BrandSimple | BrandDigital: The Blog

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.

One of the points I make at the end of my book, BrandSimple, was something I lifted from Andy Grove, former CEO of Intel, who commented “Only the paranoid survive.” His quote referred to those charged with managing Intel. My reference applied to anyone charged with managing a brand. While many factors drive brand success, one of the most critical is the ability to stay relevantly differentiated in your category. To do so takes a bit of paranoia.

I thought about this the other day as I read that Kodak would be dropping its sponsorship of the Olympic Games effective at the end of next year’s summer events in Beijing. A sponsorship that began over 100 years ago with an ad printed in the program for the 1896 Olympic Games in Athens. I thought about it even more as I walked by a local photo processing store on my way to work where a “Going out of Business” sign hung in the window. This store was one of the many in its franchise, all going out of business forever. I think the changes in the photography industry should be a good wake-up call to any brand not paranoid enough to worry about staying relevantly ahead of its category curve.

Shutterbugs used to have one or two relationships with photography brands – cameras and film. There wasn’t too much competition for brand managers to worry about, especially those vying for the amateur market. Kodak was comfortably in a leadership position, doing the sorts of things that leadership brands should do, like sponsoring Olympic Games. The Kodak brand was ubiquitous. Then, in the blink of a shutter, it wasn’t. The problem is that it wasn’t paranoid, or at least didn’t become paranoid enough fast enough to transform its core business in an industry as hyper fast as technology. Today there are dozens of brands competing for attention in this category. Photographers have lots of options in brand relationships, beginning with digital cameras and going on and on and on to camera phones, digital printing a la HP and Canon, online posting brands like Flickr and Snapfish, plus a good number of products from a small brand called Apple. In a market with so many consumer choices and so much change, brand survival isn’t good enough. With a nod to Andy Grove I’d say only the paranoid succeed.

The only recent news story that may have gotten more press coverage than the release of Apple’s iPhone is the release of Paris Hilton. I’m not here to weigh in on that particular item. Rather, I would like to toss a brand question into the ring regarding the iPhone. What happens when one brand bets its future on the performance of another? By choosing AT&T as its exclusive carrier for the next two years Apple may be doing just that. Apple selected AT&T in part because the company allowed it to change everything people hated about cell phones. The problem is, one of the biggest things people hate about cell phones is still in AT&T’s arena: Its network and its reputation for inconsistent signals. While AT&T is working hard on next generation technology to remedy this, the brand’s reputation relative to call quality could have a negative effect on Apple’s grade-A reputation as a brand. The incredibly positive aura associated with the Apple brand could be diminished if the calling experience with the iPhone is less than Apple grade.

Now, generally, no one blames problems with their cell phone on the hardware. If there’s a problem, they assume it’s the carrier. This may mitigate any fallout to the Apple brand should the call experience with the iPhone be less than wonderful. While any brand partnership is a challenge, what remains to be seen in this case is whether Apple loyalists will be any less loyal if every aspect of the iPhone experience doesn’t live up to their expectations. Apple is, in a way, releasing the product with one hand tied behind its back.

And although the iPhone can be used one-handed, the brand may need both to defend itself against any less than stellar performance on its partner’s part. Stay tuned.

Terry Semel’s departure as CEO of Yahoo didn’t surprise me, just as it didn’t surprise anyone on Wall Street, in Silicon Valley, or any number of blogging technorati. The company’s profits have been slipping for awhile now, in good part as a result of its slipping efforts to narrow Google’s lead as a search engine. Replacing Mr. Semel with Jerry Yang, one of Yahoo’s co-founders, offers some hope that passion can be restored to the brand. After all, who better than the inventor of the brand to recharge its status? But, from a pure brand POV, it’s going to take a lot more than just a change at the top to restore Yahoo’s place as a leading brand in the online world. For this, Yahoo is going to have to figure out what it wants to stand for –not who is standing at its helm. In other words, it needs to identity a single, simple something that consumers can understand and that they associate with the Yahoo brand –and the Yahoo brand only.

In BrandSimple, I write about how the best brands in the world have always been built on simple, relevantly different ideas that drive everything they do and that set them apart from the competition. As a brand, especially a brand trying to make it in a digitally- accelerated universe, you simply can’t succeed by being a little bit good at everything. Right now, Yahoo’s a little bit good at search, a little bit good at content, at attracting advertisers, at email, at convenience. As of this week, they’re even a little bit good at providing coverage of college athletics, as indicated by the purchase of Rivals.com. It’s a little bit too late for this. To succeed, the company is going to have to establish one thing to be really, really good at – better than any other brand - and ensure we care. Unfortunately, I don’t think the answer is in going back to the future. Mr. Yang and his team may have the best of intentions and I wish them luck. But, from a pure brander’s POV, my prediction is that they company will be sold to a brand that knows what it stands for and why buying Yahoo will add to its standing.

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal talked about how the Lenovo Group’s newest advertising touts the durability and superior engineering of its soon to be launched ThinkPads. While computers that can survive underwater adventures and exposure to deep-freeze conditions are certainly worth talking about, there’s a much bigger story in this article – albeit, a few paragraphs down the page. Lenovo is also about to launch one of the most expensive laptops on the market – a $5,000 notebook computer aimed at top corporate executives. Yes, the price tag is big befitting the computer’s stellar performance, but the bigger story here is the fact that these top-tier computers come with an unprecedented level of support service – platinum level service, if you will. If you run into trouble, a Lenovo tech will meet you in person to solve the issue. No tele-helper in India requesting the model number of the machine. No annoying automated list of tele-menu options. Instead, real live technical support when you need it. From a brand perspective, the newsworthy story in the WSJ article is that Lenovo has identified a way to change a key dynamic in a commodity market – the after-sale user experience. While good quality has become a cost of entry in the computer industry, peace of mind relative to the after-sale experience is a potentially game-changing move. We all know that no matter how solid any piece of technology may be, it isn’t a matter of if you’ll need assistance, but when. Providing assurance that help will actually be there when you need it is a relevantly different, yet simple brand idea. Who has time to wait these days, especially when business comes to a halt? Yes, a number of computer companies offer good post-sales assistance, Apple among them. But not one has yet to offer the level of help that Lenovo plans to provide. Differentiating its brand in this way is not only a big idea, it’s a smart one.

Landor has just released its 2007 ImagePower® Survey looking at green issues and green brands and, not surprisingly, it confirms what intuition would tell us. More and more Americans—40%, in fact—have gotten the message that global warming poses a major threat. More than 50% believe existing environmental initiatives aren’t enough to address the problem. Whether it’s the result of Al Gore’s Academy Award-winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, or the increasing volume of business and political discussion from Thomas Friedman on down, green is definitely on the national radar screen. As such, more and more companies are beginning to look at the problem as more than a matter of concern to just tree-hugging fanatics living on the fringe of society. While, again, not surprising, when asked to identify the “greenest” brands, those in the survey did specify a number of brands that have been in the eco-space for years, Whole Foods, Wild Oats, the Body Shop, Aveda, and Toyota among them. The environmental positioning of these brands has been clear to consumers for some time. What was surprising, however, was that those surveyed also identified GE as worthy of a spot on the survey’s list of top ten greenest brands. Surprising, but heartening. And, an indication that this growing concern is leading to a growing awareness far beyond the fringe.

GE is about as unfringe-y as a brand can get. Yet, here is GE setting the bar for any huge, industrial company looking for the right way to enter the green space. First of all, it has assigned a senior executive to oversee the responsibility. Lorraine Bolsinger leads ecomagination, GE’s company-wide commitment to addressing environmental challenges on a global level and she has taken on the substantiation of the sub-branded program incredibly well. Stories on the ecomagination Web site call attention to everything from GE’s answers to cleaner, more efficient sources of energy to its on-going efforts in reducing greenhouse gases. Research and Development investments in the area have grown exponentially. In addition, Jeff Immelt, CEO of GE, has gotten out in front of the program in a major way, a key proof point for any brand looking to walk the green walk, not just talk it. Despite that only a small percentage of GE’s products are environmentally related versus, say, the Body Shop’s where all are geared in that direction, GE has been able to plant itself firmly as a leader in the space early on. This is something that will serve them well as the issue continues to grow in scope and public concern. Needless to say there is no more fringe. GE’s efforts will serve all of us well.

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

With all the news surrounding Ford bringing back the Taurus, and AT&T doing away with the Cingular name, I wrote an article that appeared on Brandweek’s site last week.

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.

The key to winning as a technology brand is to promise a better mousetrap – and to deliver it, with all the kinks worked out. A better mousetrap has to do more than look good on paper. In its rush to wrest control of the living room from Xbox, and get its new and improved PlayStation 3 to market, Sony seems to have left a few critical kinks on the drawing board. As a result, the actual user experience of the PlayStation 3 has not met its promising expectations. Much as Sony wanted it to be, the product wasn’t quite ready for prime time playing. Not good when you’ve got a loyal brand audience ready to shell out $600 for new and improved.Nintendo, with its Wii, on the other hand, approached the gaming competition with a totally different sort of branding game plan. Change the category playing field. Literally. Get people up and off the couch. Forget what the others are trying to accomplish with their fancy graphics and go at gaming in a totally different way. Give users a wireless controller capable of detecting hand and arm motions in a way that allows them to physically control the action on the screen with more than just their thumbs. Moms are happy with the Wii because it mitigates their fears of having couch potato kids. Gaming enthusiasts are happy because it delivers the experience in a totally unique and exciting way. Nintendo is happy because it was able to get into the game on its own terms.

Nintendo, the original gaming leader, has become newly aware of the top two rules for brand success, especially in the technology world: 1) Do promise your audience something different, yet relevant. 2) Don’t promise what you can’t deliver. Nintendo didn’t set out to control the living room the way Sony wanted to. But, in meeting user expectations better than Sony did, it may have ended up winning the game.