BrandDigital | BrandSimple: The Blog

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.

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.

Interesting and true what Laura Ries had to say about CEOs as pitch people. Sometimes a great notion, other times absolutely not. When advertising is one of your brand’s branding tactics it’s important to fully recognize why, when, and if to put your CEO in front of the camera. The fact that a CEO is likeable, well respected, and may even have camera presence are important things to consider. Then, of course, the CEO must be seen as genuine. The real deal. When looking at the issue from a branding perspective (the view from my window) another critical thing to consider is whether your CEO’s appearance on air will truly reinforce the equity of the brand. In other words, is it a worthwhile business strategy? One determining factor is whether the person at the top resonates “brand-ness.” Are the person and the brand personality inextricable? If this is the case, using the CEO for branding purposes makes lots of sense. Frank Perdue, for example, looked and sounded just like the finicky chicken-picker he was. We believed him when he told us his chickens were plumper and juicier and tastier. Martha Stewart is the essence of homemade perfection. She lives her brand promise, in her house and, if we pay attention, in ours. Oprah as brand is undeniable. She embodies the simple idea of personal empowerment and applies it to everything she does. James Dyson is vacuuming up mote loads of dollars because he, too, is so intrinsically united with his company’s brand identity. As for Richard Branson, his personality is as cheeky and clever as the businesses he runs. Of course, every good CEO must be the ultimate brand advocate. The person who supports the brand better and more fiercely than anyone else. The person who ensures that the brand’s promise is driven home both inside and outside the company. This doesn’t mean the CEO should literally operate on the outside. Most CEOs can talk the brand talk naturally, but they can’t walk the walk without tripping up. This means they’re best left behind the scenes to do what they do best ? run the company. Unless you are at a critical crossroads, unless there is really good business reason to do so, I’d carefully consider whether to use your CEO as branding tool. Unless your CEO and your brand have matching personas, I’d vote to keep the great and powerful Oz behind the curtain.

It was a classic example of how the simplest brand ideas lend themselves to the most brilliant executions. In this case, the simple idea was a secret. More specifically, it was Fisher-Price’s brilliant branding decision to generate gotta-have fever around its T.M.X. Elmo launch by getting fifty carefully selected people to keep a secret. The simple idea was to create the kind of mystery usually associated with product launches in the highly competitive high-tech industry. And mystery was an understatement. The spectacular execution of the idea had folks at Fisher-Price, a unit of Mattel, laughing – all the way to the bank. It was a coup of immense proportion considering first, the huge and fickle market of character-based toys and, second, the fact that Elmo was not even a new character. His enormous success ten years ago was no guarantee customers would storm the stores once again.

Why was the simplicity of the idea key to the coup? Simple. It’s easier for people to understand something simple. Give them an idea they can immediately “get” and they’ll immediately be able to come up with a hundred wonderful ways to bring it to life. In Elmo’s case it was “Let’s get the people we share the secret with to sign a confidentiality agreement that playfully threatens drastic repercussions for exposure.” “Let’s hold off shooting the launch commercials until the day of the launch.” Let’s keep the furry little guy locked in a silver case.” (Is Elmo an animal? Should I call the ASPCA?) Perhaps most incredible, “Let’s get toy retailers to make space for the new Elmo, sight unseen, an entire month before his secret identity is revealed.” The idea and the way it was carried out was infectious. People got it – and they wanted to play. Everyone in on the secret kept it. Retailers made room on the shelves. Even the snarkiest of bloggers had no clue what to write about. Instead of trying to generate interest by way of borrowed interest, promotions, or hyperbole-filled sales material, Fisher-Price generated not merely interest, but genuine excitement. The secret was tickle me simple and the execution was a hoot.