A marketing miracle

By now, we've all seen this video of the amazing stunt marketing event from the Canadian Airline, WestJet.



Actually 19 million people have viewed it directly on Youtube, more on social media channels and millions upon millions have read about it thanks to all the press its garnered in just the week since it was posted.

How did they achieve such success?

Let's start with the concept. It's big. No, not just big, huge. I can barely get the shopping done for my family in the weeks leading up to Christmas. Buying Christmas gifts for 250 people in just a few hours is a massive undertaking.

It was executed perfectly.

Starting with Santa on video gathering wishes, to the army of employees who were sent to do the shopping to the decorations around the baggage carousel, they nailed every detail. It was magical from start to finish.

This effort was clearly genuine, heartfelt and relevant, promoting the company's real differentiator, service.

The result is that for less than the cost of producing a national TV commercial, WestJet was able to create international fame. This is an incredible marketing achievement that is sure to be honored at Cannes and every other advertising festival next year.

The question is, how can they take the momentum from this event and use it to build their business in the coming year? Their brand now stands for 'miracles' and they have to deliver on that promise on a regular basis, maybe not with grand stunts like this, but little gestures that demonstrate how much they care about their passengers. Otherwise, this big event is just marketing and all the energy it created will be drained as quickly as the batteries in a child's toy on Christmas morning.

I'm assuming that a company smart enough to create and execute this event knows that. So I'm looking forward to seeing what they do next.

Everyone has a brand

I spend a lot of my time talking about branding and its impact on a business. Invariably, someone will say, "My business is too small. I don't have a brand." To which I reply:

If you're in business, you're branding.

When you pick a name for your company, you're branding.

When you hire your first employee, you're branding.

When you answer the phone, you're branding.

When you design your product, you're branding.

When you choose your location, you're branding.

When you pick your office furniture, you're branding.

Branding isn't just your marketing communications. It's everything you do, because everything you do communicates something about your brand.

That's why it's important to make sure you understand your mission, vision, promise and values so you can deliver on them consistently every time in every interaction to any audience. A strong brand directs more than marketing. It directs your business.

What's in a brand name?

This is a caterpillar.

So is this.

This is an apple.

So is this.

Brand names become brand names when they are given context in the form of products, features, benefits and values. Until then, they are just words.

That's why a lot of product names never become brands. Companies don't take the time or make the investments to transform them from words into brands.

Successful companies create powerful brands by focusing on a name and working hard to promote that. Apple is the brand that drives sales of it's products. iPhone, iPad, iMac are just product descriptors, not brands.

Even P&G has simplified its "house of brands" strategy and focused on a smaller, more powerful portfolio of product line brands like Tide, Crest and Fabreze. The corporate brand does very little to sell those products.

Understanding which name drives your brand is critical to understanding where to invest and when you might need a new brand to launch a new product or service.

Because when it comes to brands, the name's the thing.

CEO No!

I wasn't going to comment on the new Yahoo! logo until I read this headline in Ad Age.

Wow, she worked a whole weekend on it!

No wonder it looks like it came right out of the 1980s.

Ms. Mayer, you are the CEO of a company that some say is worth $25 billion. Do you really think the best use of your time is playing with Illustrator? Every designer in America had to cringe when they read this quote:

"On a personal level, I love brands, logos, color, design, and, most of all, Adobe Illustrator. I think it's one of the most incredible software packages ever made. I'm not a pro, but I know enough to be dangerous :) So, one weekend this summer, I rolled up my sleeves and dove into the trenches with our logo design team."

Well, at least she was right about one thing. Based on the result of this project, she is dangerous.

What is it with CEOs and their belief that there is no subject they are not expert in? Are they given a subliminal messaging tape in business school to play while they sleep that says, "You know everything about everything" on an infinite loop?

Here's a tip for CEOs everywhere.

Unless you went to RISD, CCS, Pratt or Art Center, leave the design work to the professionals.

I'm not saying you can't have an opinion, but believe it or not great designers aren't a dime a dozen. Designing a logo isn't as easy as powering up a Mac and opening Illustrator, even though the best designers often make it look that way.

Design matters as much as anything in business. Would you "roll up your sleeves" with your lawyers and help them file your patent applications? Would you dive into the trenches with your software engineers and help them write code?

If the answer is yes, you're going to have a hell of a time getting good people to work for you.

Do your job and let other people do theirs. You'll be surprised at how much better that works for everyone.

Dear Charter:

We've been together for more than seven years now and for the most part I have been very happy. My cable, internet and phone all work as expected a majority of the time and even when I've had problems your customer service people have been surprisingly friendly and helpful.

Yet every week or so I get a little note from you in my email that's clearly intended for someone else.

How dare you.

Aside from the really lousy copywriting – "what you're majorly into" is just wrong on so many levels – this email only reminds me how little you actually care about our "relationship."

For seven years I've spent countless hours and thousands of dollars to keep us together. I can't quit you. I must have your precious high-speed internet. Sure I could stop there but then I wouldn't be able to waste all that time watching bad reality shows, irrelevant sporting events and rigged cooking competitions in stunning high definition that come to me courtesy of your coaxial cable.

But, according to this email you're just not that into me anymore. Your love light has turned to new customers who must be better than me since you're willing to let them have you for nearly half of what I'm paying.

Have you ever thought just once about how that makes me feel? Sure, everybody loves the new kid in town, but what about those of us who have stood by your side through the service outages, billing errors and four hour installation windows?

What do I have to do to get your attention? How can we rekindle our relationship? Here are a couple of thoughts.

First, just show a little compassion and stop making your ogling of other customers so obvious. Could you please make sure I don't see the messages you send intended for others who catch your eye?

Second, you know what I watch. You know what I like. How hard would it be to give me a little something-something every once in a while? I wouldn't mind a free on-demand movie or access to the occasional Red Wings game. Use that big data of yours and surprise me.

I'm not asking for much. Just the attention I deserve.

Time waits for no brand

Just because your brand is relevant today, doesn't guarantee it will matter to people tomorrow.

Technologies change. Tastes change. Your competitors change. If you don't adapt your brand to keep up with the changes, it will die.

Indy racing thrived as a series where manufacturers proved the durability of their products by pushing them hard for 500 miles. But now that even the cheapest cars are expected to run for 100,000 miles with barely a tune up, the series has little relevance to everyday drivers and the stands are empty.

Flip phones were all the rage when portability and style were the relevant benefits in mobile technology. But with the introduction of mobile email, web browsing, video and other location based services, smart phones have taken over, and today a flip phone is about as relevant as a land line.

Light lagers from a handful of brewers dominated the market until beer drinkers discovered that beer actually could have flavor and their long steady decline began.

People may love you today, but don't get too comfortable. Someone or something will come along soon and that easy chair you're sitting in will become a hot seat.

A brand is not a veneer

I'm not sure if this story is about the power of a brand or the depth of some people's stupidity.

Since I learned about it on the Colbert Report, I'm guessing it's the latter.



Either way, it's a good story and yet another reason why branding gets a bad rap... (sorry).

This is another example of what I call veneer branding, taking an ordinary product and applying a brand to the surface in an attempt to make it more valuable. In this case it works – shockingly well – but it's the rare example. Kanye's following is either passionate enough or so utterly blind that they're willing to pay ridiculous amounts of money for anything that has his name on it. Good for him.

But every time he adds more benjamins to his bank account by charging $120 for a product that's not substantially different from the one that's available at Target or Walmart for $5, he's making a withdrawal from his his brand bank.

All he has to do is look at Plymouth, TWA, Circuit City and Hydrox and the thousands of other brands that slapped their names on undifferentiated products to turn a profit.

What Kanye's doing isn't really branding. It's profiteering.

Why should I care?

You might have a product. You might have a name, a logo, some ads, promotions, a PR campaign and social media strategy.

None of that guarantees you have a brand.

Brands exist solely in the minds of people who care about the products or services they represent. 

If people aren't thinking about your brand – if people don't care about your brand – you don't have a brand.

So when you set out to build your brand, don't just give people a reason to believe. 

Give them a reason to care.

Stereotypical marketing

In another of those coincidences where I write about something one day and a brand proves my point the next, we have this quotation in an AdAge article from Harley-Davidson's Mark-Hans Richer about their new campaign #stereotypicalharley:

"There really is no stereotypical customer. That's the whole point of it."

I have criticized Harley-Davidson marketing for parting ways with Carmichael Lynch, the ad agency that saved their bacon in the '80s, and their decision to crowd-source creative ideas for their ads. I still don't believe those decisions will serve the brand well in the long run.

This campaign, however, gets one thing right. It shows how one brand can serve many different demographics by finding something common in all of them. In the article, Mr. Richer says it's about "living the life you choose." That's a politically-correct way of explaining what really binds these people together.

I'd say its about expressing their inner outlaw.

Yes, these people may be teachers, soccer moms, artists, soldiers, etc., but when they get on their Harleys they get to be something else, something the world doesn't ordinarily see. It's obvious from the images in the spot. The riders are not smiling, happy innocents.

These normal, workaday people get on their bikes and suddenly they're a little bit badass.

That's the common bond for the Harley brand. It feeds that archetypal need that exists at some level within all of us to rebel from conformity.

What deep-seated desire can your brand feed? Focus on that and you'll find a way to attract more – and more diverse – people than you ever thought possible to your products.

You can't build value on features alone

You may have all the features people want. You may have excellent distribution. You may have a healthy advertising budget. You may have a nice share of the market.

But if you don't have a brand, you have nothing.

A product without a brand is a commodity.

Samsung is quickly finding this out.

Despite a relentless drive for innovation, increasing their ad budget by 58%, launching high profile promotions and partnerships with every major carrier, the Samsung Galaxy S4 will miss sales projections by 20 million units. One investor said the reason was "Galaxy Fatigue."

I think it's more like Galaxy Apathy.

Why?

Because neither Samsung nor Galaxy stand for anything other than a collection of features.

What is the benefit of owning a Galaxy over an iPhone, HTC, LG or Motorola?

A bigger screen? A higher definition camera? More memory? Hands-free answering? All features that are easily copied.

Brands must offer value beyond the product otherwise the minute a competitor offers better features or the same features for less money, you're toast.

Nike continues to dominate the market not just because it makes products with features that people want, but because it makes those who own its products feel like athletes every time they lace them on.

Toyota was able to survive a slew of recalls and its unintended acceleration scare because they built a reputation for reliability that allowed them to ride out those dark days.

Great brands own a relevant word, concept or phrase that makes them distinctive to such a degree that when that brand's name in mentioned that word or phrase comes immediately to mind.

What does Samsung stand for? Anyone... Anyone...

That's what I thought.

That's the reason Samsung will continue to suffer wild swings in demand as other companies match features, prices and other functional factors in a highly competitive market.

Eating the past

They're back.

Twinkies, those golden concoctions with the creamy white center, will be returning to store shelves soon. And with them comes an interesting question.

Is nostalgia enough to revive a product whose ingredient list looks like a chemistry experiment and oversweet taste would make even Paula Deen blush.

Twinkies disappeared from store shelves a year ago when its owner, Hostess Brands felt they couldn't profitably manufacture the finger cakes and its other products under existing union contracts. So they shut the company down selling the brands and other assets.

I'm guessing it wasn't just high labor costs that caused the company's demise. With a brand portfolio that also includes Ding Dongs, Ho Ho's, and Wonder Bread, Hostess products are as on trend as handlebar mustaches and Victrolas.

Yes, there will be a huge surge in sales when Twinkies first return to the stores. And after the initial frenzy dies down, I'm sure still be a niche market for the them. Thanks to financial maneuvering by Twinkies' new owners, they might be able to fabricate them at a lower volume and still make money for the foreseeable future.

Even still, it's not a future that will look anything like the brand's illustrious past. Twinkies' relevance on this planet passed with the Eisenhower administration and will continue to fade as the food industry migrates to healthier, more natural options.

So there they'll be, on store shelves waiting for people to pick them up when they're feeling nostalgic.

Thankfully, they have such a long half-life, because that's not a very good recipe for fast turnover.

Men's Wearhouse makes a mistake

Yesterday, Men's Wearhouse announced the firing of their founder, Executive Chairman and spokesman of 30 years, George Zimmer.

Sales were up 5.1% the last quarter. 

Sales were up 4.4% for the calendar year 2012.

Profits were up over 10% to $2.55 per share.

Those are numbers JC Penney, Sears or Kmart would kill for.

So why did he get fired?

Richard Jaffe, an financial analyst thinks it might be the advertising.

“They continually rework it, adjusting how much presence do we have on George. Does he stand? Does he sit? But it’s always all about George Zimmer — his voice, his physical presence. An old guy with a gray beard may not provide credibility to the product in the eyes of a 22- or 24-year-old.”

If he's right, then the board at Men's Wearhouse is wrong.

Yes, George Zimmer is older than his target, but that doesn't mean he can't connect with them. In fact, based on the performance of the company it looks like he has.

There have been a lot of spokespeople who managed to connect with an audience that didn't look like them. Dos Equis' most interesting man in the world comes immediately to mind. Dave Thomas sold a lot of burgers to 20-somethings. Frank Purdue was the tough man who sold tender chickens to millions of moms.

If being old means you can't sell to younger audiences, The Rolling Stones would be in wheel chairs instead of on tour.

It's not about age, it's about attitude and relevance.

At a time when more and more men are dressing like boys, George Zimmer was that voice that told guys, when you're ready to be taken seriously we're here to help.

It worked.

It worked because he is authentic. It worked because he is honest. It worked because he projects the right combination of authority, empathy and confidence.

Thanks to the board's decision, we're in for a long run of one-off ads while the Men's Wearhouse searches to find a voice as effective as that of Mr. Zimmer.

I guarantee it.

The value of profit

In the world of business, nothing is more important than profit.

If a company isn't profitable it won't be around very long.

So it's not surprising that companies work hard to manage their bottom lines, leverage resources and look for opportunities to make their businesses more efficient.

It's a pretty simple equation: value – cost = profit

The problems arise when companies believe that the only way to increase profitability is by managing the second half of the operation.

You can cut costs all you want, long-term profitability, however, is the result of building value. 

Here's why:

Someone will always make it cheaper. Someone will always offer a lower rate. Someone will always be willing to shave a few points off the margin.

Companies that last focus on profitability through value. They deliver what's important to the customer in a way that's remarkable. They invest in their systems, their people, their research and development, their infrastructure, their communities, their brands.

They know the cheapest way isn't always the best way.

Because while you can always cut your way to a quarterly profit, you can't cut your way to greatness.

Myspace isn't for me

Myspace is spending $20 million to send out invitations to its coming out party, and clearly I'm not invited.



Myspace – remember them? – the original social network that lost the race to Facebook and then was totally mismanaged by Murdock's media empire, is relaunching as a hipper, cooler place to be.

I'm just not sure what the new, Justin Timberlake owned, Myspace is. Is it a social network? Is it an entertainment portal? Is it a dating site? Maybe the people they're targeting know. Or better yet, maybe those very people will help define it and make it what it needs to be.

I know one thing Myspace isn't based on this spot: a place for geezers like me.

And that's probably smart seeing as my generation has taken Facebook away from the college kids who started it. There might just be a need for a place where a younger generation can hang out with friends away from the watchful eye of their parents.

When I was a kid our spot was the high school track on a Friday night. We'd meet there, talk about school, life, the future and maybe even enjoy an illicitly procured adult beverage or two.

Kids have always needed that place to separate from their parents; something that's become harder and harder to do in a land of smartphones, GPS tracking and helicopter parenting. If Myspace fills that niche, they may just become a relevant platform again.

Me, I'd still prefer hanging out with friends at the track, but I'm old-school like that.

It's just Apple being Apple

Every few years Apple does this. They create an ad that reminds people of the philosophy behind the products they make.



They did it in 1984.



They did it in 1997.



This is not a new direction for Apple advertising (at least is shouldn't be). This is a one-off like those previous efforts, that will reset the brand and create a framework for the product advertising that is to come.

Apple's brand is all about democratizing the computer, putting technology in the reach of ordinary people in a way that improves their lives. That hasn't changed. The products have evolved and will continue to evolve to stay relevant as the world changes.

So please, all the critics and naysayers out there, you can stop the heavy breathing. In spite of its recent issues, I expect Apple to be just fine.

The simple truth of branding

When this article appeared in my Linked In news feed yesterday, of course I had to read it.

While it's nice that they did the legwork, there's nothing new here.

If you've read the works of David Ogilvy, Reis & Trout, David Aaker, and Seth Godin, you know that strong brands are not built upon functional benefits alone.

If you've observed how Nike, Apple and Harley-Davidson have created cult-like communities around their brands, you know that you have to go deeper than just a "like."

Great brands not only connect emotionally with their users, they say something important about them as well.

I may be a 53-year old desk jockey, but when I lace up my Nike's, I'm an athlete.

I don't know a thing about computers, but Apple lets me create things and connect in ways I never dreamed possible by creating technology I can use.

I don't have a single tattoo, but when I ride a Harley people wonder just a bit if there isn't something a little dangerous about me.

That's how you build a brand to last; on a foundation of deep human truths and desires. Then delivering consistently, first in the product, continuing all the way through communications and experiences. 

Obviously, it's not easy. But the path to great branding is not a new one. Even with all the new media available to us, we don't need to waste our time reinventing our craft. 

We only need to get better at it.

ESPN can't ignore the competition

Last Thursday, Disney CFO Jay Rasulo had this to say about the emerging competition ESPN faces from the new 24-hour sports networks from Fox, NBC, and CBS.

"People are going to spend a lot of money, they're going to step up to bid on a lot of rights, and they're going to wind up a distant No. 2. So I feel pretty confident about our hand there."

Great leaders don't dismiss their challengers, no matter how insignificant and undermanned they seem to be. American industry is littered with examples of shattered companies who took their competition too lightly. GM ignored Toyota. RCA was too busy diversifying to worry about Sony. And Blockbuster scoffed at Netflix.

Great leaders use any and all challengers as a excuse to examine every potential weakness and sharpen their competitive edge.

ESPN would be wise to do the same.

Data is a distraction

The paradox of modern marketing can be summed up in two quotations by Dr. W. Edwards Deming.

"In god we trust. All others bring data."

"The most important things cannot be measured."

We are awash in marketing data today. Between behavioral tracking on the web, GPS enabled devices that are capable of telling us where a consumer is when he accesses our mobile ad, set top box information from cable and satellite providers, check-out scanners, bio-feedback research and a whole host of other new technologies; we have more data than ever about when, where and how consumers interact with marketing communications.

Unfortunately, none of it matters because we have no idea whether what we're measuring actually drives sales.

Did a customer buy because he clicked on a banner ad, saw a TV spot, liked us on Facebook or got a digital discount as a reward for checking in on Four Square? And just because someone did it today, does it mean he or others will do the same tomorrow?

Who knows?

The answer, of course, is nobody.

Despite all the pontification, prognostication, posturing and polemics, the marketing measurement industry has yet to offer anything of substance when it comes to connecting our off- and on-line activities with actual consumer behavior.

Does that mean we should not be measuring the effectiveness of our marketing efforts? Absolutely not.

But if I were managing a brand, I wouldn't accept any measurement as gospel if those presenting it aren't able show a direct causation between their research results and sales.

Who's your brand target?

The social media kerfuffle du jour occurred because Michael Jeffries is a smart marketer and a lousy communicator.

Abercrombie & Fitch is successful because Jeffries has a well-defined Brand Target. The problem is, he said it out loud.

"Candidly, we go after the cool kids. We go after the attractive all-American kid with a great attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people don’t belong in Abercrombie & Fitch clothes, and they can’t belong. Are we exclusionary? Absolutely.”

Great brands know who they're for and who they're not for. They are both inclusive and exclusive. But as Mr. Jeffries is now learning the trick is to be exclusive without being a jerk.

Apple's brand target appears to be young, cool, creative individuals as is evidenced by the Mac versus PC commercials.



Did this open Apple up to some criticism and ridicule? Yes. Did it mean they wouldn't sell their products to dweebs? Of course not.

A brand target is not a sales target. A brand target is the epitome of who you designed your product for.

A sales target is whoever walks in your door with enough money to buy your product.

Confuse the two at your own risk.

Bad ads are bad for business

After a recent run of particularly distasteful ads, clients, account supervisors and creative directors may want to revisit this study from Harris Interactive and Adweek of a few years ago.

What it boils down to is obvious. Offensive advertising drives customers away.

So why does it keep happening?

Because everyone wants their ad to "cut through the clutter," to be memorable, to drive social buzz, to appeal to the holy grail of marketing targets – 18 to 34 year olds (which in and of itself is insane, but that's another post).

Advertising is harder than it looks. Creating interest in toothpaste, underwear, web domains, appliances and other items that most people really don't spend a lot of time thinking about requires you to take risks to get noticed. But it also requires you to be smart.

There's nothing wrong with being exclusive and creating work that appeals to your target, but it rarely pays to be offensive.

I'm not sure if more people are making dumb decisions about their advertising now than a generation ago or if we just see more of it thanks to Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. Whatever the case, the price you pay for lack of judgement is much higher now than ever.

So in the immortal words of Sargeant Esterhaus, "Let's be careful out there."