjoy the atmosphere, didn’t like all the laptop-using customers hogging the tables, didn’t appreciate the tall/grande/venti lingo, and didn’t understand why someone would pay $4 for a cup of coffee.

Conversely, loyal Starbucks customers were just as uncomfortable inside Dunkin’ Donuts. Starbucks customers especially didn’t appreciate when Dunkin’ employees added cream and sugar in their coffee denying them the opportunity to customize their coffee as they desired.

Again I ask … given these research findings, why isn’t Dunkin’ accentuating the differences rather than blurring the differences between the two?

I’m reminded of what Rick Nobles said in a MarketingProfs article,

“If your brand is clearly defined enough to have the power to attract enemies, it also has the power to attract raving fans. And the raving fans of your brand are the ones who return again and again. They're the ones who will tell their friends about you. They're the ones who will wear your logo. They're the ones that almost enjoy the annoyance of your brand-haters and will keep coming back for more.

So don’t fear the hate. Embrace it.”

Dunkin’ you’d be wise to fully embrace the differences that exist between yourself and Starbucks in everything you do. Why risk diluting the Dunkin’ difference by trying to be more like Starbucks? Your current customers want Dunkin’ to be Dunkin.’ So appeal to your raving fans by accentuating the hate. Dig?

---

Other Brand Autopsy takes on Dunkin’ & Starbucks include:
Lowest Common Coffee Denominator | Nov. 22, 2005
Will Speed Win | Dec. 10, 2004

If You Want to Lead, Blog

---

REQUIRED READING:

If You Want to Lead, Blog | Harvard Business Journal | Jonathan Schwartz

---

As the COO/President of Sun Microsystems, Jonathan Schwartz is one of the more prominent c-level blogging execs. (Wander over to his blog and I’m sure you’ll be impressed with his candor and easy-going blogging style.)

Throughout the recently held BLOGGING ENTERPRISE conference, Jonathan’s blog was mentioned as a benchmark blog for c-level execs. And whattaya know … in the November issue of Harvard Business Review (HBR), Jonathan has written a must-read article for any business wrestling with the idea of starting a company blog.

Because HBR is super-vigilant about copying/posting/distributing their articles, I’m not comfortable setting this article free. (Take a look at the terms & conditions I had to agree to in order to access the article online.)

Since I can’t free the article, I’ll share some key highlights…

Many Sun Microsystems top-level execs blog. In their blogs, they talk about business strategy, company values, products in the pipeline, successes, and failures. Sun realizes this may seem risky but Sun believes it is riskier not to blog. Sun wants to be a part of the conversation that will go on whether or not Sun participates.

By participating in the blogging conversation, Sun is able to communicate its corporate culture to not only customers but also to current and future Sun employees.

For companies interested in blogging but not knowing where to start, Jonathan recommends first reading Sun’s blogging strategy and guidelines document. He goes on to make more recommendations for blogging companies …
** use an honest, humorous, and open voice
** show respect for the audience
** don’t treat blogging like advertising
** don’t micromange … communicate the guidelines and let company bloggers loose
** revisit and modify your company’s blogging policy if need be
** listen to feedback
** respond to legitimate feedback
** “Authenticity is paramount.”

---

This was only an abstract of the worthy read article. My advice is go to your local bookstore, open up the November issue of Harvard Business Review to page 30, and read the entire one-page article. Good stuff.

Song. Gone.

NOTE: updated links (10.29.05)

A few weeks ago I shared some Starbucks Tribal Knowledge. One of the nuggets I shared was how Starbucks never intended to build a brand. Starbucks was too busy building a profitable and viable business to worry about branding. The lesson I learned from working inside Starbucks was you cannot create a brand before you create a business. The business creates a brand. The brand should never create the business.

Hmm … the brand should never create the business … hmm.

That’s exactly what I thought today when I heard the news Delta was shutting down Song Airlines -- Song was all brand and no business.

Song was too busy creating a brand to think about being a business. Song was too busy crafting a brand ethos to think about being a business. Song was too busy prescribing feelings than to think about being a business. Song was too busy designing signature cocktails and installing boutique Song stores in SoHo (NYC) to think about being a business. And because Song was busy working on and working in its brand, they built a brand, of which, the by-product was the creation of a weak business.

Should this really surprise us? Song, after all, was built by marketers so it’s only natural the branding elements would come before the business elements.

I’ll throw this out to you … what will Song’s legacy be?

---

FURTHER LEARNING:

The Persuaders (documentary)| Frontline (PBS) | stream parts 1 & 2 of this way worthy documentary to learn more about how Song was built by marketers.

Song’s Start Up Flight Plan (article)| Fast Company (June 2003)

Interview with Song’s CMO | Reveries

Interrview with Andy Spade | The Persuaders (online extra)

Peter Davidson (blog) | shares some Hot Marketing Opinions on Song | 10.28.05

Laura Ries (blog) | in typical Ries fashion, Laura has a strong take on Song | 10.28.05

Some guy named “Seth” (blog) | “Song wasn't a failure on at least one level ...” | 10.28.05

Rob Marsh (blog) | “Great brands start as great businesses.” | 10.28.05

Your Brand’s Phone Voice

“Companies spend millions on advertising, public relations and brand building activities to make the phone ring. But when the prospect calls, they’re greeted by automated voice systems with prerecorded voices that share little with the brand they’ve worked so hard to create in the consumer’s mind.” -- Marcus Graham (CEO, GM Voices)

Yeah … why is it that automated voice systems are devoid of personality?

For brands that have a distinct personality, they seem to abandon that personality when you call their toll-free customer line. Instead of hearing the unique brand voice the company has carefully crafted, you are subjected to hearing a milquetoast, monotone, and slow-cadenced voice which sounds nothing like the brand you have come to know and appreciate.

Recently I stumbled across a remarkable website that highlights this branding disconnect. Top 100 Voice Brands is the work of Marcus Graham and his company, GM Voices. On this site, he documents the Voice Brand of companies by streaming recordings of company’s automated voice systems.

Yes … you read that right … you can stream the Voice Brand of companies like Starbucks, Adidas, Silicon Graphics, Whirlpool, American Express, and Viacom.

I may be a freak, but I was fascinated by this and have listened to nearly a third of the recordings.

And Marcus is right … practically all of these Voice Brands lack the personality their marketing departments have so meticulously tried to craft. If marketers are determined to impact consumers at every customer touch-point, then why haven’t they placed more of an emphasis on expressing a brand’s personality through their automated voice systems?

Go to any brand’s website and for the most part, it looks/feels like the brand you have come to know. Now call the toll-free number of that brand and all of a sudden it's like you are hearing a totally different brand … a brand jacked up on Prozac.

Now, occasionally you will run across a Voice Brand that stands out. Whenever I used to call the 800-number for Cliff Bar, I would inevitably laugh out loud from hearing the sly humor of the voice-over. (Go ahead … call Cliff Bar at 1.800.CLIF.BAR.)

********************************

FYI … Marcus details much of the nuances of voice branding in a book he has written titled, Voice Branding in America: How to Make Your Automated Voices Consistent with Your Brand.

The Rebranding of Staples

Yesterday I received my November issue of CMO magazine. I read it cover to cover last night and was impressed with its smart writing and keen marketing insight. If you’re a marketer in need of new ideas, new perspectives, or just want to maximize your current understanding of marketing … read this magazine.

From the November issue, I highly recommend you read the CMO Case Study article on STAPLES. The article highlights how Staples stopped trying to be all things to all customers and began listening and providing more of what their customers wanted and needed from Staples.

As part of their rebranding efforts, Staples asked customers to list their 10 most important criteria for shopping at Staples. And, “…to management’s surprise, price was nowhere to be found. It wasn’t that price was insignificant to customers. But thanks to Staples’ influence throughout the segment, shoppers had come to assume they were going to get a good price. What they wanted was for stores to stock all the basics. They also wanted courteous and helpful sales associates. And they wanted a faster, less-troublesome experience. In other words, customers wanted stores that didn’t just have what they wanted, but had it where it could be found quickly and easily.”

So Staples focused its marketing and merchandising efforts on ‘making it easy’ for customers to shop its stores. For example, a typical store merchandise layout will place the most purchased goods in the back of the store hoping shoppers will buy stuff they didn’t intend to buy. To ‘make it easy’ for shoppers, Staples placed their most purchased items (print cartridges and paper) in the front of the store so shoppers could get in and get out fast.

The article goes on to mention how Staples made ‘making it easy’ an internal mantra to inspire their nearly 30,000 employees. To more meaningfully connect with its employees, Staples began to use “… the same kind of wit and polish that marked its advertising and other materials” on its internal marketing pieces.

Ahh yes … too many marketers forget that marketing to internal customers (employees) is just as important, or maybe more important, than to external customers.

********************************

Hey … while you are on the CMO website, spend a few moments reading the Context is King article to get a well-written primer on ethnographic customer research. Good stuff.

Ranking Brand Loyalty

I’m not sure how much weight to much into this, but the 2004 Brand Keys’ Customer Loyalty Leader rankings have been released. Click here for a pdf of the article that ran in Brandweek. Or, click here to download the full rankings from #1 (Google) to #203 (Diet Dr. Pepper) [downloaded as a Word document] .

Of course, clicking is optional as these loyalty rankings may carry no weight at all in today’s real marketing world. I found these brand loyalty rankings to be as irrelevant as Billboard Magazine’s latest Top 50 Hot Singles rankings.

Top 20 2004 Customer Loyalty Leaders
[as measured by Brand Keys]
(’04 Rank | Brand | ’03 Rank)

1. Google (2)
2. Avis (1)
3. Verizon Long Distance (4)
4. KeySpan Energy (9)
5. Samsung Mobile Phone (7)
6. Hyatt Hotels (19)
7. Sprint Long Distance (3)
8. Canon Copiers (8)
9. Yahoo (14)
10. Miller Genuine Draft (5)
11. Ritz-Carlton Hotels (17)
12. PSE&G (15)
13. Amazon.com
14. Marriot Hotels (13)
15. Swissotel (NR)
16. Discover Card (27)
17. Diet Pepsi (31)
18. Budweiser (16)
19. Motorola Mobile Phone (10)
20. Coors (20)

Dissecting the Presidential Logos

In an Op-Ed piece for the New York Times, Scott Dadich (Texas Monthly magazine creative director) dissects the 2004 Bush/Cheney logo and the 2004 Kerry/Edwards logo. [Click to read the article and to review the comparison graphic. (registration req'd)]

Interesting stuff.

Dadrich is forthright is disclosing his Democratic political bent but he sets aside his political leanings to declare, “… President Bush as the frontrunner in the competition for best logo.” His in-depth analysis of the Kerry/Edwards logo reveals how its graphic design, “… displays the same inconsistency that his opponents accuse him of.”

Below is a scalpel/suture of Scott Dadrich’s Presidential logo autopsy from his NY Times Op-Ed piece. (Enjoy.)

**********************

Logos can be powerful, and they're all about subliminal messages. Perhaps because of my Texas roots, I have a weakness for the big and the bold, and the main 2004 Bush-Cheney logo, basically a holdover from the 2000 presidential race, fulfills my expectations. It's brash and snazzy: a field of powerful, militaristic navy blue punctuated with the four letters of his surname spelled out in white in what appears to be Folio Extra-Bold Italic letters. (Even the name of the font sounds forceful, doesn't it?)

The effect is striking, simple and progressive. The rightward lilt of the wide, capital letters reinforces Mr. Bush's ideology while at the same time portraying a buoyant sense of forward movement, energy and positive change. The type is strong without being oppressive, nimble without being fanciful - a successful construction reminiscent of the 1992 Clinton-Gore logo. Add a simplification of the American flag - 20 stars and seven stripes - and a supportive "Cheney" in a smaller font underneath, and you've got a strong visual hierarchy that reinforces the candidate's spoken message that he is a firm and resolute leader.

One outgrowth of the Bush logo is even better: the graphic sound bite "W," which appears on bumper stickers. Americans are conditioned to equate visual brevity with success and power. One need only look at the landscape of corporate America for confirmation: the Nike swoosh, the CBS eye, Target's bull's-eye and McDonald's golden arches. It's appropriate that Mr. Bush allowed his middle initial to work for him, and a testament to the letter's power that the opposition has co-opted it for its own use, though it is circled with a slash through it.

A typical Kerry logo displays the same inconsistency that his opponents accuse him of. A steady visual message requires the consistent use of the same font over and over again. On a typical drive to work, I encounter no fewer than five typefaces used in as many different Kerry-Edwards logos. One is stretched out; another is condensed. One looks masculine; one looks feminine. In contrast to Mr. Bush's aggressive sans-serif font, Senator John Kerry's multitudinous font choices center on the use of thin, delicate-looking, "girlie-man" type. No wonder some voters think he's a vacillating wimp.

Some of my quibbles would be obvious only to typography gurus. But Mr. Kerry makes other, more noticeable mistakes. Rather than distinguish his candidacy, his logo's Reflex blue background serves only as a weak echo of the president's bolder navy. Mr. Kerry's flag is free-floating and leans backward, while Mr. Bush's flag is anchored to his name and leans forward. Add to this a claustrophobic red border that prevents the eye from moving upward and onward and you're starting to see the visual poverty of this campaign.

The American flag in the Kerry-Edwards logo is the biggest gaffe of all. Although it has the requisite 50 stars, there are five rows of 10 stars, rather than the correct arrangement of five rows of six stars and four rows of five stars. It looks like a mistake - not a stylized interpretation, like the flag in the Bush logo.

Now, close your eyes and count to three. Look at the Kerry-Edwards logo above. What word do you see first? That's right: "Edwards." This is because the name of the vice-presidential nominee is placed beneath the "Kerry" in the same type and size, causing it to occupy more space. (And it's not just because Edwards is a longer name than Kerry; though Cheney is longer than Bush, their logo doesn't have that problem.) Talk about message confusion! The inelegant stacked Helvetica Iteration of the Mondale-Ferraro ticket of 20 years ago was almost as bad - and we know how that race ended.

********************** Further Reading:

Brand Autopsy posting | Brand Mapping the Presidential Candidates

Improv: gifting is giving

continuing Johnnie Moore’s conversation on Improv in business

Johnnie wrote:

An important nuance in Improv is the difference between telling gags on the one hand, and the laughter that arises inadvertently, not deliberately instigated by the players. This relates to “scriptwriting”, which is the label my teachers used to identify the behaviour of a player who moves out of the moment and is working to control the story.

A lot of brands are doing that sort of scriptwriting: after doing too much research, they try to formulate the perfect outbound communication and in so doing actually stifle the sort of dialogue that might hold a brand together.

Yes … the practice of “brand scriptwriting” by hand-holding micro-managing marketers stifles the dialogue brands and consumers are capable of engaging in. And … isn’t it interesting that “unscripted” reality television seems to engage people into conversation more than does “scripted” television? Hmm.

I've found the biggest misnomer about Improv in business is executives believe Improv is acting. Improv is not about acting ... it's about looking, listening, and reacting.

In business, we aren’t given scripts to tell us how to act in every situation we find ourselves in. Instead, we rely on our instincts to live in the moment and spontaneously react to the situation that confronts us. Living in the moment is about looking, listening, and reacting to the many “gifts” we are given.

In Improv, “gifting” is when someone gives you "information" to react to and play off of and if you listen well and look attentively, you’ll be able to weave that “gift” into your business scene.

I remember a story of a Starbucks barista who because of looking, listening, and reacting was able to take a “gift” and turn it into giving Starbucks some great juju.

In 1998, Mark McGwire, former St. Louis Cardinals home run hitting first baseman, walked into a Starbucks and gave the barista at the register a “gift” by commenting on how cool his Starbucks logo cap was. The barista took the “gift” and responded by giving the cap to McGwire.

A few nights later on the broadcast of the World Series, an NBC television camera spotted Mark McGwire in the stands proudly sporting the Starbucks logo cap the barista had given him. The television camera fixated on McGwire for over a minute as the announcers cooed about McGwire’s home run heroics of that year.

Needless to say, the marketing and PR departments at Starbucks were overjoyed at the visibility the company received during the World Series without having to fork over advertising dollars.

Starbucks didn’t force a “brand script” upon this barista telling him how to act. Instead, the barista looked, listened, and reacted with an improvised move that resulted in giving Starbucks some positive juju on national television.

Improv in business can be as simple as looking, listening, and reacting to the "gifts" you are given.

Miles Davis Branding Epiphany

“As Miles Davis once said, 'When you hit a wrong note it's the next note that makes it good or bad.' Great brands that have let down their consumers actually may create even greater opportunities based on how they respond to the specific circumstance. Brands may be well served by 'being wrong and fixing it' instead of striving to be perfect.”

Excerpted from a Watts Wacker’s article on Understanding Brand Potential which is to be published in the Financial Times Handbook on Management Version 3.0.

Cult Brands Make for More Valuable Brands

The annual ranking of the world’s most valuable brands from Interbrand and Business Week has been released. For 2004, the big branding trend identified in the published report will not come as a surprise to followers of marketing blogs.

Identified Trend: Create Cult Brands
Brands that create cult-like devotion from customers by fostering community and forging unique relationships where companies allow customers to feel as if they own the brand are rewarded with greater sales and even greater salience.

The Business Week article is a worthy read, so click here to download. You can also download the 2004 Global Brands Scoreboard which lists the top 100 global brands.

If you are time-starved, you can read the following highlights lifted from directly from the Business Week article:

“This seismic shift in clout from companies to their customers is creating opportunities, especially for younger brands that grew up with the Internet and have become adept at building user communities. Meanwhile, some traditional brands, such as Coca-Cola and Microsoft, are struggling to retain their mammoth leads in a market where consumers increasingly resist what they see as bland ubiquity and a surfeit of power.”

“There have always been cult brands, mostly smaller labels unknown to the masses. But these days, building cults or at least strong communities, is a widespread strategy. No wonder companies that are able to instill a sense of ownership in near-fanatical customers showed the biggest gains in our fourth annual ranking of the 100 most valuable global brands.”

“The brands that have managed to build cultlike followings have done so by being, well, cultlike, at least in some aspects. They are self-consciously different from rivals. They're bound by a set of clearly defined and rigorously enforced values. And they fulfill a range of needs for their members -- er, customers. The fastest-growing ones often project an aura, an attractive group identity.”

“Such exchanges (specific reference to Jian Shu’s blogging about his IKEA experiences) underline a key aspect of brand communities in the modern age: They evolve in ways that the head office often can't control. Newly empowered consumers can appropriate and manipulate the brand in whatever way they want.”

“Some companies are using mass customization to bind their customers ever more tightly to their brands. The efforts extend beyond the individualized Web pages that characterize Web sites like Amazon.com and eBay. It means allowing customers to set up fan sites on the Web or personalize items.”

“In contrast, some old-line brands seem to be coasting on sheer size rather than an ability to forge a unique relationship with customers. Even brands that have enjoyed decades of success and have instant recognition with consumers can lose some sparkle. Over the past year heavyweights like Microsoft, Coca-Cola, and Walt Disney saw their brand values erode.”

Brands that recorded double-digit increases in brand value for 2004 include:
#21 | Samsung (+16%)
#31 | Nike (+13%)
#35 | Canon (+12%)
#37 | Goldman Sachs (+13%)
#43 | Apple (+24%)
#61 | Yahoo (+17%)
#66 | Amazon (+22%)
#68 | Caterpillar (+13%)
#71 | Reuters (+12%)
#76 | Motorola (+12%)
#89 | Moet & Chandon (+13%)
#90 | Nissan (+14%)
#98 | Starbucks (+12%)

Brands that recorded double-digit decreases in brand value for 2004 include:
#08 | Nokia (-18%)
#19 | Ford (-15%)
#46 | Nintendo (-21%)
#53 | Kodak (-33%)
#82 | AOL (-18%)
#85 | Levi’s (-10%)
#94 | Boeing (-10%)

Further Learning:
Interbrand’s 2004 Best Global Brands Press Release (7/22/04)
Interbrand’s FAQ on their “2004 Best Global Brands” report
Brand Autopsy post on worthwhile white paper reading on Cult Brands
Church of the Customer post #1 and post #2 on why “Control is Futile” for big companies refusing to act “small”

Brand Loyalty Matrimony

All this chatter on lovemarks, loyalty, and brands reminds me of a post Williams+Moore did as guest hosts on the FC Now blog back in December. We titled the post Customer Loyalty Matrimony and we asked these two questions:

Is there a brand you feel so strongly about, from a value relationship and an emotional relationship, you would declare your unconditional loyalty to?

Is there a brand you would marry?

I’ve tweaked our original post slightly to better reflect loyalty to a brand and not to a company. Read below and let us know if there is a brand you would marry. And if so, what “pet name” would you give the brand name you marry?

Brand Loyalty Matrimony Ceremony

We are gathered here today to unite this customer, {insert Customer name}, with this brand, {insert Brand name}, in the bonds of a true reciprocal relationship known as brand loyalty matrimony.

If any competing brand or any customer evangelist can show just cause why these two should not be joined, then let them speak now or forever lose the business opportunity.

{Customer name}, will you take this brand as your partner to engage in commerce with in the holy estate of brand loyalty matrimony? Will you evangelize her, respect her, provide customer feedback to her in good experiences and in bad experiences; forsaking all others, be true to her as long as you both shall live? (I will.)

{Brand name}, will you take this customer as your partner to engage in commerce with in the holy estate of brand loyalty matrimony? Will you respect her, deliver upon all promises to her, be truthful to her and reward her with the highest quality goods or services and the best customer service in good economic times and in bad economic times as long as you both shall live? (I will.)

Please join hands and repeat after me (customer first).

I, {Customer name}, take {Brand name},as my loyal brand of choice to buy from and to evangelize for from this day forward until bankruptcy do us part.

I, {Brand name}, take {Customer name}, as a loyal customer to help them actualize their aspirations and to deliver the greatest value to from this day forward until bankruptcy do us part.

By the authority vested in me from the writings of Kevin Roberts, I pronounce this consumer and this brand to be loyal to one another.

You may now kiss competitors good-bye.

Peace, Lovemarks, and Misunderstanding

I don’t love the term Lovemarks. However, I do love the ideology of Lovemarks. There is a place where few brands earn the right to evolve to by emotionally connecting with consumers to forge loyalty beyond reason. But do brands evolve to become LOVEMARKS?

(For a primer on Lovemarks, click here or get the official word here.)

Maybe my quirkyalone perspective on love is too idealistic for me to “love” Lovemarks as THE term to describe a highly evolved brand.

To me … Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails...

If I was to ever be in LOVE with a brand ... it would have to be Chipotle. (Yes, the fast casual burrito chain.) Chipotle has forged loyalty beyond reason with me ever since I first experienced it in the fall of 1998. But … I will, on occasion, cheat on my Chipotle “Lovemark” by going to Freebirds, Baja Fresh, or Qdoba. I don’t cheat often mind you … just occasionally.

So, can Chipotle be my "Lovemark" if I sometimes cheat by visiting like-minded competitors?

Brand Mathematics

At my Puget Sound AMA meeting last week, we had a presenter from the Frank Russell Company, the global investment services firm. He spoke about his brand and some of the challenges of being an investment company based in the non-financial hub of Tacoma, WA. As a finance guy, he joked that it was a company requirement to have some sort of mathematical equation in his presentation. So he shared his marketing math…

AWARENESS x REPUTATION = BRAND

Now, I want to adjust this a little…

AWARENESS x REPUTATION = BRAND RELEVANCE

A nice equation.

AWARENESS - Do people know about your product, service or company? Do they talk about it? Do they tell others? Do they know the great things that you do?

REPUTATION - What do people say about your product, service or company as good or bad? What do customers think? Are they satisfied? Do you deliver on your product, service and brand promise?

Let’s look at this equation from two perspectives at Starbucks Coffee Company.

STARBUCKS COFFEE/ESPRESSO

Awareness - I’ll refer to a common theme “there’s a Starbucks on every corner” - 'nuff said.

Reputation - Starbucks is a destination for coffee and espresso beverages. They make it convenient. They make it the way you want (a la double-short, non-fat, extra-foamy latte with sugar free vanilla syrup). Starbucks has been credited with helping to improve the quality of coffee consumed in North America.

So if you calculated this equation, when it comes to COFFEE/ESPRESSO at Starbucks the BRAND RELEVANCE score would be VERY HIGH.

STARBUCKS COMMUNITY GIVE-BACK

Awareness - Did you know that with nearly every store that Starbucks opens, there is a local long-term charity partnership? Or that the local store manager not only wants to serve the community but strives to be an integral part of it? Early on in the company history, it was considered too self-serving to blow the Starbucks horn and brag about community giving. It's not considered a ‘tactic’ it’s just how to be a responsible business. However, that has left Starbucks with low awareness of this part of the business.

Reputation - Starbucks is known to be everywhere, and is known for coffee. But, despite being a great neighbor, does not have the corresponding reputation. The message of BIG overshadows the message of GOOD.

Therefore, when it comes to COMMUNITY GIVE-BACK, the Starbucks BRAND RELEVANCE score would be LOW.

Since you know your desired total for this brand equation, you can flip the equation around and solve for the missing variable.

What’s your product, brand or service BRAND RELEVANCE score?

A Latte to Learn

It's funny. I remember Krispy Kreme, like White Castle, as a place in the south where you could go to for a 24-hour snack. A clean, 'blue collar' place - not a chichi vogue place to go. It was functional. You wanted a donut; they were hot and fresh (and delicious). I specifically remember a big piece of their business was selling wholesale to school groups for fundraisers - cheerleaders would sell donuts to raise money for new uniforms or for bus trips to the state championship.

Krispy Kreme's rise to popularity has been interesting to me. I lived in NYC when the first KK opened. It was so popular it was as if New Yorker's invented KK themselves.

So while this fresh new start has been interesting to experience... it seems they're getting stale already.

Now I'm going to share one experience, at one location, at one moment in time (but still)...

I went to KK this weekend for a donut and coffee... Instead of a drip coffee, I thought I'd check out their espresso. After all, I understand that they've added that to their mix to be more competitive in the espresso market. I ordered their latte with their original Kreme flavoring... Evidently they offer four kinds of milk - nonfat/skim, 2%, whole milk and their original Kreme flavored milk.

After I place my order, the woman on the register asked a gal on the production line something about my drink. They asked another gal to help. She went to the espresso machine and was flipping through some pages – to find a recipe and/or instructions on how to make my drink.

The register gal returned and said that "We can’t make it right now because the girl who makes the espresso wasn’t there." Wow. No one else has been trained to make espresso beverages? (In Seattle?)

Of course, it was neat seeing the production thru the window… and I got a free donut. But, should they stick at what they're good at? Great donuts and fresh coffee?

The Biology of Branding

Al & Laura Reis’ latest marketing book, The Origin of Brands, is a deeper dive into a conversation about how divergence trumps convergence in the development of brands. This time, Al & Laura approach divergence from the angle of biology.

A pdf summary of The Origin of Brands can be found here.

Some of what they say will no doubt stir debate between brand creationists and brand evolutionists. Don't believe me? Just read the excerpts below.

********** EXCERPT ONE **********

What has happened in nature is also happening in the world of products and services. Every category will eventually diverge and become two or more categories, creating endless opportunities to build new brands.

The interplay of evolution and divergence provides a model for understanding both the Universe and the universe of brands.

Evolution has received all the publicity, but evolution alone cannot account for the millions of diverse and unusual species that inhabit the Earth. If it weren’t for the force of divergence, evolution by itself would have created a world populated by millions of single-cell prokaryotes the size of dinosaurs.

So, too, it is in the world of brands. Brands evolve to become stronger and more dominant. But it’s divergence that generates the conditions that allow the introduction of new categories and new brands.

Comparing branding with biology might seem far-fetched, but we could think of no other analogy that so clearly and simply explains the branding process.

Competing for Share of Consciousness

While on vacation in Seattle, I’m taking time to catch up on some reading and some thinking. Currently, I’m chewing on the paradoxical wisdom written by Watts Wacker and Jim Taylor in The Visionary’s Handbook. (Admittedly, I am a laggard in reading this book as it was first published in 2000. I really hate being a laggard!)

In one chapter, the authors talk about competing for "Share of Consciousness" with consumers.

To win consciousness share, the message has to tie to the product to the experiences of the consumers you want to reach, so it can enter the full dimensionality of their lives. The message can’t just celebrate the product – products are everywhere.

You can also create consciousness share by never forgetting that all great consumers – the ones who set markets and launch new product lines – are acutely aware of themselves as markets of one. Fail to win a share of their attention by being innovative at the same time you are pursuing a share of the larger market consciousness, and you’ll be sacrificing the future for the present.

The largest percentage of the market you are ever going to attract occurs at the very moment you begin to lose the customer who made it happen.

All marketers working for companies that are in full throttle growth mode should re-read and "chew" on this statement again: The largest percentage of the market you are ever going to attract occurs at the very moment you begin to lose the customer who made it happen.

WHOA!!! That is a “chewy” statement.

The Brand Called Omarosa

While traveling last Friday, I picked up the USA Today and read comments from former Apprentice contestants “fired” by Donald Trump. These former contestants were commenting on the lessons they learned from the show, the key mistake(s) they made to get fired, and what they would have done differently.

Since Brand Autopsy is a marketing/branding focused blog, I was especially intrigued by Omarosa Manigault-Stallworth’s comments...

The primary lesson that I learned was the importance of branding. Inspired by Trump's branding brilliance, I am building my own brand by launching a line of business suits and accessories, exploring book and TV deals and a nationwide speaking tour. I made the mistake of not focusing solely on the task at hand and not focusing on relationships. It would have been more strategic to develop alliances in order to survive in such a high-stakes game.

I’m afraid that Omarosa learned the built-to-flip mentality to branding from Donald Trump.

It is my opinion (and experience) to build a brand that is built-to-last, you must first clearly establish what makes your brand unique, compelling, and meaningful. Once you have established what your band stands for and made your brand compelling and meaningful to consumers, then you can explore the areas to extend the reach of your brand.

If you rush the branding process by extending the reach of your brand before you establish what your brand stands for, then you are following the built-to-flip branding process. Omarosa is clearly trying to extend her fifteen minutes of fame by striking fast. Too fast, if you ask me.

Roy Disney on the DISNEY "brand"

It is often said that our company's most valuable asset is the Disney name. You'll get no argument from me. I kind of like the name myself. But, in recent times, there's been a tendency to refer to it as the "Disney brand." To me, this degrades Disney into a "thing" to be bureaucratically managed, rather than a "name" to be creatively championed. And lately I've been seeing Mickey receive this treatment too, as well as Pooh and a lot of others.

Those are the words of Roy Disney speaking to Disney Shareholders on Wednesday, March 3. His speech on how “Institutional Think” has corrupted the Disney brand resonated with me because of its poignancy, succinctness, and brilliance. (Click here to read Roy's speech in its entirety.)

I distributed this article to my team yesterday and I think we, as marketers, have a responsibility to share it with as many people as possible. This is truly one of the best pieces I have ever read on “branding.”

(Much props to David Young over at Branding Blog for first posting this. Keep up the great work David!)

A Hugely Profound and Evocative Branding Statement

A LEADING BRAND SHOULD PROMOTE THE CATEGORY, NOT THE BRAND

I was reminded of this "branding law" from Jon Strande who sent me his book summary of The 22 Immutable Laws of Branding (Al Reis and Laura Reis).

I find this “branding law” to be hugely profound and extremely evocative. Any emerging, mission-based company should heed this calling and not be tempted to stray from this law.

The brandscape is littered with companies that have violated this law and and have ultimately fallen from prominence. There are successful brands out there today that need to heed the calling of this law to avoid a painful fall. MTV and Krispy Kreme immediately come to mind.

MTV long ago stopped promoting the category of music videos and instead focused on promoting the MTV lifestyle experience. (Besides during TRL, when does MTV play music videos?) Admittedly, MTV is still successful but they have ceded their music video dominance and allowed FUSE, an upstart startup, the opportunity to become recognized as the more authentic leader in delivering music videos to viewers. I am not saying that MTV is dead. I am saying that MTV has violated the “law of category” because they egotistically promote the MTV brand and not the category of music and music videos.

Krispy Kreme is another company that is heading into dangerous territory by promoting the Krispy Kreme brand and not promoting the category of high-quality donuts. Yes, Krispy Kreme is successful but they are jeopardizing their future success by warp-speeding their evolution from supremely promoting the category of super-premium donuts to egotistically promoting the Krispy Kreme experience.

Once again, a leading brand should promote the category and not the brand.