BrandDigital | BrandSimple: The Blog

There is no shortage of opinion on how Tiger handled his mea culpa and what he can do to restore his brand’s image. As for Toyota, the other brand in the news these days up against public demand for answers to less than stellar behavior, there is still some room for commentary. In fact, I had the opportunity to weigh in on the topic in a recent interview with CTV during which I suggested that the company’s biggest mistake, in terms of brand repair, is not having gotten ahead of the story quickly enough. While it’s always easy to play armchair quarterback and offer up solutions that are simple in theory, putting them into place in such a large and global company like Toyota is another thing. However, I believe there are some actions that the company can take at this point in time which will help restore its brand’s equity before it’s too late. I invite you to watch the interview here.

Image courtesy of Canada AM

It was with great interest that I read a recent article in the New York Times about how Silicon Valley entrepreneurs are turning away from tradtional PR to spread news of their newly-hatched companies and turning straight to the tactics likely to make them richer entrepreneurs – digital technology and, in particular, the technology that facilitates word-of-mouth. You don’t have to be an entrepreneur, or even a Silicon Valley resident to understand the innate capabilities of digital technology to spread news, be it good or bad, truth or heresay. The reason for my great interest in this Times article was how it echoed the sentiments in a piece I just wrote for this week’s print edition of Brandweek magazine about GM’s “Reinvention” campaign. In it I explain that while this once-mighty brand set forth its new promise to become a more efficient company in a series of television ads, this top-down pronouncement isn’t going win any friends or influence people. It’s only when people start tweeting, blogging and spreading their experiences under the digital magnifying glass that proof of its promise will be validated – and credible.

Audi is a great brand. Friends and colleagues who drive Audis love them for the entirety of the brand experience, from the way the car performs, to the way it looks, to what it says about them as auto aficionados. What friends and colleagues, along with thousands of people I don’t know, don’t love about Audi is the company’s recent digital branding campaign, the Audi A4 Driving Challenge, which is not only not challenging, but not reflective in any way of the aforementioned Audi brand experience. In fact, gamers who download the application from iTunes to play on their iPod Touch see it as a poorly disguised attempt to advertise to them in the digital space. Unfortunately, the net take-away from reviews of the game is not just a bashing of the application, but a bashing of the brand. Ouch. While it was smart of Audi to include digital in an overall branding strategy (essential in this day and age), the company should have made sure that, like everything else it does, its recent branding app delivered on the brand’s promise. As I write in BrandDigital, one of the challenges of playing in the online space is determining how to get involved in a way that’s relevant to the brand and in keeping with what people already think about the brand. If Audi’s game was less an interruptive “advergame” and more an active demonstration of its cars’ performance on challenging roadways, it would have served the company better. The good thing about the digital space is that if something isn’t working you can take it off and move on to something else. I suggest that Audi take its current game off-road and get online with something that drives home what a great brand it is.

View Larger Map

In yesterday’s New York Times, reporter Bill Vlasic wrote about the need for the Big Three to cut back on the number of brands they market to improve efficiencies.

But the reporter misses the potential upside beyond saving money. Fewer brands also translates into greater focus and potential marketplace impact on the remaining brands. The trick is to trim the brands that lack any current or potential meaningful differentiation. Ironically, Ford is considering selling Volvo, one of the few brands that stands for something different.

The other drama being played out on the national stage are the Big Three CEO’s asking for billions in government aid. Their challenge here is that the strategy to solve the problem is complex while the process of selling a bailout to Main Street needs to be simple. Right now the companies seem to be getting nailed on both sides. While flying three corporate jets to ask for money will go down as a case study in what not to do, I predict the image of them driving to Washington will get them nailed again on Saturday Night Live.

From my branding standpoint, the benefits of a merger between two of the big three automakers is potentially huge. While both GM and Chrysler have been hemorrhaging money, the opportunity to pare their respective brand portfolios along with the development costs of vehicles, engines and alternative-fuel technologies might give the merged company real market traction.

My recommendation would be to drastically prune the combined brand portfolio on both sides of the house. Pick no more than 5 brands (Jeep Chevrolet, Dodge, Cadillac and maybe Saturn) and toss the rest including Chrysler, Pontiac and Buick. In other words, get rid of whatever components they don’t need. It hasn’t been easy to watch these iconic brands lose their way, but it’s been easy to see why they have. With fewer brands to focus on the company will have a better chance to compete on the global stage with Toyota, Honda, and BMW.

On top of that, a lean mean auto company might also benefit from a “Made in America” branding spin in the short term. And wouldn’t that be nice? But I believe if these two companies focus on where they went off the track and make some hard choices now it might be possible to put an American car back in a leading-brand driver seat.

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.

A couple of months ago I wrote about Ford’s new Bold Moves branding campaign. I lauded the company for taking the initial steps required to revive its brand after years of tepid performance. Among the initiatives I cited was the introduction of the hybrid Ford Escape, a vehicle both fuel-efficient and environmentally friendly. I suggested that a really bold move for Ford would be an offer to replace New York City’s entire gas-guzzling, emission-spewing taxi fleet with these green vehicles – a public relations branding signal that would be good for Ford’s brand and great for the planet. While Ford was in no position to do so at the time, it seems that my suggestion was not all that preposterous. It appears New York City’s mayor, Michael R. Bloomberg, has a similar idea. In fact, he’d like to see all New York City cabs replaced with hybrid vehicles within the next five years as part of his PlaNYC which calls for reducing greenhouse emissions in the Big Apple 30 percent by the year 2030. In response to the challenge, Yahoo! immediately donated 10 Ford Escapes to get things rolling. While Ford may not have been in a position to do so a few months ago, I’d say there’s never been a better time than now for them to take the position of change agent in the quest to slow global warming. New York City’s environmental plan is far more extensive than that of any other major city. Converting its fleet of 13,000 yellow cabs to green would send a very strong signal to the world. Ford, by playing a significant role in this effort, would send, in turn, a very strong branding signal. A signal that would be an extremely hard one to equal in its category.

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

As investors line up with bids for Chrysler, I’d like to offer a bit of advice from a brand perspective. While the company has many fine autos on its assembly lines, I’d hazard a guess that there are few consumers who could tell you exactly what the Chrysler brand stands for. Mention that Chrysler is introducing a new model and ask people what they expect it to look like, who it might appeal to, and how it would drive, and you’d most likely get a blank stare. Blank stares are not good when it comes to branding.

The first rule of building a successful brand is to simply and crisply define what you want it to represent in the minds of consumers. If you can’t clearly define what makes your brand different, you’re never going to have a brand that’s worth more than an “Oh yeah. I think my uncle owned one of those.”

Second, once the new owners of DaimlerChrysler establish a differentiated meaning for the Chrysler brand, they’ve got to focus relentlessly on bringing it to life. The way Chrysler automobiles are engineered, the way they drive, the way they look. This means being ruthless about examining the entire portfolio of current offerings and determining which deliver on the Chrysler brand and which don’t. While PT Cruiser, Sebring, Town and Country, and Crossfire are all nice cars with nice names, nice doesn’t win in the brand game. If these sub-brands don’t have what it takes to drive home the Chrysler name they’re not worth having on the lot. Those who bid for Chrysler must be willing to put every dollar behind defining and supporting the Chrysler name, and the Chrysler name only.

While this advice is a lot easier to offer up than it is to achieve, it’s essential that those reaching for their checkbooks take heed. Before considering a bid for Chrylser, they must figure out what they’re going to do with it once they own it. The most powerful brands on the planet succeed because they stand for something different and relevant. Just as all the advertising in the world can’t help a brand with an identity crisis neither can the deepest investment wallet. Spend – and brand – wisely.

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.