Branding Thingys

Distribution: The Inconvenient Truth for Brands

Nader Ashway2 Comments

marketing thingy blog image - distribution

I was having a conversation recently with a woman who is SERIOUS about fashion. She dresses impeccably, and cares pretty deeply about the name on the tag inside every skirt, blouse and shoe she wears. I posed a question: “what if you could get (insert uber brand here, like Christian Louboutin, for instance) at a discount retail outlet like Costco? Would you do it?”

She shot back: “NO WAY.”

Now, pardon the “focus group of one” here, but this seemed to shed some light on an interesting sub-topic of marketing, which seems especially important considering it also impacts one of the four cornerstones of our entire industry.

As our conversation went on, it turned out that even a significant savings of 10-15% wouldn’t be enough to convince her to go to a discount retailer for the toppermost brands she so covets. She also believed that most people (men AND women) who are serious about fashion would agree.

As it turns out, “where” may be as equally important as “what” when it comes to the experience of brands, and not just fashion brands. Distribution strategies (also known as “Place” in marketing 101) help consumer brands reach customers, typically creating a factor of convenience or an experience of excellence, depending on the brand and the target audience. But this paradox seems to touch so many aspects of marketing, such as price, product, place, brand ethos and even consumer perceptions. Let’s examine.

The Price Question
Many brands are sold at retail outlets and also online through many e-tailers, which may include the brand’s own website. (This is true in almost every category: fashion, appliances, electronics, home goods, food and beverage, health and beauty, etc.) In some cases, price shopping is a driving factor. In other cases, it’s not. Some brands don’t discount because they built their brand to own the high price position, or (with a case like Apple) the prices are simply non-negotiable. (You can’t get a “cheaper” iPod anywhere – the prices are fixed.) So unless the price is steeply discounted for a brand at one outlet over another, the consumer will likely choose to shop at a distribution point (online or offline) that is either a.) convenient or b.) preferred.
So, regarding price, the distribution strategy matters.

Brand and Perception
For a high-end brand (like Louboutin,) there is a perception that it can’t possibly be sold at places other than the most selective boutiques. That’s part of the brand’s equity. But for mass market brands, and even discount brands, the locations still have to match up with the brand personality. The distribution center, then, becomes a very important aspect of building the brand. (You won’t hear THAT much from your agency!) It’s just as weird to find Louboutin in Costco as it is to find Wrangler or Lee jeans at Nordstrom. It’s just a disconnect that can impact the brand, and for that matter, the brand perception of the retailer, too!

Note: In other cases, the brand and the distribution center are inextricably linked to cement the brand and its perception. Think Old Navy.
So, regarding brand perception, the distribution strategy matters.

The Consumer Experience
Finally, in some cases, the consumer experience gets folded into the overall brand offering. If you’re a high end fashion brand, you want to manage the entire experience of how the consumer goes about acquiring their next piece of your clothing: the way the store looks, the way the salesperson greets and works with the consumer, the fitting room experience, the checkout and most certainly the bag or packaging she’ll walk out of the store with. (Note, this is different than product packaging, which is a discipline unto itself.)
So, as it turns out, where DOES matter to consumers, across almost all points of concern.

It’s time for more marketers and agencies to get with this inconvenient truth, and start building brands to include the distribution ecosystem as a key brand building block and cornerstone of brand maturity.

The Law of Constant Improvement

Nader Ashway3 Comments

In marketing, most brands that are enjoying success are likely doing so because they created something that WORKS. Whether it’s a consumer product like a vacuum cleaner that never loses suction, or the standard-setter in smartphones or a business-to-business service like an ad network or a social media platform or even a service provider like an ad agency or web development firm, something is WORKING. It could be the product design, or the solution to a common problem, or a specific process or a recipe or even an algorithm.

But what’s the secret sauce that KEEPS brands thriving? How do we move from enjoying just a modicum of success to relishing a systematic pattern of victories and enduring prosperity? While some may chalk it up to luck or a charismatic CEO or market timing, I assert that the most successful and most profitable brands in every corner of the marketing world all share a similar trait: they employ the Law of Constant Improvement.

When brands (in virtually any category) are thriving, it’s typically due to a combination of factors that include the basic food groups: an ability to deliver [manufacture/write/uncover/sing/whatever] something of value, an understanding of the market environment, an understanding of the target consumer needs, an understanding of limitations and mandatories, and so on. But the lasting effects of excellence are usually garnered by a sustained and even obstinate desire to continue improving on current successes.

The Law of Constant Improvement states that you are never quite “there” yet. While you may be enjoying success (and profits,) there is no qualifying reason to halt the process of improvement. And in this law, improvement is not one-sided. Normally, we would focus on the consumer audience, and how to make the product/experience/service better for them. But brands can constantly improve internally, [financially, operationally, culturally, philanthropically] as well. This is true if you run a small business, a large corporation, a non-profit or a community. It’s especially true if you’re in marketing.

A healthy side effect of The Law of Constant Improvement seems to be a proclivity towards extended tenure. It becomes evident when you review success stories in almost any category: a technology leader like Apple; an online leader like Amazon; a consumer leisure brand [or is it a retail experience? or is it a coffee shop?] like Starbucks; a band like Coldplay.  All seem to factor a common denominator: they are constantly striving to improve. And it doesn’t have to be big, blue-chip brand business: local and regional marketers can employ the same law, and alter their DNA to replicate success. The evidence seems to suggest that brands who continue to improve with a near-obsessive regularity become leaders.

Another aspect of The Law of Constant Improvement is its ability to permeate into the corporate culture. It’s clear that brands who adopt a process of constant improvement don’t do so as a line item operational procedure, but rather because it’s embedded into the personality of the company, and into the personality of each employee. It turns out that constant improvement is less a thing to do, and more a thing to be.

Also note that in the inner gears of today’s consumer-centric commerce machine, the market has come to DEMAND constant improvement. That’s just the new rules at play. There’s so much competition and customization out there that brands have to continue to evolve each product and feature to keep their audience(s) engaged and entertained.

It would likely be a lot easier to happen on a formula and then just keep churning it out for eternity. (Note, for some brands, that’s a solid strategy – see Coke vs. the New Coke debacle.) But for the vast majority of brands, The Law of Constant Improvement is the new mandatory to continue to engage your original audience, to roll up new fans, to outperform expectations and if you fit into this category, to satisfy shareholders.

So start improving today. And be prepared to never stop.

Curation: The Magic Word for Marketers

Nader Ashway2 Comments

Marcel Duchamp Cubist Painting 1912

I recently attended CES in Las Vegas to do some research for a client.  CES was huge and hyperactive and I hated it. My resistance was not due to the size or number or quality of exhibits, but rather the show’s inability to navigate me through any of it.

We live in a consumer-centric world, powered by immediacy and universality of choice (otherwise known as the Internet.) Today, we can shop for anything online, customize the features, and dictate how it’s delivered. Everything from clothing to cars to medicines to media.

And that’s pretty peachy. We all love choice. We all love control. But the surprising truth in many of our brand interactions is that we’re not all very good at it. Especially when the choices are overwhelming.

At CES, I longed for a GUIDE of some sort. I wished there was a handbook that outlined what I wanted to see if, for instance, I only had 2 hours to spend there. Or if I was only interested in “small, cool audio stuff.” Or if I just wanted to knock around and see celebrities. (There were many in attendance. I passed on Snooki and 50 Cent and took a front row seat at Earth, Wind & Fire. Call me old school.)

Such a guide would have still afforded me choice, but those choices would have been curated for me. And curation is the magic word for the new consumer world.

Curation is the antidote for a world of infinite choices. It relates to both content and the methods of its consumption. Those marketers who can provide guides or maps or recommendations for their consumers will have a much more fruitful relationship with them as a result. This is true in both the consumer and business-to-business galaxies. Some examples:

Museums curate exhibits. Of all the Duchamp cubist paintings, a certain museum might choose 30 of them. They would then arrange them in a distinct order, put them on certain walls, make you stand in directed spots to view them. Remember, content and the mode of consumption. The subtext here is “the museum strongly suggests you view Duchamp this way.” It’s a very specific experience. If I want some other experience, I can gladly seek it elsewhere.

Restaurants curate food experiences. The menu, by definition, is a curated presentation of food. The chef took all the ingredients available that day and culled them to eight appetizers, eight entrees and five desserts to choose from. Would going to a restaurant and just seeing a big buffet of basic ingredients (vegetables, fish, lettuces, meats, sweets) be the same? Not a chance. Here’s exactly where I DON’T want to have too much choice. (Sidebar: this was how the original “Craft” restaurant in New York started. Chef Tom Colicchio just presented the menu items, and left the pairing decisions to guests. In the June 2001 review of Craft,  New York Times Restaurant Reviewer William Grimes stated “…(the culinary arts,) function more efficiently as dictatorships.”)

Brands in virtually all categories curate personal experiences. Whether it’s how your clothes smell, or what your ringtone is, or what color the dashboard lights are in your vehicle or the editors of your favorite business magazine – we, as consumers or business customers, are seeking features and experiences that enrich our lives in some way. But for goodness sake, we want someone ELSE to tell us what those are.

We want Amazon to tell us it has “recommendations” for us. We want Google to auto-fill our search terms. We want the Gap to recommend a sweet belt to go with that sweater we just purchased. Sure, we ultimately want to make the buying choice, but what we need brands to do is present the pathways to making them.

Marketers, take note. Curate an experience for us. Stand for something. Deliver something specific, that no one else can deliver. Or deliver something that lots of other people can deliver, but do it in a way that’s unique, or cool, or fun, or hip or technologically cool or convenient. Because we all want choices…we’re just not all very good at making them.

This article first appeared on Technorati.

Five Rules of Engagement

Nader Ashway2 Comments

For years, marketers, editors and bloggers have been volleying the marketing term “engagement” around like a taped up shuttlecock.  The term has also been denigrated by continuous contextual evolution.  “Engagement” means one thing when referring to customer loyalty programs, another in the context of your web analytics package, and something further afield in the complex mesh of social media.

So, to give engagement a better—or at least more consistent—name, I’ve attempted to identify some key principles of what customer engagement means in the context of marketing, and in the process, hope to help marketers use these principles to focus their efforts on engaging more customers.  This will be expanded into an intelligence paper with more detail, which I will post here later.

Just to be clear, three qualifiers and definitions:  first, I’m not talking about making sales, or generating leads, or providing entertainment.  We’re talking about moving a consumer (of just about anything:  soda, music, jet engines, etc.) beyond the initial sale, into an area of prolonged interaction and even ongoing communication.

Second, engagement does NOT necessarily have to follow a sale.  But it does follow the initial conversion from “I’m not interested” or “I’m not aware” to “I’m interested and want to hear/learn/see/do more with this brand.” For instance, I don’t buy anything from Mashable, but I’m deeply engaged with their content, and couldn’t imagine starting a day without visiting that site and consuming that information.  The same is true for almost a billion people and Facebook: nothing has been purchased, but the engagement level with that brand is incredibly high.

Finally, customer engagement tends to be transactional.  That is to say that it seems reserved for those brands that involve multiple interactions.  You might buy a coffee brand or read a certain blog every day, so the opportunity for repeated experiences—as you’ll see, one principle for engagement—exists.  On the contrary, you may only buy a funeral plot once in your adult life, if it all – there’s not much of an opportunity for that marketer to drive engagement with that customer.  (Not to say it doesn’t happen  – the singular experience may leave a lasting impression.)

The Five Principles of Engagement – in relative chronological order.

Principle 1:  It Starts with Triangulation. Although many marketers believe that they can engage customers in a linear, point a to point b fashion, this is actually quite difficult to sustain.  At some point, the customer needs more attention, and thus triangulation becomes a pivotal element of customer engagement.  When you and your customer can triangulate on outside interests—features like design or performance, affiliations like music, or sports, or a cause like the environment, or travel rewards like Broadway musicals—then the opportunities to engage multiply exponentially. Now you can offer your customer more of what they like/want/need, (while simultaneously creating a deeper bond, since you and the customer now have a common interest or two or six,) and tie the resulting benefits back to your brand.

Principle 2: It’s Fueled by Passion. Passion is the fuel for true customer engagement.  When you triangulate on something together, it’s based on both of your passions for it.  (That’s why you choose your triangulation points carefully. If you don’t have passion for that “other thing,” your customers will see right through your shoddy aims.) If your brand can demonstrate real passion for the industry, for the craft, for the process, or it continues to demonstrate passion in the form of your new products and services, that passion tends to be matched by your engaged customer. It’s in the nature of relationships to want to reciprocate what the other party is doing.  This in turn, leads to a process of ongoing exchange between the two parties that continues to amp up the interchange.

Principle 3:  It’s an Ongoing Relationship.  Many sales professionals (and I say this with the utmost respect for what they do) have an understandably myopic view of what marketing is about…they think lead>conversion>end.  Today, marketers know that the sale or conversion is just the beginning of a long and hopefully fruitful relationship where the initial conversion is an indication of some assent to continue communicating.  Brands that form relationships with their customers tend to provide a more enjoyable, and more sustainable experience for the customer, where each has their own voice, and after some trust is built up, can even begin to ask things of each other.

Principle 4.  It’s Based on the Experience.  Even if a marketer can provide every one of the above principles, engagement typically only occurs when the marketer can provide a certain (unique) experience to the customer.  It could be a benign feature, or something very personal, (but as we know from our brand training, the more emotional the benefit, and the higher up the ladder of self-actualization, the better.)

Great brands with deeply engaged customers provide a single certain, can’t-get-it-anywhere-else kind of feeling for those customers.  In many cases, those brands provide repeated experiences (even simple ones) that add up to something similarly special.  That leads to an unmistakable takeaway and a glowing perception of the interaction between the consumer and the producer.  Apple does that.  Wired magazine does that. The Ritz-Carlton does that.  And just to prove it doesn’t have to be some hoity-toity-Fortune-40 brand, the guy on the corner who sells you your bagels and coffee can do that.  And so can your private voice teacher.  And, likely, so did your best sports coach.

Principle 5.  It’s Gotta Be Consistent. Okay, so you’ve triangulated on something cool to create some commonality.  You’ve demonstrated passion with turning out great products that set or buck the industry trends.  You’ve forged a relationship with your customer that’s based on a unique and singular experience.  Now the challenge is sustaining this good will.  The easiest way to do that is to exploit the principle of consistency.  Be consistent with how often you’re communicating with customers.  Be consistent with how often you’re upgrading your products or services. Be consistent with your brand voice.  Because of all the things, this is most important.  Your customers fell for you because of something you did, or the way you did it, or the way you packaged it.  They remembered that experience and the feelings it created.  They came back for more, and continue to patronize—maybe even evangelize for—you and your brand.  Make a left turn on them, and you’ll likely lose all that good will.

Brand Guidelines: Sometimes Ya Gotta Cross ‘Em

Nader Ashway6 Comments

We’ve all heard a lot about brand guidelines, and how vital they are to the marketing success of your company.  And in most cases, this is quite true.  A strong brand structure can provide an incredible level of connective tissue between your company’s product or service and the consumers you have and, most importantly, those you hope to reach.

And while a lot of care and thought goes into brand development and brand representation, in some cases, we can overdo it.

Before we get into that, let’s make sure we’re clear on what brand guidelines are.  Many companies entrust their brands to experts to develop guidelines as to how the brand behaves, what it says, what it does, (in some cases what the company produces,) and very importantly, how that brand is represented visually and verbally across the landscape of media in which it may appear.

These guidelines, especially the visual and verbal ones, can get very specific and very detailed regarding how the brand (and the logo, or taglines or images) is reproduced and presented for public consumption.  If you’ve never seen a brand guideline handbook, it’s a cross between a diary of a madman and the exactitude of an aerospace engineer’s drawing book.  In some cases, they can be hundreds of pages long, and stipulate everything from specific color swatches to negative space to how NOT to reproduce the various design elements.

Ultimately, it’s a usage document, in that it instructs anyone responsible for pushing the brand out into the world exactly how the brand should be represented.  (This is true even if the brand is a person!)  All in the name of the venerable core objective:  consistency of perception.

However, this control issue can sometimes become, well, a control issue.  In many instances in my work with brands that my firm hasn’t created, we’ve been saddled with guidelines that have actually gotten in the way of – even obstructed – clear and consistent communications.

In one instance, we were working with a company who (inexplicably) had an extremely long, multi-word URL.  When creating a Facebook application for this brand (targeted to suburban soccer moms, by the way,) we suggested using capital letters to help guide the reader along.  Imagine this url:  thecompanyyoushouldvisitinyourtown.com.  We suggested TheCompanyYouShouldVisitInYourTown.com for clarity.  Our client came back and said “our brand guidelines instruct us to NOT use capital letters in the URL.”  When we reminded them that it was simply easier to read with the caps, (especially online in about 10pt type,) they pushed back.  Hard.  The brand guidelines were scripture, and were not to be messed with.

In another instance, we were working with an important media company whose brand is very well recognized in the consumer marketplace.  In designing a microsite that demanded a rich color background, (ironically, for consistency with the print campaign,) we opted to knock out (make white) their logo, just as we had done in print.  Knocking out was acceptable according to their brand guidelines, but not in digital applications.  So it was okay to trust printers to knock out the logo using ink, but not okay to use never-bleed pixels for the same brand representation.  Strange.

The reason I highlight these examples is because they were actually attempts to arrive at either clear(er) or more consistent communications between the brands and their intended audiences.  We were (we always are) striving to make it easier for the consumer to interact with the company, not the other way around.  But the brand guidelines were so stringent, these simplified communications were overlooked for standards that could not possibly have recognized these interactive objectives.

Don’t get me wrong – there ARE guidelines that are un-crossable. Stretching or tilting the logo is a no-no. Swapping out colors is a no-no-no.  Going off script is a no-no-no-no.  Inserting a new tagline is a triple-dog-quadruple-no-no. We’re clear that some lines shouldn’t be crossed.

Because it is important to have a voice.  It is important to have the brand represented consistently across all touch points.  But when adhering to your brand guidelines, we also have to consider: would it HURT the brand if you drop-capped a URL?  Would it HURT the brand if you didn’t honor the standards to the letter?  If crossing the line a little means engaging the consumer a little more, then maybe it’s time to consider a little tiny brand rebellion.