Brand Story

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Tagline Trivia Part Two

Derrick Daye of Branding Strategy Insider posts a short list of taglines/slogans from 25 consumer brands. Can you name them all?

While it makes great trivia, the amazing thing is that many of these taglines haven't been used in decades (at least one since the 60s). Yet, it is not very difficult to connect them to their brands (at least for those of us approaching middle age). It just goes to show the power of a good tagline.

Compare Derrick's original list with the following:

1. I'm lovin' it.
2. Army Strong.
3. Just Do It.
4. The Coke Side of Life.
5. That's Right.
6. A Family Commitment to Quality Since 1920.
7. We Try Harder.
8. Moving Forward.
9. Find Your Voice.
10. On the Move.
11. Life Takes Visa.
12. Be there now.
13. My Life, My Card.
14. Like Always, Like Never Before.
15. With 100% Natural Flavors (I guess Make 7UP Yours wasn't working).
16. There's an M in everyone.
17. When you care enough to send the very best.
18. Have it your way
19. All the news that's fit to print.
20. Taking on the world's toughest energy challenges.
21. Childhood is calling.
22. Imagination at work.
23. Accelerate your life.
24. --
25. Nothing beats a great pair of l'eggs.

Now can you name them all?

Kudos to those few brands that know a good thing when they see it. Sadly, they're in rare company. Too many brands these days use taglines of questionable originality or relevance to their products. How exactly does "That's Right" help me remember Wendy's? And what was the Perdue family committed to before 1920?

Other slogan lists worth checking out: AdSlogans.com, SnarkHunting, and SingleGrain.