Branding Advice Archives - Page 14 of 28

PETA jumps the shark (then clubs it, skins it, and eats its heart)

An open letter to PETA from your target audience (I think)

Hi PETA. Yes you, thumb the “People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals”. It’s your target audience here. Or at least I think I might be your target audience. I’m not sure you actually know anymore. Which is why I’m writing. I think you guys have “jumped the shark” and thought you might like to know why.

Fonzie_jumps_the_shark 2 — Jumping the shark - Fonzie learned it the hard way. Will PETA?

Why am I your target market?

You had me at “ethical treatment of animals”: when I hear that name, information pills I think: cool! I’m one of you! I’m a person in favour of that – I mean, information pills who wouldn’t be right? It’s a hard concept to argue with. Animals need someone to speak up for them. Yay.
I’m a social-justice-minded guy: I’m a “soft lefty” who believes in equality, justice, and the environment, so ideologically, we should be able to speak the same language right?
I’m a dad: you know, influencing the choices of the next generation (when they listen).
I’m a blogger: when I speak, literally dozens listen. Okay it ain’t thousands a day, but it’s something.
I’m a heterosexual: and despite my better intentions, when I see nice-looking semi-naked woman, you get a free pass to a bit of my attention. So yeah, all those early “I’d rather go naked than wear fur” campaigns against fur did catch my eye, and because they were clever and fairly well executed, and (read this line twice please) there was a clear connection between the creative and the message they actually did make me think twice about the fur trade. So congratulations.

But that’s where you’re losing me

Last week, I made the mistake of clicking on your “PETA State of the Union Undress” and suddenly I felt like I was on water skis heading straight for the shark pool.

Yes PETA. I get it. That’s “State of the Union Undress” – like “address” but naked (snort snort, chortle). And apparently this is your third annual installment, timed to coincide with the US President’s State of the Union speech.

The video features a speech by a model who strips down, not just to her knickers or cleverly concealed naughty bits, but to full frontal nudity (you’ll notice I’m not linking to it. Feel free to Google away, but trust me, you’ll feel sleazy afterwards).

Almost worse than that, the performance is awful. The speech is rambling and badly written. The subject matter is all over the map, from seal hunts to chicken farms to “promoting healthy vegan lifestyles”.

Save the SuperModels!

But how about when you top it off with exploitation of human beings? Surely that’s even worse than (gasp) eating eggs.

What really got me was the baby seal look on the poor model’s face. She just looked profoundly uncomfortable – like she’s not sure why she signed up for something like this, and she’s hoping her mother and / or future non-porn-industry employers aren’t watching.

Basically, she looks unethically treated.

And that’s what got me thinking. Who among us speaks up for the poor, oppressed, fabulously-rich and beautiful?

My new organization:

All joking aside…

PETA, just be aware that when you put together extreme lack of focus with sensationalism all you get is noise. Just noise.

If you want me back, just work on these two things:

Focus on issues where you can actually make a difference. I might be convinced to stop wearing fur or eat less meat but if you tell me never to buy leather or drink a glass of milk, you’ve lost me.
Try subtlety. Seriously. It works. You can tease and be playful, but make sure there’s a solid, audience-friendly point at the end. And make sure it never crosses the line into titillation and sensationalism for their own sake.

Because while you might “reach” your audience, trust me: they won’t be listening to what you’re trying to say.

How about you readers: has PETA lost their edge? Am I being fair?

Are you in a mustard, a spaghetti-sauce, or a ketchup market?

Thoughts on Gladwell’s What the Dog Saw – part 2

Beg to Differ is riffing on thoughts inspired by Canadian journalist Malcolm Gladwell in his new book What the Dog Saw: And Other Adventures. Today we reflect on his essay The Ketchup Conundrum, information pills with strategies for smart branders in all kinds of pickles.

Condiment conundrum — From the "Club Heinz" web site

Essay:THE KETCHUP CONUNDRUM – Mustard now comes in dozens of varieties.Why has ketchup stayed the same?

In this essay, hospital Gladwell asks a pretty basic question about ketchup: why are there “No Other Kinds?” That is: while there are a handful of ketchup manufacturers, more about there is really only one variety of ketchup that has ever gained any market traction.

But along the way, I see three different brand-building strategies that apply to all kinds of markets as well.

Mustard strategy

The mustard universe used to look the same way as ketchup. In the old mustard universe, there was just plain old yellow mustard (a la French’s). But then, along came the game-changer: Grey Poupon. With brilliant advertising (see YouTube clip below), premium pricing, and an exotic taste, Grey Poupon created a “high end” in the mustard market, and voila! Faster than you can say “pardon me…” consumers began seeking out and buying other kinds of mustard.

All it took was for one smart new product to change the rules of the mustard world.

Spaghetti-sauce strategy

Gladwell shows that the spaghetti-sauce market underwent an even larger transformation, but in this case there were already two dominant varieties: Ragú with a thin sauce, and Prego, with a thicker, richer sauce.

Gladwell tells the story of Howard Moskowitz, the food industry guru who convinced Prego to try not one, not two, but three different varieties of sauce under the same Prego banner. Suddenly, consumers were delighted to “fine tune” their spaghetti sauce by choosing plain, spicy, or extra chunky.

The result: Prego became number one, and an arms race began in the pasta aisle, that continues to this day.

Ketchup strategy

But before you run off to re-write the brand strategy for your product: consider ketchup.

Many companies have tried to play the Grey Poupon and Prego tricks with ketchup. Gladwell narrates the efforts of one such upstart “World’s Best Ketchup” and shows how such contenders have utterly failed to create a “second wedge”.

Why? Turns out that the definition of “Ketchup” is much narrower in the consumer’s mind, and once you cross that line, it’s not ketchup at all anymore.

Or as Howard Moskowitz himself shrugs at the end of Gladwell’s article: “I guess ketchup is ketchup.”

So brand managers,what does your market look like?

The basic truth in Gladwell’s article is this: all markets are different, and therefore, the path to success in each will be very different. So whether you’re trying to create a brand in robertson screws or facial tissue, network servers or off-road vehicles, the key is to learn the peculiar mindset of customers in your industry:

Mustard Markets: there’s room for a “Grey Poupon” to show people that another option can a) fit the definition, but b) take the category in a whole new direction. Your job: find the wedge, and push it hard – and a bit of class with a sense of humour won’t hurt either.
Spaghetti Sauce Markets: there’s room for a lot of variety under the same category umbrella, and customers are hungering for choice (even if they don’t know it yet). Your job: find out what “chunky style” looks like in your spaghetti bowl.
Ketchup Markets: sorry to say, your product category is very narrowly defined in customer’s minds, and there’s not a lot of room for competition with established players. If you “break the rules” too much, you’ll never get very far. Your best bet here is to compete on “non product” benefits like service, price, or clever branding. Or maybe try the salsa business instead.

Malcolm Gladwell at TED on Spaghetti Sauce

The classic Grey Poupon ad

iPad, uPad: Apple meets the push-up bra

Apparently iPad has been enhancing feature sets for a while….

So of course, health Beg to Differ was riveted on Wednesday by “The Big Speech”. No, stuff not the State of the Union Address: it was the unveiling of a new product by Apple that had our attention. And apparently, we weren’t the only ones watching: so were trademark lawyers for several other “iPads”. But will any of it matter for Apple? Read on.

: A padded insert from Coconut Grove Intimates – with a branded insert of our own.

Trying to pad the feminine market?

On Wednesday, our big question was not “what will this miraculous new product be?” Everybody knew that already. It was leaked long ago that it would be a tablet device that would look something like a big iPod or iPhone.

We were watching to see what they would call it.

The “i” naming convention was a given with iMac, iTunes, etc. But would this one become iSlate? iTablet? iShtar? Surely not <gasp> “iPad”?

Nope, iPad it was

Now, we’re fans of Apple branding in almost every possible way, and we lauded the return of Steve Jobs in a previous post. But instantly upon the announcement, we watched the media and the Twitter universe light up with criticism, and some really off-colour humour, about the name sounding like a feminine hygiene product (see the MadTV clip at bottom).

Even more shocking: it turns out that the hygiene connection was just the beginning. Neither the name itself, or the association with products aimed at females, were unique.

Fujitsu has already filed suit based on its own iPad product (above), and several others are out there.

But the one that jumped out at us was the “iPad” product sold by a small Canadian company called Coconut Grove Pads Inc.. It’s a bra insert like the one shown at the top of this post.

But will any of this matter?

In a word: no.

Let’s be clear: I would never advise a smaller client to go with such a name. There are just too many risk factors, as the media have been gleefully pointing out.

But Apple knows this. And they went ahead in spite of it because, well, they’re Apple. Their market awareness is just too big, and the new product just too smart, for any of this to matter.

They will settle with Fujitsu after some posturing by both parties, the Twitter wags will get their “Maxi” giggles, and the bra company will get its moment in the sun.

But most importantly, the name “iPad” will quickly lose its association with MaxiPads and other feminine products.

Why? Because we will all take ownership of the name as the way to refer to the Apple device – which will push all other uses to the back of the collective consumer brain bus.

And in the branding game, that’s what really matters.

What do you think? Are we artificially inflating our opinion? Let us know in the comments!

Bonus: MadTV scooped Apple on the iPad name in Nov. 2007

NOTE: This is very funny – but mildly gynecological humour might be a bit “edgy” for more conservative work environments, so view with caution.

Malcolm Gladwell on intellectual property extremism.

Thoughts on Gladwell’s What the Dog Saw – part 1

This week, sildenafil Beg to Differ is savouring the new book by Canadian journalist Malcolm Gladwell, pharmacy What the Dog Saw: And Other Adventures. It’s really, really good (duh, it’s Gladwell). All the essays are from New Yorker Magazine, and in typically Gladwellian style, every page sets off fireworks in your neurons, lighting up a new part of your brain with every thought. So, since we’re thinking about this stuff anyway, we thought we’d share some thoughts. Today: is there really such a thing as “intellectual property”?

Oz Cover — Cover image "borrowed" (stolen?) from the Australian edition of What the Dog Saw

Essay: Something Borrowed. Should a charge of plagiarism ruin your life?

In this essay, Gladwell begins by discussing a strange case of “plagiarism” involving an earlier article he had written for the New Yorker. Seems a Broadway play called “Frozen” by British playwright Bryony Lavery “borrowed” lines, ideas, and biographical detail from his profile of Dorothy Lewis – a psychiatrist who studies serial killers. The similarities between the play and Gladwell’s article, and by extension, Lewis’s life, are extensive and unmistakable.

But is this a case of plagiarism? Lewis thought so – enough to take legal action against the playwright. And originally so did Gladwell, who quotes a letter he faxed to Lavery:

I am happy to be the source of inspiration for other writers, and had you asked for my permission to quote—even liberally—from my piece, I would have been delighted to oblige. But to lift material, without my approval, is theft.

I know how he feels (in my tiny-blog-kind-of-way). This was my response a few months back when a blogger informed me in the Comments to my 10 Brand Strategy Lessons from Princess Bride post that she had copied the entire text of my post to her blog:

But for Gladwell, as he thinks it through, and especially after reading, then going to see the play himself, begins to waver before ultimately retracting his objections.

Why? Because, as Gladwell puts it: the play is “breathtaking. I realize that this isn’t supposed to be a relevant consideration. And yet it was: instead of feeling that my words had been taken from me, I felt that they had become part of some grander cause.”

And that’s the problem with “Intellectual Property”

So here’s where I insert my own original content, lest you think I’m simply summarizing Gladwell for the entire blog post. (Malcolm: my fax machine is broken buddy. If you must protest, just leave your comments below).

Gladwell’s genius, here and everywhere is that he challenges all kinds of intellectual extremism. Where somebody else would assert that a thing is black or white, Gladwell shows us how it is not just gray, but a fascinating spectrum of intertwining shades of “off gray”. And then he helps us understand the patterns that emerge, which, like great art, are never quite as clear-cut as we might wish for, but all the richer for it.

In this case, he points out the extremism of our “intellectual property” conventions. or as he puts it:

“So is it true that words belong to the person who wrote them, just as other kinds of property belong to their owners? Actually, no.”

The playwright Byrony Lavery took Gladwell’s words and made something beautiful and new out of them, and in the process, taught Gladwell a valuable lesson. But is it a lesson we’re willing to hear?

So branders: how about brand names, patents, and logos?

This is where I throw the ball to you. I believe in brand management – how could I not?

But I also believe that the brands we create enter the public domain the moment we create them – or there wouldn’t be any point. I also think we invest too much time on policing supposed brand “infringements” and not enough proactively cultivating positive expressions of our brands.

What do you think?

In branding, when is “new” not new anymore?

This morning, information pills I was talking to a client and mentioned my “newborn son“. But almost before the words left my mouth, I realized they weren’t quite true any more. At some point over the last 8 weeks, he crossed an invisible line from a “newborn” to just being a “baby”. My 3-year old isn’t a “toddler” any more. My 5 year old gets very angry if you call her anything but a “big girl”. But how do you know when a child – or a product – has crossed such a line? The short answer: it’s really hard…

"New" Raquel ad for Coke - not looking so new anymore (from www.kitschy-kitschy-coo.com)

Meet the new boss. Same as the other new boss.

Back in 2006, the media and political junkies in Canada were surprised to find that our newly elected Conservative minority government was calling itself “Canada’s New Government”. From a positioning standpoint, this was actually a brilliant way of distancing themselves from the scandal-tainted previous government. But even then, it rang a bit hollow, since the “newness” was just a group of new (and very inexperienced) bosses. Over the intervening years, as the government became more and more entrenched, the term gradually faded from view.

New Coke is of course another Classic example. But when I asked a class full of university business students on Monday whether they’d ever heard of New Coke, only one hand went up. It may have had a huge impact 25 years ago, but it ain’t “news” anymore.

You might object that “New York” “New Zealand”, and “Nova Scotia” have all kept their “New” labels. Yes. But how many people still associate these places with their precursors? Go ahead, ask any New Yorker how their city is like the York in Toronto… er… England. See? Even there, the “newness” is lost in the mists of history.

And that’s the problem with “new”

Or rather, that’s the problem with any time-sensitive descriptor that you attach to something. It only has so much shelf time before it will have to change.

So be careful in choosing to be “new” “modern” “updated” or “improved”. And if you’re a brander who is already stuck with such a moniker, probably time to look for alternatives.

May I suggest “classic”?