Getting Out The Votes (Dollars) For Your Brand

How Marketers Can Learn From Politics

By David Miranda

Marketers can learn a lot from their political campaign colleagues i.e. knowing one's constituencies, packaging the candidate, getting out the vote, and employing effective media to name a few.

The political campaign objective? Get your candidate more votes than the others on the ballot. The marketing campaign objective? Get more dollars than the others in the register.

Smart political campaign managers know the landscape. They know that the voters can be looked at as a spectrum from "strongly for" to "softly for" to "undecideds" to "softy against" to "strongly against". Where, therefore, should they wisely invest their limited resources? Logically it would be to convert the "softly for" to the "strongly for" and the "undecideds" to the "softly for". Next, albeit, a tougher task, to convert the "softly against" to "undecideds" and then have a shot at luring them to the "softly for". This is based on the premise that it is highly improbable to poach votes from another candidate's "strongly for" base.

The same can be said in today's consumer democracy where consumers vote with their dollars. When developing a marketing plan with limited resources, it is important to first define and understand the brand preference spectrum. One is more likely to have a better R.O.M.I. (return on marketing investment) with those consumers with a strong and soft preference for the brand. Next target - those consumers with no brand preference, followed by those who have a soft preference for competitors. The likely success of trying to convert consumers with a strong preference for your competitors is highly doubtful. It is also true that the stronger the consumer preference for your brand, the less marketing investment is required to retain their repeat business. Conversely, the stronger the preference for your competitor, the greater the marketing investment required for the benefit derived.

Know your brand preference spectrum, invest accordingly, and get out the vote for your brand.

Keep Your Brand Off The Endangered Species List

Self-Interest Thrives - The Era of "What's In It For Me?"

By David Miranda

A generation ago, brand loyalty was a phenomenon which could be positively exploited by incumbents, i.e. cashing in on good will built over time with constituents. Loyalty (to a product, service, company, leader, media outlet/channel, sports team, significant other, friend, etc.) has been replaced by blatant self-interest. It is a societal trend with a myriad of examples found in all walks of our daily lives. Here are a few:

A generation ago.......

...........people worked for one or two companies in their careers. Today, this is the exception rather than the rule as it is commonplace for people to have many entries on their resumes, i.e. a year here, a couple of years there. Loyalty of a company to its employees or vice versa is, for all intents and purposes, extinct.

...........people loyally consumed the offerings of specific brands over and over - everything from cars, breakfast cereals, shoes, clothing, soft drinks, airlines, telephone service, fast food, etc. Today, in a world of uber-choice and hyper-competition, loyalty is perishable and fleeting.

..........coaches and players were loyal to a specific team, in most instances for the bulk of their careers. Today, free agency and more money has turned both college and professional teams into bands of mercenaries. Coaches and athletes move frequently much to the chagrin of fans.

..........media outlets, such as local newspapers and radio, broadcast news, etc had loyal audiences and readership. Today, with the alternative choices available, audiences are loyal only to their own personal media consumption patterns.

During this shift from loyalty to self-interest, companies have responded with "loyalty" programs (frequent flier or guest programs, credit card reward programs, etc.). Let's face it. These are not "loyalty" programs; these are "self-interest" programs based on greed not loyalty to a specific brand or company. They respond to the points or miles or freebies, not loyalty.

To be fair, there are exceptions.

Apple, Starbucks, Google, Four Seasons Hotels & Resorts, and Nordstrom's, to name a few, have developed a "loyal" following. This enables them to charge a premium for their products and services (or stock). You can, no doubt, add to this list, but the list is short.

It's high time, however, that we call it the way it is - it is about self-interest, i.e. not just "what have you done for me lately?", but rather "what will you do for me now?" Translation: "I have lots of competitive alternatives to spend my time and money. Give me your best deal and I will consider it."

So let's get real. It's not about brand "relationship", "engagement", "loyalty". It's about self-interest. More frankly stated, it is about greed, but as the fictional character, Gordon Gekko stated in the film, Wall Street,

"The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that greed--for lack of a better word is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essences of the evolutionary spirit. "

Marketing Challenge - Preference Is Perishable

Relentlessly Give People New Reasons That Make You First In Minds (And Wallets)

By David Miranda

Marketing is a verb, not a noun. As a matter of fact, it's an action verb. If refers to the relentless pursuit of customers to prefer your stuff over the other's guy's stuff. This is particularly difficult in today's marketplace because, today, preference is perishable.

Customers are an arm's length, a phone call, a few footsteps, a mouse click, or a TV remote button from many alternatives. Marketing-centric companies have known this for a long time. They don't just sell "soap" - they market "hygiene". They don't just sell cosmetics - they market "beauty". They don't sell hotel rooms - they market experiences. They collectively know that selling a commoditized product or service is terminal. It is a recipe for poaching by more astute competitors.

Relentless marketing drives preference by continually giving people new reasons to buy.

The best example of relentless marketing is the women's fashion industry. They continually market new lines, i.e. "our spring/summer collection" etc. They convince consumers that, in spite of the fact, that they don't need that new pair of shoes, one must buy the new shoes to be "in fashion".

The example can also be seen in the technology and software sectors. Companies have convinced consumers that if they currently have the 2.0 version of a software, they need to upgrade to the new 3.0 version that is better, faster, has more features, etc. etc.

The lesson here is simple. If you want your products and services to remain relevant to customers, relentlessly give them new reasons to make your brand top of mind and wallet. Marketing's key object is to build and sustain preference that drive revenue and market share.

Otherwise, they are fair game for the other guy.

Brand Preference - The Key Metric In Determining The Right Strategy

When To Protect, Preempt, Promote, Poach, And Probe For Consumers

By David Miranda

Many times in marketing various analogies are used to help make an important point. One of the most common themes are those that compare marketing to warfare, as in, " the battle for the hearts, minds, and wallets of consumers." It is the relentless battle for brand preference. In today's marketplace, preference is perishable. Hyper-choice of products, services, media, and distribution channels have shifted market power to the consumer and the battle is fierce.

This requires a new marketing perspective for brands in the allocation and deployment of limited resources to achieve optimum results. The key question is how to do it effectively.

The answer lies in understanding brand preference - yours, your competitors, and the considerable number of consumers who have no preference - the brand agnostics.

A brand should develop and monitor a brand preference spectrum that identifies and measures those consumers with a strong preference for the brand over all other choices; those who have a soft preference (sometimes switch to competitors); those who are brand agnostics (no preference at all); those who have a soft preference for competitors; and finally those who have a strong preference for one or more of your competitors.

Each of these segments in the brand preference spectrum require a different marketing strategy as follows:

• For those with a strong preference for your brand, it is important to implement a marketing strategy to "protect" these your best customers from defecting to competitors, since they represent the greatest R.O.M.I. and lifetime value for the brand.
• For those with a soft preference, it is important to preempt competitive poaching. They may prefer your brand over others, but are vulnerable.
• For the brand agnostics, it is important to continually use promotions. These consumers are constantly switching from one brand to the next primarily driven by promotional offers. All other things being equal, they will go with the best offer.
• For those with a soft preference for your competitors, strategies should be employed to poach these consumers taking advantage of their vulnerability.
• For those with strong preference for competitors, a marketing strategy to probe those consumers who may consider switching preferences has high returns. This cannot be accomplished effectively and efficiently with mass marketing. It requires market intelligence and precision.

In summary to get the best Return On Marketing Investment, allocate and invest marketing funds in strategies that protect, preempt, promote, poach, and probe for success.

It's About "Biz" Not "Buzz"!

Don't Confuse Brand Awareness With Brand Preference

By David Miranda

What do these "brands" have in common? - The Gap, GM, Ford, John Kerry, Dell, and Gateway. They rank high in brand awareness, but low in brand preference. Brand preference puts revenue in the register and votes in the ballot box.

One would argue that in order for a person to buy (or vote for) something or someone, one would first have to be aware of it. True, but that is only half the story. Awareness must be converted to preference or no sale, no vote.

In marketing today, creating "buzz" seems all the rage. Various and sundry marketing tactics are employed to do just that, e.g. social networking sites, blogs, guerrilla marketing. Typical response to buzz is "okay, now that you've got my attention, why should I buy what you're selling?" More often than not, there is no compelling reason. Ask The Gap, GM, Ford, or Mr. Kerry.

Better yet, ask The Cartoon Network. They recently employed a guerrilla marketing campaign to promote a new show by deploying electronic signs throughout some major markets. The campaign in Boston was a disaster as police and homeland security shut down major traffic arteries in the city because they thought these devices were dangerous. The result - bad publicity; apologies from Turner Broadcasting; a $2 million reimbursement to the city and the resignation of the CEO of the Cartoon Network.

Brand awareness? Yep. Brand preference? Nope.

It is high time that marketers put "buzz" into perspective. Will it create "biz"? Do we have a compelling reason for people to buy once they have been "buzzed"?

It's time to "get bizzy".

Brand Architecture Of Identity - A Disciplined Methodology For Success

At Story Of Eight Forces That Can Make Or Break A Brand

By David Miranda

I learned many years ago that the old adage, "You can't teach an old dog new tricks" is not true. I had the pleasure some time ago to meet my friend, Bill Ryan, the founder of Mandala, a San-Francisco-based consulting firm. He is a fascinating individual whose bio, among other things, includes a stint as a teacher of Transcendental Meditation trained by the Maharashi Yogi, himself. Bill moved on to the business world and was a major architect in developing the Yahoo! brand. Bill believes that each company has a story to tell, but it must first follow vision and strategy. (I highly recommend anyone contact Bill for his unique perspectives and invaluable guidance of "getting your story right".)

As a brand marketer, I was curious about the techniques and methodology he employed. He shared with me what he calls, The Architecture of Identity (A of I). He taught this old dog "some new tricks". The A of I, a mandala of which was created by Bill's Mandala is included here, is a unique way to develop and nurture a brand. It is premised on the notion that a brand is the result of two dimensions of eight forces. The first dimension includes the three core forces - vision, positioning, and voice. This dimension can best be described as "How the brand is seen from the inside of the enterprise" by its internal stakeholders from grassroots to the boardroom.
The second dimension includes the five marketplace, or external forces including market relevance, product/service superiority, ecosystem integration, management and culture, and finally sustainability. In simple terms, this is how the marketplace perceives the brand.

The Architecture Of Identity is a discipline to ensure that these two dimensions are in sync and, if they are, provides the greatest opportunities for success. So with proper credit to my friend, Mr. Ryan, the following summarizes the Architecture Of Identity.

Core Forces - How The Brand Is Perceived Internally

Vision – This is the brand's unique reason for existing – the core insights responsible for the brand's creation combined with new sparks of genius that continue driving it forward. Vision should be heroic, but simple. The vision statement for The Coca-Cola Company, for example, is "To have our products available within an arm's length of desire."

Positioning – The optimum desired brand position, both in people's minds and in the competitive landscape, that provides the best opportunity for success. As in racing, competitors continually vie for positions at the start and during the race that give them the best chances for winning. For brands, as in racing, people pay attention to the front runners. It should be noted that a brand should not confuse size (revenue, number of locations, etc) with brand positioning. The largest brands, for example, are not necessarily the most innovative or the most consumer-centric. Southwest Airlines is not the largest airline, but it is perceived by air travelers as having the best customer service by U.S. air travelers. Apple is not the largest technology company, but it is considered the most innovative brand.

Voice – The brand's personality, i.e., the attributes it desires to project in the marketplace. This is what marketers most often refer to as “brand attributes.” This is not just "what a brand says"; it is also "how a brand says it." Brands are like people. Each has its own unique personality traits. Think of Nike (Just Do It!); Gatorade (Is It In You?); MasterCard (There Are Some Things Money Can't Buy); and BMW (The Ultimate Driving Machine). These tag lines are synonymous with the personality of their brands. Now name their major competitors and their respective tag lines.

Marketplace Forces - How The Brand Is Perceived Externally (In The Marketplace)

Market Relevance – the market’s actual acknowledgement and recognition of the brand versus what was intended by the brand (vision, positioning, voice). Once a brand has lost its perceived relevance in the marketplace, it is all but impossible to regain it. The examples are many. Perrier was once the leading bottled water sold in the U.S. Pontiac and Taurus are being retired. Remember PanAm, TWA, and Atari?

Product/Service Superiority – the criteria for evaluation of the brand, e.g., leading in quality, performance, functionality, innovation, expertise, etc. In the marketplace, the advantage lies with those brands who consistently demonstrate their leadership in providing the best price/value; are the most innovative; and demonstrate their expertise supporting their brands with consumers and partners. To be perceived the best creates considerable and expensive barriers-to-entry for potential insurgents.

Ecosystem Integration – how the brand integrates into the marketplace with consumers, with partners, with distribution channels, with technology platforms, and with media channels. Successful brands must take a holistic view of the landscape. A leading brand, for example, is worthless if does not have distribution and "shelf space". A leading brand cannot achieve its potential if it does not extend itself to emerging media channels and technology platforms.

Management and Culture – the perception of the brand's leadership, innovation, competency, credibility, values, and integrity. Take Apple, for example. Apple was the creation of Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak. Mr. Jobs, considered the company's visionary and creator of the brand's unique culture, was forced out of the company he founded. Without his leadership, Apple floundered. His return has marked one of the great turnarounds in American business. The iPod has created a business and pop culture phenonmenon that has changed, forever, how people consume music. Apple stock has soared since his return.

Sustainability – the brand's ability to successfully compete in spite of strong competition, economic conditions, or other potentially disruptive conditions. The ability to persevere and succeed is the characteristic of a strong brand. New insurgents are entering the marketplace every day threatening incumbents. Incumbents must agressively deal with these insurgents or risk becoming irrelevant. Microsoft, for example, was slow to respond to Google and Yahoo. AOL was slow to respond to MySpace and Facebook. Large media and entertainment companies were slow to respond to iPod and YouTube. Sustainability of brands demands proactively dealing with opportunities and threats of insurgents.

In summary, this is a dynamic process that requires relentless oversight in order to make adjustments as required by market conditions. What is your brand's story? If you need help, contact Bill.

Thank you, Bill, for sharing your story with me.

Mandala and Architecture Of Identity are used by permission of Mandala-VSS.