Community

Top Five Brand Winners

1. Lady Gaga - She may not be the best singer in the world, but she has built herself into a world-class brand by being an excellent marketer. She has discovered the demand of music consumers and delivered again and again over the past year, and her profile has grown enormously.

2. Apple - What can I say? This company and its head, Steve Jobs, embody everything right about marketing. They build products that everyone wants. They get the advertising right because they know their Target Market and respect it. They get the distribution right so that they can keep up with demand and adjust. They deserve their growth and should see more of it in 2010.

3. Hollywood - Despite the struggling economy, fierce competition from the Internet and video games, Hollywood has managed to put in one of its strongest years ever and with Avatar ushering a new movie-going trend, the future looks bright. Hollywood is a brand that has re-invented itself from the start and met demand. It is a first-rate marketer and brand.

4. David Letterman - Despite the kind of scandal that would have destroyed another brand, Letterman emerges from 2009 as strong as ever. He proved that his brand is one for the ages and, while apologizing for his mistakes, didn't make the mistake of forgetting who he was as a brand. He isn't an icon of morality, and his audience didn't expect him to be so his apology reflected this. I admit I was initially wrong on this one and thought he'd be more damaged. Hats off to the king of late night television.

5. Sarah Palin - Sarah Palin exits 2009 with a stronger brand than she entered the year with. Even though her book was a sales success, I believe it won't help her brand very much. Nevertheless, she has shown that she is more than a fad, has cultivated readily identifiable brand traits and positions that are consistent, and has loyal support among many voters. If 2010 sees her expanding beyond her base through sophisticated political commentary or a visiting professorship, her brand will grow.

Top Five Brand Losers

1. Citigroup - This was the biggest and most powerful bank in the world and now its stock is trading for under $4. What happened? The bank - like many others - forgot that it was in the service of preserving and growing capital. It forgot that its brand is a bank. A little more stodginess, conservatism and care for its customers' savings and financial future is needed - fast.

2. American Politics - Both the Democrats and the Republicans are struggling. The Democrats are struggling because they are quickly becoming the brand that does not listen to the people. This will hurt them at the polls. The Republicans have not broken out as anything but rejectionist - the party of "no." Until they become the party of "yes" and offer a different way forward for the country, they will remain in the wilderness.

3. Microsoft - The software behemoth continues to forget the marketing concept and rely on a build-it-and-they-will-come philosophy that puts its product first and customer needs second. Until this turns around, the company will continue to lose market share to others - especially 2009's brand winner Apple. The Bing search engine is a positive, but it may be a case of, "too little, too late."

4. Newspapers - It is sad to see traditions die, but when the market changes, the market changes - and so must one's marketing. Unfortunately, newspapers didn't see the writing on the wall and now are facing an increasingly unworkable business model. Advertising has slumped, classifieds - the traditional backbone of the balance sheet - have migrated to the Web, and readership is dropping off. The papers that will survive will be those who meet demands on the local level and make themselves indispensable, and the few majors which remain papers of record have a strong subscription base and manage to make the Web work for them.

5. The Nobel Prize - The Nobel Prize did great brand damage to itself this year in awarding the prize to Barack Obama, a winner who admitted that he was chosen prematurely. The decision looked political and underscored the flawed process that chooses winners. It diminished the prize and will affect the perception of it for years to come.

Honorable Mention:

Michael Jackson - His death and the subsequent global reaction reminded the world that when a brand is built on a strong foundation, it can endure a lot of damage and still remain powerful. Jackson is the definition of brand equity.

John Tantillo is a marketing and branding expert and president of the Marketing Department of America who markets his own services as The Marketing Doctor

Posted by John at 8:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Editor's Note: Marketing News here introduces a new guest blogger, John Tantillo. He'll be contributing his winners and losers on a regular basis, let us know what you think.

Folks, without further ado:

The Winner:

I have argued that Barack Obama should have refused the Nobel Prize. He didn’t.

But he did something that might prove even better: he gave a speech that announced that President Obama might have finally arrived.

From a marketing perspective, President Obama has remained Candidate Obama for too long. But the Nobel Prize speech saw him asserting himself as a leader –not in a vague people-of-the-world way, but as an American president sworn to protect and defend the Constitution and the people of our great land first.

In fact, he made the point clear (uncomfortably clear for those who want a weak America) that there was such a thing as “Just War” and that he would not hesitate to defend the interests of the United States.

Plain and simple, that was a president talking. The result was telling. Not too many people in the room applauded, but the people who count, Americans, even right-leaning Americans, praised this new side of the President.

If Barack Obama follows through on the promise of this speech, we may well look back and say this was the moment that the President took over the reins from the Candidate.

The Loser:

The Big Banks.

In the last year and a half, I’ve written and spoken about the Big Banks more times than I can count (here, here, here, here and here). And each time, I’ve given them a drubbing from a marketing perspective.

Alas, this time is no different.

Frankly, I don’t have too much more to add to the hyperlinks above.

Bottom line: the Big Banks need to return to what they are supposed to be doing and embrace a stodgy, prudent spirit –a spirit that responds to their customers’ needs not their Board members and their executives. Banks should be boring, dependable and supportive of real economic growth –their marketing should also be supportive of our economic recovery.

That’s why they got another earful from Obama (even as his administration gave Citigroup the greenlight to pay back the government). How’s that for some significant Presidential cover? Call them “fat cats,” give them a lecture at the White House for the media to cover, but then grant them the freedom to ignore you by freeing them from the constraints of TARP. It looks like some good came out of this meeting since a few of the banks admitted that their lobbyists have been working too hard to “gut” banking reform –talk about getting your marketing message all mixed up!

Fact is, the Big Banks fate rest with them. If they don’t start rolling up their sleeves, lending their money to the small businesses and entrepreneurs who build America, then the local and regional banks will eventually eat their lunch. Even if another crisis never rolls around, bad marketing and slipshod brand identity could doom the dinosaurs. No brand is ever “too big to fail.”

But if another crisis rolls around, you can be sure of one thing, none of these Wall Street affiliated behemoths will have enough brand equity or Target Market good will to save their skins.

In addition, to appearing old-fashioned and dependable, the big banks have to market products like small, flexible lines of credit, great savings options and checking without all the hidden fees that aim to help their customers’ wealth grow in careful, long-term, time-tested ways. They have to convince us that they don’t exist to trade or leverage for their fat cat paydays, they exist to serve the little guy the community and all of America.

My guess is that the Big Bank that repositions itself best in the traditional model for consumers and small to mid-size businesses by getting boring, assuring everyone of its dependability and, not least, overturning the old maxim “banks loan money to people who don’t need it.” The bank that genuinely puts faith in the American people and gets back to the marketing concept will find that the American people will return the favor.

And, remember, the business of business and politics is always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.

John Tantillo is a marketing and branding expert and president of the Marketing Department of America who markets his own services as The Marketing Doctor

Posted by John at 11:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Anyone who’s worked with me or talked to me for any length of time knows how I detest jargon and also can’t stomach people who only speak in jargon. I tend to think of jargon as the last refuge of people who can’t put together coherent sentences using words everyone else uses.

So, I enjoyed getting a note the other day sent by an old source from my PRWeek days, Detroit-area PR man Jim Bianchi, who is compiling a list of buzz words to be banned.

He may still be seeking nominations, so it’s not too late to add your most-hated overused trite phrase to his collection. My favorite (or would it be least favorite) on the list he has so far is the last one on his jargon phrase list, namely: “the glide path of mission critical work streams.”
What? That makes me want to react like Robert DeNiro in Taxi Driver --- “you talkin’ to me?”

Not with that phrase you’re not (or “you ain’t,” to use the jargon of my childhood in Brooklyn).

Posted by John at 4:11 PM | Permalink

The question over Tiger Woods isn't just what. It's how, as in how are his admitted "transgressions" and "personal failings" going to impact his own personal brand and power as celebrity spokesman.

So much is still so fresh, and unanswered, in the Tiger Woods drama. Woods' sponsors seem to be sticking with him, at least for now, according to this AP piece. All of this isn't stopping people from casting their snap judgments and predictions for what will become of his endorsements for Nike, Gillette, AT&T, Accenture and others.

A Millward Brown neuroscience study conducted in September indicated that Woods was the third most effective celebrity brand spokesman, behind Will Smith and Brad Pitt, respectively. Marketing News has more on this study in the December 30 issue.

But now Woods' affinity levels with consumers may diminish, suggests Ann Green, senior vice president of marketing solutions at the Naperville, Ill.-based research company.

"By going quiet as long as he did, it may have tarnished his image, perhaps more than the incident itself," she says in a statement. "As he suffers from scrutiny in the public eye, his brand partners may want to underplay their relationship with him for a period of time. ... If this incident impacts his ability to focus on the game, he may suffer from longer-term endorsement issues, but if he plays well, this will hopefully be a short-term bump in the road."

Robert Tuchman, executive VP of Premiere Global Sports, an agency in New York, told Ad Age that the controversy ultimately will have a negative impact on the Tiger brand, while in the same article, New York University sports management professor Robert Boland said, "unless there is something much more sordid than what has come out, it will not hurt his credibility." And in an online chat on the Washington Post Web site, Jason Maloni, vice president and head of the sports and entertainment practice at Levick Strategic Communications, suggested Woods can learn from, of all people, Eliot Spitzer. "To his credit, Eliot Spitzer confronted cameras in a very direct way and made what apparently is a full disclosure with his wife standing by his side. Despite the fact that he is an athlete, Tiger could take a page from this playbook. ... People can forgive a transgression but what Tiger should be concerned about is that he is perceived as not being completely honest with his fans."

Rounding up this unofficial panel, Dan Lobring, supervisor in public relations for sports marketing firm rEvolution, tells Marketing News exclusively that, "When it comes to transgressions by their heroes, most sports fans have short term memories. Take Kobe Bryant, who after settling his alleged assault case in 2003, regained the top selling jersey spot both in 2007 and 2009. Or better yet, Michael Phelps and his now infamous bong photo from earlier this year. How many sponsors did he lose? None really. Kellogg’s agreement was up and they were not likely to renew."

Personally, I anticipate this all blowing over, but three things may prove to have a negative impact. One, the details that emerge, and how scandalous they may be. Two, how Woods and his wife handle that inevitable revealing TV interview. But most importantly, Tiger will have to remain a pro golf superstar. If his play suffers, that, along with potential fan backlash, could damage his endorsement deals.

But what do you think? Will this dramatically damage Woods' endorsement deals and his ability to effectively sell products to consumers? If so, what type of consumers, and for what companies would his endorsement powers suffer? Or is this just a juicy little story that has no substantial impact on his brand appeal? Sound off in the comment section below. I'll be checking in and offering up some responses.

UPDATE (01/07/10): Obviously a lot has happened on the Tiger Woods front in the past month. Accenture dropped him Dec. 13 (although posters for the B-to-B giant starring the disgraced golf player were still up at airports during the holidays). AT&T dropped him too during the quiet holiday season. Then late last month, the University of California, Davis released a study proclaiming that shareholders of companies endorsed by Woods lost $5-12 billion from the time of his car accident until his announcement that he was taking an indefinite leave from golf.

But EA Sports is still releasing the game Tiger Woods PGA TOUR Online this month. In a blog post, the video game company's president, Peter Moore defended their decision to release a Woods game saying its partnership was always rooted in golf. "By his own admission, he’s made some mistakes off the course," Moore wrote. "But regardless of what’s happening in his personal life, and regardless of his decision to take a personal leave from the sport, Tiger Woods is still one of the greatest athletes in history."

Do these developments affect your opinion about Woods' effectiveness as a sponsor? At this point, I'm thinking that his endorsement power won't be as strong for some time, and certainly not until he returns to golf and proves to the world that he is still one of the game's greatest players. But we'd love to hear your opinion. Feel free to post a comment below.

You might also want to take a look at a new story published in Marketing News very first e-newsletter, Marketing News Exclusives, out this week. The piece, "Tiger Woods' Fall From Grace Will Impact Celeb Marketing," explores how this scandal affecting one of America's biggest celebrity spokesmen will affect celebrity endorsements in general.

Posted by Piet at 3:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)