I look forward to the next post! Sounds like we’re backing into a bit about brand change with the times versus brand extension…

Protect the core -vs- innovate for the future. How does a brand survive?

i think all of this debate is really about how to evolve a brand — that is, how does a brand behave when huge shifts in the way people live and use the brand change? i feel a new post coming on…

We presented a strategy that was based on the insight that many people (particularly Gen Y) reject the idea of a work/life balance. For these people, work and life aren’t two separate things, they’re one and the more work flows into life and life flows into work the better.

We also presented a campaign around the theme “BlackBerry Loves” The idea was to show that BlackBerry was a symbol of this one life idea.

We sold the campaign in through almost everyone in the company except for one very important guy who stepped in at the last minute to kill it. Shortly afterwards we parted ways.

Not sure if this was the genesis of where they are now but it’s very close. Regardless, the campaign they’re running is solving a completely different problem than the one they have now.

Thanks for posting! Cool to see you out here!

I’ll start by saying – I agree. I do think that its important for BB to reinforce its positioning, and sure up the weakness related to the potential to end up in a “limited case” in the domain of the ‘dorky’ folks. I think you and I are coming from this with a similar viewpoint, but I think we might find some interesting areas of debate surrounding (i) the real risk of that limited case, and (ii) the effect of these ads to protect its own arena from the encroachment of apple vs jumping into apple’s arena.

(i) I’m not sure that the limited case for BB is to end up in the land of hyper technical people like a linux comparison. It’s currently the go to device for the installed base of corporate users running windows. It has switching costs on its side with respect to this, and it is the giant of that market. While I conceded, they don’t want to rot on the technology vine, I think its a pretty severe assumption that leads to a new device supplanting the BB quickly across installations in the corporate world. It seems to me that it would probably require a catastrophic failure of their R&D and design to end up just a nerdy device of a select few willing to put up with its technical features.

The PC / Apple hardware and OS debate has shown that the larger market for that is the PC. Which was originally land of the nerdier people. (Of course windows7 is an interesting saga to discuss here – MS is now really aiming straight at apple on this very same point).

But I agree, they need to protect against this threat – specifically the dying on the tech vine aspect, as that seems a bit more likely to me. Afterall, the Palm owned that space originally, and it was supplanted when the smartphones came around.

(ii) In my view, the approach they seem to be taking isn’t protection of their core, but rather an assault on apple’s. (Sorry, I have to throw in the occasional pun). I agree that apple does a great job with marketing related to its new business approach. But, their penetration of the space still shows that the consumers just aren’t feeling comfortable with that yet. (Separate debate as to whether apple is actually performing on this point – I personally don’t think they are yet, but admit they are much closer. To me, this is the logical weakpoint for BB to attack – the apple may look good, but it still doesn’t always work.) So it seems to me that spending BB marketing dollars to attack apple’s strength just seems like a low yield investment.

One of apple’s weaknesses is the BB’s strength – go after that – make ads that highlight the ways an apple still isn’t supported, still doesn’t do what business folks buy for. Incidentally, I’ve the Droid ads are doing *exactly* this – the “idon’t” campaign (http://theinspirationroom.com/daily/2009/verizon-droid-idont-do/) or (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e52TSXwj774) are great examples. Now, the Droid’s going straight for the heart of apple – the google faithful are being pitted directly against the apple faithful. BB could get away with something quite similarly, capitalizing on business users faith they can make money reliably (or keep their job!) with the BB and not have to worry. And they can make the BB look sexier while they are at it, adding their own cache in the process.

I fully support the threat you point out, but just feel that they can deflect that threat and strengthen their brand. I think their approach is more focused on creating positioning that is much more expensive and difficult given the crowded arena. It seems they are chasing a market where profits will be diminishing and spending money to do it! I’d think they’d get better results defending their own ability to make profits with their niche. Without additional capital spent, profits in a smaller niche are not a bad thing to me. Spending more capital to pursue a larger market is often a recipe for no profits, or losses.

Lots to debate in this, and calling this one early should be a neat test of ideas, as they appear to just be ramping up marketing spend. To my eye, they are losing their way, which will translate to a larger marketing spend that creates (i) a loss of profits for an understood and defensible current brand positioning and (ii) uncertain profits in a larger not as defensible future brand positioning. But I recognize they can’t rest on their laurels as the world is creating change.

In a funny way, I think they should consider creating a new device to enter into the fray with apple / Droid / Pre / htc. Maybe a blueberry or boysenberry, or raspberry should hit the market. If nothing else, it will make room for a new product called the WhippedCream or PowderedSugar to top it all off. (I call TM dibs on those two BTW).

-C

Great post.

I see what Blackberry is doing a little differently. To me, rather than trying to be something it is not, it is firmly marking its turf (or trying, at least), the business communications side of the function-style spectrum. Otherwise, in my view, Blackberry risks becoming the hyper-efficient, flawlessly functional domain of a few ‘dorky’ folks who are “in the know”, (e.g., like a Linux of PDAs) while other devices/technologies fight for the lion’s share of the pie.

After all, one can hardly leaf through a business magazine lately without coming across adds for the latest business apps for the iPhone promising to help you seamlessly edit that business presentation and shop online on the same device, all while you stream your favorite Pandora station.

If RIM focuses solely on those of us who care mainly about functionality and efficiency, it will only be a matter of time before the iPhone and others venture farther into BB territory, reducing RIM’s share to a niche.

Another example these days that troubles me from this perspective is the “Via” launch at Starbucks. Another example of trying to be something they are not. I commented on your post here http://deniseleeyohn.com/bites/2009/09/30/its-not-about-the-coffee/ and my thoughts are of a similar tone – while it could work to brand SB as instant coffee – it will likely come at great cost, which has (i) probably been underestimated, if it has been estimated at all and (ii) will likely not be paid back out of profits.

-C

it seems we’re not the only ones who think so. in his column on an unrelated topic, ad age’s bob garfield offers the following aside: Why do the folks at Research in Motion — and, by the way, HTC and Palm — insist on promising creative and spiritual fulfillment when what they’re selling is a Swiss Army Knife with a dial tone?