Ok- Tiger goofed up. But unlike most people, i am not worked up about it. I think his wife needs to handle the goof up, not me.
I am not a golfer, but i think Tiger is an outstanding athlete. A great brand, because apart from all other attributes, Tiger lasted (lasts) a long time- the true attribute of a great brand.
In maintaining a regular stream of "off the books" relationships however, Tiger seems to have suddenly turned from legend into a deplorable person overnight.
My two bits:
Tylenol was a bigger disaster- people died.
Firestone as well.
But the brands survived.
Why not Tiger?
Personality brands often highlight our own inadequacies. Tiger the perfect man- great golf game, great family....everyday men see Tiger on TV, they are reminded of their "average" existence. The wife drools over Tiger, the girlfriend fantasizes. It is the wide appeal of Tiger which will be lost forever. A tiger will now appeal only to a niche (like Paris Hilton- hopefully not to the same niche).
A moral fall is a great leveler. Suddenly our wives and girlfriends don't think much of Tiger. He has fallen, and by extension, i have risen. Do i want to see Tiger rise from this? Nope.
The brand Tiger is finished. Not zero, but nowhere close to where he was. He was on a pedestal, and now he is possible going to be held at the same level as a Paris Hilton.
If Tiger had been French, he would have been most likely forgiven by his countrymen. Not Americans, who still guard some "moral" values. (I am myself very uncomfortable with the word "moral" - how it is defined- by whom etc).
But America is the largest golf market in the world, and no matter what citizenship Tiger held, his worth in the US market would have fallen.
A very clear message for celebrity brands.
Showing posts with label celebrity marketing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label celebrity marketing. Show all posts
Tuesday, 15 December 2009
Monday, 12 October 2009
animation in advertising
I saw recently Michelin's (www.michelin.com) new TV advertisements on the tagline "the right tire changes everything". Click title to see ad on youtube.
Without going into a discussion on the content, the position , message etc i simply reflected on the use of animation.
Bibendum, the Michelin mascot cleraly works better in animation that in real life. Animation proposes modifications to Bibendum's expressions and actions that would be difficult to replicate with real life actors.
And since Bibendum 'humanises' the tire like nothing else, he does appear at the centre of all advertitisng. Is this a good idea in itself? A very thin line between using the Michelin man to help tires emote, verus overexposing him.
Coming back to animated ads. (Coke has started this as well).
Unfortunately for the advertising industry Pixar is setting the standards in the animation business. And i would believe that consumers that see animation advertisements are immediately comparing the work to Wall-E or Nemo. TBWA is not a Pixar and the production quality shows.
Animation works well when it creates an incredible world for its characters. Worlds with lights, colors, sounds that seem more real than real. That's the difference between animation and cartoons.
Animation works when it uses a great storyline and humanlike characters. With expressions, with an interaction that allows us to experience our own lives even while looking at a movie about monsters, fish or outdated robots. Great animation
re-creates life through unreal metaphors.
Average animation is "plasticy" and establishes a disconnect from its message. Average animation simply exaggerates the human existence while drowning out the human condition. The message for a real world becomes distant.
The real risk for companies using animation comes not from their product competitors but from companies that exploit the animation technique so well that anything less than extraordinary simple makes the execution of the ad very ordinary.
Venkat
Without going into a discussion on the content, the position , message etc i simply reflected on the use of animation.
Bibendum, the Michelin mascot cleraly works better in animation that in real life. Animation proposes modifications to Bibendum's expressions and actions that would be difficult to replicate with real life actors.
And since Bibendum 'humanises' the tire like nothing else, he does appear at the centre of all advertitisng. Is this a good idea in itself? A very thin line between using the Michelin man to help tires emote, verus overexposing him.
Coming back to animated ads. (Coke has started this as well).
Unfortunately for the advertising industry Pixar is setting the standards in the animation business. And i would believe that consumers that see animation advertisements are immediately comparing the work to Wall-E or Nemo. TBWA is not a Pixar and the production quality shows.
Animation works well when it creates an incredible world for its characters. Worlds with lights, colors, sounds that seem more real than real. That's the difference between animation and cartoons.
Animation works when it uses a great storyline and humanlike characters. With expressions, with an interaction that allows us to experience our own lives even while looking at a movie about monsters, fish or outdated robots. Great animation
re-creates life through unreal metaphors.
Average animation is "plasticy" and establishes a disconnect from its message. Average animation simply exaggerates the human existence while drowning out the human condition. The message for a real world becomes distant.
The real risk for companies using animation comes not from their product competitors but from companies that exploit the animation technique so well that anything less than extraordinary simple makes the execution of the ad very ordinary.
Venkat
Tuesday, 17 March 2009
Onion offers
We're getting hit everyday by offers that hide more than they show.
A case in point is the Emirates holidays offer (photo) where 2 nights in Dubai costs more than the 3 nights in the European destination. For someone traveling from India, this is really strange. I spent more time trying to figure this out (no luck!) than appreciating the value of the European holiday.
Jet airways (www.jetairways.com) sends me upgrade coupons for being a frequent flier.
One of them is a 50% off for your companion coupon. Which i tried to use yesterday. Bought my ticket (non refundable) for Rs 6000 and asked to use the coupon for Ritu's ticket.
The polite customer service representative tells me the 50% off voucher is only applicable on a ticket that costs 16,000. So even at a 50% discount, Ritu's ticket would cost more than the fare of Rs6000 that my ticket cost me. Go figure.
And finally, Kuoni (www.kuoni.com) advertised its holidays to Australia with a very enticing photo of a couple in very light evening dress on a boat off the Australian coast. Err.... It will soon be Winter in Australia. And the last time we were there in late spring, light evening wear was definitely insufficient.
Why would companies do this? Why would brands expose themselves to such customer cynicism? If a brand has no real value to offer, misleading consumers is not a solution.
Venkat
Wednesday, 25 February 2009
What Luxury Brands Can Learn from the Oscars
We picked up the above note on the Harvard blog. Wonderful note and very appropriately timed. We have been thinking about this for a while. In a challenging economic environment, what should a Louis Viutton do? The list from Lisa Burrell (click above note) lists some points, we added two more.
1. Luxury brands should reset their expectations in these times. Fewer consumers are in the market for luxury goods. But behavior patterns are set early in life and unless this recession lasts half a decade, folks will come back to buying luxury when it gets better.
Until then accept that there are fewer buyers out there and sales will fall.
This expectation is important becasue it prevents the brand from doing something silly to "buy" artificial sales. Do not lose focus on segmentation- targeting- positioning. You lose this and your consumers will never be able to find their way back to you in the good times.
2. Stay close to consumers that want to buy. Marketing is about getting new consumers and/or getting current consuers to buy more. If you're not finding the new ones, stay very close to the existing consumers. Be relevant to them, keep them excited in new products (dont cut investment in R&D and marketing) and make them feel exta special (if you have not cut down your customer facing emplyees already).
We suppose there are enough luxury goods CEOs that would have seen several of these cycles...and wouldn't be in a panic yet. We would be interested to know what they're thinking about.
In any case, we would not count on finding bargains in the luxury segment anytime soon.
Ritu and Venkat
1. Luxury brands should reset their expectations in these times. Fewer consumers are in the market for luxury goods. But behavior patterns are set early in life and unless this recession lasts half a decade, folks will come back to buying luxury when it gets better.
Until then accept that there are fewer buyers out there and sales will fall.
This expectation is important becasue it prevents the brand from doing something silly to "buy" artificial sales. Do not lose focus on segmentation- targeting- positioning. You lose this and your consumers will never be able to find their way back to you in the good times.
2. Stay close to consumers that want to buy. Marketing is about getting new consumers and/or getting current consuers to buy more. If you're not finding the new ones, stay very close to the existing consumers. Be relevant to them, keep them excited in new products (dont cut investment in R&D and marketing) and make them feel exta special (if you have not cut down your customer facing emplyees already).
We suppose there are enough luxury goods CEOs that would have seen several of these cycles...and wouldn't be in a panic yet. We would be interested to know what they're thinking about.
In any case, we would not count on finding bargains in the luxury segment anytime soon.
Ritu and Venkat
Thursday, 20 November 2008
What does your customer want done?
Scott D. Anthony asks in the Discussion Leader (http://discussionleader.hbsp.com/anthony/2008/11/who_is_your_competition.html)
"Who is your competition?"
Its a very motivating thought. Looking beyond the obvious...as he points out "what is the consumer trying to get done?". We think immediately of Theodore Levitt's classic "What business are you in?" (a must read for any young MBA/ marketing practitioner)
Our example- Michelin, a tire company. It started as one. Need not have remained so focused on this business, though. Its brand that stood for quality mobility...and it should have moved in many new directions. A travel website- tie in the Michelin star rated restaurants to star rated accommodation, star rated holidays .....why did the lonely plant take over this space? Why did Opodo or a bevy of travel websites take over this space , given that Michelin's maps are the finest and most widely used - at least in Europe.
The customer's state of mind is not static. We use a product, and once we have mastered it, we want to take it to the next level. This is mostly interpreted by companies as the license to build a better mousetrap.
The consumer wants to be engaged 24/7. Most young people we know want to be connected to their peers on their terms. Not all the time...but when they want the connectivity, they expect to have it. Technology makes this possible. Smaller devices, more powerful devices allow them to "waste time" playing games...yet get on the internet in a second to look at the the assignments due for the next day.
Clearly what an Apple understands about technology and the needs people want to satisfy with it, Sony does not understand.
Truly remarkable question this..."what does you customer want get done?"
Ritu and Venkat
"Who is your competition?"
Its a very motivating thought. Looking beyond the obvious...as he points out "what is the consumer trying to get done?". We think immediately of Theodore Levitt's classic "What business are you in?" (a must read for any young MBA/ marketing practitioner)
Our example- Michelin, a tire company. It started as one. Need not have remained so focused on this business, though. Its brand that stood for quality mobility...and it should have moved in many new directions. A travel website- tie in the Michelin star rated restaurants to star rated accommodation, star rated holidays .....why did the lonely plant take over this space? Why did Opodo or a bevy of travel websites take over this space , given that Michelin's maps are the finest and most widely used - at least in Europe.
The customer's state of mind is not static. We use a product, and once we have mastered it, we want to take it to the next level. This is mostly interpreted by companies as the license to build a better mousetrap.
The consumer wants to be engaged 24/7. Most young people we know want to be connected to their peers on their terms. Not all the time...but when they want the connectivity, they expect to have it. Technology makes this possible. Smaller devices, more powerful devices allow them to "waste time" playing games...yet get on the internet in a second to look at the the assignments due for the next day.
Clearly what an Apple understands about technology and the needs people want to satisfy with it, Sony does not understand.
Truly remarkable question this..."what does you customer want get done?"
Ritu and Venkat
Monday, 6 October 2008
Customer Service- a flight of fancy?
Show me the money. Show me the love, people.
Outstanding customer service is often a spontaneous occurrence. Which happens only with truly empowered staff empathizing with their customers.
This piece was inspired by a recent experience with the ticketing department of India’s Kingfisher airlines. http://www.flykingfisher.com/ While I focus on the airline business, my grudge applies to every consumer centric business.
I enjoy flying Kingfisher airlines. Very polite, well trained staff, clean planes, always a good experience. I am a frequent flyer. In fact when I book for any member of my family, I book Kingfisher.
But even they slip up. Here’s what happened and why I think I am being shortchanged all the time by these marketing folks.
I booked two tickets for my parents. But instead of flying them in first from Mumbai to Bangalore, I booked them Bangalore to Mumbai as first sector. Realized the error five minutes after booking and called the booking centre to make the change.
“Cant be done”, they said.
So I asked them to advance the return sector and push back the first sector.
“Cant be done”, they said. So I asked them to look in their rules and there was nothing to prevent me from doing this.
They still refused and I promptly wrote to Dr. Mallya, the chairman.
Within a few days, I was contacted by a guest relations executive and this was sorted out. Me being given a refund in the form of a travel voucher (that lapsed last week). All this works well. No problem. And I appreciated their promptness.
But here’s my point. The re-imbursement I was asking for was Rs 1500.
I estimate that I have spent over Rs. 100,000 in flight tickets this year with KF. So I am now asking for someone to look at my expenditure on the company’s information systems and waive off a Rs 1500 without my having to bring the chairman into play. (At least the email id I wrote to says “chairman@ kingfisher.com”)
That would be true customer service.
Outstanding customer service is a spontaneous occurrence. Which happens only with truly empowered staff empathizing with their customers.
KF is not there yet. But then there are so many companies that fail on this account.
My experience in marketing suggests most consumer goods companies spend about 6-8% of their revenues in marketing related activities.
Which means Rs 8000 of my expenditure of Rs 100,000 was spent on marketing. To whom? Not me. KF does not run any print advertisements/ nor TV commercials. So where is my 8000 rupees?
Let’s say that of the 8% spent on marketing, 50% (4%) is spent on acquiring new customers. OK, so maybe that’s why I don’t see that part of the money.
But I still want to see the other Rs 4000 being spent on me. In applying the same rules to me as to someone flying once in three months, what’s my gain?
This is not toothpaste and shampoos I am buying. And I am very serious. This is big money that should be invested in me.
Show me the money! Show me the love, people.
I’m making these cats fat. And I don’t see gratitude. I see free pens and toffees. But I don’t see that they trust me, care for me and respect the business that I contribute.
Is it because they know that I don’t have a choice? Any other airline in India would do exactly this, and some do it with a bigger smile and more free pens.
This note is for companies that want to move to a new level in customer service.
Business analytics is with every company now. Last week, I had a letter from Jet airways asking why I had stopped using their services. (www.jetairways.com) I was impressed. But then turned cynical. Do I think they would have accepted that I erroneously reversed the order of a journey and wanted that changed- at no cost? Naaah!
So each company has a lot of data on its customers. What we buy, don’t buy etc. So they can surely identify and segment their customers as A,B,C or any which way they choose. Would they not then have some rules for treating these segments differently? I don’t see that.
Remember, when my family flies, I pay but I don’t get the freq flier points. Why cannot an information system track the credit card details to identify the big spenders? If airlines companies really wanted to reward loyalty, they would link the points to the “buyer” of tickets.
Sure a first class customer is treated differently. Frequent flier points give you some free-bees. But where is the differentiation in customer service for a customer that I neither carrying his freq flier card on his face, nor seating himself in first class- but still contributing heavily to business?
Everyone is looking to get new customers. Why is customer retention such a “non issue”? Is it the high switching costs?
It’s a pity. Because “customer service” is a clear opportunity to differentiate in a relevant way. Proper technology married to proper judgment is a powerful tool in producing genuine “wows” for customers.
Technology is bringing powerful information to corporations and their customer facing staff. Even the most “subjective” decisions can be quantified and modeled in order to produce objective guidelines.
We seem to have the technology.
We seem to have well trained people.
So what stops companies from treating us as the unique individuals we really are?
Venkat
Outstanding customer service is often a spontaneous occurrence. Which happens only with truly empowered staff empathizing with their customers.
This piece was inspired by a recent experience with the ticketing department of India’s Kingfisher airlines. http://www.flykingfisher.com/ While I focus on the airline business, my grudge applies to every consumer centric business.
I enjoy flying Kingfisher airlines. Very polite, well trained staff, clean planes, always a good experience. I am a frequent flyer. In fact when I book for any member of my family, I book Kingfisher.
But even they slip up. Here’s what happened and why I think I am being shortchanged all the time by these marketing folks.
I booked two tickets for my parents. But instead of flying them in first from Mumbai to Bangalore, I booked them Bangalore to Mumbai as first sector. Realized the error five minutes after booking and called the booking centre to make the change.
“Cant be done”, they said.
So I asked them to advance the return sector and push back the first sector.
“Cant be done”, they said. So I asked them to look in their rules and there was nothing to prevent me from doing this.
They still refused and I promptly wrote to Dr. Mallya, the chairman.
Within a few days, I was contacted by a guest relations executive and this was sorted out. Me being given a refund in the form of a travel voucher (that lapsed last week). All this works well. No problem. And I appreciated their promptness.
But here’s my point. The re-imbursement I was asking for was Rs 1500.
I estimate that I have spent over Rs. 100,000 in flight tickets this year with KF. So I am now asking for someone to look at my expenditure on the company’s information systems and waive off a Rs 1500 without my having to bring the chairman into play. (At least the email id I wrote to says “chairman@ kingfisher.com”)
That would be true customer service.
Outstanding customer service is a spontaneous occurrence. Which happens only with truly empowered staff empathizing with their customers.
KF is not there yet. But then there are so many companies that fail on this account.
My experience in marketing suggests most consumer goods companies spend about 6-8% of their revenues in marketing related activities.
Which means Rs 8000 of my expenditure of Rs 100,000 was spent on marketing. To whom? Not me. KF does not run any print advertisements/ nor TV commercials. So where is my 8000 rupees?
Let’s say that of the 8% spent on marketing, 50% (4%) is spent on acquiring new customers. OK, so maybe that’s why I don’t see that part of the money.
But I still want to see the other Rs 4000 being spent on me. In applying the same rules to me as to someone flying once in three months, what’s my gain?
This is not toothpaste and shampoos I am buying. And I am very serious. This is big money that should be invested in me.
Show me the money! Show me the love, people.
I’m making these cats fat. And I don’t see gratitude. I see free pens and toffees. But I don’t see that they trust me, care for me and respect the business that I contribute.
Is it because they know that I don’t have a choice? Any other airline in India would do exactly this, and some do it with a bigger smile and more free pens.
This note is for companies that want to move to a new level in customer service.
Business analytics is with every company now. Last week, I had a letter from Jet airways asking why I had stopped using their services. (www.jetairways.com) I was impressed. But then turned cynical. Do I think they would have accepted that I erroneously reversed the order of a journey and wanted that changed- at no cost? Naaah!
So each company has a lot of data on its customers. What we buy, don’t buy etc. So they can surely identify and segment their customers as A,B,C or any which way they choose. Would they not then have some rules for treating these segments differently? I don’t see that.
Remember, when my family flies, I pay but I don’t get the freq flier points. Why cannot an information system track the credit card details to identify the big spenders? If airlines companies really wanted to reward loyalty, they would link the points to the “buyer” of tickets.
Sure a first class customer is treated differently. Frequent flier points give you some free-bees. But where is the differentiation in customer service for a customer that I neither carrying his freq flier card on his face, nor seating himself in first class- but still contributing heavily to business?
Everyone is looking to get new customers. Why is customer retention such a “non issue”? Is it the high switching costs?
It’s a pity. Because “customer service” is a clear opportunity to differentiate in a relevant way. Proper technology married to proper judgment is a powerful tool in producing genuine “wows” for customers.
Technology is bringing powerful information to corporations and their customer facing staff. Even the most “subjective” decisions can be quantified and modeled in order to produce objective guidelines.
We seem to have the technology.
We seem to have well trained people.
So what stops companies from treating us as the unique individuals we really are?
Venkat
Thursday, 7 August 2008
A brand called Dhoni?
A brand called Dhoni…..umm…Dhoni…a brand?
The other day newspapers reported how brand Mahendra Singh Dhoni was now generating more revenues than brand Tendulkar. (for the un initiated, these gentlemen are Indian stars in the game of cricket).
Fair point. The numbers back this.
But the article seemed inappropriately worded. Something made me uncomfortable. I mulled over it for a while and concluded that the use of the word “brand” in describing Dhoni was intriguing.
“Label Dhoni generates more revenue than brand Sachin.” That sounds fine.
I have tremendous respect and admiration for Dhoni. As a cricketer and captain, he has shown immense application, confidence and results. I do not grudge him the respect and admiration of the country. (Myself included).
But it’s the use of the word “brand” that alerts my senses. As a marketer, the “brand” is holy. It’s the ultimate recognition given to the goods/ services being marketed. Its earned. Over time. Over generations.
Who should wear this crown? When? And Why? Can the title of “brand” be so easily earned? Is Dhoni not a well known label today? Sure, maybe I am being esoteric here. But them, this is my profession. If I don’t get picky about marketing issues, what else should I do?
Coke is a brand. Pepsi. Nike. TATA. Britannia. Tendulkar. Many more. These brands have been along many years and have established a trust with consumers based on their performance under the spotlight day after day. Over time.
This aspect of time in the definition of a brand is in my view, a very critical element.
Why is time critical in the creation of a brand?
Lets take the example of Mohandas Gandhi. The father of a nation. Lets say he is a brand. Do I think he would have generated more ad revenue than Dhoni and Tendulkar put together? Certainly on the lecture circuit he would have done well.
What made him great enough to be called a “Mahatma”? The great soul? Is that not what brand managers try and sell in a brand? The “soul”?
What did the Mahatma have? In my view, the following:
• Unique skills.
• Evolving consumer connection.
• Sustained consumer value.
Business jargon. But it makes the point.
How did we judge the Mahatma? Not because he had one year of excellent negotiations with the British. Not because he went to jail for 15 months. Not because he chose to wear “khadi” for a few summer seasons.
His enabling the country’s independence was a struggle over many decades.
Through evolving times, turbulent periods of our history the Mahatma delivered his message consistently through his path of non violence. He modified his battles in sensing the mood of the country as well as the British and ensured he was relevant to the need of the emerging nation. At the time of his passing away, three generations of Indians were engaged with the Gandhi brand.
The duration of time allows a brand to present itself to new generations of users. If it succeeds, its consumer base is unlimited. If it fails, it was never a brand!
Coca Cola. My nephew has an opinion on the brand. My parents have an opinion and I have an opinion. The brand has engaged each of us. It means different things to each of us. And we do not each use the brand in the same way (my father consumes the most). But to each of us, in its own way, the brand has represented a way of life which is fun, responsible…and for me. It has done this over years. Reflecting the changing consumer in its projection of the brand. It capturing the essence of the times through its imagery. By delivering a product consistently. It has followed our lives’ journeys. We believe the brand when it says - “I understand you. I am always with you. Wherever you are, whatever you are doing, lets share the moment together.” (I accept that the element of sugary, fizzy drinks not being ideal for good health has taken off some of the sheen around this brand).
Or lets consider Amitabh Bachchan. From the angry young man of the 70s and 80s to the knowledgeable patriarch in the new century. He has captured the mood of the country. The brand had its down phase as well. (Was it over extension?) But the strength of its recovery demonstrated its capacity to adjust to the evolving consumers as well as the changing environment.
In the public domain, where all brands exist, its only the ”test of time” that forces a need to evolve, adapt and demonstrate relevance.
The revenue generated by the Dhoni name is only a reflection of current value and estimated future potential. It allows companies to associate their products with a name that means high performance today but equally shows the potential for future performance.
I have no problem with that. But Dhoni, I can’t believe that you are already a brand. You have had a strong beginning. May you successfully continue building yourself into a strong brand one day.
Anyway, I am not sure if Dhoni even worries about this when he is hitting low full tosses for sixes with his helicopter swing. The point of my writing this note is simply to request any reader of this note to be a little cautious when ascribing the title of “brand” to persons/ products or services. Most of us in the marketing business will agree it takes years and years of preparation for a brand to develop. If it was any easier, our professions wouldn’t be so much fun. Lets respect the title “brand” and be judicious in using it.
The other day newspapers reported how brand Mahendra Singh Dhoni was now generating more revenues than brand Tendulkar. (for the un initiated, these gentlemen are Indian stars in the game of cricket).
Fair point. The numbers back this.
But the article seemed inappropriately worded. Something made me uncomfortable. I mulled over it for a while and concluded that the use of the word “brand” in describing Dhoni was intriguing.
“Label Dhoni generates more revenue than brand Sachin.” That sounds fine.
I have tremendous respect and admiration for Dhoni. As a cricketer and captain, he has shown immense application, confidence and results. I do not grudge him the respect and admiration of the country. (Myself included).
But it’s the use of the word “brand” that alerts my senses. As a marketer, the “brand” is holy. It’s the ultimate recognition given to the goods/ services being marketed. Its earned. Over time. Over generations.
Who should wear this crown? When? And Why? Can the title of “brand” be so easily earned? Is Dhoni not a well known label today? Sure, maybe I am being esoteric here. But them, this is my profession. If I don’t get picky about marketing issues, what else should I do?
Coke is a brand. Pepsi. Nike. TATA. Britannia. Tendulkar. Many more. These brands have been along many years and have established a trust with consumers based on their performance under the spotlight day after day. Over time.
This aspect of time in the definition of a brand is in my view, a very critical element.
Why is time critical in the creation of a brand?
Lets take the example of Mohandas Gandhi. The father of a nation. Lets say he is a brand. Do I think he would have generated more ad revenue than Dhoni and Tendulkar put together? Certainly on the lecture circuit he would have done well.
What made him great enough to be called a “Mahatma”? The great soul? Is that not what brand managers try and sell in a brand? The “soul”?
What did the Mahatma have? In my view, the following:
• Unique skills.
• Evolving consumer connection.
• Sustained consumer value.
Business jargon. But it makes the point.
How did we judge the Mahatma? Not because he had one year of excellent negotiations with the British. Not because he went to jail for 15 months. Not because he chose to wear “khadi” for a few summer seasons.
His enabling the country’s independence was a struggle over many decades.
Through evolving times, turbulent periods of our history the Mahatma delivered his message consistently through his path of non violence. He modified his battles in sensing the mood of the country as well as the British and ensured he was relevant to the need of the emerging nation. At the time of his passing away, three generations of Indians were engaged with the Gandhi brand.
The duration of time allows a brand to present itself to new generations of users. If it succeeds, its consumer base is unlimited. If it fails, it was never a brand!
Coca Cola. My nephew has an opinion on the brand. My parents have an opinion and I have an opinion. The brand has engaged each of us. It means different things to each of us. And we do not each use the brand in the same way (my father consumes the most). But to each of us, in its own way, the brand has represented a way of life which is fun, responsible…and for me. It has done this over years. Reflecting the changing consumer in its projection of the brand. It capturing the essence of the times through its imagery. By delivering a product consistently. It has followed our lives’ journeys. We believe the brand when it says - “I understand you. I am always with you. Wherever you are, whatever you are doing, lets share the moment together.” (I accept that the element of sugary, fizzy drinks not being ideal for good health has taken off some of the sheen around this brand).
Or lets consider Amitabh Bachchan. From the angry young man of the 70s and 80s to the knowledgeable patriarch in the new century. He has captured the mood of the country. The brand had its down phase as well. (Was it over extension?) But the strength of its recovery demonstrated its capacity to adjust to the evolving consumers as well as the changing environment.
In the public domain, where all brands exist, its only the ”test of time” that forces a need to evolve, adapt and demonstrate relevance.
The revenue generated by the Dhoni name is only a reflection of current value and estimated future potential. It allows companies to associate their products with a name that means high performance today but equally shows the potential for future performance.
I have no problem with that. But Dhoni, I can’t believe that you are already a brand. You have had a strong beginning. May you successfully continue building yourself into a strong brand one day.
Anyway, I am not sure if Dhoni even worries about this when he is hitting low full tosses for sixes with his helicopter swing. The point of my writing this note is simply to request any reader of this note to be a little cautious when ascribing the title of “brand” to persons/ products or services. Most of us in the marketing business will agree it takes years and years of preparation for a brand to develop. If it was any easier, our professions wouldn’t be so much fun. Lets respect the title “brand” and be judicious in using it.
Saturday, 22 March 2008
Celebrity salesmen
Sure, the Devil may wear Prada, but I think Shah Rukh sold it to him…..
Its sad but true. It seems Shar Rukh, Amitabh Bachchan and Sachin Tendulkar can sell you anything. If the death of marketing was ever in doubt, Indian advertising offers enough evidence for all us professionals to lose hope.
Why is this? Here are some hypotheses…though definitely not comprehensive.
a. The products they are selling no longer offer any USP.
b. The marketing man has run out of ideas.
c. Brand awareness needs to be built up in 24 hours.
d. Brands have no meaning.
There used to be a time when celebrity endorsements used to be tied to beauty products, the odd energy drink. Now celebrities are everywhere and I believe, mindlessly.
I am not against celebrity endorsements. Not at all. For example, I think Tiger Woods works well with Accenture and with Nike. The key being, performance and execution as the brand values that Tiger amplifies.
Akshaya Khanna works well with Thumbs Up. Hrithik with Coke. The personas and the brand values match.
But why does Amitabh try and kick a football Pele style for Dabur Glucose? Shar Rukh selling me Dish TV is pathetic.
So I tried to rationalize this. Where does all this celebrity endorsement work?
To start with , I came up with a few scenarios where celebrities can enhance the brand advertising:
• Celebrities can amplify product characteristics
• They can increase product awareness
• They gain product credibility …etc.
a. But in essence, celebrities add value when their own filed of competence matches that of the product. I.e a movie star or model can endorse beauty products very easily. They can endorse ‘lifestyle” products such as cola drinks, fashion accessories.
b. On the other hand Tiger Woods and Sachin Tendulkar are known for performance and can emphasize “performance” products- sports equipment, energy drinks etc.
c. The problem I am seeing occurs when “lifestyle” is being used to sell performance products. Having Amitabh kick a football “Pele” style is a stretch on the performance attributes of the product. And it does not translate any of Amitabh’s brand properties to the product. Mobile service providers such as Airtel are using filmstars. Why? Do they want me to stop comparing product and competitor performance? I suffer with poor service from Airtel. Why should I ignore all this and accept to say “Hello” with SRK? Why does this marketer want me to believe that there are no product differentiators in this category?
There has to be a match between the property a celebrity beings on board (lifestyle or performance) and the property that the product needs to differentiate itself. (whether lifestyle or performance). When these are mismatched, the outcome is a waste of time, money and effort.
Overall, the frequency with which I am beginning to see celebrity endorsements reflects in my view a decline in advertising and marketing standards in India. Brands are built overtime. Through consistent and relevant messages. While celebrities may guarantee quick recall, they cannot guarantee product success in a competitive environment.
Its sad but true. It seems Shar Rukh, Amitabh Bachchan and Sachin Tendulkar can sell you anything. If the death of marketing was ever in doubt, Indian advertising offers enough evidence for all us professionals to lose hope.
Why is this? Here are some hypotheses…though definitely not comprehensive.
a. The products they are selling no longer offer any USP.
b. The marketing man has run out of ideas.
c. Brand awareness needs to be built up in 24 hours.
d. Brands have no meaning.
There used to be a time when celebrity endorsements used to be tied to beauty products, the odd energy drink. Now celebrities are everywhere and I believe, mindlessly.
I am not against celebrity endorsements. Not at all. For example, I think Tiger Woods works well with Accenture and with Nike. The key being, performance and execution as the brand values that Tiger amplifies.
Akshaya Khanna works well with Thumbs Up. Hrithik with Coke. The personas and the brand values match.
But why does Amitabh try and kick a football Pele style for Dabur Glucose? Shar Rukh selling me Dish TV is pathetic.
So I tried to rationalize this. Where does all this celebrity endorsement work?
To start with , I came up with a few scenarios where celebrities can enhance the brand advertising:
• Celebrities can amplify product characteristics
• They can increase product awareness
• They gain product credibility …etc.
a. But in essence, celebrities add value when their own filed of competence matches that of the product. I.e a movie star or model can endorse beauty products very easily. They can endorse ‘lifestyle” products such as cola drinks, fashion accessories.
b. On the other hand Tiger Woods and Sachin Tendulkar are known for performance and can emphasize “performance” products- sports equipment, energy drinks etc.
c. The problem I am seeing occurs when “lifestyle” is being used to sell performance products. Having Amitabh kick a football “Pele” style is a stretch on the performance attributes of the product. And it does not translate any of Amitabh’s brand properties to the product. Mobile service providers such as Airtel are using filmstars. Why? Do they want me to stop comparing product and competitor performance? I suffer with poor service from Airtel. Why should I ignore all this and accept to say “Hello” with SRK? Why does this marketer want me to believe that there are no product differentiators in this category?
There has to be a match between the property a celebrity beings on board (lifestyle or performance) and the property that the product needs to differentiate itself. (whether lifestyle or performance). When these are mismatched, the outcome is a waste of time, money and effort.
Overall, the frequency with which I am beginning to see celebrity endorsements reflects in my view a decline in advertising and marketing standards in India. Brands are built overtime. Through consistent and relevant messages. While celebrities may guarantee quick recall, they cannot guarantee product success in a competitive environment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
