Some Mighty Big IF(s) for AOL
Once upon a time, long, long ago, let’s say the mid-to-late 1990’s, there was a simple brand called AOL. The initials AOL stood for “America Online.” That’s what the brand was all about. AOL was the brand known for getting America online. It was lucky enough to have what’s referred to as first-mover advantage. It was among a handful of companies that offered access to the Internet, but its appeal was to the practical, no-nonsense everyday folks. And there were millions of them. While companies like CompuServe catered to the techy types, AOL had found a gap in the market and filled it quickly by catering to the less technologically proficient who found its service both useful and easy to use. AOL offered something that was different and very relevant to a vast new audience. The fact that there was a monthly fee was irrelevant. People didn’t know any better. (Hold on - I’m getting to this.)
In my book, BrandSimple, I explain that brand success is due, in good part, to offering something that people consider different from what they’ve experienced before, and that they find relevant to their needs. Difference and relevance are two of the pillars of brand strength, the foundation of its equity. And—as if you couldn’t tell from the book’s eponymous title—brand success is also due to the fact that whatever it is that makes the brand relevantly different is simple for people to understand. In a world where brands and brand promises are multiplying like rabbits, this is critical.
Back then, AOL got it right on both counts. It offered an Internet access service that was both different and relevant (actually, it was sort of unique and relevant.), and it was easy for people to understand what this meant to them. It was a strong brand. People flocked to AOL because it made getting online and picking up email easy. This is the simple idea on which AOL built its brand equity. In fact, the brand organization used its tagline as the internal driver of all its branding behaviors, “So easy to use, no matter we’re number one.”
According to Bob Pittman, president of AOL at the time, this line was the mantra that drove everyone and everything associated with the brand. “Everyone, from our engineers to our manufacturing reps, understood what this had to do with them, and they understood the effect it had on our customers. For example, it meant don’t build in extra clicks or fancy technology that could stand in the way of people getting what they needed, easily.”
Fast forward. These days, two weeks ago is considered long, long ago when it comes to technology, communications, and anything Internet-related. Internet and email providers abound, not to mention that we now get our email for free. That’s because any Internet-related company that knows better knows that the revenue from the advertisers it attracts will far outweigh any revenue derived from its email accounts. Email is like air. It’s just there.
More than this, Internet-related companies know that content is now the name of the game. It’s all about the movies, TV shows, web-casts, event, book and magazine content they offer and the entertainment brands they partner with, from big players like Viacom and Time Warner, to super-cool renegade video makers. This is where the dollar signs are. Yahoo knows it. MSN knows it. Google really knows it and continues to perfect the science of its advertising business model, as well as the art of its content partnerships. Even the cable and phone companies that now offer access to the Internet know it and are doing a great job at playing catch-up.
AOL however, the company that once had first-mover advantage seems to have lost its momentum. While every other player in the market has been looking forward, AOL has been looking back – at all the people who had signed up for easy email. The trouble is, these folks are starting to look at other options for their email – companies that will give it to them free, plus give them access to an incredible assortment of content options. AOL has been surpassed by a bevy of brands that offer things that are really different and increasingly relevant. Not to mention the fact that each of these companies makes what they stand for simple to understand. In an overwhelmingly competitive category, AOL is simply no longer different and no longer relevant. It’s beginning to lose the equity in its brand name and its strength as a brand. (The fact that it recently stopped charging a fee for its email is, I’d say, too little, too late.)
I’d hazard a guess that what has allowed AOL to stay in the game for the last year or so is that it’s “sticky.” Its brand name has had enough half-life to keep its primary audience hanging on. Now, unfortunately with all the technology out there even AOL loyalists, the practical, no-nonsense types, are starting to become unglued. While AOL’s initial idea got them charged up, there’s nothing much keeping them attracted to AOL these days. Its first-mover advantage is now a huge disadvantage.
The BrandSimple challenge: Is it possible for a once powerful brand to play catch-up after falling off its mark so badly? Yes. IF. (That’s not a typo - it’s a big IF.) Any brand, no matter how initially big, bold, or sticky, has to keep itself differentiated and relevant to stay so. One of the examples I give in the book relative to this topic has to do with IBM. In the early 1990’s, this powerful brand struggled against young, nimble companies who could react more quickly to changes in the computer industry. It had become antiquated and, to some extent, had lost its way. Under the direction of Lou Gerstner, it found its way back to the top with a newly differentiated and relevant business model, as well as the infrastructure and brand-building activities that were required to bring it to market. IBM became, once again, different and relevant and it was simple to understand what made it so. It took on the big IF and succeeded.
AOL has a chance to re-make itself IF it can find something relevant on which to differentiate itself. And IF it can make it simple for us to understand. As a cost of entry, it has to compete on content in some way, shape or form. This is going to be tough. As ubiquitous as it’s becoming, it’s hard to build a brand on content. Look at the struggle TV networks have with this. NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX leapfrog each other on a weekly basis in ratings. Other networks establish specific niches to win eyeball ? ESPN for sports fans, WE for chicks’ flix, Nickelodeon for kids, and Disney with fare the entire family can enjoy. These brands have taken themselves out of the general content race. The differentiation and relevance they offer is based on content that appeals to a very specific group of viewers.
While I would never assume to have the silver bullet, it might behoove AOL to go back to its roots in its search of a relevant and different idea on which to re-build its brand. In the beginning, it demonstrated a keen understanding of the needs of its users, which people appreciated. Maybe if it started out with a particular niche, say parents of young children, it could fashion a different and relevant idea by demonstrating an understanding of the needs of this particular user group. Offer content geared to kids and families. Add features to protect kids from things they shouldn’t see. Provide technological safety nets. (This would also go along way to assuage users who’ve had online searches laid bare to public scrutiny.) Most of all, based on its heritage, make whatever it offers easy to use. Just an idea.
AOL was once known for being the brand that got America online. While it should be respected for this, it’s history. In this market, you’re only as good as your last achievement. For a brand to succeed long term, it has to keep moving forward. To maintain its strength as a brand, it has to keep itself differentiated and relevant, continuously re-inventing itself within the framework of what it was initially known for. This is especially true in science and technology categories.
IF AOL can find something new to say and make it proprietary… IF it can ensure it’s relevant to the users it wants to attract… IF it can rebuild itself in our minds and on our computer screens… IF it can recapture its heritage, it has a chance to reestablish itself. Lots of big IF’s. I don’t like it when any good brand goes sour. So, IF you have any other ideas for AOL, send me an email or comment to this post. It’s free.