Category Archives: Branding

JCPenney markdown sale: In this corner, Brand Strength…and in the other corner…

Readers of this blog know that I am a strong believer in the power of brands.  How else, in one or two words, can a rich set of expectations, promises, emotions and attributes be powerfully and instantly telegraphed?

Think of what immediately comes to mind, for better or worse, when you hear brands like REI, Whole Foods, Apple, JC Penney, Disney, The Republican Party, or Trabant.  Brands are living representations of the customer experience, at all touch points, and need to be carefully watched and managed.  Ok, we knew this already, right?  Of course.

Well, this morning I ran across 2 things that seemed to contradict each other.  But the takeaway point is, there is another powerful influencer that can undermine or overwhelm the power of a brand – – VALUE.

Thing 1) A soon-to-be-released study from the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association reveals that only 41.7% of consumers claim that price is ‘very important’ in food shopping.  Also, for the first time in recent memory, less than half of consumers (49.1%) say items on sale/money-saving specials are “very important.”  What does have influence?  Service, expertise, guidance.  You can read a preview here).

Thing 2) My morning paper had a blow-on sticker advertising a clearance event at JCP.   If you’ve been following, the brilliant merchandiser behind Apple Stores’ success, Ron Johnson, has taken over at JCP with a philosophy of weaning deal-crazed consumers, through elimination of promotions and investment in store upgrades.  The reaction from the Street and the media tells us that his job is not quite done yet.  (and the sticker is Exhibit A.)  A good NYTimes overview here.

jcpSo what is the point?  These 2 observations would seem to be contradictory.  In one, consumers are telling us they don’t focus on just price; in another, evidence that consumers are stubbornly insisting that price matters.

The point is that brand strength is absolutely important, but is in the end one of several interconnected purchase influences, all of which direct the final decision.  An exceptionally strong brand like Apple, representing a unique product/service that is not available elsewhere, can drive purchases among consumers even if it’s not the most economical.  Apple has earned this strength through its excellent offerings (including the retail stores), although the Samsung brand now seems to be on the ascendance through its own innovation.

JC Penney, on the other hand, is a brand that claims strong awareness, a seemingly consistent image (retailer of good value, good quality products), but is not unique in the market.  There are substitutes everywhere and the JCP brand is not enough to compel purchases.  Thus, when faced with elimination of expected discounts, consumers are happy to vote their dollars elsewhere.

I admire Johnson’s goal with JCP; perhaps rather than rallying disproportionately around the ‘no discounts’ flag, more of the investment (and messaging) could be directed toward what grocery shoppers look for:  Service, expertise, guidance, and maybe things like selection.  (although I’m no retailer).

The clear lesson – all brands need to be carefully assessed and business strategies molded around the strengths and weaknesses revealed.  No brand is so strong that it is a replacement for delivering clear value.

What my dog taught me about Twinkies

What, you ask, can my dog Nigel teach us about Twinkies?  A lot – what’s a brand worth, that sort of thing.  This question is brought to mind by yesterday’s purchase of now-bankrupt Hostess Brands’ bread portfolio (including Wonder Bread, Nature’s Pride and others) by Flowers Foods.   Sale of the Hostess dessert cakes brands (including Twinkies, Ho-Ho’s, Yodels, Suzie Qs and more) is expected to close within a few weeks.

IMG_0435

Well, Nigel is pretty bright, and he does provide perspective on the recent public agonizing over the potential disappearance of Twinkies.

You see, Nigel goes crazy for the ball when the humans play ping-pong at home.  After he beats us to a missed ball, he happily gives it up so the game can continue.  It seems Nigel loves the idea of having the ball in his mouth but doesn’t have much interest in chewing or eating it.  He likes the idea of the ball, not the ball itself.

In the same way, while many of us are emotionally attached to our experiences with Twinkies, and share in the grief of possibly losing them, it is unlikely that many of us are actually current Twinkie eaters or likely to suddenly become future eaters.

Twinkies is a powerful brand that is high in nostalgia (positive associations driven by past exposure) but unfortunately also one that has become quite low in relevance.  In an age where treats are increasingly either relatively good for you (e.g. 100 calorie packs) or utterly indulgent (e.g. gourmet cupcakes), and where consumers increasingly check ingredients, that retro golden sponge cake with vanilla creme filling is being squeezed from all sides.  Past efforts like reduced-fat Twinkies (of which I was a fan) or chocolate creme or banana Twinkies have generally not been successful – – they violate some aspect of the indulgent formula of the original.  So while the brand carries significant weight, the ability to convert that equity into cash is not a slam dunk — Twinkies loyalists are a particularly finicky (and shrinking) lot, and it’s not clear that there is a consumer franchise for the future.

What is the lesson?  Just because a brand is widely known and loved, doesn’t mean it can power future sales.  The winning bidder for the well-known Hostess snack brands will need to have assessed not only the net present value of the current franchises, but also the ability to extend these brands beyond current offerings to become more relevant to an audience that will generate long-term demand.

The successful repositionings of Old Spice and Cadillac from Dad targets to Son targets demonstrate that it’s very possible to recharge relevance, capture a new audience, and thus harvest latent equity.  The unsuccessful (and clumsily transparent) attempt to resuscitate Oldsmobile (remember?  “It’s not your father’s Oldsmobile“) shows that there are no guarantees.  Kentucky Fried Chicken’s attempt to recast itself as less unhealthy (KFC) would probably be judged to have had moderate success – – the word ‘fried’ is decoupled from the brand, but we all know what goes on in there so there’s a limit to how far you can (and want to) go.

NostalgiaRelevanceTwinkies carries immediate and powerful associations and there are certainly potential avenues for the brand — perhaps traditional line extensions, perhaps co-branding, perhaps licensing the Twinkies brand aggressively to non-food products (clothing?  toys?  theme park ride?). The new owner will very carefully need to determine whether, and how, the brand that elicits such strong emotions might generate sufficient profits to justify the purchase.

To a great extent, it may depend on whether this old dog can learn new tricks.

GEICO Advertising: It’ll take a lot less than 15 minutes to read this post…

I’ve been thinking about GEICO lately.  Not because I’m shopping for insurance, but because GEICO doesn’t give me any choice – – its advertising is in my face (and ears) constantly.

Which got me thinking:  Marketing 101 says that there should be creative consistency in advertising, lest the message (and brand) become diluted or confused.  But I can name at least a handful of concurrent campaigns (not counting infinite executions) for GEICO being used today.  I bet you can, too.

–       GEICO gecko – inescapable, multiple cross-media executions Geico gecko

–       Happier Than (guys playing guitar/mandolin) – (“How happy are GEICO customers? – – happier than Eddie Money running a travel agency”, etc)

Geico Eddie Money

–       Caveman (“so easy a caveman could do it”)Geico caveman

–       Rhetorical (“Was Abe Lincoln honest?”  Mary T. L.: “does this dress make my backside look big…”) (personal favorite)

Geico Abe Lincoln

–       Maxwell the Pig

Geico pig

–       And more.  There’s even a Wikipedia entry dedicated to GEICO advertising

Geico eyesGeico Peter GravesGeico Serling

So what gives?  Lots of quite different executions trying to sell basically the same product. Wouldn’t putting all weight behind one creative campaign (with freedom for infinite versions) make more sense?  Well, 2 main reasons:

1)    While the creative changes, the USP/ message is highly consistent.   All roads lead to Rome, and all GEICO ads lead to “15 minutes could save you 15% or more on insurance.”  They may be talking about a car, home, motorcycle, RV or whatever, but in the end the message is the same.  And that’s what counts.  While there might be a mixed read on what consumers recall creatively, I bet message recall (‘cheaper insurance’ or similar) would be very consistent.

2)    At some point any advertising can reach a saturation/burnout stage, and familiarity, even with the most inventive creative, will breed contempt.  So changing up the rotation, with the sort of weight GEICO deploys, works to its advantage.  In addition, consistent use of humor (generally done well) lends a lightness to the proceedings that make the spots more tolerable.

– McDonald’s has a similar variety of campaigns, but they support different strategies (meal dayparts, seasonal favorites, dollar menu, new products, etc.).

– Big Auto uses similar weight/variety, but unfortunately much of the focus is on price and only a few have message consistency that endures over time (‘Ultimate Driving Machine’).

The only questionable tactic is recently identifying GEICO by its original name, Government Employees Insurance Co.  Considering Congress’s abysmal approval rating (12%), one wonders what the expected gain would be.

Moral of the story:  in advertising as in humans, up to a certain point weight is necessary; beyond that point one must be cautious.

On the other hand, I still haven’t invested in that 15-minute phone call…

These popular sports don’t belong in the Olympics

OK, we’ve seen Andy Murray and Serena Williams win singles – great, exciting, pip pip, etc. But tennis shouldn’t be in the Olympics (and the same goes for golf, which is regrettably planned to be introduced as an Olympic sport in Rio in 2016).
WHY do I make this cranky and probably unpopular statement?

Simple: the Olympics is where the world sees who is the best athlete in each individual sport, where there aren’t generally well-publicized events otherwise. (quick: do you remember the last time world champions were decided in Women’s 8s?). These are athletes who are almost all amateurs, making remarkable sacrifices to be able to prove their mettle to the world (and themselves) on a grand stage.

Well, tennis happens to have a schedule of major tournaments that are conducted among the world’s best players 4 TIMES EVERY YEAR!  French Open, US Open, Australian Open..and we just finished Wimbledon, for crying out loud! So why do we need yet another tournament that will only steal television coverage from those athletes who are more deserving of this quadrennial spotlight?  Additionally, these pro tennis players already have more fame and fortune than most humans – – perhaps being deprived of the honor of representing the US is the price they have to pay.  On the other hand, maybe the US competitors could start by doing better in the Davis Cup!  ‘Golden Slam’?  Spare me.

Ditto for Golf.  We just don’t need it in the Olympics. Let’s start by doing a little better in the Ryder Cup, eh chaps?

And in the ‘is this a joke’ category, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has apparently started lobbying for ‘US-style football’ to be included in future Olympics.  He claims there are 64 countries already playing the sport, which is some sort of requirement.  Well, I’ll agree that Texas and a few other states could be considered countries, but mostly – –  ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

Microsoft: Time to Surface?

Posted on

Mac Classic

First of all, I must note that I am a long-time Apple user – – starting in the 1980s with the Mac Classic, in the 1990s with a Quadra,  and continuing with roughly a $3000 purchase every 3 years when something died.  I figure that our family has bought close to 20 Apple products over the years, not including iPods – – but importantly, including a one-year old iPad. The appeal of Apple was no secret:  intuitive, sleek, inter-device compatibility, and increasingly, no worries about viruses, hackers, blue screen of death, etc.  The limitations of Apple were less compatibility with MS Windows software, which made it less popular with the typical office IT folks.

Mac Quadra

Now it seems Microsoft is (again) going all Apple on us, by announcing the introduction of their SURFACE product, sort of a combination of a pad and a notebook.  Following its history of not being a leader in the hardware arena, and specifically being an unsuccessful follower of Apple (Zune, anyone?) I must admit that the Surface has the possibility to break through.

New Microsoft SURFACE

Why?  Like Apple has done many times before, Microsoft has taken an existing innovation (there were lots of MP3 players before the iPod) and made it more usable.  The Surface tablet addresses probably the key downside of the iPad by simply adding a keyboard (on the reverse side of the now-ubiquitous cover panel).  In addition, the Surface products (there are 2 versions) will operate more like notebooks, with relatively full-function Windows desktops available.  Lack of a keyboard on my iPad, and inability to manipulate files have driven me to my (Apple) laptop more than I would like; these could be improvements that sort out the optimal capabilities array for this type of product and finally help Microsoft get its footing in the hardware arena.

Unless (until?), of course, Apple responds.  Will be interesting to see if Apple announces something before fall, when the Surface is scheduled to debut.  That could send MS back under water…

Bloomberg’s Soft Drink Edict: New York State of Mind

Posted on

I’m not in favor of Orwellian control of things like drink sizes.

HOWEVER, what seems to have been lost in the recent NYC brouhaha is that there is something huge in the idea of managing down drink sizes (and food portions overall):

1) we all know that humans have essentially zero self-control, and like puppies, will continue to consume whatever is put in front of them until it is gone – – so somehow influencing options makes sense from a behavioral perspective
2) a recent study put Americans’ caloric intake from beverages at around 24% of total caloric intake, yet people to a great extent don’t think about drinks when counting calories – – it’s thought of as sort of a free play.
3) there are roughly 350 calories and about 88 grams of sugar in a single 32 oz cola drink — which chips away quite a bit toward daily recommended intake of 2000-2500 calories and exceeds the recommended daily intake of around 50g sugar (depending on where you source your info).
4) When you consider that a lot of these drinks will be consumed with food, and that restaurant food portions are very often too big and unhealthy, it starts to get scary.

No less an authority than British boy band One Direction (please don’t ask), when asked about the biggest difference between the States and the UK, their immediate response was not the weather, not the girls, not the cars, not the great dental environment – – it was FOOD PORTIONS.    (see 16:47 to about 17:15)

So, I understand Mayor Bloomberg’s objectives, but government mandate can’t be the answer (impractical, unfair; people can apparently easily work around gun laws, so gaming the soda restrictions might just be doable).

If there could be some market-driven way for consumers to somehow be trained to be satisfied with non-excessive portion sizes (food and drink), there could be forward progress.  I wish I had an answer.  But as we’re so trained to equate ‘good value’ with ‘big meal’, getting our arms around this problem will be a tall order (puns intended).

Scotts vs. Pennington: Grass Stains

Posted on

It’s springtime in the US, and the sounds of birds chirping and squirrels chattering are being drowned out by Scotts and Pennington going after each other like Itchy and Scratchy.  For peat’s sake, what’s going on here?

For starters, seems there’s a violation of that age-old marketing axiom:  don’t legitimize your smaller competitor!  (I mean, would Mitt have belittled Ron Paul?  Do the Kardashians need to compare themselves to Snooki?)

Scotts Company – the 800 lb gorilla.  If you can fog a mirror you have heard and/or seen a lot of a Scotsman named ‘Scott’ of Scotts doing a pitch for TurfBuilder grass seed in a slightly cartoony but mostly agreeable faux-brogue.  This is prime time for the enormous lawn care industry and Scotts brought their A Game with breakthrough advertising with a simple message and catchy mnemonic.  And who doesn’t know Scotts?  They are the 800 lb gorilla in lawn care.  All they really need to do is remind you of the need, the name, and where to buy.

The scrappy upstart. So what happens?  A much lesser known (perhaps until now) competitor named Pennington Seed Company and Scotts have apparently gotten sufficiently in each others’ grills with competitive claims that there has been a spate of back-and-forth lawsuits in the last few years.  Unlike most categories where Scotts dominates, Pennington actually claims share leadership in their specialty, seed.  And in an effort to directly tweak their nemesis, Pennington currently is running copy claiming that Scotts seed products contain filler.

You said their name was Pennington?’  Amazingly, Scotts has responded by running spots mentioning Pennington by name with ‘Scott’ also saying on radio he’s got ‘a bee in his britches’ about the claim Pennington is making regarding seeds.

One can just imagine how ticked off Scotts management must have been to approve the spots (likely over the agency’s guidance), and maybe it feels good, but this can’t be a good move.  By contesting Pennington’s position in a portion of the business, seed, Scotts has now validated Pennington as a broader lawn care company, making it easier for them to increase their offerings beyond seed.

“I’d like to acknowledge my competitor, who is way behind in the polls”.  Everyone who would have previously looked past Pennington on the shelf now has some level of name recognition and credibility-by-association, so this can do nothing but help Pennington when clearly Scotts’ objective was the opposite.

Separately, over the last year Scott has launched more detailed explanatory videos on YouTube, documenting exactly what is in a bag of Scott seed.  Because this is likely to be viewed only by people who are already involved in the category, contrary to their broadcast marketing efforts, this seems like a very smart move.

Will be interesting to see how this plays out – – a lot of green is at stake.