Branding Strategy Insider

Brands And Religion

Branding Strategy Insider helps marketing oriented leaders and professionals build strong brands. To that end, we are happy to answer marketing questions of all types. Today, Clint, a marketer in Nashville, Tennessee asks…

“I work on brand for a global Christian resources company with a retail operation. I have been trying to think of an example of a brand that is associated exclusively with religion. I just imagined myself walking through a church trying to identify something with a brand: Pews, pulpits, bibles, hymnals, steeples... nothing I can think of has a brand identity. Why do you think this is? Do we see branding as taboo when we associate it within the context of religion?”

Clinton, thanks for your question. I think of everything in terms of brands. Cities are brands and cultural institutions are brands. So are schools, people and yes, even religions.

Think about how different Unitarian Universalists (UUs) seem to be from people who belong to an Assemblies of God church.  Or how Christian Scientists are different from Southern Baptists. Or how The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) is different from Vineyard churches. Consider Hindus and Buddhists and Muslims and Jews. And even within the Muslim faith, consider the different branches of Islam – Sunni, Shi’a, Sufi, Ahmaddiya, etc. Or within Judaism, the differences between Orthodox, Conservative and Reform. And there are Missouri Synod Lutherans (of a German heritage, fairly conservative), Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (Scandinavian, more liberal) and Wisconsin Evangelical Lutherans (very conservative). Or how LDS is different from RLDS or FLDS.

Creating New Markets Through Brand Ideals

On October 18, 2010, the top story in The Wall Street Journal pronounced, “Apple Inc. posted a 70% surge in quarterly earnings … the latest sign that CEO Steve Jobs’s gamble on consumer gadgets is paying off.” To us, this view seems incomplete. We would argue that because it focuses on the “what” and not the “why,” the story obscures the leadership role Jobs played in brand creation. It does not explain how, in the vast and fiercely competitive market of consumer gadgets, Jobs won out over a myriad of very savvy competitors. The fact is, Jobs is one of many players in the highly crowded market for consumer gadgets, but he holds a virtual monopoly in the market for self-expression. And that is the true source of Apple’s sustained competitive advantage. By maniacally focusing on its brand ideal — to empower people to express themselves — Apple has created a market that it singularly owns. We predict that the best businesses of the future will be those that, like Apple, serve a human ideal.

The Traditional View of Market Strategy

If, when Jobs returned to Apple in 1996, he had hired a traditional strategy consulting house to advise him on “where to play and how to win,” the consultants would have looked at the existing market for white spaces and trends. They would likely have forecast the following for the first decade in the new millennium: a rising population, more disposable income for many more consumers, Western values going global, the rise of a new middle class, technology everywhere, and wireless expanding to become the norm. Their white space analysis might have led to the recommendation: “Go after consumer gadgets.”

Ideal-driven Business

This advice would not have got Apple to where it is now. In 1996 (and even more so today), the market for consumer gadgets was replete with competitors. Had Apple taken such a traditional approach to market entry, its efforts would likely have been overshadowed by strong, established players such as Microsoft and Sony. By focusing on a shared human motivation – the desire to express one’s individuality – Jobs transcended the saturated market of consumer gadgets to create a whole new market — a market focused on the ideal of fulfilling the primordial human quest for self-expression.

ICANN Changes: The Impact For Brand Owners

 
As the Wall Street Journal noted this week, "the dot-com era is over."  

They weren't kidding. That's because the organization that governs the online domain name system - ICANN - voted this week to launch a new application process allowing for an unlimited number of new top-level domains reflecting everything from cities ("dot.Dallas) to brand names ("dot.McDonald's").  The new system arrives "despite lingering doubts and objections from many trademark owners and brand managers," notes Janet Satterthwaite, a trademark and domain name attorrney at law firm Venable in Washington.

"This new system is stirring considerable controversy, first because many believe that ICANN has failed to justify the sheer need for new top-level domain names," she notes, especially given the significant costs and potential for confusion and even chicanery with so many new business addresses created for banks, retailers and merchants. 

Winning With New Categories And Subcategories

The way to win in the marketplace, to gain profitable growth, is not to be preferred over competitor brands in established subcategories but, rather, to generate offerings so innovative that they create new categories or subcategories making competitors irrelevant. There are plenty of examples of brands in the automobile space that have done just that such as Jeep, Ford Thunderbird, Ford Mustang, VW bug, Pontiac Firebird, Dodge Caravan and Plymouth Voyager, Lexus LS 400, Mazda Miata, Saturn, Prius, Minicooper, Nano, Enterprise Rent-A-Car, and Zipcar. 
More easily said than done. Let us look quickly at two examples of automobile brands that have been successful at creating new subcategories and then see what the learnings are.

The Chrysler minivan, first introduced in 1982 as the Plymouth Voyager (pictured) and Dodge Caravan, sold over 200,000 units in the first year and over 12 million to date. The concept of a "garageable," roomy van for families that had the comfort of a car was first proposed by Lee Iacocca, then president of Ford, several years earlier but rejected by Henry Ford in part because Ford lacked the necessary front wheel drive and because it enjoyed a healthy station wagon business. Iacocca had the chance to implement his vision when he became CEO of Chrysler after being fired from Ford. The timing was right. Chrysler had just introduced a front wheel car, had no station wagon business, and was in financial crises -- desperate for a new model.

Why Clients And Their Ad Agencies Behave Badly

Why is the client/ad agency relationship so complicated and fraught with drama on both sides? 

Seemingly, the business relationship between clients and their marketing agencies seem to have ever-shorter life spans. True enough, the marketing game is a tough business for all concerned. Lately things seem to be more cantankerous between clients and their agencies. Both are behaving badly these days.

If you’re on the client-side, have you been subjected to these poor ad agency behaviors?

The agency won your business with principals and senior talent then turned the real work over to junior-level (more-profitable) people.

In pitching your business, the agency presented creative work produced by creatives who no longer work at the agency.

In pitching your business the agency claimed expertise they didn’t have.

The agency intentionally low-balled fees to win your business, then made up for it in future ‘out-of-scope’ or “mission-creep” billings.

Account planning made recommendations weighted to those marketing channels driven by profit to the agency rather than results for you.

Or perhaps you’re the Principal of an ad agency, have you ever experienced these soul-sucking client moves? 

More Marketers Embracing Brandverbing

“Google it.” “Did you Xerox the report?” “Please FedEx it.”

Once upon a time, using a brand name as a verb was verboten. It was behavior that would drive a trademark lawyer crazy.

But more and more marketers are deciding that the grand slam of branding is to become part of the language – in effect, having your trademark substitute in everyday usage for the type of action or service that your mark identifies. Could there be, they argue, any clearer expression of a brand’s leadership?

“Skype me when you get to Lisbon.”

“Did you TiVo the awards show?”

“Dad’s outside, Simonizing the car.”

In other words, just verb it!

The proper care and feeding of trademarks occupied an entire chapter in our 2004 book The Making of a Name (Oxford University Press). The International Trademark Association, for instance, advises never using a trademark as a verb: “Trademarks are products or services, never actions.”

The internet generation, though, is increasingly casual about naming protocols. Who other than a trademark attorney would say, “Let’s look it up on the Google brand search engine,” or “Let’s go in-line skating with Rollerblade in-line skates.” Get real.

Brand Transformation And Fear

What holds brands back from innovation and market leadership is the same element that holds people back: FEAR!

As a species, we humans fear change.  We can’t help our natural inclination for safety and security. It’s wired into the lizard brain at the base of the skull. We fear taking risks, making mistakes, not meeting plan, looking stupid. It’s far better to fit in, go with the flow, be safe and not freak out our fear-based bosses.

Yet no one will argue innovation requires taking risks, making mistakes, not meeting plan and looking stupid. All transformation is scary.

Brand transformation (like personal transformation) requires a passion driven decision to add to the growth of the world. It requires creating opportunity by first bringing new value to people, rather than competing for the value already created by others.

If you’re intention is to build a leading brand, the majority of your organizational thinking must be on the creative plane (possibility and potential) not the competitive plane (hard bargains and discount pricing).

The Birth Of Brand Image

This is David Ogilvy’s Centennial – he was born 100 years ago this month, in 1911.  He was the most famous advertising man in the world, and to a large extent still is.  He was the most important man in the business, changing it in fundamental ways.

In 1955 -- 56 years ago! -- he delivered a speech to the American Association of Advertising Agencies in Chicago in which he injected the concept of brand image into the marketing world.  Brands and brand image are so ubiquitous in our conversation today that it’s hard to remember when they were not with us.

“I didn’t invent brand image.  I pinched it,” he volunteered.  He took the idea from an article in the Harvard Business Review by two academics, Burleigh Gardner and Sidney Levy, and put it into his own sweeping terms:  “Every advertisement is part of the long-term investment in the personality of the brand.”

The concept was not entirely new in advertising circles, but after putting the spotlight on it, Ogilvy was dubbed the “apostle of the brand image.”   Brands took on greater importance as products themselves became increasingly similar, and branding became central in advertising discussions, eventually entering the language in worlds far removed from marketing.

Are You Left-Brained Or Right-Brained?

Marketing and management are at war in today’s boardrooms.

The reason for the war is that marketing and management don’t understand each other. The reason they don’t understand each other is that their brains are different.

Management people tend to be left-brain thinkers: they are verbal, logical and analytical.

Marketing people tend to be right-brain thinkers: they are visual, intuitive and holistic. Which one are you? Are you Left-Brained or Right-Brained?

This short quiz will reveal the answer, giving you a better sense of 'where you are' in the room.

Sponsored By: Brand Aid

Great Moments In Advertising: Ogilvy's 'Confessions'

David Ogilvy had been in the advertising business only 15 years when he wrote "Confessions of an Advertising Man" in 1962. In that brief period, he had created "The Man in the Hathaway Shirt," Commander Whitehead for Schweppes, Rolls-Royce's "the loudest noise is ... the electric clock," and Dove's "one-quarter cleansing cream," among other iconic campaigns.

He saw the book as a new-business pitch for his agency, but allowed it was also to prepare the agency for going public and, in complete candor, "to make myself better known in the advertising world." His method: to set down everything he had learned about advertising -- "a textbook, sugar-coated with anecdotes." He guessed it might sell 4,000 copies and assigned the royalties to his son for his 21st birthday -- a decision he always regretted.

"Confessions" was an instant success and went on to become the best-selling advertising book of all time, selling several million copies and translated all over the world. As the only advertising book most people outside the business have ever read, it molded public perception of what the business was actually like. As a standard text in business schools, it formed the view of thousands of students and lured some to advertising careers. It led to a lot of new business for the agency. And it made Ogilvy the most famous advertising man in the world.

Ogilvy was hardly the first advertising man to write a book -- it is almost an occupational disease of the business. What was it about "Confessions" -- still in print nearly 50 years later -- that struck such a nerve, and caused it to endure?