BrandDigital | BrandSimple: The Blog

How is media buying evolving along with the evoloution of digital branding channels? Is “print dead,” as many in the marketing industry might have us believe? Vivek Shah, a digital expert at Time, Inc. answered these, and a number of other interesting questions, in our recent interview. Click here and have a look at what he said.

How much did social networking have to do with the fact that we watched Barack Obama sworn in as the 44th president of the United States? From this voter’s perspective, a lot. Yes, it helped that there was a former Facebook member on the Obama staff, but more than this are the millions of Facebookers, voters all, who understand that social media sites now play two critical roles in their lives. First, it’s a way for them to keep track of their friends, virtual and otherwise, the initial reason for the existence of Facebook and the others. But more germane to politics and inaugurations, social media has become a way, if not the way, to spread and vet opinions about everything from music, to sports, cars, clothing, movies and political candidates. It’s the way a fast-growing and increasingly older number of people stay plugged in to what’s important. According to David Kirkpatrick, Senior Editor, Internet and Technology at Fortune magazine, Twitter and its tweeting are miniscule in their influence compared to the burgeoning communication power of Facebook. As he told me, “For anyone to dismiss it as a digital diversion for the younger set is a big, big mistake.” The net-net for brands is that anything with this much consumer engagement can – and will – be turned into a platform for consumer buying decisions. Ask brand Obama. He’ll tell you it’s branding change you’d better believe in.

Over the past year, consumer trust in companies, consumer trust in every institution, has sunk just about as low as it can go. This crisis in confidence has been fueled by an unprecedented series of scandals and schemes and just plain lousy management by people making more money than should be legal. Ironically, over the past year, the number of new companies rolling out with brand names explicitly touting honesty, purity or trust has been on the rise. If the thought behind naming a brand, Pur, or Honest Tea, or – egad, Satyam which means “trust” in Sanskrit – is to get a head start on gaining peoples’ trust, I’d put my head down and concentrate on something else. Making sure you keep your brand’s promise. For every intent and purpose a brand is a promise that you’ll do, sell, or service exactly what you promise to. Break this promise in any way, shape or form and the only name that will matter is what your company is called by the millions of Internet users and YouTube viewers who blog in derision. Take a look at my article on Forbes.com and send me your thoughts. (Oh, and don’t forget to include your name.)

I’ve heard kids say all sorts of things about what they want to be when they grow up, a doctor, a fireman, a dog walker, even a judge on American Idol, but the owner of a Dairy Queen franchise? In its recent foray into digital marketing, the folks of DQ have launched an online video game, DQ Tycoon, which lets players see what it feels like to beat the clock preparing tasty treats like the Peanut-Buster Parfait. While this might be amusing for a minute or two, as a player in the branding world, I can’t say this digital gig does anything to promote the benefits of a cold and creamy ice cream cone on a hot and dusty day. The purpose of any branding initiative, digital or otherwise, is to support the brand promise.

Digital is cool. Digital is now. Digital can be nifty. But if your digital branding application doesn’t reinforce what it is you want people to think about your brand (DQ ice cream is cold and creamy and just perfect on a hot and dusty day) it’s not going to come across as cool, now, or nifty. It’s just going to sit there like a melting Peanut-Buster Parfait. I like DQ, as do my kids. But, if it wants to use digital tactics in its branding mix, I’d advise Dairy Queen to come up with something in keeping with its brand promise – the customer’s ice cream experience, not the experience of the folks behind the counter.

Call me old-fashioned, if you will, but I consider myself a traditionalist when it comes to knowing what keeps a strong brand strong. And my opinion is that the recent decision by The New York Times Company to sell display advertising on the front page of its esteemed newspaper will weaken its perception as the leading brand of news source in the minds of consumers. In fact, by placing these unsightly, unfit-to-print ads across the bottom of page one, the newspaper takes a critical step away from one of the things that has differentiated it from any number of other newspaper brands – the considered exclusion of commercial space on the front page; among major American newspapers, a distinction held by only The Times and The Washington Post. Yes, yes, I understand that this step was deemed necessary as a way of making up lost revenue in a climate in which ad revenues for all newspapers are plummeting. However, my feeling is that short-term financial gain resulting from this action will not outweighs the loss of their simple all news front page visual differentiator. These are hard times for all organizations, especially those that count on advertising revenue to support operations. But The Times should take a page out of this traditionalist’s branding book and reconsider putting paid-for news that does not fit the promise of its brand on its front page.