Category: marketing

Retention branding in the hospitality industry

Published on by brandconsultantasia1 Comment

Advertising, direct mail, marketing collateral, public relations and other acquisition efforts tend to get the bulk of a company’s branding budget. The belief being that it is easier to acquire a customer who is presumably using a competitor product than it is to hang on to a customer you’ve already acquired.

Retention branding, the efforts implemented to hold onto those customers who have been acquired at enormous cost, gets very little attention at all. Some firms don’t even know if a customer has bought before and many don’t even know when was the last time a customer bought something.

And yet a brand is not built on acquiring customers, it is built on retaining them. This is especially true in the hospitality industry. Which is why I was surprised to learn that Hilton is imposing a 25% increase on the number of reward points required to qualify for free rooms under its loyalty programme.

The global recession has hit the hospitality industry harder than many other industries. Occupancy and rack rates have tumbled. To combat this, many of Hilton’s competitors have bent over backwards to work with existing customers and are investing heavily in retention branding. Starwood Hotels recently launched a special offer for members of its loyalty programme, Starwood Preferred Guest (SPG) that offers between double and quadruple points for each stay.

Starwood, which includes the Westin and Sheraton brands offers guests who stay two nights double points, those who stay three nights triple points and quadruple points for those who stay four nights.

Last year, at the height of the economic crisis, Marriott offered members of its loyalty programme a fifth night free when four nights were booked using reward points. One of the most frustrating issues for loyalty programme members are ‘blackout dates’. These are normally busy periods when the hotel can sell rooms at rack rates. Aware of the negative impact this had on loyal customers, Marriott scrapped the unpopular policy.

Last December, in the US, InterContinental Hotels Group (IHG) ran a tactical campaign via twitter offering loyalty card holders points for staying in its hotels. IHG also has no plans to increase reward rates.

Other hotels that have not announced specific initiatives have however ended many of the restrictions related to when points can be redeemed.

So most of the Hilton’s competitors appear to be investing in retention campaigns to hold onto their existing customers. As customers leave Hilton, as they inevitably will, the competition will be happy to acquire them and but if they continue to invest in retention campaigns, will make it very hard for Hilton to win them back.

Stop your product joining the 95% club

Published on by brandconsultantasia6 Comments

According to an Ernst & Young study, the failure rate of new U.S. consumer products is 95%. 95%! Imagine if Boeing or Airbus had a 5% success rate! Yet despite this appalling return, companies spend approximately US$1.5 trillion on marketing, and in particular advertising, annually!

A couple of years ago, (before the explosion of social media, Dominique Hanssens, a director at the Marketing Science Institute in the US and a professor at UCLA’s Anderson Graduate School of Management, reported that the average advertising elasticity for established products is .01. He went on to say that if one of those brands increased its advertising expenditure by 100%, it would see a sales increase of only 1%.

He used as an example Anheuser-Busch. If the firm doubled the US$445 million that it was spending at the time on TV, print, radio, outdoor, and Internet advertising, it would enjoy a 1% increase in net revenues from the then base of US$5.7 billion. Put another way, Anheuser-Busch would spend a total of US$890 million to make US$57 million.

We have to accept that mass economy models that made global brands out of such products as Coke, Budweiser, Marlboro, Sony and others are no longer relevant. And if firms continue to invest in outdated tactics that no longer work, their products will join the 95% club.

If they are to survive, brands today must address current branding imperatives. Current branding imperatives include building and maintaining relationships with customers and partners, internal communication, education, understanding and adaptation of corporate goals throughout the organisations.

Clearly defined organisational processes that are developed with the customer in mind and not shareholders or the organisation. These processes must be developed for both customer facing and non-customer facing departments, not independently but in tandem.

Communications, including advertising are important, but not the traditional one size fits all mass market approach. Communications must understand the requirements of prospects and customers and communicate with them using content that resonates with them via channels that are relevant to them.

Branding imperatives also require effective use of technology and, most important of all, ongoing feedback, measurement and improvement. These establish the foundations for identifying prospects and acquiring and retaining (key to brand success) profitable customers.

If John McEnroe were to play tennis against Roger Federer today, using the racquets he played with back in the day, he might win a few points but he is going to lose the match. It is the same for companies who fail to adapt to the branding imperatives of today.

If consultants recommend you emulate models used by such brands as Coke, Pepsi, Sony and other mass economy brands that were built when tennis racquets were made of wood, show them the door. Likewise, enormous budgets, integrated, synergistic, holistic, innovative, design or creative driven, energetic, positioning campaigns will not establish a brand.

Companies, and governments must understand that there is no quick way to build a brand. It is this obsession and belief that there is a silver bullet and it is called advertising that keeps the 95% club growing.

Acquisition versus retention

Published on by brandconsultantasia2 Comments

The image below is a rather amusing yet fairly typical example of the importance most companies place on retaining customers. FusionBrand anecdotal research suggests that companies invest 85 – 95% of their marketing resources into the acquisition process and only 5 – 15% into the retention process. Can anyone explain why?

After all, according to Bain and Co, a firm has a 15% chance of selling to a new customer and a 50% chance of selling to an existing customer. Wouldn’t it make sense therefore to invest more in retaining customers than acquiring them? Furthermore, once a prospect becomes a customer, it is a lot easier to build a relationship with that customer, using content that is relevant and interesting to them, and not via the mass economy blitzkrieg popular with most advertising agencies.

Your thoughts?

Organisational excellence required to build global Asian brands

Published on by brandconsultantasia1 Comment

Not too long ago, the Michigan (U.S.) State Business School reported that every US$1 (RM3.36) invested in marketing earned US$5 (RM16.80). By contrast, for every US$1 (RM3.36) invested in operational excellence, returned revenue was US$60 (RM201.75).

Despite such data, the majority of Asian firms have been slow to grasp the importance of everyday operational excellence that requires a continuing commitment to quality service, as well as processes that are effective from the customer’s point of view and advanced supply chain skills.

Many Asian firms prefer to spend fortunes on tactics to acquire customers yet very little on the operational and other strategic requirements needed to keep them. Sales and marketing growth based on increased awareness are fine and important but they are activities to be embarked on only after the operational foundations are in place. This is because an acquisition only approach is generally unsustainable.

Therefore, once a customer is acquired, it is critical to develop relationships to retain them. Firms cannot simply ‘hope’ they will come back time and time again because, with so much competition, so many alternatives, if you are not communicating with them – and selling to them, someone else will.

Customers build brands
And because customers have the power to make or break our brands, Asian companies must learn to do business on their terms. At the same time, they must become focused on creating PROFITABLE customers (on average, 15% of customers are unprofitable), ensuring those customers become our brand ambassadors, and consistently increasing their share of wallet.

Coca-Cola, Marlboro, Pan-Am, Ford and so on, represent mass-economy brands. These Western brands were successful because they shrewdly used the tools of the mass economy. They positioned themselves by repeatedly advertising in the mass media of one, two or three TV stations, one or two newspapers and knew where consumers were most of the time as there were few leisure time activities to take them away from the home.

Global markets
They also used mass production to achieve economies of scale, and they used distribution to penetrate mass markets. Global markets were opening up, disposable income was increasing, competition was limited. Customer retention didn’t really matter. Markets were growing so fast, and the mass-economy tools were so powerful, that it is was fairly easy to acquire a new customer for everyone that was lost. They also had a large, essentially one segment, ready made affluent domestic market.

But today, the mass economy is dead. The mass economy was killed by the fragmentation of the media, new leisure time activities, the Internet, greater competition, globalization, immigration, increasing number of and power of retailers, marketing segmentation and other forces.

In its place, we now have the “Customer Economy.” Companies no longer have the exclusivity to make the rules and control information by “positioning” products or promoting “brand equity” through advertising and PR like they did in the mass economy. Moreover, where in the past, prospects were segmented by demographics and geography, now they are part of communities. In these circumstances, can advertising and PR be effective to build brands? As part of a comprehensive brand strategy, yes. On their own, no.

For example, in the 10 year period to 2006, the computer manufacturer Acer spent US$10 billion (RM33.6 billion) trying to build a global brand via advertising. The effort failed. Acer withdrew from the retail market and has only recently reentered it with a new strategy focusing on individual segments.

Sony mass market failure
In 2000 and 2001, Sony spent an incredible US$2.5 billion (RM8.4 billion) on advertising worldwide. The result? The first three months of 2003 saw stunning losses, a 25% slide in the company’s share price in just two days and layoffs of more than 20,000 workers worldwide.

Unperturbed, Sony again tried mass economy tactics in 2008, spending an astonishing US$4.9 billion (RM16.5 billion) to position its diverse range of products including televisions, Blu-Ray players, music players, Laptops, PlayStation games, movies from Sony Pictures and new music from Sony Music. The approach failed and Sony is now exploring a more specific product focused niche approach.

Asian companies
Asian companies obsess with using traditional marketing tools such as advertising and PR to acquire new customers. But what good does it do to acquire customers if you have no idea how long they are going to stay and how profitable they will be? Also required are investments in operational excellence and accountability.

There is also a belief by many firms that they just have to ‘participate’ in an activity to get business. One local firm we’re familiar with collected 200 qualified leads from a trade show, yet months later those leads were still collecting dust! They were waiting for the prospects to contact them!

Another Asian company invested over US$50,000 (RM175,000) on a trade show, instructed 3 ‘top’ sales people to represent the company at the trade show and then failed to train the staff on how to behave and sell at the trade show. Moreover, there was zero investment in a lead management programme for leads generated. This meant the company was unable to measure the effectiveness of the trade show.

Finally, within 3 weeks of the trade show ending, two of the sales people manning the booth left the company, taking all the leads generated with them.

As we work to move up the value chain, the goal of every Asian company that wants to build a brand must be profitability, backed by measurement and accountability. Reaching solely for sales or market growth is no longer enough.

Repeat business
Not so long ago, in the US, to reach its sales goals, Ford offered $3,000 in rebates and other special deals off the cost of the Taurus car. Ford maintained its market share – but at the cost of losing money on each vehicle sold. Interestingly, Ford learned from its mistakes. Its next TV ad campaign in the US was based on the following line: “The highest proportion of repeat buyers of any car in its class.” What better testimonial is there? Little wonder then that in a report released by LeaseTrader.com in August 2009, Ford had the highest brand loyalty of any American automotive brand.

Despite the obvious need to invest heavily in retention strategies, ask a typical advertising agency about the branding issues faced by Acer, Sony, Ford and other companies, and what do you think the most common response will be?

Exactly. Recommendations for more ads, in more media across more platforms! They’ll promise a better creative team to provide greater creativity, but what’s really required is accountability for results! The usual agency attitude of “spraying and praying!” may have been the best strategy during the mass economy when there were a limited number of media conduits. But in the customer economy, the proliferation of media outlets and competitive advertisers now makes it practically impossible to build a brand solely based on ‘spraying and praying’.

Strategic approach required
What Asian companies need more than anything else is a strategic approach to branding that is aligned with the new imperatives of the customer driven global economy. Branding in the customer economy requires a fresh look at how the organisation engages with customers, as well as market and profitability requirements.

Rather than a simplistic reliance on logos and creative driven, one-size-fits-all, repetitive advertising, branding today demands research, data, measurement, supply chain effectiveness, customer intelligence, service AND accountability to both customer requirements and resources spent. Only once the company has identified who it should talk to and how, can it start to talk to those prospects.

Because acquisition is so expensive, and existing customers make the best brand ambassadors, branding also requires an emphasis on the identification and retention of PROFITABLE customers. This is especially true as the balance of power shifts from sellers to buyers.

The payoffs from such customer-economy branding can be substantial. British Airways calculates that customer retention efforts return $2 for every dollar invested. The clothing label Zara has thrived against powerhouses like Gap by moving from four collections a year to releasing new styles every two weeks.

So, as Asian firms attempt to move up the value chain, it is imperative companies monitor their retention rates (which fewer than 20% of companies do), because it is the best indicator of future profitability and brand strength.

Track RFM (Recency, Frequency, Monetary Value) because it shows which customers may be prone to defection and which are candidates for up – or cross – selling. Since it is likely 20% of customers are generating 80% of profits, segment customers according to profitability, and develop unique value propositions for the top 1%, 4% and 15%.

Calculate the lifetime value of clients. For instance, Ford calculates that a customer who buys his first car at the age of eighteen, upgrades it every three years and services it at a Ford dealership is worth a six figure sum to Ford over a lifetime. Cadillac estimates the lifetime value to be $300,000.

Revisit dormant customers. And optimize spending by developing marketing ROI based on actual customer profitability.

Other areas of organisational excellence that are key to building global Asian brands include recruitment and training. The retail sector is only realizing a fraction of its potential. This is partly due to the lack of training of staff and subsequent indifference of frontline staff when interacting with customers. If there is no attempt to build rapport with a prospect, why should the prospect return?

This is also true of manufacturing. One company in Malaysia we contacted recently listed 2 markets it wanted to develop as the UK and France. Yet when we called the office, no one spoke English.

Building Asian brands will take much more than basic advertising and PR. Core requirements include research, accountability, operational excellence, data management and customer equity (lifetime value of customers).

In Malaysia, according to research carried out by PriceWaterhouse Coopers, 86% of Malaysian CEOs and their Board of Directors say that they believe in the economic potential of effective brand building. However, almost the same number of CEO respondents admitted that they do not have a brand unit to integrate brand practices within their organisation. Sentiments are similar in Thailand, Indonesia and Vietnam

Until those C level executives take the plunge and invest in their brands by building operational excellence into their brand strategy, the concept of building global Malaysian or other Asian brands will remain just that, a concept.

KRC8UE5H2XBQ

The organization is the brand

Published on by brandconsultantasiaLeave a comment

This is a classic example of how a brand that spends millions on external branding, needs to also look at internal branding.

BMW has a number of dealers in Malaysia however, as far as I can determine, there are only 2 main dealers in the Klang Valley. We bought a BMW 3 series new from one of the 2 main dealers in Kuala Lumpur about seven years ago.

The dealer also has an impressive work shop and so we serviced it at the same dealer for the first six years. There is also a bodyshop and as my wife is the main user of the car, we’ve visited the body shop more often than most car owners. We own three cars but only one BMW so I consider us an ideal customer as there is obviously plenty of opportunity to cross and up sell us.

Indeed we’re intending to sell the 3 series and buy a new car in the next 3 months. However before we do so, the car require needs some attention.

Although we get plenty of generic direct mail and the occasional and predictable after service call asking if we are happy from the original dealer, the original sales person moved on a long time ago and we haven’t got a call from anyone else on the sales floor. Even when the car was 5 years old, an ideal time to sell and buy a new car, we didn’t get a call inviting us in for a test drive.

The original dealer hasn’t tried to build a relationship with us and therefore we don’t have any loyalty to them. So we sent the car to the original dealers main competition in the Klang Valley and asked them to look at the car and quote for the repairs.

Now in my business, if a client who has been with my competition for 7 years, were to knock on my door and offer me the chance of getting his business I would be all over him like the proverbial white on rice! Customers are the source of profits. Without them, brands would not exist. Existing customers are the most reliable source of future revenue. The thought of taking one of those nice profitable customers away from the opposition is, I have to say, a pleasant thought.

After all, we’re in the midst of a global recession that has seen marketing and other costs slashed. Passenger car sales are predicted to be down over 15% this year. In this environment, new customer acquisition is a massive drain on dwindling resources and any prospect is valuable, especially one that walks in the door and has “I’m a genuine prospect’ written all over him.

But no, instead of looking at us as an opportunity. An opportunity to acquire a new customer from the competition, we were viewed as another expense and the mechanic told us that they would carry out the inspection but would charge in the region of RM250 (US60)!

As you can imagine, this riled me. Sure I’m going to compare the quote with a quote from somewhere else but so what. That is a cost of doing business. But surely it is important to look past the issue at hand and the opportunity for future business?

With the right internal brand that includes standard processes for new prospects that are essentially a number of simple questions that lay the foundations for rapport. A dealer, who in this case represents the BMW brand, will be well positioned to acquire a new customer for a minor investment of RM250.

In this instance, I have a negative impression of the dealer and BMW that will require a lot of work and a much greater investment, to undo.

The branding rules of engagement are evolving quickly

Published on by brandconsultantasiaLeave a comment

What many brands don’t appreciate is that we invest a great deal of our valuable time, effort and money waiting for the opportunity to spend our hard earned cash on them. Paul McCruddon, a digital strategist and blogger in the UK knows this better than most and got tired of brands mucking him about and appearing not to appreciate the fact that they are, as he puts it, “stealing my attention.”

Earlier this year after calculating his time is worth about £102 per hour, he recorded how much time he spent waiting for service in diverse places such as a post office, shops and restaurants as well as spending 45 minutes waiting for a train at Preston station and so on.

The data is impressive. For instance, and I quote: “ (I) spent 20 hours and 50 minutes with Transport for London mainly taking the tube day in day out. And as a result of that, I’ve spent 2 hours and 35 minutes reading Metro and 80 minutes reading The London Paper, not to mention all the planted PR stories and adverts they contain. For the food shop, I spent more time at Marks & Spencer (5 hours, 16 minutes), but significantly more money at Sainsbury’s (£455). And as for eating out, then Pizza Express will find that their 2 for 1 voucher went down a treat (6 hours, 53 minutes), meaning that I didn’t spend nearly as much time and money in their competitor restaurants, with the exception of the reliable Carluccio’s (5 hours, 40 minutes).”

Paul feels therefore that these companies all owe him money. So, and this is where it gets really interesting, he sent invoices to 50 of these brands for £6,250 for his time that the brands had wasted! To make it more appealing, he offered them all a blanket 75% discount.

So how did he get on? Well the results are quite surprising. You can read about them on his blog, but here are some examples:

Pret A Manger founder Julian Metcalfe sent a cheque for £62 for spending time in their cafes. Pret really got into the spirit by also paying his food bill (£22) and also an extra £1 for to compensate for the hassle of walking to the post box to mail the cheque to his bank!

Little Chef offered vouchers to the tune of £30. Squat + Gobble, an independent restaurant offered a £5 discount card. EAT a small family run company with stores all over London, sent him £15 worth of vouchers.

Boots the chemist failed to get into the spirit, writing a letter stating that they do not recognize the time customers spend in their shops in ‘monetary terms’.

What does this tell us about branding? Well for sure, this is not going to evolve into something that we all do. Although bearing in mind how long most transactions take in Malaysia, if anyone here feels compelled to copy Paul, you should, on paper anyway, earn a lot of money! However it does reiterate that mass economy company driven tactics such as positioning, have no place in the customer economy.

Positioning proposes that the organization concentrates on a word or idea that defines the company in the minds of consumers and then communicates that idea or word relentlessly for as long as budgets will allow. Basically this is how it is and we tell you how our products are positioned. Take it or leave it.

This ‘episode’ reiterates that branding today is a very different place than it was even 5 years ago. Branding today is about entering into two-way collaboration with consumers because consumers have more power than ever before. It is imperative that brands understand and respect their customers.

If brands fail to work with their customers, those customers will take their business elsewhere and tell others of their bad experiences. Paul updates the story regularly on twitter where he has over 1,000 followers on twitter. Those followers (One has 17,000 followers) will retweet (forward) his updates onto hundreds of thousands more and so on. He has been interviewed on TV, radio and print. Many consumers will take note and go out of their way to avoid the brands that don’t appreciate his investments.

Paul used the data collection website Daytum to record all his interactions.

Developing a sales culture is key to brand building – part 1

Published on by brandconsultantasia2 Comments

In any economy, for most companies, one core effort of building a profitable brand is to develop an effective sales culture within the organization. And at the heart of this culture is a well trained sales force and clearly defined sales systems.

These systems help generate higher close rates. They also help the well trained sales force develop stronger customer relationships that lead to better returns on marketing investments through repeat purchases and the development of brand ambassadors.

Developing a sales culture requires investments in recruitment and training, lead management systems, sales processes and improved compensation for sales people. As Malaysian firms, GLC’s and other institutions struggle to find talent, systems and strategies that will allow them to compete and stay profitable, integrating a sales system into daily business practice is becoming mission critical. But few firms seem to grasp the importance of creating a great sales organization, and few Malaysian firms have become effective at sales.

Recently, we carried out a sales skills and sales process analysis for a public listed company in the property sector. We noted that the sales manager began his career at the company as a sales executive 16 years previously and was promoted simply because he outlasted everyone else in the sales department.

He didn’t know how to manage sales people. He didn’t know anything about territory or lead management and was inept when it came to motivating disillusioned sales people. He didn’t even know how to sell because all he had ever done was take orders. Yet he was responsible for recruitment and developing the training program for new recruits as well as ongoing sales training!

Another issue we identified at the same company but this also applies to many other corporations from many sectors, not just the property sector is what we call the ‘warm body syndrome’.

Because the property sector works around projects, if a project finishes and people leave, then quite often they are not replaced. The idea is of course to save money. But if the next project comes on stream when all the quality sales staff have already been employed elsewhere, the organisation can only recruit from the bottom of the barrel. The company then ends up with low quality sales people who are quite often ‘trained’ by the sales manager who is a sales manager in name only.

So the company ends up recruiting the wrong people who are then trained the wrong way. Companies got away with it in the past because as Malaysia evolved, there was limited competition and demand outstripped supply.

But the Malaysian economy is moving into unknown waters. Competition, from both local and international organizations is at an all time high.

What is required to succeed in these unchartered waters, is a great sales organization with the people, systems, processes, training and incentives to build sales and develop long term relationships with customers.

The results will be a profitable brand, able to compete locally and on the global playing field.

Part 2 of this story will follow next week.

Pitching for a bank name change in Malaysia

Published on by brandconsultantasia6 Comments

Last Friday we were pitching against 4 advertising agencies to a Malaysian bank. Essentially, the brief was for a name change and to create awareness of the name change in Malaysia. We were invited to pitch despite being a data driven brand consultancy. In fact I had personally discussed this fact with one of the corporate communications representatives at the bank.

He told me that if we went into the traditional FusionBrand pitch (We had presented to them 12 months ago) we would not get very far however, if we presented a ‘traditional re-brand’ pitch and suggest the FusionBrand approach for after the name change then we might generate some interest.

So, much to my chagrin, we pitched in the traditional way and suggested that this was only half the battle and what the bank also needed once the population was aware of the new name was a strategy to get prospects and customers into the branches and to buy product(s) and so on.

As my colleagues presented, I was imagining how the other agencies would make promises based on their new “positioning” of the bank.

I found myself thinking that what sort of a position could an agency offer the bank that would make them stand out from all the other banks? What position would make consumers cast aside their ingrained perceptions (not very good) of the bank? How would a new positioning strategy encourage prospects to walk into branches? And once they had walked into those branches, how well preparred would the staff be to sell to them?

I already knew that one of our competitors was a global agency but because they are very busy they were outsourcing the creative element so it was unlikely (though not impossible) that they would have the best talent in the market working on the creative.

And then I thought how could the bank make inroads into existing markets using the same type of ‘positioning strategy’ that all the other banks are using? Sure, the tactics might be different, then again perhaps not, but the positioning strategy, of finding a space in the consumers mind would be the same.

I also thought of how tumultuous the world is at the moment and how any positioning ‘strategy’ that had been implemented before the global economic crisis would be a worthless (and expensive) waste of money now because the world is a different place compared to even a year ago. What if something similar were to happen in the next 6 months, as this bank’s positioning ‘strategy’ was implemented? Would they too waste their valuable resources?

I also thought about my own issues with my bank and how, despite numerous negative experiences over the last 10 years, I was still with them. And yet during that time, I’ve seen so many ‘re-brands’ of banks or financial institutions, RHB, CIMB, Bank Islam, etc, all of them used positioning to influence me and hope that I would become a client (I didn’t and I wonder how many did. I certainly don’t know anyone who has changed their bank in the last 5 years).

It made me realize that the FusionBrand approach, where we use customised research to deliver actionable data, operational excellence as the foundations for the brand strategy, brand planning to eradicate the hope mentality, and segment specific communications that resonate with those segments alone and meet the economic, experiential and emotional needs of customers and prospects in those segments. Metrics and measurement that ensures valuable marketing resources are not wasted are what is required to build a brand in the customer economy of today.

The issue of course, is whether the bank knows this! I will let you know how we get on!

DATA-DRIVEN BRANDING VS. CREATIVE-DRIVEN BRANDING

Published on by brandconsultantasia2 Comments

Recently, I’ve had a go at positioning and awareness (and I’m not finished yet!) and how it has no place in brand building today. Well, now it is time to have a go at creativity! I’m sure the agencies will be gnashing their teeth today!

For decades, information concerning consumers, their purchase criteria and the link between promotion and purchase was either too expensive or too difficult for companies to obtain. And even if data could be obtained, it took weeks or even months for the data to flow from stores and branches or field staff back to headquarters. Often, by the time it got back to HQ, it was too late to make any difference.

As a result, to build brands, companies had to put their faith in creativity, hoping that an innovative image, tagline or promotion would resonate with prospects and boost sales. In the 1960’s, 1970’s and 1980’s, with few conduits to consumers and limited competition, this type of creative driven branding often worked. Companies responsible for products including Clear Coke & Crystal or Storm Pepsi, 7up Gold, PAN AM, Mobikom, Pelangi Air and recently Mega TV as well as many others used this approach. Mass media, which was so powerful during this mass-market economy, was the logical vehicle to enhance the impact of creative-driven branding with reach and repetition.

But the mass-market economy no longer exists. Today’s customers are increasingly overwhelmed with those creative images, taglines and promotions. In Malaysia, for example, the average household receives 79 TV channels and up to 20 radio stations. Supermarkets carry between 15,000 to 25,000 Stock keeping units (SKUs). The number of titles handled by the average magazine wholesaler has doubled in 10 years to about 5,000. It is estimated that there are 800 billboards in Petaling Jaya alone. Ads appear on taxis, buses, lampposts and so on. And over 40 billion web pages are linked to the Internet. To make it even harder to succeed in the customer economy, budgets are tighter, competition fierce and customers are more demanding and knowledgeable.

Despite this proliferation of media conduits to consumers and the bombardment of messages received by those consumers, agencies and consultants continue to recommend firms build brands by using ‘cool’ advertising, creative or symbolic logo’s with pretty colours, catchy taglines and so on.

Data driven branding on the other hand, gives CEOs and managing directors accountability and ROI-based justification. While data was slow to materialize or hard to obtain during the mass-market era, the rise of the Internet, increasing computer power and sophisticated research techniques now enable executives to quickly obtain the information and insights they require about consumers and their buying habits, demographics, competitor products and actions, sales trends, promotional results, and other information.

Data from such research benefits executives in multiple areas. Information from data-driven branding can be used to not only determine where and when to advertise, but also other important areas critical to profitability. These include operations, customer service, research & development, logistics and customer relationships. Data enables benchmarking, enabling companies to determine whether marketing or other promotional or sales activities are effective over time.

Finally, and most important, data enables better executive decision-making. If research shows a certain segment is buying a product or service, executives can design strategies to pursue those specific segments, ensuring valuable funds are not wasted pursuing uninterested segments. Basically, without data, strategy and other executive decisions are guesswork.

Creative ideas are great, but information and knowledge are better. That’s why the smarter Asian and international companies are adopting research, data and analysis as the heart of their brand strategies because the Internet, more knowledgeable customers and increased global competition have changed the rules of the branding business.

Support for my stand on positioning

Published on by brandconsultantasia1 Comment

I’ve drawn a lot of flak after my comments about the end of positioning (comments, incidentally, that I stand by). And then I read an excellent article by Larry Light in Adage that reminded me it was Larry who had first got me thinking about the demise of positioning.

In the Adage article, he talks about his six rules for revitalising brands. Not once does he mention positioning. In fact, he is essentially echoing the FusionBrand definition of a brand available elsewhere on this blog.

Anyway, deep in my hard drive, I found the inspiration for my article on the death of positioning. So here it is:

“Bringing our brand up to date means that we have to abandon marketing practices & principles that are out of date. So we reject the outmoded view of the positionistas, declaring an end to the out-of-date, simplistic concept of brand positioning; that marketing lock-box that locks brands into uni-dimensional, uni-segment, monotone marketing. Instead we are adopting an up-to-date, multi-segment, multi-dimensional marketing approach.”

Larry Light when he was CMO of McDonald’s 2002 – 2005. He was also voted Ad Age’s Marketer of the Year title in 2004