The writers at Sesame Street are obviously staying hip with the times – or at least with early 60’s Madison Avenue. Here’s their send-up of Mad Men, sale using Don Draper and company to teach kids about emotions. Catch the irony there? The most emotionally repressed character on television since the Professor on Gilligan’s Island… yeah, viagra I guess you get it.
The lesson for branders
Respect the role of emotion in your branding.
All right, you caught me. That’s a stretch, and I’m slumming it with this one. It’s actually just for fun.
True, it’s not as hilarious as the Sesame Street bits I watched in my own kindergarten days, but of course, at that age I used to break into giggles at the word “armpit”.
The funniest line by far is right at the end, when the Draper character says “good work sycophants”. I’m pretty sure that’s not aimed at the kids, but at the adult in the next room. But then, isn’t that double-barreled approach what made Sesame Street so brilliant?
Wait! Maybe that’s a real branding lesson after all
Target your brand to a specific audience, but don’t forget the “boss” in the next room who “holds the remote”.
What do you think? Still a stretch? Are there other pearls of branding wisdom hidden in this simple piece?
It’s been a tough week here at Beg to Differ. It started with good food, find which is good, but then we broke up with Intel, mourned the loss of the Saturn brand, and today, we have to talk about another tragedy: civil war. Yes, I’m talking full on, brother-against-brother warfare. And the war-dogs are already unleashed. Today our old friend Starbucks is starting taste tests of a brand new product against… wait for it… their own product.
The “Big Bucks” thinks this is a good idea. We beg to differ…
Let the divisive, internal warfare begin! Starbucks chooses an apt metaphor for its self-defeating taste test campaign. But they forget the old saying: "Nobody wins a civil war."
The new Product: Starbucks VIA Ready Brew
Apparently, this coffee master has already chosen sides for the battle to come...
On Wednesday morning, I was at a business meeting in a Starbucks, when the store’s chipper “coffee master” came over to offer us a sample of some frothy sweet coffee stuff. “Great.” I thought, another example of “Lethal Generosity. I must blog about this.”
But then I noticed she was wearing an orange apron, not the traditional green, and a strange new logo was there in the middle with the name of a Canadian passenger rail service on it.
That’s when she started her spiel: “Starbucks VIA is our new instant coffee. But it’s really good. come back on Friday for our taste test and you’ll see that it tastes just as good as our regular coffee…” She went on to explain that this was real Starbucks coffee processed using a super-secret process. Then she gave a very enthusiastic review of her own experience using wine-tasting language about “floral notes” “slight acidity” dark and full-bodied presentation”. But the whole time I was thinking:
Starbucks is selling INSTANT coffee?!?!
Now I admit, part of me was also thinking: “Hmm. Instant coffee, eh? Maybe this instant coffee does taste just as good. Maybe I should give this new instant coffee a try.” So congratulations Starbucks, you got me thinking about your new product, and I’ll even go try some. So as a product launch campaign, you win.
And Starbucks desperately needs a win these days. Their brand value has been deflating under competition from McDonald’s, Duncan Donuts, Tim Hortons, and a host of very smart local shops – like Ottawa’s Bridgehead (where I’m writing this post) leading to “daring” moves like the “15th Avenue” coffee-shop concept. But Instant Coffee takes the cake.
Reasons this is a bad idea for Starbucks
1) Instant coffee is the antithesis of real coffee
As I’m thinking about this new product, the term “Instant Coffee” is going through my head and I’m picturing the stale, foul-smelling crystals that are usually your last resort when you need caffeine but ran out of the real stuff. It’s like drinking home-brew wine at a party because the good stuff is gone. Or using canned Spam because you ran out of real meat. It doesn’t matter how good it is: it’s still home brew / Spam / a non-real product / a pale shadow of the real thing.
Starbucks built its brand by creating a new product category: premium coffee with an air of sophistication, taste, and care. That is, we pay extra for real coffee, really lovingly prepared by real people in a real place that is really dedicated to that product. You’ll often hear people at an office say: “No, not coffee-maker coffee. Let’s go out for a real coffee.”
2) Instant coffee devalues the Starbucks experience
The Starbucks store is not a coffee-buying place, it’s a place where real humans commune around the centerpiece of coffee. By saying “now you can make instant coffee at home and it actually is a Starbucks coffee,” you are implicitly saying that the Starbucks in-store experience is less important, easier to replicate, and worth less.
But don’t they already sell Starbucks-branded coffee-makers in store and can’t you get big bags of Starbucks-branded beans at your local Costco? Yes, and those also devalue the Starbucks brand in the same way. One or two is a stretch, too many and you break.
Again, I don’t care how good any given product may be. Starbucks brand managers should never, ever allow anyone in their organization to say anything they offer is equal to a real Starbucks experience – which is the in-store experience.
3) The name “VIA” is not terrible. But not strong enough to stand on its own.
Good points: the name is short, punchy, easy to spell and pronounce, and it looks great in big capital letters on a poster or product logo.
But two big problems: A) in English, “via” is not a noun, so it isn’t natural to say “drink a VIA”, and 2) because it appears after “Starbucks”, it will always be fighting for attention with the more familiar name – a battle VIA will inevitably lose.
4) “Ready Brew” is a dud as a category descriptor.
If you’re launching a product in a category like instant coffee that has a low perceived-value, but you’re trying to say “this is better / different / real”, do what Dove has always done. Don’t call yourself soap; call yourself a “Beauty Bar”.
It would have been smart for Starbucks to create a strong new category that has a name that implies higher value and sophistication. As in, “this isn’t Instant at all, this is (insert term here)”. Starbucks has already done this with their cup sizes. We may roll our eyes ordering a Tall, Grande, or Vente, but it works. It makes them seem like more than just a cup of Joe
“Ready Brew” fails on all counts. It sounds even cheaper than “Instant Coffee”, and doesn’t have enough character to replace that term.
5) A taste test is a no win battle for Starbucks
The call to arms. The internal battle begins today.
And finally, back to the wars. The problem with a civil war is this: it doesn’t matter who is right, and it doesn’t matter who wins, when two armies from the same place fight each other on their own territory, things get broken. Badly.
I can see two possible outcomes for the Starbucks brand of the taste tests:
A) The new product loses: in this case, Starbucks ends up looking silly, and the new product either tanks or manages to hobble along. Worst case, it tanks like New Coke and becomes a buzz-word for corporate hubris. This may give the Starbucks brand a small lift as people rally around “classic”, but the damage will be greater than the gain.
B) The new product wins: In this case, Starbucks has a popular new product that ends up undercutting the value of the brand with every package sold.
As I said: no win.
Thoughts for brand managers:
Are you creating your own internal civil wars by pitting your brands against your own offerings?
Is that new product launch strategy going to benefit the product at the expense of the corporate brand?
Is there an opportunity for a house brand or an endorsed brand strategy to put some distance between you and your new product?
Is someone speaking up for your customers and for the brand in your organization? If not, maybe time to get some help.
More reading:
The Motley Fool describes the civil war effect brilliantly in This May Be Starbucks’ Dumbest Move Ever. They make the suggestion that Starbucks should run taste tests against competitors’ coffee. So if Starbucks Ready Brew wins, they can say “see, even our instant coffee is better than their real stuff.”
Street interviews in New York caused local blog Gothamist to declare, “Starbucks Instant Coffee Instantly Hated By New York.”
BNET joins the pile-on, with some Brand Management 101 (“How to Blow a Turnaround”), asking: “[H]ow does Via stop the market share erosion to McDonald’s and Dunkin’ Donuts? How does it bring customers back to Starbucks? Why didn’t the marketing geniuses at Starbucks compare Via to competitors’ fresh brewed coffee? At least that might have made some sense.”
So yesterday, purchase while Beg to Differ was breaking up with the Intel brand, ed we got sad news about another old flame: Saturn is dead. Penske threw in the towel on its attempt to revitalize the brand, recipe and GM is finally shutting Saturn down. We’re feeling sad about that today. We remember when Saturn was promising to be “A Different Kind of Company; A Different Kind of Car.”
As you may have guessed from our name, we like “Different”…
(above) The home page of the innovative "ImSaturn Network" community Web site. Everything looks different... except the cars... and apparently the end of the story...
You can read the whole sad Saturn history at Wikipedia. We’re going to focus on the Saturn brand, and how the promise changed over time, then died, and what brand managers can learn from it.
“I’m sure if everything I read is true, I won’t be disappointed”
Somewhere out there, this third grade teacher from a 1992 Saturn ad (below) must be a bit down today as well. In it, she says she read about Saturn, and makes a personal connection when workers at the company read her letter. If you ever cared about Saturn like us, you have to watch this (Spoiler Alert: it’s really sad in retrospect).
Different worked… for a while.
And I’m sure she was satisfied, for a while. For her, and for the rest of us that were rooting for the “different” approach from the auto industry, Saturn succeeded at building 1) a “Different Kind of” brand promise, 2) a “Different Kind of” corporate mentality, 3) “Different Kind of” retail experience (no haggling), and 4) a “Different Kind of” tribe of devoted followers. They really did. The vestiges of those things are still around.
For example, Saturn has been much better than most other companies at embracing and building community online. Their fan site ImSaturn u r 2 is really engaging, and their marketing team really gets Social Media. A couple months ago, Beg to Differ was shocked and delighted when @tomfolger and a couple of Saturn marketing folks popped in to a Twitter #Brandjam to correct us when Saturn positioning came up.
Unfortunately the vehicles themselves, the “Different Kind of Car” was only ever marginally different from other cars. But the service commitment became legendary, and at least the cars looked just different enough that you could spot a “Saturn” on the road. If only they had built on their differentness…
But that’s where the story turns sour.
The big problem was, the “Different Kind of Company” was always beholden to the corporate logic of GM – a very un-different automotive behemoth. So as the Saturn competed more and more with GM core brands, and sales never quite matched expectations, GM had two options:
Option A: Think like a bean counter = differ less:
The approach: try to fix technical, marketing, and customer service problems by applying the same rusty old car industry logic. Gradually water down the promise and file off the edges, so only the most fanatical still hold on to the hope of Saturn rising again.
Option B: Think like and human being = differ more:
The approach: Keep renewing the vision by continuing to make the cars even MORE different in ways that customers will appreciate, and keep innovating on the corporate, manufacturing, and customer service fronts (preferably by not having it be a GM company any more).
Their choice was clear: differ less
Over the 90’s, the cars looked and behaved less and less different from other cars on the road, and by 2000, the line had expanded to include the same-old range from sub-compact to SUV – diluting the core idea of what a “Saturn” was. The passion and excitement of Saturn customers waned – as did their repeat-purchase loyalty.
So by the late ’00’s, when the really big financial meltdown happened, Saturn was dragged down by the gravity of the GM’s collapse. At Beg to Differ, we can’t help but think that stronger differentiation, coupled with the fierce (and geeky) loyalty of those early believers would have carried them through.
The big questions for brand managers:
Which option are you choosing for your brand – differing more or differing less?
Are you thinking like a bean counter (internal logic) or a human being (brand logic).
Are your corporate pre-occupations hampering your ability to deliver on the human promise of your brands?
If you disappeared tomorrow, would any third grade teachers miss you?
More nostalgia from YouTube.
Japanese language ad: ordinary American country folk buildin’ cars:
Saturn homecoming – playing on the wholesome geekiness of Saturn owners:
This is hard. We had such a good thing going once, and in a lot of ways, I still love you. But, well, things have changed. You’ve changed.
And I’m afraid you just don’t understand why… [sniff]
…I no longer want you inside. [sound of sobbing]
The early days
The early days. It all seemed so simple then...
I remember the first time I saw you in that cute little “Intel Inside” logo on the side of a new laptop at Office Depot. Wow. Knock-out.
I remember how you made me feel: safe, secure, like I could be better than ever. But mostly you helped me feel smart, just because you were there. Inside.
And that made everything else so easy. And really, that’s what I loved you for. You made my choices easier because you stamped them with an extra little promise that said “I’ll be there for you”.
And while I’m confessing everything, here’s something else I never told you: I never even knew what an “Intel” was, how it worked, or why it was important! And you know what? I never wanted to. I couldn’t care less about silicone chips or dual-core doodad clock times or whatever. I vaguely knew that those things were important, but because you were there, I didn’t have to worry about it. You cared, and that’s all I needed to know.
Where it started going tragically wrong
Trouble on the horizon
I think it was Pentium. That’s when I started wondering about us – when you convinced me that just having “Intel” inside wasn’t good enough. No, now it needed to be Intel and Pentium. “Just one other brand” you said. And sure I went along with it. Because I loved you, I put up with that little three-way thing. I even enjoyed it a bit.
At least, I thought, there were limits. Your friend Pentium had the decency to know its place, quiet, complementary, never intruding on your “Intel Inside” area.
But it didn’t stop there. No, then it had to be a Pentium 2, then a 3, then a 4. Always bigger, faster, with more complicated features and power.
And over the years, you found new names to stamp on all kinds of different parts of yourself: Celeron, Centrino, Core, Atom, Itanium, and on and on. Something called Xeon – honestly, was that one even from planet earth?
I couldn’t keep them all straight and I couldn’t tell the difference. But all along I thought: at least I still have my Intel Inside…
Not sure about smart being the new speed, but you sure kept me shifting...
But now, it’s gone too far
Well today I received a flyer from Dell telling me about some new laptop brand, and there, screaming from the upper left corner was one big massive graphic with your name on it. And if I was confused before, now I’m totally baffled. Now you’re “Intel Core i7 Inside”, with four different type-styles and a litte barf-coloured mosaic-ish thing. I don’t know you any more Intel!
And after all that, you have the gall to tell me: “Look for Intel Inside” and a bunch of randomly placed stars.
Well you know what? I did it: I looked for Intel Inside, and I found… wait for it… nothing.
Sorry Intel, you may still be inside my computer, but you’re just not inside me anymore.
And you know why I’m so angry and hurt? With Intel Inside, you seduced me into caring a little bit about something I’d never wanted to care about before. And it worked. You helped me feel like a smart, informed consumer by giving me a simple tool to feel better about my purchases.
But I never wanted to care more than that. And I will never, ever care about it as much as you do.
So enough already. Get rid of all those other brands, and maybe, just maybe, I’ll THINK about coming back.
No, scratch that. You see? Just for a second you made me want you again. But this time it’s over. [door slams]
Another blogger’s take on the evolution of Intel Inside:
This Saturday, drug I had the privilege of photographing some of my favourite people from my favourite place in the world doing what they love to do. The event was the third annual Taste of Wellington West festival – when the food shops and restaurants of my neighbourhood in Ottawa give away free samples of thier food to benefit a local food bank. What could be better?
From a marketing perspective, of course, the idea of giving away free food is a guaranteed hit and a very smart stratgey. But what’s better, I see this as a practical example of a term Shel Israel introduced me to a couple weeks ago – first on Twitter, and later when he visited Ottawa to promote his book Twitterville: How Businesses Can Thrive in the New Global Neighborhoods.
“Lethal Generosity”
Here’s Israel’s own definition of this term from his Web site:
Shel Isreal:Lethal Generosity is the business strategy of doing as much good for your customer as possible, thereby screwing your competitor who has to either follow your lead or ignore programs that serve them.
Don’t you love that idea? Now, “lethal” and “screw your competitor” are hard-edged, cut-throat words. But they get your attention don’t they? In reality this is a “bad cop” way of describing a very “good cop” phenomenon. Because actually lethal generosity only works when you do it the way we do it in Wellington West: generosity comes first; lethality follows.
So here’s how I’d (humbly) alter Israel’s definition to put the emphasis on the strategic sequence of events:
Denvan:Lethal Generosity is 1) doing something warm, human, and generous that endears you deeply to your community, which 2) also has the pleasant side effect of giving you an incredible competitive advantage, 3) forcing others to either follow your lead or look really stupid.
Taste of Wellington West
Heavy construction didn't keep the huge crowds away in 2008 (shown here) or 2009.
Even though we had a blossoming arts community, many dozens of restaurants, our own outdoor farmer’s market, and the biggest cluster of owner-operated gourmet food shops this side of Montreal, other neighbourhoods were getting all the attention because they were organized, and were investing in building their brands.
What’s more, we were facing three years of heavy disruption from a massive and dirty construction project that would replace century-old sewer and water lines and make a wasteland of our street, and chase away customers.
So how do you compete with all that? Well, you build on your strengths. In our case, the incredibly warm and quirky characters who ran the shops and restaurants of our neighbourhood – who could always be counted on to give their time, money, and products to worthy local causes. But now they had a new weapon: a way to organize, mobilize, and capitalize on their native generosity to help them through a tough time.
The trick: to be more generous:
The more you give, the more lethal you are. Absinthe gave away full sized gourmet Buffalo Burgers - resulting in longer lines.
Generosity, in the form of Taste of Wellington West, has helped us to bring thousands of new customers into our area at a time when most would rather stay away. And it allows locals a risk-free way of trying new places and meeting the humans behind those shops. I particularly love the picture of the kids trying the sushi. It really captures the spirit of the day: passionate merchants sharing their passions with people.
But even more interesting, the merchants themselves have started to compete with each other to see who can out-generous whom. One high-end restaurant created waves by offering meal-sized Buffalo burgers, while another that had opted not to participate, had to reluctantly start giving stuff away. One of the employees told me: “everybody’s asking where the free stuff is. It’s just easier this way.”
1) The warmth: I’d call these people the salt of the earth, but “spice of the city” is closer to home. Don’t those smiles just make you want to move to my neighbourhood? 2) The energy: these are always hard-working people, but for one day they double their workload to make magic in the process. 3) The variety: from the high end restaurant to the tiny family groceteria, everyone brought something different (and yummy) to the table. 4) The food: my biggest regret is being on the wrong side of the camera again this year! I get hungry all over again looking at these.