This post concludes the series on brands that have wasted their potential.  In the past few weeks, we covered:

• GNC — “It’s such a shame because the company has the history, focus, and distribution to be a great brand.“
• Facebook — “There are no obvious or meaningful brand attributes that differentiate it.“
  
• Dairy Queen — “Recent rebranding efforts have squeezed out much of the endearing old-school essence of the brand.”
  
• Vonage — “It’s the classic “boy meets brand, brand over-promises, brand under-delivers, boy tells everyone he knows to avoid brand” cautionary tale.“, and
• Saturn — “In 1994 people bought Saturn for what it stood for. Today it is just another make to be judged on quality and price alone.”

Thanks to my guest contributors who provided provocative insights about how brands that could have been really good ended up failing to live up to their potential.  Their analyses contain great lessons for all brands who may be squandering strong equity or missing opportunities.

And hope for these brands, and others, is not lost — in fact, the following concluding remarks describe how all brands can maximize their potential.  These comments are from Scott Goodson — founder and CEO of StrawberryFrog (the agency behind iconic campaigns such as Coke, Old Navy, Heineken, and the current effort for True North).  The success of his agency speaks to what a talented guy Scott is (and I’m not just saying that because he has been so great to me for so long.)

Scott says, “I would say that any brands that are simply broadcasting to the consumer are not taking advantage of their full potential.  The new battleground is the profusion of media and how to tame and control it, and use it to your advantage to ensure your amazing content actually gets seen by the consumer.  Cultural Movement + Tools = Full Potential.

“I know this is new thinking in the new marketing world that has totally transformed everything, difficult to believe even, but the way things have worked in the past is not way how they can or will work in the future.  The 60 years of advertising that have gone before are not the systems of the future, marketing is today transformed.

“Brands that are taking advantage of their full potential are brands that spark cultural movements, not brands caught in the past.  Today brands can identify an idea on the rise in culture, they can crystallize, lead, curate and sponsor a movement.  Once you have a movement you can do anything in a fragmenting media world.“

Thanks for the inspiration, Scott.  I hope this has been an interesting series for everyone and you have learned as much as I have.

Saturn joins the ranks of formerly esteemed brands like Vonage and Dairy Queen in this series on brands that have failed to live up to their potential.  While practically every domestic automotive brand seems to have fallen short of consumer and/or investor expectations lately, I picked Saturn because the brand clearly had (has?) so much potential and so the stakes seem higher.

Remember back in 1985 when Saturn first launched?  The company was positioned as not just a different kind of car — but “a different kind of car company.”  Company officials explained their singular focus on the people who buy and drive cars.  They instituted a “no haggle” policy at their dealerships; their advertisements expressed the uniqueness of their brand platform.  The company even entered into a groundbreaking agreement with their union workers.

The Saturn cars themselves won all sorts of awards and, more importantly, fanatically loyal customers.  In 1992 Saturn achieved the top rank of new car sales, the first time a domestic brand topped the list.  In 1995 Saturn was ranked #1 in J.D. Powers’ Sales Satisfaction Index Study, a position it would hold for 4 consecutive years.  As testimony to the equity the brand enjoyed, Saturn “homecomings” became legend.

Then Saturn’s parent, General Motors, started to falter.  They cut investment in Saturn,  creating a downward spiral of limited new models and limited marketing spending — so much so that the division was integrated back into GM, despite the leaders’ original promise to operate it separately in an attempt to nurture the brand and shield its operations from the rest of the company.  (Read more of Saturn’s history here.)

After a series of failed new model launches and incongruous brand positionings, G.M. announced last December that it was “exploring alternatives” for Saturn — basically they are looking to sell it or relegate it to a much smaller role in G.M.’s lineup.

Recently an interesting possibility developed:  Saturn dealers are making a move to spin off as an independent distribution arm of the company so that they can sell other automotive brands.  While this may give the impression the dealers have given up on Saturn, it actually might save the brand.  As Martin Bishop, Landor‘s brand strategist and author of a great blog, explains, “It’s the dealership experience that has always been the true differentiator for Saturn…So to create a new business that focuses on the dealerships and allows them to source cars from different manufacturers makes a lot of sense. It plays to the real strength of the brand’s equity.”

Who knows what the future holds for Saturn.  As someone who believes in the power of brands, I certainly hope the company can turnaround the current situation and reclaim its leadership position.  But in the words of a fellow blogger Nigel Hollis (Chief Global Analyst with Millward Brown, the market research company), “In 1994 people bought Saturn for what it stood for. Today it is just another make to be judged on quality and price alone.”

That’s why Saturn is this week’s brand disappointment.

Given that it’s a holiday today, I’m going to take a break from the series on brands that have failed to live up to their potential — and instead, I wanted to relay a recent experience I had with a company (and lessons learned) whose service not only lived up to its brand potential, but actually exceeded my expectations.  So today, instead of a brand disappointment, you’re getting a brand delight!

TLC Plumbing Inc. is a local plumbing company which I found on Angie’s List.  Their motto is “Expert Plumbing by People Who Really Care.” I know, I know, that sounds like every other service providers’ motto — but the company actually delivered “Expert Plumbing by People Who Really Care” and that’s what makes it so remarkable.  Here’s what I experienced:

I’ll spare you the details of my plumbing event that led me to scheduling an appointment with TLC and just pick up the story when the plumber came to my house and managed to fix my problem in less than 30 seconds. I half expected to have to pay for the full service fee that I was quoted over the phone but the plumber instead offered to do a quick estimate for a whole-house flushing (or whatever he called it) — he explained it is something he highly recommends for a house as old as mine (built in 1914) and by providing the estimate, he could charge me a very minimal fee instead of the original estimate.

To me, that — along with details like him showing up exactly at the time they said he would, bringing his own towels and booties to use so he wouldn’t dirty my house in any way, and doing a follow-up call after his visit — demonstrated the “People Who Really Care” part of the TLC brand.

Given that the plumber did indeed fix my problem, I suppose that would have been enough to demonstrate the “Expert Plumbing” part of their brand — but the company actually went a step further.  A week after his visit, I received a follow-up letter (yes, in addition to the follow-up call I had gotten — all on a service call that they clearly had lost money on).

In addition to thanking me for my business and giving me a bounce back coupon, the letter outlined some great plumbing tips (e.g., “always run cold water when grinding your food disposal — hot water should not be used because it can dissolve fats and grease which may then accumulate in the drain line.”)  How great is that?!  In such a seemingly small way, TLC Plumbing demonstrated their expertise in plumbing in way that increased their credibility with me — and the likelihood that I will call on them for all my future plumbing needs and tell all my friends.

I realize it may seem like I’m making a big deal out of a small occurrence, but I felt the experience contains some valuable, yet very basic, lessons for all companies:

• deliver on your brand — don’t just say you’re about “Expert Plumbing by People Who Really Care” — do “Expert Plumbing by People Who Really Care”
• use added-value content to add value — providing tips or recommended resources or white papers or whatever is a way that many companies of all sizes, types, and industries could deliver more value to their customers easily and cheaply
• start with serving customers well; word of mouth will follow — it seems so many companies are fixated on utilizing the newly-found brand-building power of social media that they start there — instead of trying to figure out how to ignite a word of mouth campaign, perhaps companies should focus on delivering their brand value — if they do that, word of mouth will surely follow (after all, I am writing this post, right?!)

So far we’ve covered GNC, Facebook, and Dairy Queen in our chronicles of brands which have failed to live up to their potential — today Tom Fishburne calls out a brand disappointment based on his own personal nightmare with Vonage, the VOIP provider.

For those of you who haven’t had the pleasure of following Tom, let me introduce you to this astute marketer with an uncanny sense of humor — he’s the guy behind the Brand Camp cartoons, which he writes/draws in addition to his “real job” as managing director of method products.  (Last fall I posted about Tom’s new book.)  In response to his post, perhaps we’ll hear from others about the ways Vonage has failed to live up to its potential.

This close to Valentine’s day, I feel compelled to share a brand love story gone awry.  It’s the classic “boy meets brand, brand over-promises, brand under-delivers, boy tells everyone he knows to avoid brand” cautionary tale.  In short, it’s the story of a “one night brand”.  Far too often, brands put all of their investment and focus on the up-front advertising and forget that the relationship doesn’t end at the point of purchase.

When I first heard about Vonage, the VoIP Internet phone service, it was love at first site.   The proposition was brilliant.  For a flat monthly fee, I could make international calls over an internet line.  Not only that, I could plug in my Vonage box anywhere in the world, and instantly make and receive calls.  I was in the process of moving from California to England, and I found this incredible.  Friends and family could call my Bay Area number, and my phone would ring in my London flat.  Sure, I’d have to put up with telemarketer calls at three in the morning, but this was a small price to pay for such an amazing service.

I was ready to become a Vonage groupie and tell the world.  I willingly plunked down my credit card number and signed up.  For me, the brand relationship was just beginning.  For Vonage, I quickly discovered, the deed was consummated and I was soon left out in the cold.

The proverbial morning after, I discovered just how cold.  The trouble started when the box simply didn’t work once we arrived in England.  No dial tone whatsoever.  We had to borrow a pay-as-you-go mobile phone to ring customer support.  A half an hour on hold (paying 50p a minute) resulted in a conversation with an apathetic agent armed only with a script that basically advised us to turn off the box and turn it back on.  The following month twisted and turned like a Kafka novel.  Call center agents progressively blamed our phone, hung up on us, claimed they couldn’t find our account, refused to connect us with anyone technical, blamed the cord, and blamed our internet connection.

Finally, a knowledgeable technical engineer agreed that it sounded like a technical error with the Vonage box.  But, he was only allowed to send a replacement to America.  So, we had a friend back home receive the box, ship it overseas to us, only to discover that the new box wasn’t the right voltage (after we plugged it in and it started smoking).

The next call center agent suggested that I sign up for a British account, cancel my American account, and then they could send me a new Vonage box.  In desperation, I agreed.  The next day, I called to check on the status and learned that I was being charged a hefty cancellation fee.  “But I’m only doing this to finally make my Vonage service actually work.”  The call center manager coldly replied, “but, you’re cancelling your service.  We don’t care why.”

I started searching online and discovered dozens of blog posts from jilted consumers like me.  The Better Business Bureau recorded 3,687 official complaints in one year.  We’ve all been there.  We’ve all been “Vonaged”.  We’ve all fallen in love with brands that flubbed the relationship the morning after.

A week later, I received a letter in the post from Vonage.  Hoping it was an apology from somebody important, I opened it.  It was a direct mail marketing brochure.  Like a lot of brands, Vonage placed its investment in outbound marketing.  I’m sure that it factors into detailed financial calculations on its “customer acquisition cost”.  But, it mystifies me that brands frequent over-invest in outbound marketing and under-invest in simple consumer service.  Consumers that could have been brand advocates become brand detractors instead.

Contrast this whole experience with that of an English smoothie brand called innocent.  In the early days, they had a “banana phone” (literally, a phone shaped like a banana)

in the middle of their office that would ring with consumer calls.  Anyone in the company could answer the phone.  Staff would literally fight over the privilege of answering the phone when it rang to talk to a consumer.  How refreshing would it be if every brand had a “banana phone” that was actually answered by someone who cared or truly worked with the brand?  How more likely would you be to spread positive stories about the brand if they did?

Here’s another post on brand disappointments — this is a series in which I’ve asked brand experts to discuss brands that could have been really good, but have failed to live up to their potential. This week’s post is from John Moore, of Brand Autopsy fame.  John’s speaking and writing is always filled with provocative insights about brands, marketing, and management — I hope you enjoy his take on a brand disappointment.

A regular feature on the Brand Autopsy blog is the “Would You Miss” series. This is where a business is put on the examining table and readers respond if they would miss the brand if it were to go out of business.

The question is simple; however, the implications are anything but simple.

Businesses that would be missed if they ceased to exist have obviously formed an emotional connection with customers. Such emotional connections with businesses help fuel sales when the economy is good and conversely, help sustain the vitality of a business when the economy is bad.

Businesses that would not be missed have failed to make meaningful connections with people and are in danger of becoming irrelevant in the marketplace. (Not a good place to be in any economic climate.)

As marketers, it is our job to assist in forming emotional connections between businesses and customers. Forming those connections is easy in theory, but difficult in reality.

Nearly 20 brands, ranging from UPS to The Cheesecake Factory to Crate & Barrel to Pizza Hut, have been featured in the “Would You Miss” series. The comments have been brutal to these brands with people declaring they wouldn’t be missed at all.

Interestingly, just one brand included in this series has emphatically formed emotional connections with customers and would be dearly missed … DAIRY QUEEN.

The responses from readers were fascinating. Almost every commenter said they would dearly miss Dairy Queen if it were to no longer exist. Many comments touched upon wonderful childhood memories of visiting Dairy Queen for soft serve ice cream, Dilly Bars, and Blizzards. Other comments shared sentiments about the realness and heritage of a classic Dairy Queen experience.

Digging deeper into the comments you realize the untapped potential of the Dairy Queen brand. Readers talked about how they already miss Dairy Queen because recent rebranding efforts have squeezed out much of the endearing old-school essence of the brand.

I’m sure Dairy Queen’s internal customer research findings detail the brand gap between what their customers want and what the company is delivering.

In the comments section of the post, Denise summarizes the brand gap dilemma Dairy Queen faces by writing, “It’s too bad the company seems more interested in modernizing the brand vs. tapping into the rich emotional connection people have with [the] brand they grew up with.”

And Oran writes this, “For me DQ just gets lost in the noise. I see their new ads, but have yet to have a single one make me think twice about stopping in.”

Dairy Queen has passed the “Would You Miss” test. However, by refusing to fully embrace its old-school heritage, Dairy Queen is failing to live up to its full potential as a brand.

Thanks for great entry, John (and I’m not just saying that because you quoted me!)  You’ve made me think of other “old-school” brands that have lost their luster — like Corvette or A&W Rootbeer.

Check in next Monday for the next in the brand disappoinments series — I’ll post other stuff during the week.

What do Lindsay Lohan,

the universal remote,

and the Bush administration

have in common?

They are all examples of things that could have been great but have ended up not living up to their potential.

Many brands have also turned out to be phenomenal disappointments.  The list of brands that fall into the category of wasted potential is longer than the list of Lohan’s missteps — and the reasons behind brand disappointments are as confounding as why someone never developed a universal remote that people could actually use.

But, for this, the inaugural post in a series of brands that have failed to live up to their potential, I’ll offer up a single example — GNC.  Yep, the brand of those 1500-square foot strip mall stores that sell vitamins, supplements, and sport nutrition products.

It’s no secret that demand for products that support a healthy lifestyle has skyrocketed in recent years — global nutrition is now a $228 billion industry.  And GNC Corporation, the company behind the GNC brand, says it’s “dedicated to helping consumers Live Well.”

But, what does GNC stand for?  I mean, I know the letters stand for General Nutrition Center, but what does the brand stand for?  The company has over 4800 retail locations in the U.S. alone, and yet the brand doesn’t seem to offer anything differentiating or compelling.  The shopping experience is unmemorable, the little advertising and promotion they do is generic, and other than a private label product line that offers common products at a discount, their product assortment lacks uniqueness.

It seems drugstores and warehouse clubs have taken over the mainstream vitamin market and Whole Foods has become the outlet of choice for specialty health and wellness products.  Even grocery stores now carry more power bars and protein drink mixes than my local GNC.

This has left GNC without a reason for being.  And it’s such a shame because the company has the history, focus, and distribution to be a great brand.

I’ve invited brand experts to contribute their thoughts on other brands that have failed to live up to their potential.  In the coming weeks, you’ll hear from luminaries like:

Jonathan Salem-Baskin (author of Branding Only Works on Cattle, the “dim bulb” blog, and Ad Age column),

John Moore (former Whole Foods and Starbucks marketer and now of Brand Autopsy fame),

Tom Fishburne (Brand Camp cartoonist and UK Managing Director for method products),

and others.

I’m so looking forward to learning from — and commiserating with — these folks about brands that could be really great.  I’m sure there will be lessons for all of us to learn.  Please check back next Monday for the next in this series on brand disappointments (I’ll still post other stuff during the week.)