Brand Story

Three Story-Related Links

For those who want to read more than what I have to say about brand stories, here are a couple of story-related links you may enjoy:

1. Lois Geller's thoughts on the power of stories. She mentions Land's End, The Wall Street Journal, and 3M among others—all great stories used in marketing. Read it here.

2. Jeff Kallay's thoughts about NPR's StoryCorps. He says, great experiences create great stories. He's right.

3. Josh Shipp's thoughts on how to talk to a teen (free PDF). Believe it or not, there's a lot here that applies to marketing. He starts with a great story to draw you in, then walks through his formula: entertain, inspire, empower. Great advice for anyone talking to consumers of any age.

Bonus Link: John Jantsch on telling stories with numbers. The post is a little old, but focuses on what makes stories work—details.

VW Ads—Funny and Sad

While I'm going on about automobile ads...

The latest ads for Volkswagen are funny. And cool, in an I-wish-I-had-one-of-those-car-throwing-catapults sort of way. Watch them here.

Sadly, they won't sell very many cars.

Three ads. Three cars unpimped. Not a single reason to consider a purchase. When it comes to ads, these are lemons (but not the Bernbach sort). Why are the VolksWagens better? Because VW is in da haus?

I'm sure the creatives at Crispin would argue that I'm too old and not in the target market, so I can't appreciate how they appeal to the "right" audience. In fact, I am in the market for a small car that gets good gas mileage. VW makes two of the models on my list. But rather than telling me, a ready buyer, a compelling brand story or giving me a reason to buy, these ads sell me on a catapult.

They'll probably win a few awards. But they are classic examples of ads as entertainment (competing for your attention with other ads) and forgetting that at the end of the day, an advertisement still needs to sell.

I've linked to this before, but this ad is a good example of a story that communicates a reason to buy—affordable luxury. Watch it here.

Thanks to AdFreak for the links. Read what Ernie Schenck thinks about them here.

Chevrolet—America's Brand or an American Revolution?

I've been meaning to write about Chevy's advertising since the Olympics started, but Marc at Being Reasonable beat me to the punch. Read his objection to Chevrolet's current slogan, "America's Brand Salutes America's Best. Chevrolet. An American Revolution.", here.

Memo to Chevrolet: "Huh?"

Try googling "America's Brand" and see what you get. Not Chevrolet. In fact, according to the  Global Brand Score Card for 2005, Chevrolet doesn't make the list. But Toyota (#9), BMW (#16), Honda (#19) and  Ford (#22) do. Even Hundai makes the list at #87. Yes, I know it's a global survey, but shouldn't America's Brand appear in the top 100? Ford does.

In the agency world there's a saying, "Your strategy is showing." My guess is the brief for these ads read something like: "Chevrolet is America's brand. We're sponsoring the Olympics. The ad needs to communicate these two elements and include our current tagline, An American Revolution. Oh yeah, show some good footage of our SUVs to reverse their downward sales spiral."

Credit the creatives for delivering an ad that did exactly that.

Ford and Toyota aren't about to cede the "America's Brand" space to Chevy. Read more here.

Full disclosure: I own (and quite like) a Chevrolet SUV.

More On Sprint (or Why I'm a Verizon Customer in the Making)

Yesterday I wrote about my recent experience with Sprint. You can read it here. After reading John's comment on that post, I had a few additional thoughts:

Today Sprint announced its quarterly profits, $195 million. That makes the roughly $30,000 they will not get from me over the next 40+ years seem small in comparison. In reality it's not. If just 6,500 customers switch from Sprint to a competitor, Sprint loses $195 million in potential revenue over the next 40 years. I'll bet my lunch Sprint loses that many customers a week.

So what could Sprint do to keep its customers? Consider the whole cell phone experience. It's lousy. Rather than spending millions on acquisitions, they could spend a bit of the marketing budget in ways that reinforce a customer's decision to use Sprint. Here are a few ideas (Sprint, are you listening?):

Sprint gives a free or significantly discounted phone to every new customer. But their existing (and best) customers get nothing. Why not offer customers in good standing the opportunity to upgrade their phones free every year (without extending a service agreement)? How about free ring-tones, wall paper, or accessories on a customer's birthday? How about a free month of service for every year as a customer? What if they refunded a portion of the monthly bill to customers who habitually use fewer minutes than they pay for? This would tell me they are looking out for my best interests, not theirs. Or what if they provided free sports scores, stock info, or new briefs to customers who continue to use Sprint even after their contracts expire?

I don't know much about Sprint's acquisition costs, but the costs of any of these perks would pale in comparison. And if they added even a few months of service to existing users, wouldn't they be worth it?

Sprint's customer base is like a leaky bucket. In any given month, thousands of old customers leak out and thousands of new customers are poured in. There are two ways to keep the bucket full. You can add more and more customers. Or you can plug the leaks and keep the customers you already have.  Most marketing programs (and virtually all advertising programs) are designed to pour customers in. Which is too bad because you gain more by plugging the leaks and thrilling your customers.

Thanks John for your comment. I'll look forward to hearing about your experience.

Free Phone From Sprint

John January of American Copywriter writes about his invitation to try a new cell phone and service from Sprint—free. He’s excited to give it a try. All Sprint asks in return is that John blog about his experience.

It doesn’t take a new phone to get me to blog about Sprint’s service. My recent experience trying to change my calling plan was enough to get me to do that. Last month I called to change my plan to include free national roaming. It took almost an hour on the phone with a CSR to get the plan changed (it was painful). And I had to agree to another 2-year service contract. As a customer, I was less than thrilled. (New customers get a new phone with a new service plan. I didn't get that).

When my bill arrived, I found that I had been charged for $50 of roaming calls, even though I had just called to request a change in my plan. It looks like the CSR switched my plan to one with free long-distance, not free roaming. The best part? The new plan is exactly the same as my old plan. Only I’m signed up for 2 more years, instead of seven months. You win, I lose.

Except when it comes time to renew, you’ll lose. What’s my future value as a customer? I plan on living another 40+ years, at $60 a month. That’s >$28,800. Plus any additional revenue from extra lines for my wife and children. And any other potential customers I’ll share my story with.

John, I hope you enjoy your new phone. When my contract runs out, I’ll be calling Verizon, T-Mobile, or Virgin.

Advice on Naming

I'm not a naming expert, though I have been involved in the naming process for several products and at least two companies. In my interactions with businesses looking for affordable, well-designed identities, I see dozens of companies and products that could use help when it comes to naming. If you don't have the budget to hire Landor or Lexicon, be sure to read the latest post from Guy Kawasaki. He offers good advice, including the following:

Sound different. Quick: What do the following companies do? Claris. Clarin. Claria. Clarium. Clarins. Clarinex. It's hard to remember whether they sell makeup, unplug your nose, or got killed by Apple. Great names sound different. They also spell different, for that matter.

Other places to look for naming advice include this free pdf from Igor International. It discusses the upsides and downsides of several naming tactics.

And if you're working on a naming project of a different kind, you may enjoy this site.

Branding Guaranteed to Fail

Two signs that your "branding" campaign is destined to fail:

#1 Your client is Botswana. (A great place I'm sure, but difficult to travel to and facing serious health challenges.)

#2 Your press release describes the process like this: "The national brand project will first assess the current economic realities, strategies and organisational capacities of Botswana together with understanding in detail the current perceptions within Botswana and internationally. The project team will then develop brand options and test these with key stakeholders and target audiences, resulting in a refined and fully-tested brand strategy. Finally, brand guidelines, an implementation plan and a brand monitoring framework will ensure that the project can move as smoothly and rapidly as possible towards implementation.

Read the rest here.

Does the NBA Need a New Logo?

AdFreak points to an article at FoxSports.com about the NBA's logo. Good read. The article gives a history of the NBA and its logo, and poses the question, should the logo be updated to reflect what the NBA has become? AdFreak doesn't answer the question. But I will. No.

Updating the logo won't solve what's wrong with the NBA. Rather than alluding to the league's hip hop culture or dominant African-American stars, the logo represents values the league should aspire to. The red, white, and blue representing an American pass-time. The dribbling player is a reminder of what the game used to be, rather than a high-flying dunk, shorts hanging below the knee, or other "gansta" styles that don't resonate with middle-aged men, a significant part of the NBA's paying audience. Why change something that works so well (to the tune of $3 billion a year)?

There are times when it is a good idea to update a logo. This isn't one of them.

Advertising Messages—How Many Do You See A Day?

I was catching up on some reading today and came across an oft-quoted stat that made me think twice. You've probably seen it before—the number of advertising messages every American is exposed to every day. So what is it? In their book, Under the Radar, Kirshenbaum and Bond peg the number at 1500. But a quick google search pegs the number at:

400-600 a day?
40,000 a year (109 a day)?
2000 a day?
Millions a year (>5479 a day)?
1500-3000 a day? Here too.
2500 a day?
1500 a day?
4,000 a day?

So what is it? Could it really be 5479 a day? That's 1 ad every 12 seconds (assuming you sleep just 7 hours a night). If the number is 3000, that's still almost 3 messages every minute. Anyone seen any research that substantiates these claims?

"Branding" and Brand Loyalty

UPDATE: THIS ENTRY HAS BEEN CROSS POSTED AT THE NEW BRANDSTORY BLOG WHERE I NOW WRITE. I'D BE HONORED IF YOU WOULD CLICK THROUGH AND ADD IT TO YOUR BOOKMARKS.

Every once in a while I hear criticism of "branding" like this from Bob Bly, suggesting that it doesn't create loyalty. By branding, I believe Bob is mostly referring to "image" advertising.

He's right. Image ads don't make customers loyal. But done properly, they can create desire and establish reasons to buy. This ad by DDBLondon for VolksWagon comes close. Notice the product focus.

Much of the image advertising from Madison Avenue deserves criticism and closer scrutiny. But Bob's anecdote doesn't prove his point. Bob's friend Richard was loyal to a particular shoe (we're not told why, but are led to assume it was because of "branding"). Another friend recommended a new brand. After trying the new shoes, Richard switched brands. Is this a failure of "branding"? No. It's a success for word-of-mouth and a compelling brand experience (both vital components of brand building).

Richard says, "I have brands that I prefer among just about everything I buy… but virtually every single one of them is negotiable. Show me that your product is cheaper and/or better than my current brand, and I’ll switch in a heartbeat." The fact that Richard has brand preferences in the first place shows that branding does indeed work. He believes his brands are better than others and he's loyal to them until he has a reason to switch.

The problem is most advertising doesn't communicate a good reason to switch or demonstrate a compelling reason not to switch when a competitor comes along. But don't blame "branding", blame the marketers and creatives who don't understand how to sell products effectively.

In a previous, related post, Bob Bly wrote: "As a copywriter, I don’t get paid to 'build great brands.' I get paid to generate greater ROI from my clients' marketing. In other words, to make the cash register ring."

Frankly, I don't see the difference.