Mac vs. PC

Is it a good or bad thing that Mac users are particular and unique? Is it a good or bad thing that this niche group despises those who don't conform to their non-conformity? Apple, by treating The Establishment as the enemy, has created a cult following behind their brand.

They did it with their legendary Super Bowl ad, the infamous 1984.



And they continue to do it with their long-running "Think Different" campaign,

And the "I'm a PC/I'm a Mac" commercials.



Apple continues to more deeply root its brand into the fabric of the überchic, creative, well, snobbish types. This was done by design, from the inception of a new category—desktop publishing—to the launch of new brands to preempt market trends (including iTunes and ubiquitous iPod).I have a PC. It sits, quietly, switched off, underneath my desk. I have a Mac. It hardly ever gets shut off. If snobbery is a two-year stint without once seeing that dreaded "blue screen of death," then sign me up, Sam!



Some claim to be tired of the OS wars. War is good; enemies are good—they keep things interesting. Interesting makes headlines and the Today Show. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have gotten shiploads more press than John McCain. The Wii would never have been so buzzworthy, were it not for PS3 and Xbox 360. And what makes Zipcar so fantastically enamoring? They antagonize the rental car industry!

Are people really tired of the OS wars? Hardly. Will they ever grow tired of them? It's unlikely. Apple is smart enough to realize who their enemy is, how they are different, and how they can exploit those differences. What has spawned is a determined subculture that is radically sold-out for Apple—ready to shill out big bucks for cooler-than-life products for a cooler-than-life lifestyle.

Hillary vs. Barack

Laura Ries, of the world famous Ries & Ries, wrote today about celeb endorsements for political candidates. She inspired me to write about celeb endorsements, as well as how branding has affected this amazing presidential campaign:

This race truly is a testament to branding, is it not? Obama preempted the word "change" from the field early on. We are seeing The Law of the Word in action on the political front. Hillary has flitted about from "experience" to "change" to "solutions." No, "solutions" does not sound as strong as “change,” nor does it resonate with what consumers (American voters) want.

But what is a candidate to do? Obama already snatched up “change,” and he is hell-bent on defending it. At rallies, signs feature the word “change” in bigger letters than his own name. This is a brilliant move. He acknowledges that this campaign is not about him, it is about change.

Clinton, up until recently, featured her name on most of her rally signs. Now, a lot of the signs have her new branding concept featured in bold letters. That’s a smart move, but she waited for Obama to gain a lot of momentum before she picked her new strategy.

On the under-addressed G.O.P. side, McCain has yet to own a single word or concept. Huckabee became known as the "values" candidate, a concept for which G.W. Bush was known. While Huckabee seems like quite a great guy, the nation is sick and tired of the Bush administration, and that includes anything resembling it.

It just goes to show: if you don't pick your word, people will pick it for you. But one hasn't nearly as much power over their brand as they would think. If Obama didn't truly represent change, then his campaign would not have netted him so much success (to this point). When Hillary claimed to stand for change, two warning lights went off—one for redundancy: two brands can't stand for the same thing; a second for credibility: how can she represent change, when she represents the good 'ol '90s?

But let us get to endorsements.

Reporter: Why Hillary?
50 Cent: I think she could do good job.
Reporter: Really?
50 Cent: Yeah, I mean Obama, ain't nothing bad about Obama in my eyes either. But, I just think Hillary that would be my choice.

If I may, 50 Cent, in his endorsement of Hillary, said about as much as he does on an average album and a half. It surprises me that he didn't mention getting shot nine times (his buzz-worthy claim to fame that helped to establish the authenticity of his brand). 50 Cent is "The Real Deal" in gangsta rap, critics claimed. I believe(d) it (until he started singing over love songs). 50 Cent as a political candidate endorser? Yikes.

Will.I.Am (from Black Eyed Peas) and Jin (of the formerly famous Ruff Ryderz) are not crucial or helpful endorsements for Obama to have. What do a pop-rap artist and a washed-up faux-thug have to do with a politician?

Jin raps:

I don’t know politics, that’s no joke
But I know that you only get one vote

And then continues to chant (over and over):

Go, go, go, Obama

Seriously, somebody sock me. And then punch Jin for penning such a god-awful refrain.

The power of a celebrity/musician endorser is that people look up to them for their views. Sean Penn has no say in political arenas, but he would make a fantastic endorser of a new actor or screenwriter.

Who made a far better endorsement for Obama? Talib Kweli. He claims not to be political, but his lyrics are deeply evocative and thought-provoking—he represents a new ‘hood consciousness. He didn’t go crazy—he mentions Obama casually, like in his single, “Say Something”:

Speak to the people like Barack Obama
They worship like the black Madonna, c'mon

Or how about Chicago, Illinois native, Common, another conscious rapper and thought-leader of the educated hip-hop connoisseur? In his song, “The People,” Common says, “My raps ignite the people like Barack Obama.” In the video, Common flashes an Obama ’08 bumper sticker while the lyric plays.

Obama is authentic with the hip-hop community. He graced the cover of Vibe. He is affluent and successful and young and African-American.

Talib Kweli said, “More than anything his name is a nugget of lyrical gold. It sounds like a gunshot going off. Obama rhymes with a lot of things."

And that brings us back to the Law of the Name: Obama stands for change because everything about him is change. Clinton stands for the perception remaining in each American’s mind from the ‘90s Clinton administration. “Experience” is most likely the strongest word she can own, but that word has proven not to be as powerful a motivator as “change.” Now, John McCain is stealing the word from Clinton’s refuse bin, while she pushes on with her new branding scheme.

The Law of the Name is working in conjunction with the Law of Firsts: the first viable black candidate versus the first viable female candidate.

And what other laws are in play here? How about The Law of the Opposite? Black male vs. white female. How about The Law of the Focus? Obama is focused on change. Hillary is focused on experience, then change, then solutions. How about The Law of Publicity? Democratic primaries and caucuses are recording record-breaking voter turnouts, while the Republican side is going about business as usual. Who has been getting the press coverage? The battle for leadership between Obama and Clinton is interesting and forces people to choose sides. The battle between McCain and Romney was interesting for a short while, and Huckabee doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in midsummer Phoenix.

(A few weeks ago, the New York Times ran an article titled, “Is Obama a Mac and Clinton a PC?” Brilliant. Read it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/technology/04link.html.)

So, what is one to make of all of this? Branding is alive and well. Embrace it, and you will give yourself your best chance at success. Neglect it, and you are offering an open invitation for systematic dismantling by a smarter, more forward-thinking brand.

No matter your size, you can follow the logic and laws of branding to align yourself with success. Can we brand it? Yes, we can. (En español: ¡sí se puede! Por supuesto.)

Visit Laura Ries' blog at http://ries.typepad.com. If you are feeling the urge to be inspired, grab a copy of The 22 Immutable Laws of Branding and/or The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing. Both are quintessential reads for any professional, marketing or otherwise.

Yellow Book Ad Guru vs. Reality

A new series of ads for Yellow Book USA features actor David Carradine as the ad guru. Sales are down at Any Company, Inc., and they need help! To whom do they turn? Why, the oddly already-there ad guru.

He advises them to go online; to place their company on the Yellow Book website. (No, not Yellow Pages, Yellow Book. Are you as confused as I am?) The next quarter, the aloof businessmen are dancing about, while one announces, "Sales are off the charts!"

"Right now we're elated with the results of the campaign," CEO of Yellow Book USA, Joe Walsh says. "The ads are a quantifiable hit. There's no question about it."

Allow me to question it.

In a recent survey, only 9% of people polled thought favorably of the ads. 10% thought they were effective. That's strike one.

The ads are competing solely based on price: we are cheaper than other phone directories. Strike two.

Yellow Book USA is a line-extended brand with a me-too name. If one wants to search anything yellow, it'll likely be the other yellow guy. If one wants to search online, it'll likely be Google. Strike three.

Worse than any of those factors, the ad (and the company) do not exist in a little place I like to call "reality." If all one had to do, in order to generate business, was list themselves on Yellow Book, we all would have done it years ago. We don't need some fancy commercial to teach us this "new" lesson.

Also, if more than one widget company advertises with them, will sales be "off the charts" for all of them? Does the sheer volume of companies advertising in their publication create more demand for their category? Imagine this conversation: "Oh, honey, look at how many paper manufacturing companies are listed here. We need to buy paper from the manufacturer! I'm so glad that I was mindlessly perusing the Yellow Book instead of playing with the kids or paying the bills."

Their entire ad campaign falls apart upon even the most cursory scrutiny.

"Customer know what they want, but not where to find it," says the guru. If the customer has never heard of you, they are still going to pick a known brand over yours, even if the known brand does not fit their needs perfectly.

If they don't know what brand to use, they will most likely ask a friend or trusted business associate.

"Who did you use when your house got infested by spider monkeys?"

"We used Adam's Pest Control in Medina. They were great."

Our inquirer will go directly to Adam's Pest Control. He may use the Yellow Book online (or Google, frankly) to find the number.

Are sales, then, up because of the ad placement, or because of the positive word of mouth?

Is Yellow Book a good place to have your business? Perhaps. If you're a built brand, then yes, it would make sense to have your business listed in this directory, as well as the other Yellow guys down the block.

Will the ad or placement pay for itself? Prolly it won't. One must always think of their ad spends as insurance policies against their competition. If there is equity in their brand to insure or protect, then (smartly) advertise. If not, then focus your efforts on PR.

As a side note, I had to edit this article four times in order to remove the mixed up "Yellow Book" to "Yellow Pages" references. It's like Office Depot and Office Max: what's the difference? Ugh! I'm going to Staples! What's their number? Never mind, I'll Google 'em.

Crocs vs. Line-Extension & Fads

Brands Create Customers wrote here about Crocs extending their brand to include items outside of footwear.

Honestly, why must nearly every strong brand line-extend itself? Crocs has made a strong niche for themselves by being first in their category (whatever it exactly is), and by appealing to smaller venues (like volleyball and folk artists).

Crocs are the categorical generic for spongy flip-flops (or whatever they would call them). If I say “what are Crocs?” they response will come back, 100 times out of 100, “those crazy, ugly flip-flop things.” By expanding their line, they are weakening their core. The idea of Mammoth Crocs could be a winner, but moving north of the foot is uncharted (and frankly unwelcome) territory.

By expanding their base to include the major four sports (baseball, basketball, football, and hockey), they are abandoning the very crowd which has made them into a cultural phenomenon.

Brands die. If Crocs are indeed a pair of Zubaz for your feet, then they will die their natural death. Crocs needs to realize that, and instead of fighting it, pour their money into their next innovation, and into their next brand name.

What should Crocs do? Slow down everything! Feed a fad, it will explode. Starve a fad, and it will stay for a long, long time. Beanie Babies are one of the greatest examples of starving a fad. The “shortage” of Beanie Babies was nothing more than clever marketing, after all! Alas, one can buy Crocs at every turn. They have brought the crash of the fad upon themselves, all in the name of greed and growth! Shame on a brand!

Fluff vs. Focus

"John Teets, former Greyhound Corp. chairman and current CEO at Viad once said, 'Management's job is to see the company not as it is, but as it can become.'" (Brand Autopsy)

That's exactly the kind of fluffy, ambiguous feel-goodery that leads management down the terrible – yet terribly enticing – path of line-extension. How many a great (great?) manager has eroded the core brand by adding conflicting brands, simply in the name of "seeing the business as it can become"?

My quote: management's job is to focus everyone involved with the brand on a single objective: what made us strong; what will make us strong in the future. If the answers to those two questions are not the same, then their brand could very well be headed for trouble.

McDonald's vs. Starbucks

McDonald’s announced today that they are “readying the rollout of a line of lattes, cappuccinos and other specialty drinks in all of its outlets,” according to BrandWeek and Crain’s Business Chicago. Management boldly predicts $1 billion in sales. This comes at an enormous initial cost, which will be incurred largely by the revamping of 14,000 US stores.

So the question is: who sells high-end coffee? Starbucks, of course. Do people want a steaming cup of coffee with their Egg McMuffin? Sure. But the breakfast and coffee addition was among the first of the line-extensions that have cost McDonald’s a large part of their profitability.

I’m not arguing against the convenience of these things, of course. McDonald’s has slowly shifted their focus from the position of “hamburger” to the position of “fast food, not matter the desire.” And with each added menu item, their brand has suffered.

White Castle and In-N-Out both focus on hamburgers solely. White Castle owns the position of “ulta-cheap hamburger” with their Sliders. In-N-Out, on the west coast, owns the position of “hamburger” over McDonald’s. Both brands are profitable in ways that rival (and quite often outperform) the Golden Arches. While McDonald’s is busy looking for ways to extend their brand, narrowly focused competitors have burrowed into the niche left unguarded.

I can just hear the battle cry from the boardroom: let’s go get Starbucks! Bad idea! Does anybody remember when McDonald’s tried to kill Pizza Hut personal-style? The McPizza is now just a multi-million dollar faded memory. Expensive coffee? McDonald’s? Excuse me, but I don’t understand.

Previous line-extensions to the McDonald’s brand have hurt their bottom line. The majority of these extensions have followed the inexpensive nature of McDonald’s pricing structure. A cup of coffee? Cheap. A burger? Cheap.

So it would seem that McDonald’s is chasing “inexpensive” to become the Wal-Mart of the fast food world. Still, nothing about their brand says “premium”. An expensive cup of coffee from McDonald’s? What?!

The price of a Starbucks cup of latte or coffee reflects the prestige of the Starbucks brand. The ubiquitous green goddess of alertness is plastered proudly on each cup. People will proudly display their Starbucks cup on their desktop while they sluck and sip away their midmorning yawns.

Would anyone in their right mind display a McDonald’s cup of latte that they purchased for a big price tag? In the mind, the perception is that Starbucks makes premium coffee; McDonald’s makes cheap coffee.

Al Ries wrote, “High price is a benefit to the customers. It allows affluent the customer to obtain psychic satisfaction from the public purchase and consumption of the high-end brand.” He goes on to mention brands such as Rolex, Diesel jeans, Callaway, and Montblanc. Would people pay premium prices for these brands if they didn’t have the outward appearance of being more expensive? No, no, no; a million times no.

Rolex has a heavy, thick wristband in order to assure that its wearer will receive proper credit for their premium taste. Diesel jeans has their logo smacked proudly on the jeans. Callaway makes the largest driver on the market. And Montblanc makes a fat pen.

If you had $50,000 with which to buy a car, what would you buy? A Mercedes, most likely. But almost certainly not a Cadillac. Why? What’s the prestige of driving a Cadillac into your driveway and letting your neighbors see it? Hardly any at all. But a Mercedes…

We are not all strictly motivated by outward opinions. But, we are far more motivated by them than we let on. It’s called the herd theory. If the herd travels this way, most people tend to as well. There will always be a minority who refuse to follow the herd; in that, there is a profitable niche: in computers, think Apple and Firefox. Both have made wildly profitable brands by antagonizing the #1: Microsoft.

Is McDonald’s likely to do to Starbucks with their premium roasts? No. What’s a better strategy? Since they will never go back to their strongly held “hamburger” position, they should focus on “inexpensive,” and antagonize the high-price of Starbucks’ beverages.

AT&T vs. It's Own Claims

AT&T (formerly Cingular, who was formerly AT&T) has decided to drop their dropped calls message. After stomping on America with their $1 billion message, the mobile service provider has shifted gears.

The problem, claim many industry insiders, is that the data can be skewed to show a lot of companies having the fewest dropped calls. The problem, dear industry insiders, is much deeper and simpler than that: AT&T is known for dropping calls. Once a brand stands for something in the mind, it rarely wants to change.

A Consumer Report survey done in 20 US cities ranks AT&T worst in dropped calls. As for AT&T's new approach, "More Bars in More Places," the provider ranked below average in every city except Dallas. The article whimsically announces that AT&T should change their motto to "No Service."

Oy vey!