The Blake Project, the brand consultancy behind Branding Strategy Insider, delivers interactive brand education workshops and keynote speeches designed to align marketers on essential concepts in brand management and empower them to release the full potential of the brands they manage.
Hello from Sochi, Russia. The Blake Project is here in support our client, The Coca-Cola Company, – we have been guiding their brand licensing efforts for these games. The assignment is at the intersection of brand licensing and event marketing a place where more marketers and brands should be paying closer attention.
Some are. More and more companies are choosing to sponsor events. They understand the connection between fans and events and wish to take advantage of the positive associations that consumers and fans get from attending events. When a company becomes intertwined with an event, as occurs with a long-standing sponsorship, that company name becomes synonymous with the event. This type of relationship creates powerful brand cohesion. NASCAR fans only know their championship as the NASCAR Sprint Cup. To not include the Sprint name in the title would be to omit part of the title. NASCAR fans appreciate the role the Sprint Nextel Corp. has played in supporting their sport. For this support, fans reward Sprint Nextel by buying their cellular phone products.
However, Sprint Nextel’s NASCAR product line does not extend beyond the cellular phone category. Wouldn’t it be great if Sprint Nextel created a complete line of NASCAR merchandise? If you don’t agree, keep reading. There is a huge opportunity waiting to be tapped if executed properly. For this reason Sprint Nextel should consider creating an event licensing program that compliments their existing Sprint Cup event marketing program.Read More
There’s an increasing temptation to see technology as the harbinger of hope and hazard. Every day, the trendy press and commentators on social media carry reports of the next “it” technology together with their recommendations on what every business needs to be doing to ride the wave. Many of these wonder-techs seem to live a few days longer than their press release in the collective conscious. Some though will indeed change the world we live in and how we interact. This report by McKinsey for example identifies 12 such technologies that the company says could have a potential economic impact of between $14 trillion and $33 trillion a year by 2025.
But should our assessment of the risks and opportunities that sectors, and the brands within those sectors, face focus just on emerging innovations and their expected functional impacts? That seems simplistic.
In a report of its own from a couple of years back, KPMG pondered the impact that ten interconnected and interacting sustainability megaforces will have on business over the next 20 years – broadly speaking, a parallel timeframe to the era being considered by McKinsey. Decoupling human progress from resource use and environmental decline, KPMG suggested, represents both the central challenge of our age and one of the biggest sources of future success.
So yes, while there are forces that are clearly pushing economic opportunity forward, there are also clear constraints and restraints that will work to hinder the growth plans of many.Read More
I recently read a New Yorker article entitled “Twilight of the Brands” written by James Surowiecki. In it, he posits that with the advent of the Internet and the comparison shopping and consumer feedback that it enables, consumers have more perfect information about product alternatives including their quality and value. Therefore, there is far less need for brands to offer those assurances. In the article, Mr. Surowiecki says that Interbrand argues that brands help people sift through the overwhelming amount of information, simplifying their product choices, however he points out that people have learned how to sift through an enormous amount of information efficiently and effectively, negating Interbrand’s argument. I follow Mr. Surowiecki’s logic and largely agree with his premise. Where we part ways is in the definition of a brand. Implied in his discussion is that brands are a communication overlay to products and are largely created by advertising. I had a similar reaction when I first read Naomi Klein’s book, No Logo. I followed her logic too and there is much that she said that I agreed with. But when she talked about the evil of brands it seemed to me that she was really talking about the harmful effects of consumerism and our overly commercialized society.
I have always thought about brands as personifications of organizations and their products and services. In this way, they can embrace values, have personalities and make promises. Further, they can consistently deliver on those promises building trust and loyalty or they can fail to deliver on those promises, creating distrust and disloyalty. In a way, brands help bring a human perspective back to organizations, especially in their interactions with their customers. That is, they provide a vehicle through which organizations can build relationships with their customers.Read More
This article from some time back by Jagdish Sheth and Rajendra Sisodia sheds fascinating light on the business case not just for expanding brands but also shrinking them as well. According to the authors’ “Rule of Three”, the quest for scale is quite literally a race first for dominance and then for survival. But if you can’t win, don’t try.
Sheth and Sisodia’s research reveals that in most mature markets, there is only room for three volume-based competitors competing across a range of products and markets. Together, these three players control 70 – 90% of their market. To be viable as a volume driven player, the authors say, companies must have at least 10% market share. Financial performance continues to improve as market share increases, up to about 40%. However, once they expand beyond that 40% threshhold, brands can find themselves subject to a loss of advantage in economies of scale and heightened anti-monopoly scrutiny.
(Bruce Henderson of the Boston Consulting Group has a view that not only must there be no more than three significant competitors but that those competitors must exist in an arrangement ratioed 4:2:1)
The extent to which each of the big three can consolidate market share depends on their respective abilities to alleviate the pressure of fixed costs on their pricing.
While downturns, price wars and market changes can see three top players reduced to two for a time, in the longer run a third player will return or rise to claim the vacant spot. Of these three players, the market leader is generally a responder rather than an innovator while the third placed competitor is most likely to be the market leader in terms of instigating change.Read More