Selecting the best branding option is a topic that always attracts debate, in any business I have worked with. What is usually missing in these conversations is a framework for the thinking, boundaries against which to measure the options.
This post from David Aaker offers a framework with considerable merit, and the webinar link in the post expands on the ideas.
Original thinking on marketing is hard to find, Aaker is original.
30 years ago when housebrands were making their first inroads into Australian supermarkets, I took over management of Fountain tomato sauce. At the time it was a runaway market leader in NSW, but was being badly hurt by emerging cheap housebrands, priced a few cents less, 0.69 cents Vs 0.73 cents. Clearly to consumers there was not much difference in the products, they may as well take the few cents for themselves.
We lifted the price of Fountain significantly, the shelf price difference was then sufficient to suggest to consumers that Fountain was substantially better than any cheap housebrand, which was in fact, the case. Lo and behold, not only did our margins improve, so did our volumes.
The perception of the value delivered by Fountain overcame the rational response that sauce is sauce. Test yourself on this next time you walk into a liquor store, and consider a purchase of wine. Obviously, the greater the price, the better the wine?
In this great TED talk, Rory Sutherland, a big cheese in British advertising makes the point beautifully that decision making has three components.
The first two have a range of widely used and well understood models, whilst the third is often the province of the mavericks, creatives, and other assorted ratbags, and is therefore often dismissed as having a valid role in decision making. However, the best decisions are made at the intersection of these three perspectives.
The word sustainable holds connotations of farming practices, and environmental sensitivity, all true, but only half the story.
A sustainable chain must also be commercially sustainable, and one without the other is by definition, unsustainable.
The characteristic that drive both are similar, transparency, and connections through the chain, both facilitated by the collaboration tools of the web. The outcome is increased productivity of the whole value chain.
The price deflation being experienced in the value chains supplying Australian retailers are testing the limits of Australian suppliers, and those that are surviving are dedicated to the implementation of chains that are commercially sustainable, and increasingly environmentally sustainable as consumers interest in product provenance increases.
Quietly, out of a home office, GFAP, a small chain consultancy that supplies a customised web based tool that manages value chains, to this point largely around horticulture, is flourishing. Very few pieces of produce arrive at Woolworths or Coles without being touched in some way by this system, but few have ever heard of it.
It is simply a fact of life that digital media is evolving faster than the existing institutions around it, particularly the regulatory ones.
The decision during the week to reverse the Federal Courts decision on the streaming of “almost live” NRL and AFL games by Optus, determining that after all, it was a breach of copyright, is a case in point. Regardless of the merits of either sides case, and the logic that the continuing success of the professional codes relies on funding from TV rights, the world has moved on, but the business model of the professional games has not.
We will wait around for another year or so until the high court comes down with a decision, and there will be a winner and loser, but from a long term perspective, both will be losers, simply because another year has been wasted trying to shore up the gunwales against Digital Darwinism, and we all know how successful that has been in the music industry, newspaper publishing, and a host of others.
If both games wish to engage with youngsters, those who will be around for a while to fund the games by watching, buying branded gear, attending events, they need to consider how these youngsters consume entertainment, and adapt.
The current copyright law was conceived in the 1700’s, and whilst it has evolved, it no longer is a reflection of society, but a distorted shadow vainly trying to keep up with technical changes happening at digital speed.
The costs of advertising only get counted when you do lousy advertising.
When you place an ad, and you get a great response, the costs are never considered, but place a lousy ad, getting little response, then the cost is alarming.
Therefore the task is to be sufficiently compelling to a targeted audience to bring a quality response, then the cost is not considered, because you get an outcome that (presumably) makes commercial sense.
My son recently sold a car on line, it was a good car, but not one that would be for everyone. He thought he would just put up an ad, and it would just sell, easy, because it was a good car, and the price offered good value.
Failure, this first ad got almost no response, and those that did respond were not interested in the car, just getting it at half the advertised price.
We had another shot at writing an ad, putting in much more detail, and then placed it more specifically to attract a specialised buyer, one to whom the particular characteristics of the car beyond the provision of a transport device would be of value.
It got a number of responses, several very good ones, and it sold very quickly at the full price.
The cost of the second ad was irrelevant, but he is still complaining about the first placement.
Trust is a greatly over-used word in management conversations, and has therefore lost much of its meaning, becoming a cliché for “lets hope”.
People trust brands when they deliver consistently over time, but trust is like a bucket with a hole in the bottom, you need to keep pouring water in to keep up with the inevitable losses for a whole range of reasons. Stop adding to the bucket for a moment, and you lose ground that is very hard to make up.
In discussing collaborative structures of various types, “Trust” is grossly overused, and should be replaced by an alternative description, “Reputational Capital” which implies more of the appreciation/depreciation continuum better understood by managers.
Collaborations work only in the presence of people who individually work to ensure that by their efforts others will benefit, and the whole system remains healthy. This is consistent irrespective of the size and nature of the collaboration, from major corporate initiatives, to self managed teams on the factory floor, the local tennis club, and web based sharing platforms like Zipcar. The Reputation of all participants is paramount to collaborative success.
Amazon, Zappos and Ebay rewrote the book on reputational capital with their review systems, and the principals used are now in wide use across many web platforms to provide buyers and sellers with certainty.
How long will it be before there is a web-wide statement of our activity, that accounts for all our activity, irrespective of the platform, an accounting of our Reputational Capital, a “klout” type score that measures not activity, but the satisfaction delivered to the people on the receiving end of all the transactions an individual originates.