MarketingDoctor.tv
MarketingDoctor.tv
John Tantillo's Brand Loser... And Brand Loser: Ford & GM and the U.S. Census Super Bowl Ad
John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week:
| Brand Winners... | And Loser... |
 |  |
Winner: Ford and GM
Loser: the U.S. Census Super Bowl Ad
Without further ado:
Winner
I’ll keep the winner short.
Ford and General Motors get the crown for re-organizing themselves, getting on the track to recovery and not throwing their brands out with the bathwater.
The very fact that Ford and General Motors have remained brand companies has insulated them from the kind of mass destruction that Toyota is currently experiencing.
As I wrote last week about Toyota:
With the exception of their branding master-stroke of Lexus, Toyota cross-labels every one of its car brands with its corporate brand.
The problem with this kind of corporate brand strategy? Well, when one product in the corporate line-up has a problem, so does the entire corporate brand and all of the individual brands under the corporate umbrella.
In this case: If one of Toyota’s car brands has a problem, it infects all of Toyota’s cars and its corporate image. This won’t happen —or be as grave— if Chevy has a recall (i.e., the Cadillac brand won’t be touched).
Bottom line: Ford and GM now are in a perfect position to reassert themselves in the market and underscore the quality of each of their brands. (Ford needs to apply the GM brand approach even more and better distinguish its brands from its company, lest it have a Toyota problem down the track.)
The marketing lesson here is to never give up just because your competition seems to be winning. Fundamental marketing problems —like Toyota’s over-reliance on company image over brand— can bite your competition. As long as you’ve been running your race, this means you will find yourself in an excellent position to kick your business into an even higher gear.
Oh, and a brand winner that deserves a mention: well done, New Orleans Saints! Talk about bringing back a team and a city!
The Loser
The United States Government is this week’s loser for deciding to spend 2.5 million dollars to buy a thirty-second ad for the Census in this year’s Super Bowl.
In my new book, People Buy Brands, Not Companies, due out in less than two weeks, I devote a whole chapter to the preposterous waste of Super Bowl ads. Talk about dumb marketing.
With the exception of a few cases and strategies, Super Bowl advertisements make little marketing sense and are merely ways to burnish the creative reputation of a Madison avenue ad agency.
Sadly, it is no big surprise that the United States Government has decided to waste some of our hard earned cash.
Five reasons why this was a bad idea:
1. It doesn’t look like the people behind the US.. Census did their research. Otherwise, they would have learned from the dot-comers who spent oodles on Super Bowl advertising and didn’t see much of a return.
2. Multiple impressions are critical. (Some argue at least 20 are needed to generate a response from a viewer.) The U.S. Census just spent 2.5 million on a single one.
3. Not everybody watches the Super Bowl. Advertising on the channels that aren’t carrying the big game could reach up to twice the number of viewers.
4. The message that Super Bowl marketing might not be the golden ticket has begun to sink in. This year, rates have fallen from 3.0 to 2.5 million dollars for a thirty-second spot, and Fortune 500s like Fed Ex, GM and Pepsi are either sitting this one out or reducing their exposure.
5. The amount spent on this one ad could buy up to 600 thirty-second TV ads in the NY market, or 800 thirty-second TV ads in L.A.
Nope, it’s not a surprise, but maybe it’s confirmation of just where Super Bowl advertising is headed. Sure, people will keep talking about the ads the day after, and they’ll get a lot of hits on YouTube. But if the same government that can spend hundreds of dollars on a wrench or thousands on a toilet is buying Super Bowl ads, it seems to this old marketer that’s pretty good evidence in and of itself that these ad buys are wildly over-priced..
And, remember, things are always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.
TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY -
Just because a certain marketing tactic generates hype does not mean it is helpful for the short- or long-term success of your brand. Unless hype generates sales, it’s just entertainment.
John Tantillo's Brand Loser... And Brand Loser: Toyota and Apple & the iPad
Brand Loser… | And Loser |
 |  |
John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week:
Loser: Toyota
Loser: Apple and iPad
Maybe it’s mid-winter blues, but I’ve decided to accentuate the negative by pulling a first: two losers. And, frankly, these two were such obvious marketing victims, I simply had to do it. They say that with pride there is a fall, and these two companies’ most recent debacles seem to prove the adage.
Loser Number One:
Toyota.
This car company was on the cusp of becoming the biggest and, arguably, the best worldwide.
But now Toyota is on the hook for one of the biggest recalls in automotive history, and its reputation for great quality at a great price is in tatters.
How did this happen? Well, I’ll leave the engineering post-mortem to the technical folks, but in my mind, this disaster underscores how marketing should never be seen as an after-the-fact part of business. Marketing is business. End of story.
The Toyota recall is a great example of how you can have a great brand (or brands), then make one mistake and watch it all go down the tubes.
Harry Truman used to say something along these lines: the President should be habitually uneasy. His point? Much responsibility rested on a president’s shoulders, and it would be wrong if a president didn’t sweat about these massive responsibilities and the possibility that a single slip-up could ruin everything.
Toyota, and any business for that matter, needs to remember Truman.
The design and production process must be scrutinized. Errors or potential errors must be minimized and, especially for a global company, the scope of any mishap must be compartmentalized (i.e., ten thousand recalls maybe, but not multi-continent, million plus recalls; a foot pedal problem in one car brand, not half of them).
People buy brands; they don’t buy companies…. But in Toyota’s case, things are not so clear-cut. With the exception of its branding master-stroke of Lexus, Toyota cross-labels every one of its car brands with its corporate brand.
The problem with this kind of corporate brand strategy? Well, when one product in the corporate line-up has a problem, so does the entire corporate brand and all of the individual brands under the corporate umbrella.
In this case: If one of Toyota’s car brands has a problem, it infects all of Toyota’s cars and its corporate image. This won’t happen —or be as grave— if Chevy has a recall (i.e., the Cadillac brand won’t be touched).
So what now?
Well, it’s crisis management time, and after they work their way through the recall, they need to look ahead with marketing in mind.
First, they ought to start unwinding this connection between their corporate brand and their individual car brands. Part of this process will be emphasizing the car brands that don’t have the foot pedal problem (i.e., Sienna, Solara, Yaris, 4Runner, FJ Cruiser, Land Cruiser, and the 2010 Prius).
How should Toyota handle the contamination? They need to create something like a Toyota Safety Program. For example, each car buyer will receive a card with the purchaser’s name on it and a booklet that outlines what Toyota will do for the safety of the driver and his/her family. There should be a 24-hour safety hotline that the new purchaser can call —and what about a free loaner car to be used by the owner during regular maintenance checkups?
In the face of all the negative, they need to emphasize the positive and remember that marketing begins with fundamental things like separating the individual car brands and putting quality control first.
Toyota must show that it is all about putting its customers first.
Loser Number Two:
What in the name of Newton is going on here?
Naming Apple as this week’s second loser is sad for me after I have trumpeted the virtues of this brand-based company so many times, but I have no choice…
I detect arrogance moving in, and arrogance is marketing poison. Arrogance leads to the kinds of mistakes that can only come from thinking that you know your customers better than they know themselves.
What do I mean by this?
Well, first, let’s get through the obvious iPad deficiencies, like its awkward (and possibly copyright-infringing) name and its lack of a camera. (How could they forget a camera with 500 million Skype subscribers worldwide and cameras in virtually everything, from cell phones to toasters?)
What I’m really concerned about is Flash video. Turns out that Apple has not made the iPad capable of supporting Adobe Flash video, which accounts for over 70% of all video content on the web.
Even Microsoft wouldn’t make this kind of mistake.
Obviously, the Apple consumers have told Apple simply by dint of the percentage of Flash video on the web that they want any new device to be Flash-enabled. Not making it so won’t make people abandon Flash; it will make them abandon the iPad.
The build-it-and-they-will-come strategy has never worked for any product. Real marketing dictates: build what they ask for, and they will come.
Still, I won’t sell Apple short. Hopefully, this is only a glitch and the arrogance displayed isn’t a permanent part of its corporate personality.
Next step for Apple? In the weeks ahead, Apple must listen to consumers and quickly march out updated versions of this product to meet the needs that are so clearly there.
Stay tuned.
And remember, things are always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.
TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY -
Arrogance is marketing poison.
John Tantillo's Brand Winner... And Loser: Conan O'Brien and The Republican Party
Brand Loser… | And Loser |
 |  |
John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week:
Winner: Conan O’Brien
Loser: The Republican Party
Folks, without further ado:
The Winner
Conan O’Brien is our winner of the week for standing his ground, recognizing the changing television environment and getting paid an enormous amount of money simply to walk away from The Tonight Show.
Along the way, he also won new supporters and fans by showing that he cared about those he worked for, insisting that even his non-contract co-workers be taken care of under NBC’s multi-million dollar settlement.
As I’ve observed before, NBC’s mistake wasn’t that it was wrong about the traditional television model changing. Absolutely not. Broadcast television only makes sense if you have big, captive audiences. The Internet, hand-held devices, cable and TIVO are doing away with these.
No, NBC’s mistake was that it was either insufficiently bold or prematurely radical in repositioning its brand.
Once NBC decided to shake up prime time, they should have remained committed to the shakeup, keeping Leno on prime time and, if necessary, sending the affiliates, who were complaining about declining lead-in ratings, some of the cash they were saving by reducing their prime time programming costs with Leno. Surely, at the least, NBC could have stuck to its guns a little longer to see whether this prime time shakeup would bear fruit in the long-term.
Barring this resolve, it would have been better for NBC to have simply paid O’Brien the penalty amount for not taking over the Tonight Show as scheduled, keeping Leno at the helm.
But why pick O’Brien as a winner? After all, he’s banned from doing TV for months.
All along, Conan knew his brand when others doubted it. When the going got tough, he did nothing to his brand that would hurt his current Target Market; he might have even gained new followers. Conan knows he is not a comedian or entertainer for everyone, and so he builds on what he is. This is exactly what you want to do in marketing: add new customers without alienating your current customers.
Moments of crisis can show a) what a brand is made of and b) the depth of commitment people have to a brand.
O’Brien won on both counts. He came across as an entertainment brand that has legs and, moreover, one who many people (judging from the outpouring of support and the ratings spike) like very much.
The world really is his oyster now. He might be wooed by another network, or he might finish the job that NBC started: go where no talk show host has gone before—onto the Internet with a serious venture. A tech commentator in The New York Times made the point that many in O’Brien’s audience already connect exclusively with him via the web and don’t even know what time his show airs. With his NBC payout, perhaps he can control his own brand outside of any network involvement, building segments financed with corporate sponsorship or some other new business model that will become the future once the broadcast model has breathed its last.
Who knows what the future holds, but O’Brien’s brand exits this past week stronger than ever and sure to claim a big piece of it.
Stay tuned.
The Loser
In the wake of Scott Brown’s victory, many people might wonder how I can single out the Republicans as this week’s brand loser.
Easy.
The Republicans are on the verge of making the same mistake that the Democrats did when Barack Obama was elected: thinking that the victory was an endorsement of the party, when really it was an endorsement of a man and a new way of tackling the same old problems. In both cases, we saw an election of individual personal brands —not company brands (i.e., Democrats or Republicans). In both cases, the candidates, not the parties, were the winners.
Folks, once again: people buy brands, not companies!
For his part, the new senator is playing it smart. He’s distancing himself from the Republican status quo, calling himself a Scott Brown Republican.
But as for Brand Republican, there is the danger that its mangers will pat themselves on the back and continue to be the party of “No.”
In the wake of Obama’s election, the Republicans have lacked a clear-cut vision of the future. Being the party of “No” is simply not enough. This is like marketing a product because of what it is not instead of what it is. This strategy has been tried before. What about 7-Up…the “un-cola”? 7-Up might have gained some market share at first, but it never managed to gain too much momentum against Coke and Pepsi.
Successful brands have clear-cut visions of the future that are positive, not negative. End of story.
Reagan was not so much against big government as for small government and the wherewithal of the American people to make good choices if they were just left alone to do it. With a positive brand vision, consumers (read: voters) know where the brand plans to go and grow. Knowing this vision, they become a part of the brand’s growth through their support.
What does this vision involve? Well, it needs to be based on what the GOP has always stood for: equality of opportunity but no guarantee of wealth and happiness (i.e., we’re talking about our nation’s foundational values —“the pursuit of happiness,” not the automatic right to happiness).
In other words, Republicans need to make clear that they are not for government handouts, a nanny state, but that they are for a society that supports opportunity, a free market and individuals willing take roll up their sleeves and take risks. They need this kind of affirmative, concrete platform to build the future of the party brand.
Scott Brown just might be that transformational leader who can supply Brand Republican with this kind of foundational road map and the energy to get there. We will see. But until Brand Republican stops being a party in disarray, without a marketing vision, no amount of tea party enthusiasm and special election victories will translate into long-term electoral success.
And, remember, the business of entertainment and of politics is always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.
TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY -
One success does not a strong brand make.
John Tantillo's Brand Winner... And Loser: Avatar (& Hollywood) and NBC
Brand Winner… | And Loser |
 |  |
John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week:
Winner: Avatar (and Hollywood)
Loser: NBC
Folks, without further ado.
The Winner
Avatar is the hands-down winner for reminding us of the transformative power of a great product, whether it is in consumer goods or entertainment. The movie has dominated the box office for a fourth straight week and there is no sign of it slowing down.
But more than mere box office dollars, Avatar has ushered in yet another Hollywood-saving breakthrough.
Bottom line, traditional 2-D movies have been under assault, and the movie industry —while having its best year ever in 2009— was facing the technology squeeze. Everything about the industry, from distribution to talent, is up in the air.
Paranormal Activity used a miniscule budget and two unknown actors to gross over 100 million at the box office. What does that say about high-priced productions and twenty-million-dollar stars? Moreover, Hulu and Netflix —not to mention video piracy and hand-held platforms for viewing— are chipping away at the movie industry’s business model. It might not be showing up in revenues this year, but these seismic changes will show up on their balance sheets soon.
But Hollywood is nothing if not smart, adaptive and great at making money. That is what Cameron and his game-changing Avatar has shown us once again. Fact is, every time Hollywood has detected a threat, they have improved their game and delivered a product that people want even more than the last one.
Avatar —like Thomas Edison’s Vitaphone (the predecessor to movies)— is not merely entertainment; it's an experience. Most importantly, it's an experience that you will probably not be able to duplicate in your own home anytime soon. There is something about a big screen and this kind of three-dimensional technology that brings you into another world. Forget about the lightweight plot and the clichés (basically, it’s Dances With Wolves on another planet). Avatar has become a must-see experience because it reminds us what was originally meant by the magic of movies. Avatar transports, and people are willing to pay higher ticket prices for it.
The result? Look for more theaters to equip themselves with 3-D technology and more movies to exploit it.
Hats off to Hollywood!
The Loser
The loser this week is NBC —not for its original decision to move Leno to prime time, but for second-guessing itself and moving Leno back to late night. Moving Leno to prime time was great experimentation, and in the twilight of the broadcast television business model, a smart thing to do.
Rather than rehash why NBC did the right thing in the first place, here’s a link to my reasoning from a prior post.
Basically, unlike James Cameron and Hollywood, the folks at broadcast television have been slow to see that their lucrative world is crumbling. As a result, they have been clinging to the old prime-time model rather than transitioning to the content model (i.e., the value lies in the content rather than the time slot, since it can be carried across multiple platforms and viewed whenever the viewer wishes).
Reports say that Leno didn’t do “well” at 10pm… By whose standards? The local affiliates are the ones who are complaining because they aren’t getting the lead-in to their evening news programs. (In looking at the numbers, I wonder if they are controlling for all the people who might be leaving broadcast television and getting their news online?) According to NBC, however, the network has made money with the move.
So what’s going on? I think what we’re seeing are the traditional broadcasters temporarily taking back ground from the visionaries at the network who see where it is all going.
Rather than yank Leno from prime time after only a handful of weeks, the network should have stuck to its original plan, which was to stand by the revolutionary move for at least a year. Apparently, the show has its problems, but rather than yank it, they should have spent time fixing it. Moreover, now they are faced with the problem of re-inventing Leno for late night since, officially at least, he is no longer at the helm of The Tonight Show.
This is a mess and reminds us of a fundamental truth about marketing: ninety-percent of marketing is building the structure before executing your plan. NBC had the right vision in moving Leno to prime time, but they needed to do it with a) a great (and ground-breaking) show from the start, and b) the resolve to ride out the initial flack they were going to get during the transition.
Stay tuned.
And, remember, business and the business of entertainment are always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.
TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY -
Ninety percent of marketing is what you do before taking your product, service or personal brand to market.
John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week: Apple Again (Slate) and The Administration & Terrorism
Brand Winner… | And Loser |
 |  |
John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week:
Winner: Apple Again (Slate)
Loser: The Administration and Terrorism
Folks, without further ado.
The Winner
Apple seems to be at it again. The buzz is another product is on the way: Slate.
What does it do? No one seems to know yet, so why make Apple a winner?
For the sake of reminding us how great companies always put products or services first (i.e., they focus on what they do rather than who they are).
Apple has not become the tech behemoth it is because Apple promoted a company image first. Its company culture has always promoted an atmosphere where the focus is on creating products that people want; the consistent superiority of its products has in turn supported the company’s reputation for creating these superior products, generating its powerful company image. Now, when Apple announces that a new product is on its way, people rightfully expect that something big is coming. Think Kellogg’s and breakfast cereal. Kellogg’s is a company that makes great individual cereals, and this reinforces the company’s reputation for doing so —but if Kellogg’s started rolling out awful cereals, Kellogg’s, the company, would go downhill fast.
Not all of Apple’s products have triumphed (i.e., The Newton), but Apple is in the business of innovation and serving its customers in innovative ways. When you’re on the cutting edge, occasional failure is to be expected. What’s important is that you swiftly recognize failure and go back to the drawing board, while keeping your customers’ needs first.
This is what Apple always does, and it’s this track record that makes the next imminent product launch (said to be coming at the end of January) so exciting.
Google, on the other hand, is set to make its first major foray into telecommunications products this week with its phone. I’m not a techie, but already my sense is that the emphasis is on company over product. If it is, good things will not follow. Stay tuned.
The Loser
The loser this week is the Obama Administration and its ongoing approach to terrorism.
The very thing that helped President Obama win the election —his rejection of the rhetoric surrounding the War on Terror— is now a major brand liability.
Why?
Because we are clearly at war. Failing to admit what is obvious to everyone not only hinders the fight against a real threat to America’s safety but also torpedoes the administration’s credibility.
Think about it: A brand’s credibility is everything, and a substantial part of almost any brand’s credibility is its ability to see and react appropriately to reality. This is true whether you’re a soda, an aspirin, a potato chip or a national security agency.
Take the Tylenol poisoning in the eighties. What did this reveal? It revealed that people expect safety in the product they consume. The maker of Tylenol recognized this bottom-line need and also recognized that customers’ faith had been shaken (by reality), and it stepped up to offer revolutionary safety measures. By seeing and responding to reality, they not only kept their old customers, they won over new ones.
The Obama administration must state the reality of the current national security situation in unambiguous terms —terms that the people will accept. This is the first step. The next step will be to reinforce the words with action that shows they do grasp the reality. They need to make airport securities genuinely effective (this might mean “profiling”), and they need to shut the revolving door on terrorism.
If the administration doesn’t take these steps, our national security will be better recognized as national insecurity, and it will be the Obama administration’s brand that gets the ultimate blame.
And, remember, business and politics is always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.
TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY -
Be proud of your company, but put your products first.
John Tantillo's Top Ten Brand Winners and Losers of 2009
Brand Winners… | And Losers |
 |  |
John Tantillo's Top Ten Brand Winners and Losers of 2009
Top Five Brand Winners
1. Lady Gaga - She may not be the best singer in the world, but she has built herself into a world-class brand by being an excellent marketer. She has discovered the demands of music consumers and delivered again and again over the past year, and her profile has grown enormously.
2. Apple - What can I say? This company and its head, Steve Jobs, embody everything right about marketing. They build products that everyone wants.They get the advertising right because they know their Target Market and respect it. They get the distribution right so that they can keep up with demand and adjust. They deserve their growth and should see more of it in 2010.
3. Hollywood - Despite the struggling economy, fierce competition from the Internet and video games, Hollywood has managed to put in one of its strongest years ever, and with Avatar ushering in a new movie-going trend, the future looks bright. Hollywood is a brand that has re-invented itself from the start and met demand. It is a first-rate marketer and brand.
4. David Letterman - Despite the kind of scandal that would have destroyed another brand, Letterman emerges from 2009 as strong as ever. He proved that his brand is one for the ages and, while apologizing for his mistakes, didn't make the mistake of forgetting who he was as a brand. He isn't an icon of morality, and his audience didn't expect him to be one, so his apology reflected this. I admit I was initially wrong on this one and thought he'd be more damaged. Hats off to the king of late night television.
5. Sarah Palin - Sarah Palin exits 2009 with a stronger brand than she entered the year with. Even though her book was a sales success, I believe it won't help her brand very much. Nevertheless, she has shown that she is more than a fad, has cultivated readily identifiable brand traits and positions that are consistent, and has loyal support among many voters. If 2010 sees her expanding beyond her base through sophisticated political commentary or a visiting professorship, her brand will grow.
Honorable Mention:
Michael Jackson - His death and the subsequent global reaction reminded the world that when a brand is built on a strong foundation, it can endure a lot of damage and still remain powerful. Jackson is the definition of brand equity.
Top Five Brand Losers
1. Citigroup - This was the biggest and most powerful bank in the world, and now its stock is trading for under $4. What happened? The bank —like many others— forgot that it was in the service of preserving and growing capital. It forgot that its brand is a bank. A little more stodginess, conservatism and care for its customers' savings and financial future is needed —fast.
2. American Politics - Both the Democrats and the Republicans are struggling. The Democrats are struggling because they are quickly becoming the brand that does not listen to the people. This will hurt them at the polls. The Republicans have not broken out as anything but rejectionist —the party of "no." Until they become the party of "yes" and offer a different way forward for the country, they will remain in the wilderness.
3. Microsoft - The software behemoth continues to forget the marketing concept and rely on a build-it-and-they-will-come philosophy that puts its product first and customer needs second. Until this turns around, the company will continue to lose market share to others —especially 2009's brand winner Apple. The Bing search engine is a positive, but it may be a case of, "too little, too late."
4. Newspapers - It is sad to see traditions die, but when the market changes, the market changes —and so must one's marketing. Unfortunately, newspapers didn't see the writing on the wall, and now are facing an increasingly unworkable business model. Advertising has slumped, classifieds —the traditional backbone of the balance sheet— have migrated to the Web, and readership is dropping off. The papers that will survive will be those who meet demands on the local level and make themselves indispensable, and the few majors that remain papers of record, have a strong subscription base and manage to make the Web work for them.
5. The Nobel Prize - The Nobel Prize did great brand damage to itself this year in awarding the prize to Barack Obama, a winner who admitted that he was chosen prematurely. The decision looked political and underscored the flawed process that chooses winners. It diminished the prize and will affect the perception of it for years to come.
And, remember, things are always easier when you keep marketing in mind.
John Tantillo's Brand Winner... And Loser: Stephen Covey & E-Books... and Traditional Books & E-Books
Brand Winner… | And Loser |
 |  |
John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week:
Winner: Stephen Covey and E-Books
Loser: Traditional Publishing and E-Books
Folks, rarely does the Marketing Doctor find such a stark contrast between smart marketing and stupid marketing in the same industry in the same week.
The Winner
Stephen Covey, the best-selling author of The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, is the marketing winner of the week after making a ground-breaking, exclusive deal to sell e-books of his best-selling backlist titles through Amazon. (Here’s the story from the NY Times.)
This is a man who usually knows which direction the wind is blowing, and his decision to take the electronic rights away from his long-time, traditional publisher, Simon & Schuster, says a lot about what the future will look like for books and their authors.
Bottom line: Covey’s deal, which makes his titles available through e-book publisher RosettaBooks, will give him 50% royalties as opposed to 25% (the standard from traditional publishers). Traditional publishers can’t seem to match this.
Even more important are the implications for marketing. Authors have long complained that publishers just don’t get marketing, with everything from publication dates to distribution to promotions being fumbled. Covey’s decision makes him, as the author, the head of marketing for his books, and that’s the way it should be.
For now, Stephen Covey and his book-writing father, Franklin (of Franklin Covey), are saying that they will stick with Simon & Schuster for future books. But between the lines you can read a different story. In August, Stephen published a book through Franklin Covey that was exclusively available electronically and through Amazon. Franklin is self-publishing his next book electronically and also selling it exclusively through Amazon.
Folks, the writing is on the wall for traditional publishers. Best-selling authors with track records and heavily-trafficked websites are simply going to start taking the marketing ground back, and as e-books develop, so will the small- to mid-selling authors —especially if the traditional publishers don’t offer real marketing advantages to their authors. With distribution instant, almost free, and effectively in the hands of authors, it means that unless publishers can show genuine marketing smarts, they just won’t be able to add value.
Isn’t it funny that it’s the creative individual who understands marketing and not the corporate entity that’s supposed to be built around marketing? Hats off to the Covey family for having a marketing vision and backing it with their own money.
The Loser
Traditional book publishing’s position on e-books —namely, keeping new books from going electronic.
Wow, what a bad idea. No, it’s downright dumb. When you have a tech writer in The New York Times (here) laying out the fundamental problem with your industry’s marketing, you know you’re doing something really wrong.
Here’s the scenario. A Kindle user reads a book review online. The review makes him want to buy the book. He looks it up only to find that it won’t be available for four months.
Does he go to the bookstore to buy it? No way. Instead, he scrolls back and buys another book —one of the close to 360,000 titles— that is available for immediate download. Four months later, does he buy the book he was interested in? Probably not. Customer lost.
Gutenberg, whose invention was about delivering information faster and more affordably, would be turning in his grave.
I’ll quote from the Times: “The publishers seem to be picking a fight with the wrong team: their customer. They are punishing the people who buy their content instead of making it simple for those customers to hand over their money, instantly, from any location in the world.”
Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s founder, has said that for every 100 hard copies of a book, his company sells almost 50 e-copies. As I said above, the writing is definitely on the wall.
Publishers must recognize that they are in the business of serving their customers’ needs, wherever they find them, and they must accept that they no longer have the kind of control over price and distribution they once did. The publishers who succeed will be the publishers who get books to their customers on-demand and at a reasonable price. End of story.
This is a lesson all of us can learn from. The world changes —sometimes in revolutionary ways— and we must adapt our businesses accordingly. Marketing is always about putting your customer first. It is our customers who will make us profitable, and it is their needs that we must always identify and keep pace with so that we can consistently meet them.
And, remember, business is always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.
TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY -
Never forget that your product is there to serve your customers’ needs.
John Tantillo's Brand Winner... And Loser: President Obama and The Big Banks
Brand Winner… | And Loser | ||
 |  |
John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week:
Winner: President Obama
Loser: The Big Banks
Folks, without further ado:
The Winner
I have argued that Barack Obama should have refused the Nobel Prize. He didn’t.
But he did do something that may prove even better: he gave an acceptance speech that announced the arrival of President Obama.
From a marketing perspective, President Obama has remained Candidate Obama for too long. But the Nobel Prize speech saw him asserting himself as a leader —not in a vague, people-of-the-world way, but as an American president sworn to protect and defend the Constitution and the people of our great land.
In fact, he made it clear (uncomfortably clear, for those who want a weak America) that there is such a thing as a “Just War” and that he would not hesitate to defend the interests of the United States.
Plain and simple, that was a president talking. The result was telling. Not too many people in the room applauded, but the people who count, Americans, even right-leaning Americans, praised this new side of the President.
If Barack Obama follows through on the promise of this speech, we may well look back and say this was the moment that the President took over the reins from the Candidate.
The Loser
The Big Banks.
In the last year and a half, I’ve written and spoken about the Big Banks more times than I can count (here, here, here, here, here and here). And each time, I’ve given them a drubbing from a marketing perspective.
Alas, this time is no different.
Frankly, I don’t have too much more to add to the hyperlinks above.
Bottom line: the Big Banks need to return to what they are supposed to be doing and embrace a stodgy, prudent spirit —a spirit that responds to their customers’ needs, not their Board members and their executives. Banks should be boring, dependable and supportive of real economic growth —their marketing should also be supportive of our economic recovery.
That’s why the Big Banks got another earful from Obama, even as his administration gave Citigroup the green light to pay back the government. How’s that for some significant Presidential cover? Call them “fat cats,” give them a lecture at the White House for the media to cover, but then grant them the freedom to ignore you by freeing them from the constraints of TARP. It looks like some good came out of this meeting, since a few of the banks admitted that their lobbyists have been working too hard to “gut” banking reform —talk about getting your marketing message all mixed up!
If another crisis rolls around, you can be sure of one thing: none of these Wall Street-affiliated behemoths will have enough brand equity or Target Market goodwill to save their skins.
Fact is, the Big Banks’ fate rests with them. If they don’t start rolling up their sleeves, lending their money to the small businesses and entrepreneurs who build America, then the local and regional banks will eventually eat their lunch.
Even if another crisis never does roll around, bad marketing and slipshod brand identity could doom the dinosaurs. No brand is ever “too big to fail.”
In addition to appearing old-fashioned and dependable, the big banks have to market products like small, flexible lines of credit, great savings options and checking without all the hidden fees. They need to clearly communicate that they aim to help their customers’ wealth grow in careful, long-term, time-tested ways. They have to convince us that they don’t exist to trade or leverage for their fat-cat paydays, that they exist to serve the little guy, the community and all of America.
My guess is that the Big Bank that repositions itself best in the traditional model for both individuals and small- to mid-sized businesses —by getting boring, assuring everyone of its dependability and, not least, overturning the old maxim “banks loan money to people who don’t need it” —is the Bank we will say surging ahead, after the debacle of the last few years.
The bank that gets back to the marketing concept, keeping the needs of the American people as its focal point, is the bank whose brand will once again gain the trust of the American people.
And, remember, the business of business and politics is always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.
TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY -
No brand is ever “too big to fail.”
John Tantillo's Brand Winner... And Loser: Paranormal Activity and Frosty, The Inappropriate Snowman
Brand Winner… | And Loser |
 |  |
John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week:
Winner: Paranormal Activity
Loser: Frosty, The Inappropriate Snowman
Folks, two takes on marketing and media. Wow! The Winner and Loser couldn’t be more different in action and outcome —it’s the difference between smart marketing and try-hard, too-clever marketing going terribly wrong.
The Winner
Paranormal Activity, the box-office smash, is this week’s winner. The horror movie was made for a reported $15,000, and as of this past weekend it has grossed 100 million dollars worldwide.
That’s a 433,900% return on investment.
But as you may have suspected, it’s not just the money that makes it our brand winner; it’s the marketing.
First, Paramount did their marketing/internet-smart magic to first identify the right Target Markets (mainly college students), then start a grass roots campaign via Twitter and Facebook. They followed this with a small release and an Internet campaign that allowed people to “demand” a larger release.
But second, and most importantly, Paramount had a product that was genuinely worthy of the buzz. This is a bare-bones, psychological thriller that scares people. A horror film that really horrifies. That’s a brand.
The marketing campaign simply got the word out about that brand the best way possible, and with the greatest impact possible. As is usually the case behind all the most successful marketing efforts in history, the first and most powerful marketing step is having a great product that meets the needs of its Target Market perfectly.
The Loser
I’ve been a marketing man a long time, but I’ve never been as appalled, outraged and saddened as I have over the “Frosty The Inappropriate Snowman” trailers created by CBS.
These trailers are not only morally bankrupt —they are the stupidest kind of marketing imaginable. The dirty-minded lunatics have definitely taken over the asylum this time.
Here’s the background on the story:
CBS seems to have decided to re-cut scenes from its perennial classic Christmas cartoon tale, Frosty The Snowman, with voice-over from two of its most depraved and dirty-minded sit-com characters, played by Neil Patrick Harris and Charlie Sheen.
Apparently, the idea was to cross-promote Frosty, a holiday delight aimed at kids, with its two adult shows “How I Met Your Mother” and “Two and a Half Men.”
The result, a disgusting amateurish marketing catastrophe for four distinct brands, shows Frosty talking about his “porn collection” while surrounded by crowds of smiling minors. What’s wrong with these people? If you want to see for yourself, here is the link to the Neil Patrick Harris clip.
Here’s the damage to each of the four brands as I see it:
CBS
Talk about insulting and possibly injuring your audience. Now when kids look up Frosty The Snowman online, there’s a very good chance that they’ll stumble on one of these two clips. Instead of being regaled with Christmas spirit, they’ll be treated to Frosty talking about porn and picking up women. CBS is a venerable network, but this kind of desperate, depraved and hare-brained approach to marketing its properties will lead to serious questions about the strength of its brand, its management and its future, especially in the current environment, where network television is one big question mark (i.e., after all, just this week Comcast made a deal to buy NBC). While out of my marketing purview, I’d go so far as to say that CBS’ legal department might be putting in some overtime on this one.
Frosty The Snowman
Poor Frosty! What did he do to deserve having his snow-white image dragged through the mud? Nothing. But now it will be hard for many to watch the original without thinking about the smut. Already, people are screaming about never being able to look at Frosty the same way again. This is about stealing people’s memories of childhood and polluting the precious memories of children being formed at Christmas. In an age when big media is talking about the value of its content, this prized piece of content just took a body blow. This might just be the kind of heat that will permanently melt Frosty, magic hat or not. A true shame, and totally avoidable, had CBS simply remembered the Frosty brand.
“How I Met Your Mother” and “Two and a Half Men”
These two shows might come out the least scathed of all four brands in question. Bottom line: the adult content and cynicism of the Frosty clips is in keeping with the content and spirit of these shows. Still, it is possible that both the shows might lose viewers. Why? Because when you watch the “Frosty” clips, you hear just how foul some of the dialogue of these shows is against the snow-white background of the cartoon. Plus, with Adam Lambert recently banned for being lewd and lascivious, isn’t it possible that these shows might come under some pretty serious scrutiny? Moreover, Neil Patrick Harris and Charlie Sheen may lose respect because of their role in this debacle. After all, they’ll be seen as trashing Frosty, a sacrosanct Christmas tradition, and indirectly hurting kids.
A few more points:
You hear people speak about demographics all the time. Presumably, the demographic that watches Frosty and the demographic that watches the two adult shows are different. Yes and no.
The folks watching “How I Met Your Mother” and “Two and a Half Men” likely grew up with Frosty. Around Christmastime, this same demographic probably tunes back into Frosty for a trip down memory lane. They might even share their childhood experience with their own kids.
I can see the brainstorming at CBS that led to this disaster now… Same demographic will appreciate the humor of having foul things come out of Frosty’s mouth. Brilliant!
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Fact is, you’ve got two demographics in the same person. When that fan of “How I Met Your Mother” watches Frosty, he becomes a kid again, especially when he’s watching it with his kids. People don’t wants to see their Christmas traditions dragged through the mud, or be perceived as associated with something dirty in front of their wide-eyed kids.
There’s also the issue of adpublitizing. I’ve defined adpublitizing as creating an ad that is sure to generate controversial coverage —in turn promoting a brand for a low advertising cost. I wouldn’t be surprised if adpublitizing was also part of CBS’ plan. But in this case, the adpublitizing has backfired, and the coverage will only do damage.
To tell the truth, I for one won’t be unhappy if it does do some damage and discourages this kind of thing from happening again. Only the worst kind of marketing crawls right out of the gutter and into our living rooms and the lives of our kids.
And remember, the business of the arts and the business of media is always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.
TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY -
Before you think promotion, think core brand characteristics. If your core brand characteristics are not reflected in the promotional idea, then don’t do the promotion —no matter how exciting or clever it might seem.