BrandDigital | BrandSimple: The Blog

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.

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.

Apple has never failed me once. In its products or in its branding. Both brilliant. The company has incredible self-awareness. It knows exactly who it is and what its brand represents in the marketplace. This self-awareness is beautifully brought to life in its most recent ad campaign which features two people - one personifying a PC, the other personifying a Mac. Basic practicality versus cool functionality. The ads are simple and focused and incredibly effective at driving home the difference between PCs and Macs. The characters playing the products embody what makes one user experience different than another. What makes a PC different from a Mac.

The Apple brand is based on a simple idea. Its products are simple to use. Its advertising is simple to understand. It’s self-awareness as a brand is simply amazing. It’s simply Apple being Apple.

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.

You raise your eyebrows. You shrug your shoulders. You wink. You drum your fingers on the table. All human reactions. All very subtle reactions clearly visible via Cisco Systems teleconferencing products. But in promoting this enhanced capability, Cisco doesn’t tout the technology, the features, the bells, or the whistles. It touts the fact that you’ll be able to see the nod of the person sitting at the head of a table 2,000 miles away. The person who agrees with your idea. Seeking affirmation that you’ve got a great idea is human. Cisco knows this. And it knows what it’s doing with the introduction of its new brand campaign, “The Human Network.” Building a brand on the end benefit is nothing new. It’s been done a hundred times before. What makes Cisco’s use of an end benefit in its rebranding efforts so powerful is how delightfully simple a brand idea ‘human network” is. Cisco has long been a leader in its category, but in going for a brand identity beyond its wares, it’s given its well-respected brand name a strong emotional base on which to build for the long term. Cisco’s “human network” branding communications don’t mention shared port adapters, interface processors, or integrated service routers. They beautifully integrate stories of what was made possible for people as a result of this technology. Eight-year-old leukemia patients whose fears are calmed through interaction with specific Web sites. Budding entrepreneurs who can easily link to online mentors. Fifteen-minutes-of-famers who want help filming and downloading their YouTube masterpieces. Big business MIS managers who don’t have to worry about getting all the right puppies in the box for the annual board meeting. “On the human network, anything is possible,” states Cisco’s newly designed Web site. Its products and services may be smartly engineered to enable a human network, but its new brand identity is just as smart. Cisco identified something new, yet as old as time for its refreshed brand identity. It’s not about the stuff you make, but the people who use it. What they use it for. And why they’re better for it. To brand well is not necessarily human, but in Cisco’s case, it is.

When one company acquires another, the conventional business strategy is to hold off making any changes until you gain an understanding of the new company, its operations, its culture, everything. The conventional wisdom accompanying this sound business strategy is that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. In most cases I would support both of these conventional pieces of advice. In the case of Google’s acquisition of YouTube, however, I’d recommend something completely unconventional. Jump right to your brand strategy. Replace the name YouTube with GoogleTube, do it fast, and drop Google Video altogether. Google currently has a huge advantage over its competitors based on both its scale and its status as a verb. It’s become almost utility-like in its ubiquity and functionality. Google’s dominance as a computer experience is huge and it’s becoming increasingly apparent that whoever has the most bandwidth wins. It’s also apparent that life in the Internet world moves at warp speed. I respect Google’s desire to respect the happy guys at YouTube but, from a branding point of view, it should quickly and seamlessly integrate YouTube into the Google user experience thereby expanding its bandwidth exponentially. Anyone looking to play catch-up would have to be able to run pretty darn fast (if they had the money to get into the race for eyeballs in the first place). While conventional wisdom has its time and place, the time isn’t now and the place isn’t on the Internet. Call it unconventional if you will, but call it GoogleTube. Google’s business strategy and its brand strategy have always been ahead of the curve. My advice is to concentrate on the brand. I have no doubt the business will follow.

Apple and Dell will have fires of a different sort to douse if they don’t want to lose their enviable brand equity. The recent laptop battery recalls due to potential fire hazards could prove equally hazardous to these two brand powerhouses. Announcements by three major airlines that they’ll stop passengers with Apple and Dell laptops from using batteries in flight has prompted many business travelers – the staunchest brand loyalists – to cry foul. Even though the batteries in question are manufactured by Sony, the Apple and Dell brands could get burnt far more seriously. While these laptops were well-considered purchases by the road warriors who carry them, these folks won’t consider dropping their loyalty for even a second if Apple and Dell can’t figure out how to make good on the issue. What should they do to extinguish the possibility of a devastating brand melt down?

The first priority should be to get out new batteries ASAP. A second priority should be to ship replacement batteries to airlines to provide, free of charge, to passengers who don’t leave work when they leave the office. When I’m en route to San Francisco with a presentation to edit, taking away my laptop is not an option. I’ll give up my original brand of choice, first. More than that, I’ll spread word of my ire. And in the world of business technology, where word-of- mouth is critical to branding, that’s really playing with fire. Apple and Dell are very smart brands. They know that business strategy – what they sell – must be inextricably aligned with brand strategy – what makes people buy. But, if they can’t come up with a way to resolve the battery problem, people won’t be buying excuses. In fact, it will strike at the core of what makes them good brands. Fix the problem fast and don’t make it a hassle for the user to comply. This is a potential five-alarm event in terms of brand loyalty. Be the brands we know you are and treat it as such.

Once upon a time, long, long ago, let’s say the mid-to-late 1990’s, there was a simple brand called AOL. The initials AOL stood for “America Online.” That’s what the brand was all about. AOL was the brand known for getting America online. It was lucky enough to have what’s referred to as first-mover advantage. It was among a handful of companies that offered access to the Internet, but its appeal was to the practical, no-nonsense everyday folks. And there were millions of them. While companies like CompuServe catered to the techy types, AOL had found a gap in the market and filled it quickly by catering to the less technologically proficient who found its service both useful and easy to use. AOL offered something that was different and very relevant to a vast new audience. The fact that there was a monthly fee was irrelevant. People didn’t know any better. (Hold on - I’m getting to this.)

In my book, BrandSimple, I explain that brand success is due, in good part, to offering something that people consider different from what they’ve experienced before, and that they find relevant to their needs. Difference and relevance are two of the pillars of brand strength, the foundation of its equity. And—as if you couldn’t tell from the book’s eponymous title—brand success is also due to the fact that whatever it is that makes the brand relevantly different is simple for people to understand. In a world where brands and brand promises are multiplying like rabbits, this is critical.

Back then, AOL got it right on both counts. It offered an Internet access service that was both different and relevant (actually, it was sort of unique and relevant.), and it was easy for people to understand what this meant to them. It was a strong brand. People flocked to AOL because it made getting online and picking up email easy. This is the simple idea on which AOL built its brand equity. In fact, the brand organization used its tagline as the internal driver of all its branding behaviors, “So easy to use, no matter we’re number one.”

(more…)