Field Notes Inside an Integrated Communications Agency

I recently learned that Kit Kats are available in 70 countries worldwide. That is a pretty impressive number and it got me thinking about how Nestlé is marketing Kit Kats globally. When I think of a brand that has crossed oceans and borders, I think of McDonald's. Having lived overseas, I have seen McDonald's come in many different shapes and sizes based on their target market. In Indonesia, McDonald's has a hamburger that is served between two rice cakes and a spicy burger marinated in satay sauce. In Germany you can get a cold beer to wash down your burger. In India, try the Maharaja Mac (like a Big Mac) made from lamb or chicken since people of the Hindu faith do not eat beef.

Nestlé has upped the ante in Japan, where Kit Kat is the number one branded candy. How did they do that? Nestlé did extensive consumer research to understand their customer and find the candy that meets and exceeds their needs. Based on an article I read on AdAge, Nestlé came up with 19 different Kit Kat flavors that are tailored to different regions in Japan. The most popular flavor nationally is soy sauce. Green tea, miso, soybean, baked corn and sweet potato are just a few more examples of the unique flavor offerings.

In addition to marketing Kit Kats to Japanese people based on taste, Nestlé has also looked into cultural habits. Japan practices "omiyage" which is a gift-giving culture where people present the perfect gift to a friend/family member after traveling in a way that honors the recipient. Potato Kit Kats are popular in the northern region of Hokkaido, which is known for their potato crop. Cherry blossoms, which are world known and related to Japan is also a Kit Kat flavor sold in the spring.

Maybe next time when someone asks me about global marketing campaigns and successful branding overseas, I'll think of Kit Kats before McDonald's.

Subaru recently unveiled a new series of TV spots called "Dog Tested." The premise is this: dogs at the wheel of a Subaru Forester. The campaign follows two dogs on their driving adventures -- picking up a yippy pal at the airport, trying (and failing) to parallel park, losing a parking space to a cat in a sedan (you know how it is).

Depending on how you feel about dogs, you'll either find this campaign ridiculous or brilliant. I fall firmly in the Dog-Loving Camp, and I think it's brilliant -- but not just because I love dogs. This is not a stunt or a gimmick on Subaru's part. It's smart branding.

In looking at their market data, Subaru discovered that about 50% of their buyers are also pet owners. Last year, they ran a sales campaign that gave customers the option to donate $250 of their purchase to one of five charities. It turns out a large number of those donations went to the ASPCA (the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals).

So, the lesson is this:

Get to know your audience.

We tend to make a lot assumptions about our audience without talking to them -- or better yet, listening to them. Our default setting is to think about our product, our organization, our selling points, instead of thinking about what makes an audience tick. Isn't is annoying when someone is "me, me, me" all the time? Yes, it is. The best brands know their audience well and let them guide the message.

Look for the audience insight.

Subaru looked beyond basic demographics to learn more about their audience. That's when they discovered a dog-loving crowd. Sometimes the insight will surprise you. Be open to what you'll discover about your audience, and don't overlook a surprising trend in your audience -- it could be the connection point you've been searching for.

Love what your audience loves.

Here's what the Subaru spots says to their target audience: "We know you. We get you. You love dogs. So do we." A brand is a relationship, and like any relationship, it's part emotion. So, maybe Subaru isn't touting the Forester's super-charged GPS system or roomy cargo space in these spots, but they are cultivating a connection with prospective buyers, and they're giving current owners one more reason to love their Subaru.

 

 

Millions were glued to the television last Friday when Tiger Woods made his first public appearance following the scandal that has rocked his personal brand. His statement was analyzed and critiqued by reporters, in social media, at cocktail parties and at pro shops around the country. Was he humble enough? Did he meet the required sincerity threshold? Was he truthful? Did he do what he needed to do to begin to rebuild his brand?

Some might say a similar performance is on tap for Wednesday morning when Toyota's chief executive, Akio Toyoda, is set to testify before the House oversight panel. The news media are setting high expectations for his testimony, saying his remarks are critical for confidence among current customers, the future of the brand and even the reputation of Japanese products overall. It's a high bar for any executive, but one that will be especially difficult the Toyota chief executive for a number of reasons.

Mr. Toyoda will have handicaps that Mr. Woods did not face in his remarks. He'll be testifying before a congressional committee of representatives eager to build their reputation. They're tired of getting beaten up in the polls and want to demonstrate their value to the American public. No one can argue with taking Toyota to task on safety. Mr. Woods' by contrast was able to orchestrate a tightly controlled environment for his remarks.

Mr. Toyoda has to consider the legal and financial ramifications of every word he utters. He has to strike a balance between responsibility and blame. It's doubtful he'll deviate much from what has been approved by a team of lawyers. While Mr. Toyoda has an obligation to the brand, his obligation to shareholders is of a higher order and that will dictate what he's able to say.

Finally, even with all the media coverage of the Toyota case, it's unlikely that the congressional appearance will attract the same audience as Mr. Woods. It seemed everyone stopped on Friday to watch. Sadly, we Americans are much more interested in athletes, infidelity and destructive addictions than in safety, engineering and jobs. So Toyota will have to continue to mount its own education campaign.

With all that's at stake for Toyota, I do hope that Mr. Toyoda learned from the mistakes of the US auto executives and arrives in a modest sedan instead of taking a private plane and limo. Maybe he should consider a Toyota pick-up. Those haven't been recalled, have they?

I am fascinated by social media guidelines. The whole process of getting the stakeholders around the table to discuss strategies for creating a document that usually makes employees cringe or rejoice is a challenge I welcome. The conversations that ensue are thrilling, and the fears that are uncovered can be real and raw.

The social media purists might say that the fears are unjustified, and in some cases they may be. But I can't tell my four-year-old that her fears of a monster coming out of her closet while she's asleep are unjustified when they are real to her.

What I can do is discuss her fears, try to understand the root of those fears and work to understand her pain point so that I can make it better by talking her through it. 

I spent some time reading through the BBC's new social networking policy today and their fears are evident. But there's nothing wrong with that. They've clearly identified those fears, thought through the process and put together a document that will guide employees on how they should conduct themselves across social networks.

I am sure there will be critical blogposts about this new policy. Remember the shredding ESPN recieved across the twitterverse and blogoshpere when it released it's socail media guidelines last year? They even issued a response to the criticism.

But back to the BBC....One thing I found very interesting is what they call their "Linking Strategy, whcih states that links should be editorially justifiable. I agree with that as a former news manager. They have their credibility to portect and what they're saying is if they're going to provide a link, it needs to make sense and add value to the content.

I also found another passage rather interesting. It characterizes on-air mentions of social networks. It seems that the BBC won't go on and on about their Twitter accounts or their Facebook pages without good reason, like CNN does.

(This is not to bash CNN but there is a constant scroll of twitter handles on the bottom of the screen, and Rick Sanchez lives by Twitter on his news program.)

So they've put a lot of thought into what level of importance social media willl play in their editorial content, and that should be applauded. I think that employers owe their employees guidance in this area.

Does your company have social media guidelines? And what do those guidelines say about the company?     

Interbrand's top one hundred most valuable brands of 2009 is out. I dove into the research looking for some clarity in this tilt-a-whirl world of economics and communication.

First thing I noticed is…well…nothing. There has been no change in the top five brands over the past two years. Coke, IBM, Microsoft, GE and Nokia still reign supreme. A closer check showed only little change in the second half of the top ten as well.

I decided to look for trends from the past decade and saw again that the top five stayed relatively consistent.

However, as brands moved further down the list, there is greater volatility in value. For instance over the past ten years, Coca-Cola and IBM stayed as predictable as a day trip through the desert. Unfortunately, some former blue-chips like the financial sector's Morgan Stanley were like a double black diamond nose-dive. I'm sure there's a name for this 'lower-value-higher-volatility' phenomenon. Whatever it's called, it tells a compelling story.

If we look at the list's biggest risers and hardest fallers an obvious pattern emerges. Fast rising, ever-evolving brands like Google and Amazon clearly show us what the consumer wants. They tell us innovation…serious innovation…is business critical. To get the most from a brand, a company can't just invent, they must reinvent whole concepts like retail or phones.

The hardest fallers are pretty clear to understand, too. Four of the top five losers were in financial (Morgan Stanley, American Express, Citibank and UBS).

The other major non-financial faller was Harley Davidson. I understand that people had less disposable income for luxury items but some brands like Prada and Burberry did okay. It appears the luxury brands that tried to be more accessible by opening to other (aka lower income) markets lost the luster of luxury. Joining Harley in the tumble were Armani, Rolex and Cartier. It definitely wasn't the year of luxury brand growth.

So what does this tell us? First, stability matters. Brands like Coca-Cola, IBM, Microsoft and GE are monoliths. Sure they gain and lose money like any business but they stay true. Second, consumerism is playing a bigger role than ever. And we consumers want a steady stream of innovation on a grand scale. We're numbed by innovation. Brands have to bring far bigger ideas to the consumer to break through. Lastly, it remains all about trust. These are still uncertain times. Brands are a reflection of us. They help us to belong to a community, define our values and comfort ourselves.

Brands that will be fast risers in 2010 are the ones that act like leaders by setting the highest industry standards, staying consistently fresh, actively listening to customers and accurately measuring their impact. Assuming a brand does all the right things, they then must clearly communicate their position and engage the consumer on all levels. Something tells me we won't see a big shift new year.

 

A colleague shared a theory that we tap into our reptilian brain for buying decisions. The reptilian is the oldest area in the ever-evolving human noggin. Its impulses are instinctual and ritualistic. Over millions of years, more evolved gray matter has been built upon this foundation. This reptilian theory coincides with two main pillars of brand development I've realized over time. First, people buy on emotion and justify it with logic. Second, we're made of brands. They define and unite us. We fall in love with them.

Since love is an "instinctual" need, I thought about the brands I'm passionate about. Here are a few full-blown crushes.

Diet Pepsi: They attempt to court new flames with One, Lime, Cherry and Caffeine Free. I'm loyal to my original Boo.

Lexus: At the risk of being bourgeois I'll admit I love this brand. Everyone I know that drives one agrees. The dealer relationship is spectacular and the car is solidly made. Seriously, it's a mind-boggling experience. They thought of everything…and it goes fast to boot.

DeWalt Tools: They make tools that work perfectly. They're well designed with incredible usability and durability.

Apple: Okay. What creative person would dare not have a crush on Jobs and Company's darling brand? Their products are functionally and aesthetically amazing.

What do these brands have in common? Premium price? Long lifespan? Emotional connection?

Maybe. I believe the companies that make these brands are amazingly in tune with the customers. They know them. They observe them. They flirt with them. Most importantly, they listen to customers to create long-term value. A good brand knows creating a relationship with a customer takes hard work, dedication and relevance to stay fresh. Good reminders for all of our relationships I'd say.

My colleague Ben Requena found Pepsi's new rebrand design strategy online. I didn't hate the rebrand until AFTER I read the document. This is the kind of BS that makes companies hate agencies. Like watching a tribute band, I was both compelled and repulsed. It was deadly interesting in its irrelevance.

I'll break down the highlights. God, there are so many.

• Historical Pepsi brand ethos creates a new trajectory forward

• The vocabulary of truth and simplicity is a reoccurring phenomena

• Strategy is based on 6000+ years of shared design philosophy, making an authentic "Constitution of Design"

• The Pepsi DNA has origins in the "dynamic of perimeter oscillations"

• Pepsi single-handedly reinvented 2500 years of mathematics, geometry and physics (I'm paraphrasing)

Capstrat has several major rebranding projects clicking right now (granted, none for Pepsi). I would be so busted if I uttered a word of this drivel. C'mon! Perimeter oscillations! Is this document for real?

It’s a sweltering Sunday afternoon at the mall. Inside The Apple Store it’s clean, cool and buzzing with hipsters that resemble that “Hi, I’m a Mac” guy. As a Mac user, I stop in occasionally to give props to Jobs and Co. for a brand well done. Sometimes I give mad props if I’m feeling like parting with money.

One of these hipsters glides past me on his cell phone. His conversation caught my ear. At first it sounded idiotic, then I realized prophetic.

“Yeah, I’m here” he says to his friend. “I’m at the iPod store.”

Wow! In a brief second, this yahoo reduced The Revolution of Zen Cool that Apple had been building to a single product.

Was this odd? Do others understand Apple’s greatness? Can you be an Apple user without being an enthusiast, or are we creative folks blinded by pretty stainless steel?

I am a die-hard Chick-fil-A fan. If you don’t believe me, come check out my little stuffed cow reminding me to “Eat Mor Chikin,” sitting on the shelf in my pod. I have so many emotional ties to this fast food franchise it’s almost pathetic. (Almost.) When my husband and I first started dating, we dined there religiously. As we got older and our metabolisms got slower, we had to cut back. But we still savor the moments when we do indulge in their delicious two-pickle chicken sandwiches and creamy “hand-spun” milkshakes. Other evidence of my obsession: I get mad at my husband if he eats there without me. A friend wanted to repay me for a favor and knew the best way to show his appreciation was with a Chick-fil-A chocolate milkshake. I could go on, but I think I’ve painted a pretty clear picture. And provided the soapbox for the following rant.

Why did I just confess my undying love for this restaurant chain? Because a certain BURGER joint is attempting to rip off Chick-fil-A’s signature sandwich, and I must speak out against this atrocity. After 50+ years of the Big Mac, the Egg McMuffin and even the McRib, McDonald’s has introduced its “Southern Style Chicken Sandwich and Biscuit.” Guess what comes on this imposter? Two pickles. Give it up Mickey D’s. No one’s going to choose your imitation over the original.

P.S. If I see a single waffle fry or “hand-spun” milkshake under the golden arches, I’ll serve you up the unhappiest meal you’ve ever tasted.

Mariah Carey just scored her eighteenth number-one single on the Hot 100. With that accomplishment she overtakes Elvis Presley for second place of most number-one songs in the rock era. Carey is now slightly behind the Beatles who have twenty number-one singles.

Mind you Elvis died at 42 and the Beatles broke up at ages 27-30. Mariah at age 38 still has plenty of time in her career to completely ruin music as we know it. Okay, I’m not a fan but I respect her.

Mariah is technically a great vocalist. It takes super human talent to imitate a car alarm, but come on! The Beatles and Elvis Presley changed music forever. I wonder how they would be marketed if they were still around today?

Today, entertainers are all about the total brand package. Music is merely the soundtrack to the clothing, perfume, book, movie and sponsorship deals. A super successful franchise like Mariah Carey employs a team of publicists, marketers, agents and managers to keep her star twinkling bright even without…(ahem)…Glitter.

Makes me think Col. Parker was way ahead of his time.