“I went to school on Tom’s ideas!”
Jeff Taylor, Founder, Monster.com
A Clear Eye.
On customers, brands and marketplace success
by Tom Asacker
“I went to school on Tom’s ideas!”
Jeff Taylor, Founder, Monster.com
.
................................Dove women
This week's issue of the New Yorker has a piece about Pascal Dangin, one of the world's foremost digital retouchers. In the story, which you can find online at this link, Dangin is quoted as saying he extensively retouched photos used in Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty. What!?
Are you surprised? You shouldn't be. This has always been a "campaign;" a staged statement. And there's nothing wrong with that. But to assume that this way of being was part of the DNA of the folks who run Unilever, the same folks who market Axe, is a little bit . . . umm . . . unreal?
.................................Axe women
You can find my other Dove rants here and here.
Need an entertaining and inspiring speaker for your next event?
See for yourself!
www.viewmyvideonow.com
My good friend from across the pond, Trevor Gay, is running a series of posts called "Friends of Simplicity," where he publishes interviews with people who have influenced his thinking. If you're interested, you can find my interview with Trevor at this link. If not, you can waste some time viewing this Rube Golberg-type ad for a supplier to the printing industry. Note: The Honda cog ad remains my all-time favorite. You can watch it again at this link.
In light of this news about Starbucks' dismal performance, I thought I'd repost the following piece:
April 2006
"Learning and innovation go hand in hand. The arrogance of success is to think that what you did yesterday will be sufficient for tomorrow." - William Pollard
Since the beginning of business, successful brands have gone through three phases of evolution: mystery, model and method.
Mystery is the "I wonder…" phase: "I wonder… will people purchase an automobile if I can get the price down to 'x'?" The next phase is the model phase—a messy, imperfect process: "Let me try to produce an automobile for 'x.'"
Once the model phase has proven out the mystery ("Wow! They WILL buy it"), successful brands quickly move into the methods phase: "How can I produce enough automobiles at the target price to fulfill demand, and make a profit while doing so?"
Some, like Henry Ford, are driven by insights regarding a market opportunity. Others, like Michael Dell, are simply trying to stay ahead of the competition and remain profitable. Either way, a brand is born.
The problems arise when successful brands move to the madness phase, as they refine their method to the point of marketplace indifference.
Donald Sull put it this way in Revival of the Fittest: Why Good Companies Go Bad and How Great Managers Remake Them:
"Over time, unchanging relationships can turn into shackles that limit an organization's flexibility and lock it into active inertia. Established relationships with customers can prevent firms from responding effectively to changes in technology, regulations, or consumer preferences."
As we witness the demise of one great brand after another in today's tumultuous marketplace, it may appear that the realities of building a strong brand have changed. In fact, the problem is that many successful executives simply can't see the changing marketplace forest through their brand trees.
Henry Ford was guilty of such myopia in his day. He was so convinced that his low-cost, mass production method caused the masses to buy his automobiles, that he was blinded by hubris to the mysteries of the changing marketplace.
Henry's response to multiple requests for a different color automobile: "You can have any color you want as long as it's black." Black was an integral part of Henry's refined method, because black paint apparently dried faster than other paint colors. This enabled Henry to keep his manufacturing costs and market price where he believed they had to be to cause people to buy.
We all know what happened next: Alfred P. Sloan and General Motors entered the picture. While Ford moved to the madness phase with further refinement of his scientific methods, GM vigilantly mulled over a new mystery: "I wonder if customers will pay more for a red or blue automobile?"
The answer was a resounding "Yes!" After implementing the methods to profitably support that answer, GM rapidly rose to become Ford's archrival. This is a simplified version of historical events, of course. However, we see this pattern played out over and over again in the annals of brand evolution.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when the mysteries of brand creation were abundant and fairly obvious, entrepreneurs like Henry Heinz asked questions like this: "I wonder if people will buy my relish if I place it in a glass jar so people can see that it's full? And if they will, I'll quickly develop a profit-making method for producing, labeling and promoting it."
Brands of those days—soap powder, flour, grain foods, condiments and so on—became symbols of quality and consistency. Like all successful brands, they were products of their time, place and culture.
Fast-forward a half-century to the boom decade after World War II. In the 1950s, the average grocer carried about 2,000 products, compared with the tens of thousands in today's supermarket. And most of those products were heavily advertised, branded products. The more successful the brand, the more shelf space it took up.
By publicizing their USPs to a fairly homogeneous market on network television, companies were able to convince consumers to buy their secret brand formulas—thus perpetuating this advertising-driven consumption cycle. It was a very effective method for that time: if you repeated your message often enough, a large number of people would believe you.
It was around that time that models were being developed to answer the mystery, "I wonder… what do people want to eat and how do they want to eat it?" One successful model was the MacDonald brothers' quick-food restaurant in California. But rather than take their discoveries and evolve their model into a large, profit-making method, Dick and Mac let Ray Kroc do it.
Kroc figured out the expansion method, including exactly how long to cook a hamburger; exactly how to hire people; exactly how to set up and manage stores; and so on. A brand was born. And what has happened to the once-great McDonald's brand in the US since the mid-1950s? They've skillfully refined their method to the point of mediocrity and customer indifference.
And so did Motorola in the mid 1990s. While Motorola was refining its method to get to 3.4 defects per million opportunities in its cell phone manufacturing process, a Finnish company with virtually no technology marketing expertise in the US was answering a new customer mystery: "I wonder if people will buy cell phones if they look more like fashion accessories."
Nokia not only answered that question but also went on to become one of the world's dominant brands in digital technologies, including mobile phones, telecommunications networks, wireless data solutions and multimedia terminals.
Are you beginning to see the pattern?
All 20th century brand successes evolve from mystery to method, and many have since moved into and out of the madness phase: from Henry Ford with the assembly line, to P & G with brand management and TV advertising, to Sears with its retail method, to the legacy airlines with the madness of their high-cost method artificially preserved with government support.
Even Howard Schultz's method (Starbucks), which scaled the affirmative answer to the mystery he conceived on a business trip ("I wonder if people in Seattle will buy coffee from a Milan-inspired espresso bar?"), may be moving toward madness. Time will tell.
The 21st century is an unprecedented time of marketplace mysteries (albeit not quite as apparent as in the early 20th century): "I wonder how people want to buy music." "I wonder how consumers want to interact with Web-based advertising." "I wonder what people want to listen to on free radio." "I wonder how consumers want to purchase financial services?" "I wonder…."
But instead of developing models to explore the mysteries, most established brands are moving into the madness phase as they place more and more emphasis and pressure on their worn-out methods. Successful brands will continue to come and go. But the great ones will discover answers to and methods to leverage the new marketplace mysteries of their time. Will you?
Did you know that when it comes to fried chicken, Democrats prefer Popeyes and Republicans Chick-fil-A? Thats' right! According to an article in today's New York Times, pollsters are using consumers' brand preferences to glean insights into voting habits, using a marketing practice referred to as microtargeting. For example, Dr Pepper drinkers tend to be Republicans, while those who prefer Sprite usually vote Democratic.
And that, my friends, is why I lie to all pollsters. :) Seriously, you can read the article at this link, and form your own opinion on the use and efficacy of such tactics. And be sure to watch the debate tonight, where you can have fun deconstructing the candidates attempts to win the favor of democrats as they spin their responses to best incorporate the insights provided by their political strategists. And if you don't notice any spin, that means that they're either real or really good.
If you really want to gain a solid understanding of the evolved concepts of "brand" and "branding" - the cultural challenges of creating expectations with customers - here are two revealing commentaries. The first is a rebroadcast of yesterday's NPR radio program On Point about American Business in China. Pay particular attention to the elucidation of branding in China by Tom Doctoroff, Northeast Asia Director for JWT. The Chinese sound a lot like 1950s Americans. Here's the link to the podcast.
The next is an AdAge article about Ford's new 'Drive One' Campaign, which is intended to shake up car buyers' perceptions of the automaker. I've lifted key excerpts from the article, as well as all of the comments to-date. To understand branding in the U.S., and how it's much different than branding in China, contrast the sentiments in the article with those in the comments:
Jim Farley's moment of truth came when he told his Santa Monica, Calif., neighbors he was leaving Toyota for Ford. They told him his move was "heartwarming," but added that they wouldn't buy a Ford.
"I realized they had gone past skepticism to apathy," said Mr. Farley, who is now group VP-marketing and communications at Ford Motor Co. "We have to break that pattern of apathy." In fact, he told reporters last week that not enough Americans "have a favorable opinion of our company."
Ford is out to change that perception with its new "Drive One" marketing blitz that began with a 60-second commercial during "American Idol" last week. The goal is to make believers -- and buyers -- out of Americans who aren't putting Ford on their shopping lists.
Ford wouldn't reveal ad spending behind the effort, but . . . said the brand, its regional dealer ad groups and individual Ford dealers collectively spend about $1.5 billion annually in measured media. Ford Division will account for about half the new campaign's media spending; the regional dealer groups the other half.The essence of the advertising, as Mr. Farley sees it, is "one human being talking to another human being about Ford. That is the only chance we have to break this cycle of apathy." Mr. Felice told Advertising Age that the marketer will measure the campaign's performance on seven criteria, including building the Ford brand's image, improving customer consideration and increasing dealership traffic.
He said consumers see Ford as a maker of trucks and Mustangs, as an old-economy outfit for mid-America. But the automaker has a lot of untold positive stories, he said, which the campaign will popularize. "We're really trying to remake the image of the company." Mr.
Farley, who had been group VP-general manager of Toyota's Lexus division, cautioned not to judge the success of Ford's campaign this month or next. "The judgment on this will be five years from now."
Now read the comments to understand why mass media advertising has a very different effect in a mature, economy of abundance like the U.S.:
Continue reading "What is branding?"
I just finished reading "Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness," a book about how behavior can be greatly influenced by small changes in the context in which people make decisions. For example, the design of a water bottle can have a major effect on brand selection. Duh?
There's nothing earth shatteringly new here. The subject matter has been exhaustively covered by cognitive psychologists, behavioral economists, and a whole bunch of bloggers. However, I have become somewhat obsessed with a term used by the authors to describe people whose job it is to exercise said influence; namely, "choice architects." Here's how they describe the term in a recent L.A. Times article:
"Those who design supermarkets and school cafeterias are engaged in what we call "choice architecture": the organization of the context in which people make decisions. Choice architects are everywhere. If you design the ballot that voters use to choose candidates, you are a choice architect. If you are a doctor and must describe the alternative treatments available to a patient, you are a choice architect. If you design the form that new employees fill out to enroll in the company healthcare plan, you are a choice architect. If you are a parent, describing possible educational options to your son or daughter, you are a choice architect. If you are a salesperson, you are a choice architect (but you already knew that)."
So here's what I think: I think everyone who works in the fields of branding, marketing, advertising, identity design, naming, digital experience design, social media consulting, et al. should start referring to themselves as "choice architects." Perhaps then they'll be cognizant that their advice and actions are designed to influence customer choice. Not awareness. Not recall. Not sentiment. Not viralness. Choice. And once choice architecture becomes the new standard, businesses will begin making decisions based on what will strategically best influence . . . choice.
Now, I'm not naive enough to believe that cause and effect can be precisely determined in a rapidly changing marketplace for products, media, technology, et al. There are so many factors that influence choice that the variables win against any attempt to isolate them; we really can't say what one specific thing "caused" a particular choice (The exception may be offers exclusively promoted and fulfilled through the mail.) But considering the rapidly increasing level of "noise" regarding the aforementioned professions, I think it's a good place to start. Don't you?
Do you ever wonder if Dove's "Campaign for Real Beauty" caused a subsequent increase in the sales of Dove branded products? I wonder about that a lot. But I'm wondering a little bit less today, based on my reading of this post at Reveries.com:
"You can have extremely relevant information and content but if no one is seeing it, what's the point?" says Unilever's Dove marketing director Kathy O'Brien in a Wall Street Journal piece by Suzanne Vranica (4/10/08). Kathy is explaining why Dove is rolling out its new online community for women, Dove.com, on Microsoft's portal, MSN.com. She hopes that the MSN connection will give the brand "accelerated access" to its target audience. But the larger goal is to do for Dove what its wildly successful, "Campaign for Real Beauty" hasn't yet totally achieved through ads and viral marketing alone -- connect the brand itself to its mission "to promote self-esteem in younger women."
In other words, even though Dove's campaign was the subject of discussion on shows including "Ellen" and "The View," that exposure didn't necessary "incorporate actual Dove items." And even though "tens of millions of people viewed Dove's 'Evolution' video online, "the video wasn't surrounded by any product mentions." As MSN's Gayle Troberman points out: "It's challenging when you put things out on YouTube to engage that consumer with the product messages ... The video provoked debates ... but how do you get the product message in there." The brand also "spent $188 million on ads in the last year, according to TNS Media Intelligence."
So, the hope is that this new site will bridge those gaps on Dove.com with a mix of "entertainment, blogs, advice and advertising." Content includes "Fresh Takes," a Dove-produced mini-series of three-minute episodes starring Alicia Keys, "that follow the life of three young women." Also featured is "advice from a doctor on skin care and even chitchat about how beauty is portrayed in today's popular culture," in many cases with "some type of Dove ad message surrounding the content." Dove.com faces competition from sites like Glam Media and iVillage, as well as "more than one online community aimed at women," such as Capessa, via "Unilever's main rival, Procter & Gamble."
What's your take on this?
Call me crazy, but this reminds me of something from The Colbert Report.
.
"The Platonic metaphor of the mind as a charioteer driving twin horses of reason and emotion is on the right track—except that cognition is a smart pony, and emotion a big elephant."
If you're still not a believer in the irrational behavior of homo sapiens, check out Dan Ariely's new book and blog, Predictably Irrational.
"Tom is timely, thought provoking and all about the new brand vision packaged as a Seinfeld stand up. I went to school on his ideas."
- Jeff Taylor, Founder, Monster.com and CEO, Eons.
(Rest assured, we will never provide your email address to anyone. Period.)
RSS feed
