BRAND NAMES. WHEN SHOULD YOU CALL A SPADE A SPADE..?

Brand names. Product names. Brand sub-names. There is mega money to be made in creating brand names. And very often when some corporation or other re-brands, we hear all about the fortunes spent and the rationale. Usually the mainstream press also then write about what a waste of money it all is.

And as a consumer I do find it all quite confusing too. I am still not sure why Aviva is a better name that Norwich Union for an insurance company. Or Centrica is a better name for British Gas. Or Elton John for Reginald Dwight. Well, ok maybe the last one I do as Reginald is not very rock and roll.

At least with British Gas you knew what they did, so not sure why something link British Gas Holdings may have been cheaper, easier and more simple to reflect their new expanded interests

The re-branding bug gets everywhere. And many times it feels like it is used to fix a problem, rather than companies actually addressing the real issue: like getting on with making the brand stand for something clear and differentiated. For a branding change alone will not make any difference unless the product or service changes with it - and the user or consumer sees or experiences that change. Then it is real rather than just changing the name. That actually being more important overall.

In our offices in the UK and France, some well meaning person (or committee) has taken it upon themselves to re-brand all the meeting rooms. So now no-one (well at least me) has any idea where any meeting is being held. This illustrated to me some of the key principles to a brand name.

Previously our meeting rooms were clear and easy to find. They were called things like P010 or A433. The letter told you which building it was in, the 1st number what floor and the last two the room. They called a spade a spade. You knew exactly what it was and what it was for (or in this case where it was). As there were many visitors, and they were not going to spend time educating and communicating where rooms were - they were great names.

Now as they want to reflect a more global nature and spirit of the business, they are called London, Rome, Sao Paulo, Dusseldorf, New Brunswick (I kid you not), Sydney and so on. Now I have no clue where any meeting is.

To make it worse neither the rooms nor the doors are decorated based on the city (would love to see the New Brunswick one!). And no education is given other than an online map somewhere on the intranet.

Some great lessons in branding!

- call your spade a spade if you need people to understand what it is offering if you need easy straightforward comprehension.

- if you want to add something more emotive, emotional or add attributes to your brand then changing or giving it a name that is not obvious and clear and expecting it to come through just a name change is unrealistic. You will need to spend and invest to associate it with what you are offering, ensure you deliver it through the entire experience, and make sure your target gets it and associates it with the name. Just as I need to learn that New Brunswick is what P010 has now become.

- a change in name will not solve any more fundamental problems in your business or brand. Make sure you focus on the real issues not just the easy ones.
Thoughts?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sign up now to get updates from Gary Bembridge: Marketing Unleashed
- For email blog updates: click here now 
- Subscribe on iTunes to the podcast: click here now
- Follow @garybembridge on twitter: click here now
---------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER WINNER. ORDER LOSER. ORDER QUALIFIER. WHY IT COULD HELP YOU BE A WINNER

Have you ever tried asking a marketer why someone should buy (or use) their product/ service over another? If not try it, as it is likely to be scary! Many times I have asked this question I get a long pause, a fumble and sometimes a look close to panic. Why would a consumer buy this new Brand X anti-age lotion rather than that Olay Regenerist or this Boots No.7 Protect and Prevent Serum?




Try then asking a 2nd question to your now slightly spooked marketer: what will your source of business be? What will your target consumer stop buying or using or doing to buy your product? And why?


In most cases you will get a list of a range of brands in the category. But can that be right? Can that sensible?


One tool that I have used for years and years is a simple one that helps with competitiveness and distinctiveness, and helping everyone focus on what you need to improve - or do better - which is by asking:


What is your "order winner"?


What is (or are) your "order qualifiers?


What would be your "order losers"?


Let me explain more:


ORDER WINNER


What do you offer that is unique? Different from the others you compete with? That you do better?

The benefit, feature, offer that will make people finally chose what you are offering?
It amazes me how often companies are unable to articulate this.

Maybe it is the price or the deal, even the packaging - but to compete over time you need to have something that will set you aside and be what people chose you over others for.




ORDER QUALIFIER

These tend to be things you need to offer to compete successfully in a category. Things people expect from you and products or services.

For example, you could argue that shampoos or washing products for babies that do not sting the eyes could be an order qualifier. You need to have that. It is expected. It could be the SPF level in a suncare product.

Too often, in my view, a lot of marketing and competitive battles take place here. With brands trying to out “do” and out claim on category requirements and category qualifiers.

All suncare products must have an SPF that meets regulatory levels, and for a child suncare you need a high SPF. You probably need products that are water resistant, stay on all day, are easy to apply - and yet many of the suncare battles focus on these. A truly non stinging suncare product in the eyes, that is technically a real challenge and if delivered could be a huge "order winner" for example and different and unique.


Of course, over time order winners can be "demoted" to order qualifiers - for once every child suncare is truly eye sting free it would become a qualifier. Something expected.

Order winners are unlikely to stay the same forever. The same may also be true where qualifiers could become winners if they can be completely reinvented.




ORDER LOSERS

These are probably more obvious, though also sometimes missed.

Price can often be an order loser, when the brand image or bundle of benefits and features is not perceived as offering sufficient value. Perversely in prestige being too low price can also be bad for business. Brands like Louis Vuitton have been seeking EU laws to stop online discounters selling their products so cheaply as it makes them too accessible and affects the appeal.


Safety and related things tend to play a lot in order losers, but so can poor design and poor aesthetics.


I believe that the order loser area is key when looking at repeat and repurchase, and thinking about potential order losers that may affect repeat is a fruitful area to work on.


On a brand I work with, although we knew that no alternative worked better over the long term (8 to 12 weeks) most users stopped using as they said "it does not work" - as they saw no results quickly and not be end of the first unit which ran out after about 4 weeks and so never bought the 2nd unit where they would have seen results.


I use these 3 questions a lot. Thoughts?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sign up now to get updates from Gary Bembridge: Marketing Unleashed
- For email blog updates: click here now 
- Subscribe on iTunes to the podcast: click here now
- Follow @garybembridge on twitter: click here now
---------------------------------------------------------------------

THE CHALLENGE FACING LARGE CORPORATIONS RESPONDING TO CONSUMER ISSUES TODAY

In the last few months I have seen how hard it is for large traditional corporations to be able to embrace and understand how to use and manage issues when they blow up and consumers take to the air via social media like Twitter and Facebook. They struggle to manage and control the debate, which is what they are more used to doing through PR and media management.


Personally, I believe one key challenge and issue is that senior leaders at the very top of organisations are not active users of the tools themselves every day, and so do not really, therefore, understand how "real" people now are using and engaging via the tools.

Therefore, the policy makers and leaders rely on both the tools that have worked well for them in the past (crisis management via PR releases, help lines with recorded messages or call centre operators, media spokespersons for formal on screen interviews on TV etc) - along with careful policies on who interacts and when.

Unfortunately, this is not what consumers do any longer in the real world. They use their everyday tools and networks like Twitter and Facebook to share news, experiences and discuss. And they expect their brand owners to be doing just that too.

The power is amazing, and not engaging and debating with them on their ground could be potentially very commercially damaging.

The recent experiences of Nestle handling of use of their logo on Facebook groups (by fans of the brand), the recall by Johnson & Johnson McNeil of OTC children brands in the USA (a series of them) and the P&G launch of restage and launch of Ultra Dry Diapers have shown how social media works. And how it can take on a life of its own, which cannot just be "controlled" via old PR and crisis management approaches.

Before commenting on these brands specifically, the power of social media in a breaking story was illustrated to me vividly the other week.

 My partner arrived home visibly shaken after cycling home from work, saying they had seen a scene of what seemed to have been a blast on London's Oxford Street in Central London. I switched on the news channels (nothing, and as the 2nd live UK Leaders election debate was on, I assumed they were not breaking into it with such news), so looked on the news sites online - and again nothing. So went onto Twitter and searched "Oxford Street Blast". There were hundreds of posts and they kept coming in. People there commenting, updating and discussing. We found out the Tubes had stopped, when they started and the cause (all before it broke on the channels). What was key and interesting was the sharing, commenting and discussion. With some official people taking part to clarify and direct and correct misinformation in real time. They got engaged and guided and corrected misconceptions and rumours. They helped calm and direct the discussions.

Looking at the initial comment and issues that people raised in comments on blogs and the such to the Nestle, P&G and J&J recalls, the thread has been that there was not the kind of engagement and guidance that the consumer wanted : they wanted to have a "real-time" debate and discussion. They wanted this to take place on the tools and place they used. They wanted a "lean forward and engage/ discuss/ respond" and not a one way discussion and flow of information. And they wanted it to happen fast and at the time of day they chose to be online.

Increasingly, as hard and difficult it is going to be for corporations, we will all have to change. The risk is (of course) that they cannot allow everyone from the corporation to get into the debate, as that could create legal or liability issues they want to avoid. So maybe the only way is for all the senior leaders across organisations to get active everyday and active engaging with consumers on the tools. To engage themselves to help mould and craft the discussion. In the "old way", this was the norm and the most senior elader would be on all TV news and front all news conferences.

I know it is not the same, but I have found that some celebrities are using the tools to manage and craft their brand and persona. Sure some post inane self- gratifying promotion, but celebrities like Danni Minogue (pop star, actress and judge now on shows like X-Factor in the UK and Australia's Got Talent) uses Twitter and Facebook to respond to, direct and guide the discussion about her and her projects with her fans and not just rely on traditional media and bias. She has even cleverly used it to help with the negotiations with the producers of the shows it seems too..

Social media has meant people feel they can have direct relationships with the celebrity, the leaders of organisations, authors or other people they want to. The leaders of brands and companies have to join in too I think.

Thoughts? Leave a comment on the blog.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sign up now to get updates from Gary Bembridge: Marketing Unleashed
- For email blog updates: click here now 
- Subscribe on iTunes to the podcast: click here now
- Follow @garybembridge on twitter: click here now
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Talk: "Brand Building: How having a brand belief can drive brand competitiveness"

Click on Play and listen to a 40 minute talk (slides, audio and videos) of a talk I gave at Richmond Events Marketing Forum about how to be more competitive and being different and distinctive through having a brand belief. In the talk I look at small brands like Dorset Cereals and Korres through to large brands like Nike, Apple and Virgin

Brand Building: How having a brand belief can drive brand competitiveness

View more presentations from Gary Bembridge.

-------------------------------------------------
Sign up now to get updates from Gary Bembridge: Marketing Unleashed
For email blog updates: click here now 
Subscribe on iTunes to the podcast: click here now
-------------------------------------------------