View Russell Fisher's profile
Filed under: brands | Tags: Brand Autopsy, branding, honesty, Obsessive Branding Disorder
Brand Autopsy reports on the book Obsessive Branding Disorder, bringing out a well thought out snippet:
Branding is corrupting our culture by heralding emotion over reason, surface over core substance, and packaging over experience.
Though I am, by profession, more at brander and marketer than anything else, I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. Too often the focus of marketing is on the peripheral emotive rather than the concrete factual. Though branding, as was mentioned in the piece, is the medium of communication, the core kernel offering needs to be genuinely helpful and worthwhile or the sale pitch is essentially dishonest.
Filed under: innovation, marketing | Tags: Apple, Clayton Christensen, diffusion, Everett Rogers, Frank Bass, innovation, iPhone, iPod, iterative innovation, John Gourville, Nicholas Carr, Seth Godin
Seth Godin writes:
As marketers, we’re tempted [...] to optimize for the peak performances
[...] It’s way more profitable to encourage each of your existing customers to spend $3 than it is to get a stranger to spend $300. It’s also more effective to get the 80% of your customer service people that are average to be a little better than it is to get the amazing ones to be better still.
Though Seth focuses on “the floor” (which reminds a bit of Clayton Christensen’s research), I have have had similar thoughts on how this concept of little steps helps us to understand diffusion and innovation. These small changes are often culturally defined. When John Gourville wrote on compatibility, the second of “Rogers’ Five Factors,” (see following paragraphs for Rogers citation) he noted, “compatibility is the degree to which ‘an innovation is perceived as consistent with existing values and experiences of the potential adopter’ […] with previously introduced ideas, with values and beliefs, or with one’s needs.”*
This factor has a greater impact on the likelihood of adoption than we may usually assume. Consumers bring their life experiences with them when it comes to the consuming and trading of goods and services, and this concept of compatibility helps innovations fit with how individuals culturally dictate how the world should work. Agreeing with this, Gourville continues, “An innovation that is compatible with existing concepts is less threatening, seems more familiar, and fits more closely with a person’s impression of the way things ought to be.”
We have understood for some time that product or service adoption has much to do with an individual’s place in society. Over 35 years ago Bass wrote, “Apart from innovators, adopters are influenced in the timing of adoption by the pressures of the social system.”** In addition, Rogers highlighted the reasons for this need when discussing weak ties in a paper during the mid 1970s. He mentioned, “An innovation is diffused to a larger number of individuals and traverses a greater social distance when passed through weak ties rather than strong.”***
More recently, strategy + business’s Nicholas Carr has something say on this subject as well—“some of the greatest and most lucrative innovations are essentially conservative. They are brought to market by companies that are as adept at looking backward as looking forward, and that have the skill and patience to achieve the most commercially attractive balance between the old and the new.”^ In this article, he recommends facilitating adoption by pairing familiar technologies with innovations. I would expand on that concept and argue for a stepped strategic approach to help promote in adoption, a process which I call iterative innovation.^^
This can be seen in, for example, in the iPhone launch. Apple has appeared to take a calculated and iterative approach with their expansion from computers to music players to phones. In fact, a iPhone launch advertisement may reveal inside details about Apple’s strategy with this segment. The ad shows an iPhone, and the voice over announcer makes the following observations:
“There has never been an iPod that can do this…”
(Ad shows iPhone’s “cover flow” capabilities)
“…or this…”
(Ad shows a widescreen movie playing)
“…or this…”
(Ad displays user scrolling through photos)
“…or for that matter…”
(Ad shows iPhone ringing and call being received)
“…this.”
If there is any internal fear about cannibalization from the iPods to iPhones, the video showed quite the opposite; cannibalization was actually encouraged. I couldn’t help wondering if the previous years of the iPod were simply iterative steps as Apple helped prepare users for the iPhone—recognizing that the future of information technology centered on mobile use. When presenting at the launch of iPhone, Steve Jobs referenced the years of development around the phone, particularly with their partnership with Cingular/at&t, and when comparing the phone to the more recent editions of the iPod (flash memory, thinner units, video capabilities)—it appears that each edition acted as almost a testing ground for the in-pipeline development of the iPhone.^^^
It is often through little steps, these iterations, that market changers change the world. It only seems dramatic to those who missed seeing it coming; it’s just so much more tempting to try and create overnight successes. But, as we have often read, overnight successes never quite happen overnight.
*Gourville, John T.; “Note on Innovation Diffusion: Rogers’ Five Factors,” Harvard Business School, 9-505-075
**Bass, Frank M.; “A New Product Growth for Model Consumer Durables,” Management Science, Jan 1969, Vol. 15, No. 5, p 215 – 227
***Rogers, Everett M.; “New Product Adoption and Diffusion,” The Journal of Consumer Research, Mar 1976Vol. 2, No. 4, p 290 – 301. The research on weak ties is summarized in this paper as “The informational strength of dyadic communication relationships is inversely related to the degree of homophily (and the strength of attraction) between the source and the receiver.” Rogers also states that, “This homophily and close attraction facilitate effective communication, but they act as a barrier preventing new ideas from entering the network.”
^Carr, Nicholas G., “Bridging the Breakthrough Gap,” strategy + business, Issue 37, Winter 2004
^^I first defined this concept during my graduate studies at Oxford in June 2007
^^^See image and advertisement video available at www.apple.com/iphone/ads/ and www.apple.com/iphone/keynote/ as of June 2007
Filed under: brands, community | Tags: Bleed Cubbie Blue, branding, communities, Cubs, Fenway Park, Marlins, nations, Red Sox, White Sox, Wrigley Field, Yankees
Cubbie and Red Sox Nation. For years, these two communities have had a treaty of understanding that had grown between them after years of failures and curses have fallen upon their beloved baseball clubs. Though the Red Sox have finally stepped into the light, the Cubbies have yet to even near the promise land. The last time they won the World Series was 1908. The last time they were even in the Fall Classic was 1945. Compare that to the Evil Empire. The Yankees have won the World Series more times than I can count on all my fingers and toes. Even in recent history, they have won in 1996, 1998, 1999, and 2000. They have been in the Series as recently as 2003 losing to the Florida Marlins.
The Marlins are another story. This is a team that has never lost in the playoffs. In their short history, they have won the Major League Baseball Championship twice: 1997 and 2003, both as a wild card. Not only that, they represent the Miami, Florida area, which means they have 5.5 million fans to support them—more than Boston (4.8 million) and Chicago (4.6 million per Chicago team). New York has more (a staggering 10.2 million per New York team), but the Fish ought to be in a great situation for community support.
Why is it then that the Marlins average just fewer than 43%* in attendance since 2001 in their 36,000+ stadium? Boston pulls a sellout crowd of 37,000 to every game over that same period, and the Lovable Losers are just behind them at above 96% (Wrigley Field holds just past 41,000). It is obviously not for winning teams; compare it to the New York Yankees. They average under 86%, and in the midst of their last winning legacy (2001 – 2003), they were below 78%. It wasn’t until they started struggling that the fans came out. And sure, Yankee Stadium is much larger (holds almost 57,000)—but, the fan base dwarfs any other team. If you want to break it down per person, the New York area has nearly 179 people for every baseball seat (Mets and Yankees), Miami has 151 people for every seat, Boston has about 129 people for each seat, and Chicago a paltry 111. Take it another way; each member of the Yankee’s immediate fan base (say, half of NY Metro because of the Mets) attends games .48% of the time, Red Sox fans: .78% of the time, Chicago Cubs immediate area (as shared with the White Sox) fans attend .87% of the time, and Marlins fans: each fan base member attends just .28% of the time.
Maybe it is older teams that really draw, or perhaps it is an issue in Chicago: Chicagoans like losing teams. There has been some examinations into this phenomenon, but, luckily for us, we can compare it to another losing Chicago baseball team. The White Sox had nearly 90% attendance in 2007—but that was after they won a World Series for the first time in decades upon decades. During 2001 – 2008, their attendance is right at 65%. This is one of those old, storied teams! Teams that play in hallowed locations: Yankee Stadium (well, for a little bit longer), Wrigley Field, Fenway Park, U.S. Cellular . . . wait, what? No wonder the Cubbies are fighting to keep Wrigley, Wrigley. Maybe U.S. Cellular is to blame; or maybe it was a residual effect born from the Black Sox (I don’t think so).
It is likely much more to do with the way a community has been built. A community built through trials and struggles. The Red Sox have a bit of an advantage in this. The Cardinals are a fine foe, but there is no team that is easier to hate than the Yankees. The have bound together, as a baseball fan base and as a city to support Boston against the behemoth to the south. More than anything, everything about the Cubs and Red Sox are genuine. They play in old stadiums (with old names) in old neighborhoods. They aren’t too polished (Green Monster, Murphy’s Bleachers, The Idiots). They are fiercely local (paradoxically, they are loved all over). They have stories, curses, traditions, villains, songs—more so than every other club (though I love the Yankees Bleacher Creatures). In short, they act so much like a community because they are one.
Wouldn’t you like to have a brand like that?
*Averages are in median. I don’t pretend to be a researcher, so my process may have some holes—but it is close enough to give us an idea of the true situation.
Update: I posted this in part on Bleed Cubbie Blue. The regulars had much to say concerning this fan base cohesiveness (there is a strong since of self-ownership and involvement; extremely pertinent to a community’s identity).
Filed under: brands, marketing | Tags: Amnesty International, AOL, Apple, Beijing 2008, Brand Tags, branding, Discovery Channel, Evian, Exxon, Firefox, GE, Google, Greenpeace, Halliburton, Harley-Davidson, Internet Explorer, Marlboro, McDonalds, MSN, olympics, Oxfam, reputations, The Consumerist, Tibet, Toyota, Wal-Mart, Whole Foods, World Wildlife Fund
The Consumerist (read more below) reports on the 10 best and worst reputations in corporate America. As I looked at Google (best) and Halliburton (worst), my thoughts turned to Brand Tags, a cool site that decodes what big brands actually mean (as viewed by people who visit the Brand Tags website). As is often stated: companies don’t own brands, consumers do. That is, people will chose what a brand means and there is little that a company can say to change that image (often, it is up to what they do).
When looking at what brands are most often rated “good”, Firefox and Google are second and tenth after do-gooder Amnesty International and among Oxfam, Greenpeace, WWF (not WWE), Whole Foods, Toyota, and the Discovery Channel. MSN, AOL, and Internet Explorer were third, fifth, and seventh in the “bad” listings among Wal-Mart, Exxon, Marlboro, and McDonalds. Evian is “pure”, Apple is “cool”, Harley-Davidson is “wild”, GE is “light”, and Beijing 2008 has significant issues (as shown below in a sampling of the website’s output, misspellings and all):
Like most great Internet tools, this application is painfully open and honest. It strongly exposes brands for what they are; for what they are is how they are perceived in the consumers’ minds. If you are lucky enough to have a brand that is featured on this website, use it to change your perceptions (through your actions and offerings). If not, talk to your customers and hope that they are honest with you. These insights are invaluable.
Filed under: design, marketing | Tags: Brains on Fire, Clayton Christensen, design, John Bound, marketing, Michael Raynor, Nicholas Carr, Pirates, Roger Coleman, Spike
Spike at Brains on Fire wrote
In the vast majority of cases, pirates were violent and vicious – even barbaric. But for the sake of this post, allow me to put all that aside and talk about a handful of things that we, as practitioners of marketing, can learn from these dogs of the high seas. (read more below)
A bit of a stretch, but it is a fun way to get some ideas put across. My favorite was that Spike was going on a marketing book fast, but the second statement, “Realize that you’re in a democracy” is essential. In summary, do what your customers want or they will mutiny (he said “oust”, but “mutiny” is so pirate-y).
A lot of companies pretend to understand the basic idea of simply giving customers what they want for a price they are willing to pay, and yet matching customer desires with a new product or service is often one the most overlooked aspects of strategic planning. As Christensen and Raynor wrote,
By the time you add it all up, three-quarters of the money spent in product development investments results in products that do not succeed commercially.*
Warnings on what to watch out for when introducing and managing products or services can be confusing—race to be the market leader, make sure that you out-engineer everyone, but don’t do too much or you’ll be taken out from below.** If you look at the product or service management process on a more fundamental level, the answer is much clearer: match your innovation’s design with the customer desires.
My generalizing of this challenging task to the concept of matching design and desires may seem like too much of simplistic view of a complex principle, but it is through a user-centric approach—design-led innovation matched with broad customer understanding—that acceptance by a market is most likely to occur. These two areas (design and desires) represent a deep and often misunderstood aspect of product or service planning, but one that has increasingly come to represent the future of business strategy. Design experts Bound and Coleman explain,
Thinking and practice around universal design have been developed through industrial collaborations […] In parallel, the design and research communities […] have made significant strides in understanding […] consumers and integrating these [understandings] into design and new product development processes.***
Pirates got it; we should also learn to listen.
*Christensen, Clayton; Michael Raynor; The Innovator’s Solution, 2003, p 73, Harvard Business School
**See Christensen, Clayton; The Innovator’s Dilemma, 2000 edition, p 226, HarperBusiness and Carr, Nicholas G.; “Top-Down Disruption,” strategy + business, Issue 39, Summer 2005 for examples.
***Bound, John; Roger Coleman; “Commercial Advantage from Inclusive Design,” Design Management Review, Summer 2005, p 56 – 63
Yesterday I sat in a meeting at eBay Live! in which Seth Godin spoke on the principles in his new Meatball Sundae book. As with this posting (see “read more”), he reiterates the idea that we can add so much more to our brands . . . specifically by becoming experts in that arena. Great advice—go buy his book.
I typically don’t enjoy the question and answer sessions after, but I did enjoy Seth’s response to the first questioner who asked him a question in the same spirit as what he warned us to avoid in his speech. He was quick to correction and I enjoyed his candor (though she, the questioner, probably did not). Over the years, I have become a reluctant Godin fan.
Effective brands and companies represent movements; dramatic changes in industry and society. If you want your offering to change the world, you need to lead out.
See Brains on Fire: Movements have inspirational leadership.
Posted using ShareThis
Filed under: brands, community, marketing | Tags: Apple, branding, Csikszentmihalyi, Easter Eggs, Google, Linda Scott, Rochberg-Halton
Brains on Fire report that hidden treasures really do add to the customer experience.
So many brands keep their communities (or their illusion of one) at arms length – especially the “crazy fans.” But what would happen if it was the opposite? What would happen if you left those secret Easter Eggs out there especially for those highly passionate fans to find?
This works very well in a B2C space, and what makes it most effective is the hidden “treasure’s” ability to help in creating a persona for the brand. Linda Scott (Fresh Lipstick 2005, p. 220) calls this personification “fetishization”. In addition to explaining how an inanimate object is “imbued with animate properties”, Scott conveys that a fetish “is not arbitrarily magical or religious, but helps to accomplish a variety of cultural tasks”. Compare this to when Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton (1981, The Meaning of Things) explained that “things contribute to the cultivation of the self when they help create order in consciousness at the levels of the person, community, and patterns of natural order”.
The objects that we use frame our experiences and shape our selves; objects are signs of status, of belonging, of social integration, and are essential part of socialization and the relationship between people and things is fundamental. This is why this personifying of a product or service (specifically, the brand since the actually offering cannot easily be made animate) is essential to success. In many objects, it creates an easier space for adaptation into a cultural exchange.
Apple and Google add these hidden touches well, such as with Apple’s famous “Do Not Eat iPod Shuffle” in its terms and conditions (thanks to firewheeldesign.com for the image)
and Google’s map routing from, say, Kentucky to Germany (thanks to ghacks.net).
Both removed them after it became public knowledge and you would hope that they would continue to add to little Easter Eggs to enhance the brand experience. Think about your brand; what touches can you add to better tell the brand story and enhance the customer’s interaction with your offering?
Update
Google may have stopped you from swimming across the Atlantic, but I guess they are fine with you kayaking across the Pacific. My co-worker found this today when he accidentally put in the wrong information when trying to get directions.
Update 2 (2008 June 12)
Seth Godin seems to agree with me.
