Latest Posts

Energy versus focus

By Mark Di Somma

Brands require huge levels of energy. They need to be promoted, they need to be maintained, they need to be serviced … just to keep them going. And that can lead some to believe that that is all they need. Surely, if you invest enough energy in this brand, it will succeed.

You see this in those interesting exchanges which begin, “We’re going to spend this … and we want to achieve this”.

I would argue that the emphasis needs to be reversed, “To achieve this, we’re going to have to spend this …”.

There are some important distinctions in the order of these statements. The first emphasises the spend (energy) and ties it, hopefully, to an outcome. The second statement begins with the outcome and attributes a required level of energy to achieve it.

A lot of marketers put their hope in the first approach. Egged on by the planners, they spend up and then wait for the tide to come in. It’s a little like saying that you’ll put a certain motor in a car and aim for it to reach a certain speed. It may work. It may not.

The other approach is much more mechanical. Start with the outcome, and then determine the level of energy required to achieve it, both in ideas and spend. But it’s an approach that makes the creatives and the planners sweat because the emphasis is on actions and results rather than impressions. And it shifts the focus – from “what shall be spent and where?” to “why should that amount (or more) be spent?”

For the most part, the business model of communications agencies is not geared up to make that shift. Their ROI champions the power of ideas and the excitement those ideas generate. A great idea, the argument continues, will require energy to make it work. And when you agree, they’ve made their money. But – and it’s an important but – awareness or even excitement is a means to a return not a result in itself. And until you get the result, you haven’t made yours.

You might like to think about that next time the lights are off and the showreel is running.

The power of patterns

By Mark Di Somma

I have little doubt that news of a study by Facebook and Università degli Studi di Milano showing that Facebook has reduced the degrees of separation from six to four will inspire many to post advice on how and why to push everything Facebook’s way.

According to the study, “99.6% of all pairs of users are connected by paths with 5 degrees (6 hops), 92% are connected by only four degrees (5 hops),” and the average “distance” between users is getting smaller over time.

But I agree with Marc Schiller of Bond Strategy and Influence who pointed out in a recent interview posted on the AdWeek site that the key customer insights in a dynamic marketing environment come with brands adapting to movements in behaviours not shifts in technology.

What really matters here is not that Facebook has reduced the separation between people, it’s that people have continued to employ Facebook to reduce the separation between each other.

If you just focus on the how and not the why, there’s a very real risk of counting the dots at the expense of seeing the patterns.

Two leaders kissing. A killer app or a sex tape?

By Mark Di Somma

I always grin when people do that whole “any publicity is good publicity” thing. Because it’s simply not true. That observation it seems to me is predicated on a belief that awareness is the doyen of marketing, whereas I would argue that, in most cases, perception overwrites straight recall in terms of bankability.

The temptation, if you follow the former line of thinking, is to assume that successful marketing is just about gaining attention. It’s an attitude that the advertising industry and the online world has done much to encourage. Gain attention and the business will follow. But a sex tape will get you plenty of eyeballs. It doesn’t necessarily mean that you have the foundations of a durable commercial model.

Notoriety does work if your brand is built on a ‘bad boy’ reputation. As I’ve noted before, if you’re Gordon Ramsay, for example, or the Sex Pistols, then outrageous behaviours are both scandalous and intriguing. In these circumstances, people love to be shocked. Antics are in fact part of what people expect and buy into. 42 Below were past masters of outrage as a marketing tool, but the permission to do so was predicated on them being perceived as an outrageous vodka – as outrageous as a vodka from New Zealand in actual fact. Occasionally such brands do overstep the boundary, but a quick apology where necessary – and it’s soon business and brand as usual.

So what to make of the new Benetton campaign “Unhate” that features a number of the world’s leaders smooching? The most controversial of these is probably the Pope kissing a leading Muslim cleric, which quickly got both the Holy See and the imam hot under the collar (sorry!).

Cue: outrage. The official explanation from the Vatican was that the use of the Pope’s image in a commercial setting was an unacceptable use of his image (which probably means copyright infringement or something) and that the faithful would be upset.

Pretty much what you’d expect.

Now what?

Surely Benetton will be banking on the fact that the pushback from the ‘establishment’ to their campaign translates into a viral storm that in turn pushes more people to the racks to express their solidarity with Benetton’s position (the killer app). Just like they did last time with the label’s world issues campaign. But this is a 20 – 25 year old technique and it remains to be seen whether shock alone is enough to make Benetton the force it once was in a sector that is now much more competitive and well used to publicity stunts. The concern must be that the new campaign may gain a lot of attention and swallow acres of media columns but then, just like its sales over the last decade, largely flatline (the sex tape scenario).

As many of you will be aware, I’m a huge believer in a brand having a strong worldview and for that view to be inculcated into everything the brand stands for. In a world packed with bland advertising and me-too claims, I applaud Benetton for once again going out on a limb. The images are certainly arresting. But whilst I’ve always loved the audacity of Benetton’s marketing and refer to them often as an early mover in the bid to politicise consumers, one of my reservations is the lack of a direct link between what Benetton publicises and what it stands for as a brand. How does buying the clothes promote Unhate? Because if there is no cause and effect, the risk is that Benetton have simply linked their brand to a universal (and nicely named) principle, and that principle itself is not that disruptive or controversial, even if its expression is.

We’re talking about world peace, people.

In other words, what makes this more than a universal principle expressed in an edgy way, and why will edginess alone incite a buying frenzy and, even more importantly, sustained and accumulating loyalty in a market that is packed to the changing room walls with talented people and wonderful designs?

It’s a concern well founded. According to the Wall Street Journal Online, Benetton has been losing ground over the last decade to competitors such as Inditex SA’s Zara and Hennes & Mauritz AB’s H&M. The label is struggling to find its place in fashion which is why it has revisited its publicity strategy. The “Unhate” campaign is part of a three-pronged plan to relaunch Benetton’s brand, product and retail network. The label is streamlining its collection and focusing on knitwear and colours—two of the company’s 1980s staples. It is also firming ties with franchisees to better control brand image.

But going back to what worked once is not usually a sign of a brand in charge of its destiny. And as Robert Bean is quoted in the article as saying, “Fashion lends itself easily to pushing boundaries. But one won’t be rewarded just for making controversy. The product must fit the advertising.”

Attention seeking is not a brand strategy.

Attention converting is.

And that’s the real challenges it seems to me for this brand: not just getting the attention (relatively easy), but getting the leverage and being able to link all the kerfuffle back to the brand, what it sells and what it stands for. Turning that attention into bottom-line commitment. Mentions and likes cost nothing – but they earn nothing either.

The media love scandal because it absolutely works for their business model – it sells papers.

It doesn’t necessarily or automatically work for yours.

Lady Gaga’s found a relatively simple way to make that conversion. Gain attention and build intrigue in public – convert that to dollars in album sales and live concerts. The Kimmed One too has managed to do it (actually off a tape ironically), because her business model, it seems to me, is predicated on converting the attention and intrigue generated on TV into what fans buy from a store or what companies pay for live by way of personal appearance fees. But then there’s always the risk, as per the wedding, that outrage tips the other way.

And so, here’s the irony. So many brands let opportunities pass them by because they fail to see the potential in a message or a position or an idea. Because they fail to see that a seemingly ordinary concept has the potential to change their audience, their bankability, their reputation – if it’s handled in an exciting, inspiring and disruptive way … But just being interesting without a clear corridor to the money will not be enough.

Can Benetton turn Unhate into Unbeatable?

We’ll have to wait and see.

Cancelling the brand: what has Qantas really grounded?

By Mark Di Somma

The ramifications for the brand after Qantas’ decision to ground its entire fleet over the weekend are obvious. It’s a move that has no doubt put tens of thousands of people in a very bad mood and set the scenes in my view for an ongoing internal war that may well prove unrecoverable.

In brand terms, Qantas has done something equally damaging. In looking to force a regulatory decision, it has handed its competitors the perfect bridge: actions that discredit trust; and a prompted opportunity for customers to try out the opposition.

One of the most powerful incentives for change is doubt – that nagging, unrelenting feeling that somehow a brand is not what it used to be, or even worse that it cannot be taken at its word.

The other incentive is access to another channel that is viable, credible and that offers an opportunity to vent emotion.

Both incentives exist here. Meaning people now not only have a reason to walk, they have lots of gates to walk to. Domestically and internationally, competing airlines have been handed the chance to invite disaffected business fliers into their lounges, to convert frequent fliers to their own loyalty programmes, to offer incentives to secure the Xmas travelling public, and at the same time to look very much like the good guy.

There’s never been a better time for competitors to encourage people to fly another way.

I have a feeling this is going to get interesting.

Does efficiency jeopardise brand?

By Mark Di Somma

In the hunt for more streamlined businesses that are less resource intensive, how real is the risk that brands are actually putting people off dealing with them? When does an efficient process become so rationalised that it loses its humanity and therefore its appeal?

On the face of it, brand and efficiency have similar objectives. They’re both about creating financial headroom – but of course they approach that goal from opposite directions. Efficiency is so often about what can be subtracted. Brand is all about what can be added, at least perceptually, that people will pay more for.

The problem occurs when the experience is over-compromised in the interests of saving money: when the seats become too cramped; the aisles too narrow; the servings too small; the service too automated … Because it’s at that point, that delight leaves the building, and customers start looking elsewhere because they feel you’re being mean-spirited.

There are, as I see it, two ways to address this:

1. Set very clear customer expectations. If you’re running a high volume, scaled brand, make it very clear to customers why they’re getting what they’re getting. And when you make a change that delivers them perceived greater value, talk about that openly and clearly as well. I refer to this so much because it’s remarkable to me how many brands are vague about what customers are getting that they’re interested in for their money.

2. Make your efficiency drive as invisible to the customer as you can. In other words, focus on adding perceived value where you front customers and removing cost where you don’t. That way, customers won’t feel like they’re being short-changed. But remember that the two are not disconnected. There’s no point in having a nice shop window if there’s no infrastructure to support it.

One idea that I am interested in is the concept of an “efficiency dividend”, where you effectively reward the brand for streamlining by reinvesting a percentage of the savings made. Whilst this may appear contradictory at first, it’s in fact an investment in the long term health of the brand from short-term cut-backs. (I’ve advocated for the same idea in terms of channelling profits into innovation as well.) It helps ensure you don’t just cut the business off at the knees.

How you deliver is your brand’s business. But what you deliver is your customers’. In each case, that’s the party that feels most directly affected. So my three questions are always:

1. What can we add to the experience to make us more competitive?
2. How much is the business going to pay for that? (by way of efficiencies elsewhere)
3. How much more will customers pay for that? And for how long (before it becomes commoditised)?

Turning your brand into the authority

By Mark Di Somma

In this article in Business Week, Howard Schultz talks about how the mighty Starbucks brand lost its way – mistaking aroma rather than coffee for the core of its business and embraking on a strategy that saw it shift seriously off-course. The problem, as Schultz explains, is that by the time the company realised that they had diluted their brand position, breakfast sandwiches had become 3 percent of the company’s total revenue. Getting back on track was a big call. He did it anyway.

We talk a lot these days about thought leadership – but really, I see that as a component of a bigger objective: market authority. You may or may not want to be the biggest in a sector, but the article says there are three actions that you need to take if you have lost your mojo and, like Starbucks, are looking to re-establish brand authority.

I actually picked up five:

The first decision is obvious – decide what you want to be the authority in as a brand, and keep the faith. Schiltz recognised that while CDs, movies, and breakfast sandwiches all represented revenue streams, they also cluttered stores, diluted the brand and eroded its authority.

The second decision is about doing everything you can to retain and foster that authority. In Starbucks’ case, that meant perfecting new roasts and shutting down every store in North America for an afternoon to retrain its baristas.

Thirdly, stop doing those things that don’t reinforce your authority, even if they were your ideas in the first place.

Fourthly, stay away from the middle ground – because while that common congregating place might be the most comforting, especially in softer market environments, it is also the place you are most likely to suffocate any authority you had in the marketplace. It is the place where you are least likely to cultivate distinction.

Finally, to be the authority, share responsibility for being the authority with the whole workforce: “… make it clear to employees everywhere … that each tiny decision they make is just one more opportunity to passionately and obsessively move the company in the right direction, not the common direction.” Get there one action and one person at a time.

Brands only work locally

By Mark Di Somma

Really enjoyed this piece by Pankaj Ghemawat on the myths surrounding global brands. His point that only 16% of the top 10,000 brands on the Milward Brown database are recognised in more than one country, and only 3% are recognised in more than seven is a reminder that the world is not as open as many of us would like to think. Indeed Professor Ghemawat points to what happened to Coke as a sure sign that Ted Levitt’s principle of increasingly homogenous markets was incorrect.

After steadily pursuing a process centred on standardisation throughout the 1990s, Coke has since shifted almost 180 degrees. Today, the company offers a diversified product set, market-specific price points, localised production and distribution and clear distinctons between the approach it takes in the States and internationally.

And those same principles of distinction and specification that now influence a mass market brand like Coke are extending to other brands looking to build share in markets away from home.

Ghemawat’s advice? Focus on the cultural, administrative, geographic and economic differences between markets – nice acronym of CAGE – and develop specific country or regional strategies to make the most of them.

My take-out? Brands can’t expect to build trust and recognition through arrival, announcement or availability. Brands build engagement by syncing with the context they are sold in, and therefore becoming a part of life in a place. There is no such thing as glocal because you can’t transpose or impose one version of local everywhere. That’s colonialism.

Local is also not geographical, it’s psychological. It’s local if it feels local, regardless of its logistics. It needs to feel aligned, relevant and integrated with a space and the people in that space. Until you’re welcomed as a resident, you’re still a visitor – and no local wants to buy everyday goods from a tourist. What works for you at home works for you at home. What Ghemawat seems to be saying is – leave that thinking there.

Everyone has a sense of home, but those senses of home are very different.

What’s a brand strategist?

By Mark Di Somma

There are two answers.

You can be exactly what the words describe. The person who decides what the branding is, what it represents, how it will work and how it will be communicated. It’s a key part of planning effective and inspiring communications.

Or you can develop strategies for brands. You can be a person who works to make brands more valuable, distinctive, profitable and utterly aligned with the culture, the systems, and the distribution channels that must deliver what has been promised. That’s much more about the business. It focuses on making sure companies are utterly competitive through their brands.

Each description involves very different interests, priorities, conversations … even clients.

Just like in any role, a simple change in the words doesn’t just alter the meaning. It can actually shift the mandate.

What do you do?