Posted by: Sean X on: January 31, 2012
Love. What does it mean to brands? Often people give presentations about “brand love” and cite brands like Apple, or Starbucks, or Virgin. Guess what? No other brand is Apple, or Starbucks, or Virgin. and you cannot just go out and copy those brands. If I stood in front of you and presented a case study about Apple it would demonstrate the “concept of brand Love” What it would not do however is help you. Many in the audience would silently mutter to themselves about all the failings of their brand. “OUR brand is not Apple,” you’d think to yourself “and never will be.” And I am here to tell you that you are 100% correct. Showing you case studies of brands that people Love is a waste of your time. For “Love” is only half the story.
What people don’t tend to talk about is Devotion. Devotion, not Love is Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by: Sean X on: December 28, 2011
Overstock.com recently gave up on its effort to fully change the company to O.co . When will brands learn that anything but a “.com” address of snow is fraught with disaster? People have said they bailed on their “rebranding.” They didn’t bail out on “branding” They bailed out on a name change.
What these brand managers who make these decisions are missing is an understanding of what branding actually is. It is fundamentally disturbing to me that so many “brand managers” do not understand what they are actually managing.
Branding is NOT a name. I repeat, branding is NOT a name. Branding is the emotional and physical components of our system which get triggered during name recognition. The name itself DOES NOT MATTER. A company name becomes disambiguated if there is a brand, and not if there is not. Simple.
A company name becomes disambiguated if there is a brand, and not if there is not.
You know you have a “brand” when it elevates out of the name to our limbic systems and evokes sensations in the body interpreted as emotions. It is a physiological reaction, not a thought process.
Overstock got worried about being only “Overstocked” items. RadioShack tried to ditch its Radio heritage. Burger King wants to move beyond burgers… Regardless, what these types of brands forget is that people often do not even associate the brand with the part of the name. Remember Boston Chicken? They thought that to move beyond Chicken they had to change their name… oops. Why don’t these moronic brand managers learn? How about Netflix? Ouch… what was that company they were going to launch for DVDs?
All I usually have to explain to people when I talk about branding is “Mountain Dew.” When I hear the name I think X Games, extreme sports, youth etc… Seriously it is named Mountain fraking Dew!!! You could not choose a more Heidi-frolicking-in-the-hills name. But people do not associate that name with what the name actually is. They manage their brand. They do not call it MoDew (although I guarantee that has been tossed around.) They understand that the actual words in their name do not matter anymore… they have become disambiguated from their original meanings.
Overstock failed where so many of these companies fail. They think their name is their brand. And CMO’s seeking to “make their mark” trump up consumer research that shows how the brand is limited by their name.
I ran marketing at Ask.com for 3 years as we switched from AskJeeves. It was a question and answer search engines as AskJeeves, and became just a Search engine as Ask.com (after much work and positioning work.) It is named bloody ASK. Do you know what fights I had to sit through when they wanted to completely change over to a brand new name? You do not even want to know the options… Yes, it still has problems there, and the new CEO who came in, in his infinite moronic wisdom decided to try to switch back after I left. He lasted 11 months as CEO as he watched the performance gains we achieved through marketing and a better product get wiped out. It is now just an arbitration engine living off the back of Google. Unfortunately a program I launched while there… oops.
The book Positioning is right. You have to EARN your nickname in branding. FedEx, HoJo’s etc… If you try and choose your own it fails just as miserably as when you tried to choose your own nickname in grade-school. No one is going to call you Slash, or Killer.. unless you are going to grade school in prison.
You have to EARN your nickname in branding.
Heck I didn’t even choose Sean X. A brand is NOT what your company thinks it is, it is what your consumers think it is. Hold any other view at your peril.
ranty rant signing off…
Posted by: Sean X on: December 18, 2011
The structure of the agency-client relationship is not designed to produce the best or the most work. It is designed to avoid mistakes. Over time, that is how agencies have structured themselves to serve clients. It makes sense. They do not get fired for inefficiency. They get fired for screwing up. Worse, Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by: Sean X on: December 11, 2011
There is something magical that can exist in the space between agencies, brands, and consumers; and when there is clarity in that space, the work you produce is spectacular. However, when it is filled with friction, what can be magical, is instead chaos.
You’ve had those moments when everything just Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by: Sean X on: December 6, 2011
They have become the standard violator appearing on advertising; in the corner of print ads, across billboards, on buses, or in pieces of direct mail — even peppered throughout this article. You’ve seen them; that little block of even littler squares. Unfortunately the technology behind QR codes was not invented for advertising and marketing; we are just co-opting its usage, and it shows.
From the relative lack of public understanding of what they even are, to the dearth of creativity in their usage, the QR code is destined to become just the little box that geek built. But if it does go the way of CueCat, only we are to blame. Here’s why. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by: Sean X on: April 19, 2011
Such a strong word
It is a company that is loved, and yet surprisingly hated — if not despised — by some. It is the friend whose little strange habits and quirks we once cherished. But now they annoy and grate on our nerves. It is a company that we have held up as a shining beacon of hope — the giant killer. The company that could stand against Microsoft and the great evil empire.
But alas, the company is but the latest victim of the same pedestal on which we elevated Microsoft years before. Beware that pedestal, for it provides a perch that only looks downward. Sometimes when companies ascend to it, they start to believe they are separate, better versions of humans.
They start to believe their own hype; in that moment, they become lost.
There is a fine line between confidence and arrogance, between self-assuredness and hubris, and unfortunately Google is straddling that line. Why the perceptive shift in attitudes toward Google? What has the company done other than bring us fantastic tools? Tools, like Android, that have changed entire industries. Tools, like search, that have provided insight into the most remote corners of the world. Why is the simmering of discontent Read the rest of this entry »