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.
Jan 31, 2012 | Branding, Communication, Marketing, Social Media
Traditional paper publishing is going down the slot, we all know that, but it still has a place, particularly the magazines, and most particularly the lower volume, niche end, high fashion and exotic cars for example.
So what happens to websites included in a print ad when a magazine releases an App for a tablet? There are a bunch of new dimensions here:
- Does the advertiser pay more for the website to be activated on the tablet?, or
- Does the cost of the ad to the advertiser include the cost of activating the website?,
- Is an activation fee a one -off, or per site activation fee?
- Should an advertiser pay an additional fee as a tablet subscriber clicks on an activated link?
- Should the subscriber to the print edition have free access to the web edition?, or do they need to pay again for what they have bought already?
- What is the cost relativity between the tablet version and the print? Does the tablet subscriber get a discount on the paper edition to put on her table?
This is making my head hurt, but I am pretty sure that there will be a huge amount of experimentation going on, and in 10 years we will be wondering what all the fuss was about, as the answer will be obvious.
Jan 17, 2012 | Branding, Communication, Marketing
Marketers have long understand that word of mouth advertising is the most powerful form of advertising, now enhanced by social media tools, evolving into the term “word of mouse” to describe the phenomenon.
This leads to a further distinction: media that is paid for, Vs media that is earned.
Consumers understand that paid media has a commercial purpose for the advertiser, they have a vested interest in being persuasive, and not necessarily being long on facts. By contrast, the notion of “earned media” content that is spread because it has value, approaches the value of word of mouth endorsement.
The fragmentation of media options has made life much more interesting for marketers, for those with a bit of creativity and curiosity, it is a smorgasbord, for most, just a pain in the arse and an opportunity to game the unwary.
