The Blirt! Blog


What Is Your Brand Dependent On?

Saturday, May 30th, 2009

Have you ever asked the question, ‘What is our brand dependent upon inside and outside of our organisation?’

Internal dependencies are things in your direct control which shape your brand (customer service, product attributes, communication style etc). External dependencies are things that you have indirect control of which will shape your brand (distributor’s sales environments, government regulation, business partners, customers/brand evangelists etc).

It pays to understand brand dependencies. There is a key set of dependencies that you have little control of that have significant influence on your brand.

Many businesses know their brand’s internal dependencies but not necessarily their brand’s external dependencies.

In same way that a business sets about delivering strategies to achieve the internal dependencies there needs to some thought and strategy as to how you might influence the external dependencies.

Doing this might just double the effect of your branding efforts.

We love Ted

Monday, May 18th, 2009

A much loved website of Blirt is www.ted.com

All good students of society should have this one bookmarked. Where else can you sit and listen to some of the best thinkers and creators alive today?

A couple of favs from Blirt:

Seth Godin on Tribes

Bill Gates on Mosquitos

Channel What?

Tuesday, May 5th, 2009

Media brand names are not equal across the different media services. When it comes to brand names for media channels Free TV channels seem to be well behind.

Why?

Let’s look at ….

Print – The Age, The Herald, The Australian… all strong brand names that can build a strong market position that stands for a clear set of brand values. We read these because we know what we will get.

Radio – Triple M, Triple J, Sea FM… again, all stand for clear distinct market positions

Web – News.com.au, You Tube, Realestate.com.au, mycareer.com.au … all strong brands that represent the position they hold in the market place

TV – Channel 7, 10, 9…. what the? I get what ABC stands for, even SBS, but to me Channel 7, 10 and 9 are rapidly losing a brand position – if one ever existed.

These brand names are relics of a dial that used to sit on the face of a TV.

Why do we watch these channels? Is it because I connect with channel brand? Or is it the program that is secured to the channel? I think it’s the later. The ratings system prove it is the later.

Let’s compare this with Discovery Channel, History Channel or CNN. All clear brand propositions in the TV market place. I know what I get when I watch Discovery, History or CNN. They’re clear, they’re simple. I can build a ‘relationship’ with the channel and choose to watch the channel first and the program second.

I say commercial TV will die in it’s current format. If not die, at least move into retirement.

Not just because of the rapid rise of the Internet and pay per view downloading, but because Free TV commercial channels are failing to build meaningful, tangible brands.

We watch TV channels for the program that is promoted. That’s like choosing a newspaper for the article that sits on page 19. Crazy logic.

If a TV channel is to survive in the modern digital age it must create a clear brand proposition. Failure to do so will only result in the mediocre.

Mediocrity is the highway to insignificance. For a TV channel that equals death.

Is your brand stuck in the middle ground of mediocrity? Neither one thing or the other…?

What can you do to find a clear position in the market place for your brand?

Poor Pigs. A Lesson In Positioning

Friday, May 1st, 2009

What a branding curse. A worldwide flu epidemic named after swine. Will the Swine Industries recover?

The WHO announced today it was ‘renaming’ Swine Flu to H1N1 Influenza. Apparently it’s a more appropriate name to reduce the stigma against the Swine Industry.

I can guarantee you that it will forever be known in the mind of the world as Swine Flu.

Here is a classic example of brand positioning. The name Swine Flu was launched and embedded in the mind of the consumer, i.e. you and I, extremely well.

Our first understanding of the issue (let’s call it a product brand) was well established and named as Swine Flu. In the mind of the market it is firmly entrenched.

The ‘brand’ Swine Flu is positioned as the scariest, most infectious disease raging across the world. Simply renaming the virus now, after such an effective world wide launch is quite useless.

Let me break it down for you in marketing speak:

The Product = Scary, highly infectious flu that could kill millions around the world

The Brand Name = Swine Flu

The Target Market = Any human that breaths

The Promotional Method = PR, News, Online

The Campaign Result = Worldwide awareness within days with dramatic action from all levels of government and the private sector.

Positioning is owning a tangible and defensible space in the mind. Swine Flu achieved this in days, with worldwide success. Calling it H1N1 now is like asking people to use another name for brands such as Coke, or Bush, or 9-11 or McDonalds.

It simply won’t happen.

This is the power of positioning. When you launch a brand well by creating an extremely strong position in the mind of the consumer that position is rock solid. It can be destroyed, but it will usually take a better brand, a stronger position or a failure of the product to deliver to remove the position.

Based on this logic, Swine Flu will only lose it’s impact if:

a. Another virus erupts with even greater impact. (Let’s pray this doesn’t happen!)
b. The WHO spend more time and effort in the next week on positioning N1H1 than they did with Swine Flu (I can’t see that happening)
c. Swine Flu fails to be the world wide epidemic that was feared. (Let’s pray this does happen!)

The question now, is what can the Swine Industries do to combat the brand damage?

There is an answer, it simply requires some clever re-positioning. Let’s watch this space.