Brand Longevity - The Message Consumers Need to Hear
July 1, 2009
If you're new here, and have enjoyed what you've read, you may like to subscribe to one of our RSS feeds. Thanks for visiting!
Consumers have never been faced with so many failing companies that were once perceived as infallible industry leaders as they have in the last several years (at least not in our lifetimes). As a result, consumers have become less willing to believe marketing messages and have begun to rely more on word-of-mouth marketing to make buying decisions (particularly fueld by the social Web) than ever before.
We’re living in a time when consumers are looking for a sense of security. One of the most important factors of customer loyalty is creating a sense of security and sustainability — meaning the brand is perceived to be one that will be around for a long time, or at least a predetermined amount of time with a specific end. ( I’ve written about customer loyalty on Corporate Eye before, and you can read that post here for more information.)
It seems to me that the economic struggles of the world, the folding of major brands, and the prevailing sense of insecurity, distrust and fear is actually a huge opportunity for brands. In other words, now is the time to flood your market with messages of longevity, stability, trust, and honesty. These are the messages consumers are looking for, and if you can communicate them in a believable manner, you’re on your way to significant long-term success.
Brands that position themselves in a power position now, while times are still tough for consumers, will reap the benefits when our economies turn around and get back on track. Think of it this way — what can you do now that will get your customers to say, “I could really count on them when times were tough,” later?
It’s not often that the world around us gives us the perfect brand message. Take advantage of it, and deliver the messages people want to hear.
Your thoughts?
Image: Flickr
Jockey Tries to Blur Gender Lines with Women’s Y-fronts
June 29, 2009
Boy shorts are one thing, but Y-front underwear for women? That’s not attractive. However, Jockey is betting that women want to look androgenous or downright manly, so the company is launching Y-front underpants for women. The Y-front offers no utility, but it does de-feminize the wearer. Hmmm…. I think this is going to be a hard sell.
There are several forms of gender branding, and the androgenous brand is popular for a number of consumer products brands such as Old Navy and Calvin Klein. But clearly there is a line that a brand can cross when androgeny becomes less interesting and just plain ugly. In short, just because a product attribute is popular for one gender, does not mean it will be equally popular for the opposite gender.
I suppose you can look at it this way. There was that scene in the Charlie’s Angels movie where Cameron Diaz danced in Underoos, so perhaps the new Y-front women’s Jockey underpants will become a short term fad that high school girls might embrace. However, I have to believe that the majority of women, even those who like “practical” underwear, would steer clear of the Y-front Jockey. At the very least, the extremely small segment of consumers who will come to love and advocate the Y-front Jockey underpants for women are just that — a small group.
Certainly, there is a better way for the Jockey brand to connect with women consumers. Rather than trying to turn them into men, how about helping them feel more like the amazing women they are by offering products that make them feel great and look great? Perhaps that’s just too simple.
Your thoughts?
Image: Jockey
Do CEOs Help or Hurt Brands?
June 26, 2009
In a recent poll conducted by AdWeekMedia via LinkedIn, people were asked to rate the credibility of commercials for brands with and without the company CEOs in those ads. The key question was — does having the company CEO in an ad make the ad more or less credible?
The results are actually a bit surprising to me. 49% of respondents said that the presence of the CEO made no difference to the credibility of an ad. I expected that number to be higher. Furthermore, 36% said that it makes an ad more credible when the CEO is in it while only 14% said it makes an ad less credible. Again, I’m surprised. Do over one-third of consumers actually feel that an ad is more credible because the company’s CEO is in it? I’m amazed by that.
The results beg the satirical question — should marketing messages come from the CEO? For example, “I use XYX brand, and so should you.” I hope not.
Maybe 20 years ago I would believe these statistics, but they amaze me today. In a world where the news is wrought with stories of CEOs allowing companies to self-destruct, pursuing unethical and/or illegal practices, and taking corporate jets to Washington D.C. hearings while their companies are nearing failure, I have to wonder how accurate these statistics are.
Seeing a CEO in a commercial has no effect on me at all. If anything, it has a negative effect because it makes me wonder if that’s really the best the marketing team could do.
Just recently, Dominos got a lot of flack from consumers who posted blog posts (example) voicing their dislike of the Dominos CEO Bailout commercials (watch below).
I think a CEO’s presence in a commercial devalues the message, because most people can’t relate to them and they’re not necessarily thought of that highly anymore. Certainly, there are some CEOs that can help a commercial and add credibility (e.g., Steve Jobs), but there are far more who either hurt a brand or don’t help at all when they appear in commercials. In other words, most of the time, the marketing team can do better.
What do you think? Do CEOs help or hurt brands when the appear in commercials for them?
Eco-Friendly Packaged Goods are Hot, Hot, Hot
June 25, 2009
According to new research from eMarketer, eco-friendly is hotter than ever for the packaged goods industry in the United States. If you thought the green branding and marketing push was tapering off, you were wrong. This report tells us:
- Between January 1, 2009 - April 15, 2009, 458 new products hit the market with claims of being eco-friendly.
- The number of new eco-friendly product launches are expected to be three times higher in 2009 than in 2008.
- The number of new eco-friendly products launched in 2009 is estimated to hit 1,592.
Look at the chart below and see how the 1,592 new eco-friendly products expected to launch in 2009 compares to the number of new eco-friendly products launched in each of the 5 years prior to 2009.
The green bandwagon is still a very popular ride for corporations to jump on. The problem comes when eco-friendly initiatives tread too close to green washing. Too many corporate executives love the positive publicity that comes with being green, but they don’t take the green initiative to heart and truly live it and believe in it. Hopefully, that will be what sets companies, brands and products apart on the eco-friendly playing field of consumers’ minds in the future.
I’ve written about green branding here on Corporate Eye before in a post called How Important is It for Brands to be Green? I’m reminded of that post today as I look at the huge growth in new eco-friendly packaged goods coming in 2009 to the U.S. Companies are flooding the market with eco-friendly products, messages, Web pages, and programs, but how much of that do consumers truly believe? How much of it do they think comes from the right place and is done for the right reason? That’s what will set “eco-friendly” companies and brands apart from “eco-truthful” companies and brands in the future.
In other words, there is a lot more to being eco-friendly than releasing a product with recycled packaging or holding a Recycling Day in the town where your company office is located. Companies and brands that understand that will prevail in the long run.
What do you think?
Is the Honeymoon over for the iPhone and AT&T Wireless?
June 22, 2009
If you’re one of the many customers who would love to have an iPhone but don’t want to switch your carrier to AT&T Wireless in order to use one, then there may still be hope — albeit slim.
Last week in Washington D.C., FCC Acting Chairman Michael Copps spoke in front of the Pike & Fischer Broadband Policy Summit (read his full speech here). Copps labeled exclusive deals between handset manufacturers and cellular carriers as restrictive to innovation and creating an unfair market of competition. He called for an investigation into the matter.
Let’s face it. From a consumer standpoint, eliminating exclusive deals between handset providers and wireless carriers would be wonderful. Talk about opening up the field of choices for consumers! I’d certainly get an iPhone if I didn’t have to switch to AT&T Wireless!
But how would eliminating exclusivity affect the brands involved? Read more
Get our updates
 |