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.

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.

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!

Motorola vs. Razr

There really are no shortcuts to creating a winning brand. If there were, believe you me, they would be readily exploited. Motorola, who makes over four dozen products, got trounced again, recording their worst quarter to date. They also fell to third in the category of mobile phones.

According to an article by Macworld, "The company is suffering today from its strategy of cutting prices to win market share. In the short run, that helped it gain high visibility with the popular Razr, but excess inventory has allowed competitors to swoop in and gain share."

Where did they go wrong? For one, a lack of focus. Who is number one in mobile phones? Nokia. When I say mobile phone, what comes to the mind? Nokia. What is a Nokia? It's a mobile phone. Years ago, they made everything from truck tires to (of all things) toilet paper. They were also losing close to $1.5 million a year. When they spun off their other companies and focused on mobile phones, they soon became number one in mobile phones in Europe. Now, they are number one in the world.

What is a Motorola? It's a Bluetooth headset, mobile phone, wireless Internet, pager, data solution. The list goes on and on.

In mobile phones, their big winner, the Razr, became commoditized to death and treated like a product, not a brand.

Moto has struggled to harvest another "it" phone (the serendipitous blessing bestowed upon the once mighty Razr). And so, copycat phones such as the Krzr and the Rizr were released. But all they did was remind people of the Razr.

What Moto should have done was treat the Razr as a brand unto itself. The Razr brand needs constant innovation and updates. It should not be commoditized, as they did with the first one. Once everyone could get a Razr for free, the fun was gone. Those who paid several hundred for it were bummed, because the phone's elitist soul had been sucked right out of it.

Moto should not have asked, "How can we sell as many units as possibly, no matter what the cost?" They should have asked, "How can we deepen our market penetration with this expensive, elite phone?"

But now the Razr brand has been tainted. The Razr 2, which will retail for $300 (or so) in September will likely have a very quick, very short-lived surge in sales. And Moto, desperate to win back their market share, will again slice the price of the Razr (a funny concept: slicing a Razr). Once gone, clients rarely return.

Perhaps Motorola's Razr should take a clue from Occam's razor: entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. (The simplest answer is usually the best, in other words.)

The Razr did not need a Krzr or a Rizr, it needed the Razr 2, sans the destroyed brand image that Moto managed to craft.

Wow. Krzy.

Wal-Mart vs. iTunes

Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, announced Tuesday that Wal-Mart Music will now sell music sans copy-protection, also known as DRM (Digital Rights Management). This is a mimicking move to iTunes, who began selling DRM-free music earlier this year.

Traditionally, iTunes charged $0.99 per song. Their new, DRM-free music has been sold at $1.29 a track. Initial reactions to this move have been positive from nearly every consumer, while labels (still stuck in the past–but that's a different story) continue to fight change.

CD sales have been on a continuous downward slide over the past several years, yet the digital music industry has been booming. iTunes is now the third largest music retailer in the United States, behind Wal-Mart (15.8%), and Best Buy (13.8%) with 9.8% of the market.

iTunes did not enter the music retail category as an also-ran. They created the category of digital music retailer. As Tom Peters once wrote, "They say, 'market share.' I say 'market creation.'"

When a brand enters an established category, they must contend with powerful category leaders. When a brand creates a new category, they have no competition, thus becoming the category leaders. Their task, then, becomes creating the new category, rather than trying to dislodge consumers from already well-established brand leaders.

In 1923, a survey was conducted of the top 25 brands. In 1983, the same survey was executed. 23 of the top 25 brands were the same. 19 of the top 25 brands from 1923 still held their leadership position in their category.

What does this mean? Minds don't change; leader's lead. To enter a well-established category against mature category leaders is maniacal and suicidal. And yet, everyday, thousands of companies across the U.S. do exactly that.

Apple is far more adroit than most brands. They took hold of the emerging digital music trend. In 2001, they launched iTunes, becoming first to the market, and, more importantly, first in the mind. Now, in the digital music retailer category, iTunes owns 70% of the market.

iTunes imposed their new category, digital music retail, on the existing category, music retail. They did as Dell did: change the distribution medium.

Their new category went from a 0% market share in 2001 to 14% in 2007. Not bad, considering that the music retail market runs an annual tab of nearly $4.8 billion in the United States alone.

In 2003, Wal-Mart launched their also-ran Wal-Mart Music. At the time, the retailer held 20% of the music retail industry. Wal-Mart Music, despite costing $0.88 per song (a full $0.11 cheaper), has had almost no impact on iTunes’ numbers.

Now, Wal-Mart will sell their DRM-free offering for $0.94, a whopping $0.33 cheaper than iTunes.

Wal-Mart stands for low-prices retail store, not digital music. Even the power of the Wal-Mart name is not enough to save them in the digital music arena.

"Wal-Mart has been behind on the issue of digital music," said Tim Bajarin, an analyst with Creative Strategies. "Making this move allows them to leapfrog to the front."

But does their price-cutting strategy really give them an edge? No. In the long run, history drastically favors iTunes. Wal-Mart’s move will only serve to call more attention to iTunes’ category leadership and DRM-free sales.

If people bought music were a commodity, such as eggs, then Wal-Mart Music’s price-cutting strategy would have iTunes in a heap of trouble. But music is hardly a commodity.

And therein lies one of the greatest powers of proper positioning: premium pricing. Improperly positioned, a brand faces market rate growth and commodity pricing.

Without a strong brand, iTunes would never have taken such a large share of business away from related categories, and they would certainly never stand strong against the onslaught of me-too competitors such as Real Rhapsody, Napster, and Wal-Mart Music.

And, just for fun (it seems), Amazon has put their hat into digital music ring. It appears that Jeff Bezos is suffering from severe delusions of grandeur, or rather, “delusions of brandeur.”

Jeff once said, "A brand for a company is like a reputation for a person. You earn reputation by trying to do hard things well." No, Jeff, you don't. The quarterback doesn't earn a positive reputation by trying to do math well, he earns a positive reputation by throwing the ball well and scoring touchdowns. Perhaps that is why Amazon sells digital music now, too.

Wal-Mart=low-price retail store
Amazon=online bookstore
iTunes=digital music

Wal-Mart and Amazon making digital music stores makes as much sense as iTunes selling laundry detergent and shipping hardcover copies of Harry Potter. Pretty insane, yes? Yes.

Standford Financial vs. Ambiguity

Stanford Financial recently ran a new commercial. There were lots of dramatic slow pans blanketed by emotional music. What, according to the commercial, makes Stanford Financial so worthwhile? Why, their people of course!

And what do their people do? A service!

And what is their service? Hard work.

And at what cost does the hard work come? At a value for the client.

And what does that value buy them? Clear vision.

"Welcome to Stanford Financial Group. Hard Work, Clear Vision, Value for the Client."

(Click on the image to see a larger version.)



Not only is their slogan boring, but it says very little about the real value in what Stanford does.

This is an older commercial, but it still says basically the same thing: come to us and we'll treat you better. (Than what, I don't know.)



Everybody wants to believe that they are hard working with a clear vision, providing value for their client. There is nothing remarkable, nor is their anything unique, about Stanford's proposition.

UBS, another financial group, had this to say:

Imagine a global financial firm with the heart and soul of a two-person organization. A world-leading wealth management company that sits down with you to understand your needs and goals. An award winning global investment bank and premier global asset management business dedicated to giving you the most personal attention at every level. You & Us. UBS.



Again, who cares? And is it even believable? A global financial firm with the heart and soul of a two-person organization? Do you know what company has the heart and soul of a two-person organization? A two-person organization.

What makes you unique? Service doesn't make you unique. Everybody has service.

Now let's look at Citibank. They, too, are in the money business, while not the exact same field. Citibank ran a very memorable set of ads that were benefit-driven. They could have talked about how great their services were, but instead they jumped on the "identity theft" issue. Since it was a hot issue, and others had yet to own that concept, Citibank was quite successful at preempting the word(s) in the mind.









Am I suggesting that humor is the only way to portray a point? Hardly. But I am suggesting that companies such as Stanford and UBS should stop being so self-important, contradictory, and/or cliché.

As a final example, let's look at ING Direct. They have revolutionized the banking industry by creating the first branchless bank. They have many wonderful features, like a zero-dollar minimum in your checking account, and offering a "loan" instead of charging service fees if one overdrafts.

People are attracted to features. ING made 9 billion last year on 25% growth. How much of that comes from ING Direct is hard to tell. One thing is for sure, ING Direct and Citibank actually have something unique to offer. If Stanford and UBS have something unique in their arsenal, it certainly isn't conveyed by their advertising.

The lesson is clear here: people want benefits. They want uniqueness. Nobody can own the same word or concept in the mind as another. ING Direct stands for "branch-less," and Citibank stands for "identity theft." UBS and Stanford stand for "service." Both UBS and Stanford are doing quite well, but their lack of focus opens up a gaping hole into which a smart competitor could carve out a profitable niche, exploiting the financial services' lack of positioning.

Sierra Mist vs. Sprite

Sierra Mist announced that they are going to include "an extra burst of flavor" in their beverage. Then, the other foot drops: but only for the summer. What does this mean? It means one of two things:

1) Sierra Mist is fine as is, and doesn't need an extra jolt. Think Classic Coke vs. New Coke.

2) Sierra Mist is actually ripping off their consumers (I know you're out there somewhere...all five of you), and not giving them the best product for their money.

Check out this irrelevant commercial:



Even if people try Sierra Mist with its extra boost, they are unlikely to continue buying once the extra goodness is gone.

Compare this to products that come out with a low price, hoping to get consumers attached to their product. Early on, people are curious, and willing to take a small risk. Then, when the company jacks the price up to that of the competitors, the new brand's sales drop off almost entirely.

Initially, people built a value for the brand in their mind. Brand XYZ water costs $0.99, they think, I'll try it. The next week, it costs $1.79. "Forget you, XYZ," the consumer says, "I'll go back to Evian, thank you very much."

(Those numbers are fictitious and for demonstration purposes only.)

Is Sierra Mist likely to make any headway on Sprite by their "extra boost" (or whatever they call it)? No. And having the likes of Jim Gaffigan and his zany crew only made for fun creative work, plus an ad agency who will likely get a bunch of awards at the One Show. After all, awards for an agency do not equal money in the advertised brand's bank account.

As a side note, when I went to search for "Sierra Mist," I accidentally typed in "Sprite." Talk about category ownership.

Browser Wars = Brand Wars

VS.

In its early days, internet browsing was a painful, bland experience. Many of us can remember (and feel like dinosaurs doing so) pay-by-the-minute pricing plans and that wretched screech as your 28.8 modem murdered—er, connected to—your phone line.

And in the beginning, there was WorldWideWeb, and it was good. Actually, it wasn’t all that great. In the coming years, WorldWideWeb became the de facto standard. Mosaic was developed by NCSA, becoming first in the category of World Wide Web browsers.

According to Mosaic's Wikipedia entry, “Marc Andreessen, the leader of the team that developed Mosaic, left NCSA and, with Jim Clark, one of the founders of Silicon Graphics, Inc. (SGI), and four other former students and staff of the University of Illinois, started Mosaic Communications Corporation. Mosaic Communications eventually became Netscape Communications Corporation, producing Netscape Navigator.”

In its glory, circa 1996, Netscape Navigator was the browser of choice for nearly 80% of all internet users.

Rival Spyglass licensed the technology and trademarks from NCSA for producing their own web browser.

In 1995, Bill Gates was quoted as saying that using the internet for personal reasons was a passing fad. Obviously, he has since recanted such a belief. In 1996, Microsoft bought Spyglass, and soon thereafter released Internet Explorer.

According to Wikipedia:

“By the end of the decade, Netscape's web browser had unquestionably lost its former dominance on the Windows platform. Even on other platforms it was threatened, both by the gradual rise of open source browsers and by the August 1997 agreement that resulted in an investment of $150,000,000 by Microsoft in Apple, which included a requirement that Apple switch the default browser in new installations of Mac OS from Netscape to Internet Explorer.

“Of greatest significance, though, was Microsoft's massive and ultimately successful campaign to get ISPs and PC vendors to distribute Internet Explorer to their customers instead of Netscape. This was helped in part by Microsoft's investment in making IE brandable, such that it was a quick operation to create a customized version of IE. Also, web developers increasingly used proprietary, browser-specific extensions in the web pages they wrote. Both Microsoft and Netscape were guilty of this behavior, having added substantial proprietary HTML tags of their own into their browsers, the result of which was that users were forced to choose between two competing, almost entirely incompatible web browsers.”

Microsoft force-fed America its version of the internet. But IE has never been a moneymaker for Microsoft. In all reality, it has been a huge drain on Microsoft’s bank account. Said John C. Dvorak of PC Magazine, “If you were to put together a comprehensive profit-and-loss statement for IE, there would be a zero in the profits column and billions in the losses column—billions.”

What is it costing Microsoft to keep their number one position? What does it truly benefit them?

Microsoft stands for the operating system category, not the web browser category. They are wasting time and effort by the truckload in order to keep their product in front of its competitors.

A poorly branded product may attain short-term success, but in the long run, it is the narrowly focused brand that wins. Netscape failed largely because they lacked quality. But also because Microsoft bullied their way (at a magnanimous loss) into the web browser category. Very few companies are forced to deal with a competitor who will sacrifice their own resources, taking losses in the billions, to try and dominate a category.

The truth of the matter is this: no matter how much quality exists in Microsoft's Internet Explorer, is doomed in the web browser category.

As long as they pump money into a losing brand, they will suffer losses, the likes of which the average company could not weather. But Microsoft is not your average company–they are Big Brother Part II.

IBM could not be all things to all people. And nor can Microsoft.

Antitrust lawsuits are needless. People are self-regulating. In a free enterprise society, no product will ever achieve a 100% market share. It's time for the people's champion.

Enter: the contender–Mozilla…

Home Depot vs. Focus

The Home Depot–the playground for a man's man. They are the leader in the category of "home improvement warehouse." Approximately 18% of the $700 billion annual market is shared between Home Depot and category number two, Lowe's.

But there is trouble in paradise. On January 2, 2007, then-CEO Robert Nardelli (dubbed "America's Most Overpaid CEO") was given the heave-ho to the tune of $210 million. This came after he had eroded the company's strong focus, giving rival Lowe's a foothold to gain on Home Depot.

The problem was, according to branding experts, one of focus. Nardelli stretched the company into areas which it did not dominate. He had a vision to expand the core, extend the business, and expand the market. To that, I say, "what?"

Aggressively, he purchased some 25 wholesale suppliers for $6 billion. That just doesn't make sense. What does a home improvement warehouse know about running a wholesale supplier?

When Nardelli took the helm at Home Depot, sales were 2.4 times that of Lowe's. Upon his corporate demise, sales were only up 1.9 times. That is unacceptable. Leaders lead. The gap between the number one and number two brands in a category should not shrink.

Al Ries, the world's foremost branding authority, wrote in Ad Age, "Why did Home Depot fail to keep pace with its smaller rival? I believe it’s because the chain violated one of the fundamental laws of marketing. The law of focus."

The Law of Focus states: the most powerful concept in marketing (or branding) is owning a word in the prospect's mind. Crest owns cavities. FedEx owns overnight. Lexus owns luxury. Sometimes one word won't do. In those cases, two words will also suffice. Domino's owns home delivery. Home Depot owns home improvement.

(Still, it is easier–and far better–to own one word than two. We are already inundated with bright ads, chirping cell phones, and overtime work shifts. The less clutter a brand offers, the more likely it will be remembered.)

If, then, Home Depot owns home improvement, why would they extend their brand into the wholesale supplier category? What does a home improvement warehouse know about wholesale supplying?

In the movie City Slickers, Jack Palance asks Billy Crystal, "Do you know what the secret to life is?"

Crystal responds, "No, what?"

"One thing, just one thing. You stick to that and everything else don't mean sh*t."

"That's great, but what's the one thing?"

"That's what you've got to figure out."

Home Depot has begun to realize the error of their ways. On June 19, 2007, they sold their supply company, HD Supply, for a pretty $10.3 billion dollars. Home Depot's board also approved a $22.5 billion share repurchase.

It appears that Home Depot is refocusing their business on their core strength. According to the Washington Post, "The struggling retailer now plans to focus on improving its stores to keep up with its high-performing rival, Lowe's."

What once made Home Depot great was its unparalleled customer service. “Mr. Nardelli moved to cut back on higher-paid full-time employees with experience as plumbers or handymen,” reported The Wall Street Journal, “and to rely more on part-time workers with less experience answering home-improvement questions from customers.”

A narrow focus can often times mean taking a hit in the short term. Home Depot is already planning to shell out $2 billion to improve its customer service, which will be done by putting more experts in stores and enhancing inventory.

Home Depot is no stranger to a wandering focus. In 1991, they developed Expo Design Center. This is a high-priced kitchen and bath-based store. Today there are only 34 stores in existence. In 1995, they introduced Home Depot CrossRoads. These stores tried to function as a tractor-and-tire hub for rural areas. In 1999, they rolled out Villager's Hardware, a me-too retailer that tried to go up against Ace and True Value.

A company should not look to extend their brand, they should look to deepen its penetration. Home Depot should focus on how it can take a greater share of the category, one, and two, make the $700 billion annual category even bigger. Being the leader, they will get the heftiest chunk of that expansion.

Advertising That Makes Sense

As I sit here watching Texas Tech and Boston College dual it out, I am inundated with ads by Chevrolet. The Hummer ads are entertaining, of course. But what really strikes me as odd is how Chevrolet calls themselves the longest lasting trucks on the road. I have a Blazer. I rue the day I bought it. The thousands I spent on it has been met in repairs alone. And so the story goes. Most people with whom I speak about Chevrolet have the same impression. And most feel that Toyota actually makes the most durable and longest lasting truck.

So who owns the position of "durable" or "longest lasting?" Is it the company that says it, or the company that has others saying it? The answer is obvious -- don't beat yourself up thinking that this is a trick question.

Volvo began their company based on the concept of durability. After their PR campaign was in full swing, they noticed that people really latched on to the safety of their product. Wisely, they shifted their advertising to match the position which the consumers had given them.

What this means is that one may help create a positioning for their brand in the mind of the consumer. But ultimately, the consumer is God over the position. And the wise company follows their direction. Changing a position in the mind of the consumer is nearly impossible, unless it is done over a very, very long period of time.

Mr. Goodwrench is still just GM trying to act kind about fixing their broken vehicles. I was well entertained by Stephen Colbert's commercials. They made me happy. And Mr. Goodwrench was certainly happy the day that my fuel pump and water pump went. And as I sat, stuck in Denver (with the water pump) and later in Albuquerque (with the fuel pump), I did not feel reassured by those glitzy, glamorous, high budget prime time commercials and their suave taglines. "The longest lasting, most dependable trucks on the road." Are they?

Chevrolet's sales figures have shown clearly that we, the consumers, do not agree with them whatsoever. It's time to go back to the drawing board. And I'm going back to the dealer. A Toyota dealer.

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.