Famine City

She's No Brand: She's a Palin

by Jason

In the interest of the political season, let’s talk Palin…in a (mostly) non-partisan way. Spurred by the unfortunately titled "$150,000 Wardrobe for Palin May Alter Tailor-Made Image" from the New York Times. Seriously, that headline made it past editors? Anyway…

It’s not like the GOP hasn’t tried to create a brand for us.  They told us, again and again and again, that the Sarah Palin “brand” was:

• A hockey mom.
• A maverick.
• A Washington outsider.
• A working mom.
• A voice for common sense.

But what is she now? A lady with a $150,000 wardrobe who keeps saying, “I’m just like you.” And it’s the digital landscape that lets reality trump the fictional brand. (Again, see Alan Wolk’s The Real Digital Revolution.)

Arianna Huffington said it better than me. She said:

"The Internet has enabled the public to get to know candidates in a much fuller and more intimate way than in the old days (i.e. four years ago), when voters got to know them largely through 30-second campaign ads and quick sound bites chosen by TV news producers." 

Sound familiar, marketers-of-products? Anyway...

The lesson for marketers? You’re not what you say you are. You’re what you are. And you can't hide that.

The lesson for people trying to create “personal brands”? You’re setting your sights too low. Pick a positioning, sure, but that’s just a start…it’s not a target or destination. You (and Sarah Palin, too) are what brands hope to become—multi-dimensional and ever-changing. And you don't have any more control than they do.

Stop Comparing iPhone And Android

by Marty

Comparing the iPhone and the Android phone is like comparing Windows and Apple, ala 1980s. They are different animals with clearly different objectives. We are only comparing these two platforms because we lack any other comparative vehicles, but recognize they are different beasts.

Apple has continued to innovate the marketplace and the user experience on their platform is the comparison, but it's not the ultimate goal. The ultimate goal is ubiquity. Google understands this, perhaps better than anyone. Google wins whether an iPhone is purchased or an Android phone. Why you might ask? Google will handle the search in either case. Though there isn't a requirement, mobile web searches is led by the Google. The biggest single category of mobile search increase has come via iPhone. Consequently, Google can handle via 800.Goog.411 or Google.com.

The Android phone is opening up new hardware and software avenues for mobile providers. This is a step-change in mobile provider behavior. Previously, the predominance of phone providers have been largely relegated to protecting their operating systems--Android is exactly the opposite. Most phone platforms, ala Nokia/Samsung/Ericcson, were defined by the hardware they supported. This is a stifling effect on the amount of software that was being developed for a particular phone. Android changes this, it opens the application layer of the phone for development AND all the tools are free to obtain. Apple on the other hand produces a phone OS and hardware, but this is largely locked by Apple standards. Moreover, there is a cost to the software development kit. Much like in the early 1980s, Windows saw the opportunity that allowed the software to drive many hardware vendors equipment while Apple closed up their hardware platform. We saw the challenges this produced for Apple in the 1990s.

The biggest change in the marketplace benefits Google far more than Apple. The expectation of data services to be coupled with the telephone. Right now, this is around 20% of all phone users in the US. Once users in the US begin to expect data services as the norm, it's game on for search and all the other search services that Google provides. I think that Google has the right to win in this area. The platform, like Windows or the Apple OS is unimportant. It's about the services that can be delivered through the platform. The advantage for Google is they will find the road map between the services they can offer and the data services, the platform is unimportant.

I understand we are only comparing the known commodities that we currently have to compare. However, comparing these platforms just isn't a comparison. Google has the business model to support moving forward and Apple's going to stay relevant. However, recognize that Google is going to win. It's just a matter of time.

Considered opinions:

http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/06/25/android-vs-iphone-this-is-where-the-pain-happens/

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article4810954.ece

http://gigaom.com/2008/10/15/google-phone-review-the-good-the-bad-ugly-about-tmobile-g1/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2008/09/24/dlgoogle124.xml

http://www.technologyreview.com/biztech/21394/

http://blogs.oreilly.com/iphone/2008/09/android-vs-the-iphone.html

http://weblog.infoworld.com/fatalexception/archives/2008/09/sdk_shootout_an.html

http://shipsoftwareontime.com/2008/06/02/google-android-vs-iphone/

The Brand Is Whatevered

by Jason

"Did you just whatever me?" So sayeth the kidz.

Said another way, "Did you just say you don't care what I have to say?" And more and more, the answer from consumers--to brands--is yes. You've been whatevered.

[ed. note: When I say "brand", I mean this.]

Does that mean that they're saying no to buying your product? No.
Does that mean brand development doesn't matter? No.
Does that man you don't need to market? No.
Does that mean the brand is dead or dying? No. It's just less important than it used to be.
Does that mean your advertising/marketing effort is wasted? No, it's more important than ever.

It means that what you want your brand to stand for--or, more importantly, what you spend time and money making sure your brand stands for--is increasingly ignored by consumers.

Now, no matter how carefully brands get constructed, it's just one ingredient among many for the consumer.

The consumer now has a full range of information and experiences to decide what, exactly, your brand is. It's the brand you've constructed + their own product experience + what other people say about it + what other experiences/services you offer beyond your product + the consumer's perception of other consumers who use the product.

There was a time that just doing the first well--constructing the brand--was enough to build a successful business.

To sum up, you still have to decide what you want your brand to be about--pick a positioning, design a logo, buy impressions through media, etc--but recognize that the business of your business is now the sum of all this, and it's no longer driven by what you want to be known as.

What to do? Learn where else consumers are making decisions about your brand, and find a way to influence it. Make the product better. Ask your consumers what they think. Participate in the conversations that are happening. Most of all, recognize that the launch-and-ride era of brand building is over. It's the brand-as-software era, where we'll all have to update as needed.

Content or Production: What Do You Invest In?

by Marty

As your audience is aging, their expectations about production quality of their media content, specifically web-based, is changing. And probably not in the way that you thought it might. The Internet has completely redefined what people are coming to expect of their media choices.

First and foremost it's relevance, but we all know that (right?). The world changed some time ago when we were able to inform and search everything on the planet it seems. Regardless of what your interest may be, there is content out there. So if you're looking for something of interest, it's relevance first. Since this message seems to have gotten through to just about everyone, let's table this.

Production value

This is a much more dicey little issue today and looking forward it's a declining investment. As your audience is growing in age, the overall value of production quality is declining. Now this does not mean your cost is declining (actually it's the opposite and that is a whole other topic), but content is king. The technology has progressed to where the barrier of entry is no longer present. Anyone can be a content publisher.

The expectation of production quality has completely changed. People want more authentic and genuine content, straight from the publisher, BUT not from the brand. Look at the most visited sites on the web aside from search engines, YouTube, Facebook and MySpace. While there are some produced pieces within, these sites for the most part are hardly "produced". It's about relevance. Even newspapers are changing their formats to be closer to blog-liked formats.

Examples... 

- Car search: Where to start? Edmunds.com. I searched for the car models that I was interested in and then read reviews @ Edmunds. Once I read a bunch of reviews, I then went to a couple aficionado sites with model specific information. I did not even visit the OEM website for information. I actually sorted the reviews by the model and year that I was searching for, easy peasy. I then searched local dealerships. Brand site was completely irrelevant.

- Cartoons for my three-year old: Fire up Opera on the Wii, and head to YouTube. No DVR, no channel surfing. What's he interested in? Thomas the Train (silly dad). He's agnostic to video quality. In fact, he'd rather watch episodes made by other children and their parents than the cartoon. They are more like his trains.

My habits have changed. My children's habits have changed. I expect authentic, genuine, legalese-free opinion and content. As the television era becomes more of a channel specific medium and our media consumption grows in front of our computers, the production quality just isn't as important. It's content.

"Brand" Defined

by Jason
So thanks to Armano's TwitPimping of my last post, we actually got some traffic and comments. :O Again, thanks for taking the time to stop by, and, especially for commenting.

I started to reply to commenters one-by-one last night, but all of the "aren't we just talking semantics" questions made me think...I guess I need to define what I mean when I say brand.

My definition of "Brand": The strategically crafted and narrowed-down list of attributes, benefits, and equities a product or company wants to stand for in the mind of its consumers.

That said...

• I'm a creative, not an MBA.
• This doesn't match Trout and Ries's (or any other textbook's) definition, as far as I know.
• I actually apply brand/marketing/digital thinking for a living, so it's experience--not theory--driving my definition.
• I'm no genius, but I'm smart enough to admit when I'm wrong (maybe only to myself, but still...).

I think the rationale for valuing "being a person" far more than "being a brand" kind of hinges upon a willingness to consider this definition.

So...is that definition of "brand" reasonable? Is it nowhere close? Have something better?

Assuming I can get a bit of head-nodding, I'll spend a bit more time explaining why a "person" aspiring to be a "brand" is upside-down (read:wrong-headed) thinking.

People Aren't Brands. Ever.

by Jason

A person becoming a brand used to be a complement. It meant they'd become bigger than themselves. Bigger than human.

But today? Calling me a "brand" is an insult.

I respect them and acknowledge they're smarter than me, better (and waaaay more frequent) writers, but...Armano’s wrong. Chris Brogan's wrong (to his credit, he says he might be). But people ain't brands.

I like what I do (I'm an iAgency creative), and believe it to be a valuable, honorable job that can help drive the engines of commerce, creates jobs, etc. But calling people brands is the ego of marketing/advertisers who think our jobs are important. Total bullshit.

My disappointment is that these guys--of whom I'm a fan--are marketing innovators/leaders who tell their clients--and mine--“Let go of the control” , only to sweat and bleed themselves dry to create and then maintain their "personal brand", as if there's value in becoming a brand. They’ve become the marketers they say are wrong.

I think they're righter than they know (that's a compliment) when they advise clients to "let go". They don't need to become a "personal brand." You don't need to "brand U". Or me. Or whoever.

You want to become a media personality and gain a following? Then do what you tell billion-dollar brands to do--deliver a good product (in your case, insights), and create good experiences between you and your audience.

But make no mistake. It's you and your output, not your "brand", that wins us over. Brands, by definition and necessity, are simple. Not complicated. Tradeoffs, not dichotomies. Dependable. Unchanging (for a time). People are the exact opposite.

We aren’t brands. We are what we produce or what we offer, but that changes day by day.

And now, with the advent of interactive messaging with consumers, brands aren’t brands anymore. They’re just companies that make stuff. People like or hate the company or the product...the brand is irrelevant in the face of truth (see Alan Wolk's "The Real Digital Revolution").

The brand is declining. The brand is worth less. The Brand is Whatevered. Look for more from me on my next post.

Wasted Value

by Marty

The concept of waste has a negative connotation. Waste can be good, actually very good. This idea was presented during the Wired NextFest, and I had to take note. The truth of this statement was something I never considered.

Think of the tree. Every year, during the fall season, a tree actually wastes it's leaves away so that it can grow stronger in the spring.

What if electric were free? Think we'd ever consider a fossil fuel based vehicle? We'd desalinate the ocean and irrigate our desert lands. World hunger would end because the dry basins of the desert would be growing food. That would help restore the environement.

I subscribe to the idea that frugality is good, both with time and money. It's a very American idea at its heart. My life is filled with work, work outside of work, working out, and even more work at a civic organization I help head up. However, I was gently reminded that I should take time to waste some energy and efforts, they'll be rewarded with new ideas to pursue or new insights. I'm reminded of one of my favorite philosophy instructors that always said if you want to see an efficient model, look at nature. He's right.

Wrestling for new ideas?

Prescription: Watch some Drunken History on YouTube. Explore your friend's playlist. Don't be afraid to waste some time trying something new. It's a gentle reminder that we all need at time(s).