There are lots of ways to measure brand value. For marketers it’s a very important metric, which is why they often end up spending large amounts of money trying to measure it. It occurred to me yesterday that, while not perfect, eBay provides a very good way to measure the value of a brand. This thought sprang from the fact that the Blackberry Playbook is already being sold at a discount on eBay. For a product that has only just been launched this speaks volumes for the current state of the Blackberry brand. Indeed eBay can give you a very accurate read on consumer sentiment towards the ‘value’ of a brand through this kind of price analysis. eBay can go further though. The site gives you a clear sense of the popularity of a product both by the volume of products being sold and by the number of bids on each product. Lastly it gives you a measure for the reliability of a brand. Search on digital cameras and you will find a host of ‘broken’ items. If you were to tally the number of broken items as a percentage of those for sale by brand you would a) demonstrate what a sad geek you were and b) get a read on how reliable that product was. I’m sure people with more brainpower and time than I have could come up with a host of other eBay metrics that would help derive the value of brands. At the very least though, I would highly recommend that marketers scour eBay to get a sense of the competition and of the community around their or their clients’ products.
The race is on for agencies to build their digital assets. Get it right and PR firms will grow faster than they have in decades. Get it wrong and they’ll have a struggle on their hands. So as agency heads look at their talent base and their potential new hires, they have a tough question to answer. Do they hire experienced marketing professionals who have some digital skills or the typically younger, more digitally literate who have only limited experience? Sadly for the more experienced group, the answer appears to be that agencies are trending towards hiring younger digerati, rather than grey hairs. This in turn is reshaping agency structures, product offerings, and pricing. To twist an old saying, we are who we hire. With agencies moving from a classic pyramid model towards something that looks more like a coat hanger, the opportunities for today’s experienced professionals are becoming fewer by the day. Is this fair? Probably not but this drive to hire younger, cheaper talent is in part the result of another force, not just digital. Client procurement departments have acted like sand paper on PR budgets for years and have increasingly made it more desirable to hire doers over strategists.
Most agencies are racing to build a ‘new’agency on top of their existing one. While they do need some experience to prevent the thing from collapsing in heap, what they need most is staff that can get on and ‘do’ at a price point that makes the investments the agencies are making viable. This effectively forces agencies to hire lower cost staff. These of course tend to be kids from college who have no real experience but can tell you anything you want to know about Facebook and Twitter. For this generation, SEO is a form of grammer and html was a choice alongside Spanish and French at school. Given a brand is now defined by the size and strength of its social network, it’s hardly surprising that many agencies will value these skills over someone who has known the editors at a business publication for a decade.
So is it all doom and gloom for us oldies? Far from it. We can start and build these new agencies, they do after all need some adult supervision. We can also explore the boundaries of owned, earned and paid media. These are the places where real value lies and where experience can really come to the fore. But we cannot assume that because we have decades of experience that our futures are secure. We have to bring something of value to the transition to digital. Identifying what this is is crucial and could yet save the careers of many. We are in an era of marketing where the value of experience is trending downward. In years to come that will of course change as digital becomes the norm but for now the digital natives are set to become the new leaders. That may not be what people want to hear but our industry is, like many, Darwinian. In our case the fittest are the digerati.
In the last few years, PR people have rightly stopped talking about stories and started talking about conversations. The idea being that brands can start or join conversations that their customers are interested in, or are already having. They can do this by contributing news, perspective, insight and raw content. This shift is both important to the way PR is carried out and to the role it plays in the marketing process. It opens new doors and new budgets for an industry that has long believed it deserves a bigger slice of the marketing pie. But I’d like to remind PR people about something advertisers have known for a long time. Getting our attention doesn’t necessarily mean engaging in a conversation with us. My daughter’s laptop can often get her attention without any information being exchanged. She simply enjoys watching entertaining content, or playing some mindless game. She is no different from any of us in this respect. We all have parts to our day when we simply want someone to take over our brains and let us escape. Advertisers have figured this out to the extent that during some computer games, such as a car racing game, you will see billboards advertising products. They recognize that the brands that ‘sponsor’ escapism are as important as the brands that sponsor educating us about the important issues of the day or the decisions we have to make.
Now the idea of creating content that helps people escape isn’t something you hear a lot in PR meetings. PR meetings tend to be all about getting the message across in an increasingly noisy market. But what if you created content such as a game or a video that was just so darned entertaining that people WANTED to watch it AND they knew your brand had sponsored this little mental vacation? Wouldn’t that be just as powerful as that major news item you were hoping to get someone to blog about? I’m not for a minute suggesting that we all ditch conversation management and move to entertainment. I’m simply suggesting that digital channels open the doors for PR to much more than just conversations. Try this on for size in your next PR brainstorm. Oh and happy 2011.
It’s every marketing chief’s goal: brand loyalty. Achieve this and you have a revenue stream for life, even if your next product isn’t quite as good as your last. Some brands achieve this status for periods of time but few can sustain it over more than a few years. Apple has it right now, Ford used to to have it, Coke has had it for decades. It’s arguable that Coke has been able to maintain such loyalty because it hasn’t really had to change its core product. They tried to and it almost cost them that loyalty. Instead, they’ve tinkered with the packaging and played around with the distribution. Outside the food and drink category, it’s hard to find products that have endured and brands that maintain loyalty. This is because innovation constantly threatens brand loyalty. But does it?
While watching the world cup, you couldn’t help but notice the immense pride people have in their nations. The painted faces and died hair, the regrettable tattoos and the silly costumes all demonstrate a level of national loyalty most brands can only dream of. Indeed, I can’t think of a brand that has ever manged to get thousands of people to dress up, paint their face etc without being paid to do it. In short, we show unwavering support for our nations and are prepared to even die for them (well some are) even though they have given us little more than a birth certificate, passport and a tax bill. Indeed it would seem that national loyalty is real loyalty. It isn’t paid for by the nation, it is simply given by its citizens. If this is real loyalty, then what is brand loyalty? Brand loyalty it would seem is just a current infatuation. It is a kind of love affair that in most cases ends with all the inevitability of a high school romance. Looked at it in this way, brand loyalty becomes a very different challenge. To keep a love affair going is very different to simply maintaining a relationship. Love affairs are all about passion and romance. They require you to constantly think of the other person, to be creative and spontaneous. So next time you are in a meeting and the conversation turns to brand loyalty, be sure to show your passionate side. It may well spark a really good conversation.
Let me be clear – I’m one of those people that hates trade shows. I’m not good at small talk, I hate all the hassle of trade shows, the lines, the crappy gifts, wearing a name tag etc etc. Indeed I hate them so much that I’ve been predicting their death for years. Yet as the big consumer electronics (CES) show gets underway in Las Vegas this week, it’s clear that these trade shows have a role in their industries. They create a deadline by which companies have to make decisions, they create meeting places where collaboration on future projects start; and they create a showcase for the introduction of products both good and bad. In short they are a good way of getting people to pull their fingers out and get stuff either done or started.
In general I know the trade show business has been through years of decline. Apple doesn’t even attend Mac World anymore and once famous shows like COMDEX have vanished. For those of you who weren’t around for the COMDEX madness, hotel rooms were like gold dust and cab lines in Vegas were routinely over an hour long. But they did have great parties. Even without shows like COMDEX there are still plenty of major shows around. What seems to happen is that someone either evolves the content of the show or the format (or both) to stay in lock step with the way the industries they serve are evolving. That said it is somewhat inevitable that trade shows will get smaller. With social media tools now so prevalent, many of use don’t need to attend the show to get the news and feel like we were there. Indeed the only part we really miss is the networking. And let’s be honest, not much truly valuable networking takes place at these shows that couldn’t take place elsewhere.
I therefore confidently, without any hesitation whatsoever, formally predict that trade shows will carry on existing. They’ll just be different from the way they are today. How’s that for a stunning prediction? More seriously though I think the really successful shows will be smaller and more focused and their format will evolve in ways it’s hard to imagine today. COMDEX crashed and burned after it opened itself up to the public. That turned the show from a must attend event into a must avoid event. At the same time conferences such as TED and D appear to be flourishing. This shows that people still crave the content and the connections. They simply want to consume them in a smaller, more exclusive environment.
Trade shows are by definition, for the trade. So unless your trade is so big that you really do need 200,000 people to attend your show, then an event that pulls in a small fraction of that number seems destined to be a better route. Long live the specialist, awfully small trade show, that I’m not invited to.
I just read a short book that interviewed advertising guru Charles Saatchi, of Saatchi & Saatchi fame. In it he refers to a period in advertising when people actually looked forward to commercial breaks because the advertising was that entertaining. People it seems looked forward to the latest ad from brands in the way they now get excited about the next movie staring their favorite celebrity. I remember that era and he’s right. I recall wanting to see the latest Levi ad before the start of a movie. The closest we get to this now is a Budweiser ad during the Superbowl. That’s sad. Very sad.
My point here is that marketing should entertain as well as inform. It should get us on the edge of our seats waiting to be sold to. In a way Apple has adopted this approach by on the one hand helping fuel rumors about its latest products (see all the rumors around the tablet for example) and on the other making sure it says nothing publicly. In short we are all dying to find out what Apple will do next. This is a launch though, so building hype is to be expected. But what can brands do to build expectation into their marketing AFTER a product is launched? I’d argue that marketing has lost the art of entertaining and is too wrapped up in having a dialog that is focused on the ‘key points.’ Talking about the key points after the news is out gets, well, boring. Also, as a consumer I don’t want to spend all my time in a serious conversation with a brand. I want that brand to entertain me, surprise and even shock me. Not in the Tiger Woods way perhaps but you get my drift.
2009 was a year when everyone feared for their jobs and people ran a mile from risk. In the race to avoid risk, they also avoided anything that was just plain fun. Please let’s not repeat that in 2010. Let’s create marketing programs that have a serious conversation but which also engage with customers in other, less serious ways. Ways that may be harder to rationalize but which we all know just plain work. Let’s have a Happy New Year.
The popularity of YouTube is undeniable. This promoted me to see if it could be used to rank major brands. While highly unscientific in some ways and slightly unreliable in others, I used the search engine in YouTube to see which major brands got the most clips when you search by their name.
The results were:
Brand Number of clips
Disney 224,000 <— I guess they ought to have a lot of content!
Google 97,000 <— they own YouTube…
Coca Cola 34,400
Now this research took about 5 minutes and as you can probably tell was based on a list of brand names I pulled form an old Fortune article plus a few names I threw in. It wouldn’t be hard to do some more detailed research using the YouTube site and search engine to get a sense of how many clips are appearing each day by brand etc. As it stands I can’t find a way of seeing which brand has the most number of clips associated other than by trial and error. Perhaps YouTube could issue a press release with that data?
Anyway, for those people looking to help big brands with their marketing, it seems YouTube provides a pretty simple way to score companies. There are of course some difficulties and these relate largely to the way the search engines work. For example if you put in ‘Ford’ as a search topic you will get a lot of clips that have nothing to do with Ford Motor Company showing up. Conversely if you put in Ford Motor Company it will only list those clips where people took the trouble to tag the clip with the full name. So YouTube is far from perfect but once again we do at least have another quick and cost effective measurement tool available.
Just for fun I also checked to see what the numbers were like for the bigger PR firms. The results were:
Text 100 312
Hill & Knowlton 18
Weber Shandwick 4
Fleishman Hillard 2
As you can see, the PR agencies have some way to go to catch the big brands….