John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week

Brand Winner...	And Loser...

Winner:  Glenn Beck

Loser:  Barnes & Noble                     

Winner: 

Glenn Beck is our winner for the week.

Let’s be frank, no one really expected this man to become the spokesperson for the strong patriotic fervor sweeping the nation. 

But he has.  This past weekend’s rally has proven everyone wrong.  The official estimates pegged attendance at 300,000 plus strong.  That is a mighty turnout.

How did he do it?

First and foremost, Beck is an entertainer.  His skills as a stand-up comedian have come in handy… but only because they have been harnessed to a man who clearly is sincere and driven by beliefs that millions hold in common with him. 

He is what I would call a poli-entertainer.  He clearly has a political element, but he understands that entertaining and being likeable are critical components of the message.

Glenn Beck is a marketer rather than a self-promoter.  He doesn’t really talk about himself, he talks about the product and always insists that the product is larger than himself personally.

What is the product? 

The product is the re-establishment and renewal of what the American people want and many of them believe they are.  Glenn Beck voices and showcases this product better than anyone else. 

Fact is, the event at the Lincoln Memorial was masterfully conducted and showed a generosity and respectfulness of spirit (i.e. the many references to Martin Luther King, Jr. often in the same breath with Abraham Lincoln and cheered by the huge crowd).  This must have really rankled those who wanted to depict the gathering as a group of crypto-racists and bitter paranoids.

Given Glenn Beck’s performance and his presence across all media, this is probably just the beginning.

Stay tuned. 

Loser:

Barnes & Noble has just announced that one of its largest and most legendary stores (Lincoln Center, New York City) is slated to close.

This is only the latest in bad news for the company which has tried desperately to survive in a new kind of book buying era.

I think what we’re seeing is sampling gone wild.  Traditionally, sampling is one of the best ways to initiate sale… 

Sampling for video and music now seems to be generating sales, but does this work for books at least with respect to the big box book store model.

I don’t think so.

Basically, the large chain store loses both ways.  If the customer browses the book and doesn’t like it, no sale is made.  If the customer browses the book and likes it, two things are likely to happen 1) he/she stays in the store reading the book for free and never purchases or 2) leaves the store with the book in mind and buys it for less online.  Sure there are impulse buys, but impulse buys does not a book store business model make.  Whatever happens the book store becomes a costly showcase for products that will be purchased elsewhere.

Basically, the Barnes & Noble idea has fallen victim to its own success.  To be a powerhouse in the industry, B&N had to offer huge stores that cost them huge overhead.  But the advent and proliferation of Internet book buying has now caught up with them. The consumer uses them as a sampling base but because their giant, faceless business model has not built customer loyalty, the consumer simply and without a pang of conscience, goes somewhere else to buy or downloads it to his or her Kindle or handheld device.

Bottom line, B&N is scrambling to make money from the shift to e-books and online buying, but the outlook is grim.  One B&N in Manhattan is stocking its shelves with toys not books to bring in customers.  But this isn’t really being true to their brand and it screams desperation –something a company or personal brand never wants to do.

One interesting note, the independent bookstores that have survived the B&N onslaught may very well be in the best position.  Not only do they offer highly-trained staff who genuinely help their customers have the best reading experience possible, but they engender loyalty for the long-term and this should see many of them through.

And, remember, things are always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.

John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week

Brand Winner...	And Loser...

John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week:

Winner: Mitch Daniels

Loser: The Egg Industry

Winner: 

Sometimes personal branding is best done by simply being who you are and doing what you do.

This sums up Mitch Daniels, Republican governor of Indiana and a potential sleeper brand for the next presidential election.

Folks, what I’m getting at here is the idea of authentic brand behavior versus mere brand promotion. 

There are personal brands in business and politics that become well known for promoting themselves, but there are also brands that become well known because they labor quietly and successfully for years and the world eventually comes to them.  Warren Buffet is a standout example of the second kind.

So is Mitch Daniels.  Daniels is starting to get attention for what he is and isn’t doing.  He is a Republican governor with incredible government and business credentials running a state very effectively.  What he’s not?  A Republican figure not currently governing (i.e., Palin, Gingrich, Romney) but inhabiting a public media platform from which to express his ideas.

This article in The Economist gives a pretty good idea why when we look at Daniels, we might really be looking at a serious Republican contender for the White House. 

Fact is, when it comes to picking a Republican candidate for president, my sense is that both Palin and Gingrich have aligned themselves too closely with the populist and far-right aspects of Republicanism.  This won’t work for them in a general election and because it won’t work for them in a general election, the Republicans will gravitate to someone who has a better chance.  Moreover, Daniels, while conservative, has held himself apart from the tea party and other recent political trends.  My guess is that over the next year or two, these trends will date and the American people will find a conservative who has been focused on the business of governing instead of self-promotion a very appealing choice.

One last point.  Daniels is not only efficient but he’s likeable.  And he’s not only likeable, he’s also positive.  His brand of conservatism isn’t about simply saying “no” or being rejectionist.  He’s an idea man and as I’ve said before, Republican’s can’t be the uncola…  They must be for something.

Stay tuned. 

Loser:

With the nation’s largest egg recall underway and the FDA reporting 1,000 people or more sickened by salmonella, the egg industry has taken brand damage.

But as with every crisis, there is opportunity.

Bottom line, the large egg producers, especially the ones implicated in unsafe practices, must go on the offensive showing that they are actively taking responsibility for the mess and ensuring the safety of their product.  This means direct outreach to consumers in ways that are clear and forthright and will work to restore confidence.

But while the whole egg industry will be, fairly or unfairly, tarred with this crisis, the smaller egg producers known for high standards have an opportunity to break their brands out from the pack and differentiate themselves. 

These producers have the chance through smart campaigns and packaging to make sure their customers know that their eggs are safe eggs and always have been.  Even better, higher price points (say for organic eggs) might even become a sales strength when folks become willing to ensure that their breakfast doesn’t make them sick.

And, remember, things are always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.

John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week

Brand Winner...	And Loser...

John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week:

Winner: General Motors

Loser: President Obama

Winner: 

As predicted in this space, General Motors just keeps on getting better…

This past week, GM posted its best quarterly profit since 2004.

All because of government money?

Fuggedaboutit!

It’s all because the company was forced to get back to what had made them strong in the first place: their brands.

People buy brands, they don’t buy companies and this is never more true than with General Motors whose brands are legendary and have always been the key to their growth.

This is why over the past year and a half, the marketing doctor predicted GM’s return to profitability.  Even in the darkest moments of the auto industry in 2008, it was clear that General Motors was already remembering to focus on its brands.

Bottom line, an analyst who followed the marketing could predict the company’s recovery; the analyst who followed the finances and/or the herd (which in this case was the same thing) could only see the company’s demise.

Stay tuned.

Loser:

It doesn’t matter how many swims in the Gulf, President Obama takes unless he starts listening to the people and stops listening to his ideology his brand will only get weaker.

I’m talking about his 9-11 mosque position.

Of course, a president must stand for the highest ideals of our country.  And religious toleration is one of our finest ideals (if only the rest of world did it as well as we do at honoring it).

But the 9-11 mosque uproar isn’t about religious toleration, it’s about defending what’s sacred in America and it’s about being realistic when it comes to important symbolism. 

Fact is, it’s about defending our country plain and simple – and that’s supposed to be a President’s top priority.

Folks, I said it all last week, but let me boil it down.  The initiative to put up this particular mosque is not only tone deaf but an aggressive act by a very questionable group.  Besides being in the poorest of tastes, there is no way that a victory by the mosque builders won’t be seen as some kind of victory for the jihadists who perpetrated the 2001 attack. 

Instead of listening to his people and their attempts to express what they are rightly feeling, President Obama has decided to over-ride them by blindly applying ideals that don’t really apply to the situation.  This is offensive and condescending to the American people because it assumes that their outrage is racist and anti-Muslim when it is, in fact, legitimate.

Bottom line, even if the President clarifies his initial position, my guess is that the brand damage has been done.  People will remember that his first public reaction was to dismiss theirs.

And, remember, things are always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.

John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week

Brand Winner...	And Loser...

John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week: 

Winner:  Rosie O’Donnell

Loser:  Michelle Obama                                                          

Winner: 

Last week we talked about the Ellen DeGeneres brand staying true to itself.  This week it’s Rosie O’Donnell in the winner’s seat.

She’s back after a long stint in the wilderness.  Finally, her brand is being appreciated by Oprah and it looks like she will be back where she belongs, hosting a daytime talk show.

The talk show format is where Rosie thrives.  She won best talk show Emmys five years in a row from 1998 to 2002.

Then she seemed to lose her way as she went from being the Queen of Nice to the Queen of Mean and became far too political.

This was a mistake from a brand perspective because it missed what Rosie is liked for and best at: entertainment.  But it’s a common mistake among celebrities many of whom wrongly begin to think they will be applauded and loved just for getting up in the morning.

When Rosie forgot how she got where she was, she lost her audience.  Now she’s getting a second chance with this show.  If she remembers her roots –and I’ve got a feeling she will— we’re going to see the triumphant second act of a great entertainer.

Stay tuned.

Loser:

Without a doubt, the loser this week is our First Lady, Michelle Obama.

People can try to defend her holiday in Spain, but from a brand perspective it’s indefensible.

Bottom line, if you present your brand one way (i.e., the compassionate woman of a people going through very tough economic times) you simply can’t act another way (i.e., carefree jetsetter on the Costa del Sol).

Folks, in other words no amount of explaining by Robert Gibbs or media apologists is going to change the fact that when Americans are suffered and the Gulf Coasters faced economic ruin because of the BP spill, their First Lady chose Spain to visit at an exorbitant taxpayer cost.

She’s not elected, you say?  Besides the fact that we all know that the First Lady counts politically, let’s look at two other “unelected” brand examples.

The Depression.  Can you imagine Eleanor Roosevelt living the high life in such a visible way while her husband was waging war on the economy and economic inequality?  No way.

World War II.  The Queen Mother stayed in London despite the bombing.  In fact when a bomb fell near the palace she was publicly thankful that they had been bombed because she could then look at the badly bombed East End in the face.  Her consistent behavior won her the love of her people for the rest of her long life.

The point is that brand consistency matters and inconsistency is fatal for a brand’s message.   A boss who tells his employees to work hard but then blatantly lazes around is going to have a problem. 

The thing here is that Michelle Obama’s decision can’t be taken back and it will have lasting consequences.  It will confirm what opponents already think, but worse for the President, it will sow seeds of doubt into their supporters.

Basically, Michelle Obama’s decision just underscores the huge divide between people of her class –educated, professional, wealthy— and the average guy and gal on the street.  Could Eleanor Roosevelt and the Queen Mother done whatever they liked during the tough times they lived through?  You bet they could.  But they didn’t and that makes all the difference.

If Mrs. Obama wants to start turning things around, she’d do well to study the actions of these two great women.  Even so, it’s going to be a tough road to fix her brand.

John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week

Brand Winner...	And Loser...

Loser:  9-11 Mosque                         
           

Winner: 

For a brand sometimes choosing not to do something is just as important as doing it.

That’s why Ellen DeGeneres is this week’s winner.  She understood that American Idol and the DeGeneres brand were simply not compatible and she made a clean break.

For a celebrity brand, choosing not to do something so high profile is courageous.  After all, today’s most sought after celebrities can become yesterday’s news.  The Idol job widened DeGeneres profile.

But she probably realized that even though it widened her profile, exposing her to even more people, that it wasn’t necessarily strengthening her brand.  For example, fans of the Idol show noted that she didn’t seem to have the edge that judges on the program are noted for –and in a statement DeGeneres said she doesn’t want to have that kind of edge. 

Absolutely right.  DeGeneres brand is likeable first.  She’s funny, but never mean-spirited.  The fact that she recognized that her brand strength didn’t connect with Idol and the acted on it should be a lesson for celebrities and non-celebrities alike. 

Bottom line, we all have personal brands and if the shoe doesn’t fit, whatever you do don’t try to squeeze in –it will only crimp your style!

Loser:

In a perfect world, a mosque at Ground Zero would be fine.  But in a perfect world 9-11 would never have happened.  And that’s the point.

Fact is, for most Americans Islam and the attack on the World Trade Center are connected.  Long after the hole in the ground that is the construction site is filled and new buildings rise, the 9-11 wound will remain open and mourned.  And as long as it is mourned, the negative connection to Islam will remain.

No amount of good will, smart public relations or wishful thinking will change this fact –and the building of a mosque and Islamic community center will only inflame it.

The intent of those who would build it at the site might be honorable.  They may genuinely see it as a bridge to better relations between all religions.  They say that Christians and Jews will be on the board.  All that is good, but…

The act of building a mosque on that sacred site won’t build bridges, it will only burn them. 

Why?

Because one of the goals of the kind of radical Islam that was the credo of the 9-11 terrorists was the spread of Islam.  Building a mosque, the enshrinement of that goal, on the ground that their destructive act made desolate gives the appearance that these radical religionists were successful in their goal. 

It is incredibly powerful symbolism.  As one friend of mind recently and memorably said, it would have been like the Japanese opening a sushi restaurant at Pearl Harbor. 

I’m all for this great country that allows all religions the freedom to be practiced and Islam certainly has its place here.  I’m also a firm believer in healing.  But healing takes time and sensitivity.

My friend’s reaction and many others, including the Anti-Defamation League’s opposition and polling numbers, tell me that this particular symbolism must be heeded.

Bottom line, building a mosque at Ground Zero is not only in bad taste for most Americans, it is an aggressive act.

The symbolism of forcing a mosque onto the footprint of the World Trade Center, the graveyard of thousands sacrificed to Islamic extremism bent on conquest, can send only one message: we have conquered here.

Political correctness may have prompted many, including Mayor Bloomberg, to water down this connection, but the World Trade Center site belongs to all Americans.

The question is: is a mosque necessary at the World Trade Center?

The answer is no.

By all means build it nearby, but not on that ground hallowed by 2,750 innocent victims of a religion taken too far.

And, remember, things are always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.

John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week

Brand Winner...	And Loser...

Winner:  BP

John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week

Brand Winner...	And Loser...

 
Winner:  Toyota

Loser:  YMCA                                     

Winner:  

Toyota has gone through some of the toughest marketing waters known to man: the court of angry and relentless public opinion.

But, folks, it’s the way a brand reacts that matters!

Beginning with the dignified and effective response of its top executive, Akio Toyoda, to a congressional panel several months ago in which he committed himself and his company to aggressively promoting safety, things have been turning around.

Bottom line, even if the sudden acceleration problems had proven to be 100% Toyota’s fault, their cars were still statistically very, very safe.  Not only that, but the general consensus is that Toyota builds reliable vehicles.   

Now, in a further vindication of Toyota, the U.S. Department of Transportation has done some preliminary research into those sudden acceleration accidents and has found that many were caused not by technical malfunctions but by driver error (something which Toyota was claiming early on but backed away from in the face of growing public anger).

Fact is, Toyota has done three marketing things absolutely right in the face of this worldwide brand crisis: 1) once it was clear that they had to apologize and promise to do better (despite the actual facts about their vehicles’ safety), they did so in an incredibly forceful and constructive way; 2) they continued  being Toyota, a great company with a commitment to reliable and safe cars, and thus didn’t do anything else to mar their relationship with their customers (basically they let individual customer satisfaction bear the bulk of the marketing load) and 3) having put themselves in a sympathetic position to public opinion, as new facts favorable to them emerge, these facts have an even bigger impact on improving the company image (everyone feels sorry for the person or company that has been wrongly accused but has worked hard for redemption).

Sure, some analysts point to Toyota’s sales numbers in the new car market slipping behind not only GM but also Ford in 2010, but look at those figures again and you see that what really happened.  GM and Ford expanded their market share by a couple percent (not a surprise in the current post-bailout climate); Toyota’s market share slipped but by little more than half a percent –not too bad in the face of a major public relations disaster.

Simply put, Toyota is positioned for a powerful brand recovery thanks to their decisive public response and the top to bottom marketing integrity of this great company. 

Bonsai!

One other deserving mention under the winner column this week: Apple.  Like Toyota, they’re getting some bad press, but, folks, the key here is to focus on how they respond as a company.  At first there was some waffling, but the Steve Jobs spoke decisively about just how they are going to fix the antenna problem on the Iphone telling the world that Apple is “working our butts off” in an around the clock effort that entails bringing cots into the engineering department.  That’s responsiveness and that is great marketing!

Loser:

A few weeks ago, we looked at an error GM made when they tried to force a name change onto their employees and, ultimately, consumers.  In that case, they wanted to have the more formal Chevrolet replace the popular Chevy.

That was a mistake and they were smart to backpedal.

Unfortunately, the YMCA is making a similar mistake but in the opposite direction.  They are rebranding their organization more informally, shortening YMCA to the “Y”.

Fact is, people have been calling the YMCA the “Y” for years, so on the surface the change doesn’t seem like a big deal.  But this name change is a mistake, because it’s unnecessary.  A brand change should never be done simply because it can. 

Bottom line, why eliminate YMCA?  Coke has never done this with Coco Cola.  There’s something valuable about keeping brand continuity with the past and by officially dumping it’s longer, formal name, YMCA is endangering that continuity.

Moreover, what exactly is this going to achieve?   The old YMCA logo was already a big Y.  Unfortunately, this looks like spin-the-wheels branding, the kind of knee-jerk updating of image that makes consultants feel good but does little for their clients.

And as if there weren’t enough reasons not to do this, why make the Village People unhappy (not to mention, doing away with free advertising every time their song YMCA is played)?

And, remember, things are always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.

John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week

Brand Winner...	And Loser...

Winner:  Spain, World Cup Victors

Loser:  LeBron James                                                  

Winner: 

Spain’s victory in the World Cup speaks for itself.  The World Cup is one of the most grueling sports challenges in the world.  Only eight other countries have ever won it –now Spain is the ninth.

Not much to say on this one other than this: the intensity of the competition and the way the weeding out process of the cup that leads to the finals leaves us with two extraordinary teams.

It is the final battle between these two teams that illustrates an important aspect of brand building.  Successful brands win through consistency and the World Cup is won by the most consistent team.  A great brand is like a well-oiled team, everything is in its place, everything performs as it should and the good of the brand is always more important than any individual player.

Ole!

Loser:

LeBron James, native son of Ohio, has left the state in one of the most public spectacles of free agency ever. 

What a sad mistake.

Bottom line, while it may be understandable for an athlete of such incredible talent to migrate to where the money and the opportunity is, what isn’t understandable is the way James did it.

He burned his fans, his fellow Ohioans, his Target Market in a public way that will be remembered for a very long time –and not remembered well.

Consider other great sports memories.  Do you want to be remembered as the Dodgers leaving Brooklyn or Lou Gehrig? 

James has chosen the Dodgers brand model and no matter what he does from here that is how he’s going to be remembered.

Why?

Because he didn’t just turn his back on his fans, he showed them that at the end of the day he didn’t care about them –and maybe never really cared about them. 

This is especially hard because Ohioans are going through some very tough times and James represented something for them that they could be proud of in a state where closing factories and blighted downtowns are common.

At the end of the day, James will be remembered not only as abandoning Ohio but gloating as he did it. 

The publicity geniuses who forget about Target Markets and look only at the amount of press a story gets are, as usual, missing the point.  Fans forgive almost anything about a high performance athlete who continues performing, but what they don’t forgive or forget is a performance athlete who doesn’t treat them with respect and build a relationship with them.

It will impossible for James to build the kind of relationship with fans that he had in Cleveland.  Again, it’s understandable that he might have felt the need to leave personally and professionally, but if he did, he should have done it differently.  Now the folks in Miami and wherever else he might end up next will always be waiting for that other shoe to drop. 

And, remember, things are always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.

John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week:

Brand Winner...	And Loser...

Winner: Michael Steele

Loser: Apple

John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week:

Brand Winner...	And Loser...

Winner: General Motors

Loser: Valedictorians

GM moves from the loser column to the winner’s column this week.

Why the shift?

Because last week we were looking at blunder with the name of the company (GM executives apparently wanted their people to replace the time-honored word “Chevy” with “Chevrolet”).  This blunder showed mistaken marketing thinking, but since the company has quickly back-tracked this will not prove a fatal marketing move. 

The more important marketing work became apparent over last week: the Chevy Volt.

When a newsmagazine like The Economist that never, ever, does car reviews decides that your car is worthy of a review and then gives it an unqualified gold star, you deserve recognition.  And that is exactly what has just happened with GM’s Chevy Volt, their ground-breaking electric car.

After all, people buy brands not companies and the Chevy Volt retailing at $30,000 after a government rebate and with performance and features that people will love (not to mention the thousands of dollars in annual fuel savings) has got the makings of a brand that the Target Market will embrace.  This is simply marketing at its best which means giving customers what they want, never what you think they want.

As The Economist points out, GM has been working steadily on the Volt, not to mention a widespread re-invention and strengthening of its many brands, for several years.  Don’t be distracted by the financial turmoil, GM is back and with the exception of the occasional mis-step, their marketing is being done from the ground up now.  Once again, it’s the brand that drives the company.  End of story.

Loser:

It’s graduation time in America, but this year a bad idea is gaining serious traction. I’m speaking about group valedictorians.  This year some high schools have up to thirty of them.  That’s right: thirty.  But they’re still all supposed to be Number One.

It used to be that schools would pick one top student –usually on academic criteria alone— and that person would have the honor of representing his or her class at graduation.

No more.  In a nod to the modern idea that everybody has to get some kind of trophy, many high schools are extending the honor to all its top students under the concept “if everybody wins, no one loses.” 

But what’s so bad about the threat of losing?  And, let’s be honest, losing itself can be an important part of an education. 

Sure, the fight to be valedictorian has in the past been a tough, even brutal, contest for top students, but what’s wrong with a tough contest?  What’s more important here is the idea of standards.  If you put everyone at the top, then the top becomes meaningless.  You might think that you’re saving people’s feelings but really you’re only depriving them of something to believe in and something to strive for. 

As a brand, then, it’s not surprising that being a valedictorian now means a lot less than it once did.  Admissions officers have admitted that they don’t really value the title anymore because it’s essentially meaningless.

Of course, this is part of a bigger trend of grade inflation that has seen both high school and college classes crammed with honors students –again, where’s the honor if everybody gets the honor? 

Ultimately, what is being diluted is not only the valedictorian brand but the academic brand.  This is obviously a disturbing trend, but for the schools –particularly at the college level-- that are smart and want to use this trend to their advantage, they’ll go the opposite direction and cultivate a reputation for tougher grading and competition with real, not imagined, stakes.  Those schools will start attracting the best and most competitive students who care about such things and are even motivated by them.  The schools that don’t will be left to struggle to figure out how many more trophies they need to hand out as their reputations slide.

Bottom line: if a term doesn’t have real meaning or value, people will eventually recognize that fact.

And, remember, things are always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.