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.

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.

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.

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.