Latest Posts

Refreshing the connections: a perspective on The Pepsi Refresh Project

By Mark Di Somma

It’s great to see Pepsi deciding to spend money over a year in communities instead of splashing the lot on the Super Bowl. It certainly makes sense at one level. Conscientious consumers are asking corporates more and more questions about where their money is being spent and how committed they are to the people who buy their goods. On that score, this is huge.

And it certainly lays down the gauntlet in terms of challenging corporates to think about where they put their money. Top marks for that too. The ultimate Pepsi challenge.

It’s a move that has huge feel-good. Let’s face it, what’s not to like? Pepsi’s given away more than $20 million in grants to causes that otherwise would struggle to find the money they need to make a difference. Touchdown in that regard.

And there’s been incredible traffic online. So a huge participation win. A lot of people talking over an extended period of time.

But there’s one other thing I think they still need to do for this to really work: connect all the dots.

See, I get the ‘what’ and the ‘how’. I get that this was big. I get that this was a first. I get that this was an extraordinary way to divert marketing funds. I get that a whole lot of people in communities got involved (who wouldn’t?) and great good was done. I get that Pepsi went out on a limb. And I applaud for them for that.

What I don’t get is the ‘why?’. Not the immediate why – to promote great ideas and see them brought to fruition (which I actually think is closer to the what?). But the bigger question of “why Pepsi?”.

What is it in Pepsi’s purpose and its philosophy as a manufacturer of popular beverages that links them directly and meaningfully with the aims of this program? Where’s the philosophical ‘line of sight’ between this massive generosity and their worldview?

If it’s about “refreshing the world”, what do they think a refreshed world looks like? And how does “refreshment” tie in with their extended support of breast cancer, for example?

Are the many amazing ideas that have been suggested and supported about “refreshment”? And more importantly, are they about the understanding that most people have of the word refreshing? Is that word adequate? Or even appropriate?

Because if these ideas exceed what people think of as “refreshing”, then Pepsi has a golden opportunity here to completely own that redefinition – to make refreshing a world-changing idea or a community-changing idea, or whatever their aspiration for it is.

In other words, they need to establish, own and define the links between what they make, what they give, what they say, how they act and the vision they have for the planet?

Right now, I’m guessing those relationships. And I shouldn’t have to.

One thing I am clear about. “Refreshing the world” can’t just be a slogan. Pepsi have absolutely succeeded in achieving a refreshing approach but If it’s to work to its potential in this program, and the many other initiatives that Pepsi get involved with, it has to be a robust and exciting philosophy that is evident in every action and commitment that Pepsi makes. And it needs to be explained. Proudly. And clearly. People – both inside Pepsi and as consumers – need to understand the goal, the means, the challenges, the commitment and the reasons why Pepsi has signed up.

Most importantly, this program needs to lead beverage buyers to the stark commercial question: Yes? Or no? Do you agree with our view of what a refreshed world could mean, or not?

And the implicit call to action – if the answer is yes, then please buy our product. Don’t just like us. Don’t just notice us. Don’t just link to us. Decide. Decide to buy our products.

Purchase gives consent.

Let me re-iterate, I have nothing but admiration for what Pepsi have done, and the need to align actions with a clear and distinctive purpose is not just something Pepsi needs to tackle. I hope they go ahead and take advantage of the huge potential they’ve generated here.

Two questions for you in closing:

1.    What are you putting on the record about your company through your actions?

2.    What do the initiatives you support and endorse say about you that you’ve been saying all along?

These, to me, are the keys to translating a whole raft of  initiatives, be they social media, philanthropic or sponsorships, into viable business investments.

Pass the salt

By Mark Di Somma

Once, salt was one of the most valuable commodities on earth. Usual supply and demand dynamics: plenty of need because of its preservation skills versus hard to find.

Over the centuries, it’s been a form of treasure, a trading currency, the cause of wars, a builder of empires and, in the case of Ghandi, a catalyst for protest. Today, it sits on a shelf in our supermarkets and we’re warned not to include too much of it in our diets. We don’t give it a second thought.

The modern equivalent of such a rarity is probably time.

Ask anyone how much free time they have these days. Most will tell you they don’t. They haven’t got time to do this or watch that or attend something else. They have so much to get through. And yet, according to Fast Company, Americans are spending more time on Facebook and Twitter than ever before: more than 2 hours a month on Twitter; more than four and a half hours on Facebook.

It’s fine. It’s enjoyable. It’s part of life.

And they’re not just talking for a minute here and there. The average user now visits Twitter 10 times per month for 13.1 minutes per session on average, and Facebook a little under 12 times a month for 23 minutes and 21 seconds per session. And it’s increasing …

Time may well be the new salt – but people will stay somewhere if you give them reasons to linger; reasons that seem more important to them than moving on. Somehow, people “find” the time.

Conversely, any time that feels like it could be better spent elsewhere is waiting time. And waiting time is like the stuff on the shelf – all too common, unprized and something we’re all telling ourselves we should have less of.

The genius of Starbucks’ “third place” was that it recognised that: people would rather spend time in a café than in a traffic jam. So Starbucks invited them to come in earlier and spend the extra time having coffee instead. Or drop in on the way home instead of heading straight for the crowded train.

Apps are going the same way – something fun to do, have or play with that make the less exciting moments more valuable.

It’s a challenge most of us could throw at our business models. The question is not how can we get our customers to spend more time with us? But rather – what can we offer them between the order and the delivery that feels less like waiting?

Work in progress

By Mark Di Somma

Didn’t work – Something was tried, and for reasons known or unknown, results were disappointing. Doesn’t mean that the same outcome would happen again, or that whatever is being proposed shouldn’t be tried again. This is a statement of history, often made blithely without the investigation of context, input, resource, influence or wider climate. It presumes a track record of past and therefore continuing disappointment.

Won’t work – Doesn’t mean it can’t work or that it hasn’t worked or even that it’s not working now, only that it will not work in the future in the way it is being framed or the way things are projected or with the allocated resources. In other words, it could work but it may require revision going forward.

Can’t work – Unfeasible. You’d have to be a fairly confident person to be making this statement. It states categorically that something will not work no matter what happens in the market, with customers, to the business, within any timeframe. Never. No debate. No right of appeal.

Will never work – Sounds definitive, but it’s usually subjective. It says that the person appraising this idea cannot imagine it working. They cannot see beyond the boundaries they have placed around the idea or the environment within which it operates. There’s an inherent fear of failure; a built-in shut-down mechanism that is keen to stifle any hope that this idea might even get an airing. An immediate change of conversation is signalled through tone and body language.

Four very different judgments spread across the full array of timeframes – and yet so many decision makers end up treating them as interchangeable.

Each one provokes exactly the same reaction. In today’s risk-averse corporate world, they all cultivate doubt. They all generate a “responsibility” to delay, fudge, detour, pass the buck, send this back for another rethink, put it into committee, investigate further.

They all buy time because what almost everyone immediately hears is ‘not now’.

And that’s how things get stuck.

Think back to the last feedback someone came to you and suggested “we” not go ahead with something. What did they actually say?

The invisible language

By Mark Di Somma

My friend Simon is a designer. One of his favourite lines is “Great kerning will save the world”. Chances are if you’re an art director or a designer or, if like me, you work with art directors and designers every day, you’ll find this amusing because it references a whole bunch of things about the discipline, the passion and the perspectives of those committed to impeccably forged design.

If you’re not a designer, you probably didn’t even grin. That’s OK. It’s not your dialect.

Language is about so much more than communication and meaning. It is filled with ideas and references that to some extent reflect the worldviews of those who enjoy them. People preserve those tenets in all sorts of ways. Some they jargonise; others they culturalise or instinctualise.

The acronyms are the easy part, because they are immediately confusing and confronting but at least they’re visible. I think the hardest thing to understand about any new sector you’re trying to market to is the embedded meanings, the invisible language, what goes without saying.

Tying brands up in knots

By Mark Di Somma

Three things all of us probably need to spend more time thinking about:

  1. A burgeoning moral factor that is becoming more militant – brands are expected to behave ethically, responsibly and sustainably, and part of that moral exploration seems to be veering towards finding ways to supply goods at competitive prices in ways that do no harm … to anyone. For an economic system that has always depended on having winners and losers, that’s a huge swing.
  2. The commoditisation of loyalty (not just product) – the growth of world class and best of breed systems haven’t just encouraged sameness, they’ve also slashed the risk of shifting from one brand to another. If product, service and risk are basically the same, consumers have little or nothing to lose by changing allegiance. Consumers are not just disloyal in some sectors. They are becoming increasingly disloyal in every sector.
  3. Resentment of profit – as consumers have suffered through the GFC, their expectations for companies to deliver them more and more “value” have increased. Give “me” more, even if it kills “you”. Everyone wants full service. No-one expects to pay full price.

I’m confident that each of these dilemmas is addressable on their own.

The knots form in trying to tackle the collective and simultaneous effects of all three.

Flogging a dead Playhorse

By Mark Di Somma

Brands retain value from their legacy providing they are still seen as relevant and interesting, providing they are still competitive and providing they retain goodwill. Or if people have had enough time to forget why they failed in the first place.

In other words they can recover if they have enough momentum, or they can be reborn on the back of nostalgia, but once they’ve flatlined, and particularly if they have been in that state for some time, they can be very difficult to resuscitate.

Take the case of the Playboy brand. It’s powerful, sure. And it does have significant heritage. It’s logo is recognisable anywhere and there is huge history there. But can it just continue to trade on the value it had? Doubtful. It is, as Adam Gordon rightfully points out, “a classic failure of industry foresight” and even though Gordon observes that “Brand is value stored up in the past to be reaped in the future”, I don’t share his apparent optimism about the brand.

Playboy cannot realistically expect to carry on as before and succeed under changed management. Declining sales would suggest to me that Playboy is no longer relevant, no longer competitive and its goodwill is running out fast. In fact, it has probably already traded on its past for too long.

That’s why I also don’t understand the company’s stated strategy to now transform itself into a brand management company. Who would pay hefty license fees to associate themselves with the name? And – the same question I asked about Starbucks – what sectors is the name going to add value in that aren’t already brimming with powerful, relevant and competitive performers?

As for Hugh Hefner’s decision to re-privatise, sure he gets to take his beloved company away from the unrelenting public gaze, but what exactly is he regaining ownership of?

Every Rome has its day. I would of thought this was no time to be taking up the fiddle.

The difference between next and again

By Mark Di Somma

Why have all the sequels that have been planned to the Rocky Horror Shows either not been made or have flopped?

The obvious answer is they couldn’t live up to the original. I suspect the real reason though may be a little more subtle – they couldn’t reach the spirit of the original. Because, in the meantime, circumstances changed. Other films and musicals were made. People got to a point where they had done that – still are doing it all over the world every weekend – they just didn’t want to do a variation of it.

It’s a dilemma that every successful product faces. Something wins – now what? How much of what you had do you keep? How much do you revamp? What stops 2 being too? In the case of Rocky Horror, the storylines were just as wacky, many of the characters made a return, author Richard O’Brien was still involved … and yet …

Rocky Horror worked brilliantly. The numbers say it’s still working. There are facts, but there is no inference.

Next does not mean again.

It’s not over, but it is done.

Refreshing your brand promise

By Mark Di Somma

Refreshing your brand promiseGreat products sell themselves. No they don’t. But equally, people don’t just buy brands because they’re brands either. Familiarity matters, but for the most part today’s customers are far too sophisticated to buy just anything with a nice or familiar name attached to it. Or rather to keep buying it without question.

A brand by itself doesn’t guarantee you anything.

Sometimes companies with brands that were once iconic forget that. They somehow believe that because the branding process can add margin, all brands must equal margin and presence must equal profit. Wrong. So wrong. Brands will only bring margin when everything else is right.

Right itself seems pretty straightforward. Make a really interesting promise. Deliver on it in really interesting ways. Do that, and the circle is seamless. Get it wrong and the circle is vicious.

When you don’t pay attention to the detail of your brand, there are consequences. The brand itself starts to breaks down. It degrades. To a name. And instead of a brand portfolio, all you’re really left with is a list masquerading as an asset base.

Making that list longer or wider doesn’t add to its value. It doesn’t mean you have diversified. It’s not a segmentation strategy. It just adds complexity, cost and confusion to what is now a catalogue.

So what else can a brand do? Strategists tend to think of the other tools in the brand boosting toolbox in terms of repositioning or revamping the look and feel. But a question I’ve been pondering on for some time now is, “Could just the promise change?” If neither brands nor products can afford to remain static, it would make sense that promises can’t either. And yet the concept of re-promising (by itself and not necessarily accompanied by a fundamental shift in the brand positioning) doesn’t seem to come up that often in strategy conversations.

Maybe that’s the real lead-off question for brands looking to iterate effectively today. And it’s not about changing the promise for the sake of it. To work your brand will need to promise buyers something consumers will pay more for, or more often for, or both. (Coke did it beautifully with the shift from refreshment to happiness.) Because that’s the other simple human truth at play here of course: one that affects brands, products and promises alike. If you don’t give people valid reasons to pay more, they won’t.

Acknowledgements
Photo of “The Drink” taken by Isengardt, sourced from Flickr

This post is an update and extension of some thinking first published January 20, 2011.

 

 

 

Job satisfaction

By Mark Di Somma

The next time you’re bored at dinner, here’s a discussion guaranteed to re-animate conversation. Simply ask “What do you think is the world’s most unnecessary/useless/over-rated job?” (choose any option – they all work).

The night I asked, suggestions came thick and fast. And most of the reasons people gave for disparagingly rating jobs the way they did fell into clear categories:

1.       Do nothing

2.       Add nothing

3.       Cost a lot and do nothing

4.       Talk a lot and add nothing

5.       Why do they bother?

6.       Think they matter but don’t

7.       Complicate everything

8.       Superficial

9.       Lack ability

10.   Lack personality

11.   Clueless

12.   Ruthless

13.   Make no difference whatsoever

14.   Pen pushers

15.   Grizzlers

16.   Vultures

17.   Leeches

18.   Bullshitters

19.   Fence squatters

Interestingly, a number of vocations received ratings in multiple categories.

How do you think other people see the work you do?

Are they right?