Anacin USP was fast relief, but where are they now?

The USP is a tactic

The unique selling proposition should not be confused with a positioning statement. The USP is just what it says – a sales proposition that no one else is promoting at the time. It’s a short-range competitive tactic. It may take competitors quite some time to discover that a particular USP is helping a marketer boost market share, and another little while to counteract that USP with an offering that’s even more attractive. Devising and broadcasting a new theme (USP) is done very well by most advertising agencies. I’m of the opinion that that’s the only value provided by today’s agency. (That’s the subject for another post rater.)

The positioning statement, though not necessarily a consumer message, is a statement of what you’d want your brand to be. If Anacin had adopted a positioning statement that read: We will do all in our power, through research, development, production and packaging, to always have the fastest pain reliever on the market, then Anacin would have won that position in the minds of consumers by consistently demonstrating their dedication to fast pain relief through their actions. With that kind of mind set, let the agency develop a USP that reinforces the positioning statement.

The positioning statement is strategic

The commitment of any organization to provide a consistent level of performance, and to dedicate major resources to accomplish that performance, builds the brand, not a USP.

But today, we still hear those connected with branding use these terms interchangeably. They miss a major difference between a brand strategy and a sales tactic. They also confuse those that aren’t paying attention, namely the executive staff who’s wondering anyway why marketing can’t seem to be held accountable.

I might have stepped on a toe or two with that last paragraph of rant, but it rankles. And don’t get me started on the ad specialty salesperson who wants to sell you a couple gross of imprinted pen because it’s “effective branding”.

Anyway, there’s a place for the USP. It can enhance the brand if it adheres to the positioning statement and the branding platform. And if one isn’t increasing sales, just ask your new agency to create another.

Post from:

Source of info and strongly-held opinions about branding and positioning

Branding related posts:

1. Positioning and unique selling proposition: two different concepts.
2. Differentiating your brand is strategic, developing an USP is tactical
3. Naming tips: number 58 in a series.
4. What makes a strong tagline?
5. Can the Brand Short-Circuit Direct Response Sales?

Bar magnet demonstrates how a brand can attract and repel at the same time

Your patrons are part of your brand

That is, not only is the brand defined by stakeholders, the stakeholders are part of the brand just as much as your name, logo, trade dress and tagline.

In the context of “rubbing elbows”, our primary stakeholders are the customers. But there are also the employees, the retail reps, the associated companies and products, the suppliers and in some cases, investors. (After all, If ol’ Warren is invested in the company it must be doing something right.) So to some extent, all these associated groups are integral to the brand.

Customers reflect and resonate with the brand

Customers and prospects are the single most important group, other than your employees, that shape the brand itself.

As far as market segments are concerned, be very specific right from the beginning. Then determine who that target market would like to see excluded from the “family”. As I said previously, this is especially relevant to retail and services marketers.

Then in developing your brand platform and then your brand elements, attempt to encourage the attractive prospects and discourage folks your prospects wouldn’t want to associate with. This is a tight rope where balance and tact are required, but the messages, however subtle, need to be clear.

And even if an “undesirable” wanders in, your good customers will know it’s just by accident and the incident won’t destroy their loyalty.

I know this is an elitist point of view, but I don’t apologize for raising the issue and offering advice. It is the basis for what some branding consultants call “cult branding”.

Remember, your customers are part of your brand. When others see who patronizes your establishment, it says plenty about who you are. That’s branding.

I’d welcome any comments, pro or con, concerning this aspect of branding.

Post from:

Source of info and strongly-held opinions about branding and positioning

Branding related posts:

1. Branding to exclude the undesirables
2. A new definition of branding.
3. Naming Tips – Number 30 in a Series
4. Branding: a function of strategy
5. Tension creates a branding dilemma

Just who is your brand attracting?

The demographics and psychographics of your major customer types really is as much a part of your brand as its mission statement, name or logo -whether you like it or not! This is particularly true for the brand of a retail outlet, but also for a service provider.

So the question to explore is: are the people I attract to my business the ones I am actually targeting. Am I discouraging those not compatible with my customers and prime prospects?

Oil and water don't mix. Sometimes customers don't either.

Here are a couple of hypothetical examples

Let’s say I wish to cater to the men in a working class neighborhood. I’ve directed all my promotional efforts, including sponsoring a bowling team, to attract these guys. But what if, probably because of an influential local blogger, professionals and society types begin frequenting my establishment to partake of its “quant ambience and really spicy home-made sausage”. Suppose my “regulars” then move a couple of blocks south to my competitors bar, and in a few months the Yuppies also move on to the next “experience”. Now I’m known for a operating a “quiet place where a drunk can be left alone”. What has happened to my brand?

Or perhaps I’m a chiropractor with a thriving practice nurturing senior citizens, and all at once my reputation for laser procedures begins attracting marathon runners and downhill skiers. Do I change my brand to appeal to the new clientele, and possibly lose my original patient base? Do I discourage the athletes and refer them elsewhere? Or do I possibly form a parallel practice so I can accommodate and appeal to both segments? Or, if I’m like most unsophisticated branders, do I just enjoy a dual practice for as long as it lasts, and then become just another chiropractor: unfocused, undifferentiated, unknown.

I don’t know many branding professionals who address this problem, or offer solutions to it.

Here’s my first take about the whole thing:

Identify and target market segments early on and find out from representatives of that group (or those groups if they are compatible) what they want, not only in terms of product or service, but also where they’ll go to get it, how much they’re willing to pay for it, and what it will take for them to refer other like-minded people to the business. (Remember, the main reason people refer others to great places is so they’ll “look good and feel good”).

Next, I’d determine who my target customers would find undesirable to associate with. Yes, that’s snobbish, or at least exclusive. But the people who frequent Hooters probably wouldn’t want to sit at a table next to a group of Red Hatters of a Friday evening.

I’d also locate my business in the right neighborhood, advertise in the right media and participate in the right events and sponsor the right causes.

And I’d create a tagline that both attracts my target members and repels segments my target customers are not comfortable with. I’d reinforce this tag with trade dress, graphics and employees that attract my market members and discourage others. Then I’d make sure that part of my messaging would attempt to discourage the “undesirables” with subtlety and tack.

If you’ve ever accidentally walked in to a prestigious brokerage firm to ask the receptionist for directions, you’ve probably felt as uncomfortable there as I was the last time I was on the 24th floor of the Petroleum Club Building..

No one can prevent that rabid blogger from recommending a hole-in-the-wall restaurant, or a family of six wandering into an exclusive men’s club. But by defining segments precisely, determining what is comfortable/enjoyable for them, and being very specific in conveying the right messaging and imaging to embrace the target market and discourage the non-targeted, you’ll be able to control the brand and its meaning…most of the time.

I’d appreciate any comments regarding the problem and the solutions I’ve proposed.

Post from:

Source of info and strongly-held opinions about branding and positioning

Branding related posts:

1. Patrons define the brand, and they’re integral to it
2. A new definition of branding.
3. Branding Basics: Step Five
4. Branding: a function of strategy
5. Branding Basics – Step 4

The smaller the company, the higher up the corporate ladder responsibility for brand management should reside.

Brand management requires strategic perspective

That’s not only a matter of headcount, it’s a matter of vision. That’s because there’s so much more to branding than maintaining its exterior trappings. Almost every important decision involving employees, customers, suppliers and other stakeholders will have an effect on the brand, as will decisions concerning the business model, product development and corporate structure.

Every decision should be factored by this question: “How will this decision impact our corporate brand and our product brands?” The vision to answer this question comes only from the strategic perspective of the top executive.

So if you’re managing a business, I implore you to not delegate the corporate brand.

Corporate branding: not a marketing function

A common practice is to make the corporate brand a responsibility of the marketing department. In the old paradigm of product branding, brand managers were usually part of the marketing organization. And rightly so because their duties were to market the products they were assigned.

But a corporate brand is much larger and valuable than a product brand. It’s a long-range strategic asset that differentiates the company from its competitors by establishing and maintaining an attitude and personality to which stakeholders are drawn. It’s the corporate promise, its story, its demonstration of values and its consistency of action. These are not the elements by which marketing is usually judged.

One additional caveat: By no means allow a sale-driven marketing force – one in which a sales manager and a marketing manager report to a marketing VP – hold sway over the branding function, corporate or product. In my experience, sales people in this situation will out-shout their marketing counterparts and always opt for decisions of a short-sighted nature. I mean discounting, couponing and other tactics that might boost sales so they can meet this quarter’s goals.

Sacrificing the corporate brand is not worth it

This may seem to provide an additional responsibility to an already full agenda, but is there anything more important than building a reputation upon which your corporate growth will depend?

Remember, branding is a strategic process. It should be in the hands of the Chief Strategic Officer.

Post from:

Source of info and strongly-held opinions about branding and positioning

Branding related posts:

1. Brand Management – where should it reside?
2. Corporate Branding is not a middle-management activity
3. Branding Basics: Step Five
4. Brand the Business or Brand Its Offerings?
5. Branding: a function of strategy

Corporate brand is executive responsibility

When it comes to branding the company, direct access to the CEO and other senior staff members is essential. After all, they are the folks who set the direction, determine the values, vision and mission for the company, and reflect the corporate personality and culture.

So if the corporate brand – aka corporate identity – is to be true to corporate conduct and goals, top management must set the tone and approve both the process and the outcome.

Should outside consultants be brought on board? What kind of structure within the company will be in place to develop and monitor brand activities? How will the brand “age” when future planning is considered? How will new products be branded under the corporate brand? All these issues and more need to be considered by senior staff.

Unless top management is involved and passionate about branding and positioning, there will probably be a fragmented branding effort. You may find the need to modify or even attempt to acquire a new brand identity in a very short time without management involvement in the initial branding process.

Post from:

Source of info and strongly-held opinions about branding and positioning

Branding related posts:

1. Brand Management in smaller companies
2. Brand Management – where should it reside?
3. Branding and corporate identity
4. Branding: a function of strategy
5. Brand the Business or Brand Its Offerings?

In today’s Brandchannel feature, Brandspeak, Ted Mininni writes a commentary called, Advertising Is Dead, Long Live Packaging. It’s a well-reasoned argument for more attention to packaging as an integral branding element, and worth reading.

Packaging is obviously important in consumer purchasing of foods, cosmetics and health products. I’ll bet every one of us have stood in the grocery or drug store isle looking for a particular brand, only to have to ask an employee to point it out for you.. It’s embarrassing, but it’s not my fault. It could be my choice is packaged like all the rest. Or my choice might be so popular that others think they can “steal” sales by copying the familiar package. Or my favorite might just be packaged poorly.

But other product categories, from auto parts to computer printers, can be differentiated through packaging. HP – Hewlett-Packard – does a pretty good job of identifying their products through the multi-color package designs. Their HP blue, logo treatment and placement, product illustration and type selection are consistent throughout their product line. But they’re the exception.

“Packaging” for personal and business service companies is expressed through signage, décor and arrangement. It’s best known in the service industries as “trade dress”.

It is just as vital an element to service providers as packaging is for consumer goods.

So, as you develop your brand, as you build your branding platform, be sure packaging is an integrated element, not just an afterthought.

Martin Jelsema
303-242-5975

Post from:

Source of info and strongly-held opinions about branding and positioning

Branding related posts:

1. Brands deserve a palette of color
2. If I offer a “Choice” have I differentiated my brand?
3. Naming Tips – Number 35 in a Series.
4. Should there be different approaches between B-2-B and B-2-C branding?
5. Branding and corporate identity

Usually this incredibility comes from specific ad campaigns rather than from a brand platform. How do I know? Because they’re vacuous.

Strong brands are built upon core values. They’re differentiated from competitors based on attributes the brands actually possess. Thus, believability and credibility are inherent in the brands themselves.

But let the ad agency “creatives” begin writing taglines and headlines as they interpret that platform and the research that accompanies it and the ideas get skewed and exaggerated.

Take today’s example, for instance.

Subaru’s newest TV ads depict folks, one after another, “lovingly” caring for their Subarus. The payoff is this insipid tagline: “Love: It’s what makes Subaru a Subaru”

It’s a distortion. I’m sure Subaru research says that a certain percentage of their customers say they “love” their Subarus. That’s fine. But from there to the idea that love makes Subarus is a giant step.

I’d also suggest that the slogan does not differentiate Subaru from its competitors, nor does it resonate with car buyers who may admit to loving their vehicles but don’t switch to another make because Subaru says their cars are made from love.

No, Subaru was sold a bill of goods. Their agency short-changed them.

It’s a campaign and a brand without substance.

Martin Jelsema
303-242-5975

Post from:

Source of info and strongly-held opinions about branding and positioning

Branding related posts:

1. Brands that make me scoff – Toyota Matrix
2. Brands that make you scoff
3. Get your Hyundai luxury car before they’re all gone.
4. Brands That Make You Scoff – FirstBank
5. What makes a strong tagline?

Martin Jelsema

Post from:

Source of info and strongly-held opinions about branding and positioning

Branding related posts:

1. One last blog on the rebranding of AutoNation
2. Brands that make you scoff
3. Brands that make me scoff – Toyota Matrix
4. Naming Tips – Number 38 in a Series
5. Owner-Originated “Nicknames” Replacing Brand Names?

I guess that’s why they’re called claims, instead facts.

Lately I’ve become aware of the many marketers claiming their product/process/materials to be eco-friendly. But then you read the fine print, or you find there is no fine print. No substantiation. Or weak substantiation.

The research says “Green is good – people would rather buy green products”. So let’s give them what they want. Here’s an example.

I bought a bottle of water today (there was no bubbler in the building!) The maker, Arrowhead Mountain Spring Water Co., a division of Nestlé, boasted their water was contained in an “Eco-Shape Bottle™”. Then there’s a line stating, “Our bottle looks and feels different because it’s purposely designed with an average of 30% less plastic* to be easier on the environment. The asterisk points to this line, Versus comparable size, leading beverage brands.”

I took physics in high school. I remember something about volume. I seem to remember that the surface area of a container might change shape but would be constant for a given volume of liquid. So the only way this bottle could contain 30% less plastic and contain the same volume as other bottles would be that it is a third thinner.

Now this may be the case. But they didn’t say so. They made their explanation laborious. For those who didn’t study and think this through, it’s incredulous. It’s almost laughable. Specially designed to look and feel different and be eco-friendly.

My point: if you have to explain a complicated concept, or if you must just make an unsubstantiated claim, perhaps it’s not in your best interest to promote that feature.

Or just admit you’ve found a way to make flimsier bottle that’ll still do the job, and that we’ll save 30% of our materials cost. Ann yes, it might have a favorable impact on the environment.

By now, you’ve probably guessed I’m after Andy Rooney’s job on 60-Minutes.

Yes, I may be cynical. But again, I want my brand to stand the test of cynics and then be loved by them, in part for my honest and simple presentation of the facts.

Martin Jelsema
303-242-5975   

Post from:

Source of info and strongly-held opinions about branding and positioning

Branding related posts:

1. Can a company “own” green?
2. Differentiating Your Brand By Design
3. Customers brand B2B companies
4. Color and Branding – Number 4 in a series.
5. Sequencing your brand development

I’ve been using a company called Opex Communications for my phone needs for quite some time.

First, they were my long distance carrier. Then they provided my cell phone service. And when we moved two years ago, my voip phone system.

I no longer use a cell phone – found I could do without very nicely, just as I had for some 60-plus years.

I had great things to say about Opex – both price and service were top-notch.

Then something happened.

Suddenly on February 26 I began getting a “disconnect” beeping sound on and no service. I went to their web site and found that they had me not paying my bill for the past two months.

Now I’ve taken to paying many bills through my bank’s epay program. Saves stamps and gets my creditors on-time payments. That’s Wells Fargo bank: quite reputable with a good system for epayments.

Anyway, I checked with Wells Fargo and found the payments I made to Opex weren’t going through. So I paid Opex over their epay program with a credit card.

I then borrowed a friend’s phone and called Opex to get the phone re-connected.

An aside, Opex promotes its “Best in Class” Customer Service. And until last week, I would have agreed with them, even though I hadn’t had occasion to contact them for over two years.

Anyway, after about a 15-minute wait, I talked to a rep. He verified that I had made the payment. He also said they had moved from Illinois to California in 2007, and possibly that’s why my payments weren’t being processed. Sure enough, Wells Fargo was still using the old address. But no one had informed me or Wells Fargo of the change.

Anyway, the rep then said the service would be restored within 24-hours. That was last Wednesday. I still have no service.

I’ve emailed them four times. Each email received an automated response saying I would get a personal response within 48 hours. I did finally get an email last Friday stating they were sorry for the inconvenience and if it wasn’t restored by Monday to get back to them. Monday – no service. I sent another email. And another one today. No service, no response.

This is a company with “Best in Class” service? I wonder what class they’re operating in now.

Okay. End of rant. I’ll be without a phone now until I get Vonage as my voip carrier.

So, just what happened to the Opex brand? Their brand promise, Best in Class service, was broken, never to be rebuilt in my mind. They will not get a recommendation from me again. Yes, I had recommended them several times before.

How critical is customer service?  Greatly critical to someone without a phone. When that happens, I would expect my phone company to be concerned. In the first place, I’d want them to see the problem from my point of view. I’d want them to set up a system where people without a phone could get better than 48-hour response to an email. It’s vital that a company look at customer service from the customer’s viewpoint. When they don’t, what they do can no longer be considered customer service.

The brand is every touch point, i.e., every encounter a customer or prospect has with a company, be it web site, email system, phone rep, packaging, service quality, aroma, or many other signals and messages and attributes of a brand. The brand may not be able to satisfy all customers through these touchpoints, but the most critical, like service delivery, need immediate attention.

I first went to Opex because of great dissatisfaction with Qwest. I won’t go back to Qwest – like most folks, my resentments are deep and long-lasting. I’ll just be adding Opex to the list of bad choices and move on.

Their loss.

Martin Jelsema
303-242-5975

Post from:

Source of info and strongly-held opinions about branding and positioning

Branding related posts:

1. Brands that make you scoff
2. Branding on the Internet
3. Can the Brand Short-Circuit Direct Response Sales?
4. A Brand New Blog About Branding
5. Customers brand B2B companies