MarketingDoctor.tvPeople Buy Brands Not Companies
Syndicate
MarketingDoctor.tv
John Tantillo's Brand Winner... And Loser: The Academy Awards and Book Publishing
| Brand Winner... | And Loser... |
 |  |
John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week:
Winner: The Academy Awards
Loser: Book Publishing
This past week saw two distinguished industry brands that are in very different positions. One critical reason: marketing (both fundamental and promotional).
Winner
The first Academy Awards ceremony was held in 1929 as a brunch for 250 plus people and as a way of gaining visibility for the artistic and cultural significance of the movie industry.
As promotion and publicity tactic, it worked wonders. Not only are the Oscars now the oldest media awards ceremony, they are easily the most famous. The latest, this past Sunday’s 82nd Academy Awards, was one of the most watched, with a full 41 million viewers, easily beating out any other programs in competing time slots.
But my focus isn’t on the viewer numbers; it is on the intelligence of the marketing that builds such a complementary promotional brand for an entire industry.
Go back to movies in the early 1900s. We’re talking about a largely commercial activity popularized by Nickelodeons (theaters that employed the new cinematic technology as a novelty for five cents a pop). Over the course of the twentieth century, this business not only prospered but became a major —maybe the major— cultural force in the world. The awards ceremony was a powerful tool that differentiated the developing film industry from its strictly commercial, Nickelodeon roots.
Let’s face it: the Oscars started as a trade show with a twist, and that twist —highlighting the cultural importance of the product and all the associated glamour— has made Hollywood a pre-eminent cultural brand (and kept the cash registers ringing at the box office). The Oscars have reinforced stardom, underscored artistic achievement and awarded excellence. By doing so, they have strengthened the industry, attracting the best and the brightest and maintaining Hollywood’s status as centerpiece of our culture.
This brand strength matters now more than ever since the product they are selling is being pressed on all sides by increasing distribution costs, competing media and even the drop in bar to entry by aspiring film makers who might be able to get around the studio system.
But if the 41 million viewers and the massive interest in everything Oscar on the Internet tells us anything, Hollywood has real marketing so wrapped up in its DNA that it will survive whatever challenges lie ahead, and it will continue to prosper.
Bottom line: long ago, the movie industry recognized its brand and the need to promote it in an effective way that appeared (and was) culturally selfless (many of the ten entries for Best Picture had very limited release). Hurrah for Hollywood!
The Loser
Another media industry facing incredible pressures from the Internet and new technology is book publishing.
Book publishing could learn a lot from Hollywood, but so far the players are just fumbling.
Not only are publishers showing uncertainty with respect to the central question of correct pricing of product (i.e., the recent dispute between publishers and Amazon over how to price e-books), but more importantly, they’re making big errors when it comes to the heart of their business: being gatekeepers of literary quality.
After all, why buy a commercially published book if you can’t be sure that the content is professional quality?
Last week, Henry Holt & Company recalled all copies of The Last Train From Hiroshima because of what’s thought to be major factual inaccuracies and fraudulent sourcing. Wow! You’d think that a publisher would have fact-checked and made sure that the product carrying its imprint was unassailable. Unfortunately, the dirty little secret of commercial publishing is that publishers simply don’t do this kind of fact-checking or quality control anymore. This quality control might be easy to eliminate for the bean counters, but it provides critical value for the product and the strength of the brand.
The recent Toyota debacle tells us where cutting corners on quality will lead.
But a more fundamental marketing question is this one: How can it be that an industry (publishing) that has existed for hundreds of years as opposed to Hollywood’s one hundred, and that has been so central to culture, doesn’t have the oldest awards ceremony?
The short answer: they never created one.
Sure, there are the Pulitzers and others, but what Hollywood did was create an award show that appealed to both the industry insiders and their customers. Publishing awards and ceremonies are strictly inside baseball.
I don’t want to go into the reasons why publishing never did this (i.e., industry arrogance, belief in its own importance, etc.), but the fact is, not having done this means that today the industry has no recognizable center, no annual rite that reminds America that it’s important. Of course, someone could argue that Hollywood had glamour and mass appeal that books didn’t, but first think Hemingway, Dorothy Parker, then remember that in many ways Hollywood and publishing have a symbiotic relationship (so many movies were originally books); and, finally, some smart promotion could have borrowed Hollywood glamour and perhaps Hollywood celebrities to create a talked-about awards ceremony.
Maybe it’s in the DNA of publishers to speak the right marketing words but fundamentally reject the promotional necessities and genuine attempts at connecting with their Target Markets. Maybe the glowing book review is what they ultimately care about, and they will reject any attempts to follow Hollywood’s marketing example. But maybe they should try to fight against this culture and opt for a marketing bypass.
That’s where publishing is right now, trying to figure out just what the next step is, because the fundamentals of marketing their industry were ignored long ago.
And remember, things are always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.
TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY -
Industries, like companies, need to promote themselves even when the times are good and build marketable brands for the long-term.
John Tantillo's Brand Winner... And Loser: Akio Toyoda and Congress
| Brand Winner... | And Loser... |
 |  |
John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week:
Winner: Akio Toyoda
Loser: Congress
This past week saw two brands go head-to-head, and one emerged as a definitive winner and illustrated some real marketing truths to boot. Without further ado:
Winner
Akio Toyoda is the clear marketing winner this week. The third-generation head of the family company reminded anyone who was listening what responsibility to one’s brand means.
First, Toyoda expressed how deeply hurt he was by his defective vehicles:
As you well know, I am the grandson of the founder, and all the Toyota vehicles bear my name. For me, when the cars are damaged, it is as though I am as well. I, more than anyone, wish for Toyota's cars to be safe, and for our customers to feel safe when they use our vehicles.
Then Toyoda did something that must have made his lawyers crazy (something I don’t think you’d ever see an American CEO do —and that’s not a compliment): he admitted that too-fast growth had distracted the company from its long-time focus on safety and likely resulted in the tragic problems:
I would like to point out here that Toyota's priority has traditionally been the following: First, Safety; Second, Quality; and Third, Volume. These priorities became confused, and we were not able to stop, think, and make improvements as much as we were able to before, and our basic stance to listen to customers' voices to make better products has weakened somewhat.
But he wasn’t done. After stripping away all defensiveness or public relations maneuvering of the kind that ultimately gets in the way of the best marketing, Toyoda told the audience what steps he and his team would take going forward to make Toyota cars safer than ever and restore the brand’s reputation for top quality.
Among a series of smart and practical plans that involved creating a direct feedback loop from customers back to Toyota’s management and design teams, he told Congress that he was a qualified test driver and that he and his team would be directly involved in assessing their vehicles. In other words, he left no doubt that safety was going to be Priority #1 at Toyota.
His statement, delivered in a quiet, steady voice, might have been heavily accented but it could not have been more effective. Toyota’s legendary quality hadn’t come from nowhere; it had been built over generations by committed family members, and it was going to be restored under his leadership. (This message was reinforced by the fact that he has only recently become the head of the company.)
I’ll leave you with Toyoda’s words (if this doesn’t go to the heart of marketing, I don’t know what does):
We now understand that we must think more from a customer-first perspective, rather than a technical perspective, in investigating complaints and that we must communicate faster, better and more effectively with our customers and our regulators.
Fuggedaboutit, Toyoda-san.
The Loser
The losers were for the most part sitting directly across from Akia Toyoda in the hearing.
It was clear from listening to their statements that they hadn’t really listened to the man across from them. In fact, some of the congressmen seemed simply oblivious to the game-changing comments of the Toyota boss. They were going to read from their little scripts no matter what.
Yes, they had their constituents to appeal to and wanted to convey their outrage, but if Toyoda’s statement showed anything, it showed that sincerity and genuine engagement with the matter at hand is the better marketing route.
In a period when the electorate seems more disillusioned by its government than ever, the congressional members on display only reinforced the image of politicians out of touch. Bottom line, they looked like they were playing for points or too slow to change course when the facts changed right in front of them.
If they had planned to knock it out of the park —i.e., look like they were really giving it to a corporate villain— they certainly failed, since Toyoda’s performance made him look like anything but. If anything, they looked like they were beating up a nice guy who was really trying to set things right.
Listening was what Toyoda did, and listening is what Congress must be seen doing if there’s going to be a brand turnaround for these politicos. Stay tuned, but I won’t be holding my breath.
And, remember, things are always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.
TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY -
Listening to your customers is the core of all marketing.
John Tantillo's Brand Winner... And Loser: Tiger Woods and Johnny Weir
| Brand Winner... | And Loser... |
 |  |
Winner: Tiger Woods
Loser: Johnny Weir
I want to take a look at two performance brands this week. Without further ado:
Winner
The pundits can dissect every line and pause of Tiger Woods’ statement Friday, but they’re wrong.
The media didn’t like it because they were cut out of the picture… but this wasn’t a press conference; it was a marketing conference. This wasn’t about the media; it was about Tiger’s fans, his clients and his customers.
Tiger went directly to his Target Market, and from everything I’ve heard, people accepted what he said.
Public relations as we knew it is over (i.e., catering first and foremost to the demands of the journalists and trying to shape their message). Marketing has taken its place. In Tiger’s own case, he has followed a four-point crisis marketing strategy:
1. Don’t Panic. Tiger did not panic, even though there were cries by media and media handlers to make impulsive remarks.
2. Consider the core value of your product. For Tiger Woods, it’s years of winning golf tournaments and the respect he has received from his fans and customers;
3. Assess what hasn’t changed. Tiger Woods has been great for golf and is a great golfer. It was his silly behavior that got him in trouble; it wasn’t that he had cheated at the game. Because of this, as long as he addresses the current problem, he can get back to golf, continue winning and restore his brand.
4. Reach out to your Target Market. Tiger did this on Friday. Something that’s being lost in all the chatter is the fact that one of the enduring and consistent characteristics of the Tiger Woods’ brand is his commitment to practice. The fact that he stuck to his therapy and waited until he was ready to speak reminds us of these champion-like qualities that he possesses and shows that they are still intact. In other words, getting this part of his “game” right, too, is classic Tiger and works to reinforce his brand in a very positive way. In other words, he’s handling this crisis —as ugly as it is— like he would handle a really bad situation on the green.
Above all, everyone needs to remember that Tiger Woods is a performance brand. That means that ultimately, even if a segment of the population cannot forgive him, if he stays true to his brand of golfing excellence and goes on to win, the Tiger brand will continue to be strong. No matter what the journalists say. End of story.
The Loser
Johnny Weir could take a page from the Tiger playbook.
He seems to have forgotten that it is his performance on the ice rather than his performance on the screen that will ultimately determine the success or failure of his brand.
Sure, he is a bright, creative, intelligent guy who seems to attract a lot of attention, but the reason he attracts this attention is because he is a champion athlete.
Critics can say that Weir has a deep groundswell of supporters who don’t care that he has had —at least recently, and the Olympics confirms it— a middle skating career.
The problem is that Weir’s popularity has all the appearances of a fad. As I’ve discussed before at length, fads can be a terrific marketing launching pad for a brand or product, but ultimately there needs to be substance behind the fad, or the fad will never mature into a solid, long-term brand.
In the case of Weir, the question is this: in the absence of champion skating, what will keep his brand going? He seems to sense this question and has been branching out into other areas, even most recently suggesting that he is going into fashion.
But it probably would have made more sense to spend a bit more time on the ice over the past two years so that he could have established something better than a 6th place finish at the Olympics. The performance aspect of the sports brand would have meant that he could count on more durability over the near term (i.e., regular media attention over the next four years). Now that part of the equation is probably gone, and he will have to move quickly to build on what brand equity he does have —or risk
fading away, as so many fads do.
And, remember, things are always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.
TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY -
Go directly to your Target Market and avoid the media filter whenever possible.
John Tantillo's Brand Winner... And Loser: John Mayer and Dick Cheney
| Brand Winner... | And Loser... |
 |  |
John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week:
Winner: John Mayer
Loser: Dick Cheney
This week the Marketing Doctor wades into controversial waters, but anything to show that the marketing lens even works in the murkiest of waters.
Winner
John Mayer.
He said some incredibly vulgar and awful things in that now infamous Playboy interview… So, how could he possibly be this week’s winner?
Simple. Did he do irreparable harm to his relationship with his Target Market?
Answer Yes, and you’ve got a loser. Answer No, and it’s no harm, no foul.
And the answer is No.
Here’s why.
John Mayer has built his career on “real” music that is supposed to convey real emotions and observations on life as his demographic lives it. The interview with Playboy, while reprehensible, can simply not be judged by the same yard stick you would use to judge a politician or a business person. Mayer is an entertainment/celebrity brand, and one that is expected to say things that aren’t palatable and might even be offensive. His yardstick, like so many (but not all) entertainment brands, is “being real.”
If he overshoots, he needs to apologize in a credible way (breaking down in tears on stage, surrounded by his fans, is credible, and he did this). Fact is, entertainment has long been filled with the personal disaster and bad behavior that is forgiven by the Target Market. (Rat Pack, anyone?)
An entertainment/celebrity brand is like a sports performance brand in that as long as good music/performance keeps being produced, the brand will stay strong. In fact, an entertainment brand has even more resiliency than a personal sports brand because someone like Mayer doesn’t really do corporate sponsorships.
Bottom line, Mayer’s first concern in this world of music piracy is filling big venues with devoted fans. He did this after the Playboy interview (the same night he delivered that tearful apology). Forget the general polls on whether Mayer’s brand is hurt: the crowd at the arena cheered and screamed his apology on.
That’s his Target Market, and they buy the tickets. John Mayer is going to do just fine.
The Loser
I’m not someone who thinks former Vice President Dick Cheney was the villain many in the press have painted him as. In fact, I think history may very well vindicate many of the things that the Bush administration did in fighting a very difficult enemy.
But I’m not here to talk history. I’m here to talk marketing and, specifically, why it’s a very bad idea for Dick Cheney to keep putting himself in the spotlight if the Republicans want a chance to regain power anytime soon.
To put it bluntly and with all due respect, Vice President Cheney needs to let someone else do the talking. He needs to get off the stage. Certain brands will never make a comeback.
President Bush seems to understand the importance of exiting the stage and then staying off of it. He knows that, fairly or unfairly, his brand’s time has passed and does not add value to the quest to restore the Republicans to power.
History and reevaluation might change people’s opinions in the long run, but the only opinions that count right now are the voters’ opinions, and anyone being honest about that market knows that the Bush-Cheney legacy is widely perceived as toxic. This legacy alienates wide swathes of the electorate, which is just no good for a party that needs those numbers to stand a chance.
One anecdotal “test” that shows just how deep these feelings run is that even those who are centrist and right-leaning often feel uncomfortable speaking up for the former administration in mixed political company. The Bush-Cheney legacy is just not socially defensible.
Every time Vice President Cheney opens his mouth, he gets the inevitable headline. In terms of drawing the nation’s attention to gaps in our defense, this may be good —but it also draws the nation’s attention away from the kind of promising Republican, pro-defense figures who should be rising in stature for a future presidential run.
Every time Dick Cheney takes a strong policy position, it has the effect of anchoring the Republican party to the previous administration, which is a negative.
The Republicans cannot simply be the party of the negative opposition now (i.e., saying they were right all along and that rejecting all Obama initiatives is the right thing to do). For the Republicans to win, they need to embrace a positive, forward-looking and ultimately hopeful platform that rebuts President Obama and the Democrats without being merely rejectionist.
With a wagon load of negative brand baggage, Vice President Cheney will not be able to achieve this. In a way, Cheney has found himself in the Kissinger, post-Vietnam dilemma. He is an exceptional man with perhaps more foreign policy experience than almost anyone —but also a man whose public performance poisons his party’s nationwide agenda. Kissinger skillfully navigated these waters until he could once again be publicly tapped for his gifts (and it took a long time.)
If the Republicans want to move forward and the former vice president wants this too, he should take a page from Kissinger’s playbook. Cheney can begin working behind the scenes to help ensure that our defense is secure and that the best candidate to lead the Republican party can emerge without a shadow. He can still lend his wisdom and tactical brilliance to the cause, but he must step away from the podium now.
It’s natural for the party faithful to want to honor and support the former vice president, but they must being to recognize that his public actions are hurting the party. For the Republican party to be successful nationwide, it needs to expand its Target Market (i.e. beyond those people for whom Cheney is not necessarily a negative) by reaching out to independents and even moderate Democrats, for whom Cheney and Bush are old and bad news.
And, remember, things are always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.
TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY -
Rather than trying to evaluate if a brand did well generally, always ask: Did it succeed or fail with its Target Market? Because in the end, that's all that matters for a brand.
John Tantillo's Brand Winner... And 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.