web analytics
Dec 15

Reebok EasyTone: It’s not about selling snake oil

You may have come across this recent news about the Federal Trade Commission’s ruling against Reebok. In a nutshell, the Commission ruled that Reebok’s claims that its toning shoes “would strengthen and tone key leg and buttock muscles more than regular shoes” were unsupported and false. Reebok agreed to settle the dispute for a sum of $25 million, which would go towards consumer refunds.

Here’s one of the adverts for your reference:

Such advertising claims are nothing new. Exaggeration was (is?) commonly accepted in advertising. It was what the industry called “creative leap”! (ahem)

Now I don’t know for sure whether these claims were unsupported or false. Having said that, I am old enough and smart enough to know that I am not going to get toned legs and buttocks just by wearing some shoes. So the claim does appear to be exaggerated.

I think I understand why Reebok found making this EasyTone promise so tempting. Let’s face it – getting in shape isn’t easy. You have to put your body through pain, rein in your taste buds etc. It’s a lot of hard work. There are plenty of people who are willing to do the hard work but there are many more who are looking for the easy ways out. And these are the people who must’ve found the EasyTone proposition so compelling. So yes, there was a good chance that they would’ve bought the EasyTone shoes, and they did indeed.

The problem was that false promises have a very short shelf-life. They may boost your sales in the short-term but almost always end up damaging customer trust which doesn’t bode well for the balance sheet in the long run.

If there is one thing I’ve learnt over the years in marketing, it is this: contrary to popular perceptions in marketing departments around the world, marketing is not about selling snake oil. Instead, it is about making genuine promises that you can honestly keep.

Perhaps this is something Reebok failed to understand. Of course, it is not the first time a brand has made such lofty claims and unfortunately, it won’t be the last. But I don’t think it will work for very long. From the trends I’ve noticed in the last few years, there is a fundamental change in consumers’ expectations from brands. Consumers are increasingly seeking brands that make a meaningful difference to their lives. I call these brands ‘enabler brands’ and have explained them in more detail here.

Nike seems to understand this very well and it is reflected in their products and ancillary services that add value to their customers’ lives. Perhaps Reebok could learn a lesson or two from Nike.

0
comments

May 05

Do justice to customer engagement

The advent of social media has opened up great possibilities for customer engagement, or so it is commonly believed. Every imaginable brand is now trying to get us to “like”, comment, share, and even co-create. Clearly, brand managers must think that social media has radically simplified customer engagement for them. No more hard work for them now – just design a facebook/twitter page, start a youtube channel, run a few interesting competitions and throw some exclusive discounts and “tick the customer experience box.”

And yet, the truth is that very few brands have managed to engage their customers in a true sense. The reason, in my opinion, is that most marketers fail to understand what customer engagement really is. To set the tone, let me begin by my understanding of the concept of ‘customer engagement’.

Customer engagement is establishing deeper and lasting relationships with your customers through meaningful experiences and interactions.

Mark the underlined keywords. Now reflect on all the “customer engagement campaigns” that you have either noticed or initiated yourself. How many of them were intended to build deeper and lasting relationships? How many sought to create meaningful experiences and interactions?

The trouble is that many marketers confuse ‘customer engagement’ with crowd-sourcing and/or meaningless social media interactions.  The mindless pursuit of “social media campaigns” reflects that confusion. Think of last year’s Gap logo fiasco or the latest failure of Cadbury’s Spots v Stripes campaign. But no matter how many such campaigns they run, they’ll seldom be successful because they lack the all-important purpose. One gets a feeling that these campaigns are run simply because they could be run.

On the other hand, successful engagement initiatives are the ones that have genuine purposes. They are rarely seasonal or short-term and they almost always add value to the customers’ lives. Most importantly, they are firmly embedded in their core brand strategy.

There are quite a few great examples of how brands have managed to engage their customers in meaningful ways such as Nike Plus, Nintendo Wii, and Lego. If you reflect on their success, you will realise that none of them ran any “customer engagement campaigns”. Instead, they created opportunities for their customers to interact with their brand and with each other in meaningful ways. Nikeplus.com, for instance, enabled runners around the world to connect and compete with each other. Lego ‘design by me’ lets its customers to design their own Lego kits which others could also buy. Notice how deeply embedded these initiatives are in their respective brand strategies?

Sure, these initiatives are not for short-term and they don’t produce immediate results. Perhaps they can’t even be measured quantitatively. But one thing is for certain – they build deeper and meaningful customer relationships and improve business performance over the long haul as all of the three brands mentioned above have proven.

So to sum up, if you are looking to engage your customers, make sure:

1. You don’t run “engagement campaigns” for the sake of running them;

2. You understand how your initiative/s fit into your core brand strategy;

3. The initiatives are long-term and sustainable; and

4. They add some value to your customers’ lives in a meaningful way.

0
comments

May 03

The brands I love: State Bank of India

State Bank of India is one of India’s most recognised brands. The bank teaches us a few lessons in the practice of brand management. In this presentation that I recently made, I discuss what makes State Bank of India a truly great brand. Note: Open in slide show mode.

SBI Presentation

0
comments

Apr 04

Towards ‘enabler brands’

Branding is changing. From the early days of branding (literally) animals and tools to the present days’ practices of creating emotional bonds and memorable experiences, branding has been evolving all along the way.

It simply used to be a mark of trust and quality. That was the only differentiator during the “branding stone age”. When almost every other product in the category started to produce good quality and trustworthy products, branding evolved to mean popularity. The emergence of electronic and print media let advertisers loose on customers, and those who could shout the loudest were invariably the strongest and most sought after brands. Almost everyone drank the same brand of cola, smoked the same brand of cigarette, and wore the same brand of jeans.  As people started to get tired of this advertising bombardment and the “big brother brands”, brands evolved again. These new species of brands were anti-mass market. Apple’s birth in 1984 is perhaps the best example. I call them definer brands – people started to use these brands to define their own personalities. As the world got smaller and the word spread faster, social responsibility became the norm. Nike’s child labour fiasco and the rise of fair trade practices are good illustrations of the brand evolution into ethical brands.

I think brands are now in the next stage of their evolution. That doesn’t mean that people don’t buy brands for their trustworthiness or perceived quality or to define themselves or for their socially responsible behaviour. They do. But when every brand is equally trustworthy and a mark of quality, when every brand is equally ethical, and when definer brands become mass brands, they cease to be different from each other. And that’s what a brand in essence is – a differentiator.

So what is the next stage of evolution? And what is bringing it about? I think people are slowly beginning to realise that brands don’t contribute to their lives in ways that matter. Okay, buying and using them may give us a momentary sense of elation but that’s about it. At the end of it, they don’t make any lasting, positive difference to our lives.

As the consumer society plagued by various health concerns (e.g. obesity), environmental damage, and heavy credit card bills recovers from the global financial crisis, it will fundamentally change its behaviour. People will try to seek out brands that truly enrich their lives – make them fitter, faster, smarter, more productive and so on.

This change in people’s attitudes and expectations from brands will usher in the next stage of brand evolution. I call these brands enabler brands. These brands won’t seek to pass on the “marketing costs” to customers, they will not run meaningless CSR programs to score some PR brownie points, and they certainly won’t try to give people a false sense of accomplishment or identity. Instead, these brands will truly enable people to live better lives. They will have at their hearts ideas of products and services that seek to better their consumers’ lives in meaningful ways. These are the brands that will truly matter in the post-consumerist society.

So where will these brands come from? But of course, from the organisations with a real sense of purpose; organisations with a very strong raison d’etre. Not that such brands don’t exist today. Some brands were born with this sense of purpose – remember Steve Jobs’ famous appeal to the then PepsiCo President? Or Nike’s ambition to inspire the athletes amongst us? It’s not a surprise that such genuine purposes inspire products such as the iPhones and iPads and Nike+s.

Some other brands are slowing waking up to the idea of enabler brands. I recently came to know about IBM’s brand refresh. What interested me most about this effort is that they’ve actually defined a purpose for the new IBM brand – ‘making people smarter.’ Although we don’t know what that purpose will transpire into, the brand has at least taken its first step in the right direction.

Clearly, the days of selling meaningless products (sugary drinks and fatty foods are my favourite bashing boys) on the back of manufactured emotional benefits would soon be over. This may be a bold statement to make but many of today’s giant brands will have to rethink their brands or face the only prospect of extinction.

0
comments

Mar 31

What is a brand?

I came across this interesting post on Brand Strategy Insider about brand definitions. Derrick Daye of the Blake project and author of the post suggested that most people, even those who work in the branding and marketing function, don’t know how to define brand. I couldn’t agree more. I personally think that we marketers and brand professionals have made the concept of branding extremely complex and academicians no doubt have contributed their worth to that. Brands have been defined by various practitioners and academicians as a promise, a relationship, trust, bond, and mark of quality among other things and yet none of these definitions wholly describe why we buy the products and services we buy.

Having agreed with Daye to that extent, however, I can’t get myself to agree with the alternative definition that he offers:

A construct that delivers marketing promises to facilitate the formation of a mutually beneficial and evolving bond between the seller (or corporation) and its stakeholders based on functional and emotional values.

With all due respect to Derrick Daye, I found this definition just as impotent in explaining the concept of brand as most other that I’ve come across to date. I find it too complex, too confusing, and frankly, almost incomprehensible. To be fair, Daye himself concedes that it’s a “bit complicated and involved” and I agree with him there.

But I don’t think we need to necessarily make it that complicated. I have a simple theory – when things get too complicated, something’s going wrong somewhere. When things get complicated, it’s time to go back to the basics. Simplify.

The problem with us practitioners is that we tend to over-analyse things a little. We know the subject well, we read and write books about it, we discuss it with each other day in and day out and it’s no surprise that we understand this lingo. That’s where all these definitions come from. Unfortunately, we miss one crucial point – what does brand mean to the customer?

Does the customer look at our products and services as a promise, a relationship, trust, bond or a “construct that delivers marketing promise”….? They clearly don’t. For the average customer, a brand is simply a filter – a differentiator. Nothing more, nothing less.

We as customers are bombarded with brand messages from everywhere. Advertisers have taken over every possible visual space and audio frequency that we are exposed to. Products are advertised to us on TV, on roads, in trains, even in toilets! Supermarket aisles are filled with literally hundreds of brands. It’s a dizzying array of options that we must choose from. And that’s where brands play a role. Brands tell us why we should buy one product/service over another.

Most of our purchase decisions are processes of elimination rather than selection. We subconsciously filter out available options to settle for one. Brands aid us in that decision-making process. They give us reasons to justify our selection. Those reasons could be varied, but at the same time, very strong. We buy certain products for their perceived functional benefits (Head & Shoulders for dandruff, for instance), some because we inherently trust them (Kellogg’s, Dettol etc), other as status symbols (Mercedes, Rolex etc), and yet other to define/reflect our own personalities (Levi’s, Apple etc). Whatever the reason, it exists because we manage to clearly articulate the differentiation in our minds. The clearer the differentiation, the easier the process of elimination and the stronger the reason to buy. It’s as simple as that.

I think we marketers need to focus on giving our customers very strong reasons to buy our products i.e. create clear differentiators. That’s all there is to branding and that’s all there’s to business. Instead of coming up with crafty definitions that no one understands, we should ask ourselves simple questions – why should people buy our products/services instead of any other? Keep it simple, keep it honest, keep it clear.

0
comments

Mar 22

The difference between brand ambassadors and celebrity endorsements

As I reflect on a very interesting discussion I had with a connection recently, I realise how easy it is to confuse between the concepts of brand ambassadors and celebrity endorsements. Although I agree that there’s occasionally a very thin line between the two concepts, they are usually profoundly different in terms of their role in brand strategy.

Celebrity endorsements and brand ambassadors are different in at least three different respects:

1) Endorsement vs. representation

Ambassadors, by definition, are representatives. Brand ambassadors embody the brand personality and reflect the brand values at every customer interaction. Marlboro man is a great example of a brand ambassador. The Marlboro man tells us what Marlboro stands for.

Celebrity endorsement, on the other hand, is simply endorsement of a product/brand by a popular person, often in exchange of a certain amount of money. True, there are cases where the brand and celebrity have a decent strategic fit (think Roger Federer and Rolex or Tiger Woods and Nike) but how many other celebrity endorsements have such a good strategic fit?

2) Shared vs. exclusivity

Even in the case of Roger Federer and Tiger Woods, they don’t exclusively promote one brand. Tiger endorses half a dozen other brands and brand managers have to think not only of the strategic fit between their brands and endorsers but also between their brands and the brands endorsed by their celebrities. What’s the strategic fit between Nike and Accenture?

Brand ambassadors are/should ideally be exclusive to their brands. Jack Daniel won’t, and can’t, promote any brand other than Jack Daniel’s. Ditto with Steve Jobs and Apple. They can’t, and won’t, not because they aren’t popular but because they are the embodiments of the brands they represent, and vice versa.

3) long-term vs. short-term

And that brings me to the third key differentiator – Jack Daniel and the Marlboro man have remained relevant to the brands for decades, reflecting a consistent brand personality. On the other hand, celebrities lose their relevance and/or significance in a very short time. Contracts run out, careers get over, scams and scandals happen… And brand managers who were happy only yesterday for these celebrities to flash their teeth for their brands fall over each other to distance themselves with these “stars”.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not against celebrity endorsements. I think they can, and do, give brands momentary exposure, which is so very important in certain cultures such as India. They are also a short-cut to mind space. Michael Jordan immediately brings Nike Air to mind. Similarly Sachin Tendulkar and MRF.

Having said that, these associations don’t last forever and when they’re lost, brands have to work to create new associations all over again. That’s the flip side of celebrity endorsements. They are extremely expensive and unsustainable.

It’s easier to find celebrity endorsers, especially when brands have deep pockets, but it’s a painstaking process to find and develop brand ambassadors. But when that’s done and done well, they deliver far superior results over a long period of time.

0
comments

Mar 15

Brand-led thinking: what’s your rallying cry?

Urban legend has it that on a trip to Cape Canaveral, President Kennedy was meeting the employees working at the site. The President asked a man in White overalls what he did at Cape Canaveral. “I clean toilets”, replied the man. Kennedy smiled, shook his hand and moved on the the next person, with the same question. The next toilet cleaner replied, “I am helping to put a man on the moon, Mr. President.”

The legend concludes that the cleaner shared a bigger purpose and was therefore more motivated in his job.

Of course, there’s no way to verify the authenticity of this story but what is true is that when employees share a bigger purpose, it can and does boost their morale and motivate them to perform better.

This simple fact struck me most when I worked for a contact centre operation in India. The Back Office (BPO) industry is one of the highest paying industries in India. Their young employees are not only well paid but are extremely well looked after, almost to the extent of being pampered. I was astounded to see the state of the art facilities, in-house salons, restaurants, gaming rooms and what not within the company premises. On top of that, the employees enjoyed free rides to work, lavish discounts at many of the city’s best cafes, bars, restaurants and cinemas, big 5-star parties every quarter and all the other sundries such as healthcare and so on. I thought that the life of a call centre employee is, well, lavish.

And yet, the company I worked for had a very high employee turnover – approximately, if not in excess of, 40%! (I later found out that it was industry average). The company identified it as a problem but the acceptable solution was to throw even bigger and better perks at the employees.

Clearly, something was wrong somewhere. The issue definitely wasn’t the lack of perks or poor salaries (if anything, I believe it was exactly the opposite), but it was one of a lack of purpose. After talking to many employees, I realised that most of them looked at their jobs simply as taking calls from irate customers sitting in faraway lands. Moreover, they did that on behalf of a foreign company that doesn’t even exist in India. Clearly, if I am made to deal with customers who are not mine, on behalf of a company I don’t work for, then I won’t feel as enthusiastic about solving their problems as I would otherwise. So the problem was not of poor remuneration, it was that of not feeling part of something worthwhile.

I used the Indian BPO example but trust me, it’s not limited to that one industry. This problem exists in far more companies and industries than meets the eye. Indeed, most of us have no greater purposes than simply doing what is expected of us and making a living. After all, how many of us, including me for most part of my career, passionately believe in what our companies stand for and what they do?

But the responsibility for the lack of passion for the company rarely sits with the employees. It often lies with the management who can’t articulate their companies’ purposes and/or fail to effectively communicate it down the line.

But in a few cases when they do, the results are often remarkably powerful. A sense of purpose gives people a reason to fight for something they genuinely believe in. It acts as a rallying cry to play their part in achieving something worthwhile. One of the big reasons behind the allied forces’ victory in WWII is that they knew what they were fighting for and why it was important. It was also the sense of purpose that gave Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela the momentum their causes required.

It is equally true in the commercial world. This is where successful companies stand out. They have a very clear understanding of their purpose and they do a great job of convincing their entire company of that purpose. Apple, Nike, and Innocent drinks immediately come to mind. They have a very clear idea of their raison d’être, which is original and authentic and a lot more than the often drab “increasing shareholder value” and “customer delight” and “corporate citizenship” hogwash. Nike wants to “help athletes of every level to achieve their potential” and Innocent wants to “Make natural, delicious food and drink that helps people live well and die old.” 

With such clarity of purpose, these companies are able to attract and retain people who share their worldview and are equally committed to it. They know that they are part of something important and meaningful. These companies inspire a sense of employee loyalty that ultimately has a positive rub on effect on their customers.

Moreover, when you have loyal and passionate employees who share their company’s worldview, it creates a unique organisational culture that in itself gives the company its competitive advantage. Those who work for a living keep jumping from one company to another every few years. Clearly, the same people replacing each other in competing organisations simply end up creating a homogenous culture across the industry. And when a company doesn’t have a unique culture – a unique way of doing things, and doing them differently, it can’t be unique and different in the marketplace.

Apple is a great example. Here is a technology company that’s unlike any other technology company. Apple does things differently largely because of the people it employs. It’s website calls for potential candidates to ‘create world’s most loved technology and help people discover what they can do with it’.

As you can see, there as many companies that offer employees a chance to make a living and then there are a few that offer their employees a chance to be a part of something meaningful. Ask yourselves which company you work for. What gets you out of the bed and off to work? What gives you a sense of accomplishment at the end of the day. If you own a company, ask yourselves why your employees work for you. What purpose have you given them? What’s your raison d’être? What’s your rallying cry?

2
comments

Mar 11

KFC ‘finger lickin’ good’ no more

In a bid to appear health-conscious, the popular fast food brand KFC has replaced it’s long-standing ‘finger lickin’ good’ catchphrase with ‘so good’.

This move is rather perplexing to me. First of all, it tells me that KFC doesn’t consider healthy food to be ‘finger lickin’ good’. As a fitness fanatic, KFC has lost me right there. More worryingly, it further tells me that the food I’ll get at KFC henceforth won’t be finger lickin’ good anymore. And neither messages would do much to attract me in their outlets.

But then I am really not KFC’s ideal customer. I rarely prefer fast food and eat a simple veggie delight sandwich at subway if I have to. And I wonder if those who would consider themselves to be fast food affectionados would exchange taste for healthy food. A bowl of fruits and salad instead of deep fried chicken anyone? Having spoken about this to a few of my “foodie” friends, I definitely don’t think so.

So basically, in order to try and please both me and my “foodie” friends, KFC may just have alienated both of us. A typical mistake so many brands have made in the past and unfortunately many will make in the future.

Besides, what does ‘so good’ mean anyway? What does it stand for?

I don’t think KFC meant to tell us that their food is not longer tasty or that they think that healthy food isn’t tasty but it’s not what they mean that matters. Life is a game of perceptions and what you say creates perceptions. I think KFC just hasn’t said it well.

0
comments

Feb 08

When was the last time you bought something different in the supermarket?

I was struck by the efficiency with which I did my shopping today at the supermarket. I knew exactly what I wanted to buy, in what quantity and approximately how much I was going to spend. I moved from aisle to aisle with the swiftness of the wind. The dozens of choices on each shelf didn’t distract me from picking up the same box of cereal, the same carton of milk, the same pack of crisps, and even the same rolls of toilet paper. My entire week’s shopping was done in a matter of 15 minutes and I was out of the supermarket just as fast I as entered it. (Now that I think of it, I probably spent an equal amount of time waiting in the check-out queue!)

On my way back, I wondered when was the last time I evaluated all the shelf options and actually bought something different. And I couldn’t remember it. There must have been a time when I really had to sift through all those options to settle on my current choices but I couldn’t remember when that was. It seems like an eternity since I’ve been buying the same products over and over again, week after week, month after month and perhaps year after year.

What does that tell me about myself as a customer? Am I brand loyal? Hardly. I have been buying the same brand of bread for centuries (!) and yet I don’t remember what the brand name is. I vaguely recollect settling on this brand because it claimed to be low GI. I am sure there are other low GI breads but none of them printed it on their packaging. This brand made it easy for me because low GI is exactly what I was looking for. Similarly, I buy the Benecol yoghurt because it is “proven to reduce cholesterol”. Or the Cravendale milk for that matter because it “lasts longer than normal milk”.

So is it all about packaging? (or what the product claims to do on it?) I don’t think so. There’s no specific reason why I buy the bottle of honey I buy. I just happened to pick one at random and kept picking it up ever since. Ditto with most of the desserts, teas and other snacking products. I buy them because I recognise them because I had bought them earlier because I recognised them…

But it is not all about familiarity either. I usually spend an awful lot of time in the wines section and in the ice-creams section. Familiarity actually works against the products in these two sections. I tend to try new wines and ice-creams and buy a completely new product every time. The flavours are more important here than nutrition values or familiarity when it comes to wines and ice-creams.

When I analysed my buying behaviour, especially when buying food products, I was startled at the complexity of it all. I realised that my buying behaviour is erratic and changes from aisle to aisle. Although I know that my behaviour is not exceptional, I am equally confident that many other shoppers buy the same products as I do but for very different reasons. My wife, for instance, buys the same brand of bread but for its special seed ingredients.

I couldn’t help wonder if others shop in exactly the same fashion. Why do you buy what you buy? What other brands can you remember sharing the shelf space? What would it take for them to get you to buy their products? And yes, when was the last time you bought something different?

0
comments

Feb 02

What’s in a brand name?

Came across an interesting discussion on one of the brand groups on LinkedIn. The discussion was about how to select good brand names and as you would expect from a healthy LinkedIn discussion, several commentators had some interesting ideas to contribute on the subject – they should be memorable, short (long), easy to pronounce, easy to translate, should reflect the product/service category, new and interesting and so on.

Considering that many agencies make a living by coming up with brand names, it seems obvious that the branding industry takes this matter seriously. But is it really that important? Does a brand name really matter?

The more I pondered on this question, the more I was convinced that it doesn’t matter. And I have more than sufficient reasons to believe so. Take for instance the fact that most of the Interbrand top 100 brands are either family names (e.g. Ford, Dell, Honda etc.) or abbreviations (e.g. GE, IBM, HP etc.). Their brand owners clearly didn’t think it was important to invest a lot of thought (and time and money by extension) in coming up with the names. A valid counter argument is that these companies have been around for a long time and were established when companies were named with generic terms or family names. Besides, they’ve built decades of market leadership at a time when competition was low and before modern branding and naming practices took hold.

But that’s where the cases of newer brand names become interesting – Apple, ebay, facebook, google… None of these brands were named using any of the modern branding and naming practices. Perhaps they validate some of the naming strategy principles but these brand names almost seem to have inspired these principles instead of the other way round.

Steve Jobs apparently decided to name his company Apple because “maybe he worked in apple trees, maybe the idea just occurred based on Apple records (of which Jobs was a fan), or maybe he had some other meaning to it”. Facebook simply came from Harvard’s ‘facebook’, Pierre Omidyar created ebay because the portal with his company name ‘Echo Bay’ was already taken…

In my opinion, a name is a name is a name. It doesn’t matter whether it’s long or short (comparethemarket.com is equally popular), or easy to pronounce (Stella Artois, Louis Vuitton etc.), easy to translate (BMW, Patek Phillip) or even reflect product or service category (Orange, O2, Virgin). What matters is what the companies do with these brand names. Do they give their customers enough reasons to remember them?

I sincerely believe that marketers should spend most, if not all, of their energies and resources in addressing that final question than worrying about what to name their brands.

0
comments