Branding features. Don't be a Kanye.

"JUST GOT TO LONDON!!! YOU KNOW I HAD TO PUT MY CAPS LOCK ON! I DON'T TYPE IN CAPS CAUSE I'M MAD I TYPE IN CAPS CAUSE I'M LAZY!!!" Kanye West tweet

Kanye's Kanye so if he wants to type in ALL CAPS no-one is going to stop him. But collective opinion is very much against it. It's the written equivalent of shouting and tells us that the author is trying to demand too much of our attention. So disliked is the all cap style that, as this Slate article points out, many online publications ban comments that are typed in all caps. An anti all caps group launched a "Caps Off" campaign to pressure hardware manufacturers to get rid of the Caps Lock key, trying to make it harder for all cap writers to operate.

In the world of brand architecture, the equivalent of ALL CAPS is ALL BRANDED FEATURES. Primarily an affliction of technology companies, branded features are often found in the nurturing environment of  trade show product brochures. At their worst, these brochures become a blizzard of TMs as companies brand and then try and protect every single one of the features that's built into their products.

It's an affliction often fueled by the worthy intention of giving credit to all the different project teams that have put in countless hours to build and complete these individual features. But the net result is TOO MUCH NOISE. If the volume is "11" for everything, the important things, the things that are really better, different and valuable to customers get drowned out by a wall of noise.

It may be difficult to implement but a system that limits the use of branded features pays great dividends. Such a system requires both of a process (all new names to be created/vetted by a nominated group) and a set of rules and guidelines (nothing will be branded unless it delivers competitive advantage and is supported by a marketing budget). If you don't want to be a Kanye, it's a worthwhile investment.

What can brands learn from Physics?

Following my post: What can brands learn from the Mathematics of Beauty, lets continue our tour of the sciences, watching Dan Cobley from Google describe what physics has taught him about marketing:

1) Newton's Law (Acceleration = Force/Mass): Larger mass requires more force to change its direction.

Marketing learning: The more massive a brand, the more baggage it has, therefore the more force is need to change its positioning. It's an argument that supports the use of product brands in business categories that are always changing (e.g. technology). You want to make sure you don't have all your brand eggs in a obsolete technology basket.

2) Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle: It's impossible to measure exactly the state of a particle because the act of measuring changes it.

Marketing learning: The act of observing consumers changes the way they behave. This is a well-known problem and why focus groups are so problematic. Better to measure what consumers actually do rather than what they say they'll do.

3) Scientific method: You cannot prove a hypothesis. You can only disprove it.

Marketing learning: You can invest in a brand for a long time but all that investment can be undone by one disproving incident. Think BP, Toyoyta, Tiger Woods.

4) Entropy: The Second Law of Thermodynamics: Over time, entropy (system disorder) will always increase

Marketing learning: In this digital world, brand managers have less and less control over "their" brands. Dan argues that this is a good thing, that marketers should embrace this dispersion of brand energy because it ultimately lets you get closer to the consumer and tap into and benefit from their enthusiasm.

SOTB: Is nothing sacred edition?

astronomical clock by mararie (Flickr)

There are some things that should not be subject to the scrutiny of science or comedy. Things like the signs of the zodiac, the importance of design and advertising, and Ken being unbeatable on Jeopardy.

1) Your Zodiac Sign May Have Changed: Gawker
Astronomers have some cheek These so-called scientists peer through their big old telescopes in the middle of the night and think that gives them the right to kill off planets (Pluto) and mess up the whole astrological map. I was a Scorpio and now these people want to turn me into a Virgo. I think not. How dare they recalculate the dates of each sign to accommodate the shifts in the Earth's axis since the original Babylonian calculations. It's an outrage.

2) Things real people don't say about advertising: Bill Israel
This isn't funny:

@tomheg

Nor is this:

@adverplanner

3) Logoland: Why consumers balk at companies’ efforts to rebrand themselves: The Economist
And while we're on the subject, what's with all these companies thinking that they have the right to change the logos we know and love? The Economist explores.

4) Pink Ponies: A Case Study John St.
Here's another thing that's just too important to be taken lightly:

5) IBM's Watson Computer Wallops 'Jeopardy!' Champs in Trial Run: Fox61 Chattanooga
Luckily this was only a practice round. But, Ken, you better your act together for the real thing. You cannot be beaten. Warning: This video of Ken being humiliated by the computer is difficult to watch.

6) Elizabeth Hughes, 8 years old, National Anthem, Norfolk Admirals Game, Scope Arena
Finally, something uplifting (really). She's a great singer but what makes this video great is what happens when her mike stops working towards the end. The first thing you hear is a woman laughing. She picked the wrong lane. What happens next is that you hear the crowd collectively deciding that "no" this isn't going to end badly and they all join in and help her finish the song. Fantastic. (Reminds me a bit of this.)



That's it! Back soon with more stories from the world of brand strategy and vaguely related topics next week.  More thoughts and comments also available on Twitter (@martinjbishop).

What can brands learn from the mathematics of beauty?

Marginal Revolution (MR) pointed me to Ok Trends which develops insights based on the data from OkCupid, self-described "best dating site on earth."

In its latest post, Ok Trends explores the mathematics of beauty and comes to surprising conclusions. By comparing the number of messages that women receive and comparing it to their rated attractiveness, its study finds that the more men disagree about a woman's looks, the more they end up liking her. Guys will tend to ignore women who are "cute." Comparing two women of the same level of rated attractiveness, the woman with the most negative ratings will get the most messages. As the reports says: "If someone doesn't think you're hot, the next best thing for them to think is that you're ugly."

And isn't that so with brands? Better to be passionately liked and hated than neither liked or disliked. As an MR commenter says, isn't this why Fox and MSNBC are killing CNN in the ratings? Your loyalty to a brand can actually increase if you know that others don't like it.

Ok Trends offers some advice based on the survey results. Rather than use a photo that is: "Clearly designed to minimize some supposedly unattractive trait—the close-cropped picture of a person who's probably overweight is the classic example," do the opposite. Based on the mathematical evidence, minimizing flaws is exactly the wrong thing to do. "If you have a big nose, play it up. If you have a weird snaggletooth, play it up: statistically, the guys who don't like it can only help you, and the ones who do like it will be all the more excited.

What is your brand's snaggletooth?

Strangled by a name?

When I saw the new Video Only store open up in Marin, I wondered how much business it has lost over the years because of its name. It doesn't sell only videos. It mainly sells TVs. Until I decided to write this post, I'd never visited the store because the name was enough of a barrier to keep me out.

Its About Us makes a valiant effort to make a silk purse out of this pig's ear:

"Video Only is much more than our name, we consider ourselves the premier home-electronics retailer on the west coast."
"As the name implies, 'Video Only' states a clear focus on Video and Audio related products."
"An abundance of recent technological advances has led to a cornucopia of entertainment media choices for today's wary consumers. Our goal is to help you cut through the thick jungle of electronic double-talk...."

The last of those three statements is the closest to how the store actually differentiates itself. It has a relatively limited selection of products displayed with a lot more space and focus than the Best Buy, right next door. It does seem less jungle-like. (On the other hand, based on my now one visit, it does have a more aggressive "Can I help you, sir?" sales staff that doesn't make the experience that much better from my perspective.)

Let Video Only serve as a warning to take care when picking names not to lock yourself into a narrow line of business that may make it more difficult to grow your business in new directions in the future. Be especially careful if you are connected in any way to technology where whole categories can become irrelevant in a short period of time. Back in 1982 when Video Only was founded, this name may have seemed perfect. Now it's a mill around their neck.

Increase your odds of M&A success with brand architecture

The Diamond Foods portfolio

In my new article on brand architecture, I make the case that a solid brand architecture plan can significantly improve the odds of acquisition success. Given that the odds are no better than 50/50 (based on analysis of how many past acquisitions increased shareholder value), companies should make sure they have their brand architecture ducks in a row before they join the impending stampede to buy companies or brands.

Brands have great potential to screw up acquisitions. They often represent a big part of shareholder value (well over 50% in the case of brands like Disney or Coca-Cola) and, at the same, they're notoriously difficult to value accurately. Whatever value they have is also significantly affected by who owns them and what they do with them. A good brand architecture plan can't eliminate these inherent challenges but it can at least keep brands more front and center in the acquisition process and help companies move quickly post-acquisition to integrate new brands into their portfolio.

Companies that generally have the easiest time absorbing new brands into their portfolio are "house of brands" companies like P&G. These companies can slot new brands into position alongside their existing portfolio. In the article I talk about the success that Diamond Foods (a Landor client) has had with its new acquisitions. Each new brand it has acquired has helped the company extend its geographical and retail footprint giving it a strong probability of increasing its overall shareholder value.

Companies on the other end of the spectrum have a tougher challenge since the master brand model is inherently hostile to acquired brands. Shareholder value can still be increased if companies are able to transfer some of the equity of the acquired brand and/or use the acquired products and services to enhance its existing business and add more overall value to the customer. But it's definitely more of a challenge.

My three tips for M&A success:
1. Develop a robust, well-articulated brand architecture strategy
2. Value brands based on what they are worth to you (not what they were worth to the previous owner)
3. Plan, plan, plan and move fast to execute once a deal is finalized

Meme of the Week: The man with the golden voice

It's been quite a week for Ted Williams. As this summary from The New York Times reports, after being discovered on the streets of Cleveland, he's been inundated with job offers (Cleveland Cavaliers and Kraft Mac and Cheese) and media requests including appearances on The Today Show and Jimmy Fallon. It all started with this video which introduced the world to this man with the golden voice:



Garr Reynolds wrote an interesting post on Presentation Zen earlier in the week exploring some of the elements of his story that helped propel this story into the national spotlight.

Owning Obamacare

Obamacare started its life out as a pejorative term used by those critical of the new Health Care Law. But, as these things go, it's not so bad--nothing like as bad as "death panels," for example.

So the administration isn't fighting or ignoring the use of this term. It's embracing it and recognizing it as an opportunity to promote its point of view. A Google search for Obamacare now produces a sponsored search result connecting to healthcare.gov which lays out the case for the new legislation. Opponents are up in arms complaining about the use of taxpayer money to buy these ads but what they're probably most upset about is the fact that their name has been hijacked.

Meanwhile, over at Yahoo!, a sponsored results battle is on. As well as the Healthcare.gov ad, there's also a link to Demand Obamacare Repeal. A new front has opened in the never-ending political battle.

How much can an on-brand voice improve automated customer service?

Happy Duck! by BaylorBear78 on Flickr

Aflac is overhauling its customer service automated phone system to make it more on-brand. As reported by Marketplace, Aflac sees its brand as "friendly and lighthearted," as embodied by its duck but the voice used on its automated phone line was just generic. Now they've recruited an actress and re-recorded all the messages. They've not changed the system, just the voice.

Virgil Miller, the company's vice president of client services told Marketplace: "When you call in, we want you to feel that 'I am dealing with a company that values me, and is family oriented and of course, makes me feel secure.' So we were looking for a voice that reflected those type of things."

How much difference is that going to make? If you dial 1.800.99.AFLAC, yes there's the friendly voice but there's still the typical press "one" if..., press "2" if message. (At least they allow you to choose whether or not you use the voice recognition system. That drive me completely crazy.)

The economic benefit of automation is indisputable. Forrester Research says that a call handled by a person  costs around $6 and up to $30 if the call takes a long time. An automated call costs between five and 25 cents. But, as Marketplace says: "Given how frustrating these systems can be, is voice quality even an issue for customers?"

Social media bringing B2B and B2C marketers closer together

Social media has changed what's possible for marketers. It's shifted the curve towards the individual and away from the mass customer and opened up opportunities for communication to be more interactive. From one-way broadcast towards two-way conversation. Ways to interact with consumers that were prohibitively expensive and would never make it past the first cut of an annual marketing plan are now viable, even preferred options.

Is it also leading to a convergence of B2C and B2B marketing? Business marketing has always been further along the path in terms of focusing on the individual customer vs. the mass market. At the Enterprise end of the spectrum, the primary customer contact is one-on-one and personal. Client-facing sales people are a primary driver of brand value, responding to their customer's needs and keeping them well informed. Maybe there are lessons here for consumer marketers now looking for a more personal touch?

Cisco Social Media Measurement by Stephanie Marx

Cisco's Stephanie Marx included this chart as part of a presentation on how to measure the effectiveness of social media. Cisco's approach to the evaluation of social media programs is interesting in of itself but what also caught my eye were the categories used to organize the various measurement approaches: "Community Health," and "Market Perception." These look relevant to all marketing, consumer or business.

Some of the sub-categories actually reflect new areas of interest in consumer marketing. "Thought leadership" mirrors the developing interest in and recognition of the importance of content and "customer satisfaction" mirrors the interest in companies like Zappos that have made customer service a point of competitive advantage vs. a source of costs that need to be reduced via automation and/or outsourcing.

Perhaps, as consumer marketers try and figure out their social media strategy, it would be worth talking to/recruiting a few B2B marketers to get their perspective.