Category: brands

Despite falling sales, Volvo still trying to use advertising to build its brand

Published on by brandconsultantasia6 Comments

Sadly, too many firms believe, or are led to believe that the way to build a brand is through advertising or, more specifically a series of advertising campaigns that are ever more creative, cutting edge, out of the box, off the wall or any other cool catch phrase your agency cares to throw at you.

If the budget is large enough, and it seems too many companies have too much money to play with and no accountability as to how it is spent, then the best thing the agency can do is buy lots of expensive TV air time, ‘wraparounds’ for publications, preferably daily newspapers because lots of people read them so the eyeballs will be high, above the fold pop ups on websites and lots of other expensive high profile spots.

Of course no advertising campaign would be complete without a couple of high profile billboards in high traffic areas to create awareness of the product with as many people as possible, irrespective of who they are and whether they are interested in or can afford the product.

Volvo is the latest automotive brand to launch yet another new car with a creative campaign across at least print and digital media. This latest campaign expects us to believe that a Volvo is hiding a beast inside.

Are we really going to believe there is a beast inside a Volvo?
This is no longer safe, now it is wicked. Or maybe it is safe and wicked!

The above the fold digital campaign is being used to launch the new V60, T4 and T5 range and features intrusive hover or pop out ads on The Malaysian Insider and possibly other news sites. Interestingly, once the Volvo ad on The Malaysian Insider closes, there is an expandable ad for BMW beneath it!

Back in early 2010, Volvo ran a new creative campaign for the new Volvo V50 with the tagline, “There’s more to life with Volvo.” Later that same month Volvo ran another campaign featuring a man and a woman wearing parkas sitting in a pile of snow and staring at a snow covered landscape (don’t forget we’re in Malaysia which sits pretty much on the equator!) with the headline, “Volvo owners get more out of life.”

Even more confusingly, at the time there was a Volvo billboard outside my office with the tagline, “Winner of fuel efficiency award.”

In 2011, Volvo launched a new version of the S60. This time they encouraged us to “get naughty with it.” The ad claimed there are ‘naughty cars everywhere’ and that ‘naughty cars go everywhere’. The box ad features the price of the car and two links to either get naughty with the car or test drive it.

You can read more about this campaign in my post of last year which is here.

The fact of the matter is that these campaigns are not working. In 1999 Volvo sold 642 cars in Malaysia. In 2009 Volvo sold 550 cars. In the same year, Peugeot sold 1,258, VW 885, Mazda 1,444, BMW 3,564 and just to put things into perspective, Toyota sold 81,784 in the same period.

In 2010 Volvo sales increased to 839 but this was below the target of 1,100 set by the CEO. And in the same period, VW sold almost 4 times as many cars (2,810) as the year before. Mazda increased sales from 1,444 in 2009 to an impressive 4,325 in 2010. Even Peugeot increased sales from 1,258 in 2009 to 2,562 in 2010. Mazda and Peugeot do very little advertising in Malaysia.

So these creative new campaigns are obviously not working. So what should Volvo do?

1) Develop a plan to identify and target the right consumers
2) Create content that will resonate with your consumers. Better still, get consumers to generate the content.
3) Separare the acquisition strategy from the retention strategy
4) Integrate all activities across all platforms don’t just launch ad hoc tactical campaigns and hope they work. They aren’t.
5) Invest more in sales and post sales communications
6) Volvos are safe, they can’t be safe and wicked. We like the fact they are safe but we appreciate you want to attract new segments but please, keep it real or you will lose existing segments and not attract new ones.

Implementation of any creative campaign should take into account the fact that consumers are no longer impressed with well executed, high quality, brand driven commercials. Because they don’t believe what they read anymore. In Malaysia 86% of participants in a survey said they no longer believe what they read in advertisements.

A brand can no longer rely simply on ads to sell products. An integrated brand strategy is crucial to successful branding. With a recession coming, Volvo needs to get it right and get it right soon.

By the way, whilst Volvo is trying to tell us the Volvo is actually a beast and that a Volvo is wicked, Volkswagen is pushing it’s park assist in Europe. Have a look at this enjoyable <a href="

Volkswagen – Tiguan – Park Assist II (ENG) from AlmapBBDO Internet on Vimeo.

” target=”_blank”>video made for iPad.

Why it pays to build a brand

Published on by brandconsultantasiaLeave a comment

As they enter the season of contract negotiations, many Asian and Malaysian firms are finding their margins squeezed by the Western brands for which they manufacture products.

As they go through this painful process, the question of whether they should explore the possibility of developing their own brands will come to the fore once again.

It is well known of course that the cost of building a brand can be substantial but failure rates are high too – as high as 90% according to Ernst & Young.

But the rewards of developing a brand successfully are difficult to ignore and Apple is considered by many to be the poster boy of successful branding.

Almost bankrupt 15 years ago Apple’s stock reached US$369.89 in August 2011 when its market capitalisation hit US$342.8 billion. This put the tech superpower ahead of the previous richest company Exxon, whose stock fell to US$68.78 with a market cap of US$334.41 billion.

Although Apple only held the position of richest company in the world for a short time, it was some achievement.

The demand for Apple products continues and the company sold four million of the iPhone 4S in the first four days after the launch in November 2011.

Such demand allows the company to charge a premium for its products. But how much profit does Apple make on iPhones and is it really beneficial to build a brand?

A recent report from technology research firm iSuppli would suggest the answer is a definate yes.

iSuppli has carried out extensive research and recently announced that a 16GB iPhone 4S costs US$196 (RM616) to make whilst the 64GB costs US$245 RM770).

In the UK the iPhone 4S costs UK pounds 499 or RM2,520 out of contract. The iPhone 4S is not on sale in Malaysia yet but in Singapore an out of contract 16GB iPhone 4S will cost S$948 (RM2,526) and the 64GB will cost S$1,088 (RM2,669).

Nice margins indeed!

Individual component costs of an iPhone

Google+ Brand Pages is another critical social media tool for corporate brands

Published on by brandconsultantasiaLeave a comment

Back in June 2011, Google launched Google+ to counter the increasingly powerful and influential Facebook. According to Google, 40 million people have signed up for Google+ which equates to about 8 million new users a month. Not a bad effort but a long way to go to reach the 800 million Facebook users.

The launch of Google+ saw a number of complaints from consumers, especially related to applications whose functionality was changed or users being forced to give up pseudonyms to continue sharing.

Corporations also complained because they were unable to connect and build relationships with consumers, something they have been able to do and do successfully on Facebook.

Some companies did try to create business pages on Google+ but they were rejected, with a request to wait.

Well the wait is over with the launch today of Google+ Brand Pages. Now firms can connect and engage with consumers through corporate pages. Although Google+ Brand Pages doesn’t operate that differently from Facebook, it will have to form a part of any corporation’s social media strategy.

One neat feature not available on Facebook is Google+ Direct Connect. Simply by putting “+” in front of a brand’s name before making a Google search, will ensure searchers are directed to the firms Google+ page.

Google’s open approach also means that a brand can now have a business page that is integrated with Google search, Ad words, Google places and YouTube.

Critically, I also expect Google+ profiles to have a significant impact on Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) and search results. And once Google starts to provide metrics for pages via Google analytics, we may see Facebook’s crown slip.

Isn’t it time you valued – not measured — customer satisfaction?

Published on by brandconsultantasiaLeave a comment

Recently I’ve met a couple of companies who couldn’t explain why they implemented a customer satisfaction survey and how they used the results! I hope this is the exception, not the rule.

If you’ve carried out a customer satisfaction survey, you probably did it because you want to deliver great customer service and believe the satisfaction survey will give you something to benchmark future results against. If this is the case, you are not alone.

Many companies regularly measure customer satisfaction. They send out surveys or call asking questions about satisfaction with service, product usage and more. Most people will have encountered the satisfaction survey at the bank counter that encourages immediate responses, the results of which can impact the manager’s bonus.

Others may have received a call from a car workshop after a service or an email from an online service provider.

But, unfortunately, the results of such measurement are unactionable. That means customer satisfaction surveys do a poor job of linking cause and effect.

As an example, a traditional survey might ask, “How satisfied were you with the product/service?” And then give 5 options from “Very satisfied” to “Very dissatisfied” but where’s the cause and effect?

If customers are dissatisfied with the product, what caused it? Was it a poor sales or other service experience? Or was it because the teller gave the wrong information? An unfair ‘returns policy’? Complexity? A lack of add-ons?

Part of a typical satisfaction survey, how measureable are the results?

Many customer satisfaction surveys measure the wrong activity at the wrong time, often with the wrong customers. If a walk in customer to a branch of a bank is a frequent visitor who takes up a lot of time making withdrawals or engaging expensive, trained personnel with minor transactions, should the bank care if they are satisfied or not?

Another failing of customer satisfaction surveys is that they are divorced from the costs of satisfaction. Yes, customers can be satisfied, but do you really want to satisfy every customer no matter what it costs?

Many organizations apparently do and some think good satisfaction scores are considered more important than profits. At least one Malaysian firm boasts of “exceeding expectations.” Not unexpectedly, setting the satisfaction bar so high inevitably leads to excessive expenses, hurting profitability.

And it is also misleading. According to Frederick Reichheld, writing in the influential Harvard Business School publication, 90% of industry customers report that they are satisfied or very satisfied. Impressive figures but why is it then that repeat purchases remain in the 30% – 40% range? Surely if so many customers are satisfied, shouldn’t they be making repeat purchases?

But most telling of all, in numerous surveys, 60% – 80% of customers have reported they are happy with service, before moving to a competitor!

Harvard Business Review - even completely satisfied customers can leave

Another issue with satisfaction is that as consumers become more empowered, the less likely they are to be satisfied. According to a survey by Accenture and the Marketing Society, the percentage of people whose ‘expectations of service quality are frequently or always met’ declined from 53% in 2007 to 40% in 2009. If this trend continues, it is unlikely that expectations will ever be met and therefore, what is the relevance of a satisfaction survey?

Companies can also influence or manipulate satisfaction scores with the timing of the questions. For instance, if an airline upgrades a traveler from economy to business class on a long haul flight and then calls the next day to ask if the passenger was satisfied will produce a predictable answer.

What you really want to do is to value satisfaction, not measure it. Valuing satisfaction means putting an actual cost figure on the satisfaction that is required to keep a customer as a customer.

After all, you spend large amounts of money on advertising, sales and other branding tactics to acquire a customer and then when you do acquire him, you ask if he is satisfied with the service. Wouldn’t it make sense to know why he became a customer and what it will take to keep him as a customer?

The importance of keeping a customer as a customer is ignored in almost all satisfaction surveys. Yet why would you want to satisfy a customer if 60% – 80% are likely to defect to a competitor with the next purchase?

Companies committed to growing profitability instead of expenses are already making the move to valuing satisfaction.

One of the first companies was Starbucks. Starbucks prides itself in providing a unique customer experience. In many ways, its brand is based on this customer experience. But Starbucks success meant longer queues that created unhappy customers. So, to ensure continued growth, Starbucks sought to measure satisfaction with the customer experience.

Starbucks strives to deliver value

Starbucks decided to talk to customers. Its customer research discovered that the average “unsatisfied” customer stuck with the company for a little more than one year, made 47 visits to its stores during that period and spent a total of approximately US$200. Not bad, really, for an “unsatisfied” customer.

But look at the value of a “satisfied” customer. The average “highly satisfied” Starbucks customer patronized the chain for more than eight years, made almost double the amount of visits (86) per year and spent over US$3,000 over that average eight-year time frame.

What was the primary difference between “unsatisfied” and “highly satisfied” customers? The amount of time the customer had to wait in line. Now that Starbucks knew the value of satisfaction, it could make the appropriate financial decisions.

Indeed, once the connection was made between marketing metric and financial outcome, calculating the investment and its potential payoff became easier. Based on Starbucks’ estimate, marketing would have to invest US$40 million annually worldwide to sufficiently reduce wait times and help convert those unsatisfied customers into highly satisfied ones. That’s no small amount, even for Starbucks.

If you were the CEO of Starbucks, what would you have done?

Actually, the data made the decision quite easy. Since the research had shown that each highly satisfied customer was worth US$3,000 over eight years and each unsatisfied customer was worth US$200 for one year, all Starbucks had to do was calculate the discounted cash flow and determine how many customers must be converted from unsatisfied to satisfied customers to generate the US$40 million in incremental revenue needed to cover the investment. The calculation revealed that Starbucks would rapidly recover its investment in satisfaction.

So take a close look at your own customer satisfaction surveys. Are they just telling you how “happy” customers are at a particular time and place and based on a specific transaction? Or do they provide actionable data about customer value?

Do they let you know their standards for product and service performance? Do they let you know how customers hold you accountable? Do they provide data that lets you make financial investments in customers that will bring the greatest financial return?

What’s needed today – and unfortunately is missing among companies that depend on creativity to build their brand – is a correlation between marketing metrics and financial outcomes.

Don’t limit your bottom line with feel-good customer satisfaction surveys that just look at customer good will. Instead, measure the value of their satisfaction. The result will not only tell you the causes of their satisfaction or dissatisfaction, but, much more importantly, provide the hard financial data to determine what to do about it.

Malaysian SMEs must start to build brands

Published on by brandconsultantasia3 Comments

This article first appeared in the 28th October 2011 issue of the Malaysian Reserve.

The recent budget and the implications of the budget are still being debated but what is clear is that the government is trying to help SMEs.

As part of the budget, the prime minister announced a RM100 million SME Revitalisation Fund for entrepreneurs who have tried and failed. The goal of the fund is to give those entrepreneurs the chance to get up and have another go.

SMEs are the engine room of countless economies and crucial to the development of many countries. In Malaysia the percentage contribution of SMEs to the nation’s Gross Domestic Product is 47.3%. This compares favourably to the larger economies of China (60%), Japan (55.3%) and Korea (50%).

One of the reasons Malaysian SMEs have stayed relevant is because most of them have been nimble and adaptable, making the change from primary industries such as agriculture and mining up until 1990 to an industrialized economy that saw manufacturing becoming the leading growth sector over the last 20 years.

However, many of those SMEs that made the move from commodities to manufacturing succeeded because they were able to compete on price. And with low labour and other costs, Malaysian made products were attractive and demand was constant. This also encouraged FDI.

But talk to any Malaysian manufacturing SME and you will most likely find that over the last 20 years, with few exceptions, every new contract negotiation with the companies they have supplied clothing or equipment to has resulted in their being forced to lower their price. Margins, with a few exceptions are down to less than 4%.

Despite relationships that may span as many as 20 years, loyalty is non existent and, despite vague promises of long term relationships, business is now being lost to Cambodia, China, Indonesia and Vietnam.

Hardly surprising when average factory wages in Malaysia are 250% higher than in Cambodia, 200% higher than in Vietnam, 160% higher than in Indonesia and even 40% higher than in China. Worse of all, as a contract manufacturer for a third party, Malaysian manufacturers have no knowledge of their consumers and little chance of finding new business.

As FDI and even local investment in manufacturing has dried up as brand owners seek less expensive locations, Malaysian SMEs are now fighting for their survival and whilst the SME revitalization fund is an important step to help those who have failed, Malaysian SMEs will need to develop more strategic ways to differentiate themselves.

One obvious way for SMEs to do this is to build brands. Yet the majority of Malaysian SMEs ignore the importance of branding. But competition, accentuated by AFTA and China’s entry into the WTO means that if they do not begin to brand, they will not be able to compete. The long term reliance on cost to differentiate, driven by historical experience in commodities and the fact that Malaysia was a cheap manufacturing base, will no longer suffice.

The irony is that Many Malaysian SMEs have done the hard part. Malaysian SMEs are already capable but are yet to sell their capabilities to the world. A major investment in branding will allow Malaysian SMEs to leverage substantial advances in quality manufacturing, workforce productivity, logistics and efficiency.

Malaysian SMEs already produce garments for international brands, components for the international aerospace industry, electronics for the global computer industry and numerous personal consumer goods.

In the services sector Malaysian SMEs provide support to banks, airlines, hospitality providers, medical services, insurance companies, and so on.

But these SMEs may lose out to international competition if they do not develop brands. Now is the time for SMEs to learn the importance of branding and the strategies and skills needed to create and maintain market strength through building relationships, providing personalisation and delivering value to customers.

Compounding the problem is that Malaysia is becoming a victim of its own success. As it becomes a more mature economy, global MNCs will start to take notice, as they are already doing and flood the market with international brands using international budgets to buy market share. Unless Malaysian SMEs begin to brand they will not survive this onslaught.

It’s especially important that Malaysian SME’s allocate their (and the Governments) limited resources effectively. The brand promotion grant, launched by the government about six years ago helped some companies advertise but using advertising to build a brand requires deep pockets and leaves too much to chance because it is so hard to stand out from the clutter and be heard over the noise of other advertisers and make an impact with consumers who are permanently distracted.

The good news is that branding today does not necessarily require huge investments in logos, slogans and expensive creative driven advertising campaigns pushed out across traditional mass media, which too often result in at best, a short-term sales spike but have no real long term gains for the company.

By utilizing emerging technologies and trends that are having a major impact on brands and branding and by leveraging these technologies and trends, and by integrating such trends and technologies with the social nature of Malaysian culture, Malaysian SMEs can potentially build global powerhouse brands. And not in the twenty years it has taken traditionally taken to build a brand, but possibly in as few as five to ten years.

But to do this Malaysian SMEs must focus not on price and trying to undercut rivals, both domestic, regional and international, but by identifying prospects, building relationships and understanding customer requirements for value. This will take a significant change on organizational culture but it is one that Malaysian SMEs must make.

It is great news that the government is trying to help SMEs with the SME revitalization fund but it is also important that SMEs help themselves and understand that if they are to survive and thrive, they can no longer compete on price alone.

Steve Jobs has passed away, not Apple

Published on by brandconsultantasiaLeave a comment

I have to admit that I am a big user of Apple products. At last count I’d say I was responsible for purchasing over 50 Mac desktops over the past 10 years, a dozen or so laptops and iPods, half a dozen iPhones and a whole load of software and apps. I’ve also influenced the purchase of another 100 or so Apple desktops.

But I don’t buy into the Steve Jobs hero worshipping thing that has been going on since the news of his premature death became public knowledge a week or so ago. I was absolutely gobsmacked at the amount of air time his death got on CNN. It went on for days and I can only assume nothing much else was happening in the world.

But I found myself in a minority and so kept my mouth shut. It was reassuring then to read this article entitled “What everyone is too polite to say about Steve Jobs.”

Steve Jobs did a good job but he, or rather those talented individuals who work for him are innovators who have improved a lot of products but I really don’t think they’ve changed the world.

I’ll continue to buy Apple products and I bet the people at Apple will continue to innovate. And judging by this article, for many employees of Apple, working at Apple will be a more pleasurable experience because it would seem that working for Steve Jobs was a tough gig.

Should you use celebrities to promote your brand?

Published on by brandconsultantasiaLeave a comment

There are lots of differing views on the use of celebrities to sell brands but if you have the money, it makes sense to explore this option.

But tread carefully because celebrities after all are human and humans get injured or worse, make mistakes – think Tiger Woods, who was unceremoniously dumped by Tag Heur, Gatorade, Gillette, ATandT and Accenture, soon after the details of his infidelities emerged in late 2009.

Firms the world over spend hundred of millions of dollars getting endorsements from celebrities. And studies would suggest the returns are worth the investment – and the risk. Which is probably why Rolex has announced that Tiger Woods will now endorse its watches.

Indeed, a report last year by Anita Elberse for CNN found that sales of brands in consumer product categories jumped an average of 4% in the six months after an endorsement deal was announced.

Interestingly the report also noted that stock prices went up about 0.25% on the announcement and would generally react favourably each time the athlete won an event in his field.

As an aside, although Tiger Woods lost those endorsements, he is still the most endorsed athlete in the history of sport. And justifiably so if a report from Kevin YC Chung is anything to go by. According to the report, from 2000 – 2010, just the golf ball division of Nike earned an additional profit of US$60 million after acquiring 4.5 million customers after Tiger Woods began endorsing Nike products.

Of course Celebrity endorsements are not cheap. In 2000, Nike paid Woods US$100 million for a 5 year endorsement deal. Tennis player Anna Kournikova has multiple deals with Omega, Berlie Lingerie, Prince racquets and Canon. Kournikova also signed a US$50 million six year deal with Adidas. Fortuitously for Adidas they wrote a line into the contract that insisted on Kournikova winning something. This she rarely did but she still earned US$3 million from the deal.

Probably the biggest endorsement deal ever done was between Adidas and David Beckham. The lifetime deal cost Adidas US$161 million back in 2003. But at least it stops Nike from getting their hands on the globally popular football star.

Sometimes however all it takes is a little bit of good fortune related to a celebrity to generate massive sales. Victoria Beckham let it slip in an interview recently that despite the healthy state of her and husband David’s bank account, David was more than happy buying his socks from Marks & Spencer.

Since she made the statement, Marks & Spencer claim they have seen a more than 30% increase in the sale of men’s socks! And the cost of this celebrity endorsement? US$0.

A definition of branding that will help you to build a global brand

Published on by brandconsultantasia1 Comment

This article first appeared in the 30/09/2011 edition of The Malaysian Reserve

Over the years, companies have invested phenomenal amounts of money in marketing and advertising activities such as sales calls, direct mail, TV, outdoor, indoor, print and other advertising, brochures, leaflets and more. Indeed, according to Nick Wreden in his book Profit brand, How to increase the profitability, accountability and sustainability of brands, over US$1.5 trillion is spent annually on marketing (including advertising) worldwide and yet according to McKinsey, a management consultancy, up to 90% of products fail to become brands.

With little or nothing to show for these significant investments, companies looked to other disciplines and soon Branding was considered the way forward and the last 10 years has seen a major change in the resources committed to Branding.

As a result of this interest, hundreds of traditional books and ebooks have been written on the topic of Branding. Thousands of newspaper and magazine column inches have been dedicated to the discipline. Workshops and seminars have been held all over the world, all promising to teach business people how to Brand. These presentations are often uploaded to slideshare and Youtube videos have appeared, all with content related to Branding.

Many companies, including I suspect, yours have explored the concept and many have actually embarked on what they thought was a branding or rebranding exercise. Indeed, only recently, Malayan Banking Bhd (Maybank) announced it had gone through a rebranding exercise and even the Prime Minister attended the press launch of the new ‘brand’.

At the press conference, Malayan Banking Bhd President and CEO Datuk Seri Abdul Wahid Omar unveiled a new logo and explained that the bank would be spending RM13 million on the implementation exercise across the Asian region and that it would take about a year.

On the face of it and with the only evidence a new logo, this does not look like a rebranding exercise. This is more like a brand identity makeover or corporate identity reengineering, nothing more.

Another financial institution recently made a similar announcement and stated that it would spend RM15 million on a rebranding exercise. Soon after I received nine emails for a product that I didn’t understand and with a tagline that offered an exclusive deal for MasterCard holders even though I am not a MasterCard user.

Other well-known companies from the transportation, media and distribution industries have recently announced rebranding exercises that have actually been little more than a new advertising campaign.

The reality is that the new Maybank logo and identity will probably not make a difference to the brand and how consumers and organizations view the brand or the profitability of the brand. Think about it, when was the last time you signed up with or changed your bank because of a competitor’s logo?

This confusion is not Datuk Seri Abdul Wahid Omar’s fault. If we have to point fingers, we should probably point them at the marketers and advertising agencies responsible for muddying the branding waters.

It is because they have confused business owners and consumers with their contradictory interpretations that there is still a lot of confusion about Branding, the concept of Branding, what constitutes a Brand, what is Branding and how to build a Brand.

But this article is not about pointing fingers it is about identifying a definition of branding that will help Malaysian SMEs and other companies use scarce funds effectively and efficiently.

So what is a good definition that Malaysian companies can use as a foundation for their branding efforts?

We created this definition in 2004 and it still rings true today:

A brand is a long term profitable bond between an offering and a customer.

This relationship is based on offering economic, experiential and emotional value to those customers.

And it is backed up by operational excellence and consistently evaluated and improved.

 

We have used this as a foundation to build Malaysian brands and all of them have benefited from using this to take their brand forward. But what does it mean and how can Malaysian companies like yours use it as a foundation for their branding efforts? To do this, we need to break the definition down into three parts, as per the paragraphs above.

The first paragraph relates to two key elements, profitability and retention. One of the reasons that advertising, marketing and other traditional communications campaigns are so ineffective is that too many companies spend an absolute fortune getting a customer into their shop or showroom and then after the customer buys something, they just let them walk out the door! Isn’t it incredible that firms let customers walk out the door without attempting to at least try to build some sort of bond with them?

If you don’t why should the customer come back again? Don’t kid yourself that your product (there are some exceptions) is so unique that they will ignore other products and fight off all the attempts to lure them into competitor stores even though you have absolutely no relationship with them.

Profitability is an important branding metric, much more important than reach or awareness. It is estimated that up to 15% of a firms customers are unprofitable. You need to know who are your unprofitable customers and get rid of them.

If you have a car that won’t start and you send it to the garage and the mechanic says the engine is broken so you take the car to the paint shop and paint the body, will it help to fix the engine problem? Of course it won’t. It is the same with a brand. If you are receiving numerous complaints about the quality of your products or the time it takes to be served at a branch and you ask an advertising agency to create a new logo and you put that new logo on all your company materials, it won’t solve your quality or service issues or make your brand any better.

But if you carry out research with your customers and identify what are their requirements for economic, experiential and emotional value and then match your product attributes to those requirements for value you will make sales. And if you’ve laid the foundations for retaining those customers, as mentioned earlier, then you will be on your way to building a brand.

And by developing this emotional connection with your customers in which you deliver economic, experiential and emotional value, which incidentally will be done across multiple touch points such as when they use the counter service, through your correspondence and marketing collateral, the way you handle enquiries, your packaging, in one on one meetings with your representatives and so on, there will be no interest or need for them to take their business elsewhere.

In fact you will be surprised at the effort they will put into returning to you. And provided you keep your product or service relevant and continue to interact with those customers across platforms and channels that they engage with then you will be building a brand.

Operational excellence is a key ingredient in your quest to build a brand. It doesn’t matter how much you spend on marketing, sales, advertising etc if your organization isn’t efficient and effective it will struggle to deliver value and ergo, build a brand.

Finally, it is important to continually improve to stay relevant so you must track, evaluate and improve your brand on a continuous basis.

Instead of looking at branding as a creative exercise or short term tactical communications exercise, look at it as a holistic strategic initiative that requires internal and external research, investment in retention and not just acquisition, investment in the organization and a desire to constantly improve.

Follow these rules and you are more likely to build a global Malaysian brand.

Why the iPad will fail – part four

Published on by brandconsultantasia1 Comment

Apple’s shares took a hit of as much as 3% yesterday after a JP Morgan Chase analyst announced that Apple was reducing orders of parts for its iPad by as much as 25%.

This is an interesting move, especially as we’re about to begin the traditionally busy lead up to Christmas.

I don’t want to say “I told you so”, but I did write here, here and here that the iPad will fail.

Malays drinking Guinness

Published on by brandconsultantasiaLeave a comment

Here’s a lovely old print advertisement from 1968.

The ad features a young Malay professional enjoying a pint of Guinness and some satay whilst his admiring and approving wife looks on.

The copy tells the reader that Guinness gives you energy when you are tired after work and that there are nutritional benefits to drinking Guinness. And the tagline reminds you that Guinness is good for you.

It’s a fairly innocent ad, typical of the period but what is most surprising is that it features Malays! How times have changed!