Am I overreacting?
We've all been through it before. We come across a personal issue, over-analyze the situation, and then respond with an unnecessary reaction (whoops...). Well, the same thing can happen to brands. We call it, over-branding. And it happens to the best of us...
Over-branding
Over-branding often occurs when a company recognizes an issue, tries to resolve the issue, but reacts excessively. To Netflix, this sounds all too familiar. Due to a rapid decline in stock prices, Netflix announced it was going to split its services into two brands: Netflix and Qwikster. Good move? Ask Netflix. After assessing the situation a bit more (and hearing the public’s reaction), the company “qwikly” learned that two brands aren’t always better than one. Shortly after the split was announced, Netflix decided to terminate Qwikster before its launch. Better late than never.
Sometimes over-branding might occur for reasons that aren't as clear. We are all familiar with Comcast’s rebranding as XFINITY. Looking back, it’s difficult to determine a clear motive for the rebrand. As one of the most successful media tech companies in the U.S., Comcast was (and is) a popular household name. Over its long history Comcast developed a strong and positive public image, so why would a company want to move away from a name that held an immeasurable amount of equity? And it is evident the rebranding effort has confused a number of customers. One of the FAQs on XFINITY’s website asks, “What makes XFINITY different from the service I currently receive from Comcast?” Good question.
Moral
Everyone can agree that branding is crucial for the success of a business. But it’s even more crucial to make sure it is done correctly. Here are a couple of things to consider when developing your brand:
- Keep it simple. A common obstacle with branding is over-complication (see examples above). As a brand advocate, it’s easy to get caught up in the intricacies of your brand - many companies want every detail to be showcased. Be sure to prioritize when addressing your audience. It’s important to keep things consistent, clear and concise.
- Seek out a pair of fresh eyes. Strong brands have passionate employees who often times see things through a company lens. It is always important to get a third-party’s opinion – someone unbiased, trustworthy and knowledgeable.
- Think it through. Over-branding is often a result of rushed decisions. A new brand name, design and/or strategy is something that will touch every piece of your business. Take time to make sure your decisions make sense from every angle.
Top Three Tips for Internal Branding
One of the keys to building a successful brand externally is to build your brand internally. Not only do your employees live and breathe the brand each day, but they are the ones communicating it to your current and future customers. So how do you develop a successful internal branding campaign? Here are a few tips.
- Provide easy to understand and easy to access tools. These tools could be as simple as a rack card at each employee’s desk or educational pages on your company’s intranet.
- Engage team members from multiple departments. Ask department leaders to highlight employees who are enthusiastic and willing to carry the brand flag within the team. Then educate these brand ambassadors on the brand and how to talk to their coworkers about the value of the organization’s brand.
- Do it once, twice, three times and don’t stop. Internal branding is not something that can be done once and be considered successful. If it is just done once, employees may just see it as a campaign. Regularly communicating about the brand will help engrain it in your organization’s culture. Consider highlighting a different organization benefit or value each month, explaining its value and showing examples of how the brand is lived each day by employees.
When your employees believe it, your customers and future customers will notice. By tapping into your greatest brand implementation tool – your workforce – your organization will not only be singing from the same hymn book (pardon my Southern phrasing), but so will your customers.
World Expo: Nation Branding
To add to the previous blog post about nation branding, countries seem to be very interested in their reputations. They are making strides to manage their appearance in a globalized world. Countries realize that their reputation not only affects their tourism business, but also their economic stance in the marketplace. And where do countries go to brand themselves? Try the World Expo. It’s a hotspot for nation branding. Known as, “a wonderful playground of branding,” these fairs provide pavilions for each country to portray the best of its identity to the rest of the world. Kind of like a beauty contest for nations, or a tournament of cultures. Participating countries are eager to interact and impress visitors.
Another reason countries go to the Expo is to overcome negative stereotypes that may be harmful to their reputation. Social, economic, cultural or political issues from the past (like wars for example) are the main factors that shape the rest of the world’s perspective of a country. These stereotypes can be hard to break. On the other hand, stereotypes can be a good thing. With pre-conceived expectations, people have already made a connection with a nation, allowing easier engagement and interest.
Are the messages that these national pavilions send effective? It can be tricky because nations must be aware of the way they communicate with multiple audiences. They cannot just impress foreigners; they must also please their domestic audience. If communication between the two doesn’t correspond, there could be cause for dispute. Most natives see their pavilion as a source of national pride, but some others may see it unfavorably, especially if the focus is on creating a show for foreigners.
Student ambassadors that greet and guide visitors at their pavilions are an important part of a national brand. With their direct contact among visitors, they exhibit diplomacy, represent a physical presence for their country, and give a glimpse into the future of foreign relations.
There are many things to consider when managing a country’s image on a global scale. A solid nation-brand strategy requires much negotiation, compromise, and clear direction to be successful.
Contributed by Emily Hassell
The Good, The Bad & The Bizarre of Brand Extensions
Once upon a time Coca-Cola had only soft drinks, Burger King only had burgers, and Nokia had rubber boots…
Yes, you read that correctly. The same Nokia that has been a telecommunications company and long time mobile phone manufacturer started out as an industrial conglomerate that produced galoshes and other rubber products.
Other than having strong and highly recognizable names these companies along with many others have tried their hand at extending their brand beyond their individual flagship products. Brand extensions are a complex venture and run the chance of being either highly successful or horribly awful.
Unlike product extensions which are the use of a brand's name for a new item in the same product category, a brand extension is a strategy deployed when a company uses their brand name and attaches it to a new product in a different product category from the original established product. Much like Starbucks did when they introduced their liquor line in addition to their signature coffee.
Attaching a brand name to a new product category allows marketers to capitalize on the brand equity of the original brand and attach it to something new in hopes that consumers will associate the same experience and knowledge they have of the brand to the new product. But attaching a brand name to a new product is not always easy, it can be costly for both the brand extension and original brand because a poor choice for brand extensions may dilute and deteriorate the core brand and damage its brand equity.
When a brand extension is successful it can prove to be a lucrative move for brands, and in some instances like Nokia the brand extension becomes more successful than the original venture. But sometimes brand extensions are just flat out weird. So, which are which? Take a look at the graph below and see some brand extensions I've laid out as the good, the bad, and the bizarre.
How Social Media Can Help Branding
Social media is a great way to help promote a brand because of convenience and connection. Social networks are unlike other marketing platforms because they offer brands an easy access to target audiences, and the ability to maintain online relationships. An online brand profile allows a company to introduce its brand identity, and make the brand more present in consumers’ everyday lives.
The biggest platforms that will help bring the most traffic to a brand are Facebook, Twitter, and Linkedin. Facebook offers a limitless amount of space to promote a brand, with room for wall conversations, updates, photos, video, pictures, interests, and more. Though Twitter and Linkedin are a bit more limiting in what you can share with your audience, they are equally as powerful as Facebook for engaging interaction and forming an online identity.
Consistent updates on Twitter, Facebook, or Linkedin will help flesh out your brand’s profile. Followers can learn about news updates, comment on posts, and offer other insights that may help your brand be the best it can be. The unique quality about social networks is that they build a community and thus a loyalty around your brand, which is valuable for staying relevant and attractive in any industry.
One of the most valuable things social media has to offer a brand is the ability to associate with other brand names online. Partnerships can increase visibility to a wider audience, and leverage a brand into new markets. Alternatively, if a brand targets a specific market or a certain audience, there are niche social media sites to explore. For example, if your brand is a diaper company, it would be advantageous to follow or even start a mommy blog, to get feedback on what mom’s think about your products.
In the past, brands have just been names and logos, but now they trigger online conversations, bringing more life and interaction to a brand’s identity. Not only can you see what consumers say about your brand, but also what they say about competitors. Following a competitor’s profile page can help a brand to monitor the direction of its competitor, and stay up-to-date in the market.
In a brand-centric world, social media can really help a brand distinguish itself and maintain a fresh image. The social media-scape is still new, allowing room to innovate the ways in which it’s being used. We should be seeing some interesting social media initiatives from brands in the near future!
Contributed by: Emily Hassell
Avoid the Noid, Round Two
Mascots are generally likeable characters. Familiar faces like Tony the Tiger and Ronald McDonald often hold a nostalgically happy place in the memories of most Americans.
But let's be honest – who ever really liked the Noid?
Domino's Pizza's short-lived, floppy-eared mascot is making a present-day comeback after a retirement that's lasted for 23 years. The popular pizza chain is using the Noid to promote an online game on Facebook, stylized to resemble an arcade game from the 1980s, in which users with the high score can win a free pizza every minute.
Domino's recently garnered a lot of attention for its brutally honest television commercials that aired nationally during the last year and a half, in which the company promised to reinvent itself as a pizza chain. The ads featured consumers openly complaining about the company's pizza products, followed by various Domino's chefs and supervisors who demonstrated how they had improved their pizzas with better ingredients and techniques. The campaign proved successful, as Domino's experienced a historic quarterly gain in the following year.
It's strange, then, that Domino's would revive a long-forgotten mascot at the height of its own revival. The T.V. campaign was successful in re-branding Domino's from a mediocre fast-food restaurant that makes "pizza that tastes like cardboard," into an honest, committed company that goes to great lengths to listen to the concerns of its customers.
So why hearken back to a time where there was no glory – when all Domino's had to distinguish itself as a pizza brand was a cackling little man in a red jumpsuit? After all, the Noid was intended to be an annoying creature that represented other pizza competitors; ironically, it became known as the Domino's mascot instead.
The online promotion is clearly trying to cash in on a blast-from-the-past moment with the 1980s-themed novelties. However, Domino's should think critically about how it wants to brand itself from here onwards. The company has made remarkable strides in less than two years' time in reestablishing itself as a reputable pizza brand, and it needs to continue that momentum instead of interrupting it so abruptly.
One can only hope that, when the promotion is over, the Noid will hop back its way back into the past where it belongs.
Contributed by Allison Meeks
Sibling rivalry: iPods vs. iPhones
My mother is obsessed with her iPhone. While she taps away on her touchscreen all day, she asks me why I don’t trade in my "clearly less superior" iPod nano (5th generation) for Apple's newer flagship device. My typical response is that my iPod is my music device and nothing more, and that's the way I like it, thank you very much.
But then people started using Facebook from their iPhones. Then Angry Birds became popular to play on-the-go. Now, all of my friends have started playing Words with Friends (appropriately).
But me? I'm still here with my iPod. And I'm starting to think my mom has a point.
We are approaching an age of the all-or-nothing device. Phones aren't appealing to consumers unless they can offer Internet access, Skype capabilities, a slew of apps, e-mail, a GPS, video players, and music, just to name a few features. The basic iPod, which is only a music (and sometimes video) player, simply can't compete anymore, and so its brand is suffering a slow demise.
The iPhone, on the other hand, is so adept at meeting every technological need that Apple is willing to let the iPod brand be exceedingly eclipsed by the iPhone brand. Why would Apple invest time and money to revive an increasingly irrelevant iPod brand, when it can minimally advertise the lucrative iPhone and garner massive earnings?
By choosing to essentially leave its iPod brand strategy alone, Apple's sales are starting to reflect iPhone domination. Where iPod sales superseded those of iPhones by $13 million in 2010, that amount shrunk to only a $3 million difference in the first quarter of 2011. If the sales gap diminished that much in just one year, the outlook seems very favorable for iPhones.
The iPod brand's last saving grace could be its highly established brand image. Like it or not, iPhones will always have their roots from the iPod brand, both in name and in likeness – and many people will always refer collectively to the products as "iPod" devices. Even so, it will be difficult for iPods to hold their own in the coming years against their all-encompassing, digital successors.
Contributed by Allison Meeks
The Future of Angry Birds
I told myself I wouldn’t get addicted to Angry Birds. But as soon as I demolished those squealing, snorting little pig targets, I knew I was hooked.
I'm not alone in my obsession; there are over 100 million users who play Angry Birds monthly. The game clearly has a loyal following, and has become a staple in American pop culture.
Rovio, the Finnish company who created the game, recently announced plans to take Angry Birds to the Chinese market. The company wants to increase brand awareness with a lofty goal – to become the first global entertainment brand with more than one billion fans.
Instead of creating new games and expanding the master brand's umbrella, however, Rovio wants to capitalize on Angry Birds alone. Game-themed plush toys, cookbooks, and even merchandise stores are in the works.
"We are betting everything on Angry Birds," Rovio CEO Peter Vesterbacka said unabashedly at the Casual Connect game show in Seattle.
Rovio is depending on Angry Birds' unusually expedient success to carry the company far. According to the aforementioned article, Angry Birds is the third most-pirated brand in China after Disney and Hello Kitty — a remarkable feat, given the game is less than two years old. Even more astonishing is that the game has grown faster than any other technological brand in history in terms of active users, according to Rovio's research data.
These impressive statistics, coupled with Angry Birds' addictive and quirky brand personality, make for a promising run in China. If the game is already raking in the kind of demand seen for massive, established brands like Disney and Hello Kitty, it’s effectively conveying a brand image of desirability and high regard.
But is Rovio, as a brand, being overshadowed by the Angry Birds brand itself? The company claims it wants a billion fans as an entertainment brand — but people may only become fans of Angry Birds, and not of Rovio, its creator. It will be interesting to see if Rovio's tactics will help the company’s brand gain prominence on its own as a gaming innovator, or if it will be always be eclipsed by the Angry Birds game.
Regardless, it's clear that reaching a wider audience of people is vital to Rovio's strategy.
"It’s not all about monetization now," Vesterbacka said. "It’s about keeping the fans coming back and building the brand."
Contributed by Allison Meeks
Google+: social networking suicide?
Google is a big part of many people's daily Internet routines. They check their e-mails on Gmail, find directions on Google Maps, and use its namesake search engine multiple times a day.
But there is one digital arena that Google has failed to succeed in, and that is social networking. After Google's 2010 flop with Google Buzz, it is still Facebook that dominates the scene. The social networking giant touts around 750 million active users, and is an Internet staple for many. These successes are due to Facebook's strong brand, which conveys social connectivity that is easily accessible by anyone.
Last Tuesday Google announced its new try at social networking — the Google+ Project. The network is very similar to Facebook — users can share status updates, photos, videos and links with their friends. However, one of Google+'s most unique features is their "circles," where users can place their friends in categories ("friends," "family," etc.) and decide which information they want to share with each group.
This venture shows that Google wants a social networking brand position that is distinct from Facebook. Google wants to be associated with something that more closely imitates the connections you have with peers in the real world, where there is secure and personal control over who gets to know what information.
“In real life, we have walls and windows and I can speak to you knowing who’s in the room, but in the online world… you share with the whole world,” Google product management Vice President Bradley Horowitz told the New York Times. “We have a different model.”
A problem with Google's brand strategy, however, is the network's striking similarity to Facebook, in content and in layout. Some users won't want to add a new social network to their repertoire if it has the same look and feel of what they're already using. Google, as a leading web innovator, could have brought more to the plate here.
Regardless, the launch of Google+ shows the world that Google wants to continue positioning itself as a multifaceted and technologically relevant brand. The corporation has been largely successful thus far in its developments from a simple search engine into a go-to resource for news, images, and even as the owner of Youtube. Now it's looking for a way to maintain its image of simplified versatility, and social networking is the next frontier.
Do you think Google+ will chip away at Facebook's hold on the social networking market?
Contributed by Allison Meeks
Fast-Food, Version 2.0
Places like McDonald's and Burger King are generally considered classic fast-food giants. The die-hard Big Mac or Whopper fans will always keep them in business, but a new slew of pseudo-fast-food restaurants are giving them a run for their money – even forcing them to reconsider their branding strategies.
These days, Panera Bread has free wi-fi. Noodles and Co. has healthy pasta dishes for around $5. Even Starbucks sells prepackaged deli sandwiches alongside its specialty drinks. But food isn't the only allure of these new fast-food restaurants: their interiors are decorated with fresh, modern art, their staffs are comprised of enthusiastic young adults, and their customers often treat the establishments more as relaxing hang-out spots than eateries.
These brands accomplish what places like McDonald's and Burger King fall short of —associating themselves with a growing class of individuals that will pay a little more for an atmospheric, modern meal. They are able to exude sophistication that is affordable, healthy, wholesome, and accessible — and who doesn’t want to be a part of that?
Lately, the previous kings of fast-food are taking a hint from their newer competition's branding techniques and moving away from the catch-all, fast-food brand of cheap and greasy. McDonald's, for instance, has recently been implementing new restaurant designs with relaxing color palettes and flowing fonts, along with menu items like fruit smoothies and oatmeal. Burger King is said to be revamping its entire restaurant feel, getting rid of the king mascot as well as adding a new Asian chicken salad to their menu.
But ditching the burger brand that the two chains almost single-handedly created could be hard to do, and regular customers might not embrace the changes. These restaurants take a risky gamble on a new trend that might not outlive their own established brands.
Will McDonald's or Burger King reach the new standard of fast-food prestige? Share your thoughts!
Contributed by Allison Meeks