How could I ever forget my first car? My father hated it because it was un-American: a 1966 black Volkswagen Fastback. In fact, it was about as un-American as you could get in my dad’s mind.
The year was 1976, I had moved to Long Island to continue my graduate studies. I needed an inexpensive, reliable, gas efficient vehicle that could get me where I needed to go.
You see, my first lesson in brand loyalty didn’t come from a textbook, it came from observing how my dad felt about his cars –always GM— and how GM felt about my dad.
Like many of his generation, my dad started with a Chevy, progressed to the Pontiac, moved up to the Oldsmobile and finally arrived at the Buick. He never made it to the Caddy – but, make no mistake, that was his goal.
Back in the day, GM had this idea that they would build a car for each period of your family life cycle. My father bought into that idea and he thought his son would too.
That’s why my decision to switch to the other side didn’t go down very well.
Dad just didn’t understand what my automobile needs were – how practicality and the gas crisis had combined to make a foreign car the best choice. And neither did GM.
My dad did what a lot of people do, they project what they think someone else needs instead of listening to truly understand what these needs are.
That’s where GM –and all the American carmakers at that time— went wrong too. GM didn’t understand that their life-cycle model to car selling just wasn’t going to work anymore. It was the beginning of their decline and the beginning of the rise of their competitors from overseas who were quick to adapt with cars that met the appetite for practical transportation and gas savings.
The lesson here is that marketing cars or anything else is not about selling people what you want to sell them, it’s about selling people what they need. If my father only understood that, perhaps we could have spent more time talking about baseball and less time arguing why I had bought a VW Fastback.
Luckily for this country, though, GM and Ford have gotten the message. They’re selling people the cars they need. Right now, there might just be a graduate student out there buying American.
Coburn did the Right Thing: Apologize
Here’s The Interview on ABC’s GMA
It’s easy to criticize those in the arena who fight to win. The personal branding lesson: THINK before you speak and if you make a mistake, be sincere with an apology that comes from the heart. Mr. C did just that and his wife added to touching interview. He is a personal brand to watch! Explore how you can prevent this from happening to u!
Marketing Doctor John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week
Folks, Apple is our winner this week. With sales of the iPhone 5 going through the roof and talk of a company market value that may soon reach one trillion dollars how could it be any other way.
After all, this is a brand that has triumphed.
But, I’ve got to tell you, Apple is a provisional winner.
Because just like they say it takes a while to slow a big ship down when you turn off the engines, I’m wondering if we just might be seeing evidence of brand decline with Apple.
First, Guy Kawasaki, Apple’s long-time champion criticized the company’s “arrogance” in deciding to require an entirely new cable instead of one that everyone already has. And what’s more, Kawasaki admitted to having used an android phone for over a year now. When advocates and taste makers like Kawasaki defect, a brand had better take notice.
Second, Apple CEO Tim Cook’s photos sure reminded me of Steve Jobs. It was actually a little eerie, as if Cook was working hard to channel his predecessor.
Something similar happened back in the sixties when Walt Disney died. A pall came over that company. People asked what would Walt do? The company drifted. There was the instinct to imitate but ultimately Walt, like Jobs, couldn’t be imitated and a new course needed to be charted.
And that’s where I think Apple is right now. It has the critical mass to be a continued force in the marketplace, but will it do all the right things needed to remain a dominant brand? Stay tuned.
Chick-fil-A, the now controversial restaurant chain, has made the mistake of being unclear in the communication of its brand.
Several press releases and then calls for clarification from its CEO have only made its position less clear. Here is coverage from The Washington Post.
And here is the bottom line: it looks like Chick-fil-A will have to make a big decision, but hasn’t yet. This is the decision that most regional, highly-targeted brands need to make as they expand nationally and internationally: they must choose to become more generic and basically apolitical.
What I think we’re seeing here is that the company caught in the cross currents, tempted by the prospects of bigger, more lucrative, markets and bothered by what being in those markets means for the roots of the brand.
So what should the Chick-fil-A folks do. They should take a page from the Dunkin Donuts guy: It’s Time To Make The Donuts. Focus on the chicken and keep focusing on the chicken and let everyone know that’s what you’re doing.
It doesn’t mean abandoning your company values, but it does mean remembering that you are a chicken restaurant first, not a kind of family values factory.
And remember, it’s always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.
TODAY’S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY: Always remember what is at the core of your brand.