branding ‘no’

Sun, 28 Mar 2010 09:32:56 -0400

Does negative branding work? In the consumer product world, the answer is typically no. Companies simply don’t advance their interests by casting competitors in a negative light. What would be the benefit? In the movie industry, new films don’t demonize the offerings of other studios. Instead, they market the most appealing aspects of the film to attract audiences. Sports teams often go out of their way to praise opponents prior to a game, partly to avoid giving the other team an added incentive to win. In a more universal sense, branding works best and adds measurable value when it focuses on positive contributions that advance the welfare of society, whether in the form of new products that make life easier or services that support human and social needs. The one outlier (in the U.S., at least) has typically been politics. Negative campaigning is more memorable than new policy proposals designed to improve the quality of life, for example. A candidate’s past mistake, no matter how distant or insignificant, takes center stage and often becomes a primary reason why that person is unfit for office. And as the Republicans believed this past year, a uniform stance against healthcare by consistently saying ‘no’ would lead the bill to failure and serve as a big blow to President Obama’s Presidency. Instead, the healthcare debate over the past year culminated in the historic passage of this week’s sweeping healthcare legislation, and the Republicans mammoth effort to defeat the bill did not work. For once, the branding of ‘no’ in politics failed. Absurd distortions, a regular feature of political campaigns, were rampant over the past year (death panels, socialism, Obama as Hitler, among them). But those distortions failed to derail passage.

So where does this leave us? Will Republicans sweep the November elections in a wave of voter anger? Will healthcare be repealed in 2011? Without questions, there is discontent among selected blocks of voters. Yet there is also relief and a sense of optimism that something important and historically positive has occurred. Once the emotions die down in the weeks and months ahead, attention will shift to the economy and jobs, peace in the Middle East, and education, among other priorities. That does not mean that healthcare will be relegated to the back burner. But there are many other pressing issues that need addressing and I suspect that these will dominate the political landscape. Will the use of ‘no’ as a branding tool disappear in light of the Republican failure? Unfortunately, that is unlikely. Both parties have used negative campaigning to great effect over the years. But for now at least, the branding of ‘no’ failed.

Multicultural changes

Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:21:12 -0500

The branding of business education is changing. A recent New York Times article discusses multicultural theory in business schools, with a focus on the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, where the dean, Roger Martin has overtly embraced the importance of critical and creative thinking skills in business education. Sweeping curriculum overhauls in business schools are increasing. Notably, Stanford’s business school underwent a complete restructuring of the entire MBA program 3 years ago to include greater emphasis on squishier leadership issues and the active consideration of multicultural perspectives throughout its coursework. Singapore Management University (my former employer) launched an innovative MBA program last year that focused on critical thinking in a interdisciplinary context (with a heavy emphasis on leadership, as opposed to management), going well beyond the more conventional quantitative reasoning of many MBA programs. The first cohorts of students, which I had the pleasure to teach, were outstanding. In my field of marketing and branding, the intersection of the vertical disciplines (finance, marketing, sales, operations, HR...) and horizontal needs (working collaboratively in teams of cross-disciplinary people, for example) has been occurring for some time in industry, and it is a key focus of my next book Competitive Success-How Branding Adds Value. Peter Drucker remains the undisputed father of modern business thinking, and he described the importance of looking at business from a cross-organizational perspective (i.e. a point of view that can easily translate into multicultural), as opposed to a collection of vertically distinct disciplines, decades ago (see The Economist). For business education to prosper in the future, and for disciplines such as marketing in particular, broadening its definition and reshaping its practices to reflect the inherent dynamism of business is vital to success. This includes expanding business education to encompass the kind of critical thinking skills found in a liberal arts education.

College football $

Mon, 4 Jan 2010 21:26:24 -0500

CNNMoney had a provocative article today about the haves and have nots in college football, based on financial results. A few highlights:

• most successful financial results: University of Texas-UT led all colleges and universities with $87 million in revenues and $65 million in profits generated from their football program
• #2 in revenue was Ohio State with $68 million
• #2 in profits was University of Georgia with $45 million in profits
• Alabama’s $65 million in revenue ranked it 5th, while its $38 million in profits ranked it 8th

The most interesting point of the article is the last paragraph, where author Chris Isidore says that while there is clamor from fans, government, and even President Obama to scrap the BCS (Bowl Championship Series) in favor of a national playoff, the money pouring into the 6 BCS conferences is huge, so little incentive exists to change the system. This seems to be a clear case where a flawed market has distorted sport--in effect, the purity of competition has taken a back seat to pure financial gain.

2010 Vancouver Olympic games sponsorship

Sun, 3 Jan 2010 14:33:38 -0500

Today’s Boston Globe featured a great article by Shira Springer called ‘Green before gold’, about the challenges of Olympic funding and sponsorships in today’s economic climate. The tough economic times do not make it easy for Olympic athletes and teams to get the resources necessary to support their efforts. Unconventional actions have included comedian Stephen Colbert and his ColbertNation sponsoring the US Olympic Speedskating team for the forthcoming Vancouver Olympics. For the past several weeks, he has not only talked about his sponsorship, but also filmed hilarious episodes featuring him trying out different Olympic sports, including luge, skeleton, and bobsled. Needless to say, the exposure he has given the Olympics has been terrific, in addition to the $300,000+ his sponsorship has raised. The current sponsorship challenges are likely to change, hopefully for the better, as economies improve around the world. But improvement in sports sponsorship funding will be slow for the next couple of years and, as happens with most economic downturns, companies will change their criteria for determining sponsorship value. Creative approaches will increasingly determine sponsorship support, with performance-based results driving matching, and/or increasing, sponsorship contributions. As with any sport, actual outcomes are hard to predict and surprises happen (an easy example is the oft-referenced ‘Miracle’ U.S. gold medal winning hockey team of 1980). Corporate sponsors will ultimately rely on the power of the Olympics (or any sport, for that matter) to determine success and appeal. For the Olympics, the idea of the Games, and the values associated with Olympic Ideals, will continue to drive value.

Brands of the decade

Fri, 1 Jan 2010 07:46:17 -0500

I have been thinking about the brands that have had the greatest sustained impact on our lives the past 10 years. Two stand out: Apple and Google. Apple was resuscitated by Steve Jobs in the late 1990s and then went on a decade-long run to the top of the technology world with innovative products that we all know. At the start of the decade, Napster was giving away music for free, raising questions about artists’ rights and how long the music industry would survive. Apple’s iPod product line and accompanying iTunes download service showed that artist rights could be protected and the industry could continue to make money at the same time, while also satisfying growing demand for easily accessible music online--Apple’s market share in this sector is 87%. The company’s iMac, MacBook, and MacBook Pro computers witnessed their own resurgence as well, with market share quadrupling from roughly 2.5% share at the start of the decade to nearly 10% by the end of 2009. The company’s unique hardware/software combination captured the fancy of consumers, tapping into a desire for high quality design, product reliability, and lifestyle fit. The iPhone ushered in a new era of smart phone innovation and soared to 30% market share in the smart phone sector, behind only Blackberry’s 40%--a rapid rise in a very short time span. Although clearly not everyone loves Apple’s offerings, each of Apple’s products have become among the most talked about favorites among consumers, making the company one of the hottest viral marketers of the decade.
Google was founded in 1998, went public in 2004, and has grown to over $22 billion in revenue, a market cap of $196 billion, and a global market share of 67% (its U.S. market share is over 71%). It is hard to imagine not using Google several times a day. The company focuses on innovation in many areas beyond search, including free collaboration software, office software, maps, analytics, voice and, most recently, its Android mobile operating system. Android was a small start-up that Google purchased in 2005. In the past year, Google has launched its mobile phone service along with hardware partnerships for Android-compatible phones. Gartner forecasts Android to surpass iPhone by 2012 in market share (Gartner), which suggests that the pace of innovation in the smartphone sector will continue unabated for years to come.
Both Apple and Google are my brands of the decade because of their respective business dominance and also the direct impact they have had on our lives. Other brands that have risen to prominence to have an impact on our lives? Facebook, IKEA, Nokia, Blackberry, Nintendo (Wii). Twitter is too new and still appears too trendy (for now) to determine its long-term value (although its millions of devotees swear by it). But Apple and Google stand out.