BrandDigital | BrandSimple: The Blog

Among the topics I write about in BrandDigital is the role social networking sites play in the brand-building process. While some marketers believe that to succeed in the digital economy a brand must have some presence on sites like MySpace, Facebook, or LinkedIn, most others agree with my premise that a brand should carefully consider the value of where it chooses to hang out, not to mention its acceptance by this like-minded group. As Kevin Lane Keller, a professor of marketing at Dartmouth’s Tuck School of Business aptly put it, “You don’t want your brand to come across as a professor crashing the frat party.” His point, obviously, is that as much as you think your brand might fit seamlessly into a particular social network crowd, it’s crucial to remember that you’re still “the brand,” and they’re the consumers.

The value of this point was driven home a week or so ago at the Fortune Brainstorm: Tech conference which I had the opportunity to attend. Among the folks participating in a discussion chaired by the magazine’s technology editor David Kirkpatrick, was Sheryl Sandberg, chief operating officer of Facebook, who talked about this well-populated social network’s position on “brands as friends.” Akin to what I write about in my book, Sandberg suggested that the key to successful branding on a social networking site is the ability to determine what type of people are spending time on the site, to listen to what they’re talking about to each other, what interests they share, and then determine whether your brand can offer anything of relevance to the virtual conversation. Your branding objective should be to demonstrate to participants on the site that your brand has a good reason for being there; that engaging in the branding will be worth their while and worth sharing with their friends, word of mouth being a key dynamic in the social networking scene.

Sandberg gave a great example of a brand that heeded this online social branding principle. Mazda, recognizing that one of the target audiences it wanted to befriend was hanging out on Facebook, decided to launch a branding initiative which involved helping it plan for the design of its 2018 MAZDA3. The company’s relevant contribution clearly got people to pay attention. Not only did Facebook members submit designs, hundreds of them voted on the design features they’d be interested in, something that will help enable Mazda to meet consumer needs more relevantly than its competitors. Mazda didn’t simply repurpose an existing ad or video for its Facebook presence, it developed a branding strategy specifically for a particular social networking scene, taking into account both the “friends” and the business objective it wanted to meet. Any brand can learn from Mazda’s experience that to win friends and influence people on a social network site, it must identify who’s at the party, know what these folks are interested in and make sure it has something of relevance to add to the conversation.

Don’t interrupt me unless you’ve got something meaningful to say. This cardinal rule of brand building has become both more important and more challenging in this age of digital connection. With the multiplying ways consumers can see and hear about and experience brands, the chance for interruption by some form of irrelevant branding message has become greater than ever. If consumers thought branding interruptus was maddening in the days before TV remotes, imagine what it’s like for them today.
I was reminded of this the other day when I had the opportunity to attend the U.S Open. For those of you who have never seen this tennis event live, it’s a wonderful experience. However each time I return I am amazed to see how much it (and other athletic events, for that matter), continues to become more and more of a marketing event. Lexus was one of the dozens of sponsors making an appearance and, from my professional standpoint the company got it about half right in terms of making their branding efforts relevant and not interruptive. The half-right part: Those of us lucky enough to drive a Lexus were offered free parking and a free program. That’s what I call a meaningful branding initiative. It made me think good thoughts about the brand. The company also had their newest lineup of cars on display. While this wasn’t necessarily relevant to the venue, it was entertaining in a non-intrusive way. One could choose to look, or not. Okay, the not-so-right part was that the Lexus logo was sewn onto both sides, and on both ends of the net over which tennis balls are being lobbed. This means that everyone watching this event, in person or on screen, television or Internet feed, is forced to look at the Lexus mark. As pleased a Lexus owner as I am, I found this net presence extremely distracting. It did not make me think good thoughts about the Lexus brand. I know that sporting events have always relied on brands to help support their efforts and brands have gladly obliged. Eyeballs are eyeballs. However, with the deluge of digital media, with the increasing opportunity for consumers to turn on and then turn off or away from branding initiatives that offer no relevant value, I’d recommend that brands focus more attention on branding efforts that lead to meaningful engagement.

Seek and ye shall find. Marketers seeking an even better way to hone the right message to the right person at the right time need seek no further than Google’s newest service called Insights for Search. As a marketer, I’m fascinated by this latest tool of the trade which allows us to analyze search engine queries to help determine who’s buying what, where, when, and why. As a brand professional, I’m fascinated by Google’s ability to continue to hone its simple brand promise to “organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” It’s a branding truism that the best brands on the planet are built on simple, focused ideas. When you identify a simple idea on which to base a brand, it’s easy to brilliantly execute against it. It’s also a branding truism that the best brands stay the best brands because they identify new and innovative ways to keep their simple ideas relevant, even as the world turns and times change. They do so by finding even more brilliant ways to bring their simple brand ideas to life. Google’s launch of Insights serves to strengthen the idea we have of Google as the go-to brand for the answers to all of our questions. And therein is the value of this new service to smart marketers. You can get more insight about people by the questions they ask than by the answers they give. Yet another branding truism is that to serve your customers better than the competition you have to get meaningful insight about what they want and use it to deliver what they want. Being able to track and analyze the questions consumers are asking about a given topic is a powerful way to get insight about what’s really on their minds, what desires, fears, interests, pastimes, hobbies, or endeavors. The collection of search queries that people type into Google has been called a “database of intentions,” a window into what they’re interested in learning about. Insights is great for marketers because its functionality allows us to determine more precisely what consumers want. Insights is great for the Google brand because its insight into what marketers want has only further secured its place in our minds as the leader in its category.

Perhaps no industry has been transformed more quickly by digital technology than the music industry. From the CD to the introduction of the MP3 player to cell phones with the ability to upload and download new tunes at Starbucks, the tools of this trade have been forever changed. This is one of the reasons the musician Neil Young was a featured speaker at the recent Fortune Brainstorm: Tech conference. While he applauded the fact that digital technology has made it easier for more people to listen to their favorite music whenever and wherever the spirit moved them, he wasn’t quite as complimentary about what the industry has done to the audio quality of this music. In fact, he used the phrase “dumbed down” as a descriptor. I have to agree that for a purist like Neil Young this comment has merit. No MP3 player is going to produce sound quality equal to a Bose-inspired living room, let alone a symphony hall. But from a pure branding perspective, Mr. Young is missing the point. While music connoisseurs might turn up their noses at the audio quality of on-the-go musical devices, these digital devices were designed with a completely different benefit in mind: to listen to music while running, while hanging out at Starbucks working on their term papers, or while riding the subway to work. The first step in any good brand strategy, the first step to becoming a successful brand, is to get significant and useful insight about your customers. What, as a brand, can you offer that is relevant to them and is different from what they already experience? Apple and every other brand in this category recognized that people love music and that it would certainly be convenient and a whole lot of fun if people could take their favorite music with them wherever they go. The likes of iTunes were developed with this in mind, convenience and fun. There is no doubt that the industry has struck a very positive chord with its target audience. While I appreciate Neil Young’s point and I appreciate great sound quality as much as the person next to me at Carnegie Hall, my contention is that the quality of the music on our ubiquitous digital music boxes is not as relevant a benefit for us as convenience. In the brand world, understanding what the people want and delivering it better than the next guy is the real heart of gold.

So many brands today spend so much time searching for new and different ways to promote their products, they often overlook a core brand equity that’s right in front of their nose, or taste buds, as the case may be. Not McDonald’s. In its most recent branding efforts, the company decided to serve up its iconic Big Mac sandwich by reintroducing the spirited jingle: “Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions, on a sesame seed bun.” Taking advantage of many digital tools and tactics available to marketers today, the company has asked consumers to write their own songs using the exact words of this jingle which was created in 1974 by Keith Reinhard and his team from the agency Needham, Harper & Steers.

While Reinhard and his colleagues had only a guitar to help in the creation of this mnemonic tune, the folks at McDonald’s are well aware that the Internet provides consumers with an incredible array of innovative widgets with which to share in the brand-building fun. And smart as they are, the company also knows that engaging consumers in brand-building is one of the many new success factors made possible by digital technology. While one might think that because MySpace users are too young to remember the original jingle and that its reintroduction online would be a losing proposition, McDonald’s saw it as the incredible opportunity it was – the chance to reach the consumers they wanted to reach exactly where they hang out; online. Like all effective branding initiatives, this one is based on the simple premise of its differentiated ingredients. It doesn’t matter a bit that MySpace users are too young to remember the old ads or the original jingle. If they didn’t know it before, they know now what goes into making a uniquely delicious hamburger sandwich. And, they know when a company makes its branding efforts relevant to the space in which they live.

I’m looking at the June 2^nd cover story of Business Week which is titled “Beyond Blogs; What Business Needs to Know about YouTube, Facebook and Social Media and Media Spending.” In addition to being a fascinating read, this article is also a perfect segue for why I’m changing the header of my blog. You see, in September of this year I will be releasing my newest book, titled BrandDigital. The purpose of the book is to help marketers understand the dramatic way the Internet and other forms of digital technology are changing the way businesses need to look at building brands.

Much like my first book, BrandSimple, which demystified the way powerful brands get built in general, the intent of BrandDigital is to demystify what many people find unnecessarily mystifying about digital technology and its effect on brands. And, much like the Business Week article helps explain what businesses need to know about blogs and social media, BrandDigital helps explain how smart companies are using digital technology and the behavior it engenders to build brands. My intent in writing the book was to sort out which digital tools and tactics are important to organizations of every size as they go about their branding strategy and execution, and which are just smoke and mirrors. BrandDigital was written after interviewing over 100 of the most knowledgeable and insightful people in the business of branding and digital technology. I spoke with corporate executives across an incredible array of categories, with digital technology gurus, with research and analysis professionals, and with top management in communications agencies. I spoke with bloggers, with developers of virtual communities, with members of social networks, and with trend spotters and venture capitalists. I spoke with people who have been in the business of building brands for the better part of long, established careers, but for whom digital tactics pose some questions, and with people whose youth makes digital technology as natural as breathing, but for whom brand-building does not come quite as naturally. I found that it is at the intersection of time-honored branding principles and new forms of branding opportunities that great brands are built.

Watch this blog in weeks to come for my thoughts on how building brands is transforming in the digital age.

Instead of hanging out on my own blog site these past few months I’ve been hanging out in a number of other online spaces, blog and otherwise, doing research for my new book, BrandDigital, which I hope will demystify this potentially mystifying marketing space. In order to help others make sense of the digital territory I’ve had to make sense of it for myself which has meant, in part, creating personal profiles on a couple of the online networking sites of which there are many, LinkedIn, Ryze, Friendster, Spoke, MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, and EntreMate, to name just a few. Since beginning my book less than a year ago the number of these online hangouts have continued to increase, some supposedly more business oriented than others, some skewed to a somewhat younger demographic, and some promising to keep out the hoi polloi ( Aren’t we all hoi polloi online?). But in my perusing I’ve found that these sites are all pretty much the same and breed the same sort of behavior: As soon as you post your profile you have hundreds of people who want to ‘friend’ you; you run into the same ‘friends’ from site to site; it takes an inordinate amount of effort to keep your identity consistently updated across sites; and these sites can be incredible time suckers. In fact, whenever I log onto one site or another I think about one of the many interviews I had in preparation for writing my new book. This particular interview was with Phil McIntyre, an online marketing and production veteran who told me about a viral marketing initiative he created. It was a spoof of YouTube called “PhilTube” which, in the style of “The Office” parodied life in the digital-office age. In one episode the Phil of PhilTube calls out manically to his secretary “Hold all my calls. I’m blogging!” Even when told that some major mogul, a la Donald Trump, is on the line, Phil yells, “Not now – I’m blogging!”

Well, as I try to keep track of my all my online identities along with all the online identities of my ‘friends’ it’s occurred to me that sooner rather than later there’s bound to be a shake out. Social networking sites are becoming commodities. There isn’t one of them that stand out as offering something that much different or better than any other. As a branding professional I can tell you that this spells trouble. The best brands are those that set themselves apart by representing something relevantly different than their category equivalents. Or, as Bob Pittman, founder of MTV and now a partner in the Pilot Group, told me during another interview, “The best brands make the stuff we already do easier, more convenient or more fun. If you can make it better for me I’ll integrate it into my life. If you can’t, I won’t.”

As interesting as these online networks might seem now, they’re going to become tiresome, as commodities do. And, as much as we’d like to think we can, we can’t really keep track of four or five separate online lives and have enough time left for an offline life. One of these sites is going to recognize this. The brand of online networking site that does, that makes it simpler to integrate the activities of maintaining our personal lives online and makes it easier, more convenient and more fun will be the one worth holding the phone for.

Super Tuesday is upon us. Pundits are calling it the first national primary. I’m calling it a battle for the brands. From my BrandSimple perspective, the winner hands down will be Barack Obama. He’s identified the clearest, simplest brand driver of anyone running. His easily understood idea is sort of akin to Pepsi’s “choice of a new generation.” And whether people agree with this choice of a new generation they’re in full agreement that everything he says and does is in alignment with his well-defined brand idea.

Second on my best branded list is John McCain. His brand driver is more akin to Coke’s classic positioning, “It’s the real thing.” As an American hero with a stellar military record and an equally stellar senatorial record, he projects himself, what he says and what he does, as the real thing, at least when it comes to presidential timber. He comes across as authentic.

This leaves Hillary Clinton stuck in the middle, sort of between Coke and Pepsi. While she has plenty of supporters and just as many claims, she hasn’t identified a simple, clear way to define her brand. This could bode problems. As all brand professionals know, it’s really hard to win from the middle. It’s hard to win when consumers can’t quite figure out what you stand for. It’s hard to win when you don’t have a simple, clear idea driving all of your branding activities, be they ads or speeches, promises or platforms. If Hillary Clinton wants to make it to the top of the best branded list, if she wants to make it to the top, she’s got to get out of the middle. It’s hard to win from the middle. Just ask Dr. Pepper.

I love NBC’s 30 Rock. It’s a great television show. Given that it airs when I’m either helping my kids with homework or getting them ready for bed, it was easy to download from iTunes and watch it on my schedule. Note I said “was easy.” It’s not all that easy anymore. As a matter of fact, NBC has me in pause mode. You see, earlier this fall NBC teamed up with the Fox network and a number of media companies like MSN, AOL and Comcast, to create Hulu, an online brand that aggregates content from a number of places. Hulu is in beta right now, but the idea is that viewers would have to go to Hulu to download their favorite NBC or Fox shows. This is neither intuitive nor smart when it comes to reinforcing brand loyalty. Having viewers jump through this Hulu hoop creates an unwelcome EXTRA stop between brand and user. If they must control distribution and don’t want to pay Apple anymore, they should do it on the NBC.com site like ABC.

ABC has made the wise branding choice to reinforce its relationship with viewers by directing them to ABC.com for downloads. I don’t have to think twice about how to watch ABC shows on my schedule. It’s easy, it’s smart and it’s intuitive. ABC shows - ABC.com. Search made simple. No jumping through hoops. I like that.

Building a brand is hard enough today what with so many brand choices and so many media choices. The idea is to make things easier for consumers, not more complicated. NBC is risking its well-respected brand name by having an intermediary brand host its shows. It’s created a step between me – an NBC advocate – and my interaction with its brand. This Hulu hoop doesn’t rock.

Landor’s third annual list of the top ten Breakaway Brands was released in the November 2nd issue of Fortune magazine. The ranking is based on a comprehensive survey that measures brand momentum over a three year period in terms of financial gain and brand strength – how it’s appraised by consumers. As I looked over the newest top ten brands two things immediately came to mind. First, the brands on the list represented a broad spectrum of categories. TJMaxx to iPod, Stonyfield to Gatorade’s Propel, Costco to Barnes & Noble, with a few relative old-timers thrown in for very good measure. Second, the brands on the list all delivered especially well on the fifth in my top ten list of what it takes to be a strong brand. (You can see the other nine in my book, BrandSimple.) And that is, making sure that your brand strategy – what your brand represents to consumers – is in absolute alignment with your business strategy, or what you deliver. In other words, can you validate the brand experience?

While this has always been essential to brand success, it’s never been more important than in today’s totally transparent, digitally-enabled consumer environment. If you don’t keep your promise in today’s marketplace, you’ll get found out and taken down in an instant, whether by blog, text or brand-damning digital video. Should you have any doubt at all, take a look at the video of the sleeping Comcast repairman on YouTube, complete with background music by the EELS. Each of the companies on the top ten list of Breakaway Brands have the entire organization focused on delivering the brand experience just as consumers expect it to be delivered. The brand strategy is inseparable from the business strategy and it shows both in Wall Street satisfaction and customer satisfaction.