When is Bad Branding Good?

On Monday, Detroit's NPR station had a story about one of the terrific Michigan microbreweries, Michigan Brewing Company in Webberville. They are bidding on a new contract to produce and sell a new beer for ... ugh... Kid Rock. As Rex Halfpenny of the Michigan Beer Guide points out, these kind of celebrity brews are a bit of a folly: "Remember Billy Beer, capitalizing on a past president? There’s been Grateful Dead beer, sports stars, Lenny Bruce, Thelonius Monk, Cole Porter... Elvira had a beer." But hopefully Bobby Mason (owner of Michigan Brewing Company) gets that this celebrity brews won't be his golden goose, but the contract may work to finance expansion. Especially thanks to Michigan providing tax breaks that will allow Mason to "invest about seven million dollars to buy the equipment and hire the people [160 people] he needs to brew the beer at his 76-thousand square foot facility."

Here's a link to the audio of the story

This is interesting (and perhaps good) way to finance expansion, if (and this is a big, fat, bold if) he's got an outstanding plan in place to capitalize on this publicity stunt. Because let's face it, that's all this is. It's got branding implications, but its publicity. The contract may be big enough to build the brewery and sustain it for a year or two, but what then? Does Mason have a plan to leverage this publicity to increase distribution or increase awareness? Will the folks pounding the Kid Rock Beer really make the move to another MBC beer?

I hope so, but even more, I hope Mason has a plan and not just a hope.

Photo (c): CelebrityRoyale.com

Meme you. Meme me. Meme everybody.

Let's start with a little background: Facebook now has over 150 million users. In terms of size, this would be the 8th largest country in the world and more users than there are people (in total) in France and Great Britain combined.

There is a meme burning through the Facebook society. According to wikipedia.com, a meme is "a catchphrase or concept that spreads quickly from person to person via the Internet, much like an inside joke" In this case, the "25 things about me" meme is basically a little quiz that is spreading organically from person to person. You write 25 little "facts" about yourself, tag people in the message and then it gets passed along to the next person and so on. There are a lot of memes out there, and most professionals consider memes to be the basis of viral marketing. Youtube.com, blogs, twitter, and really anything you can hyperlink is essentially the concept of memes - things getting passed along to friends. But what had my interest was these quizzes, these lists that many people spend a lot of time and thought on.

I completed my "25 things" yesterday (a little late to the party), and as a marketer, this had me thinking "are there new ways I can exploit leverage these quizzes for branding purposes?" Seem far fetched? One of the previous memes was an iTunes quiz that asks you questions about your music library in itunes. Before that, there was one whose first instructions asked you to "Put your iTunes (or any other media player you may have) on shuffle." As a marketer, I read this and think, "wow, great marketing for Apple".

The facebook community has gotten so unwieldy large, that it makes sense to think about these in the same way we think about other marketing... locally. Why not start a quiz that asks specifically about your product? It may not get 100 million responses in 50 countries, but wouldn't it be better if it gets 100 responses within 1 mile anyway? There would be a fine line (obviously) between a fun quiz that people want to pass along to their friends vs. overt marketing, but if you think of it as a joke that you are passing along it seems that this may offer a new avenue for building brand affinity. Another option is to use it as a way of getting others to promote your product for you. Create a quiz that your product, website, or store would be the answer to some of the questions. Of course, there is a population out there that hates these memes (maybe you're one of them). They don't like to fill them out, but my experience has been that most of these folks read them anyway. For the purposes of branding, really, that's all we need.

Of course, measuring this is pretty much impossible, but with the exception of the time you'll lose writing, answering and reading your friends responses, it doesn't really have many other costs (that time cost shouldn't be underestimated, though). So, what do you think? Could you write a meme promoting your business without promoting your business? Maybe this will be your first foray into viral marketing. Give it a try, I'll fill it out!

A logo that says something

If nothing else, this logo and name are entertaining:



I am not sure that I really need to add anything else to it. I saw this will reading Urban Velo and thought to myself, "that is a very logical logo."
Aggressive and targeted... those offended by this, probably aren't the target audience. Hardcore skiers, runners, bikers, workers, and others who might need this are unlikely to be offended. They are also likely to know what it does without even reading any further (fyi: its helps those who "suffer from chaffing and want something made from natural ingredients like beeswax, coconut oil, almond oil and vitamin E.")

When Grassroots isn't so Grassroots

GT Bicycles has come up with a fairly unoriginal (but still not all bad) way to promote their brand through word of mouth - get grassroots folks to do it. GT is sponsoring 35 amateur mountain bike racers to ride the newest GT machines in at least 6 IMBA sponsored races. They are calling this the "Dirt Coalition." While this is a good idea, what I think is particularly good is some of the things that the company is looking for to sponsor. Specifically:

You might be right for the Dirt Coalition if…

• You live to ride and race your mountain bike
• You currently/have ever worked at a bike shop
• You’re a leader in your cycling community
• You coach other mountain bike riders/racers
• You’re an active IMBA member or local trail advocate
• You lead rides or organize cycling races and events
• You compete in cyclocross, too

In other words, they are looking for vocal and opinion-leader people, because having a sponsor who goes to races and then goes home without talking to anyone is not really very helpful and completely misses the point to their investment. But bike shop folks who are active in the cycling community through either advocacy or organization are very likely to be those with many connections and that's who this program is targeting.

Read the details a little closer though, and the wheels start to come off the grassroots part of the program... this expands the reach (or actually probably replaces some) of the GT marketing reps. GT is likely thinking this will get more representation to smaller races, to grassroots events, trail maintenance days, etc. The theory (I'm guessing) is that by having individuals who are vocal and people know, and who aren't paid by GT represent GT at races, it will improve the affinity for GT. Here's the details on what these "grassroots" reps have to do at each race:

Race and represent GT at a minimum of 6 mountain bike races (including mountain bike tris) between Apr. 1 – Dec. 1, 2009.

Spread the GT gospel. Know the goods on GT’s patented Independent Drivetrain, what makes their carbon lay-up process the best in the biz, etc.

Fly the GT flag at races

• Race and train exclusively on your GT Marathon Pro or GT Zaskar Pro
• Set up your 10x10 GT Dirt Coalition tent on the race premises and prep there
• Race in the GT Dirt Coalition kit…always
• Hand out GT stickers, brochures and cool swag at each of the events

Get to know your local GT dealer and connect other riders with him and the GT brand

Act as an ambassador for the International Mountain Biking Association (IMBA) at races

To me, that sounds like a regular, ole, rep. How believable is it really, that this is not a sales pitch, if your friend shows up at your local race on a brand spankin' new $3,500 GT ride, sets up a GT tent, starts talkin' GT tech, and starts handing out GT swag? Not very.

But perhaps the hope is for deeper reach into more local events. If so, then the challenge to the marketers will be one of measurement. Sure, I get what its supposed to do. But how will GT know if it worked (particularly if this is used as a trigger to end representation at some other events or events that will now have the Dirt Coalition attending)? At the end of the season, how is GT management going to know whether the investment paid off? My gut says, they won't. The marketing chaps that came up with this will spin it and will lay out a big jargon-filled explanation of what GT's getting from it, but at the end of the day, they won't know and GT won't be able to see it.

As I said, I don't think this is an all bad idea, but I think it needs a little refining. If I were the guy managing this, I'd change a few things:

• Dump the Tent - they seem to be doing a good job of targeting opinion leaders, so let them be that without placing them in the confines of a sales space - if you are going to give them a tent, then call it a sponsorship and give the other participants a reason to visit (free massage, free juiceboxes, free beer - well, that's what I'd want anyway)
• Do Some Communicating - if the sponsored rider doesn't have a blog, myspace, facebook page, then get them on it. Make sure that they are doing some updating about the ride, the bike, the feeling of being sponsored. Make it interesting and make sure its something that gives some honesty to it
• Maybe Some Viral Marketing? - This seems like it could be an excellent tool for building a new viral campaign. Arm some of these new coalition members with a helmet cam and let them catch the action or do interviews. Place videos online and invite other racers to come get their videos.
  
• Get Some Numbers - No doubt - these kind of campaigns are difficult to measure. But let's make sure we're working with dealers to understand whether GT traffic improved after a race. Watch the links to GTbicycles.com from the blogs/facebook/etc. Sales would be an ideal measure, but in the current climate, I'm not so sure that measuring sales pre/post racing season is really going to reveal whether its worked or not. (But I certainly wouldn't completely ignore that either!)

I'll be watching for my local Dirt Coalition member... wonder if I'll know her/him and want to talk to them in their tent or just wait until we're at the bar after the ride?

Positively Detroit!

This article is a little off topic for me, but there's been a lot of talk about it recently so I'll try and tie it back in at the end...

Author and columnist, Mitch Albom recently wrote an article in Sports Illustrated about Detroit. Detroit's been in the news a lot recently (not in a particularly positive light, unfortunately), and it seems that Mitch was attempting to counter that news. A good friend of mine, Jamie pointed me to a reply to Albom by Jim Boyle in Model D. Unfortunately, Model D won't get the same visibility as SI (or even probably the reprint of the article in Detroit Free Press), but I wish it would because I think both articles are important.

I've never been a big fan of Albom's writing style, but I think that both his article and Boyle's article say similar things about the city. I think the difference is tone. While both articles do point out positive things about the city, I didn't read either as particularly positive in tone. Boyle spends more time on specific neighborhood places that are positive - Albom spends more time on the sports (obviously, its in SI), big development, and ends with the general hopeful attitude of Detroit.

But unfortunately, both also spend a lot of time in negativity - Albom about the city ruins, Boyle about Mitch's attitude. Both seems somewhat self-defeating to me.

End of the day, I think these speak about different Detroiters - to me it seemed that both articles missed the demographic cohorts that the other picked up, and both are necessary to get a better picture of the whole. To paraphrase my friend Jamie, he said that these articles serve to divide Detroiters, while we should be spending more time trying to unify the two Detroits. So, this is where I can tie it back into branding - what we have are different brands for Detroit:
The Albom brand of a sports, ghost town with many problems, but a big can-do attitude.
The Boyle brand of an up-and-coming city filled with energy and activity.

Both are valid, but as Jamie points out we need some unification. Those trying to brand Detroit probably were pulling their hair out as they read these (both published just as the country started focusing on the North American Auto Show in Detroit). Wouldn't it be nice if we could come up with a simple, unifying theme for Detroit that shows both of these two Detroits?

How does the high-powered executive, the auto worker, the creative class professional, and the homeless guy with the mattress in the church came together? When do they come together? Tough questions, but in Detroit I believe they are coming together in some way. In the past that tie has been automobiles - they were the glue that brought everyone together in work and in play - but as that seems to be fading, we need to find that new identity.

How about a little optimism here?

I am often critical of ads or just foisting my opinion about them on unsuspecting folks who don't realize they asked. I recognize that this can come across as a somewhat pessimistic attitude towards marketing sometimes. With all the rest of the pessimistic economic news these days, I thought I'd put together a positive message with some useful information for you.

With all the bad news that we're being bombarded with these days, its easy to forget that now is a perfect time for nimble companies with well defined products for well defined customers.

That's a big concept so lets break it down a little:
Nimble companies - Many entrepreneurs that I talk to are encouraged by the economic news right now. Why? Because as the big corporate competitors are cutting on products and marketing, that's opening up an opportunity for entrepreneurs who can fill the niche left behind. But the key word here is "nimble". The risk in the market is still there, and you have to be ready to react (or better yet preempt). For example, a coffee shop that I've worked with in the past serves clientele who are professional, high-income, and are willing to pay for a high-quality product. However, the shop found that as Starbucks and another independent coffee shop closed, he was starting to see a different clientele - younger, not as affluent, more interested in quick foods to go with their coffee. Within the week of recognizing this trend, the shop partnered with a deli to offer cold sandwiches at the shop and introduced a new blend of coffee for 99 cents. However, he didn't change the current offerings and actually upgraded his chairs in order to keep his appeal to his current more affluent customers.

Well-defined customers - Most entrepreneurs that I know come to me and say something similar to "I've invented this new widget and it does X, Y, and Z" or "I've noticed there are not any widget stores in Cityville" and then they go on to talk about their product and how it will be successful. In my years in the research world, I've always found this to be the backwards way to approach the problem. Start with describing your customers. I always work to guide the conversation towards, "I've invented this new widget, and the reason it will be successful is because it solves X demographic's problems with X, Y, and Z." What this does is change the way you look at things. Seth Godin, a writer on marketing, said just yesterday on a webcast from bnet that the key to success is to seek products for your customers, not customers for your products. It takes a little creativity and a lot of hard work, but I couldn't agree with this theory more completely.

Well-defined products - As a marketing consultant, I am constantly attempting to explain to my friends what it is exactly that I do. It's an interesting challenge for those who are not in the business world (but that's ok, they don't need to know what I do). However, my potential clients do need to know. So, I've spent the last three weeks developing a very long list first of everything I offer, then I've narrowed it down into a more focused list based on the customers who I have identified as my targets. So, while I can design logos and do copywriting, my ideal clients do not care. They do care that I create marketing plans, identify targets, and develop tactics and advertising creative briefs to provide direction.

I can hear the folks getting ready to tell me now, "but if you are nimble, shouldn't that mean offering a wider variety of products to a wider audience?" I say not exactly... The target customer may be of a wider variety, but I still have to know who they are and what they are looking for in order to offer a product that caters to them. The coffee shop widened its product offering, but only after identifying what the customers wanted. If you can't identify a customer for the product, ask yourself, why would they choose me? The coffee shop didn't see that Starbucks had offered sandwiches and jumping to the conclusion that he probably needs to in order to pick up those customers. He identified what the customers wanted.

If you focus on those three things, you'll have an excellent start to an outstanding marketing plan.

There's a lesson in all of this.

In the words of reality tv show fans, the world is a "hot mess" (if you listen to the pundits, that is). That's part of the reason why President-elect Obama's message of Hope played so well this election season. But there are other marketing-related reasons why he did so well...
- he had a much more consistent and singular message than his rival
- he had a huge following of younger activists that were engaged and participating
- he presented a compelling image that was easy to understand and get behind

I'm not at all going to dive into the specifics of policies between the two campaigns or examine ideology or tax policy or anything political really, that's not the point to this article. But what I do want to look further into a few things that I gleaned from that second point...

Obama's campaign was very effective at "getting out the vote." A lot of individuals got involved and many, I believe, felt a tangible part of Obama's election because of their participation. (Ok, I'm not going to argue that this is a simplistic view of what occured, but again, we're not talking politics in this article, its just to see the lesson for us marketers. And that's all.) I have several friends who participated in the Obama campaign, some traveling great distances to canvass or offer help. Some took time off work to do community events for Obama. And when I speak to them about it (once you get past the politics), the reason is because they felt they were physically doing something that they were passionate about.

Earlier I posted an article about DIY projects and why those appeal to me. I suspect that there are fundamentally similar things going on deep inside the brain of community activists for Obama: These community activities are hands-on, they are interesting (moreso than people's day-to-day activities), they are social, and a fourth item (not included in the DIY article but I think applies to both), is that they tap into people's passion (you may not be passionate about calling strangers during dinnertime, but are passionate about the cause).

There's three important lessons for marketers in this:

1. To get interest from people to participate in your branding or marketing, you are going to have to make it interesting, hands-on, and social. Just putting a message out there, that doesn't have aspects these three things is going to be dropped quickly by target consumers.
2. To compel people (stronger than just interest in), you have to tap into their passion.
3. Finally, the conversion to action for both the campaign and a brand is a critical final step, that is often ignored

That final step of converting "potential customers" into current customers is what is going to make the difference between an interesting conversation with folks vs. having a business relationship with them.

Good Marketing for Bad Times

It's no secret that the Detroit area has been hit pretty hard by the economy. This all started about a year ago (or longer) here. The latest national news sounds like just a rehash of problems that Detroit has been living with for a while. When the economy tanks, there is a lot of news about big changes in American's lives. For example, a poll for Fortune Magazine from January 2008 shows that even back then (doesn't that seem like a long time ago now??)....

• Almost half have been cutting back on spending
• 4 in 10 believe that their personal economic situation has gotten worse in the last 12 months
• 1 in 4 believe that gas (and energy) prices are responsible for the slowing economy

Add to this the horror stories about getting financing we're hearing right now (auto loan refusal is at its highest rate since 1984, according to Businessweek), and you may find yourself wanting to run for the hills.

So, is it time to close up shop and take a long nap until this storm blows over? Hardly. It's time to get to work. From that same Fortune survey...

• Half believe that their personal economic situation has not changed in the last 12 months (15% believe it has improved)
• Almost 3 in 4 have been able to keep up with their credit card payments, and 9 in 10 are able to keep up with other payments (such as mortgage, rent, car payments, etc.)

What this tells me is that there is still money out there, and a savvy business can survive (some may even thrive) in this difficult environment. Additionally, there's an excellent change to set the stage to have your brand be force when this storm does pass. But it's not a time to cut back on that marketing budget. The key to surviving or thriving in this kind of economic environment comes down to refocusing your brand:

• Awareness Is Not the Ultimate Goal - while no one with any sense will tell you that awareness isn't important, keep in mind that just telling people you exist is not the ultimate goal of any marketing that your doing. A friend of mine runs a bike shop that sponsors a lot of events with a tent, repair equipment, staff, and even items to sell. A while back, I asked him why he sponsored them and the answer was "awareness" so that folks know about the shop. But if that's the goal, why spend the time, money, and energy to actually show up? He could have just sent a banner to do the same thing. The real goal of these sponsorships is to move one step past awareness to get entered into the consideration set for purchase (or even make a few sales at the event!). This is the start to an emotional attachment (something very difficult for banners to do by themselves).
  
• Find Marketing Activities that Connect with Customers Emotionally - one of the first things that get cut out of a budget are a business that don't add an emotional value for consumers. Consider Netflix: as they expand further into social networking so that consumers can share their movie lists or take recommendations from friends, the activity becomes more of a social outlet, a connection. This strengthens the emotional connection to the Netflix brand and reduces the likelihood that it ends up on the household budget chopping block.
• Deliver Greater Value with your Marketing - greater value is OFTEN talked about in board meetings and marketing meetings but seems to be lost or watered down too far to be actually useful by the time it hits the trenches. Award or frequent buyer programs are a great way to increase the value of marketing, and I think a very useful way to capitalize on viral marketing techniques. If you provided unique content, games, or parties for those who have X number of points or purchases at a level between your current "free stuff" or discount levels, folks are going to get more out of the path they are on with your brand.
• Understand Why/How People are Spending Money with You - As the household budget gets trimmed, folks are going to have to shift the way they spend their money. Maybe you'll be lucky enough not to be impacted by this, but chances are you've seen a change in sales in the last few months. Talk to your customers. Get a better understanding of what they are buying with you and why things may have changed. There's a chance that while you may not be able to talk them into spending a lot more, you may be able to make changes to the store layout or menu or whatever to help direct customers to more profitable items or items that supplement other products and thereby increase their value while increase the overall sale. But talk to you customers before you make substantial changes. They'll tell you the why and how they are making changes to their spending habits with you.

Now, obviously, it's not a time to relax, but it's not a time to panic and undermine your brand either.

Is your brand dead? Does imagery matter anymore? (Part II)

I (finally) finished the book, Branding Only Works on Cattle by Jonathan Salem Baskin. The basic premise is that communicating brands as we know it is actually dead. Before you start writing a eulogy for your long, lost pal, Tony the Tiger, Baskin does have some fascinating points. As you may recall from Part 1, I claimed to not be fully on board with Baskin’s claims in the book, then he called me out on some of my points (see comments from Sept 21 post).

Now that I’ve read it, I think that Baskin and I are not that far apart actually. I think that the main area we differ is in the definition of branding. I suspect that my textbook definition that I provided was not complete enough to clarify how I actually think of branding. Baskin summed it up perfectly on page 185 of the book:

“Company activities and customer perceptions are intertwined in many ways – communities, dependencies, partnerships, outsourcing, transactions, partnerships, product or service experiences, - and it is in these relationships that brand and business are realized. Brand is the verb of these behaviors made relevant to your bottom line.”

This definition of branding is a much more “practical” form than Tony the Tiger or the lust for Louis-Vuitton handbags implies (perhaps “useful” is the word that Baskin would use). I must admit that the more I thought about it, the more I agree with Baskin. His book lays out a nice road map, particularly for small or midsize businesses that are looking to grow and don’t quite get how branding could work for them.

In my opinion, if marketers (note that I don’t just limit this to branding experts) only take one thing from the book, it is to think of branding as game theory. Baskin purports that games have:

• Goals/a payoff – a purpose that requires an action (a.k.a. give branding a practical goal).
  
• Context – the universe where the game is actually played must guide the branding
  
• Narrative flow – prompt action, facilitate learning during the game, and then only talk to those who its relevant to talk to
• Use a variety of tools – the entire company is your toolbox (customer service, shipping, finance, etc.)
• Winners and Losers – engage with people to push them forward (winners), though there may be some that will therefore be pushed away (losers). That's ok, not everyone will buy your product anyway.
  

This kind of thinking, positive customer engagement with the company at a variety of points, is the definitely the direction branding communications needs to be moving.

So, am I a convert? Is branding dead?

Well, hold on a second. Brands are still very much alive. Another book I’m reading by Lucas Conley, “Obsessive Branding Disorder”, shows many different examples of branding out of control - both the comical (Christina Aguilera trademarking her name to market 450 separate products including modeling clay and contact lens) and the tragic (like New Orleans Mayor, Ray Nagin, who declared that New Orleans murder rate was “…not good for us, but keeps the New Orleans brand out there, and keeps people thinking about our needs…”). Conley proves that branding is still very much alive and still highly profitable (for both the branders and the branded business). People are still buying products because of its brand. But businesses are having to work harder, advertise in more places, and creative (read as, "crazy") things that in many cases make no sense to keep their brands in front of potential customers.

So, yes, Tony the Tiger is still going to don the cereal box and your kids will still scream for him. Louis-Vuitton will still drive people to buy (and make) cheap knock-offs. Paris Hilton will still draw millions of dollars for putting her name and likeness on perfume, bad music, or whatever else her agents think they can sell. A lot of companies will continue to brand in much the same method. But as Baskin (and Conley) points out, the challenges of communicating is getting increasing difficult, and the companies that can recognize this and truly connect with their customers on a variety of levels and points are the brands that will remain relevant and important.

Walking away from Starbucks...

I read the (supposed) real reason that Starbucks ad agency walked away from the Starbucks account on Advertising Age this morning. There has been substantial upheaval at Starbucks recently, starting with a return of the original CEO, job losses, and store closures. This is all a result of poor financial performance starting last year. All of this has resulted in Weider & Kennedy (Starbucks ad agency of record) has decided to quit the business... not something typical of agencies.

The reason that the Ad Age article gives is that:

...Starbucks was simply a very frustrating client for Wieden, an agency that other marketers have described as unusually honest in its communication with clients. Other agencies that have worked with Starbucks have felt frustration with the marketer too. Rich Silverstein, co-founder of Omnicom Group's Goodby, Silverstein & Partners, which did two stints representing Starbucks, said much of the fault lies with the mercurial Mr. Schultz. "He does not appreciate advertising," he said. "Any agency that comes in has one foot out the door already."

The thing is, this may be the reason that Wieden & Kennedy quit working for Starbucks, but its not the reason Starbucks is having problems. The problem is that the "brand promise" of Starbucks is not being fulfilled and that's not an advertising problem... its a coffee problem. Or rather it's an experience problem.

Starbucks growth has been its own worst enemy. As the commoditization of the atomosphere has been spread across the U.S., the folks who first supported Starbucks are now turned off of it. How to fix this? Localization - not advertising. Coffee Shops are one of those businesses that has to fit very specifically with the local market demands. In many ways, Starbucks in Malibu looks and feels the same as a Starbucks in Buffalo, but what do you think? Are people in those two cities the same? If so, put someone from Malibu on a plane to Buffalo in January!

The other part of the problem is the coffee. I have argued that Starbucks roasts are all too similar to each other. A mild coffee gets the same (or at least very similar) roast as a robust coffee giving it a burned flavor. I have also argued that this reduces the quality of the Starbucks coffee itself.

So, Starbucks has found itself becoming a commodity with (arguably) mediocre quality beverages in a tough economic time when "luxuries" like $3 lattes are getting trimmed back. This is not advertising problem - Wieder & Kennedy likely recognized this, and gave up the fight rather than be doomed to failure in Starbucks marketing department's opinion. That would be my guess for the REAL reason they walked away.

Fortunately for Starbucks, Howard Schwartz (returning CEO) knows his stuff, and has taken some steps to try and fix this already. Perhaps he will fully recognize this in time to save your favorite Starbucks store.

Interbike 2008

This week is the Interbike Expo in Las Vegas. It is the premier bike industry show and showcases new products, people and trends in the bike industry.

This year they are doing an Urban cycling fashion show to showcase the equipment and clothing for the increasing cycling as transportation trend:
"A self-propelled cycling art and fashion show, Interbike's latest addition brings the cutting edge of urban cycle culture to life"

This is another example of business lagging the trend. I can tell you that just from the communities I interact with here, this trend of urban cycling has been growing for a couple years now (and if I can see that from my seat here in auto-centric Detroit, what does that say about the trend in forward looking cycling communities on the west coast!)

I applaud Interbike for adding this LONG overdue fashion show, and I'm looking forward to the seeing reaction to this show.

Is your brand dead? Does imagery matter anymore? (Part I)

Yesterday I read an article on Bnet entitled "Kiss Your Brand Goodbye". This is a book review of Jonathan Salem Baskin’s new book “Branding Only Works on Cattle”.

The book is an interesting opinion on a larger trend in advertising and branding to deal with the new influence of integrated marketing (combined traditional advertising and web based marketing) and consumer mindset in the new millennium. His hypothesis is basically that a "brand" is an emotional association that marketers have created but consumers no longer buy into that association. They have become smarter and now look for product attributes that offer "actual" value rather than emotional brand attachment. This book is part of a trend to kill branding and in essence completely revise the advertising industry (some argue this has already happened). Well, I’ll throw my two cent hat into the ring (if you’ll allow me to mix sayings)...

First, brandchannel.com (article by Vincent Grimaldi) provides a pretty concise definition of branding:

Branding is the foundation of marketing and is inseparable from business strategy. It is therefore more than putting a label on a fancy product. Nowadays, a corporation, law firm, country, university, museum, hospital, celebrity, and even you in your career can be considered as a brand.
As such, a brand is a combination of attributes, communicated through a name, or a symbol, that influences a thought-process in the mind of an audience and creates value.

Ok, full disclosure, I have not yet read Baskin's book (I plan to), so I won’t be able to delve too deeply into his specific arguments. However, the article gives the background, and the book has several points that he claims prove that branding should be dead:

1. “There are no more trends, only moments” – shattered attention spans of consumers have killed the trends
2. “Subtlety is dead” because “people are more literal now” – our diversity means we no longer share as many common experiences. This means that “repetition risks becoming noise” and brand “recognition isn’t the same as brand relevance”
3. “Choice is real-time” – in other words, brand messaging doesn’t matter, and “forget about inspiring purchases through appealing to fantasy”
4. The “Virtual Experience is the new dreamscape” - social media “conversations are just the beginning”

As Michael Fitzgerald, the author of the bnet.com article points out, this is ahead of where we are in the market right now, and as such, I don’t actually agree with all his points.

I think of branding to be more like developing a friend – the brands are perceived to share consumers beliefs or interests, and consumers are likely to start the purchase process by looking at their "friends." Setting the attributes of a brand is an excellent way to set guidelines for the way a business will be marketed. For almost four years now, I’ve read about how the branding world is dying (Baskin’s book is just the latest shot across this bow), but then brands like Apple, Coke, Pepsi, BMW, Budweiser, Columbia, etc. remain stronger than ever.

In my mind, Baskin's argument only works if you don't believe consumers make image-driven purchases. Does just advertising product attributes or benefits really hold greater value than advertising a brand image? Frankly, I would argue that this isn’t the right question. We should be asking whether the current advertising model is working properly in the integrated social media millennium. Does the current media mix really work to advertise product benefits and image or is it all just becoming noise? I would argue that (as in the past) the two still can't be truly separated without disastrous results, but creating a truly integrated mix to reduce noise and target niches is the key to branding now.

High Fructose Corn Syrup

This website reminds me of the push to make cigarettes seem healthy in the 50's.

http://www.sweetsurprise.com/