BrandDigital | BrandSimple: The Blog

This week, the World Economic Forum is hosting its Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland, where the leaders of the world’s most important companies, countries and media get together to discuss world issues.

One item on the agenda caught my eye, a session entitled, “Brands: Today’s Gods?” In my opinion, that’s a misnomer. Consumers today don’t worship brands any more than they did 40 years ago. As long as there have been brands consumers have used them as navigational tools, not totems. Consumers need brands to help them determine which direction to take with their purchase decisions. The best brands know that in order to be of any use as navigational tools they must sharply define and clearly communicate what they stand for and why it’s relevant. This is how brands are supposed to work. It’s how capitalistic societies work. We’re not going to stop the train.

What we’re seeing today is the result of a world gone exponentially branded. Brand choices have proliferated at an incredible rate, along with branding channels. Branding doesn’t stop when you turn off the television. It’s everywhere. This means brand organizations have had to become more sophisticated in their branding to be of any navigational value to consumers. They’ve had to find ways to make maneuvering through brand choices simpler. Now, there is no question that as consumers we’ve always had an insatiable desire to define our identities with brands; younger consumers, especially so. This, too, was as true 40 years ago as it is now. The huge difference now, of course, is the sheer number of brands and branding messages to which our youngest consumers are exposed. Given this, to mitigate any concern relative to the branded world in which we live, it’s essential to teach kids how to see brands as the navigational tools they are – and should be - and, more important, how to use them to make the right brand choices.

Brands are not today’s Gods. They are and always have been navigational tools by which we determine which way we go in our buying and social behavior. Brands are supposed to provide good direction. It’s our responsibility to determine whether or not we follow.

Yes, this YouTube clip of Stephen Colbert’s explanation of Cingular’s name change to AT&T is funny. Even as a branding guy, I laughed. However, as a branding guy, I also recognized how well it underscored the confusing nature of the telecommunications industry and, specifically, the challenges inherent in building a strong telecommunications brand.

Despite the audience laughter, the name change is actually the easiest branding challenge this new AT&T will face. From a business strategy perspective, it was the right decision. While not perfect for all sorts of reasons, the AT&T name is simple to remember, has higher awareness on a global basis, and a decent amount of trustworthiness. With enough advertising, people will forget about Cingular. The bigger branding challenge for AT&T will be its ability to imbue its brand’s name with something consumers will recognize as being different and relevant to their telecommunications needs – relevant differentiation being at the heart of every powerful brand. AT&T may be promising our world delivered. But if it can’t deliver its brand promise in meaningfully, tangible ways, I’d stay tuned for more fun courtesy of Stephen Colbert. Which, from my branding guy point of view, would be no laughing matter for AT&T.

Steve Jobs’ recent announcement that Apple would be dropping “Computer” from its name seems as intuitive as its company’s products. We’ve long taken for granted that Apple is about more than just computers. The introduction of its iPhone is just further proof. Much like Apple transformed the computing industry and the portable music industry, I believe the iPhone could very well transform the mobile phone and the PDA industries. Jobs, it seems, has cracked the code on what it takes to design an easy multi-tasking interface. More than that, he’s cracked the code on what it takes to keep a brand successful. Put simply, keep it releventaly differentiated from anything else on the market.

The user interface on the iPhone, typical in both Jobsian design and functionality, relevantly differentiates the iPhone from other mobile communication devices in kind, rather than degree. It’s not simply a matter of a new look or feature; it’s actually an entirely new way of using a phone. With a high-resolution touch-screen and powered by the basic Apple OS X operating system, iPhone users can shuttle effortlessly from phone to music to video to Internet.

While the iPhone is a no-brainer for the fanatically loyal Apple user base, my predicition is that it will soon become a no-brainer for anyone interested in making the job of multi-tasking easier and more fun. (Would that be most of us?) The fact that Apple has partnered with Cingular, Google, and Yahoo makes the competitive equation even tougher.

In an industry as commoditized as the mobile communication industry, Apple found something relevantly different to offer. This is not just a proprietary technology coup, but a proprietary branding coup. It seems intutive that it would be Apple leading both revolutions.

Whether they like to admit it or not, politicians are brands. Like all brands, they affix themselves to our psyches through “bumper sticker ideas.” Simple “sticky” associations we summon up whenever their names are mentioned. Nimble reductions of what they stand for with no details required. Whether we agree with a bumper sticker idea is not the point. It’s whether we “get it” and whether it’s gripping enough to stick.

For example, we got that FDR would give us a “new deal” and we got Reagan’s bumper sticker idea, cleverly posited as a question. “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” Without a doubt, we also got – and continue to get – George W’s sticky idea. He likes the course he’s on. In fact, he’s stuck us with the notion that we’re “either on his side or the other side.” Which brings me to the inherent paradox created by bumper sticker ideas, whether they apply to political brands or traditional brands. Once they stick, it’s hard to peel them off mental bumpers. When people have your brand pegged one way or another, it’s hard to change their minds, whether you want to, or not.

So, what’s my advice for the political candidates of 2008? The easy part first. You need a brilliant bumper sticker idea. Given the way people think about brands, they’re required branding tools. The hard part? You need to get strategically focused and identify a simple promise people will care about for the long term.

None of this is rocket science. It’s plain and simple branding science. And while the obvious reality of all bumper sticker ideas is that there are no simple solutions to the complex issues they represent, they get our attention – for better or worse. So candidates, take heed. If you want people to “get it,” capture it in a bumper sticker idea. But before you do, make sure it’s something you’d like to be stuck with for the long term (or, at the very least, two terms).

Will making an airline bigger make it better? That’s the obvious question being asked by any number of people regarding the news about the US Airways bid for Delta. The answer is yes, if – and if.

The first “if” is the business “if.” If the merger between US Air and Delta creates operational efficiencies of scale then there’s a chance bigger could be better, for both the combined company and the passengers. In this case, bigger could solve some big business issues. (And, by the way, calling the new company Delta, given the fact that it’s a stronger name from a global perspective was a good first move.)

Okay, let’s say this is done successfully. The second “if” is the branding “if.”

The real challenge for those in favor of a merger between US Air and Delta is how to make the experience of flying this big, new airline relevantly different – relevant differentiation being the key to all successful brands. I’m not talking about flight attendant uniforms or in-flight entertainment. I’m referring to things that bring the new operating efficiencies to life for passengers. Things that have a tangibly positive impact on the entire flying experience, from the reservation process, to the routing choices, to the baggage retrieval. This is what really distinguishes one airline from another. In other words, if the tickets are cheaper and I’m treated like I bought the cheap seats, forget it.

If bigger fixes the business model, that’s good. If the new brand can’t figure out how to deliver bigger as better, that’s bad. While bigger may address the benefits of scale, if there’s nothing different about how the new airline executes bigger from a branding standpoint, the whole thing could be a big dud.

The fashion world is tough. Branding in the fashion world, where it’s hard to differentiate on design or quality, is tougher. This seems particularly true, of late, in the world of fashionable watches. How can I tell? Copycat celebrity branding.

Yes, for lack of more innovative brand-building ideas, too many watch brands have reverted to using pretty faces to sell their pretty timepieces. Open any high-end magazine and you’ll see what I mean. Beautifully shot, two-page spreads of Eric Clapton, of Uma Thurman, of Nicolas Cage, of Kiefer Sutherland, of Meg Ryan. All wonderfully talented people, distinguished in their fields, but none doing an especially wonderful job at distinguishing one brand of watch from another. These folks are great borrowed interest, but borrowed interest isn’t great at building brands – especially when so many interests are being borrowed simultaneously. In other words, it’s time for some imagination.

We all know that using celebrities in branding and marketing is commonplace. To be successful, however the personality of the celebrity must be in sync with the personality of the brand. There has to be a credible reason for us to believe the celebrity’s spiel. Karl Malden was credible when he admonished us to take American Express Traveler’s Cheques on the road, for example. Wilford Brimley was credible when he admonished us to eat our Quaker Oats. As much as I appreciate a Clapton riff as much as the next guy, is this really a credible reason for me to appreciate Rolex watches more than other watch brands?

Celebrity branding should be considered the exception, not the rule, as a brand builder. It requires a long-term commitment on the part of the celebrity. More important, it requires compatibility. I’m willing to buy into John Travolta as a pilot, not an actor, endorsing Breitling’s “instruments for professionals.” But as for Uma and her Tag Heuer, or is that Nicolas and his Tag Heuer — when celebrity branding becomes copycat celebrity branding, it’s time to reconsider your branding tactics.

When I was a kid, Bass Weejuns were a “badge brand.” When you walked around school wearing these shoes, you were authentically cool. Kids whose moms pressured them into accepting another brand — similar in look, but definitely not the original — could still be in therapy for all I know. Okay, an overstatement, but here’s my point. In brand categories where brand authenticity makes you part of a cool community, there can only be one winner. In the case of music-to-go, it’s iPod. Not Zune.

Don’t get me wrong. The new Microsoft Zune is a great product. It’s got all the required bells and whistles – and then some. It lets you listen to FM radio, gives you wireless access, and lets you share music. The latter being a bell or whistle the company hopes will lead to social networking platform unavailable with the iPod. The thing is that iPod users don’t want or need a social networking platform. They’re already part of an in crowd, white earbuds and all.

From a pure brand perspective, Zune is going to have an uphill battle if it thinks it can beat iPod. The product’s features and benefits just aren’t different enough or relevant enough to win on a rational basis. Wireless is nice, but people have phones and computers for that. From a branding perspective, Zune is going to have an even tougher time. Actually, it’s going to be like a climb up Everest in Bass Weejuns. The iPod is as hip as hip gets, from its design and functionality to its status as a “badge brand.”

I wish Zune well. Microsoft is a terrific company, but when it comes to being too cool for school (even if your school days are long past), my bet is that iPod will remain on top. It’s an original.

Geico is literally a mom and pop brand made good. Actually, made great by way of brilliant branding. The company started out with the simple promise of being able to save you 15% on car insurance. It hasn’t wavered and, as a result, can claim ownership of this promise. Owning anything in branding today is hard.

But wait, there’s more. Geico also owns one of the most amusing branding characters on the telly. The little British gecko who has a thing for pie an’ chips. Realizing the name of the company might be hard to pronounce, this droll, green fellow was created to make it as easy as pie (an’ chips) to remember. He’s helped take the company to its leadership position.

Geico continues to employ its gecko and its 15% savings claim. But, it’s also started to expand its message beyond price with another series of ads that focus on the quality of the Geico experience. Celebrities as disparate in nature as Charo, Peter Graves, Little Richard, and Burt Bacharach add a twist to what would otherwise be stodgy customer testimonials. While the strategy behind this branding is in lock step with Geico’s humorous brand persona, there’s something distracting about it. I remember the celebrities. I don’t remember what the customers had to say. A case of cleverness trumping intention.

Clever is good. And Geico is great. But when using humor in branding, make sure the brand promise is as easy as pie (an’ chips) to remember.

Michael Dell had a brilliantly simple brand idea right from the start. Tailor-made computing solutions. The idea was made more brilliant given how beautifully it was wired into the business strategy. No middle man. Lower prices. The positive perfect storm for any brand organization. Profits were gangbuster from day one. Build it and they will come. Which they did, and do, by the millions.

The man and his machines continue to make the cover of business magazines. But now, not always for the best reasons. Yes, the Dell brand is still in the very successful business of made-to-order. Made emphatically clear by its new branding campaign, “Purely You.” I think the adverse news stories have something to do with what’s missing from the “purely me” equation. In short, to be more effective, it has to apply to more than just the guts of the hardware. For a brand idea to be successful, it has to work from the inside out. Apply to everything associated with the brand experience. Advertising, product design and functionality, customer service, tech support.

Don’t get me wrong. “Purely You” is a dynamite simple idea. It’s just not being employed broadly enough to have much impact. Given my opinion, what would I suggest? It would help if the outside design of the Dell products were as nifty as the inside engineering. It’s a competitive category. Looks matter. Also, how about making me feel like it is purely about me when I interact with the Dell folks online or on the phone? I’ve heard complaints from even the staunchest Dell advocates on this issue. Then, without compromising the business strategy, would it be possible to make the Dell kiosk experience more personal? The brand idea is “Purely you,” not surely you.

I like Dell a lot. It’s a great brand. I just think that in coming up with its new brand idea it should have looked beyond the inside of its products. Too myopic. Ask Apple. Ask. HP. Ask IBM. The most powerful brand ideas succeed because they’re brought to life from the inside out.

Stop & Shop might be cooked. King Kullen could be dethroned. Publix may take a licking. That is if they and every other traditional supermarket chain don’t look into some major re-invention strategies. Consumers are demanding more from their grocery shopping experience than stale Muzak and employees who offer up freeze-dried smiles. To put it more bluntly, traditional grocery stores are fast becoming commodities, which in the world of brands means, “Sorry Charlie.” To win in any category, even a category as basic as the weekly groceries, you’ve got to stand for something compellingly different, and you’ve got to make good on your promise. When it comes to filling shopping carts these days, you can’t brand down the middle. You’ve got to come up with something consumers haven’t seen before and make sure it’s something they want. What do they want? Whole Foods recognizes it’s wholesome and organic. Fresh Direct, convenience. Wal-mart and Costco have proven the value of value. And Stew Leonard’s, for those of you lucky enough to have experienced this chain, looks at shopping as entertainment (if you call dancing cows entertainment). Consumers aren’t necessarily fickle, but they are inundated with brands. (Brand Attention Deficit Disorder wouldn’t be too extreme a description.) While your business strategy might be selling groceries, you’ve got to get people in the door with a unique brand strategy to get carts (full carts) rolling in the aisles.