I was working today with Julie Paige Grant, one of our newer people.  We were struggling through the first draft of a Brand Backbone Strategy document for a project of hers.  I sympathized, “This is not easy.  That’s why so few people do it, actually write down a brand strategy document for the long haul.”  Her feedback in the midst of her struggle was, “Actually, this is kind of fun.”

I was reminded of Dean John Drewry in the University of Georgia’s Journalism School who taught us in the 60’s that “Nothing is work unless you would rather be doing something else.  Find something that you love to do and it will never be work.”  No wonder I have no desire to retire.  It is fun.

Ask yourself.  Do you go to work every morning, or do you go to fun?

In the previous post, we talked about an excellent new sku (Butter with Olive Oil spread) within a broad line of products by Land of Lakes, and how the fact that it is hidden in a line mostly of “me too” items will keep it from ever being a big idea.

Here is an example of worse.

There is an Activated Charcoal Body Wash with Zinc in a line of products from Collective Wellbeing, (http://www.collectivewellbeing.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage1&product_id=39&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=26&vmcchk=1&Itemid=26), that has now lost its distribution because the balance of the line does not sell well.

This particular item is the best deodorizing body wash I’ve ever experienced by a long shot, but its few stores like Whole Foods have stopped carrying it because it was the only good item in a long line of “me-too” items under the Collective Wellbeing brand name.

Hiding a really distinctive sku within a line of me-too’s is the marketing equivalent of Journalism’s “burying the lead.”

Think about it.  The task of developing one truly great formula is difficult.  What are the odds that a company will have a line filled with unique, really great items?  Having once been the President of Neutrogena, I understand the limiting and challenging characteristics inherent in line marketing.

Land ‘O Lakes has a new spread, Butter and Olive Oil that is so good tasting it is just unbelievable.  Try it.  I am not exaggerating.  The taste will blow your mind.

There-in lies the enigma of modern marketing.  Land ‘O Lakes has so many sku’s that as a brand, they can stand for nothing specific, not even specific taste.  So they stand for what expectation?  Duh.  Hard to answer, isn’t it?

What if this new item were a separate brand?  That brand could rightfully claim that it “tastes better than butter and better than margarine.”  Because it does.  But Land ‘O Lakes cannot claim either because it makes more than just this spread with butter and olive oil.

What penalty is thus imposed on the item by the realities of the marketplace?  Here it is.  Every new user will have to “stumble” upon this product as I did to even try it, no matter how good it is.   This is how we modern marketers turn Big Ideas into Little Businesses.   Don’t you just hate this problem?

Brands die because their owners let them die.  If no-one is in command of the health and welfare of a brand it will go away.  If no-one seizes responsibility, good things rarely happen.

A friend made a statement to me today about the history of the Tango so I did some research and found a few factoids very relevant to brand strength and decline.  Consider Tango as a brand of dance.  In 1903 to 1910, 1/3 of all music recorded was the Tango.  In 1910-1920, of 5500 recordings, 2500 were Tango.  But no-one owned the Tango, and no-one was charged with keeping it vital and leading it into the future.  So today, Tango is a mere shadow of its former self.

During the same years, 1903 to 1920, brands like Coca Cola and Hallmark were embryonic.  Both Coca Cola and Hallmark grew to Killer Brand status in the 20th century.  How healthy are they today?  The answer is that neither is as strong as it once was.

Compare both to Geico, which was founded a touch later, in 1936, and continues to strengthen.  Geico had only $150 Million in policies in 1966.  Geico has $24.4 Billion now, 95% of which developed after Warren Buffett bought the company and increased brand marketing from $31 Million in 1990 to $900 Million today.

Is there a lesson here?  Do old brands have to decline?

This is one of the big issues in marketing? When is it time to change the brand’s differentiation?

Overall, it is always time to improve.  It is rarely time to change.

No matter how good your position, you can always improve.  I call your attention to Aflac.  Their new campaign (woman on crutches coming to watch the kid’s soccer game)  is the best yet at getting the point across on both their difference and why you need it, as well as building the linkage stronger (four quacks of the duck in 30 seconds.)

Aflac is still improving.  Note:  Here is the first question to research if you are Aflac.   “What brand first comes to mind when you think of supplementing your health insurance?”  Here is the second question to research if you are Aflac.  “Do you have supplemental health insurance, and if you do not have it, why not?”

Here are the principles.  Once you have compelling differentiation in place, manage it like this:

1.  First, keep trying to increase the unaided awareness of the number of potential users who are aware of your compelling differentiation.  Do this until there is no more room for increased top of mind awareness (90% of prospects are aware not just of your brand unaided, but of your difference).

2. Second, when there is no potential left to increase awareness, make your differentiation more compelling.  Show aware prospects why they need your brand.  Make your brand difference more important to the people who already know about it.

Only when you are have maximum awareness of the most compelling proposition, and it is as compelling as you can make it, is it time to change the idea.  And then only if you are not reaching your volume or share objectives.  Far too few brands lack this discipline.  They change while there is still awareness not developed and sustained, and they change before they have maximized their differentiation.

Smucker’s has a sugar-free cherry preserve that is about the best tasting spread you have ever experienced.  This particular SKU is special.  It goes way beyond just good tasting for something sugar free.   George Washington could not tell a lie when he chopped down that cherry tree, and neither can I now.

If Smucker’s had chosen to make this new flavor its own brand, it is so good and so differentiated that it would have had a chance to become a Killer Brand on its own.  As is, Sugar Free Cherry Preserves are within a line of good but not differentiated flavors.  If all of the flavors were this much better vs. competition, the entire brand would be Killer strong.

WOW!!  Try it.

A young mother in Atlanta, Britt Menzies started a company based on her children, which she called Stinky Kids.  She created the characters and gave them a Mom-desired reason-for-being.  The focus of her brand is “teaching good.”

Stinky Kids always make the right choice.  Stinky Kids do the good thing.

Britt was wearing a Stinky Kids t-shirt while shopping at Nordstrom’s.  A sales person saw it, fell it love with it and the Stinky Kids story, took Britt to her manager, and now Nordstrom is Britt’s main account.  Yes they tested awhile in a few stores, but things went well.  Britt is expanding the line to books, etc.  And has very big plans.  She will do well.

It’s not just Stinky Kids.  Britt herself is making the right choices.  She is staying tight on strategy.  As is Nordstom’s.  Kudos to them both.

Lesson:  Be an evangelist for your own brand.  If you have something you can wear, wear it everywhere.  If you have something to say, say it everywhere.

A friend of mine once asked Ray Kroc, founder of McDonald’s at a Christmas cocktail party if all he ever thought about was hamburgers.  His answer, “Yes Ma’am.  Hamburgers are my life.”

Is differentiating fluid milk a daunting task?  Maybe, but clearly not impossible.

One brand of milk, Mayfield™from Tennessee outsells other brands at TWICE the price.

Kroger™ milk sells at retail for $1.99 per gallon.  Right next to it, Mayfield™ milk sells, and sometimes outsells Kroger milk at $3.99 per gallon.  The same is true in other chains also.

That is a 100% premium.   Mayfield is another proof point that Killer Brands do exist, and are often chosen over others at any reasonable price.  The perceived differentiation in the Mayfield case is worth a 100% premium in price.

Customers interviewed at retail swear that Mayfield tastes better than other milk.  Yet it is not visually different.  It has no flavors or secret ingredients.  It is just perceived as tasting better.  They do advertise superior taste on television but not heavily.  An amazing perceived difference in degree.  Great job Mayfield.  You are a lesson for all of us.  How many of you are willing to price your product at a 100% premium over competition?

Well for starters,  you can rebrand a company like GEICO.  An anacronym for Government Employees Insurance Company, GEICO began selling insurance to the public over 20 years ago.  In 1995, their ad budget was $31 Million.   Few had heard of them.

Then in 1996, Bershire Hathaway acquired 100% of GEICO and Warren Buffet, not usually known as a marketing or advertising guy poured on the ad bucks, increasing advertising to just over $500 Million.  I might add, that in my humble career, I have never seen such an increase.  It worked.  Today GEICO is the third largest insurance company and spends well over $800 Million a year in measured media.

Is GEICO a Killer Brand?  I am not so sure.  GEICO is a better example of a Dominant Brand, although this judgment could be argued.  What do you think?   Is GEICO choice being driven by a differentiated expectation?  Before you answer too quickly, what would GEICO be with less than $100 Million in spending?  Interesting?  They definitely rebranded themselves.  Even $800 Million would not get droves of people to buy insurance from the Government Employees Insurance Company, even if they saved 15%.

In one of my favorite all-time marketing books, Macy’s, Gimbles and Me, Bernice Fitzgibbons (”It’s Smart to be Thrifty” for Macy’s, and “Nobody, But Nobody Undersells Gimble’s”) is interviewing a new writer for one of her copy departments, probably back in the 40’s or 50’s, at least during the heyday of Department Store advertising before everyone carried the same thing.  Back in those days, advertising romanced the merchandise because others did not have it.  There was virtually no price promotion and certainly not on the same item.

Ms. Fitzgibbons, a Minnesota farm girl who became one of Madison Avenue’s greatest writers asked the young interviewee to take his time but to create for her an interesting way of describing a horse.

The young man waited not too long and said, “From above, a horse looks like a fine violin.”

She hired him on the spot because of his ability to look at things from unusual angles.  He became a real star for her, and had a fantastic career in advertising.