Monthly Archives: August 2011

Marketing Doctor John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week: Steve Jobs and Generic Tablets


Brand Winner…

And Loser…


Marketing Doctor John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week

Winner:  Steve Jobs


Loser:  Generic Tablets



Last week, Steve Jobs made the announcement that most knew was coming but few wanted to hear.

The man who more than anyone has shaped the technological landscape we live in had decided that it was time to step down from his role as CEO of Apple.

His statement was short and to the point, reassuring any who doubted it that Apple had a succession plan in place and was implementing it.

The statement also gave more evidence of what an extraordinary man Steve Jobs is.

Many have written about how Jobs’ departure might affect Apple’s future or have documented his history as an innovator.  That’s not what I want to do here.

Bottom line, Jobs is simply a superb man.  A brand for the ages. 

The word genius has been thrown around a lot about him, but that word genius misses the point. 

Many people have genius, but few geniuses have the kind of flexibility, endurance and ability to admit wrong turns, face them and correct them.

That trait, which Jobs holds in spades, translated directly to Apple’s success and Pixar’s –the kind of success that required meeting not only consumers’ needs again and again but even anticipating their dreams. 

Jobs and Apple practice almost a kind of symbiotic marketing –perceiving what consumers need almost before they know and then delivering and then refining according to their consumers’ experience and input.  Whether it was at Pixar or at Apple, Jobs wove a touch of the poet into the laser-sharp dynamism of a great marketer and innovator.

That approach is a deep part of Jobs himself and the experiences that shaped him.  Almost nothing gives us more to learn from as human beings than the words that he himself delivered as part of his commencement address to Stanford’s graduating class in 2005. 

Here’s the complete text.

But I’d like to provide you with two especially good excerpts. 

The first is Jobs’ reflection on being fired from Apple at age 30.  He went from being on top of the world to feeling like he was finished.  But then he realized that being fired was the best thing that had ever happened to him.  It made him certain that he still loved doing what he had done at Apple and needed to continue doing that in his future.  This realization led him to eventually found Pixar and then make that triumphant return to Apple itself years later.

Here’s what Jobs says:

I’m pretty sure none of this would have happened if I hadn’t been fired from Apple. It was awful tasting medicine, but I guess the patient needed it. Sometimes life hits you in the head with a brick. Don’t lose faith. I’m convinced that the only thing that kept me going was that I loved what I did. You’ve got to find what you love. And that is as true for your work as it is for your lovers. Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven’t found it yet, keep looking. Don’t settle. As with all matters of the heart, you’ll know when you find it. And, like any great relationship, it just gets better and better as the years roll on. So keep looking until you find it. Don’t settle.

The second excerpt is about using the fact of death as a positive –not a negative— to help you live the life you should be living.  Here it is:

When I was 17, I read a quote that went something like: “If you live each day as if it was your last, someday you’ll most certainly be right.” It made an impression on me, and since then, for the past 33 years, I have looked in the mirror every morning and asked myself: “If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?” And whenever the answer has been “No” for too many days in a row, I know I need to change something.

Remembering that I’ll be dead soon is the most important tool I’ve ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life. Because almost everything — all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure – these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important. Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart.

Thank you for following your heart, Mr. Jobs.  And thank you for helping us to follow ours.


Just a short one for our loser: the generic tablet.

Last week, I wrote about HP’s wise decision to get out of the tablet market.

Part of the reason for why this was that Apple, thanks to Mr. Jobs, dominates the tablet world so much that no other tablet manufacturer really has a brand.

And that’s the bottom line, everyone else, Samsung, Research In Motion, Toshiba, don’t really have brands at all in the tablet market –they have forgettable products that consumers don’t get attached to.

Apple’s share of the market is 61% and all the other brands have single-digit shares of the rest.

For a great take on this, check out The Economist:

The point is this: Apple developed products that are distinctive brands that people love and that has made all the difference.

And, remember, it’s always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind. 



TODAY’S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY –  To brand well you must always be responsive and wiling to learn.








Marketing Doctor John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week: Hewlett Packard and Abercrombie & Fitch


Brand Winner…

And Loser…


Marketing Doctor John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week

Winner:  Hewlett Packard


Loser:  Abercrombie & Fitch



Last week, Hewlett Packard, the technology giant, made a big announcement: it is getting out of the PC business.  One immediate decision was to cancel its tablet computer.  H-P says it is going to focus on business technology.

On one level this move could be taken as an admission of defeat.  After all, their big purchase of Compaq a few years back has clearly not paid off. 

But the real takeaway here is this: HP is behaving dynamically and courageously.

It isn’t easy to make big changes if you are an individual, but when you are a corporation with tens of thousands of employees, partners, affiliates and others depending on you…fuggedaboutit! 

H-P has seen the future and knows that the personal computer is going to be less and less a part of it.  Rather than drag its heels like so many big corporations when faced with a sea change in its market, H-P is changing course.  And like any course changes, once the facts are in and the strategic direction decided upon, the best way to make the change is quickly and in one go.

It might seem like a dramatic change –and it will certainly upset many people— but by staking its ground, H-P is sending out a brand message that the market can organize itself around. 

This not only provides the basis for the next phase of H-P’s growth, but a takeaway for all of us when we make big strategic shifts in our own lives, businesses or work: think them through first, but then implement them decisively.


Following up on our loser for last week, it looks like Abercrombie & Fitch has gotten itself into a bind with what might be some witless guerrilla marketing.

That’s right.  Abercrombie and Fitch, the same bunch who brought the world thongs for 10-year olds and padded bikini tops for the age 7 crowd, have now tried out a new promotional tactic.

Here’s the story.  A&F sent out a press release saying it had offered money to Mike “The Situation” Sorrentino of Jersey Shore fame to stop wearing its clothes.  The release is worth quoting since this is presumably an honest statement being issued by an established (since 1892), publicly-traded company:

We are deeply concerned that Mr. Sorrentino’s association with our brand could cause significant damage to our image.  We understand that the show is for entertainment purposes, but believe this association is contrary to the aspirational nature of our brand, and may be distressing to many of our fans

We have therefore offered a substantial payment to Michael ‘The Situation’ Sorrentino and the producers of MTV’s The Jersey Shore to have the character wear an alternate brand. We have also extended this offer to other members of the cast, and are urgently waiting a response.

Folks, the issue here is this “official” corporate statement was probably just a stunt –why did A&F not keep these “negotiations” back channel. 

MTV, the network behind Jersey Shore, tellingly seems to believe it’s a stunt also.  And Sorrentino predictably pushed back thus raising the media coverage.  

A&F has always attracted controversy, but this is different because it looks like the company was lying or, at the very least, twisting the truth in an official media release. 

Fact is, there should never be a press statement from an established company or person that lies or is even tongue-in-cheek.  That’s the big problem here.  A&F is saying something that they probably don’t mean in order to get momentary attention. 

Some people have speculated, perhaps rightly, that this stunt was pulled to distract from A&F’s announcement of poor earnings.  Others have claimed that it was a brilliant move by A&F to assure its global market that the boorish Jersey Shore antics don’t represent its high-end brand.  But the key here is no matter what A&F’s ultimate objective or reasons, the company crossed the line.

I know that the advertising and promotion landscape is tougher to crack than ever, but tactics like this can only hurt a brand –no matter how edgy or controversial that brand already is.

Mitt Romney recently got a lot of flack for his statement that corporations are people.  No matter what you might think of Romney, it was a brave statement that attempted to counter the cynical assumption that corporations are only soulless entities out to fleece us.

Corporations really are people.  And like people they can behave either very well or very badly.  And also like people they will be judged by this behavior.

The problem with A&F’s stunt is that it is a cynical and manipulative attack on people’s trust.  It is an example of behavior that companies should not follow.

People like to excuse behavior by saying things like, “Well, it’s only human.”  But, good behavior is also human and rather than follow the offenders down the endless spiral to the gutter, corporations need to remember that just like people they will be held accountable when they take their customers’ goodwill for granted.  True corporate branding powerhouses like Procter & Gamble never forget this rule.  They  build trust and brands over the long haul.

Let’s face it, guerrilla marketing is essentially just a new word for publicity stunt, but it goes really bad when lying and deception become part of the game.

What about the lawsuit against Urban Outfitters on Friday by the parents of an underage model claiming that the company used inappropriate images of her?  Is that a publicity stunt, too?  Maybe intended to promote just how edgy Urban Outfitters is?  We may never know.

So what if A&F did get one thing right?  Sorrentino, his crew, the show itself and the effect on their brand really does seem to go against their more preppy Target Market at home and their global aspirations.  But, again, though they might have gotten this important element right, the way they went about it totally undercut any gains.  The 8% drop in A&F’s stock price might have been one immediate consequence.

The bottom line is this: corporations need to think twice before engaging in behavior of this sort.  Not only will the tactic come back to bite them like it did with A&F, but in the end it will hurt us all.

And, remember, it’s always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.



TODAY’S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY –  Corporations are people and people must never take trust for granted.








Marketing Doctor John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week Frank Welker and Guerrilla Marketing


Brand Winner…

And Loser…


Marketing Doctor John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week

Winner:  Frank Welker


Loser:  Guerrilla Marketing



Folks, who do you think has been the Number 1 grossing actor at the box office in the last three decades?

Tom Hanks?  Samuel Jackson?  Good guesses but wrong.  Jackson, whose 88 movies have earned more than 5 billion, is Number 2.  Hanks is Number 3.

So who is Number 1?  That would be Frank Welker with a gross of more than 6 billion dollars in 95 feature films.

Before last week I hadn’t heard of him either.  That’s perfectly fine with Mr. Welker.

You see, you and I might not have heard of Frank Welker but we’ve heard from him many, many times.  He is a prolific voice actor who has been credited films and TV, everything from Spartacus to the Scooby Doo cartoon series to Aladdin to the Simpsons. 

Welker is our winner because he is one of those rare personal brands that seem to understand that you must find your niche and then consistently meet the requirements of that niche despite your ego or some kind of conventional aspirations. The key here is asking the question: am the leading man type or the supporting actor type?  Am I the leading man or Ed McMahon? 

In fact, for Welker it was asking a followup…Am I a behind-the-scenes guy, someone who doesn’t appear on screen.

Welker understood that he would never be the leading man (at least not in live-action movies), but he clearly understood his gift for voices and knew that that gift could fill a very definite need in the film industry.

Welker has another strength that’s rare with actors, especially with voice actors.  He actually takes direction.  In other words, if a director wants him to say a line a particular way, he’ll do it.  And he’s efficient.  He can nail the right take quickly.

This is a lesson for any brand, no matter what career you are in.  Fact is, if you can identify exactly where you fit and then make yourself someone who consistently delivers what is needed and does so while being easy to work in the process –bottom line, that is brand gold… And in Welker’s case, box office gold as well.


Folks, last week one kind of monkey, the Return of the Planet of the Apes, was our winner.  Well, this week another kind is our loser.

I’m talking about guerrilla marketing, which I guess you can define as unconventional and imaginative promotional strategies and tactics that seek to generate buzz or interest in a particular Target Market.

Now the trick with guerrilla marketing and the reason many corporations justifiably steer clear of using it is the possibility that it will backfire on the brand. 

Why?  Because on some level, guerrilla marketing isn’t really above board.  It usually involves consumers by making them think one thing when the message is actually something else

Bottom line, at its best, a brand makes an honest, truthful connection with its Target consumer or user.  The brand says this is what I am and this is what you will get when you purchase me. 

This might seem naïve, but it isn’t.  Successful brands have always been about making a contract with their customers and being consistent when it comes to connecting their advertising and communications with what the customer actually receives.

Some guerrilla marketing, especially when it works to simply get attention, is fine.  But when it does something controversial or offensive to get that attention for the brand then obviously you’ve got a conflict that will hurt the brand’s image –even though it might make the reputation of the guerrilla marketing team involved.

Guerrilla marketing probably makes the most sense when it is done for a product or service that already has an edgy reputation or is just getting started.  But, folks, even then it can go badly wrong. 

You might remember about four years ago, guerrilla marketers in Boston trying to promote an animated television series inadvertently caused a bomb scare when their light displays were mistaken for explosives.

But this week, guerrilla marketing got another black eye because, according to AdWeek, it looks like a consultant’s seemingly altruistic decision to conduct some kind of social media experiment with a Starbuck’s virtual gift card was actually a ploy to promote Starbucks.  

Starbuck’s has denied a connection to the promotion and so has Stark but there is a lot of suspicion that the coffee company was using doubtful tactics to get more attention.

But, again, guerrilla marketing is really an entrepreneurial activity, definitely not one for a mature corporate brand.  Entrepreneurs and new company’s can always start again, but an established brand like Starbucks that incurs damage because of inconsistent promotion and marketing can be permanently hurt.  You simply can’t have loosey goosey, unpredictability –and besides, what is most guerrilla marketing but a new name for an old activity, the publicity stunt?  Yep, just a variation on the theme.

At the end of the day, guerrilla marketing has reminded us that its scope is very limited and it is not a cure-all for the difficult promotional world we find ourselves in.

The point is that you need to be certain of the kind of message you want to send with your brand and that message must be built on trust.

And, remember, it’s always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind. 



TODAY’S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY –  Your brand’s relationship to its Target Market should always guide your marketing.








Marketing Doctor John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week Planet of the Apes and Standard & Poor’s


Brand Winner…

And Loser…


Marketing Doctor John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week

Winner:  (The Rise of) The Planet of the Apes


Loser:  Standard & Poor’s



This week’s winner is just a brief, tip of the hat in the direction of an esteemed movie franchise that is enjoying a brand revival.

I’m talking about Planet of the Apes, the 43-year-old classic sci-fi movie that has provided the “brand base” for this weekend’s James Franco picture: The Rise of The Planet of the Apes. 

Bottom line, when you have brand that has legs and a Target Market that genuinely appreciates it, you have something that can last while also being able to change with the times.

The CGI magic of this summer’s movie goes far beyond what was possible in the original, but it was the fundamentals of the concept and story telling that allowed another quality movie to be added to this legendary franchise.


As you probably know by now, Standard & Poor’s, the ratings agency, downgraded U.S. debt, stripping it of its Triple A status.  This has never happened before in our country’s history.  It is a huge blow during these already tough times.

Standard & Poor’s argues that the government just wasn’t working fast or effectively enough to tackle our enormous debts and the downgrade was inevitable. 

Well, Fitch and Moody’s, the other ratings giants, don’t think so –their Triple A’s are staying put.

But S&P was adamant about the move –despite the fact that a furious Treasury Department found a two-trillion dollar error in the company’s calculations.  Here’s a company that’s essentially scolding the U.S. government for not watching its dollars and cents, missing trillions.

As one government commentator observed, the S&P move is a “facts-be-damned” decision.

I would argue that this decision came directly out of S&P thinking about its own brand and deciding to use this moment in history to bolster its brand position.  Unfortunately, for the U.S. and for S&P this is terrible brand management because rash moves –even moves that seem in keeping with your brand— do damage.

Here’s why.

Obviously from a brand perspective, a ratings agency must sometimes do things that upset governments and people.  By following the rules and sound accounting and assessment protocols, there will simply have to be times when the verdict issued by a ratings agency will be painful.  If this wasn’t the case, then the ratings agency would lack credibility and its brand would be diluted.

And this is where S&P’s problem actually lies.  Like the other ratings agencies, S&P’s warnings and sound assessments were nowhere to be found before the global financial crisis.  The crisis seemed to catch them as unawares as everyone else when they were the ones who should have been keeping watch.  Not only that but the perception cast them as co-villains in the crisis, rubber-stamping financial instruments with their approval that ultimately didn’t deserve it.  Let’s face it, these agencies were responsible for telling bondholders that bonds they held were essentially risk free only to have them default.

So the story of the last few years for the ratings agencies has been one of re-asserting their credibility.  But the funny thing is, their business is such that despite the egg on their faces from the global financial crisis, there was no one else who could take their place.  This meant that even though they didn’t deserve the credibility and the power, they maintained it.  That’s why they’ve continued to wield power over the world and each new debt crisis has seemed to hinge on some new pronouncement from the ratings agencies.

This brings us back to S&P’s brand and it’s terrible move on Friday.  Fact is, it looks like S&P was trying to repair its brand damage by unfairly inflicting damage on an obvious target –the U.S. is the prize trophy of the big game ratings world.  And over the summer, the U.S. has become especially vulnerable because of all the attention to its deficit and financial situation –thanks in part to a dithering Congress and administration.

So the S&P basically had a vulnerable target in its sights with huge brand boasting rights.  In one fell swoop, it looked like the company could restore its reputation for toughness and impartiality.

Wrong.  Let’s ask a basic question.  Why has U.S. debt never been downgraded before?  There’s a reason and it goes far beyond our current deficit and difficulties: we’ve always paid our debts.  I’m not an economist so I won’t go too far down the road of actually assessing U.S. debt, but after World War II our debt was more than 100% of annual GDP and we still kept our Triple A.

But, again, let’s stick to the brand strategy.  Basically, S&P has gone out on a limb and is trying to look bold, courageous and truthful.  But they will probably end up looking reckless and opportunistic and very bad at math.

As another Treasury official said: “A judgment flawed by a $2 trillion dollar error speaks for itself.”

Bottom line, S&P’s bad move might even bring the entire ratings agency edifice down.  After all, many investors, corporations and governments are getting tired of the fact that they are forced –yes, forced—by legislation to use the services of these agencies in the buying and selling of debt and other financial instruments.  Even after years of big mistakes and few consequences to these agencies (mandates still mean they’re paid even when they mis-rate).

This might just be the excuse everyone needs to re-examine the ratings agencies’ protected status.

So to sum up: yes, always keep your brand in mind, but never think that your brand can be repaired or re-positioned on the back of one big move.  Brand development takes time and it is always founded on the core qualities of the kind of work that you do.  For S&P and the other ratings agencies, this means simply getting consistently better and developing practices with greater integrity.

The general rule of thumb for financial gatekeeper brands is this: boring is good; exciting and unpredictable very bad.

And, remember, it’s always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind. 



TODAY’S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY –  Brand damage can never be repaired in one fell swoop. 








Marketing Doctor John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week News Corporation and McDonald’s


Brand Winner…

And Loser…


Marketing Doctor John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week

Winner:  News Corporation


Loser:  McDonald’s



News Corporation is our winner.  Yes, News Corp.  The embattled media powerhouse that Rupert Murdoch built into a stable of print and broadcast brands that span the globe is winning –no matter what so many commentators are saying.

Here’s the bottom line:

We have to understand that Fleet Street simply isn’t Main Street.  A British story isn’t an American story.

The current scandal concerning phone tapping and other invasions of privacy by the now defunct News of the World is a very British scandal.  In many ways, this is something that could only have happened on Fleet Street and only at a tabloid on Fleet Street.  This means that while journalists love this story (because many of them love to hate Murdoch), it won’t necessarily spread like wild fire either to the general public in America (who, frankly, don’t see its relevance to them) or beyond.  And it probably won’t lead to more discoveries of this kind of behavior at other News Corp. newspaper brands.  After all, the questionable standards and practices of British tabloids where there is long history of paying for stories, et cetera are well known and frowned on almost everywhere else.

But the real reason News Corp. is this week’s winner is because News Corp. is a company made up of vigorous brands that care about their individuals Target Markets and are run by a company that honors this focus.  The pie attack in which Murdoch’s wife quickly defended him might have garnered some public relations-style sympathy, but News Corp’s (and Murdoch’s) success is built on years of solid brand management and that is what will see this company and its brands through.

Consider this.  When Murdoch made the decision to shutter News of the World, 200 employees lost their jobs.  Now anyone losing their job is an unfortunate thing, but you have to measure these 200 jobs against the size of News Corp.’s vast empire. 

So, how many people does News Corp. still employ?  51,000.  That means less half of one percent of the company’s entire workforce was affected here.

That alone should tell us that while what happened at News of the World is important, it does not necessarily say anything about the rest of News Corp.

Fact is, Rupert Murdoch and News Corp. has consistently preserved brand equity.  When News Corp finally won control of The Wall Street Journal, the general assumption was that the Journal would soon change for the worst.  That has simply not happened.  News Corp. has never been in the business of taking brands that work and ruining them. 

The weeks and months to come will probably show –no matter what happens to Murdoch personally—that the many media ventures the company has controlled around the world will continue to thrive.  Will this scandal attach to the book publisher Harper Collins or to the movie business of Twentieth Century Fox?  Fuggedaboutit.

People buy brands not companies.  And News Corp., like General Motors, is a company that masterfully delivers brands to its many consumers and keeps its corporate identity at a distance.  No one thinks News Corp. when they watch Avatar.  No one thinks News Corp. when they read a book by Tolkien.   But News Corporation is behind both.

If the key is individual brand management for such a company then in a scandal the response must be to show that one brand does not a company make or break.  And that is what Rupert Murdoch did with speed and decisiveness when he shuttered News of the World and appeared at the parliamentary hearings.

Murdoch followed the crisis management rule to a tee:

 1.  Respond quickly (even if it means taking painful action);

2.    Be contrite;

3.  Take responsibility;

4.   Be Honest (here, it meant that Murdoch admitted what he didn’t know and still might discover regarding wrongdoing at News of the World);

5.    Communicate a plan of action.

Murdoch did all of the above and the effect –like closing a fire door— should prevent the crisis from spreading to the wider brand portfolio.  But even if it doesn’t, the basic structure of News Corp. and its ongoing emphasis on individual brands certainly will. 

One final note, a personal disclaimer.  I have written for Fox News and appeared on numerous Fox shows over the past few years.  Of course, Fox is one of those News Corp. brands, but other than knowing that I was walking into the News Corporation building to visit Fox, I never really thought I was writing or appearing for News Corp. –it was and is always Fox.


McDonald’s is this week’s loser because not every adaptation to pressure is good for a brand.

I’m talking about McDonald’s decision to cut its Happy Meal fry serving in half by the end of the year and add apple slices. 

Don’t get me wrong, I am a believer in healthy eating choices and portion control, but McDonald’s emerges as a loser from the decision because this supreme marketer seems to have violated the golden rule of marketing: satisfy yours customers’ needs.

Are customers really clamoring for the fries to be cut in half and apple slices substituted?  Or is this more an example of a range of non-profit activist groups and Nanny-state government “coaxing” McDonald’s to make this change?

While an argument can certainly be made that McDonald’s is smartly using the change as a platform from which to attract a new Target Market (i.e., those parents who have shunned McDonald’s because they didn’t think the company was serious about good nutritional choices), it’s more likely that the company is simply trying to make a short-term bargain with groups that –let’s face it—won’t be content until the McDonald’s that we know is no more.

McDonald’s already must post the nutritional data about its food for all consumers to see.  The restaurant also offers a lot of choice by allowing patrons to swap out less healthy foods for more healthy ones. 

Choices for consumers usually translates to universally good marketing, but what McDonald’s is doing actually limits choices.  

Let’s imagine a scenario like this.  A mom with two kids who cares about healthy food, but on a road trip enjoys taking the kids to McDonald’s for a treat.  But  let’s say this parent is on a budget and likes to split those fries in that Happy Meal between his two kids.  Oh, and she brings her own apples.  It might seem like a small thing, just a minor detail, but now she has to buy more fries.  This is a hassle and a loss of choice.   Minor details matter in marketing and they add up in surprising ways.  People get used to the range of options they have as consumers.  They don’t like having those choices taken away and being told what they have to buy.

Folks, sure, McDonald’s might also be expanding their Target Market, but fact is there are other ways they can do this than by limiting choice or buckling to consumer watchdog pressure.  McDonald’s should take a stand for its customers.  People like McDonald’s food and in moderation there is nothing wrong with it.  McDonald’s should campaign for consumer freedom and make good nutrition part of this campaign –not something that makes kids and adults alike think that they have to eat their vegetables or else.

As the great Bill Cosby said, “I don’t know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody.”   McDonald’s will never please the health extremists and, frankly, they shouldn’t try.

And, remember, it’s always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind. 



TODAY’S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY –  Every detail matters in the building (or ruining) of a brand.