This entry was originally posted on March 26, 2008 at the old Brandstory blog.

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.

This entry was originally posted on August 7, 2007 at the old Brandstory blog.

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.

This entry was originally posted on April 18, 2007 at the old Brandstory blog (link for a limited time).

James Dyson is a failer (not failure). While vacuming his home, he became frustrated with the lousy suction of his vacuum cleaner. The bag and filter clogged too quickly, reducing the suction to the point where it didn’t work. I know the feeling. But unlike me, Dyson decided to do something about it. Over 15 years, he built 5126 prototypes before he found the one that worked. 15 years and 5126 failures. How did he find the solution? “Wrong doing.” Here’s how Dyson describes it:

“When I was doing my vacuum cleaner, I started out trying a conventionally shaped cyclone, the kind you see in textbooks. But we couldn’t separate the carpet fluff and dog hairs and strands of cotton in those cyclones. It formed a ball inside the cleaner or shot out the exit and got into the motor. I tried all sorts of shapes. Nothing worked. So then I thought I’d try the wrong shape, the opposite of conical. And it worked. It was wrong-doing rather than wrong-thinking. That’s not easy, because we’re all taught to do things the right way.”

There’s are plenty of lessons in Dyson’s story. Never give up. Don’t settle for stuff that doesn’t work. But the lesson I like most is the idea of right thinking and wrong doing. Doing things in a different (new or unexpected) way is the crux of creativity.

To get his vacuum to work, Dyson had to do it all wrong. And when he offered his new design to Hoover, they did the opposite—right doing and wrong thinking. They sold bag vacuums. This new vacuum wouldn’t fit their product line. It was too different. They had the market sown up. So they passed on the idea. Dyson went on to sell more than 15 million of his vacuums (for as much as $2000 each). Today he is one of the richest men in Britain.

Inside the box, with every Dyson vacuum cleaner is a small brochure that tells the Dyson brand story. How James Dyson failed more than 5000 times. How his competitors first ignored him, then copied him. And how he succeeded despite the odds. This simple brochure is a great way to reinforce the Dyson brand story with every new customer. Of course, the fact that this is an amazingly good vacuum delivering a great product experience also helps.

This month’s Fast Company magazine features a very good interview by Chuck Salter with James Dyson, covering not just his vacuum story, but also his thinking about design and engineering and his latest invention. Read it here. Don’t miss the second page, which is even better than the portion of the interview in the print magazine. There’s also a podcast interview here.

One more clip from the interview:

“A lot of people give up when the world seems to be against them, but that’s the point when you should push a little harder. I use the analogy of running a race. It seems as though you can’t carry on, but if you just get through the pain barrier, you’ll see the end and be okay. Often, just around the corner is where the solution will happen.”

This entry was originally posted on January 11, 2007 at the old Brandstory blog (link available for a limited time).

On Tuesday Apple’s CEO and master storyteller, Steve Jobs, announced a “revolutionary” new mobile phone with a wide screen touch pad, Internet browser, built-in iPod, visual voice mail, Google maps feature, and much more. The reviews so far have been very good. Time writes: “Apple’s new iPhone could do to the cell phone market what the iPod did to the portable music player market: crush it pitilessly beneath the weight of its own superiority. This is unfortunate for anybody else who makes cell phones, but it’s good news for those of us who use them.”

It’s even better news for Apple’s share holders. On the day of the announcement, Apple’s share price increased more than 8% or $7.10 a share. And shares of both Palm (maker of the Treo) and Research in Motion (maker of blackberry) fell, 5.69% and 7.85% respectively (a collective loss of more than 2 billion dollars).

But here’s the kicker. Apple doesn’t even have a completely functional model yet. Those lucky few who have seen it report that some features are not yet ready for prime time. The demos are cool. The pictures are cool. But Apple won’t have a phone ready to deliver for almost 5 months.

So all Apple really has is a well-designed model and a terrific story, worth more than 6 billion dollars. True, Apple is very good at delivering products that change categories. And that’s what investors are betting on. Given their track record, it’s a pretty safe bet.

But until the iPhone starts shipping, all Apple has is a very impressive, very well-told story.

What’s your story worth?

Hat tip: tuaw.com.

This entry was originally posted on August 28, 2006 at the old Brandstory blog (link available for a limited time).

I was catching up on some reading a few days ago and came across this excellent article in the Harvard Business Review: Eager Sellers and Stony Buyers by John Gourville. A very worthwhile read about the tendency of buyers to under estimate their need for new products and marketers to over estimate the public’s desire for the same products.

Marketers spend so much time with their innovations and become so familiar with the advantages over existing products, that the new product becomes their reality. They simply can’t see why people won’t immediately adopt their product. While consumers overvalue the products they are familiar with and see behavioral changes such as switching brands as a major negative. The authors cite specific examples like Segway, Tivo, and WebVan as terrific innovations that have experienced failure or slow adoption rates due to these opposing factors. Here’s the nut graph:

“…consumers overvalue the existing benefits of an entrenched product by a factor of three, while developers overvalue the new benefits of their innovation by a factor of three. The result is a mismatch of nine to one, or 9x, between what innovators think consumers desire and what consumers really want. Left unchecked, this mismatch is a recipe for disaster.”

If you’re involved in creating marketing, advertising, or disruptive technologies, this behavior has massive implications for what you do. Read the whole thing.

This entry was originally posted on June 12, 2006 at the old Brandstory blog (link available for a limited time).

Last week I heard a few minutes of NPR’s On The Media, where Bob Garfield laid out a doomsday scenario for broadcasters (transcript here). Bob said:

“A little over a year ago, we floated a theoretical chaos scenario. It goes like this. Mainstream media, especially network TV, lose so much audience, they can no longer attract the advertising revenue they need to sustain their content, leading to still more audience defection, then more advertiser defection, and so on into the toilet, all before the on-line brave new world is ready to take over. In this past year, plenty has happened to add to the chaos. TiVo and DVR usage is rising, with Forrester Research estimating that by 2008, one in four households will be DVR’ing their favorite shows and skipping past commercials. ITunes has started selling hit TV shows for $1.99, and now all the networks are offering free streaming content on their websites. More options for us, and more jeopardy for the old model.”

Sounds like the premise for Joseph Jaffe’s recent book, Life After the 30-Second Spot, which lays out the same nightmare and about ten different alternatives to traditional, interuptive advertising.

Joe’s not the first person to argue that the 30 second spot is on life support and that consumers are about to pull the plug. Even he admits that the death of the 30 is, by now, a cliche. But it is coming. And marketers who are willing to take a few risks and try new ways to reach their audience may actually look back and agree with Joe that “there couldn’t possibly be a better time to be working in this business.”

Jaffe’s book outlines (in detail) many causes of death for the 30 second spot: fragmentation, commoditization, information overload, clutter, crappy advertising, better educated consumers, and so on. Then he lays out a few ideas for rethinking the way marketers engage consumers. My favorite quote comes from Chapter 9: Re:think Advertising: Make Advertising Relevant Again. Jaffe writes,

“There’s a rather putrid stench emanating from the world of advertising right now. And if you can’t smell it yourself, then you’re either used to it or you’ve lost your sense of smell altogether (in which case, it’s time to consider another career).”

Here, here.

Jaffe goes on to detail newish areas where marketers can get their message and brand in front of consumers: Internet, gaming, experiential marketing (emphasis on physical contact with the brand), search, consumer generated marketing, and more. But Jaffe doesn’t just provide his thinking on the matter. He also includes several short essays by other marketing experts to back up his thinking. Some of these extra essays are better than others, but all provide food for thought. It’s not that there’s a lot new here, but Jaffe wraps it all up very well in one place.

Clearly the jury is still out on the effectiveness of some of these avenues. Do gamers really respond to ads displayed on their PS2s? Do gift bags stimulate trial or simply eat up placement fees?  Did subservient chicken or BMW films really sell anything? Some of the ideas Jaffe lays out will work better than others. But the fact remains, the 30 second spot isn’t working like it used to, so why not try something different (and hopefully effective)?

Overall, this book is a good read. I get the feeling that Jaffe’s just scratched the surface and has even more to say on the subject. If you’re looking for an overview of where advertising/marketing may be headed in the future, check out Life After the 30-Second Spot.

Also of interest:
Joe Jaffe’s Blog, Jaffe Juice.
Get a free chapter from Jaffe’s book, here.
Buy the book from Amazon, here.
The first half of Jaffe’s podcast with American Copywriter.

Full disclosure: Mr. Jaffe practices what he preaches, when it comes to consumer generated marketing. I got my copy of the book on the condition I would read and review it. I agreed, noting that if I didn’t like the book, I would say so (I’ve done that before). Mr. Jaffe had no hesitation, saying, “…all I ask is an authentic review.”

This entry was originally posted on February 9, 2006 at the old Brandstory blog (link available for a limited time).

A few weeks ago, while searching around for an afternoon energy boost, a coworker turned me on to a new product—Bear Naked Granola. He said, not only is it good, but it’s a small company started by two high school friends. I was intrigued.

He was right. This granola is good. Very good. And it all started in Kelly Flatley’s kitchen. You can read the entire story here. Of course, a story this good has been told before. In this case, many times.

The Bear Naked story is the American dream. Two kids, who don’t know any better, succeed at doing something they love. They max out credit cards. Mix batches of granola in mom’s kitchen (only using ingredients you can pronounce). They cook all night, then work all day to grow the company. They hire other friends to help out. And after a bit of effort, their product is carried in 11,000 retail outlets nationwide.

The branding is terrific. Bear Naked has a great logo, and clean, distinctive packaging. They are proud of their story and make it a prominent part of their website and packaging. They offer Bear Naked gear for evangelists to wear (just save your packages and send them in). And they have a blog (though it looks as if posting new content isn’t a big priority).

Most importantly, the product tastes fantastic. It’s no wonder that when Bear Naked offers samples at retail locations, sales increase 4x. I’d love to hear the pitch the sample people give. If they’re smart, they share more than a spoon full of granola, they share their brand story.

This entry was originally posted on January 5, 2006 at the old Brandstory blog (link available for a limited time).

Last week my local paper reprinted an article from the AP wire about Krispy Kreme’s new chief executive Stephen Cooper. (You can also read it here.) The article focuses on Cooper’s status as a turnaround specialist and shares some of his philosophy for fixing what’s wrong with Krispy Kreme. Here’s a sample of his thinking:

“You can’t rely on word of mouth to keep expanding the circuit of very loyal customers… You have to be able to make the transition from being a word-of-mouth, kind of myth-driven marketing company into one that has a much more structured, objective-driven sales marketing program.”

Setting aside arguments about whether or not a company can grow by word-of-mouth, Cooper may want to rethink his approach. The problem with Krispy Kreme (okay, there are many) isn’t that the company has relied too heavily on myth or story-driven marketing, it is that the company has removed the story (and experience) from its product as it expanded into new markets.

No brand story = no reason to buy Krispy Kreme donuts. Let me explain:

Six or seven years ago, the nearest Krispy Kreme to my home was a seven-hour drive to Las Vegas. Whenever you were there, you made sure to stop by the Henderson store, waited in a long line watching the donuts fry, and enjoyed a hot original glazed right off the rack, while you selected your donuts. It was something worth bragging about. People begged you to bring them one. An underground of donut smugglers emerged, bringing these delicious delicacies home.

The company expanded. Two stores were opened just 15-30 minutes away. Lines were still long. The donuts were still hot and fun to watch. Going to a Krispy Kreme store was something my kids begged to do. And I was always happy to indulge that desire.

Then Krispy Kreme started selling dounts in grocery stores and gas stations even closer to home. Now there was no need to go all the way to the Krispy Kreme store, wait in line, watch the donuts fry, enjoy a hot, free sample, and place my order. They were available at Albertsons, less than five minutes away. So that’s where we went.

The only problem was, the new Krispy Kreme experience lacked the story and experience that we enjoyed at the donut store. The donuts at Albertson’s were a day old or more. We didn’t see them fry and pass through the froster. The kids didn’t get a free hat. There was no free sample. And frankly, the donuts weren’t that good cold. So why would I pay $1.40 more for six Krispy Kremes than I would for six Hostess donuts? Why not save even more buying the house brand? Customers caught on.

What’s worse, the experience at the Krispy Kreme store was still there, but no one has a reason to go because they know they can get the same donuts at the corner market. As a result, the store experience has changed from a line of donut in-crowders, to a trickle of customers who don’t shop at Albertsons. Visiting Krispy Kreme is no longer an event.

Rather than moving away from a story-driven marketing plan, the turn-around specialists should reconsider what made Krispy Kreme special, and worth talking about, in the first place (Hint: it’s not the donut, it’s the S-T-O-R-Y).

Note: Yes, I know there are other problems for Cooper to solve at Krispy Kreme as well (accounting, pricing, new product development). Great. Do it. Just don’t forget the brand story is a crucial part of the marketing mix.

This entry was originally posted on December 22, 2005 at the old Brandstory blog (link available for a limited time).

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about several ideas to consider when writing your brand story. Here’s another. Use your product’s weakness, make it a strength, and build your story around it.

That’s exactly what Buckley’s cough syrup has done. It tastes awful. In fact, it tastes so bad that it has to work or nobody would ever use it again. And the story has caught on. It’s featured prominently in advertising and on the web. Customers are encouraged to send in photos of their contorted faces after they have had their dose of nasty tasting cough syrup. Buckley’s website features a short note from Frank Buckley about a recurring “nightmare” that he has to take a taste.  It’s a terrific example of building a brand story around a product feature (one most brand managers would rather hide).

Compare Buckley’s story to Robitussin or Triaminic. You’ll search in vain for a brand story for the other two products. Does anyone remember the Dr. Mom campaign? These days Robitussin says they have a formula with my name on it. Not much of a story there—especially when the formula I need has Roz’s name on it. And this is what passes for a story on Triaminic’s site. I’d like to meet the child who asks to log on to Triaminic.com to play the games.

By contrast, here are a few of the headlines Buckley’s has used to tell it’s brand story:

Made with oil of Pine needles. What did you expect it to taste like?
People swear by it. And at it.
Our largest bottle is 200 ml. Anything larger would be cruel.
I’m dedicated to ensuring that every new batch of Buckley’s tastes as bad as the last.
Four of the most dreaded words in the English language: “Get out the Buckley’s!”

It’s a great story. Admitting their weakness upfront humanizes the brand and makes it more acceptable. Other cough syrups seem cold in comparison. Kudos to Buckley’s for creating a story consumers can actually relate to. You can read more about Buckley’s here. Thanks to Brand New Day for the links.

This entry was first posted on December 5, 2005 at the old Brandstory Blog (link available for a limited time).

Sometime between the turkey and the five day James Bond-a-thon on Spike TV, I took some time during the Thanksgiving Holiday to read Darren Rovell’s new book, First in Thirst, about Gatorade. It’s a great business story. Gatorade dominates its category, with more than 80% of the market, and 546 million cases sold every year. So what did it take Gatorade to get there?
1. A great story. Gatorade was developed on the playing field. It was tested on athletes in real game situations. And it (probably) made a difference to the Florida Gators’ endurance. During the 1965 season, the Gators outscored their opponents by 158 points in the second half. Since then, athletes have depended on Gatorade to help them hydrate before, during, and after games. It’s a killer story. And Gatorade has stayed true to it for more than 30 years. The story is so engaging, that fans often embellish it to make it better than it really is.

Other sports drinks were invented in boardrooms to fill holes in a product line, not to meet the need of athletes. Even though some of these drinks may actually have more effective formulas, they simply don’t have the story, history, and cultural influence that Gatorade has today, and so they don’t break through.

2. Engaged Consumers. The Gatorade dunk is the single most visible use of Gatorade in sports every week. And it wasn’t invented by the company, but by a (high-profile) consumer. And rather than stepping in to encourage the dunk every week, or in new situations, Gatorade simply let this phenomena grow on its own. If it had been a “marketing event,” the dunk would have been phony and would have within a few weeks. But because it was a spontaneous activity every week, it grew until today you can see hundreds of gallons of Gatorade dumped on dozens of coaches almost every week. TV cameras still look for it twenty years after the first dunk as if it were the first time it ever happened.

3. Natural Product Placements. Before Michael Jordan, Gatorade focused on making its product available on the sidelines of major sports. It was where you would expect to see Gatorade in use. Sideline shots of athletes off the field naturally showed them drinking from their Gatorade cups and water bottles. Anyone watching the show would naturally assume that Gatorade was the athlete’s choice for an endurance drink. Note: this is very different from writing the product into the plot of a sit-com or providing a cooler of the product on a reality TV show (yes, I know Gatorade has done both appearing on The Contender and Two and a Half Men, but the important placements are on the field).

4. Serendipity. The break-through campaign featuring Michael Jordan almost never happened. A series of high-light reel spots was planned when Bernie Pitzel, the creative responsible for the first Jordan campaign, went home to watch a movie with his son. When he heard “I Wan’na Be Like You” from the animated Disney film Jungle Book, he knew he had to use it. But when Disney wanted $350,000 for a 5 week run, Pitzel penned his own version, “Be Like Mike.” Paired with kids trying to be like Mike, the ads were a hit. And they humanized Jordan in a way that made Gatorade appealing not just to athletes, but people (and kids) who wanted to do something athletic.

5. Authenticity and Relevance. Everything about Gatorade is authentic, from the product’s heritage to its placement at sporting events. You expect to see it on the sidelines of games from the NFL to little league, from college basketball to youth soccer. And Gatorade management hasn’t tried (very seriously) to take the product beyond that market, despite the huge temptation to grow into the much larger soda market. Because of this, Gatorade has stayed relevant to its core market—athletes and others who want to hydrate, whether they are playing in an important game, or just watching one of TV.

First in Thirst is a fun, well-written profile of an interesting company. There are a lot more ideas in the book. Get your copy, here.