Branding is relational, not transactional. It's about retention, not acquisition. I work with companies and governments to identify and develop the strategies required to build the relationships that ensure ongoing branding success.
I call it data driven branding & it should not be confused with creative driven branding.
I'm also a rugby nut & devoted family man, probably in that order, but don't tell my wife!
Whether we like it or not – and despite the fact that there are 500 million Twitter users of whom 200 million are active users, far too many companies refuse to take Twitter seriously. Preferring instead to continue to use traditional channels – Twitter is an increasingly important tool for brand building.
It allows firms to distribute real time content to people that are interested in that content. It provides access to celebrities and other people of (significant) influence.
It also allows brands to lay the foundations for and build stronger business relationships, address negative issues in a transparent manner and thereby improve customer service and help retain customers that could have been lost.
But one of the drawbacks of Twitter is not knowing when and when not to use it. Not any more. Thanks to this excellent infographic from linchpinseo you can time your tweets to perfection!
The issue or issues I have with positioning are well documented in this blog.
But I still get a lot of resistance when I try to explain to companies that they are wasting their money relying on advertising agencies to manage their brands by developing a positioning strategy.
This is because another issue that is increasingly relevant is the fact that it takes time to develop a position, strategise it and then communicate it, normally across traditional media channels.
Please, not more messages!
In a (reluctant) nod to the Internet and Social Media, agencies are beginning to use online channels (whilst online advertising is growing, I don’t think it is growing fast enough and one reason is because agencies can’t control it or rather it is too transparent) but they are using these channels in the same way as they use traditional media, ie trying to broadcast a position to as many people as possible.
Developing a position was alright in a ‘mono’ world such as the early to end 20th Century USA or in Europe where many of marketing’s traditional tools and tactics were developed.
Indeed, before commercial flights, mass migration of peoples, national TV and newspapers as well as a more localised population and limited competition, such a model had legs and made sense.
It was also easier to find those USPs – remember when quality was a USP? – imagine trying to build a brand on a product that wasn’t high quality. OK, Microsoft did it but there are always exceptions to every rule!
As Glen Myatt said in his response to one of my blog postings (read his reply in full here) Quote, “With the myriad touchpoints available to brands now, a better way of thinking about what a brand should represent is what its story is rather than what its positioning is.
This is beyond benefits and personality to its values, what it believes in, its purpose in ‘the world’, its ambition.
The result is usually a unique combination of associations rather than a single unique association. (For instance, some may argue Apple is positioned on simple & intuitive technology while others fall back on its creative values of ‘thinking differently’. Both of these are valid as are the myriad other associations that make up the Apple story).
A brand story is typically not single-minded though it often has a central theme. In this respect positioning as a single ownable thought that can be packaged in a 30 second television spot is probably redundant.
As the idea of a unique, ownable story it is alive and well. And companies need to have and steer those stories even as their customers may also be shaping them. As the saying goes, “If you don’t know what you stand for you’ll fall for anything”. End quote.
With 2 exceptions, I agree with What Glen says.
The first exception I have is that I don’t think Apple is positioned. I think it produces great products, tells a great story, creates a great experience and then lets consumers define the brand. In other words, it offers economic, experiential and emotional value to consumers and on their terms (it makes mistakes but generally addresses those mistakes in a transparent, emotional, fair and collaborative manner). It is very human in its approach. Unfamiliar corporate territory but in the social economy, branding dynamite.
Which leads onto my second exception. I don’t believe you can create a unique ownable story and then develop it into a position. And knowing what you stand for doesn’t equate to a position. Those are corporate values. Perhaps there is an overlap…
Going back to my original point, not many companies have the time, or for that matter the resources to go through what is traditionally required to build a brand.
The days of broadcasting a corporate driven message are over
I believe that instead they should focus on delivering economic, experiential and emotional value to customers and on their terms. And do this in a transparent, human, personal, collaborative manner. Everything else will fall into place.
I came across a remarkable story about how a brand failed to deliver on its promise and the result of that failure. You can read the full story here
In a nutshell, it’s the story of a gamers attempt to buy an add-on for video game console controllers. The tool, known as the Avenger and invented by N-Control was announced in November 2011, word soon spread across social media and demand went through the roof.
After ordering 2 of the controllers, the gamer was told it would ship in early December 2011 however by the middle of the month he had heard nothing so emailed the president of marketing to enquire as to the shipping date and was told it would ship a day later than announced.
Unfortunately it didn’t. Then it was announced that anyone ordering the controller after December 26th would get a US$10 discount however, those who had ordered before December 26th and had still not received their controllers were not entitled to the discount.
By this stage the gamer was getting a bit annoyed and emailed the firm asking if he cancelled his original order, could he then qualify for the US$10 discount (don’t forget he’s ordered 2 of them).
The firm came back with this statement, “Feel free to cancel we need the units we’re back ordered 11,000 units so your 2 will be gone fast. Maybe I’ll put them on eBay for 150.00 myself. Have a good day Dan.”
By this stage the gamer was seething so he wrote again to the President of marketing but this time copied the email to organisers of major gaming conventions in the US. Amazingly the President of marketing responded by calling the gamer childish, laughing at his complaints, and dropping the names of numerous gaming conventions that they intended to attend, one of which was organised by the very company the email was CCd to.
The organiser took the side of the gamer and banned the company from taking a booth at their gaming convention. Then the story was posted online and went viral and this is when it really hit the fan. Because of the power of Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and others the story even crashed the site it originated from! You can see more information on how it went viral here
Soon after N-Control fired the President of marketing and made a US$10,000 donation to charity.
What lessons can be learned from such an event?
Promises made must be kept. If you don’t prepare to feel the wrath of the consumer.
Make sure the people who represent your brand live the brand.
N-Control is on the defensive and maybe for some time. It didn’t need to be in this situation. Know how to use the Internet.
Be careful when you offer discounts. Consumers who have paid pre discount rates expect value. If you don’t deliver, offer the discount to those who kick started your sales.
I believe that an event such as this may not bring down a brand but it could be extremely expensive and the fall out for N-Control will last for years. If they come up with a sub standard product they will really struggle.
And such an event can certainly cost people their jobs and quite possibly, as more and more employers trawl the Internet for information on potential hires, their careers.
It’s well documented how numerous companies waste huge amounts of money on ineffective advertising. Generally the advertising is ineffective because it is poorly written, isn’t tested or has been developed to appeal to as many vastly different segments as possible.
This is especially true of country brands. If I had £1 for every ‘me too’ destination advertisement that I’ve seen on TV, heard on radio or seen on a website, I’d be a rich man. Time and time again I see beautifully executed ads for destinations such as Thailand, Egypt, Malta, Malaysia, Bali and others that are all selling the same things – beautiful white sandy beaches, crystal clear waters and cloudless blue skies.
These ads are pushed out across traditional media in the hope that enough people will see them, buy into them and eventually visit the country. If the campaign doesn’t work (and no one knows whether they work or not), the agency is generally sacked, a new one appointed and the whole process starts again.
Basically this model uses Hope as a strategy – hope the timing is right, hope it will be seen, hope it will be liked, hope it will be remembered, hope it will influence viewers enough to reject previous choices, hope the destination will be researched, hope the inevitable competitors that are seen at the same time will not influence viewers, hope this and hope that.
But it doesn’t need to be like that anymore. In the social media era, when consumers not countries define brands and the Internet provides copius amounts of information from other like minded consumers to help influence the decision making process, destinations need to be reaching out across this channel and leveraging consumer produced media to market themselves.
This approach requires a massive mindset change and will revolutionise the traditional organisational hierarchy but it has to start soon or destinations will lose the increasingly brutal competition for heads in beds.
To illustrate this point, I came across one video that is an outstanding advertisement for Kuala Lumpur, the capital of Malaysia. It didn’t cost the Malaysian Tourism Board a penny and is a far better advertisement than any advertising agency produced Television Commercial.
Tourism Malaysia needs to have a community team scouring the web for such content and must then distribute such content across multiple channels to generate buzz and interest. This content will allow destinations to engage directly with influencers and other consumers in a way that traditional media does not allow them to.
This really is an impressive video. I suspect that after you watch it, Malaysia will go to the top of your list of must visit destinations.
As the XLVIII Superbowl kicks off in New Orleans, attention turns to the numerous (some would say infuriatingly repetitive) commercials that can cost up to US$4 million (RM12 million) for a thirty second slot – that’s just for the airtime, not the production and other costs.
I’ve had a look at this year’s ads and (no surprises here) amongst other things, there will be beer, cars, singing fish, beer, coke (a bit of controversy around that one, well not really if you are a sensible, well rounded human being but a little bit of controversy, contrived or not does generate more column inches as well as a bit of consumer participation getting into that site during the game will be a challenge) pepsi, sports illustrated models, cowboys, cars and a liberal dash of humour to hold your attention (But no Visa this year).
Of course most people outside the US don’t get to see the ads as they get local content which if, like me you live in Malaysia that means the same Astro trailer repeated a gazillion times.
But anyway, if you would like to see what the best creative talent in the world is doing to get the attention of consumers in the US, watch all the superbowl ads by visiting here
However, if you don’t have more than US$4 million to spend on a TV slot during the superbowl or think you could spend the money more effectively elsewhere or you just like more accountability when it comes to your marketing budget, then have a look at this article at Digiday that gives you an idea of what US$4 million gets you if you take your campaign online.
One of the less mainstream online newspapers carried a scathing attack on Sabah Tourism Board today. You can read the article here
The paper carried extensive comments from a local activist who slammed the State government for recording what he called a ‘paltry’ 1.1% growth in arrivals for 2012 and blames this growth on a lack of planning.
I’ve worked to develop the tourism brand in Malaysia at both the federal level and with some of the State tourism boards and I have to say that although I have not worked with Sabah, from a distance, I think Sabah tourism is one of the most accomplished State tourism boards in Malaysia.
I do know that the State has invested in Tourism infrasture and although it has made some mistakes (name me a country, State or region that hasn’t), the Sabah Tourism Board appears to have worked hard to develop the industry and attract visitors to the State.
However, I do agree that a well thought out short, medium and long term plan that is flexible enough to react to the dynamic world today that focusses on delivering economic, experiential and emotional value (and not ‘me too’ advertising campaigns that do nothing more than waste valuable funds) is key to delivering a destination that not only survives but thrives. And as far as I know, not one State in Malaysia has a clearly defined brand strategy going forward.
One other issue that Sabah and Malaysia in general face is the lack of new products in the state and indeed in the country. Many of the visitors to competitor destinations return year after year because there are new products, opportunities and more.
In the face of growing regional and international competition and the changing tourism demographics that will see tourists from India and China looking for more than a beach resort with a well stocked bar, States such as Sabah and countries like Malaysia will have to invest in new products otherwise any growth, however low will soon turn into a decline.
You need to spend time creating a position that is driven by the corporation.
Once created, the position must be communicate across traditional media (with a nod toward social media, but a nod only) to as many people as possible and hope that some of it sticks.
If it doesn’t, create a new position and repeat ad nauseum. Hopefully you will get it right. If you don’t, well you can always discount. This model was developed by Jack Trout in the 1970s. I wrote a blog post about it here
Sadly, despite US$1.5 trillion spent annually on marketing, 70% of today’s manufactured goods will be obsolete in six years (Industry Week magazine). There are estimated to be more than 30,000 new product introductions in the US alone every year, and that’s just in the packaged goods market. According to AC Nielsen, up to 90% of products fail to become brands. This means that as many as 27,000 of those new products will fail.
Today’s consumer has changed the way he lives his life and moreover, markets are so fluid, spending time developing a position and watching your competitors is the fastest route to business oblivion.
The key to success is the sales force and their ability to build your business through collaborations and by matching products/services to individual customer requirements for value and then maintaining those relationships and your brand communities team who develop brand evangelists and influence influencers.
And with social media and modern technology, that is not difficult. A lot less difficult than creating a position and pinning all your hopes on, well hope.
This is a great ad for Windows 8 from Microsoft Portugal (stick around for the ending) but it’s a corporate driven message and in the social economy, consumers no longer believe or trust corporate driven messages.
On seeing this ad, the first thing most consumers will do is search the net for more information. I did and I came across an interview in the Verge with Gabe Newell, Chief Executive of gaming company Valve who called Windows 8 ‘A great sadness’. He said Windows 8 is ‘inoperable’ and ‘it just hurts everybody in the PC business’.
He went on to add, ‘Rather than everybody being all excited to go buy a new PC and buying new software to run on it, we’ve had a 20% plus decline in PC sales.’
Consumers have been equally disappointed. One commented on extreme tech, “I’ve had win 8 on a desktop since last February and everything you do takes as many as 3 extra steps compared to win7, everything from shutting down to closing a program or web page is unduly complicated. This is by far the worst windows ever and I have been using windows since 1981.”
In December, MIT professor Philip Greenspun said the new operating system was a “Christmas gift for someone you hate.” Although Greenspun liked some of the apps, he hammered just about every aspect of Microsoft’s new software, noting that ‘Microsoft had since October 2008 to study Android and since June 2007 to study the iPhone and its OS, but still couldn’t build a usable tablet experience.’
Late last year Microsoft announced that it had sold 40 million Windows 8 licenses in the first month of sales which began at the end of October 2012. It’s unclear whether those licenses were sold to customers or retailers or how many were upgrades and new purchases.
Microsoft spent $1.6 billion in fiscal 2012 (its year ends in June) on advertising, $1.9 billion in 2011, and $1.6 billion in 2010. Prior to that the firm spent $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2006, $1.3 billion in fiscal 2007 and $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2008.
Despite spending these phenomenal amounts on advertising, according to IDC, Goldman Sachs Research Microsoft’s share of the consumer market has nosedived from 95% to 20% in the last 8 years.
My bet is that Microsoft will find it hard to sustain those early Windows 8 sales if trade and consumer reviews continue to lambast Windows 8.
And no matter how much the firm spends on advertising and no matter how creative or well executed is the advertising, if the product doesn’t work properly, Microsoft’s share of the PC operating market will continue to plummet.
brandconsultantasia.com 