Posts tagged product
The Blurring of Heineken
Apr 27th
Let me start upfront that I hate Heineken marketing (or at least what I perceive they are doing) for maybe the last 5 years ago or so. This became top of mind to me when the agency I was at tried to push its way into the Heineken Light review.
First. I am sure all the numbers pointed toward Heineken starting to offer a Light beer (and I also admit I think it is a fine tasting beer … maybe the best light beer on the market).
Second. I think it was a crappy idea for Heineken character (or brand … whatever you want to call it) to offer a light beer (not that it didn’t create an opportunity for them but for “the import of imports” to be Light didn’t seem right).
Third. With the introduction of a light beer product I thought they still had an opportunity to “de-Americanize” the main Heineken product (which is something I still believe they need to do). I will explain this one later on.
There you go.
So let’s talk about why I am grumpy every time I see some type of Heineken advertising or marketing.
It looks like Budweiser or Bud Light or Miller Lite (I can’t tell them apart) advertising. Or any American brand (excepting maybe Coors who I love the strategy they are on just wish they had executed on that strategy differently). Separately, the only domestic beer I believe understands their key loyal audience and communicates directly to them is Sam Adams.
Anyway.
Here’s the deal. Heineken isn’t an American beer (not technically). Heineken became the best import beer in America because it was a great tasting high end imported beer. And don’t tell me it’s the green bottle because Little Kings and Rolling Rock were and are in green bottles (bet that’s the first and last time you will ever see Heineken and Little Kings in the same sentence).
But somewhere along the way some marketing type (who was probably under pressure to increase sales) started thinking … “hey, we can access more of the American mainstream market if … well … we start acting more American.”
Geez. I hope he/she/it got fired.
I can only imagine that presentation had whiz bang charts and graphs with lots of lines pointing upwards (on the right hand side of the chart except when in Chinese). Look. I don’t mind American humor and a lot of it is really funny (just not in beer advertising lately). But Heineken didn’t build its position in the marketplace by being mainstream American.
They built it by being an elitist European snob. Oh. And elitist European snob beers can charge more.
I love these types of discussions because brands like Heineken should be the easiest brands to revitalize if you pushed the brand managers out of the way.
Stop looking American. Stop using American humor. Remind people of the reason why Heineken was so special in the beginning. In fact, how cool would it be if Heineken did a campaign that said “whoa, we needed to stop doing that American humor crap, sorry, it was a mistake, we aren’t Bud Light and we forgot that for awhile … but then we sat around drinking our own beer and remembered what crap Bud Light is. Ok. Here is who we are …”
Well. That would certainly be refreshing (no pun intended).
So. Let me net this down cause I think Heineken could kick some ass:
- Tone. I am not against using humor but if they are going to use humor, use Belgian/Netherlands type humor (I assume it has to do with dikes and pot and things like that).
- Attitude. Be elitist because it is an elite import. Ok. Some asshole is going to start pointing out research numbers about how beer drinking consumers cannot tell the difference between beers anymore and they are cynical about imports and … well … all that bullshit. Look. If I believed numbers I wouldn’t have even applied to graduate school. Numbers can tell you whatever you want them to tell you (if you have enough of them to rub together). Being snobbish is what got them into the position to freak out when someone came along and started challenging them and they knee jerked into fighting back by trying to “fit in.” Plus. I do love to see numbers that point out that people are cynical about something you really are. Then the challenge is easy. Figure out how to tell them who you really are so they believe it. Awesome in its simplicity.
- Advertising for original Heineken. This is one situation where advertising can make a huge difference. I sometimes believe advertising is asked to do some things that are impossible to do. In this case I believe advertising can make a huge difference for Heineken (mostly because I do believe their non-Light product does taste great and does taste different than most bland American beer).
- Positioning. Make Heineken Light the American beer. Maybe you don’t tell the public but internally call a spade a spade. “We had to make a Light beer because Americans prefer it but here in pot smoking Amsterdam we only drink the real stuff. Maybe the French would like a light beer too but not us.” Hey look. Heineken Light, taste wise and look wise (the bottle), can compete against any full bodied American beer out there as well as kick any domestic Light beer’s ass even with its bottle cap tied behind its back.
That’s it. So. Do I think I am smarter than anyone who has been thinking and working with Heineken? Nope. But I do wonder if they let some numbers and the craving for sales tell them some things that led them astray. And maybe this will enlighten them to the way to success.
Thoughts on taglines or descriptor lines
Feb 17th
First. I believe the amount of time people spend on developing or thinking of taglines is nuts. Yes. They are important but in the scheme of things I would envision if you are analyzing your time (or people’s time in general) by billable hour, the amount of time invested in this type of thing is … well … not a good investment.
Second. Here is why I think the time invested is out of whack. In general, here are the guidelines for developing a brand line.
- If the company/brand name is more aspirational/inspirational, or less descriptive, like Nike’s company name, err on the side of aiming for a more descriptive tagline telling people what the company offers or does (like Nike’s original line of “superior performance athletic shoes”).
- If the company/brand name is more descriptive of the product/service that is being offered then the tagline can assume a more aspirational feel & direction.
- The exception: when a company has achieved such a strong awareness that it has achieved a brand status, meaning that people know what the company actually does/offers, a tagline can take on more of an aspirational aspect (use Nike as an example when it shifted to “Just do IT” after they had attained 90+% awareness).
Third. The main rule of the road for descriptor/tagline development:
When the logo/name of company and tagline are stand-alone, make sure people can tell you exactly what that company does or offers. In other words, don’t be tricky or creative and lose an opportunity to be clear about who and what you are. And this is REALLY important when you come out of the starting blocks. Look. You can always change later. Upfront be clear. Making people guess (and you don’t have enough money to answer their guessing) is a silly investment.
Why? Anything other than meeting that main rule translates into having to invest a lot of money, and time effort, to educate people.
There you go. All these “inspirational taglines” and such are kinda silly. Do other things to inspire people. Plus. I am also a believer that a tagline can change. Almost as often as you would like (as long as it stays in the same sphere of character). There you go. Tagline 101.
The Bastardization of Brand
Feb 15th
If you want to really get me wound up, just start talking about brands and branding. It seems every time I read something about marketing, sales, advertising or public relations (heck. nowadays people, organizations, products, interviewing, everyday life ) I am confronted with the word “brand” (brand, branded, branding, br-whatever).
Drives me nuts. Ok. More than nuts. I cannot tell you how many times people confuse the concept of a brand with product, name, service, advertising or marketing (just to name a few).
Oh. “Name.” Yeah. Name. It seems just because someone has decided to call their product or service something (let’s call it a ‘label’ or, better, how about “Jake” as a code word) they immediately start calling it a brand. (aaargh.)
Sometimes it seems there is no understanding of the word, the process, or the original intent behind the concept. I would like to think it is an indication of the invasion of amateurs (or the apocalypse because I keep looking for those signs as 2012 approaches) into the marketing industry, but, alas, it is not so.
Even some of the sharpest minds in the marketing world have fallen into the buzzword trap just to stay even with the less knowledgeable. Ok. Maybe just me, but it seems that this is one sign of insanity…where the brightest have to play by the rules of the ignorant to be heard. It’s the kind of stuff that really does drive me nuts. (and one would think others)
The “b word” is tossed around so carelessly it has diminished and degraded its value.
Brand is an important little word. For those of us who have spent significant portions of our lives taking innovative products and service and guiding them into a position where they could even qualify to be considered a brand by the finicky user world, the misuse and distortion of this little B word undermines us and our abilities. It diminishes our expertise.
I would have to assume David Ogilvy and Bill Bernbach and James Webb Young would be appalled. (just to name a few)
So. A dictionary (not Wikipedia) says branding is: the promoting of a product or service by identifying it with a particular brand. Ok. That helps me understand part of the issue.
How is that a definition? Its circular gobbledygook.
So. Brands and branding. Here you go. Not a definition. A logic flow:
- A product or service that offers something distinct as a benefit.
- It has a “Jake.” (Remember: That is code for a label or name)
- Someone buys it.
- More someones buy it.
- The original someones come back and buy more.
- Jake starts getting known for that distinct thing (or whatever reason the someones associate with buying Jake)…
- Jake is becoming a brand.
Over time, Jake has assumed some character the someones have gotten attached to (trust, reliability, strength, etc.) … Jake is a brand.
So. In reality a brand isn’t really a brand until it exists in some way within the hearts and minds of consumers. By the way. Jake can become a brand without advertising or extensive marketing (there are some nice examples of that).
By the way. If you have a consistently good product/service, becoming a brand is inevitable (or we would face a world of generic products and services with limited selection and little motive for innovation…and that would suck).
The key, the underlying ‘thing’ I am trying to point out, is this ‘brand’ has been built upon some piece of information or usefulness. At some point early on people were educated about something to do with that particular product or service until ultimately the relationship reverses – the brand stands for that education communicated rather than the product or service.
The good news? It is a proven fact consumers will pay a premium for a product or service where someones call Jake a brand.
It starts with a good product and elevates that product to the status of “brand” by making the consumer aware of product benefits, forming perceptions to wrap around the product (some positive and some negative), and stimulating trial, repurchase and ongoing purchases. In the end that true value is the brand.
The Myth of Building Brands
Let me start simply. A great brand is a great product or service that people have developed a strong emotional connection with. (So. It seems like we should be writing less books about “brands” and “branding” and instead investing energy in writing books about building sustainable products and services).
You don’t build a brand (that is the Myth). You build a meaningful product or service (or a company that creates those types of things).
Oh. And contrary to the dictionary definition of the word brand, putting a label (or a Jake) on a product does not make it a brand (but it helps to give it a Jake rather than simply say “pork rinds”). Oh. Creating a website or running an ad doesn’t do it either.
A product only becomes a brand when the consumer/users (the someones) say so. When they associate a benefit and a set of values (that combination is key). Not until then.
The process of ‘branding’ (and I hate that phrase but I assume it is a marketing campaign or activity which highlights what makes Jake a brand) is typically a complex, lengthy, sometimes expensive process. But. It sure would be a boatload easier to simply avoid saying “branding” and call it “building a marketing plan for Jake.” (Oh. And why do I have to say the intent is to attain brand status…because…when isn’t that the intent or objective?). Silly me.
Last thought. Judging brands “in generation” is tough. We are so quick to call something a brand. I would suggest the true test of a brand is if it can cross generations. Until that time, maybe it is simply a ‘generational brand’ or at its worst simply a ‘fad.’
Many companies-brands do ‘get it’ and are doing the right things – for now that is. Crossing generations is about stewardship. Does the transition to new leaders (the next steward) mean losing focus (meaningless reinvention) or guiding to the next level of relevance (and maintain the brand status)?
In the end.
Great brands are inevitably companies that maintain operational excellence by delivering superior (or just distinct) products meeting expectations day in and day out, and employees that embrace the vision day in and day out. Everything else falls apart (sales and marketing and culture) if that core isn’t solid. Wavering operationally creates cracks that have seismic effects externally. And, ultimately, when that wavering occurs it becomes a prime example of a “failed brand” (or a
dead Jake).
