Co-branding, Jeep and Call of Duty, Black Ops

Christmas brought on a whole new series of blog posts and this one I will credit to my nephew and my brother in law.  My nephew got a PS3 for Christmas and my bro in law bought himself Call of Duty Black Ops... good for him, never lose your gaming side.

What makes this game unique is the game play, the realism and the pure grittiness of it.  It's a man's game and is designed for 18-40 year olds (I know it's a broad range but hear me out).  It features realistic operations and has had a success with the Call of Duty franchise, starting with the original Call of Duty.  What is interesting is how the gaming world has targeted the older market.  This is because serious gaming has been around for some 20+ years and first person shooters have been around for at least 15 years with the first and possibly still the best being Golden Eye 007 for the Super Nintendo.  This age group that started at a young age playing these FPS have now grown up and many are in their late 20's to early 30's.  They have jobs and have continued to mature with the gaming consuls. 

With COD Black Ops another company decided that they wanted the exact same demographic and figured the same people would use their product also.  Jeep jumped on board for this one and on the surface it looks like a great pairing.  Jeep was originally founded for WWII as an all-terrain vehicle to go anywhere so it's fitting that they get back into the military albeit by way of an imaginary gaming world.  If you take look at the Jeep site here you can see that it is pretty spot on with the imagary of the game and the sounds of the background are pretty fun also.  The claim that Jeep makes is that it's the only vehicle tough enough to play in the COD Black Ops world.

What's even more fun is that Jeep has released a COD Black Ops Edition.  This is the four door Jeep Wrangler Unlimited (also a two door version) with an upgraded package almost exactly like the Rubicon package.  It has a couple of things that they claim are different about this package and it runs for about $1,500 - $2,000 more.  It has some alloy wheels, big nobby tires, light covers, fuel door cover, and painted black with the Black Ops logo.  The thought is that people who like the game so much will like anything associated with it and will pay the extra money for the look and idea that they are associated with it.  It is a classic case of co-branding and bumping up the price.  Is it worth it?  Well, that's up to you.  If you feel like it's worth $2k to drive a vehicle that is in a video game that you love and you really like the look, then yes.  If you just want the normal version (Rubicon) and want to save the money and put it to use somewhere else... then no.

In the end it's a brilliant branding idea.  I like that both of them agree that they are going after the same demographic and that the "tough, outdoor, adventure seeking, military loving, gaming guy" will buy the Jeep that Chrysler paid to feature in the game.  It's funny how the money thing works.  Car companies will do whatever it takes to sell cars.  The gaming industry really doesn't need the cars but it works out both ways because of the marketing exposure they both get.  The COD franchise gets a level of credibility by associating itself with a brand like Jeep and for Jeep's part it gets a chance to be associated with something that moves a lot of product and can be associated with the COD brand.  It works out both ways.  Jeep tried to do something like this before when in 2004 they launched their Jeep Wrangler Ulimited which back then was an extended bed for more leg room and cargo room.  The movie Sahara (2005) with Matthew McCaunahey featured the Jeep in a part of the movie.  The movie really never did take off and the thought of creating a franchise of movies from Clive Cussler's hero Dirk Pitt died as well when Cussler tried to file a law suit against the movie company which ultimately made everyone gun shy to do work with Cussler.  (Tomb Raider in 2003 featuring Angelina Jolie also had the Tomb Raider Jeep, and Terminator 3 also featured a Jeep but both came with significantly less fanfare)

Jeep left it alone and pulled the commercials and didn't really do much else with it.  It was positioned to be a blockbuster but in the end didn't deliver what many thought it should have (on a side note, I love the movie and watch it at least once a month!).  Cussler had written many times about Jeep in his novels and the marriage seemed like a great one.  The only variable was the movie company which threw everything off.  As a second round of co-branding Jeep did a great job of finding a name/franchise/brand that would be great to work with and more than willing to accept a little cash and allow Jeep to use the name.  Well done Jeep and Activision (the company that makes COD).  This one looks like a winner.

Update 12/31/10:  I saw an ad for the Jeep Wrangler Black Ops edition in the January issue of Outside Magazine... it's the target market.

Two companies one product... Smartwool vs. Icebreaker

When looking at these two companies the differences are definitely visible. I visited both sites and the experience is completely different. Let me back up, in case you don't know what these two companies make/do I'll explain.

These are both clothing companies, they make base layer clothing, socks and other apparel but the core is the base layer. The companies focus on the use of wool as the tried and tested base layer of choice. History has it that wool has long been a great wicking fabric great for outdoor activities where staying dry and keeping warm are essential. My father in law has a saying for wool "Cotton is rotten and wool is cool". Basically cotton doesn't wick and you end up with a foot that looks like a prune if you're skiing.

Based on this manufacturers found that using polysester to create a wool like feel also worked well to wick away moisture. Under Armour has made an absolute killing using this theory. As in all things supply and demand take over and when wool became affordable again but could command a premium price it came back into play. R&D departments aka skiers and outdoors people always knew that wool was a great way to go, really warm, durable and wicked away moisture (oh yeah, and it's green). When a new way to produce it came around and the itchiness went away boom! A new line of products was born.

Founded around '95 Smartwool was the first "brand" to hit this market. It is a fun little brand with a cartoon character for the logo and a fun bright user interface on the website. The products are packaged as a happy go lucky type of product much like "Life is good".

Icebreaker has been in the market since around 1994. The brand is a chic and stylish brand with strong imagery to back up claims of the best base layer in the world. It has a refined, progressive almost European look to it and with images of half men half ram and naked women riding them you get a Calvin Klein feel when you look at it.

Both companies use Merino wool. Supposedly the softest, strongest, best wool on the planet. Both have two different ways to capture the same market. Outdoors people who spend money on premium brands. Don't let the cartoon character or the man ram fool you, both command premium pricing and both are doing what they have to do to get you to buy.

In 2005 Smartwool was acquired by the Timberland company. Icebreaker had sales of $100 million in 2010. Neither are hurting for cash and both want to sell. During the outdoor retailers expo in Salt Lake City I commented how Icebreaker had caught my eye with the imagery and the idea (last year). I'm still waiting to see what these guys do for an encore and what they are doing to push their product. In an earlier post I mentioned how companies like The North Face and Mountain Hardware don't need to do much in terms of spending but for a company that is still trying to gain top of mind advantage a decent spend is essential. They could opt for the push method and market directly to customers or they could utilize the interesting dynamics that exist with outdoor retailers and get it in the store, make a presence there and let the store do the advertising for you.

Smartwool has been smart. In a recent trip to Cabela's I saw Smartwool products (only socks). They have created a large enough brand for themselves and have crossed over from simply non motor powered outdoor retailers (think REI) to all aspects of the outdoors. Icebreaker has not made it into the Cabela's type stores. In fact on a recent visit to REI the Smartwool brand had a commanding edge on Icebreaker in terms of SKU's and shelf/rack space. I had a hard time even finding the Icebreaker brand. When I did it was in a small disguised section of the store. (In Icebreaker's defense, Europe is their largest market right now with 1/3 of their sales being there)

If I had to bet I'd say that neither of these guys are going away. It'll be interesting to see how they continue to position themselves. I could see Icebreaker moving into a mod retailer or making a strong push with the current branding into Cabela's type stores and making a bigger splash in the REI's of the world.

For Smartwool... they'll just keep on selling. That's what they do, good product, fun brand, and good marketing. I see them getting bigger and capturing more of the market. They'll likely push for an even bigger presence in the current retailers.

The ace in the hole... online sales, how are they going to attack those? Do they make a push with the Backcountry.com's of the world? Do they do strategic campaigning leading to their websites? The future will tell. Until then, two companies, one product... good times.

Why outdoor goods companies can avoid big media spends.

I was in REI last night and it is always astounding to me, the types of crowds that come in that store. They fit in a nice little box and all have similar traits. They do come in all shapes and sizes, but at the core they are all the same; Love the outdoors, a little crunchy, and willing to spend money on products they think will enhance their outdoor experience/image.

The products you see on the shelves in REI are very well known brands. The North Face, Mountain Hardware, Arc Teryx, and others. But the interesting part to all of this is that they never seem to advertise with big media spends. You won't see a North Face commercial during a Super Bowl, you won't see a spot for Mountain Hardware even on the Outdoor Channel (that often). The reason for this is the fact that they know their audience and know how to reach them. The channels that touch these types of people are much different than a typical Nike, Coors, or GM channel.

The channels that do touch these people all involve the outdoors. It can be through an outdoor retailer, outdoor expo, outdoor event like a race, a climb, or an expedition. Specific videos, messages and placement of ads are the most effective way. Spokespeople are very important in this industry. If someone has used the Eddie Bauer First Ascent line and raved about it during an Everest Summit or the new Mountain Hardware softshell is phenomenal on the slopes during the spring, then the product has a following. This is sometimes caused by the the spokespeople.

These people (the spokespeople) are different than Lebron James or Peyton Manning, they are cult heroes in the world of outdoors. They are everyday people that aren't 6'8" and 260 lbs with some of the most incredible athleticism to grace the earth. They are people who have guts, the ability to stick to it, train, and are visionaries. All outdoors people alike deep down feel that they could be that person if they really wanted to. The spokespeople are the silent celebrities in the world. They are the ones pushing products through actions. What they wear the people want.

Spokespeople are just one channel. The function of the product is important too. It's all about how the product is going to make your turns better, your summit greater, or your day longer. This is communicated through a target message, a quick story, a website and word of mouth. Online retailers are big advocates for many of these companies. Backcountry.com is a huge North Face retailer and through their emails and online messaging it's seen. But if you weren't an outdoors person, you would never know about Backcountry.com, you wouldn't see any kind of advertising for The North Face. Sure you'd see some ads in Outside Magazine or Ski Magazine but even that is a targeted audience and all of those people know Backcountry.com

Advertising costs are low for the outdoors companies. They usually let their quality and brands speak for themselves. They leave it to the retailers to do the majority of the advertising. It's such a different model than a traditional consumer packaged good. Think of the Disney Channel advertising Nerf dart guns or a cereal for kids, those manufacturers are paying incredible amounts of money to get their products out there. They are making the kids aware of the product that is in turn purchased from WalMart or Target. The opposite is the case with REI, Dick's Sporting Goods and others. They advertise for the companies. The quality brands bring credibility to the store.

In the end it's an interesting business model. Start up brands have to spend, but the big boys don't. You would think they are printing cash, and probably are but there are a few things to be considered. First the reasons why they are not printing cash then why they are.

Why not:
1- Big overhead with R&D, Spokes people, quality products cost more to manufacturer.
2- The market is very finite, for Arc'teryx the amount of people who want to spend that kind of money on a product is probably very small.
3- Unless you have used the products you probably don't know that there is a difference in quality... many people right now are very price conscious and shop at WalMart for everything.

Why they print money:
1- Low advertising and marketing costs (typically this is anywhere from 4-10% of budgets for companies) This means that they have an automatic 10% going right to the bottom line.
2- The finite group spends money (recent study shows that outdoors people spend $400-$1,000 a year on outdoor goods).
3- The margins are still pretty darn good especially on soft goods. Usually around 60%.

All of that being said it seems to be working for them. They don't need to spend on advertising and are still turning large profits. Conglomerates like the VF company own brands. The North Face is owned by the VF company because it turns profits. The model is working, by not advertising with big spends and target their market they can keep their costs low and meet the audience head on.



 Here is a little post script to follow up.  I was watching TV and saw a commercial for The North Face during prime time.  I was taken back for a second thinking I'd completely blown this post, but then it took on the feel of a different type of commercial.  Ultimately it was a Dick's Sporting Goods commercial saying they feature The North Face products.  This is very common, and companies like TNF are more than happy to let them advertise their products for free.  As long as the outdoor companies continue to make quality products the Dick's, Sports Authority, and others will continue to advertise for free!

Sports team's names and their brands, the anomoly part 2

Back by popular demand here is round two of Sport’s teams and their names and the branding that goes with it. Basically I’m just going to pick out a few names that make sense and well, if like their mascot. As everyone knows, I am a Boston area homer and will try to avoid too much about them but if needs be I’ll let you know. On to the groupings:

The “wow, I don’t know why I should be intimidated group”.

The Steelers, ok, Steel town, I get that but I am so far from being intimidated by a greasy steel worker especially from a city that is dead that I actually laugh when I see the pride these people have in the name. (again, goes to show, names don’t mean anything, and I hate the Steelers)

The Ravens, (I got the first two from the Sunday night match up) I don’t know what to think of this ugly scavenger bird. I know it has to do with the old/Catholic/legacy thing going on in Baltimore or maybe they just thought, “hey, we have the Orioles, what’s another black bird that doesn’t strike fear in anyone’s heart?”

Cleveland Browns (I swear I’m not picking on the AFC North… they just have some lame names is all). Ok, the debate is on, do they have the name because A- Paul Brown used to coach them? Or B- Because of the uniforms they first issued and it just stuck? I like the unis, but when I hear Browns… I don’t shake in my shoes.

The PC (politically correct) group… Lame that we have to do it and these guys don’t care!:

Washington Redskins, well, could you imagine The Whiteskins? The Blackskins? The Yellowskins? I can’t but for some reason in the most political place in the world the Skins have managed to keep their name. Good for them. (Another side note, I grew up on a Native American Indian Reservation, I’m not a native but I have many friends who are and funny thing, they call each other Skins). I love the logo but how they have gotten away with it for this long I’ll never know, but more power to them!

Kansas City Chiefs, See above, still, Arrow Head Stadium, an arrowhead on the logo… I like it and certainly there was a large native influence in the planes area for years.

Utah Utes, This one hits close to home. I see the stadium from my house and I grew up with Utes… when the whole PC thing with natives was hitting full steam the University went to the tribe and asked them if they were offended… they said absolutely not and we love it! It’s an honor… good for them. (Also falling in this category is Florida State Seminoles, University North Dakota Fighting Sioux, both tribes thought it was an honor and didn’t want their name removed).

Central Michigan Chippewas, kept it.

University of Illinois Illini.

Atlanta Braves, This one is much like the other ones… glad they kept it.

Cleveland Indians, Well, it doesn’t get much more plane than this… although you could argue that if there was a dot and not a feather it could possibly mean someone from Mumbai… just a thought.

Succomed to the PC pressure group: In a poll done by the University of Pennsylvania, 91% of Native Americans were ok with the team names… lame how left always has to push it to the next level.

Arkansas State Indians, oops I mean Red Wolves. What used to be a tribute to the Osage Nation is now a fictional character that may or may not walk around the campus… you just never know.

Numerous colleges and universities had Native American mascots or monikers… that’s all changed.

Dixie State University Red Storm, It started as a Mormon school back in 1911, located in Utah’s Dixie it eventually became a state entity and went along with the Rebels of the South theme for their mascot. (A la Ole Miss). When the school got a reputation for a party school because of the warm climate and favorable police activity the school wanted to turn things down a little (you’ll never hear it from them though) and went with the “Red Storm”… ugh.

Washington Bullets/Wizards, DC can be pretty violent at times and to avoid promoting it the team changed the name to a mystical character that has nothing to do with anyone except for the select few World of Warcraft players out there.

The intimidating/warrior/I don’t want to mess with you group,

Tampa Bay Buccaneers, It’s just cool, the whole thing they have going on there. The ship, the pirate logos… and they are pretty good this year. Intimidating logo for sure.

Pittsburg Pirates, they may be the Keira Knightlys right now but they have been good and the logo is great… pure, true… although, how many pirates do you see on the Three Rivers there?

The Minnesota Vikings, I love Vikings, not The Vikings but regardless, the Vikings were always seen as fierce warriors that didn’t back down, raped, pillaged and pretty much did what they wanted to… oddly enough sounds a lot like the modern day Vikings… Thanks Brett.

Texas Rangers, I know they were in the last post but hear me out… the Texas Rangers (Tommy Lee Jones and Robert Duvall style) were some of the toughest hombres around, no one in their right mind ran from the law w/ these guys on their trail. It’s a far cry now but hey, good mascot.

San Diego Padres, if you’re a sinner and you’re religious you know what I mean on this one.

Chicago Bulls, Pretty much the only “Tough” looking mascot in the whole league… Chicago was once a crossroads of the cattle industry, so this works… and we know how mean a bull can get right?

Idaho Vandals, I’m throwing this one out to my boy Dane. He is one of 47 Idaho fans but he is lucky in that he really does have one of the coolest/meanest/most ferocious mascots around. An East Germanic tribe during the 5^th century known for sacking Rome and being incredibly ferocious and numb to pain… hey sounds like they need some of those guys on their football team.

As I said before… no one really cares what the logo is in sports, as long as the team plays well it’s fun to buy the garb, yell stuff and look like an idiot. I think it’s really fun when the name means something and lines up with the city or school. But you never know, you could just change it a few years down the road if it’s not working for you (see The Kansas City Wizards… I mean Sporting? And I haven’t even touched Soccer or Futbol team names).

Branding with Celebrities

I was watching a commercial during a football game and a Dodge Ram commercial come on the tube. It talked about a handshake and that it used to mean something. The voice of the commercial was tough, rugged, a bit like you would imagine a Dodge Ram should be. The commercial itself was gritty and utilized a washed out look. The images were of a pickup truck going through what is probably the most brutal treatment you would put it through.

Fast forward two quarters, by this time I’d seen the same Dodge Commercial two more times and by this time I’d seen a few Coors commercials. What did these two things have in common? Sam Elliott. A quick bio on Elliott: He has been characterized as the typical American Cowboy, tough, deep voice, and has consequently played various roles as such. (See Virgil in Tombstone, Sacketts, Ghost Rider (terrible movie by the way but not his fault) and others) So when you put all the pieces together it makes sense that Dodge and Coors would target the same person.

Both the brands want to be for the working man, the blue collar man who is tough or wants to be tough and wants to associate with someone and something who is tough. Both brands are “American”. Both brands target the middle class worker. Both brands have positioned themselves as a quality cost effective product, and both brands have Elliott.

When a company chooses a celebrity or a voice for the product they hope that the audience recognizes who the voice is. They want the audience to relate to that person and what they represent. This seems like a great way to build some immediate essence by just associating with the celebrity. This can also go really really wrong (see Tiger Woods and Brett Favre).

Another voice that is interesting is Kiefer Sutherland doing the voiceover for Bank of America. I mean that’s Jack Bauer for Heaven’s sake!!! If Jack Bauer banks at BoA then I should! No kidding, sure, Sutherland has a good voice, he played a role in a movie where it never showed his face rather his voice was used the whole time (Phone Booth). I guarantee you that B o A wanted us to think and feel that Jack Bauer has confidence in them and that we should too.

It’s a slippery slope when you start associating yourself with stars. Tag Heuer took a black eye from Tiger Woods. Wrangler didn’t think it was going to need to pull Favre commercials until it took an opinion poll of him and it wasn’t positive. Nike is everybody, in fact it has almost become the reverse for them. An athlete is identified as “legit” if they are signed by Nike. A previously non associated company Timex wanted to get more into the outdoors market with their Expedition line of watches and signed Conrad Anker, knowing full well that anyone who has any kind of mountaineering knowledge would know the name and again, “if it’s good enough for Conrad, it’s good enough for me”.

As companies continue to have athletes endorse their products there will continue to be a high risk high reward return. You could have that rough and rugged Elliot or you could have Michael Vick shooting himself in the foot. It is a wonderful way to build a brand but it is a risky business and should be evaluated, researched, thought out, voted on… you get the point, make a good choice, it could pay off big time.

The rebrand

In interesting rebrand took place in Utah this week, it was completely subtle and honestly doesn't make a huge difference to many people. When I saw this I started to think about the rebrands around the world and what differences they make. Just to give you an idea, Utah holds a Shakespeare festival every year. The festival renamed the venue from the "Utah Shakespearean Festival" to the "Utah Shakespeare Festival." The difference was just to drop the "an" on the end and leave it as just a name.

I had to double check to see if there was a name change at all and sure enough there was but when I considered it and looked at the changes it brought, they were almost nill. The festival changed the logo a bit and made it look a little more modern but at the end of the day, it was the same thing.

This goes a long way in talking about rebranding. This even says more about the product when considering how important it is to hit the nail on the head so to speak when doing an initial launch with a brand. Rebranding can take years to accomplish. One example of this is with Puma shoes. Initially launched as a low budget, "affordable" brand, it took years to change the perception of the shoes when even the image had completely changed. I personally remember Puma as a cheap brand which is why it is so impressive to see the changes that they have made since the early 2000's to move the brand into an upper-mid brand.

The thing that Puma has done is changed it to a global fashion brand with an athletic twist. This must have been a huge undertaking for the fellas there but my hats off. Puma has carved a nice little niche with sporty fashionable footwear along with some European style athletic clothing. I assume that Puma will stay in this niche and not try to go head to head with up and coming giant Under Armour. (more about Under Armour in another post).

The rebrand can be long and hard and it should be noted how important it is to launch correctly the first time. That being said, if you are looking to rebrand, you have to do it right and have patience, it's not going to happen overnight. See Puma for that example.

Sports team's names and their brands, the anomoly

I've always found it kind of funny that the Utah Jazz were named the Utah Jazz... I mean you should see the Jazz scene here in Utah, it's almost non existent but regardless the legacy name has stuck and now we even have an old school uniform to admire while we talk about a team that has absolutely no tie to the city by way of name.

In looking at some of the names of various teams across the country I have to compliment some and rebuke others. I've categorized these teams into a couple of categories, here we go:

Very fitting:

Houston Texans: the name says it all, even the Oilers were fitting at the time.

Dallas Cowboys: What is it with Texas getting it right with the names?

Boston Celtics: You can't deny the Irish heritage in the area (although, Celtic? Why not Fighting Irish?... oh wait, that's Notre Dame)

Miami Heat: It's hot, the flaming ball, the Latin influence, it fits.

Colorado Rockies: Well, you are in Colorado and there are the Rockies.

New England Patriots: (note, I'm a total Boston area homer but this one does make sense) It's where it all began folks

Boston Red Sox: I'm putting them here because I love em... not sure where they got the spelling but the name came from the uniform color back in the day. They wore red socks to distinguish their team.

New York/San Francisco Giants: Seeing as they are both world champions within the last 4 years and honestly, the name is fitting for a good team, plus it's just a mascot. Have you ever really seen a Giant? Besides Barry Bonds head, didn't think so.

New Orleans Saints: Nailed it.

Milwaukee Brewers: Beer drinkers around the world would agree with this one. (On a side not, do you know some of the beers that come from that area? Pabst, Blatz, Schlitz, and of course Milwaukee's Best, the names alone are enough to make one laugh.)

Well, they are transplants Group:

Utah Jazz: See above (the Jazz came from when they were in New Orleans)

Los Angles Lakers: I hate the Lakers... oh wait, um, well they started off in Minnesota, the land of a thousand lakes.

St. Louis Rams: How many rams have you seen in the midwest lately? Even when they were in L.A. still didn't make sense.

L.A. Clippers: You know, it kind of makes sense... but who wants to be named after a boat?

Memphis Grizzlies: I still find it shocking that there is an NBA team in Memphis but after being booed out of Vancouver a team had to fall somewhere, why not one of the dirtiest stuffiest places to live?

A huge whiff group:

OKC Thunder: Who in their right mind thought it would be a good idea to name their team after a force of nature... or rather a byproduct of nature. Still can't figure the Sonics out.

Chicago Bears: In their defense, the name was given when mascots were the only things people were thinking about. Chicago has historically had zero ties with any kind of bear.

Miami Dolphins: I get it, the ocean but seriously, a dolphin?

Montreal Expos: This is why they are no longer in Montreal and they no longer have this name.

New York Yankees: I just thought I'd put them here because I feel like the whole franchise is a whiff... even though the name does make sense.

San Diego Chargers: The Super Chargers? I guess the alternative would be the Sand Diego Perfect Weather's... meh, maybe the Chargers was the right call after all.

The good fix group:

Texas Rangers: from senators to the Dallas area, the name was a great change.

Washington Nationals: Expos... lame, Nationals... good.

Charlotte Bobcats: I can buy this, there probably are bobcats around the area somewhere, but what I don't get is why they didn't pick a stranger animal like a Puma or Liger? They chose a little sissy girl kitty.

Okay, lessons learned from all of this: First of all, it doesn't really matter what you name your sports team. You can make anything look great (See the Oregon Duck Vader outfit and it was still a duck!). Second, people don't care because sports are king in the U.S. , it's our way of modern day combat, competition etc... if we fail at sports we fail at life, if our team fails we fail (that's what they would have you believe). Last, the branding really doesn't take place in the name, this is completely contrary to any other product in the world. There are slight things you can do but when the Utah Jazz can get as much equity out of that name as they have and there is no Jazz even on the radios in Utah, you know that it's a different ball game.

Comedy and branding: K Swiss and Kenny Powers

One of the risks people run when using comedy when the brand is pigeon holing themselves and discrediting their brand. I love to laugh as much as the next guy and actually think there is a place for comedy in branding. I recently came across a K Swiss commercial where they used a fictional washed up former Major League baseball player named Kenny Powers. The actor's name is Danny McBride and he is literally one of the funniest guys I've ever seen. I laugh every time I see him. In the series of commercials he does with a number of pro athletes he uses his crude humor to talk about the shoe and the new feature which are the "tubes".

I liked the concept and the idea. I loved watching the short videos but for the average person coming across this commercial, it may seem a little rude and not indicative of the actual product. It's hard to say why K Swiss went with Kenny Powers, he has a show that airs on HBO and is really a hard "R" rating which means that the target market is probably 18-35 year old men. The comedy is another aspect of it that boggles me. K Swiss is changing its image from "I wear my K Swiss" commercials and their urban look to more of an athletic training look. I don't really see where comedy and putting a new face on a brand that is trying to compete with the likes of Under Armour and Nike is going to fit in.

Under Armour is serious, all about the training and being elite. Nike is well, Nike and they have a new "Boom" campaign out. So to try and eat some of the table scraps with this type of campaign is a myth to me. But then again it just might work. It has to be different somehow and maybe they can survive on the demographic they're after. Just to do a litmus test... when was the last time you bought K Swiss?

Premium brands

I have recently been on a few excursions, I hiked the San Rafael Swell in East central Utah, Lake Powell, Zion National Park (Orderville Canyon), and Ibapah Peak in the Deep Creek Range near the Utah-Nevada border. One thing that stood out to me was all of the brands that I came across and how much money people paid for the "premium" brands. One brand that I saw while I was backpacking in the Deep Creeks was Outdoor Research. This is a brand that commands a premium for all of its equipment. I will admit that it is some good stuff but I started thinking about the business model. This company has only a finite amount of people that are going to buy their product, the higher the price the less customers... that's pure economics. They've obviously found the maximum pricing but in order to support that pricing there has to be something to it. The brand. With many outdoor products its all about word of mouth, that's how OR became popular with the REI group. REI works on a pull and push method... meaning if you have a great product you can push it into stores... or if there is a demand for a product then REI puts it in its stores. (Think Icebreakers, see previous post on that). In order to appeal to the granola or liberal outdoors people the brand has to keep a sense of a minimal footprint. This is tough to do and be really successful but some brands do it. OR has been around for a while and it has taken its time building its brand. I wish I could say more about it but that's just it, there really isn't much to it. The logo is bland, but the product is good... hence, a successful product. Makes me wonder how much better they could do with a strong marketing and branding campaign.

Knowing your target audience Biggest Loser style

My wife is a huge Biggest Loser fan. I have to say, whoever came up with that show is a genius! Who can't relate to wanting something so bad and not being able to achieve it... and well, lets be honest, much of America wants to lose weight so it really hits home! The producers make it so dramatic and how life changing it is for all of these people (which I'm sure it is). It's hilarious to think about it sometimes... I've never cried because I couldn't get that extra 5 lbs on a lift or couldn't finish a run of 1k... but these people do and it's great TV! I'm not a fan per se but I will admit, they've done a good job hitting their target market. The show airs during dinner time for many families around the country... and why not, we watch more TV eating now than we ever have and it's only getting worse!

I'm going to use one example of the brands used in this show and the brands used in another show. My wife also loves the Duel, Inferno, Fresh Meat... all pretty much the same thing on MTV. It's a show where pretty people live in a nice posh place, drink a lot, get dirty with each other, and participate in challenges that test mind and body. I think it's ironic because they are tanked the whole time and only get sobered up for the morning challenges just so they can drink at night again. They have to get the challenges done so the drama can begin and they can poison the rest of America's teenagers and college kids (and my wife). This being said lets delve into one of the key differences between the shows.

I thought it was interesting how the Biggest Loser chose to align themselves with the brand Starter which can be purchased at WalMart. Starter once was a glorious brand, they had the monopoly on jerseys for sports teams and apparel. That all went downhill when the players like Nike, Reebok, and later Adidas came into the picture. Ironically Nike now owns Starter and it has been delegated to the working class apparel. You see, the kind of people who watch the Biggest Loser and who associate with it are the same target market for the people who go to WalMart for their workout clothing. Tony Romo who is the face of Starter, was recently on the show inside a WalMart. He likes to be seen as a blue collar kind of guy and Starter thought that they would align themselves with a player like him. He plays for the Cowboys (who has the nickname America's team), he's a small school guy, he seems like an everyday guy. WalMart, Starter, Tony Romo, and The Biggest Loser, sounds like a match made in heaven! The brands align and make the show more approachable, sells more apparel and relates more to the target market.

Lets contrast that with the selfish, self consumed, beautiful people of MTV. The show was approached by Under Armour a couple of years ago to become the official supplier of apparel for the shows. I like UA, I think they make incredible stuff, but it makes sense... the target market for these shows is the same as much of the target market for UA. Spoiled rich kids in the suburbs, teens who want to be cool like the people on the show, and young professionals who drink too much and go to the gym wearing this extremely trendy apparel. Again, I like UA, I own UA, but it makes you think for a minute. Starter has their knockoff UA type apparel which probably does the exact same thing. It's just interesting to not which shows go after which people. Working class, blue collar, within reach Biggest Loser with Starter and MTV Challenge shows with Under Armour... I'm telling you, those marketers know their stuff.

The personality side of branding...

I've taken a lot of time recently to get back in touch with myself and who I am. I know this sounds cheesy and cliche but there is something to this. I've really had a come to Jesus with what I really enjoy and who I really want to be. This is leading somewhere, bear with me for a moment:

When I was in graduate school and sitting in a brand management class, I raised my hand and asked my teacher if he thought there was something to branding yourself before you can brand for your clients. This seemed logical to me, I'd heard about the books "You are a brand" and others and thought it would make sense. He said to me "no, you just go out and do it". And that was that. I felt a little foolish but didn't think about it again until two years later. Then it started not settling so well with me. I had since read much of the book You are a brand, and various other articles and publications that pointed to what I was asking my teacher. In his defense I don't think he really understood what I was asking, I think he was deeply involved in the thought of branding a product and wasn't putting two and two together, so he's off the hook for that. I'm going to convey my thoughts on this and how it translates to your work.

The first thing that strikes me is the mindset. My brother recently made fun of me saying that I'd lost my edge and that I didn't have that "screw you, I'll show you who's right in the end!" attitude. I told him that it was just me being married and refining myself to be more patient and understanding and taking constructive criticism better. Now, I agree with him to a certain extent, I think I have lost that edge and I finally think I'm starting to get that back. This is extremely important to success. I don't think being a jerk is what it takes but I think being bold and stating your opinion and sticking by it but acknowledging when you are wrong are important to your development as a professional. Ultimately you need to have your own opinion of who you are and what you believe and think about something.

Let me give an example of this. I was doing a consulting project in Las Vegas, Sin City. I walked into this board room with a lot of big wigs who had a lot of money. I sat there fresh faced out of grad school... in my mind I had no right to be there. It was a sink or swim moment, I piped up and asked a question to the CEO and just like that he thought I knew what I was talking about (little did he know...) he said he liked my style and asked how old I was. I learned right then and there in a professional setting that none really knows... if you have an opinion and you can back it with something logical and it makes sense, you're just as right as the next guy.

I truly feel sorry for certain people that have what it takes but for one reason or another aren't able to be themselves with the brand. It'd be like me branding Tampax Tampons... it just wouldn't work well. Then there is the corporate face of branding, I talked to a guy who works for a big CPG company, he said that he liked the job but the brands had no identity other than a fabricated numbers driven face that the corporation put on the brand. You know what, he's right... but the crazy thing is it works! They are a category leader so how can you fault that? Branding with your brand is less visible in big corporations... this fellow with whom I talked said that he was saddened by that and said that his ability as an artist was minimized. He held out hope though, said that one day he'll be able to put his stamp on it (jokingly he said he'd be able to change a font). I then looked at some of the other brands that surround me.

Being here in the rocky mountains there is a resort community being established on Bear Lake on the Idaho side of the border. I talked to the designer and essentially the brand manager there. He seemed so out of his element when it came the designs. They were brilliant and beautiful but he is somewhat of an emo/metro guy. The design and branding was very uppity outdoors style. Something you would see in Jackson Hole, WY. He mentioned that he really enjoyed the work but I could just tell that it was hard for him to really buy into the whole thing. He's a graphic designer by trait and throughout the visual work he'd done every once in a while you could see his personality come through.

What does this all mean? I feel that it's essential to brand what you enjoy. If you enjoy the subject matter and are passionate about what you are doing then your best work comes through. I met a brand manager for an all natural herbal supplement company who was just that, all natural! It worked, he fit the bill and really really enjoyed it. He had a successful line of products. Now what came first the chicken or the egg, I dunno, did they hire someone who was like minded or did the like minded person seek out the brand... probably both but the point is it worked. He had recognized who he was, what he wanted, his desires and lifestyle. He took those attributes and combined that his branding knowledge and it was a match made in heaven.

That is the personality of branding coming into effect. This is an old cliche but do what you like to do. It's true, seek out those opportunities to brand the things you like, you'll be more successful, have a better idea and more than anything you'll have passion for it. It will be easier to talk the talk, walk the walk, and make the brand better.

Now, coming full circle... I'm not going to tell you what I really want, love, or enjoy doing. I've posted it many times before but that's not to say that I don't have passions for other things. My thought is this. You brand how you are... find something that needs your brand.

Branding with Music

One of the aspects of branding that doesn't get a lot of attention but seems like a no brainer is music. I say this and a couple of things come to mind: movie trailers, commercials and events. While there are obviously other areas that use music in their branding these are the three that I'd like to focus on.

I'll start with events. I went to a Supercross event and had to admire the branding that went on from top to bottom. Monster Energy drink let you know they were the sponsor of the event and they did it in more ways than one. The first thing I noticed when I was walking to the stadium was the incredibly loud metal music that could be heard from two blocks away. It was easy to see or rather hear who they were targeting. When I got closer to the stadium there were a plethora of baggy shorts, ear ring, splash t-shirt wearing no bend in the bills of the hats, tattooed lip ring punk 18-28 year olds with their no clothes wearing girlfriends with the fake bake tans. If you were to do a market research project (which I'm sure Monster did) you would find that that is exactly who drinks your drinks, and who attends Supercross... and listens to the speed/progressive metal music. So naturally they married the three and boom... you have a branding experience from the three monkeys... hear, speak, and see.

I also recently went to a ballet. I think I don't need to expound on that but suffice it to say that if the metal would have been playing in the parlor or prelude music was something other than classical the whole aura of Swan Lake would have been thrown off. There are progressive or rather heavy ballets that do use heavier music but those tend to be more dancing, more about the story and less about the art. Obviously you have to meet your audience with the feel that you desire.

Commercials. These are pretty simple when you think about them. Next time you watch a commercial, listen to the music in the background, think about how the commercial would change if the music were different. I looked up some video game trailers to compare and contrast the different feels that you get with the differing music. Look at the Monster Hunter game trailer. Now look at Shadow of Colossus. What a stark contrast and not just the imagery, the fun almost Mediterranean music of Monster Hunter vs. the sad epic music of Shadow. Car commercials like with Cadillac vs. Lincoln. Think about the target markets for each of these commercials. Cadillac knows that the Zeplin listeners are at the age where they can and want to purchase the Cadillac, using legacy equity they are leveraging music in order to boost sales. Lincoln has a sleek, almost out of this world type of commercial. The target market is younger, possibly hipper... that is what they want for their brand and they have done a great job of it with the music.

Now movie trailers. Gladiator is an example of an action movie that stays true to its laurels with its music. Listen how the score maintains a high level of energy throughout the whole trailer. The idea is to brand this movie as a high action, fast moving movie that keeps momentum the whole way through... conquering battlefields and hearts along the way, the music used is conducive to the brand. The Book of Eli is an example of another use of music in branding. The slow, eerie sounds crescendo when action comes... then using industrial sounds in music it stays true to the scenery and the feel that the producer desires... a drab, lonely and ultimately final feeling. I compare both of these to the light hearted, feel good, family feel of Toy Story 3. The feel of all of these trailers are completely different and the underlying driver is the music in the trailers.

I used to joke around with my brother in law that I needed a sound system to constantly follow me and I would have a soundtrack for life playing all the time depending on the mood that I was in. Well, thanks to an ipod and playlists this is pretty much true. Music can really change, make, emphasize, or amplify your brand. Think of all the moods that music invokes and what music can do for any product. In the end, we are subject to our senses so why not use our hearing to better move our brands?