Brand Trustiness

It’s hard to know who to trust, especially for breaking news. Certainly, everyone has their favorite, trustworthy sources for credible news but sometimes that’s upended like it was on Thursday, the day the King of Pop passed away.

As an article in today’s New York Times describes, TMZ, the 4 year old celebrity news/gossip site owned by Time Warner, was a step ahead of the “major” news outlets by an hour on every aspect of the story. It was quite surreal to read on TMZ (via Twitter) that Michael Jackson had died at the same time CNN, The New York Times, LA Times and others had him in various stages of cardiac arrest and coma for an additional hour. TMZ seems to have out-scooped them all (scary as it may be to contemplate to whom they had access in order to do so…so much for patient confidentiality).

In these days of viral content and citizen journalism it’s even easier to get swept away in a maelstrom of rumors. While credit is certainly due to the news outlets fearful of reporting a death before its time, in this case, by the time they did report, it seemed a bit like old news. Does that make them seem dated? Or even more trustworthy because they were quadruple checking their sources?

Which news outlets will people turn to the next time? And for what types of events?

We’ve always been warned to “not believe everything you read” and caveat emptor so how does this dynamic apply to your brand in other categories beyond news reporting? Granted, in most cases it’s fair to say that the proof is in the pudding; if the brand does not deliver against expectations consumers have their answer about what to do the next time.

However, it’s also worth considering how your brand can build maximum trustiness, especially when it is among many that do not.

Otherwise, who will believe your brand when it really has the OTC diet product that actually results in safe, rapid weight loss and maintenance, or the cure for baldness, or the wireless service that never drops a call, or the moisturizer that reverses the aging process?

 Who will consumers trust…your brand or an upstart competitor?

Wants vs. Needs

“Lose 10 pounds in 5 minutes!”

This sign outside a Chicago lingerie retailer is making the universally compelling promise of rapid weight loss…minus the pills, treadmills, sweat, grapefruit or South Beach. The “magic bullet” that’s sure to drive their sales of Spanx-like body shapers.

As signs go, this one is right up there with “Free.” The steady stream of curious, yearning customers entering the store is a testament to human nature. And, despite knowing the product may just help them look a bit thinner they’re still filled with hope; quite a few customers leave the store happily clutching their new purchase.

Consumers may need to lose weight but what they want is to do so instantly with no work involved.

There’s a holy grail in every category, how close does your brand get to delighting consumers with what they want vs. just satisfying what they need?

Social Media Brand Chatter

Remember the good old days of brand management, that is, as recently as 3-4 years ago? The brand team and its agency worked diligently to position the brand, develop the message and create compelling advertising to communicate it in a range of media. Campaigns went up the ranks of management through rounds of review, refinement and final approvals before being aired, printed, recorded or billboarded. 

At each step, the creators and brand champions were subjected to increasingly pointed questions about whether the advertising was on strategy, adhered to the previously agreed creative brief, consistently communicated the desired message, provided opportunity for pool-outs, and would be placed in target-relevant media.

How quaint. 

Do strong brands still craft and adhere to positioning strategy, key messages and advertising briefs? Sure. But, a lot has changed in the wild, wild west, interactive world of Web 2.0. 

Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, blogs and many similar social media routes are now taken by a number of brands to address consumer experience issues, promote new products and engage consumers in conversations. Like anything else, some brands are doing this really well (e.g., Zappos, Comcast, Jet Blue, Bigelow Tea), others less so. 

It’s still too early to adequately judge effectiveness and determine how much all this on-line activity really builds a brand. Nor is it clear how much message control is possible or even desirable…after all, the point is authentic interaction with potentially millions of consumers which can naturally go any number of ways. However, the controllables do start with the brand’s core. 

Keys to success so far seem to include:

• Clear, relevant brand strategy – who is the brand and what benefits does it offer?
• Consistent message communication – does the brand stand for the same core values regardless of media platform?
• Authenticity- is the brand Twitterer, Facebook poster or blogger clearly identified, with the knowledge and passion to communicate brand values and authority to resolve consumer issues? Note: this is usually a senior level marketer, dedicated consumer experience manager or CEO, not a junior level techie or outside agency staffer…consumers can, and have, swiftly sniffed out and widely commented on the difference
• Engagement – are the brand communications interesting enough to encourage interactivity and longer term consumer involvement?

Yes, times and media are rapidly changing but it’s funny how these “basics” look a lot like what built strong brands in the old days.

Think Again

“Uns” rarely mean good news…undo, unravel, uneventful, unthinkable, unimaginable, unproductive, etc. are not usually positives.  Unless (sorry) something is unbeatable, un is a non-starter. 

More important than KFC’s latest headline language and the launch promotion executional flaws, it seems the bigger issue is the  “un” branding of the fast food fried chicken category leader. KFC has spent many decades and millions of dollars staking out defined territory in consumers’ minds – fried chicken made from Colonel Sanders’ special recipe.

Do they really want consumers to “unthink” the brand? Successful brand extensions transport the driving equity dimensions to adjacent categories. The best extensions evolve the brand over time, bringing consumers along a continuum without pushing farther or faster than they can or will accept. It’s always a careful balancing act to attract new users to drive growth without alienating the loyalists.

Sure, chicken is part of the KFC equity and may offer extension opportunities but fried chicken is the frame the brand currently owns. Clearly, KFC is not abandoning fried chicken any time soon but clearly wants (presumably new) target consumers to make the perceptual and behavioral leap to grilled chicken.

But, mass communication of “Unthink KFC” to all consumers does raise the question, “where does KFC think their fried chicken lovers should go?”

 

 

Why Make Fish Climb Trees?

Fish are really great swimmers. They can’t climb trees. Squirrels are really great tree climbers but not such great swimmers…they do it if absolutely necessary but wisely prefer to avoid water. Swimming is just not their strength.

 

Likewise, there are many things brands can do and some places they can go…and many that just won’t work.

 

So, why force a brand to do things it can’t or shouldn’t? Strong brands have a unique character with distinct advantages that provide meaningful competitive differentiation. There are plenty of ways to understand the equity of your brand, how far, and in what directions consumers will let it stretch. And, the places it can’t go. The challenge is to learn and leverage.

 

The “good” equity extensions are difficult to achieve because the goal is to not only sell more product but elevate perception of the overall brand. Tide, Neutrogena and Dove are good examples of brands with equity extensions that have contributed to their mega brand status.

 

Unfortunately, in the pursuit of growth, some brands end up in strange places. Harley Davidson Cake Decorating Kits, Oil of Olay Vitamins and Everlast Cologne are just a few of the far too many illustrations of brand extensions gone awry. While it apparently made good sense to their creators, whatever dimension of equity each was attempting to leverage was lost on their consumers.

 

When considering brand extensions, why not make the fish better swimmers and squirrels better tree climbers instead of mixing the two?

 

Fallacy of Small Brands

 

 

How many times have you thought or heard, “we can’t do that because our brand is too small?”

 

The “that” could be:

• a new merchandising concept - as in, “the trade won’t do that, the brand is too small”
• advertising campaign – “the media budget is too low for this small brand to make a dent in the clutter”
• new product – “the brand is too small to support another sku”
• etc.

 

 

Are there barriers to brand growth? Sure, and these are usually very significant time, dollar and perhaps market constraints. But, with “it’s too small” as the in-going mindset, how does your brand ever get big?

 

Suppose your new merchandising concept were applied to an alternate, perhaps more accepting, channel? Or, some of the media dollars were allocated beyond broadcast TV and print to engaging consumers via social media tools? Or, you creatively launched that new, meaningfully differentiated product among key influencers to build a following?

 

Clearly, every brand may not be a candidate for “bigness” – because the exclusivity is what drives consumer appeal, the addressable market is inherently limited, or other brands in the company portfolio offer greater opportunity.

 

However, if you’ve strategically designated a brand for growth, “it’s too small” needs to be banished from the conversation.

Ideation…Untethered

We’ve all been there. At some point (or many) in a businessperson’s year we’ve participated in ideation sessions to develop the next, new, great thing. After all, brands depend on new ideas to remain relevant and keep their promises.

 

There’s a conference room or a Museum space, filled with a group of smart people (a multi-disciplinary team of course) pulled away from the office routine, seated in comfy chairs, with readily available snacks, flipcharts, a skilled facilitator, and toys…we can’t forget the cool toys.

 

Most of all, there’s a mandate to CREATE something. A new product, a new package, a new way to get products from Point A to Point B…a new anything. In the next 6 – 8 hours.

 

While these “tethered ideation” sessions are terrific for team building and “buy-in” (full disclosure: I facilitate them quite often), there are many additional and perhaps better ways to create the next, new, great thing. Here are two:

 

Open Up the Process – Think of how many times an idea strikes you while you’re washing your face, taking a walk, pumping gas, browsing in a store, or wherever…alone. 

 

Before your next ideation session, suppose the project manager in charge of creating the next, new, great thing issued a very specific challenge to everyone in your company10 days prior to the session? Tap those random ideas people have on a daily basis and give them a voice. Give them a technology platform for idea “deposits,” an incentive to contribute and a promise to communicate the session outcome. It helps if there’s a format for contributors to follow when they submit an idea (e.g., what it is, who it’s for, key benefits, how it’s different) but being too restrictive will defeat the purpose.

 

Then bring together a small project team to build and refine the ideas into viable concepts for testing among target consumers or customers. You’ll have the best of both worlds – the freedom for people to create on their own and the team building required to refine and make the idea happen.

 

Let it Go…at least initially – If we’re honest, we know our strengths. Some of us are better with a blank page, others shine when they can build on an idea, and others are best at evaluating and refining.

 

Why not turn the initial idea generation over to people who live and breathe just to create? The natural creators – chefs, architects, artists, musicians, fiction writers, tinkerers – who aren’t bound by all the “can’ts and won’ts.” Issue the problem to solve, let them go, and collect their wisdom.

 

Then your project team, ideally composed of people with different strengths, along with your most effusive natural creators, can meet to add/subtract/sift/sort/refine/develop the initial ideas. The team will still have the opportunity to create and have the chance to experience the spark brought by outsiders. Everyone gets to do what they naturally do best.

 

“Untether” for a while and see what happens.

 

The 60 Day Challenge

 

GM has been given (another) 60 days to restructure its business. Granted, they are attempting to stave off bankruptcy, and have been in restructuring mode for many years. But, think about how much they have to accomplish in (another) 2 short months to survive.

 

Your brand may not be in a fight for survival. But, what will you do in the next 60 days to engage consumers and reinforce your brand’s position?  For that matter, what have you done in the past 60 days that consumers have actually experienced? I mean beyond just showing up on shelf.

 

While speed should never trump sound brand strategy, this economic crisis does open the door to innovation opportunities that consumers can see, hear or feel…be they in communications, process or products.

 

So, what’s it going to be for your brand? A Facebook page? Creative retail promotion? Working with consumers to create something they really want or fix something they find annoying? A friendlier and more helpful voice on the customer service front lines?

 

The choices are many. It’s amazing what can be accomplished when faced with a deadline.

 

Tick tock.

 

Mean What You Say, Do What You Mean

 

“Your call is very important to us and an agent will be with you shortly. Thank you for your patience.” Repeat every 3 minutes…

 

OK, if my call is so very important, why have I been on hold for 25 minutes? If this is how the brand (after all, consumer care – no matter how oxymoronic the term is in this case – is a key component of brand equity) handles the important calls, it’s amusing to think of how they might handle the ones they deem not very important.

 

Part of a brand’s promise is to be there for its customers/consumers over time – before, during and after the sale. And mean it. And do it.

 

If you mean that your customer’s call is very important to you then do what you have to do to respond, whether or not you have enough CSR’s. Even if it’s as simple as saying, “all of our representatives are serving other customers like you right now. We value your time. So, please leave your number and we’ll call you in the next 7 minutes.”

 

Amazon is just one of the brands that has figured this out. They mean it. And do it. Will your brand?

 

Then again, if your customers’ calls really aren’t very important to you just keep doing what you’re doing now. They’ll figure it out.

You’ve Got It, Now What?

 

Data, data everywhere. By now, most sophisticated, customer-oriented companies have collected, and continue to collect, massive amounts of data. They’ve done it all – segmentation, attitude and usage, in-home product testing, new product concept testing, mining of social networks, customer feedback emails, you name it, they’ve got it.

 

Now what?

 

How about spending the next few weeks sifting and sorting, setting priorities and actually using all that data to build your brand? It really is more than an annual brand planning exercise, especially in these changing and challenging times.

 

After all, while you’re amassing data and perhaps (or perhaps not) analyzing it to paralytic proportions, your more nimble competitors are actually doing something.