The Branding Power of Thought Leadership

A great article written this week by Len Stein touts thought leadership as the next frontier in public relations (read the article). I could not agree more with the views Stein puts forth in the article. Traditionally, companies have made news releases a key component of their PR strategy. These bits of news and facts are mass distributed to media outlets and posted on company web sites in the hopes that someone will find information in a release newsworthy and give it coverage. News releases are typically “we are great” messages that are one-way conversations between a company and whoever they think would be interested in learning about how great they are.

Yes, news releases can be an inexpensive way to create exposure. Yes, news releases are perceived as more credible than advertising because the source of the message is viewed as the news media, not the company whose release led to the coverage. But, everyone does them- for profits, non-profits, institutions, organizations, everyone is trying to get exposure. The result is that news releases do not carry the punch that we would like to believe they possess.

In contrast, thought leadership offers more for audiences. It is about informing and educating a target market that would value receiving information. Recipients can put to use information received or are otherwise better off for having been exposed to messages from thought leaders. Another key benefit is positioning as a thought leader not only strengthens brand credibility, it can help humanize the brand. Thought leaders are people, not entities. In order to forge a leadership position, people have to make it happen. Whether it is through blogging, podcasting, books, or other form of disseminating information, it is accomplished by associating a name and face with the information being shared. News releases are very impersonal by comparison.

Becoming a thought leader is not done with the objective of increasing sales or market share, but those results can be by-products of establishing a position of high credibility in an industry. It comes down to what do you have to offer to your target audience that adds value. “I am great” does not work in developing thought leadership; rather it is more like “how can I help you become great?”

Lessons Learned from NFL Draft: Transform Events into Brands

Your business may hold events throughout the course of a year. Some events are for customers intended to generate sales, other events are for employees used to build morale, and some events are for the community or general public that serve as opportunities to interact with your brand. Holding events may be nothing new for you, but what about the idea of branding your events and marketing each one like you market your company or products? If you are skeptical about the payoff for transforming events into brands, look to the National Football League for inspiration.

The NFL held its 75th entry draft this week, and it has changed a great deal since the inaugural draft in 1936. The NFL Draft has gone from being an internal procedural event used by teams to stock their rosters to a multi-day, check that multi-week, experience that keeps football-hungry fans engaged with the NFL during the offseason. The draft itself is now a 3-day event, with TV coverage by ESPN and the NFL Network from the first pick to the 255th, and final pick. Audience ratings for the first night of the draft in which 1st round selections were made were about 6.5% of all TV households in the U.S. And, engagement of NFL fans with the draft took place for several weeks leading up to the draft. Consumption of information about players involved in the NFL Draft through traditional media and digital media kept fans talking about football ever since the end of the NFL season in early February.

Granted, not every brand can stoke the passion and interest of the NFL. However, if you are holding events already, why not explore how they can be branded to create more interest and engagement? For example, if you have a “company picnic,” replace the descriptive, uninspiring title with a branded name and logo. Make the event memorable to the target audience, and give them opportunities to interact with your event brands before and after the event. Social media provide many options for engaging people around your event brands long after the event is held.

Brands are important because they hold and convey meaning. In the case of the NFL Draft, it is about new beginnings and what might be for football fans as they follow the selections made by their favorite teams. Transform your events from one-off activities to an ongoing connection point with your brand.

A Branding Story as Told by Pop-Tarts

I will confess that I have a weakness, one that will likely not lead to my demise, but a weakness, nonetheless. I really like Pop-Tarts, whether it is the real deal from Kellogg’s or a wannabe store brand. Pop-Tarts are an inexpensive, tasty, and convenient breakfast I can grab between a workout (had to squeeze that in) and starting my workday. I realize that a 45-year-old man is probably not the profile of a typical Pop-Tarts consumer, but I am all too happy to be an outlier.

A recent shopping experience for Pop-Tarts reinforced the impact price can have on perceptions of a brand. As I was packing food to take to the office, I realized I was out of Pop-Tarts. No problem, as the snack bar in my building on campus carries single-serve packages of Pop-Tarts. However, I was shocked to learn that the price for a package of my breakfast vice was $1.49. A quick comparison: an 8-pack of Pop-Tarts retails for about $2.29 at the supermarket, and a convenience store near campus sells the same single-serve package sold at the snack bar for 99 cents.

I questioned myself as to whether I let this be an issue because I was acting like a little boy pitching a fit because his Pop-Tarts cost too much. No, I do not think that is the case. It seems to me that pricing a product 50% higher than a convenience store is a wee bit too high. A bigger issue is looming: the perception that the foodservice vendor is taking advantage of students (and professors) because it has a somewhat captive audience has negatively affected my view of the foodservice company across the board. Now, buying a snack or meal on campus is not even a last resort. I simply refuse to do it because I would be supporting a brand whose pricing certainly does not provide value to me!

The point of my Pop-Tarts story is to remember that all of your marketing decisions communicate, not just your communications program. In this case, a selling price that is significantly higher than other options sends a negative message about the seller. It could just as easily be a product with an instruction manual that is difficult to understand or a store with inconsistent or inconvenient store hours. They all have the same effect: damage to brand equity by way of hurting brand associations that comprise brand image.

3 Reasons Why Twitter Won’t Die

Depending on who you ask, Twitter’s announcement this week that it will launch an advertising model that features “promoted tweets” in search results is:

A. a much needed source of revenue to make Twitter financially viable
B. the beginning of the end for Twitter

Which one is it? There are strong opinions for each option. I subscribe to A. Twitter has to go beyond trendy and a channel for celebrity-crazed fans to follow their heroes and heroines. That next step is becoming profitable. The promoted tweets model is about as subtle of an integration of advertising that Twitter could implement.

I believe Twitter has a sound future, and it has nothing to do with its business model. The keys to Twitter’s long-term success are rooted in human nature. Here are three reasons why Twitter users will continue to chronicle their lives in 140 characters or less:

1. People like to talk about themselves – Whether it is sharing what is for lunch, bragging on family, or engaging in self-promotion, we enjoy being the focal point of conversation. Twitter is a digital megaphone for spreading the word on #1.

2. People like others to know what they are doing – Closely related to reason #1, many people want to share their life experiences with persons in their network. We can’t help ourselves; when we do something unique or exciting, we want to share it. If we see a move we’d rather forget, we want our followers to know that, too, in the hope we help someone avoid making the same mistake.

3. People are curious about other people – One way to manage our psyche is to use the experiences of others as a frame of reference. For example, if someone thinks he is an expert on fantasy football, he may follow known fantasy football experts and analysts via Twitter to keep tabs on what the top “brands” in fantasy football are saying. It could be a college freshman wanting to connect with an attractive co-ed from biology lab or a star-crossed celebrity watcher who can’t get enough tweets from Chad Ochocinco or Brittany Spears. In both cases, Twitter gives us a channel for answering that familiar question to the service’s users: What’s happening?

Ads or no ads, Twitter users will continue to keep tabs on the users they follow and tout their accomplishments – major, minor, and even the inconsequential.

Moore’s Law of Social Media: Tell Your Own Story

Moore’s Law has always intrigued me. Named for Gordon Moore, one of the co-founders of Intel, Moore’s Law states that the number of transistors that can be put onto a single computer chip will double approximately every 2 years. Moore’s Law has had tremendous staying power as the prediction first made in 1965 has generally held up for more than 40 years.

Today, there is a new Moore’s Law, one that has major implications for marketers. Its namesake is not Gordon Moore. Instead, it is Michael Moore, the documentary filmmaker known for taking on the Establishment. Moore’s Law of 2010 is simple: “tell your story or have it told for you.” Social media give people a stronger voice than ever, and companies that fail to engage stakeholder groups or worse yet, attempt to control the conversation, will have their stories told for them.

Why do I say attempting to control the conversation is a bigger mistake for a business to make than not encouraging dialogue at all? I believe it is a bigger mistake because it is a symptom of a larger problem: a sense that the seller should control or otherwise exert power in their relationships with buyers. It suggests weakness, in effect saying that customers and other stakeholders are not valued enough to invite them to have a voice through online communities, social networking pages, blogs, or other channels. Control equals power, and increasingly consumers have power in buyer-seller relationships.

If you think the “new” Moore’s Law is misguided, look no further than the recent skewering Nestlé experienced from advocacy groups for buying palm oil from a supplier whose harvesting practices endanger rainforests and orangutans. Dismissing an outcry as part of a lunatic fringe or simply ignoring with the hope the issue goes away is hardly a strategy today. Marketers must replace control with conversation if they really want to influence how their story is told.

DM News – “Moore’s Law Helps Companies in Social”

A Great Brand Experience, not Imitation, Will Win Customers

I enjoyed a great discussion with my Principles of Marketing students yesterday about using price as a marketing strategy tool to fight competition. The case of Burger King going after McDonald’s dominance in the breakfast category was our topic. BK is offering a breakfast muffin sandwich for $1. A commercial for the product makes it clear that its inspiration is McDonald’s Egg McMuffin, but the point of difference is a $1 price. “It’s not original, but it’s super affordable” is the message.

To my surprise, the focus of the discussion quickly turned from using the Breakfast Muffin sandwich as a flanker brand to what is wrong with Burger King. The students’ lament: if you want a more profitable brand and higher market share, fix the brand experience. Several students shared stories of service failure they experienced at BK. One student said she called the corporate office to complain and gave my name saying that “you need to call my marketing professor so he can tell you how to fix Burger King!” I’m waiting on that call… not!

The issues raised by students in our discussion were a perfect segue to introducing the role of marketing communication. It is communication that supports the other elements of marketing strategy, but it must work in concert with other marketing mix elements. BK hired one of the hottest shops in the ad industry, Crispin Porter + Bogusky, and the agency has delivered great work. However, as one of my students in another class pointed out, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. The same goes for building a great brand. Advertising and promotion is part of the equation for success, but creative campaigns cannot hide inferior product design, bad pricing strategy, or poor customer service.

For consumers today, brand relationships are often built on experiences. If you deliver a bad experience, why should you expect customers to be willing to repeat it? There are simply too many options to have to endure experiences that do not meet expectations. No one expects BK to begin white cloth table service, but giving customers a consistent experience positively reinforces the brand in their minds. It is an impact greater than a king with an enormous plastic head or a $1 breakfast sandwich could ever hope to make.

Brand Position: Small and Proud of It

When is positioning a brand as a small fish in a big pond a desirable strategy? It is desirable when the association of being a small brand suggests authenticity and responsiveness. This strategy describes what Boston Beer is doing with its Samuel Adams brand. Sam Adams made its mark in the hypercompetitive U.S. beer market by positioning itself as a craft beer, a change of pace from mainstream brands such as Budweiser, Miller, and Coors. Now, a new commercial dubbed “Growing Up Small” makes the point that Samuel Adams has a minute 0.9% share of the domestic beer market.

Being perceived as a small brand can be advantageous. In the case of the U.S. beer market, the top brands are mainstream, corporate behemoths. A small beer brand has the potential to differentiate itself from the giant brands and be perceived as unique. The story of Samuel Adams is legendary in branding circles; company founder Jim Koch would take the product in his car to bars to share his brew with bartenders and patrons. Samuel Adams is built on a foundation of trust and being a genuine alternative to mass market beer. The challenge for a brand like Samuel Adams is to remain true to its “smallness” as it grows. Many companies have found it a struggle to operate like a small company as they expand.

Companies want to grow, expanding their market footprint while amassing profits. A strategy to focus on being small seems counter to the mission of many businesses. Acting like a small brand can pay off, though, because it forces marketers to maintain close access to customers and other stakeholders. If you cannot be the biggest brand in your industry, maybe there is a way to make being small pay off… just ask Samuel Adams.

Should You Thank Your Competitors?

The connection between the dateline and headline is merely coincidental.

What reason could a business possibly have to thank its competitors? It is because competition can motivate a business to innovate and generally assume a more aggressive stance in the marketplace. A current example can be found in the quick service restaurant industry. Subway, the nation’s #2 restaurant chain, is about to make a nationwide entry into the breakfast business. Restaurant breakfast sales have been hurt by the recession, but that will not deter Subway from competing against McDonald’s and Burger King. The entrenched competitors have already taken steps to counter the weak economy by introducing lower priced menu items. Subway will compete primarily with breakfast sub sandwiches.

Will Subway’s venture succeed? Time will tell if consumers like Subway’s breakfast menu. Whether Subway succeeds is beside the point. When a competitor with 23,000 locations moves into a category that represents 25% of a firm’s U.S. sales, as is the case for McDonald’s, a business should take notice. Competition can provide a spark to develop new ideas, strategies, or products, benefiting customers in the process. And, it is possible for a business to learn not only from its efforts to innovate, but it can gain insight from the successes (and failures) of competition. That is no April Fools joke!

Marketing Daily – “Subway Joins Breakfast Battle of Titans”

Brand “Hijacking” of Nestlé Anything But a Takeover

Nestlé has captured a great deal of publicity recently, most of it unwanted. The company has come under fire from Greenpeace for its practice of buying palm oil for its Kit Kat candy bar from a supplier that it alleges engages in forest destruction and endangers orangutans. The battle is being waged in social media. A video depicting someone unknowingly eating an orangutan finger out of a Kit Kat package has been downloaded more than 160,000 times (see video here). Also, Nestlé’s official Facebook and Twitter pages have been inundated with posts from consumers incensed with what they perceive as the company’s arrogance and indifference. Among comments posted on the Nestlé Facebook “fan” page include “enjoy a Nestle-free Easter” and “love the planet, hate Nestlé.”

An interesting take on this issue is that some observers are calling the consumer backlash against Nestlé as a brand hijacking. Such a view would suggest that Nestlé owns the brand. Although Nestlé is legally the owner of brand names and marks, its ownership actually ends with these more tangible elements of the brand. It is consumers and other stakeholders who own the brand. How? Brands are perceptions, images in our minds comprised of brand associations we hold. If people view Nestlé as uncaring about the environment, more concerned with profits than social responsibility, then the brand will be perceived negatively. No amount of advertising or product promotion by Nestlé will overcome the negative brand perceptions.

Social media give the public a channel to voice their opinions, both positive and negative. For marketers, social media is a channel for listening as well as talking. It is important for businesses to allow customers and others to voice their concerns. Practicing extreme brand control à la Tiger Woods is history. Consumers own your brand, get used to it. Give them a voice… then listen to it.

Is Cause Marketing Clutter a Danger?

My wife and I visited three different stores recently, all part of national chains. The first stop was Toys R Us. When we were paying for our purchase, the sales associate mumbled something about donating to autism. We declined his less than convincing appeal. Next stop: Lowe’s. At the checkout counter was another invitation to donate $1. One more stop to make, a visit to Kmart and a third request to donate a dollar to a cause. I confess that I cannot the specific causes Lowe’s and Kmart were supporting, but when I went to their websites and Facebook pages to see if they were promoting the cause support, there was no information to be found. Big mistake! Maximize the potential of an in-store fundraising effort by letting persons in your community know what you are doing.

Three stores, three causes, three competitors for the emotions and dollars of the consumer. One of the strengths of cause-related marketing is that a sponsor can align itself with a charity or nonprofit that resonates with the sponsor’s target market. Unfortunately, the situation that I observed recently suggests that the impact of cause marketing could go the way of media advertising, where heavy message clutter makes it difficult to get through to an audience and reduces effectiveness of communications. I do not fault the retailers for creating cause marketing campaigns. In fact, I applaud them. Kudos to these companies for committing resources to generate exposure and funds for their cause partners.

A key to successful cause marketing campaigns, or any sponsorship for that matter, is activating marketing programs around the association with the cause. The standard donate-a-dollar promotions are good concepts because they allow consumers to help support a cause. However, too many promotions being executed at the same time can leave consumers weary from multiple requests to help different causes. Should cause marketing campaigns be scheduled being mindful of a timetable for cause promotions featuring competitors? It is not essential, nor will it guarantee success of a cause marketing campaign. However, cause marketing fatigue is possible when consumers are being asked at seemingly every store to do their part to support the cause. Cause marketing works, but be strategic in the timing of cause promotions so that its potential impact is not hindered or even negated by the efforts of other cause sponsors to help their nonprofit partners.