You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'branding' tag.
The past week has been all about one athlete and his personal brand. As Lebron James gets ready to host a one hour special on ESPN to announce where he’ll sign, it’s perhaps more interesting to look at two other athletes who have taken different, more understated approaches to their personal brands.
First, Kevin Durant of the Oklahoma City Thunder avoids the spotlight in signing an extension to remain with the smallest market NBA team. Heannounces his new deal via Twitter. The second example is Mariano Rivera becoming a model for Canali. Both have gone about their brands in an understated way, allowing their play on the field to be the most vocal aspect of their brands. While neither is matching LeBron in terms of outside endorsements, they’re not getting the venom of late.
In the past week, LeBron has gone from a likable athlete to being described as the villain. Why? Because he’s made it less and less about winning and more and more about his brand. Brand building and promotion are fine, but if you don’t do your job (in Lebron’s case win championships) there’s a backlash. He’s now in a position where he will have a hard time repairing his image. If he goes to Miami, he’ll be expected to win every year. If he goes to New York, New Jersey, or Chicago he’ll be seen as jilting poor Cleveland and chasing money. If he stays in Cleveland people will call him an ego maniac who just wanted to world to watch him for a while. Whatever happens, the expectations for King James may be unattainable.
The best thing a brand can do? Let the quality of your product do the talking and promote that.
A recent article from Wired discusses the hidden sales potential in marketing innovative products to laggards. (A fragment of the consumer segmentation scheme borrowed from the Diffusion of Innovations theory, laggards refer to traditionalists who are generally wary of innovation and tend to wait till a product has become accepted and established before purchasing.) Writer Clive Thompson forwards a theory belonging to marketing professor Jacob Goldenberg, who posits that disregarding laggards in marketing efforts for new gadgets and toys could prove to be serious negligence.
Goldenberg believes that laggards tend to ‘leapfrog’ over generations of technology. In essence, let’s say that while laggards may have shied away from buying an iPod, they would be first in line to buy the iTouch. Given the group’s fairly broad base, it would be foolish not to target their buying power. Goldenberg’s study led him to conclude that if a mere 10% of the group leapfrogs to a particular new gadget, their purchases could drive sale profits up by 89% – which may prove the “difference between succeeding and not succeeding,” as he puts it.
The argument is logically viable, so let’s assume his findings are accurate. How does one toggle between messages speaking to savvy adopters and resistant lagg
ards? Purchase motivations for the two groups, while not necessarily mutually exclusive, are disparate enough to warrant unique marketing strategies: adopters want a revolution; laggards, a tried-and-true evolution. Capturing both types of consumers will require a firm understanding of how aspects of your products can be framed in such a way as to meet one group’s needs, without alienating the other.
// bw + bsl && x + aw – ah / 2 – cw >= bsl )
{ c.style.left = x + aw – ah / 2 – cw; }
else
{ c.style.left = x + ah / 2; }
if (y + ch + ah / 2 > bh + bst && y + ah / 2 – ch >= bst )
{ c.style.top = y + ah / 2 – ch; }
else
{ c.style.top = y + ah / 2; }
c.style.visibility = “visible”;
} } }
function msoCommentHide(com_id)
{
if(msoBrowserCheck())
{
c = document.all(com_id);
if (null != c && null == c.length)
{
c.style.visibility = “hidden”;
c.style.left = -1000;
c.style.top = -1000;
} }
}
function msoBrowserCheck()
{
ms = navigator.appVersion.indexOf(“MSIE”);
vers = navigator.appVersion.substring(ms + 5, ms + 6);
ie4 = (ms > 0) && (parseInt(vers) >= 4);
return ie4;
}
if (msoBrowserCheck())
{
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(“.msocomanchor”,”background: infobackground”);
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(“.msocomoff”,”display: none”);
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(“.msocomtxt”,”visibility: hidden”);
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(“.msocomtxt”,”position: absolute”);
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(“.msocomtxt”,”top: -1000″);
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(“.msocomtxt”,”left: -1000″);
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(“.msocomtxt”,”width: 33%”);
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(“.msocomtxt”,”background: infobackground”);
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(“.msocomtxt”,”color: infotext”);
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(“.msocomtxt”,”border-top: 1pt solid threedlightshadow”);
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(“.msocomtxt”,”border-right: 2pt solid threedshadow”);
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(“.msocomtxt”,”border-bottom: 2pt solid threedshadow”);
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(“.msocomtxt”,”border-left: 1pt solid threedlightshadow”);
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(“.msocomtxt”,”padding: 3pt 3pt 3pt 3pt”);
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(“.msocomtxt”,”z-index: 100″);
}
// ]]>
{ c.style.left = x + aw – ah / 2 – cw; }
else
{ c.style.left = x + ah / 2; }
if (y + ch + ah / 2 > bh + bst && y + ah / 2 – ch >= bst )
{ c.style.top = y + ah / 2 – ch; }
else
{ c.style.top = y + ah / 2; }
c.style.visibility = “visible”;
} } }
function msoCommentHide(com_id)
{
if(msoBrowserCheck())
{
c = document.all(com_id);
if (null != c && null == c.length)
{
c.style.visibility = “hidden”;
c.style.left = -1000;
c.style.top = -1000;
} }
}
function msoBrowserCheck()
{
ms = navigator.appVersion.indexOf(“MSIE”);
vers = navigator.appVersion.substring(ms + 5, ms + 6);
ie4 = (ms > 0) && (parseInt(vers) >= 4);
return ie4;
}
if (msoBrowserCheck())
{
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(“.msocomanchor”,”background: infobackground”);
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(“.msocomoff”,”display: none”);
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(“.msocomtxt”,”visibility: hidden”);
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(“.msocomtxt”,”position: absolute”);
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(“.msocomtxt”,”top: -1000″);
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(“.msocomtxt”,”left: -1000″);
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(“.msocomtxt”,”width: 33%”);
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(“.msocomtxt”,”background: infobackground”);
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(“.msocomtxt”,”color: infotext”);
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(“.msocomtxt”,”border-top: 1pt solid threedlightshadow”);
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(“.msocomtxt”,”border-right: 2pt solid threedshadow”);
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(“.msocomtxt”,”border-bottom: 2pt solid threedshadow”);
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(“.msocomtxt”,”border-left: 1pt solid threedlightshadow”);
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(“.msocomtxt”,”padding: 3pt 3pt 3pt 3pt”);
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(“.msocomtxt”,”z-index: 100″);
}
// ]]>
A recent article from Wired discusses the hidden sales potential in marketing innovative products to laggards. (A fragment of the consumer segmentation scheme borrowed from the Diffusion of Innovation theory, laggards refer to traditionalists who are generally wary of innovation and tend to wait till a product has become accepted and established before purchasing.) Writer Clive Thompson forwards a theory belonging to marketing professor Jacob Goldenberg, who posits that disregarding laggards[k1] in marketing efforts for new gadgets and toys could prove to be serious negligence.
Goldenberg believes that laggards[k2] tend to ‘leapfrog’ over generations of technology. In essence, let’s say that while laggards may have shied away from buying an iPod, they would be first in line to buy the iTouch. Gven the group’s fairly broad base, it would be foolish not to target their buying power. Goldenberg’s study led him to conclude that if a mere 10% of the group leapfrogs to a particular new gadget, their purchases could drive sale profits up by 89% – which may prove the “difference between succeeding and not succeeding,” as he puts it.
The argument is logically viable, so let’s assume his findings are accurate. How does one toggle between messages speaking to savvy adopters and resistant laggards? Purchase motivations for the two groups, while not necessarily mutually exclusive, are disparate enough to warrant unique marketing strategies: adopters want a revolution; laggards, a tried-and-true evolution. Capturing both types of consumers will require a firm understanding of how aspects of your products can be framed in such a way as to meet one group’s needs, without alienating the other.
HBO’s witty, iconic show, Sex and the City, saw better days on the small screen before it’s second film installment received a caustic lashing from film critics nationwide. Now the single girl empire built by stilettos and Cosmopolitans is accused of being bigoted, offensive, and abysmally juvenile for it’s outlandish portrayal of Middle Eastern sexual politics and irreverent take on marriage, motherhood, and the economic recession.
But while the filmmakers-director, screenwriters, and producers- got the formula wrong, the marketing team had the recipe for empirical success. This sequel “outbrands” its predecessor through product placement on screen (think luxurious Mercedes Maybachs on parade and cameos of glittery Louboutin stilettos) and off (HBO marketing has created bra styles for each of the four characters, cocktail glasses, and a “Carrie” necklace).
From a marketing perspective, the former cable series’ transformation into a big-budget franchise is like hitting pay dirt. American women who are sipping on the hype of sisterhood and “labels or love” will flock to the screen and then to retailers to open their wallets for Sex and the City approved (and applauded) bling. Still, some true blue fans are getting frustrated with the series market expansion, condemning it’s capitalistic embrace. Time will tell whether fans are “Carried” away with the sequel’s product placement or eternally turned off.
Since everyone else seems to be talking about this spot, I figured I’d throw my two cents in. If you haven’t seen it yet, it’s simple…Tiger stares into camera. Tiger’s dead father provides the voiceover. Cameras flash. Simple.
Most of the comments I’m seeing are critical, to say the least. Take this New York Times article:
“Did you learn anything?” Earl Woods asks. A valuable question, and one that his son has attempted to answer in his no-questions news conference in February; his brief interviews with ESPN and the Golf Channel last month; and his pre-Masters news conference on Monday.
But the answer to the father’s question appears to be that serial philandering and addiction rehab can be positioned as a commodity — and that you can roll it out in phases leading to the Nike amendment to the 12 steps: a TV commercial.
Personally, I like the spot. It’s an apology, a glimpse into Tiger’s conscience, and a return to the spotlight all rolled into one. When I read the criticism, I have to wonder what people expected. Short of keeping one of their marquee endorsers on the bench, or cutting him loose altogether, this was the only thing Nike could do.
Nike frames him as the fallen hero. Anything else would have been an outrage.
For as long as I can remember, my parents have treated us to a summer vacation in Hilton Head Island. There are many things I love about Hilton Head. I love the island’s history, class, sophistication, and of course, its beaches. I love the decades-old family memories that return to me as I drive over the bridge onto the island. Most of all, I love the not-so-secret Salty Dog Café. In my family, a trip to the Salty Dog Café is an essential component to a successful Hilton Head vacation.
Over the years our secret has spread and the Salty Dog Café is now a favorite of my mom’s four sisters, who have started a yearly Hilton Head tradition of their own. When they gather on the island this week and take that fateful trip to the Salty Dog, I know they will all rave about the food, the legend and tradition of the café, but there is one aspect they’ve yet to agree on – merchandising. 
In the south, Salty Dog Café merchandise is recognizable and a must-have among Hilton Head vacationers. A gift shop is connected to the café, selling anything from t-shirts to bandanas for dogs. However, a high demand of merchandise and small toll fee to get into Harbor Town (where the café is located) has driven the Salty Dog to open a detached merchandising outlet known as the Salty Dog T-Shirt Factory.
To some people, like my mom’s sisters, this only diminishes the authenticity and experience of the Salty Dog Café. To others, like my mother, this independent merchandising outlet is a blessing. It allows customers to buy the merchandise without driving a considerable distance, paying the toll, and rummaging through a crowded gift shop. The outlet store has been a good move for the café as it has helped spread the name far past the confines of Hilton Head Island.
I personally value the tradition inherent in the original gift shop, but I am still a loyal fan of the Salty Dog Café. The name may be recognized throughout the Carolinas, but the café will always be my family’s little-known secret.
Most people don’t have a clue what goes into designing a logo, let alone a complex identity system. Pentagram’s Paula Scher has written this little essay that takes on the common gripes and misunderstandings about identity design, specifically, What They Don’t Teach You About Identity Design in Design Schools.
For what it’s worth, this is my favorite passage…
I never knew a designer that got hundreds of thousands of dollars to design a logo. Mostly, designers get paid to negotiate the difficult terrain of individual egos, expectations, tastes, and aspirations of various individuals in an organization or corporation, against business needs, and constraints of the marketplace. This is a process that can take a year or more. Getting a large, diverse group of people to agree on a single new methodology for all of their corporate communications means the designer has to be a strategist, psychiatrist, diplomat, showman, and even a Svengali. The complicated process is worth money. That’s what clients pay for. The process, usually a series of endless presentations and refinements, persuasions and proofs, results, hopefully, in an accepted identity design.
We all know that the true power of an ad is its memorability. Well, two weeks removed from the Superbowl, this is the only ad that stuck. Thank you, David&Goliath for putting a smile on my face.
This may be old news by now but since I’ve devoted myself to nutrition and fitness in the new year, I tend to think long and hard about new diet plans and emerging weight loss fads. But when Taco Bell rolled out it’s new “Drive-Thru Diet” campaign at the beginning of the new year, I was struck with a bit of consumer confusion.
After chewing on the idea for a few weeks (pardon the pun), I’ve begun to come to terms with my adverse reaction to the Taco Bell “diet program”. As a college student I would regularly run for the border as loud cars crowded with late-night bar goers made the fast food joint come to life under the stars. I’d pull through the drive-thru and order a Double-Decker Taco Supreme and Nachos Bell Grande without flinching. I knew I was piling on the bad calories and I didn’t care. Now, the fast food restaurant famed for coining “fourthmeal” and creating the half-pound burrito is preaching weight loss? It’s confusing for a consumer who has consistently relied on Taco Bell for a fix of cheesy, calorie-laden goods.
Turns out my reaction isn’t atypical. While Subway’s use of the sub-munching, weight loss king Jared Fogle worked for their brand image (which already veered on the healthier side of things with a menu offering tons of fresh veggies and whole grains), the same tactic isn’t working for Taco Bell. Instead, health-conscious Americans are questioning the fast food giant’s claims. Although the commercial makes it clear that weight loss is about “healthy choices from Taco Bell’s Fresco menu”, the concept that fast food is a healthy choice is misleading and confusing to consumers. Point blank, spokeswoman Christine Dougherty just didn’t eat a lot… of anything. Taco Bell’s commercial emphasizes the product rather than the process which may be a bit of genius marketing but it has raised a lot of eyebrows in the process- including mine. Taco Bell should make up their mind: Are they “fat” or “fit”?
