Today I have the honor of being a guest blogger on the brainy blog, Neuromarketing.  My post, Maslow, Emotion, and a Hierarchy of Service, proposes a Maslow-inspired hierarchy on the topic of meeting consumer needs and motivations with customer service. Please check it out and let me know what you think.

I thought I’d take this opportunity to tell you about the Neuromarketing blog which I regularly read. It’s run by Roger Dooley president of Dooley Direct, LLC. I’ve always been fascinated by the dynamics behind consumer behavior (one of my degrees is in Psychology) and Neuromarketing covers this topic so well.

Here are a few posts which stood out to me:

Personalization: Post-Its and Beyond

In this post, Roger discussed the book, Yes! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to Be Persuasive, by Robert Cialdini, which reports some interesting findings on the effectiveness of handwritten notes.

Cialdini found that adding a handwritten note to a mailed survey improved the response rate by one third to 48% — and a handwritten note on a Post-It affixed to the survey more than doubled the response to 75%. He attributed these boosts to the “reciprocity” effect. The recipient recognizes that the sender apparently put some personal effort into the mailing, and is more likely to reciprocate with some effort of his own.

Roger concluded by suggesting a few kinds of mail communications that could be improved by such enhanced personalization.

“Note” to self!

Loyalty Programs: Of Rats and Men

Roger linked rats and loyalty programs by reporting, “Back in the 1930s, researchers made an interesting discovery: rats running a maze to reach food ran faster as they got closer to the food. This finding led to the ‘goal gradient hypothesis,’ which states…the closer the goal, the more effort you expend to get there.

“So what does this have with loyalty programs? A few years ago, Columbia University researchers examined the goal gradient hypothesis using unwitting human subjects, and found that people behave a lot like rats. Give them a coffee punch card that rewards them with a free coffee when full, and they will drink coffee more frequently as they approach a fully stamped card.”

Roger zeroed in on one particularly fascinating conclusion: providing someone with a “head start” can be an effective boost to a loyalty program. He suggested, “A plane ticket that requires using 25,000 frequent flyer miles would not seem as “close” as one that requires 35,000 miles but in which the customer starts with 10,000 miles. Coffee shops should consider [giving] bonus punches upon first use [of a punch card].”

Really interesting stuff!

Doggie Bags & Sunk Costs

“Did you ever get a meal at a restaurant that you didn’t like, but have them wrap up the leftovers anyway?,” Roger asked in this intriguing post. He explained, “Even though the food’s flavor is unlikely to improve with age, there may be an explanation for the seemingly irrational behavior.”

According to B. Venkatesh, a self-proclaimed investment psychologist, our reluctance to abandon the distasteful food can be attributed to a “pain of wasting” – the more we paid for the meal, the more it will “hurt” to discard the leftovers. Roger observed, “I think this is all part of the broader issue of sunk costs (what economists call money that has already been spent and can’t be recovered)…sunk costs do indeed affect our decisions whether or not that is rational.”

Definitely something to consider for cross-selling (and left-overs)!

Emotional Ads Work Best

Roger wrote about the book Brand Immortality: How Brands Can Live Long and Prosper by Hamish Pringle and Peter Field. The authors found that campaigns with purely emotional content performed about twice as well (31% vs. 16%) [as those] with only rational content, and those that were purely emotional did a little better (31% vs 26%) than those that mixed emotional and rational content. “They attributed this result to our brain’s ability to process emotional input without cognitive processing, as well as our brain’s more powerful recording of emotional stimuli.”

Importantly they noted that while an emotional marketing campaign may be more effective, creating ads that engage consumer emotions isn’t easy – and they suggested that committing to an emotional branding approach be “hard-wired into the fabric of the brand,” which Roger noted, “requires a major commitment as well as good understanding of consumer motivation.”

Which brings me back to why I really like reading the Neuromarketing blog – and why I wrote the guest post. Understanding the why behind the what of consumer attitudes and behavior seems the key to effective marketing.

Those of you who are Star Trek fans would have felt right at home with me the other day.   I went to check out the new Microsoft store which just opened at Fashion Valley mall here in San Diego because I wanted to do a compare/contrast to the Apple store in the same mall.   My fellow fans would have felt at home in the Microsoft store not because it was a cool look at the future of culture and technology, but rather because it seemed to be the Mirror Universe.

For those of you who don’t get the TV show reference, the Mirror Universe is a parallel universe in Star Trek episodes – it’s the “what could have been” if the “what actually happened” hadn’t.  In the Mirror Universe, most of the same characters are there but they’re slightly different, whether in looks or personality.  The settings look familiar enough to cause some confusion at times, but the story lines are different enough as there’s usually more violent conflict than in the “normal” Star Trek universe.  Things are just a little off.

And that’s exactly what it felt like to be in the Microsoft store.  It was if I was in the Apple store –  but not really.  From the use of the Windows logo above the store entrance (no “Microsoft” logotype), to the big open space, to the young employees in colorful t-shirts, to the cool products displayed on tabletops, to the Answer Desk… — everything seemed oddly familiar.  I felt as if I was having a déjà vu, but then I realized that it wasn’t there at the Microsoft store that I had been before – I had been at the Apple store before.

microsoft store exterior

apple store exterior

I rushed over to the Apple store to make sure I wasn’t imagining things – and I did indeed find a similar store layout, similar display and visual tactics, similar employees in similar garb.  But there was one big difference – the Apple store was packed. Now that’s not to say the Microsoft store was empty – on the contrary, there were a lot of people and they seemed to be having fun browsing around and tinkering with the products.  In fact, I was pleasantly surprised by the feeling I got there (remember, it felt like the Apple store to me!)

But in comparison, the Apple store was on fire.  I would guess there were 3 times the number of people in that store – and there was an energy, perhaps spurred by the noise volume generated from everyone talking, that made it feel like an exciting place to be.

microsoft store interior

apple store interior

I walked away from my field trip confused and disappointed.  You see, I am a Microsoft customer and someone who actually likes Power Point!  Although I admire the Apple brand for many reasons, I really want Microsoft to be successful.  It has some great products and its brand could be so much better than it is. 

The Microsoft store could have been special – but it wasn’t.  It was simply an imitation of Apple.

Microsoft missed an opportunity to do something different, to interact with customers in ways only Microsoft can, to present a unique vision of its brand:

• Instead of putting all of its videogame products and displays in the back, why not put one of the company’s greatest strengths, XBOX, front and center?! It could have created a lot of excitement by creating an interactive gaming experience complete with real-time challenges between customers who other customers could cheer on and vote for, different pods to demonstrate the breadth of games available, special sound and lighting to add dramatic effect, etc.
• Furthermore the company’s KINECT launch on 11.04.10 is just around the corner, so why not promote it by giving a sneak preview?!  The highly-anticipated breakthrough XBOX platform will include 15 new titles and interfaces unlike anything we’ve ever seen, including voice control and Mission-Impossible-style hand gesturing. The store should be a place where the company builds anticipation for the pending launch – and perhaps select customers might be given exclusive access to experience a taste of the interface.
• Knowing that many of its customers are businesspeople, why not show complete home office set-ups equipped with multiple productivity tools already connected and synched?!  Or promote its enterprise solutions by using displays to tell compelling success stories?
• To show off its software, why not have ongoing demonstrations like the ones you see at shows and conventions?! The store was clearly pushing the new Office 10 product – watching someone in a booth with a mic and an enlarged screen walking through the new software’s features and capabilities would have made me consider purchasing it more than boxes of software piled high did.
• Why not show off Bing, Microsoft’s search engine, with a special interactive and/or live display which compares Bing results vs. Google ones?

The list of possibilities goes on.

The point is that Microsoft could have done some really special things with its store – things to leverage the unique capabilities of retail combined with the company’s unique offerings.  It could have boldly gone where no one has gone before – but instead, it chose to do the equivalent of Star Trek: Voyager.

Voyager was the last and least remarkable of television series based on the original Star Trek.  Although mildly entertaining, the show lacked imagination and failed to advance the overall Star Trek storyline in any meaningful way. And so it won’t be remembered or regarded nearly as well as its predecessor — just like the Microsoft store.

related posts:

• seinfeld isn’t going to rescue vista
• microsoft’s ad misses the mark again

I’ve finally gotten around to reading “The Opposite of Fate:  A Book of Musings,” a book released quite awhile ago by Amy Tan, the author of best-selling novels like The Joy Luck Club and The Kitchen God’s Wife.  Like all of her other writings, this book has been a delight to devour.  Not only has it entertained me and helped me understand Tan (and therefore myself), but also it has inspired me.  Tan includes many insights about story-telling and communication in general which I believe can be applied to developing brand strategies.

One of such “musings” is “Five Writing Tips” — an edited version of a speech given as a commencement address at Simmons College, in Boston, in 2003.  Although her remarks were intended to inspire a new generation to write and think differently, I found they also provide helpful guidelines for creating brand strategy.

Tan herself explains broader application of the principles she relayed:   “So what can I as a writer tell you today that might be useful as you leave this period of your life and enter the next?…Five writing tips, which you may find useful in areas other than writing, perhaps even in thinking about life, how you might conduct it in a manner that is interesting and worthwhile.” (emphasis mine)

So with many thanks to Tan, here are excerpts from her speech and my interpretation of how they relate to developing brand strategy (in case you’re wondering what I mean by “brand strategy,” please refer to this post):

1.     Avoid clichés.

Tan:  They are all around us, and they are anathema to original thought.  Take these, all having to do with an acceptance of fate:  ”That’s how it was meant to be.” Or “That’s our lot in life.”…And how about: “Some things were just meant to be,” and “If it’s not one thing, it’s another,” a cliché brilliantly parodied by Gilda Radner.

When you are told, “It was meant to be,” ask, “Who meant it?  What does it really mean?”…When you are told, “Shit happens,” remember that plenty of other things happen as well, such as generosity, forgiveness, ambiguity, and uncertainty…If you hear overused expressions on the news, stop to think whether they are really meaningful.

The spectrum of meaning is endless and fascinating and filled with humanity.

Me:  Brand strategy should be authentic and meaningful. The job of a brand strategist is to uncover the authentic essence of what is being sold and to articulate that in a way that ignites with provocative insight the customer experience and communication development processes.

Brand strategies which rely on over-used phrases like “Brand X is the preferred choice of…,” or “Brand Y is the most innovative…”, are usually the product of a lazy strategist.  It signals he or she hasn’t done the hard work of digging for what the true meaning of the brand is and/or figuring out how to bring it to life.

Cliché-like tendencies are particularly common when describing brand attributes or benefits.  Relying on industry standards or company conventions can blind people to the real roles certain attributes or benefits play, or the way they have evolved over time, or how they might be framed, shaped, or exploited.  A strategist should always be questioning, challenging, pushing the bounds of conventional thought.

2.    Avoid generalizations.

Tan:  As a fiction writer, I distrust absolute truths, homilies, bromides, sound bites, and also shorthand advice of the sort I’m giving.  I like specifics…Intelligent readers will demand that you not…resolve situations with “Good always conquers evil,” “Might is always right,” and so forth.

And while such resolutions are common in murder mysteries and action stories, they are feeble in literary fiction, which is supposed to reflect subtle truths about the world. Better to be subtle rather than overbearing, subversive rather than didactic.

Me:  Brand strategy should be specific and nuanced. It should include a focused and precise articulation of what the brand stands for and the specific position the brand occupies in the competitive landscape.

It should also detail rich insights about the target customer(s).  Referring to “soccer moms” or “Gen Y” does little to help the strategy’s users understand the real needs and drivers of the target.

Again, this requires diligence and discipline.  But uncovering and capturing the “subtle truths” is often what makes the difference between a brand which is merely one of many options and one which truly resonates.

3.    Find your own voice

Tan:  …Your own voice is one that seeks a personal truth, one that only you can obtain.  That truth comes from your own experiences, your own observations, and when you find it, if it really is true and specific to you, you may be surprised that others find it to be true as well.  In searching for your own voice, be aware of the difference between emulation and imitation, inspiration and intimidation.

Me:  Brand strategy should capture the unique voice of the brand. The strategy shouldn’t simply explain the brand’s attributes and competitive positioning – it should also reveal the brand personality and character.  For example, when I worked on Sony Electronics, we had crafted the core belief of the brand:  We create technologies that inspire people to dream and find joy. The unique personality and character attributes we codified included:  young at heart; optimistic; believe anything is possible.

Also in some ways, the brand strategy is a story.  The brand is the hero, competitors or customer needs are the villains, and the dimensions outlined in the strategy create the story arc.  As such, the narrative should convey the brand voice.

4.    Show compassion

Tan:…Practice imagining yourself living the life of someone whose situation differs entirely from yours – living in another country, having another religion – and the more deeply you can do so, the more you can become that character as you write.  You cannot help being compassionate.

Me:  Brand strategy should reveal true empathy for the target customers. The more intimately you can relate to the way they think, feel, live, shop, the more capable you are of creating a strategy which will fuels a strong brand:customer connection.  It’s not enough to be able to describe customers – the goal should be to can see through their eyes the world, other people, the competitive landscape, and your brand and product.

Empathic and ethnographic research methods are great tools to achieve this level of intimacy. But above all, as Amy Tan explains, “Imagination brings you close to compassion.”

5.    Ask the important questions.

Tan:  What makes a story worthwhile is the question or questions it poses…We need personal answers, all the stories, as many as we can get.  But to find them, you first must ask the questions.  You need to ask yourself:  What is important?  What is at stake?  In knowing what questions you are asking, you also know your individual voice, your own morality.

Me:  Brand strategy should raise and answer the important questions. Developing a brand strategy isn’t about putting words on a page – it’s a process of discovery and enlightment about what matters.

Brand strategists should ask:  Why does this brand exist?  What is important about the target customer?  Why does this category matter?  What if this product didn’t exist, what would be lost?  And then the strategy should show how the brand answers these questions in a way no other brand can.

Tan concludes her writing tips by explaining their importance.  She says, “Your thoughts, your evolving answers to the important questions, are what will give you interesting lives, make you interesting people capable of changing the world.” (emphasis mine)

I believe the same can be said about a well-crafted brand strategy.  Developing and executing a deeply insightful brand strategy is what will make yours an interesting brand capable of changing the world.

related posts:

• brand platforms are like political ones
• strategic brand platforms
• brand documentaries

Now that summer is officially here, I wanted to take a look back at the past 6 months and see what kinds of conversations had been sparked by brand as business bites. The following are the top posts from each month in terms of number of re-tweets, comments, or emails they generated – I’ve also included some of the commentary.  I’d definitely like to hear more, so please take a look and then add your voice to the conversation by clicking on the “comments” link below.

January

Brand impact in 2010 – I started off the year with a post of three key areas that I predicted brands would have an immediate and significant impact – M&As, social media and networking, and workforce engagement.  Apparently this last point resonated with quite a few folks – including:

Jacco DeBruin:  Great points and couldn’t agree more. Especially the “workforce engagement” is often undervalued but essential since it is all about delivering and exceeding (high) expectations in this transparent era. Happy new year!

Ray Hartjen:  Interesting thought on workforce engagement, and really important for companies and employees to fully understand and embrace. After all, the brand is really nothing more than a reflection of the people of an organization, both past and present. Good post, DLY.

February

The post, in csr, nike just does it, praised Nike for its Corporate Responsibility Report FY07-09.  My read of the extensive report led me to believe Nike is giving CSR more than lip service.

Mark Anderson agreed:  As a prior VP/GM of NIKE Swim and NIKE Inneractives (intimates – Brandy Chastaine – world cup), I can tell you that NIKE practices what they preach and they were on the sustainability bandwagon way before it was the popular thing to do!  They did it a long time ago because it was the right thing to do – not because it would make them look like a participant to their consumers.  NIKE doesn’t just promote sustainability issues – they invest in it – considering it their responsibility and they employees are inspired by the commitment that they witness day in and day out.

Jonathan Salem Baskin didn’t:… I still don’t buy it (it’s still marketing hype). The reality of its business model is 1. Producing products in Third World factories is cheaper than doing so in factories closer to the markets it serves…If Nike cared about doing the right thing it would make gym shoes in Maine (or something), but that would never happen. 2. Shipping products around the world, which is probably one of the most environmentally wasteful/damaging activities any company can do… 3. No number of partnerships with special interest or single-issue pressure groups erases the simple fact that doing the right thing is about business practice, not how Nike chooses to narrate it….

And Tom Asacker left the cryptic comment:  Reality is the name we give to our disappointments.

March

Having completed an extensive retail audit for one of my clients, I wrote a post to share my thoughts on six best practices in retail.   I wrote about great retailers like Wegmans and The Container Store which have distinctive brand personalities, offer 2.0 cross-channel shopping experiences, and reflect strong organizational culture and values.  It got bounced around the Twittersphere a bit, thanks in part to John Moore.

It prompted Marc Rullo to ask:  While the retailer, any retailer is a brand destination unto itself, how does the assorted brands within that retailer (brand destination) fair?…Once upon a time a retailer was defined by the brands they assorted and the expertise they provided to support those brands to the end user.  Then the value of retailers brand (differentiation) and their house brand became much more paramount based on volume and obvious margin opportunities compared to historically established recognized brands with less direct margin opportunities.   These are elements of the bundle of attributes as well…..

Janet Morgenstern Passani commented:  Enjoyed your retailer post. IKEA’s out-of-box campaigns inspire consumers to be bold w/ their purchases. http://bit.ly/9Klpi1

April

Marketing myopia was a post I wrote after reading an op-ed written by Larry Light, marketing guru and former McDonald’s CMO.  Larry had argued that marketing “needs to assert its rightful role making it the central force of brand-business management.” I questioned if the issue is whether marketers should try to increase the marketing function in the organization — or whether they should try to increase the marketing capability of the entire organization.

Craig Hoffman wrote a couple of thoughtful responses – excerpts:  I’m a firm believer in making the marketing pervasive in an organization!  It only helps spread the message and reinforce the benefits of buying a product if everyone who comes in contact with the company gets a similar feeling… its up to management to keep the focus in the right place.  I think management has a role to create a belief for all employees about their company that makes them want to “sell” their company from all angles…I think companies who get this right will be more successful at generating and sustaining revenues with stronger margins, allowing for greater possible profits to retain!  Companies that “live their brand” come to mind – Google, Apple, Gore, Lululemon all come to mind as examples.

Ric Brockmeier added:  Well thought argument Denise. It’s critical for companies 2 see that they must be marketing driven not just have a mkt dept

Pierre Loic-Assayag offered a different perspective:  Marketers see the future of their contribution being jeopardized, squeezed between Executive Management slashing budgets and customers much more vocal and opinionated about “owning” the brands they care about.  As a recovering marketer, my sense is that the marketing function probably has a very bright future but it needs to be fundamentally redefined. Successful marketers won’t be defining the brand they represent but rather make themselves an indispensable resource to fans and brand advocates who will be the ones shaping the brand and probably products/services.  Twitter, Harley Davidson, Trader Joe’s are some very interesting examples of fans taking over brands and very skillful marketers trading control for greater brand equity.  Food for thought…

May

In May, Rich Thomaselli from Advertising Age called me for some comments for an article he was writing, “If Consumer Is Your Agency, It’s Time for a Review.” The piece turned out to be a great analysis of how the use of John Q. Public to develop ads has “jumped the shark” (as Rich refers to it).   It sparked a lot of commentary on AdAge’s site:

Richard Todd Aguayo wrote:  Give a million people a shot at making a hole in one, you’ll surely have a winner. That doesn’t mean you bet on that winner to win the Masters.  Professionals are called such for a reason.

Carl Hartman agreed:  Crowd sourcing is the same as Craig’s List or any of the sites that cater to freelancers. It is bottom feeders looking for a great deal, without regard to the quality of the message. Crowd sourcing is like using a shot gun to shoot down a jet flying at 30,000 feet. – Rarely, you’ll hit something. Usually a bird or one of Dick Cheney’s friends – but it won’t be the real target.  Everyone wants it cheap. The cheapest way is always the most expensive. — It is not about cost, it is about value.

Brian McMath dissented:  …Will UGC ever reach the ultra-polished, slick-as-hairgrease production quality that today’s average 30-second TV spot exhibits? Of course not. But why should it? That’s not what it’s for. Contrary to what the author thinks, these people are not out to replace you. UGC is just one more way to get people to engage with a brand, to open up that all-important dialogue with the consumer…

I wrote the consumers as creatives post to explain some of my thoughts further and to pass along the comments which ended up on the editing room floor.

June

Reposition? just do it was a post contrasting two big and juicy brand repositioning projects I’m working on.  I predicted one is going to be successful and the other, not, or at least less so, and explained why.  Essentially it comes down to whether or not the company leadership will decide that taking on such the risk of a significant repositioning is the right thing to do, and if they’re going to do it, to decide to “do it anyway” and to “do it well.”

Mark Gallagher commented:  As always, you make a great point. Fear of change is often the single biggest obstacle preventing companies from reaching their goals. However, what impresses me most about your post is your honesty. Not many consultants would preemptively state that their client was likely to fail. Usually that sort of talk is reserved as an excuse for why the new direction didn’t work, AKA “the client failed to properly implement the strategy.”  Your honesty is as refreshing as your insights.

Thanks for making it a great first half of 2010!

The new laws popping up which require restaurants to post calorie counts next to food listings have me concerned. This may come as a surprise to those who know me – after all, I am a fitness enthusiast and I try to practice healthy eating.   So the nutritional content of food is really important to me.

But I just don’t agree with the menu labeling laws.  Here are my reasons why I think they’re bad for business:

1.    where to draw the line?

Most laws currently require the posting of calorie counts only.  But if you know anything about food, you know that calorie counts can be very misleading.  Not all calories are created equal.  Calories from protein are generally good; calories from sugar and fat are generally not.  Calories from good fats are OK; bad fats, not so much.  By limiting the nutritional information required to calories alone, lawmakers are actually doing a disservice to the people they’re trying to serve.

But, on the other hand, if you don’t put a limit to the nutritional information required, information overload is bound to happen.  “Nutrition Facts” labels might work on packaged foods but they’re not sensible for restaurant menus.

Below is the nutritional information menu provided to every guest at PF Chang’s – it’s 5 pages long and the data is overwhelming, even to someone like me.

So where do we draw the line?  Who’s to say that milligrams of salt should be disclosed but grams of fat shouldn’t?  Or whether or not grams of fiber should be broken out from total grams of carbohydrates? There’s no clear delineation.

Now, I’m the last person who says that just because something is difficult, it shouldn’t be done. (I love challenges and place tremendous value on perseverance.) That’s not what I’m saying here.  Rather, the difficulty of doing this actually points to the fact that it shouldn’t be done.

Lawmakers shouldn’t be determining what nutritional information is important enough to warrant being called out on a menu. The consumer should be the one who determines the right information for him or her.

PSAs can be deployed to educate the public on the value of different information and restaurants should make detailed nutritional information available to anyone who seeks it out — but the decision should be rest with the consumer.

My second reason for concern over menu labeling laws is related to the first.

2.    respect for the consumer

Regulating restaurants in an attempt to try to get people to eat healthy is like mandating that television networks tell people to cut back on TV watching because it’s detrimental to their mental development or requiring companies which make alcoholic products to tell consumers that drinking is bad.  There are no such laws because these points just aren’t true.

Eating at restaurants, even fast food ones, is not an inherently bad behavior – it’s only dangerous when it is done in excess.  Consumers know this and we should have enough respect for them to let them make their own decisions.

I don’t say this from a Libertarian point of view – I say it from a brand one.  Companies want to have authentic, trusting relationships with their customers – this is only possible if companies exhibit behaviors which demonstrate respect for them.

So again restaurants should make nutritional information available to people, but they shouldn’t force feed it to them as if to suggest they’re not capable of making smart decisions on their own.

3.    brand-building

Restaurants fill customers’ needs and desires for convenient meal solutions, or for treats, or for access different products and tastes – and in some cases, for healthy foods.  Good brands know their target customers well enough to know want they want and need — and know what and how to communicate with them in order to meet those needs.

If a restaurant is trying to appeal to a discrete segment of consumers who care about nutritional information, the restaurant’s communications touchpoints – whether menus, brochures, websites, whatever — will reflect this.  But if such consumers are not part of the brand’s target audience, then the company shouldn’t be forced to clutter its communication with irrelevant messaging.

Focused and streamlined messaging is an essential tenet of brand-building. No law or regulation should require that a restaurant violate it.

I’m sure there are many who disagree with my concerns and I’d like to hear from you.  Please let me know your reactions to what I’ve said.

Rich Thomaselli from Advertising Age called me recently for some comments for an article he was writing, “If Consumer Is Your Agency, It’s Time for a Review.”  The piece turned out to be a great analysis of how the use of John Q. Public to develop ads has “jumped the shark” (as Rich refers to it).  He calls out companies for turning over their marketing to consumers through contests like Doritos’ Super Bowl campaigns and Folgers’ recent contest asking the Average Joe (pun intended?!) to update its famous “Best Part of Wakin’ Up” theme.

Rich reached out to me because of an article I had written several years ago for BrandChannel. In it I argued that “consumer-generated advertising as a marketing strategy is a lazy and irresponsible approach to branding.”  Because “brands are the responsibilities of the companies that produce them,” companies were missing out on the opportunity to demonstrate brand leadership and achieve internal alignment with the brand by leading the creative development of their ads.

It wasn’t a popular opinion at the time, since many brand managers were just discovering the benefits of a two-way dialog with customers and the creativity which new media unleashes.

But I stuck to my ground and wrote other op-eds on the subject, including a piece for imediaconnection which called for a reality check on “consumer-generated” ads: “The ads that win the contests and get exposure are not created by consumers. They’re made by aspiring film-makers and prosumers looking for their lucky break. By calling these ads “consumer-generated we are propagating the myth that they are engaging a brand’s users.”

Well now it seems others are coming around to embracing my point of view.  In the recent Ad Age article:

• Jackie Huba, co-author of the book “Citizen Marketer” and writer of the Church of the Customer blog, says “These contests asking people to create commercials and jingles are contrived…Marketers should be leveraging word-of-mouth jet streams.”
• And even Pete Blackshaw, who writes the Consumer Generated Media blog, concedes, “the novelty has worn off [and] brands are struggling with the harshness of the consumer voice. A lot of brands that jumped into CGA and the social-media conversation have found there are tradeoffs.”

The concerns I outlined in the piece were:

• “You’re getting these very poor quality spots, and it’s not even done in seriousness anymore…That’s definitely affecting the quality of what we’re seeing.“  When this new tact first started, professional or semi-professional people were the ones submitting their work, so even if it was off-strategy, at least it was good film.  Now everyone with a webcam or a Flip is making these ads and their amateur roots are obvious.
• Also using contests to get people to make ads about your brand seems disingenuous.  “…it lacks the authenticity. It’s going to happen with a brand real soon where there will be a backlash against this.“  People will realize that companies are essentially bribing them into promoting their brands.

I shared with Rich an additional point which got left on the editing room floor:   These campaigns are no longer necessary.  Brands which have enthusiastic customer bases don’t need to run contests to incentivize people to create ads – their fans do it on their own.

Having said all this against so-called user-generated ad campaigns, I do believe there are a couple of situations in which such an open approach might contribute real value:

• To promote consumer-friendly video production products – “User-generated” ads can showcase the results achieved by everyday people using your products.  So the aforementioned Flip camera might be an appropriate candidate for a consumer-generated ad campaign.
• To engage your employees – McDonald’s has been running a “Voice of McDonald’s” contest which has more recently evolved to include elements similar to a user-generated ad campaign. The program involves a contest in which employees around the world submit video entries of themselves singing a la American Idol.  They compete to become the official voice of the brand and to win a $25,000 prize.  McDonald’s has opened up voting to the public and used both traditional and social media to promote the program.  In this case, the “users” are actual McDonald’s employees and the program serves to engage them with the brand as well as strengthen their relationship with customers – it seems like a win-win-win.

So what do you think?  Are consumer-generated ads still an effective approach for brand managers?  Or have they lost their luster and should be put out of their (and our) misery?  Comments open.

related post:  a case against user-generated ad contests

Earlier this week I posted some key takeaways from the keynote speakers and panelists at the Southern California Business Growth Conference.  As a panelist on the marketing track, one of the things I said during the “Brand Implementation & Impact: Bring your Brand to Market” session seemed to spark some interest of its own – and so I thought I’d say more about it here.

I referred to political platforms when I explained why I call a brand strategy a “strategic brand platform.”  Just as a political candidate or group has a platform which outlines what they’re advocating, I explained, a brand should have a platform to delineate what it represents.

Specifically I see three similarities between brand platforms and political ones:

1.    a platform outlines what the brand – or candidate – stands for

For example Meg Whitman, who is running for Governor of my fair state, has outlined 3 goals she has for California.  On the platform page of her website she says:

“I am running to reinvigorate California’s economic potential and help employers create two millions jobs by the beginning of 2015. I am running to rid our state government of waste, duplication and inefficiency so we can get control of runaway spending and create long-term fiscal stability.  I am running to fix our failing schools so we can give our children the opportunity to advance up the economic ladder and achieve their fullest potential.”

From these brief statements, we get a clear understanding of what Meg stands for.

In the same way, a brand platform should clearly outline the values and attributes of the brand. A tagline, mantra, or even brand essence serves as a useful tool to summarize and/or communicate the brand strategy, but it’s not the same thing as a rich and thorough brand identity which fleshes out all that the brand stands for.

2.    a platform gives buyers – or voters – reasons why they should choose the brand/candidate

The storied Contract with America which the Republican party created during the 1994 congressional election campaign is another example of a political platform.  In it, the Republicans promised a list of actions to bring on the first day of their majority to floor debate and votes, including
* cutting the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third
* limiting the terms of all U.S. Congressmen and U.S. Senators
* banning the casting of proxy votes in committee
* requiring committee meetings to be open to the public

By outlining these specific plans, the group made a clear case to those who were seeking governmental reform – if you elect our people, you will get these results.

Similarly brands need to outline what customers will get when they buy them. A strategic brand platform should include a brand positioning which states the unique benefit or value the brand delivers to customers.  It shouldn’t necessarily be about specific offerings or value propositions – rather, the platform should articulate the broader, higher level brand value.

3.    a platform explains how the brand – or candidate – differs from others

In the 2008 Presidential campaign, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton sought to differentiate themselves from one another by adopting distinct platforms.

Each used postures (the establishment vs. the challenger and the tested vs. the inexperienced) to denigrate the other. But more importantly, the candidates’ positions on policy and major issues also were points of differentiation.

For example Clinton’s American Health Choices Plan provided a mandatory path to universal health care for all, ensured coverage is not denied because of preexisting conditions, and gave small businesses a tax credit for health care coverage.  Obama’s platform outlined universal health care (although not mandatorily), a reduction in family premiums, and the establishment of a National Health Insurance Exchange to oversee plan fairness and standards and increase competition amongst insurers.

On the campaign trail, these differing plans and the philosophies behind them were hotly debated between the two candidates.

As noted above, the unique value or benefit delivered to customers is an integral element of a strategic brand platform – here the emphasis is on the word unique.  Oftentimes a brand platform might also include a list of key differentiators. The point is to articulate what makes the brand different and better from the other choices the buyer has.

The similarities between brand platforms and political platforms are reinforced by some of the definitions of the word “platform” listed on Dictionary.com including:

- a public statement of the principles, objectives, and policy of a political party, esp. as put forth by the representatives of the party in a convention to nominate candidates for an election
- a body of principles on which a person or group takes a stand in appealing to the public; program
- a set of principles; plan.

I hope this examination has been helpful. I also hope it has led you to an important conclusion about campaigns — political ones and brand ones.  That is, a campaign is only the promotion of a platform – it’s not the platform itself. So when a company is looking to develop or optimize its brand, it should start with the platform first – it should ensure the strategic foundation is right before seeking a creative way to communicate and promote it.

Furthermore, the integrity of the campaign really becomes apparent only after the purchase (or election!)  Hopefully brands have a better track record than most politicians when it comes to doing what they say they will do.

For more of my thoughts on the elements of a strong brand platform, see this post.

Oh and of course I must point out that all of the above examples are used for the purposes of explaining my point, so please don’t try to surmise my political leanings from them.

other posts inspired by politics:

• the brand mavericks
• brands are more than symbols and words

Last week I had the pleasure of serving as a panelist on the marketing track for the 26th Annual Southern California Business Growth Conference.  Co-hosted by the Harvard Business School Association of Orange County and USC Marshall Alumni Association, the conference attracted over 1,000 of the region’s elite business leaders, innovators and entrepreneurs.

Between the keynoters, Tony Hsieh (CEO of Zappos and the Author of “Delivering Happiness“) and Bob McKnight (Chairman of the Board, CEO and President, Quiksilver Inc.) and my fellow panelists, I gleaned a lot of insights.

Here are some of the best bits I took away from the day:

on thinking about business differently

Tony Hsieh:

“We’re hoping in 10 years people won’t even realize that we started selling shoes…  Maybe Zappos could run an airline.  We would be like Virgin which is so many different businesses but while Virgin is about being hip and cool, we’d be about providing the very best customer service.”

“Customer service shouldn’t be a department; it should be the entire company.”

“We don’t tell [people about customer service], they experience it. We do things like surprising them with overnight shipping, we don’t use scripts, we don’t upsell.  If we’re out of stock on an item, we’ll look at competitors’ websites and let people know 3 different sites that have it in stock and direct people to buy from there.  It’s not about maximizing every transaction; we’re trying to build lifelong relationship with customers.”

“People ask us if we’re afraid of being so transparent [about our culture and values] with our vendors.  We actually think it’s a good thing – because now we have an extra 1,500 pairs of eyes watching what we’re doing and helping us co-manage our business.”

on the importance of having a great product

Bob McKnight:

“It’s all about product – it has to be compelling, innovative and exciting.  We need to inspire loyal fans and first time customers alike to see something they have to have.”

“We have to really be on our feet on product.  In a recession, people aren’t buying just for the sake of buying; they buy for a new product, style, or technology.”

“We’re focused on product development leadership across all of our brands.  We devote all of our talent to fantastic, high quality, innovative products that help build our brand integrity.”

on fostering culture

Tony Hsieh:

described the hiring process at Zappos:  every candidate goes through 2 interviews.  One is with the hiring manager, who ensures the person has the right skill set, relevant experience, etc.  The other is with human resources, who interviews for fit with our culture.  People must pass both to be hired.

“Your values must be committable, meaning you have to be willing to hire and fire based on whether people are living up to them regardless of job performance.

Bob McKnight:  “Of course we enjoy the $300,000 orders from Nordstroms but we focus on the $300 order from [independent surf shop] FrogHouse.  We always need to focus on the core [customer] and if we do that, we can’t lose.”

on why brands matter

Michael Distefano, Chief Marketing Officer, Korn/Ferry International:

“If you give a man a fish, he eats for a day.  If you build the man a brand, all the fish swim to him.”

“Brands take away the guesswork.” [brands lay the foundation of trust with customers so you can cross-sell]

Ray Baird, President and Founder, Rieches and Baird:  “Brands create value for companies.” [brands represent an average of 66% of assets on the balance sheet for B2B companies, according to Interbrand/Business Week]

on brand development

Ray Baird:  “Alignment with the business strategy is key.  Oftentimes I have to tell clients, ‘you don’t need a brand; you need a strategy.’”

Mark Anderson, Managing Director, TrueNorth International: “There are 3 things when it comes to visual expression of the brand:  it must be consistent, it must be tightly controlled, and it must be pervasive.”

Peter Bretschger, CMO/CFO, Integrated Marketingworks discussed the need for an inciting marketplace condition in order to introduce a brand:  whether you take advantage of something that just happened (e.g., Ford seizing the moment during Toyota’s recalls) or you create the condition through a PR campaign, you need to build a heightened awareness of the need for the solution you’re selling.

Michael Distefano:  “For service providers, you need to be flexible [about your brand strategy].  You need to get input from your stakeholders and make adjustments because they’re the ones who have to buy it in order to sell it.”

Tony Hsieh – “The telephone is one of the best branding devices out there.  You’ve got 5 minutes with a customer and if you get that interaction right, they’ll tell their friends and family and they’ll become loyal customers for life.”

Ray Baird discussed the trade-off between building a brand fast, cheap, or well, saying “ The big idea makes time for itself…nobody remembers us for how fast we got something done or how much they paid us for it.”

“Differentiate or die” is probably a familiar mantra to all; and there’s a well-established albeit less pithy corollary – don’t sell the category, sell your brand.  After all, given the overcrowded nature of most categories, the hope of success for most brands rests on their ability to stand out from their numerous competitors.  And promoting the category usually only benefits the market leader.

That’s why the most common marketing challenge is communicating a brand’s differentiation.  But there are instances where differentiation is not the primary issue — and in many of these cases, it’s the relevance of the category itself which marketing must establish.

I’m thinking there are at least three business situations in which marketing should focus on increasing a brand’s relevance first, and differentiating the brand second.

seeking more mass appeal for niche brands

When a company aspires to broaden its appeal beyond a narrow target audience, the brand’s relevance to the broader audience must be established.

For example, many health, fitness, and wellness brands enjoy a strong and loyal core customer base.  People who have a disciplined exercise regimen are likely to know and love brands of sport-specific apparel, fitness clubs, and nutritional supplements.  So they’re likely to respond to communications intended to position a brand as an expert in its field or a particular aspect of the category.

But most brands in these categories aren’t even on the radar screens of the majority of U.S. adults who live primarily sedentary lives.  In fact in some recent proprietary research I conducted among a general audience, many health/fitness/wellness brands performed strongly on perceived expertise in their category but were much weaker when it came to being a “brand for me” (see chart below.)

As such, marketing for these brands shouldn’t be about a brand’s superior performance on the things the narrow target audience cares about – e.g., unique product formulations, expert endorsements, etc.  Instead marketing should be focused on explaining the benefits of the category and connecting those benefits to primary drivers of the mass market.

I recognize that not every niche brand wants to go mainstream – but those which are serious about growing exponentially will most likely have to.  They can’t expect mass-market consumers to just “get” their brand, much less their category.

introducing “new to the world” innovations

Many innovations introduce new features, form factors, delivery mechanisms, etc. which capitalize on existing demand.  When marketing these innovations, companies explain how the new product or service improves upon – and importantly, how it differs from — existing options.

However, new products and services which are truly “new to the world” have no such foundation of existing consumer relevance.  Often these innovations are developments people could not have even imagined previously — completely new ways of doing, thinking, experiencing, even living.

Innovations in technology tend to fall into this category.  When the integrated iPod/iTunes solution initially launched years ago, the marketing brief was simply to tell people what had become possible in music listening.  The ability to seamlessly download songs and store thousands of them “in your pocket” was a compelling proposition in itself – messages about the uniqueness of Apple’s brand would have been superfluous.

Listening to music is a relatively universal consumer want/need and so, for Apple, the relevance of its solution was pretty easy to establish.  Other innovations, however, are based on less salient drivers — so companies must generate perceptions of relevance by communicating a compelling vision of the category. People must see themselves in the story of the innovation before they will care and can appreciate what makes the particular brand unique.

addressing changed consumers’ needs

In some cases, a brand has lost appeal because people no longer perceive the category it trades in to be relevant.  Perhaps consumer values have shifted – or their lifestyles have changed – or new technologies have rendered the category practically obsolete.

The viability of some retailers is being threatened in this way.  The Internet has given people direct access to products they previously relied on retailers to make available to them – and in many cases, consumers can access even more products than they used to through retailers.   So retailers which previously touted their unique or exclusive access to certain merchandise are finding such claims no longer true, nor differentiating.

The best way for retailers to combat this is not necessarily to try to regain the upper hand on access.  Instead, retailers may need to re-establish the importance of the physical store in the shopping experience. By promoting the sights, sounds, smells, and tactile elements – especially the human contact – of the store shopping experience in general, companies can make shopping in retail stores more relevant to today’s experience-seeking consumers.

Ultimately relevance is accomplished by weaving your brand into the fabric of consumers’ everyday lives. Brands addressing the above business challenges shouldn’t take it for granted – are there others you can think of?  Please let me know.