Live Your Brand or Die

Dramatic? Maybe, but never has it been a more important mandate for the success of a brand and a company.

I love Method Home products. Not just because they’re a past (and recent) client of mine, but also because they do something incredibly rare; they live their brand. For those of you who don't know their back story, let me tell you… they have a great one (like most strong brands). Eric and Adam, the two founders, started the company from their apartment in San Francisco. They lived in a crappy, dirty bachelor pad much in need of a thorough cleaning. And like most guys, they weren't too psyched to do it.

Eric was a brand strategist who worked at ad agencies. Adam was a chemist. They decided to create an all-purpose cleaner that was green (or "clean", as Method would say) and looked as good as it worked. And importantly, didn't make their place stink like a Chevron refinery after using it. Their first batch was mixed in their bathtub and sold out of the trunk of a car. Sound familiar? There was an entrepreneur named Phil Knight who sold running shoes out of his trunk at track meets. Ever heard of that guy or his company 'Nike' (then called"Blue Ribbon Sports") ?

Method lives by the principles on which they were founded. They spend an inordinate amount of time and energy focusing on how they can do things differently from other companies, from being more environmentally responsible in the way they make their products to being super smart with their approach to design. It costs more to stay true, but the strength of their brand reflects the benefits. Adam was recently invited to the white house to speak on how companies can be more progressive in these ways. Meanwhile Clorox has Green Works, a line of products claiming to same earth-friendly roots. But it's Clorox. And it's part of their questionable family of toxic potions we have known for years as effective but harsh. These are the guys that make the products that remove anything from anything... including color from tile, paint from walls and the delicate lining from the interior of your lungs. Do they live their brand or just pretend? It’s up to the consumer to decide.

For those who have heard me present or have read my stuff in the past, this will sound familiar. Brands are like people. You're either real or you're fake. And if you're fake people will soon discover it because it's impossible to consistently align your ideal world and your reality. So, keep it real, marketing people. It will pay dividends in the long run because people will like you. And that spells success for any brand.

Brand Avoiders - Those who buy things for what they're not

Funny thing, being a car guy. Everyone knows I'm a car guy given I have been a car guy since I was a little guy. So when it comes time for my friends and family to buy a new car they come to me. Or my brother. (From a car-advice standpoint, we are the same person.) What's funny is the biases and pre-determinations that are built into even the most car-disinterested mind. It's OK, really. I expect that someone will ask me advice about cars and proceed to do the opposite.

Everyone has a certain range of car brands they are willing to drive, and a certain limited number of models that exist within those brands they are willing to roll. That's understandable as a car is, at least in part, an emotional choice. But then, through discussions, I will inevitably discover the "other people's brands" - those brands that stand for something so polarizing the person is unwilling to associate themselves with it. Or, a brand or model that is TOO popular and therefore represents an area the person is unwilling to go. I have, for example, recommended the BMW 3-series to numerous friends over the years. Why? The quality is fantastic. It's safe. It's a blast to drive, yet wholly comfortable and practical. Its resale value is amazing. And lastly, you can get one that's only a couple of years old as a certified used car with a huge warranty and all. What's not to love? Heck, this car has made the "Car and Driver Ten Best List" like 15 years in a row! It's a great car all around. So what's the problem? "I'm not a BMW person." Why? Have you ever driven one? "There are too many of those around... I want something original." Have you ever thought there may be a reason there's a lot around? When you go into a crowded restaurant is that not a good sign?

People assume I have a higher level of emotional connection to the machines in my garage because I am into cars. I don't. I may take better care of the cars because I know how to, I realize the cost implications of not doing so, and I do enjoy driving a car that's in good condition. But I have never named any one of the 30+ cars I have owned, unlike a large percentage of the US population (20% of Americans name their cars... mostly women). I drive a car for the machine that it is in spite of what an outsider's perspective might be. In short, I don't care what other people think of my car, for better or worse. There are those out there that drive a car solely based on what other people will think of them. But there are also those that won't drive a car because of what other people think. Interesting because I'm not sure those two sets of people are really any different from one another.

We, as marketing people, spend a lot of time talking about how to build brand loyalty. It is, after all, the wholly grail of the marketing world. If you can get someone to be loyal to your brand they will not only keep buying it but will likely spread their good feelings virally and encourage others to try it as well. But there exists another very different phenomenon in marketing that we rarely talk about... brand avoidance. It's driven by the same blend of rational and emotional factors as brand loyalty. But what I am realizing recently is that there is a variation of this that is almost solely emotionally driven. How do you get consumers to open their minds to your brand? How do you expand your brands personality enough without diluting it? To me it depends on the category. And in terms of cars, all a marketer can do is include some type of objective sell in what is a category dominated by emotional prose.

It's OK to avoid a brand if you have a good reason for it. But when it comes to buying your next car remember:
- It's likely your second largest asset, so approach it with the same objectivity as buying a house
- Don't avoid brands just because they are popular... There's likely a good reason
- Look at the total cost of ownership (and include resale value), not just the purchase price

And, of course, feel free to ask me for advice. I don't mind if you end up doing the opposite. I'm used to it.

It's just that simple. It's just that difficult.

I love simple products. Maybe it's because I believe that the best brands have a certain level of honestly to them, and more often than not, when things are simple they tend to be more honest. As well, simple things are easy to understand. You need to have people understand your brand in order to become involved in your brand. So, simple is good.

One of my favorite products is a corn chip made in Laguna, CA. Have'A Corn Chips. It has just four ingredients. It's sold in only one size. And they have any flavor you want as long as it's the one flavor they offer. I love the simplicity in this offering. And you know what? The product is fantastic - by far the best corn chips I have ever tasted. How'd they do it? They kept it simple.

Another brand I admire for its simplicity is Red Bull. Until just a few years ago it was sold in only one size. They have only two variations, regular and sugar-free. Yet the company has maintained an astounding 55% market share in a category flooded with wanna-be competitors. How'd they do it? They kept it simple.

But simple can be complicated. Einstein said it best:
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler."

It's very tempting, and quite easy, to add. To "plus." To make things more complicated. But just like great design, the best examples are those whereby someone refrained from adding. Or was bold enough to reduce. Great products and brands and brand strategies should all be as simple as possible. (But not one bit simpler.) Often times it's best to start with the long story and whittle it down to the truly critical components. Only then will you be able to identify what is extraneous. Only then will you be able to focus the idea to something that is easily understood. And with that comes potency.

It's just that simple. And it's just that difficult.

"Excuse me, West Elm...your strategy is showing"

It happens to even the best brands. A research study is conducted, a promising strategy is developed by someone like myself, and then... some not-so-great Creatives translate this into cumbersome, literal manifestations of the very learnings that were meant to create more relevance among the intended target. Maybe I'm a bit more sensitive to this phenomenon being a strategist and all, but West Elm has taken this common marketing blunder to new heights with its new catalog (June '09).

Let me guess... did they just complete a segmentation study that resulted in three promising new targets - the Adventure Seeker, the Prepster and the Design Enthusiast? How'd I guess.

The amazing thing is these "profiles" are too forced even within a strategy context. Masooda? Who is named 'Masooda'? Is anyone truly supposed to relate with this fictitious person? Would a marketing person, or more importantly, a Creative relate with this person? Would they understand how this person represents a significant portion of the West Elm customer base? No. And how about our friend Jimmy, the cool surfer guy who strangely does everything except water sports. (In a single day.) And has wet hair. All the time. And pukka shells. Really? I'm not even going to go into our "prepster" wearing twelve polo shirts, all with the collars pointing to the sky. I just want to beat him up and I'm not a violent person.

There is a bit of irony here given this is West Elm. They are a brand that struggles with delivering the "substance" that their "style" promises. From a positioning perspective they seem to be stuck squarely in between Ikea and DWR. But for those of you who have shopped there you know the quality is far too close to Ikea and the prices dangerously encroaching on DWR's premium territory. Which all equates to a questionable value equation.

Strategy and research is very helpful, but use it for good not evil. The purpose of good strategy is as a means to an end. It should inspire great ideas that are related but removed from the strategy itself. No one will believe that Jimmy loves crashing on the couch with his girlfriend after paragliding with a snowboard and his bike just following a mad skydiving session. And more importantly, no one cares. If it's a lifestyle they are trying to portray find a less literal "story-based" way of telling it through the product presentations themselves. This is a catalog, after all. For buying stuff, not for displaying your latest research results.

Orphan Equity

It's interesting. Brands are just like people; you meet all kinds.

Most brands, in my humble opinion, suffer from a lack of substance. A whole lot of glitz, glamour, promises, forced imagery, poetic prose, but nothing real to back it up. Most of time this is due to the simple fact they have nothing to back it up. The brand is image, is powered by imagery, and the real benefit imaginary.

But every once in a while my slightly bent strategist perspective picks up something very different on my brand radar. A brand with more go than show. A brand that has tons of real honest to goodness equity. A brand that has orphan equity. Orphan equity is brand equity that isn't being used. Isn't being appreciated. And in business terms, isn't being leveraged. As a brand strategist my reaction is an equal blend of two emotions - I'm excited about the discovery and pissed that it's being wasted.

This has been very much top-of-mind for me over the last year as we have acquired and grown a fleet of new wheeled vehicles for our 17 -month old son Valentino. I swear, the kid could be on Cribs. "Now let's take a walk out to my garage. Over here we have the Red Flyer roadster for those days I'm feeling sporty. And over here we have the over-sized, ATV-edition Red Flyer wagon for carrying the toys and posse to the park. And over there we have my collection of strollers for those times I feel like being chauffeured."

Radio Flyer. Now that is a hell of a brand. Not necessarily in it's current form, but man... talk about equity. This brand has been around since 1917. They essentially invented the little red wagon. They defined how kids play and continue to innovate ways in which kids can have fun. Their products are masterful. Their look is definitive. But their brand... well, it's an under-achiever in my book. I have been on their website, read their brochures in detail, and have purchased a few products. It's good, the brand. But it could be great.

And just like any other orphan, I want to take them in. Adopt them. Care for them. And make them grow. So, Radio Flyer, if you're out there, let me play. I would love to take you from good to great. You are a legend in the world of toys, and like other great brands, have an amazing back story to tell. Until then I will just have to enjoy your brand through the eyes of my son. Because nothing makes a little kid smile like a shiny red wagon.

Yes... the product is kind of important.

"Our cars are every bit as good as Toyota's... Americans are just biased against us"

In 2004 I was attending a meeting in Detroit with the senior muckity mucks of General Motors. Bob Lutz, the King of the Island of Misfit Toys, bellowed this (with a straight face) as we began to review the lineup of 2005 introductions that were slated to "slow their share decline."

Really Bob? Really? Because if that were true that would mean that Americans are so principled they would refrain from buying the very car of their dreams just to prove a point. Now, we know that's not the reality. Americans are far more self-driven than that. If GM were to introduce a car that people actually cared about they would assuredly buy the damn thing. Heck, there are many examples of this very phenomenon coming to life in the world of cars. Was it cool to drive a Chrysler before they introduced the 300M? When that thing launched Snoop Dog himself was on the phone ordering his own personal fleet. Was it fashionable for anyone to own a Cadillac under the age of 65 before the launch of the Escalade? Was the upper middle class psyched to buy a Ford before the Explorer rolled off the assembly line? No... they weren't.

A relevant product is just that. Relevant. Which means... it fits a roll within a large enough consumer group to make it a success. Sales follow, profit follows sales, and everyone goes to bed happy.

But more important than the short term benefit of sales and profit is what a great, relevant product does to your brand. It's catalytic. It makes your brand real. It makes people give your products credit as being good before they even launch. GM has most definitely lost site of this very simple idea. They were, back in 2003/2004, the second largest advertiser in the world. In the WORLD! So, any short comings of their "brand building success" was certainly not due to a lack of investment. In the 3 years I worked on the GM business I attended five brand "relaunches." Across 3 brands. 3 years, 3 brands, 5 relaunches. How can that be? How can you reinvent your brand every 1.2 years when the average model life cycle is 4 years? How can you swap the brand veneer when nothing else has changed? "Buick is now 'American Luxury'" Really? Who says? "Pontiac is now 'Fuel for the Soul'" Hmmm... do you mind that your consumers have no idea what that means? No? Proceed. "Chevy is now... AN AMERICAN REVOLUTION!." If by revolution you mean the first auto maker to lose $2 billion a month. It reminds me of another very important branding principle my old boss liked to say... "The tough thing about consistency is you have to stick with it."

It may not seem like it but I want nothing more than to see the American car industry pull out of the violent nose dive and begin to function profitably once again. I really do. But it's going to take more than well-funded messaging campaigns (including high-dollar 'Idol' sponsorships) to change things. They need to clean house - get rid of 90% of their current offerings. They need to look at the marketplace and start fresh. If they were opening for business today, what would they build? Stop following... it's embarrassing when you show up after the party has been over for 3 hours and the hosts have gone to bed. In short, focus on the product.

Why? Because their brand is driven by, and limited by, their products. Make fresh stuff and people will buy them. Hell, even I'll drive a Ford if you give me a relevant, competitive product. But, unfortunately I have driven a Ford lately.