When The Bottom Line Isn't The Bottom Line

Can a brand really be too honest?

In a recent Brandchannel article on Domino's reinvention of their pizza "from the crust up", Abe Sauer wonders whether the brand's openness in owning up to the weaknesses in its original recipe is stupid or not.

Apparently, Domino's has produced advertising that shows its employees "lamenting consumer criticism of its product and promising to do better." However, reaction to the new recipe has been mixed, prompting Sauer to ask: "If the Domino's makeover is a flop, can it be construed as a sign that honest re-branding campaigns are doomed to fail?"

Now, I don't know about you but I don't believe a brand can ever be too honest. If its purpose is to influence customer choice by building a relationship that works for both, then honesty is the only policy. Whilst Domino's honesty might hasten its demise if its new recipe doesn't cut the mustard, any flop will surely be down to its poor product rather than its admirable honesty.

As a customer, I want to know that the brand is always working for me, not despite me or at my expense. In that sense, Domino's bottom line honesty is certainly not stupid where I'm concerned.

Similar confusion about the role of the brand is evident in a recent post by Denny Hatch, Direct Marketing guru, who says that "I cannot judge good advertising, it judges me". He cites advertising that makes no effort to be pleasing but produces results and suggests that the only judge of good advertising is bottom line results: "Never forget the legendary Anacin commercial that was offensive to millions, ran for years, sold tons of product and cured a zillion headaches".

I don't agree. When I turn to the volume control on my radio to blank out the latest offensive Harvey Norman ad, I judge the advertising as bad. I'm sure it produces results in the form of store visits and sales, which apparently justifies its awfulness in the minds of its producers, but I don't believe businesses should be bad neighbours. Apart from anything else, ugly and offensive advertising pollutes the marketplace and eats away at the trust that makes for good trading.

I do agree with Denny Hatch that advertising (or any marketing effort) that fails to convince customers to buy is a failure but that's not the bottom line for me. Sales is not the gold standard of success. It's the role of the business, through its advertising, to make the lives of prospective customers easier and their choices simpler. It's not its job to make a nuisance of itself to any unfortunate who happens to be within earshot.

It's only when we direct our brands (and those who help us craft and deliver messages) to behave honestly and responsibly that we can expect our customers and the wider world to welcome us in when we have something that we wish to say to them.

Over To You: Do you think a brand can be too honest?

Brandwidth 2009: The Brand Year In Review

If talk has always been cheap, then in 2009 it became virtually worthless as the yawning gap between the words and deeds of many high-profile brands was exposed for everyone to see.

This was the year when more and more brands joined the conversation online, but much of what they had to say was drowned out in the buzz of rumour, gossip and innuendo. Whilst the spectacular crash of the Tiger brand phenomenon was naturally the talk of the place, there was much to keep tongues wagging closer to home as many celebrated Irish brands slid into disrepute and disarray.

When money talks, we’re all inclined to sit up and listen and the word coming from our banks and other financial institutions suggested that many of the promises and assurances we were offered weren’t worth the paper they were written on. With a barefaced cheek that should no longer surprise us, many of those same financial brands continued to boast of their integrity and commitment to customers even whilst further revelations of wrongdoing were being brought to light.

Our fascination in this country with any song and dance act, no matter how grotesque, was best mirrored in the way we cheered on the Jedward sideshow. Whilst it was only entertainment after all, there was still something shocking about our willingness to back performers whose selling point was their remarkable ability to offer enthusiasm and hard necks in lieu of talent.

Meanwhile, a failure to walk the walk on a green field in France triggered an outrage that might have been better directed at those whose sleight of hand in the boardroom robbed us of more than a jolly to South Africa. Whilst Ireland’s footballers attacked a dismal French team with admirable courage and abandon, they proved unable to do the one thing that would have put paid to any talk of moral victories (not to mention wheedling requests to extend the finals competition to a clearly unworkable thirty-three teams): put the ball in the back of the net for a second time. For all of their bold fighting talk, this Irish soccer team were unable to back it up when it mattered.

In sharp contrast, two Irish rugby teams shrugged off the label of lovable nearly-men by matching word with deed and capturing the Grand Slam and European Cup. Led by the incomparable Brian O’Driscoll, both Ireland and Leinster set an example of what can be achieved when promises are made and kept. Meanwhile, Munster whose only real blemish in 2009 was to have been beaten on the day by a clearly-inspired Leinster team, reminded us late on of what their extraordinary brand is about when they travelled to Perpignan with the jeers of the mob ringing in their ears and dug out a courageous and inspiring victory against all the odds. What is it they say down there? ‘To the faithful and the brave, nothing is impossible’. There might be something there for all brands to consider.

2009 saw the demise of Waterford Crystal (at least as an Irish-based brand), Budget Travel, a range of car-dealers (including the legendary EP Mooney) and the fall of a real darling of our Celtic Tiger, O’Brien’s Sandwich Bars. Further afield, neglect and mismanagement led to the announcement that the legendary Saab brand was failing fast and was to be put out of its misery. The talk of a mercy-killing from its owners, General Motors, was unable to mask the ineptitude that led to the wasting away of a brand rich in story and inspiration.

Not too surprisingly, talk was at the heart of the continuing success of two of the year’s highest-performing brands. Twitter appeared to get everyone talking in 2009 (or perhaps only those talking loudest or most often), whilst Apple remained a must-have brand based on its ability to enable customers to communicate easily and elegantly through its boy-wonder iPhone. No other brands really got close.

In the end, it was a near-legendary Irish brand that best demonstrated that whilst talk may be cheap, it doesn’t always have to be worthless. Mr. Tayto – The Man Inside The Jacket showed many bigger brands how best to capitalise on a powerful story. Described as “the incredible story of one man’s journey from the tilling fields of Ireland to become the nation’s top potato’, the book did go on to top the non-fiction bestseller’s list at home, displacing worthy tomes by leading commentators on the economic bust. Displaying a savvy understanding of what’s required to get people talking about your brand, this particular hot potato has proven to be flavour of the year for 2009.

So what can we expect this new year on the branding-front? Perhaps the sobering lessons of the last year will prompt more of a matching of word with deed and 2010 will see our leading brands walk the walk as boldly as they talk the talk.

A Saab Passing

So Saab is on the way out. And I am a little less for it.


To paraphrase John Donne (and with apologies to the poetry purists amongst you):


Each brand's death diminishes me, for I am involved in brandkind. Therefore, send not to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.


News of the imminent demise of what Brandchannel describes as "the first venerable, standalone global brand" to fall casualty to the worldwide crisis in car-production, has provoked a reaction more suited to the announcement of a death in the extended family.


But it's only a brand, you might say. And not a very successful one at that, if sales are anything to go by. And if you're the brand-owner (General Motors, in this instance), then it's only natural that you're inclined to switch off the life-support when your ailing brand is flatlining.


Now, I'm a Saab-owner as well as a brandmaker, and whilst I can see the business-case for shutting down a brand that's not performing (and remember, the purpose of a brand is to influence choice), I am doubly diminished at the passing of this great brand.


Perhaps it's because I've grown rather fond of my own Saab? 


And it seems I'm not alone. I've written previously in Open-Heart Branding that I'm not especially into cars, but my choice of Saab made sense when I went to buy my first new car some years ago. That post prompted a remarkable reaction, not just from my regular readers, but from Saab-lovers worldwide. A number of them contacted me directly to tell me of their own love-affair with the brand.


Judging from the language used by industry analysts, it appears that the brand is widely-mourned by those who appreciated Saab's "quirky designs and mastery of turbocharging". (Even if, like me, you're not quite sure what turbocharging is, you've got to love a brand that's mastered it.) Brandchannel refers to it as a "storied brand" and reports how General Motors (who bought the brand in 1989) "slowly strangled a proud heritage with a paucity of new products."


Elsewhere, CNN talks of the death and loss of a "brand we loved", whilst others talk of the 'devastating' news of the demise of a brand with real character. Almost everyone lays the blame for the death of the brand squarely at General Motors' door, accusing the manufacturer of stripping Saab of its singular, angular design and reducing it to just another lookalike car.


No, it's not just that I'm a Saab-owner and a brandmaker. The death of any great brand diminishes us all.


When brands are at their best, they contribute hugely to the richness of our lives. Representing the distinctive relationship between buyer and seller, they make customer choice easier and a lot more interesting. Like many other global manufacturers, General Motors doesn't understand that.


Saab isn't being killed off because it didn't matter. Starved and neglected, it suffered because General Motors ignored the brand's rich heritage and made a series of poorly-judged changes that rendered the brand almost unrecognisable and left it a pale, bland shadow of its former self.


Bewleys suffered the same fate here in Ireland, whilst Guinness was victim to some appalling advertising in the late '90s that threatened to kill off the brand before it finally regained much of its old strength thanks to a return to brand values.


Like Saab, these brands matter.


To paraphrase John Donne again:


No brand is an island, entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea (or put to death by a hapless manufacturer that deeply misunderstands brands), then we are all the less.


Send not to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for us all.


Farewell old friend, we'll miss you.


Over To You: Are you saddened by the passing of this great brand or do you think mourning a car-marque is just a little over the top?

To That Special Nobody

The people over at Vertical Response insist that one of the great benefits of direct email is how it lets you personalise a mass-mailing.

I agree.

Even when I know that I'm one of many, a note addressed to me by name can make me feel like I'm a very special one in a million.

That's why it's so disappointing to receive a mail from them addressed to: FIRST_NAME / Vertical Response Customer.

Now, I'm no longer a customer of theirs since discovering their competitor, Circulator, but I still feel a little snubbed by their message.

What I can't understand is how they allowed this to happen. It's just a simple mistake you might say, but one of the beauties of direct email is that it allows you to send a test version and iron out any wrinkles that result.

A careless click of the finger has undone much of the good reputation that Vertical Response has built up over time (I'm assuming that I'm not alone in my disappointment). Even more vexing is that no-one over there seems to have noticed, and I haven't received the quick follow-up note that might smooth my ruffled feathers.

Direct mail offers a great opportunity to speak in a personal way to our customers, but Vertical Response have messed up on this opportunity and I'm not so inclined to welcome their messages into my In-Box anymore.

Over To You: What impersonal messages have left you cold recently?

More On 'Following The Leader'

My previous post on the importance of followership seems to have struck a chord with readers and has attracted much commentary both on and off-line, with many of you contacting me directly to remark on it.

One of my BNI Marketwest colleagues sent me on a copy of a note I had circulated when stepping down as Chapter Director some years ago, where I talked in more detail of the benefits of leadership and support enjoyed by geese in flight. He suggests that I add it to my blog thread on this subject:

Until recently, scientists could only theorise as to why geese adopted the V formation for flying long distances. However, a new simulated study during which ornithologists taped heart monitors to a team of BNI members, who were then trained to fly behind a small airplane, has produced some astonishing findings:

• The heart rates of the BNI 'geese' are lower when flying in a V than when flying solo.
• The goose at the head of the V is not necessarily the leader of the flock. Apparently geese take turns leading. As one bird tires, it drops to the back of the formation and another takes its place.
• As each goose flaps its wings, it creates an uplift for the birds that follow. By flying in a V, the whole flock adds over 70% greater flying range than if each bird flew alone.
• The formation allows geese conserve energy as they can glide more often.
• When a goose gets sick, wounded or shot down, two geese drop out of formation and follow it down to help and protect it. They stay with it until it is able to fly again. Then they launch out in a V to catch up with the flock.
• Each goose has an unobstructed field of vision, allowing flock members to see each other and communicate while in flight.
• The geese flying in formation honk to encourage those up front to keep up their speed.

What can we learn from all of this? Well, your goose is as good as mine.

To the old V: thanks for all your support and honkouragement.

And to the new V: honk, honk, honk, honk!