Homemade Pizza Company

Wow, did I ever mess up. Not only did we not get to hear Gordon Montgomery, CMO of HomeMade Pizza Company, speak about his brand, he had a car full of family size cookies to share with the class.

You can learn more about the company on its web site. HomeMade Pizza Company was featured on Oprah in 2006. Here is the segment:



Here is a link to a more recent video from Crain's Chicago Business (3/09) that provides more detail on the company's background and future goals: Video link


Finally, here are some highlights of a Chicago Tribune article from September 2007.

"It's an idea that wasn't even half baked. Eric Fosse was in the diamond business in 1997 when the urge to open a pizza shop overwhelmed him. "We lived in Lake View at the time, and it made sense to us," said Fosse, now 45. "I don't think we thought it through that much. We figured if we sold a great pizza, people would come." He and partner/brother-in-law Matthew Weinstein, 34, then a college business student, and wife Audrey Fosse, 42, put up a few hundred thousand dollars—courtesy of friends and family—and opened the first HomeMade Pizza Co. store in the 1100 block of West Belmont. Diners, who pick up the pizza and bake it at home, went for the "all natural" pie the Chicago company peddled by emphasizing the purchase of locally grown produce. The original store, which the three owners relocated to 3430 N. Southport about four years ago, rang up about $150,000 in the first year. It's on track to do about $600,000 in sales this year. Revenue increased by about 10 percent per year at each shop in the now 16-store company.

It's this time of year, end of summer, that Fosse and crew are thinking a lot about growth. Harvest time sees them buying lots of produce for their pies and salads. The fall is a particularly busy time for the business. Folks who shied away from pizza places in the heat of summer are beginning to return. With the opening of a Homewood location this week, the roster of stores grows to 17. The chain last month opened two stores in Minneapolis; and over the next few weeks joining the fold will be stores in Andersonville, Arlington Heights, Oak Park, and St. Paul and Apple Valley, Minn.
The company will have five stores in the Minneapolis area by the end of the year. Another 20 stores are scheduled for next year, including a Washington, D.C., location. Even the number of owners has increased. The Fosses and Weinstein later welcomed a fourth owner when Glenn Deutsch, 43—who initially helped design the original store, menu and logo and came up with the name—bought in.

It seems their friends recognize a good thing, Fosse said. Brooke Shields, a college buddy of Audrey Fosse's, recently plugged the chain on "The Oprah Winfrey Show." "She likes the products," Eric Fosse said. "We have a lot of friends like that. She just happens to be famous." Such expressed affinity is key for a business that's not the most convenient in its category, said Ron Paul, president of the restaurant and food research firm Technomic Inc. Parking around the stores is a persistent problem, and some customers have difficulty accepting a business model where the patrons of a carry-out pizza joint have to do the baking. "But their customers seem to be very loyal. The word of mouth on them is very favorable," Paul said. The take-and-bake concept has an appeal over that of frozen pizza in that it allows customers to choose their own toppings, and that the pizza is fresher, Paul said. "It's kind of a proven concept," Paul said. "The perception is that its better quality than frozen pizza and better than getting a fully cooked pizza and warming it up later. Freshness is equated to quality."

To make up for the error, Homemade Pizza Company will be the subject of the final exam. Look for the assignment later today.

Notre Dame Brand

Notre Dame is a great brand. It has breadth and depth. It resonates with people who touch it directly and with people who only know it from television or through others.

Today we discussed three strategic dilemmas facing the brand:

1. How should the needs of the various stakeholder groups be balanced? Which group's needs should be given priority? Those who can influence our reputation for research? Or closer in stakeholders like students, faculty and alumni?

2. How important is 'Catholic' as a differentiator for the 'master brand'? Does it deserve top billing or should it be downplayed?


What do you think?

Epilogue: Pepsi Refresh Effort

An article that appeared in Ad Age Feb 8, suggests that 'pass or fail' the effort will be one for the textbooks. Kevin Keller, author of our text, had this comment:

"Pepsi has been wonderful for years at entertaining us," said Kevin Keller, professor of marketing at Dartmouth College. "This [program] is reflective of the times and the realities that people love entertainment but also care and have concerns about the world as a whole. But I would hate to see them stop entertaining us altogether.....Added Mr. Keller, "the one thing becoming more and more true is the importance of cause marketing for any brand, but particularly a brand that has a more youthful target and appeal, which Pepsi clearly has."

The article goes on to say that "in the weeks leading up to the Super Bowl, Pepsi was the second-most discussed advertiser associated with the Super Bowl... according to Nielsen.

MTV Changing its Logo after 30 Years

The change was announced on Monday. Notice the difference? Neither did I at first. The difference is that the logo no longer includes a reference to music. According to The Brandchannel and articles in MSN and Ad Age, the move is intended to align with the fact that MTV is now better known for reality TV shows than music videos. There seem to be at least three different motivations for the change.

1. Align with what we do

The MTV brand has represented more than "music television" for many years, and now – appropriately – the words "music television” are no longer part of the official logo. In addition, the original logo has undergone a slight morphing. When MTV launched, the upside of the logo was that it communicated the very specific, targeted business of the brand to a potential audience that had never heard of it. Of course, the downside of the logo is that once the brand diversified to include material beyond music, such as, say, Jersey Shore shenanigans, the logo became confusing, or even absurd." - The Brandchannel, Feb 10, 2010

2. Better appeal to Millennial target

"It represents a new visually defined MTV, stimulating its past, present and future and embracing its diversity. Everything from Jersey Shore, to the VMAs to collaborations with the MoMA. The logo is part of MTV's re-invention to connect with today's millennial generation and bring them in as part of the channel." -- MSN, Feb 10, 2010

3. Put greater focus on MTV talent

"The new logo is meant to put the focus on MTV's current slate of talent -- the stars of mostly reality shows like "Jersey Shore," "Teen Mom," and "The Buried Life." Since the logo (which seems to have a shorter "M" than the original) is also available in a see-through model, it can change when new stars come into the fold. Tina Exarhos, a spokesperson for MTV's marketing team, explained the change to "The New York Daily News": "If you watch the channel, you've seen that it's definitely going in a new direction. We really wanted to see the logo featured in a new way, and this was really meant to be able to house all the great things that are happening at MTV at any given time." PeaceFM, Feb 10, 2010

4. Increase brand recognition

"Mr. Friedman said MTV has also had a problem with brand recognition among viewers who would love certain shows but had no idea they aired on MTV. "The way the logo frames it makes it a simple reference point," he said.- Ad Age

The move has been questioned on several fronts.
Why now after all these years?
Is it enough of a change? Is tweaking enough?
Should the tagline be replaced?
Is it too mainstream/not irreverent enough?

Based on the case you just read and your experiences with MTV, what do you think?

Microsoft: Can this brand be saved?

Last week a remarkable op ed appeared in the New York Times, authored by a former Microsoft executive (Microsoft's Creative Desstruction), that indicted his former company, as only an insider can, for its suppression of innovation through internecine infighting. You can imagine the splash this made in Redmond.

"Internal competition is common at great companies. It can be wisely encouraged to force ideas to compete. The problem comes when the competition becomes uncontrolled and destructive. Microsoft, it has created a dysfunctional corporate culture in which the big established groups are allowed to prey upon emerging teams, belittle their efforts, compete unfairly against them for resources, and over time hector them out of existence. It’s not an accident that almost all the executives in charge of Microsoft’s music, e-books, phone, online, search and tablet efforts over the past decade have left."

Adding insult to injury, the Brandamentalist, David Ansett, posted this scathing indictment of the Microsoft brand this week on his blog based on consumer associations as reflected by BrandTags.

I forwarded the New York Times article to our speaker, Kate Mulcahy. Here's what Kate had to say.

There are some painful lessons for all large companies and the challenges that comes with success. I agree that change has to start with the top leaders attitude and actions. And at times, it means having the courage to replace the CEO, as with McDonald's from 7-8 years ago. In 2003 MCD stock was just above $12 per share and McD's was no longer relevant to consumers. McD's learned a lot from performance problems and it clearly taught many of us humility. It also taught senior leadership to never take success for granted. As Carol knows, the simplest analysis of what went wrong is the lack of focus on 3 brand-building basics: 1) Renovation,
2) Innovation and 3) Marketing. Creativity was not a supply issue, it was a demand issue. By the way, MCD stock is currently around $60 a share.

My question for the class is whether the Microsoft brand is irretrievably tarnished or whether, like McDonald's, it's possible to recover greatness? What do you think? What would it take?

Super Brands in Super Bowl

Let the hype begin. With nearly 150 million viewers, the Super Bowl is the marketing event of the year, with some of the best and worst thinking brand marketers have to offer on display. Marketers can make news simply by NOT advertising in the Super Bowl (Fedex, Pepsi, GM). Others are making news by how they leverage their $2.5-$3.0 investment outside of the event itself.

What sometimes is lost is the strategy impetus for promoting the brand in this high profile way. Does the Super Bowl offer a unique opportunity to build equity with customers and prospects? This Ad Age article provides some interesting perspective on brands favored by the fans of each competing team. Even more interesting, the brands favored by likely watchers compared to non-watchers.

"That anticipated audience may be big, but it's still not even half the country. So who are all those holdouts? According to ARS they over-index both as white and African-American. They're less likely to have children. Some 67% are female, and they tend to dislike advertising more than average. People in the West are also more likely not to watch, which isn't surprising given that the NFL abandoned Los Angeles years ago."

"Likely watchers are also predominantly iPhone users and over-index for Budweiser, which is a good thing given it's the game's biggest advertiser. Non-watchers prefer Sam Adams and Coors and the Droid. Watchers like Ford and GMC. Non-watchers like Honda, Nissan and Toyota. In general, Super Bowl watchers tend to overindex as loyalists of American car brands, while non-watchers overindex for foreign makes."

Which brand(s) do you think are using their $3.0 million or more investment strategically to support their business and brand objectives? Which are not?

Brand Architecture Toolkit

Here is a short-hand condensed version of the material you are reading on brand architecture. It is the presentation I WOULD have given tomorrow, but we have our speaker, Rob Osler to enlighten us instead.

Brand Architecture Toolkit Final2.25.09

View more presentations from Carol Phillips.

SONY Climbs the Walls for Recycling

So much controversial brand marketing news this week to choose from.... Apple innovates again with iPad, Burger King launches Whopper Bars, Toyota faces a crisis of quality, Snickers re-enters the Super Bowl, the Super Bowl stirs up controversy by allowing ads from Focus on the Family (why Tim Tebow's Mom didn't abort him).

Rather than discuss any of those, I'd like to highlight an effort from Sony in Japan. This 'campaign' involved recycling Sony billboard tarps into one-of-a-kind jeans, then placing the jeans back where they first hung, on the side of the Sony Building in Tokyo. There, shoppers could browse the whole collection and guys decked out in mountain climbing gear scaled the walls to bring them the pair of their choice. The profits from the sale were enough to cover the cost of the campaign, but Sony kept the recycling going by donating the money to restoring world landmarks.



Another Japanese brand, Toyota, has created special grasses and flower species to adorn its plants and support its 'green' profile. Numerous other green capital improvements have been made to the physical plant. Solar panels and special paint that absorbs harmful gases have been installed at Toyota's Tsutsumi plant.

These programs required considerable effort on the part of Sony and Toyota, all to show they are socially responsible. Yet, these programs do not touch the consumer. And in terms of scale (actual donations and impact) are rather small.

How important is it for companies to support their brands with these types of gestures? Does this make you feel any differently about Sony?

Open Happiness

Last Friday, Coke released a video for its 'Open Happiness' campaign that it hopes will become a global viral sensation. The video has so far had over 900,000 Youtube viewings. The effort is part of a global effort on the 'Open Happiness' theme that includes other social media efforts, including teams sent all over the world to identify 'stories of happiness'.

Here is how Mediapost described the effort on Tuesday.

The video, shot on the Queens, N.Y., campus of St. John's University, concludes with a title asking: "Where will happiness strike next?" and a message encouraging viewers to "Share the happiness, share the video."

A.J. Brustein, global senior brand manager, Coca-Cola, says the video was conceived as a way to connect with teens and young adults outside of TV ads and online games. "We wanted to give them something that would spread a bit of happiness and something they could pass on to their friends to keep the happiness flowing," he sums up.

Coke acknowledges that the effort is an experiment and future videos will depend on the success of this one. Do you think this is a good approach for a powerful brand like Coke to use to connect with younger drinkers? Why or why not?

Culture Networks & Iconic Brands

This week we are looking at the intersection of culture and brands, or what brands come signify in a cultural context. Some brands take on broader meaning and identity value. There are several great blogs and books that have explored this theme. I especially like NYT's journalist, Rob Walker's book, "Buying In: The Secret Dialogue between what we Buy and Who We Are" and its companion blog, "Murketing" (in honor of the increasingly murky line between culture and marketing).

As marketers, the this intersection can result in 'iconic' brands. Doug Holt, author of "How Brands Become Icons" describes icons as "the person or the thing widely regarded as the most compelling symbol of a set of ideas or values that a society deems important.’ Holt describes how brands become iconic, by studying current and past iconic brands.

It's also interesting to take this understanding and reflect on what might be the iconic brands of the future. What brands are speaking into important cultural dialogs now and have the potential to become iconic? I am especially curious why so few Millennial generation-specific iconic brands have emerged . Most of the brands young adults like are the same ones the rest of the culture likes. See "Why Arent' There More Iconic Millennial Brands" for more of my musings on this subject)

What brands do you think have the potential to become iconic for adults currently 18-29? Or is the idea of a generation-specific iconic brand inconsistent with the whole idea of being an icon?

(You may want to check out this Post, "Millennials: Mapping Their Culture Code" and the referenced slide presentation by Tim Stock of ScenarioDNA:

Culture Networks (Lecture)

View more documents from Tim Stock.

Consistency May Look Closer than It Appears?

Chris Brogan, a leading voice in social media has this advice for brands: "Be Helpful, Be Consistent, Be Everywhere". Good advice, and of the three consistency may be the most difficult to achieve. Many great brands have become distracted by the latest shiny idea. In fact, it is often said that brand managers tire of an idea faster than consumers.

This article by from a blog by brand agency, Storm, chides LG for straying from its core brand message:

At the end of a long hard day have you ever sat back and dreamt of escaping the constraints of modern life? I know I have. It’s what makes all the sea change programs and stories so appealing. So when recently I found myself watching a TV ad that set out to appeal to exactly that sentiment, I was intrigued. It was long at 60 seconds, but was well produced with stunning imagery.

The ad began by showing a baby swimming, this is the freedom we are all born with.

Then the images became grey and hum drum. This is the reality of our lives. The baby is soon behind the bars of a cot, a man is just one of dozens sitting in identical work stations in an open office, miserable commuters are standing on a packed train etc. You get the picture.


But wait, there is hope. The mood of the ad lifted. Imagine a world without borders, a world where you can cycle off to the horizon down a sunny country lane, flowers bloom, a girl laughs as she is soaked by a hose, a man dives into an azure blue ocean… I get ready for the punchline, it’s got to be Queensland, or New Zealand or at the very least a brand who will offer me the secret to a wonderful, rich and carefree life.

Roll end frame and the big reveal – it’s LG and it’s an ad for a TV.

Sure it’s a really nice TV, from a really good company. In fact it’s a borderless TV, the latest innovation from a company renowned for it. The ad signs off with ‘Life’s Good’ so there is a connection to the LG brand there. But for me this is a case of an advertiser getting carried away by a big budget, feel-good ad concept and loosing sight of their strategically-driven brand strategy in all the excitement.

But the thing is LG has spent many years and many millions of dollars building equity around ‘Life’s Good’ by showing they’re innovative in everything they do and that the technology they deliver enhances the quality of the life you lead today. Their ads heavily feature LG technology in the home, busy improving the quality of life and demonstrating that ‘Life’s Good’ is more than just a punchline. The creation of their brand image has been consistent and I love LG and their products, I’ve been a great admirer of their ads, but for me this ad misses the mark. From the perspective of a brand building professional, there are few things more frustrating than seeing a brand that’s invested so much in building a unique market proposition and a strong brand image, distracted from their path by the glittering prize of a flash ad.

It is unquestionably a beautiful ad, is it the right move for LG? Take a look at the ad and tell me what you think.

Doing Well by Doing Good - The New Differentiation?

Cause marketing -- the practice of tying charitable contributions of a firm directly to customer revenues produced by promoting a product -- is nothing new. Barnes & Noble promotes literacy, Coca-Cola sponsor local boys and Girls Clubs, and many brands support the Race for the Cure for Breast Cancer. Here is a list of the nine most influential cause marketing campaigns of all time.

The altruistic tendencies of Gen Y are giving extra urgency to many brand seeking to connect with under 30 consumers. Pepsi recently announced it would not be participating in the Super Bowl in order to focus on social media. Pepsi's 'Refresh Everything' social media campaign kicks off Wednesday. Pepsi is inviting consumers to nominate and vote on the causes that should receive funds from Pepsi, a classic 'crowdsourcing' effort. Pepsi plans to give away multiple grants each month, including two $250,000 grants, 10 $50,000 grants, and 10 $25,000 grants. Visitors are also encouraged to submit their own organizations and grant ideas, a $20 million effort in all.

This is a risky move for Pepsi, even if it is considerably less expensive than running spots in the Super Bowl. Do you think it will pay off? Do you think this effort will be among the most influential cause marketing campaign of all time? Why or why not?

Return to Core Brand Value - and Values -- in 2010 Predicted by Leading Brand Designer

Adam Adamson is director of the New York office of Landor Associates, a leading brand consultancy and design firm. He is also the author of BrandDigital and BrandSimple. He posted this article in Forbes early last week. It is a great articulation of the importance of understanding consumer values in creating strategic advantage.

"It doesn't take a seer, or even a branding professional, to declare that consumers will continue to demand value, no matter which direction the economy goes. Consumers have learned--some the hard way--that financial discipline is a must. They will also demand that the values practiced by the companies with which they choose to do business are good and honest and trustworthy. And lest any company thinks it can put one over on anyone, a text, a blog, a YouTube video or a Tweet will quickly prove otherwise.

Consumers will latch onto products and services that offer something relevantly different. Look at what makes a strong brand in any economy and you'll see that the underlying business is robust and the products and services are things people want, use or need to make their lives easier, healthier, safer or more convenient. In today's marketplace, it doesn't take a fortune teller to proclaim that businesses that can't to keep up with changing habits and behaviors will most likely disappear. For example, my guess is that with the continuing evolution of digital on-demand movies and programming, Blockbuster ( BBI - news - people ) may be a brand of the past. So, too, now that news is available and gobbled up as it happens, it's likely that some weekly news magazines will be a thing of the past.

More so, because consumers are more sophisticated in their buying behavior, my belief is that they won't buy into any product that promises a superficial change. They want difference, yes, but they want this difference to represent substantial change. Given both the prudent mindset and the fact that consumers will seek brands that share and uphold their values, I don't see this branding dynamic changing anytime soon, if ever.

I especially love this quote that seems to encapsulate the bridge between consumers and strategy:

"Consumers will look for the four 'goods': Does it taste good? Is it good for my health? Is it good for my wallet? Is it good for the planet?"

What, if anything, would you add to this list?

To read the full article click here.