Branding Strategy Insider

Building An Immortal Brand

We are happy to answer marketing questions of all types here on Branding Strategy Insider. Today, Paul, a VP of Marketing in Rochester, New York asks…

"When should a brand be declared dead? Like Smith Corona or possibly Kodak? What are the signs it is time to let go or reinvent?"

Thanks for your question Paul. I have heard people talk about brand life cycles. I am a firm believer that brands don’t need to have life cycles if they are managed well. They can live on indefinitely. Products have life cycles. Typewriters were made obsolete by computers and film was made obsolete by digital photography, but the brands under which these products are marketed don’t have to become obsolete unless they have come to be associated with the obsolete product category rather than a unique value proposition. What do I mean by this?

Disney can transcend product categories because its brand essence is “fun family entertainment.” If Hallmark defines itself as “caring shared” it can transcend the greeting card category and could easily extend into giftable candy and flowers and even romantic cruises. And even if a company that owns the brand name is devastated by a disruptive technology so that it has to file for bankruptcy, its brand name is still worth something (and maybe even millions or billions of dollars) if it has come to stand for something important to the customer that transcends the obsolete product category or format.

Measuring Brand Equity For B2B Brands

We regularly answer marketing questions here on Branding Strategy Insider. Today's question comes from Marc, a Senior Market Research Anlayst in Chicago, Illinois. He asks… 

"Brad, I read your post on measuring brand equity. How does this apply for B2B brands?"

Thanks for your question, Marc. The same five drivers in our model above work for B2B brands. We have used this system to successfully measure the equity of many B2B brands in many categories. While one might not think that the "emotional connection" point is as relevant for B2B brands, I have seen research findings that indicate purchasing agents are often swayed by emotional factors such as liking a salesperson from a particular company, admiring a company's brand, etc. and will construct rational analysis to confirm what they feel are the best brands.

Most people are driven by emotions to a very large degree, even if they don't want to admit it. Regarding accessibility, one of our B2B clients routinely wins new business from competitors by having all items in stock and being able to ship overnight in a category in which out of stock items are common, even though that creates costly production shutdowns for the category's customers.

The one item that is trickier to measure for B2B clients is "unaided awareness" because typically we use client customer, lead and prospect lists to field the research. This obviously biases the brand awareness results. In B2C surveys, we almost always use independent consumer panels, eliminating brand awareness bias. One way to mitigate this problem for B2B clients is to buy lists. This works well in some B2B categories (in which the target customer is well defined and easily targetable) and not so well in others.

The Risk Of Brand Identity Change

Regular readers of Branding Strategy Insider know we welcome and answer marketing questions of all types. Today's question comes from Asma, a marketing student in Bangalore, India. He writes:

"In India we recently witnessed a large mobile service provider, Airtel rebrand. The company acquired another company from Africa and now has the 5th largest subscriber base -- around 200 million.

The Indians are not at all happy with this rebranding exercise because of the strong attachment to the old logo and the brands’ jingle. Although Airtel marketers claim that the new logo is urbane and youthful, people are finding it difficult to accept. Is it a wise decision to change a strongly encoded brand identity like Airtel did?"

Asma, thank you for your question. The very simple answer to your question is, “No, it is not wise to change a well-known identity system unless there is a very good reason to do so.” Identity systems are designed to encode and decode brand information to and from people’s brains. If you change the system, the associations may be lost and will take a long time to rebuild. I assume Airtel’s management felt the need to change the brand’s identity because they acquired a brand from another continent. Perhaps their research showed that the original brand identity would not work for customers of the acquired brand or perhaps altering the identity was part of the acquisition agreement.

You mention another point. People become attached to the identities of well-known brands. When they are comfortable with a given identity, they don’t want it changed. Changing brand identities is risky business, not only because it has the potential to reduce brand recognition, recall and key associations, but also because it could cause customer dissatisfaction. While Gap changed its logo back to the original one after much consumer dissatisfaction with the new logo, many other brands such as Kodak, Starbucks and Xerox changed their identities to some consumer push-back at first but in the end, people adapted to the new identities.

Brand Strategy: How Do Sub-Brands Work?

We welcome and answer marketing questions of all types here on Branding Strategy Insider. Today's question comes from Martin, a Brand Consultant in Brisbane, Australia. He asks:

"I am consulting a non-profit organization on improving their brand strategy. They support people affected by crime, including perpetrators. While some people are fine with that, others balk at it. They are considering a sub-brand to cover the work that they do with (non-perpetrator) families and children and victims of crime. How would such a sub-brand work?”

Thanks for your question Martin. Sub-brands (or separate brands) can often create enough of a distance from the parent brand to reduce cognitive dissonance related to seemingly conflicting brand associations. Disney was successful in doing this by creating the Touchstone and Miramax labels for R rated movies that did not deliver against Disney's wholesome "family entertainment" image. Hallmark created Shoebox and endorsed it with the Hallmark brand ("A tiny little division of Hallmark") because people originally did not think irreverent, edgy humor was appropriate for the Hallmark brand.

The question is, "Should the new brand be an entirely separate brand not linked formally to the original brand or should it be a sub-brand of the original brand or endorsed by that brand?" It depends on how much distance is required. If your client does create a new brand for the victims of crimes, it should come to be known as the organization (or portion of the overall organization) that represents the victims rather than the perpetrators of crimes. If it is a sub-brand, it could have its own name (as if it were a separate organization or group) or it could be a generic descriptor (such as "Crime Victims Division") under the parent firm's name. 

All the best with your consulting project Martin.

Have a question related to branding? Just Ask…

Sponsored By: Brand Aid

Evolving Brand Identity

Branding Strategy Insider welcomes and answers marketing questions of all types. Today's question comes from David, a Marketing Manager in Salt Lake City, Utah. He  asks:

“I am hoping you can lend some unbiased direction. Our organization has thousands of products in a variety of mediums. As we move towards a more comprehensive visual identity system, we are concerned that by the time we get to the end of such a project, the intended results will be compromised due to the constant change in media. I was at a AIGA PIVOT conference in October where Terry Irwin, Professor and Head of the School of Design at Carnegie Mellon, suggested an era of organic branding and visual identity might be the direction of future visual identity programs.” 

Thanks for your question, David. There are a few things I would have you keep in mind as you are considering this: 

• To be highly effective, brand identity needs to be consistent across media/uses and over time. Otherwise it is much more difficult to encode and decode brand recognition and associations in memory.

• Any time a brand identity project is pursued, one should strive for an identity system that works in all current and potential future contexts. That is, maximum flexibility needs to be designed into the system.

Brand identity can and will evolve over time, but usually it does so incrementally so that the new identity is a refreshed extension of the old identity. In this way, one does not lose the recognition and positive associations that existed with the previous identity. Consider brands like Betty Crocker (pictured), Quaker Oats, KFC, Xerox and Morton Salt, they changed significantly over time, but only a little bit at a time.

In addition David, we think you'll find these thoughts on brand identity change meaningful:

Successful Brand Identity Change Begins Within

Branding Debate: Does Logo Design Really Matter?

Have a question related to branding? Just Ask…

Sponsored By: Brand Aid

Brand Management: Personal Versus Product Brands

We regularly answer marketing questions here on Branding Strategy Insider. Today's question comes from Ryan, a brand manager in Salt Lake City, Utah. He writes… 

“I’ve been a huge fan of the Ultimate Fighting Championship since its beginning in 1995. As a brand manager, it has been interesting to see how Dana White and Lorenzo Fertitta have positioned the UFC and successfully made it the self-proclaimed “fastest growing sport in the world”. I’ve also followed how well, or how poorly, each of the fighters brand themselves in press conferences before and after the fights as well as through social media. In your opinion, are there any major differences in the brand management of a person vs. a product? If so, what are those differences?”

Thanks for the question, Ryan. This somewhat popular brand definition is ironic: “A brand is the personification of an organization or its products or services.” So if we are branding people, we are literally imbuing those people with human qualities. Hmmm...

Having said that, branding people is not fundamentally different from branding products. The big difference is, when branding a person, one can seek that person’s input on what motivates him or her so that one can anchor the brand in authenticity and passion. One also tries to anchor product brands in authenticity and passion. But sometimes that can be created and instead of asking the person one can investigate the underlying organization’s mission, vision, values, strategic intent, core competencies, culture, etc. Then the trick is to build relevant differentiation into the brand based on the target market’s needs and the brand’s unique strengths. In this way, branding is not different for people or products.

Penn State Brand Associations: A Threat To Nike?

By now most BSI readers are well aware of the sex abuse scandal that has engulfed Penn State University, damaging its brand and threatening those associated with it. As the scandal widens, Clare O'Connor, a staff writer for Forbes asks us: 

“As a major sponsor, what should Nike do in this situation to safeguard their brand?”

It would benefit Nike if each of its sponsorship agreements had an escape/cancellation clause for Nike if the athlete, team or school’s athletic program is found to have done something illegal or immoral.

“Should there be a point of no return for brands when confronted with allegations of this severity concerning one of the recipients of their money? That is, an agreement among the powers that be about what won’t be tolerated?”

Adding an escape/cancellation clause for Nike regarding specific athlete, team or school athletic program behaviors that are deemed to be unacceptable seems to be a wise move. Would this be an impediment to cutting a deal if the athlete, team or school knew that one-day he/she/it might be caught for an illegal or immoral act that he, she or it has committed on an ongoing basis? Maybe.

Why Are The World's Top Brands American?

Branding Strategy Insider welcomes and answers marketing questions of all types. Today's question comes from Petra, a third-year marketing student in Copenhagen, Denmark. She asks:

“For a key assignment I must uncover why many of the top brands in the world are American. Please tell me, is there something within the American culture that gives brands an edge? Are the market conditions different? How come American brands are so successful?”

Petra, thanks for asking, this is a very interesting question. I will give you several hypotheses to explore as you write your paper. Distribution is a key contributor to strong brands because it drives awareness and accessibility (two of the five brand insistence drivers per our BrandInsistence^SM brand equity measurement model). It also leads to economies of scale. The first brands to have aggressively gone global will have several advantages in the marketplace. And, having a large domestic market makes it easier to successfully take a brand global.

Consumer understanding through marketing research is another area to explore. A brand that can anticipate consumer needs and appeal to consumers emotionally, experientially, self-expressively and regarding the alignment of core values will do better than brands that have not uncovered and exploited these consumer insights. Generally, I believe US brands do a good job of leveraging these types of consumer insights, which gives them an advantage.

What Experts Are Best For Community Branding?

We welcome and answer marketing questions of all types here on BSI. Today's question comes from Lisa, an economic development executive near Toronto, Canada. She asks:

“I work in economic development for a small municipality that is challenged with negative brand perceptions from an association with radioactive waste. As I prepare a Request For Proposal (RFP), can you tell me who is the best partner to help us change these brand perceptions and help better the future of our city?”

Thanks for your question Lisa. First let me share, the best partner in place branding, city branding or community branding projects as they are known, is actually two partners. A brand consultant or brand consultancy that focuses on strategy, and an advertising agency or creative partner that focuses on implementing the brand strategy creatively. Each possesses a different skillset and specializes in one of the two critical areas of expertise you will need. Look at each in this way:

Advertising Agencies traditionally focus on the execution of creative strategies. That is, they will determine the best marketing vehicle to reach your target audience and will use compelling creative to make a connection and entice a reaction. The best ones are strategic in nature and see tactics as a second step.

A Brand Consultancy traditionally lives by this philosophy: Instead of trying to communicate a brands' features and benefits, they recommend studying the minds of the target audience first and then try to "position" the brand in the mind, taking advantage of the strengths and weaknesses of the brand and competing brands. This process ensures that your brand has selected the most powerful benefits to own and that it has developed the proof points and reasons to believe for those benefits. Brand consultancies also aid companies (in this case municipalities) in any strategy-related brand decisions from brand equity measurement to brand extension.

Brand Licensing: The Answer For Sears?

Regular readers of Branding Strategy Insider know we welcome and answer marketing questions of all types. Today's question comes from Ryan, a senior analyst with a private investment fund in New York City, New York. He writes:

"First question: I read today that Sears is thinking about licensing its Kenmore, Craftsman and Die Hard brands. Could you hazard a guess as to (i) the range in licensing fees such brands might generate, and (ii) the prospects that someone of substance would be interested in licensing those brands given their present distribution?"

Ryan, thanks for your question. My thoughts as a brand licensing strategist...

(i) Range of fees would go from $7.5 MM - $45 MM over three years (after commercialization commenced).

(ii) Prospects of someone interested – I think interest could be high based on my assumptions below.  The key is how to not compete with the parent brand. After all, those brands are why people go to Sears.

Kenmore, Craftsman and Die Hard are mid tier brands that have a long history and substantial brand equity.  Moreover, the brands are closely tied to the Sears name.  While there may be some confusion generated in consumers’ minds if these brands were licensed for distribution in other channels, I still believe they would perform well.

Royalty rate: These brands should command somewhere between 5% - 10% depending on the product category, the channel and the region.