Marketers take note – the Chevy Volt Dance is a bad viral video. The Chevy Volt is potentially GM’s most important new vehicle. But one of their largest social media efforts so far is an ill-conceived dance routine paired with a terrible jingle? GM needs to revisit their creative advertising efforts for the Volt if this is the type of material their team is coming up with.

The Wal-Mart clown, on the other hand, is a good viral video. While it serves as a sharp contrast to Wal-Mart’s recent and relatively tame television spots, this online branding still positions the company as the affordable one-stop shop for families.

The video hits on a few key elements which are often driving factors behind a video’s ability to go ‘viral’ – loosely defined here as ‘viewed by a lot of people on the internet’. It could be described as unexpected, humorous, absurd, but the bottom line is that viewers enjoy watching it and the connection to the Wal-Mart brand is readily available.

Viral has become a strong buzzword in the marketing arena and for good reason: the mission of reaching customers in a social media setting can no longer be considered just a novel venture for many brand strategy managers, but a necessary endeavor. Designing advertisements to become viral videos is one way to accomplish this, but core brand perceptions must still be conveyed within them.

The rise of social media demands an extension and adaption of traditional marketing principles. An effective advertisement can get a lot of views on the internet, but then again so can a cat riding a Roomba vacuum. Don’t let an ill conceived viral video turn your view-count into an artificial indicator of brand strength.

Related posts

• Toyota: The Risk of a One-Dimensional Brand Image (0)
• There Can Be Only One… Double Cheeseburger (1)
• Sensory Branding and Communication (0)

Photo: Toyota.com

Mired in a messy second and massive worldwide recall and facing a significant loss in sales, Toyota is losing significant brand reputation. This should be a time at Toyota for a critical re-evaluation of their brand strategy and a time to not only restore their image for quality and reliability, but also expand their brand image into other, more emotional areas as well.

Toyota’s once sterling reputation for quality and reliability was carefully and painstakingly built up over the past few decades. Those of us old enough to remember the first few model years of Toyotas (and Hondas) remember their poor quality. Clearly, Toyota had come a long way in quality and reliability since those early products, continuously improving with unwavering commitment and dedication. So much so that competitors went to Toyota to learn their methods.

Toyota’s dedication to quality and reliability was a significant factor in their ascendancy to the top of the automotive hierarchy. But now, as Toyota deals with this massive blow to its reputation, it should be asking itself whether it focused its brand strategy too narrowly on quality and reliability. A significant negative event that calls that image into question is much more difficult to overcome if that’s the extent of the brand’s image.

Related posts

• Optimizing Your Brand in a Recession (3)
• Holiday Shopping: Brands, Savings, and Consumer Experience (3)
• What's In a Name? (0)

photo courtesy of twinrosesdesigns.com

We all know what it means to say “bringing the brand to life“. Managing brand perceptions, utilizing creative advertising and marketing to make the most of a good brand, resulting in recognition, loyalty, and brand profitability. Now consider the opposite of this idea. What does it take to have a brand brought neither to life, nor to death? How do companies let successful brands decline to the point of irrelevancy?

It’s usually because the brand owner failed to support them with sufficient R&D and marketing. In other words, they milked the brand (either deliberately or not). If the brand neglect lasted long enough (usually many years), a brand may become so damaged it is neither fully alive nor fully dead but continues in a sort of wraith-like existence.

Examples are plenty. Think of Yellow Pages or Diner’s Club, Polaroid, Ovaltine, Sears, Kmart, RCA, Zenith, etc. All brand wraiths have three fundamental characteristics: They are (still) actively selling product, they have relatively high name recognition based on former (but faded) glory, and they are broadly perceived as irrelevant or obsolete.

Can you resuscitate a brand wraith? Can we imagine bringing the brand to life (again)? The answer seems to be, “not really”, because no examples seem to exist of restoring a brand wraith to anything resembling its former self. It appears that some smaller success is possible by pursuing a niche strategy (cutting price and/or focusing on the most loyal fans with minimal investment). What notable brands are currently nearing brand wraith status? AOL? Kodak?

Related posts

• You May Have A Branding Problem If… (3)
• To Slash or Not to Slash ? (2)
• There Can Be Only One… Double Cheeseburger (1)

photo courtesy of Air France-KLM Cargo

It’s perhaps obvious that in order to survive as an airline, excellence in operations management is essential. But what about experiential branding? Can an airline have brand profitability without also practicing good branding? That is: Where a relevant, different, and credible customer promise is established and nurtured over time? I think not.

But few airlines are actually focusing on brand. Southwest has a clear brand focus. JetBlue to a certain extent as well. But beyond that, who’s got a differentiated and meaningful brand image? What’s the difference between Continental, American, Delta and USAirways—aside from their name and trade dress? Even their websites look the same.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not suggesting that doing a better job at branding will necessarily allow an airline to charge higher prices than their competitors. The fundamentals of price and convenience of flight schedules are clearly dominant variables in this sector, just like location and price are critical variables in the hotel sector. But brand could be the decisive factor in enticing more customers to fly ABC Airlines when price and convenience are comparable to other carriers.

What variables could you build a differentiated and relevant brand position on? Actually, many experiential branding opportunities spring to mind: Comfort, high-tech, culinary, quiet, green, entertainment, air quality, family friendly, business, etc.  Just pick something to enhance customer experience and stick with it. Oh, and lousy service or nickel-and-diming customers are not viable options.

Related posts

• To Slash or Not to Slash ? (2)
• The Brand Stands Alone? (10)
• People-Watching With a Purpose (3)

In 2008, it announced it would stop producing film for those few who still owned and used Polaroid cameras. But wait! The new owners of Polaroid have now inked a deal with 23-year-old fashionista/songstress Lady Gaga who will now serve as Creative Director/spokesperson for the brand and announced new imaging products to come from the Polaroid/Gaga partnership. Gagaroid? Lady Gaga—and the majority of her fan base—seem unlikely to have any firsthand brand experience with Polaroid, so the obvious question is: “Will these products breathe new life into a near extinct brand, or is this just another gasp for air by a desperate brand owner?” Who knows, maybe with a little creative advertising and marketing, the Gaga product line could gain momentum.

History shows that successful brand strategy means offering products that are relevant to customers, different from competitors and credible. It’s hard for me to imagine a line of relevant and different imaging products from Polaroid to be successful in today’s world, with or without Gaga’s likeness or fame. A more interesting question is: What’s in it for Gaga?

Related posts

• Brand Cascading Is An Inside Job (0)

For the cash-strapped consumers, this situation is a winning proposition.  They can load up on some of these tasty dollar menu items which, earlier in the year, might have cost marginally higher across franchises.  As an example, many restaurants have adopted value menus with $1-$1.99 thresholds due to a weakening currency and increasing costs of goods.

Does the fast food industry win, though?  Short term revenue boosts might indicate that the answer is yes, but a macro view of the price wars and recent evidence provide arguments for the contrary.

One of the most recent examples happened in November, when news broke that the National Franchise Association, a group that represents about 80% of the Burger King Franchises in the United States, was suing the corporation over its national $1 double cheeseburger campaign.  The group contended that brand profitability would be negatively affected because the cost of goods for every sandwich is estimated to be higher than the marginal revenue it would bring in; $1.10.  Burger King franchises are losing money on every double cheeseburger sold.  In the space of a la carte burgers, it seems like a boneheaded decision, right?

One reason for this brand strategy, from a competitive standpoint, could be that price wars like these seem unavoidable.  Innovation in the fast food industry is often short-lived due to the ability of most major chains to copy-cat popular items relatively quickly.  As a result, if one chain adds a new item or drops a current item into the $1 threshold, its competitors tend to follow suit as to not surrender what they might believe to be any sort of competitive advantage, particularly if such a promotion boosts raw customer volume for one competitor at the expense of another.

Another reason is the supposition that if $1 double cheeseburgers attract loads of new consumers, then these consumers might make up for the low marginal revenue of the sandwiches by purchasing higher margin colas and fries to go along with them.  I guess we’ll see whether or not this is the case when the fourth quarter is over.

The fundamental, overarching question I still have in this case: Even if a pricing battle for a la carte burgers boosts customer volume – has it increased loyal brand followers, or has it simply grabbed some price-conscious non-loyal consumers for the short term. Who will disappear as soon as the price goes back up?  If it’s the latter, is the amount of marketing focus put on the promotion worth it in the first place?

Related posts

• McStarbucks (4)
• Finding Real Value in Viral Videos (4)
• Cheap—Fast—Good Creative: Can It Be True? (1)

For me, planning is key, and this year I’ve devised a genius new strategy. Coupons. They dictate what’s on the list, and what’s off. I’ve challenged myself not to buy any gift without a coupon, sale, or other incentive. Considering the economic climate, I think it should be relatively easy. Businesses are practically begging for bodies in their stores and cash in their drawers. Gallup predicts consumers will spend the same as what they did last year on gifts, which is disappointing for retailers who were hoping for a spending boost.

I’ve successfully obtained some gifts on my list using this tactic, and it was pretty darn satisfying. The funny thing about it is, the value of the coupon or the amount of savings isn’t of any real importance. It’s not really just the price; it’s the principle of the issue that matters. I may have saved only a few dollars, but I feel good about it nonetheless. I believe many more holiday shoppers think the same thing. It’s like a new way to think about experiential branding and brand strategy. We don’t want to spend a ton of money, so we feel good about buying a brand that offers savings to make the holiday shopping experience a little easier. Taking consumer’s tighter budgets into account during a hectic holiday matters. Saving money (even just a little) and getting bargains makes us happy. And isn’t that what the season is all about?

-JD Morley

Related posts

• Toyota: The Risk of a One-Dimensional Brand Image (0)
• Optimizing Your Brand in a Recession (3)
• Green. The new black. (3)

In an attempt to expand their brand, and compete more aggressively against Wal-Mart and Best Buy, Radio Shack came up with an idea for new brand positioning. “Nicknames are cool. Let’s have one. No, not a new brand name. Just something to call ourselves in addition to our real name”. So, no new logo, no new brand, no new creative advertising. Just some stunts to glean publicity, and a new typeface on the website. They will, however, offer a wider range of products, both national brands and the store brand, such as  Mp3 players and T-Mobile devices.

This may have seemed exciting, but don’t get your hopes up. Clicking on the “Portable Music” tab on their website will still display the option for Boomboxes. Yes, Boomboxes. As far as categorization goes…Music? Yes. Portable? Not so much. Does anyone really consider a Boombox a great option for music on the go? And they were worried about the word “Radio” in their name being old-fashioned (Read the article here).

To me, it seems like a great time to re-brand, and embrace the coolness of such a ‘vintage’ and ‘retro’ term as “Radio”. But instead, they went with “The Shack”, conjuring up images of some derelict (maybe haunted?) old structure. Then there’s the issue of price. Has anyone read this article from The Consumerist?  If your key demographic is the frazzled consumer who will pay any price for that USB cable because doesn’t have time to wait for the FedEx man, it seems like you have an issue that a new nickname won’t fix.

All of this happened over the summer, and I wonder how it’s worked for them? If the YouTube videos of their The Shack commercials were removed,  I wonder if they’re beginning to change their minds about it? If anyone knows, let me know.

-JD Morley

Follow me on Twitter! @sensorybranding

Related posts

• Holiday Shopping: Brands, Savings, and Consumer Experience (3)
• Bailout Brands: Fixing A Tarnished Image (3)

What’s different, never been done before? Can we come up with an entirely new way to think about branding and creative advertising? Of course, the first things that pop into mind are web and social media…but what’s next with those?

There’s no way to know, but I can’t help but forsee some great new ideas being communicated with video. The number of ways to broadcast video content on the web continues to multiply, and things are changing. Ever seen this?  A website comprised entirely of YouTube videos. Now that’s thinking. It’s one of those ideas you wish you had thought of. And then there’s this…fun, brilliant, and seems to blend video and social media in a captivating way.

Video is opening up a whole new set of branding opportunities, and I’ve only given two examples. Do you have any? Comment with links to your favorite new and cool thing in online video or online branding! Impress me!

-JD Morley

Follow me on Twitter! @sensorybranding

Related posts

• To Slash or Not to Slash ? (2)
• The Buzz on Social Marketing (1)
• Marketing Insights from Cows (3)

Infuriating! So now we are measuring brand strength and brand health by how many fans it has on Facebook! Look, it does not take a branding connoisseur to recognize that a rise in earnings is not typically related to a singular event. Yes, cost cutting can have significant impact on an earnings report, but that alone will not increase earnings. Marketing can take some credit, but let’s not get too greedy here. In Starbucks case, their executive team voiced a need to improve customer service many months ago. Perhaps that was one of the factors that impacted profits. Moreover, let’s not forget all the coffee advertising from McDonalds and Dunkin Donuts that quite possibly helped further buoy the entire coffee category.

How much of Starbucks’ resurgence was because the management team realized that the brand needed to be managed? Its mercurial rise was coming to an end. It was experiencing pain on several fronts: Too many unprofitable stores, diminished customer service, lower priced competitors, a dismal economy, and more. Perhaps it was the economy that helped them realize that they needed to refocus. Whatever the case, let’s not assume it was a singular thing that helped turn this brand around. It was more likely a concerted effort by all within the organization…helped by consumers willing to spend a little more of their hard earned dollars on an expensive cup of coffee.

Related posts

• Has the economic downturn affected the strongest brands? (0)
• To Slash or Not to Slash ? (2)
• The future of online branding (3)