Branding 2.0

Green Branding Not Turning into Green

According to a report by Grail Research, “green campaigns” may not be paying for themselves.  While consumers are very interested in the ”green movement,” it doesn’t always pay off at the cash register.

While 85% of shoppers have bought a green product, only 8% said it made up a majority of their purchasing mix.

Also, green purchases vary widely by category.  For example:

The research also shows that while a lot of companies have aggressive “green programs” the awareness of such is not always well attached to the brand.  For example, few people were aware that Esté Lauder, HP, Unilever, Intel, Cisco and Rubbermaid all had active green programs.

It may appear that many companies are not doing a good job of communicating their commitment to the environment.  But there also may be other things at work that are affecting these perceptions, like price.  In the green field people often say one thing and do another, particularly when they don’t want to pay a higher price.  Or maybe, green is okay when cleaning your kitchen floor, but not when buying a black dress that fits and makes you look thin.

On the other hand, I believe that “green” is now considered so normal that it has become a parity attribute in the purchase decision matrix.  And if so, it’s no longer the great brand differentiator it once was.

Please comment on this blog.
Twitter us with your thoughts @  twitter.com/BrandingComm or visit us on Facebook.
#branding

Brand Perception

People who buy luxury goods generally know they are paying a big premium for the brand name.

Recent research by Gucci of Paris indicates that Europeans and Americans are now becoming less enthusiastic about brands who conspicuously emphasize their logos and brand names.

To survive in this new environment, as customers’ tastes change, brands must also change.  It doesn’t mean that luxury brands won’t be able to still charge a premium, but it probably won’t be as much.

Whether it’s the economy, or people are tiring of showing off, or the rip-offs are showing up on too many people of questionable incomes, the stage is being set for more recognized tangible vs. perceived value.  High-end brands that don’t actually deliver relevant, tangible value will cease to exist as luxury goods and will be forced to compete on price.

Please comment on this blog.

Twitter us with your thoughts @  twitter.com/BrandingComm or visit us on Facebook.

#branding

Branding Disconnects

Disconnect #1

After writing a blog and using Facebook and Twitter for awhile, I am starting to see why some people are confused with social media.

Twitter, for example, has a split personality.  Some people, about 45%, use it for telling what they’re doing; while another 40% are trying to engage in conversation.  Then there’s the 5% news, 5% spam and 5% other.  Basically, Twitter is half babble, half branding.

It’s disorienting when you open up a Twitter home page and are confronted with a big “What are you doing?”  You might think it’s none of your damn business, and second, how are you going to help me brand my business?

I believe it is this split personality that makes it hard to get a handle on Twitter, and to connect the dots, so you can appreciate it’s branding potential.

Disconnect #2

Most of you have probably also heard the social media mantra, “to succeed you need to provide content that has real value.”  It sounds like a cop-out.

But, the mantra is true.  The problem is that there is often a disconnect between what a brand manager thinks is real value and what the reader thinks it is.

For example, a brand manager might post a link on Twitter or Facebook for a press release about their hot new product.  They might think this level of marketing is OK.  On the other hand, the reader may be thinking “this is a pitch,” — too much like selling or spam.

The bottom line is brand and marketing managers need to walk in their customer’s shoes if they are going to successfully use social media to talk about their brand.

Please comment on this blog.
Twitter us with your thoughts @  twitter.com/BrandingComm or visit us on Facebook.
#branding #social media

 

Brand Promotion’s Golden Age

Social media’s big advantage vs. old media is its efficiency.

Brand promotion use to be an afterthought, and, as big-agency types would distain, a below-the-line marketing tool.

It wasn’t that you didn’t do promotions, it was just that they weren’t viewed as sexy or a top priority.  How could a lowly promotion compete with the glitz and sizzle of a T.V. campaign?

Sales promotions (sampling, coupons, sweepstakes, etc.) have always been part of the marketing mix, but they were often viewed as an add-on, and only somewhat effective.

Promotions take a lot of work to produce and are time consuming to implement. A national campaign could often take 3-6 months to plan and implement, and could cost upwards of $5 million, not counting the offer.

With the advent of real-time social media, and mobile marketing, all that has changed.

Today, online and mobile promotions are becoming the rock stars of the branding world.  If you want to move the needle fast, now it’s a Facebook/Twitter/YouTube campaign — not old media.

Social media promotions are basically free (not counting the offer), and are easy and quick to put together.  Promotions are no longer considered a second-class marketing tool, but are now sought out for their quick, viral results.  Because of the maturation of social media, we are now entering the Golden Age of Promotion.

Please comment on this blog.

Twitter us with your thoughts @  twitter.com/BrandingComm or visit us on Facebook.

#branding #social media #promotion

Branding’s Recession Boost

Every cloud has a silver lining, or so they say.  Even in the worst of times this axiom seems to hold true.

Over the first six months of 2009, millions of marketing dollars have been saved (silver lining) by companies shedding their knee-jerk habit of using T.V. advertising as the foundation for their marketing programs.

If it were not for the deepest recession in 75 years, most, if not all, would have continued to buy expensive T.V., because that’s what they have always done.

The bold decision by these companies to drop T.V. has boosted the support of the ever-improving, integrated social media campaigns — those integrating media-rich Web sites with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, iPhone apps, etc.

The recession experience has quickly reset, and broadened the options of, what goes into a successful media mix. 

T.V., as a branding tool, is not dead, but shrinking.  T.V. is not king of marketing anymore because more and more, people are discovering that mass media is not efficient, and it’s time has passed.

Daniel Boorstin’s quote that, “Nothing is real unless it happens on television,” is no longer true.

Please comment on this blog.

Twitter us with your thoughts @  twitter.com/BrandingComm or visit us on Facebook.

#branding #social media

How Radio Can Help Non-Profits

With the 2007-2009 recession, many non-profits have seen their donations drastically drop off, putting their business models in peril.

An advertising axiom states the best time to spend on advertising is during a recession, because it’s the best time to get cheap prices and gain share-of-voice.

It’s easy for well-funded corporations to take advantage of the recession opportunities,  but for small companies and non-profits, it’s a horse of a different color.

Now, however, many regional radio broadcasting associations have developed special programs just for non-profits.

For example, in the San Francisco Bay Area, the Northern California Broadcasters Association (415-292-5700) has an aggressive program that offers a 70% discount off normal retail radio rates.  With radio reaching up to 95% of the population, it’s an ideal media choice.

At these price levels, it’s affordable for most non-profits, and it’s an excellent time to jump start your fundraising, now that we are coming out of the recession.

Please comment on this blog.

Twitter us with your thoughts @  twitter.com/BrandingComm or visit us on Facebook.

#branding

 

Mobile Will Dwarf Internet Marketing

Mobile marketing is here and everyone knows it.  Because of the technological advances and growth of smart phones, it’s going to be huge.  Really huge.

Yet many marketers still think mobile is just one more place where customers can see their ads or respond to their promotions.

Well, this is true.  And mobile is important because your ad can catch customers anytime, anywhere.  It’s dynamic, real-time marketing.

But the big picture is this: there are 3 billion cell phone users, but only 1 billion Internet users.

Do the numbers.  The reason mobile marketing will dwarf Internet marketing is the total absolute reach.  The bottom line:  you get a shot at 2,000,000,000 extra people.

Now that’s something marketers can drool about.

Please comment on this blog.

Twitter us with your thoughts @  twitter.com/BrandingComm or visit us on Facebook.

#branding

Blogger Promotions

With more 60 million Americans regularly reading blogs, the 20 million people who write blogs are becoming an important influencer group when launching new products.

This has not been lost on marketers who want to connect with bloggers using appropriate soft-marketing techniques.

One of the more acceptable ways to soft-market to bloggers is by sponsoring promotion booths (branded lounges) at social media events.

For example, P&G recently sponsored the Swiffer SocialLuxe Lounge at the BlogHer 2009 Conference in Chicago.  According to the New York Times (7/27/09), 500 bloggers stopped by.  Not a big number, but when you think of bloggers as online journalists who operate in the virtual world, it’s high.

Of course, free samples and give-aways didn’t hurt, either.

Today, many marketers believe the leading bloggers have more juice than the traditional media journalist.  But to be safe, they are still continuing to cover all their bases.

Brand Deception

The American people want truth-in-labeling as a minimum for brand trust.  It’s not asking too much. Being tricky with a brand promise might have worked in the past, but today it’s a serious no-no.

Cheerios, a product of General Mills, has a big heart on the front of its package conveying it’s a heart-healthy product.  Inside the heart is a bold claim that it “helps lower cholesterol by 10% — see back for details.”

Well, when you get to the back of the package for the details, it says you might reduce your cholesterol if you eat Cheerios and (plus the catch) reduce your daily intake by 500 calories. This cut is about 25% of a normal daily diet.  No easy feat.

General Mills has the reputation of a better company than this.  The fact is, any cereal would probably do what they claim, if you went on a reduced calorie, low-fat diet as they suggest.

You may not even have to bother with the cereal to get the same results they claim.

The front of this cereal package appears to be clearly deceptive.  If so, they should be investigated by the FDA and, if appropriate, fined.

But, because most customers will see through this charade, General Mills’ brand reputation will be damaged by more than any FDA fine.

 

Please comment on this blog.

Twitter us with your thoughts @  twitter.com/BrandingComm or visit us on Facebook.

 

# branding

How Wal-Mart is creating a New World Order

Because so many consumers want it, brands often tout their greenness to differentiate themselves and to stimulate sales.  It’s hard to calibrate how much a green claim affects sales, but it’s certainly more important to have, than not.

However, it’s been hard to compare one green product’s claim vs. another.

Now the playing field is changing, and Wal-Mart is re-writing the rules.

The world’s largest retailer wants to create a new sustainability-labeling index system so purchasers can make smarter purchasing decisions.  To accomplish this, Wal-Mart is asking its major suppliers questions about a product’s carbon footprint, the gallons of water used to create it, the air polution impact, etc., so a product’s sustainability value can be displayed at the point of purchase along with the price.

The surprising thing about this extraordinary environmental advance is that it is being initiated by one of the world’s largest capitalist corporations.

If the government had tried to regulate this, it wouldn’t have gotten off the ground, because of special interest groups and the politics of defending old ways.

From a branding perspective, it’s a fresh example of how brands of the future will be shaped by powerful retailers responding to the wills of the new consumers.  Brand ownership is no longer limited to just the producer.  Today, brands belong to all of us. 

Going forward, brand purchase decisions will no longer be based on a value proposition focused just on what’s good for me, but rather what’s good for us.

Wal-Mart, the world’s third largest corporation, is to be applauded for taking the lead on this very important issue.  They are the only organization in the world who could do this and they didn’t shirk their social responsibility.

Comments welcome.
Twitter us with your thoughts @  twitter.com/BrandingComm or visit us on Facebook.
# branding