Brand Critical

Branding Essentials: Why Do You Need A Strong Slogan?

2009-09-27T19:14:00.000-07:00

Today is Brand Critical's second birthday!!! Happy year two BC! I apologize the entries over the past few months have been more scattered than regular, but that's what happens when you work long hours and have had 14+ hours of travel every week. Luckily I'm on a new assignment and am spending fewer hours running through airports. Whew! In the meantime, I've been gathering some topics recently to help make up for my absence and hope they'll be of interest...including this entry on one of the key elements of an integrated brand identity.

In case your memory needs a jogger, an integrated brand identity contains three basics: a name, a logo, and a slogan and today I want to discuss the third of these. In the world of branding, the slogan is generally used as the positioning factor. Its purpose is to convey your brand promise to the customer. And since each of us is exposed to millions of messages every day (whether or not we decide to pay attention to them), our brand's tag line needs to be clearly understood to avoid any confusion or misinterpretation.

When you look at a brand from inception, all three elements are generally present. However, for some reason the slogan is the one that's the most difficult to pin down as a constant thread (i.e. as the name and logo remain the same the slogan doesn't). Why? The reason is fairly simple. Sometimes (OK, often) brand managers find themselves in a position where their ad agencies want to change their slogan to fit each new, flashy ad campaign whim (Are the brand manager warning bells should be going off in your head yet?). Since they are the advertising experts, why should you resist? I'll give you some good reasons...

When you change a brand’s slogan too often, customers start to get confused or think you’re hiding something. Inconsistency can be extremely destructive to a brand. You wouldn’t go and change your logo or name every two years (or less), so why do the same with a slogan? You don't want to give your customer the impression you're wishy-washy. Sure there are some factors that would require the creation of a new slogan. But these aren't things that happen every day. (Some reasons would include your competition (or market) has changed, your potential customer needs to be re-educated due to a major product quality issue, etc.). Get the picture?

Max Sutherland, author of "Advertising and the Mind of the Consumer: What Works, What Doesn't, and Why" summarized that most brand names, being only one or two words, can't stand alone as compressed communication. As a result, the brand slogan plays a key role and the usage of this slogan should be disciplined. "Discipline means keeping sight of the need for each message to reinforce previous messages and to reinforce the précis of the brand’s DNA...(it) should not change. If it does, then pretty soon the brand loses sight of its own essence. Buyers get confused and wonder does the brand truly stands for anything if it keeps switching?"

Now we come to the example of a brand possessing two strong elements and one that is a little bit fuzzy. Ford is the perfect example of a brand with a strong name and impactful logo. However, it seems to have struggled over the years to come up with (and stick to) a meaningful and lasting slogan. You may ask why it really needs one seeing that Ford has such great brand recognition even though it has changed its slogan numerous times. In fact, if you see the Ford name or the Blue Oval on anything you think cars, don't you? The reason Ford needs a strong slogan is due to three major factors occurring today:

Its industry is in tumoil
Overall Americans have become disenchanted with American automobiles
Although Ford currently has quality topping its major competitors it still needs to sell itself to the many disbelievers out there

A couple of months ago the Detroit Free Press ran an article claiming "Americans are buying Fords: 'Drive One' slogan isn't connecting with public." In it, Art Spinella (President of CNW Marketing Research, Inc) said of Ford's most recent slogan: "The Drive One campaign is so amorphous that it doesn't mean anything." This isn't surprising seeing that the company seems to have changed it's bread-and-butter brand's slogan every couple of years:

Bold Moves.
Built for the road ahead.
Designed for living. Engineered to last.
Have you driven a Ford lately?
Drive One.
Feel the difference.
Built Ford Tough. (Generally consistent with their truck products, not the entire brand)

For a brand with such a rich history and great products it’s difficult to understand why no one’s created a strong, lasting slogan that fits the brand’s image. Why not come up with something that will last more than a couple of years – say something that follows the brand at least into the next couple of decades? Something that truly stands for what the brand is about and plans to be in the future? Other major companies have successfully used their slogans for 20+ years (and psst, Ford...one of them is a fellow automaker):

"Just Do It." (1988)
"The Ultimate Driving Machine." (1975)

Are Stadium Naming Rights an Effective Marketing Practice?

2009-04-15T21:52:00.000-07:00

Photo found on: Ad Pulp

After the Final Four wrapped up here in Detroit, The Detroit Free Press published an article stating that as a result of the event being held at Ford Field, Ford Motor Company had won $22.5M in free advertising from media coverage. The "Freep" noted that despite the fact there were no courtside signs present, "Ford received more than a minute of clear, focused exposure time during the two nights of coverage. Ford Field was also mentioned by the CBS announcers 23 times." (For background, when Ford purchased the naming rights to the stadium (completed in 2002), it agreed to pay $40 million over 20 years).

This article inspired me to bring up the use of stadium-naming rights as a marketing tool. It's a topic on the heat of many tongues over the past few months, primarily due to public criticism of Federal-bailout-money-funded banks continuing on with naming-right plans. Although the practice isn't anything new, over the past few years as stadiums have become larger and more luxurious, naming-rights prices have skyrocketed. For example, in July of last year Ad Age reported the naming-rights for the new Giants/Jets stadium, was estimated at $800M. And on February 4 of this year, MSNBC reported (via the AP) that “Citigroup's contract with the Mets is the biggest stadium naming rights deal ever...paying the team $400 million over 20 years...” At rates this high and the economy this low, is it even worth it?

In the MSNBC report, William Madway, marketing instructor at Villanova had said in regards to purchasing naming-rights as a marketing tool, “This is not a silly thing…this is not a corporate jet.” (Although I don't think this is a very good comparison, because an asset like a corporate jet isn’t intended for marketing purposes and in many cases the jet isn’t silly because the plane is already a sunk cost and the company is only paying for operation costs to fly (instead of paying for fluxuating, booked-at-the-last-minute, high-priced commercial airline tickets). It makes business sense because the plane flys large numbers of employees (not just executives) to highly frequented company destinations multiple times a week. But I digress.). Don Sexton, a professor of marketing at Columbia, on the other hand said "You have to have the right tone. People in these times have very sensitive ears...Perceptions rule." In other words, if people are highly critical of how you're spending taxpayer money, it probably isn't a good time to continue with a high-priced, high-exposure sponsorship. He also said, "from a branding perspective, there's no hard data to prove how effective stadium naming rights are for financial services firms."

This brings us back to the Freep article. So what if the company name was mentioned on the air? Did the name make people think of cars or football (the Detroit Lions) or college basketball? What was the actual ROI for Ford Motor Company - the car company? Did more people go out there and buy or lease new cars/trucks or get a warm fuzzy feeling when they thought of the Blue Oval? Can it be compared to $22.5M of strategized, paid-for advertising when it may not have been reaching or connecting with the appropriate target audience? What has been the actual naming-rights ROI over the past few years for Ford?

In 2005, Brand Channel posted a Brand Debate asking readers whether or not corporate sponsorship (specifically stadium naming-rights) scored with consumers. There was a range of differing opinions, from those who didn't believe it made people more inclined to purchase products/use services, to those who said it may help increase or strengthen top of mind awareness if the stadium/sport has something to do with the product and brand experience. In other words, before throwing money at naming-rights a company needs to remind themselves of their brand basics. What does your brand stand for? What do you want the customer to think or experience when they're exposed to your brand? So what if a customer knows your name...do they know what the brand is about and like what it stands for? Does tying the brand name to a stadium or sports team compliment your overall brand goal? What if the sports team is a losing one or tends to get a lot of bad PR?

In my opinion, not only is it difficult to measure the ROI to justify buying naming-rights as a marketing plan, but there are an unlimited number of ways to more effectively reach your customer for far less spend. You can do a lot of marketing for $400M and do it smartly - i.e. in ways that won't anger consumers and tarnish your brand image. But, if you do decide your brand might fit with a sports team (maybe you are a maker of athletic shoes or something), just remember to go back to the brand basics before pulling the trigger.

Iconic Brand Power Proved: Snicker's Snacklish Campaign

2009-03-18T22:16:00.000-07:00

Over the past few weeks I've been seeing billboards and buses in the Detroit-area that seem to be all about jibberish: "Get some bling with Master P-Nut," "Pledge Sigma Nougat," "Nougetaboutit." Realizing these ads were for Snickers (based on the logo and brown background), I did a Google search and discovered Snickers' new "Snickers Speak" campaign from TBWA\Chiat\Day New York. Snickers is putting on a full-court press to encourage people to learn "Snacklish."

This isn't the first time Snickers has tried to get people to speak its "language." Similar ads were launched in 2006 using words like hungerectomy, peanutopolis, and nougatocity (Arnold Zwicky has a nice list of words and definitions from the 2006 campaign here). Back then, it got people talking, but not everyone was sold on the new words. For example, two commenters on Ad Freak said that "Hungerectomy" reminded them of rectom and hysterectomy rather than the intended meaning of removing hunger. Although it isn't certain Snacklish will actually work its way into conversations with friends (NWT reported "Executives at Mars and TBWA/Chiat/Day New York say the Snickers language will resonate with 'young adults who are texting each other...making up their own words, their own shorthand.'"), what this campaign proves to me is the power of Snickers' brand.

How many other brands would get away with only using a single word on a billboard and have people tie it back to the correct product? These ads prove Snickers is an iconic brand, a brand according to WPP that is "...instantly recognizable...with such powerful visual cues (it) has an intrinsic advantage over others, not least beacuse it ensures that marketing communication is linked to the right brand...Our analysis found that brands considered iconic enjoyed far higher top-of-mind awareness...(suggesting) that iconic brands are strongly associated with their specific categories."

So what are the take-aways from this campaign? First, these ads serve as a reminder to those of us with newer brands to be specific in our advertising and to be smart about what visual cues we link to our products. For example, if Dove were a new entry into the soap market, just showing the word "Clean" inside the outline of our logo probably won't make much sense to the consumer...yet. Second, for those of us working with the brand powerhouses, it reminds us to be sure we don't lose sight of what makes our brand an icon. Would a McDonald's commercial be the same without seeing golden arches? Would Energizer batteries be the same without the bunny?

If you want to see more Snickers' Snacklish ads, Ad Land has a several posted to their website. Or you can visit Snickers' website to learn more about the campaign.

A Bunch of Chrismas Creep: How Starting the Season Early Doesn't Yield Intended Results

2008-12-08T20:46:00.000-08:00

Image from http://oceanswavesbeaches.blogspot.com/

The topic of this posting has been floating around in my head since September when I saw the first Christmas trees and holiday decorations out on display at my local Home Depot store. Ah yes, early fall was my first, 2008 sighting of the infamous “Christmas Creep." According to Wikipedia, “Christmas creep is the commercial phenomenon of merchants and retailers exploiting the commercialized status of Christmas by moving up the start of the holiday shopping season. The term was first used in the mid 1980s.” Every year this exploitation seems to occur earlier and earlier in the season. We see retailers tangling Jack-O-Lanterns and monster masks with evergreens and snow globes, mingling turkeys and pilgrims with nativity scenes. Christmas in November, then October, then September, and now some reports say this year it was extended to August? What happened to Christmas in December??? I mean we all joke about Christmas in July, but the way things are going, maybe next year we'll see just that. Surfing Santas anyone?

As a consumer –and- a marketer, Christmas Creep is one of my biggest marketing pet peeves. And it appears I am not alone. Peruse message internet boards and articles about the topic and you will find massive numbers of consumers complaining about “creeping” retailers. Some threaten not to shop at the first store they see with Christmas decorations up before Halloween or Thanksgiving. One poster writes: “It’s insulting…and they need to be boycotted. It completely ruins any given holidays because the holidays no longer represent a specific time of the year. If Christmas is 24/7 365 days a year, why bother doing anything about it?”

When we think about the marketing reason behind starting the holiday season early, we understand that retailers are attempting to influence consumer buying behavior. For example, last year The New York Times quoted several retailers regarding why they had put out Christmas decorations in October. L.L. Bean's spokesperson stated: "It's safe to say there is always anxiety. [The ad] serves the marketing purpose. It gets people thinking that the holiday is coming." But does it really? Consumers aren’t stupid. They know Christmas falls at the end of December every year, no matter when the retailers put up their decorations. So, with that said, has Christmas Creep really yielded the desired results? Many of us would argue it hasn't done anything other than annoy consumers and dilute the holiday spirit.

The National Retail Federation (NRF) conducts holiday surveys every year and defines holiday retail sales as sales in November and December. Looking at past data, today is no different than it has been over the past four years: around 40% of consumers say they’ll start their holiday shopping in October or earlier. Additionally, data collected since 2002 shows ~30% of consumers will have 10% or less of their shopping completed by the second week in December. In other words, people who tend to start early and plan their shopping will continue to do so and the Christmas Creep isn’t convincing holiday shopping procrastinators to start buying presents any earlier in the season. Finally, if we look at U.S. Census data, we see that total retail sales (excl. motor vehicle and parts dealers and food services) for November/December from 1998-2007, have consistently been in the 17% range. If you look at sales from October through December, they’ve consistently been in the 25% range and from September through December in the 33.5% range. In other words, Christmas Creep doesn't appear to be doing much to encourage consumers to spend more or buy earlier.

In March 2006, Wharton Marketing Professor Stephen Hoch wrote about Christmas Creep. "Are consumers going to revolt against it? No. Will it get people in a holiday mood? No; people will get in the holiday mood during the holidays. Does it give retailers a chance to set displays up sooner? Sure. Does it make stores more crowded? Yes. Decorations and special displays tend to make stores cluttered and hard for shoppers to move around." His article also quoted Herb Kleinberger, a partner and retail store practice leader at IBM Business Consulting Services. Klinberger stated: "Jumping the gun too soon can create an emotional pushback. In a certain sense, the consumer has to be emotionally ready to shop, and that may not happen until the weather [becomes colder]." In other words, your panic to turn your store into a Winter Wonderland in August could end up alienating shoppers.

So what should retailers be doing INSTEAD of putting up holiday decorations months before Christmas and calling early-bird sales "Holiday Sales." They should be working to identify some important consumer insights and determine what drives consumer behavior. For example, why do holiday procrastinators behave as they do? Lorraine Cohen, Life Strategist and author of the Powerfull Living blog, notes seven reasons why people procrastinate: Fear of success or failure, lack of desire, no inspiration, loss of momentum and motivation, negative self-talk and beliefs, overwhelmed by too many options, and too many distractions/loss of focus. In other words, a holiday shopping procrastinator is probably someone who can’t decide what they want to purchase, thinks there are too many choices (which causes them confusion and makes them feel overwhelmed), they don’t know where to start, and they don’t like shopping to begin with and are hence delaying the pain by shopping late. Knowing these insights, any decent marketer should be able to come up with ideas of how to appeal to this particular consumer set -and- potentially get them to both spend more money and shop earlier in the season. So with that said, I am personally challenging all you "Christmas Creepers" out there. In 2009, prove to us you know how to execute a pull rather than a push marketing strategy, show the consumer you actually understand them, and finally, quit acting like the people you want to purchase your products aren't intelligent!

To conclude, it's refreshing to see that not all retailers have jumped on the Christmas creep bandwagon. Some of you may recall Nordstrom's 2007 ad: “At Nordstrom, we won’t be decking our halls until Friday, November 23rd. Why? Well, we just like the idea of celebrating one holiday at a time. From our family to yours, Happy Thanksgiving. Nordstrom will be closed Thanksgiving Day. On Friday, our doors will open to welcome the new season.” Their company policy dictates this and I am pleased to report they followed it to a "T" again this year. "Merry Christmas" to that!

Celebrity Endorsements: Do They Work?

2008-11-12T19:58:00.000-08:00

Last week, USA Today published an article calling out favorite brands of the Obama family. In the write-up, Bruce Horovitz stated if the president-elect were to advertise the favorite brands of his family(Hart Schaffner Marx, J. Crew, Planters, Fran’s Chocolates, Honest Tea, Nicorette and Ford), these companies would most likely receive an increase in exposure and/or sales. One example he mentioned involved Michelle Obama. "During a Tonight Show with Jay Leno appearance, she [Michelle] wore — and talked about — a $330 outfit she had bought online. Shoppers snapped the look up. 'All the items were gone the next day,' says Jenna Lyons, creative chief at J. Crew." When reading this, I was brought back to an often discussed marketing/advertising question: Do celebrity endorsements really work? And even if they do, are paid celebrity endorsements a good business investment (i.e. is the ROI worth the (most times) extremely high premium)?

In early 2007, innovations report wrote about research conducted by the University of Bath (UK) and University of St. Gallen (Switzerland) on this exact topic. The article noted that research results questioned the effectiveness of using celebrities to sell products since it was discovered “...that many people were more convinced by an endorsement from a fictional fellow student… because many people feel a need to keep up with the Jones’s when they buy.” Furthermore they found that people “...like to make sure their product is fashionable and trendy among people who resemble them, rather than approved by celebrities...So they are more influenced by an endorsement from an ordinary person like them.” Besides this study, Brand Republic reported that some celebrities plugging products may actually turn off the consumer. In an article published in November of last year, survey results revealed “...that one in five mothers said the sight of Victoria and David Beckham plugging something in an ad would be more likely to put them off. Only 16 per cent were prepared to admit that celebrity endorsement would persuade them to buy a product.” Based on these reports, would you spend millions of dollars on a celebrity to advertise your products?

Besides the obviously monetary investment, when companies use celebrities in their ads they also take on the risk of damaging their brand/company/product image. For example:

Overexposure: If a celebrity is representing too many products or is in too many ads, that person may lose their credibility and/or lose their "turning heads" factor. Also, we may end up tying our brand/product to something we didn't particularly want to be associated. One case of celebrity endorsement over-exposure I can think of off the top of my head is Tiger Woods. Over the past few years he has represented General Motors, Titleist, General Mills, American Express, Accenture, Nike, Tag Heuer, Gatorade and Gillette. I know Tiger is popular, but honestly, do you really listen to him in an advertisement anymore since he's in so many of them?
Credibility: If your product is not something the celeb representing you would realistically use, then a partnership is probably not the best idea. Keeping with the Tiger Woods theme, a consumer could totally see him using Nike and Titleist products, what what exactly does he have to do with management consulting (Accenture)? Some other examples of bad celeb-product matches? Do you think Jessica Simpson would be caught dead eating greasy pizza in public or could you honestly see Fran Drescher shopping at Gap's lower-end chain? Probably not so much.
Reputation: We try to control our brand's image, but the fact is, even when a celebrity agrees to our contract terms, we can’t really control what they say or do, and a mis-step could lead to years of damage to our brand(s). For example, many companies could not have predicted the negative publicity Michael Vick would bring upon himself. About.com reported: "Just one day after Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick pleaded not guilty to federal dogfighting charges, companies began distancing themselves from the controversy. Nike suspended its contract with him, Reebok stopped selling Vick jerseys and trading card companies Donruss and Upper Deck removed Vick's card from the rest of their 2007 card pack releases. The NFL also pulled all Vick jerseys, autographed items and other memorabilia from its NFL Shop site."
Consistent Brand Image: When we put our products out into the market place, it's important we present a consistent image to the consumer. It brings trust and recognition to our brand. However, continually swapping celebrities is one way we can take away that consistent image. One brand I can think of who constantly changes their celebrity image is the Gap. Since the late '80's, Gap has relied on the use of celebrities in their ads with a laundry list of probably 40+ including the likes of Sarah Jessica Parker, Joss Stone, Lindsay Lohan, John Mayer, Mekhi Phifer, Claudia Schiffer, Sarah Silverman, Liv and Steven Tyler, Michael Vartan, Madonna and Brittany Murphy. In August, Marketing Daily quoted marketing consultancy Brand Keys' president Robert Passikoff as saying the Gap has a "sustained problem with brand identity that isn't solved by using stars in ads."

Over the past couple of years it appears more and more companies are realizing consumers may not buy something just because a celebrity face is linked it. Brand Republic commented: “In 2001, 17 per cent of TV ads the company was testing featured a celebrity. Last year, that fell to 8 per cent, and this year it's at 6 per cent." About.com reported on Pepsi dropping celebs from their ads stating the company “...said the celebrities were too big and the Pepsi brand didn't get the promotion out of the ad campaign that the stars were getting." On a similar note, Chrysler dumped Celine Dion after signing a 3-year, $14 million dollar deal with her. "Insiders at Chrysler say the commercials featuring Dion driving a Pacifica produced great sales...for the singer, not the car.”

Corn Syrup's Sticky Situation: Can You Change Consumer Perception?

2008-10-30T19:16:00.001-07:00

Have You Heard? Corn Syrup is Good for You!

Alright, so that's probably not the complete truth. We all know high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) isn't the next "health food." But recent commercials released by the Corn Refiners Association attempt to convince consumers that corn syrup in "reasonable amounts" is completely safe. This campaign (www.sweetsurprise.com) according to CRA president (Audrae Erickson), "is designed to correct the record...not a campaign to drive consumption (of corn syrup)" (per AP article posted on MSNBC).

See the commercials:

Commercial Version 1

Commercial Version 2

Corn syrup has faced public criticism, primarily due to studies linking obesity problems to sweetened beverages. Per the Mayo Clinic, "...research has yielded conflicting results about the effects of high-fructose corn syrup. For example, various early studies showed an association between increased consumption of sweetened beverages (many of which contained high-fructose corn syrup) and obesity. But recent research — some of which is supported by the beverage industry — suggests that high-fructose corn syrup isn't intrinsically less healthy than other sweeteners, nor is it the root cause of obesity."

Recently I've written entries about how deceiving consumers can negatively impact a brand. And although I think the corn syrup campaign message is misleading and also don't think it will be completely effective in "re-educating" consumers, I don't plan to turn this into another "what you shouldn't do" entry. What I am going to talk about is how the issue driving this campaign is a realistic marketing problem. For example:

What do you do if your product/brand has a bad reputation in the public eye – because the consumer is misinformed?
What does it take to change consumer behavior/perceptions about your brand/product(s)?
Will an ad campaign like this set consumers straight and be able to re-educate them/make them change their beliefs?
Is changing perceptions possible when the message isn't consistent? (i.e. various external sources are promoting different “facts” about your product)

Changing the way consumers view a company, product, brand, etc. is one of the largest challenges a marketer will face. It is difficult to break perception since it has been developed over time from a variety of influences – psychographics, knowledge, feelings, family, culture, etc. The good (or bad) new is that perceptions are dynamic, changing as the consumer becomes more or less familiar with things. And thus, as marketers, we try different things to change the consumer's mind. Most of the time we look to the 4-P's: Product, Placement, Pricing, and Promotion. For example:

Product: Is there a component of the product that is turning off consumers? Should we change the product all-together?
Placement: Is there any way to re-position the product so it will appeal to a different customer or fit into a different product category?
Pricing: Sometimes reducing the price will cause a consumer to purchase the product (although many times this may cause a temporary rather than permanent change in behavior unless competition is high and the products in the category don't have many differentiating factors other than price).
Promotion: You can change the affect a product has on consumers through pairing the product with a desired stimulus or put out appealing advertisements. You can put out advertising or materials that make the product or its attributes a compliment the target consumer's beliefs. You can attempt to re-educate a consumer.
A Combination of the Above: In an extreme case, some people would say the solution is to "brand, brand, brand." In other words, change multiple "P's"...update your image, release new information, redesign the product's packing, etc.

Now back to the "Sweet Surprise" campaign. The situation facing the Corn Refiners Association is unusual. The issue consumers have is with the product itself. The CRA can't add something to the product to make it more appealing - it is what it is. They also can't sponsor a study proving HFCS is completely safe because first, consumers won't listen to the results (CRA study = self-serving agenda) and second, consumers know corn syrup is not all-natural, it's chemically processed. Further, the CRA isn't able to change the consumer's ideals - you won't be successful in making processed/artificial the new ideal for food when the trend is going towards healthy, organic, natural, etc. Nor will you be able to make a consumer put "being healthy" lower on their list of priorities. Finally, corn syrup faces a non-compensatory consumer strategy. Lars Perner from the Marshall School of Business at USC quotes: “A compensatory decision involves the consumer “trading off” good and bad attributes of a product…Occasionally, a decision will involve a non-compensatory strategy. For example, a parent may reject all soft drinks that contain artificial sweeteners. Here, other good features such as taste and low calories cannot overcome this one “non-negotiable” attribute.”

Based on the television ads, the strategy the Corn Refiners Association has decided to pursue is to attempt to re-educate consumers. However, with all of the negatives mentioned above, what do you think they should do? Maybe it's time for the CRA to come up with a new product to market that actually benefits consumers (Innovation people! Give the people something they do want...consumer tastes have changed!) and give up on the stale, sweetener of yesteryear that is leaving a bad taste in consumers' mouths.

Making Mud Pies: Mudslinging's Impact on Brands and Consumers

2008-10-15T10:05:00.000-07:00

Photo: Brand Week

It’s crunch time in the U.S. presidential race and (to no surprise) we find ourselves being exposed to a plethora of political mudslinging. Since big bucks are involved (in 2006, most of the $164M spent on political advertising went towards attacks on the competition (USA Today)), I have often wondered whether or not these ads actually achieve the intended results. Notre Dame Marketing Professor Joel E. Urbany conducted research after the 2004 election and showed political mudslinging could work - to an extent. One article quotes his research: “Negative advertising, in spite of the fact that we don’t like it...can shift opinion...14% percent of those surveyed changed their minds about their favored candidate after watching negative ads.” Additionally, John Geer a political science professor at Vanderbilt University wrote a 2006 book (In Defense of Negativity) about how attack ads actually help the democratic process and can make campaigns more focused and productive. However, in a USA Today article, Ray Seidelman, a professor at Sarah Lawrence College said: "Negative ads only work in two situations — when you are incredibly desperate or when you're incredibly close to the end.” And ND's Urbany has said he is now reconsidering his 2004 study based on the fact that this year the number of negative political ads outnumber the positive ones (he wonders if they will actually have a reverse effect).

Although typically we think of mudslinging when it comes to politics, brands have also used attack ads over the years to try to bring more business their way (or prevent people from purchasing competitors' products). Some of the culprits? Mega brands Miller vs. Anheuser-Busch, Pepsi Co. vs. Coca-Cola, Progresso vs. Campbell’s, Apple vs. Microsoft, and Arby’s vs. McDonald’s and Burger King. Some examples? How about Progresso claiming Campbell's was a child’s brand - a battle that has recently evolved into Campbell's ads attacking Progresso's ingredients (photo above). Then there are "classic" blind taste test ads between Pepsi and Coke. In 2006, many of you may recall Arby’s claiming they used 100% chicken in their sandwiches unlike McDonald’s and Burger King (who only used 70%). And what about the never-ending "I'm a Mac" vs. "I'm a PC" saga? Or who can forget the continual battle of the brewers? Even right now, when some of us may have thought the "low-carb" fad was over, there's an ad for MGD Light 64 that shows someone asking for a Michelob Ultra "64" and the server pouring out half of the bottle of beer. Yes, attack ads have become a staple in modern day advertising. But what do experts say about this practice? What is the impression you’re creating on the consumer? And are you doing your brand image - one that you've spent a lot of time building up - a disservice by resorting to negative advertising? Although there could be a legal/libel risk in bashing your competitor, could you also make your brand less appealing to consumers?

Just last month, David Dunne, a professor of Marketing and Advertising at Toronto’s Rotman School of Management wrote an article about attack ads. He states: “Attack ads work in politics because political campaigns are different from advertising soap or shampoo. Voter psychology, timing and competition make it inevitable that one or both sides will use negative ads during a campaign.” The key idea here is that in political campaigns, people are more likely to distrust politicians and thus believe bad things about them, and that compressed timing works to an advantage. “In business, advertising campaigns are designed to build brand equity over time.” The WSJ reports: "Attack ads, when they get too intense, can confuse consumers. Several years ago, an ad war between SABMiller's Miller Brewing (now MillerCoors) and Anheuser-Busch got so heated that it was hard to keep track of which ad was for which brewer..." And just today, Brand Week posted an article noting expert opinions on the increase in business-related attack ads. They reported this tactic could actually hurt the brands involved and put entire product categories at risk: "If I'm a consumer, all of a sudden, I might say, 'Canned soup might be convenient, but I know it's not as wholesome as soup I might buy at a Whole Foods or gourmet shop,'" said Paul Kurnit, a marketing professor at Pace University, New York." CEO of the Wisner Marketing Group, Jim Wisner stated: "Private labels tend to get a boost when big brands engage in a category battle."

But even with these risks, attack ads are on the rise. A couple of weeks ago the Wall Street Journal reported: "The National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, which acts as the ad police, is fielding many more complaints from marketers who believe they are the victim of misleading comparison ads...September also saw complaints jump about 50 percent from last year..." They also wrote that Russ Klein (president of global marketing strategy at Burger King), said "over the next 12 months, the company's customers are going to get a "richer dose" of competitive ads than they have in the past 12." I'm not sure this is the direction companies should be taking.

We all know the big thing currently on consumers' minds is the economy. Since people are feeling down in the dumps about money, I highly doubt a bunch of negative ads are going to encourage them to up their spending. To me, most of these negative ads say "I'm a tattletale" -or- "I'm a big bully." Who ever likes someone like that? I think what consumers want to hear right now instead is "I'm a bargain" or "I'm someone you can trust." For example, a better execution of the Campbell's campaign would be to not even mention the competition. Why? Campbell's claims "consumers are reading food labels 60 percent more than they did a year ago (WSJ)." Through ads solely focusing on Campbell's and their ingredients, they should be able to convince health-conscious individuals to buy their product without leaving a muddy taste in consumers' mouths and possibly degrading their wholesome brand image.

What's YOUR Priority?: The USPS and its conflicting messages

2008-10-06T20:20:00.000-07:00

A few days ago I wrote an entry on customer deception - about how some brands were relying on short-sizing to keep product prices constant and help preserve their bottom line. Continuing on this theme, I came across a blog discussing how the US Postal Service is yet another brand deceiving consumers to help out their financial state. Bruce Watson from Walletpop talks about what he calls a scam by the Postal Service. He writes: “In an effort to combat its budget deficit of over $1 billion, the United States Postal Service is, allegedly, trying to upsell its premium services while hiding its less expensive options. According to an anonymous source, the USPS has instructed its employees to stop offering inexpensive shipping; whenever customers come in with anything larger than a letter, employees are supposed to ask if they want Express Mail guaranteed overnight delivery or Priority Mail. If the customer asks about cheaper options, the employee is then allowed to discuss First Class, Parcel Post, or Media Mail. The key element here is that the customer has to mention the cheaper options, as the counterperson can't.”

What I find interesting about Bruce's entry is the fact that just this week, the USPS announced their 5 year strategic plan called “Vision 2013.” Vision 2013 "rests on three major strategies: 1) Focus on what matters most to customers. 2) Leverage our strengths to create customer value and profits to invest in continued improvement. 3) Embrace change in the way we respond to emerging customer needs and a rapidly evolving business environment.” Regarding focusing on what matters to customers, the USPS plans to build on trusted relationships, communicate effectively, start with customer needs, and provide excellent customer experiences. In their words, “being "good enough" is not sufficient to increase customer loyalty and gain new business.”

Although it has a long and enduring brand heritage, it's no secret the United States Postal Service does not have the most sterling reputation. In January of 2006, Brand Channel wrote an article criticizing the brand ("USPS - Return to Sender") stating "presently, a country's postal service is a necessary evil." They noted that "...the brand image of the postal service is largely shaped by its customers' visits to the local post office, and occasional undelivered or late mail." And based on their documented experience (a visit to a Post Office in NYC near Columbia), the brand image was definitely not a positive one.

Since the USPS obviously needs to take some drastic measures to help improve their brand, Vision 2013, seems like it should be a way to help turn around this "brand gone bad." However, I wonder when exactly this 5-year-plan is slated to be kicked into high gear - now or later? If the rumors circulating the internet are true, being deceptive about your product offerings isn’t really a good start. Communicating effectively? Building on trusted relationships? People are going to think this is a joke. Well, then again, maybe it is...and if so, the joke's on us.

Let's Be (dis)Honest: How Short-Sizing Can Impact Your Brand

2008-09-27T17:23:00.000-07:00

Vs.
Deception
De*cep"tion\, n. [F. d['e]ception, L. deceptio, fr. decipere, deceptum. See Deceive.]
1. The act of deceiving or misleading. --South.
2. The state of being deceived or misled.
3. That which deceives or is intended to deceive; false representation; artifice; cheat; fraud.
Usage: Deception usually refers to the act, and deceit to the habit of the mind; hence we speak of a person as skilled in deception and addicted to deceit. The practice of deceit springs altogether from design, and that of the worst kind; but a deception does not always imply aim and intention. It may be undesigned or accidental. An imposition is an act of deception practiced upon some one to his annoyance or injury; a fraud implies the use of stratagem, with a view to some unlawful gain or advantage.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary. MICRA, Inc. 30 Sep. 2008. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deception>.

DECEPTION
Today I decided to talk about something that has been all over the media lately. Consumer deception. In regards to marketing, deceiving the customer is not generally viewed as a healthy practice, or something that gives you any sort of competitive advantage in the marketplace. So why is it many major companies use deception on a regular basis (whether or not they acknowledge they are doing it)? And why would these companies resort to such measures that could have a negative impact on their brand's reputation?

The answer is (surprise, surprise) M O N E Y. Most companies have regular, focused efforts towards cost cutting to help improve their bottom line and keep them competitive in the market place. Although this is a common exercise, in times of economic hardship and rising raw material costs, an organization may struggle to find creative ways to reduce costs without impacting their customers. Since the bottom line becomes the primary focus for survival, when all of the "good" ideas are used up, a company is forced to move on to the “tough choices.” I worked at an automotive company for seven years and am very familiar with the concept of cost reductions – and the fact some decisions are very difficult to make when keeping the end consumer in mind. For example, did you know leather seats in most vehicles aren’t 100% leather? If you have ever see the phrase “leather seating surfaces” or “leather trimmed” or “leather appointed” in regards to seats, that pretty much means the places your back and bottom touch on the seat will be leather, but the backs, lower trim and possibly sides of the seat are made out of vinyl. Through reducing the amount of leather in a seat, the manufacturer is able to save a ton of cost while still providing a durable seat that “appears” to be 100% leather. Is this deception? Definitely. The key here is in the way the seats are described to the customer. The wording doesn't clearly call out that synthetic materials are also used in the seats.

Deception is an embarrassing practice that companies have grown to rely upon. And it’s definitely not something that helps obtain or retain customers. So how often do we as consumers have the “wool pulled over our eyes?” More often than we might think. The automotive leather seats an... just one example. Another? In 2006, there was debate in the meat packaging industry over the use of carbon monoxide to help keep meat look bright red. Consumers were upset thinking this practice was going to "trick" them in to purchasing meat that wasn’t as fresh as it appeared. Recently, we have been reading and watching news reports talking about food companies short-sizing products to help protect their bottom line as the cost to produce products continues to increase. Andrew Martin of the New York Times reported (“Ate a Whole Pint? Check Again”) about a study Consumer Reports had done on this practice. "The magazine surveyed consumers in July and found that 75 percent had noticed that packages were smaller and that 71 percent believed that the main reason for the change was to hide price increases from consumers.”

Short-sizing isn’t a new phenomenom. In January of 2001 (yes, almost 8 years ago), Greg Winter wrote an article entitled “What Keeps a Bottom Line Healthy? Weight Loss.” In it, he discussed how Frito Lay had been putting fewer chips in a bag to help cut costs – i.e. conducting "weight-outs." He stated “It is a subtle way of earning more from everyday products without scaring off price-conscious shoppers, and it is quite legal as long as the package accurately describes what is inside.” But even if the box says how many ounces it contains, is the practice really ethical? Currently, when looking at some short-sized products placed side-by-side to their former model, you can't immediately discern a difference. An Apple Jacks box, for example, is the same height and width but is thinner on the sides and Skippy Peanut Butter looks the same unless you turn over the jar and compare the indentations at the bottom.

The sad thing is not only are these companies being deceptive in their short-sizing, but they aren’t even admitting they are doing something wrong. In fact, many claim these actions have been demanded by the customer. Back in June of this year, ABC 7 News in Arlington, VA conducted an investigation on products that had been short-sized. Kris Van Cleave reported on the following statements from companies. Karen May from Tropicana said the new 89 oz (ilo 96 oz) juice container “makes it easier for any consumer, especially children, to pour a glass of juice.” James Malone, spokesman for Georgia Pacific in regards to Brawny reducing the number of paper towel sheets from 110 to 88 per roll said “It’s a thicker towel…what the research showed us is they (the customer) needed to use fewer sheets per task.” A couple of weeks ago, CNN Money ran a story called the “Incredible Shrinking Cereal Box” They reported “many food companies say their customers accept, and appreciate, the choices they must make to maintain a quality product in the current economic environment." In March, Brandweek quoted Paul Chibe of Wrigley’s with saying that customers wouldn’t mind smaller sized packages of gum because "To them the value goes up because they're getting a better tasting product in a better package. Price is not the way the consumer is looking at this.”

Not too long ago, I remember purchasing cereal that advertised “20% More Free!” at the top of the box. With the latest weight-outs that have been occurring, I wonder why these food companies haven’t been advertising “Now – with 25% less!” OK – I don’t wonder…that’s not something you want to advertise. So if you don’t want to advertise it (or want a bunch of people blasting it all over the web, on the news, etc. when they find out), why do it? Unless you’re talking about a waist-line, most consumers do not think of shrinkage as a good thing. This is America where portion sizes at restaurants are often enormous, fast food meals can be super-sized, and people buy food in bulk at places like Sam’s Club and Costco. So is this practice of short-sizing good for business? Carol Tucker Foreman of the Consumer Federation of America once stated ''If you want to keep faith with the customers, be honest with them.'' As marketers we know sometimes we tend to s t r e t c h the truth. We know that sometimes our ads contain fantasy and dreams, glitter and make-up. We airbrush out flaws. Why? Nothing really looks as good as we want it to and to the customer (we think) bigger, more, flashier is better, right? But is some of this deception harmful to our brands? The answer is a definite “yes.”

Walletpop quoted Harry Balzer of the Consumer Research Firm NPD Group. "People typically spend 10 percent of their income on food and that won't change, he said, so instead they're looking for deals, eating less or changing brands.” So if we think customers may start to switch brands, we panic. We can’t up the price on the current box (we think). So we choose to put less in or change the package so it holds less and see if the customer notices. But when consumers find out about this practice they may feel cheated and start thinking your brand is dishonest. Maybe this isn't the only thing you're hiding from them. Could your plant conditions be unsanitary? Maybe those natural ingredients you list on the box aren’t actually so natural. We know that due to the internet, consumers are now more educated than ever and aren't afraid to share their reviews of products/companies with everyone. So it will be interesting to see, as more and more of these short-sizing actions occur, which consumers will actually bite and which ones will bite back.

When Your Brand is a Teenager - Literally

2008-09-16T21:05:00.000-07:00

Alright, so I admit part of this blog entry will border on something you would find on celebrity blogger Perez Hilton's website. But today I wanted to remind fellow "marketeers" of the risk of building a brand tied to an actual person – especially if that person is a teen who is growing up in front of the public eye. Prime example? Disney’s billion-dollar “Hannah Montana” brand.

Sure, many of us business types would love to have the golden touch as it appears Disney has had over the years. They are, first and foremost, very in-tune with their target market(s) and seem to have a knack for taking unknown actors/actresses and turning them into “the next big thing.” Not only this, but they are very good at copying successful models. For example, Disney tends to use a very similar franchise model for popular shows, expanding a lead-character's brand into clothing lines, dolls, DVD releases, novels, bedroom sets, perfumes, board and video games, soundtracks and even McDonald's Happy Meal toys. They've used this model for such characters as Lizzie McGuire, Raven Baxter and now Hannah Montana.

So what's the deal with Hannah Montana? For those of you who don’t have kids and don’t know much about the show, here’s a brief background. Debuting on the Disney Channel on March 24, 2006, Miley Cyrus, the daughter of Billy Ray Cyrus (who also plays her dad on the show) plays the role of Miley Stewart a.k.a. Hannah Montana. Miley lives a double-life, as a teenager (Stewart) and as a rock-star (Montana). If you've ever watched the show, it's definitely not geared towards adults (I'll admit I watched it once just to see what they hype was about and think most adults would find the characters and story lines annoying). But to kids, the allure of being able to change from a normal teenager into someone who is popular and cool is very appealing. In 2006, the show attracted 4 million viewers per episode, growing to 4.4 million viewers per episode in Season 2. Its popularity drove Disney to release Hannah Montana branded products (clothing, jewelry, apparel, dolls, greeting cards, iPod accessories, etc.) in December 2006. And in 2007, Hannah Montana went on tour in the United States, with Disney morphing her from a make-believe TV star into a real-life pop star...one who caused concert venues all over the U.S. to sell-out and tickets to go for over $2500. Hannah's self-titled CD went triple-platinum.

As teenagers grow up, they start experimenting with their own image, interests, etc. Resultantly, tying a brand to a person, specifically a teen, makes it very difficult to keep control over brand image. Hannah Montana is a perfect example of this struggle. Over the past year, there have been several "scandals" involving Miley Cyrus. The first consisted of scantily clad (i.e. Miley wearing only underwear) photos posted on MySpace (later rumored to have been fakes). Then Miley posed for Vanity Fair wearing a bed sheet wrapped around her partially naked torso, outraging parents of fans. Disney had Miley issue a public apology and according to Page Six, a high ranking Disney employee was overheard saying: "You won't be seeing her for a while…The company is keeping her away from events and wants her to keep a very low profile for the next four to six months. They're trying to keep her contained." In an ABC News radio interview mentioned by the New York Post, Hilary Duff (a.k.a. Lizzie McGuire) was quoted as saying, "It's not something that I would choose to do, but if she did them, that's fine. I don't know how her fans would feel about it, but maybe they won't mind." But the point goes back to – this is definitely the risk for a company when banking their brand on a person.

Though Disney has relied on teen-based brands in the past (Raven-Symoné’s Raven Baxter and Hillary Duff’s Lizzie McGuire), a brand image being "scandalized" hasn't really been an issue. Why not? Perhaps it's because the teens playing some of Disney's other successful characters were wise...they knew the business of a brand image, what it means to be a role model and what it takes to appease fans (and their parents). We look at Raven-Symone who at the age of 3 played the role of Olivia on “The Cosby Show.” She then moved on to “Hangin’ With Mr. Cooper” and then to Disney’s smash “That’s So Raven,” a kids show that ran for an almost-unheard-of 4 seasons. Her Raven Baxter character was even spun off - Raven became the lead singer of Disney's hightly successful "Cheetah Girls." Raven-Symoné is now 22 and enjoying a successful career post-Disney which includes a slew of music, TV and movie credits. Throughout her career she has led a pretty low-key life, avoiding the spotlight/gossip headlines and keeps her personal life what it should be – personal. Hilary Duff follows a similar mantra. In an OK! Magazine interview she states: "Everybody makes mistakes, but I just don't think it's for everybody to watch. It comes down to that I want people to focus on my work and I want to have my life completely separate from that."

So back to Miley Cyrus. As of late, Disney appears to have another Hannah Montana brand preservation issue on their hands. Miley, (who recently turned 16), is rumored to be dating Justin Gaston. An aspiring singer who appears as Taylor Hicks' love interest in her "Love Story" video, Gaston is 20 and an underwear model. (I'm guessing the fact that he's 20 and appears in photos half naked won't sit well with parents of teenage girls. What do you think?)

Sure kids need some guidance (so some of this brand image control should belong to Miley's parents). But as we all know, teenagers don’t like to listen - and tend to do the opposite of what we want – especially in cases of dating. So if you were Disney, what would you do? Would you work to hype up the next best thing and hope for the best (i.e. hope these new protegees are more like Hilary and Raven)? Or cling on to the successful Hannah Montana empire for a couple more years, teaching Miley (and her parents) about brand image sustainability (i.e. how she should learn to keep her personal life more personal)? My bet's on the former rather than the latter...

Picking a Buyer for Your Brand - The LÄRABAR Story

2008-09-09T22:23:00.000-07:00

Let's say you own a small yet growing brand but unfortunately lack the resources and infrastructure required to help the brand become more mainstream. However, you've recently been approached by a large manufacturer who has offered to purchase your company. This manufacturer will be able to take your brand to the next level. Should this be a no-brainer decision? What do you do?

In this entry I decided to briefly talk about a few major things a brand owner needs to consider when deciding whether or not to sell its name/products to a larger company. A perfect example of such a case is Humm Foods, makers of LÄRABAR and founded in 2003 by Lara Merriken. LÄRABAR had been pursued by several larger manufacturers in the past. However, in June of this year, Merriken finally agreed to sell the company to Minnesota-based General Mills (Merriken will remain on board as LÄRABAR's Creative Director). I happened to stumble across an interview from July with Merriken on http://www.welikeitraw.com/, a site managed by Dhrumil Purohit and home to raw foods enthusiasts.

For those of you not familiar with LÄRABAR, it is one of the few snack bars out there only consisting of a couple of ingredients. For example, the Cashew Cookie bar contains only dehydrated dates and cashews. Each type of LÄRABAR is made up of simple ingredients (dried fruit, nuts, spices), are a good source of fiber, provide omega-6 fatty acids, and contain no added sugar or preservatives. They are sold as single serving, healthy snack bars.

When the sale of Humm to General Mills was announced, many members of the raw foods community seemed concerned that the product, brand, etc. might change and took this announcement as very bad news. However, in reading the interview with Merriken, I thought this was a perfect example of well-thought out decision-making in considering what impact the sale could have on her brand and its products. Merriken took into consideration three major factors (amongst other things) when deciding to sell her company/brand:

What is your brands' vision? Will selling to this company help your brand achieve its vision? - In the case of LÄRABAR, the brands' vision is to help enrich lives by giving people access to wholesome foods. General Mills helps LÄRABAR achieve this by providing them with a wider distribution base and the ability to increase production.
What are your brand's values? Does the company interested in purchasing your brand hold the same values? - Merriken states that General Mills "really 'got it' and 'got us.'" In other words, General Mills holds similar values regarding natural, organic, and healthy food offerings through their Small Planet Foods division which has been around for almost 10 years. (General Mills also has expertise in reaching consumers and changing to meet their needs/wants based on the fact it has managed to stay in business since the 1800's).
Will selling your brand change its image? - Since General Mills does not plan to change LÄRABAR's ingredients, name, etc. in any way and Merriken and her 25 employees will be joining General Mills with Merriken holding the Creative Director role for the division, there is little risk of LÄRABAR losing its strong brand image.

Excerpts from the "We Like it Raw" interview are listed below (for the full interview, click here); A press release related to the sale of Humm to General Mills can be found here.

--------------------------------------------

Dhrumil: LÄRABAR is the most successful raw food bar. Your products are in so many stores and you have such a wide reach. So why did you sell?

Lara: I started LÄRABAR because I’m passionate about healthy eating and how it can enrich everyone’s life—not just the lives of those deep-rooted in the raw and natural foods communities. I believe the whole world, people from all walks of life, should have access to wholesome foods. There is no better company on the planet than General Mills to broaden the access to LÄRABAR worldwide. We feel proud about the job we’ve done growing our business, and we’re equally proud that General Mills has recognized the magic of LÄRABAR and, through its tremendous resources, wants to take us to a higher level and a greater reach that we could have never achieved on our own. Reaching people is what it’s all about. Natural, organic and raw food should not be a luxury for only a certain group of people. At LÄRABAR, we’re committed to sharing knowledge about positive food choices, improving not only the lives of people who enjoy our products, but also the lives of farmers who grow the quality ingredients that go into our products. That commitment will never change.

D: A few vocal voices in the community have raised questions about General Mills specifically. They feel that their products are not in alignment with the raw food movement and by selling the company to them you're "selling out." What does General Mills bring to the table that empowers the mission of LÄRABAR. Why go to General Mills or why did they come to you? Did you ever consider going to other companies?
L: LÄRABAR, over the years, has caught the eye of a number of large companies. But it was General Mills who really “got it” and “got us.” In the end, the caliber and integrity of its people really won us over. It’s impressive to consider that General Mills has been around since the 1800’s, and you don’t stick around that long without understanding and, more important, respecting the ever-changing needs of your consumers. In 1999, General Mills launched a new division of its company called “Small Planet Foods,” dedicated to natural and organic foods. You probably have seen its brands in grocery stores: Muir Glen and Cascadian Farm. LÄRABAR will be part of Small Planet Foods, and we’re thrilled to help expand more natural and organic food offerings available in stores.

D: Did you ever have any concerns that selling to a public company like General Mills would jeopardize the LÄRABAR product line?
L: No concerns whatsoever. I believe “stewardship” is a better word than “ownership” in describing the involvement of General Mills with LÄRABAR. This is my baby, and I would not have turned it over to just anyone.

D: This is the first major sale of a primarily raw food company to a larger public food company. You and your team are paving the way and a lot of people don't know whether they should be happy or concerned because this is all so new. Do you see this as a growing trend? Do you see more mainstream companies wanting to get involved in raw food products? Is this good for the overall health of the country.
L: Consumer awareness about the importance of good food choices really began to grow about a decade ago when retailers—both natural and conventional—started understanding and catering to the wave of the future. And what a great thing! I’m humbled to know that LÄRABAR is truly making a difference in the quality of people’s lives; the more people, the better. Is this a growing trend with other companies? I hope so!

A Question in Mixology - Should you tie politics to your brand name?

2008-08-27T21:53:00.000-07:00

The brand-impact question of the day...Is mixing politics with your brand name a good idea?

Example #1: The world’s largest producer of frozen potato products, McCain Foods, is making an attempt to steal market share in the U.S. from Heinz’s Ore Ida (the current National leader). How do they plan to accomplish this? Through a new, politically themed ad campaign: “Why McCain should be in the White House.” Although most people may be reached by the campaign through print ads, the home-base for the campaign is McCain's website. Below are some "direct-quote" snapshots:
---------------------------------------------------------------

Whether you are a democrat or republican, we hope you are hungry because we’re about to change the way you think about McCain.

McCain Deals with the Big Issues

Defense – McCain potatoes will protect mealtime from the axis of ‘evil-doers’ –namely boredom and repetition.
Environment – Deliciously different McCain Potatoes means a clean plate, free of leftovers that compromise the fragile ecosystem of the dining table.
Economy - When you buy more McCain Potatoes, it creates more jobs. For us. What did you expect? Another stimulus check?
Energy - We’re not afraid to tell big oil “enough is enough.” That’s why every variety of McCain Potatoes is 0g trans fat.
Education - With McCain Potatoes, there will be no fry left behind. We promise.
Democracy - McCain promises to stand up against all dic-taters and produce only good, honest potatoes.
Ethics - McCain will stand up for right vs. wrong. And serving the same old, boring potatoes is just plain wrong.
Faith - If you insist on waiting for some other brand of potatoes to wow you, we suggest praying.
Immigration - Anyone who wishes to migrate from their current brand to McCain Potatoes can do so freely, and without any red tape.

Blue Vs Red: Why you should go for the blue bag

We believe everyone has the right to better potatoes. Don’t sit idly by while the other guy keeps rehashing the same old spuds.
We stand up against big oil. Every McCain potato product is 0g trans fat, and requires zero offshore drilling.
We don’t believe in business as usual. With so many unique flavors and cuts, McCain is clearly the anti-establishment.
We believe in America’s youth. With so many fun products for kids, there will be no fry left behind.
We’ll never, ever go negative. One look at McCain Smiles and you’ll know we’re not mudslingers.
We believe in family values.
There’s no sense living in America if you have to pay an arm and a leg for good frozen potatoes. We believe in cuts for everyone.
Tax cuts are great, but crinkle cuts and wedges are so much tastier.

Join McCain Potatoes in our campaign for change! We have a big challenge ahead of us, and we can’t do it without you. Sign up now to get the latest campaign updates delivered right to your inbox, including press coverage, fun photos, hilarious videos, new product info and more. It’s quick, it’s free and it’s easy.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Example 2: In another case of tying a brand to politics, just today, Ad Age.com ran an article about Captain Morgan entering the presidential race. Ad Age states "the Captain's economic message calls for five-day weekends, and he's ambivalent about global warming because he wants to 'ensure the party stays hot, hot, hot.'...The alcohol behemoth is the official wine and spirits company of the Republican National Convention and the preferred wine and spirits company of the Democratic National Convention." In a campaign I believe is similar to something they ran in 2000, Captain Morgan is "putting the party back in politics." Besides Captain and his "entourage" attending key events, the main points of contact are a Facebook page and YouTube videos.

Campaign Analysis:

So...back to the question of the day. Should you tie your brand to politics? And if so, which is the better execution - Captain Morgan's -or- McCain Foods?

McCain Foods

Let’s start with the McCain campaign. Sure, it’s a clever play on current events and an overall more creative advertising campaign. However, in my opinion, tying your brand to a political candidate is probably not the best idea for long-term brand appeal. Why? Sometimes advertising does not send the intended message. The problem here is that the brand name is too closely tied to a political figure and some ads are using an impersonator of the political figure (McCain foods plans to run video clips and a national media tour featuring professional impersonator Frank Caliendo as John McCain). Why is this an issue? Although McCain Foods is not owned by Arizona Senator John McCain, some consumers may wonder. Also, McCain could lose appeal if John McCain loses the presidential race –or- even if he becomes President. Sure there is significant name recognition that has been built up by the John McCain for President campaign. However, recognition does not mean customers will buy your product. Another reason this is a risky move for McCain Foods is due to the consumer they are intending to target. Yesterday, David Shipley from the Telegraph-Journal quoted Mike Grossman, managing partner of SCC/Grossman, the firm handling the PR portion of McCain Food’s campaign. Grossman states, "Our brand positioning is designed to surprise and delight today's active mom…She's not home watching television. She's juggling lots of things, probably a job, certainly community interests and at the same time she feels like she needs to do something special at the dinner table to surprise and delight her kids." Identifying the target customer (busy mom, probably ages 30-45), it's essential McCain Foods knows how she feels about Senator John McCain before launching this ad. According to polls by Fox News, Lifetime Television (Every Woman Counts Campaign), ABC News/Washington Post and EMILY'S List , women currently prefer Obama over McCain.

Fox News (late July) - Reported Obama is winning among women under 40 by 13 points.
EMILY'S List (early August) - Regarding women voters, "Obama leads Senator McCain by an incredible 30 points among Gen Y, 11 points among Seniors, 8 points among Gen X and 6 points among Boomers."
Lifetime (early August): "More than half the female electorate (53%) hold mostly positive views of Obama...Women like Obama largely because of his personal attributes (35%), such as his intelligence, youth, speaking ability, honesty and energy....31% hold unfavorable views (of McCain)....Obama also holds an advantage among Independent women, who favor him by a twelve point margin (42% for Obama)."
ABC News/Washington Post (late August) - Obama has a 55-37 percent lead among women .

Although on the McCain Foods website, in small, almost-camoflaged, white font they do list a disclaimer ("Disclaimer: McCain Foods is Not Affiliated with John McCain For President," the disclaimer isn't prominent enough for most readers to notice. Yet another reason the company is taking a risk of a misinterpreted message. (If the reader clicks on the disclaimer a box pops up and states: "U.S. Senator John McCain is the presumptive Republicannominee for president. We are McCain Foods, the world’s largest producer of frozen potatoes and manufacturer of other quality food products. We share the same name as Senator McCain, but the connection ends there. Founded in 1957, McCain Foods is privately-held by a Canadian family that is not connected by commerce, kinship or any other way to the U.S. senator from Arizona. If you see Senator McCain associated with our brand or products, rest assured that it is just an election year marketing spoof and nothing else. Thanks for paying attention. We’re in the business of selling potatoes, not participating in politics. And the only endorsements we’re prepared to make this election season are for the products we produce. Vote for change. Go for the blue bag: McCain Potatoes.")

Captain Morgan

Next, let's look at the Captain Morgan's campaign. Although it doesn't garner marks in creativity (repeat of previous campaign?), the brand is continuing to convey a consistant message - i.e. offering up a campaign that matches the brand image (a promise of fun times, having a "little Captain in you", etc.). Besides this, Captain Morgan's campaign doesn't tie itself to a political candidate (i.e. people won't question whether or not the company/brand is making a political statement/ recommendation), and the company knows no one will really believe "The Captain" is actually running for president. The campaign is humorous, matches the intended audience's interests (uses Facebook and YouTube, promotes partying/a good time, etc.).

Final Conclusions

After looking at these ad campaigns, we are provided with one example of how mixing politics and brand name could be fun/effective and another that could be very degrading to the brand image. On Friday, the McCain Foods campaign kicks off nationally with a print ad in USA Today. So, "Soccer Moms," who will you be voting for? Do you have a "little Captain in you?"

On Thin Air - Destroying Airline Brands Across the U.S.

2008-08-21T16:30:00.000-07:00

OK...just a word of warning...this is going to be a long one.

The U.S. Airline Industry...a lesson in what to do if:

You don’t want a sustainable competitive advantage

You say "screw brand power"

You don't think consumer loyalty is important

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plan to nickel and dime your customers? Say goodbye to a positive brand image. In a survey conducted by the University of Michigan in early 2008, U.S. airline companies were found to have a 62% approval rating – the lowest given by consumers since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Jaunted.com reported on the survey results stating “some airlines received survey scores in the low 50’s, which makes them less popular than the IRS.” J.D. Power and Associates also rolled out a study – The North American Airline Satisfaction Study - in 2007. The top airline according to the report was Continental, scoring a below-average 704 out of 1000 or, in grading terms, a C-. I’m sure any consumer who has flown recently is certainly not surprised.

For fun, I conducted a simple Google Search based on the key phrase “Airlines Suck.” There were >9000 search results. It’s no secret customers feel like the airlines – service providers if you would still call them that - are at war with them. And they’re not happy. But although everyone’s talking and complaining, no one seems to provide the airlines with an answer of how to fix this problem. Additionally, airlines aren’t exactly asking for help or realizing how badly their brand power has dissolved. Airlines have become brands we hate. So what’s the deal? Can any domestic U.S. airline turn itself around to become a brand we love and gain our loyalty? As a frequent traveler, I know if there was one airline that treated me like they cared and like a human being, I would probably pick them over the others, even if I had to pay a little more in the base ticket price.

Airlines are essentially a service company. But lately they seem to have forgotten what service means since they are so focused on their bottom line. Faced with rising fuel prices, airport take-off/landing fees, etc., they are losing money. We have seen multiple mergers and many bankruptcies and as customers, we know that they’re all struggling to keep their heads above water. But the problem is their passengers are struggling too. The U.S. economy, amid the housing crisis, fuel prices, rising unemployment rates, etc, is not exactly a picture of perfection. And since travelers don’t have any other options when it comes to getting to far away places quickly, they are forced to suck it up. Anyone want to try to figure out the confusing matrix that the airlines have created? Can you figure out which ticket price actually ends up being the cheapest?

Who’s Charging What and Why?
A little over a week ago, USA Today ran an article outlining the various fees U.S. airlines are currently charging. Below is a summary of what you can expect to pay...with some charges topping out at $250 on up. Just this morning, CNN Money reported United plans to start charging for meals on select international flights. It's definitely gone beyond the point of being ugly.

As consumers, many people wonder why airlines are all of a sudden charging these fees. Many airlines attribute it to the rising fuel prices that are consuming around 50% of the price of an average ticket. Regarding baggage fees, Heavens-Above.com reports “…most of these transportation vehicles earn profits by transporting both people as well as cargo. Their profitability is dependent on striking an optimal balance.” Delta, for example, announced in July it would start charging $50 for a second checked bag. They claimed it wasn’t an effort to raise money, it was to discourage travelers from bringing a second bag. In other words, the fee is to get passengers to leave bags at home so they can sell more cargo space. One person, known only as “angry passenger,” commented on a message board. “These are passenger planes not cargo. If you want to haul cargo, get out of the passenger business.” I'm sure many passengers these days would say "Amen" to that.

These “a-la-crap” fees as I have heard them called, have become completely out of control. But what are some other non-U.S. airlines doing that have yet to be added to this list? British airline EasyJet has been offering a speedy boarding service allowing passengers to pay extra to be one of the first in line to board the plane – and thus have a larger choice of seats. AIRASIA X, in an announcement that (smartly) hasn’t been made by U.S. carriers, is reportedly considering charging passengers depending on their weight. Oh Lord. Next thing you know they’ll start charging us to use the restroom. Adult diapers anyone?

In the land of U.S. carriers, Southwest appears to be one of the only exceptions to the rule. CEO Gary Kelly stated “To survive, the industry is charging, for everything…and anything. Pillows, blankets, bags, paper, and even conversation with a human being…we still have affordable fares and we don’t nickel and dime our customers. You get free snacks, you get free soft drinks, you get free pillows…you get two free checked bags…and there’s no charge to talk to our wonderful reservation agents.” At least somebody remembers what customers mean to their brand.

Why Are Customers Angry?
Let’s look at some basic human insights to figure out why customers are so angry at U.S. airlines:

No one likes to suddenly be charged for something that was always “free” in the past. If it was always in the base price and it isn't really an option the customer "wants" to check the box for, why offer it up as one?
When you pay more for something you expect to get more. At a minimum, when you pay for a service, customer service reps who actually smile and act friendly, act concerned if your baggage is “lost,” are helpful when you need booked on a new flight, etc. shouldn’t be that difficult to come by. This is at the minimum...
Everyone likes having choices. The key here is in providing desirable choices – not “hold a gun to my head” choices. This is the age of consumer customization and co-creation and people are used to being able to customize their own experiences...in a positive way. Why are consumers upset about being charged for their first checked bag? If you’re going on a trip for more than a couple of days, you will probably need a razor and more than 3 oz of some of your toiletries. Due to safety regulations, you can’t carry razors on board, liquids are limited, etc. So customers don’t feel like they have a choice – they have to check their bag and they’re being forced to pay for something that’s a safety regulation.
Remember the old phrase K-I-S-S? Keep it simple stupid? People don’t like information overload or too many combinations because it confuses them and makes them frustrated and angry. Having too many boxes to check when traveling is already perceived as a hassle? Probably not a good thing for satisfaction.
No one likes excess baggage – emotional or physical. Sure some travelers over pack. But some customers don’t want to (or are unable to) carry their suitcase around the airport during layovers, struggle dragging the luggage down the narrow airplane aisle where it constantly catches on seat armrests, or knock people out when trying to lift it over their head into the overhead compartment. For an average-sized woman or the elderly, the overhead bins are not exactly at an ideal height in which to place a 15+ lb suitcase. Telling them they have to pay when it's a physical issue for them makes them feel discriminated against.
Having easy access to water is pretty much seen as a given in America. Since you cannot bring your own bottled water/beverage through the security checkpoint and sometimes timing is tight for your flight, you really have no choice for a beverage unless you pull out some cash and hand it over to a flight attendant. Charging people for water, something they could have gotten for free from a water fountain, just because they’re a “captive audience” will surely cause some customer dissatisfaction.

Why You Don’t Hear About Customer Complaints in Airports
The International Herald Tribune quotes Mary Gilly, a professor of marketing at the University of California at Irvine. She states “…passengers have learned that venting their anger at an airline employee means that they may be escorted off the plane by the authorities, Gilly said. "You complain at Starbucks, you get a freebie," she said, "If you throw a fit at an airport, you could be picked up by the TSA.” No one wants to get kicked off an airplane or escorted out of the airport in handcuffs, especially when they’re in a hurry to get somewhere. So airlines, it isn't that we all are OK with your fees, we're just afraid of being "that person" who gets kicked out.

Competitive Advantage Anyone?
Anyone who has taken a basic course in business knows what competitive advantage means – earn revenues higher than costs. This competitive advantage can be achieved through cost or differentiation. In other words, offer the same services/products at lower cost or offer unique services/products. But what happens when you compete solely on price and you don’t have any differentiating factors? You can enter price wars and run the risk of pricing yourself out of business. You also haven’t come up with a business model that offers a sustainable competitive advantage – i.e. something that cannot be duplicated by your competition.

My first question is who is working in finance and marketing for these companies? Don’t they realize the importance of brand and how to optimize profits without turning off your key revenue driver – your customers? I’ve written about how customers these days value customizing their experience, but what the airlines are currently doing is not really the right translation! Mary Gilly states: "I think the airlines are being pretty disingenuous calling it 'à la carte pricing.' Please. This is not a Chinese menu."

Some Ideas for a More Business Savvy, Customer-Friendly Airline:
But wait!!! Edward Bastian, President and CFO for Delta, says "Airlines need to have a way to recover the cost of their product.” According to a World News investigation, around half the cost of many airline’s flights go to jet fuel alone. So I don’t think any customer would argue with the fact that airlines need to make some money to stay in business. We’re not saying to not charge for things, just do it in a different way...as in the old way.

I know some companies would argue that if it's baked in their ticket price is higher and customers will walk to low-price/discount carriers like AirTran. Sure, you may have some customers who do this. However, right now, customers are so confused by the various fees, etc, and customer service is so bad, selecting an airline is like throwing a dart at a board where everything appears to be in the center. By moving towards some of these actions below, you're starting to separate yourself from the competition. Why else should airlines make the number of "choices" fewer? Most marketing and pricing folks know that when you are trying to figure out what to make "standard" on your product versus what to make into an "option," depends on how much you believe consumers will pay for that item. In other words, if it's something very desirable -and- it isn't something the competition offers as standard, you can guarantee it'll be offered to consumers for an added price. Looking at the airline selections, I don't believe any of these fall into this category. They should be standard.

Now on to the good stuff. For fun, let’s look at a small example, using United Airlines, to see what might help strike a balance between profits and customer satisfaction. These are just a couple of solutions to issues customers currently find the most annoying. So some fast facts:

On August 18, The International Herald Tribune reported United believes it can raise $1B in revenue for its various fees.
According to International Air Transport Association published figures, in 2007, United had 68.4M scheduled passengers carried. For the sake of simplicity, let’s round down and call that number 68M passengers.
United is currently charging $15 for the first checked bag. Thus, if every passenger checks a bag, it’s around $1.02B.
Since not everyone checks a bag, to get to the $1B marker, United is banking on people paying some of the "other" fees. I'm going to argue that they could actually earn more revenue by not having as many pick-and-choose options.

On Board Experience
Snacks
I doubt any airline customer ever thought snacks were really “free.” They just assumed it was baked in to the price of the base ticket. Most people when they’re traveling don’t want to have to get into the overhead compartment or wrestle to get into their back pocket while elbowing the person next to them in order to get money out for a (generally crappy) snack choice. Also, many people these days don’t carry a lot of cash due to how many places now readily accept credit cards. And I’m sure the airline employees, specifically the flight attendants don’t really want to be cashiers. So what to do?

United currently offers a snack on flights at a price of up to $4. On the 20+ flights I’ve been on over the past few months, I have only seen a handful of people paying up for a snack (I generally have one flight each week, one during breakfast hours and one during prime dinner hours). So, for the purpose of this analysis, let’s assume 40% of the people on the flight opt for the snack (I haven’t been able to find a study that actually shows the take rates of snacks on a plane, but it probably would be interesting). Doing the calculation, $4x40%x68M = ~$109M. Not shabby. But, say there was $6 baked in to the price of a basic ticket to help cover snacks and non-alcoholic beverages. That’s $6x100%x68M = $408M. In other words, by going back to the “free snack” option and accounting for it in the base fare price, you’ve almost quadrupled what you would have received for snacks, you’ve reduced labor (flight attendants don’t have to handle money, airlines don’t have to go deposit that cash into the bank), you’ve appeased your customers who still want “free” snacks, and you now have a more accurate estimate of how many snacks you will need per flight.

Another way to enhance the snack experience is to give customers a choice. One of the highlights of flying the now defunct Independence Air is they would pass around a snack basket containing a variety of granola bars and special snack foods. The customer selected what they wanted on their own and due to being able to choose, it was an unexpected surprise and delight.

At the Airport
Baggage Fees
Although airlines may think charging people for their first bag is good thing and believe it may make people pack less, USA Today reported that having more baggage go through security makes the security process longer – and thus results in a higher risk of something getting through security that shouldn’t. As a passenger I also find it a major annoyance as overhead bins become extremely full and flight attendants ask passengers to even bridge-way check their laptop bags. C’mon airline people – if you’re carrying around a laptop with a bunch of important work information on it I am not going to be giving it up to be handled under the plane.

If airlines feel the absolute need to charge for the first bag, it should be included in the upfront price of the ticket. They could then do a program rewarding people utilizing online check-in, making it carry-on baggage only and crediting $15 back to a customer’s credit card when they use this service. It would also help give carriers a better estimate of how much freed up cargo space they may have many hours prior to each flight. I think by doing this, United would get closer to that $1B than by just counting on passengers to automatically check their first bag.

Check-In

When airports are busy, check-in lines do not move along quickly. Why is this? Generally the airlines have minimal staff behind the counters (another cost-cutting measure). Things run fairly smoothly with the self-check-in kiosks until one person at the front of the line has a question that consumes an agent's time or one agent alone has to walk back and forth between 12 stations pulling out luggage tags and yelling out a customer’s last name and their destination. Sure the kiosk system is a step up from the agent handling everything, but why not take it a step further? Why can’t your luggage tag print out from the kiosk as well? People are intensely concerned their bags getting to the appropriate destination. We hate lost luggage. We're going to make sure we're holding the right destination in our hands. Through moving to this type of system, kiosks can be completely removed from the counter. The counter would then have two lines - one for dropping off baggage and one for issues/problems. This would help the process go along quicker and result in more satisfied customers.

One Final Idea That's Kind of "Out There"
Anyone who has used the internet is familiar with the use of banner ads. Since the airlines really don’t appear to care what happens to their brand names, then the issue of another brand name on their airline or seating area at the airport, etc. does not seem like it would be a major issue for them. As a result, what if the airlines started selling ad space? For example, for a fee, a company could “decorate” the outside of a plane with their image. Or an airline could display ads on the backs of tray tables. Might be an easy way to keep base ticket prices a little lower than the competition. Of course, on second thought...with how low customer approval is for airline brands, it may be a challenge finding companies who actually want their brand name attached to an airlines...

Just my thoughts.

What? This Olive Isn't Extra Virgin?

2008-08-14T22:35:00.000-07:00

A Case of Unwanted Celebrity Promotions...

The Wall Street Journal published an article yesterday on the case of a rogue brand ambassador. The less than pleased brand? Olive Garden. Their biggest celebrity fan? Kendra Wilkinson, one of Hugh Hefner's girlfriends and a star on the televison show the "Girls Next Door." Needless to say the chain does not appear to be telling Kendra, an adult-entertainment star, "when you're here, you're family."

Other brands have had their share of rogue ambassadors, a promoter, according to the article, who is "genuinely, publicly devoted to a product or service, even if he or she doesn't quite embody the values that the brand's managers may be trying to convey." WPP Group's Grey advertising fim who handles the Olive Garden account stated that this (Kendra's love of the brand) presents a "complicated issue for the brand." Or is it quite so complicated?

In their interview with Kendra, WSJ reported that she calls Olive Garden her "soul food." Wilkenson states "I love the Olive Garden so much because I grew up going there...That used to be the place we would go for Mother's Day, for birthdays. My grandpa just died, and right after his funeral, we went to the Olive Garden." Sure Kendra is known for being in the adult industry, living in the Playboy Mansion, and being on T.V. But anyone who has seen even one episode of the show knows she is very close with her family. Isn't that the core of what Olive Garden is all about? I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on how you think this will impact the restaurant chain. My opinion is Olive Garden should have just ignored it and moved on. You don't want to offend a vocal fan. And most people aren't going to think the restaurant is now going to be crowded with scantily clad Playboy models.

As a side note, Kendra recently launched a competition for Olive Garden waitresses with the top prize being a nude Playboy spread. This isn't the first time "family-friendly" chains have found out their employees had been photographed by the magazine (Home Depot, Wal-Mart, McDonald's). And those brands don't appear to be hurting because of it. I guess time will tell.

Pet-Smart or Stupid?

2008-06-14T18:44:00.000-07:00

Brand Differentiation in the Pet Care Industry

Some of you may not remember, but close to three years ago PetSmart used to be PetsMart. In September of 2005, the company changed its name and, according to Phillip Francis, CEO, they made the change because they wanted to become, in the eyes of a customer, less of a mart and more of a smart place to shop.

Now that several years have passed since the "re-branding," I decided to check back on the pet retailer. Findings made by myself and two former classmates from the University of Michigan (Jake Chapman and Lisa Schoder) confirm the argument that changing their name still does not give PetSmart enough brand differentiation to create a competitive advantage in the market place. For example, let's look at the company's top competitor - PETCO. PETCO has similar a name, their logo looks very comparable to PetSmart's when you squint at it (both start with the word "Pet" and are styled in red, white, and blue). And when you visit the stores of both of these companies, there is no unique experience to be had.

So first of all, what do we know about the "Pet Economy" in the United States?

The “Pet Economy” in America now exceeds $41 billion per year
Around 63% of all U.S. households own at least one pet
The two largest competitors in the pet supply industry = PETCO and PetSmart (combined market share of 53% in 2006)
PetSmart, in their 2006 Annual Report claimed: “our business is about relationships. It’s about the bond our customers have with their pets. It’s about our ability to understand those emotions, and to help the people who shop in our stores enrich that bond. It’s about providing our customers with superior service, understanding their needs and helping them find solutions that make them better, smarter and more confident pet parents. Today, pet parents want to provide the best level of care for their pets, who are valued members of the family.”

What did our team find when investigating the two largest pet supply competitors? We discovered PETCO and PetSmart were lacking in brand differentiation. The stores (and websites for that matter) had bland layouts, a cold feel, similar products, and, surprisingly, a major lack of customer service. All three of our group members visited various PETCO and PetSmart stores in the Detroit area with our dogs. We all discovered a complete lack of attention from store employees. For example, when I walked in the store and proceeded to wander around the store like I was lost, no one offered to help me or even greeted my pet. I felt like I was just visiting any old store. Looking at various rating sites, it appears that other pet owners also weren't impressed with their in-store experiences. Some common customer themes/complaints about PETCO and PetSmart include:

Products in various stores aren't always located in the same places which makes them difficult to find.
Customers aren't sure if they're getting the best deal on products. Several noted they could order some of the products on-line for a better price.
Store visitors did not like the pressure sales (specifically from food reps).
Some stores seemed to lack knowledgeable store employees and some did not appear to employee people who were interested in or even liked pets.
Customers seemed to have mixed results with grooming services and some stores grooming areas were overbooked/overcrowded.

Although these were common complaints, some customers raved when:

The employees recognized them as a regular customer and remembered their pet's name.
The store provided them with unconventional surprises and delights. For example, one store’s employee actually ate a gourmet dog biscuit to show how tasty it was.

So how do you take these various consumer wants, add in some surprise and delight features, and differentiate yourself from competitors? Jake, Lisa, and I had many ideas in a report we produced entitled "Experience Co-Creation in the Pet Care Industry." Although the report is too detailed for a blog entry, here are some of the suggestions we had that were focused on actions affecting the customer experience in-store and via services.

In Store

Strategically-placed Information Kiosks: Adding kiosks where customers can access online reviews and product ratings will assist customers in making informed decisions and also help employees become more knowledgeable about products PetSmart carries. The kiosks could also include an interactive store map to help customers find products within the store and be used to help customers research breeds, pet care providers, listings of pet-friendly parks, and local pet events. There could even be a breed-matching program installed here to help potential pet owners identify animal breeds that fit with their various lifestyles.
Add “Pet Introduction” areas to the front of stores: Allowing pets to join in the shopping experience is a unique feature of PETCO and PetSmart stores. People who bring their animals into the store are aware of their pet's demeanor, and in most cases the animals brought into the store are friendly with both people and other animals. Presently, the aisle ways cause problems when pets are overly eager to meet and knock products off of shelves in their attempts. A solution to this issue would be a central open area within the store where pets could do a "meet and greet" and be able to interact in a safe environment. This would allow a more relaxed introduction and would foster the sense of community within the store.
Add In-Store Pet Play Spaces: Upon registration/shot record approval, owners can sign-up online (or in store) to bring their pet to free, supervised play dates. PetSmart could create a distinct play environment in-store - more "home like"/less-cold. This could make the local store a community destination in addition to a retailer. While in the store for a play date, owners are able to purchase food, toys, or other necessities for their animals.
Increase interaction between store employees and customers: As revealed by our visits to various PetSmart stores, the employee-customer experience leaves much to be desired. To improve this and create a solid relationship with customers, PetSmart could position a Wal-mart style greeter at the front of the store with a treat pouch. This greeter would address pets and their owners when they are entering stores. A surprise and delight feature could be accomplished through adding RFID tags built in to customer loyalty cards (with the customer name) and the pet's ID tag (with the pet's name). When the customer enters the store, an RFID reader would transmit onto a handheld device allowing employees to instantly have info on who the person/animal is, their common purchases, etc. This would help to connect the employees to the individual customers to help in the relationship building opportunity within the store.
Expand pet sales strategy: Due to some of the boycotting of PetSmart and PETCO for selling "overpopulated" pets, what if PetSmart took an initiative to act as a shelter in lieu of allegedly selling pets from "puppy mills?" The company could partner with purebred rescue organizations and establish partnerships with non-commercial breeders. Another opportunity would be to provide information about training particular breeds or a breed-match program to assist in selecting a breed that suits people’s needs. By assisting in matching pets to owners, PetSmart can help to reduce the number of unwanted animals that end up in shelters.

Services
Services are a unique area that provide a natural connection between the in-store and on-line experience platforms. Many Americans love to pamper their pets with luxury services ranging from massages, to pedicures to designer clothes and accessories. Services provide a great growth opportunity for PetSmart. Some stores have already expanded to offer overnight/boarding for pets. According to a 2007 IbisWorld report, services currently represent about 9% of overall industry revenue, and are supported by an annual growth rate of approximately 7%. This category is currently highly fragmented. Here are some ways PetSmart could expand into the pet services business:

Create “Lose Weight with Your Pet” Programs: According to a 2004 CDC survey, more than 66% of Americans older than 20 are currently overweight or obese! A walk through the park reveals that many dogs suffer the same conditions as their owners. PetSmart could sponsor weight loss exercise groups, potentially even partnering with a local weight loss organization. Participants could meet at a local PetSmart store to go on a walk with friends and their pets with the stored providing poop bags, water/treats at end of trip (for the pets), and information about pet nutrition. This would foster community spawn friendships and also create an extra visit to PetSmart for customers.
Create local pet parks: In cities / suburbs, PetSmart could sponsor pet parks. These would be safe-fenced areas that could also be used for pet exercise and socialization, PetSmart dog obedience classes, as well as outdoor pet competitions (obedience, agility, etc.). Brand awareness and community goodwill would be the primary benefit of this initiative, which could help to improve customer store visits and brand loyalty.
Grooming on the Go: Access to services is another area where PetSmart could innovate. While the company currently offers a wide variety of custom grooming services as well as the option to use the store’s equipment to groom your own pet, PetSmart could offer a mobile grooming service for busy pet owners. Improved access (saved time) would be greatly appreciated by busy professionals. A premium could be charged for these services. The mobile grooming service could be scheduled on-line and the vans could also be used to deliver food and other products purchased by the customer on-line at the time they scheduled their service visit.
Vacation Planning for Pets: For any pet owner, vacationing with or without a pet is a challenge. Utilizing the in-store kiosks and their website, PetSmart could assist owners in finding pet care when they go on vacation or work trips. This service could be enhanced by including such things as pre-screened "foster homes" complete with photos of home/other pets/amenities (fenced yards, living areas, etc.), availability calendars for pet sitters, the sizes of pets pet sitters accept, and recommendations from other pet owners who have used a specific sitter’s services. PetSmart could also offer travel advice, certifying places/ hotels/ airlines/ etc. for pet friendly travel. Additionally, they could offer tips as to which airlines are the most pet-friendly, which crates are the best for carry-on, tips to surviving layovers, etc. PetSmart could also work with select major airports to create brand-sponsored pet rooms or courtyards within the secure area (airports have smoking rooms, why not a pet room). This would be a major convenience factor to pet owners. Presently, pet owners must take their pets outside to "do their business," requiring them to go through the security screening process all over again.

VW - Is this Relevant?

2008-05-08T21:52:00.000-07:00

I found this blog the other day. After visiting the VW site, I decided it was worth a mention and a debate or two.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VW begins polling everyone... about everything
Per AutoBlog, Apr 29th 2008 by Michael Harley

Volkswagen knows that 73% of the people want to take the tiny soap and shampoo from hotel rooms. They also know that 60% of ice cream buyers prefer cones over cups. On an apparent quest to learn everything, Volkswagen's just-announced multi-faceted polling effort, known as "It's what the people want,"...is a way of keeping in touch with what matters to people today," according to Tim Ellis, Vice President of Marketing for VW of America.

In addition to the web-based polling, VW has also taken their efforts to Times Square where consumers may participate in live-polling, via text SMS, with the ABC Supersign (pictured above). If music is more your style, VW is also encouraging people to visit Pandora to influence the playlists of two Volkswagen radio stations. While we endorse any effort by an automaker to understand what the public really wants, this obsession to learn everything may have gone too far. We just can't seem to overlook the notion that while Volkswagen accepts the fact that 65% of the people want boxers, not briefs, they still haven't fully grasped the concept that we also want the new Scirocco on our shores. Where's that poll?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After reading Michael's entry, I visited the website (www.vw.com/whatthepeoplewant). According to Volkswagen, "the initiative is part of Volkswagen's new global brand platform, Das Auto, and underscores its fundamental message of It's what the people want...Volkswagen's interactive polling program has produced interesting questions and findings on timely issues in current events, lifestyle trends and social behavior - ranging from the everyday to the quirky." I answered some questions and found there's a bizzare list...with little-to-no apparent relation to cars or VW. Here's a sampling:

Do you want cops to get pulled over for speeding?
Do you want to wear shoes when going through airport security?
Do you want dogs to be dogs, not accessories?
Do you want to be able to nap in the workplace?
Do you want a 5 year renewable contract for marriage?
Do you want more home schooling?

I'm not quite sure what the purpose of this campaign is. They're achieving buzz, I'll give them that. And people are having fun playing with the website. It also has elements of co-creation, which I'm all about. But I'd be curious to learn how it is helping people co-create their product experience with VW AUTOMOBILES. Shouldn't the poll have been in relation to cars and drivers and things of that sort? The user interaction is fun...and you can submit what ever question you want. And sure, some of the questions are funny. But how VW will use these answers and how it is relevant to making customers feel like VW is building the right vehicle for them is beyond me. Based on this poll, are they going to offer ice cream cone holders instead of cup holders? A place to store all those mini shampoo bottles from hotels? A car that turns into a bed so you can take a nap when you're at work? My opinion is VW's campaign is telling customers "we know all the weird stuff about you...but still don't know what you really want when it comes to the products we produce for you." Just my take. At the bottom of the VW website it says "the people want German engineering." So the question I submitted in the poll: "The people want a German engineered car: Yes or No" We'll see the outcome...or if they yank it before anyone votes.

Consumer Safety Concerns - Will this concern Nalgene?

2008-04-13T16:49:00.000-07:00

On the Today Show on April 9th, a consumer alert was issued regarding the safety of plastic beverage containers. This isn't the first time many of us may have heard about the dangers of polycarbonates. For instance, we've been told over and over again not to microwave food in plastic for fear chemicals will leak into consumables. Even more recently, we've been told not to re-use plastic water/soda bottles since even after washing them, germs and bacteria can remain. We are also told not to purchase bottled water for environmental reasons since around 8 out of 10 plastic bottles end up in landfills. Now, it seems we also need to be concerned with chemicals from the plastic bottles leaking into our beverages and negatively impacting our health.

In The Financial Post on February 23, 2008, Hollie Shaw reports "Bottled water consumption has been on the rise, but will fears of chemical contamination spur consumers to head for the taps?...Should you guzzle your H20 from disposable or refillable plastic bottles --both have come under intense scrutiny in the past year for possible health and environmental effects-- or from trendy refillable metal canteens? And, is it better to imbibe tap water, which critics caution can contain traces of anything from hormones to nitrates?" Much of the concern with durable polycarbonate bottles is in regards to the bottle leaking harmful levels of Bisphenol A, also known as BPA, into beverages. BPA is a substance that can interfere with hormone function and mimics estrogen. Scott Belcher, professor of pharmacology and cell biophysics at the University of Cincinnati has been involved with various BPA studies. Scott and his team discovered that when the liquids in polycarbonate bottles were heated up to boiling, BPA leeching occurred 55 times faster than at room temperature (http://www.sciencefriday.com/). What sort of negative impact this may have on consumers’ health is still being studied, although most speculate this probably isn't a good thing.

Water bottle manufacturer Nalgene (

www.nalgene-outdoor.com), a Rochester, N.Y.-based company, has based its brand image on brightly colored plastic bottles and an eco-friendly reputation. In October of last year, Brand Channel, in an article entitled "Fantastic Plastic" reported: "(Nalgene) bottles have even spawned urban legends that they are unbreakable...over time, those outdoors people came to adopt Nalgene as one of the top companies for camping equipment." Although starting as a popular item with outdoorsy types, Nalgene has attracted a rather large market over the years now being found in mass quantities on college campuses and in fitness facilities. However, with all of this media hype and studies being done by scientists, will this company who has been so dependent on plastic water containers suffer a severe loss in sales due to consumers' mistrust even if they modified their bottles to be made out of another material?

A statement regarding BPA is on Nalgene's website. It reads: “As a responsible manufacturer of polycarbonate consumer products, Nalge Nunc International has monitored scientific research concerning the safety of our products including Bisphenol-A for many years. Based on the findings of the Food and Drug Administration, The Environmental Protection Agency, The American Plastics Council and other reliable sources from around the world, we continue to firmly believe in the safety of our products.” Although HDPE (high density polyethylene) bottles are still considered to be safe, I don’t know this statement buried several links back in Nalgene's website is enough. I think the company may be doing a great disservice to their brand image by not eliminating BPA-containing materials from their products. Consumers are being bombarded with all sorts of information these days and have to decide whether to believe a trusted brand or the media/scientific studies. Presently it seems they are leaning towards believing what they hear on T.V. since sales of metal bottles are exploding (ex/ Sigg (www.mysigg.com), Klean Kanteen (www.kleankanteen.com)). Wonder if Nalgene will wake up and take notice...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

04/24/08 - Follow-up: I just found the following article on The Denver Post and it looks like Nalgene is definitely doing the right thing to protect their brand. They plan to phase out production of BPA containing bottles over the next several months.

Nalgene to Phase Out Production of Consumer Bottles Containing BPA

Business Wire News Releases
Published: 04/18/08 08:30 AM EDT

In response to consumer demand, Nalgene® will phase out production of its Outdoor line of polycarbonate containers that include the chemical Bisphenol-A (BPA) over the next several months, it announced today. Nalgene’s existing product mix, including the recently launched Everyday line, already features a number of containers made from materials that do not contain BPA.

“We have always been focused on responding to the needs and concerns of our customers,” said Steven Silverman, general manager of the Nalgene business. “With 10 different product lines in several different materials, we have the largest bottle offering on the market today. By eliminating containers containing BPA from our consumer product mix, our customers can have confidence that their needs are being met.”
The company recently unveiled its Everyday line, an assortment of bottles manufactured with Eastman’s Tritan™ copolyester. The line includes favorites such as the OTG (“On the Go”), the iconic 32-ounce Wide Mouth and the Grip-N-Gulp sippy cup. Tritan is impact resistant, withstands a wide range of temperatures and does not contain BPA. The new Everyday products are already available in stores and will be available through

www.nalgene-outdoor.com next month.

To help consumers easily determine the bottle and material that is right for them, Nalgene also recently launched Nalgene Choice™, an online information resource at www.nalgenechoice.com. Nalgene Choice provides consumers with information to help them understand the features and benefits of Nalgene’s wide assortment of products and materials. The result – individuals can choose the product that is right for them.
“Today, everyone from hikers and outdoor enthusiasts to commuters and kids on the go are using Nalgene products to reduce the use of disposable bottles and containers,” said Silverman. “Based on all available scientific evidence, we continue to believe that Nalgene products containing BPA are safe for their intended use. However, our customers indicated they preferred BPA-free alternatives and we acted in response to those concerns.”

A Natural High? Red Bull Cola...

2008-04-08T05:03:00.001-07:00

So...have you heard the news? Red Bull plans to enter the cola market and take on the likes of cola power brands Pepsi and Coke. Using the tag line "Strong and Natural" the beverage will be all natural (100%) using actual coca leaf and kola nut. (Does that make it more of a "Coca Kola" than Coke itself?) The product's US launch is slated for June and it will command premium prices.

Looking at this product introduction from a marketing/branding perspective, I'm not sure if branding the drink as Red Bull is the best idea. Why? First of all, when you think of Red Bull the energy drink, natural doesn't seem to be a prime connection (for example, a major ingredient in it, taurine, is synthetic). Also, being branded Red Bull, most people will expect the drink to be a super-powered, energy cola. Since the cola isn't out there yet, I'm not sure how much of an emphasis will be placed on the trademark "giving you wings" factor. Having a large focus on natural makes me think Red Bull should have branded this under it's Carpe Diem brand (the name of its botanic water). I guess time will tell whether or not this was the right branding strategy -or- right tag line for this new cola.

Balancing Act: New Balance Says "Don't Be A Hater"

2008-03-28T14:53:00.000-07:00

Can convincing your consumer to become more of a lover and less of a hater strengthen your brand identity?

Watching the NCAA tournament over the past month, many of you may have noticed the latest New Balance ads (by BBDO New York). One commercial starts out showing a man in bed who later is seen running in the dark. "Running kicks you out of a warm cozy bed and into a cold hard world...Every day is a question of your commitment." In another, called “You Broke up with Running,” there’s a guy sitting in a park watching people run by him. "You broke up with running last week. And now you see running everywhere. Looking really, really good." He’s envious of the runners who made the choice to run while he sits eating fast food on a park bench. Strike a chord with any of you?

New Balance, tired of being outrun and out marketed by Nike, plans to triple its ad spending in an attempt to double sales by 2012 (to reach $3B globally). Sure it’s a lofty goal, especially when you think of how Nike has been a dominant player in the athletic-shoe category and has only increased it market share over the years. So how is New Balance going to "do it" (no pun on Nike's 'Just Do It' tagline intended)? AdAge.com reported that the company has come out with a new campaign - the Love-Hate campaign - to chase casual runners and hit home with 18- to 29-year-olds (their current loyal customer base tends to be serious runners over the age of 30).

So what has the New Balance brand looked like over the years? Their website says they have “been a brand concerned with meeting the needs of the everyday athlete…a superior product will sell itself better than any superstar athlete ever could.” In 2005, The Boston Globe reported that “instead of hiring sports stars to pitch shoes, Boston's New Balance has a philosophy of ''Endorsed by no one." Instead of focusing on fashion and teenagers, as many rivals do, New Balance...emphasizes function, something his baby-boomer customers appreciate.” In 2004, Ageless Marketing by Marketeer David Wolfe argued that “New Balance’s success in projecting values that resonate across generational divides led it to having faster growth rate in market share among consumers under age 40 than either Nike or Reebok.” The blog even highlighted marketing techniques used by Nike and New Balance and claimed New Balance was attractive to the older consumer set because they had more "feminine" values. Source: Ageless Marketing, 2004

So what is it about the Love-Hate campaign that should hit home with a broad consumer base? Well, what is one of the most important things behind an effective ad campaign - finding something that taps into a key insight about the consumer. If you visit the New Balance website, the first message that pops up says “For every runner there’s a constant struggle between pain and pleasure. Between good days and bad. Between LOVE and HATE....Feel the LOVE. Feel the HATE.” I think New Balance has figured out something that hits home with both serious and casual runners.

The ads have met some criticism, however. For example, on WonderBranding: Marketing to Women, Michele Miller states “Corporate New Balance has made a conscious decision to move completely away from the older demographic and are going for, in their words, ‘young runners’…It just breaks my heart that this is the direction they are going in.” Marketeer David Wolfe responds “They have committed a classic marketing error of stupendous proportion: departing from the brand’s traditional essence. Rarely do brands succeed in making so sharp a break with their past...Not since the ill-fated “It’s not your father’s Oldsmobile” campaign have I seen such a display of ignorance of the psychodynamics of brand management. Someone needs to get to Jim and Ann Davis (NB’s majority owners) before it is too late.”

So why don’t I agree with Michele and David? I don’t see these ads as being young (i.e. only appealing to a high school/college-aged demographic). I see them pinpointing a key insight in to how people feel about running. Running is challenging. And it does make you feel guilty about having an on-off relationship with it. It’s a struggle any person who has ever run - even just once - can relate to. And it's a universal feeling - i.e. not gender or age specific. The ads attempt to make you believe that New Balance shoes will help you find a way to love running...be your support group. None of the other shoes will give you that balance between LOVE and hate.

Since I was able to find criticizm of the campaign, I decided to do some searching to see what other opinions were out there. I found a couple of runner’s forums and noted very positive comments about the campaign. On a triathalon forum, one user said “There's something about the guy sitting with a generic bag of fast-food in this one that really appealed to me. Could be that I'm that guy right now.” On RunnersWorld.com one runner said “love the ads...gave me the push I needed to get out the door on Friday night,” while another said “Totally! Great ads - bring some light to the sport of running... finally.” On SoundBite Back, Anthony Juliano (who happens to be a runner) talks about how he fell out of love with New Balance. “Part of the problem is the New Balance brand itself. It's always been kind of vanilla, lacking the intangible allure of other brands. It's not that New Balance had a bad image--it just didn't seem to stand for anything at all. And that made customers like me pretty vulnerable to good advice from people they trust…So, what's a brand to do when it runs into a relevance problem? Well, New Balance is investing in a new advertising campaign. And I have to admit, I think what they're doing is great. And smart.” Dead on.

Sure the ads could be improved by focusing more on why the New Balance shoe will help switch the balance to give you more love and less hate for running (ex/ shoe design, comfort, maybe even an online users community for you to get support/find running partners). But it’s only the beginning of the campaign, and New Balance has given themselves some great building blocks.

So marketing critics, what do the rest of you think?

Scotts Gets Co-Creative with Customers

2008-03-16T19:05:00.000-07:00

It's approaching mid-March and STILL winter here in Michigan (yes, I'm getting a little stir crazy from all the cold weather). In fact, I shoveled another 5 inches of snow from my driveway just last week. But that doesn't prevent me from thinking about spring and all the things that come with it - flowers, green grass, warm weather, gardening. I've actually started browsing mail order catalogs trying to figure out what plants to add to my garden this year. So the Scotts Company had perfect timing when they sent me an e-mail announcing their new "Miracle Grow" website.

For those of you who aren't familiar with the Scotts Company's brand portfolio, it consists of Scotts, Ortho, Round-up, Miracle-Gro, and most recently, Smith & Hawken. (In October 2004, the Scotts Company acquired Smith & Hawken for $68.5 million and announced plans to sell Smith & Hawken items at major retailers like Home Depot. Many of you may be Target shoppers and have noticed the dedicated Smith & Hawken aisle...with higher priced gardening/home decor items.)

The Website
On Scotts' new site, the login screen reads: "It's all about you. Jump in and customize your experience.

Save your supply lists: Keep track of everything you need from the store.
Create personal blogs: Share stories of your lawn and garden prowess.
Participate in forums: Post questions and get answers quickly.
Offer ratings and write reviews: Give your opinion on products and projects.
Get customized recommendations: Get info based on your specific interests.
Make a personal page: Keep everything in one convenient place.
Grab what you need: Download personalized info to your desktop."

Sounds like they thought of just about everything a web-savvy gardener would want! Exploring the website I discovered several useful areas. For example, you can customize your own lawn care program. Through inputting some information, the website will give you recommendations on fertilizers, watering, etc. for different zones and grass types. I think a lot of this information was available on the old website, but not as easy to find and with less detail. There's also a link called "My Supply List " where you can add the Scotts products you want to purchase to a list you can print out and take to the store with you. In looking into the other areas of the site, there were spaces to:

Grow- An area where you can find information about lawns, various types of gardening (flower, vegetable & herb, indoor and container), birds and wildlife, trees, hedges, hardscapes and organics.
Learn - An area with links to projects including a "learning library," annual lawn care program, and lawn & garden calendars. This area helps take the guesswork out of yard work, providing you with things like seasonal feeding, watering and maintenance plans (you click on your region of the country to get the perfect plan for you) and help in identifying your grass type.
Solve - A section on the site for you to find solutions to problems. For example, it can help you identify what may be causing those round patches of brown grass in your lawn.
Connect - The key interactive part of the website where you can join the Scotts Lawn community, post and browse photos in lawn, garden, and pet photo galleries, start your own gardening blog (or read someone else's), post comments or ask questions in online forums, receive advice from Scotts' experts, and sign-up for email newsletters/hot issues alerts (ex. if there's an unusual insect infestation in your area).

Besides areas to "grow" and learn you you can create a profile that will be your identity when participating in the Scotts Lawn community. So what might your profile page look like? Below is what I created in a couple of minutes. You can upload a photo, and tell everyone about your dream job, what you do to relax, where you'd love to visit, your favorite type of music, what neighbors say about your lawn, and your zodiac sign (what some of this has to do with yard work and gardening I have no idea. I'd personally prefer to list areas of gardening I like, yard specialties (for example, maybe you have a knack with roses...this would be good for others to know in case they are looking for some advice). And things you need help with. For example, some of my plants are a magnet for spidermites.)

My Thoughts
First of all, I want to give Scotts props for getting co-creative with its customers. What do I mean by co-creation? Co-creation essentially means a company wants its customers to create their own unique experiences with their product/brand. To accomplish this, the company will provide some sort of platform for users (in this case a website allowing for some personalization). The results of this are easier access to consumers and their opinions, which generally helps assist the company in making better products and service experiences for its customers. Instead of being one-way interaction (i.e. Scotts providing all of the information to it's customers), it allows for multiple-way interaction - customers can interact with each other and with Scotts, customizing the experience to be unique for them. Personalization...gotta love it.

I have a feeling Scotts will get some great feedback from its customers as a result of this site's launch. As more people use the site, they'll also discover what improvements/additions customers would like to see be made. Something I'd like to see Scotts improve on, for example, is in the lawn care program section. I'd like this section to let me put in the actual date that I applied my last lawn treatment and then send me an e-mail when I need to apply again (right now it will notify you of generic timing when to apply, but doesn't record when you actually applied the treatment to your lawn.). I'd also like to see some minor mods to the profile area - although putting in my zodiac sign and favorite type of music might be fun, it doesn't really help other community members know where my lawn & garden expertise may lie -or- in what areas I could use some help. These are just minor things and overall, I think this site is a great start to getting more in touch with customers. Being a lawn & garden enthusiast, I know I personally will be using the Scotts site as a resource for my growing tips, helping make my thumb a little more green...even in the months that Mother Nature isn't cooperating with me :)

Attention Foodies: Get Yourself a Tasty Tastebook!

2008-03-05T19:51:00.000-08:00

As some of you may have gathered from my previous blog entries, I really enjoy cooking. As a result, you'll find me quite regularly flipping through Bon Appetit and visiting the websites of epicurious and the Food Network to find recipes to try out over the weekend. Pulling together a weekend menu earlier this week, I happened to visit epicurious and noticed something new. On the right hand side of the screen, there was a link saying "Turn your Epi recipe box into a personal cookbook." So I clicked on it and was instantly interested.

What I discovered was http://www.tastebook.com/. For those of us who love to cook but have lots of random recipes that we wished were in a neatly organized, nicely printed book, this site is something we've been looking for. (Just last year I attempted to create a cookbook on Shutterfly...which obviously is much more user friendly for photos than it is for formatted text).

So what is Tastebook? Tastebook is a website that helps you create a personalized, hardcover cookbook. (No more hand written recipe cards for me! ) The book is actually a binder...so if you don't use up the 100 recipe quota the site gives you per book, you have an opportunity to add more recipes to it later. And the price isn't too bad seeing that it equates to about $0.35 per recipe (sells for $34.95/book).

Through Tastebook you can add your own recipes (including photos, tips, sources, etc.), search for recipes from Bon Appetit and Gourmet magazines, and import your recipe boxes from epicurious.com. Pretty neat!
And besides creating your own book, there's the option to purchase one of several pre-prepared books. The nice thing about these is you can also add recipes to them to make them further customized. I'm personally not that big on just selecting a cookbook with recipes I haven't tried since I have plenty of those already. But this would be nice for people looking for some new recipes to try out. There's even a place on the site to add contacts. So once you complete your Tastebook you can share it with friends. You also have the option to send the cookbook as a gift. The cool thing about this is if your cookbook has 80 recipes in it instead of 100, it gives the person receiving the gift 20 free recipe credits. Neat.

I do have a couple complaints so far in using the website. First, I haven't quite figured out how to organize my recipes in each section. For example, I have several cookie recipes in the "Desserts and Treats" section. The only way I've figured out how to clump them in the same area is to rename the recipe titles to call out what it is first. For example instead of "Spice Roll Out Cookies," I would rename the recipe "Cookies: Spice Roll Outs." But this doesn't work in the case of imported recipes since I can't change them (Tastebook does not give you the option to edit imported recipes). The good news is the site is in its Beta version, so that means some additional changes may be on the way.

So what are my recommendations to Tastebook? For future upgrades to the site, I'd advise Tastebook to:

Enable "sub-categories" under the main divided sections for those of us who are overly organized so we can lump chicken recipes, cookie recipes, etc. together. Maybe even let the category be customizable.
Enable editing of imported recipes. Maybe there's some copy-right restriction on allowing this...I'm not sure. But we know people modify recipes. For example, if you visit the Food Network site and click on a recipe, many users have rated the recipe and included their own tips/modifications/experiences. So if there's a way to let us edit imports, great. Otherwise I'll be hand typing in recipes instead of importing them which is more of a hastle for me.
Offer a group compilation page. I.e. provide an area just for friends to upload recipes and create a book together. This would also come in handy for groups creating a recipe book to sell.
Allow high resolution photos to be uploaded for a more customized cover. Although there is a nice selection of photos on the site (40 in all), I'd like to be able to make my book a complete "Sarah Creation."
Garner a deal with Food Network and other popular food websites so we can import other recipes to the site as well. Or let people on the site vote for favorite cooks and garner deals with those chefs (I'll be voting to add Rachael Ray, Ina Garten, and Giada De Laurentiis to the list...)

How to Get Your Sexy Back

2008-02-29T18:12:00.000-08:00

We all know (and have probably used) the trite marketing mantra "sex sells." But does it really? In a Washington Post article from this morning, C. Britt Beemer, head of America’s Research Group, stated “sometimes sex doesn’t sell as well to a woman as it does to the men.” Well maybe we should clarify that statement. At least in the case of women's intimate apparel, sometimes sex doesn't sell as well to women as it does to men.

Intimate apparel retailer Victoria's Secret saw fourth quarter sales of bras, panties and beauty products decline (amid growth in its fragrance and Pink lines). In fact, VS's sales have been so dismal lately Blogging Stocks reported "Standard & Poor's is threatening to reduce the company's debt ratings to "junk" status, and the stock has been on a steady downward trend." What's happening to Victoria's Secret? The problem here definitely isn't brand awareness. In fact, many women probably think of Victoria's Secret as #1, top-of-mind when they think of lingerie brands. So what's up?

This past November, Fortune reported “Victoria’s Secret could use a little lift.” It claimed Kohl's, Target, J.C. Penney, Bloomingdale's, Nordstrom, American Eagle Outfitters and others were adding new lingerie lines or updating existing offerings (renovating dressing rooms, bringing in bra fitters) and thus were "stealing Victoria's Secret's thunder." Some critics also believed that Gilly Hicks (Abercrombie & Fitch’s new lingerie line) would put some pressure on VS. I'm not sold that the issue is competition though. For example, even though Gilly Hicks' cotton and lace lines are somewhat less provocative Miss Vicky's, I doubt this will threaten VS's core. Why? Gilly Hicks' ads show naked models in true Abercrombie-esque fashion (i.e. appealing more to VS's Pink customer than the 20-30 somethings). And even though department stores are adding new lines and renovating, there's still something appealing about the sales model Victoria's Secret used to have - purchasing a high quality, specialty product in a somewhat private setting with knowledgeable, approachable sales staff.

So if it isn't competition that's fading Victoria's Secret's glitz and glamour, what is it? Victoria's Secret believes one issue is they've been heavily focusing on their Pink line. In many mall stores it’s the first line you see when you walk in. It's almost like VS forgot they had customers (many with much higher disposable incomes) other than the high school/college set. Sharon Turney, Victoria’s Secret CEO, in a Columbus Dispatch article also from today, states “Victoria’s Secret has lost its way in part by chasing after the Pink customers with all its other merchandise…All of Victoria’s Secret’s sub-brands “tried to be young” to imitate Pink’s success…when they should have focused more on the quality and sophistication that appeal to women in their mid-20’s and older.” Sure this is some of it. But essentially Victoria's Secret is losing sales because they're trying too hard to be SEXY (picture this word in hot pink, neon, blinking lights) and have forgotten what sexy really means and feels like to a woman (wonder why the current Dove ads have hit home with women?). Victoria's Secret has strayed from what their brand used to stand for...the softer, sometimes secretive, more alluring side of a woman. (Based on comments to multiple Victoria's Secret articles I've read online, I'm sure some VS employees will jump all over me for that statement. But let's be honest ladies...it really jilts us the most when it's TRUE).

When did the brand make a wrong turn with its products and image? I would argue it was about the time (in the late '90's) when VS ventured into making lingerie a public fashion statement, creating fashion shows highlighting intimates and even offering up a completely-unaffordable-and-not-practical-to-the-target-consumer, multi-million dollar diamond bra. I remember the first time I noticed how far Victoria's Secret had gone awry. Several years ago my sister who lives in Columbus (home to Limited Brands and VS), took me a new Victoria’s Secret store in the Easton Town Center mall (the second store that had opened there). She wanted me to see the North location, saying I'd be shocked. And she was right. I was almost embarrassed to be seen entering the store. With its different themed rooms, hot pink and black lacquer accents, mannequins wearing gigantic angel wings, and neon signs hanging on the walls, I felt like I was in a XXX video store waiting to watch a dirty "film" rather than try on bras. The store didn’t feel exotic and expensive, it felt trashy and cheap, and it was entirely too cartoonish - more "Vegas showgirl" than "real woman." I thought to myself "There's nothing in here I'd want to wear, the quality of the product is lacking, and it's entirely too expensive for me to purchase "every day" underwear here. I mean, with this for a brand image, does anyone really believe Victoria has any sort of secret anymore? Seriously?" Several articles have been released today with Victoria's Secret stating they believe they have become "too sexy" and need to scale things back. I argue they haven't become "too sexy," instead they've become trashy. And there's a big difference between the two.

My sister and I actually had a discussion about lingerie/intimate apparel a few months ago and were talking about how difficult it was to find underwear that was classy, comfortable, yet still sexy these days. We thought whoever could accomplish this and open a chain of stand-alone shops to take on VS would be landing a gold mine. Besides looking for ourselves, we'd been searching for lingerie gifts for a couple of brides. We both had visited VS and found the stores to be lacking in selection with only a couple of cheaply made, yet expensive "nightie" offerings in their stores. I'm almost embarrassed to admit (due to their own "trashy" image) but I ended up purchasing a babydoll from Fredericks of Hollywood since it had a better style, was made of a better material, and was offered at a better price.

Sometimes if you say the word too much people start to think you’re saying it to make yourself believe it. So Victoria's Secret, don't tell me it's "sexy," show me why it's sexy. Don't you remember? Women generally like to take it slow, maybe even play the tease. Foreplay can be everything. Back on January 30, the AP reported that Victoria’s Secret releases the “What is Sexy” list. Ryan Seacrest made the list and VS spokeswoman Monica Mitro was quoted as saying "What's sexy about (Seacrest) is he doesn't act like he is.” Hmmm…maybe a tip for VS to apply to their product development and marketing models!

We’re all familiar with Justin Timberlake’s song “Sexy Back.” So here are my recommendations to "Miss Vicky" to help her get her sexy back (and get me back in to her stores). Essentially it's all about getting back to basics:

Focus on the product. What is is that women want in intimate apparel? They don't want to be "obvious" all of the time. VS needs to remember that there's a practical need for underwear too. It isn’t always about being sexy or turning on the opposite sex. Most women also want to feel comfortable. You probably won’t be going to the gym in a mesh number, wearing a thong doing chores around the house or a lacy number that’s uncomfortable under clothing to class or to work. Sexy can be subtle, it can be flirtatious, it can be demure, and it also can be comfortable. Quality is important too since women don’t want the bra they just spent close to $50 on or the panties that were $16 a pop to have stringers of elastic or fall apart in the gentle cycle of the wash after a couple of washes. Is that too much to ask? One epinions user (lori17) writes "Victoria's Secret Used to Be Wonderful...Until recently, I was customer...I decided to write this review because I can't believe that so many women don't see how much the quality has declined or don't recognize the terrible quality from their first purchases. VS used to be amazing. The bras, panties, sleepwear and robes were very high end and lasted forever..." If it's not going to last, I'm not going to pay for it.

Focus on the experience. Why is an intimate apparel store appealing to a woman? If you read different reviews of Victoria’s Secret on sites like Yelp, many women complain about the overall experience in the stores...it's no longer intimate for them. For example, some stores have men working the sales floors. Not to discriminate guys, but a lot of women are uncomfortable about trying on lingerie and picking out bras around strange men. On Yelp, Sara C. from Brooklyn, NY sums it up by saying “Sorry, big dudely dude. Do NOT come up to me while I'm browsing for articles of clothing that are going to be touching all my most intimate areas, clothing that is meant to be shared with only a select few, and start getting all up in my business. This is a private moment. I do not want you to show me anything. I am mortified at the prospect of asking you questions about anything. In fact, I'm not even entirely comfortable with uttering words like "demi-cup" or "negligee' in your presence, considering that you're not my mom or my best friend and I'm also not planning on screwing you later (which are the three types of people I'm generally willing to talk lingerie with, unless you are a very approachable and FEMALE lingerie store clerk). Oh, and don't even THINK about measuring me for a new bra.” I'd say she's covered the thoughts of most female shoppers to a "T." Regarding people who work in your store, we know you probably can't discriminate in your hiring, but women truly do feel more comfortable buying intimates from women. Men following us around, asking us questions, etc. is simply creepy. Remember how embarrassing it was to buy tampons at the store for the first time and how you really wanted to avoid the check out line with a male cashier? The same feeling applies here. Shopping in privacy for intimate items is very appealing to us. Sure we might bring our boyfriend or husband into the store with us, but they're part of our private lives. So how can you make the experience enjoyable for the woman and not intimidating? Something that's fun and exciting and comforting at the same time. Maybe like going to the spa...going in stressed, coming out feeling radiant and confident.

BTW...there happened to be a Post Secret card that pretty much sums up how many women currently feel about Victoria's Secret (see below). For those of you who don't know, Post Secret (http://postsecret.blogspot.com/) is "an ongoing community art project where people mail in their secrets anonymously on one side of a homemade postcard". Actually the concept of this blog would have been an interesting marketing campaign for Victoria's Secret (asking customers to anonymously share their secrets on their website). Something else to help bring some secrets back to Miss Vicky.

Industrial Design - Bugaboo Strollers

2008-02-08T17:41:00.000-08:00

In the late seventies/early eighties baby stroller designs were anything but customized. Most were large, didn’t suit the lifestyle and personality of many customers, and were only offered in dark blue. Also, they were very standard in function and purpose. Almost every stroller positioned children face-forward and was intended for sidewalk use only, making it difficult to maneuver on rough terrain like found on trails or beaches.

Seeing an opportunity to dramatically impact the stroller market, design student Max Barenbrug set a goal for himself. Taking this on as his graduate design project at the Eindhoven in 1994, Max designed a stroller he believed would appeal to both men and women and be very versatile. After graduation, Barenbrug decided to try to sell his design to stroller manufacturers. However he was met by failure. Manufacturers turned down his design stating it was too radical and thus did not have mass market potential. Barenbrug, however, was not about to give up. With the help of his brother-in-law, Eduard Zanen, the Dutch designer decided to manufacture the stroller on his own. Barenbrug redesigned the product, and in 1999, Bugaboo was born.
Bugaboo’s first stroller design, the Frog, gained immediate popularity in Holland. However, after an appearance on an episode of Sex and the City in 2002, Bugaboo strollers gained international appeal. The unusually designed buggies came in high demand and started being sold all over the globe. In less than ten years, Bugaboo became one of the leading stroller manufacturers with only four models to its name.

Communicating the Brand Image Through Design
Bugaboo stands out from traditional strollers by communicating an image of modern sophistication. Coming in cute, kid-inspired names like Gecko, Frog, Chameleon, and Bee, Bugaboo’s bright colors and odd sized wheels set it apart from its bulky competition. The canvas material (reminiscent of Sunbrella), conveys to customers that it is outdoor friendly, protects the child from the weather (sun, wind, rain), is easy to clean, and is low maintenance. The shape of the stroller (clean lines, no-frills) and material composition (canvas, stainless steel, black grip handle) comes across as asexual and urban, potentially making it more appealing to male customers than its “cutsie” counterparts. Further appealing to the male set, Bugaboos sport “bump free” suspensions, and light-weight, aluminum chassis, making it sound more like an expensive automobile than a stroller.

Another unique feature of Bugaboo strollers is they can be customized and are easily adaptable. For example, customers can select from a variety of solid colors for both the exterior and the interior, designing a stroller that fits their personality. Also, all Bugaboos can be modified to suit the child’s needs (seated, laying down, facing forward or backwards). Finally, the stroller maker relies on the fact many parents own a Graco or Peg Perego car seat, and enables customers to attach the car seat to their stroller.

Bugaboo is not targeting the average parent. It desires a discerning customer, interested in keeping up with the trends and being different/standing out. Strollers are not sold at mass retailers, and go for prices from $700 to $900. This fact is somewhat portrayed by the Bugaboo bonnet/hood design, reminiscent of the iconic perambulators (prams) from the Victorian era (baby buggies manufactured by carriage makers), products initially owned by only the wealthy.

Alternative Design Recommendations
Bugaboo has done a good job designing a stroller that stands out in the marketplace. However, they now have direct competition in the high-end stroller market - Stokke. The Stokke stroller relies on not only having a similar design to the trendy Bugaboo, but functionality that allows it to grow with the child – even becoming a high chair. So how can Bugaboo further differentiate itself using product industrial design? Since Bugaboo is known for being a versatile stroller design, I would recommend for them to add to their product features. First, like Stokke, I would enable the stroller to become a high chair. This provides a convenience factor for parents visiting restaurants with their children. Also, instead of being able to adapt Graco and Peg Perego car seats, the Bugaboo seat should be able to be turned into a car seat, eliminating the need for parents to purchase an additional component. Finally, if Bugaboos were able to be converted to pull-behind bike trailers or a three-wheel running/jogging stroller, they would further set themselves apart from the competition and eliminate the need for parents to own multiple child-toting products.

703,000 Footprints = "Slightly" Used?

2008-01-31T11:31:00.000-08:00

So what kind of message are you sending your potential customers?

I was driving to work the other day and heard a commercial on the radio that confused me. It was advertising a sale on carpet and called it the "Auto Show Carpet Sale." Thinking this was a normal carpet store who decided to hold an in-store sale while the auto show was in town, I wondered:

Do they realize this sounds like they're selling carpet from the auto show?

Why would you have a sale for carpeting and attribute it to the auto show? I mean, there isn't much of a connection between the two --> new car vs. new "car-peting"

Puzzled, I did a quick Google search when I got to work. As it turns out, this store really is selling carpet from the auto show. DE McNabb Flooring in metro Detroit is selling the carpet for 25 cents per square foot. It is deemed "slightly" used with 75,000 square yards available (i.e. 675,000 square feet)...to the first 300 customers each day only (Wow! How exclusive! (sense my sarcasm?) ). After learning this, I began to wonder what residential customer would want to purchase this used flooring, especially when they know the Detroit Auto Show attracted close to 703,000 people...amid freezing temperatures and messy weather. Would you want winter wetness/salt/dirt and 703,000 x 2 x ??? footprints all over your "new" carpeting? I suppose I'm not the target customer for this product.

McNabb calls themselves a service company since they rent flooring for auto shows, trade shows, and special events - i.e. their line of work is exhibition flooring. However, they also supply residential flooring, and this special sale seemed to be targeting those residential customers. Through advertising they are selling "slightly" used carpeting from one event, might residential customers think some of the carpet "remnants," etc. in their store are actually used carpeting from other events McNabb has done? I for one wouldn't want to walk in bare feet or lay on carpeting when I had no idea what was on people's shoes who walked on it prior to my purchase. I don't think this sale is a particularly good move on McNabb's part. Also, I assume the auto makers rent the flooring from McNabb for the event and the rental rates are at a premium (i.e. probably already covers the cost of the carpet). So I wonder what McNabb stands to profit from this deal. I mean, if they sold all of it, they'd get close to $170K. Nothing like renting it out and then selling it afterwards.

Follow-up on 02/18/08: My intuition may have been right on this one...I visited the DE McNabb website and they had a message in the sales section of the page: "Detroit Auto Show Used Carpet Sale -- EXTENDED!!!" I guess the first 300 customers each day over the past few weeks haven't been biting on the oh-so-tempting offer...

Do you want your kids to think medicine is candy?

2008-01-24T11:10:00.000-08:00

There's a new product on the market that claims to "take the ick out of sick." Developed by a mother (and a grandmother), Kid Kupz aims to help parents get their kids to take medicine willingly. The product consists of plastic medicine cups with tart candy coating around the rims. They supposedly became available in drug stores this past fall and retail in packs of 5 for about $1/cup (i.e. $5.99/pack).

It will be interesting to see how this product performs in the market place. If I were an investor in this start-up, or the CEO of the company for that matter, I would have several concerns:

Executional Flaws: It seems like a waste to have to get a new cup every time the kid takes their medicine. Why not sell the product in a powder/granule form that you can wet the rim of a cup like a beverage glass and dip it in the sugar coating, washing one cup after each use? Might be cheaper to manufacture too...
Marketing 4-P's Flaw (Product) : There may be some negative PR/reactions to this product. First, cough syrups already contain 10-75% sugar (especially in children's formulas), and most parents probably don't want their kids thinking medicine is candy. Also, in January of this year, Science Daily reported that around 3.1 million people in the U.S. (ages 12-25) have "used over-the-counter (non-prescription) cough and cold medicines to get high at least once." If I were Kid Kupz I sure wouldn't want to have this image associated with my product...or to be tagged as a hot trend enabling this type of drug abuse.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introducing KidKupz™: A Business Plan That's Easy to Swallow!
AN INSPIRATIONAL STORY OF HOW A MOTHER AND HER MOTHER STARTED THEIR BUSINESS
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

KidKupz - the inspired creation of a mother/grandmother team who wanted to create a product that makes taking medicine for kids both fun and easy - launches its first line of medicine dispensing cups with an all-natural, candy-coated rim. When Jill Addeo's step-father, a dedicated children's hospital volunteer of ten years, passed away in November 2005, she and her mother vowed to address a concern that had always plagued him.

Just two years after Jill's step-father's passing, KidKupz is launching its first line of candy-coated medicine dispensing cups in kid-friendly flavors like Sour Cherry, Blue Raspberry, Watermelon and Green Apple. Thanks to the caring of one man, and the hard work of his family to make his dream come true, gone are the days of children running for cover at the mention of taking their medicine. KidKupz will be available in stores nationwide in spring 2008. Six-packs of the candy-coated medicine dispensing cups will retail for approximately $5.99.

Jill Addeo is a mother of two, married and living in Manhattan. After earning a BA degree from Brown University, Jill enjoyed a successful career in network television. After marrying in 1996, Jill decided to pursue a career in real estate which allowed her to spend more time raising her son and daughter - now ages 9 and 7. When Jill's step-father retired from a career on Wall Street in 1995, he began volunteering at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center on the pediatric floor. What began as a once-a-week commitment grew into three days and one night, as he thrived on bringing smiles to children's faces. One thing that always plagued him however, was how difficult it was for these children to take some of the more harsh tasting liquid medicines, and he often expressed that concern to Jill and to his wife, Jo Ann.
When he succumbed to cancer in November 2005, Jill and Jo Ann resolved to find a way to solve this "medicine going down" problem and began to discuss options with Jill's husband, Geoffrey Addeo. After creating and taste-testing various homemade versions, Jill, Geoff and Jo Ann finally came up with a winning solution that pleased not only them but more importantly Jill and Geoff's children.

"KidKupz Candy-Coated Rims makes swallowing liquid medicine easy and delicious for kids everywhere!" says Jill Addeo, President of KidKupz. "It's about making the act of taking medicine fun for kids less of a chore and more of a treat," Addeo added. "This is a safe and effective method of administering medicine to children, and I think we've truly achieved our goal of making the whole process easier, both for children, and for their parents and caregivers."

For details regarding KidKupz, please log onto www.kidkupz.com or call 888/KID-KUPZ (543-5879). All media inquiries should be directed to Lee Makofsky at (973)744-0707 or Lee.mako@bhgpr.com .

About KidKupz
KidKupz is a privately owned, Manhattan-based consumer products specialty company. The mission of the company is to provide retailers with smart solutions to aid parents and caregivers in administering liquid medication to children, while allowing children to enjoy the experience of taking medicine. This is the first product in the line.

KidKupz is the inspired creation of a mother/grandmother team who wanted to create a product that makes taking medicine for kids both fun and easy. The idea was inspired by President Jill Addeo's late step-father, who was a volunteer on the pediatric floor at Memorial Sloan Kettering. His work at the hospital exposed him to the difficulties children face when taking necessary medication. His dream was to make medicine-taking easier. The new team has turned that vision into a reality.

The Big Ten Network

2007-12-19T11:05:00.000-08:00

Some of you may have seen the numerous articles over the past year discussing the Big Ten Conference’s Big Ten Network (BTN) and its public battle with cable companies over distribution. This past fall fellow Ross MBA-candidates Matt Mace, Guangcheng “Gary” Dong, and I worked on a project investigating the BTN’s distribution strategy and making recommendations. What we discovered was pretty interesting – especially since we were able to confirm why some cable companies did not want to add the network under BTN’s current terms, and why BTN was pursuing a strategy that was causing so much conflict.

Background
The Big Ten Network (BTN) is a television network primarily covering college sporting events of schools within the Big Ten Conference (BTC). It provides national broadcasts of college football, basketball, and other sports content for cable and satellite television subscribers. Besides sports programs, BTN broadcasts academic programming from Big Ten Conference universities. Most of the content is exclusive, meaning it will not be shown live simultaneously on other television channels. The BTN is a joint venture between the BTC and Fox Cable Networks.

Although most BTC athletic events will exclusively be shown on the BTN, the Big Ten Conference did recently renew their contract with ESPN/ABC Sports, owned by the Walt Disney Company. This contract is a $100M/yr, 10-year deal that includes rights to show 25 football and 56 men's basketball games per season as well as 100 women's basketball and volleyball games over the 10-year period. It also includes rights to show the championship games of the Big Ten and the Big Ten women's basketball tournament.

Big Ten Member Universities value the BTN as a marketing and recruiting tool for new students. Along with a $1B agreement with ESPN and ABC to broadcast games, the BTN will allow BTC Universities to promote themselves to a nationwide audience and increase awareness among possible academic and athletic recruits. The proceeds from the BTN are divided equally among the 11 BTC member universities. Additional funds for athletics, enables other money to flow to research, the arts and other scholastic endeavors. These schools are seeing some big money.

The Issue
The BTN, launched in August 2007, has had a significant amount of success achieving distribution deals with both satellite and smaller, local cable companies. However, it has struggled forming agreements with large cable distributors like Comcast. The main argument from these cable companies is that the BTN is trying to sell its content to a national audience, when it might be better received by a more-regional audience in the Big Ten states. To understand their side of the argument, we contacted the alumni associations of the eleven BTC universities and discovered close to 87% of Big Ten alumni live in the U.S. live in Big Ten states. Interesting.

Another beef the cable companies have with BTW is the network requests subscription companies to pay average subscriber fees of $1.10 for customers within the eight Big Ten states, and $0.10 for all other customers. Since not all cable television subscribers will want Big Ten programming, it is not in the best interest of cable network to bill their customers for fees demanded by the BTN. On the other hand, it will hurt the cable company’s bottom line to simply absorb the fees BTN is requesting. Cable companies like Comcast that refuse to pay across the board subscriber fees to BTN are asking for the flexibility to add BTN to a special sports tier, for which subscribers could request as an optional package for additional fees. Through absorbing BTN fees, cable companies stand to lose out on millions of dollars. For example, Comcast has around 4 million cable television subscribers in Big Ten Conference states. The BTN fees for these subscribers would cost Comcast $4.4 million per month, or $52.8M per year. Comcast earned a net income of almost $2.5B in 2006, so the $52.8M subscribe fee to BTN would reduce net income by almost 3% for BTC states alone. Another issue raised by cable companies against BTN is the amount of the fees compared with other content providers. BTN requires an average fee of $1.10 per subscriber, the third highest fee on basic cable today. Only ESPN at $3.00 per-subscriber and TNT at $1.26 per-subscriber have higher fees. The high subscription fee is in question since BTN has a much more limited fan base/lower demand than ESPN and TNT.

Another reason why many subscription television distributors have not welcomed putting BTN on their expanded basic packages is a question about the value and quality of the sports programming being delivered by the BTN. Some sports analysts believe the BTC is weaker, or not as competitive, as other major college sports conferences. They argue more powerful conferences include the Pac-10 on the West Coast, the SEC in the South, or the ACC in the East. Why? Through October 17, 2007, the BTC only had two of its football teams in the Top 25 national rankings, although historically the BTC has five or six of its football teams in the Top 25 rankings. The commission of the BTC has even suggested adding additional universities to the BTC to help make the conference more competitive, ultimately helping market the BTN. It’d be interesting to investigate how this would bring more revenue to the network and whether or not this action would have each BTC school seeing even less money from the BTN.

Subscription providers are not the only channel members who are experiencing conflict with the BTN. The end customers (fans) are becoming disgruntled with BTN since some BTC football games are being carried exclusively on its network instead of allowing local channels to carry regional events. This creates a channel conflict for some Big Ten Sports fans. Many Big Ten fans subscribe to cable television systems who have not agreed to distribute BTN programming. These fans have missed some historic football games such as the upset of the University of Michigan by Appalachian State at the beginning of the season. This conflict is similar to other exclusive sports content providers such as the NFL Network.

After better understanding why there is so much channel conflict when it comes to BTN offerings, our team created some recommendations for the BTN. We determined BTN needs to change its subscriber fee practices to build a better relationship with its distributors and end customers. Consumers who are missing game broadcasts are upset with cable companies and the BTN for not resolving subscriber fee issues. The loss of brand equity among these sports fans is potentially outweighing any revenue gain that BTN and BTC schools might receive from the holdout with cable companies. The public battle between BTN and Comcast may also be discouraging potential students from attending Big Ten schools or convincing parents a Big Ten school is not where they want to send their child. Would you want your kid to attend a member school of the BTN after witnessing such a public pissing match between the network and cable companies?

Distribution Channel Alternatives/Recommendation
Currently, the Big Ten Network is receiving around $111M annually through its deals with various satellite and cable television distributors. However, due to the channel conflict –and- not obtaining some key deals with large providers, BTN needs to determine if their current strategy is the optimal one. How many subscribers can it realistically expect to obtain? How do you resolve conflict within your distribution network to ensure relationships with future business partners and potential school recruits are not compromised. One option for the BTN to resolve channel conflict with distribution providers is through changing its practice of across-the-board fees for all subscribers. The BTN could reduce the cost so cable companies could easily absorb the additional fee. Making this change would require BTN to redo multi-year contracts that have already been established, but the benefits of signing up 100% of available cable systems could outweigh that lost revenue. In looking at this financially, if BTN were to lower its cost per month per subscriber to $.03 and $.37 respectively to garner deals with Comcast and Charter Communications, it would lose out on $35M per year from its current deals.

A second option is for BTN to change its fee structure from a per-subscriber model to an active-subscriber model (i.e. allow subscription providers to offer BTN on a separate sports tier). If the BTN offered optional programming to consumers, instead of $1.10 per subscriber in BTC states, the fee might be four or five times that amount. For the purpose of analysis, we investigated what BTN would bring in if they were to charge $5/month to active-subscribers. Based on the number of Big Ten Conference alumni living in the U.S. as well as potential Big Ten fans who did not attend a BTC school, there might be a subscriber base of less than 1 million. Note, this does not include businesses that might be interested in carrying the network. Based on 803,473 subscribers at a $5 per month subscriber fee (i.e. $60/yr), the BTN stands to earn $63M less than it is presently earning through subscription T.V. deals.

A third option for the BTN is to bypass the cable and satellite companies and broadcast all their content through the Internet. Consumers could purchase content directly through BTN, with a fee structure for unlimited annual, unlimited monthly, or game specific content options. Cable companies would be in favor of this option, since consumers would need to purchase high-speed cable service in order to view BTN content in this model. BTC universities would favor this option as well, since games could be featured on a global basis instead of limited to a U.S. based audience. However, this option is unlikely to add the revenues BTN requires given the number of high-speed cable subscribers that are potentially BTC sports fans. We discovered the estimated revenues for Internet subscribers are $7M, far below anticipated revenues of $110M for cable television subscribers. Also, this revenue number does not account for the fact BTN would need to invest monies into its website in order to be able to support showing live games, subscriber fees, etc. BTN may want to investigate offering limited content on its website to drive consumer traffic from the sports enthusiasts and fanatics. They could also use the website to drive additional revenue through online ads/sponsorships. However, they should not rely on this as a primary income source.

One final alternative would be for the BTN to offer Pay-Per-View for each of their games. Based only 9.9% of adults in the U.S. watching college football games on television and only 5.5% of adults in the U.S. watching college basketball on T.V, we believe pursuing this strategy would only limit distribution of the channel and minimize revenues. After analyzing various distribution options, it appears the Big Ten Network is presently pursuing a revenue maximizing strategy. Thus, reducing its requested subscription fees or offering the network as a separate sports tier is not recommended as revenues would be drastically reduced.

Our recommendation to BTN is to maintain current deals with subscription T.V. services. We also advise them to end their public battle with Comcast (and other large providers) to earn a more positive reputation. The negative press from this fight only frustrates fans and paints a poor picture of the network with other distributors and potential Big Ten Conference recruits. Also, based on our analysis, if Comcast and Charter Communications never sign up to carry the BTN, the BTN is still better off sticking with their current strategy rather than reducing its rates and renegotiating agreements. Although not all BTC fans currently have access to all BTN games in their homes, in our opinion, those who desperately want to see a game and don’t have the Big Ten Network will go to a local bar or a friend’s house. Additionally, some die-hard fans may even switch subscription television providers in order to have the convenience of the BTN at home. As a result, we do not see a large amount of conflict occurring with fans. As a future solution, BTN may want to investigate offering games on its website on a subscription basis for fans wanting to view games at home without access to BTN carriers. This would only enhance the BTN’s relationship with end consumers and offer an additional distribution channel solely controlled by the BTN.

A few of my favorite things...

2007-12-10T10:17:00.000-08:00

So in the spirit of the holidays, I decided this entry should be about a few of my favorite products. I know it's not a critical assessment of a particular brand/ad campaign/product like most of my entries. But this should give you an idea of products I purchase/use on a regular basis and some tidbits about me as a consumer. Many of these would make great Christmas gifts for your friends/family/significant other BTW...

Wrapping Paper - Old Navy. Who knew, right? For any of you crafty types out there, not only does Old Navy have cool/trendy/contemporary/modern prints, but their paper is nice and thick, making for a perfect wrapping job every time. They don't have any traditional looks (i.e. metallic, shiny, Christmas paper)...so if you want an elegant, frilly gift you'll have to go somewhere else. But I have to say they make the coolest packages for birthdays and other celebrations. All they need now is some slick ribbon and they'd be my one destination for gift wrap supplies. And if they only sold their paper, boxes, etc. online...well then I'd probably have a problem :)

Candles - Method's Peppermint Vanilla - You may know my affection for Method from one of my earlier blog entries. This is yet another reason why I am loyal to the brand...Peppermint Vanilla. Only found during the holiday season, this candle is clean burning and makes my house smell clean and fresh. I burn candles quite often - they're especially warm and comforting in the evenings after a long day at work. And this is my regular stand-by. If only it were a year round product offering...And Method I'd also love it if those peppermint vanilla aroma beads were sold in their own containers all year round.

Hot Chocolate - Vosges Haut Chocolat's Aztec Elixir- I'm not really a sweets person, but this is one of my winter addictions. A wonderful blend of thick, rich chocolate, warmth and spice, you won't mind paying ~$1/oz for this hot chocolate to satisfy your cravings. This hot chocolate is a blend of ancho & chipotle chillies (a little heat down your throat), ceylon cinnamon, madagascar vanilla bean, cornmeal (great texture), and dark chocolate. And all you need is a little bit. Kiss those watery powders you thought were hot chocolate good bye!

Flavoring - Napa Valley Harvest White Truffle Oil - If you're looking for a special touch to add to a holiday dish, this truffle oil is fantastic. My favorite way to have this is with oven roasted potatoes and a touch of fresh parmesan. To make oven roasted potatoes, slice potatoes into thin rounds. Then toss with 2 TB olive oil, fresh cracked pepper, and salt. Spread the potatoes out to be ~1 layer thick on a cookie sheet and bake at 450 for ~40-45 minutes, turning once. The last 10 minutes drizzle the potatoes with truffle oil and sprinkle on some fresh parmesan (use a veggie peeler to get nice chunks). This oil is also particularly good in soups and fresh steamed veggies like asparagus. (Can you tell I love cooking?)

Lotion - Bath & Body Works Vanilla Bean Noel Body Cream - I normally don't purchase many scented lotions since I think they interfere with my perfume -and- many of them don't really make my skin feel moisturized. However, when the winter scents start showing up at Bath & Body Works, I stock up on my favorite body cream - Vanilla Bean Noel. What I like about this scent is it's light, not overpowering, and reminds me of fresh sugar cookies. And it makes my skin feel soft and rejuvinated. It's obviously popular with others as well...after the holidays are over you can often find this on eBay selling at premium prices.

Jeans - Joe's Jeans - Being 5'5", I tend to have issues with a lot of jeans brands since I can't find something that fits me in all the right places. If it fits my small waist, the rear end is too tight. Or if it's a good fit up top, the pants are entirely too long. When I found my first pair of Joe's Provocateur fit jeans, I was in love. It was a perfect fit all around...soft, comfortable, flattering, ideal length. At most stores I can look for regular, long, short, or petite lengths. But half the time a petite is too short if I wear a low heel (or they don't fit me as well as a regular), and the short length is sometimes too long. When you constantly have to pay for hemming it gets really annoying. Why is it men can order jeans in lengths and women can't?

Women's Shoes - Charles David - My closet is well-stocked with a variety of Charles David's traditional leather stilettos (seen below). This shoe is so versatile. It can be worn to work with a pair of slacks or a skirt and then put back on with a pair of jeans to go out in the evening. Not only is the styling classic and flattering, but the shoes are impeccably made. The soft, durable leather holds up to everyday wear -and- helps make the shoes pretty darn comfortable for heels. They're well worth their $150-on-up price tag.

Stereo Accessory - Apple Airport Basestation- I have a particular affection for useful/cool gadgets and the Apple Airport Basestation tops my list. If you have your entire music collection on your PC, you would probably prefer to play your music over your stereo speakers...after all computer speakers leave much to be desired. This little gadget by Apple is the ideal solution. It's perfect for parties, as you can wirelessly stream a special play list to your stereo via iTunes. And I love to use it while working around the house - I can hear my music all over. The only thing I wish is I could also get it to play internet radio stations (like Pandora). Maybe in an upgraded model...

Is Yours Here? Dell's Holiday "Wish"

2007-11-26T17:04:00.000-08:00

So...does celebrity advertising really work? And will virtual "begging for money" get you to your end goal? Better yet, if you have a celebrity do the begging for you, will you fare better than just asking yourself? Dell is hoping for success with this concept with their recently launched holiday campaign called “Wish.” The Wish campaign includes print ads, videos, a series of television commercials directing customers to www.YoursIsHere.com and a temporary Dell store in New York’s Times Square.

While watching football games over the holiday weekend, I saw the Dell T.V. commercial starring Burt Reynolds several times. But the commercial itself didn't get me to go check out the website. Actually, after seeing it, I was kind of confused. I knew there was a website, but I didn't understand its purpose. All I got out of the commercial was "see some stars sell stuff...get a soft sell from Brooke Burke." And since the celebs weren't intriguing to me, I wasn't curious enough to check it out. Maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention to the commercial (after all, studies have shown people in my generation tend to avoid ads). It wasn't until my boyfriend (who was researching a new computer online) checked out the YoursIsHere site that I knew what the commercial was trying to get me to do - to have a celebrity ask your family/friends to make a donation to your Dell fund.

Today I visited the http://www.yoursishere.com/ website to check it out and learned the steps to the whole "celebrity seller" process:

First, you select the Dell product you want to get (notebook, desktop computer, personal electronics (like digital cameras or portable navigation systems)).
Next you select the celebrity (Chuck Liddell (ultimate fighting champion), Burt Reynolds, Brooke Burke, Vivica Fox, Ice-T, Estelle Harris (a.k.a. George Cosanza’s mother on Seinfield)) you want to make a sales pitch on your behalf.
Then you set up a virtual piggy bank via PayPal (but only if you’re over 18).
Finally, you can post a "fundraising widget" tracking your piggy bank's progress to MySpace or Facebook, and send e-mail links with the celebrity sales pitch video to your family and friends.

See below for an example of the Dell Fund Tracker that you can add to Facebook or MySpace:

Here are some of my thoughts about the website/campaign/concept:

Regarding Dell's overall campaign, I'm unsure how successful it will be due to a few misalignments between the internet tendencies of requesting parties and donors. I would assume this website would appeal most to teens thru mid-late 20-somethings who use social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook. If we eliminate the under 18 age group (you have to be 18+ to have a PayPal account), we could figure most of the parents and relatives of these individuals are at least 40 years of age, and many probably older. Pew Internet and Life Project estimates only 59% of ages 30-49 have internet access, 40% of those 50-64, and 15% of 65+. So I doubt grandma will be contributing to your fund unless someone helps her out.
The widget concept for tracking donation progress keeps up with the latest trends. After all, widgets are hot...even Newsweek declared 2007 the "Year of the Widget." So, sure some people might find it cool to share the progress they are making in getting your new laptop, camera, etc. However, if your relatives are the ones you are asking to contribute, chances are they aren’t checking MySpace –or- Facebook to see how close you are to your goal. And I'm not sure I'd want to share with my friends how close I was to getting a new computer or a camera...or let everyone on MySpace/Facebook know about my finances. But that's just me.
Although I think the campaign execution could be improved, the concept itself is innovative. The fundraising concept is interactive, and offers some personalization (i.e. you can select one of six celebs). It does lend itself to being slightly co-creative with the customer (as in the customer is creating their own, unique Dell experience). Although it’d probably be even cooler if you could really personalize it (think Burger King’s “Subservient Chicken” for inspiration). Better yet, Dell could have enabled users to send completely customized messages to their potential donors. For example, users could upload their own video sales-pitch (via YouTube) or upload a photo to go along with a personalized note. After all, I would think mom or grandpa would rather hear the request from you than from someone they don't know (especially a B/C list celebrity). Even your sister/brother/boyfriend/girlfriend would probably rather hear from you.
The part of the site I think is brilliant is the ability to set up a virtual "piggy bank" via PayPal. Dell is on to something with this and I think other retailers (and PayPal) should start thinking about making this a standard customer offering. Why? It might help reduce consumer waste due to unused/lost/unwanted gift cards and encourage consumers to buy bigger ticket items. TowerGroup estimated $8 Billion was lost last year due to expired/lost/forgotten-about gift cards and Consumer Reports said 27% of card recipients have not used at least one card they have received. The virtual piggy bank not only allows people to get something they really want for Christmas (or potentially some other occassion), but it puts all of the cash into one place with the recipient to use towards their desired purpose. I could see tons of uses for this PayPal feature. For example, it could simplify high school graduations - the graduate wouldn't have checks to deposit and could transfer the money directly from PayPal into their bank account. And think of how it could change weddings - instead of having a wedding registry, a bride and groom could post some photos of things they're planning to buy (or a list) and have a place for people to make a monetary gift ilo sending gift cards or bulky boxed items. Of course, you might have some issues with grandma trying to use it, but with technology there are always learning curves.

So, based on all of this, my feedback to Dell is: tweak the execution to allow for more personalization; offer the feature year-round (because once the trend catches on I think it'll become a norm); lose the cheesy, B/C list celebrities unless you want consumers to think of Dell as B/C list too.

Method Home - Making Product Shelves More Appealing

2007-11-13T07:15:00.000-08:00

www.methodhome.com

I have to admit, shopping for household cleaners isn't one of the most exciting experiences a consumer will have. Visiting any discount retailer or grocery store, consumers will find the household cleaning goods category is littered with endless options, un-original products, boring packaging, and harsh chemical contents. Since there are so many products available and a high level of competition, brands struggle to differentiate themselves from competitors. And surprisingly, the industry and its products haven’t changed much since the 1950’s. The small changes brands have relied on to set themselves apart include different scents, lower price points and unique characteristics that enhance cleaning power (orange oil, oxygen bubbles, etc.). Unfortunately these changes don’t prevent retailer shelves from being cluttered and boring and products from appearing to be all the same. Customers wanting to purchase a household cleaner may tend just to grab the cheapest or most colorful product to avoid sorting through the disorder. They are probably thinking “the bottles look the same, so the products must be equivalent.”

But in the late '90's the household cleaning products category began to see some evolution. Eric Ryan and Adam Lowry, realizing the stagnancy of the category, decided to create their own brand of cleaning products in 1999. Their brand – method - emerged as a clean and fresh alternative to regular household cleaners. Method attempted to change customer’s perceptions by having unique, stylish packaging, smelling pleasant, and being environmentally friendly. Looking at a shelf containing method products versus the competition, the consumer’s eye is instantly drawn to the freshly designed containers. The company’s strategy for disruptive packaging appears to be working since customers are snatching up their products and method was recently listed as one of the fastest growing private companies in the U.S. And I am a big fan.

Vs.

So how does method communicate it's brand image? Method’s key tag line is “people against dirty.” In other words, the brand wants customers to believe the current chemicals they use in their homes, might get rid of bacteria and dust, but leave behind toxic chemical residues. One of method’s print ads even reads “does my home have chemical dependency?” In this ad, a common spray bottle (i.e. common household cleanser) is cleverly shown in a brown paper bag with the top folded over like a bottle of booze. Comparing this image to the unsoiled, transparent method bottle makes the customer wonder how many toxins co currently reside in their home.

Method’s product packaging meets brand expectations through portraying an image of clean simplicity. Each Karim Rashid-styled bottle is organically shaped, completely transparent, contains bright fluids and has a simple label with crisp fonts. The rounded, slowly tapering curves of every bottle introduce a human element to the unfriendly designs of products past. Additionally, method’s color palette for each of its products complements its various scent offerings like pink grapefruit, almond, cucumber, lavender, and eucalyptus mint. Due to their packaging, method products convey thoughts of purity, safety, and freshness. The brand’s form language is consistent, and is carried across to their many products - laundry, specialty surface, dish, all-purpose, and hand and body. Although method’s products can be found in many of the same places as “ordinary” household cleaners (Target, Office Depot, CVS, Lowes, etc.), they are displayed on an entirely different shelf than their stagnant and conventional competitors. This display strategy further helps method stand out from the clutter.

So method's packaging strategy and brand image are "clearly" a winner...so how else could they innovate their packaging or product line-up? Regarding unique packaging, method’s overall strategy is effective and pleasing to the eye. However, they have not yet taken on the challenge of redesigning the sprayer/ nozzle head to further set themselves apart. My recommendation would be to carry their clean, minimalist theme on to the sprayer. An inspiration for this design could be the type of sprayer you would typically find at a modern kitchen sink. The shorter, more compact nose on the sprayer, slender neck, and reverse positioning of the pumping mechanism further drives the point that method products are uniquely different. Regarding product line-up, they are definitely headed in the right direction. They've moved from solely home cleaning products to skin care products as well as moving into Glade/Febreeze territory with their scented sprays, candles, oils, etc. They've also changed the packaging on their refills to become pouches that use "83% less plastic than a rigid PET bottle...(and) take less energy to produce." Way to go method. So...now I have to ask those of you reading this blog...are you converts? Are you "methodic" about your cleaning habits yet?

Crocs - What's Next?

2007-11-05T09:19:00.000-08:00

The Crocs Story:

In 2002, Scott Seamans discovered an oddly shaped clog developed for use in day spas. The shoe had been created by the Canadian company Foam Creations (a company Crocs, Inc. now owns). Although the product design was unusual and had attracted his attention, Seamans was most interested in its material composition. The shoes were made out of a waterproof, lightweight, and bacteria/fungus resistant resin, PCCR (now called “Croslite”).

Thinking the clogs would make good boating shoes (holes allowed for air flow and water drainage), Seamans added a strap to the back, and took them on a trip to the Caribbean. While there, he presented the shoes to two friends (one a former hardware sales exec, the other a former Quiznos exec). After talking about the strange clogs, and believing there was a marke for themt, the three friends decided to start a company together. They branded the shoe “Crocs” due to its odd shape and took product samples to boating shows to introduce them to the public. People were at first hesitant to embrace the clogs because they thought they were ugly. However, once they tried a pair on and wore them around, people became converts and Crocs was an instant hit.

Communicating the Brand Image
The Crocs brand communicates images of child-like fun, and quirky, fashion rebellion. Most of its shoe models could be considered whimsical and toy-like, boasting bright colors and a cartoonish appearance, with blown-up looking rounded toes. The design of the brand’s most popular models, clogs called “Beach” and “Cayman,” are amorphous in shape, often called ugly, and made fun of by most who have never worn a pair. The shoe design is so distinct it causes instant polarization amongst consumers. Consumers either love or hate the shoes. Those who love them believe if you’re brave enough to wear them in public, you must be cool. Those who hate them, however, have created websites like “ihatecrocs.com,” YouTube videos lighting the shoes on fire, and t-shirts showing Crocs clogs being attacked by scissors.

Crocs are made for comfort and the company claims the shoes have the coziness of flip flops but with arch support and toe protection. Various design cues reflect these claims, from the soft, pliable, light-weight material that loosely molds to feet when warm, to the puffed-marshmallow-like curves of the shoes’ styling. The products’ no-frills designs (simple styling, solid colors, smooth surfaces) go along with company claims of Crocs being easy to maintain, non-marking, slip resistant, and dishwasher safe.

The brand goals for Crocs are for its products to be all-purpose and appeal to an extremely wide market, from babies to grandmothers. To help make its product appeal to the masses, Crocs offers varying levels of customization. Besides offering over 20 models and a variety of colors, the brand has licensing deals with Disney, NASCAR, and colleges, and people can adorn their shoes with “Jibbitz,” snap-in, button-like charms. Additionally, the high-tech material and animal referencing “Croc” name suggest eco-consciousness.

When Crocs were introduced, they were sold in small shoe stores. However, their popularity helped move them to national distribution with Nordstrom and Dillard’s. The shoes are generally easy to locate, but are still primarily sold at specialty garden, gift and sporting goods stores (Hallmark, Dick’s Sporting Goods), and upscale shoe and department stores. They can also be purchased direct from Crocs (online). In-store displays of the shoes generally show them hanging from a rack (no box, within reach of customer hands), which further enforces the brand claim of accessibility. The Crocs’ distribution strategy is not unusual, although their price point is distinct and further enforces the brand desire to be a shoe for all people. Many shoe makers will push the base selling price of trendy shoes upwards. Crocs, however, wants their product to be accessible to many people, so the base price point for their shoes is $30.

So...What's Next?

Knowing that the market for trendy shoes might be short-lived, Crocs has branched out into other products like t-shirts, hats, socks, and bags. Unfortunately these offerings don’t reflect or use the proprietary “Croslite” material upon which the Crocs’ brand has been build. Instead of growing these products, I think Crocs should expand their “gear” line-up (which currently only consists of knee pads and garden kneelers). Croslite’s sanitary properties (bacteria/fungus resistant), and the brand’s use of bright colors, provides Crocs with the opportunity to move into many other “gear” related products like shin guards, mouth guards, beach toys, baby items (teethers, bath toys, pacifiers) and even dog toys.

Current Gear offered by Crocs:

Potential Products Crocs could market:

What Were They Thinking?

2007-11-03T12:24:00.000-07:00

I'm sure some of you have already heard about this...since this product made an appearance at the automobile industry's SEMA (Specialty Equipment Manufacturer's Assoc. ) show -and- was announced back in January. But billboards have been popping up in the Detroit-area over the past few months, and I seriously thought they were a joke when I first saw them - ads for lavender-scented tires by Kumho (http://www.kumhotireusa.com/). And if you don't particularly love lavender, apparently the company is offering neroli (orange) and jasmine scents as well. Scented tires...who knew?

Although scented tires aren't the first thing I think of when I dream about upgrades to my car, I did have some curiousity about the product. My first thought was "is the scent good for the environment?" Then I had a humorous image of a person kneeling down in the parking lot taking a big whiff of the wheels of the car next to them (This behavior definitely does not seem like a trend that would catch on). And unless you're spending a lot of time in your garage - outside your car - who's going to care what your car's tires smell like? I mean, you aren't exactly driving with your windows (or convertible top) down, wind in the hair, hoping for a lavender-scented breeze, all the time. Especially not in Michigan where the warm weather season is short-lived. Of course, I'm not quite sure this is how the tires work...my understanding is the scent is released when rubber comes off your tire. So do you only smell it when you slam on your brakes in a hard stop? My guess is most women won't be doing burnouts to fill their car with a lavender smell...

As proof these tires are actually available in stores, my friend Stacy just had her tires replaced and reported they had these in a glass case at a Bell Tire store. At $120-$140 a tire...a person could spend $500 pops outfitting their car. With that said...and knowing that women motorists tend to prefer cargo room and convenience to car gadgets (see studies like the one recently released by http://www.leasetrader.com/), I wonder how they're selling. Does this tire company think women (who they're targeting the product at) are idiots? As a woman, I personally feel like the compay is insulting my intelligence. Do they take me for a dizzy blonde whose only wants in a car are for it to be pretty and purple and smell like lavender (are we picturing Sugar Plum Fairies flying around in this dream too?)?

So although I give Kumho props for disruptive innovation, I wonder if they were thinking of (or sniffing) too many laundry detergent/fabric softeners when they came up with this. I mean, I could see a potential market for lavender-scented rubber floor mats. The technology definitely has the potential to be cool or desirable...just in another product form. So I guess the lesson learned here is make sure you have a clear understanding of your target customer before putting something out there on the market and heavily advertising it. Because right now, scented tires sound like a push versus pull strategy to me.

In case you wonder what Kumho's press release said, see below. And if anyone has a copy of their scented-tire market research report...I'd love to see it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Press Release
KUMHO Introduces World's First "Aroma Tire" For Select Passenger Vehicles
U.S. market will carry limited inventory of orange, lavender and jasmine scents

Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. — KUMHO Tire USA, announces the introduction of the world’s first fragrance automotive tire, the ECSTA DX. The project is the “fruition” of more than a year’s worth of research and development to deliver an alluring aroma tire that replaces the normal “black rubber” smell with heat-resistant oils in the scent of lavender, and in later versions, neroli (orange) or jasmine. Visitors to www.kumhotireusa.com can find the nearest dealer and TireRack.com will ship them for installation.

According to Rick Brennan, Brand Director for KUMHO, the company is selling the DX aroma tire to help build brand awareness and highlight KUMHO’s tire technology expertise in the highly competitive automotive marketplace. The tire is targeted at female consumers who drive such sedans as the Honda Accord, Toyota Camry, Subaru Outback, Chrysler Sebring and Ford Taurus.

In addition to a unique aroma, the ECSTA DX is engineered to deliver low noise levels and ride characteristics on par with the leading tire brands. Ride comfort is maintained throughout the life of the tire through the use of tread elements designed to provide uniform linear stiffness. Optimized pitch sequence and variable pitch lengths help minimize noise, while a straight center rib provides high-speed stability.

The DX features four wide grooves that help evacuate water, while a silica compound improves all-weather performance and wet traction. High tensile steel belts and a jointless nylon cap ply also help improve noise, ride comfort and durability, while an undertread reduces unwanted heat buildup for consistent performance.

The ECSTA DX Aroma tire will be sold through TireRack.com starting in the first quarter of 2007 in three sizes: 205/60R16 (MSRP $119), 215/60R16 (MSRP $125) and 235/60R16 (MSRP $138). The tires can be delivered and affixed to passenger vehicles at a KUMHO tire dealer.

About KUMHO

Established in 1960, KUMHO TIRE CO., INC., of Seoul, South Korea, had 2005 sales of $2.2 billion. KUMHO manufactures and distributes a complete line of tires for passenger cars, light trucks and heavy-duty trucks. KUMHO has manufacturing facilities in Korea and China and operates technical centers in Birmingham, England, and Akron, Ohio. For more information, visit the KUMHO TIRE USA Web site at www.kumhotire.com.

Weber Grills

2007-10-29T20:59:00.000-07:00

I recently took a class on leveraging industrial design in marketing. Throughout the course, I was responsible for analyzing several brands and their product line-ups...basically discussing what design cues the brand was leveraging to help convey the brand image. One of the brands I investigated was Weber. In doing so, I discovered they have an important cue they are not leveraging - their iconic kettle grill design.

So...What Is A Weber?

On its website, Weber invites its customer to “barbeque with a legend.” The iconic kettle design of the brand’s charcoal grills have been satisfying consumers for generations. Since 1951, the kettle’s reputation for durability, quality cooking, and simplicity has given it a cult-like following amongst serious grillers.

After moving into gas grills and specialty products, like smokers, outdoor fireplaces, and portable grills, Weber claims to have the “right barbeque for the job,” offering professional-style grills to fit every need and budget. It relies on having easy to assemble designs and claims even its portable models are able to deliver flavor like their larger grill models. Besides fitting every budget, Weber’s grills are very accessible. They are available at major home improvement stores (Home Depot, Lowe’s), online, and major retailers like Sears, Wal-mart, etc.

What Is Weber Actually Communicating To Customers?

Weber’s charcoal grills have the most distinctive style out of all of its product offerings. The apple-shaped kettle grill is iconic and for years has been the primary image associated with the Weber name. Its round curves, clean lines and polished enamel tones, speak of simplicity, friendliness, and honesty. The sturdy metal shell and plain, but strong, tripod legs make it sturdy and confident. This is a grill on which a customer will not hesitate to cook an entire chicken or enough hamburgers for a neighborhood gathering. Weber relies on the recognition of their charcoal grill design. As proof, the brand uses the kettle as logo, design accent, and primary cooking surface at the Weber grill restaurants.

Although the kettle design is distinctive, in looking at Weber’s overall product line-up, there’s a hodgepodge of design cues. It makes me wonder...what does Weber think it's communicating to its customer? Unfortunately, when Weber decided to go into propane grills and specialty markets, they lost almost all of the elements the iconic kettle. It is strange Weber decided to do this since the charcoal grills supposedly have superior cooking characteristics in part due to their round shape.

In the propane market, Weber seems to be following the lead of other grill makers and thus, its grills get lost in the crowd. Here, Weber does try to differentiate itself from other products other than sometimes offering grill “top hats” in muted, primary tones like blue and red instead of the typical black, gray or stainless steel. Customers visiting stores or viewing products online will have a hard time differentiating between a Weber and any other gas grill (Charbroil, Kenmore, etc.) since the grill possesses the same flat, double doors, slightly slanted lid, and squared off sides and back. The HMI is typically the same as all other grills with knobs to turn up/down the heat and a handle to open the grill lid. To a Weber enthusiast the Weber gas designs don’t meet brand expectations. They are simply boring. They don’t say “Weber.” By looking like everyone else, customers surely have to wonder if the grill truly is just like every other brand. What's special about it?

Looking at the rest of Weber’s product line-up, there are only a few hints back to the iconic kettle design. The smoker has some round characteristics, but is not much different than other smokers on the market. The outdoor fireplace is a squatty, tripod-like product that has much more angular lines than the round icon, making it appear a little less friendly. One of Weber’s latest “specialty” product offerings, however, does lend a nod to the kettle. This product is the “Q,” a cute, hermit crab-like, portable grill. Although taking on some round qualities characteristic of a Weber, it’s still missing some of the puffed roundness of the original design, making it comes across as more modern and perhaps less tough/ masculine.

So...What Should Weber Do To Change?
Weber’s propane grill design is positioned the furthest away from the icon associated with the brand’s name – the kettle. Right now, the propane grill looks like a copy-cat. It doesn’t stand out from other grill designs and is a watered down shape that probably no one loves and no one hates. It is unemotional. My suggestion is for Weber to redesign the top hat of their propane grill to reflect back on the brand’s history and reputation for superior cooking.

Brand = Critical

2007-09-27T10:25:00.000-07:00

Yes, "marketeers," you believe you have a crystal-clear definition of your brand. After all, you went through the process to define your target customer and even created a brand “bullseye” to illustrate your brand’s promise. In fact, because of this, you know your brand wants to be friendly, accessible, and affordable. It should appeal to 18-25 year-old, early-adopters, who are still living at home but might attend college. You have a definition...yes, it's a good start. But...there's a catch. What is your brand actually communicating to customers? What does your product design -or- distribution strategy -or- price point -or- packaging -or advertising campaign make your customers think? And are you using consistent enough cues across your product line-up? Can customers look at a product and instantly know it belongs to your brand? Do you even know what people think you stand for?

So why is your brand image important? I would argue that the image your brand conveys is the reason your company is selling products (or not) and why you even exist in the market place. Your brand image is what customers base their assumptions about your products upon. And if you aren't consistent in your message or your message is a little “off,” customers will get confused, and chances are they won't be loyal. Why should you be concerned? In the current marketplace, there are so many options out there, unless you lack competition in your category, it's pretty easy for the customer to just walk away. And for companies, one customer walking can have significant impact. Why? In this age of internet research and social networking, we are very willing to share our opinions. Customers are more likely than ever to write about negative customer service experiences or product issues, write product reviews, share information about product modifications that they’ve done, take photos of products and upload them to websites, etc. If we do something wrong, a lot of people are going to find out about it. Market research and understanding our customers and what they want should be easy these days. We don't have to seek out customers; instead, they seek out us. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. I mean, let's be honest...there's a lot of junk out there on retailer shelves. I guess this just proves that most companies still have a lot to learn.

We are all customers. But being in business, we often tend to forget about things. We discount our opinions about our own products, because we are too close to them -and- know too much about how they work. We tend to say “Well, I am a product expert. Most of our customers won’t care about this.” We still don't get it. Many of us are stuck in an age where cost means the most and we don't seem to think customers will pay for a better experience -or- for a better product. We know what the customers want, better than they do, don't we? (Do we actually listen to ourselves when we say that? We sound like idiots!). We're stuck in a mindset of fear. Fear of the costs associated to taking risks. Yet we don't seem to notice that due to our risk-adverse nature, our products get watered down - and - so do our brands.

So why did I decide to start a marketing blog called “Brand Critical?” While working on my MBA at Ross, I found I really enjoyed deep-diving companies and their products, especially investigating areas within the marketing realm. I liked assessing what companies were doing wrong (and right) and making recommendations for change. Finishing up my degree, I knew I wouldn’t have class projects to work on any longer...so that's where "Brand Critical" comes into play.