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.

Welcome to Brand Strategy 2010

I'm excited about getting started. This is where we'll continue our dialog outside of class. Feel free to look around at last year's class remarks. See you January 13!

Snapple Ads

Here is an old Wendy Commercial:

White Tea Commercial:

Snapple Green Tea Commercial:

There is a new Red Tea commercial that features the same spokesperson but I am not able to access it outside of Mintel.

GM = General Misery?

My GM car dealership called Saturday to point out (as if I didn't know) that my Cadillac has over 124,000 miles and 'is there anything we can say to convince you to purchase a new car today?' I don't think so, at least not a new Cadillac. Will Cadillac even be around when it reaches 124,000 miles? This sad state has been blamed mostly on lack of innovation, unions, poor production practices, and more. But only Al Ries (Mr. Positioning himself) has made a point of suggesting perhaps, poor brand strategy may have played a role. Here's an excerpt from his article in Ad Age 12.2.08:

It seems to me that the fundamental nature of Detroit's Japanese competition is its ability to build brands. Toyota stands for reliability, Scion for youth, Prius for hybrid, Lexus for luxury.

But what does Saturn stand for? Or Chevrolet? Or Pontiac? Or Buick? Or Cadillac?

It's not for lack of trying. In 2007, the U.S. automobile industry spent $4.6 billion on advertising. That's 3.3% of total U.S advertising spending and 5.9% of total U.S. network TV spending.

For all that money, you might think the U.S. automobile industry would have done a lot of brand building. Take Gillette, which over the years has marketed seven different brands:
Gillette blue blades
Trac II, the two-blade razor
Atra, the adjustable two-blade razor
Sensor, the shock-absorbent razor
Good News, the disposable razor
Mach3, the three-blade razor
Fusion, the five-blade razor
Gillette has an astounding 71% of the world's wet-shaving market, and multiple brands, in my opinion, are the primary reason.

The difference between Gillette and General Motors is that each of the seven Gillette brands stands for something specific and each of the eight General Motors brands does not.

Although I may be biased, he has a point. Better attention to differentiating the brands in its portfolio may have avoided some of the mess. Reis suggests a portfolio built around product differences, rather than, well rather than whatever it is that they did end up trying to differentiate. A four cylinder Cadillac simply doesn't make sense. Reis maintains that the brand portfolio has been so devalued, that GM should simply start over.


Do you agree?

Hi, this is Whirlpool, how can I help you?

According to a Yankelovich Report in Q4 2007, only 9% of consumers report customer service in the appliance industry as being either “excellent” or “very good”. This is the worst performance of any industry other than oil/gas – even worse than cable! There are two ways to look at this, a great opportunity for brand differentiation, enhanced equity and loyalty --- or a money pit. Is it really possible to distinguish a brand on customer service or should the money be invested in product innovation and quality, i.e., exciting products that don't break down in the first place? Which is more important to building equity?