Archive for the ‘brand equity’ category

Will Apple Admit That It Has a Worm?

July 15th, 2010

For the past several years, I’ve considered Apple to be the best marketing organization on the planet.  Their ability to anticipate–and, more impressively, create–consumer desires has been without parallel, as has their penchant for product design and advertising.  Now, however, we’ll get a chance to see how good they are at crisis management.

As this Wall Street Journal article shows, it seems clear that Apple’s vaunted product design team–including legendary co-founder and CEO Steve Jobs–dropped the ball in developing Apple’s new iPhone 4.  The otherwise well-reviewed device appears to have reception problems that result from a faulty antenna design that wasn’t subjected to adequate testing.

Surprisingly–and disappointingly–Apple’s initial reaction was to cavalierly suggest that the problem was the result of users holding the phone improperly.  They then copped to a software glitch, which they inexplicably tried to minimize by suggesting that it affects their earlier-generation iPhones as well.  And now both explanations are being challenged by Consumer Reports, which claims the problems are hardware-related.

Whatever the truth is–and all signs seem to support Consumer Reports’ side–Apple had better be completely forthcoming from this point forward or its credibility, and its brand equity, will take a serious hit.  Apple and Mr. Jobs have been on an infallibility streak for several years, so admitting they’ve screwed up will hurt.  But Apple’s fans–and prospective future consumers–will forgive imperfection much more readily than dishonesty or cowardice.

Apple has produced millions of sweet, crisp, juicy products that have thrilled millions of consumers–including me–and in the process created a company worth more than Microsoft or General Electric.  But if they don’t start displaying more candor, humility and urgency in confronting this rare misstep, they run a real risk of letting this one bad Apple spoil the bunch–not to mention a bunch of brand equity.

The Dawn of a Brilliant Idea

June 21st, 2010

It turns out that one good thing can be associated with the otherwise disastrous BP oil spill:  a brilliant TV commercial by Dawn dish detergent.  What Procter & Gamble has pulled off is truly amazing:  they’ve leveraged a national disaster, reinforced their brand’s reason-for-being, and done so in a way that doesn’t feel the least bit exploitative. On the contrary, it feels downright altruistic.

Since its inception, Dawn’s primary benefit has always been its ability to cut through grease, and in recent years its advertising has pushed gentleness as a secondary benefit.  What better way to illustrate this “tough on grease yet gentle” positioning than showing Dawn being used to remove oil from ducklings and baby otters?  And what better–and more timely–way to support a worthy cause than to donate proceeds from Dawn’s sales to cleaning up the gulf?

I must admit that the luster of this ad diminished slightly when I learned that it’s been running off-and-on for almost a year; in other words, it wasn’t created as a result of the BP oil spill.  It turns out that Dawn has been used to clean endangered wildlife following other less catastrophic and less publicized oil spills.  Still, I think it took courage for P&G to run this commercial now, given the risk that some people would charge them with greedily capitalizing on the gulf’s misfortunes.  And had this commercial been created will less sophistication, less warmth or less sensitivity, it could easily have come across badly.  This clearly was not the case, however, and the decision-makers at P&G were able to recognize this spot as the masterful piece of communication that it is.

I can’t remember when I’ve seen a marketing initiative that makes you feel so good about a brand and its parent company while simultaneously powering home its unique selling proposition.  I guess it just never dawned on me that such a thing was possible.

That’s the Spirit…NOT!!!

April 7th, 2010

Spirit Airlines will go down in PR history for making one of the all-time moronic marketing moves:  announcing that it plans to charge passengers up to $45 for each article of carry-on luggage.  The story has been featured prominently today on virtually every national, regional and local television news program, and it will certainly be covered extensively on every other news medium in the country over the next 24-to-48 hours.

Never mind that Spirit offers extremely reasonable airfares; the company will henceforth be known as the jerks who dreamed up the idea of charging for carry-ons, and possibly for giving many other airlines an excuse to do the same thing.  (I say “possibly” because the public outcry has been great enough that other airlines may decline to follow suit.)   I suspect that much of the population had never heard of Spirit before, but they certainly know them now.

I certainly understand that most airlines are in severe financial trouble and need to find new ways to eke out a profit, but Spirit couldn’t have landed on worse solution.  Every consumer I’ve seen interviewed–as well as many of the anchorpeople reporting the news –are absolutely outraged at this decision.  After all, carry-ons have helped us avoid four major hassles associated with flying–damaged luggage, lost luggage, time wasted at the baggage claim, and fees for checking luggage–and now Spirit has the audacity to mess with this.

If Spirit wanted to enhance their revenues, they should have silently raised their airfares, which they could have done without jeopardizing their positioning as one of the lowest-cost airlines.  Few people would have noticed, and it certainly wouldn’t have been headline news.  And had United, American or some other larger competitor decided to test the waters of charging for carry-on luggage, Spirit could have gauged the public’s reaction before deciding whether to follow suit.

But now Spirit has taken a huge, self-inflicted hit to its brand equity, a hit from which it may never fully recover.

It’s great to innovate, but your innovations should be based on things you hope your customers will love rather than ones you know they’re going to hate.  In other words, you have to be smart enough to recognize an idea that isn’t going to fly–and especially one that’s going to crash and burn.

Why Xfinity Is Anything But Comcastic

February 20th, 2010

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!”

Risqué Bud Light Lime Ad Too Risky

February 7th, 2010

I have mixed emotions about Bud Light Lime’s internet-only a “in the can” commercial. Privately telling an off-color joke to a friend is one thing, but publicly making implicit references to anal sex, even if it’s “just” on the internet, is something else. From a business standpoint, it’s both risqué and risky. Moreover, the spot repeats the same play on words ten times; however funny it is the first one or two times, it’s not nearly as funny the ninth or tenth time.

The reason I have mixed emotions is that four friends found it interesting enough to forward to me, and I suspect that there are many people–probably millions– who will find the ad to be quite entertaining. So the question is, do the positive points Bud Light Lime scores with people who like the ad outweigh the points they lose among people who find it offensive?

I often tell my clients that their ads and other communications efforts don’t need to appeal to everyone, and that communications designed to not turn anyone off usually also fail to turn anyone on. Often the answer to “Do we dare do this?” comes down to two things: how deeply are certain people likely to be offended, and are a lot of those people likely to be in the target audience? On the first point, I suspect that those who dislike the Bud Light Lime ad will really dislike it; on the second point, I would argue that Bud Light Lime’s target audience is broad enough that it will contain a lot of those people.

A true niche product that’s cultivating a maverick, rebel image has little to lose–and maybe even much to gain–by offending those who aren’t in its tiny target audience. But Bud Light Lime is targeting a mainstream crowd, many of whom I think will find this ad to be offensive. And keep in mind that this has implications not only for the brand equity of Bud Light lime, but of every brand in the Budweiser portfolio.

So while I’ll give Anheuser Busch owner InBev credit for taking a risk in this increasingly risk-averse world of ours, I don’t think it was a smart risk. In other words, I think this ad should have been canned.

What do you think?

Toyota PR Efforts in Need of a Recall

February 6th, 2010

The public relations challenge currently being faced by Toyota is perhaps the greatest one faced by a major corporation since the Tylenol catastrophe in 1982. But while Johnson & Johnson deservedly received rave reviews for its forthright and expeditious handling of their situation, I have been far less impressed with Toyota’s response to date. In particular, I don’t think they’re giving the public the sense that they’re moving as quickly as possible to fix the cars on the road, or that they’re passionately determined to discover and address whatever flaws in their manufacturing processes allowed these problems to occur in the first place.

I give Toyota USA president Jim Lentz good marks for making himself available to the media, but low marks for his performance in front of the cameras. He comes across as a nice, mild-mannered, slightly nervous guy, and I don’t think that’s what consumers want to see. I think they want to see a leader with a passionate sense of urgency. Imagine how Lee Iococca–in his prime–would have handled this. I’m pretty certain he would have left viewers thinking, “Wow! There’s going to be hell to pay at Toyota until every single problem has been fixed, and I don’t think we have to worry about this situation ever happening again!”

In much of his Today Show interview with Matt Lauer, Mr. Lentz came across as a politician who had been coached–as he surely was–to not give any direct answers. While I realize that he has to be careful of what he says for legal reasons, that’s hardly an approach likely to build trust with your audience. What’s worse, in other parts of the interview he ignored this coaching and made self-incriminating statements without appearing to realize it. For example, he acknowledged that Toyota had known about one problem since October, but he didn’t go on to say what they’ve been doing to address the situation since then. As a result, he left the viewer with the (presumably inaccurate) feeling that Toyota simply ignored the problem–and put its customers at risk–for several months.

On February 5, Toyota uploaded a video to YouTube showing Mr. Lentz at a Toyota dealership announcing that repair parts are now being delivered to service departments. There are several problems with this piece. First, Mr. Lentz looks very unnatural walking through the service area, awkwardly gesturing repeatedly with his left hand like he’s dribbling an invisible basketball. Second, behind Mr. Lentz we see dozens of Toyota cars being repaired for unrelated problems, which doesn’t exactly reinforce the notion of Toyota’s high quality. And third, the video ends with a repairman making a repair to a faulty accelerator pedal. Inexplicably, there’s no narrator to explain what he’s doing, and he looks rather unsure of himself as he installs a part that presumably will correct the problem. It would be nice if there were a straightforward, impressive “before and after” demonstration, but there isn’t. In fact, I was left wondering, “Is that the fix? Seriously?”

Don’t get me wrong; Toyota is in a no-win situation, and it’s going to be difficult for them to look good no matter what they do. But an effective public relations effort can minimize the damage currently being self-inflicted upon the brand equity they’ve worked so hard to build over the past several decades. Unfortunately, the quality of their damage control is not much better than the apparent quality of their accelerator pedals.

Does This Campaign Seem Off-Target to You?

December 9th, 2009

For much of this decade, Target was one of the most sophisticated and effective advertisers in the retail industry. Their ads were bright, upbeat and infectious, and they made their products the heroes of every one. Most impressively, these ads were instantly recognizable as Target ads, even if you didn’t see the Target name or distinctive logo until the very end of the spot. In a word, this advertising was smart.

Several articles in various business journals have discussed Target’s recent strategic shift to increase its emphasis on low pricing in response to its soft sales trends. Changing your strategic stripes is always dicey, and based on the slew (sleigh?) of holiday ads Target has launched in recent weeks, it looks like they’ve yet to get a handle on their new tack. And the result could be a real dent in Target’s brand equity.

Several of the ads involve vignettes in which a gift recipient is concerned that the gift-giver has spent too much on them. Each time, the ad ends with the giver saying that the gift didn’t cost as much as it appears, and that’s fine. What I don’t like is what happens in the middle of the ad, which is invariably a downer. In “Confession”, a young daughter’s guilt forces her to confess bad things she’s done, like reading her older sister’s diary and forging her mom’s signature. In “There Yet”, a young woman feels compelled to let her gift-giver know that she’s not as into the relationship as he appears to be. Both spots are only marginally funny and leave you feeling a little sad, a little uncomfortable, or both.

Another ad called “Is It Working?” shows a boy projecting his father’s rear-end onto their big-screen TV, while the unsuspecting father is trying to fix the TV that his son has led him to believe is not working properly. Written or directed differently, this ad could be amusing or even charming, but instead it comes off as sophomoric at best and mean at worst. All of these ads end with a voice singing “Chestnuts roasting on an open fire,” but the feeling you’re left with is hardly a warm one.

A prior series of ads, including one called “Gingerbread”, featured an over-caffeinated Martha Stewart-like “perfect homemaker” who is clearly stressed out keeping up with all of her holiday projects. The first ad made me smile slightly, but by the third one I wanted this lady to leave me alone and return to her asylum.

I’m all for using humor in advertising, but–especially for a mainstream advertiser with Target’s upbeat brand image–the humor should be smart, uplifting and light rather than clumsy, cynical and dark.

It seems clear that Target’s marketers have abandoned their brand’s distinctive persona without identifying an appealing replacement, and I suspect that the result will be a 2009 holiday season with decidedly off-target sales.

Windows 7, Apple 14.

November 4th, 2009

Normally, I’m not a fan of advertising that makes fun of–or even mentions–your competition. At best such advertising usually ends up making the advertiser look whiny, petty or obnoxious; at worst, it can inadvertently boost awareness and even the image of the competition. If you do decide to go after your competition in your advertising, make sure you do so with exceptional intelligence, savvy and grace. And while you’re at it, make sure the competitor you’re taking on is bigger than you.

In other words, make sure you’re the world’s best marketer:  Apple.

Has any company in recent memory–or ever–skewered its competition with more impact or more class than Apple? Its marvelous “Mac vs. PC” campaign is relentlessly brilliant in the way it pokes fun at computers that use Microsoft’s Windows operating system.  Yet as devastating as these commercials are, they don’t make Apple look like cheap-shot artists; on the contrary, they reinforce a brand persona that is very clever, refreshing and likable. 

That is quite a testament to the outstanding writing and acting featured in this campaign. John Hodgman is hysterical as the doughy, somewhat clueless and utterly insecure PC, who looks like he might occasionally hang with–and perhaps even be related to–Bill Gates. In stark contrast stands Justin Long’s Mac, a cool, calm and quietly confident hipster who comes across as a younger and humbler Steve Jobs. Mac or PC–whom would you rather have a drink with?

Apple’s latest ad, which tackles Microsoft’s new Windows 7 operating system, may just be their best effort yet. Rather than say anything specific about Windows 7, the ad simply reminds viewers of past problems associated with its predecessors. Given that Windows 7 appears to be getting pretty favorable reviews in the press, this tactic is a wise one; its unspoken message is, “Don’t be fooled–again–by anything you hear about the latest incarnation of Windows.”

It may be that Microsoft has in fact finally designed an operating system that is close to matching Apple’s high standards. Unfortunately for Microsoft, the quality of their marketing–while improving–is still only half as strong as Apple’s.

Which I guess means that Apple rates a 14 to Windows’ 7.

Crown Royal Advertising Fit for a Pauper

October 15th, 2009

My first real exposure to Seagram’s Crown Royal came in 1981, when I was informed that a bottle of this precious commodity would be the appropriate compensation to Father Lehman for officiating at our wedding in Bemidji, Minnesota. A few years later, when I was living in California and working in the wine and spirits business, we conducted a blind taste test in which Crown Royal was determined to be the smoothest of all the premium spirits in the market. Since then, “Crown Royal on the Rocks” has always been my brown spirit of choice. I love the flavor, and on top of that, I’ve always been a big fan of their packaging, particularly their distinctive label, bottle shape and “purple marble bag.”

You can imagine how flabbergasted I was last night when I saw a curiously low-brow Crown Royal TV commercial featuring a young man playing pool, first with his buddies and then with his father. The tagline of the commercial, which has apparently been on the air for at least six months, makes great sense: “For every king, a mentor. For every king, a crown. Crown Royal.” What I object to–from a strategic marketing standpoint–is the pool theme. I know the economy is tough, but if Crown Royal wants to associate itself with a sport, it should be golf or sailing. A pool-themed ad for Pabst Blue Ribbon or Gordon’s Gin would probably work, but for Crown Royal it’s a total miscue.

What’s worse–and I know this is going to sound obnoxious–the father comes across as, well, a guy who hangs around pool halls. He might be a fun guy, but with his low-rent attire and greasy hair, he’s hardly the kind of guy you’d expect to be drinking Crown Royal. And I doubt that he’s the kind of guy that many viewers–at least the ones who can afford Crown Royal–will want to emulate.

I can only assume that the target of the campaign is people who aren’t drinking Crown Royal now. But since these people are presumably less well-to-do than current Crown Royal consumers, the state of the economy means that stepping up to Crown Royal is less affordable than ever for this target. As a result, I’d be shocked if this campaign has attracted many new users, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s turned off more than a few long-time loyal customers.

A tagline referencing the word “king”–twice, no less–is a smart way to reinforce Crown Royal’s brand equity. But associating the brand with the sport of pool was a king-sized mistake.

Lowe’s Deserves High Marks for Latest Ad

October 5th, 2009

Any advertiser wishing to advertise low prices while still protecting its brand equity could learn a lesson from the latest Lowe’s TV commercial.

The ad creatively shows a variety of situations in which a t-shaped item (like an upside-down push broom sticking out of a shopping cart in a Lowe’s parking lot) is placed to the right of the Lowe’s logo, thus creating the word “Lowest”. The ad features several of these shots, each of which is clever and even mildly entertaining, while reinforcing Lowe’s claim of offering the lowest prices available.

The beauty of this advertising is that it registers the Lowe’s brand repeatedly throughout the commercial, which is in stark contrast to the typical commercial that seems almost embarrassed to show or say the advertiser’s name. Moreover, the cleverness of the ad reflects very favorably on Lowe’s’ image.

From a strategic standpoint, I never like to see a marketer hyping low prices, as there will always be someone to come along and undercut your prices and hence your strategy. Still, if that is the strategy you’ve chosen, it’s essential that you do everything possible to protect your brand equity and let people know that you stand for more than just cheap prices. And in that regard, Lowe’s has set the bar very high.