Are all marketers dumb?

We hear a great deal these days about the latest "buzz" effort, viral ploy or over-the-top publicity stunt to get a brand noticed. Are marketers dumb? Do marketers stress the importance of style at the expense of substance? Maybe.

The marketers who resort to using tricks for a one-time sale are the dumb ones.

Consumers are very sophisticated today and good marketers not only realize and accept that fact but they embrace it.

Marketers know that they must demonstrate the value of a brand in front of very smart and very sophisticated consumers who will quickly buy an alternate brand if there is no compelling reason not to. And what if a consumer tries a brand and it does not live up to the marketing hype? Then kiss that customer goodbye--and count on them telling dozens if not hundreds or thousands of others about their bad experience with the brand.

Marketers need to be extremely knowledgeable about their product or service and know what value it represents to their target market. Beyond that they must know how to clearly and articulately communicate that value to consumers. Smart marketers set out to build a powerful brand, not make a one-time sale or simply boost short-term sales performance.

If there is no compelling value to offer consumers and one must resort to tricks or intrusive advertising gimmicks, then it should be a warning sign to the marketer that he or she must go back and modify the product in some way to ensure there is superior value to sell to consumers on an ongoing basis. The only way to do this is by having very good market intelligence by understanding what consumers really want.

Are all marketers dumb?

No. Just some of them.

2006 Brand Keys Brand Loyalty Leaders

For the second year in a row I'm pleased to report on Brand Keys study of brands with the most loyal customers.

The Top Ten (with last year's ranking in parentheses):

1. Avis (2)
2. Google (1)
3. L.L. Bean (24)
4. Samsung mobile phones (5)
5. Yahoo! (3)
6. Canon office copiers (8)
7. Land's End (74)
8. Coors (13)
9. Hyatt hotels (12)
10. Marriott hotels (10)

It seems the price of gasoline had an impact on the way people shop as we see two catalog retailers skyrocket into the top ten this year which makes me wonder if these brands really have the most loyal customers. Will their "loyal" customers stick around if the price of gas drops? Have they truly added loyal customers who will stick around with them over the long haul or have they added customers who are loyal out of economic convenience?

I guess we might find out next year.


Last year's Top Ten list at http://davedolak.blogspot.com/2005/11/high-tech-brands-enjoy-greater-loyalty.html

Z-List marketing bloggers

Mack Collier at The Viral Garden has started an interesting project.

He's come up with a list of "Z-List" bloggers who are bloggers who write very informative and insightful blogs about marketing and who are worth reading but who do not rank highly in terms of traffic. He is attemtping to get marketing bloggers to take the list below, add their own favorite blogs on the topic and post it to their blogs in an attempt to spread the word about quality sites about marketing and branding that might otherwise go unnoticed.

Here's my iteration of the list:

Shotgun Marketing Blog
BrandSizzle
bizsolutionsplus
Customers Rock!
Being Peter Kim
Two Hat Marketing
The Emerging Brand
The Branding Blog
CrapHammer
Dave Dolak's Marketing & Branding
Drew's Marketing Minute
Golden Practices
Viaspire
Tell Ten Friends
Flooring the Consumer
On Influence and Automation
Kinetic Ideas
MSCO
BrandTrellis.com
Buzzoodle
NewsPaperGrl

Big, bad box retailers or thoughtful local suppliers?

The October 30 issue of Brandweek had an interesting Top of Mind column from Bain & Co. partners, Darrell Rigby and Vijay Vishwanath.

In the column, the authors describe a relatively new strategy employed by large retailers known as localization. Localization is the use of sophisticated data collection and analysis to determine what consumers in local markets want.

Large box retailers like Wal-Mart and Lowes are using customer data to analyze local demands and preferences and then tailoring their store shelves at the local level to supply products based on the local area’s unique characteristics such as ethnicity, wealth and lifestyle.

Localization is an offshoot from standardization where large box retailers have offered the same products in every store nationally. Oddly enough, it was the size and power of these large stores and their ability to gather enough data from consumers over time that now allows them to be in a position to offer products that appeal to local preferences.

We can learn lessons from localization.

Brands can no longer rely on standardization of products to appeal to large, vast audiences. Not only has media fragmented to the point where customer niches are increasingly more difficult to reach while at the same time becoming smaller and smaller, but consumers demand products and services that cater to their unique preferences.

Is there really even such a thing as mass media anymore that reaches the majority of people? For years huge, national brands have been able to rely on saturating a few mass media outlets with advertising so much that simply getting a name to stick in our minds worked. Those days are over.

Offering a one-size-fits-all widget to ‘the masses’ will only lead to commoditization of your product. Once your brand has been commoditized, your selling advantage will disappear as soon as a supplier with a lower cost structure comes along.

Big, powerful brands in the future will be those that appeal to individual preferences and prove that they uniquely satisfy consumers’ wants and desires.

Strange, isn’t it, that the big, faceless retailers seem to be leading the movement?

Free subscription to Inc. Magazine

OK. I'll admit it. This blog entry is a bit off-the-wall.

However, Inc. Magazine just sent me an invitation to renew my subcription and they are offering a free, 12-month gift subscription to the person of my choosing. Well, here's where you come in.

The first person in the United States to email me their name and address gets it placed in the "free gift subscription" portion of my reply card. Yep, if you want a free 12-month subscription to Inc. Magazine, be the first one to send me your name and address.

Ready?.........Go!

Interested in building strong brands?

An interesting site that deals exclusively with brand building just re-launched at http://www.BrandTrellis.com.

If you are interested in building business brands then there are some good articles for you and if you are a marketing/branding professional, there are ways for you to participate in the project.

It's worthwhile to check out the site.

Who is a professional marketer?

A professional marketer is at his or her heart a student of behavioral science. As marketers our fundamental goal is to change human behavior in some way.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not talking about being deceptive or manipulative or tricking somebody into buying something they don't want.

A marketer understands that he must deliver superior value to his customers.

A marketer understands that the best product in the world will not sell a single unit unless the value of that product is clearly understood and clearly communicated to those who might want it.

A marketer is not after a single transaction but is interested in a long-term relationship with customers in which both parties benefit and continue to provide value to one another over the long-term.

A marketer is an experimenter. She is a methodical tester and a constant measurer.

A marketer always tries to learn from her mistakes so she can come back tomorrow to build even greater value into her offering.

A marketer is a strategist, a scientist, planner, a creator and a bit of a dreamer.

A marketer is a concise communicator who can tap emotion and tell a compelling story through a variety of media.

Lastly, a true professional marketer clearly demonstrates that acquiring a product or service is more beneficial than living without it.

Marketing and Branding articles added

Over this past weekend I created a compilation of the best informational posts to this blog and added it to my list of marketing & branding articles at http://www.davedolak.com/articles.htm#startlist.

I've added them under the sub-head, "Best of the Blog Articles". Please let me know if you find this helpful and I'll do more of it in the future.

Use your sales force to build your brand

There's an interesting paper in the September 2006 Harvard Business Review, The New Science of Sales Force Productivity, that talks about focusing on sales force productivity to boost the performance of sales people.

The authors describe 4 levers that can increase sales performance, boost sales and improve performance of top reps while having the greatest impact on moving laggard sales people toward the middle of the curve.

Briefly, the 4 levers described by the authors to boost sales force productivity are:

1) Target offerings
Tailor offerings to the needs of target markets and make sure your sales reps are selling the right way to the right prospects.

2) Optimize automation tools and procedures
Bolster technology and productivity tools while bringing discipline and careful monitoring and review to a clearly-defined sales process.

3) Performance management
Incorporate metrics, skills development and incentives while properly and fairly rewarding high-performing reps in a differentiated way.

4) Sales force deployment
Strategically distribute sales reps and organize sales assets according to customer needs and the requirments of complex sales rather than simply by geography.

The days of "putting more feet on the street" to reach ever-increasing sales goals are over. Managers no longer can simply take a sales goal increase and evenly spread it across products and/or sales reps. They must evaluate how and where they can get the greatest gains.

This is a good paper that focuses on improving the performance of your existing sales force. I especially like this approach as it focuses on investing in your brand by investing in those who present your brand to the outside world. The paper also advocates seeking out new customers rather than focusing on selling more to existing customers. Although the authors do not specifically call this what it is, they are prescribing a fresh approach to expanding brands beyond traditional target markets by focusing on investments in the sales force.

The approach also injects more science into sales.

I champion the effort to label marketing a science with a relatively small portion of it being art. Since sales is part of the marketing function, doesn't it make sense that the scientific approach should trickle down to the sales force?

This paper is good reading for anyone interested in more effectively utilizing their sales force to help increase the value of their brands and increase sales. As we all know, branding should also live outside the walls of the marketing department.

The Poor Man's Shortcut (or small business's) Way to Measure Brand Strength

As I'm sitting at my desk this evening continuing to tweak an equation I'm developing to measure brand strength in an easier and more straight-forward manner than other complicated methods currently available, I'm struck by one factor in my equation that looks like it will make the cut.

This factor can readily and easily be used by just about any organization to help gauge the strength of its brand(s).

And what is this factor?

The ratio of customer complaints to customer kudos.

If you do no other brand-based measurements, then at least use this simple ratio to track your brand's strength over time.

Upset customers will contact you to complain about your brand. Extremely happy customers will contact you to let you know how thrilled they are with your brand. Of course, the vast majority of all customers will fall somewhere in between and you will never hear from them.

Truly outstanding brands will have significantly more unsolicited kudos than ordinary brands. Conversely, weak brands will have a much higher occurrence of complaints.

Strive to constantly improve this ratio and you will find yourself aligning your entire organization around building a powerhouse brand.

The advertising myth

Marketing is a function and a process for creating, communicating, and delivering value to customers and managing customer relationships in ways that benefit both the organization and its customers.

The marketing mix or promotional mix consists of Advertising, Public Relations, Personal Selling, Promotion, and Direct Marketing.

As you can see, marketing is all about creating and delivering value to customers. This includes developing products that meet needs, promoting those products, monitoring customer satisfaction, managing the sales process etc.

Advertising is just one small part of the marketing process. Marketing is strategic. Advertising is tactical.

Just because you see lots of advertising for a product or service does not mean it is marketed well.

Please pass this on to anyone who thinks Advertising = Marketing.

Advertisers run amok

Earlier this year I reported on how product placements are creeping their way into television content as a reaction to technology advancements that allow television viewers to skip traditional television commercials (i.e. zap commercials). The logic on the part of marketers is that they must expose their brand to consumers one way or another and if traditional television commercials don't work then they must find ways to get their brands worked into the content of the shows.

Gary Levin has a story in today's USA Today entitled, "The newest characters on TV shows: Product plugs", that also discusses this relatively new form of advertising. Advertisers are paying large sums of money to have their company and product brands featured in the content of television programming.

After you read my previous blog post and the a USA Today story, I have three questions that I'd like my blog readers to comment on.

1) If you are conscious of brands either obviously or overtly featured in television content, does that create positive or negative feelings toward those brands in your mind?
2) Are you more likely or less likely to buy certain brands if they work their way into programming in this manner?
3) Do you believe there should be full and obvious disclosure in television programs when advertisers pay a fee to have their brand featured in the content?

We are on a slippery slope here, folks.

Soon marketers will find a way to bombard us with commercial messages in every imaginable fashion and we will be forced to tune it all out. How can we trust the integrity of anything if we do not know what is creative content vs. what is paid-for promotion?

A word of advice to marketers: Make the strength of your brand and your message be so compelling that consumers will want to hear your brand's message without you ramming it down their throats. If you have to sneak the message in somewhere, then you probably are not very confident in your brand's promise or value proposition.

And, hey, as long as I'm talking to marketers and television advertisers, let me ask you a question. Just exactly how are you going to measure results of product plugs in television content?

That is one ROI calculation I'd like to see.

Haven't I heard that before?

I'd like to up the ante by making one last ditch effort to do an about face and go back to pick the low hanging fruit. Once I think outside the box I'm sure I'll be able to level the playing field and get out of the red and into the black.

Our friends at Factiva recently released a study that used its text mining technology to search the most commonly used words and phases in publication. They found some phrases so common that it turned them into a special list.

The Factiva List of Most Overused Business Cliches

12. Up the ante
11. Clean bill of health
10. Low hanging fruit
9. Last ditch effort
8. Think outside the box
7. Wealth of experience
6. About face
5. Time and again
4. A level playing field
3. In the red
2. In the black
1. At the end of the day

As marketers and communications professionals, let's remain keenly aware of these cliches so as to avoid them in our marketing communications. Find new ways to express your thoughts and communicate about your brands. Avoid phases that are so overused that they actually don't communicate very much at all.

At the end of the day, we don't need any more cliches.
;-)

Can brand value be measured?

With several available methods and approaches to measure brand value with the most prominent among them being proprietary (Interbrand and Young & Rubicam), BrandChannel.com has a debate going about what is the best method to measure brand value.

Join the debate over at BrandChannel.com.

One of the best discussions of the topic that I've seen is in a presentation over at The Chartered Institute of Marketing website at:
http://www.cim.co.uk/mediastore/Brand_eGuides/eGuide7.pdf#search=%22measuring%20brand%20value%22

I believe that every brand is unique with emotional components that are difficult to measure using any standardized approach. I further believe that in any brand valuation it is important to define a model or equation where all the factors to be measured are clearly identified along with the weighting factor applied to each.

Just like any economic model, once all the players agree to what gets measured, how the measures interact with one another and what weighting gets applied to each factor, then the parties know what goes into the model and can reach a value that they agree on.

When anyone states the value of a brand, the first question asked should always be, "How was it measured?" If you agree with the method and measures used then you can agree on the value.

Buzz Brands

I don't like the use of the term "buzz" when used in marketing circles to describe word-of-mouth advertising. In fact, I don't even like the term "word-of-mouth advertising".

Let's review the definition of advertising.

Advertising is any paid form of non-personal presentation and promotion of ideas, goods, or services by an identified sponsor.


Unlike advertising which relies on purchasing power to get a message across, publicity relies solely on the quality of content to persuade others to get the message out.

Therefore, I favor the use of the term "word of mouth publicity" to describe genuine buzz. You know, the buzz that happens when people start talking about your brand without you directly greasing the skids or without you investing resources of any kind to directly propagate the discussion.

If you are blogging or directly encouraging bloggers to talk about your brand, then I don't believe that is genuine buzz.

When marketers launch a campaign to get the blogosphere talking about their brand, then it is no different than advertising. Resources are being invested to directly get people talking about your brand. That is artificial. That is paying for advertising. It is also potentially misleading because you are not making it clear that you are paying to get people talking.

The difference is the shift in focus of who is driving message about the brand. The difference is also where you are investing your resources--into the product or into the discussion about the product.

Strong brands focus on the quality of the product to get people talking on their own. Strong brands generate grass-roots buzz. Strong brands cause people to talk based purely on the quality of the product.

If you are paying for buzz, then it is not really buzz at all.

Now that I've got that off my chest, let's talk about a recent study that seems to have identified the top 10 brands that enjoy genuine buzz.

The Keller Fay Group recently released a market research study that identified the top 10 brands that enjoy positive word-of-mouth publicity.

The Top 10 positive word-of-mouth brands are:

1. Toyota
2. Wal-Mart
3. Honda
4. iPod/Apple
5. Chevrolet
6. Target
7. Sony
8. Home Depot
9. BMW
10. Verizon

Keller Fay's methodology reviewed 30,000 organic word-of-mouth brand mentions that include email, blogs, telephone and face-to-face conversations.

It is important for all marketers to keep in mind that focusing on creating a truly strong brand will generate word-of-mouth publicity as a by-product.

Focus on the product offering and the buzz will follow. Focus on the buzz and you will just be another advertiser.

American Marketing Assoc. M-planet conference

The American Marketing Association is holding a first of its kind marketing conference Nov 29 - Dec 1, 2006 in Florida. It appears as though this should be a very informative conference for marketers covering most aspects of marketing.

Details at:
http://www.mplanet2006.com

Brandweek Caption Contest

...and just when I thought life couldn't get any better...

Tonight I'm getting caught up on this week's pile of mail and I opened up my current issue of BrandWeek to see that I won the caption contest (in the August 21 issue). The ad for TechnoMarine watches shows the following picture:



A few weeks ago BrandWeek editor, Jim Edwards, asked readers to submit captions that best fit the photo. My winning caption, "Sometimes I just want to cuddle" beat out the other entries.

Now if I could only figure out that world peace thing.

;-)

Thanks, Jim!

Brand Awareness: What's The Deal?

A customer of mine with whom I've been corresponding recently asked a question that I think is cogent to the point of being worthy of posting to this blog.

Question: "...[Y]our thoughts are clarifying and as you know I read your book (How to Build and Maintain A Powerhouse Brand) with much interest. I very much like the concept of "Strategic Awareness"-- it makes sense.

However, I am still intrigued about the importance and relevance that is given by marketing professionals to the concepts of "Awareness" and especially "Top of Mind - Awareness". I have always been a bit skeptical about their correlation with market performance.

How come so many professionals tout "Awareness/Top of Mind" so much????"

Answer : In my opinion, it is because traditional ad agencies and marketing consultants can relatively easily measure awareness and can demonstrate to their clients their ability to increase brand awareness. Further, ad agencies tout awareness as the ever-important metric because that is how they make their money from clients.

Agencies create very creative and catchy ads, spend lots of client money to get the ads out there by saturating the media and then, not surprisingly, consumers can recall the brand because they've been exposed to it many, many times.

Creating strategic awareness and brand preference, however, is more difficult and they are also more difficult to measure. To do both while simultaneously increasing profits is extremely difficult. To do so is also the core of what good brand builders do.

To quickly review some definitions, Brand awareness is simply when consumers recognize your brand. Top of mind awareness occurs when you ask a person to name brands within a product category and your brand pops up first on the list. Strategic awareness occurs when not only does the consumer recognize your brand but they also understand the distinctive qualities that make it better than the competition. Brand preference happens when those consumers then prefer your brand over competing offerings.

If ad agencies promised increases in strategic awareness, brand preference and increased profits, then most of those agencies would go out of business because their clients would fire them. The agencies simply could not deliver on their promise.

Awareness is a much easier--and much more certain--needle to move so that's what agencies promise.

This week's Top 25 Marketing Blogs...

...according to Viral Garden:

1 - Seth's Blog
2 - Gaping Void
3 - Creating Passionate Users
4 - Duct Tape Marketing
5 - Marketing Shift
6 - HorsePigCow
7 - Coolzor
8 - The Viral Garden
9 - Church of the Customer
10 - What's Next
11 - Emergence Marketing
12 - Brand Autopsy
13 - Diva Marketing
14 - Jaffe Juice
15 - Beyond Madison Avenue
16 - New School of Network Marketing
17 - Logic + Emotion
18 - Pro Hip-Hip - Hip-Hop Marketing
19 - Marketallica
20 - What's Your Brand Mantra?
21 - Marketing Headhunter
22 - Daily Fix
23 - Movie Marketing Madness
24 - Experience Curve
25 - WonderBranding

The list with working links to all found at
http://moblogsmoproblems.blogspot.com/2006/08/viral-gardens-top-25-marketing-blogs_21.html

If you like my blog (Branding & Marketing by Dave Dolak), then please tell Technorati that it is one of your favorites by clicking on this link http://technorati.com/faves?add=http://davedolak.blogspot.com.

Today's worst marketing job in the world....

Chief Marketing Officer for any airline.

How in the world do you make any airline sound good these days?

Turning around a laggard brand?

I've been reading a lot of business articles from marketing experts lately who talk about ways to build strong brands. They talk mostly about carving out unique positions in the market, delivering superior value and making brand promises that resonate with the target market. They go on to discuss how these brands can then enjoy strong word-of-mouth advertising and gain lots of publicity that will make advertising less important in the success of the brand.

What they don't discuss is how difficult these things are to do for already established brands that are lagging.

What I believe needs to be said is that your branding must absolutely be considered during product development. Preferably, you will define the brand before you even begin product development.

You must begin the process of creating a product or service with the clear vision of what the final brand will look like, what promises it will make, and how you will deliver on those promises. Only then will you consider all the elements of a powerful brand and marry them with the required intimate knowledge of your customers. Only once you know what the brand *must be in its final state* can you then start to create a product or service that meets the requirements.

For established brands that are lagging, it can be very difficult if not impossible to create a strong brand from a weak product or service. A strong brand starts with a strong product or service.

Sometimes slick marketing and advertising just can't help a loser of an offering. You can't always put a fresh face on an old dog and make it do tricks. Sometimes you need a new dog.

The strategic role of marketing & branding

Marketing is not something to be “done” to a product or service after is has been developed.

Marketing and branding must be integrally involved in the development process to ensure that unique product or service value is created and translated into the brand and then consistently delivered to the customer.

As such, marketing cannot save ill-conceived or poorly developed products and services that are created in a vacuum without consideration to whether or not relevant and highly desirable value will ultimately be delivered to customers.

If you are looking to marketing (or worse yet, advertising) to save a failing product, then you have unrealistic expectations and you are bringing marketing to the table too late.

Book excerpt: How to Brand and Market A Commodity

Book excerpt- How to Brand and Market A Commodity

The increase in competition in just about every product category coupled with the ability for most consumers to quickly and easily seek out and compare all competing offerings via the Internet has put a great deal of pressure on brands to strengthen their positions and continually seek ways to deliver greater value to customers.

Here in the United States we have witnessed the proliferation of highly differentiated products with an ever increasing number of choices and alternatives. While branding has traditionally been rooted in the consumer packaged goods industry, branding principles have been adopted and adapted by other industries representing most other product categories, as well.

Companies on a global scale now realize that one of the most promising paths to long term longevity, a prosperous organization, and healthy profits is to create and manage strong brands for their products and services. We are seeing countries such as China, Korea, India, Finland and others put forth powerful brands with global impact. In the words of Scott Bedbury, author of the book by the same name, it is indeed "A new brand world".

For all of these reasons and more, the need for solid information and advice on how to brand and market commodities is currently stronger than ever. This need has prompted me to write this e-book in order to provide you with solid information on the topic in an easy-to-read, condensed format.

Why brand a commodity?

Branding is a way to escape the commodity trap of competing solely on price and volume. Branding also helps the branded product survive in an environment where not only is there constant downward pressure on price, but also a constant battle in which competitors savage and attempt to eliminate each other.

Branded products can increase market share, command price premiums, and deliver value to customers that exceeds what can be delivered by product features alone. Brands help create emotional and psychological ties with customers such that they become price inelastic. Brands can also make the purchasing decision easier, create trust in the buyer-seller relationship, and serve as a means to create an aura that surrounds the product offering that transcends tangible deliverables. These attributes benefit customers and producers alike.

Let's first define what commodity products are.

Definition of commodity

Commodity products are largely undifferentiated products that offer little or no perceived differences between competitive offerings. These are lowly differentiated products or services with high levels of substitutability and straight-forward price discovery. Commodity products are fungible as competitive offerings are easily interchangeable.

With little-to-no perceived difference, consumers shop for commodities primarily on a low price basis. Some examples of traditional commodity markets are: minerals, poultry, computer chips, bulk chemicals, coffee, tea, sugar, salt, flour, rice, spices, water, and oil.

Producers of commodities are driven to compete on low price and high volume. In general, the product life cycle is at the point where significant customer education and assistance is not required, customers have widely adopted the product, the market is mature enough to have attracted multiple competitors, and the market expands while prices decline as consumers demand price concessions.

Commoditization Warning Signs

Early warning signs of the beginning of commoditization are:

1 Increasing competition
2 Widespread availability of "me too" products
3 Customer resistance to pay for non-essential features and services
4 Pressure to reduce price
5 Lower margins

In such an environment it is usually only the producer with the lowest cost structure who can win and even then that producer must always seek ways to reduce costs while selling at lower and lower prices. This price-based competition can compromise product quality while decimating profits.

Excerpted from: How to Brand and Market A Commodity
Copyright 2005, Dave Dolak. All rights reserved.

When bad things happen to good brands

At some point in the life of your brand, an event will occur that negatively impacts your brand.

Sometimes such events will be mistakes or bad decisions on your part. At other times, things that are beyond your control will happen in the external environment.

In any case, it is essential to deal with these negative events in a positive, proactive and constructive manner to maintain the health of your brand.

The four steps to managing negative events in the life of your brand are:

1. Assess whether or not the event can be undone and weigh all the costs and consequences involved in undoing or reversing the event

2. If the situation cannot be undone then accept it quickly and do not dwell on it

3. Act quickly to minimize the damage and actively manage the fallout

4. Create a plan to capitalize on the new opportunities presented

Bad events happen in the life of a brand. Don't allow your brands to falter and lose their footing when bad things happen. Accept the things you can't change, move on as best you can and look for the new opportunities that are created.

Symptoms of an unhealthy brand

I'm compiling notes for an upcoming white paper on branding and thought I'd share a portion with you in advance.

Some warning signs of an unhealthy brand are:

* Your brand's sources of equity have vanished

* Through the course of natural evolution and growth of your organization, certain brands in your portfolio no longer foster the organizational mission or fit in with overall business strategy

* The investments you make in your brand cannot be justified based upon the level of revenue and profit that brand returns to your organization

* Nobody within your organization can seem to succinctly articulate your brand's core values or concisely state its unique selling proposition

* Your brand is promising more than your organization can consistently deliver

* Your brand has gotten a bad reputation and new, unwanted associations have been made by consumers

* Your brand's identity seems dated or old-fashioned

* Competing brands now hold the leadership positions in the category

* Your brand is not reaching out to new, younger consumers and your brand is aging right along with your customers

* The promises of value your brand makes no longer resonate or remain relevant

* Your market has moved beyond your brand

* Your brand managers are at least second or third generation managers who were not in your organization or near the brand when the brand was created

* You do not understand who your brand's most valuable customers are or why they choose your brand

* Sales are slumping and so are profits

If you recognize any of these warning signs, it might be time to take a closer look at your brand or perform a brand audit to help ensure your brand's health and longevity.

CRM systems and your brand

One of the best quotes I've seen or heard lately with regard to Customer Relationship Management (CRM) systems that were all the branding rage just a couple years ago comes from Shaun Smith in his article, "Ten ways to screw up your brand" over at BrandChannel.com.

Shaun says that many organizations use CRM systems "...as blunt instruments to stalk, rather than woo, the customer."

He is so right.

Instead of learning more about customers in order to offer them value that is of known interest to them, too many brands merely use the knowledge gleaned from consumers to pummel them with offer after offer in the hope that they simply just buy more stuff.

Let's not forget the "relationship" in Customer Relationship Management. Making an offer does not constitute fostering a relationship.

Case Study: Adobe Had Always Been ARTS PDF's Best Partner, Then Everything Changed

The above is an interesting case study in this month's issue of Inc. Magazine that examines how one small, start-up company decided to compete against a huge incumbent that has very high awarenss and brand recognition.

I especially like they way Arts PDF studied the marketplace, understood consumer desires and attacked a weakness in the larger competitor. Only time and the marketplace will tell how successful their strategy is.

http://www.inc.com/magazine/20060501/handson-casestudy.html

http://www.artspdf.com

The marketing secrets of Stonehenge

Earlier today I was riding my Goldwing motorcycle back home to Charlottesville, VA (USA) after visiting a customer in Blacksburg, VA (hey, we all have to conserve gas and save money somehow). Becoming a bit tired of the monotony of riding with the trucks on I-81, I decided to take parallel Route 11 to take in a bit of scenery and local flavor.

As I was enjoying the beautiful scenery of the Blue Ridge Mountains near Natural Bridge, VA, I suddenly passed something that grabbed my attention and compelled me to turn around and get a better look.

Alas, I had discovered "Foamhenge" and re-connected with a true American marketing phenomenon known as The Roadside Attraction.



Roadside attractions are great examples of creative marketing. These often odd attractions are just wild and zany enough to get weary travelers to stop and spend time and money in a locality. Targeted just perfectly to people driving along a road looking for adventure and a bit of a rest, roadside attractions give people something to enjoy while arming them with great stories to tell about their travels. These things, when done right, garner great word of mouth marketing.

As we in America begin another summer vacation season this weekend, I'm announcing "The 2006 Great American Roadside Attraction Marketing Contest". Let's honor the great American marketers who build and operate roadside attractions.

Send your stories and photos of your favorite roadside attractions this summer along with critical analysis from a marketing perspective. Tell us why you thought they were brilliant marketing and examine how effectively they market locations and promote tourism. I'm not sure what prize the winner will get yet, but I'll think of something. At the very least the winner will be featured on this blog along with their story and photos of the winning attraction.

As we begin another summer season, let us not forget the real meaning of Memorial Day next Monday. Memorial Day is a day to remember those who have died in our nation's service. We should be ever mindful of those who made the ultimate sacrifice so we can enjoy our freedom.

And if you just happen to be driving through Virginia this summer, The National D-Day Memorial in Bedford, VA is a great place to honor some of those who died in service to our great country.

http://www.roadsideamerica.com/attract/VANATfoamhenge.html
http://www.naturalbridgeva.com
http://www.dday.org

How to create mass market appeal for your brand like a moth drawn to the flame

A brand was very successful and profitable. This brand started as a small, exclusive brand that catered to upscale consumers with refined tastes and was built slowly through innovative and creative direct marketing efforts.

The brand had a wonderful story to tell and it told that story effectively. Communications included a compelling offer to which consumers responded.

Over time, this brand continued to grow at a slow but steady pace while loyalty amongst its customers grew to a point where they became fanatical about the brand and did not miss an opportunity to talk about the brand to their friends and recommend the brand to them. Word of mouth was strong and favorable. Customers were almost exclusively repeat customers who purchased the brand at regular intervals. The brand was highly profitable.

Then one day, a much larger company targeted the brand and bought it so they could add it to their portfolio. Attracted by the customer loyalty and profitability of the brand, Mega Conglomerated Corp., Inc. figured that if they plugged this relatively small brand into its mega wide distribution and supported it with mega mass marketing and mega advertising that they could expect a mega multiplier return on the profit number.

Mega Conglomerated Corp., Inc. immediately ceased the campy direct marketing efforts and started a campaign to promote the brand through much sexier and slicker mass advertising and in-store promotions throughout its distribution network of thousands of retail stores where the product was now available. After all, it figured, if this brand was successful before, it would be much more successful with the right marketing support that would put it in front of a mass audience who would overwhelmingly respond and purchase it willingly and more easily from a local retail store.

And then it happened.

Sales dropped. Loyalty tanked. The brand started bleeding red ink. Panic set in at Mega Conglomerated Corp., Inc. and fingers were pointed in all directions to explain why.

Through it all, not a single thing changed about the physical product itself.

What's the moral of this story?

There are many significant things to be learned.

A brand is much more than the physical product itself. A brand is an entity that makes a promise of value. This promise can speak in terms of quality, reliability, superiority, style of dialog and exclusivity--not just functionality and certainly not just features.

A brand that appeals to a niche market may do so precisely because those consumers are looking for a brand that is off the beaten path and cannot be found just anywhere. Consumers might want a brand that does not have mass appeal because it makes them feel like they have found an exclusive, superior brand that is not for the common folk. It makes them feel special because they have to take a few extra steps to purchase the product. Something that they, unlike others, are willing to do.

A brand might be successful precisely because it is marketed in a particular manner to a particular audience and trying to sell it to the masses will strip away the very reasons the original audience bought it in the first place.

This story also teaches us that we must thoroughly understand our brands' sources of equity before we change anything about them. Consumer insight is critical and decisions cannot be made in a vacuum or be driven by arrogance and greed. We should be willing to be humbled by a smaller brand doing things right and accept the fact that maybe, just maybe, we can learn something from it.

Sometimes the least sexy marketing and promotion for a brand is actually the best for it.

Thinking about transitioning to a mass scale for your brand might be a trap. Some brands are better suited to go deeper and grow slowly rather than go broad and grow rapidly. How do you know? Get to know your brand and understand what its sources of equity are.

Lastly, sometimes the owner of the brand is as critical to the success or failure of the brand as anything else. It might be this last fact that is hardest for us to accept.

Psst! 5 Marketing Secrets You Can Copy from the Big Guys

In the continuing spirit of passing along useful marketing and branding information, the May/June issue of Successful Promotions Magazine has an article entitled, "Psst! 5 Marketing Secrets You Can Copy from the Big Guys". The 5 secrets (with my comments following each) are:

1) A little attitude goes a long way.

A bit of edgy attitude can be a powerful and compelling part of your brand's personality.

2) Say something different.

This tip is classic positioning strategy. As I've stated before, your brands must communicate and promise unique value not found anywhere else. If you claim a unique position, it naturally follows that your brand can make claims not found anywhere else.

3) Viral Marketing doesn't have to be online.

There are plenty of ways to take advantage of offline viral marketing opportunities.

4) Be consistent with your brand message.

Use an Integrated Marketing Communications strategy to ensure your brand is communicating the same things consistently across all media.

5) Engagement of consumers, whether you're a big or small company, doesn't have to cost a lot.

Customer interaction and intimacy can and should be achieved through your branding. You should be able to find cost-effective ways to open the lines of communication with your customers.

The article also included 4 ways to stay in business (again, with my comments following each):

1) Stay true to your brand.

Let your guide be the answer to the question, "What is in the best interest of the brand?", when making critical decisions. Deliver on your brand promises every time -- without fail.

2) Stay with the same look.

Trust me, you will get tired of your look and communications long before your customers do. The only way to know if it is time to refine your message or look is to conduct research. Resist the urge to change for as long as you can because a consistent look helps build trust, awareness and brand loyalty.

3) Stay in touch with your customers' needs.

I don't even need to add anything to this one. Your brand is nothing if it is not in touch with customer needs.

4) Stay on target.

Never waiver from understanding, communicating, and supporting your brands' core values.

Battle of the Brands

I just got my mail for the day and received my new issue of MultiChannel Merchant (May, 2006 issue).

Right on the front cover is a story with the title, "Battle of the Brands" that discusses the importance of building strong brands and why it is now more difficult to build powerhouse brands than ever before.

Among the suggested ways to build strong bands:

* Differentiate on more than just price
* Focus on customer service and technical support and offer a range of products or vertical services
* Create powerful and compelling personalities for your brands
* Use sub-brands to build your overall brand (covered in my new, free audio book)
* Consistently offer something new
* Keep customers loyal

I encourage you to read the article.

You can learn a lot from a chain saw

I couldn't help but notice an advertisement in USAToday earlier this week that nicely illustrated a brand that gets it and is treating its brand with the proper respect.

The Stihl ad starts with the headline, "Why is the world's number one selling brand of chain saw not sold at Lowe's or The Home Depot?".

Stihl then explains in the ad why it refuses to let its brand fall into commodity status by allowing it to be sold at large box stores right next to competing brands so as to strip out much of its promise of brand value. The ad then lays out the case.

From the few words in the ad, here's what the reader takes away from the message.

Stihl's 8,000 dealers nationwide are critical to how Stihl sells its saws. They rely on those dealers to provide advice, straight talk, support and service for its chain saws. The brand believes that how it sells its saws is every bit as important and the saws themselves. They believe in and support their dealer network. They believe those dealers provide a level of expert advice, support and service that cannot be matched by competing brands. They will not allow their brand to be sold alongside competing brands without thorough discussion of the pros and cons of the Stihl brand versus competing brands. Stihl will not let consumers make decisions based on price alone without an understanding of the additional value the brand offers. Stihl will not cede control of its brand to others.

There are lessons to be learned.

We should not allow our brands to be compared on price alone. We must create brands that make promises of value so we can say, "Mr./Ms. Customer, you cannot directly compare our brand to competing brands on price alone. Our brand is different and here's why...".

Stihl's brand has integrity. Stihl is obviously a defender of its brand and will tell consumers why the Stihl brand represents a better choice.

Simply by analyzing Stihl's brand communication makes it clear why it is the #1 selling brand of chain saw.

It certainly promises value and communicates it in a way that powerful brands should.

USAToday, The Home Depot, Lowe's and Stihl are registered trademarks of their respective owners.

Free marketing and branding audio book MP3 / podcast

(Simply click on or right-click and "save as" on the icon above.)

Please feel free to download and listen to my new audio book on how to build powerful brands and extraordinary organizations.

This seminar covers many topics including: How and why to create a powerful Vision for your business; Why traditional brand management fails; How to conduct a brand audit; The importance of Integrated Marketing Communications; and Why Internal Branding is so important for your business. Perfect for small business owners and entrepreneurs, this audio book also contains information that will be useful to just about any professional marketer. This audio book also includes bonus material where I discuss moral marketing and why it is more important than ever for marketers to appeal to the best in the human spirit.

Running time: 25:25
File format: MP3, 17.4MB

All I ask in return is that you let me know what you think about the material.

Cheers!
-Dave

Intel re-branding effort revisited

Today Intel announced new technology that is reported to offer a microarchitecture dual-core processor that will deliver gains in performance and reductions in power-consumption.This new technology, vPro, joins the confusing array of brand names such as Centrino, Viiv, Core Duo and Core Solo that Intel has embraced as part of its new re-branding effort (I previously commented on the new strategy in my January 4, 2006 blog entry at http://davedolak.blogspot.com/2006/01/intel-rebrands-itself.html ).

If one reads the press release from the company (http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20060422corp.htm), one cannot shake the feeling that Intel is either trying to confuse consumers with its brand communication or that it is now only speaking to geeks within IT departments.

One of the reasons Intel had built such a powerful consumer brand was the fact that its brand communication was simple and we consumers all somehow understood that the Intel chip was superior to its competitors.We may not have understood exactly why, but we believed it.

Now Intel’s brand communication is a muddled message of technical specifications, jargon and benefits so difficult to decipher that it sends the message that Intel is now a commodity brand whose promises are only intelligible to the fine folks within IT departments who can understand the jargon and any possible benefits.

Intel has taken one of the strongest consumer brands in history and positioned itself as a commodity with very low differentiation in the minds of consumers. I strongly doubt that most consumers will continue to perceive much different between Intel and competing brands and that the equity Intel has built by having consumers ask for its chips by name has been squandered.The very fact that the brand’s communication is so technical and so hard to understand seems to communicate that there aren’t real differences between computer chip brands anymore and that any differences are so arcane so as to be unimportant to most consumers.

We should all take note as we build our brands.If we try to “re-brand” and change the meanings of our brands once brand equity has been established in the marketplace, we run the risk changing brand promises to the point where they communicate very little, or worse, communicate nothing unique or compelling whatsoever.

In my opinion, Intel has invented a whole new science within the marketing profession called, “reverse branding”. They have taken a leading consumer brand and commoditized it.

Podcasting & blogging for marketers

I attended an excellent program earlier this evening that was hosted by the Central Virginia Chapter of the American Marketing Association. The program consisted of a couple of local experts on blogging and podcasting, Waldo Jaquith and Sean Tubbs, respectively. These gentlemen addressed a group of roughly 50 marketers and small business managers about the best ways to integrate blogs and podcasts into their marketing strategies.

As an obvious blogger myself and also as one who markets my own expertise through this blog and via video & audio podcasts, I found the program very insightful.

There were gems in there for marketers who have an interest in using blogs to promote their businesses and I'd like to pass some along. Some of the gems were:

1) Monitor any and all blogs and blog comments that are related to your own brand names and/or area of expertise and be willing to participate in others' related blogs by posting comments.

2) Be willing to take action when negative publicity about your brand arises due to others' blog entries and use such instances as opportunities to improve your business.

3) It is very difficult for marketers to use blogs effectively--precisely because they are marketers and naturally tend to self-promote rather than inform which makes for uninteresting reading.

4) It is very important for marketers to create blog brands that don't suck and it is an art to be able to write a blog that others want to read.

5) Full disclosure is in order when attempting to walk the line between business and personal blogs. If it's personal, tell people. If it is business, don't shamelessly promote the business. Better yet, have a "disinterested" third party write your blog for you to keep some separation and objectivity. Have them write about the industry or the area of expertise--not promote the business in any way other than possibly placing obvious advertisements on the blog or podcast. Keep the promotion out of the content.

I also learned that the trends for podcasting are enticing with the demand for "Personal On Demand" audio and video content on the rise and the outlook strong.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am the current President of the local AMA chapter and I also use this blog to inform people about marketing best practices and current events in marketing and branding with the goal of educating people about marketing so marketers get better at what they do and so consumers demand more from marketers.

Now it is your turn. I'd greatly appreciate knowing what you think of this blog and my previous audio and video podcasts (all found below). Are these tools helpful to you? Am I missing the mark? Am I one of those marketers who has created a blog that sucks? Please comment.

This week in marketing reviewed

iMac computers that run Windows XP - There may still be hope for world peace. Can MacViruses be far behind?Bottom line: Marketing hit.

Disney allowing free online viewing of popular television shows with commercials that cannot be avoided – Throw every media revenue model at the wall and see what sticks.The media shift continues and my earlier bold prediction gets one step closer to becoming reality. Bottom line: Marketing hit.

Google launches an online personal calendar service that allows multiple people to overlay their schedules – Seems like a great idea but what about the next time security is compromised? Couple security issues with the ability to create a map directly to somebody’s house and you are just asking to robbed the next time you are out of town. Crooks would be wise to schedule themselves alibis. Bottom line: Marketing miss.

Your brand and anti-advergames

Several weeks ago I was contacted by a writer for a business magazine who asked if I would comment as a branding expert on a relatively new category of online games known as "anti-advergames". The writer wanted to know my views in relation to how such anti-advergames can impact brands from the marketers’ and brand owners’ perspective.

I admitted my ignorance because I had never heard of anti-advergames prior to that call and therefore was not qualified to comment.

After subsequent research and discussion with a lawyer friend of mine, I now have a better understanding of anti-advergames and think they might be a significant enough phenomenon to discuss in case you one day find your brand entangled with them.

First of all, let’s define advergaming. Advergaming is the practice of using games, particularly computer games, to advertise or promote a product, organization or viewpoint.

Anti-advergames, therefore, are online games that target companies and corporations and take an activist position against such promotion of companies, products and viewpoints. They are the opposite of advergames. These games take players through simulated aspects of business operations and either overtly condemn companies or more subtly encourage players to question the motives, morals and social values of the companies they target.

For instance, one anti-advergame targets the McDonald's Corporation by asking players to simulate the burning of forests in order to clear pasture land for cattle (while natives can be seen running from the flames), questions the practice of injecting cattle with growth hormones and rails against corporate management by questioning staffing practices.

In another anti-advergame, "Disaffacted!", the game creators target FedEx Kinkos by putting the player in the shoes of demotivated employees trying to manage a Kinkos store while demonstrating apathy and lack of concern for the customer. These games target specific companies by name and attempt to promote a social and/or political agenda by painting the companies as evil corporate citizens who care about little more than profitability.

Why should you be aware of anti-advergames?

With rapid media and technology advancements coupled with increased demand for new digital entertainment and ease of message distribution, there will be an increase in these types of campaigns that attack companies and attempt to shape public opinion against them.

Right now it appears this is being done with complete disregard to copyright and trademark law on the part of game creators. They violate copyright and trademark law and use brand names and logos without permission under the guise of "parody" and “education”. You may one day find your brand the target of such activism.

Brand managers seem to be in a precarious position.

If targeted companies respond and initiate litigation to stop anti-advergame creators from violating trade names and perpetrating slander or libel, then they run the risk of generating a lot of negative publicity and creating more awareness for those very games that might otherwise only have limited reach and impact. Perhaps these gamers are so insignificant that they are not worthy of response anyway.

As a marketer, a certain amount of restraint is in order to allow for creative expression against your brand, however, you must also guard your brand’s honor and be ready to take action if significant damage is caused and can be proven. Smart marketers must be aware of anti-advergames and be prepared to take action if such activism targeted toward their brands causes significant damages and destroys hard earned brand equity.

As an aside, I wonder how anti-advergame creators feel about the computer manufacturers, electric companies and Internet service providers they rely upon to execute & distribute their anti-corporate campaigns. I also wonder if these social activists burn down forests in order to plant soybeans and other vegetables so they can subsequently kill those plants and eat organically on the moral high ground.

Unless they are completely self-sufficient in their lifestyles and conduct no commerce whatsoever in the course of living their lives, then they too are part of the complex world of commerce and enterprise that they so gleefully attack.

Does your marketing suck?

I just downloaded an .mp3 file of the Mark Stevens book, "Your Marketing Sucks", for an upcoming trip. This book promises to show me "how to distinguish between marketing that works and marketing that sucks".

As for me, I believe that the best way to improve the quality of all marketing is to help educate as many people as possible about marketing so not only will marketers get better at what they do but consumers will demand better marketing, recognize it when they see it, and reward those marketers who get it right.

I look forward to listening to this unabridged audio book and reporting back...

Introduction to Brand Management

A new book, "Total Brand Management: An Introduction," was just published by ICFAI Press. Although I have not yet received or reviewed my copy, the book looks like a very good introduction to brand management...and I'm not just saying that because I contributed one of the chapters.

I am getting more information from the publisher about how to obtain some copies of the book so if you are interested in purchasing a copy, please let me know so I can send you the details when I get them.

Link with description and table of contents:
http://www.icfaipress.org/books/TotalBrandManagement_ct.asp

The marketing of Origami

Microsoft has at last revealed details of its new PC as a result of its Origami project.

For weeks the bloggers and technology writers have been speculating about the device and whether or not it has a place in the market and whether or not it will be ultimately successful.

I’m not a technology writer or gadget reviewer, but I do find this story interesting because it illustrates well many aspects of effective marketing.

From the mysterious publicity website (http://www.origamiproject.com) created to tease people and generate buzz to all the “leaks” about the product before it was officially announced, I give kudos to Microsoft for doing a good job at both marketing the product and managing expectations at the same time.

One part of the product launch strategy that I find fascinating is a video of Origami’s Creator, Otto Berkes, as he is interviewed by a Microsoft blogger.

In the video, Berkes is seen talking about the product in behind-the-scenes fashion that is both approachable and intriguing. This was a well-crafted piece of publicity. Marketers out there should note the use of new media to help a major corporation to launch a new product. Especially take note of how a blog was used to directly distribute what is essentially a long format commercial thus integrating blogging into the Microsoft marketing mix.

In the video, Microsoft talks about pricing strategy, hardware specifications and potential “use scenarios” defining what market segments may be early adopters for this new, ultra-mobile PC.

Microsoft alludes to price skimming strategy based upon the newness of the product in the product life cycle and states that it set out to find the pricing sweet spot between price and usability based on the technical capabilities of the device along with its screen size compared to competing mobile technologies. They further go on to discuss how the price will fall once it gets beyond the early adopters and production ramps up to meet demand during the growth stage when the customer base grows rapidly and price falls accordingly.

The managing of expectations occurs when we see Berkes squirm in his chair when asked about battery life while never directly answering the question. When he talks about how some uses make more sense than others and that not all software applications will make sense for this device, he clearly is managing expectations for the device and not over promising. I find this corporate honesty refreshing.

Microsoft clearly knows that this is not a device for everyone but it does fit a niche. Maybe ultimately a large niche (if there is such a thing).

Microsoft did not develop this product in a vacuum and unleash it on the world as so many Microsoft critics would like to believe. Microsoft clearly worked with its hardware partners to develop this device and they all did their marketing research homework and believe there is a market for it.

So how is this product positioned and where does it fit?

It fits somewhere between a handheld device and a laptop computer.

A bit smaller than a tablet PC, this device is an ultra-portable PC running Windows XP and will allow the user to run many full-fledged software programs with its main interface being a 7” touch screen display.

The detractors complain that the product will flop because it is too big to fit into a pocket and that it is yet another gadget to lug around but they miss the point.

This is an evolutionary product, not a revolutionary one.

This device will deliver a larger screen size than many mobile devices while also offering much more computing power. I can easily see how it would be desirable to leave both a notebook computer and a handheld device in the office while traveling on business and take an Origami device instead… assuming there will be available software add-ons such as a virtual on-screen keyboard and quick booting times. In fact, if the price is right it might be worth it just to use on airplanes and while waiting in airports.

As for the price, the market will soon enough determine that.

Like it or hate it, I think there is a market for the device and I think Microsoft did a wonderful job from a marketing perspective in its launching of the device.

What do you think about how they managed the marketing?

Why direct mail doesn’t work

Several times per year I’ll hear a business owner or manager tell me, “I’ve tried [using] direct mail in the past and it doesn’t work”. They also usually find some way to work the word “expensive” into the conversation.

Let me state at the onset that direct mail does work, it is still an important marketing tool, and it is still relevant even in these days of electronic communication.

So why do so many people out there seem to think direct mail does not work or that it cannot work for them?

The answer lies in the complexity of direct mail and just how easy it is to get one small element wrong such that it renders the entire effort ineffective.

Just of few elements of a common direct mail package include:

• The envelope (size, color, etc.)
• The type face used and style of the writing
• The offer itself
• A sales letter
• A brochure
• Headlines, subheads and teaser copy on the outside of the envelope
• A response mechanism (order form, postage paid reply card, toll-free telephone number, etc.)
• The mailing list
• The type of postage used (ex. live first-class stamp vs. imprinted indicia)

Why does direct mail seemingly fail some people?

Direct mail requires commitment and a willingness to experiment. Often small business owners or inexperienced marketers do not realize that a successful direct mail effort requires experimentation, measurement and multiple mailings to optimize to the point where it will be profitable.

Direct mail results can be made or broken by one single element of the mailing. You can spend months coming up with what you believe is a great offer, but if your prospects do not find much value in your offer they will not respond. A simple headline can drastically change direct mail results to the point where a difference in headline alone can make the difference between a successful campaign and a losing one. Your mailing list can make or break your campaign. What if you have done everything mechanically correct with your direct mail package but send it to the wrong prospects? It will fail.

The fundamental mistake I often see are people who develop a direct mail package and then spend their entire budget sending it to as large a list as they can afford. They then wait to see it whether or not it “worked” by measuring increased sales that they can directly attribute to the mailing. Done in a vacuum, this can be very expensive, very risky, and very disappointing.

The better way is to start small using split-tests and optimize the mailing before rolling it out on a massive scale. A split test is where two different versions of a mailing are sent out and the results measured against each other.

Ideally, each split test will test only one single element of the direct mail package. In other words, everything is the same in the two mailings except for one thing, be it a different list, a different headline, a slightly different offer or some other element. The two different versions are then specially coded in some way so you know which version drew the better response and got the better results. Then use the mailing that got the better results and test some other element using another split test. Continue the process until you have a winner and the numbers are working in your favor.

Once the numbers are working in your favor, you then have a “control” that you can send out successfully and profitably to a larger list. Even with a winning direct mail package you should continue to test new elements using the split-test method until something outperforms your control.

Test everything. Test your offers. Test your list. Test the difference between a live stamp and postal indicia. Test difference response vehicles. Test different sales copy. Test headlines. Test it all. In this way you will optimize your mailing and then you can roll it out on a larger scale once you know it is effective and profitable.

Direct mail does work but it is complex. When it fails, it is usually because some marketer decided ahead of time that his or her direct mail package “should work” and then it doesn’t. The marketer then declares, “direct mail doesn’t work for me” or worse, “direct mail doesn’t work”.

You can never guess what your prospects will respond to ahead of time. Sure you can have pretty good intuition about it, but until you test it and measure response you simply never know. Sometimes your prospects will surprise you.

Commit to optimizing your direct mail, agree to test it with multiple mailings, and make the decision to experiment to see what works and what doesn’t work for you. If you need some help and want to bring some experience to the table, enlist the services of a direct mail consultant, professional copywriter or ask a veteran of direct mail for some assistance.

A direct mail campaign is a process not a single event.

Treating direct mail like a single make-or-break event is likely to not work for you if you are relatively inexperienced in the science.

Video blog entry: Direct Marketing and the Marketing Mix

OK, we used to simply call these things videos, but here is a podcast/video blog entry/video podcast/educational video that discusses how direct marketing is related to the rest of the promotional mix based on a question recently asked by a visitor to my website.




8.45MB .wmv file 31.9MB .mpg file

Politicizing your brand? Think twice, please.

Many of the business books and articles that I’ve read lately reflect an interesting and relatively new phenomenon. I have noticed an obvious trend where business writers inject their personal views on politics into the mix. In fact, I have turned this trend into a personal sport in which I see if I can discern the author’s political leanings by simply reading his or her business writing. Surprisingly, often times I can. This was relatively unheard of only a few years ago.

The latest is a blog entry by Nick Wreden, author of Fusion Brand. I have read many other books and articles that inject politics, but this one simply happened to be the one that pushed me to the point of commenting.

Don’t get me wrong, I like Nick Wreden and admire his work. In fact, I find his blog entry to be fascinating and informative. Nick once sent me a very nice email after reading some comments I made in a business magazine and I find his views and advice on branding to be excellent. I highly recommend his books to anyone. I’m not even stating whether or not I agree with his political views. I’m simply stating that the fact that I know his political views is unnecessary.

Thinly and not-so-thinly veiled political commentary from all across the political spectrum seems too often to come from authors who write articles, books, marketing copy or blogs that promote products and services that have nothing whatsoever to do with politics.

From a marketing perspective, I am left to wonder why authors and marketers divulge their politics if doing so is not a relevant part of their brand. If you are Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken or a professional politician it makes sense because you are building your brand and the things you believe and stand for politically are essential components of your brand. If you are an author trying to sell a book on some aspect of business management, however, it makes little sense.

I am getting tired of just about everything in society becoming politicized.

I find it very disturbing that more and more we are being forced to view everything through a political prism—especially when making any sort of political connection is a bit of a stretch.

Sometimes as a consumer I simply want to buy product brands that live up to their promises without any political considerations. Sometimes I want to read a book or article that provides solid business information that is not connected to politics in any way. Sometimes I feel intruded upon when an author or copywriter reveals his or her politics when doing so is not relevant to their offering. Sometimes I read business communications to get away from politics, not engage in them.

There is a lesson to be learned. As a marketer, unless a political agenda is an essential part of your brand’s promise, my advice is to steer clear of discussing politics in your marketing communications.

To be sure, there are brands that position certain political stances as essential components of the brand. Brands with a social conscience or that take an activist position indeed have their place. It is important for these brands to communicate their core values, BUT unless your political opinions are an essential part of your core brand values, then the dangers lurking under the marketing communications waters may be more destructive than constructive for your brand.

From my vantage point, if you inject personal politics into your brand communications you should expect one of only a few results. It will either: a) bolster consumption amongst those who already enthusiastically agree with your politics, b) cause consumers to consider your politics when making brand decisions when they otherwise would not have had any reason to do so, or c) lead to alienation of at least 50% of your potential market who may then actively avoid your brand and tell other like-minded individuals to do the same. If you examine these three outcomes, there appears to be more to lose than to gain.

It is tempting for marketers to inject their political views when they know people are listening. If you choose to do so, make sure it is a measured decision and that you have weighed the risks. Ask yourself if your politics are relevant to your brand before bringing them into your marketing communications.

Politics do not usually belong in the business arena. I’m getting to the point where I might avoid brands that bring politics of any kind into the communications mix when they don’t belong.

Media Shift Meets Resistance: Television writers push back

The Writer’s Guild of America (east and west) released an interesting position paper calling for a Code of Conduct on the integration of commercial messages into television content. The Guild, rightly in my opinion, is concerned about the creep of product placements and near-subliminal advertising into television content. The group holds that this increasing practice compromises their art and places pressure on them to become advertising copywriters rather than entertainment story writers.

According to their paper, a survey indicates that 73% of their members think the line between advertising and content needs to be clearly drawn. The group is calling for this Code of Conduct that they propose include, among other things, full and clear disclosure of product integration deals at the beginning of programs and strict product integration limits on children’s programming.

The stakes are enormous because millions of dollars worth of advertising revenue per show are on the line.

Advertisers and producers who sign advertising deals are now at odds with writers and actors who are often told at the last minute to work commercial messages or endorsements into the content of the program.

As the mass advertising model of commercial television continues to fall apart before our eyes, advertisers continue to seek ways to get their messages seen and heard by seeking new ways to invade the media that we consume. Consumers, however, are savvier than ever about these attempts and now the writers enter the fray by actively resisting. The days of mass audiences who can quickly and easily be reached merely by purchasing a 30- or 60-second advertising spot are slowly fading.

I am waiting to report on the first marketer who stands up and makes a bold statement by sponsoring an entire show, proudly proclaiming that fact, and works tirelessly with producers and writers to ensure the show is so compelling and desirable that consumers will thank them for it and reward their brand.

Bold prediction: Advertisers, producers and writers will soon be forced into becoming equal partners in the development of television (and digital) entertainment content.

And guess what?

When that happens, consumers will also become equal partners because knowledge of consumers’ preferences will have to be precisely known before the process even begins. No advertiser in their right mind would produce television content that their consumers will not embrace.

Television will be driven from the grassroots, consumer level rather than from the traditional, studio top-down approach and audiences will be smaller. You can bet that Hollywood will try to be an equal and opposite force against the shift. Loss of control is a scary thing.

The bottom line to marketers is that knowledge of your customers is king and untargeted messages will no longer be tolerated. Embrace it. Get used to it. Behave accordingly.

Book review: All Marketers Are Liars

Over this past weekend I went back and re-read portions of Seth Godin’s book, “All Marketers Are Liars”, because its memory started itching some back recess of my brain here a few months after initially reading it and I wasn’t quite sure why. I had to go back and skim it to find the answer.

Let’s start with the title of the book, “All Marketers Are Liars: The Power of Telling Authentic Stories in a Low-Trust World”. Hmmm. Something is already wrong here.

When I lookup the word “authentic”, I get the definition, “conforming to fact and therefore worthy of belief”. Doesn’t it follow that if we tell “authentic” stories in our marketing we are by definition telling the truth and not lying? Alas, Godin admits he was lying to us from the start because right on the back dust jacket of the book he states, “I was lying to you when I named this book. Marketers aren’t liars. They are just storytellers. It’s the consumers who are liars.” He then goes on to state that marketers tell stories and because consumers choose to believe those stories that best fit into their own world view that they are, in essence, lying to themselves.

OK, I still have a problem with the whole premise of the book.

Not to be redundant, but if marketers are out there telling authentic stories, why would somebody who believes those stories that “conform to the facts” be lying to themselves? I’ll forgive the inconsistency because Mr. Godin is trying to make a larger point, but I won’t forgive the use of a bold, deceptive title in an attempt to sell books.

I’ll grant that we humans all gravitate to brands that tell stories that are consistent with our own world views, but to take self-selective brand filtering and twist it to give the impression that something is wrong in the marketing profession is just plain usurious.

Godin uses some great supporting case studies in this book about how some very good marketers tell vivid stories about their brands and how those stories self-select their audiences. In my opinion, this is exactly what any good marketer and any powerful brand is supposed to do.

Godin goes one step further, however, and implies that often the story that gets told is the only differentiator between brands and that the story alone can be used to build a great brand.

He misses the point.

If the stories are authentic, then it is the whole brand behind the story that is different. The stories are not lies. The stories are describing why one brand is different and unique from others. The marketing “stories” are indeed brand promises or brand stories and it is our duty to tell our brands' unique stories as compellingly and as convincingly as we can.

Even if we accept for the moment that consumers turn off all logic and purely make emotional decisions based upon which story they choose to believe in the absence of real data (more on this in a few moments), we cannot believe that people will turn off their logic indefinitely so that any significant brand preference built in this way is sustainable over the long-term. Sooner or later the brand is going to have to live up to the story.

While Godin’s theories are well presented with good examples, I couldn’t help but read the book and feel that it was a good short article or opinion piece that got compromised when it was stretched into a book and given a provocative title.

His assertion that marketers should tell vivid stories that consumers want to believe is indeed solid advice. His underlying, unstated implication that marketers should tell the “right lies”, however, does a disservice to the entire marketing profession.

Sure, he purposefully named the book in a misdirecting manner to get a reaction that would spur debate, generate buzz, and sell more books…and here I am responding. OK Seth, one for you.

However, not all buzz is good buzz and not all discussion will help build a strong brand. Not all stories are worth repeating.

In the case of “All Marketers Are Liars”, I’d have to say the book did not live up to my expectations of the Seth Godin brand. I’ve read Godin’s previous works and expected more from this effort. Godin’s previous works were much stronger and did not have to resort to tricks or gimmicks to sell the books. Nor did they contain as much filler material as this one seems to have. The problem is, he does not give a single example in the entire book where a marketer is shown to be genuinely lying and consumers are rewarding that brand. Now I find that I must approach any of his future works with some skepticism and ask myself, “Is he just trying to be provocative to sell books or is there real--and enough--meat here?”

Back to suspended logic.

One passage in the book (pages 93-94) reveals that Mr. Godin shops for certain products, in this case organic foods, not because he believes the marketing claims but because he lies to himself about the brands because he believes they make him feel better. This is a fair enough claim and a valid point for marketers and branders to remember. As I stated in my e-book, “How to Build and Maintain A Powerhouse Brand”, an important part of building a strong brand is tapping emotion and building more than just product features and benefits into the brand’s story. Brands must make logical and emotional appeals.

In this particular passage of the book, Godin explains that he shops for organic foods not because they taste or perform any better (he claims that he believes the data is not clear), not because they are less expensive (he claims that he believes the prices are inflated), not because they are any better for him (he claims that many items found at organic grocery stores are loaded with saturated fats and sugar-loaded juices) and not because they are a good way to support family farmers (he claims that most of the money goes to marketers and processors), but because it is a way for many (we can only assume he includes himself in this category) to assuage guilt about being Americans because Americans are the “world’s least efficient consumers of just about everything”.

That’s why my brain started to itch all these months after initially reading the book.

Mr. Godin puts all logic aside and admits that he makes purchases emotionally and, at least at times, suspends all logic. He is willing to accept the fact that he believes self-lies just to feel less guilty.

Therein is an indication of what the real title of this book should be: “Consumers Are Not Always Rational” or maybe, "I Lie to Myself".

Those would be great potential book titles. The book could be geared toward all the bottom line, ROI, analytical types out there who want all branding decisions to be based on numbers and hard facts. The book could then go on to describe why building emotion into brands is so important and that it cannot be underestimated because humans do not respond to logic alone. Often they make decisions based on emotion and rationalize those decisions later using logic. Sometimes they are just going for a certain feeling—even if their actions are self-proclaimed to be irrational.

You genuinely lying marketers out there, take note. Seth Godin has told us that he believes what he thinks are lies as long as they conform to his world view. Read this book to learn more about his purchasing habits and then set him up in your databases accordingly so you can sell him your wares.

For the rest of you marketers, this book is interesting and useful but not worth the purchase price unless you want more books with titles such as, “All Marketers Are Thieves”, “All Marketers Are Sleazy”, and “All Marketers Are Pond Scum”. If the guy makes a lot of money at it this time I’m sure he’ll keep going back to the same well. (If you recall, I covered his comments at the DMA conference back in October when he declared all marketers are spammers. Perhaps he was giving us a preview of his new writing strategy.)

I’ll tell you what. Save your money and borrow my copy of the book. Just send it back when you’re done reading it.

Fair enough?

"Revenge of the Consumer"

Brandweek has an interesting lead story in its Outlook 2006 roundup that addresses the continuing media shift that I've been discussing.

They state that "one theory" about the continuing digitization of media content and the power that consumers have as a result of technological advances (i.e. delivery /distribution options) will cause advertising to lose its power and make word-of-mouth more important.

Mass advertising will not disappear altogether because with enough time, money and impressions it will continue to influence people to change their behavior, but indeed mass advertising will continue to lose power and become less effective at influencing mass audiences.

Why?

Mostly because "mass" audiences who are willing to expose themselves to advertising simply will not exist as such anymore.

This will lead us in a direction that is fundamentally better. Brands will have to be built on true benefits and our communications will have to genuinely appeal to audiences that we know a great deal about because only then will they even listen to our messages. Knowledge about consumers will be king and brands will have to be built from the top down.

Let's just hope that the folks at the top realize that the real power is knowledge at the grass-roots.

Intel rebrands itself

In the latest report of branders throwing the baby out with the bath water, Intel announces a rebranding effort that will have them abandon their highly-successful tagline, "Intel Inside" in favor of "Leap Ahead" and usher in a new logo at the expense of the classic logo with the "dropped-e" that they have used for some 37 years.

Listen to this comment from the company, "This represents a significant milestone in the company's history and further signifies the company's evolution to a market-driving platform solutions company". Eric Kim, Sr. Vice President & GM of Intel's sales and marketing group was further quoted as stating, "This evolution will allow Intel to be better recognized for our contributions, establish a stronger emotional connection with our audiences, and strengthen our overall position in the marketplace."

Now, if you are a regular reader of this blog, then you know of my disdain for Business Speak (B.S.), so let me run the above statements from Intel through my magical Marketing Decoder and translate. Translation: "Blah, blah blah blah, blah".

The company, despite acknowledging that they have one of the most valuable brands in the world, is entirely revamping its brand identity.

Why?

Well, let's take a pop quiz:

If you own "one of the most valuable brands in the world" and you want to expand into areas beyond PC's to also provide the processing power in mobile device, home digital device, enterprise and technology market segments, do you:

a) Leverage the power of your brand to reinforce and explain why now it is more important than ever to make sure you have "Intel Inside" your devices

b) Acknowledge the need for a new sub-branding strategy that still capitalizes on and builds your well-established and highly successful umbrella brand

or

c) Explore ways to launch brand extensions to include market segments beyond personal computer processing chips?

This, of course, is a trick question to Intel.

If you are Intel, you go off-the-board with choice "d" and ditch your brand, squander the lead you enjoy as a market leader, and start from scratch building new brands keeping little other than your name…except now you try to make it mean something different than it already does.

As I write about in my paper describing my Top End Alignment process, it is nearly impossible to change the essence of what a brand stands for once it has been established in the minds of customers. Further, if your brand is already is one of the strongest in the world, you should do everything in your power to protect and build upon that brand equity.

So what do we call a branding strategy that walks away from its well-established equity and strategic awareness…a rebranding strategy that almost assures a start-from-scratch approach in a commodity market? Bold? Absurd? Misguided?

I call it insidious.

Two great sports brands

This evening we pause to honor two great brands, Joe Paterno and The Penn State Nittany Lions.

Gentlemen, good luck in the Orange Bowl tonight!