The fundamental tensions which companies must manage well was the primary topic of a panel I spoke on last week.  We discussed H2OAudio, a company which makes waterproof cases, waterproof headphones/headsets, and waterproof armbands for iPods and MP3 players.

The panel was part of the MIT Enterprise Forum, a regular gathering of business leaders in which a case study method is used to uncover valuable business insights.  Each month a presentation is made by a CEO of an innovative technology company and then panelists discuss the key challenges the company is facing.  An audience of nearly 250+ people attended this month’s forum which focused on “re-starting the start-up” H2OAudio.

The discussion ended up focusing a lot on the tensions which most growth companies have to figure out how to manage well. Tensions like:

-    core customers vs. new markets – H2OAudio’s CEO, Tom Kampfer, gave an overview of the company’s current customers and his vision of its future customer base.  While it currently targets the “niche” swimming market, he wants to appeal to the much larger fitness and active lifestyle market.

On the one hand, it makes sense – according to the SGMA, there are only 7.3MM active swimmers while there are over 220MM fitness/gym/running/cycling participants.  So the larger market offers more growth potential.

But targeting the larger market isn’t a slam dunk:

• There are a lot more players competing for that market’s business
• H2OAudio’s sales force, distribution, and marketing budget are all fractions of those competitors’ so it will be difficult to breakthrough in the broader market
• Those consumers probably place less value on H2OAudio’s advanced performance and are more price-sensitive

Plus, going after the larger, less hard core market is probably not going to be well-received by the company’s current customers.  Like many growth-minded sporting goods companies before it, H2OAudio may be charged with “selling out” and watering down their products.  A start-up can’t afford to alienate its current customers – it needs every sale it gets.

So H2OAudio may need to manage this tension between securing core customers and expanding into new markets by adjusting its target strategy and pursuing only adjacent markets which are closer to its core, like amateur competitors and serious fitness enthusiasts.

-    distribution vs. marketing – Companies trying to grow small market shares tend to struggle with expanding distribution vs. advertising and PR.

They have a limited amount of working capital and so they can channel it EITHER toward growing the sales force, pursuing new distribution, and paying steep slotting fees, OR it can be used to fund advertising and PR to generate broader awareness and stronger preference among consumers – but not both, or rather, not both very well.

It’s the classic conundrum – you need to make sure people want to buy your product but you also need to ensure your product is readily available in channel so that people who want to buy it can.  Also retailers are more likely to pick up your product if you are giving it strong promotional support.

It’s hard to find the right balance between the two and there isn’t one right answer.  But in H2OAudio’s case, it seems distribution is probably the better investment. That’s because they can promote their products quite cost-effectively through social media (provided they stick to a narrowly-defined target, per the point I made above) – and because they can use targeted channels to help develop awareness and preference on shelf (again, a more focused target which shops at fewer distribution points makes a difference.)

-    function vs. form – Tension in product development arises between increasing functionality and improving form.

H2OAudio is planning some significant product changes to move from a heavy duty action sports look and feel to a slim, multi-sport use focus.  The changes are important in order to broaden the brand’s appeal beyond big male athletes with physiques and style sensibilities like Michael Phelps and Laird Hamilton (two of the company’s celebrity endorsers.)

But Tom also talked about expanding into colors and designs to make the products more fashionable — and that’s where the product development tension arises.

Should product development be focused more on improving the technical functionality of the products (for H2OAudio this might mean wireless headphones which seem to be a real need for swimmers and other athletes dealing with equipment and gear like paddles and surfboards)?  OR should energies be channeled to making the products more stylish and fun to wear (H2OAudio is probably looking to follow in the footsteps of iPod and mobile phone skins and cases)?

I’m guessing that making the products more fashionable is a less expensive undertaking than making them more technologically advanced – and changes in form may be more immediately noticeable to the shopper.  But H20Audio has built its brand and its business on making purpose-built waterproof products for athletic performance.  New products and new features which reinforce performance seem a more effective way to strengthen the company’s differentiation and competitive advantage.

It’s not an either/or decision but a start-up company’s resources are limited and so product development direction needs to be prioritized.

As I reflected on these and other tensions which H2OAudio is working through, it reminded me of something I had seen in the feature Fast Company magazine ran on Nike’s CEO Mark Parker last month.  It was an image of a page from Mark’s journal with the word “Balance“ at the top – it listed all the different dimensions of his business which he works on keeping in balance.

The image served as a telling reminder that all business is about managing tensions – these struggles are not the sole purview of start-ups like H2OAudio.  And while they might seem like major challenges to H2OAudio’s Tom Kampfer, I’m guessing Mark Parker would forewarn him that it only gets harder as the company grows.

related posts:

• nine lessons from the mit enterprise forum

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!

Nike recently released their “Corporate Responsibility Report FY07-09” and I was so impressed by it, I just had to share my thoughts about it.

Many of you know how big of a Nike fan I am, so it’s probably not surprising that the report resonated so strongly with me.  But actually, I don’t think my positive brand bias has much to do with my reaction to the report.  After all, I take a very skeptical stance when it comes to corporate social responsibility because many companies’ CSR efforts lack integrity the way their brand efforts do – they emphasize the saying vs. the doing.

Clearly Nike is giving CSR more than lip service.  Although the report itself is an impactful document (it’s a well-designed, well-written 176-page piece), it’s what it relays that is so impressive.   Here are 3 remarkable things Nike is doing:

1. Connecting vision and execution – Nike has a compelling vision for their CSR efforts – “to bring people, planet, and profits into balance for lasting success.”  It’s crisp, memorable, and inspiring.

And while many other corporations have similarly lofty aspirations, Nike’s vision is clearly only the beginning for them.  They have crafted specific strategies to fulfill the vision, specific goals for each strategy, and specific plans for each goal. This planning infrastructure increases the likelihood of actually achieving what they dream.

Furthermore the tactics they’ve undertaken demonstrate they’re breaking down their plans into digestible chunks and incremental steps.  Sometimes even small-sounding changes – like using a single shoe lace woven between parts of a shoe to eliminate the need for adhesives and allow for easier disassembly – has moved them one step closer to their vision.  It’s clear they understand the Thomas Edison adage “vision without execution is hallucination.”

2. Seeing it a business issue – CSR at Nike isn’t about being politically correct or improving brand perceptions.  Yes, those may be outcomes but Nike is doing this because it matters to their business.

Nike explains, “The cost of competition for resources will increase as [natural] resources become increasingly scarce.  Coupled with emerging trends – such as customization, a push to be closer to multiple markets and shifting labor markets – we see a new opportunity to create business growth for the future.”

This business orientation is evidenced in that they are pursuing new business models, not simply new programs.  The report repeatedly states that “sustainability is a route to future profitability” – and explains why they believe that.  They tie their CSR results to business performance (It’s remarkable that the first pages of the report include a Business Overview. )

3. Leveraging core competencies – Many companies seem to struggle to implement impactful CSR because it requires them to adopt new skills and perspectives that are counter-intuitive to their m.o.

A fast food burger chain which usually runs ads that exploit women suddenly adopts breast cancer as their CSR cause; an investment bank which caters to high net worth individuals trying to connect with local communities through food drives and homeless shelter donations – these efforts are doomed to fail because they don’t make sense to the company’s customers and don’t leverage the strengths of their stakeholders.

Nike’s CSR work, on the other hand, involves what Nike does best – design, innovation, and brand-building.  They’ve attacked the problems of resource scarcity, workforce abuse, and social injustice with the power and prowess that comes from these core competencies and thus have been able to make real progress.

solid business principles

Beyond these smart approaches, Nike’s CSR report outlines how they’re using the business principles that characterize any effective corporate undertaking:

• proactive stance – Although Nike may have started down this road reacting to criticisms about labor conditions in the company’s supply chain, they’re now taking a proactive approach.  The report declares, “Waiting means we risk facing a forced requirement to shift on someone else’s timeline. For us, the choice is clear. We are always on the offense.”
• address root causes – Similarly, Nike’s first steps in addressing labor conditions were in monitoring and policing, but their approach has evolved to diagnose and solve the root causes behind the problems they experience.  They’re focusing on training factories in Human Resource Management so that the factories implement environmental, health, and safety practices because they’re valued, not because they’re required.
• organizational alignment – They’ve increased the traction of their CSR efforts by reorganizing the functions responsible for driving them — and integrating “dedicated sustainability specialists” into operational parts of the organization such as retail, logistics, and information technology.
• political insight – Pushing for legislation and cooperation through advocacy groups and world stages demonstrates Nike’s savvy.  Indeed, everything is political.
• collaboration – Nike acknowledges that they will be able to affect real change only by working with others, so they’ve partnered with other companies to improve conditions in their shared supply chain through the International Labour Organization’s Better Work program, and to build GreenXchange, a digital platform that enables companies to promote sustainability innovations, for example.

Mark Parker, Nike’s President and CEO, provides the best summary of the company’s CSR efforts with a short-list of “lessons learned”:

Transparency is an asset, not a risk.

Collaboration enables systemic change.

Every challenge and risk is an opportunity.

Design allows you to prototype the future, rather than retrofit the past.

To make real change, you have to be a catalyst.

While I’ll let other people provide a reality check on whether the information in Nike’s report is fair and accurate, I’ll tell you why I’d be willing to bet it is.

First, it relays failures as well as successes. For example, Nike admits that one of their strategies has been derailed, and they concede they haven’t made as much progress as they would like in some areas.  Sure, there’s a positive spin to the entire report, but how many other companies are willing to publish and widely promote a document that outlines that they missed their targets?

Secondly, Nike employees attest to the success the company has achieved. The report includes findings from an employee survey which their full- and part-time employees voluntarily completed.  78% of employees agree with the statement, “I am satisfied with the actions my company is taking to be socially responsible,” and 74% with the statement, “I am satisfied that my company is responding appropriately to address the impact of our business activities on the environment.”

A company’s employees are in a great position to evaluate the veracity of corporate claims.  They know first-hand whether or not if the company is doing what it says it is.  If they’re satisfied, it gives me reason to be as well.

related posts:

• stuff that matters
• brand inspiration

Last week Ad Age announced that Anheuser-Busch InBev is holding an online contest in China in which consumers can pitch ideas for a Budweiser TV spot which will run during next year’s Chinese New Year.  The only brief to the aspiring ad-makers:  the commercial must include ants (a recurring theme for the brand’s Chinese New Year ads.)  I’m liking this idea as much as I did when these so-called “user-“generated content first emerged as an advertising approach a few years ago – which is to say, not much. Don’t get me wrong – I’m not against engaging consumers in conversations about brands as a way of stimulating word of mouth.  And surely content that brand fans create can be powerful expressions of the brand.

What concerns me is established brands actively soliciting “user-“generated commercials in widely publicized contests.  A few years ago I wrote a couple of pieces explaining my concerns about and words of caution for such an approach (one published by brandchannel.com; the other by imediaconnection).  Here is a recap of my main points:

•    lack of brand consistency. Branding 101 says brand strength is developed by expressing and delivering the brand promise consistently across all touchpoints and over time. A clear, specific strategic brief is the tool that delivers such consistency.  When a marketer invites different people to create ads without such a brief, isn’t brand inconsistency sure to result?  And just so we’re clear, I don’t think requiring the use of ants counts as ensuring brand consistency.

•    not demonstrating brand leadership.  The TV ads everyone points to as having been the most disruptive, and therefore the most successful, are ones that represent the thought leadership of the brand. Think Apple’s 1984 commercial and Nike’s original Just Do It campaign (p.s., if you know where i can find this online, please let me know). No consumer, no matter how talented or cool or brand fanatical, would have ever come up with those ads.

This is because consumers only know what they know at the moment—e.g., they know why they like a product—but they don’t know the vision of the brand. They don’t know the company’s dreams and aspirations for the brand, and so they lack the insight and foresight to realize an ad’s full potential. Their ads may be entertaining, but they won’t further brand leadership

•    missed opportunity to foster internal brand integration and alignment through the creative development process.  I fear ad contests cheat the companies that run them. Part of the benefit of the creative development process is the internal discipline it requires and the unity it creates. A team that takes the time to develop a campaign (to do the hard work of distilling down everything that could possibly be said about a brand into a simple, single message) and to search for a way of expressing the message that is worthy of the brand is all the better for it.

The debates and trade-offs inherent in the creative process result in a clarity on and commitment to the brand. This clear, consistent, common understanding of the brand serves the company well in everything else it does. Companies that side step this valuable process and simply screen consumers’ ads like judges of a beauty contest are cheating themselves (and all their stakeholders, including customers) out of the critical benefits of internal brand integration and alignment.

•    not real consumer engagement.  The ads that win these contests and get exposure are rarely created by regular users of the product. They’re made by aspiring filmmakers and “pro-sumers” looking for their lucky break. Case in point: the Doritos contest winner whose spot aired during the 2007 Super Bowl is not a consumer. He is a partner at a firm that specializes in creative video production.  According to Doritos’ website, his firm was “looking for any opportunity to launch the company into the public eye.”

This last point actually leads to my overarching point of view about “user”-generated ad contests.  I believe consumer-generated content is most effective when it happens organically – that is, when real brand users feel so strongly about a brand that they take the initiative to create something which expresses their feelings and then share it with their friends and, sometimes, the world.  The authenticity of such content makes it a much more effective promotion for the brand.

Do you disagree?  Please share your point of view.

related posts:

• my super bowl was filled with guacamole
• creative brief template

Continuing in the series on my favorite brand resources (see fave brand books and blogs)…Today it’s 5 of my favorite brand articles.

I have a huge filing cabinet which is stuffed full with copies of articles, presentations, research papers, and speeches – but I find myself continuing to return to a few pieces time and again.  These pieces, dog-eared and covered with notes and highlights, contain truths and insights which have informed my thinking about brands and marketing – and even though some of them are old (one was written nearly 50 years ago!), I continue to reference them because the content is so powerful and relevant to today’s business challenges.

Here are 5 of those great brand articles:

note:  In order to respect the authors’ intellectual property (and copyright laws!), I’m including links to official sites from which you can access the pieces – in a few cases, subscriptions or fee payments are required  (the content is worth it!)

1.  Marketing Myopia – by Theodore Levitt, published by Harvard Business Review in 1960, republished in 2004.  Levitt’s seminal paper introduces the famous question, “What business are you really in?”  It challenges readers with the assertion that businesses will do better in the end if they concentrate on meeting customers’ needs rather than on selling products.  The paper is about more than marketing; it’s about strategy and how to ensure your business continues to grow.  That’s what I love about it.

2.  What Great Brands Do – by Alan M. Webber, published by Fast Company, August, 1997 – Way back when Starbucks was still an up and coming brand, Scott Bedbury was the company’s chief marketer.  Prior to that post, Bedbury directed Nike‘s worldwide advertising efforts and broke the “Just Do It” branding campaign.  So this guy is a great brand-builder and when Fast Company asked him to identify his 8 brand-building principles, I listened up.  This piece explains some of the best brand tenets I’ve heard, including “A great brand knows itself.”

3.  Brand Leverage – by David C. Court, Mark G. Leiter, and Mark A. Loch, published by McKinsey Quarterly in May, 1999 — Reporting on research into the connection between brand strength and corporate performance, this article unlocks the mystery behind brand leverage – that is, the power of a brand to move into other business domains.  It also prescribes success strategies for brands that are focused, and those that are more diversified.  I found the piece clarifying when I first read it and I believe the principles still apply today.

4.  Brands Matter: An Empirical Investigation of Brand-Building Activities and the Creation of Shareholder Value – by Thomas Madden, Frank Fehle, and Susan Fournier, published by Harvard Business School, 2002 – Like many other papers on brand valuation, this one reports on research which proves that brands deliver statistically- and economically-significant performance advantages such as stock returns and returns on equity.  What makes this paper so remarkable to me, though, is that the research found that firms which had developed strong brands created shareholder value with less exposure to risk – thus supporting the role of the brand in reducing the volatility and vulnerability of cash flows.  It’s convincing data to share with CFOs and other brand skeptics.

5.  Varying Perspectives on Brand Equity – by Jonathan Knowles, published by American Management Association’s Marketing Management, July/August, 2008 – This article puts forward simple, but not simplistic, arguments that marketers can use to show how brand equity is a critical measure for demonstrating marketing’s role in adding to business value.  I particularly appreciate the author’s instruction on how to use brand valuation data to frame the business case for marketing investment.

As with previous weeks, I had a hard time narrowing down all the great options to these 5 – but for now, these are my favorites.  Please check back next Friday as I conclude the 5 favorites on Friday series with 5 of my favorite brand podcasts.

P.S.  Please vote for best blogpost to help me celebrate the 1 year anniversary of my blog – and be entered to win a $50 Nike gift card – it’s my attempt to thank you in some small way for your loyal readership!

Help me celebrate the 1-year anniversary of my blog by voting on your favorite blogpost!  As a thank you, your vote will qualify you to win a $50 gift card from Nike.com.

Vote for one of the following:

1. no money, no problem
2. can anything retailers do, manufacturers do better?
3. don’t go changin’ to try to please them
4. brand inspiration
5. to women, love marketers

Here’s the scoop:

A year ago this month, I started my blog, brand as business bites.  I wasn’t sure how it would go, but the response has been really positive — in addition to attracting readers like yourself, the blog is featured on sites like Brand Management and Top 30 Entrepreneurship and Business Blogs by Women.

As a way to celebrate this momentous occasion, I thought I’d run a poll to see which of the nearly 150 posts from the past year you think is best.  I’ve narrowed it down to what I think are the top 5 and I’ve listed them below (you can also “write-in” a different blogpost, if the one you like best isn’t featured in the top 5.)  Place your vote via the comments section here, an email (to mail AT deniseleeyohn DOT com), OR Twitter (@deniseleeyohn)

To thank you for your readership and participation in the poll, everyone who votes will be entered into a random drawing to win a $50 gift card from Nike.com (Nike is one of my favorite brands, so I thought it would be a fitting token of my appreciation.)

Here’s the fine print:

• only one vote per person please (even if you vote more than once, you will be entered into the contest only once.)
• i will confidentially email to the winner the gift card number and PIN — i accept no responsibility for what happens after that
• you  must use a valid email address or Twitter account
• poll closes on 08.31.09 at 11:59pm Pacific Time

Once again, here are the best blogpost candidates:

#1 — no money, no problem (01.05.09) — “brand as business” is the reason to be optimistic about brand development during a recession

#2 — can anything retailers do, manufacturers do better? (01.30.09) — how retailers create value in ways that are difficult to copy

#3 — don’t go changin’ to try to please them (04.09.09) — why brands shouldn’t go chasing after customers

#4 — brand inspiration (04.23.09) — what makes a brand inspiring

#5 — to women, love marketers (06.01.09) — how some companies completely botch attempts to market to women

To vote,  tell me the number (#1 – 5) of the post by:

• using the comments section below (be sure to include your email address in your profile — don’t worry, though, it won’t show up in the post), OR
• sending me an email (email address: mail AT deniseleeyohn DOT com), OR
• sending me a message on Twitter (@deniseleeyohn)

That’s it.  Thanks for your vote — and thanks for making it a great year of blogging!

Two of my favorite brands recently introduced innovations that brought me such delight, I was prompted to think about what was so remarkable about them. What was it about them that not only delivered a great experience, but also grew my esteem of their respective brands??

I realized these innovations, despite them being on polar opposites of the technology scale, have 3 things in common.  In fact, these shared characteristics seem to distinguish all brand-building innovations from the many forgettable new products and services we’re inundated with everyday.

What:  Two delightful innovations.

Ben & Jerry’s Flipped Out – a fun twist on a brownie sundae.  Flipped Outs pack Ben & Jerry’s delectable ice cream, fudge brownie pieces, and chocolate fudge topping into a single serve pack.  You flip it over onto a plate, lift the cup off, and eat and enjoy.  Not only is this a yummy treat but it’s a fun one.  The act of flipping the dessert and removing the packaging is a simple, but powerful one – it’s a moment of anticipation and fun which makes the whole experience a delight.

The new Nike+ — a new and improved version of the sensor/tracking system for running.  Nike has brought a whole new level of functionality and enjoyment to the Nike+.   The new Nike+ includes a customizable homepage which allows you to personalize your runs to illustrate your mood, the weather, the route, etc.; a search function to be used to find other runners, initiate challenges, and broadcast your results; a new shoe finder; and other features.  Even for a casual runner like me, using it makes me feel better equipped and more inspired to run.

How: Even though Nike’s high tech system seems completely opposite from the low tech Ben & Jerry’s Flipped Out, the two innovations are both great brand-builders because they both:

• enhance the core value of their respective brands – In the race to introduce the latest and greatest products and services, many companies pursue innovations that may be cool but have little to do with the core value they currently deliver to customers.  But the strength of these two innovations is that they are derived from the very core of their respective brands.  Ben & Jerry’s is all about ice cream that’s fun and creative (not to mention all natural and socially responsible); Flipped Out takes those attributes to a new level.  Nike’s brand brings innovation and inspiration to every athlete and Nike+ does this personal, tangible way.  Neither innovation is simply cool for cool’s sake; said more positively, they stayed true to their brands while enhancing the value they deliver.
• are different from how competitors are innovating – The trends in ice cream these days are natural, lower fat/calorie, and new flavors.  With Flipped Out, Ben & Jerry’s decided to “zag” while everyone else was “zigging.”  So the new form/new packaging stands out as truly remarkable in the crowded category.  Likewise, most other sporting goods brands are focused on product innovations like greener materials, lighter/faster shoes, and performance fabrics.  Nike+ creates a completely different playing field, introducing a whole new way to experience the sport.   Rejecting the usual innovation levers and looking beyond category trends, Ben & Jerry’s and Nike created breakthroughs.
• work – Both innovations work, really well – no glitches, no “still working out the kinks”, no disappointments.  To be honest, I feared Flipped Out wouldn’t be as good as it sounded.  I was concerned the flipping/lifting would be difficult or messy and I doubted its taste would be up to my ice cream aficionado standards.  But neither worry was necessary.  Not only did the flipping/lifting work, it was kinda cool, and the product itself was much better than other pre-packaged sundaes.  With Nike+, I knew it would work seamlessly because every other online interface I’ve had with Nike has been great.  The system is easy and intuitive to use, and as I explored all the new functionality, everything worked like a charm.  Can’t say that about many other innovations today, right?!

Perhaps the most salient thing which both innovations have in common is that they take brand “engagement” to a whole new level.  The term “engagement” has taken on a lot of different meanings in today’s social media world, but I found these innovations to be truly engaging in the ways engagement is usually measured – that is, the amount of time I spent with them, the enjoyment I felt while interacting with them, and the way I am telling others about my great experiences.

related post:

• brand inspiration
• the man behind walkman

This post was inspired by a recent tweet from Gabriel Rossi, a “branding strategist” (as he calls himself) based in Sao Paulo — I’ve had the pleasure of meeting Gabriel through my blog and Twitter (one of the great things about social media is connecting with new folks like him).  Recently he twittered a question, “What brands inspire you?” and that got me thinking about what differentiates a brand that inspires from one that doesn’t.

I mean, there are some really great brands out there that don’t necessarily inspire people, right?  I’d list a few examples but I fear I might offend someone by naming a brand that does indeed inspire that person — and so that’s not my point.  Inspiration is quite a subjective, personal thing — and so, differentiating brands by their ability to inspire vs. not is probably not very instructive.

But perhaps a definition of inspiring brands might be helpful.  After all, I would think many brands aspire to be inspirational and so perhaps if we can agree on what makes a brand inspiring, that would provide some direction and guidance for brand-builders.

So here’s my suggestion — an inspiring brand is one that makes me want to be a better person.

as in, “you make me want to be a better man,” from the movie, As Good As It Gets. Thanks to Jack Nicholson’s memorable delivery of the line and the touching story of the movie itself, the idea of someone having such a profound effect on another has always stuck with me.  When someone challenges me to rethink who I am and how I think/feel/act so that I want to be a better person, I regard that person as inspirational.

And so it goes with brands.  For me, for example, Nike is a brand that inspires me.  I know, it sounds cliche, but I really feel like Nike not only “gets” me, they make me want to be a better person — they make me want to push beyond myself beyond what I think are my limits and to really accomplish something significant.  Naturally these feelings are in the realm of physical fitness and athletic achievement, but I don’t believe that diminishes their importance — bottom line, I’m inspired.

On the flip side, I realize part of my ambivalence to Frito-Lay‘s recently launched brand platform, Only In a Woman’s World, is because, for all its good, it doesn’t make me want to be a better person.  The platform is for the company’s health and wellness brands, Flat Earth, Baked, and Smartfood, which have all be re-vamped, expanded, and improved.  That a company which has been known for being synonymous with junk food has invested in such a platform is remarkable; the products themselves are quite good (almost too good!  can you pass more of those Tangy Tomato Ranch chips?!); and the communications campaign is funny and entertaining.

And yet, the platform tends to reinforce stereotypes and an unhealthy cultural phenomenon (i.e., women feeling guilty about snacking — you can read more about this on the Gender Bender blog).   So if I really think about it, I’ve come to realize that the brand makes me want to be a different person, not a better one (big difference) — it just doesn’t inspire me.

A few important points about this definition of an inspiring brand:

1. the inspiration can’t just be an advertising message — the brand must inspire through everything it does — don’t think I really need to say more on this point.
2. relatedly, the inspiration doesn’t have to be the advertising message — Bounty paper towel’s select-a-size feature (which allows you to tear off smaller or larger pieces depending on the need) inspires me to use products (theirs and others) more responsibly; Jamba Juice‘s upbeat in-store experience inspires me to pass along positive energy to others; etc.
3. the inspiration doesn’t have to be serious or significant — the quirky sense of humor of Ben & Jerry‘s inspires me to find the fun in every day and the eclectic collection of tastes and treats at Trader Joe’s inspires me to try new things
4. inspiration is personal — as stated above, what is inspirational to one person may not be to another, so companies must be clear on who they’re targeting and how they can be inspired

I’m eager to hear your thoughts on this definition — comments, please!

My birthday was last week (I turned 21 again!  )  Included in the birthday greetings I received were messages from four brands.  Of all the brands that know when my birthday is (or could easily find out), why would so few take the opportunity to send me a birthday wish?!  How disappointing!

Don’t worry — this post isn’t some pathetic woe-is-me gripe about not feeling special on my birthday.  Rather, it’s a suggestion to companies that are looking for ways to develop stronger relationships between their brand and their customers:  reach out to your customers to acknowledge their birthdays. You don’t send an elaborate greeting, nor do you have to include a special offer (although one is always nice); simply sending a birthday wish is enough.

To explain, I received snail-mailed greetings from Nike and White House/Black Market (a chain of boutiques featuring ladies’ apparel in black and white and shades thereof.)

Also Baskin-Robbins and Pizza Hut emailed their birthday messages.

My comments are primarily in response to the first 2, because receiving the greeting in the mail seemed more personal — which is a good segue to the first reason why I recommend companies send birthday greetings.

1. birthdays are a personal celebration — by engaging with your customers to acknowledge their birthdays, you are engaging with them on a personal, emotional level.  For me, even though I knew the greetings were automatically generated by a CRM program and automatically sent by a mail house, the mere fact that the messages were about my birthday made me feel as if the companies cared about me as a person.
2. remembering a special occasion in turns makes you memorable — marketers are always looking for ways to imprint their brands on their customers’ brains and hearts — what better way than to associate your brand with a special occasion?!  whether at the conscious or sub-concious level, the association makes your brand more memorable.
3. a birthday is a customer-specific touchpoint — birthdays are a connection that’s unique to the customer.  These days, every holiday (including Groundhog Day and National Yoga Day) seems a reason for companies to send me promotional messages.  Those mailings seem generic, a dime a dozen — a birthday greeting seems more special.
4. it’s a way to breakthrough — a birthday program seems a fairly untapped way to participate in the trend of increasingly targeted messages.  From my experience, it seems only a few companies employ birthday programs — so sending a birthday greeting is an opportunity to demonstrate some creativity and stand out from the crowd.

Now I don’t mean to overstate the importance of a birthday greeting.  It’s only one arrow in what should be a quiver full of ways to connect with your customers — and it should be part of a comprehensive customer relationship development program.

Come to think of it, it’s really no surprise that Nike and White House/Black Market would send me birthday wishes.  Both are at the top of a very short list of brands that I feel a real emotional connection to.  Of course, my feelings are not solely a result of the birthday greetings — but rather, the mailings seemed a natural outgrowth of the personal relationship the brands have already established with me through all the other ways they serve and connect with me.

I noticed an interesting juxtaposition of taglines the other day — actually it was during the Super Bowl, but don’t worry, this isn’t yet another piece about Super Bowl ads (I’ve already said my peace, as I hope everyone else has.)

In some markets, the University of Phoenix ran several spots from its a new campaign during the big game

– the ads featured U of P students talking about their experience with the school and how they feel having completed their studies there — the spots closed with one student saying, “I am Adam (or whatever their name is) and I am a Phoenix.”

Then there was the ad from Toyota, promoting its new Venza crossover –

the spot drew parallels between African art owned by a good-looking man in an upscale home and the features of the Venza, closing with the announcer asking, “Are you VENZA?”

The juxtaposition between the two taglines — one a declaration by a customer, the other a question by what is essentially the voice of the brand — got me thinking about the nature of taglines.  There may be a subtle difference between the two, but it seems significant.  Both of the examples I mention reference the identification a user has with the brand, but one seems to be a positive self-affirmation while the other comes off more like an elitist challenge.

I realize my reactions to the taglines are affected by the ads in their entirety (I found the U of P ads quite inspiring and the VENZA one boring, despite me having no more interest in attending classes at U of P than buying a new car) — but even if I consider the taglines in isolation, “I am a Phoenix” seems more appropriate for our culture at this time.  I hypothesize this is because we, as Americans living in 2009, want to decide for ourselves whether or not we want to identify with a brand enough to call ourselves by its name (something that the featured U of P students have decided to do) — we don’t want some brand copping an attitude and implying that we should identify with it if we’re rich and beautiful and have good enough taste.  The VENZA approach might have been more appropriate in the status-a-go-go 1980′s — but now it seems elitist (which we know is not good — case in point:  Obama worked so hard to shed the label after being accused of seeming like he was elitist, as you may recall.)

Clearly there’s been an evolution in taglines over the years.  A look at historical taglines from Coke and Pepsi reveals some trends:

1903  Pepsi — Exhilarating, invigorating, aids digestion

1904 Coke — Delicious and refreshing

1913 Pepsi — Drink Pepsi-Cola.  It will satisfy you.

1929 Coke — The pause that refreshes.

1934 Pepsi — Twice as much for a nickel

1961 Pepsi — Now it’s Pepsi for those who think young

1963 Coke — Things go better with Coke

1969 Coke — It’s the real thing

1973 Pepsi — Join the Pepsi people, feelin’ free.

1976 Coke — Coke adds life

1982 Coke — Coke is it!

1984 Pepsi — Pepsi.  The choice of a new generation.

1993 Coke — Always Coca-Cola

1995 Pepsi — Nothing else is a Pepsi.

2001 Pepsi — Joy of Pepsi

2006 Coke — The Coke side of life

2009 Coke — Open happiness. / Pepsi — Every generation refreshes the world.

Examining these taglines, it seems in the first half of the 20th Century the lines mostly simply described the product benefits.  Beginning in the 60′s, Pepsi moved to taglines that referenced user identification with the brand, while Coke adopted a more declarative stance about its brand.  Then in the 90′s, Pepsi joined Coke in employing a brand statement approach and both brands used lines that hyped brand uniqueness.   Now in 2009, both brands’ taglines are more like commentaries about the times we live in.

It seems the most effective taglines capture the spirit of the time in which they run.  Nike introduced “Just Do It” in 1988 — a time when people were pumped up on power and status (Tom Wolfe’s Bonfire of the Vanities was published in 1987.)  Apple‘s “Think Different” line launched in 1997 — a time when most Baby Boomers were hitting their 40′s and adopting a socially acceptable, yet still free-thinking, challenge-authority mindset.

In my opinion, “I am a Phoenix” is a more culturally-right tagline for 2009 — and therefore a more effective one — than VENZA’s.  What do you think?