Is your brand fireproof?

On June 2, 2011, a full three weeks after it was crash tested in a controlled environment by the NHTSA, a Chevy Volt caught fire because the battery was improperly handled after the crash. You'd have thought from the resulting media firestorm that every Volt ever sold up to that time had caught fire and that GM management had perpetrated a coverup larger and more nefarious than Area 51 and Watergate combined.

Yesterday, the NHTSA announced it will investigate the Tesla S after a third car caught fire immediately after a crash on the open road in just the past two months. And yet, criticism of Tesla is slow to come.

What's the difference?

The brand.

People have been burned (pun intended) so often by GM's engineering missteps over the years that they almost expect any new technology that comes from GM to be flawed. Thus a story about one car that was involved in an artificial crash simulation and caught fire only because government safety investigators didn't follow GM's published protocols for draining and discharging the battery after a crash, suddenly became "fires." It got so bad that to calm owners' fears GM had to offer up loaner cars while an investigation took place.

Tesla and Elon Musk, on the other hand, don't have GM's baggage, so the fires are minor issues. Teething pains for a fledgling company, if you will. The media and public don't assume negligence or incompetence, and even give Musk credit for requesting an investigation into the fire (though the NHTSA disputes that claim).

If you have a strong brand, a good reputation, it can protect you from the occasional stumble. But if you stumble too often for too long then that becomes your brand and what people expect from you.

That's why Tesla's brand is acting as a fire extinguisher, while GM's brand only fuels the flames.

The future is here

Samsung has hit its stride.

This spot for the new Galaxy Gear wrist computer hits just the right balance between intrigue and information, tone and truth. It works hard without trying too hard. Maybe that's why it was one of the few spots that aired over the weekend where people in the room I was in stopped talking about the game for 60 seconds and actually watched an ad.



One thing I like about this spot is that it seems Samsung have finally gotten over their Apple envy and are ready to promote their own products without bashing those of a worthy adversary. Maybe that's just because there is not equivalent Apple product or maybe, just maybe they're ready to sell their devices on their merit.

Either way, thanks to 72andSunny for concepting and producing a great spot and sparing me from another lousy car, truck or beer ad during the game. Now let's just hope the product actually lives up to the promise of those Hollywood gadgets that inspired it.

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.

Ignore your brand at your own peril

Hyundai has hit a speed bump on its way to what it had hoped would be a sales leadership position in the United States auto market.

While Hyudai's sales were up 8.2% over the previous year last month, that lags the overall growth in the U.S. market, which expanded by more than 17%.

What's behind this slow down?

In my mind, a misguided strategy. Funny thing is, it's the same strategy that has hampered VWs growth for decades.

Like VW, Hyundai came into the U.S. market as a classic disruptor, with low-cost materials, basic design and just enough features to be attractive. But their cars were inexpensive, so they sold to those who wanted a new car and could afford nothing else. It was a strategy that helped them grab sales from Toyota, Chevrolet, Honda, Ford and other mainstream brands.

But then they altered their focus slightly, still offering a low price, but attempting to improve the perceived quality of their products by upgrading the materials and their styling. They also helped mitigate the perception of poor quality by offering a ten year 100,000 mile warranty. In addition when the economy went soft, they created their Assurance Program which allowed new buyers to return their cars with no hit to their credit if they lost their job. As they did this sales accelerated and the Elantra and Sonata both climbed the sales charts.

Not satisfied, however, to enjoy growing success at the lower end of the market where margins are thin, Hyundai decided they had the brand power to take on more entrenched and esteemed competition at the high end of the market in the states.

So just a two years after running commercials that were designed to teach people how to pronounce their brand name...



Hyundai introduced the $60,000 Equus in the U.S. adding Lexus, Audi, BMW and Mercedes to their competitive set.

VW made the same mistake in the early 2000s when they tried to move upscale by launching the Phaeton.

While the cars themselves might be fine, with luxurious appointments, acceptable power and everything else the leaders in this category offer, neither the VW nor Hyundai brand are able to support a credible competitor to Audi, Mercedes, Lexus and BMW.

If they really wanted to launch and upscale product, they only had to look at Toyota for a roadmap. Lexus was launched in the late 1980s because Toyota had taken a large chunk of the mainstream market and wanted to migrate into the luxury segment. They knew, however, Toyota wouldn't be relevant at the top end of the world's most important automotive market, so Lexus was born.

They didn't just build a new car, however. They built a whole new brand. With separate dealerships. Separate experiences. Separate promises. That's why they succeeded where VW and Hyundai seem to be falling short.

Hyundai can't compete at both ends of the market with one brand. Luxury buyers don't want the same badge on their car as one advertised by local dealers to the credit challenged. Nor do they want to be seen in the same dealership as consumers who aren't sure if they can even afford a new car.

The powers that be in Seoul need to let Hyundai be Hyundai. And, if they really must compete at the high end of the market, spend the money to create a new brand.

Getting it right matters

It's hard to believe someone could develop a product so awful that it could kill an entire category, but GM managed to do just that back in the '70s.

Compared to gasoline engines, diesels are more efficient, more reliable, more durable, can run more easily on synthetic and biofuels, and now are very clean burning.

With all those benefits why aren't there more diesels in American cars? I offer exhibit A: The 1978 Olds Cutlass Diesel.

The 5.7 liter V8 diesel that GM cobbled together for that car in the midst of the energy crisis was so bad it killed the whole concept of diesels for generations of American car buyers.

So while more than 50% of new cars in Europe are sold with diesel engines, that number is about 4% in the U.S. and would be closer to zero were it not for the efforts of VW and BMW who have both spent millions of dollars in advertising to trumpet diesel's benefits.

This is just a reminder that when developing new products, if you do something wrong – really, really wrong – you can, in fact, ruin it for the rest of us.

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.

NeverWet may soon be nevermore

When I saw this spot for Rust-Oleum's new NeverWet spray, I thought. Cool. Now I never have to worry about bolognese sauce ruining my white polo ever again.

But then I did a little research.

Apparently according to this review on Gizmodo, NeverWet's label explicitly states "Contents contain a chemical known to cause cancer and birth defects." Hmm. That's something I don't want anywhere near my skin or mouth.

Strike one.

Geek.com says the spray leaves a "frosted white coating" on whatever it's applied to. So unless your putting it on a white surface, NeverWet will be visible. Apparently it rubs off pretty easily as well.

Strike two.

This demo video that's been viewed over four million times on YouTube shows it being applied to several items (electronics, clothing) their own website clearly states NeverWet should not be used on. And since it causes cancer, I'm not sure I'd want it anywhere near my beer.



Strike three.

So this amazing product is poisonous, can ruin electronics, and discolors whatever it's applied to. Those are probably three things they need to work on in version 2.0. But based on the way they've marketed this version there probably won't be a version 2.0 because people will be so disappointed after trying it, they'll never buy anything from Rust-Oleum again.

Just a little tip when you're launching a new product. Be honest about it. Nothing kills a bad product faster than great advertising. If you're product doesn't perform as promised, the long term effects on your brand will be cancerous.

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.

Features do not differentiate brands

As product developers, we are obsessed with features. What can we add to our product and service to make sure we have everything the customer wants and needs – even those features they never knew they needed until we added them?

Features are great. Features are important. Features lead to benefits. Without relevant features there's no reason for anyone to buy our products.

But features do not differentiate brands.

You can get adaptive cruise control on a $25,000 Ford Fusion and a $205,000 Bentley Flying Spur.

You can get vibrating bristles on a $4 Oral-B toothbrush and a $100 Sonicare.

You can get a 15-inch HD display, Intel i7 processor and 500 GB of storage on a $1,300 HP Spectre and a $2,800 MacBook Pro.

The difference isn't the feature. It's in how each brand executes that feature. It's in the design, the materials, the experience, the positioning.

When Volvo touts its all-wheel drive system, it does so by saying that it makes you safer.

When BMW promotes all-wheel drive, it does so by saying it improves driving performance.

Features do not differentiate brands.

Brands differentiate features.

Why Facebook mobile is stuck in neutral

Facebook may rule on the desktop, but they still haven't figured out mobile.

The apps for Android phones and tablets are terrible. I know this from personal experience. According to reviewers, the new Facebook Home app works great unless you want to use your phone for its primary intended purpose, a phone. And now comes the news that AT&T will be dropping the HTC/Facebook phone from its lineup because they've sold only 15,000 of them in the past month. For context AT&T sells 300,000 Android phones every month.

How do they keep getting something so important, so wrong?

Let's start with this premise by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

"You're going to be able to turn your Android phone into a great social device. Our phones today are designed around apps, not people. We want to flip that around."

It's all about context and control.

All the features and functions that work on the desktop where I can focus almost exclusively on Facebook become overwhelming in a mobile environment where I may have only a few seconds to check my wall on phone. In order to make order out of the chaos and randomness that is my timeline, Facebook should give me more control and make it easier to for me select the features I prefer in a mobile environment.

They're so busy worrying about "people" they're not thinking about the individual users and how we might want to customize the experience to get the information and content we're looking quickly and easily.

The minute they cede control to the users is the moment they'll begin to succeed in mobile.

It's all about the McBrand

According to this story in Ad Age, McDonald's is introducing a new sandwich, the McWrap, to attract the demographic known as the millennials – or as we humans call them, 18 to 32-year olds.

It seems that McDonald's executives are distressed that their restaurant is not one of this group's favorite restaurants. To that, I have just one question.

Outside of the 4 to 10-year old demographic, is McDonald's anyone's favorite restaurant?

McDonald's has grown to massive proportions exactly because it is no one's favorite restaurant. Mickey D's is the vanilla ice cream of restaurants: almost everybody likes it, but nobody loves it.

McDonald's is convenient, consistent, and cheap. That's how they've managed to serve billions.

Of course they should adapt their menu to provide options that will keep the chain relevant and cars lined up at the drive-through. Of course, they should consider other policies that appeal to this and other generations of customers. But if any of those changes get in the way of convenient, consistent and cheap, there will be trouble ahead.

McDonald's faces one of the great challenges of branding, how to adapt without changing.

The birth of cool

I saw this headline in the New York Times yesterday and have spent a little time thinking about what it means and why it's true.

Samsung is cool not because they have cool ads. Not because their products look cool. Certainly not because of the blazer their EVP is wearing in the picture.

Samsung is cool for the same reason Apple is cool.

They're both great at what they do.

Cool is not about what you say, how you act, or how many black mock turtlenecks you have.

Cool is about excellence.

Miles Davis wouldn't have been cool if he weren't a supremely talented, incredibly innovative trumpet player.

Steve McQueen wouldn't have been cool if he weren't a gifted actor.

Apple wouldn't have been cool had their products not worked so damn well.

Companies need to stop focusing on being cool and start trying to be great. Once you've achieved greatness, cool will come.

Taking an Axe to Gillette

I was wondering how long this would take.

In just a few decades, much to the chagrin of Junior High School teachers everywhere, the Axe brand has gone from zero to owning all things young male when it comes to smelling and grooming. Body sprays, washes, shampoos, gels, deodorants and more.

Now they're taking all that equity and leveraging it against one of the great rites of passage in a young man's life, shaving.

A few years ago, I did a project for another shaving manufacturer (not Gillette) looking to create products that appealed to guys 15 - 18 who were just starting to shave. I interviewed more than a dozen teenagers and had them show me all the things in their bedrooms and bathrooms that were most important to their lives (fyi, I now live in great fear for the future of our country).

My recommendation: do a deal with Axe or some other brand that was relevant to their hormonally driven lives.

The client's brand was dad's brand. And though dad taught them how to shave, like all teenagers, none of them really wanted to be their dad.

Knowing this, I'm a little surprised at Gillette's response in Ad Age; talking about all their skin care experience:

"We have a healthy respect for our competition, but millions of men put their face in Gillette's hands for a reason. We understand men's skin better than any other grooming brand."

I hate to break it to the marketers at Gillette, but teenage boys don't want to know how much you know about skin. They want to know how you're going to help them get laid. Marketing expertise and authority will only move teenagers more quickly to an Axe brand razor.

It's the same attitude GM adopted when Honda and Toyota hit the shores – we'll let those companies sell young people cheap econoboxes but when they're ready for a real car, they'll come to us – and we all know how well that worked out.

It won't happen overnight, but it won't be long before a generation of new shavers grows up with an Axe razor in their hands and Gillette's 84% market share begins to significantly erode.

CBS can't stop progress

CNET, the powerhouse digital publication for all things tech, released its "Best of CES" last week and one of the nominees was the Dish Hopper with Sling, the auto ad-skipping DVR from Dish Network... until it wasn't.

If you visit their Nominee Page now and scroll down to the very bottom you get this statement:

The Dish Hopper with Sling was removed from consideration due to active litigation involving our parent company CBS Corp. We will no longer be reviewing products manufactured by companies with which we are in litigation with respect to such product.

If anyone ever wondered about the impartiality of the press, wonder no more.

Clearly someone at CBS said to the publisher of CNET, "Hey, these guys are trying to break our business model. You can't give them an award." And the publisher of CNET, liking his job very much, said "No problem."

By making CNET pull its nomination, CBS is now allowing the Hopper to play a role in the erosion of two of its businesses. Not only is the Hopper a threat to the ad-supported revenue model the network was built on, but its sudden exclusion from the Best of CES list brings into question the most important asset CNET has, its editorial integrity.

Millions of people have trusted CNET for what was believed to be impartial reviews of technological gadgetry. I used it last week when deciding which new television to buy. Yet, if its editorial independence can be so easily undermined by those on the business side of the publication, how can anyone trust anything they write?

CBS needs to stop trying to make time stand still and begin to create a new reality in which traditional advertising and appointment viewing are no longer the be-all-and-end-all of network television. Pulling petty, vindictive stunts like this hurts their brands much more than it will slow the advance of technology that is coming whether they like it or not.

The king is confused

In an effort to end the slide of the Budweiser brand, Anheuser Busch will be introducing yet another new beer next year, probably on the Super Bowl as it did last year with Bud Light Platinum.

Budweiser Black Crown Golden Amber Lager appears to be yet another attempt by the brand to crack into the still growing and profitable craft beer segment defined by such brands as Samuel Adams, Bell's, Rogue and others.

That's not to say that Anheuser-Busch InBev doesn't already compete in the category with their full or partial ownership of, or distribution alliances with brands like Shock Top, Redhook, Goose Island, Widmer Brothers, Old Dominion and a few others. This has been a solid strategy since the master brand has no credibility in craft brewing – which is what makes this new line extension a little baffling.

The Budweiser brand has some outstanding assets: distribution muscle, nearly 100% awareness, the crown symbol, "The King of Beers," a heritage in American light lagers, and more. What the Bud brand doesn't have are craft beer credentials. 

What reason do people who drink craft beers have to switch to Black Crown? What reason do current Bud drinkers have to put this into their rotation? That this is the winner of a competition between its 12 brewmasters isn't going to do it.

If InBev really wants the Budweiser brand to play in this category, they should use their size and strength to enter the category with a complete line of beers that create a cohesive presence at retail and on premise. They should create a story behind the brand that gives the new line a purpose. And, they should show how this new line complements their current portfolio. Dipping their corporate toe in the water with one beer, no matter how good it is, won't grow the brand.

This beer will only create more complexity for a brand that's already too inconsistent and confusing.

The Costanza Principle

On one classic Seinfeld episode George had an epiphany. He saw that every decision he had ever made in his life up to that time had been wrong. So from that moment on he would do the opposite of what he thought was right.

Strangely, this is not a bad approach to take when developing new products: see the obvious, then do the opposite.

If you think you should make the product cheaper, what would happen if you made it more expensive?

If you think you should go upscale, what would happen if you went more basic?

If you think the product should be easier to use, what would happen if you made it more esoteric?

If you think everything is trending digital, what would happen if you made it low tech?

If you think it should be more convenient, what would happen if you made it more scarce?

If you think you should develop more options, what would happen if you offered just one sku?

Sometimes the doing the obvious is the right thing. But there are times when it pays to do the opposite.