Brand Central Station

I think it’s a valid question.

In her article in last week’s Ad Age, Hillary Chura reported on the NOP World study that warns of declining consumer interest in US brands. In their infinite wisdom, some researchers are calling this a “warning sign.” In my opinion, that’s kind of like noticing the bow of a sinking ship is under water and saying “it looks like we might get wet.”

There is an inter-connectedness between brands that, for some reason, we ignore. The fate of our interpersonal relationships, whether fortunate or miserable, is reliant on how we act, how others react to our actions and how we, in turn, process that information and act next. The fate of brands work the same way.

Perceptions of brands depend not only on how the individual sponsor of that brand acts and treats customers but also on the environment in which the brand operates. For many US companies trying to do business abroad, the actions of the US government taint brand perceptions either pro or con against their brand.

If people in a foreign country don’t agree with US policy, it’s easier to take out their frustrations on a McDonald’s than it is on the local Embassy. Rival brands with a local flavor might emerge (for example, there are new cola brands in Palestine, Turkey and other Middle Eastern regions to rival Pepsi and Coke). In general, life can get difficult for US-related brands when US policies (both military and non-military) are confrontational.

Please note that I won’t pass judgment on the policy decisions in question. The point here is that when the US takes a firm line on an issue, any issue, it’s bound to upset some people and that has an inevitable impact on the market share of US-related brands.

I’m testing this theory now. I’ve polled a number of journalists and PR professionals from around the world to find out how US policies have impacted perceptions about those brands one would closely associate with the USA. We’ll see what we learn.

I have no doubt that no matter the results, we’ll have more questions to ask the next time around.

Later.

GLOBAL CONSUMER REGARD FOR U.S. BRANDS DECLINES

You have to hand it to Al Ries. In his latest column in this week’s Ad Age, Ries continues to expand on the point of view he and his partner Jack Trout established in their now classic Positioning. If you have a franchise, you might as well leverage it, right?

For once, Ries’s point is insightful and not inflammatory. Essentially, Ries points out that really successful brands are rarely created and launched by big companies with all of the money, people and infrastructure. In fact, Ries says, it’s the money, people and infrastructure that creates an unconquerable inertia that stymies emerging brands and the companies they represent.

As he’s want to do, Ries boils everything down into two essential mistakes made by large companies when they try to launch a new brand. Failure results, he says, from errors of timing and errors of naming.

Timing

Big companies take too long to move on new ideas. Part of this is cultural and part is, no doubt, political. But a significant cause of the delay in getting new brands into the marketplace is due to the very natural aversion to risk that you find in large, successful companies.

“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

Large companies stand to lose a lot by rushing to market with an idea that hasn’t been completely investigated, tested, etc. Remember “New Coke”?

But the tension that results from change and the possibilities for real creativity to break out and take a company (and its brand or brands) forward needs to be fostered. As corporate communicators, that’s a big part of our job. We need to stir the pot in ways that encourage questions, stimulate thinking and take brands to market as quickly as possible.

Sometimes stirring the pot means asking uncomfortable questions that take a person out of the “group think” that pervades many of today’s businesses (both large and small). Being unconventional has its price – if we do our job, we have to be ready and willing to pay it.

Naming

I hit on this with my think piece on branding versus brand names on the BCS website. Too many companies confuse their “brand” with their “brand name” and, as a result, invest too much money satisfying their need to see their logo as opposed to finding ways to build relationships with customers.

After all, the process of branding involves making and keeping promises, not just sticking your logo on everything from pencils to billboards.

When big companies try to launch a new brand, they think the easiest (and safest) thing to do is to create a brand “extension” that will leverage the goodwill and value of their existing brand into the new venture. The problem with that thinking is that it often just looks at the possible upsides and not the limitations inherent with a close association with an established brand.

Ries hits it right on the head with this statement: “New categories generally require new brand names.”

Fortunately for some companies – those who have very little to lose and much to gain from launching a new brand and those without an institutionalized brand – the odds are in their favor. Staying nimble and focused is what’s required and you should be able to rely on your marketing service providers to help you maintain that focus.

Good luck.

Later.

THE TWO DEADLIEST SINS OF MARKETING

I have to admit, I’m not a big fan of wireless e-mail or SMS. Just like Karen von Hahn in her column in Saturday’s Globe and Mail, I’ve been around people who can’t seem to put the damn things down and find it flat-out rude.

Hopefully, it’s all part of an evolutionary process. As humans, we’re constantly lagging behind technology, trying to catch up and find a way to build it into our lives without damaging the quality of that life. I’m talking essential, quality-of-life things here, folks. Stuff like making eye contact with the people with whom you’re conversing. Answering back when asked a question. Stuff like that.

The Crackberry has found a way to interrupt interpersonal relationships on a very intimate level – and that makes it more of a nuisance than a convenience at this stage in its life.

Fortunately, we can all recall times when other technologies threatened to turn us all into introverted, anti-social clods. The problem is the last great innovation that did this, the television set, has yet to release its hold on many of us (although television ratings have been declining over the past few years suggesting some people are finding something other to do than sit in front of the tube all day long).

Like all technologies, the Blackberry does provide its own little set of issues and problems. Take, for example, the case of a Morgan Stanley VP who sold his Blackberry on eBay for $15 still completely loaded with all of his contacts and e-mail information. That’s a side of “technological intimacy” no one hopes they leave exposed to the public.

And what of the Crackberry’s sordid little past?

Originally, the remote e-mail device was popular with corporate road warriors. The corporate elite were using it to keep in touch and message back and forth between meetings. As detailed in a piece on ZD Net, the tool’s manufacturer hasn’t been able to fully capitalize on the market opportunity. The opening left in the market has been quickly filled by other players and the level of “noise” in this market niche is continuing to grow.

Now the Crackberry is pushing internationally meaning the US will do what it does best with its socially-related, technology problems. We export them.

Later.

The Globe and Mail

An interesting story in this week’s edition of Television Week points out that ratings for shows in the Reality Television genre are off about 12 percent over last year. What’s hidden inside this story is a much more scary story about television viewing habits that, I think, are telling us much more about the American public’s media consumption tendencies.

First off, you can’t miss the point in this and other articles that reporters and especially media critics really hate reality television. Frankly, so do I. I can’t think of a bigger misnomer than calling Fear Factor, The Apprentice and the rest “Reality TV.” What’s so real about it? I’ve never had to eat bugs or enter into an employment tontine.

But reality television is popular. Very popular, in fact.

Take out the top performers in both genres and reality television out performs scripted television by about 20%. But what is intrinsically superior in reality television that would make it so much more popular than scripted fare?

For starters, one has to consider that we’re seeing more than the birth and growth of a new entertainment medium. We’re also seeing the end of another and the decay of television viewing from its previously unassailable position as THE media of choice.

Specifically, as reported in the New York Times the situation comedy is dying. Problems for the format will only get worse as Friends, Everybody Loves Raymond, Fraser and The Drew Carey Show all end their long runs this year and next. But old formats die a lingering death, so it’s not like the format will leave the airwaves at once – in fact, I suspect the only time you’ll really know the format is dead is when you get that nostalgic feeling (now reserved for variety shows and musicals on the big screen) when you see a rerun on TV Land.

What should be of much greater concern to the moguls in Hollywood and New York is that TV viewership, in general, is dropping. Ratings for both scripted and unscripted shows are continuing their slide and that means one thing – audience delivery is down. Advertisers are getting increasingly militant about delivery and things are reaching the breaking point.

At some point, our 1960′s model for advertising to the mass audience with the 1980′s fix for cable is going to have to change. And I would suggest we look deeper into what the popularity of reality television tells us to find a solution.

Reality television is popular with broadcasters for two primary reasons – only one of which they’ll admit to. First, reality television doesn’t require a huge investment of viewer time or production studio assets to create a long-running television series. These things last four to eight episodes and they’re done. If they’re successful, a sequel is made. The fact that they’re (generally) unscripted has an appeal too – meaning the content is usually pretty fresh. That is, until enough “contestants” have seen so much reality television that we develop an entirely new lexicon of cliches that will take over the genre. Let’s worry about that in about three years.

The second reason broadcasters love reality television is that it’s cheap. No stars. Hell, better than that, no rehearsals, no scripts, etc. The only thing better than reality television is a celebrity trial like the OJ fiasco or what is bound to occur with Michael Jackson. Now that’s good television. Ugh.

What’s really driving all this, though, is a general ADD-izing of America. That’s not funny, I know (I have a son diagnosed with ADD). But the term gets my point across. People are getting more and more comfortable with the notion that they should be able to get the information they want (entertainment, news or otherwise) when they want it for as long as they want it. Then they’ll move on to the next thing.

The result is an audience that has been trained to not invest time, effort and interest in complex story lines or character development. Our attention span has grown so short that not even a cliche-ridden half hour sitcom can hold our interest.

Now it takes Donald Trump.

There’s an empowerment story in all of this. The appeal of reality television is the thought that all of this could happen to you – you can be a star. That was (and is) the appeal of game shows. But more importantly, reality television twists reality enough to bring the viewer in as a “star” even though the scenarios are horrid, the acting is bad and the production values are generally lousy.

As marketers we need to understand the significance of these trends and help our clients – and society – find a way to cope with our continued media evolution.

Later.

TelevisionWeek — Advertising News from Television and New Media

Okay, I’m a member of LinkedIn and who knows how many other “social networking” sites. I participate in a number of newsgroups and even include strategic partnering among my consulting services.

But is a virtual introduction as effective as really going someplace to meet someone face-to-face? Of course it isn’t. But if that someone is in Mexico and you need to introduce them to a colleague in Spain, it may be as good as it’s going to get.

I invest thousands of dollars a year in travel, just to meet people and talk about the shared possibilities of working together. I find the investment is now starting to pay off. My recommendations (usually sent via e-mail) are taken seriously and people follow-up, paying me respect by letting me know how things are going.

Case in point: I helped a client from New York score a few meetings in London this past week. Those meetings could (and I think should) lead to new business. But will they? That’s up to the parties involved.

With a little encouragement from me.

But all this virtual networking (is that a redundancy?) has its downsides. I get “spoofed” so often, it’s ridiculous. E-mail arrives from people I may or may not have met with proposals or offers that may or may not be relevant. One has to be careful, you never know when you’ll innocently open the latest Trojan (or worse). So I only open e-mails from people I know and with subject lines that make sense based on what I’ve sent out or issues that concern me.

And so the virtual handshakes continue. They’re bound to. But I’ll continue to invest in real, flesh-on-flesh ones. Because without the real human beings behind the online interaction, it all becomes too impersonal.

Later.

Fast Company | Networking Overload

I so rarely write political screeds … and this doesn’t really count as one, I think.

But you just have to wonder with the latest release of photos of mistreated Iraqi prisoners, exactly what is going on here? Isn’t someone thinking about how all this must look to the rest of the world? I suppose the answer must be pretty obvious to anyone outside the US.

“No.”

If winning the hearts and minds of Iraq were a PR assignment (and, in a sense, it is), how would we advise our client to proceed at this point? This is crisis communications 101 and the client is blowing it big time. It is a situation, literally, of “us” against the world.

So what’s next? Backlash. Big time. And more disturbing revelations. You can count on it. While pictures of mass graves from Sadam’s years of terror seemed to justify a US invasion of Iraq a year ago, these pictures and others that are bound to surface (like what was published in Saturday’s Daily Mirror) will seem to do likewise for the various attacks on US military and Western civilians in country now. Justification, at least, in the minds of many in the Arab world who are desperately looking for any shred of justification that they can.

Should the US have been more aggressive in exposing this problem, from a media relations standpoint – yes. They knew about it back in January. But as is the tendency of military and intelligence types, this is “need to know” information and the rest of the world didn’t need to know any of it, did they? Well, the US and the UK blew it. Here’s what they should do (at least in my opinion):

Get ahead of the avalanche. This calls for more visible action than just a press conference by the President. Conducting a broader military probe isn’t enough, either. As uncomfortable as it’s going to feel, the US and UK have got to open this up to include on-going, third party observation of the investigation and prosecution of those soldiers who have let their emotions get the better of them.

Turning the lights on and leaving them on will help remove the doubt that is going to exist in other parts of the world that this problem is endemic and the fear that it will all be swept under the rug.

Second, get used to the fact that people are going to hate us for a while. Then again, those that want to hate the US have always been able to find reasons for it. Justifiable or not, that hate is going to continue and we have to come to terms with the fact that some of these folks just refuse to be won over. The objective should be finding ways to win over those who are most influenced by them, but still open to persuasion from us.

And that’s where you have to start looking into the cultures of the people of Iraq for clues. Turn to history to find opportunity.

Arab culture is thick with stories and legends of rulers who achieved greatness first with the sword but achieved loyalty with charity. US and UK rebuilding efforts should focus on distribution of food, water and education first. The religious infrastructure of the region is critical and the US occupation there should prioritize the building and protection of mosques as well as the political and economic support of clerics who urge a moderate form of Islam that fits within the 21st century.

Until the US views this fight as one of “modernity” (modern ways) and ethos against “tradition” (ancient views and values that have been corrupted by a few people like Osama bin Laden), we’re bound to meet with continued failure. This is the conflict in which we’re engaged – and it has us stepping into Sadam’s shoes as the “new dictator on the block” rather than as the liberator we think we are.

It’s time we start practicing the values we say America stands for if we want to win the peace in Iraq. Open, clear and honest communications is just the first step.

Later.

FT.com Home US