BrandDigital | BrandSimple: The Blog

I talk in my book, BrandSimple, about the fact that Jerry Seinfeld would make a great branding guy. The comedian has the uncanny ability to see ordinary things from a different perspective. One of the greatest challenges to building a successful brand is having the knack to look at any of the most ordinary things, no matter how much of a commodity they may be, and find a different way in. The guys at Cereality have done just that. (The fact that Jerry’s a cereal fan is but a strange coincidence.) David Roth and Rick Bacher looked at the way people eat cereal, not just for breakfast, but for lunch, for dinner, and for snacking. They looked at where people eat cereal, not just in the kitchen, but in the living room, in their offices, and in their cars. And, as Jerry might have said, they said, “Hey, ever wonder why there isn’t a cereal restaurant?” There is now. Actually there are lots of Cereality cereal cafes snap, crackle, and popping up all over the country. The founders obviously identified a new way of looking at cereal and at the fast food category. Pajama-clad Cereologists™ stand ready to dish out your choice of over 40 cereal brands - mix and match any concoction you wish – with your choice of milk, from skim to whole to soy to chocolate. With store interiors designed to include the spaces where people feel most comfortable eating cereal - kitchens, living rooms and dining rooms, Cereality retail outlets have become popular with cereal aficionados from coast to coast. It’s a perfect example of brand innovation at its best. Take something so simple, so obvious and get people to say, “Hey, why didn’t I think of that.” Well, David Roth and Rick Bacher did think of it. They looked at something as ordinary as breakfast cereal and found a different way to serve it up. By the way, I’ll have Wheat Chex with Fruity Pebbles and soy milk, please. Let me find out what Jerry’s having.

The second annual Brandz™ Top 100 Most Powerful Brands ranking was just published by Millward Brown Optimor and it’s an incredibly valuable read. I like it a lot for a few reasons. First, it’s got a rock-solid foundation having been built on consumer insight data from Data Monitor and financial data from Bloomberg. Second, it ranks both consumer and corporate brands as measured by their dollar value. And third, I like it because it confirms that what I talk about in BrandSimple is built on rock-solid branding principles. What’s not to like, as my relatives would say.

It came as no surprise to me that the top-ranking brands in the Brandz study are those based on crisp, clear, simple ideas –the underlying premise of BrandSimple. Google, for example, up 77% over last year, is based on the simple idea that the smartest kid in your class – the one with all the answers - is sitting right on your desktop. Apple, another winner, is up 55%. Ask anyone which brand is responsible for creating the coolest, user-friendliest technology and you’ll know why this is so. Target, whose simple idea is making cheap chic is up 88% versus last year. And Best Buy, up a whopping 113%, proves that the simple, “Geeky” idea of a retailer who helps consumers understand how to actually use the technology they purchase is pretty smart.

While all of the above brands are, indeed, based on simple ideas, these ideas are also relevantly different from what the competition promises. Another topic I address in BrandSimple and something reflected in a few of the brand rankings. For example, Dell promises to “make it my way.” Different, yes, but I’m not sure how relevant this is to consumers anymore, which is, perhaps, why Dell is down 24%. Intel, too, has lost value over last year – 26%. The brand, which once differentiated itself by representing faster, more powerful chip capacity, isn’t differentiating itself quite as well these days. “Intel Inside” seems to have strayed. Even Microsoft has lost over 10% in valuation, perhaps related to the too-little-too-late launch of Zune, or maybe just because it’s difficult to differentiate a brand on sheer size.

Back to the upside, however, it’s interesting to see that a number of the winning brands were those that leveraged major market trends effectively, demonstrating that brands are listening to what consumers have to say. Brands that delivered on the promise of social responsibility, especially with regard to environmental issues, did very well. BP, by addressing the climate change with alternative fuels, rose in valuation. Toyota, too, benefited from its environmental stance. Food brands that showed a concern for healthier eating also gained in value, most prominently McDonald’s. As the only brand ranking that combines consumer insight data with hard financial data, the Millward Brown Brandz study is a significant piece of data in and of itself. It’s an interesting and telling read for anyone who wants to know what makes some brands more powerful than others. It’s rock solid.

Complete list

I have a friend who used to say that as long as Walter Cronkite was on the air he felt everything was going to be okay—even when he knew the world wasn’t okay. Well, the world isn’t okay and Walter Cronkite isn’t on the air anymore. But, based on recent ratings numbers, it seems that a lot of people these days feel about ABC’s Charles Gibson the way my friend felt about Mr. Cronkite. Why is the Charles Gibson brand clobbering the Brian Williams and Katie Couric brands in the evening news branding derby? It boils down to a BrandSimple answer; the essence of his brand. The Charles Gibson brand is all about authenticity. And in the evening news space authenticity is the gold standard of brand promises. It’s the most important brand benefit the anchor of a prime time news program can have. Charles Gibson, man as brand, looks and behaves like someone who’s been in the business for awhile. Someone who might have earned his stripes at a small town newspaper. Just the facts delivered with an appropriate degree of compassion. His branding is as real as his brand.

While the Brian Williams brand has a smooth and polished essence, it may be too smooth and polished, especially for viewers who want information, not a sophisticated performance. And, no matter how fervently she tries to distance herself from it, the essence of the Katie Couric brand is one of friendly conversationalist. A great brand for morning coffee, but not right for those seeking hard news from someone who comes across as having been in the trenches. Even in his Good Morning America Days, Mr. Gibson was genuinely self-effacing. No matter how much Brian Williams and Katie Couric try to close the branding gap, it’s going to be hard to do. They’d have to change the very essence of their brands which would hardly ring true. The reason Charles Gibson is winning the evening news branding game is that he has the right brand essence for the space and for the times. Charlie, as he’s referred to, is authentic.

As investors line up with bids for Chrysler, I’d like to offer a bit of advice from a brand perspective. While the company has many fine autos on its assembly lines, I’d hazard a guess that there are few consumers who could tell you exactly what the Chrysler brand stands for. Mention that Chrysler is introducing a new model and ask people what they expect it to look like, who it might appeal to, and how it would drive, and you’d most likely get a blank stare. Blank stares are not good when it comes to branding.

The first rule of building a successful brand is to simply and crisply define what you want it to represent in the minds of consumers. If you can’t clearly define what makes your brand different, you’re never going to have a brand that’s worth more than an “Oh yeah. I think my uncle owned one of those.”

Second, once the new owners of DaimlerChrysler establish a differentiated meaning for the Chrysler brand, they’ve got to focus relentlessly on bringing it to life. The way Chrysler automobiles are engineered, the way they drive, the way they look. This means being ruthless about examining the entire portfolio of current offerings and determining which deliver on the Chrysler brand and which don’t. While PT Cruiser, Sebring, Town and Country, and Crossfire are all nice cars with nice names, nice doesn’t win in the brand game. If these sub-brands don’t have what it takes to drive home the Chrysler name they’re not worth having on the lot. Those who bid for Chrysler must be willing to put every dollar behind defining and supporting the Chrysler name, and the Chrysler name only.

While this advice is a lot easier to offer up than it is to achieve, it’s essential that those reaching for their checkbooks take heed. Before considering a bid for Chrylser, they must figure out what they’re going to do with it once they own it. The most powerful brands on the planet succeed because they stand for something different and relevant. Just as all the advertising in the world can’t help a brand with an identity crisis neither can the deepest investment wallet. Spend - and brand - wisely.