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.
Feb 2, 2012 | Customers, Marketing, Social Media
I purchased a set of Sidchrome tools as a 20 year old working on my first car, simply because a mate doing an apprenticeship told me they were the best tools, and 40 years later, I still think Sidchrome are worth the money, despite not putting a spanner on a cylinder head for 30 years.
The power of word of mouth referral for a brand.
The world has changed, and we all now go looking for product reviews on line, and as the volume of those searches has sky-rocketed, so has the incentive for marketers to game the system. Use a pseudonym, or pay for someone to tell the world how great your product is, nothing stopping you. The line between advertising and endorsement by a trusted figure blurred beyond recognition? Perhaps not, so long as negative reviews are able to get equal time.
Social media is a great leveler, both positive and negative reviews get oxygen, reviewers can build a bank of credibility by being even-handed. EBay’s rating system of the performance of buyers and sellers is a great example of the way it can works, as is Amazons book review system.
Planting reviews that are advertising cowering as reviews is dodgy, but ultimately OK, so long as the product delivers on the promise. False reviews are immoral, wrong, and dangerous, as the power of social networks will find you out, and shoot your lousy product dead. This infographic from Hubspot makes for interesting reading.
Feb 1, 2012 | Customers, Marketing, Social Media
I’m 60, an early adopter of marketing analytics in the 70’s. Demographics, U&A, and product positioning research all hooked into mass marketing media, the foundation of our mass market, consumer led social revolution.
Now all that is irrelevant, or almost.
Marketing now is about engaging with an individual, and groups of individuals with a common mind-set, weather they be social butterflies from the eastern suburbs of Sydney, or driving a truck in the Kimberley’s.
Their demographics do not matter any more, what matters is their mind set, and increasingly we can communicate to a mind set with the tools of the web 2.0.
This just makes marketing harder and more accountable, as creativity and innovative thinking now trumps budget dollars, and mass reach every time, and you can measure the return from every dollar spent.
It also makes it more rewarding for those who embrace the challenge.
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.
