Archive for the ‘brand’ category

Better Branding Makes Humor Work Harder

July 30th, 2010

  • Who: Scottrade
  • What: TV campaign
  • Rating: 11th floor

Don’t you love those amusing E*Trade TV commercials featuring the old-school , fat-cat stockbroker who keeps losing clients to his high-tech, low-priced online competitor?  Me too.

There’s only one problem:  these ads are for Scottrade, not E*Trade.

As commercials go, these ads are well-above-average from an entertainment standpoint, but only average from a branding standpoint.  While they mention the brand name two or three times throughout each spot, they don’t do anything to really STAMP the Scottrade brand into your memory. As a result, what could have been a great campaign is merely good.

I would have liked to see these ads leverage–rather than just mention–the brand name.

For example, they could have our hapless stockbroker (nicely played by Brad Norman) changing his name to “Scott” in an attempt to stem the flight of his clients to Scottrade.  Or they could all incorporate a phrase like “Great Scott!”, or somehow play up the reputation “Scots” have for thriftiness (which would reinforce Scottrade’s low-price strategy).  They could even have our stockbroker wear a kilt.

Hokey?  Perhaps.  But I’m pretty sure that these or similar ideas could significantly increase the number of people who remember the brand that’s providing them these entertaining ads.

My advice for Scottrade: maintain your position in humor, but invest in better branding.

No comments »

Posted in advertising, brand, branding

Tags:

Massage Envy Not a Name to Be Envied

March 22nd, 2010

  • Who: Massage Envy
  • What: Brand Name
  • Rating: 3rd Floor

massage envy homepromogiftcard

I’ve recently been hearing a lot of radio ads for Massage Envy, which I believe is the first national chain of massage clinics. I know very little about the company other than two things: they have a clean, neatly designed website, and I don’t like their brand name.

I’m sorry, but since “massage” and “envy” are two words that don’t go together naturally, I can only assume that the brand name is a play on the phrase “penis envy.” If that’s the case, it’s a pretty tasteless play on words, and if it isn’t the case, it might as well be since that’s the association most people will probably come up with. (Unless, of course, I’m the only one, in which case I should probably be surfing for therapists rather than typing a blog post.)

I love brand names that are distinctive, and I have to admit that Massage Envy gets decent marks on that count. But that’s not enough. A brand name needs to evoke the kind of imagery you want people to associate with your brand. Based on the fairly professional look of Massage Envy’s website, I would have to guess that the imagery suggested by their brand name is not the way they want to position their company.

Selecting a brand name is like selecting a name for one of your children; you’re going to have to live with your decision for a long time, and life can be a lot easier–or harder–depending on what name you choose.

If you’re told that you’re about to interview a job candidate named “Jethro”, you’re likely to develop certain expectations and assumptions about him. Those expectations and assumptions my ultimately prove to be inaccurate, but they will nonetheless form an obstacle this candidate will need to–and might not be able to–overcome. In this age of increasing clutter and decreasing attention spans, new brands simply can’t afford to pose such obstacles to prospective new customers.

So…Is Massage Envy an ill-advised play on words–or is it just me?

3 comments »

Posted in brand, brand name, branding, trademark

Why Xfinity Is Anything But Comcastic

February 20th, 2010

  • Who: Comcast
  • What: Brand Name
  • Rating: 3rd Floor, 3rd Floor

It was recently announced that the company formerly known as “Comcast” will now be known as “Xfinity.” The ostensible rationale is that since the Comcast brand is associated with cable television, it is cannot effectively represent the expanded services the company is now starting to offer. Interestingly, company spokesmen also acknowledged that the company’s less-than-stellar reputation for customer service had reduced the consumer equity of the Comcast brand.

Okay, I understand the predicament they find themselves in, but I don’t think they have a smart solution. First of all, it doesn’t matter what they call the company if they don’t fix their problems with customer service. Assuming that they do fix those problems, it’s not clear to me that a name change makes sense. I have to believe it will cost tens of millions of dollars more to create awareness of the new brand than it would to tell the story that Comcast has dramatically improved its service. (Note: I wouldn’t say that if the Comcast name were an object of scorn or considered to be the universal symbol for bad service, but I don’t believe that to be the case. Rather, I suspect that most consumers would be willing to change their image of Comcast as long as the company gives them a legitimate reason to do so.)

Moreover, I don’t like the name “Xfinity.” It looks like a typo and sounds like a typo. There’s simply nothing interesting or clever about the name. Two similar but better choices right off the top of my head are “Nfinity” (which sounds like “infinity”) and “Dfinity” (which sounds like “divinity” and is a play on high definition).

To make matters even more confusing, the parent company is still going to retain the name Comcast, so the name they can’t wait to get rid of has been exhumed even before it gets buried.

What’s ironic about all of this is that I’ve always been a fan of their use of the phrase “It’s Comcastic!” To create an adjective that they could own was a brilliant stroke of marketing, and now the value of that trademark will soon be absolutely zero.

I just hope we’re not soon going to be subjected to ads exclaiming, “It’s Xfinitive!”

No comments »

Posted in Cable TV, Uncategorized, brand, brand equity, brand image, brand strategy

Close, But No “Aha!”

October 3rd, 2009

  • Who: mutual of omaha
  • What: TV Ad campaign
  • Rating: 8th floor

Have you seen the TV ads from “the proud sponsor of the ‘aha’ moment”?  If you have, do you know whose ads they are? I’m guessing you don’t. 

I’ll end the suspense: the advertiser is Mutual of Omaha. Unfortunately, their advertising represents a bad execution of a good strategy. I’m a big fan of marketing communications–logos, taglines, ad designs, etc.–that are “ownable”, meaning that they can be uniquely tied to your brand.  This concept has the potential to be that, as “aha” composes the last two syllables in “Omaha”.  However, the ads don’t make this clear; I had to see the ad at least a dozen times before I figured it out…and I’m someone who can’t watch, see or hear an ad without proactively looking for clever wordplays.

In fairness to Mutual of Omaha, when they display their logo at the very end of the commercial, the “aha” part of “Omaha” is highlighted. But it’s much too subtle and much too late.  These ads should make it crystal clear from the very beginning that “aha” comes from the word “Omaha” by using a powering and interesting visual device, such as first showing the word “aha” and then adding “Mutual of Om” in front of it. Whatever the device, they should repeat it again at the end of the commercial. It also would help to have a verbal device, such as a line like “Bring your ‘aha’ to Omaha,” or “We put the ‘aha’ in ‘Omaha’.”

Such devices can sometimes be a little hokey, but isnt’ it better to be hokey and get noticed than to be so subtle that your audience doesn’t get it?

No comments »

Posted in advertising, brand, branding, insurance, marketing communications

Tags:

Happy, Yeah! Effective, No!

September 15th, 2009

  • Who: Howard Johnson's
  • What: TV Ad
  • Rating: Basement

I’ve never been a fan of commercials that don’t say the name of the brand being advertised out loud. More often than not, these ads are developed by people who would rather be making movies or TV shows and want to minimize the commercial aspects of their wondrous creations. My feeling is, if you’re ashamed to be doing advertising, you shouldn’t be doing advertising.

To have a prayer of being successful with an ad that doesn’t mention the brand, you had better have very high-impact audio and video. The latest campaign from Howard Johnson has neither. The video consists of Mr. Bill-like animation, which evokes–to me, at least–notions of a cheap flea-and-cockroach-infested hotel room. And the audio consists largely of an unappealing song whose sole lyrics are, “Happy…yeah!” I’d probably heard this annoying commercial at least a dozen times over the past several weeks without having a clue as to what was being advertised. It was so bad I finally decided to pay attention just so I could see which advertiser was tormenting me.

I’m pretty sure this campaign isn’t going to make Howard Johnson’s target audience, or its shareholders, very happy.

No comments »

Posted in advertising, brand, branding, hotels, marketing communications

Tags:

The Bad Samaritan

September 15th, 2009

  • Who: Suburu
  • What: TV ad
  • Rating: 2nd floor

Have you seen the TV commercial where a guy picks up a stranded taxi driver and drives him to a service station? It seems like the kind act of a Good Samaritan, until the jerk driving the car decides to show off by taking an alternative route with numerous tight curves that allow him to bounce his poor passenger around in the back seat like a rag doll. The car owner’s snide smile and obnoxious behavior is essentially saying, “Hah, hah!  I drive this really hot car and you’re just a poor schmo driving a broken down taxi!”

The ad’s intent is presumably to demonstrate how impressed the taxi driver is with the car’s handling, but instead it just leaves you feeling sorry for the guy–and hating the guy who just gave him the joyride.

But this commercial isn’t just obnoxious; it’s also ineffective, and in three ways. First, in the “action footage,” the car appears to be going about 20 mph, which hardly wows the viewer. Second, the car’s design is squat and boring, which is a bad fit for the “hot car” positioning this ad is inexplicably shooting for. And third, it does a lousy job of communicating the brand. (The manufacturer is Suburu, by the way, although I’m still not sure what the model is even though I’ve seen the commercial at least six times.)

Effective marketing communications call attention to the brand, make you feel good about that brand, and impress you with what the product can do for you. This commercial fails miserably on all three counts.

If Suburu really wants to be a Good Samaritan to consumers–and its shareholders–it should park this commercial in the garage.

No comments »

Posted in advertising, automobiles, brand, branding, cars, marketing communications

Tags:

The Amazing Amazon

February 26th, 2009

  • Who: Amazon
  • What: Customer Service
  • Rating: 14th Floor

I just read a Business Week article saying that Amazon is the highest-rated company in any industry when it comes to customer service. As a long-time loyal customer, I couldn’t agree more.

Michael Treacy’s classic business strategy book, “The Discipline of Market Leaders”, holds that an organization must excel in one of three disclplines: product leadership, organizational excellence, or customer intimacy. While Apple is a great example of a company focused on product leadership, and Wal-Mart and Southwest Airlines clearly excel in organizational excellence, Amazon embraces the concept of customer intimacy like no other company I know of. (For what it’s worth, one could make the case that Amazon also excels at organizational excellence.  How many companies can you think of that excel at two disciplines?  Heck, how many can you think of that excel at one discipline?)

When I think of Amazon, I think of a company that knows me inside-out, which makes me feel like I know them inside-out. They have such a great understanding of what I like that they can predict with impressive accuracy what new musicians and authors will appeal to me. Such personalized treatment actually gives me a real warm, fuzzy feeling about Amazon, and what’s truly amazing is that I don’t think I’ve ever spoken to an Amazon employee.  Relying totally on online communications, they have managed to cultivate an extremely intimate relationship with me–and with millions of other loyal customers.

As a result, they have developed extremely powerful brand equity, and they’ve done this with little or no conventional advertising over the years. Because, at the end of the day, your brand image isn’t the result of what you say about yourself, but about what you do. And not many do it better than the amazing Amazon.

No comments »

Posted in Amazon, Michael Treacy, The Discipline of Market Leaders, amazon.com, brand, brand equity, customer intimacy

Tags:

Own It!

February 20th, 2009

  • Who: Sony
  • What: Tagline
  • Rating: Basement

One of the most important tests of a company or brand tagline is to ask this question:  “If I were to replace my brand with my competitor’s brand, would the tagline be as effective?” If the answer is “Yes”, find another tagline.

For years Sony had a truly classic tagline: “Sony. The one and only.” That was a tagline they could own, and they did.  “Panasonic. The one and only.” just doesn’t have the same zing. But several years ago, someone at Sony apparently decided to make his or her mark on the company, and the tagline was changed to “Sony. Like no other.”

Huh? What were they possibly thinking? The literal meaning of the new line was virtually identical to the one it replaced, but it lacked ownability as well as distinction. If you were to insert “Panasonic” in place of “Sony”, the line wouldn’t lose an iota of impact (not that it could afford to). Over the years, whenever I asked people what Sony’s tagline was, not one person ever recalled the new one.

I’m not going to claim that switching taglines is what has caused Sony’s market share and its reputation for innovation to decline over the past several years. But I don’t think these events are a coincidence, either. Rather, I think that when companies make bad decisions regarding taglines–as well as advertising and other communications–it’s often a signal that they are making bad decisions in other areas as well. And the fact is that had I had the wisdom to short Sony’s stock around the time of their tagline change, I would have made a lot of money.

I guess the lesson is: if they don’t own their tagline, don’t own their stock.

No comments »

Posted in Panasonic, Sony, brand, own, ownability, tagline, taglines, the one and only

Tags: