Brand Story

How to Write Great Headlines (and Copy): Try Telling a Story.

My first "real" job out of school was writing catalog copy. At the time, the model for great copy was the J Peterman catalog (later made famous by Seinfeld). The Peterman catalog (called an owner's manual) was almost as much fun to read as a novel. And while I never wrote anything as entertaining as did Mr. Peterman and his copywriter, Don Staley, I did learn a few things.

 Number one on the list: even a boring product can come to life with a little romance. Like cologne. Or a shirt. (Click through and read the copy, it's worth it.)

Copy this engaging is all too rare.

So I was pleasantly surprised when I picked up the most recent REI catalog. Browsing through I noticed the writer didn't settle for product specs, part numbers, and sizes—the three components of most catalog copy. Instead, he (or she) tells stories that focus on the product benefits. (It's probably been like this for a while, but it took me a while to notice.)

Sometimes it's just a simple story in a headline, like this one for the Kelty Yellowstone Tent: Have lots of money left over for marshmallows. Or this one for a pair of zip-away pants: Pants or shorts? Eh, decide later. Okay, they're not high literature. It's not even J Peterman. But they are simple stories that share a great product benefit. And it made browsing the catalog not just more entertaining, but more engaging. I've added several items to my "stuff to get" list.

Compare REI's catalog description for a pair of biking shorts to similar shorts (different brand) featured in the Performance Bicycle catalog that came the same week.

New! Don't let the casual look fool you—these are serious shorts
On the surface, they're rugged, stretchy nylon/Lycra spandex shorts with a laid-back look. But look inside, a wicking mesh liner and gel chamois add serious comfort. Import.

Zoic Ether Short
Ripstop nylon shell and removable Assault liner with Zo-wick Chamois. Side adjustable elastic waist with Velcro tabs, two zippered hand and two cargo pockets. 11" inseam.

Big difference. Which would you rather read? Or buy?

It's too bad more writers don't understand the power of stories to create meaningful and memorable brand interactions. Want great headlines? Start with a story. Also goes well with body copy.

Threadless Gets the Imporance of a Brand Story

Last month's Inc Magazine featured a long and interesting story about Threadless, the online t-shirt maker. Threadless takes an innovative approach to product development by involving a community of designers in design creation and production decisions. The result is $30 million in sales and a very involved, evangelistic customer base.

Threadless's success in the t-shirt business hasn't gone unnoticed. They have been approached by retailers like Target and Urban Outfitters who want to carry Threadless's designs in their stores. Here's what Jake Nickell, Threadless's founder had to say about the opportunity:

"We would do a deal with Target or Urban Outfitters... The only stipulation we need is to have some kind of presence in the store where people are able to easily learn about where the designs come from. You go to Target or Urban, and it's just shirts on a wall. You have no idea where they came from or who designed them... As long as the story isn't lost, we're OK."

Nickell proposed an in-store kiosk that would allow shoppers to rate designs and learn more about the artists who created them. So far, the big retailers have balked.

Unlike retailers who want to move more and more popular products, the guys at Threadless understand that their business isn't just about making and selling t-shirts. It's about interacting with their community of fans, who are suppliers, customers, and evangelists. This story is the one thing that really sets Threadless apart from any other t-shirt vendor. Losing that would make Threadless products just more "shirts on a wall."

Choosing a brand story over the opportunity to increase sales in the short term is no doubt a difficult decision. But it's the right decision in the long run. Good for Threadless.

Dave Balter Has Everyone Talking... Again

Dave Balter has a new book out: The Word of Mouth Manual, Vol. II. And, as if to prove a point, it seems that just about everyone is talking about it (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for starters). It's a pretty good read and something every serious marketer ought to be familiar with regardless of your opinion on word of mouth. You can buy it here or download the PDF for free here.

Dave believes deeply in the power of word of mouth. And his company BzzAgent is pretty good at generating buzz for their clients. He's taken some heat for creating "unnatural" word of mouth for clients. But after reading the ebook, I don't get the sense that Dave believes you can create sustainable word of mouth for bad products or experiences (except maybe very bad WOM). After a lengthy comparison of viral marketing with sustainable word of mouth, Dave writes:

"It’s not as simple as just “grabbing some” when the time is right, but rather about developing and maintaining a deep understanding of how word of mouth really works—about how to build a word of mouth foundation, managing word of mouth as a process, and recognizing that word of mouth is a medium that needs to be deployed, adapted, and constantly optimized.

It’s also necessary to understand that word of mouth is optimized by the cast of characters that surround the brand and help to make the stories meaningful and relevant." (p.93)

In other words, if you don't have a remarkable product, if you don't have a compelling brand story, if you don't have a customer experience that brings them back, if you don't have enthusiastic brand evangelists, you won't get positive word of mouth for long, no matter what you do or who you hire.

Read the book.

Disclosure: I joined BzzAgent in 2003, however I'm not a very "active" participant. They have sent me a few products to try out and "buzz" since then, including links to Dave's book. I have never positively buzzed a product I didn't like.

Sharon Stone and Dior Get a Lesson in Karma

The Wall Street Journal reports that Dior has pulled ads featuring Sharon Stone that were running in China. Why? Because Stone suggested that the recent earthquake there was the result of karma. From the Journal:

"Last week at the Cannes film festival, Ms. Stone gave a television interview saying she is "not happy" about China's treatment of Tibet, where violent protests broke out in March. "And then this earthquake happened," Ms. Stone said. "And I said, 'Is that karma? When you're not nice that the bad things happen to you?'"

Actually, the Journal's report makes Stone sound significantly smarter than she comes across on the video (you can watch her comments here).

So what does this have to do with branding? Too many brands (mostly with weak brand stories) rely on the fame and popularity of a sports figure, model, or actor to lend cache to their product. The problem is, it almost never works. Consumers know celebrities are paid for their endorsements. And when the celebrity goes off message (or worse), it can have serious implications for the brand. A few examples: Kobe Bryant (charged were dropped), Kate Moss, Britney, we could go on... and on.) There's nothing quite like offending a billion potential customers with an off-hand remark.

Dior took a risk, trying to attach its brand to a (somewhat) popular actress, to cash in on her notoriety and fame. And it got stung. Now it's got a bit of a PR disaster on its hands, at least in China. A better solution is to figure out what's unique about the brand and tell that story. But finding and telling brand stories is hard. And hiring an actor with a decent Q score is easy. So there's no doubt it won't be long before we see another brand get stung by questionable celebrity behavior.

Read More:
Boing Boing reports on some of the fallout (video available here too).
More from China Business Blog.
And from the Red Cross...

Fast Company Gets Microsoft Story Wrong

In its most recent cover story, Fast Company, gives a big wet kiss to ad industry icon, Alex Bogusky. The article is supposed to be about whether CP+B can make Microsoft cool, but is more about how cool Bugusky and his agency are. It's a little over the top. The article compares Bogusky to Jesus: "There was, like, this halo over him." Note: I'm not a CP+B hater. I love the work they did for Mini, though I hate the stuff they've done for Burger King.

Regardless of how you feel about Bogusky or his agency, the article makes some pretty silly claims about the relationship between Apple and Microsoft:

"Nothing is doing more to carve away at Microsoft’s reputation—and contribute to its loss of market share—than the assault launched by Apple two years ago in the form of the “Mac vs. PC” spots featuring The Daily Show satirist John Hodgman…  Gartner media research analyst Andrew Frank credits Apple—whose annual media spend is less than half of Microsoft’s nearly $1 billion budget—with single-handedly rebranding Microsoft “as a kind of self-conscious and self-absorbed nerd that is out of touch with the normal lives and needs of its users.”

Let's see if I have this straight. Apple produces some clever (and often funny) ads and spends a couple of million dollars to put them on television. And that is what has defined Microsoft as uncool?

What about the years-late and buggy release of Vista? Or the monopoly issues here and overseas? Or crazy Steve Ballmer's antics on stage and threats to Google and Apple? Or bloated software that is expensive to upgrade? Or the blue screen of death? Or .NET? Or the very unhip Zune—supposedly the iPod killer? What about Windows security, viruses, and spyware? Where exactly do those things fit in the creation of Microsoft's reputation? I think they're giving Steve Jobs a little too much credit.

Apple does a great job telling its brand story. And Microsoft, well, what exactly is their story, if not the above? For their sake, I hope that CP+B is smart enough to see that Microsoft, not Apple, is the biggest threat to Microsoft's image. Note to FC writer Danielle Sacks (and Microsoft): brand stories are built almost entirely by the things a company does every day, not a competitor's ads.

***UPDATE: Danielle Sacks was kind enough to reply by email that she takes issue with what I've written above. She marked the email private, so I won't post it here, but her criticism of what I wrote above deserves to be heard. Here's the gist of her response to me: I left out some of what she wrote about Crispin's failures, the comparisons to Jesus were to illustrate how over the top the agency world is in its Bogusky worship, and she does write about Microsoft's missteps and failures. She writes it was incredibly irresponsible and sloppy to leave these out of my criticism of the article.

My response: I stand by my description of the article in its over-the-top reverence for Bogusky. It may have been presented to show how ridiculous the ad world's worship of this "mechanic of cool" (her words from the article) is, however I can't find anything in the article that makes that point. It reads like hero worship whether it was intended that way or not (and I'm not the only one who has noted this—see the links below). I apologize for my inability to infer the intended nuance and humor.

As for the parts of the article I left out, I linked directly to the article so anyone who reads this post can go back to the source. Yes, my description is simpler than the article. After all, it's difficult to reference everything written in a nine page article with a six paragraph blog post. Danielle did reference a few of Microsoft's failures, but the exact words used in the article are: "Nothing is doing more to carve away at Microsoft's reputation—and contribute to its loss of marketshare—than the assualt launched by Apple..." This is what I think she got wrong. And if the experts she quotes believe this, then they are wrong too. Just about everything Microsoft has done has a bigger impact on Microsoft's brand image, than what Apple is doing.

Readers, please take a look at the original article linked above and add a comment if you agree or disagree with my characterization. I'd be interested in knowing if you think I got it wrong too.


Read more:
Bob Bly criticizes the article here (read the comments, they're fun).
Spike at Brains on Fire is a little less critical, here.
AdFreak's take is here.
Here are a few ideas on what CP+B can do.

Name that Brand Story...

Story telling is a powerful communication tool—and brands that are associated with strong stories have a significant advantage over those with weak or forgetable stories. In fact, some brand stories are so ingrained in our culture that they are easily recognized with just a few details. See if you can name this brand:

Brand X got its start when the founder made innovative changes to the soles of his athlete's shoes to help them run faster. The brand was named for an ancient god and over the next two decades was adopted by many internationally known athletes.

In it's more detailed version, it's a story of seeking a competitive advantage, working hard, and achieving a goal. So what brand is it? Would you believe Reebok?

In the 1890s, Joseph William Foster added spikes to the soles of his shoes to help athletes run faster. His company was originally called Mercury Sports. And the brand has been worn enthusiastically by many of the world's best known athletes—most famously the runners of the 1924 Olympic Games featured in the movie, Chariots of Fire.

But if you're like most people, you didn't guess Reebok. You guessed Nike. With good reason.

In the 1960s, Bill Bowerman and Phil Knight added a special waffle pattern to his shoes to help athletes run faster. Their company was named Nike (after the Greek Goddess of Victory) and the brand has been worn by many of the world's best known athletes.

Both companies share oddly similar beginnings. But only one is known for this story. Why?

Nike has embraced the story of innovation and achievement, while Reebok has almost run away from it (despite their 70-year head start). While both companies began with passion for athletic achievement, today only Nike can tell that story. More than forty years later Nike continues to embrace its founding values (examples here, here, and here). And Reebok? Not as much. (Other examples here and here.)

So ask yourself this: is your brand true to its brand story and values? Or are you leaving your most important asset for your competitors to run away with?

Whose Brand Story—Hannah Montana or Milie Cyrus?

By now just about everyone has heard that Milie Cyrus posed "topless" for Vanity Fair magazine (news reports here and here). Okay, so it's not exactly what you expect when you hear the word topless. But the critics are right, no matter how unrevealing or artsy the photo is, it is simply wrong and exploitative to ask a fifteen-year-old to pose for this kind of suggestive photograph, even for Annie Leibovitz. 

So why did Milie do it? Why would her parents, who were reportedly on the shoot, allow it? Some have argued it's another case of Hollywood values and bad parenting (and they may be right), but I think there's something more to it than that. I think it comes down to competing brands.

Hannah Montana will make something close to one billion dollars for Disney this year. That's right, billion with a B. It's a great story, a more or less regular girl living a secret double life as a rock star. The best of both worlds, as the theme song says. And Disney has built the character into a powerhouse brand.

On the other hand, Milie Cyrus will take home something closer to twenty million dollars for playing the character on TV and in concert appearances. Now twenty million is nothing to sneeze at, but it's not a billion. Not even close.

So how does Milie go from being the actress that plays Hannah to a rock star in her own right, and grab a bigger piece of the billion-dollar pie? How does she move beyond the eight- to twelve-year-old girls that make up the television-watching HM fan base and appeal more to the high school and college kids that attend concerts? How does she develop her own brand story, separate from Disney's Hannah Montana character? One way is to be more controversial. Get noticed.

So we get the photo (which may or may not have been a publicity stunt). Then a quick apology. But there will be more. Maybe not photos, but something else to make it clear that while Milie plays Hannah, Milie is not Hannah. Because when it comes down to it Milie Cyrus' brand story will always be more important to Milie (and her minders) than the Hannah Montana brand story.

One brand that is certainly enjoying the controversy is Vanity Fair.

More:
Here's what  American Copywriter has to say about it.
Leibovitz defends the photo here.

Accidental Branding, Or Is It?

Ben McConnell, co-author of Creating Customer Evangelists, has a great interview with David Vinjamuri at the Church of the Customer blog. Vinjamuri is the author of a new book, Accidental Branding. It's worth reading.

I've written many times about what branding is and I think Vinjamuri gets it. It's not necessarily about budgets, campaigns, or advertising. At its core, branding is building a successful business. And maybe a little bit of luck.

The premise of Vinjamuri's book (I haven't read it yet) is that motivated entrepreneurs can build great brands without any branding know-how. They find a problem, then solve it. They create a new experience/product/service and choreograph the interaction with their customers. They ask questions like how would I want to feel when I enter my store? What would I want the employees to say to me? How should I feel when I use the product? They micromanage the experience to create memorable customer interactions. Which, of course, is the nuts and bolts of branding.

Favorite quote from the interview:

"What lesson would you engrave in stone for entrepreneurs?
Learn how to tell your story really well. I call it ‘building a myth’ because like a myth the story has to be easy to remember and share, dramatic, and it has to have a lesson contained within it. That shareable founding story is what consumers use to convert people to your brand."

I'll be adding this book to my nightstand soon. In the meantime, here are a few related links:

Buy the book here.
Download a free chapter here. Another free chapter is here.
Read more about Accidental Branding at Brand New, The Marketing Spot, and Egg Head Marketing.

The Power of a Logo

Does your logo get the reaction you want? Do customers think differently or act differently when they see your logo as opposed to your competitor? Should it?

While I firmly believe that a logo can trigger an emotional response attached to a brand, this goes a little farther than I would have expected: According to this post in the Wall Street Journal Business Technology blog, researchers at Duke have found that exposure to a particular logo (in this case, Apple or IBM) can result in behavioral changes. People who were flashed the Apple logo for 30 milliseconds (too fast to be consciously seen) performed more creatively than those who saw the IBM logo.

You can read the study here.

This begs the question--will thinking about the Nike logo make you run faster? Will thinking of the Harvard University logo make you smarter? Will pondering the Weight Watchers logo help you lose weight? Sign me up as a test subject for all of the above.

Others offer thoughts about the power of Apple's logo to help you think differently:
Brand Noise.
Fake Steve Jobs.

Interesting Reading

Came across two very interesting (and very long) articles/posts this week that are worth sharing. The first is from Wired about Gavin Potter, a retired management consultant who's working on a solution for the NetFlix Prize that relies on heavily on psychology. Unlike most other developers competing for the prize, he approaches the problem by focusing on human behavior.

Key quote from the article: "The 20th century was about sorting out supply," Potter says. "The 21st is going to be about sorting out demand."

The second article is a blog post from Seth Godin. I've been critical of some of Seth's thinking in the past, but his thoughts on the music industry are right on—and apply to a wide range of companies and how they interact with their customers. A lot of this goes along quite nicely with what I wrote here about the New PR.

Key quote from the post: "Customer support isn’t as important as consumer support. How do you get people to help each other?"

Despite the obvious differences the two articles go together quite well. Sorting out demand requires new thinking on how you interact with your customers. The world is changing. And how we respond to it demands a more (not less) human approach.

5 Things Everyone Should Know about Branding

Branding has been the "hot" marketing word for the past decade or so. So it's interesting how little the typical business person knows about branding. Despite hundreds of books and thousands of articles, even the experts disagree on what branding is and how to best do it.

So what should a small business owner know about branding? I recently wrote a short article on that subject for the Logoworks Inside Small Business newsletter. If you're interested, click through.

Here's a snippet of what you can expect:

...great branding doesn’t require deep pockets. But it does take thought, a bit of creativity, and a willingness to try different things. When Geek Squad founder, Robert Stephens, started his business, he needed a way to stand out from all the other guys providing a similar service. So he bought a unique car and wore a short-sleeve, white shirt and skinny, clip-on tie. And he focused on delivering one-of-the kind service (including little details like returning calls within a few minutes and taking off his shoes as he entered a home). There were dozens of other consultants offering similar services, but Stephens stood out. His customers remembered the service, the unique uniform, the black and white car, and—this is the important part—they called him again when they needed him. Today Geek Squad is a big business, but it wasn’t too long ago that Robert Stephens was a small business owner with no budget and a creative idea for making his business stand out from the crowd.

The New PR

I had the opportunity to speak to the local chapter of PRSA this past week about how PR is changing from working with the press, to working with customers. After thinking about it in depth for the past couple of weeks, I am more and more convinced that the customer frontier is where most PR will happen in the future. Admittedly, there are others who are way out ahead of me on this—Ben McConnell and Jackie Huba are two. Still others have called this a "360 degree approach to PR."

One thought before I go on: today we are all in the PR business. So even if your title isn't PR specialist or something like it, if you engage with the public (press, customers, vendors, employees), the new PR applies to you too.

Here's it is in a nutshell: In the salad days, a public relations specialist spent most of their time working with the press—pitching story ideas, following up on requests for information, offering quotes for articles, etc. The really good PR people developed close relationships with reporters, in a true you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours fashion. When the press did a story and needed a quote from a customer, the PR specialist vetted the best customers and forwarded their names to the reporter for an interview—knowing that they would say only positive things. The reporter also relied on the PR staff to provide information about the company, because resources for finding it on their own were limited.

Things have changed. While good PR people still pitch stories and develop good relationships with the press, they've lost the control they once had over the process. Reporters are less inclined to take what the company says at face value (you can blame Tyco, Enron, and WorldCom for that). And when they want to talk to customers, they don't ask PR for a list of people who will only say nice things about you, they hit the search engines and read what customers are saying online. Good and bad.

So PR is changing to engage customers. Today, the best PR people are getting involved in crafting the customer experience, in beta testing products, and in talking to customers so they understand what customers are thinking and saying about their company and products. They are engaging not just the happy customers, but the detractors as well. And while they may not be able to fix every problem (or make every customer completely happy), they do understand why some interactions go bad and are working to fix those processes to prevent them from ruining other customer's experiences.

Today, the press frames their questions based on what they learn about you online—so you better know what people are saying and be able to talk with the press about what you are doing to fix or improve your product. This is the new PR.

Fortunately there are a lot of resources on the subject. Ben and Jackie's book, Creating Customer Evangelists is a good start. The Ultimate Question by Fred Reicheld is also good. Neither is about PR in the traditional sense, but both are about what PR must become to be successful.

Thanks Noelle for the invitation to speak.

UPDATE: Thanks to Brian who requested I post the presentation at SlideShare. If you want to see the slides, you'll find them here: The New PR.

Other Links:

What happens when a hotel gives away a guaranteed room and treats the customer as if it's their fault? This: Yours is a Very Bad Hotel. It's been floating around the Internet for a few years, but it's worth reading. Favorite slide: the front desk employee's career path. Another classic is Vincent Ferrari's call to cancel his AOL account.
Some very sobering statistics here and here.
The Perfect Customer Experience Blog is here.
Brian Oberkirk offers some great advice for PR people interacting with new media, here.

Have other links or thoughts on this subject? Leave them in the comments.

Super Bowl Ads: The BrandStory Round-up III

Obviously, the BrandStory staff is a little late in getting to this story (for good reasons and bad). But hopefully we'll make up for it with the breadth of links about this year's Super Bowl ads.

A couple of thoughts:

Why exactly did the ad for AMP energy drink need the disclaimer: "Warning: Do Not Attempt." So you're telling me I shouldn't attach jumper cables to my nipples and to a car battery? It seemed like a such good idea while I was watching your ad.

There were a couple of ads that made me think, "just because you can animate it, doesn't mean you should" including the lame Chinese-accented pandas for SalesGenie, the dancing lizards for SoBe, and the seemingly endless Fox promotions for NASCAR. Did the fake race through the engine make you want to watch? Me neither. And I have a hard time believing that it didn't occur to anyone on SalesGenie marketing staff that their ad would be offensive. Could it be a deliberate strategy to get us talking about the ads days later?

Just in case you were wondering, my favorite ads were for Tide (talking stain) and Coke (Jinx). Both were terrific examples of brand stories demonstrating the product benefit.

On to the links:

The guys at American Copywriter talk about the ads  here. Give them a listen.
You'll find the USAToday Ad Meter here and here. There's a write-up on the ads here.
The Wall Street Journal wrote about it here and here (these links likely won't be free forever).
Some thoughts from MSNBC are here and the NYT wrote about the ads here.
And a more scholarly look (if that's possible) from the Kellogg School of Management here.
More from AdFreak and AdWeek. Or if you prefer the tabloid size, from Advertising Age and again here.

UPDATE:
Advertising for Peanuts talks about next year's ads, here.
Beyond Madison Avenue posts their take, here.

If you have a Super Bowl Ad write up or favorite article you'd like me to add to the list, please leave a comment.

Sprint—A Brand In Crisis

I've written about Sprint before (here and here), but the news last week got me thinking about Sprint again—from a brand story perspective.

Last week (Jan 18), Sprint Nextel announced they lost more subscribers than expected. And management's outlook for the next year doesn't look much better. To make things right, they've announced 4,000 layoffs and promised to close several hundred retail locations where customers can go to pay bills, purchase new equipment, and work out service problems that simply can't get fixed on the phone (i.e. most of them). The expected savings will be around $700 million. No report on the costs to the consumer.

Wall Street rewarded the announcement by pounding Sprint's stock (and this was before the massive sell-off on MLK Day). And while they've regained about half of that loss, Sprint is down more than 50% since last summer.

So what does this have to do with branding? The Wall Street Journal article about the cuts makes two very good observations. The first is from Craig Moffett of Sanford Bernstein & Company. He says, "Cutting costs isn't going to help solve the basic problem. They're not going to cut their way to greatness." Excellent point. While cuts may help set the stage for a change, the cuts themselves will only exacerbate the problems in the short term. Without a different (better) strategy, Sprint will continue to disappoint customers and investors. No company will ever cut itself to greatness.

The second observation is related to the first. Robert Passikoff of Brand Keys says, "Everyone knows Sprint, but no one knows them for anything in particular." That is, they are a brand in serious need of a story. Why choose Sprint over AT&T or Verizon? No idea. Back in the day, the pin-drop represented audio clarity for long-distance service. But Sprint cell service/reception/call quality isn't better than the competition. What's Sprint's story now?

If Sprint really wants to emerge from the malaise holding them down, they should rethink the entire cell phone business. There is so much wrong with how plans are sold, how phones are limited to carrier networks, how fees are charged, how plans are changed, and on and on...  Sprint (or, more likely a smart competitor not bogged down with Sprint's history and processes) has an opportunity to really disrupt the cell phone business and provide phones and service that customers really want.

Now there's a brand story just about everyone would get excited about.

Where's The Sausage? The Brandstory Review.

One of my favorite web logs is David Taylor's BrandGymBlog. David's no-nonsense approach to marketing is one that really appeals to me, so I'm a regular visitor to his site. A couple of months ago I got a copy of David's latest book, Where's the Sausage: Branding based on substance not spin. It's a serious marketing book wrapped in a short parable.

Though I really like David's thinking, I'm generally not a fan of business parables. Too often they use silly characters, absurd situations, and overly simple solutions that don't always transfer well to real business situations--like this book. Books like this include a lot of "what", but not a lot of "how". And when I heard that WTS? was a parable, that's what I expected to get. But then, you can't judge a book by it's cover.

To be sure, the story isn't high literature. But this book contains a generous helping of useful marketing ideas, ways to get insights from your customers, and smart thinking (the how in addition to the what). And the characters ring true more often than not.

It's the story of Bob Jones, salesman at Simpton's Sausages who is asked to spend a year as a brand consultant before being promoted to Sales Director. He's unenthusiastic about the opportunity and immediately sees through the typical marketing BS that comes from his boss and agency contacts. Rejecting their approach to branding (and rebranding), he finds his own way as he manages the neglected sausage brand. He records his feelings several times a month (in a blog or journal) and includes much of what he is learning from his experience. The story is okay, but the real power of the book is in the chapter summaries and ideas Bob uses to rethink his product—all of which (I assume) come from the BrandGym play book.

Among the observations Bob makes:

• A brand should drive the whole business, not just the image wrapper of communication    
    and brand identity.
• A new logo can't cover up the shortcomings of a poor product.
• Many brand extensions are brand ego trips offering nothing new.
• True insight doesn't come from focus groups, it comes from immersing yourself in your
    consumer's world.
• Having little or no funds for conventional marketing can be a great stimulus for creativity.
• Communication that has only emotional sizzle and not product sausage is 'sponsored
    entertainment'.

Add to that the simple exercises and processes that Bob takes his brand through (and that the reader can do with their own brand) and you have a decent little marketing book. Thanks David.

If you're looking for a quick read peppered with smart thinking, you'll like Where's the Sausage.

More Where's the Sausage? Links:
Other reviews of the book can be found here and here.
David's description of the book is here.
Buy it at Amazon.
Read the BrandGym blog.
Video of Hugo Gaines (the book's star marketing,um, expert).
Video of David talking about the book.
Buy David's other books here, here, and here.

Why This Blog Has Gone Dark

Regular readers of this blog (if there are any left) have no doubt noticed that I haven't posted anything for a number of months. Sorry.

I made the decision to return to school for my MBA this past summer and it has consumed all of the extra time I have had. On the bright side, I'm having a blast and learning a lot (accounting, statistics, finance). I'm beginning to fill a few holes in my knowledge-base and it's been great.

I'm hoping to post a few thoughts while I'm on Christmas break, then in all likelihood, the blog will go dark again for a while.

If you're visiting for the first time, scroll down and check out the archives. Hopefully you'll find something there of value. For the rest of you, I'll be back just as soon as I can.

-rm

McDonald's Proves Branding Works

As if we needed more proof that branding works...

A report in the New Scientist details a recent study revealing that pre-school kids prefer foods wrapped in McDonald's packaging over foods served in unwrapped packaging. Most parents are thinking, no duh. From the report:

"Dina Borzekowski at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Health in Baltimore, Maryland, US, and her colleagues asked 63 preschoolers, aged three to five, to sample two meals, each consisting of a chicken nugget, a quarter of a hamburger, french fries, two baby carrots and a small cup of milk.

Although both meals came from a local McDonald's, only one of them appeared in its original packaging. Researchers presented items from the other meal in plain wrappers, which lacked the company's distinctive logo.

In most cases children said they tasted a difference between the two meals, and they overwhelmingly preferred the McDonalds-branded foods."

Interesting. Kids preferred McDonald's branded carrots by a margin of 2 to 1. Same carrots. Different packaging. They preferred the french fries 73% to 13%. All because of the golden arches. It's not like we don't know that branding/marketing/advertising works. After all, we spend well over $10 billion a year marketing products to kids. And billions more to advertise to adults. But it is somewhat disturbing to see the affects on kids as young as three.

Of course McDonald's has known this for more than 10 years—watch the proof here.

Might be time to unplug the television.

AdFreak has also written about this.

Copywriting School

Michelle Miller at WonderBranding points us to a terrific (so far) series on effective copy writing from the geniuses—Jeff Sexton in particular—at FutureNow. I've had the opportunity to work with the FutureNow team. They know what they're talking about.

The first segment is about how to choose between writing from an intellectual perspective or an emotional one. It's very good stuff. Here's a follow-up.

The second installment (or is it the 6th?) deals with using positive or negative imagery: "worries trump daydreams." Check out how this applies to VW's recent ads for Jetta.

The Third Installment focuses on intensity and involvement. The fourth should be up on Monday.

This is very good stuff. Not just the advice, but the copy examples are also stellar.

Check it out at Grokdotcom.

And if you like that, here's another favorite: How to Write Better Ads. Great advice that most writers have forgotten (or never learned).

Making Things Right = Customer Loyalty

Tom Fishburne shares an experience he recently had with an angry customer and what it took to make things right—a little human touch. He also notes a discussion he had with the head of Dyptique who said that "some of his best consumers were those who had a bad product experience, but then were overwhelmed by amazing customer service."

This is not an isolated experience. Angry customers who receive great service to fix their problem often become dedicated consumers. Why?

First, customers don't expect to companies to make things right. Billing problems, long hold times, lost information, forgotten call-backs, attention before the sale and neglect afterward. They all add up to very low expectations. Problems are seldom fixed. And when they are, it often requires so much effort on the part of the customer that the experience is still negative.

So when a company (or an attentive employee) fixes things, it is unexpected. And when the employee provides amazing service, it is so out of the ordinary that it makes a significant impact; in many cases, it makes a brand impression with lasting consequences.

Just as importantly, customers who go through these kinds of experiences now have a (brand) story to tell. (Thanks to the power of Word of Mouth, these micro stories can have a greater effect on the brand than the macro-stories companies tell in the advertising.) And if the brand is lucky, the newly happy customer will tell their story over and over. There are lots of examples of this. One of mine features RayBan sunglasses.

Risky Business and Tom Cruise made RayBan Wayfarers the "must-have" accessory back in the middle 80s. I had a pair that broke. This wasn't a case of losing a screw. I sat on them and they broke—in half—at the nose. The Sunglass Hut wouldn't take them back, so I sent them directly to RayBan with a note that simply said: "These broke. Please fix." I had no expectations of ever hearing from the company and started looking for some new glasses. Two weeks later I received a new pair of RayBans in the mail. I was thrilled. And 22 years later I'm a huge fan of RayBan and still telling the story.

Guess which brand of sunglasses I look for first when a need a new pair?

Have you had a great customer experience that you share over and over? Leave it in the comments.

Almost In-N-Out

There's been a fun little trademark controversy brewing here near BrandStory HQ. (News reports here, here, and here.)

It seems that a former California resident who grew tired of traveling back to California for a Double Double and Coke took matters into his own hands and opened up a new drive-through, called Chadder's, patterned on In-N-Out. Patterned may be an understatement. On opening day the decor, uniforms, and menu were exactly the same. Lines were out the door for hours and the restaurant ran out of food. Word spread very quickly that this was as close to In-N-Out as you could get outside of California.

That's when In-N-Out got wind of it and filed suit to protect its trade dress. In-N-Out won a restraining order and Chadder's has had to make changes to the restaurant and uniforms (more blue, less red). The food is still the same, but the "secret menu" is different. Animal style is stubby style. A double double is a stubby double. And so on.

A couple of (somewhat contradictory) thoughts:

1. While I can't (and don't) fault In-N-Out for filing a lawsuit to protect its brand image, I have to wonder if there isn't a better way to shut down Chadder's? Why not open an In-N-Out across the street? Let's face it, no one is going to Chadder's for the stubby double. They're going because they can get a taste of In-N-Out. My guess is that most of Chadder's customers would prefer the original, not the copy. And they don't want to wait years for the real thing to arrive.

2. In-N-Out uses its packaging brilliantly to reinforce their brand. Each wrapper is printed with information about the freshness of the meat and potatoes. Chadder's food is also fresh, but they don't do anything to drive that message home. In-N-Out understands the power of their brand. Today, Chadder's is little more than a knock-off (though this can and probably will change over time).

3. There is a massive demand for In-N-Out outside of California. But one of the things that drives the demand is scarcity. As In-N-Out expands, it becomes less unique. This is exactly what happened to Kripsy Kreme. Once you could purchase a (cold) Krispy Kreme in every gas station in town, the magic disappeared. (I'm not the first to write about this. See this too.) Few people think of McDonald's as special—partly because when you have more than 10,000 stores, you're common, not special. When In-N-Out becomes just another choice for lunch, will it still drive the passion that it does today?

4. Culture matters. In my experience the staff at In-N-Out love what they do—or they are very good at faking it. As of today, Chadder's staff appear to be just working a job. In fact, many look tired and overworked, due probably to the crowds. I can't imagine anyone working there for 20 years as In-N-Out claims to have working at their stores.

5. Nothing beats word of mouth. Chadder's hasn't done any advertising. But they've had great word of mouth and PR. They've got a great core idea: it's almost In-N-Out. And word has spread. Chadder's owner is now turning down requests for interviews because the word of mouth has brought more customers than they can handle. The Wendy's around the corner would kill for that kind of attention.

 

Now we just need someone to knock off Tommy's. Or maybe the Cheesecake Factory.