Brand: Who's Responsibility Is It, Anyway?

Brand: Whose Responsibility is It, Anyway?

A few years ago, on one steamy summer day, I sat across the table from one of the most powerful CEO’s in the automotive world.  My colleagues and I were having a conversation with him about the underleveraged value of his brand.  We suggested that his organization needed someone to champion the brand.  When he asked us who that should be, we told him that he would be the perfect brand champion.  We used the example of Steve Jobs as the ultimate brand champion to support this recommendation.

At that instant, the already warm room got a lot hotter. He was not just taken aback, but actually indignant that we would suggest that he, the CEO should be the brand champion. He told us in no uncertain terms that brand was the responsibility of marketing and, of course, us…the advertising agency. The conversation came to an immediate halt.

Having spent about half of my career in advertising, this was not the first time that someone equated brand with marketing communications. It happens all the time…even with some of the world’s greatest brands. 

Several years ago, I had the opportunity to work with one of the most iconic entertainment brands in the world, on what started out as a ‘branding’ (marketing) project for one of their underperforming theme parks.  As we dug deeper, it became apparent that it was not a marketing issue at all, but rather, a product issue.  Guests arrived at the park with high expectations that were set by the brand name, and left severely disappointed with their experience.  So, to fix it, we took a step back and developed actionable brand guidelines that could be implemented across the organization…from product, to CRM, to pricing, to partnerships, and yes, to marketing as well.  Today, that park is thriving. This positive outcome was only possible because the President of the park had commissioned the project, and thus we were able to move upstream and fix the real issue.

For while marketing communications are important in brand building, marketing communications are most effective when they amplify a coherent and desirable brand experience.

The only way to create that desirable experience is to ensure that everyone in the organization is crystal clear on what the brand stands for, and understands what they need to do to contribute to building that experience.

And who is better poised to drive absolute and coherent operationalizing of the brand, than the CEO?

Innovation = Creativity = Value

Innovation = Creativity = Value

Innovation. It drives brand value.  It is also one of the most overused words in marketing today.  That’s because it is much easier to say innovation, than to be  innovation.

Why is this so?  Perhaps it is because the word ‘innovation’ is lacking in clarity of definition.  And the dictionary doesn’t help us much, as it defines innovation as  ‘something new or different’.

So to understand what innovation is all about, it might be easier to debunk some myths by starting with what it’s not.

First, despite some marketers’ insistent and incessant claims, ‘New and Improved’ or better yet, ‘New Package, Same Great Product’ are not likely to be perceived as meaningful innovation by customers.  Incremental improvements like this will not drive significant change in brand perception or value.

Second, innovation is not technology. While technology can contribute to innovations, innovation can occur without inventing any new technology. And sometimes, technology is just frivolous.

So, what is innovation?

Fast Company's top 3 innovative brands, Apple, Facebook and Google make life simpler, richer, or more rewarding.  That’s because true innovation is driven by deep human insight. Insight gives innovation purpose. It gives innovation relevance.  Innovation without purpose and relevance is essentially valueless.

The number one brand on the list, Apple always starts with the insight that for most people, technology complicates tasks.  Facebook leverages the fundamental human need to connect. And Google satisfies human’s insatiable quest for knowledge.

But insight is only one ingredient.  The second, and perhaps more important is vision to challenge what is, and imagine what could be.  This is what separates incremental improvement from breakthrough innovation.  As Henry Ford famously said, ‘If I asked people what they wanted they would have said a faster horse’.  While insight may have established the need for faster transportation, without challenging the status quo, Ford may have started a veterinary stimulants company to satisfy this need for speed.  Instead, by thinking beyond what was, Ford imagined the mass use of internal combustion transportation.

What would each brand mentioned above be, had they not challenged the status quo?   Apple may have delivered an MP3 player that held more songs, or perhaps a cell phone with better network coverage, and little else.  Facebook might just be a better email platform, and Google just a more powerful portal. And none of them would have realized the brand value creation that comes with real innovation.

So if innovation is really about insight that purposefully challenges the status quo, then one might consider this dictionary definition:

‘the ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships, or the like, and to create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods, interpretations, etc.’

And one can find that definition by looking up the word ‘CREATIVITY’.  

Developing Markets: Opportunity for Incremental Growth or Hot Houses for Brand Innovation?

Developing Markets:

Opportunity for Incremental Growth, or Hot Houses for Brand Innovation?

Are global brands missing a significant opportunity with their approach to developing markets? Is it possible for developing markets to drive more than incremental business growth? Is it possible for developing markets to become the catalyst for renewed brand growth in mature markets?

Consider a typical brand with a growing global footprint.  It likely has an established presence in mature markets. These markets are probably considered the center of gravity for the brand, garnering the bulk of global resources and driving many key global decisions. But they have also likely reached a level of diminishing growth. 

Thus they seek incremental growth in BRIC and Next 11 markets.  And they’re doing so by imposing established developed market practices, ranging from infrastructure conventions to marketing tactics on these developing markets. And because the mature markets’ size gives them an organizational edge, developing markets are left to fight for scarce resources and a voice in global decisions.

But because these markets are developing in a world unencumbered by deeply entrenched infrastructures, marketing and media practices of the mature markets, aren’t they providing brands with the unique chance to start with a clean sheet of paper? By definition, developing markets create an opportunity for brands to innovate in every aspect of the customer experience, and to do so in the context of the world today.

And the benefit of this innovation is not limited to developing markets.  Indeed they have the potential to provide significant benefit to the brand in every market. Successful innovations can be adapted to reignite growth in mature markets, and raise the brand’s stature globally.

But in order to allow this to happen, the developing markets must be regarded by the organization for their potential to create brand value beyond their incremental business contribution.  These markets should receive funding to invest in ‘brand R&D’ beyond the size of the current business opportunity, and they should have an equal seat at the brand decision table.

Innovate or Die

A Wake Up Call for the Automotive Industry

A study just published by the US Public Interest Group confirms what with the automotive industry has quietly feared…that younger people just don’t love cars.

Automakers have been trying to lure younger buyers with more connective technology and Facebook pages with little success.  Perhaps they are missing the point.  Instead, automakers may want to examine the relevance of their 100 year-old business model to the world that younger people know.

Younger people only know a world in which they can consume just about everything ‘on demand’.  When, where, and how much they want. 

They buy music one song at a time.  They download the latest TV show when they want to watch it.  They buy the latest games electronically, and play them within seconds of purchase. They can access their favorite apps from any screen.

When they do invest in something more enduring…like a smartphone or a laptop, they receive updates and upgrades as improvements are added.

Contrast that to making a 5 year commitment to something that they will not use everyday, have to pay to store it while they are not using it, and will be equipped with old technology and design by the time they dispose of it.

So perhaps the answer to reviving younger people’s interest in cars is to make cars fit in their world.

What if one payment allowed you to access different cars for different needs…a sedan for business, and a weekend SUV?

What if you could buy annual usage contracts like you can wireless phones, where you pay a monthly fee based upon how much you use your car?  What if there was a modular product approach that allowed for upgrades to electronics, engines, or safety equipment over the life of the car?

While these may not be the only answers, it seems that it’s time to fundamentally rethink the business.  And the first brand that does this might just be the brand that captures the hearts of the next generation of drivers.