All posts filed under: Brand marketing

7 lessons from the Sevens

Mickey Mice, surgeons, musclemen, vampires, men in tutus … yes, it’s Rugby Sevens weekend in Wellington. And that means teams of people dressed thematically and wandering the streets of the CBD. Welcome to a brand of rugby where the games themselves are virtually the backdrop for the actions and celebrations going on in the crowd and beyond the stadium. But there are also some important lessons for the marketers amongst us. Here are my seven out-takes from the madness: Sometimes the event is strongest when it carries the name but isn’t actually the focus. In other words, it becomes the platform or prompt for a wider circle of participation. That wider circle may be where the money is. As per yesterday’s post – if you change the format, you also challenge the expectations of what must take place. In the case of Sevens, the change of game format has evolved into a social prompt for an audience-wide costume-party. If you give people genuine permission to behave differently, the initial hesitancy will give way to an …

The real power of endorsements (and other opinions)

The purser on the plane this morning reminded us as we landed that the airline had just won two industry awards. She didn’t name them but the point was made. Endorsement brings that extra degree of confirmation that we as consumers have made a good choice. It plays to our collective wish to make wise purchases. It tells us we got it right. The lack of specifics doesn’t matter. Schemas – the snapshot opinions that we form of people, places, things – are hugely powerful influencers. They help us navigate too many choices, too many questions, too much conflicting information, too little time. They motivate us to engage. Without realising it, we form schemas for almost everything. Some are positive. Some are negative. Some are unjustified, either way. But the most common one is actually blank. It says “I don’t know what to think”. People literally don’t have a clue. The reason is simple. You didn’t provide one. Your website looked the same as everyone else. The email you sent them was formulated and vanilla. …

That’s a wrap

Format is really just a polite word for expectation. The way something is meant to be packaged. Years ago, they told The Doors they’d have to recut “Light My Fire” to make it a single because it didn’t fit the format – too long. It was an OK single I guess, but it was nothing like the real thing. Change led to compromise. The original didn’t cram into a single for a reason. It would be like trying to make a 3 minute version of Bohemian Rhapsody. What are you going to leave out? But the reverse is also true – works that may have one or two good ideas, repeated and padded to try and make them look and feel more substantial, to make them extend into the format. Here’s the reasoning behind that action – if it’s a book, it must be 180 pages, so 180 pages it will be. Otherwise it’s not a book, it’s an extended essay or a long article or a something else. It must be that long in …

How do you value a crowd-based brand?

What is the value of global friendship and can you actually assign a price to it? Facebook’s own stats say that the site now has more than 500 million active users, and that 50% of them log on to Facebook in any given day. That means Goldman Sachs’ implied valuation of $50 billion suggests every active user is worth around about $100. Is that a lot? I actually don’t think it matters. The much more interesting question is: $100 – to whom? Users are not paying money to talk to their friends, post their photos and catch up on what’s going on as they generate content on Facebook, but if Goldman Sachs is right, then that’s what their millions of activities will generate for someone else. So who’s anticipating the $100 of value, and just as importantly, how? Investors, yes. But based on the production of what? There have been any number of comparisons between Facebook and Google – but to me, they overlook a fundamental difference. Google does produce something: a very powerful search …

Refreshing the connections: a perspective on The Pepsi Refresh Project

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: …

Pass the salt

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 …

Work in progress

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 …

Tying brands up in knots

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

Flogging a dead Playhorse

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 …

The difference between next and again

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 …