So. Proctor & Gamble (P&G) is probably one of the most fanatically detailed, obsessive, paranoid brand manager-driven organizations in the world. Therefore my jaw kind of dropped when I saw a coupon in a recent Sunday coupon section.
I guess the big question is if you are going to pay a gazillion dollars to use one of the most recognizable athletes in the world, why you wouldn’t use a photo that maybe people could recognize is that person. I did a double take and I am a tennis fan. I thought it was Venus Williams, but it looked nothing like Venus Williams.
This is one of those situations where someone designing the coupon probably didn’t know the difference between Venus Williams and Venus de Milo. Without that knowledge, it was just a picture they picked up from some image database they had and sent it out. And then some brand manager, fairly sure that no one could screw up the photo of Venus Williams, was too busy to look at it. It gets sent. It runs. And then some asshole like me takes the opportunity to poke the consumer products elephant called P&G in the hindquarters.
Still. What a waste of a lot of celebrity spokesperson cache. Of course, if I weren’t such a goober for flipping through the coupons (a lingering habit from my days working on Texize and P&G brands that ran full circulars worth of coupons every weekend) I would have never noticed.
I really (really) wanted to avoid writing about the xfinity, excuse me, Comcast, rebranding effort. But they keep on shoving this effort in my face in television commercial after commercial. I compare it to marketing water torture or possibly bamboo shoots under the fingernails.
I still don’t get it. Ok. I do get it I just am unclear whether it was the right thing to do. And then I see how they are doing it … and … well … I get a little bit fuzzier on the smartness behind it. Having been in this “re-branding” situation too many times to count (I don’t have enough fingers and toes) I do know that inevitably you are coaching your client to either “rip the band aid off fast or pull it off slowly.”
I also know the absolute best example of a ‘rebranding’ is the Cingular to ATT rebranding. I admit. I thought when it was announced Cingular was going to shut down their brand and fold it into ATT, I pretty much thought it was the stupidest idea I had ever heard. Killing one of the strongest 16-34 demo brands and folding it into a dinosaur brand like ATT seemed … well … nuts. I knew the underlying hope behind it (resurrect ATT with Cingular attributes) but I just wasn’t sure it could be done. And maybe more importantly I didn’t believe anyone would be patient enough (and have enough money) to do it well.
Boy. Was I wrong? (yes)
Now. Let me begin by saying I cannot even fathom the sheer amount of dineros spent on the entire transition. The choreography behind the transition was beautifully crafted and implemented perfectly. It seemed on a quarterly basis they completely shifted entire campaigns (and I mean ENTIRE … in store displays, ads, brochures, whatever) easing us from Cingular to ATT. The transition was so seamless that even with the initial WTF shock, if you didn’t pay attention to the nuances you almost didn’t notice that Cingular was slowly disappearing and you were accepting ATT as Cingular (and subconsciously what ATT was bringing was this sense that “wow, Cingular has grown up into an adult like ATT.”). Awesome. Impeccably created and implemented.
Oh yeah. Having been behind a variety of massive marketing campaigns, I know there were a lot of teeth gnashing and angst over some details that seemed to slip through the cracks but the net result of the campaign is that today I am not sure 1 in 10 people will recall Cingular.
All this brings me back to xfinity, which is not displaying xcellent marketing sense at the moment. While everything Cingular/ATT did was explained and simple, xfinity is flashy and draws a “huh?”
I am hoping they may show us how all the pieces of the puzzle fit together at some point down the road (and I truly hope they do because cable companies don’t really need another black eye for an industry already getting battered in the ring). But. Once again. While I didn’t get WHY Cingular/ATT was doing what they were doing when they announced it I knew exactly WHAT they were doing every time I saw or heard any communications they had from day one.
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).
Some people, when asked, cannot say what their dream job is <excluding fireman or Swedish gymnast as options>. It is a tough question. Tougher than most people think.
Interestingly I can.
I am very clear on what I would do if given the opportunity and I am very clear on whether I am capable of doing the job. I have thought about it, written about it, identified what would need to be done to accomplish it … and I would kill to do the job (or even present how it could be done to someone who could afford to do it).
That vision is what started me on this whole blogging/site thing. It is the tactical embodiment of “Enlightened Conflict” (or at least the one tactical embodiment that drives the concept … I’m sure others could arrive at additional tactical embodiments).
I will write more detail on the topic (when I am not posting more topical items).
But. In the meantime read what we have posted and if you know anyone who wants to hear my thoughts I would pack my bag and go to Gdansk to talk about it if that is what it would take).
“… a bad idea is a bad idea and will never be a good idea no matter how well you dress it up.”
—
Bruce McTague
===
So.
Comcast, perhaps having just seen their 100th consecutive consumer research study showcasing their lack of customer service (Hey. All cable companies are in this boat. So it’s not just them) and massive customer dissatisfaction scores, had an inspiration (some may call it a brain cramp) and announced that it plans to change the name of its cable TV, Internet and phone services to XFinity.
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Okay.
Comcast EVP, operations David Watson tells us the brilliance behind this re-branding maneuver:
“XFINITY represents the future of our company and it’s a promise to customers that we’ll keep innovating. When we launch XFINITY in a market, we’ll rebrand our products: XFINITY TV, XFINITY Voice and XFINITY Internet (our company, of course, remains Comcast). This transition is already well underway across the country. [On February 12], XFINITY will roll out in 11 markets including: Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington D.C., Chicago, Portland, Seattle, Hartford, Augusta, Chattanooga, parts of the Bay Area and San Francisco, with more markets to come later this year.”
This is the kind of crap that makes everyday consumers crazy and drives those of us in the marketing world to drink heavily <Ok … more heavily then we may normally do>.
Dear David at Comcast,
I don’t want you to promise me you will keep innovating I would like you to promise me you will show up at 10 when you say you will fix my TV so I can watch Oprah.
Sincerely,
XCustomer.
I have the utmost respect for Jeff Goodby and Goodby Silverstein (Comcast’s ad agency) but this is kind of nuts. I guess I can take some solace in that a Comcast representative confirmed that this is actually a Goodby, Siegel+Gale, and other agencies brain trust endeavor.
(although I would tend to blame Siegel+Gale as having been paid a boatload of money and arriving at some unbelievably “insightful in presentation but unrealistic in practicality” conclusion)
Well.
I guess if they spend enough money it will work.
Spend enough and people will forget Comcast and only remember XFinity.
But.
Here’s the deal. Every day they will still be delivering the same ole same ole (which ain’t so hot). Therefore, in the end they will have spent gobs of money on this new “brand” and achieve exactly the same results.
Some would tend to believe this is a definition of insanity. I just tend to believe this is a stupid idea.
Anyway.
And wouldn’t it have been cheaper if they had all sat in a conference room contemplating their navels?
This is about the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts … and little things <but big differences>.
Sometimes in the business world we are always seeking something big.
I know for sure that everyone wants to make a big impact <sales, results, behavior, etc.>. But we are almost always seeking the ‘big’ when something small may be the path to success.
Sometimes we invest so much energy into trying to find something big to make a big impact when something very little can create a big impact.
In addition … sometimes trying to convince people to do something small … takes a big effort <because if it looks small people seem to worry it will not be noticed>.
In any case … small can make a big difference.
Ok.
What do I mean?
Let me use two organizations I think very highly of and wish they were doing better:
Girl Scouts
Boy Scouts
Let me begin by saying my sister was a Girl Scout (and I don’t hold that against her or the girl scouts) … and I beat up Boy Scouts (and I am hoping they don’t hold that against me).
It was right for her … and maybe not so right for me.
But.
That said.
I believe the organizations are very right for younger generations.
Particularly for the current generation and the next generation (which I call the Global generation).
The values and responsibility teachings they share are invaluable to creating a foundation for responsible humanity <and doing the right thing>.
In addition, while some things may seem archaic in their teachings, they create a nuts & bolts type timelessness of practical life (which is something I believe is often underrated in this world of “we need to stay ahead of the curve”).
I guess what I mean by that is maybe showing youth what was behind the curve may be helpful in life.
But, hey, that’s me.
Anyway.
Both these organizations seem trapped in an outdated image. Perceptionwise not appearing relevant.
<note:
I use perceptionwise because I believe in reality if you took the time to look inside, many of the things they share are quite relevant>
But I believe some little things could help make a big impact on perceptions.
For example.
Boy Scouts … who would love to communicate they are not ‘lily white’ and are all inclusive … could use the current words in their vision statement (meaning I am not trying to change who they are and what they stand for) and simply communicate those same words in a different style.
Say graffiti.
It says the same thing they have always been saying but also says so many other things.
Little change. Big difference in perception.
And imagine LL Cool J, an ex boy scout, standing in front of these words … talking about the Boy Scouts.
Well.
I am no genius but I can almost guarantee people would not only be thinking about the Boy Scouts … but they would be starting to think about them in a different way.
Ok.
Next.
And how about the Girl Scouts?
How do we show they are inclusive and relevant?
How about showcasing the “new green.”
Young girls, and den mothers or whatever they are called, with green fingernail polish, green eye shadow, green streaks in their hair, whatever … you get the idea.
The green becomes a badge for cool, relevant inclusiveness … and the fact the organization is open to things other than add-a-beads (I think that’s what they are called) and pleated skirts (gosh. I am hoping they are not cool again).
Once again this is using little things to create the response you are looking for.
Is this big?
Nope.
It is something little.
But makes some big strides in moving both organizations in the direction they want to go.
I would kill to help both of these organizations.
I believe in what they are all about and the intent behind their vision.
I am probably a little liberal for their tastes but I believe what makes any good liberal a great liberal is a foundation of some good ole conservative responsibility and values.
Anyway.
The point of this isn’t ‘being liberal’ or conservative, it is that little things can make a pretty darn big impact.
The strategic foundation is so simple and clearly good it is a worthwhile read for anyone in business. Whether you actually use the disruption methodology or not the idea of positioning in a way to create disruption (and therefore being distinct) is a powerful concept.
Drawing from experiences as the founder and chair of a global advertising agency, Dru gives us this practical, refreshing approach to thinking about advertising, positioning a business in the marketplace and … well … thinking in general.
His compelling concept of “disruption” is a three-step reasoning process for creating a set of new visions for successful growth.
Dru first explores how firms can get in a rut with their advertising strategies.
He then offers hundreds of examples of advertising in Europe, the United States, and Japan to explore cultural differences and government rules and regulations about advertising. Dru’s last section provides more detail and looks toward the future.
Rich with examples, this timely book is recommended for advertising-agency and marketing professionals as well as for corporate executives, consultants, and advanced students and academicians.
I have written on a variety of issues with regard to running a business and effective organizations (Running a Business Part 1 and Part 2, Collaboration & Consensus Part 1 & Part 2).
But I came across this video which discusses “the surprising science of motivation.”
It is a long video (18+ minutes) and Daniel Pink, the presenter, is a little practiced on occasion in his delivery but the information is nice. There were two things in the video which I appreciated.
One I had felt but had never been able to confirm.
The other I already knew but hadn’t written about yet.
1. Motivation Incentives.
Maybe it’s because I have worked with several advertising agency owners who wanted to run their agencies like manufacturing plants, but this issue has been near and dear to my heart for quite awhile. The video talks about “carrot and stick” motivational techniques and crap like that.
He uses some nice simple illustrations and some fact based conclusions for why the typical ways we try to motivate each other fail in business today.
A Daniel Pink Quote:
“There’s a mismatch between what science knows and business does.”
Possibly because most of the organizations I have either consulted for or worked at have been more “idea driven” versus “product output” organizations I have always believed (maybe more a feeling) that financial based reward models sucked. Daniel finally gave me some facts (from studies):
“Once the task called for even rudimentary cognitive skills a larger reward led to poorer performance.”
“As long as task involved only mechanical skills, bonuses worked, i.e., higher pay = better performance.”
Halleluiah.
That isn’t to say people in a cognitive driven business shouldn’t be fairly compensated; it simply states that rewarding financially to increase productivity is not the most effective path.
So if it isn’t financial rewards, what does help productivity?
2. Constructed Autonomy.
This is all about self direction within a solid construct of vision and company ‘direction.’ This is something I have believed to be an effective characteristic of effective organizations for some time. It is most likely embodied within larger franchise organizations (in some form or fashion) but it is easier to see it in those organizations because they are obviously fragmented and local autonomy works within some “rules” construct.
So.
The video.
In addition to talking about motivating employee behavior he also talks about creating an environment for productivity. I wrote about this in Organizational Alignment.
But.
He reminded me when he discusses the idea of autonomy about what I call “constructed autonomy” environments (yup. I do love contradictions).
I used the whole Constructed Autonomy idea in a consulting presentation in early spring (with a source reference) as I discussed organizational alignment and creating the most effective organization.
I apologize but for the life of me I cannot dig up the source for that autonomy business idea but I believe there was a big European based study on organizational behavior that talks about it (if I can find that presentation on some thumb drive I will source it).
My “twist” on the Autonomy thing was to tie it to a tightly constructed organizational vision. To me it’s all about giving employees within the organization lots of freedom within a well defined construct (not a box but rather a guiding star they can always locate).
Ok.
Maybe not lots of freedom but enough freedom on some key things (whatever they may be that is relevant to that particular organization).
Ok.
So here’s the deal with Autonomy.
Every time I have used the word “autonomy” to an organizational owner, President, Sr. VP, whatever…their faces pale, hands grip the table a little harder, they may even gasp a little and their voices quiver slightly with fear.
Autonomy means lack of control.
Autonomy means I need to trust my employees.
Autonomy means “so then what do I do”? (sorry, had to throw that last one in).
But autonomy on the ground:
permits a slight level of localization (if that is relevant to an organization)
certainly creates a higher level of responsiveness (good for customer satisfaction)
actually is a good idea/innovation generator (as long as you have a feedback mechanism)
automatically creates a higher level of energy within an organization
builds a happier organization because it creates a stronger sense of ownership & responsibility
It takes a strong leader with a clearly articulated vision to make autonomy work within an organization (if you don’t, then autonomy simply fragments an organization by permitting pieces to go flying off in every direction aimlessly).
So.
That’s the “Constructed” portion of it. In my Running a Business Part 2 I described this as one end of the bookends. A clearly articulated vision, mission, okay … what ‘the organization is going to be good at’. And ruthlessly good at.
If that is provided as the “North Star,” then Autonomy always knows what direction to steer toward. And because of that North Star, autonomous groups can wander slightly but have an opportunity to course correct (
which, by the way, is also a good evaluation mechanism for employees).
There you go.
A nice video sparking some clarification on my part.
As I walked into Gorilla BBQ for my Sunday beef brisket and the most awesome ribs in San Francisco, I had a moment to reflect on their success model. Plus. Gorilla (the co-owner) and I actually had a minute to talk.
They always have a line. Sometimes very long. I would say 2 weekends out of every month they run out of at least two items on their 4 item menu list before closing.
He loves it. No hassles of sit down – it’s all take out. He sells what he makes every day. He slowly expands how much he makes as his “running out” drives customers to come earlier and he feeds the new later ones. He is thinking about maybe having a second location but he has reservations because he is concerned about replicating how he makes his food elsewhere.
Quality is numero uno to Gorilla.
I have worked with a number of extensive franchise organizations and I have lived through how difficult expansion planning can be.
The pursuit of profit is enticing. And sometimes the overwhelming sense of “I have to do it before someone else gets there” is difficult to stave off. ‘How much is enough’ can be a facts and figures discussion or it can be a philosophical discussion.
What Gorilla understands is the charisma or mystique factor. His stuff is good. Unfailingly good. But his business’s reputation outstrips his stuff. He is constantly reaching out to more sales rather than excess capacity.
So. Expansion in retail is tricky. Heck. Any expansion is tricky.
Do organizations make it a science? Sure they do (analysis of geography and consumption and possible customers and ticket size and all that crap – albeit useful crap). I have seen multi-page spreadsheets and maps and revenue analysis information presentations and binders that would make your head spin.
I am sure Starbucks had numbers out the wazoo for location growth plan. What I personally believe they missed was the mystique quotient (never seen that number in an analysis). That, I believe, is more a gut thing. It is also a philosophical vision decision. I personally wouldn’t have expanded Starbucks that fast and I would have tried to maintain some mystique. But, yeah, I could be using hindsight (as they run into some struggles).
Yeah. I know (and like) their “third location” strategy (home, work, starbucks). It’s just that maximizing that location strategy threatened what made them so popular in the beginning.
Hey. Starbucks isn’t going to crash. But their over expansion has created issues they may not have had to deal with had they been a little less aggressive in store openings.
Hey (again). Many businesses cross that line in expansion. It is a line that is difficult to see. Especially when it becomes about money.
But. Back to my man Gorilla and his business. He has two huge things going for him:
He understands exactly what makes him successful: His food. While maybe he is conservative about expanding at the risk of that standard, he fully understands why he has lines and a profitable business.
He understands his priorities. I am sure he likes money but he hasn’t let it overwhelm his direction.
Once again, having worked with dozens of companies and expansion, I don’t doubt for one minute all those companies who expanded beyond what now seems unreasonable fully understood #1. In fact I think they sometimes fool themselves a little into believing that expanding is a formula (at one or a small group of locations) that can be easily replicated (replicating quality is a tricky thing too).
It is number 2 that really gets people in trouble. Money is an evil thing. Greed is good (for the economy). Greed is bad for a great business guy’s head. It leads thinking astray.
What Gorilla has going for him is he isn’t greedy. And he likes to like his stuff (and won’t compromise that).
Will he be a millionaire? Maybe. I doubt it.
Will he make money? Sure. No, let me take that back and say, absolutely.
Will he be happy? In no uncertain terms. Unequivocally. Yes.
I believe it is a requirement of every marketing/advertising blog to write something about the Super Bowl ads, usually first thing on Monday morning, following the big game. Well, as Bruce told you yesterday, he was hanging out with his mom and didn’t watch the game, so I figured I should ensure he keeps his “Marketing/Advertising Blogger” street cred by supplying my own quick take on the best spot of Super Bowl XLIV.
My vote for best ad: Google “Parisian Love :60”
Like every year, there were plenty of ads that made me laugh(Betty White and Abe Vigoda playing football!), plenty that left me scratching my head(the ‘86 Bears doing a remake of the Super Bowl Shuffle), and plenty that were just plain bad(everything ever done by Go Daddy…regardless of how hot Danica Partick is). The Google ad was the only one that, after watching it, I said “wow, that was a great friggin ad.” So many other spots were so focused on entertaining the audience or becoming the “watercooler conversation” the next day, that I hardly remember what it was they were supposed to be selling. I know Doritios and Bud Light ran a ton of spots, and to me they were interchangeable; lots of frat boy humor and not a lot of substance.
If it doesn’t sell, it isn’t creative.
-David Ogilvy
I think there are three things that make Google’s ad great: simplicity, focus on product benefit, and effective use of emotion. It’s just the Google homepage(the definition of simplicity, by the way), and a demonstration of some of the many ways that its search capabilities can be used to make life easier/better. No one is getting kicked in the groin, there are no talking babies, and Danica Patrick is no where to be found. Now, if all the ad did was show someone making a bunch of searches on Google, this would have been a supremely boring spot, but the use of the music and the clever theme to the searches (going to Paris, falling in love, starting a family) gives it the emotional boost that makes it resonate with the viewer.
You can say the right thing about a product and nobody will listen. You’ve got to say it in such a way that people will feel it in their gut.
-Bill Bernbach
I really don’t remember any other ads that were as successful in doing that. So that’s my favorite spot from Super Bowl XLIV(I just love using Roman numerals), what did you think of that spot? What was your favorite ad? Any votes for the worst ad of the night?
