Apr 17, 2012 | Branding, Marketing, retail
Woolworths has “gone for the box”, advertising their “Select” range of housebrand products. The ads broke last weekend, (they have been removed from Youtube, curious) and to me appear to pretty effective, because they convey a single, simple proposition, that of top quality at a value price. Weather you believe it or not is another matter, and weather Woolies can deliver consistently on the promise is doubtful. Woolworths are retailers, not marketers, so by nature and culture their buyers are transaction focused, rather than customer relationship focused, making alignment with their marketing a probable headache for senior management.
The advertising adds to the social media and mobile marketing efforts, increasingly effective targeting of consumers based on the data collected via their store cards, and their cross category promotional strength flogging petrol. It also serves to further cement the duopoly of Coles and Woolworths at the core of Australian FMCG retailing.
Clearly the roadmap has been charted by the UK retailers, Sainsbury and particularly Tesco, who have supplied most of the senior management of their combatant Coles. The investment in brand building by the two gorillas is just another brick in the wall that keeps suppliers of proprietary branded products on their knees.
Apr 16, 2012 | Branding, Customers, Marketing, Social Media, Strategy
Content is the new creativity.
In the “old days” a core part of developing advertising that had brand building as its purpose, was a need to be memorable, relevant, deliver a proposition, and cut through the clutter on TV (or magazines, or radio, our only choices) all in thirty seconds. Then you repeated the message, as the common wisdom said, until you were sick of it, because the punters were only just getting to recognise it.
All that is changed, now media choices are numbered in the thousands, and you need to engage punters, one by one.
The content of the communication therefore is the still the key, but you get only one shot at it in most cases, and you rely on, perhaps pray for, the recipient to pass it on to like minded people they know.
Makes it pretty hard.
How do you market a bookshop? Common wisdom would say get really deeply into a niche with a few enthusiasts, or get out while you can, as it is all going on-line.
However, every now and again, a piece of luck comes along, that when combined with creativity and truly great understanding of what your market, wherever they are, may be looking for, you get something like this short bit of brilliance from Barter Books.
Would you go anywhere else?
Feb 21, 2012 | Branding, Communication, Marketing
Remember the Arnott’s case, in 1997 they recalled millions of packets, and showed them being crushed on TV, in the days before u-tube. Tylenol in the US went trough the same thing in 1882, 6 packets were laced with cyanide, leading to several deaths, and J&J without hesitation recalled the hundreds of millions of packets in the market, and talked about what had happened, what measures they and the police were taking, and assisted the families of those who had died.
In the new techie world, the same thing applies, 37 Signals has a suite of software products on the cloud, they appear to work well, but when they go down, (every senior managers major concern with the cloud) as it is out of immediate control, it really hurts. 37 signals lost Campfire, but they turned the disaster into gold by communicating.
In most cases where a recall is deemed necessary, it is just a cost, often a huge one, sometimes a terminal one. However, by taking the public into their confidence, a recall, or outage as in the case of Campfire, can be used as powerful evidence that the company puts the welfare of their customers above all else.
Pretty powerful stuff in an environment of bland, commodity brands that have little to differentiate themselves.
Feb 7, 2012 | Branding, Marketing
The net has changed everything.
In the “old days” consumers brand choices were made from a small pool of acceptable brands that was defined by experience, limited access to detailed information, and advertising.
Once a brand had been purchased, the well understood “cogitative dissonance” kicked in, a psychological process which justifies an action already taken, and served to make the walls of the brand pool tougher. It didn’t much matter if the purchase was a major one like a car, or a bar of soap, the processes were similar.
Now, these purchase drivers have been thrown out the window, as consumers have quick access to vast amounts of technical information, performance data, and user reviews to inform and shape the purchase decision. This has led to the pool of acceptable brands becoming much wider, and shallower, in many categories, it has almost ceased to exist beyond a measure of awareness.
Consumers now buy many brands. The old notion of brand loyalty has been seriously discounted by consumers who are brand promiscuous. Assessment of value that take in a whole range of factors not previously important in any but the first, and perhaps second purchase now shape behavior. Availability, word of mouse, the view of the crowd, supply chain transparency, perceived social responsability, and many more. Consumers are seeking more reassurance from the social media, and less from the mass marketing notions of brand positioning and loyalty.
The message is if you do not deliver value at every point in a consumers journey with a product, do not expect them to stick around, as there is a viable alternative within easy reach.
Feb 6, 2012 | Branding, Marketing
Brand-building is an infinitely more difficult exercise in the current environment. Gone are the days when you could throw a bunch of money at mass media, and use it to drive distribution and consumer trial, and if the thing was any good at all, gain some measure of “brand”.
The rules have evolved dramatically, they are both simpler to articulate, but as with many simple concepts, harder to execute, as in their simplicity lies great challenge.
- Never build expectations that may not be fulfilled.
- Communicate a very clear promise that differentiates the product in a way meaningful to the behavior of the user.
- Build trust by over delivering consistently
- Innovate beyond familiar boundaries whilst retaining relevance to consumers.
See, easy!
Feb 3, 2012 | Branding, Innovation, Marketing
So Kodak is broke, chapter 11 which protects a company from its creditors whilst it radically restructures in order to survive and pay back creditors.
It is only a few years ago Kodak was one of the most valuable brands in the world. In the mid 90’s it was in the top 5 of Interbrands list of the most valuable brands, in 2001, it was down to number 27, worth $11 Billion, 2007, number 82, worth $4 billion, the last time it troubled the scorers.
The common wisdom is that Kodak failed to keep up with digital photographic technology, but they invented the digital camera, they should have understood the implications, they just failed to make an impression on the market.
However, they did try, and try hard, so an alternative reason for failure should be considered. Maybe it is just that the Kodak brand was so strong, it said Film, it was film, that the leapto digital could not be made by the consumers.
Perhaps what they really needed was another brand?.
Would you buy a kitchen appliance if it was branded “Hoover” or an orange juice branded “Coca-Cola”? Probably not, simply because the brand is such a powerful expression of the one product. I think Kodak suffered from the same malady, and they failed to recognise it.
Some late news on Kodak post the Chapter11. I guess you could say they have gone back to their knitting.
P.S. march 2015, this post from those terrific storytellers at Digital Tonto bring us this analysis of Kodak’s burning platform of chemical photography.
PPSS. July 2016. This HBR post by Scott Anthony delivers another perspective on the ever interesting story of Kodak and Innovation.
