Brand Story

Name that Brand Story...

Story telling is a powerful communication tool—and brands that are associated with strong stories have a significant advantage over those with weak or forgetable stories. In fact, some brand stories are so ingrained in our culture that they are easily recognized with just a few details. See if you can name this brand:

Brand X got its start when the founder made innovative changes to the soles of his athlete's shoes to help them run faster. The brand was named for an ancient god and over the next two decades was adopted by many internationally known athletes.

In it's more detailed version, it's a story of seeking a competitive advantage, working hard, and achieving a goal. So what brand is it? Would you believe Reebok?

In the 1890s, Joseph William Foster added spikes to the soles of his shoes to help athletes run faster. His company was originally called Mercury Sports. And the brand has been worn enthusiastically by many of the world's best known athletes—most famously the runners of the 1924 Olympic Games featured in the movie, Chariots of Fire.

But if you're like most people, you didn't guess Reebok. You guessed Nike. With good reason.

In the 1960s, Bill Bowerman and Phil Knight added a special waffle pattern to his shoes to help athletes run faster. Their company was named Nike (after the Greek Goddess of Victory) and the brand has been worn by many of the world's best known athletes.

Both companies share oddly similar beginnings. But only one is known for this story. Why?

Nike has embraced the story of innovation and achievement, while Reebok has almost run away from it (despite their 70-year head start). While both companies began with passion for athletic achievement, today only Nike can tell that story. More than forty years later Nike continues to embrace its founding values (examples here, here, and here). And Reebok? Not as much. (Other examples here and here.)

So ask yourself this: is your brand true to its brand story and values? Or are you leaving your most important asset for your competitors to run away with?

Whose Brand Story—Hannah Montana or Milie Cyrus?

By now just about everyone has heard that Milie Cyrus posed "topless" for Vanity Fair magazine (news reports here and here). Okay, so it's not exactly what you expect when you hear the word topless. But the critics are right, no matter how unrevealing or artsy the photo is, it is simply wrong and exploitative to ask a fifteen-year-old to pose for this kind of suggestive photograph, even for Annie Leibovitz. 

So why did Milie do it? Why would her parents, who were reportedly on the shoot, allow it? Some have argued it's another case of Hollywood values and bad parenting (and they may be right), but I think there's something more to it than that. I think it comes down to competing brands.

Hannah Montana will make something close to one billion dollars for Disney this year. That's right, billion with a B. It's a great story, a more or less regular girl living a secret double life as a rock star. The best of both worlds, as the theme song says. And Disney has built the character into a powerhouse brand.

On the other hand, Milie Cyrus will take home something closer to twenty million dollars for playing the character on TV and in concert appearances. Now twenty million is nothing to sneeze at, but it's not a billion. Not even close.

So how does Milie go from being the actress that plays Hannah to a rock star in her own right, and grab a bigger piece of the billion-dollar pie? How does she move beyond the eight- to twelve-year-old girls that make up the television-watching HM fan base and appeal more to the high school and college kids that attend concerts? How does she develop her own brand story, separate from Disney's Hannah Montana character? One way is to be more controversial. Get noticed.

So we get the photo (which may or may not have been a publicity stunt). Then a quick apology. But there will be more. Maybe not photos, but something else to make it clear that while Milie plays Hannah, Milie is not Hannah. Because when it comes down to it Milie Cyrus' brand story will always be more important to Milie (and her minders) than the Hannah Montana brand story.

One brand that is certainly enjoying the controversy is Vanity Fair.

More:
Here's what  American Copywriter has to say about it.
Leibovitz defends the photo here.

Accidental Branding, Or Is It?

Ben McConnell, co-author of Creating Customer Evangelists, has a great interview with David Vinjamuri at the Church of the Customer blog. Vinjamuri is the author of a new book, Accidental Branding. It's worth reading.

I've written many times about what branding is and I think Vinjamuri gets it. It's not necessarily about budgets, campaigns, or advertising. At its core, branding is building a successful business. And maybe a little bit of luck.

The premise of Vinjamuri's book (I haven't read it yet) is that motivated entrepreneurs can build great brands without any branding know-how. They find a problem, then solve it. They create a new experience/product/service and choreograph the interaction with their customers. They ask questions like how would I want to feel when I enter my store? What would I want the employees to say to me? How should I feel when I use the product? They micromanage the experience to create memorable customer interactions. Which, of course, is the nuts and bolts of branding.

Favorite quote from the interview:

"What lesson would you engrave in stone for entrepreneurs?
Learn how to tell your story really well. I call it ‘building a myth’ because like a myth the story has to be easy to remember and share, dramatic, and it has to have a lesson contained within it. That shareable founding story is what consumers use to convert people to your brand."

I'll be adding this book to my nightstand soon. In the meantime, here are a few related links:

Buy the book here.
Download a free chapter here. Another free chapter is here.
Read more about Accidental Branding at Brand New, The Marketing Spot, and Egg Head Marketing.

The Power of a Logo

Does your logo get the reaction you want? Do customers think differently or act differently when they see your logo as opposed to your competitor? Should it?

While I firmly believe that a logo can trigger an emotional response attached to a brand, this goes a little farther than I would have expected: According to this post in the Wall Street Journal Business Technology blog, researchers at Duke have found that exposure to a particular logo (in this case, Apple or IBM) can result in behavioral changes. People who were flashed the Apple logo for 30 milliseconds (too fast to be consciously seen) performed more creatively than those who saw the IBM logo.

You can read the study here.

This begs the question--will thinking about the Nike logo make you run faster? Will thinking of the Harvard University logo make you smarter? Will pondering the Weight Watchers logo help you lose weight? Sign me up as a test subject for all of the above.

Others offer thoughts about the power of Apple's logo to help you think differently:
Brand Noise.
Fake Steve Jobs.

Interesting Reading

Came across two very interesting (and very long) articles/posts this week that are worth sharing. The first is from Wired about Gavin Potter, a retired management consultant who's working on a solution for the NetFlix Prize that relies on heavily on psychology. Unlike most other developers competing for the prize, he approaches the problem by focusing on human behavior.

Key quote from the article: "The 20th century was about sorting out supply," Potter says. "The 21st is going to be about sorting out demand."

The second article is a blog post from Seth Godin. I've been critical of some of Seth's thinking in the past, but his thoughts on the music industry are right on—and apply to a wide range of companies and how they interact with their customers. A lot of this goes along quite nicely with what I wrote here about the New PR.

Key quote from the post: "Customer support isn’t as important as consumer support. How do you get people to help each other?"

Despite the obvious differences the two articles go together quite well. Sorting out demand requires new thinking on how you interact with your customers. The world is changing. And how we respond to it demands a more (not less) human approach.

5 Things Everyone Should Know about Branding

Branding has been the "hot" marketing word for the past decade or so. So it's interesting how little the typical business person knows about branding. Despite hundreds of books and thousands of articles, even the experts disagree on what branding is and how to best do it.

So what should a small business owner know about branding? I recently wrote a short article on that subject for the Logoworks Inside Small Business newsletter. If you're interested, click through.

Here's a snippet of what you can expect:

...great branding doesn’t require deep pockets. But it does take thought, a bit of creativity, and a willingness to try different things. When Geek Squad founder, Robert Stephens, started his business, he needed a way to stand out from all the other guys providing a similar service. So he bought a unique car and wore a short-sleeve, white shirt and skinny, clip-on tie. And he focused on delivering one-of-the kind service (including little details like returning calls within a few minutes and taking off his shoes as he entered a home). There were dozens of other consultants offering similar services, but Stephens stood out. His customers remembered the service, the unique uniform, the black and white car, and—this is the important part—they called him again when they needed him. Today Geek Squad is a big business, but it wasn’t too long ago that Robert Stephens was a small business owner with no budget and a creative idea for making his business stand out from the crowd.

The New PR

I had the opportunity to speak to the local chapter of PRSA this past week about how PR is changing from working with the press, to working with customers. After thinking about it in depth for the past couple of weeks, I am more and more convinced that the customer frontier is where most PR will happen in the future. Admittedly, there are others who are way out ahead of me on this—Ben McConnell and Jackie Huba are two. Still others have called this a "360 degree approach to PR."

One thought before I go on: today we are all in the PR business. So even if your title isn't PR specialist or something like it, if you engage with the public (press, customers, vendors, employees), the new PR applies to you too.

Here's it is in a nutshell: In the salad days, a public relations specialist spent most of their time working with the press—pitching story ideas, following up on requests for information, offering quotes for articles, etc. The really good PR people developed close relationships with reporters, in a true you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours fashion. When the press did a story and needed a quote from a customer, the PR specialist vetted the best customers and forwarded their names to the reporter for an interview—knowing that they would say only positive things. The reporter also relied on the PR staff to provide information about the company, because resources for finding it on their own were limited.

Things have changed. While good PR people still pitch stories and develop good relationships with the press, they've lost the control they once had over the process. Reporters are less inclined to take what the company says at face value (you can blame Tyco, Enron, and WorldCom for that). And when they want to talk to customers, they don't ask PR for a list of people who will only say nice things about you, they hit the search engines and read what customers are saying online. Good and bad.

So PR is changing to engage customers. Today, the best PR people are getting involved in crafting the customer experience, in beta testing products, and in talking to customers so they understand what customers are thinking and saying about their company and products. They are engaging not just the happy customers, but the detractors as well. And while they may not be able to fix every problem (or make every customer completely happy), they do understand why some interactions go bad and are working to fix those processes to prevent them from ruining other customer's experiences.

Today, the press frames their questions based on what they learn about you online—so you better know what people are saying and be able to talk with the press about what you are doing to fix or improve your product. This is the new PR.

Fortunately there are a lot of resources on the subject. Ben and Jackie's book, Creating Customer Evangelists is a good start. The Ultimate Question by Fred Reicheld is also good. Neither is about PR in the traditional sense, but both are about what PR must become to be successful.

Thanks Noelle for the invitation to speak.

UPDATE: Thanks to Brian who requested I post the presentation at SlideShare. If you want to see the slides, you'll find them here: The New PR.

Other Links:

What happens when a hotel gives away a guaranteed room and treats the customer as if it's their fault? This: Yours is a Very Bad Hotel. It's been floating around the Internet for a few years, but it's worth reading. Favorite slide: the front desk employee's career path. Another classic is Vincent Ferrari's call to cancel his AOL account.
Some very sobering statistics here and here.
The Perfect Customer Experience Blog is here.
Brian Oberkirk offers some great advice for PR people interacting with new media, here.

Have other links or thoughts on this subject? Leave them in the comments.

Super Bowl Ads: The BrandStory Round-up III

Obviously, the BrandStory staff is a little late in getting to this story (for good reasons and bad). But hopefully we'll make up for it with the breadth of links about this year's Super Bowl ads.

A couple of thoughts:

Why exactly did the ad for AMP energy drink need the disclaimer: "Warning: Do Not Attempt." So you're telling me I shouldn't attach jumper cables to my nipples and to a car battery? It seemed like a such good idea while I was watching your ad.

There were a couple of ads that made me think, "just because you can animate it, doesn't mean you should" including the lame Chinese-accented pandas for SalesGenie, the dancing lizards for SoBe, and the seemingly endless Fox promotions for NASCAR. Did the fake race through the engine make you want to watch? Me neither. And I have a hard time believing that it didn't occur to anyone on SalesGenie marketing staff that their ad would be offensive. Could it be a deliberate strategy to get us talking about the ads days later?

Just in case you were wondering, my favorite ads were for Tide (talking stain) and Coke (Jinx). Both were terrific examples of brand stories demonstrating the product benefit.

On to the links:

The guys at American Copywriter talk about the ads  here. Give them a listen.
You'll find the USAToday Ad Meter here and here. There's a write-up on the ads here.
The Wall Street Journal wrote about it here and here (these links likely won't be free forever).
Some thoughts from MSNBC are here and the NYT wrote about the ads here.
And a more scholarly look (if that's possible) from the Kellogg School of Management here.
More from AdFreak and AdWeek. Or if you prefer the tabloid size, from Advertising Age and again here.

UPDATE:
Advertising for Peanuts talks about next year's ads, here.
Beyond Madison Avenue posts their take, here.

If you have a Super Bowl Ad write up or favorite article you'd like me to add to the list, please leave a comment.

Sprint—A Brand In Crisis

I've written about Sprint before (here and here), but the news last week got me thinking about Sprint again—from a brand story perspective.

Last week (Jan 18), Sprint Nextel announced they lost more subscribers than expected. And management's outlook for the next year doesn't look much better. To make things right, they've announced 4,000 layoffs and promised to close several hundred retail locations where customers can go to pay bills, purchase new equipment, and work out service problems that simply can't get fixed on the phone (i.e. most of them). The expected savings will be around $700 million. No report on the costs to the consumer.

Wall Street rewarded the announcement by pounding Sprint's stock (and this was before the massive sell-off on MLK Day). And while they've regained about half of that loss, Sprint is down more than 50% since last summer.

So what does this have to do with branding? The Wall Street Journal article about the cuts makes two very good observations. The first is from Craig Moffett of Sanford Bernstein & Company. He says, "Cutting costs isn't going to help solve the basic problem. They're not going to cut their way to greatness." Excellent point. While cuts may help set the stage for a change, the cuts themselves will only exacerbate the problems in the short term. Without a different (better) strategy, Sprint will continue to disappoint customers and investors. No company will ever cut itself to greatness.

The second observation is related to the first. Robert Passikoff of Brand Keys says, "Everyone knows Sprint, but no one knows them for anything in particular." That is, they are a brand in serious need of a story. Why choose Sprint over AT&T or Verizon? No idea. Back in the day, the pin-drop represented audio clarity for long-distance service. But Sprint cell service/reception/call quality isn't better than the competition. What's Sprint's story now?

If Sprint really wants to emerge from the malaise holding them down, they should rethink the entire cell phone business. There is so much wrong with how plans are sold, how phones are limited to carrier networks, how fees are charged, how plans are changed, and on and on...  Sprint (or, more likely a smart competitor not bogged down with Sprint's history and processes) has an opportunity to really disrupt the cell phone business and provide phones and service that customers really want.

Now there's a brand story just about everyone would get excited about.

Where's The Sausage? The Brandstory Review.

One of my favorite web logs is David Taylor's BrandGymBlog. David's no-nonsense approach to marketing is one that really appeals to me, so I'm a regular visitor to his site. A couple of months ago I got a copy of David's latest book, Where's the Sausage: Branding based on substance not spin. It's a serious marketing book wrapped in a short parable.

Though I really like David's thinking, I'm generally not a fan of business parables. Too often they use silly characters, absurd situations, and overly simple solutions that don't always transfer well to real business situations--like this book. Books like this include a lot of "what", but not a lot of "how". And when I heard that WTS? was a parable, that's what I expected to get. But then, you can't judge a book by it's cover.

To be sure, the story isn't high literature. But this book contains a generous helping of useful marketing ideas, ways to get insights from your customers, and smart thinking (the how in addition to the what). And the characters ring true more often than not.

It's the story of Bob Jones, salesman at Simpton's Sausages who is asked to spend a year as a brand consultant before being promoted to Sales Director. He's unenthusiastic about the opportunity and immediately sees through the typical marketing BS that comes from his boss and agency contacts. Rejecting their approach to branding (and rebranding), he finds his own way as he manages the neglected sausage brand. He records his feelings several times a month (in a blog or journal) and includes much of what he is learning from his experience. The story is okay, but the real power of the book is in the chapter summaries and ideas Bob uses to rethink his product—all of which (I assume) come from the BrandGym play book.

Among the observations Bob makes:

• A brand should drive the whole business, not just the image wrapper of communication    
    and brand identity.
• A new logo can't cover up the shortcomings of a poor product.
• Many brand extensions are brand ego trips offering nothing new.
• True insight doesn't come from focus groups, it comes from immersing yourself in your
    consumer's world.
• Having little or no funds for conventional marketing can be a great stimulus for creativity.
• Communication that has only emotional sizzle and not product sausage is 'sponsored
    entertainment'.

Add to that the simple exercises and processes that Bob takes his brand through (and that the reader can do with their own brand) and you have a decent little marketing book. Thanks David.

If you're looking for a quick read peppered with smart thinking, you'll like Where's the Sausage.

More Where's the Sausage? Links:
Other reviews of the book can be found here and here.
David's description of the book is here.
Buy it at Amazon.
Read the BrandGym blog.
Video of Hugo Gaines (the book's star marketing,um, expert).
Video of David talking about the book.
Buy David's other books here, here, and here.

Why This Blog Has Gone Dark

Regular readers of this blog (if there are any left) have no doubt noticed that I haven't posted anything for a number of months. Sorry.

I made the decision to return to school for my MBA this past summer and it has consumed all of the extra time I have had. On the bright side, I'm having a blast and learning a lot (accounting, statistics, finance). I'm beginning to fill a few holes in my knowledge-base and it's been great.

I'm hoping to post a few thoughts while I'm on Christmas break, then in all likelihood, the blog will go dark again for a while.

If you're visiting for the first time, scroll down and check out the archives. Hopefully you'll find something there of value. For the rest of you, I'll be back just as soon as I can.

-rm

McDonald's Proves Branding Works

As if we needed more proof that branding works...

A report in the New Scientist details a recent study revealing that pre-school kids prefer foods wrapped in McDonald's packaging over foods served in unwrapped packaging. Most parents are thinking, no duh. From the report:

"Dina Borzekowski at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Health in Baltimore, Maryland, US, and her colleagues asked 63 preschoolers, aged three to five, to sample two meals, each consisting of a chicken nugget, a quarter of a hamburger, french fries, two baby carrots and a small cup of milk.

Although both meals came from a local McDonald's, only one of them appeared in its original packaging. Researchers presented items from the other meal in plain wrappers, which lacked the company's distinctive logo.

In most cases children said they tasted a difference between the two meals, and they overwhelmingly preferred the McDonalds-branded foods."

Interesting. Kids preferred McDonald's branded carrots by a margin of 2 to 1. Same carrots. Different packaging. They preferred the french fries 73% to 13%. All because of the golden arches. It's not like we don't know that branding/marketing/advertising works. After all, we spend well over $10 billion a year marketing products to kids. And billions more to advertise to adults. But it is somewhat disturbing to see the affects on kids as young as three.

Of course McDonald's has known this for more than 10 years—watch the proof here.

Might be time to unplug the television.

AdFreak has also written about this.

Copywriting School

Michelle Miller at WonderBranding points us to a terrific (so far) series on effective copy writing from the geniuses—Jeff Sexton in particular—at FutureNow. I've had the opportunity to work with the FutureNow team. They know what they're talking about.

The first segment is about how to choose between writing from an intellectual perspective or an emotional one. It's very good stuff. Here's a follow-up.

The second installment (or is it the 6th?) deals with using positive or negative imagery: "worries trump daydreams." Check out how this applies to VW's recent ads for Jetta.

The Third Installment focuses on intensity and involvement. The fourth should be up on Monday.

This is very good stuff. Not just the advice, but the copy examples are also stellar.

Check it out at Grokdotcom.

And if you like that, here's another favorite: How to Write Better Ads. Great advice that most writers have forgotten (or never learned).

Making Things Right = Customer Loyalty

Tom Fishburne shares an experience he recently had with an angry customer and what it took to make things right—a little human touch. He also notes a discussion he had with the head of Dyptique who said that "some of his best consumers were those who had a bad product experience, but then were overwhelmed by amazing customer service."

This is not an isolated experience. Angry customers who receive great service to fix their problem often become dedicated consumers. Why?

First, customers don't expect to companies to make things right. Billing problems, long hold times, lost information, forgotten call-backs, attention before the sale and neglect afterward. They all add up to very low expectations. Problems are seldom fixed. And when they are, it often requires so much effort on the part of the customer that the experience is still negative.

So when a company (or an attentive employee) fixes things, it is unexpected. And when the employee provides amazing service, it is so out of the ordinary that it makes a significant impact; in many cases, it makes a brand impression with lasting consequences.

Just as importantly, customers who go through these kinds of experiences now have a (brand) story to tell. (Thanks to the power of Word of Mouth, these micro stories can have a greater effect on the brand than the macro-stories companies tell in the advertising.) And if the brand is lucky, the newly happy customer will tell their story over and over. There are lots of examples of this. One of mine features RayBan sunglasses.

Risky Business and Tom Cruise made RayBan Wayfarers the "must-have" accessory back in the middle 80s. I had a pair that broke. This wasn't a case of losing a screw. I sat on them and they broke—in half—at the nose. The Sunglass Hut wouldn't take them back, so I sent them directly to RayBan with a note that simply said: "These broke. Please fix." I had no expectations of ever hearing from the company and started looking for some new glasses. Two weeks later I received a new pair of RayBans in the mail. I was thrilled. And 22 years later I'm a huge fan of RayBan and still telling the story.

Guess which brand of sunglasses I look for first when a need a new pair?

Have you had a great customer experience that you share over and over? Leave it in the comments.

Almost In-N-Out

There's been a fun little trademark controversy brewing here near BrandStory HQ. (News reports here, here, and here.)

It seems that a former California resident who grew tired of traveling back to California for a Double Double and Coke took matters into his own hands and opened up a new drive-through, called Chadder's, patterned on In-N-Out. Patterned may be an understatement. On opening day the decor, uniforms, and menu were exactly the same. Lines were out the door for hours and the restaurant ran out of food. Word spread very quickly that this was as close to In-N-Out as you could get outside of California.

That's when In-N-Out got wind of it and filed suit to protect its trade dress. In-N-Out won a restraining order and Chadder's has had to make changes to the restaurant and uniforms (more blue, less red). The food is still the same, but the "secret menu" is different. Animal style is stubby style. A double double is a stubby double. And so on.

A couple of (somewhat contradictory) thoughts:

1. While I can't (and don't) fault In-N-Out for filing a lawsuit to protect its brand image, I have to wonder if there isn't a better way to shut down Chadder's? Why not open an In-N-Out across the street? Let's face it, no one is going to Chadder's for the stubby double. They're going because they can get a taste of In-N-Out. My guess is that most of Chadder's customers would prefer the original, not the copy. And they don't want to wait years for the real thing to arrive.

2. In-N-Out uses its packaging brilliantly to reinforce their brand. Each wrapper is printed with information about the freshness of the meat and potatoes. Chadder's food is also fresh, but they don't do anything to drive that message home. In-N-Out understands the power of their brand. Today, Chadder's is little more than a knock-off (though this can and probably will change over time).

3. There is a massive demand for In-N-Out outside of California. But one of the things that drives the demand is scarcity. As In-N-Out expands, it becomes less unique. This is exactly what happened to Kripsy Kreme. Once you could purchase a (cold) Krispy Kreme in every gas station in town, the magic disappeared. (I'm not the first to write about this. See this too.) Few people think of McDonald's as special—partly because when you have more than 10,000 stores, you're common, not special. When In-N-Out becomes just another choice for lunch, will it still drive the passion that it does today?

4. Culture matters. In my experience the staff at In-N-Out love what they do—or they are very good at faking it. As of today, Chadder's staff appear to be just working a job. In fact, many look tired and overworked, due probably to the crowds. I can't imagine anyone working there for 20 years as In-N-Out claims to have working at their stores.

5. Nothing beats word of mouth. Chadder's hasn't done any advertising. But they've had great word of mouth and PR. They've got a great core idea: it's almost In-N-Out. And word has spread. Chadder's owner is now turning down requests for interviews because the word of mouth has brought more customers than they can handle. The Wendy's around the corner would kill for that kind of attention.

 

Now we just need someone to knock off Tommy's. Or maybe the Cheesecake Factory.

Made to Stick—A Few Story-related Thoughts

I recently finished reading Made to Stick by Chip and Dan Heath (I know, I'm a little late to this party). Anyone involved in telling brand stories (marketers, advertisers, customer service agents, CEOs, PR people, bloggers) should not only read, but ingest, what the Heaths have to say about communicating messages in a way that makes them "sticky".

They retell a variety of stories to make their points: from urban legends to familiar advertising tales like Subway's Jared and The American Legacy Foundation's Truth campaign.

In crafting stories that stick, the authors recommend that you create messages that are Simple (not dumb, but the core of the idea), Unexpected, Concrete (using details to hook the message into memory), Credible, Emotional (the need for analysis is the enemy of stickiness), and follow a Story line. The use the acronym SUCCESS to help you remember the steps.

From the book:

"[Stories] ...naturally embody most of the SUCCESSs framework. Stories are almost always Concrete. Most of them have Emotional and Unexpected elements. The hardest part of using stories effectively is making sure that they're Simple—that they reflect your core message. It's not enough to tell a great story; the story has to reflect your agenda... Stories have the amazing dual power to simulate and to inspire. And most of the time we don't even have to use much creativity to harness these powers—we just need to be ready to spot the good ones that life generates every day."

Chip and Dan note three types of story plots that resonate best. They are: 1. The Challenge Plot (underdog, rags to riches, willpower): think Southwest Airlines, Pepsi Challenge, or Richard Branson. 2. The Connection Plot: think Coke's Mean Joe Green or Hallmark. 3. The Creativity Plot (solving problems in new ways): think ZipCar or Post-its.

Great stuff. I highly recommend this book.

From a branding standpoint, don't miss what the Heaths have to say about the curse of knowledge and how to overcome it. Hint: well-told stories can help.

Check out these other Made to Stick links:
1. Good PDF summary of the main points of the book.
2. Chip and Dan's Blog.
3. You can read a book excerpt here.
4. Reviews from Brand Autopsy, Time, USNews, BusinessPundit. One more here.
5. Podcasts from HBR, Ducttape Marketing, and 800-CEOREAD.
6. An interviews from Guy Kawasaki. Another interview here.
7. The Made to Stick Change This manifesto.
8. The Made to Stick SlideShare.
9. And of course, you can buy the book here (recommended).

Tagline Trivia Part Two

Derrick Daye of Branding Strategy Insider posts a short list of taglines/slogans from 25 consumer brands. Can you name them all?

While it makes great trivia, the amazing thing is that many of these taglines haven't been used in decades (at least one since the 60s). Yet, it is not very difficult to connect them to their brands (at least for those of us approaching middle age). It just goes to show the power of a good tagline.

Compare Derrick's original list with the following:

1. I'm lovin' it.
2. Army Strong.
3. Just Do It.
4. The Coke Side of Life.
5. That's Right.
6. A Family Commitment to Quality Since 1920.
7. We Try Harder.
8. Moving Forward.
9. Find Your Voice.
10. On the Move.
11. Life Takes Visa.
12. Be there now.
13. My Life, My Card.
14. Like Always, Like Never Before.
15. With 100% Natural Flavors (I guess Make 7UP Yours wasn't working).
16. There's an M in everyone.
17. When you care enough to send the very best.
18. Have it your way
19. All the news that's fit to print.
20. Taking on the world's toughest energy challenges.
21. Childhood is calling.
22. Imagination at work.
23. Accelerate your life.
24. --
25. Nothing beats a great pair of l'eggs.

Now can you name them all?

Kudos to those few brands that know a good thing when they see it. Sadly, they're in rare company. Too many brands these days use taglines of questionable originality or relevance to their products. How exactly does "That's Right" help me remember Wendy's? And what was the Perdue family committed to before 1920?

Other slogan lists worth checking out: AdSlogans.com, SnarkHunting, and SingleGrain.

Copywriting is (Mostly) Dead

Brian Howlett (not his photo) of Axmith McIntire Wicht has a great column in this month's CA Design Annual about the place of copywriting in the advertising world. Worthy of a read, if you, unlike most consumers and adfolk, can stomach more than a few words of copy. But then that's the point.

Brian has a pretty clear grasp on the value of copywriting today:

"All along, you’ve suspected that if advertising’s various disciplines were to occupy offices, New Business would enjoy the corner suite with windows straddling both walls and the most expensive lamps; and Strategic Development, Media and Creative Direction would be right down the hall, jockeying for adjacency.

But Copywriting? It wouldn’t even rate a cubicle. In fact, it would be in the broom closet. No, make that the broom closet in the boiler room in the parking garage. Look around your agency. If there are 100 people, how many are asking you if the copy is as good as it could be?

Why would they?

Clients don’t come to agencies looking for wordsmiths. Search consultants intimate with every agency’s strengths couldn’t tell you which ones “write well.” Awards show judges are far too preoccupied looking for the next funny visual. And creatives’ bookshelves have far too many back issues of Lürzer’s Archive magazine to leave any room for Alastair Crompton’s The Copy Book.

...copywriting is dead."

I'd rather think that copywriting is "mostly dead." As Miracle Max said, "There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive."

Read the whole thing.

Another good copy-related link: Do you make these mistakes in your writing?

Does WalMart Need a Better Image?

Or maybe the question should be, should a leopard change its spots?

According to a couple of news stories earlier this week (here and here), WalMart's former advertising agency GSD&M prepared a report that argues for a more upscale image for the decidedly downscale retailer. And WalMart is playing down the importance of the report.

You can read the 55 page report here.

According to the news stories, the report argues for repositioning the brand along the lines of smart shopping and better living (and thus, away from "low prices—always"). Why? Because while WalMart is the smart place to shop for brand-name consumables like toothpaste, it is not seen as a smart choice for purchases like electronics, apparel, and home decor (they call these priority departments). "Its reputation for discounts... 'works against [them]' as it tries to move upscale." 

But can WalMart grow into these new areas without impacting it's existing story? Is changing WalMart's positioning and brand story to accommodate the new priorities worth the risk?

In fact, the news reports are badly misreading the report. The economic, psychographic, and competitive information in the report indicates that WalMart should stick to it's low-price story. One survey quoted in the report notes that saving money is the #1 driver of shopping and that 87% of female shoppers agree that getting the best price is the most important thing to them when shopping. What percentage of WalMart's 138 million weekly customers are begging for better service in Home Apparel or higher end brands in the electronics department? My guess, it's very low. Instead of changing its position, the recommendations are for helping consumers understand how the low price story also means a better quality of life.

So the report argues for helping customers understand that smart shopping can also mean saving time, energy, or stress. It can mean spending dollars at a company that gives back to the community. These are areas that WalMart can improve.

So why the bad reading of the report? Perhaps it has something to do with the source: WakeUpWalMart.com, a union-backed group that is critical of WalMart (and clearly has an agenda for releasing the report). Maybe the reporters should have spent a little more time reading what the report actually says. In reality, it's a fascinating look into the day-to-day challenges of appealing to WalMart's customers.

Don't get me wrong. WalMart has some massive challenges. But being the low-price leader barely makes the list. In fact, one could argue that low prices are the only reason WalMart is what it is today.

John has a discussion going on about this at Brand Autopsy.

Lessons from The Rural Utah Business Conference

Earlier today I spoke to a small group of rural business owners who were participating in the Rural Utah Business Conference. In many cases, these business owners face an enormous challenge—building a business and communicating a great brand story in a small town (or no town at all). Often they have few local customers, few resources, and a very small support network.

While there, I had the opportunity to see a presentation by Kendall Card from Backcountry.com about how they have used blogs to build traffic to their main site. Kendall is at least partly responsible for the content posted to the various Backcountry.com blogs, including Backcountry and The Goat.

And while I tend to shy away from blogging about blogging, two things Kendall said caught my attention. Backcountry invites its customers to post on company blogs about their outdoor experiences. By opening up the posts (and not just the comments) to their most engaged customers, Backcountry builds a lot of content (including photos and video) and attracts lots of new page views from potential customers. And every post is a micro-brand story featuring gear available from Backcountry.com. It's tough to read this post about a trip to Madagascar without thinking, I could use a set of these and one of these the next time I go trekking off to Ranomafana (or the Uintas or Moab)—better stock up now. Even if readers don't buy immediately, they know exactly where they can get their gear when they need it. It's a great way to share a brand story.

Perhaps most importantly, Backcountry can attribute sales north of six figures  back to links from its blogs (sorry, I don't remember the exact number). That may not be a lot to some, but to many small businesses that's a difference maker.

Hmmm... sharing relevant brand stories and making money at the same time. No wonder Liberty Media was so interested in these guys.