Brand Story

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Does WalMart Need a Better Image?

Or maybe the question should be, should a leopard change its spots?

According to a couple of news stories earlier this week (here and here), WalMart's former advertising agency GSD&M prepared a report that argues for a more upscale image for the decidedly downscale retailer. And WalMart is playing down the importance of the report.

You can read the 55 page report here.

According to the news stories, the report argues for repositioning the brand along the lines of smart shopping and better living (and thus, away from "low prices—always"). Why? Because while WalMart is the smart place to shop for brand-name consumables like toothpaste, it is not seen as a smart choice for purchases like electronics, apparel, and home decor (they call these priority departments). "Its reputation for discounts... 'works against [them]' as it tries to move upscale." 

But can WalMart grow into these new areas without impacting it's existing story? Is changing WalMart's positioning and brand story to accommodate the new priorities worth the risk?

In fact, the news reports are badly misreading the report. The economic, psychographic, and competitive information in the report indicates that WalMart should stick to it's low-price story. One survey quoted in the report notes that saving money is the #1 driver of shopping and that 87% of female shoppers agree that getting the best price is the most important thing to them when shopping. What percentage of WalMart's 138 million weekly customers are begging for better service in Home Apparel or higher end brands in the electronics department? My guess, it's very low. Instead of changing its position, the recommendations are for helping consumers understand how the low price story also means a better quality of life.

So the report argues for helping customers understand that smart shopping can also mean saving time, energy, or stress. It can mean spending dollars at a company that gives back to the community. These are areas that WalMart can improve.

So why the bad reading of the report? Perhaps it has something to do with the source: WakeUpWalMart.com, a union-backed group that is critical of WalMart (and clearly has an agenda for releasing the report). Maybe the reporters should have spent a little more time reading what the report actually says. In reality, it's a fascinating look into the day-to-day challenges of appealing to WalMart's customers.

Don't get me wrong. WalMart has some massive challenges. But being the low-price leader barely makes the list. In fact, one could argue that low prices are the only reason WalMart is what it is today.

John has a discussion going on about this at Brand Autopsy.

The Secrets of Selling

Today's Weekend Wall Street Journal features a short article by Steve Cohn called the Secrets of Selling (this week's installment of the Five Best series). It's a list of Cohn's choice of five best books about selling. Here's the list:

1. "Understanding Media" by Marshall McLuhan (MIT Press, 1964).
2. "Brand Sense" by Martin Lindstrom (Free Press, 2005).
3. "Reality in Advertising" by Rosser Reeves (Knopf, 1961).
4. "Why We Buy" by Paco Underhill (Simon & Schuster, 1999).
5. "Branded Nation" by James B. Twitchell (Simon & Schuster, 2004).

Interesting that the list doesn't feature a single Zig Ziglar or Tony Robbins type sales book. Nothing here about cold calling or other sales techniques. They're all about branding, unique selling positions, how brands attract interest and sales, and marketing. So sales is marketing.... hmmm.

If that's the case (and I believe it is), why is so little advertising designed to sell?