Community

WINNER:

Last week, Steve Jobs made the announcement that most knew was coming but few wanted to hear.

The man who more than anyone has shaped the technological landscape we live in had decided that it was time to step down from his role as CEO of Apple.

His statement was short and to the point, reassuring any who doubted it that Apple had a succession plan in place and was implementing it.

The statement also gave more evidence of what an extraordinary man Steve Jobs is.
Many have written about Jobs departure might affect Apple’s future or have documented his history as an innovator. That’s not what I want to do here.

Bottom line, Jobs is simply a superb man and brand. The word genius has been thrown around a lot about him, but that word genius misses the point. Many people have genius, but few geniuses have the kind of flexibility, endurance and ability to admit wrong turns, face them and correct them. That trait that Jobs holds in spades translated directly to Apple’s success…the kind of success that required anticipating and then meeting consumers’ needs again and again. Jobs and Apple practice almost kind of symbiotic marketing –perceiving what consumers need almost before they know and then delivering and then refining according to their consumers experience input and experience.

Again, that approach is deeply part of Jobs himself. Almost nothing gives us more to learn from that the words that he delivered as part of his commencement address to Stanford’s graduating class in 2005.

Here’s the complete text.

But I’d like to provide you with two excerpts.
The first comes after he recounts that when he was fired from Apple at age 30 it was like being hit over the head with a brick. He went from being on top of the world to feeling like he was finished. But then he realized that he still loved doing what he did at Apple and needed to continue doing that. This realization led him to eventually found Pixar and then make that triumphant return to Apple itself.

Here’s what Jobs says:
I'm pretty sure none of this would have happened if I hadn't been fired from Apple. It was awful tasting medicine, but I guess the patient needed it. Sometimes life hits you in the head with a brick. Don't lose faith. I'm convinced that the only thing that kept me going was that I loved what I did. You've got to find what you love. And that is as true for your work as it is for your lovers. Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven't found it yet, keep looking. Don't settle. As with all matters of the heart, you'll know when you find it. And, like any great relationship, it just gets better and better as the years roll on. So keep looking until you find it. Don't settle.

The second excerpt is about using the fact of death as a positive to help you live the life you should be living. Here it is:

When I was 17, I read a quote that went something like: "If you live each day as if it was your last, someday you'll most certainly be right." It made an impression on me, and since then, for the past 33 years, I have looked in the mirror every morning and asked myself: "If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?" And whenever the answer has been "No" for too many days in a row, I know I need to change something.

Remembering that I'll be dead soon is the most important tool I've ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life. Because almost everything — all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure - these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important. Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart.

Thank you, Mr. Jobs. We wish you all the best.


LOSER:

Just a short one for our loser: the generic tablet.

Last week, I wrote about HP’s wise decision to get out of the tablet market.

Part of the reason for why this was that Apple, thanks to Mr. Jobs, dominates the tablet world so much that no other tablet manufacturer really has a brand.

And that’s the bottom line, everyone else, Samsung, Research In Motion, Toshiba, don’t really have brands at all –they have forgettable products that consumers don’t get attached to.

Apple’s share of the market is 61% and all the other brands have single digit shares of the rest.

For a great take on this, check out The Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/08/tablet-computers

The point is this: Apple developed products that are distinctive brands that people love and that has made all the difference.
And, remember, it's always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.

TODAY’S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY –

To brand well you must always be responsive and willing to learn.

John Tantillo is a marketing and branding expert who has a doctorate in applied research psychology. He is president of the Branding and Marketing Group and markets his own services as "The Marketing Doctor." He is also the author of People Buy Brands, Not Companies, an AMA member, and the host of BrandTalk, Wednesdays from 3 to 4 p.m. ET on radio station WVOX 1460 AM, and streaming at www.brandtalkradio.com.

The opinions expressed in this post are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the American Marketing Association.

Posted by Christine Birkner at 11:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

WINNER:

News Corp. is our winner. Yes, News Corp. The embattled media powerhouse that Rupert Murdoch built into a stable of print and broadcast brands that span the globe is winning—no matter what so many commentators are saying.

Here’s the bottom line.

We have to understand that Fleet Street simply isn’t Main Street. A British story isn’t an American story.

The current scandal concerning phone tapping and other invasions of privacy by the now defunct News of the World is a very British scandal. In many ways, this is something that could only have happened on Fleet Street and only at a tabloid on Fleet Street. This means that while journalists love this story (because many of them love to hate Murdoch), it won’t necessarily spread like wildfire either to the general public in America (who, frankly, don’t see its relevance to them) or beyond. And it probably won’t lead to more discoveries of this kind of behavior at other News Corp. newspaper brands. After all, the questionable standards and practices of British tabloids where there is long history of paying for stories, etc., are well known and frowned on almost everywhere else.

But the real reason News Corp. is this week’s winner is because News Corp. is a company made up of vigorous brands that care about their individual Target Markets, and they are run by a company that honors this focus. The pie attack in which Murdoch’s wife quickly defended him might have garnered some public relations-style sympathy, but News Corp.’s (and Murdoch’s) success is built on years of solid brand management and that is what will see this company and its brands through.

Consider this. When Murdoch made the decision to shutter News of the World, 200 employees lost their jobs. Now anyone losing their job is an unfortunate thing, but you have to measure these 200 jobs against the size of News Corp.'s vast empire.

So, how many people does News Corp. still employ? 51,000. That means that less than half of one percent of the company’s entire workforce was affected here.

That alone should tell us that while what happened at News of the World is important, it does not necessarily say anything about the rest of News Corp.

Fact is, Rupert Murdoch and News Corp. have consistently preserved brand equity. When News Corp. finally won control of The Wall Street Journal, the general assumption was that the Journal would soon change for the worst. That has simply not happened. News Corp. has never been in the business of taking brands that work and ruining them.

The weeks and months to come will probably show—no matter what happens to Murdoch personally—that the many media ventures the company has controlled around the world will continue to thrive. Will this scandal attach to the book publisher Harper Collins or to the movie business of Twentieth Century Fox? Fuggedaboutit.

People buy brands not companies. And News Corp., like General Motors, is a company that masterfully delivers brands to its many consumers and keeps its corporate identity at a distance. No one thinks about News Corp. when they watch Avatar. No one thinks about News Corp. when they read a book by Tolkien. But News Corp. is behind both.

If the key is individual brand management for such a company, then in a scandal the response must be to show that one brand does not a company make or break. And that is what Rupert Murdoch did with speed and decisiveness when he shuttered News of the World and appeared at the parliamentary hearings.

Murdoch followed the crisis management rule to a tee:

1. Respond quickly (even if it means taking painful action)

2. Be contrite

3. Take responsibility

4. Be honest (here, it meant that Murdoch admitted what he didn’t know and still might discover regarding wrongdoing at News of the World)

5. Communicate a plan of action

Murdoch did all of the above and the effect—like closing a fire door—should prevent the crisis from spreading to the wider brand portfolio. But even if it doesn’t, the basic structure of News Corp. and its ongoing emphasis on individual brands certainly will.

One final note, a personal disclaimer. I have written for Fox News and appeared on numerous Fox shows over the past few years. Of course, Fox is one of those News Corp. brands, but other than knowing that I was walking into the News Corp. building whenever I visited Fox, I never really thought I was writing or appearing for News Corp.—it was and is always for Fox.

Editor's Note: For more of Tantillo's take, read the story "News Corp. Scandal Won't Scar Brand, Expert Says," available Aug. 4 in this week's edition of Marketing News Exclusives.

LOSER:

McDonald’s is this week’s loser because not every adaptation to pressure is good for a brand.

I’m talking about McDonald’s decision to cut its Happy Meal fry serving in half by the end of the year and adding fruit or vegetables with every meal.

Don’t get me wrong, I am a believer in healthy eating choices and portion control, but McDonald’s emerges as a loser from the decision because this supreme marketer seems to have violated the golden rule of marketing: satisfy yours customers’ needs.

Are customers really clamoring for the fries to be cut in half with fruit and vegetable substitutions? Or is this more a result of nonprofit activist groups and Nanny-state government “coaxing” McDonald’s to make this change?

While an argument can certainly be made that McDonald’s is smartly using the change as a platform from which to attract a new Target Market (i.e., those parents who have shunned McDonald’s because they didn’t think the company was serious about good nutritional choices), it’s more likely that the company is simply trying to make a short-term bargain with groups that—let’s face it—won’t be content until the McDonald’s that we know is no more.

McDonald’s already must post the nutritional data about its food for all consumers to see. The restaurant also offers a lot of choice by allowing patrons to swap out less healthy foods for more healthy ones.

Choices for consumers usually translate to universally good marketing, but what McDonald’s is doing actually limits choices.

Let’s imagine a scenario like this. Picture a mom with two kids who cares about healthy food, but on a road trip enjoys taking the kids to McDonald’s for a treat. But let’s say this parent is on a budget and likes to split those fries in that Happy Meal between her two kids. And she has fruit in the car. It might seem like a small thing, but now she has to buy more fries. This is a hassle and a loss of choice. Minor details matter in marketing and they add up in surprising ways. People get used to the range of options they have as consumers. They don’t like having those choices taken away and being told what they have to buy.

Sure, McDonald’s might also be expanding their Target Market, but fact is there are other ways they can do this than by limiting choice or buckling to consumer watchdog pressure. McDonald’s should take a stand for its customers. People like McDonald's food and in moderation there is nothing wrong with it. McDonald’s should campaign for consumer freedom and make good nutrition part of this campaign—not something that makes kids and adults alike think that they have to eat their vegetables or else.

And, remember, it's always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.

TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY:
Every detail matters in the building (or ruining) of a brand.

John Tantillo is a marketing and branding expert who has a doctorate in applied research psychology. He is president of the Branding and Marketing Group and markets his own services as "The Marketing Doctor." He is also the author of People Buy Brands, Not Companies, an AMA member, and the host of BrandTalk, Wednesdays from 3 to 4 p.m. ET on radio station WVOX 1460 AM, and streaming at www.brandtalkradio.com.

The opinions expressed in this post are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the American Marketing Association.

Posted by Piet at 9:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)