Last week David Ristau, the analyst who publishes daily stock recommendations in The Oxen Report, weighed in on the fast/casual dining industry with predictions for 10 fast/casual companies in the coming year. Chipotle, McDonald’s, and Domino’s were among the companies he analyzed based on growth, profitability, financial health, value, and management.

His write-up, which highlighted several factors that really drive performance in the category, got me thinking about the role of brands as financial drivers. I’ve written and spoken on this topic before, explaining that a brand creates value across the Balanced Scoreboard quadrants of customer, internal business process, learning and growth, and financial. Ristau’s analysis clarified – and supported – my thinking.

He talked about economic moats. This concept, coined and popularized by the Oracle of Omaha Warren Buffett, refers to a business’ ability to maintain a competitive advantage in order to protect its long-term profits and market share. Ristau commented that, “The problem for any dining institution is severe competition and lack of economic moats.”

But he praised Chipotle as having created “a small, economic moat around its brand-name, ease of ordering, and quality ingredients that allow it to appear healthier than some of the fast food competition.” And he was willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Sonic, the 3,500 unit drive-in concept, hypothesizing that Sonic “may be able to leverage its unique offerings into a better moat.”

It’s clear a brand is a critical determinant of the size of a company’s economic moat. A brand provides differentiation and it engenders customers’ preference and trust. And a strong brand is comprised of some intangibles which are difficult for competitors to imitate and for customers to compare. That robin egg blue box from Tiffany’s signals something extraordinary about the brand that no other company could copy.

There are other means by which to create economic moats – including customer switching costs, distribution or market monopoly, and patents – but brand strength is the most sustainable and the least costly.

Which leads to the next performance factor Ristau called out: profitability. He praised McDonald’s for having “done an amazing job improving operating margin over the past five years” and Tim Hortons, the donut chain based in Ontario, Canada, as having “top-notch” profitability. But he expressed concern over Panera Bread’s margins and profitability and criticized Starbucks for significantly increasing SG&A (selling, general, and administrative expenses which includes payroll and advertising) over revenue.

Although real estate, materials, and labor costs have the greatest impact on profitability, brands certainly play a role in this factor as well. A strong brand enables a company to charge a price premium. That’s why Hyundai’s cars may be made at Mercedes’ quality level, as its ads claim (not saying I believe them), but people will never pay as much for them. And higher premiums means greater potential for higher operating margins.

Brand strength can also affect cost negotiations with vendors and business partners, such as a shopping mall developer who is looking for high-profile tenants or a supplier whose wants to associate his ingredient brand with a strong consumer brand.

Growth potential is the other factor Ristau repeatedly factored into his valuations of the companies. His focus was on geographic growth, indicating that the upside he sees in Yum! Brands which owns KFC, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut, is based on its “good deal of prospects internationally with significant growth capabilities in China and abroad.” And on the other hand he dinged Domino’s for simply being in a market share war with Papa John’s, with little growth potential.

Brands impact growth in a few ways. Generally speaking the higher the brand awareness and equity in existing markets, the easier it is to enter new ones since the company is starting from a base of a little familiarity with and interest in the brand even if it’s small.

Strong brands also attract quality franchisees, distributors, and other business partners usually needed for successful expansion – not to mention employees who increasingly want to work for companies that have the better consumer image and higher purpose that comes with a good brand.

Finally a brand can facilitate the stakeholder alignment and engagement a company needs as it grows. By making clear the values that guide behavior and filters through which all decisions should pass, a brand guides successful execution, as proven by Virgin, the consumer brand conglomerate owned by Richard Branson, which uses its brand identity in a sense of competitive challenge to guide which sectors it should launch businesses in.

Given the power of brands on the fundamentals of financial performance, I wonder if it would make sense for analysts like Ristau to include brand strength as its own factor in their assessments? It would be highly subjective one but, frankly, the other factors seem to be as well – and after all, God created stock analysts in order to make weather forecasters look good, right?!

related posts:

• brand value creation — financial, part 1
• brand value creation — financial, part 2
• the problem with brand valuation

I usually try to keep my critiques to categories I’ve worked in, primarily because I think it’s irresponsible for me to comment on what works and what doesn’t when I have little basis for my assessment other than being a consumer.  So I initially demurred when some folks have asked for my POV on AT&T’s new campaign, Rethink Possible.

But then I started wondering whether my expertise in other categories might actually shed some light on the issue — that’s when I realized that there are some instructive parallels between AT&T and fast food chains.  And while AT&T has adopted some of what drives fast feeders’ success, there are a couple of important lessons it might want to learn.

Before I get into those takeaways, though, I do feel the need to address two of the more inane criticisms I’ve heard about AT&T’s new effort:

To those protesting the incorrect grammar of the tagline, Rethink Possible, I say, “get over it.”  It’s important to note that I consider myself somewhat of a verbifore, or at least a lover of language (R.I.P. William Safire), so I don’t take grammatical errors lightly.  But I do understand and value the use of creative license, and I see this tagline as just that – a creatively-worded phrase that is meant to evoke and provoke by the use of seemingly grammatical incorrectness.

The folks who take issue with such license are probably the same ones who would criticize the highly successful lines of Apple’s “Think Different” and the California Milk Processor Board’s “Got Milk?” campaigns, so I’m not giving them a lot of credence.

Also people have been critical of reports that AT&T is pursuing this tact in the hopes of becoming a “lifestyle brand.” To some, it seems ludicrous for a telecom company to have such lofty aspirations.  Others reject the idea of any brand promoting a lifestyle.

But the reality is, becoming a lifestyle brand is a common brand development goal – brand managers in automotive, nutritional supplements, apparel, consumer electronics, and fast food — practically every brand I’ve ever worked on – have wanted to be known less for the products they sell than for the lifestyle their products facilitate.  I’m not saying this is right but let’s not be too hard on the folks at AT&T.

telecom and fast food – who knew?!

The telecom and fast food categories are actually quite similar in some respects.  The major brands are targeted to the mass market.  Commoditization is prevalent, as are price wars.  Competitive advertising is the norm.  And purchase/usage is driven as much – if not more — by availability (that is, coverage and hardware in telecom land, penetration and prime locations in fast food land) as it is by any sense of brand loyalty.

With these parallels as a backdrop, it’s clear that brands in both categories need to rise above the fray.  McDonald’s sponsorship of the Olympics earlier this year gave it an important reprieve from the tit-for-tat price wars which have been littering the fast food promotional landscape.  Many QSRs are trying to go head to head with Subway’s $5 foot-long offering; others are pushing unbelievably low prices.  But McDonald’s was able to increase its brand appeal with its inspiring and emotionally resonant campaign for the winter competition.

AT&T is making a similar move, abandoning its back-and-forth map and app wars with Verizon and communicating the bigger ideas behind the brand.  They’re getting away from that petty competition and trying to remind people of other factors in the value equation.

AT&T is also smart to consolidate its efforts and promote one brand/one message to all stakeholders.  In telecom and fast food both — where billions of ad dollars are spent each year and priorities among different groups often conflict — the norm is to operate in silos and this leads to message fragmentation.

But AT&T’s Senior VP-Brand Marketing and Advertising Esther Lee is quoted as explaining, “It’s not going to be the old model that there’s brand work, and then there’s consumer work or enterprise work; it’s all ‘Rethink Possible.’”  The singular message route worked well for McDonald’s ever since it launched “I’m lovin’ it.”  The theme and what it stands for has unified diverse product efforts and served as a rallying cry for all of the company’s stakeholders.

lessons yet to be learned

Despite these smart approaches, there are a couple of things AT&T could learn from fast food companies. The first is:  you’ve got to deliver on the basics before you can you credibly promote innovation or image.

New products have become the life blood for many fast food chains, but slow speed of service, unclean facilities, and rude servers quickly take the wind out of the sails of these innovations.  McDonald’s understands this and that’s why they continue to emphasize solid execution amidst their McCafe concept, McWrap Snacks, and other new product introductions.  Mastering the basics is not only the cost of entry into the category – it’s also the cost of compelling innovation.

A lot of the criticism directed at AT&T’s effort is really about the company’s failings in providing basic service. Whether it’s fewer dropped calls, broader coverage, or the ability to tether the iPhone, people want their basic needs met.  People argue that the money the company is spending on the new campaign would be better spent on addressing infrastructure and service issues (an argument I’ve previously made about Microsoft’s lavish ad campaigns.)

I’m not an AT&T customer so I’m not in the best position to judge whether or not such claims are warranted but perhaps perception is more important here anyway.  AT&T must have a base of credibility today in order to present a credible vision for the future.

The second lesson from fast food is related to the first – that is, the battle is fought in the trenches. Fast feeders know that they must win at the store level.  Regardless of the brand image the chain might enjoy, the offer at the restaurant has to compete head to head with the one across the street.

In the same way, AT&T needs to focus on their points of purchase.  Whether it’s retail stores or the company website or VARs, their new brand promise must be delivered at all of these channels.  I haven’t read anything about the company’s efforts in this area and a cursory attempt at shopping on their website didn’t reveal anything different from the norm.  Rethink Possible shouldn’t just be a brand campaign idea – it needs to drive sales at retail as well.  AT&T needs to establish competitive advantage where it really matters – that first moment of truth.

I realize there’s a limit to the relevance of fast food lessons to AT&T – the breadth of usage/applications, the purchase cycle, and the price points are just a few of the significant differences between telecom and fast food.  But I do believe AT&T would do well to embrace the commodity-like nature of their offering and glean appropriate lessons from those who have mastered such competition.

related posts:

• perception is at&t’s reality
• seinfeld isn’t going to rescue vista

Apparently my “Outside Insights” column, How to Defeat McDonald’s**,  on QSR Magazine‘s home page has prompted concern among the folks at McDonald’s.  It was intended as a service piece for fast feeders looking for insights on how to establish competitive advantage — but the Golden Arches media relations team seems to view it as a judgmental report on their strategies.

Quite frankly, I’m surprised by their reaction — but I’m curious to hear what you think.  Here’s the original piece, followed by the comments submitted by a McDonald’s spokesperson (she initially emailed these comments to me with a request for a correction to be issued.)

My “Outside Insights” column:

How to Defeat McDonald’s**
Taking advantage of a competitor’s innovation could mean rewards for any company—no matter the size.

Quick-serves fight in a hypercompetitive environment. Brands duke it out with surprising new products which seem like punches coming out of nowhere and low blows of heavy discounts or free giveaways—not to mention the pot shots lobbed between dueling sassy advertising campaigns.

All of the category in-fighting can lead to a tit-for-tat approach to marketing in which companies counter each other’s moves with products and deals so similar it’s no wonder consumers often confuse one brand’s promotions for another. This kind of combat is necessary to sustain traffic counts, but quick-serves should also be on the lookout for opportunities to rise above the fray, dominate their challengers, and solidify a sustainable victory.

Burger King has such an opportunity now. McDonald’s has blinked, setting its sights on Starbucks and launching a $100 million advertising spend to promote its new coffees. McDonald’s describes McCafé as its largest product launch in 30 years and promises many more McCafé experiences to come.

Regardless of whether or not these efforts will be successful, having all of McDonald’s eggs in one basket is good news for Burger King. Burger King can fill the void in the conversation about food and promote the superiority of its food preparation and products. Lately Burger King hasn’t been talking about its key product differentiators—flame broiling and Have It Your Way—but now is the perfect time to bring them to the forefront. These product attributes are the brand’s strongest competitive advantages, and McDonald’s has left itself open for attack.

McDonald’s isn’t the only quick-serve that has made itself vulnerable. Chinks in the armor usually emerge during launches of ancillary products, PR blunders, or M&A activity. Both Pizza Hut and Baskin-Robbins have recently blinked, pouring millions of dollars into pasta and soft-serve ice cream introductions respectively. By neglecting their core businesses and vying for consumers’ attention in new categories, these brands have created great opportunities for their competitors.

Challengers can take advantage of these opportunities by:

Acting fast: The window of opportunity may not last long. Fortunately most chains aren’t shy about touting big plans, so if you’re astute enough to sense a “blink” in the making, you can be at the ready to launch an offensive attack as soon the other guy’s initial media burst starts to trail off.

Hitting them hard: This is the time to leverage your core competitive strengths. Shore up what you do best and promote the heck out of it. If necessary, you may have to be overt about your strategy—perhaps calling out your competitor for its foolishness may be the best way to draw attention to your offering.

Staying focused: It may be tempting to follow your competitor’s moves or to take a breather while the pressure is off. But attempts to engage in the new game would only seem like efforts to compensate for a weakness—and backing off wastes the opportunity. A confident, offensive move is what’s called for.

By going for the punch when the competition isn’t looking, quick-serves have the chance to differentiate themselves in a meaningful and memorable way. Instead of fighting over chump change or market share gains of a few hundredths of a percent, a well-timed, well-placed push can secure a big win.

Case in point: Earlier this year when it seemed that Burger King was the one with its eye off the ball, McDonald’s made a big gain. McDonald’s had blanketed the market with dollar deals while Burger King was off featuring a tie-in with a TV series. The result? McDonald’s comp store sales rose 4 percent in the first quarter, while Burger King’s were only up 1 percent.

With competition so fierce in the quick-service arena, brands must exploit every advantage. Those who are fighting to win will be ready to hit with their best shot when the other guy isn’t looking and let the consumer declare a T.K.O.

Comment submitted by McDonald’s spokesperson:

My name is Danya Proud, and I serve as a company spokesperson for McDonald’s USA.

This article is missing a lot of the facts about our business and how we continue to promote our core menu items and customer favorites.

We most definitely don’t have, “all our eggs in one basket,” as this article suggests. These assumptions are not only incorrect, but misleading to QSR’s readers, and our customers.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out the tremendous success we have had, and continue to have, through promoting our core menu – including Big Mac, Chicken McNuggets and most recently, Quarter Pounder with Cheese.

And, while McCafe Coffees and the promotion of our new line of mochas, lattes, cappucinos and hot chocolate continue to be a significant area of focus, and business opportunity for us, rest assured, we have not, and will not, take our eyes off the fries, or, any of our other core menu items, for that matter.

As always, we continue to have a holistic approach to all of our marketing efforts, to ensure a balance between promoting new menu items and our core equities.

Our customers are at the center of everything we do. Now more than ever, we are looking to provide our valued customers with everyday affordability, across our entire menu.

Thanks for the opportunity to provide the facts about our business.

What do you think?

I’m surprised that McDonald’s would take my POV as a factual report on their business — and be concerned enough to write their own “correction.”  I’m a strong advocate for managing all of a brand’s touchpoints, but this seems to be taking it a bit too far.

Am I wrong?  Also, please let me know what you think of the piece itself.  Thanks!

** FYI:  I had submitted a different title for the piece (“When the Other Guy Blinks”) — QSR Magazine’s editor changed it to “How to Defeat McDonald’s” — perhaps that caused more ire?!

I walked into a Bruegger’s Bagels shop, I handed the clerk a piece of paper that told him what I wanted, I watched as he filled the bag, and I walked out of there — all in less than 30 seconds. I quickly walked back to my car, glancing over my shoulder to see if the cops were on my trail.

OK, so technically, I didn’t rob the shop — I had actually used a coupon from my Sunday paper to get 6 free bagels — but it felt like I had robbed them.  And that’s because I have never been to that Bruegger’s location before — and although I’m sure I will enjoy the bagels, it’s highly unlikely I will ever return there — simply because despite being the only location within a reasonable driving distance of my house, it’s not convenient for me to get to — and the promotion didn’t give me a reason to go out of my way to do so.  So, if in running the coupon, the company’s goal was to prompt additional visits/purchases, it has essentially wasted 6 free bagels on me.

This incident got me thinking about all the other free or nearly-free offers I’ve seen from quick serve restaurants (QSRs) lately:

• Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf ran a special promotion last Thursday — free tea lattes between 2 – 6pm.
• McDonald’s has been offering a free McCafe coffee on Tuesday mornings (I think.)
• Jamba Juice just launched their “oatmeal for a buck” promotion.

I’m curious to see how these offers play out.  On the one hand, they may drive short-term traffic and stimulate trial of new products; on the other, I question whether they’re prompting future incremental purchases, or increased loyalty, or even goodwill.

Although QSRs aren’t hurting as much as their more upscale counterparts, the restaurant industry as a whole is suffering and so I can understand the desire to get “butts in seats” — but at what price?  Giving away food to unlikely future customers doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense.  Tactics that are more likely to have a more sustainable impact on the business are ones that:

• are integrated into the brand platform — of the 4 promos mentioned above, only the Jamba Juice one seems to relate to the chain’s overall brand strategy.  Jamba’s brand essence is “positive energy” and their “oatmeal for a buck” promo was promoted as a bright spot in the dismal economy. The headline of the ad/coupon reads, “Slow economy, bad. Slow-cooked oatmeal for a BUCK, awesome.”  The tone and manner (e.g., the “Jamba Economic Boost”) reinforces the brand personality.  Integrating a compelling offer with a brand message makes the promotion more differentiating, more memorable, and ultimately more brand-building.
• present the optimal customer experience — part of the concern I have with the Bruegger’s promotion is that it didn’t facilitate a brand-building experience.  I wasn’t joking when I said I was in and out of the store in 30 seconds — the transaction didn’t make any kind of impression on me (except for perhaps speed of service.)  If the goal of the promotion is to appeal to new or lapsed customers, it’s likely not to succeed because the promotion wasn’t designed to communicate anything new or different about Bruegger’s.  And surely the chain has more impactful product offerings than a simple bagel — by offering a complimentary or discounted new product, they could have delivered a better customer experience and perhaps made a return visit more likely.
• invite customers into a relationship with the brand or reinforce an existing one — beyond handing out coupons for additional purchases (which some chains did), these companies could have used the promotions to develop relationships with their customers.  Perhaps they could have asked customers for an email address so that future offers and information could be sent directly to them — or invited customers to follow the chain’s Twitter tweets so they can be notified of breaking news and deals– or even enrolled customers in the chain’s loyalty program and automatically crediting their accounts with points for that day’s visits.  That way, the promotion gives the business a way to grow its customer base and gives the customer a reason to return again and again.

It seems to me that not all ways to do traffic-driving promotions are created equal — why not turn a “withdrawal” from the bottom line into a “deposit” in the brand equity bank?

The editor of QSR Magazine, the trade journal for quick service restaurant brands (fast feeders like McDonalds, Dunkin Donuts, Baskin Robbins, etc.), interviewed me to explain to QSRs “Why You Win If Starbucks Survives.” The interview is based on an article which I’m posting in full here.

Why We Need Starbucks to Succeed

Starbucks continues to struggle and many in the quick-serve restaurant (QSR) business may be quietly celebrating the problems of the former industry darling.

After persevering through the years when it seemed Starbucks could do no wrong, the chain’s current stumbles are a welcome antidote to the constant comparisons to Starbucks’ success that investors, the press, and even customers have loved to make.  After all, running a QSR chain is an incredibly difficult business and it’s nice to see the rest of the world recognizing what we’ve known all along – Starbucks’ formula is not fool-proof.

But the fact is we need Starbucks to succeed.  And not just because market valuations tend to punish an entire category when a major player hits a rough spot.   Or because we need a common enemy to fight against.  Starbucks benefits the QSR category in ways that cut to the core of our business.

First, Starbucks provides a real-life R&D lab for innovation.  From its new products (chai tea lattes for example), to its original service standards (employees calling out people’s orders in a friendly banter), and game-changing brand experiences (offering chain-wide Wi-Fi), Starbucks has led the category with its innovations.  And there’s a lot to be learned from their stunning successes and equally staggering failures.

I don’t mean to suggest that QSRs should sit back and let Starbucks do all the innovating (although a case for adopting a “fast follower” strategy could be made).  Rather, companies need to aggressively pursue innovation now more than ever.  But we should factor into our development efforts and decision-making the results that Starbucks has experienced with similar new concepts.

Particularly for high-risk or high-cost innovations, it’s safe to assume that most QSRs have conceived similar ideas.  Without the scrutiny of franchisees, Starbucks has the freedom to make some of the moves we wish we could.  They can take the leap from R&D to store more easily, working out the kinks to make a successful launch or taking the beating when one is not possible.   Through careful study and analysis of what works and what doesn’t for the coffee chain and why, we benefit from letting Starbucks serve as our learning lab.

Starbucks also benefits the QSR category by mainstreaming high-margin products. Let’s face it – before Starbucks came on the scene, most QSRs thought the price ceiling on a cup of coffee was a dollar or two.  Now it’s common to see hot — and cold — beverages selling for $4-5 in many places.  Same goes for cookies not baked on premise, pastries not sold by a bakery, and iced tea that’s brewed in bulk.  And that’s not to mention all of the non-food products like high-end coffee makers and CDs – items that don’t consume much labor cost or square footage, so they prop up operating margins.  By making many high-margin products part of the QSR experience, Starbucks has opened for other chains an alternative to merely playing in penny profits.

Finally by setting a high bar that financially-stretched consumers trade down from, Starbucks benefits the QSR category in tough economic climates like the one we’re currently experiencing.  For all intents and purposes, Starbucks is a luxury brand – meaning, consumers pay a premium for the chain’s products because of its brand image and/or its higher quality (depending on who you ask.)  As a result, its prices are perceived as high (or at least higher than most) and so when consumers feel the need to cut back on discretionary purchases or the frequency in which they indulge in them, they’re likely to trade down to another QSR.  Simply put, everything’s relative.

That’s not to say that other QSRs should position themselves as low-priced alternatives.  Instead, companies should seize the influx of value-minded customers as an opportunity to increase their brand’s value perception.  This is a great time to forge a bond with new or lapsed customers by over-delivering on their expectations and making them feel they’ve made a smart choice.  McDonalds is already employing this strategy with its McCafe launch.  They intend to offer the same product quality — but at lower prices and with faster service and “less attitude” than Starbucks.  But this tack has the chance to work only because Starbucks exists.

So as much as we might not want to admit it, Starbucks is good for us.  And while more skepticism about and scrutiny into Starbucks is a much needed counterpoint to recent years’ hype, we certainly should not be rooting for the chain’s downfall.  To paraphrase an old adage, with Starbucks success we may lose something – but there’s more to gain.

Feedback?  Questions?  Please let me know.

Tonight marks the beginning of the Olympics but we’ve been seeing Olympic-related advertising for several weeks now (some examples: adidas ad ; McDonald’s ad)

What results can marketers expect from the collective $1BB in media spend they dished out on Olympic ads? As with all high profile media (e.g., Superbowl ads, billboards in Times Square), advertising during the Olympics…

Is effective at:

- generating brand awareness – increasing the number of people who have heard of the brand

- making the brand salient – making the brand stand out in people’s minds

- producing good will - generating positive feelings toward the company

Is less effective at:

- differentiating the brand – making the brand stand for something distinct

- communicating specific messaging – making a specific point about a product/service

- triggering a purchase – getting people to buy

Therefore for advertisers with Olympic aspirations, I recommend they use spots that skew toward the “entertain” end of the “entertain-inform” continuum of advertising – likeability should be a key criteria for the creative. And it should be only one element of the marketing communications mix, with other media in the mix serving to drive people through the purchase funnel.

I’m curious — which Olympic ads do you think are effective? do they seem to follow these rule of thumbs?

In preparing to launch my blog, I researched a lot of existing ones to get a sense of what works and what doesn’t.  As a brand person, I was particularly interested in whether or not brands themselves had blogs.  I looked at a sampling of the brands from BusinessWeek’s list of top 10 global brands — here’s what I found:

Coke has Coca-Cola Conversations, a blog moderated by Phil Mooney who has been the historian/archivist for the company for 30 years.  The blog started in January of this year and focused primarily on Coke history and trivia – recent posts include “When Coke Bottling Began” (1899, in case you’re wondering) and “Urban legends, Coca-Cola and the Pharaohs.”

There are about a million blogs about Microsoft – but none of them, it seems, are what I would consider a brand blog.  I’m told Robert Scoble became famous with his blog for the Seattle firm, so perhaps his was more of what I expected, but that was before my time in the blogosphere.  Now there’s Todd Bishop’s Microsoft blog, a Seattle reporter’s coverage of the company; Microsoft Community Blogs, which is a collection of blogs by Microsoft employees about their various products and technologies; and Microsoftblog, the Unofficial Pro Microsoft blog, written by folks who are “in Microsoft’s pocket” (their words, not mine.)

McDonald’s has opted to go the podcast route.  Most of their recent podcasts are corporate in nature (earnings announcements, analyst calls, etc.), but they have a series called “The McDonald’s You Didn’t Know” which features insider stories about the company.

The Disney Blog is a blog “by fans, for fans” of the happiest place on earth.  It clearly states it is in no way affiliated with the company but the content is pretty much a comprehensive resource for the brand.  Now 4 years old, the blog promotes new releases from Disney’s production companies, profiles Disney Imagineers (creative staffers), and comments on various experiences people have had with Disney.

All in all, I can’t say I was overly impressed with the results of my big brand blog investigation.  I wonder why companies haven’t taken advantage of what seems like a great way to engage the public with what they’re brand is all about.  Perhaps smaller, more interesting brands are more into blogs – stay tuned for that investigation.