Blogging for Brand Credibility

Every Tom, Dick, and Harry claims to know something nowadays. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry has something to sell you, and something to tell you. And so they buy up airtime on your local TV stations, have a terribly built web page, and advertise in magazines with slapped-together ads. And nobody cares. Big surprise.

Consumers are a savvy bunch. They don't believe in you just because you tell them to. The era of SELL is long since gone. Today is the era of BUY. Consumers like to buy--they despise being sold to.

"Look at this amazing car I bought!" one man says to another. He feels validated for his own personal purchasing power. Notice he didn't say, "Look at this amazing car the dealership sold to me."

Branding is the process of pre-selling your product or service. There are countless routes to go through which to build your brand. One of the more popular has been blogging. But why? For one, blogging helps build credibility.

Tom, Dick, and Harry all claim to know something. Maybe they do, and maybe they just want to extract cash from your bank account.

Blogging adds a level of transparency to your company, unmatched by traditional advertising. Blogging, after all, is very raw and real and emotional. It's spontaneous. Fifteen minutes before I wrote this, I was eating a cinnamon raisin bagel and responding to comments on MySpace.

The same informality associated with blogging is the same informality that lacks in Big Media (most commonly: radio, TV, print, and online). Consumers don't trust Big Media. They don't trust you. Unless you have credibility!

I tune out and FF>> through 98% of TV commercials. But I have stopped the Tivo to watch countless VW ads ("Holdin' it down on the engineering tip, y'all!"). I don't read magazine ads, but I do pause on a Lacoste ad whenever I see one. And I don't click on those pesky online ads. Ever. Well, I have been known to roll over those Apple ads from time to time. All of these companies have built brand credibility in my mind.

If you're not one of the lucky few who has built credibility in the mind of your consumers, blogging is a great way to do so. You establish yourself as relevant and involved, as current and important.

To my way of thinking, if one can't write a few times a week about the field in which they are a supposed expert, then they should not be in business.

Over time, your trail of blogs can help you build a reputation as a credible professional. Your average consumer most likely will not read every last word you have written, but they many will glance through your words to feel at ease with your knowledge. The consumer is always skeptic. Otherwise, they would not ask, "But what's the catch?"

The catch, dear consumer, is that you don't trust me by default. And they don't trust you by default. And without credibility, your business is as good as kaput.

Brand Categories: Narrow Focus

MySpace dominates the online social community scene. Or does it? Amongst the 35+ demgraphic, MySpace does indeed rule the kingdom. 40.6% of MySpace's visitors are 35-54, and 11% are 55+.

What is one to do in order to break into this market? Narrow the focus! MySpace isn't going anywhere as the leader. Instead of a full frontal assault, smart sites are targeting demographics.

Facebook.com was launched originally as a student-only network. One had to possess a college or high school email address. Their largest numbers come from the 18-24 demographic. The mistake they made was making Facebook available to anybody and everybody. Exclusive means elusive, and people always want to feel like a VIP.

MyYearbook.com has been expanding rapidly, too, siphoning from the 12-17 demographic on MySpace. From August '05 to August '06, MySpace saw a 12.8% decrease in their share of said demo. With the problems of sex offenders prowling MySpace, kids have moved over to MyYearbook in droves.

What MyYearbook does very well is keep a narrow focus. The whole site feels very high-schoolish. One can post superlatives, give a person "flirt" or "bully" status, and even write those cool wills (where someone wills the unwillable, like their jersey number and jump shot).

Most markets are very saturated. As are most categories. "We want to be all things to all people," comes the battle cry from my execs. MySpace keeps trying to head off competition, building a video player to stop YouTube, a comic book to cut off ComicSpace. As for the latter, ComicSpace would not be vulnerable to such an attack if it functioned better.

Think of the Swiss Army Knife. Everybody knows what it is, and some of us have one. But how often does one really use it? If the job requires a screwdriver, they’ll use a screwdriver, not the goofy Swiss Army Knife (unless they’re in a bind). We have been trained to believe that a narrow focus is better.

Who makes the best selling foreign luxury car? It used to be Acura. Then they started selling 4 cylinder cars with price tags around that of Honda’s. Toyota stepped in, but not with the Toyota Plus or the Toyota Ultra. They narrowed their focus and created a new brand: Lexus. Lexus has been the number one selling foreign luxury car for quite some time.

Thus the lesson becomes this: first to market has the best chance of succeeding. First to mind wins. And it then becomes their category to lose. The "better mousetrap" theory that existed in the 50's is dead. It stated that if one were to build a better mousetrap, all they would have to do is advertise it, and they would be a success.

Consumers are fed up with marketers and their lies! A better product does not cut it nowadays. MyYearbook is not better than MySpace (for all intensive purposes), and nor is Facebook. They simply serve their target demographics! What this teaches an astute businessperson is two-fold: narrow is better, and all-things-to-all-people is a business model that will leave holes in your company.

What is the online community for photographers and artists? DeviantArt. What is the online community for photo hosting? PhotoBucket. What is the online community for video? Now, MySpace. Soon, YouTube. YouTube has been rising at unreal rates, thanks in large part to its narrow focus and gobs of press coverage. MySpace has the latter, but lacks the former.

And YouTube is going straight to the top. The flailing imeem.com hails itself as the YouTube of all media, not just video. Their numbers have been disappointing overall, with a random recent rise. A narrow focus versus a wide focus—narrow wins in the end.

Granted, MySpace isn’t hurting. They report nearly $25M a month in ad revenue. These other sites, however, are pulling away the 12-24 crowd. If MySpace is smart, they will continue to focus on their main objective: music promotion. That was the very reason for which MySpace was developed, and that has helped make it a resounding success.

Brand Buzz: Exclusivity

What does one do when their radio playtime is down on their "hot" new single, which is supposed to get everyone excited about your new album? If you're Talib Kweli, you begin a PR campaign to generate buzz about your album.

With the advent of the MySpace revolution, Talib and his label, Blacksmith Records, are taking full advantage of the online community. This is truly empowered interactivity.

1. TUNES: New songs have been released on his MySpace page. Users can comment on the songs, rate them, and even add them to their own MySpace page. New singles are released for purchase after a while on iTunes.

2. BLOG: Both his home and MySpace page link to his blog.

3. VIDEOS: Video premieres are announced ahead of time, generating excitement, and launched from YouTube. The benefits of YouTube are endless. Suffice it to say that YouTube makes videos very viral (easy to spread), allowing blogging, posting, embedding, emailing, and a ridiculously large amount of other interactivity features.

4. BULLETIN BOARD: Talib's homepage features a bulletin board. People who love and support his music provide free hype about Kweli. Buzz marketers take note.

5. INTERACTIVITY: An album art generator has been developed that gives fans a new level of ownership and interactivity with Talib, creating their own printable spec album covers for the upcoming release of Eardrum. This program makes people stop and interact with the web page. It's a surefire bet that anyone who clicks on the Flash animated link will spend five minutes playing with album art combinations. Five minutes! Try to get five minutes of a person's time with a billboard or a TV commercial! Impossible!

6. SECOND LIFE: Fans can interact with Talib on Second Life, the popular new program akin to The Sims, but in the real world with real people (including famous musicians and actors). This type of real (second) life connection really energizes brand believers, and it encourages them to spread the word of Talib's brand.

7. NO SHOW: Talib has seemingly gone underground. He has only one posted show, which won't take place until March. Less is more.

8. EXCLUSIVE: An online release of a FREE album is amazing. Talib took it one step further -- his collaboration album, Liberation, went live for one week only. The buzz generated about Liberation was amazing leading up to (and during) the first week of the new year. The buzz has exploded since then. Everybody wants to know where they can get a copy of the album -- it's not in stores and not for sale anywhere. He also gave an exclusive, live performance of his newest single "Revolution in Sound" on VH1, which was released on VH1.com.

Time Magazine's "Person of the Year" for 2006 was You. You, the consumer, have more power than ever. Talib (and his label) have recognized this. Several of the major websites pointed out by Time have been used to build buzz about Talib's new album. Talib is using MySpace, YouTube, and Second Life, among others, to promote his new album.

What's important to know is that no single arrow will slay any beast. It takes multiple outlets to capture the consumer.

Brand Buzz: Secrecy (Fox: American Idol & Simpsons)

"OK, promise me you won't tell anybody, but..."

The whole school knew the next day. Ah, secrets. What's odd is that nobody would care if I shouted my secret.

If you want to rise above the noise, just whisper.

Fox has made its biggest hit, American Idol, a vehicle for building buzz. During last nights episode, the contestants went to a sneak preview of The Simpsons Movie.

This hits good brand buzz on two levels. One, obviously, is the secrecy. Nobody knows much about the movie. Even the trailers are ambiguous.

The second is exclusivity. These American Idol participants are hometown heroes. What do you think they're going to tell their friends and family? "I saw The Simpsons Movie!" And all of their friends and family have been reached through word of mouth marketing, via the buzz created by Fox's exclusive screening.

Zero ad dollars spent on all of those hearty buzz builders. Brilliant.

Brand Buzz: Controversy

The old mantra goes, “If you don’t have something nice to say, don’t say anything at all.” Whoever said that never built a brand in their life. As a matter of fact, we don’t even know who said it!

We do know who said “Et tu, Brute?” however. And we all remember “Vinni, vetti, vicci." Both statements were born out of controversy.

One of the most powerful channels through which to build a brand is through buzz marketing. The term “buzz” has, itself, become a buzzword. Buzz is synonymous for hype. Those who build buzz could be considered hype-makers.

There are limitless ways to generate buzz. Despite that, there have been navigable paths that have been followed time and time again. And one of the most powerful is through controversy.

Ask people about Bill Clinton, and their first thought is not his famous Third Way philosophy, his post-presidency war against AIDS/HIV and global warming, or the seemingly impossible passing of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. Bill Clinton’s brand will forever be associated, first and foremost, with Monica Lewinsky. A built brand is nearly impossible to reconfigure in the mind.

Controversy sparks us. We read People Magazine, gobbling up gossip of secret romantic entanglements and feuding celebs. We watch Borat, anticipating his next off-the-wall ethnic slur or sexual reference. We listen to Eminem, knowing full well that parents think he’s the antichrist. Our attention was captured by Enron’s book-cooking, and by Barry Bonds’ steroid usage.

Hence, when Monica Lewinsky was sprayed across the headlines daily, Americans told public researchers that they were sick of her. 48 million people tuned in to watch as Barbara Walters interviewed her.

American Idol is one of the hottest shows on television. And American Idol is really one man: Simon Cowell. Forget Randy Johnson and his fake “I’m a thug”-isms. Forget Paula Abdul and her over-nicities. America tunes in to see Simon say something destroying.

Off camera, Simon is described as pleasant and thoughtful, commonly saying “please” and “thank you.” On camera, he plays a dream-shattering villain. He knows that controversy generates buzz, and buzz generates ratings. The gasps and boos he receives are the best buzz currency that Fremantle Media, owners of American Idol, could hope for.

In the oversaturated market of reality TV, American Idol stands alone at the top. Most reality shows that fail, do so because they fail to generate buzz.

It seems that American Idol wrote the book on controversial buzz. Just today, February 13, 2007, Idol leaked information that they are in talks with Michael Jackson, America’s most hated pop-star, to do a collaboration show.

Again, research and common sense seem to suggest that this is a marketing disaster. But Monica Lewinsky’s interview still serves as a reminder. What’s more, Idol is being very straightforward about their intent: to generate ratings. Controversy + honesty = incredible buzz.

Mark Hughes wrote, in his incredible book Buzz Marketing, of a young John McEnroe. McEnroe was ranked highly, but he remained a relative unknown. Then, at Wimbledon, he whipped his racket across the court. Wimbledon, being known the as purest vestige of tennis etiquette, was not prone to such displays. The crowd booed, shocked.

What McEnroe realized, however, was that he now owned the crowd’s attention. He threw another tantrum. Again, the crowd reacted, eyes peeled on McEnroe, waiting to see what he would do next.

Upon his return to the States, McEnroe stepped off of the plane to a frenzy of press members. The British press had branded him as the “Bad Boy of Tennis.” This image ignited McEnroe to the memorable status he has today.

Pete Sampras’ career was in full swing (pardon the analogy) at that time, as well. Pete was soft spoken and kind, a true ambassador of the sport. But it was McEnroe that generated buzz for tennis, a kind of buzz that Sampras could only dream about creating.

And, even in their post-career years, Sampras has gone under the radar, while McEnroe commentates the four majors for ESPN and CBS. McEnroe’s move was a calculated one. Sampras is a brand. McEnroe is a brand. While Sampras was a more successful tennis player, McEnroe is a more successful brand.

One final note about controversy. It is ill-advised to spark controversy for the sake of controversy. Be smart about any decisions to invoke this attention-grabbing method. Be certain that the branded image you wish to portray is in line with controversy you spark.

ClearPlay fought for censorship rights against the Hollywood elite, eliciting support from the likes of Intel and Wal-Mart along the way. Pepsi challenged Coke drinkers to try their product in blind taste tests, infamously being dubbed “The Pepsi Challenge.” And Anheuser-Busch assigned two different advertising agencies to their account, creating a friendly (or not-so-friendly) spirit of competition amongst rival agencies.

Do something different. It may make you feel uneasy. It should make you feel uneasy. Uneasy is good.

Let the media frenzy begin.

Brand Confusion & Singularity (UPS)

Whatever happened to brand singularity? Am I supposed to get my mail from UPS now? I thought that they shipped packages. Ah, brand confusion, how I despise thee.

Mail Boxes Etc. was a genius brand built in 1980, in San Diego. Following the principles of branding, they created a new category: business services. In six years, they grow to more than 1,500 stores, and became a hotly traded stock on NASDAQ. In 1992, UPS bought 9.5% of the company for $11.3 million.

Targeted specifically at small business owners, MBE created a steady flow of business through word of mouth marketing. They were an easy-to-talk-about brand. Features such as real street addresses (versus a sketchy looking PO Box) and package acceptance/delivery were small business hot buttons.

They have been awarded time and time again for their public relations campaigns. Businesses are built through PR, and maintained through advertising. Mail Boxes Etc. didn’t launch a national campaign until 1995—15 years after its inception.

MailBoxes, Etc. was bought out by the United Postal Service in the spring of 2003. UPS proceeded to immediately kill off the MBE brand. This, of course, was euphemistically called “re-branding.” When a brand stands for something in the mind, it is nearly impossible to change it. UPS stands for package delivery. Mail Boxes Etc. stands for business services.

So what did UPS do upon its acquisition of Mail Boxes Etc.? Like most corporations with deep pockets and antiquated marketing ideologies, they threw money at the problem, launching the biggest of such efforts in franchise history. A 10-week advertising campaign was aired across the nation.

They held an event for the opening of the first of the newly redesigned UPS Stores in Seattle, which was hardly newsworthy. (In fact, a search of The Seattle Times’ website yields zero mention of the opening.)

They also changed the UPS logo for the first time in forty years. A bit more newsworthy, but still not very earth shattering.

The features that made MBE so attractive were absorbed by UPS. Instead of keeping a winning brand, UPS shoved them under their umbrella. This has created a short term success, but at what cost?

This year, Entrepreneur magazine’s “Franchise 500” named The UPS Store at number five in all franchise opportunities, and number one in the postal and business services arena. They have been first for 17 years.

But are they succeeding in light of the UPS brand, or in spite of it? In the battle of weak brands, a weak brand can achieve success. When UPS stamped their logo all over MBE stores, they diluted the brand. Needless to say, the great factors of an MBE mailbox still remain (a real street address vs. a PO Box, package pickup/delivery). The problem is, however, that a hole has been left in the market. Until a true, focused brand champion arises from the ashes, UPS can (and most likely will) dominate unchecked. This brand confusion has created a soft spot in an otherwise rock solid brand.