Wheaties is on the ropes. So says a recent article in USA Today. "The Breakfast Of Champions" has seen its share of the cereal market fall from 6.5% of the cereal market in the 1960s to 0.5% of the market today. What happened? Wheaties had a strong brand and strong associations. For athletes, a true canonization of athletic achievement was to be featured on a box of Wheaties. How has this brand lost 4,000 sales per day in the past 3 years?
The failure of Wheaties was a failure to innovate. According to article, Wheaties "rested on their laurels" and lost its positioning stronghold. It wasn't healthy enough for the Fiber One crowd and not sugary enough for the Lucky Charms fans. It is in the "muddy middle" - a place where brands go to die. As product categories become more niche, brands that once owned a particular positioning in the marketplace are seeing that positioning being usurped by more tightly focused brands. Sure, at one time Wheaties was the "athletic" brand - its benefits were tightly weaved around energy and health. The brand even produced a popular phase, "I hope you ate your Wheaties this morning" when someone was planning for an especially difficult or tiring day.
But what has the linkage to athletes, energy, and a popular saying gotten Wheaties in the year 2012? A half of 1 percent of cereal sales. The fact of the matter is that Wheaties stopped innovating. It kept chugging along, satisfied to put the random World Series winner or Olympic champion on its box while healthier and more energizing cereal brands were being launched that chipped away at its core proposotion. What exactly does Wheaties stand for today? Well, if you asked 100 people, the same qualities would probably emerge - Wheaties is still the breakfast of champions and Wheaties is healthy and Wheaties may provide me energy. But if I am now in the store and compare Wheaties against other healthier cereals and other energy cereals, Wheaties loses. Its product no longer fulfills its brand promise. It stopped innovating. It stopped creating line extensions and brand messaging that evolved with the times. It just stopped. And now it is paying the price.
Wheaties is not the only example of this - Sears, JC Penneys, Wendy's are also experiencing similar situations to various extents. And there are some other major brands who, if they do not begin innovating soon are likely to suffer the same fate. We'll address them in a subsequent blog, but the message here is clear - if you do not continue to evolve your message and product line, your "championship" will be short lived.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Groundhog Day Over and Over Again....
So if you missed it last week, Pepsi is coming out with Pepsi Next, a mid calorie drink that has about 60 calories per can.
My question is...why?
What are they thinking?
Mid calorie/half the sugar/half nice and half naughty products litter the graveyards of new product launches. In the soft drink industry alone, heck, specifically in the cola category, mid calorie products have come and gone with little success. Its not like we have to go back to the far reaches of time to find these failures either. In 2001 Coke rolled out "C2", a half calorie version of Coke. It was a disaster. Three years later, Pepsi thought they could do it better and launched "Pepsi Edge" which left us almost as quickly as it appeared. In the interim we've seen everything from Dr. Pepper 10 to vitaminwater10 to Trop50 - none of these are exactly setting the world on fire.
Why? Because consumer sentiment tends to be - if I am going to indulge myself, I am going to indulge myself. I am not going to go half way. I either am going to indulge or I am going to be "good". It's kind of like being half pregnant - you either are or your aren't. Consequently, the successful product launches in this category have taken a zero calorie proposition and made it taste better (Coke Zero) vs. trying to get someone to sacrifice a few calories for a little bit of taste.
So, we'll see how Pepsi does with this latest half baked, half calorie cola. My guess is that it will join its brethren in the half calorie graveyard, where the graves are only halfway dug.....
My question is...why?
What are they thinking?
Mid calorie/half the sugar/half nice and half naughty products litter the graveyards of new product launches. In the soft drink industry alone, heck, specifically in the cola category, mid calorie products have come and gone with little success. Its not like we have to go back to the far reaches of time to find these failures either. In 2001 Coke rolled out "C2", a half calorie version of Coke. It was a disaster. Three years later, Pepsi thought they could do it better and launched "Pepsi Edge" which left us almost as quickly as it appeared. In the interim we've seen everything from Dr. Pepper 10 to vitaminwater10 to Trop50 - none of these are exactly setting the world on fire.
Why? Because consumer sentiment tends to be - if I am going to indulge myself, I am going to indulge myself. I am not going to go half way. I either am going to indulge or I am going to be "good". It's kind of like being half pregnant - you either are or your aren't. Consequently, the successful product launches in this category have taken a zero calorie proposition and made it taste better (Coke Zero) vs. trying to get someone to sacrifice a few calories for a little bit of taste.
So, we'll see how Pepsi does with this latest half baked, half calorie cola. My guess is that it will join its brethren in the half calorie graveyard, where the graves are only halfway dug.....
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Strategic Thinking in 2012?
Here's to 2012. I'm sure most out there are happy to get rid of 2011 and hopeful that 2012 will rid us of what is now a 4 year and counting slump. 2011 kind of ended like it came in - with shortsightedness on all fronts. None of this was better epitomized than the emergency bill passed by Congress and signed by the President that extended the payroll tax cut for....wait for it.....2 months. Yes, 2 months. 60 days. That is what we've come to in Washington - Congress and the President bickering over tactical band aids that do nothing to improve the quality of life in the long term. But this shortsightedness isn't just reserved for Washington, DC. I continue see business, and specifically the marketing of brands, take the exact same route - ignoring the long term health of brands for a short term fix. Everyone is thinking about making this quarter's numbers and forgeting about long term brand building initiatives. Marketers are refusing to acknowledge that many of the things they are implementing to ensure that volume is achieved will damage the long health of their brands. You had to try hard this Christmas NOT to buy something at some sort of a discount. (If you bought anything this Christmas for its full retail value, then no offense, but you got snookered.) What happens to consumers when they continue to see low price points? They start expecting it. When they start expecting it, they refuse to buy products at anything but the discounted price. How many times have you heard or even said yourself, "I'll wait until it goes on sale?" In other words, the discounted price starts to become the internal reference point - and all of a sudden the value of the brand has gone down. Sure, the discounts may enable the brand team to claim they've hit their numbers, but at what price (pun intended)?
My hope for 2012 is that we all start looking at things with a longer term perspective. Let's try to apply some strategic and long term thinking to our brands, our careers, and our lives. It will be the only way we get out of this mess that we have put ourselves into as a result of our shortsightedness.
My hope for 2012 is that we all start looking at things with a longer term perspective. Let's try to apply some strategic and long term thinking to our brands, our careers, and our lives. It will be the only way we get out of this mess that we have put ourselves into as a result of our shortsightedness.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
5 Steps To A Strong Personal Brand
5 secrets to a great personal "brand"
We are always talking about developing brands in the product sense, but clearly we can apply the rules of brand management to our own personal brands. Here are 5 secrets to develop a personal brand that is different, better, and special.
5. Emphasize your strengths: We all have our gifts – those things that come naturally to us or more easily than for others. They are also usually our passions. Taking these passions and developing marketable skills around them, should be the foundation of any great brand.
4. Ignore your weaknesses: Every performance review has a section called "developmental areas" or something that implies areas that you need improvement. Ignore this! Don't try to fix your weaknesses. Emphasize your strengths. Does Coca-Cola change their product because it isn't healthy? No, they emphasize the product's strengths – that it is a simple moment of refreshment. You as a brand must follow the same logic.
3. Stand for something: Be unique. Don't try to be 10 different things or else the core of who you are will get lost. The strongest brands are centered on one core idea. Great brands make choices. They give up some things to represent their one core idea. Make sure that you make choices in the development of your personal brand.
2. Be able to back it up: Don't try to be something you aren't. Be realistic as to what your brand can and should be. If you are not a great speaker, don't build your brand around great speaking abilities. If you can't deliver what you promise, you will cause irreparable damage to your personal brand.
1. Everything communicates: Take every opportunity to communicate your brand. Identify the individuals and entities that are most important to your overall "brand plan" and make every effort to communicate your brand essence. It is critical to be consistent in your communication so that your target gets a clear picture of your brand. From your clothing to your presentations to your written documents, ensure that you "stay on message"
We are always talking about developing brands in the product sense, but clearly we can apply the rules of brand management to our own personal brands. Here are 5 secrets to develop a personal brand that is different, better, and special.
5. Emphasize your strengths: We all have our gifts – those things that come naturally to us or more easily than for others. They are also usually our passions. Taking these passions and developing marketable skills around them, should be the foundation of any great brand.
4. Ignore your weaknesses: Every performance review has a section called "developmental areas" or something that implies areas that you need improvement. Ignore this! Don't try to fix your weaknesses. Emphasize your strengths. Does Coca-Cola change their product because it isn't healthy? No, they emphasize the product's strengths – that it is a simple moment of refreshment. You as a brand must follow the same logic.
3. Stand for something: Be unique. Don't try to be 10 different things or else the core of who you are will get lost. The strongest brands are centered on one core idea. Great brands make choices. They give up some things to represent their one core idea. Make sure that you make choices in the development of your personal brand.
2. Be able to back it up: Don't try to be something you aren't. Be realistic as to what your brand can and should be. If you are not a great speaker, don't build your brand around great speaking abilities. If you can't deliver what you promise, you will cause irreparable damage to your personal brand.
1. Everything communicates: Take every opportunity to communicate your brand. Identify the individuals and entities that are most important to your overall "brand plan" and make every effort to communicate your brand essence. It is critical to be consistent in your communication so that your target gets a clear picture of your brand. From your clothing to your presentations to your written documents, ensure that you "stay on message"
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Obama: The Right and Wrong Way to Target a Market
President Obama’s recent video clip on the DNC 2010 voting site (http://2010.democrats.org/) represents a teachable moment in how to segment (another word for diving up and organizing) a market and target a specific group within that market. Just as there are numerous ways to organize a deck of 52 playing cards (by suit, by face cards/non face cards, red/black, point cards/non point cards, etc. etc.), there are numerous ways to segment a market – whether the market is defined as a market of consumers purchasing a product or a market of voters in a Congressional race. Effective market segmentation requires that the members of each market segment be as similar (homogeneous) as possible and that each segment be as different (heterogeneous) as possible from other segments.
One way to segment and target a market is to do what Obama has done here - categorize the market based strictly on demographics such as race, gender, income etc. Demographic segmentation represents the most basic and rudimentary way to segment a market, and is often one of the least effective ways to divide up a market. Why? Because while marketers can infer some things about segments by their gender, race, and income levels, too often this results in “stereotypes” that may or may not be true about the segments’ members. It is an especially poor way to segment for any product that tries to appeal to its market in an emotional way – fashion, beverages, alcohol, and of course, politics.
So what should Obama and the DNC have done? Clearly, they need to do a better job in segmenting the market based upon more of a psychographic approach vs. a demographic approach. In other words, the market should be segmented and targeted based upon any number of psychographic measures, including the attitudes and beliefs of the market (for example, feelings on where the country should be headed, feelings on initiatives that have been passed, etc.), values of the market (at its core, what is most important to voters), voter frequency/likelihood, or even personality of the market.
Don’t believe me? Next time you are at a mall, go into an Apple store and look strictly at the demographics of the customers in the store. Chances are you will find every age, gender, and ethnicity within the store. Why? Because Apple doesn’t segment the market based on demographics. Apple segments the market based on values, attitudes, and likelihood to adopt new products. It targets those consumer segments that are most likely to want to try and adopt the products that Apple puts out. Think about the commercials for the I-pad/I-phone, etc. How many times do you actually see a user? The messaging focuses on the product and the features that will appeal to a wide range of users from 7 to 70.
It’s a lesson that the Obama team should take to heart.
One way to segment and target a market is to do what Obama has done here - categorize the market based strictly on demographics such as race, gender, income etc. Demographic segmentation represents the most basic and rudimentary way to segment a market, and is often one of the least effective ways to divide up a market. Why? Because while marketers can infer some things about segments by their gender, race, and income levels, too often this results in “stereotypes” that may or may not be true about the segments’ members. It is an especially poor way to segment for any product that tries to appeal to its market in an emotional way – fashion, beverages, alcohol, and of course, politics.
So what should Obama and the DNC have done? Clearly, they need to do a better job in segmenting the market based upon more of a psychographic approach vs. a demographic approach. In other words, the market should be segmented and targeted based upon any number of psychographic measures, including the attitudes and beliefs of the market (for example, feelings on where the country should be headed, feelings on initiatives that have been passed, etc.), values of the market (at its core, what is most important to voters), voter frequency/likelihood, or even personality of the market.
Don’t believe me? Next time you are at a mall, go into an Apple store and look strictly at the demographics of the customers in the store. Chances are you will find every age, gender, and ethnicity within the store. Why? Because Apple doesn’t segment the market based on demographics. Apple segments the market based on values, attitudes, and likelihood to adopt new products. It targets those consumer segments that are most likely to want to try and adopt the products that Apple puts out. Think about the commercials for the I-pad/I-phone, etc. How many times do you actually see a user? The messaging focuses on the product and the features that will appeal to a wide range of users from 7 to 70.
It’s a lesson that the Obama team should take to heart.
Monday, March 1, 2010
P&G Corporate Branding
If you've been watching the Olympics (which a lot of us have been - through the first 7 days of the olympic games over 150 million of us tuned in at some point), you've probably noticed the P&G corporate ads featuring "Moms" of Olympics athletes with the tagline, "To their Moms, they'll always be kids". If you've been living in a cave, here they are:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSn5Z7EC4ME
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbAHHsTFe7E&feature=PlayList&p=EE694ABB4EDE192C&index=32
So, what do you think? I'm usually not a big believer in corporate advertising, especially trying to incorporate multiple brands within a spot like P&G tries to do here, but this campaign is quite interesting on numerous levels. Let's quickly evaluate it.
I like to evaluate advertising on whether it hits key objectives that in my mind, all good advertising should have.
The Bad.....
1. Product/Brand integration - How well does its the brand integrated within the spot? Is it an integral part of the ad or is it merely a signature at the end? Clearly with this campaign, it's weak. P&G signs off at the end and showcases a montage of their brands. Now arguably all brands do target "mom", but I would argue that they target mom in different ways and, on a purely functional level, the ad falls short in tying P&G brands together with the message. There is no product integration whatsoever - just a message and signature.
The Good...
2. Relevance to target - How relevent/appealing is the commercial's story line to the target? A big win here. The advertisement is clearly positioned to women, moms specifically, and does a great job at appealing to that group. The Olympics are a great venue for advertising to this target - 56% of Olympic viewers are women vs. 44% of the Super Bowl's audience being female. Of course, the Olympics also tend to be OLDER than what we would like - viewers of the Olympics are 82% more likely to be 55 and older than the general population.
3. Emotional connection - A HUGE win. This is where the commercial has stopping power and in my mind, makes up for its weakness in product/brand integration. The spot works emotionally on multiple levels. It is upbeat, encouraging, nostalgic and celebrates the importance of moms and everything they've done to get their kids to the Olympic level. Its about celebrating mom's role and influence on their children wherever their goals and dreams take them. And that makes mom feel special on many levels.
So at the end of the day, do the ads work? It really depends upon what the initial objectives were for the campaign. If the goal was to tell me how well Tide will clean my clothes or how well Crest gets one's teeth clean, clearly not. However, if the idea was to associate P&G, and P&G brands with the support that mom provides in the raising of children to be adults, I suspect that research will confirm that the campaign did its job....and more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSn5Z7EC4ME
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbAHHsTFe7E&feature=PlayList&p=EE694ABB4EDE192C&index=32
So, what do you think? I'm usually not a big believer in corporate advertising, especially trying to incorporate multiple brands within a spot like P&G tries to do here, but this campaign is quite interesting on numerous levels. Let's quickly evaluate it.
I like to evaluate advertising on whether it hits key objectives that in my mind, all good advertising should have.
The Bad.....
1. Product/Brand integration - How well does its the brand integrated within the spot? Is it an integral part of the ad or is it merely a signature at the end? Clearly with this campaign, it's weak. P&G signs off at the end and showcases a montage of their brands. Now arguably all brands do target "mom", but I would argue that they target mom in different ways and, on a purely functional level, the ad falls short in tying P&G brands together with the message. There is no product integration whatsoever - just a message and signature.
The Good...
2. Relevance to target - How relevent/appealing is the commercial's story line to the target? A big win here. The advertisement is clearly positioned to women, moms specifically, and does a great job at appealing to that group. The Olympics are a great venue for advertising to this target - 56% of Olympic viewers are women vs. 44% of the Super Bowl's audience being female. Of course, the Olympics also tend to be OLDER than what we would like - viewers of the Olympics are 82% more likely to be 55 and older than the general population.
3. Emotional connection - A HUGE win. This is where the commercial has stopping power and in my mind, makes up for its weakness in product/brand integration. The spot works emotionally on multiple levels. It is upbeat, encouraging, nostalgic and celebrates the importance of moms and everything they've done to get their kids to the Olympic level. Its about celebrating mom's role and influence on their children wherever their goals and dreams take them. And that makes mom feel special on many levels.
So at the end of the day, do the ads work? It really depends upon what the initial objectives were for the campaign. If the goal was to tell me how well Tide will clean my clothes or how well Crest gets one's teeth clean, clearly not. However, if the idea was to associate P&G, and P&G brands with the support that mom provides in the raising of children to be adults, I suspect that research will confirm that the campaign did its job....and more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
