Jaffe Juice

The extinction of brands?

Shann Biglione, Chief Strategy Officer, Publicis Media Greater China, wrote a terrific article on LinkedIn (hat tip: Eaon Pritchard) titled, “People who predict the death of brands don’t understand why they exist.”

In it, he outlined how harbingers of doom (or marketer serial killers – love it!) who have been harping (or is it harbinging?) on the death of TV, advertising and now ultimately brands, point to 4 contributing factors for this proclamation:

 

1. e-commerce
2. Consumer reviews
3. Decline of mass advertising
4. Artificial Intelligence

He ends the article wonderfully, “Predicting the death of brands fails to understand their Darwinian nature: they do not exist because they were imposed unto us, they exist because of us.”

So I thought I would provide a counterpoint that is less a rebuttle and more a triangulated perspective.

To begin, I think the assertions of “death of” TV, advertising and brands are absolutely connected and evolutionary in nature. TV is a subset (and the biggest component) of advertising; and advertising has been the predominant input or contributing ingredient of the brand recipe. Classic marketing theory has been built upon the 4 P’s (Product, Price, Place, Promotion) and it is the P of Promotion that similarly has enjoyed the lion’s share of attention and investment in the Brand Mix.

I wrote, “Life after the 30-second spot” some 13 years ago and in it, I asserted that the 4 P’s have become commoditized. All washing detergents work; all toothpaste cleans; all candy tastes good but is bad for you. Pricing is essentially transparent. Location is ubiquitous. And don’t get me started on the backlash against advertising.

If you think about it, Shann’s 4 variables fit quite nicely into the 4 P’s paradigm:

• consumer reviews would translate into the P of Product AKA you can’t put lipstick on a pig
• e-commerce is probably best aligned with the P of Place
• decline of mass advertising – obviously the P of Promotion
• AI is probably the least obvious, but I guess we can attribute to the P of Price, especially when comparison shopping, recommendations and automated purchasing and renewals make this a much more programmatic decision thread

To be clear, I’m not sure I would necessary “harb” on the same 4 points (I was just reconciling them).

My concern is with the final statement: brands exist because of us and the key word here is “us.” So who is us? It’s not the consumer. It’s Don Draper. It’s the marketing profession and advertising industry who have perpetuated this Wizard of Oz façade for so long, where packaged goods, tires or food are brought to life with animated mascots like Jolly Green Giants or Marshmallow Men or weird Peanut Englishmen trapped in time; where brands make promises but never keep them; where brands are supposed to capture the values, touchpoints, ideals and beliefs of the companies that keep them and yet those same companies are being taken over by private equity cutthroats, cost-cutting and jettisoning brands at alarming regularity; where new “brands” like AirBnB, Uber, Snapchat or Instagram burst onto the scene attracting massive market valuations (or did I mention used zero paid media to build their….brands)

WE created brands. WE kept them alive (and some on life support) by romancing and doubling down on the formulaic narrative. And now WE will need to figure out how to save them.

The fact remains, if brands are to survive, they’re going to need to remain relevant and provide real value to their entire ecosystem and their stakeholders. They’re going to need to evolve. And by definition, evolve implies the openness and ability to adapt to change. And that change will absolutely pivot around distribution, promotion, loyalty and advocacy, R&D, innovation, customer service and more.

Right now, I fear that many of these items are being ignored or neglected at worst, and paid lip service to at best. And if that continues, those same harbingers will be moving on from the death of brands to an even more ominous prediction, the death of corporations.

Oh wait, that’s already happening…

Donald J. Trump is the Ultimate Z.E.R.O. Marketing Case Study

In Flip the Funnel, I outlined Obama '08 as one of the best in class case studies exemplifying what it is to deploy a "retention as the new acquisition" inside-out approach to marketing. Little did I know, I would be turning to politics once again to demonstrate and validate my* 4th book, "Z.E.R.O."

Donald J. Trump - hate him or love him - and I will keep my personal opinion separate to this piece (you just need to visit my Facebook page to see what I really think) has shown without much wiggle room or doubt the power of "Z.E.R.O. Paid Media as the New Marketing Model".

Before I continue, let me just state a point which I think is clear and obvious: Have any doubt in the assertion that Paid Media is on the precipitous decline - or just plain doesn't work - why not look towards the political process itself? Think about a race where both candidates are spending obscene amount on paid media. One is going to to win and one is going to lose. And so if you're going to point to the efficacy of paid media in helping one candidate declare victory, then surely you need to declare paid media as being completely ineffective and wasteful in the loser's failed quest...

Oh I know where you're about to head...you're going to blame the "message" vs the "medium" Stupid creative! Be more persuasive next time (to the tune of Homer Simpson)!

Still fighting me? Of course you are...you're going to blame the "product" versus the advertising and possibly cite that ridiculous and pathetic excuse, "there's no better way to kill a bad product than with great advertising."

Hey, I'm just demonstrating that paid media is not the panacea it once was. Don't shoot the messenger (regardless of your position on the second amendment) 

Hang on, you're still protesting that the political bubble is unique and is not representative of the real world. You're right...it's much simpler than the cluttered, noising SKU-infested REAL world of toothpaste, detergent, cellular providers, cars and home mortgages where the tyranny of choice makes life damn near impossible for you.

...and now we return you to our regularly schedule program, the reality show that is Donald J Drumpf.

The Donald might as well be called "The Dude" when it comes to playing the system; the media; and well, playing you as well with a simple spin on "Sticks and stones make break my bones, but words will never harm me." 

As a conspiracy theory aside, I've wondered whether he was always trying to pull of a Verbal on us by pulling off the greatest MEDIA con in the history of the business...using the MEDIA as the perfect conduit and weapon of mass distraction. I always felt there was going to be an A-HA reveal; a gotcha....but it never came. The Jimmy Kimmel skit with Producers' Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick was not far off. 

Perhaps Trump was looking to further his brand, which he currently values at $3bn! 

...and then, when the media, together with the gullible, desperate and/or dumb populous lapped up the rhetoric and did not immediately reject and regurgitate it in disgust, something weird happened: he either started to believe his own lies (a common side effect of narcissism) or unequivocably did not and instead doubled-, tripled- and quadrupled-down on nonsense in an attempt to shock the body to reject its host.

Think about it: xenophobia, bigotry, veiled threats of murder, racism and EVEN TAKING ON THE POPE!!!! Nothing seems to work (and here I type this on Super Tuesday...gee, I wonder how today is going to go No surprise, he did pretty well.)

Personally, I think - I KNOW - that should he be offered "The final rose", he will break our hearts by telling us he is not in love with us...but in fact with someone else (HIMSELF) and reject our proposal. 

So what does this have to do with Zero Paid Media as the New Marketing Model? Besides, everything???

• Z.E.R.O. states that in a perfect world, the optimal paid media budget would be zero.
• Why would you need to pay for attention if you're paying attention?
• Why be a tenant (renting media) when you can be a landlord (owning and monetizing assets)?

...oh and Trump knows a thing or two about being a landlord for what it's worth.

Z.E.R.O. is also an acronym for Zealots, Entrepreneurship, Retention and Owned Assets and Trump comes up "trumps" in the Zealots (can you say Trumpets?), Entrepreneurship (the American dream is not to make it...not make it great...again) and Owned Assets categories.

The earned media he's received is beyond compare. It's priceless. This is content strategy at its best. Or worst. Or best.

Whilst I still don't think he is going to become President, it doesn't really matter at this stage. He has proven that "telling it like it is" is less about telling the truth and more about being a mirror or lens reflecting what - some - people are really thinking. And isn't that what a brand is at the end of the day? Nothing more than a mirror or reflection of a company's values, beliefs, and principles and a projection or connection to the people it hopes to serve, service or sell to?

This might be a good time to purchase a copy of Z.E.R.O. - it's purchase price is less than the average contribution to Bernie Sanders and 100% of the proceeds is going to go towards burying the asbestos-laded "Make America Great Again" caps (well then ones that don't go to the Smithsonian)

...but in all seriousness, Donald J Trump has shown - beyond the shadow of a doubt - that power of Advocacy multiplied to the power of the ultimate asset, one's mouth.

He's right you know: we wouldn't be talking about this stuff without him. You know, like racism. Real racism...not like #oscarssowhite. And I'm as guilty as the next. I still have 9 unplayed episodes of Homeland to watch...can't get to them as I'm watching the new reality show hit; the new must-see TV, CNN.

I leave you with the words of CBS head honcho, Les Moonves: It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS. 

Yes, the media could just stop reporting on this. Yes we could just stop watching, but we can't. Forget "Yes, we can"; the new normal, is "No, we can't!" (stop watching)

We're all disciplies of the Church of Z.E.R.O.

Amen. Hallelujah!

P.S.. Thank you Drumpf for curing my writer's block!

Photo credit: Designcrowd.com

* actually our as in co-authored by my ex-client and current-friend, Maarten Albarda

2 episodes of Jaffe Juice - The New Marketing Podcast on Tech, Talent and Creativity

Hello strangers...

How about 2 episodes of Jaffe Juice - The New Marketing Podcast for the price of Z.E.R.O.? No actually, zero.

Plus you get Mirum's Mitch Joel as value add.

The first episode is #179 where we discuss the Wall Street Journal article, Tech Firms Pull Talent Away From Ad Agencies. 

You can listen live by left clicking or download by right clicking here

The second episode is #180 where we do an armchair quarterback deconstruction, unpacking, post-mortem of Cannes 2016. And yes, there is some bitterness, jealousy, cynicism and good old fashioned ranting as well. 

You can listen live by left clicking or download by right clicking here

Image credit 

3 doses of Jaffe Juice: on Millennials, Visual Story Telling and Word of Mouth

I know I have been long remiss in updating the podcast. So much so that Apple has removed "Across the Sound" from iTunes (ugggh) and I'm now trying to get the feed back up and running.

In the interim, you certainly can download it / listen to it via the Jaffe Juice blog and newsletter, as well as subscribing to the Jaffe Juice feed, which will give you an aggregation of blog posts, audio podcasts and Jaffe Juice TV video content.

So here are the 3 most recent:

Jaffe Juice #176 - Mitch Joel and I discuss Millennials

Photo credit

Jaffe Juice #177 - Book interview with author of The Power of Visual Storytelling, Ekaterina Walter

Buy the book here

Also co-authored with Jessica Gioglio

Jaffe Juice #178 - Book interview with author of fizz, Ted Wright

Buy the book here

JJTV #143 - The Engaged Leader with Charlene Li

Last month, I sat down with Altimeter's Charlene Li to discuss her new book, "The Engaged Leader." This is Charlene's third book and you may recall her first book, best-selling Groundswell.

Charlene is gracious, giving, smart, insightful and really understands the depth behind the superficiality of social media.

Hope you like the conversation and don't forget to buy her book. 

Related articles

Altimeter CEO Charlene Li's Book: "The Engaged Leader: A Strategy For Your Digital Transformation"

Charlene Li Wants to Help Leaders Be More Open [VIDEO]

Charlene Li's 'The Engaged Leader' Tells Executives How To Lead Without Fearing Social Technology

How Engaged Leaders Use Mobility To Build Brands & Businesses

Jaffe Juice #174 - The Internet is NOT the Answer with Andrew Keen

Andrew Keen is mad as hell...and he's not going to take it anymore. Actually he's just a big softy with a big brain and a big heart. Either way, he's not afraid to stick out his neck and have an intelligent conversation or debate about things he cares about...deeply. And in his new book, The Internet is NOT the Answer, he doesn't pull punches when he calls out certain greedy entrepreneurs, monopolies, plutocracies (I think that's the ruling power on Pluto) and Uberocracies.

GIve him a piece of your mind (if you can spare it) at @ajkeen, but only after you listened to this podcast, which you can download here.

And if you'd like to subscribe to this podcast, you can do so here.

Making Mistakes...On Purpose

I was keynoting at a Satmetrix (the Net Promoter People) customer experience conference earlier this month in London -- and over fish ‘n chips during lunch, I ended up chatting with one of my fellow keynoters, Ian Williams (@CustExpMan), about making mistakes.

Ian had a rather controversial point of view that organizations should go out of their way to make mistakes ON PURPOSE. I immediately thought of Apple versus Microsoft. While the former seemingly makes mistake after mistake (remember AntennaGate?) and seemingly gets away with it every time, the latter -- in an effort to be perfect to market -- gets vilified for even the tiniest deviations from the norm.

In the startup world, there is a popular saying: “Done is better than perfect.” This statement speaks to the ability get a release in the market warts and all, as opposed to obsessing on ironing out all glitches and gremlins before allowing consumers in.

Failing fast, embracing failure, pivoting and “iterating, iterating, iterating” are all healthy signs of life in the entrepreneurial world, but how does this translate into the corporate world of innovation? Or in this particular case, the world of customer service and customer experience?

Furthermore, what about the ability to purposely make mistakes? It’s one thing to make a mistake (that’s why they call it a mistake), but when this is deliberate, surely it falls somewhere on the continuum of corporate sabotage to corporate insanity?

When I’m asked what makes a brand social, or how a company can become more social, I talk about R.E.A.C.H., an acronym (hey, I’m a consultant) for responsive, empathetic, accessible, connected and HUMAN. What is it to be human? Corporations aren’t human, but their employees are. Brands are not human, but they are symbols that reflect the beliefs, ideals and philosophy of the founders, leaders, employees, partners -- and customers of the company it keeps.

The Starbucks promise is that if you aren’t absolutely happy with your drink, they’ll make another for you. That’s their assurance to you if the barista at the register, the one with the Sharpie or the one that presses the buttons at the machine, isn’t always on top of his game.

If it is true that “to err is human, but to forgive, divine,” surely this is a sign to empower our front line to make more honest mistakes.  Humans aren’t perfect, and it is precisely this imperfection that endears us to one another. Surely our customers would be the first to recognize this. Surely empathy works both ways.

I saw a stat that shows that companies who aren’t able to sufficiently solve a problem, but went about it in a genuine, compassionate way, scored higher net promoter scores than companies who did solve a particular problem, but did so in a rude, uncaring or abrasive way.  That’s an incredible insight into aptitude versus attitude.

In a world where we punish our customer service agents if they spend too much time on the phone, what if we rewarded them based on how many times they messed up?  What if we incentivized our people based on their ability to volunteer times they were prepared to take a chance to tackle a challenge, versus handing it off to the next in line? And if they were to fail, celebrate and encourage them to share the learnings and insights that have the potential to iterate, evolve and grow with the entire company?

Of course, I recognize the irony that if one sets out to make a mistake on purpose, it isn’t a mistake at all, is it? Which is in of itself… perfect!

Photo Credit here. Original article here.

Earn the Bundle

My latest MediaPost Online Spin column below, which introduces a concept about "earning" versus "commanding" a bundle of products or brands. Whether you're Panasonic, Nike, Apple or Procter & Gamble...this notion applies.

A month ago, Procter & Gamble announced it would be culling about 90 to 100 of its brands globally, in a restructure that would instead focus on the company’s top 70-80 brands.

On the surface, the move makes complete sense. After all, the remaining brands have accounted for 90% of sales and 95% of profit over the past three years.

So if I read that correctly (and the math is rather simple), we’re talking about 90-100 brands responsible for 10% of sales and only 5% of profit.

If that’s the case, one might ask what on earth the company was doing in the first place carrying so much dead weight relative to the remaining rock stars.

Or perhaps you were astounded by the tremendous lopsided contribution of sales and margin within the family of brands. You shouldn’t be, as your own customer base is probably not that radically different from this kind of 80/20 split. Certainly this is true within the B2B world -- and although less so in the B2C space, I wonder what Zappos, Starbucks, Amazon.com or Coca-Cola would say when it comes to their power products.

But I digress.

So back to P&G and the announcement, which came from Chairman and CEO A.G. Lafley, who himself had returned to the company 14 months prior to steady a rather behemothic ship. Lafley had indicated disappointment with the company’s financial situation, and this move was a decisive step to get things back on track.

And yet, I didn’t interpret any strength in this move at all. To me, it was all about consolidating the status quo; the known versus unknown; the “safe bets” or sure things versus the wildcards or anomalies.

I would contend that there are no sure things or safe bets nowadays. Just look at the threat Dollar Shave Club presents to the incumbent, P&G’s Gillette brand.

My gut feeling is that P&G’s brand-cutting move will be followed by a tried and tested approach, including mass/paid media and reach-heavy digital or social plays like Facebook, and doubling down on massive global sponsorships like the Olympics, as opposed to riskier and less proven approaches on the innovation front.

In my previous startup boutique, I did some work with Panasonic. I recall how excited execs were about an SD card that could be interchanged and used in all their devices, from camcorders to cameras to HD TV’s to their Toughbook P.C. They believed that this interoperability (or compatibility) would be key to developing an unequivocal reason for consumers to choose every product within Panasonic’s portfolio.

I remember telling them to “earn the bundle,” not “command the bundle.” Instead of creating a walled garden or closed system, let people decide for themselves what to use, and based on your great functionality, service and experience, they would give you more of their hard-earned money and loyalty.

If you think about it, the walled garden didn’t even work for Apple. And thankfully so, when you look at how many iPods the company subsequently sold to PC users.

Nike “earned the bundle” with me. I started with the obvious pair of shoes and hodge-podged the rest of my outfit from every other brand. Today, my shoes, socks, , GPS watch, shirt, shorts, windbreaker, gloves and hat are all part of the earned “Just Do It” bundle.

Instead of cutting brands, why wouldn’t P&G have looked to invest in its existing suite, creating creative, lateral and bold pairings or partnerships, bundled around “reasons to behave” versus “reasons to believe.” Like P&G did with Potty Palooza during frigid Times Square days, with Duracell (charge your phones and cameras) and Charmin (go to the loo). Or what Charmin did with its Sit or Squat acquisition. Although truth be told, we still haven’t seen this live up to its potential -- for example, a tour de force combination of Always, Pampers and Charmin owning the public restroom for entire families!

As the old saying goes: "If you're digging yourself into a hole, the smart thing is to stop digging.” Personally, I would choose to earn the bundle from a much larger portfolio of everyday products, as opposed to commanding the bundle from a smaller set – which no doubt will be under even more financial scrutiny, competitive pressure and startup disintermediation in the future.

But that’s just me.

My TedxWestportLibrary Talk on Retinkering Marketing (and Rethinking Libraries)

Enjoy :)

Just Piv Ot (and more)

My last 3 Online Spin columns:

• Just Pivot May 13 - full text below
• The Death Of Anonymity April 29 - Anonymity was once the voice of the meek; now it is the voice of the coward (and bully)
• The End Of Advertising April 15 - First Brazil outlawed out of home / billboard advertising and now advertising to children; the end (of advertising) is nigh...

Just Pivot

I’m not sure when Nike ceased to be a shoe company for serious athletes and instead become a technology company for average Joes (like me) looking to enjoy a health and active lifestyle.

Perhaps it was Nike ID that first hinted at things to come. Or Nike +, Nike Running, or Nike Fuelband that finally drove home the transformation from Just Do it to Just Digit (sorry).

Thanks to technology, Nike has elevated its relevance and resonance from just a brand to something much more: a community-driven experience. Dare I say, a customer-centric ecosystem powered by technology.

Case in point: #runstronger -- a call to action on the first anniversary of the Boston bombing, offering to donate $1 for every mile completed by volunteer runners.

I’ve become somewhat of a Fuelband fanboy. I wrote about it extensively in my latest book, “Z.E.R.O,” and have dedicated several columns in Mediapost to the same subject.

Last week I was in Australia, where, during a presentation, several members of the audience pointed out that Nike will be discontinuing its Fuelband.

What an embarrassment for Nike. They failed. They lost the battle to Fitbit. They couldn’t cut it with a piece of hardware that just did not iterate or evolve quickly enough.

And if you think the above paragraph is accurate, you couldn’t be further from the truth.

The actual announcement was that Nike is discontinuing its Fuelband production in order to shift its focus from hardware to software. The company is going to focus on the data, analytics, dashboard, gamification and overall experience, versus just producing rubber bands.

Let me repeat the key phrase again in case you missed it: Nike is shifting its focus from hardware to software. This is -- or was -- a shoe company, remember?

Nike is doing a classic pivot, just as an enviable class of past successful startups -- including, but not limited to, GroupOn, Twitter, YouTube and Fab -- did before it.

Playing to its strengths (or weaknesses), and ultimately reconciling this with its business, Nike is choosing to focus and prioritize versus spreading itself too thin.

Company strategists are also choosing to align themselves with an incredibly like-minded brand: namely, Apple, which will most likely be producing the one band to rule them all soon enough. This has not actually been announced yet, but Nike has subtly (about as subtly as a bull in a china shop) hinted at the continuation of this relationship in the wearables market.

As a betting man, I’m going to fairly confidently place my chips in the Nike + Apple camp. It’s a fairly inevitable no-brainer that Apple and Nike will join forces -- and when they do, it’s game over.

Enjoy it while you can, Fitbit.

In making this announcement, Nike has shown -- proven, in fact -- that it is a technology company -- a lean brand of sorts.

It’s demonstrated how an 800-pound gorilla can think and act like an agile gazelle.

At a time when most companies are still debating if they should sell directly to their customers via their website, what their Facebook strategy should be, which mobile platform they should develop in (because for some reason the budget allows only one) or how to approach a one-off pilot program with a startup, Nike has entered the next phase of its evolution.

By my count, v2.0 beats v0.1 any day of the week.

Not bad for a loser.