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!

Digital entertainment branding

CBS announced yesterday that it will allow Yahoo! to stream two entire episodes of its television comedies, “Two and a Half Men” and “How I met Your Mother”, from Dec. 27 through Jan. 2 via www.tv.yahoo.com. We are clearly watching the continuing media shift that has major implications for marketers and advertisers alike.

We are witnessing advertisers and branders experiment with new ways to distribute their content while at the same time searching for revenue sources other than traditional television advertisers. It is an interesting process to witness. It is also a process that can teach a lesson to all marketers and branders: Test and measure to quantify branding ROI.

When we consider the ol’ P’s of the Marketing Mix, the P for “Place” involves distribution. Let’s talk about that for a minute.

With television content now being digitized, it no longer is necessary for content to be “aired” at certain times at which everyone who wants to view must tune in. Television shows can be distributed in any number of ways, not necessarily by advertiser-supported television broadcast. Even when they are, consumers may record the broadcast and view it later at a shifted time while zapping out commercials.

Apple with its iTunes is clearly the leader in the distribution of digital entertainment content. Disney chose to distribute some of its content via iTunes for a fee and now CBS chooses Yahoo! at no charge to the consumer. Interestingly enough, although you may be receiving Disney content, you are doing it within the context of the Apple-branded environment and brand experience. CBS’s content is delivered within the Yahoo!-branded experience. Even of more interest, CBS does not even produce the shows it is making available, they are licensed for network airing from Warner Bros. and 20th Century Fox.

What is going here?

There is a grand experiment taking place that involves not only distribution but also the brand management of digital entertainment content. This involves many issues that are carefully being tested and measured.

Some of the questions being explored are:

If programming is distributed by alternate outlets, does the financial benefit of wider reach and distribution outweigh the loss of control over a portion of the brand experience?

If content is distributed via one’s own or a partner's website or online service, how will this affect revenues from existing television advertising?

Can new distribution methods capture new revenue streams?

Are consumers willing to accept commercial marketing messages in their digital content in exchange for better programming, easier access or lower prices?

Is there any long-term financial benefit to the brand of getting wider reach with entertainment content if one does not immediately increase revenues as a result?

Can the revenue generated by a distribution partner deal outweigh the financial loss from advertisers and loss of direct control over the brand?

If we can achieve wide content distribution, will advertisers then come to us willing to pay for access in this alternative media? If so, will consumers accept the ensuing intrusion...or does that just get us back to where we started?

Media and market fragmentation continue to destroy the old model of advertiser-supported television. Television is becoming a direct marketing, direct response medium. Studios are grasping to hang on to their exorbitant rate cards until they find new sources of revenue and advertisers are finding it increasingly difficult to pay for expensive television advertising in the face of shrinking audiences and consumer disdain for marketing messages. This shift from a mass market approach to a direct or niche approach will have long-term ramifications.

The winners of this new age will be those companies who find ways to get quality programming into the hands and hearts of those consumers who will gladly give something back in return. Be it direct financial support by paying for content or a willingness to support advertisers and information intermediaries who make easier or better distribution possible.

Now that we take a closer look at it, nothing has really changed at all.

Smart marketers and branders realized all along that strong brands must attract loyal and passionate customers who are willing to make some sort of financial commitment to the brand.

There is and never was any such thing as a free lunch because brands must financially benefit the company in some way or the rest is academic. Capturing eyeballs and ears without action in return is not enough.

The brands who find ways to get the desired content to the right people in the best way for those consumers will be the winners. Consumers will gladly respond with support for the brand as long as the promise is made and reciprocity agreement is understood and reached up-front. Those brands will show a measurable, financial return.

Brand confusion? Brands & Sub brands - first MP3 audio post

- Transcript -
This morning while listening to the radio, I heard a talk show host discuss today’s announcement by Volkswagen that it releasing the world’s fastest car. With 1,001 horsepower and a zero to 62 mph time of 2.5 seconds, this absurd Bugatti automobile will sell for a million dollars and be sold through only a few Bentley dealerships throughout the country because Bentley and Bugatti are both brands owned by VW. The parting comment from the show host asked rhetorically, “Will anyone really buy a $1M Volkswagen?”

I like to look to the automotive industry for case studies on branding since some of the greatest successes and most miserable failures in brand strategy have taken place in this industry. From Ford’s Edsel to Chrysler’s near-death experience and rebirth in the 1980’s under Lee Iacocca to Toyota’s creation of the Lexus luxury brand to Honda’s complete transformation from its initial image as a cheap, small import brand, this industry provides us plenty of branding education.

A brand should offer unique value and promise an experience that cannot be found anywhere else in the market. When you get right down to it, brand strategy is little more than a philosophy toward how a brand should be designed, manufactured, distributed, sold and supported after the sale. The philosophy for each brand should be unique, offer a unique experience, and deliver on that philosophy each and every time.

In this case the guy on the radio got it wrong by asking the wrong question. This car is not a $1M VW or a Bentley. It is unmistakably a Bugatti.

Bugatti obviously has a completely unique philosophy toward its brand. It could never be mistaken for a VW nor will it be. The brands are very clearly differentiated.

I’m not so sure the same could be said about the Chevy, Buick, Pontiac and General Motors brands.

Bringing out the best in yourself & others

Make no mistake, optimism and happiness are choices...and they are choices that must be made every day.

Rarely are the best choices the easiest.

Media shift continues

According to a recent PR Week story, the Top 10 media trends to watch are:

1. Portability of video content
2. Blogs
3. Media transparency
4. The rise of celebrity weeklies
5. The growth of Hispanic media
6. Business woes for newspapers
7. Digitization of print media
8. Media consolidation
9. Source agnostic/disintermediation
10. Refining media measurement

Let’s continue to focus on #1.

As I’ve commented in this space before, the portability of video content is going to cause a major change in the way we consume media.

Today there is a story in the USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-12-06-nbc-ipod_x.htm that announces that NBC Universal Television Group has reached an agreement with Apple to sell its television shows for download to video iPods and other electronic media players.

There is also currently legislation in the United States to force cable companies to allow consumers to choose the channels to which they’d like to subscribe a la carte rather than in packages or bundles. (Can satellite radio be far behind?)

We will soon be at a point where all of our media is highly personalized and we will seek out only the media we want to be exposed to. We are “self-regulating” ourselves to get rid of media clutter and only consume what we want.

While some will argue that this will cause polarization of opinion and narrow mindedness, I believe it will cause media companies to finally, truly become marketing-led organizations.

Consumers will dictate what they want to see, when they want to see it and how much they want to see. Consumers will also “test drive” many other options to expose themselves to a more diversified pallet of opinions and points of view. They will seek these alternative "channels" when they are most open to fully considering other points of view.

I also believe that consumers will reward advertisers who find ways to support the new media model by making conscious decisions to support those advertisers who make it simpler, more enjoyable or cheaper to obtain the media. They will also support those advertisers who support content that is in tune with their own world view. Welcome to the free market, democratized media and advertising model.

The digitization and distribution shift of news and entertainment content continues to be revolutionary. While the widespread adoption of digital content consumption continues, traditional broadcast media will continue to face challenges and so will advertisers. Advertisers will have to become niche marketers because our channels will be, in and of themselves, niches.

I think we will all be better for it.

"What if our brand promises more than we can deliver?"

“What if our brand promises more than we can deliver?”

This question both shocked and amazed me when I heard it. Not only because it showed a remarkable lack of understand about how a brand should make a promise, but because it also illustrated a level of arrogance that simply will not be tolerated by consumers any longer.

In order for any brand to be powerful and enduring, it must be authentic and deliver on its promise every single time.

Authenticity requires an introspective look at your organization during the brand audit process (described in more detail in my Top End Alignment^TM article). This introspection will ensure that you do not promise more than you can deliver. Your brand promise must be based on the experience you can deliver fully and consistently.

If you fear that your brand promises more than your organization can deliver, immediately change your branding strategy or change your organization. Period. No questions asked and no shortcuts, please. Your brand must accurately communicate the unique value it will deliver…without question and without debate.

Building a powerful brand is a two-way street. Not only must your brand promise unique value that reflects the best of what your organization can deliver, but your organization must be willing and able to adjust and evolve to ensure that it continually delivers on your brand’s promise.

Everyone in your organization must not only understand your brand’s promise, but also embrace it and be committed to consistently delivering on that brand promise. Call it internal branding, organizational alignment, or Top End Alignment, but your people must understand and be committed to your brand’s promise so they are motivated to deliver on it and propagate it as deeply as possible to your target market.

Your brand simply must keep its promises or it will be summarily rejected.

From Brand Loyalty to Brand Preference

Top U.S. brands
Harris Interactive reports the favorite brands among U.S. adults:

1. Sony
2. Dell
3. Kraft
4. Coca-Cola
5. Ford
6. Toyota
7. Honda
8. General Electric
9. General Motors
10. Microsoft

High tech brands enjoy greater loyalty while traditional brands are losing it

The recent issue of Brandweek contained the results of Brand Key’s “Loyalty Leaders Rankings” survey that ranks brands according to customer loyalty established by the brands.

The top 10 brands with the highest consumer loyalty according to the survey of 21,000 consumers are:

1. Google
2. Avis
3. Yahoo!
4. Treo
5. Samsung mobile phones
6. BlackBerry
7. Verizon long distance
8. Canon office copiers
9. Miller Genuine Draft
10. Marriott Hotels

It seems that technology brands are gaining the most ground in terms of loyalty--which makes sense. We are all becoming more and more dependent upon technology and much of it is very personal to us including PDA’s, cell phones, and search engines. Many of these brands allow us to personalize them according to our wishes to the point where we simply cannot live without them or easily switch to a competing brand. The pain involved in switching is just too high. Just think about how we organize our lives in PDA’s and keep extensive lists with names and addresses in our mobile phones and handheld devices. These brands become almost a part of us and we are very loyal to the brands that serve us well.

Some of the biggest losing brands in the survey are Starbucks, Coca-Cola and Sprint. These brands are losing loyalty because of category commoditization, too many line extensions, and losing focus on core brand values. Sprint, for instance, always seen as a technology leader, is now focusing on low price—which almost always leads to loss of loyalty and commoditization. Coca-Cola and Starbucks have seen much competition enter into their markets with a myriad of “me too” products that seem indistinguishable and have also suffered from line extensions that lead to brand dilution.

Strong brands enjoy high consumer loyalty and it seems like the technology sector is doing the best at brand-building these days. Traditional brands are struggling to deliver unique value that consumers are willing to reward with their loyalty.


Links:

Brandweek
Brand Keys
How to Build and Maintain a Powerhouse Brand & How to Brand and Market a Commodity

All marketers are spammers

Today at the DMA conference in Atlanta during the keynote address, Seth Godin told the audience of direct marketers that they are all spammers.

He accused the industry of "...sending me unanticipated, impersonal, irrelevant junk in a format I don’t want to get about a product I’m not interested in and won’t have time to look at. And you’re hoping to persuade enough people to buy so you can go buy more stamps, or call more people, or buy more inserts, or run more ads. And the problem is, spam doesn’t work like it used to."

Godin has hit the nail on the head (see my August 04, 2005 blog entry, "Cut through the clutter"). Consumers are so overwhelmed with advertising messages that they (i.e. we) seek ways to eliminate, skip, avoid or otherwise tune out the marketing clutter. We are so tired of being bombarded with irrelevant messages that we simply are becoming cynical toward all things marketing and advertising.

It is time we all learn the lessons of spam.

The only way to break through the clutter is to start eliminating the clutter.

The way to do that is to target our audiences with precision, tell them things that we know to be of interest to them using media that we know they prefer in ways that will connect with them and do it in a way that is relevant, useful, helpful and informative to THEM.

Spam is spam, no matter what the medium.

Amen, Seth Godin.

Word of Mouth Marketing

I just spotted a good blog entry by my a fellow American Marketing Assoc member, Missy Blankenship (also a member of my local Central VA AMA chapter). It is a pretty good description of word of mouth marketing, viral marketing, buzz marketing, etc. Check it out at:

http://mgblankenship.blogspot.com/2005/09/word-of-mouth-marketing-association.html

Is the video iPod the real story?

Yesterday Apple announced its newest iPod that is the next-generation, video version of its ubiquitous audio iPod. The new iPod with a 2.5” screen for viewing movies and video files has been widely reported as the next “revolutionary” product from Apple.

I think the real story has been completely missed by most major media in their latest attempt to swoon over their chosen media darling, Apple.

Viewing digital content on a handheld device is nothing new. I’ve got a 2-year-old Toshiba Pocket PC that allows me to watch full-length movies or any other video content I want on its 3.8” screen. It is great for watching movies on airplanes and while waiting in airports, but the small screen size makes it a bit impractical as a “regular TV viewing” device. I can’t imagine routinely viewing content on the even smaller 2.5” iPod screen. While I can easily enough convert my DVD movies to a file format that allows me to watch on my handheld, what has been lacking for the most part is lack of availability of fresh content for purchase and download.

The real story being missed here is the part of the announcement that Apple is teaming up with Disney to make TV shows available for purchase--commercial free--the day after they air on regular television. This represents a radical shift in the television and television advertising industries. This is most certainly the beginning of a new age in television.

With digital video recorders and other video equipment that allow consumers to watch their favorite shows while “zapping” commercials, the advertiser-supported model of television has long been feeling pressure from modern technology. Keen observers have already noticed that product placements have become more and more important to advertisers as we viewers continue to find ways to avoid watching commercials.

Now we enter the age of television where studios can sell programming directly to consumers without advertisements. Can it be long before all of the TV studios make their programming available for direct sale and download to consumers?

Perhaps we will be able to download television content for one price without commercials and get the same show at a reduced price if we accept a few commercials thrown in. Will there even be “over the air” broadcasts anymore? Will the television industry be in the same predicament as the music industry once all of its content gets digitized and easily traded and shared over the Internet? Will programming itself become nothing but thinly-veiled advertisements?

It will be interesting to watch how this major market shift plays out but let there be no doubt, this is a media market shift story, not an Apple iPod story.

Disaster relief and brand building

A reporter from a major magazine interviewed me this past week and asked me how companies should go about building their brands as a result of assisting in disaster relief efforts.

If you are looking to get public relations and brand building value out of disaster relief efforts, don’t start there as your motivation for helping. If you start out for the public relations value, you are almost certain to come across as self-serving, shallow and publicity starved.

Help out others in times of disaster because it is in your [corporate] heart to do so. Ask yourself this question, “If our brand could assist in the recovery efforts in some way but nobody would ever know about it, what would we do?”

Next, seek ways to get as much of your assistance directly to the most critical places as efficiently as possible. Work with relief organizations with great track records of low overhead expenses or coordinating governmental agencies and find out the priorities in the recovery efforts. Target those areas with your help. If you can donate money to the efforts, that is great. If your product or service can help in some way, donating the product or service is also a great way to help.

Sure, you may be able to get some good publicity for your brand as a result of helping, but don’t make this your primary objective. Search your heart and help because it is the right thing to do. Anything else your brand enjoys as a result is gravy.

Question of the week...

Who moved my "Who Moved My Cheese" book?

Book review: Asinine Advertising

I just finished reading Herschell Gordon Lewis’s new book, “ Asinine Advertising: How Stupid and Unethical Advertising Costs You Money”, and enjoyed the read.

Mr. Lewis is one of my favorite authors.  His “On the Art of Writing Copy” has a prominent place on my bookshelf and his column, “Curmudgeon-At-Large”, in Direct Magazine causes me to read the publication starting at the back each and every month (just before I go tearing through to see if there is a Tom Collins article).

“Asinine Advertising” offers great case studies in truly horrible advertising.  While this book is more of a comment on poor copywriting and lack of creativity in many advertising departments, it serves as a reminder that we must all guard against the tendency to create marketing communication messages that sound similar to other current ones we’ve heard recently rather than concisely communicating true benefits using a new, fresh and personal communication style.  In the new world of email spam, Herschell points out that many business communications across just about all media are taking on the same characteristics of spam—and he builds a strong case.

While readers of Direct will be familiar with much of the first half of the book because it seems like it’s been covered in his column before, there is enough fresh material here to keep you engaged—and laughing at the absurdity of it all.

While the $22.95 price plus $7.00 “Freight/Handling” for the 132-page paperback might someday, in itself, earn its own chapter in the book, I won’t complain too loudly because I’ve spent more on much lesser book offerings in the past.

Don’t buy this book if you are looking for “How to” information or a formula for writing good advertising, but by all means if you get a kick out of seeing bozos skewered, then sit back and enjoy the [quick] read.  

If you are also looking for the “What to do’s” rather than just the “What not to do’s”, then you might also consider Ted Nicholas’s, “
How to Turn Words Into Money”.

"Business Speak"

…and on a lighter note,

Yesterday’s Tampa Tribune had a great article by Amanda Henry (ahenry@tampatrib.com) entitled, “Synergize This”.

The focus of the article was about the robot-like use of corporate-speak in business settings for the sake of sounding smart or simply to obfuscate the inherent uselessness of the extraneous use of verbiage in cross-functional teamwork environments.

A colleague of mine and I have an ongoing interest in such practice going back to when we both worked together in a previous company where the corporate bigwigs (i.e. “pinheads”) engaged in the exercise as standard practice. My colleague and I agreed that we would call it “B.S.” (i.e. “Business Speak”) and, hence, dubbed the practice “B.S. Bingo”. In fact, when he and I are in the same meetings these days where I deliver a presentation, I always find a way to work in the phrase “leverage synergies” just to see if my colleague, “Big”, cracks a smile and gives me that nod of awareness that goes undetected to those who are not clued-in to the practice. It has become a bit of a joke to he and I and every time it goes undetected by others in the meeting room, we laugh about it together later that day.

Amanda Henry included 2/3 of a newspaper page dedicated to four Bingo cards that included terms such as, “drill down”, “leverage(ing)”, “synergy”, “touch base”, “paradigm”, “win-win”, “branding”, “core values”, “push the envelope” and “strategic”. Readers of the newspaper are to cut out the Bingo cards, take them into their next business meeting and mark the buzzword or catchphrase when it is said during meetings. The first one with “bingo” wins the game.

What a great reminder to use common, ordinary language to make our points….unless, of course, we are hoping to get that next promotion.

The death or reinvention of a destination brand?

The mention of the City of New Orleans prior to this past week usually conjured up images of Marti Gras, southern hospitality, Old World charm and good times to many of us outsiders. For many of us, New Orleans seemed like a great little escape for a couple of days because the city has marketed itself as--and was to many of us--a great party town, a wonderful jazz town and a great place to attend a convention. Jambalaya. Crawfish. Hurricanes at Pat-O’s. The balcony at The Cat’s Meow. Bourbon Street and the River Walk.

That has all changed.

Brand “New Orleans” as we all knew it is dead.

After the absolute devastation of natural disaster, Hurricane Katrina, we’re getting to see a side of New Orleans that we either didn’t see or didn’t want to see.

Poverty. Crime. Deteriorated housing. Social and moral decay.

The challenge to New Orleans is to decide whether or not it even wants to come back as a destination brand and if so, what does it want to stand for?

Once the city has come to grips with the recent disaster, it will have to make some hard choices.

One of those choices will be to decide what it wants to be—if it even wants to be anymore.

Will it want to rebuild the party town, live to excess image of the brand or does it want to reinvent itself and become something completely different?

When and if New Orleans starts to rebuild and it has choices to make, I hope New Orleans decides to be a brand bigger and better then before. My hope is that the deep social issues are addressed as a priority and that any thought about New Orleans as a destination brand for tourism comes as a distant afterthought.

Now is the time for New Orleans to get in touch with those core values that are most important to it and make decisions about what it is now and what it wants to be.

If it decides to address social issues as a priority, eliminate corruption, deliver education reform, and focus on branding itself as a wonderful community for its citizens as the primary goal before any thought is even given to tourism, then it will by default re-brand itself as a wonderful destination brand. When it does so, we will all flock to support it and reward its decision richly.

Our thoughts, prayers and support go out to all of the victims of Katrina.

How to help:
The American Red Cross
http://www.redcross.org

Lutheran Church World Relief & Human Care
LCMS World Relief & Human Care

Ad agencies don't worship at their own temple

I just read Al Ries’ commentary in the Aug.8 Adweek, “Ad Agencies Should Take Their Own Advice”, where he points out that advertising agencies do very little advertising themselves. He then asks the rhetorical question, “Why is that?”

It seems that ad agencies like to convince their clients to spend great amounts in advertising but do not themselves practice what they preach.

Would we take our vehicles to an auto mechanic who doesn’t own a car or believe in them? Would we go to a doctor who thinks that prescribing medicine is a waste of time and money?

Most advertising either fails to deliver ROI or it cannot be measured so results are dubious, at best. From what I’ve seen, most advertising that comes from agencies is geared more toward pleasing the client and making sure the message cannot possibly be seen as controversial rather than writing strong headlines that select the right audience and then communicate benefits that motivate action. Most advertising seems to be for vanity’s sake so clients can say, “Did you see us in _____”? They then mistakenly believe that being visible is the same as building a strong brand or planting the seeds of strong customer relationships.

One of my favorite columnists is Tom Collins who contributes to Direct Magazine where he analyzes print advertisements critically from a direct marketing/copywriting perspective. Almost every one of his critiques highlights the colossal waste of advertising dollars that are spent to create ads that lack any compelling elements whatsoever. In fact, many of the print ads seen these days feature “big art” creative that just screams out “I’m an ad” and we instinctively and immediately turn the page.

Anyone who is familiar with me or my philosophy knows that I am a proponent of marketing communications that communicate core brand values while at that same time communicating compelling calls to action. Therefore, I believe that ads should both support the brand and contain a measurable direct response element.

What about you? I’d like to hear from you if you have invested in advertising through an ad agency and hear your story first-hand about how happy you were with the results. Let’s hear the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Is Al Ries right? Do advertising agencies not practice what they preach because they don’t believe their product produces satisfactory results?

Advertising metrics

Today’s Wall Street Journal ran an article entitled, “Econometrics Buzzes Ad World As a Way of Measuring Results”. The article discussed a new statistical measuring model announced by WPP Group that promises to measure the effectiveness of ads. This “econometrics” is being touted by the leading ad agency as “the Holy Grail” of advertising.

While the article was short on details about the new measuring model--undoubtedly due to its proprietary nature—the news is encouraging none-the-less because it shows that marketers are finally waking up to the reality that marketing and advertising Dollars must show measurable ROI in order for campaigns to be accepted in today’s boardrooms as wise investments. Ad agencies are finally responding to the demand for new metrics to show advertising effectiveness.

Nick Wreden, author of “Fusion Branding” will undoubtedly be pleased since he recently pointed out that branding’s dirty little secret is that it doesn’t know how to count and old measures such as awareness and image are no longer sufficient to justify marketing investments.

I’m happy to hear that marketing has taken such a step forward in providing metrics that demonstrate measurable results. I hope to hear much more about this new marketing accountability in the future. It will help us all raise the stature of the marketing function in our organizations.

Marketing, career management & personal branding

I was recently asked to comment on how marketing and career development are related so I’d like to share my response with you, the readers of this blog.
There are many similarities between marketing and career management. Good career strategy also involves a personal branding effort.

Much as marketing professionals study their markets, evaluate the products or services they offer and then design marketing campaigns, so too should all professionals examine the product and market of their careers.

Career management begins by designing a “personal marketing campaign”. A personal marketing campaign is a career strategy whereby strengths and weaknesses are identified and then tactics are devised to communicate those strengths to effectively sell the product--the person, are steps are taken to overcome weaknesses-professional development.

In a traditional marketing campaign, a marketing plan is thoughtfully designed and carefully implemented.
Benchmarks are defined, measurements are taken along the way and results measured before, during and after the campaign. Only then can one evaluate whether or not their plan is working.

Personal branding and personal marketing involve the processes of bringing clarity to your core purpose, your unique attributes, expertise or perspective and then communicating those consistently to a clearly defined market who will benefit from the unique value you offer. Career benchmarks are defined and measurements taken at pre-defined intervals. Only then can the professional track if their career is progressing according to plan.

Career management is nothing more and nothing less than marketing yourself by fully understanding your unique value and fully understanding who can benefit from that value and then delivering it to them.

DaimlerChrysler breaks bread with Iacocca

I would be remiss if I did not send kudos out to DaimlerChrysler for tapping Lee Iacocca to appear in its current television ads for Chrysler Group.

Lee Iacocca is the visionary leader who helped bring Chrysler back from the brink of extinction during the 1980’s and the move shows that this brand is willing to stay in touch with its roots and honor those who were so important to building the brand. It also shows that DaimlerChrysler acknowledges the value and authenticity that Mr. Iacocca brings to the brand despite the fact that he backed an unsuccessful takeover bid for the company in 1995 that left him at odds with the current owners for years.

Imagine that. A man who loves and believes in a brand so much that he tries to buy the company. What better brand champion could there possibly be?

The new ads represent a brave and bold step for DaimlerChrysler that will bring back thousands of older Iacocca fans who remember the 1980’s when this man not only had us believing in Chrysler again, but also made us start believing in America again. I can think of no better way for the company to tap emotion to help strengthen the brand.

Now, if younger people would only stop asking me, “Who is that guy at the end of the commercial” when they see me smiling at it…

Pay for advertising? Shift happens.

Recently I heard futurist and publishing industry veteran, Bob Sacks (http://www.bosacks.com), talk about the future of the publishing industry and how there is a shift taking place from a mass marketing perspective to one where consumers, by choice, are selecting the type of advertising they want to receive based upon their very personalized and "customized" likes, desires and interests.

Bob also stated that there is a growing willingness amongst consumers to gladly exchange personal information—or even pay—for ads that are directly relevant to them and that match their likes and interests.

This is a stunning indictment of the marketing and advertising professions.

Shift happens.

The room full of marketing professionals listening to Bob that evening went silent until one voice asked…in complete bewilderment…why consumers would actually ask and/or pay for advertising.

Consumers are willing to pay for relevant advertising because for too long they have been bombarded by appeals that are of absolutely no interest to them. We live in the information overload society and marketers have abused consumers for too long with un-targeted advertising.

Here we are with consumers willing to pay for relevant advertising because they are overwhelmed with irrelevant advertising messages and they are willing to pay or give up personal information to weed out the garbage.

This is an important trend to watch because we are now in a situation where we should embrace consumers who self-qualify themselves and provide us segmentation information. We should carefully target them with our brand messages that speak to their needs and avoid marketing to them with offers that irrelevant to their expressed interests.

Get ready to respond to your consumers when tell you they are interested in your brand. Even more importantly, avoid advertising your brand to them when they tell you they have no interest.

-Dave

This blog is back!

Hello all!

Sorry for the l-o-o-o-o-n-g break in the blogging action, but now this blog is back up and running.

I've posted many of the old entries this evening and will keep the blog updated on a regular basis once again. This blog serves as "the blog" for both www.DaveDolak.com and www.BrandTrellis.com.

The older blog got overrun with spammers and scammers but, hey, I'm willing to make a fresh start if you are!

-Dave

Branding commodities

I've been conducting research over the past months for my upcoming e-book on branding commodities. In the process, I've talked with several people who seem to believe that "commodities" simply cannot be branded.

If brands are highly differentiated entities that convey unique value and highlight points of singular distinction, doesn't it make sense that commodities are simply products/services that *lack* such clearly differentiated positions?

Any commodity may be branded, but I think too many people out there get hung up on the idea that the points of differentiation must be product features (especially folks that deal with technology products).

Why is it so hard for people to understand that brands can be built on many other attributes other than simple product features? The product does not necessarily have to be different, but the total experience must be unique.

Thoughts?
-Dave

Cut through the clutter

Cut through the clutter

I'm tired of hearing marketers and branding gurus speak of ways to "cut through the clutter". We all realize that marketers have created a situation where there is advertising overload and it is virtually impossible to make it through a day in this modern world without being exposed to hundreds of advertising messages. Typically these experts proclaim to have the latest-and-greatest method to be heard or seen by target audiences. Most times, they are trying to sell products or services that put a slightly fresh spin on an old idea. They are also adding to the clutter.

What nobody seems to talk about, however, is the fact that we ourselves created the "clutter". Why do we think that making more of it will help alleviate the problem in the long-run?

The only way to cut through the clutter is to reduce the clutter.

Precise targeting based on knowledge of our customers and relevant communications that speak of customer benefits is the way to reduce the clutter. Let's not just blast our commercial messages out there and let our prospects qualify themselves. That is our work to do. Let's qualify our prospects and then speak directly to them, their needs, wants and desires.

Stop wasting all those dollars on unqualified prospects and help clear the clutter. The more clutter there is the less likely we are to be heard. We have so many direct channels available to us these days that it seems to me that mass, untargeted commercial messages should be dwindling, right? Why are they not?

Is traditional marketing dead?

I was just recently asked to comment on all the latest "experts" who claim that traditional marketing is dead.

Traditional marketing is not dead. Marketing is more vibrant and important than ever.

Marketing tactics, however, are changing rapidly.

New tools are being developed all the time to communicate messages and reach the people you want to reach—primarily through technological advances but often through new twists on old concepts. The challenge is not to throw away all the previous tools and switch to the new ones. (This is where the “traditional marketing is dead” argument comes from). The challenge is to identify *all* the viable tools available *for your customers*, determine which of those tools your customers prefer, and integrate those tools into a comprehensive marketing plan. Traditional marketers, however, have to learn the new tools and tactics and many of them would rather say that marketing is dead rather than adapt, change, and learn something new.

Perhaps it is the traditional *marketer* who refuses to learn new ways to address the same, "traditional" challenges who should be put on the endangered species list.

Dave

Is branding too trendy?

Funny thing about politics. Once you start considering them you begin to realize you want to steer clear of them.

At this point in time I thought I'd start a discussion about the Republican convention and how George W. Bush performed as a brand but due to lack of response about Kerry and the Dem's convention, I decided to forget about politics (aren't we all here in the US just sick of it already?) and talk about something else.

Is it just me or is everyone in business talking about branding these days? I'd like to think that branding has finally been accepted as a legitimate marketing science and that business leaders are finally embracing it as more than just voodoo, but I can't help but think that too many people are simply hopping on the band wagon. The brandwagon, so to speak.

Experiential marketing, living the brand, bleeding the brand, dying the brand, fusion branding, emotional banding, personal branding, etc. etc. What is going on here?

I have had a great interest in and a passion for brand marketing for many years and have tried promoting it as a science for years. Lately, however, it seems as though *everyone* has an interest in it but very few actually offer tangible, actionable, fundamental tools for people to go about building strong brands for their products, services, and organizations.

Has branding gotten so trendy as a business topic that "talk about the topic" has become as important as the topic itself?

I launched this site partly in reaction to what I see as a startling trend. There are too many so-called experts out there providing flash-in-the-pan advice that might actually be hurtful to brands.

Is branding currently too trendy for its own good?

Dave

Are U.S. politics harming the Zippo brand?

Another interesting branding issue was just raised as a result of the U.S. presidential election.

In a news story that has been widely reported in the media (see http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39816), a new book that is coming out critically against Senator John Kerry states:

“During the Vietnam War, a searing image in the anti-war movement was one of American GIs torching huts with cigarette lighters. It turns out, according to "Unfit for Command," that Kerry did just that – entering an abandoned Vietnamese village, slaughtering domestic animals and burning down their homes with his Zippo lighter.”

Let’s forget about politics here but consider the Zippo brand.

Does such an image associated with the Zippo brand harm the brand’s image? Should Zippo, the company, respond in any way? What lessons can branders learn when their brand(s) encounter negative press?

When I first heard the story, my first reaction was to think that mentioning the Zippo brand by name is not relevant to the story. I also thought how unfortunate it is for Zippo to be getting this type of attention—attention that it might not want. Upon some reflection I now feel that the Zippo brand is not being harmed by the story. Getting negative press about your brand in such a manner does not always do damage to your brand.

Zippo is no more responsible for the actions of its users than gun manufacturers are for the criminals who use guns to commit crimes or SUV manufacturers are for reckless drivers who operate their vehicles. The real crime here is reporting such stories using brand names when doing so is not necessary and the brand is, in fact, materially irrelevant to the story. Consumers are wise enough to know that such brands are not responsible for the actions of their users and, in fact, the attention these brands get may not be negative at all. In this case, the Zippo brand might actually be helped because, in essence, it is getting free media attention.

A while back I was interviewed by a USAToday reporter doing a story on the Zippo company. The reporter was looking to get some perspective on the Zippo brand. In the USAToday story, Zippo was presented as having universal appeal and as being recognized around the world. As such, “Zippo” is almost a perfect substitute for “cigarette lighter” in the recent story so no ill was intended toward the Zippo brand itself.

But the question remains. The story itself has nothing to do with the Zippo brand and mentioning it by name is not critical to the story. So why report it?

-Dave

After writing these comments on my blog, I contacted Patrick Grandy, Marketing Communications Manager for Zippo, who told me that yes, Zippo indeed is concerned with the recent media attention surrounding the story. While he reiterated to me that the lighters were not intended for such purposes, he went on to say,

"We would much rather that the press focus on the positive aspects of the lighter during wartime. These include deflecting bullets while in a GI's pockets (our archives contains many stories of this happening -- and we even have some sample lighters with the bullets still in them). Zippo lighters were also used as signals to rescue soldiers in lifeboats. There are other positive occasions when the lighters were used in wars."

Great comments and great stories.

Couldn't Zippo be more proactive getting such stories out there to enhance its brand? It seems to me they could capitalize on the the media exposure they are currently getting to tell the stories of lives being saved. I for one am happy to tell the story because I think it is a good one.

There is a lesson to be learned here.

Although we can't always control the publicity our brands receive, we should always be ready to respond to negative press with positive stories or evidence that refutes or neutralizes such negative attention. "Damage control" is very much a part of brand management.

PBR- The anti-brand?

Now that I’ve brought a couple beer brands under scrutiny, we may as well explore an additional beer brand.

Pabst Blue Ribbon (“PBR” for those in a hurry at the bar).

This brand is currently seeing tremendous sales growth and has garnered a cult-like following in the past couple years. While some think the brand is enjoying a resurgence due to the “retro” trend, others think the brand’s recently revitalized success is due, in part, to the brewer’s lack of mass-advertising and lack of any highly visible branding effort. The PBR brand has been around since 1844 has had all but been written off just a few short years ago.

What is it that new PBR drinkers find so appealing about the brand these days? Is it the quality of the beer? Is it the low price? Is it the lack of mass advertising? Could we be seeing a backlash against the tactics of the 3 big brewers?

Please comment! Let’s hear from actual PBR drinkers and loyalists to understand directly from them what they find appealing about this brand.

-Dave


PS- Interesting followup. I just had the occasion to ask Jack Trout, world renowned marketing guru and "The Father of Positioning", this very question about PBR. His answer was that PBR is seeing renewed interest due to a couple things. 1) They have a heritage/they've been around a long time and most people recognize them and 2) It has more to do with low price than anything else. He also added that Pabst is so far back in the pack (not one of the top two or three brands) that it really doesn't matter because it is hard to make any money when you are so far down on the competitive ladder.

Interesting comments that bring up another interesting question: Do any of the "also rans" in the beer industry have any shot at all of ever truly challenging Anheiser-Busch, Miller, and Coors for a leadership position? If so, how could they do it?

The Budweiser frogs are so right and so wrong

I heard a radio ad earlier today that struck me. It was the voices of those Budweiser frogs talking about the ad campaign by Miller Brewing and basically slamming Miller for claiming to be “The President of Beers”. The frogs went on to talk about how Miller’s advertising agency should be “handing out pink slips” to the folks who came up with that ad campaign. “Is that the best they could come up with?”, the frogs ask rhetorically.

Never have imaginary frogs been both so right and so wrong.

As a branding initiative, claiming to be “President of beers” after Budweiser has already staked out the position of “Kind of beers” is truly unimaginative, silly, and a sorry attempt at positioning. I think Miller ought to not only rethink who is working on the creative team but also rethink who is approving such advertising. Indeed, couldn’t they have done better than that?

But oh how the frogs are wrong also.

Here is Budweiser, “The king of beers”, right about the silly strategy Miller chose but sinking to the same level by responding to the attack.

Is it not sad that we live in a country where we actually are entertained by the inner workings of branding strategy and advertising agencies?

Here’s a bit of advice for both Anheuser-Busch and Miller: If talk about your branding strategies IS the message, then the branding strategies on both sides are losers.

Americans are much more sophisticated about the media we consume than we ever used to be. Nothing wrong with that…BUT, the sad thing is that we have turned the inner workings of the media into entertainment itself. We know more about the media than ever, but it is not enough for branders to simply acknowledge that we are in on the game. Clever as that may seem, it advances nothing. I know the game. You know the game. I know that you know the game. I know that you know that I know the game. Why, therefore, don’t we just take the game to the next level?

Can’t we all grow up a little bit, acknowledge that we are more media savvy than ever before and simply expect better communication and more sophisticated advertising messages that speak to real benefits, address real problems, and inform and persuade us on the power of the message alone? Whatever happened to branding that had real substance?

Give us substance!

Ad recycling?

I recently read with interest and amazement an article by Geoffrey James, “New Life for Old Ads” in the June issue of Business 2.0 Magazine (page 50).

In the article, James tells of a firm that specializes in reselling old advertisements to clients other than those for whom the ads were created. In this manner, small companies or companies on tight budgets can purchase pre-made ads that ran in different markets or that never ran at all and simply strip the name of the original company/brand out and place their own name/brand name in. The idea is that these "pre-aired ads" can be resold at a fraction of the production costs of creating a new, original ad.

While the idea of using “pre-aired” ads may seem appealing to advertisers, I think this practice demonstrates all that is wrong in advertising today.

The notion that a brand would communicate so little about its unique qualities that its name may be simply stripped out of an ad and another brand name put in its place is appalling a represents a vast waste of advertising dollars. Shame on the ad agencies and corporate marketers who allow such ineffective ads to be made in the first place! I think this practice also demonstrates that while simply capturing attention by using shock or clever creative may be alluring and raise awareness, unless you move prospects down the sales path once you have their attention and tell them what is unique about your brand, you are not building strategic awareness.

Marketers need to learn that everything they do should promote core brand values that only their brand offers. Viewers of ads should clearly understand the unique promises of value being made so there is no mistake what brand is being promoted—even before the name is mentioned. A truly effective ad is one that distinguishes its brand from all the rest and could never be mistaken for any other brand.
While small businesses may like the idea of cheap advertisements and ad agencies surely will love the additional revenue stream, don’t allow your brands to communicate so poorly as to become generic! That is exactly the opposite of what your ads are supposed to do.

Happy branding,
-Dave