Rocket Branding

https://rocketbranding.com/index.php/use-your-words/
Check out new blog. Complicated times for branding🚀

EXTREME BRANDING GONE AWRY
Extreme Branding is alive and well. Nike jumped into the deep end of civil rights with Kaepernick’s Anthem kneeling. Now Gillette has followed suit with a not so subtle attack on ‘masculine toxicity.’

I get it! Gillette, like Nike, wants to make sure their global mega brand is relevant to the younger males who appear to be more sensitive to social purpose.

Nike played on their enduring, ‘Just Do It,’ campaign. Gillette is using their long time, ‘The Best a Man Can Get’ platform.

One can look at this from a business view and say bravo. Gillette’s viral buzz is on fire; brand awareness or re-awareness is rocketing and should continue so through the hyped Super Bowl season.

Nike’s sales were reportedly up after their campaign launched and although their effort turned off some loyal users, it has apparently worked for younger audiences. Time will tell. As one young friend said, ‘At least they had the courage to use their money to help make things better.”

I asked the same young person what they thought of the new Gillette campaign and he said, “Stupid. I don’t need some shaving company lecturing me on how I should be.”

Oops!

Of course this was just one person’s view, but it doesn’t take more than a Google minute to see that he was not alone. One report showed twice as many dislikes as likes.

Scanning through the comments, unlike Nike, which tended to be about social conscience for all, Gillette’s approach hits a more personal note.

Nike did not lecture the viewer on his or her role in civil liberty issues. They were celebrating Kaepernick’s individual right to ‘Just Do It.’ You can argue with the way he protested but at the same time you cannot argue with everyone’s rights to justice.

Gillette on the other hand may have made a bad mistake.

Did they take the right stand? Who are they talking to?

No question, the movement has put a spotlight on sexual harassment, and yes, bullying has come to the fore today in really nasty ways including suicides and school shootings.

But, and this is a big ‘but’, not all males are bullies or sexual predators as this campaign seems to imply. These aren’t rampant diseases that every male indulges in. Maybe more was tolerated in the 50’s and 60’s as in the footage they showed, but not today.

In fact, data shows that females are just as likely to bully. Social media can be decidedly mean. A black eye is not good but it can heal. Being socially ostracized can hurt for a long time.

And BTW, on a purely personal note the phrase ‘boys will be boys’ is something I have heard just as often in my life from females and mothers. And why did the producer shoot men as though they were standing against a wall like in all the thousands of firing squad movies we’ve seen?

Gillette took a movement against those males that sexually harassed to a platform indicting every male’s behavior and their duty to the next generation of males to boot!

Do males really need a shaving brand to lecture them on the bad behavior of a few and their supposed collective masculine toxicity? I think not and unfortunately their attempt at what I call Extreme Branding has and will backfire for some time to come. After all switching shaving brands is not a big decision and Gillette is by no means unique. It is harder to move away from Nike products.

Hopefully they are going to evolve this campaign back to the original basis of the ‘The Best a Man’ campaign by celebrating the admirable aspects of manhood as opposed to taking on a gratuitous grandstanding attack on masculinity.

Perhaps P&G should have taken note of Bud Light’s highly successful, ‘Dilly, Dilly!’ campaign where taking a stand ‘for the many and not the few’ actually works.

Or more so look at their own excellent history of taking aging brands and reintroducing them to the young. I helped P&G do so in the successful re-launching Old Spice and Head and Shoulders brands.

P&G’s Dawn Detergent’s, saving at-risk wildlife campaign is one of the more brilliant pieces of Extreme Branding I have seen. Their platform of strength and mildness was taken to an even higher level when they moved it into the ugly tragedy of oil spoils.

So what are the lessons here?

Extreme branding can certainly re-activate the presence and potential relevance of a brand to new generations but it can also backfire in profound ways.

Some tips:

1. Pick your poison carefully.
It is fine for the brand to have an Extreme Branding platform but this is not about a strategy looking for a noisy cause. It is about authentic and related beliefs.

2. Don’t overstate your brand’s role.
A brand can certainly educate, inform and at times be very persuasive on social issues. Chances are that many more eyeballs are going to see the Gillette advertising than may read the news. So be sure you know what the role of the brand’s message is out there and make sure you are turning a lot more on than off, or you will be hurting the very cause you are trying to help.

3. Be Smart.
Extreme Branding is a long-term strategy. Treat it as such and fight the battle to win overtime. Don’t just pop your head up, yell a little and then sit back down. Where Gillette goes next can well determine their fate in my mind at least.

What say you?

EXTREME BRANDS
Can brands compete without taking a side on toxic socio-political issues? Do brands need to have a voice in today’s highly polarized, public arena where extreme views seem to dominate?

Are cushy corporate messages about saving everything enough to portray social sensitivities or do they need to go further?

Well, you can argue that Nike has indeed crossed that line.

Nike’s bold campaign, supporting the NFL’s Colin Kaepernick’s stand (mind the pun) against police actions is worth pondering in this extreme branding context.

Edgy celeb campaigns are not new for Nike. They have supported controversial sports stars. However, until now the controversy stayed within the confines of sport. Tennis’s on-court, bad-boy John McEnroe was an early figure for Nike and today’s big Nike names, like Tiger Woods, Ronaldinho, and Serena Williams are not without their public issues, but again in all these, Nike has held their involvement to within the sports context.

Kaepernick’s case is not about competing on the sports field. Nike has decided to celebrate his right to ‘believe in something.' Fine, standing up for one’s rights is all-American and admirable but Nike has moved outside sports and into the arenas with heavily divided public opinion, like violence, racism and respecting America.

Yes, one could argue that Kaepernicks’ stand is within the realm of sports. He is a professional footballer, and the venue for his anthem kneeling protest was on the sidelines, but his stand is not about sporting achievement.

Ok, you can also argue that the Nike brand has always been about self-motivation and individual triumph. Just Do it. Got it. But, whether Nike would agree or not, the brand is now risking turning off consumers who violently disagree with Kaepernick’s views and can act on this by burning their Nike shoes, switching to others like Adidas and even banning Nike gear (as a Louisiana Mayor has reportedly done.).

At stake could be Nike’s respect for four American institutions ... sports, the Police, the minority/social justice advocates and the National Anthem and Flag. In one action they have poked these huge hornet's nests of emotion, angst, and outrage. Each with its full complement of extreme views.

According to a recent Reuters study, 72% of Americans agreed that Kaepernick’s behavior was inappropriate. NFL viewership is down.

Nike sales will plummet!

However, they have not. There was stock market resistance and videos of people burning their shoes, but sales were actually reported to increase, and even the Louisiana Mayor walked back his ban. Stocks are back up, and Wall Street and pundits are using words like ‘genius’ and ‘brilliant’ to describe Nike’s bold strategy.

How could this be? Where is the sales effect of the many with strongly opposing views?

Well, herein lies the reality. Strategically Nike brand folk may have determined that they needed to grow equity and sales for their new shoes among the younger audiences who tend to favor equality and fairness and the rights of individuals. And, who unlike their older cohorts are less vested in the traditional American icons and importantly more likely to buy directly online. What marketer would not like that going forward?

My older friends may not burn their Nike shoes but do proudly announce that they will stop buying Nike. Basically, who cares because my younger friends who represent the bigger market couldn’t care less and put Nike campaign down to ‘good marketing.’ "Its Ok they are just trying to sell their stuff."

And here is the kicker. Nike is a global brand, and like many American brands that are really global brands these days, they are less US-centric. Some 60% of Nike sales are outside the US and growing among populations, who are more likely to stand (or should I say kneel) with Kaepernick’s views.

So there it is. At the risk of gross oversimplification, the question is should brands stay in their comfort zones of keeping everyone happy or should they risk alienating some buyers by following a more active or even extreme role in populist causes?

Great question. It’s all about building your brand and future growth. And, in today's brand parlance it's also all about authenticity. As they say, you are what you believe.

It is probably a perfect time to dig deep into this strategy for your brand and see where it takes you. We'd love to help think it through with you.

BRANDING IN THE NEW NORM

Society is changing. In some cases at tectonic levels. Brand marketers beware.

Tradition is no longer the norm, and the ‘new norm’ is still working itself out.

Just a cursory squint at the world shows this.

Look at two historical ‘norm’ predictors -human relationships and business.

We now live in an increasingly global context. Thanks in part to the Internet. The traditional norm would have us protecting cultures, borders and wealth. The new norm wants us sharing and equalizing without discrimination or cultural preference.

Deep lines are drawn today between entrenched folks on either side of this bucket of issues. Whereas this is true on the surface and in the media, many homegrown views may being softening especially since populations continue to become more ethnically and culturally mixed. Adherence to traditions and values temper with each mixed marriage, migrating family and every new political and religious chapter.

The new norm is happening.

Take me for example. I am an Australian with Viking and British colonial roots, married to a Greek-born American with a long, proud, Hellenic heritage. Our children have a healthy dose of all these cultures. They will carry mixed values forward to undoubtedly more rich mixtures. 100% anything is no longer the norm, and black and white issues are more in the realm of earth tones in this new racially, hyper-sensitive, earth-loving, everyone-shares world.

And speaking of changing population mix. The poorer classes are having children while the middle and upper socio-economic couples are more likely to be having pets or alternative life partners. With each new year, decade and generation these factors we will dictate everything from the food we eat to the brands we buy, the people we see and the work we do. It already has. Did you know that Mahummed, in one form or another, is one of the most popular names for new baby boys in the UK today?

What actors or ‘actor persons’ do you portray in your mainstream TV commercials? Probably not all white? Or all black, or brown or yellow? Right?

Take the test. Watch 15 mainstream commercials tonight and tell me what the ethnicity of the main actors are? I see a lot of whitish faces with semblances of African, Hispanic and Asian features. A universal colorless being.

Political leadership as well is now anything but traditional and may never be again ( ) and unfortunately, the ‘religion’ that is getting the most attention and new members all over the world, is hell bent on murdering innocents.

And lastly on the point of the new norm for human relationships. Look how we communicate today. It is evident the monumental changes digital is having on the universe, but even beyond that, it is quite amazing to me how limited traditional free speech has become. A mere slight reference or private utterance of any of the letter words (‘n,' ‘H,' ‘q') can get you fired, threatened and publicly ridiculed beyond redemption. You now have to watch your ‘ps and ‘qs literally.

So to business. Several prominent CEO’s just pulled out of Trump’s business committees on the basis of his supposed, racially insensitive comments.

CEO now has to have a clear and public opinion about highly charged social issues. Most American Fortune ‘bigs’ derive business worldwide. They no longer compete purely on a US basis either for revenues or talent. And, if in the past, the C-level could hide behind Annual Reports and ‘corporate spokespeople’ they are now being called upon to enunciate their company’s global ‘Purpose’ and ‘Shared Values.'

Business can no longer hide from the new norm.

It’s a slippery slope when a brand gets's it wrong. Pepsi’s widely lambasted attempt at ‘unity and peace’ in its Kendal Kardashian commercial certainly exemplifies that.

Mainstream brands could once hide from serious social issues in their consumer marketing. Corporate philanthropic activities sufficed. Not anymore. If brands do not understand how to navigate through these far-reaching and rapidly evolving new norms, then they can quickly lose relevance to new generations.

Oh and here’s a clincher. Your company name is now a brand. Whether it is the name on what you sell or not, it is, and it will be a factor in purchase and buy decisions. And no, B2B companies are not excluded from this.

Claims like Made in America and Proud Sponsor of the US Olympics etc. are examples of company/brand messages that straddle product benefit and quarzi social comment. But are they enough in this highly charged environment?

So do branders pick a side on any of the big ‘ism’ issues (like racism, elitism, terrorism, materialism, populism and so on) or just stay the heck away from these and concentrate on selling the advantages of their products and services?

Or could they win hearts and minds by owning one of the softer ‘new norm’ issues like peace, unity, literacy and of course whales?

Indeed the company, product or service you brand can dictate this. Soap makers can proffer a safer, cleaner environment. And do. Coffee makers can support indigenous farm sharing, and environmental packaging and pet product producers have no end of abused puppies to love. And, well, of course, P&G’s Dawn sure cleans oil-spill, drenched ducks.

I wonder, however, if this is going to be enough for the new norm, particularly for big mainstream players. Focused new upstarts risk far less by taking on the hard issues. Yes, Ford and GM can attempt to cater to earth-friendly fuels but here is Tesla, by all accounts a new big player in the auto industry.

So what to do?

1. Hire ahead. Not Behind. Take a leaf out of Clayton Christensen’s book, Innovator’s Dilemma. Just as he recommended not relying on your current people to innovate the next new products, don’t rely on your traditionalists to build your company’s role or at least position it in the new norm world.

2. Play Long Ball. There is no quick fix here. Plan for the long-term with the same amount of careful rigor as you would have with financial and ops planning.

3. Listen and Learn. Don’t rely on the media to inform on the new norm. They quite frankly do not have a clue what is going on today. Many have still not internalized that a new POTUS was voted in. This, mostly because they are looking at everything through traditional lenses. Big mistake. Go to the source ... the people. And listen. They may not give you the answers, but they can certainly help you frame the questions.

No, this is not going away, and it isn't finished. The new norm is here and evolving. Strap in and enjoy the ride.

What say you?

How Brands Survive Bricks to Clicks

There is nothing sadder, I think than seeing an empty space in a shopping center, once filled by a vibrant, bustling retailer.

E-commerce is no longer a new growth segment. It is now shaping the future of retailing. Aided and abetted of course by savvy consumers who shop the retail options they want, without moving more than their finger.

Yes, we get it. This is not news. And ‘brick’ retailers are already finding ways to marry ‘bricks with clicks'... personalized offers, store pick-up/return, etc.

But now Amazon is reported to be acquiring premier food retailer Whole Foods. Bricks and clicks galore.

There are all sorts of predictions and scenarios on what this will mean to traditional brick retailers. Especially as it relates to the future of large format retailers? Do we really need to battle our way to and through the local Costco, Target or Wal-Mart? Why can’t we buy online and have them battle their way to us? Uber of everything?

And more to the point (as it always is) why do we, consumers, have to pay for that large space (as we always will). Give us what we want in an affordable, convenient way, and we’ll take it every time. And that probably means that we won't be paying for the real estate taxes, utilities, and wages that the local, debt-ridden municipalities will seek from your ‘big box’ facilities.

What does this all mean to traditional brand retailers?

So you are a brand that has spent years, if not decades, building its reputation and support through the shopping experience.

You may be like a local hardware store that thrived for years near me with its jam-packed shelves and friendly staff. Customers walked in with some piece from a broken old faucet and walked out with the right part and emboldened with the knowledge of how to fix it. You survived a Home Depot opening near by and a move to a bigger space. But you couldn’t compete on price and still pay the costs to keep your doors open. You are now a large empty space in a strip mall.

What do you need to do to survive this rather miserable scenario?

Hey, brighten up. You own the one thing that no new brand or new online store can ever have. You have been successful in brick and mortar shopping for a long time. Chances are you have built a familiar and trusted brand relationship with your local community. There is absolutely no reason why your brand reputation will not transfer to the digital world and be even more successful.

It is really as simple as understanding your brand story.

Take that hardware store above. I cannot get anywhere near the same help or solutions from Home Depot or any website as I once did from that store. Even if I had somehow I wouldn’t feel as confident or supported.

So set up a ‘knowledge’ site with video integration where I can connect, show you my broken faucet. You’ll help. If I need a part you’ll deliver it from a supply warehouse (maybe have a local charity deliver and be part of your Millennial’s ‘cause related, purpose-driven community’) or you’ll send a plumber with a new faucet, etc. Whatever. The idea is that you transfer your knowledge brand story to an online retail opportunity. Site costs are still a lot cheaper than the mounting store costs.

Knowledge is the new ‘secret sauce’ in digital retailing. It is also the great equalizer. With more and changing options for every shopping item in the world, knowledge is invaluable, profitable and competitively sustainable.

Yes, I know there is a ‘depends’ comment here. How can you replicate the smell of fresh bakery online or new car leather or ogle a paper thin TV or try on the new fashion, etc.? All good issues but also creatively solvable with technology and understanding your brand message.

We believe that with rare exception ‘brick' retail brands can survive and indeed thrive in the new digital age. It's all about brand story, not bricks.

We at Rocket Branding love this stuff. Call us, and we'll help find your online brand story and profitable future.

Hope and Fear. Where Brands Thrive or Die.

Wall Street believes ‘greed’ and ‘fear’ drive financial markets. These two emotional states have also driven brand growth for decades. But something is changing and one could argue that ‘greed’ is now best stated as ‘hope’, at least for branding purposes. Disregard this change at your peril.

Let’s break it down.

‘Fear’ is easy to understand. Consider brands for insurance, medicine and security. Not the kind of products we think of first thing in the morning, or at all, if we can help it. We buy them when we fear the consequences of not doing so.

Insurance brands like Geico, Progressive and Aflac try to breakthrough this lethargy with entertaining characters - lizards, ducks (and of course the omni-present Flo) with ‘no-fuss-less-money’ approaches. They try to overcome disinterest without the heavy hand of fear. Then there is Allstate’s Mayhem campaign that hits you over the head with it. Literally.

Drug and medical brands also depend on the ‘fear and consequence’ mindset. Let’s not delve into irritable bowel syndrome and such but you see how playing on fear works to drive these brands.

‘Greed’ on the other hand is all about the things we want. A whole lot more engaging. Luxury, shiny, creamy, gooey, exotic travel, exquisite perfumes. The list goes on. Stuff that excites, pleasures and feeds our self-indulgences and social image.

Qantas Airlines enjoys one of the best safety records in the world but rarely promotes it. Comfort, service and destination are all better selling points than the scary safety notions. Car brands are notorious purveyors of greed. Sleek, sexy, fast. Volvo played the family safety card. Even though successful over the years, it has been difficult for them to also sell the performance and image of that owners seek.

If you understand where your brand competes in the ‘greed and fear’ contexts you will know how to position, message and market it.

But as mentioned at the beginning, for the first time in maybe five decades, this I believe is changing and quite profoundly so.

Fear is still fear but greed is in many ways is much less in vogue. At one time it was quite aspirational to be wealthy and successful. Big car, big home, big career. You were to be congratulated, envied and even admired.

No so much today. Perspectives have changed. The rich are still rich and even richer. But the poor populations, the environment and nature are all at higher risks and the stigma of power mongering and corruption among ‘elites’ the world over is now at a flash point. New terms like ‘clean the swamp’, ‘populist view’ and ‘purpose-driven’ marketing are emblematic of this.

I remember at one time being on the team to sell the new American Express Green Card campaign, ‘Membership has its privileges globally. It was very successful in the North America but not so internationally. To many cultures, only the ruling classes enjoyed privileges. I believe that North America has caught up with this now and again the idea of greed or excess so to speak is no loner PC.

So what do we do? Clearly consumers still want their luxuries and pleasures and will buy brands in this context. But be careful.

If your brand is supported by those over 50, I’d say be as hedonistic as you want. But if your consumer base is under 40 and Millennial then I would definitely rethink your Greed platform.

Folks under 40 have a greater sensitivity to the notion of greed partly because of the basic inequality or injustice issues, but also importantly because of uncertainty of the future and more so their future. Clearly fear has crept into greed. Some of this is real of course in terms of the health and safety of the world but some of it is also from the daily flood of negative news. Between the 24/7 broadcast news and social digital media we not only get all the negative world headlines (bad news sells) but we get on the spot, real time videos with the more scandalous zooming around the Internet at warp speed. So we not only hear the official news but also the supposedly ‘real’ backstory often from some ones’ cell phone.

We hear and see way too much of the bad stuff and it plays major havoc with our sensitivities and sense of well-being.

So here is my simple answer.

Let’s rethink ‘greed’ as ‘hope’ and if our brand needs to live in the ‘I want more’ space (formerly known as ‘greed’) be very careful how we moderate our message and present our brand. It’s not just about being better but being human. It’s not about isolated individuals but social fun and engagement. More authenticity. Less BS.

Bottom line. If you are building a brand in a ‘fear’ context go at it full blast but if you favor the ‘greed’ context then at least think long a hard about moving into a ‘hope’ context where humanity and authenticity thrive.

We love this stuff at Rocket Branding.

What say you?

The '30/30/30 Rule' Rules

30% support you and will, no matter what. 30% won’t and probably never will, and it’s the 30% in the middle that needs convincing. The other 10% never seem to matter.

In almost half a century of building branded businesses, I find this rule to be such a great tool. I don't even know where it came from. Heck, perhaps I made it up.

There is no better example than in politics. And now we may even be seeing a whole new wrinkle in the ‘30 rule’ with the new Trump White House.

Barely two weeks into his Presidency and already it is clear that the word ‘support’ in this definition is way too nice.

Clearly, some 30% do strongly support what he is trying to do. He is doing what he said he would do consistently over the last 18 months. However, there is the other 30% who do not support him at all indeed they seem to aggressively and openly hate him at some level. The 30 in the middle clearly have a bit of both. Enough of the ‘middle’ voted for him to win but my guess is that many are just waiting to see what happens before they confirm more support or not.

Interestingly, I see similar phenomena in the upcoming Super Bowl. Typically fans will fall into the three buckets with varying degrees of fanaticism for or against their team, and yes there is passion, but again there seems to be an unusually high amount of angst among the 30% non-supporters especially for the favorite, New England Patriots. Seems you either like them or hate them, a lot.

Apparently, the stronger and more dominant one is perceived to be then the more intensely the detractors are dectracting these days?

I saw the same in the UK last year with Brexit. Those for it were relatively quiet and were able to rally a greater percentage of the middle bucket than the opposition. That opposition though was much more angry and vitriolic … and remains vigilantly so.

So what does all this mean to brands and rocketing them?

Two things.

Firstly, go ahead apply the ‘30 rule' to your brand market. Yes, I know the specific percentages may change somewhat from brand to brand but think about the principle. You have a brand-building budget. Which is the best way to apply it to encourage rocket growth?

A little bit for everyone - lovers, haters, middlers? Costly.
Go after non-supporters who are tending more towards haters today? Good luck with that.

Go after lovers? Hmm, don’t you already have them and especially now as the more the haters hate, the lovers become more supportive. Possible waste of money.

What then?

Well, how about identifying the potential lovers in the middle and pushing them further into your bucket? That is turning them from supporters to advocates?
Thereby expanding the love bucket and hopefully in doing so increase brand purchases and frequency. And also importantly form an antidote to the negativity from the hater camp.

This leads to the second thought.

Beware your brand detractors.

In this new digital world, haters are more vocal and gather as ‘victims-in-arms.' They can and will mount noisy and emotional campaigns to the middle folk. This can be very nasty, personal and disrupting. Trump’s case again.

Of course the term haters maybe a tad strong for those negative to your brand. They may just be ambivalent which could be a worse problem. The point remains the same, however. Unless you see the dire need to somehow offset the negative bucket, then we would suggest you focus on your brand lovers and particularly potential lovers in the middle.

Regarding Trump brand? Well, it is quite simple. His Presidency's promises are his brand promises. He was elected on those promises and his expected ability to fulfill them. At this stage, if he succeeds in doing what he says he will do, especially with jobs and security, then all is good. If not then his haters will become even more emboldened to hate just that much more.

I do have a final word for him though and this gets to the heart of his America First position. He has certainly painted the picture of a need to ‘strengthen America again’ but in the deference to the globalists rather than stop there we suggest that he start making the point that a stronger America means a stronger world. Strength starts at home and spreads. If the US is weak then the world is weaker.

What say you?

We at Rocket Branding love this stuff.

When Bad Brands Collide
Hillary or Trump. Big Choice
Check out at Rocket Branding.com

Check out this recent blog post on what businesses can learn from microbiomes:

What Can Business Learn from Microbiomes? Ian MillerCEO,The Brand Practice, Accelerated Growth Expert, Creator Rocket Branding. Author. Lecturer.FollowUnfollowFollowingLoadingWhat Can Business Learn from Microbiomes?Jan 4, 20162 views1 Like0 CommentsShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookShare on Twitter Actually quite a lot. If you haven’t hea…