How do you really value brands?

Why does a Durex condom seem to be the safest choice when it comes to protected sex? Why is Starbucks the first place that comes to mind when I ask my friend to meet for coffee? Why do so many people think Kleenex is an actual word when it is just a tissue brand?

                                         

I will tell you why… Brands have (magical) power: the power to make people think about them at the right place, at the right time. This is brand recognition / recall, and this is what any brand wants to achieve. It is the marketing holy grail.

My perception is: Brand is an intangible sphere made of a specific imagery, associations, name, sounds, smells and personas that give your brand an identity to differentiate your company, and to communicate and deliver a premium to your customers. 

This is why you cannot entirely measure brand value only by ranking them according to revenues, or market capitalisation index. 

Of course, the cash you make will speak for itself and will put your brand where it is supposed to be.

But is revenue the end goal? Or is it a mean to an end? According to some of the most famous agencies’ rankings, it is a defining dimension. Financial value is how WPP, for instance, assesses brands’ value and rank them.  

As I see it, it is a limited view, as now other aspects matter equally, such as social currencies. Your online share of voice (mentions of your brand &/or product relative to the rest of the industry mentions) sometimes are more impactful in consumers decision making process along their journey to purchase.

                       

So how can a brand enhance its value, other than by increasing profit?

CSR is, in my opinion, a slippery slope. It should not be seen as a Unique Selling Point as it is, nowadays, an almost normal criterion. You wouldn’t imagine Tesco not having a sustainable and social policy and guidelines along their business value proposition. So, to me, putting ethics and social responsibility on the front line is not strong enough to compete. It should be existent yes, but as a pillar, a benchmark to follow, for your business activities.

                        

What should matter to companies' eyes is the following: The truly ultimate ‘recognition’, when a consumer doesn’t need to recognise you. They just need a few hints to figure out it is your product. No more logo, no more slogan, no more music needed.  McDonalds is the most recent and brilliant example of that kind of achievement. Since last summer, McDonalds and their French agency, TBWA are playing the ‘no brand card.’ They are reasserting the leading position of our all time favorite junk food retail shop with just having close-up product shots and basic drawings on their menu (sic!).

                               

Last but not least: a little reminder: you are not in control of your brand, your consumers are. Don’t be scared, it is better that way..! The more participation you get in, the more your brand is going to be valuable to your customers, and the more of them you will retain. Customers will help you help them get the best out of your brand, and this is what any brand should hope for. 

Oscar’s selfie: can you market everything, everywhere?

My question today, and I really want an answer to that, is:

Why do brands feel the need to commercialise, put monetary value, on everything that is being seen nowadays? Whether it is RedBull with extreme sports, P&G with moms (and their disabled kids), and now Samsung at the Oscars? 

Yes, I speak marketing, I eat marketing, I breathe marketing, I even dream marketing, but a limit should be fixed.

Where has all the spontaneity gone? Where has all the true passion & interest gone? 

When Ellen Degeneres 'feels like' taking a selfie with 10 of the most major and influential A-list celebrities with the new Samsung, well the only thing here to say is: “Wow, a big Bravo to Samsung, great product placement!” 

But not subtle, not subtle at all…  

Because yes, I feel it is sad that a couple of days after this event, the topics ranking first in Google search for Oscar Ceremony are that, and a pizza delivery. 

Why care and get mad? The Oscar Ceremony is an historic, grandiose celebration, where the most fascinating and exceptional people of the movie industry meet and are awarded for their efforts, since 1929.

We should be talking less about dresses (ugly or gorgeous), selfies and pizzas and more about performance, cinema advancements, emotions, glory and success. 

But yes, I admit, brands now need to find extremely smart ways to pass through this filter that consumers have on their eyes due to a TMA (Too Much Ads) effect that media overload procure. 

But please, a little respect for the events / people / things that you (I’m talking to the brands) support or sponsor, and try not to steal the show from them. They are the real stars, whether they are nominated actors, disabled kids and their mothers, or crazy fearless skydivers. 

                               

This was an spontaneous / angry post, I should apologise, maybe... 

Super Bowl - The battle of the bigs

Exercise of the day: Compare & Contrast.

Okay, let's see what material we have: Two commercials aired on the Super Bowl night.

First, Chrysler: They went for the patriotic card! 

Bob Dylan, explaining, I quote: "It is made with the one thing you can't import from anywhere else: American Pride." 

I liked it: it says yes to globalisation: "Let German brew your beer (...) we will build your car"

Chrysler highlighted great values and generated posititive sentiment towards the brand, and towards America as a whole, who wouldn't like that? 

But Chrysler did not take any risk, didn't they? 

By not doing so, they actually might end up taking a bigger one: this commercial being forgotten easily. 

Indeed, the Super Bowl crowd is expecting greatness, each year. 

Furthermore, TV now requires brand to take on a lot of investment, both in money and in brains: They need watchers' full attention and this is not an easy task: people have their own schedule, they switch their focus from one device to another, and skip the commercials to go do or watch something else.

So was this a good idea for Chrysler to play it safe? 

My opinion: low risk, low return, right?

Now: Coke - They played the Melting pot Card!

No need for them to generate awareness: It is a more than established brand. And that is the thing: if they had done something classic like Chrysler, people around the world would not have been talking about it, even one week after the Super Bowl. 

Even if backlashes are violent - see the Twitter trend thread for #AmericaIsBeautiful - I do not think Coca Cola really cared about creating controversies. It was a 'controlled' risk.

Their primary aim is to be visible, and to engage with consumers. They want to create buzz, hoping the positive sentiment will take over the large amount of negative reactions. In that case, Coca Cola knew what they were doing.

And not to ignore one thing: even though both are very unique in their style and both generated different reactions, both have adopted a global perspective of America, whether it is the people of America in Coca Cola video, or the products consumed in America, as Bob simply put it in Chrysler Ad.