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 has been replaced by blatant self-interest.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. "

Recognition Marketing - 10 Characteristics Of A Great Brand

By David Miranda


Great brands.....

1. compete with themselves, not others for the hearts, minds, and wallets of customers.


2. are more curious, better informed, more agile and nimble, and less risk-averse than their competitors.


3. are customer-centric understanding that customer retention is the engine for customer acquisition.


4. understand that everything (both the formal and informal) communicates the brand to others.


5. understand that the status quo is the enemy of innovation.


6. compete on value not price.


7. are not "me-too" marketers


8. have a compelling brand "story" that clearly distinguishes it from all others


9. recruit and retain great marketing talent


10. can demand a premium for their products and/or services

Are You Covering All The Media Bases With Your Brand?

The New Media Continuum - Extending The Brand Horizontally

By David Miranda

Not long ago, the media landscape was much simpler. People woke up to the radio alarm tuned to their favorite AM/FM station; read the local newspaper; turned on the television as they sipped their morning coffee. On their way to work, they listened to the car radio including traffic reports and passed countless outdoor advertising. Sure there are still many that follow the same routine, but the media landscape has changed for many American households.

Today, people may still wake up to an alarm, not necessarily the radio. Then they might check their cell phone for calls or text messages or their Blackberry for emails. Instead of the morning newspaper, many go online to read the latest news or check email. More consumers are less likely to have home delivery of the local daily. Off to work, instead of the radio, they may be making cell calls or listening to their iPods.

And so the day goes. New media channels spawning new consumer behavior.

Of course, there is no typical consumer and no typical behavior, but make no mistake about it. The media landscape is morphing and marketers must insure brands are extended horizontally across this new landscape. The chart below reflects a sampling of the new 24/7 media world. How often does your brand touch people during a typical day?

I

It is important to analyze how effective your media plan is in reaching consumers across an entire day including individual day parts, particularly mobile and the Internet since these allow consumer access anytime, anywhere, anytime.

Recognition Marketing - Avoid The Bland Leading The Brand

Drive Mediocrity From Your Enterprise - Pick The Right Leaders

By David Miranda

In a marketplace of uber-choice, consumers need to be given a clear reason to buy your brand over all alternatives. It is the essence of a successful marketing strategy. The inability to do this, puts considerable downward pressure on price as the "tipping point" for preference. This ultimately commoditizes the brand. This, generally, does not happen by design, but by default.

How does this occur and why does it occur so frequently in the marketplace? The simple answer is mediocrity, i.e. being risk-averse; being a "me-too" brand. This occurs when decision makers reward the status quo versus celebrating innovation. In medicore environments, the bland flourish while the innovators languish or jump ship. The problem lies in picking the wrong leaders.

It is almost impossible for a great idea to have upward mobility in an enterprise of mediocre leadership. Companies continually make the terminal mistake of putting the wrong people in charge of their brands - those that are risk-averse, protectors of the status quo, those more interested in doing things right veruses doing the right things.

Take Apple Inc., for example. Years ago the visionary members of the Apple board decided to replace one of the Apple founders, Steve Jobs, with an Pepsi executive, John Sculley. Sculley ultimately (and unbelievably) fired Mr. Jobs. After miserable results under Mr. Sculley, Apple brought back Mr. Jobs and the rest is history. (iPod, iTunes, iPhone, etc, etc.)

Take Yahoo!. Its board brought in Terry Semel from Time Warner. After being continually out-performed (and out stategized) by Google, Mr Semel was replaced as CEO by one of Yahoo's founders, Jerry Yang.

Take Dell Computers. Once considered a model of innovation, Dell fired its CEO and brought back its founder, Michael Dell to turn around the company's fortunes.

The message is clear. When a company allows the bland to lead the brand, innovation atrophies. This is the case with many companies today in many industries in the U.S. (airlines, automobile manufacturers, computers, retailing, etc.)

Success, today, demands that companies place innovators, risk takers, and those with entrepreneurial thinking in key leadership positions. Business needs innovative marketers to lead the charge.

Just because someone has a lofty title does not make them a great marketer.

The bland should never lead the brand. It's terminal.

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.