Presented yesterday evening. Great turn out, I think a lot of people were inspired to quickly get something out to their clients. But remember guys, be realistic!! Nevertheless, thanks for the support ;)
Here's sharing from slideshare but slide 35 did not convert properly so it went missing (a pity because it was talking about how a dose of optimism goes a long way... maybe it's trying to prove a point? Hmm). Anyway, if you are interested or need more information, just leave a comment.
Showing posts with label Branding. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Branding. Show all posts
Monday, May 10, 2010
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Automotive: Schumacher x Mercedez x Petronas.
Before: Schumacher x Ferrari x Shell
The more I think about it, the more I feel Petronas made the right choice by going into partnership with Mercedez. Traditionally, we're all expected to 'stick' to one another because of ingrained cultural implication - this 'unity' is seriously misunderstood.
Malaysian brands should stand up and fight against each other on a global arena. Like Air Asia and MAS. And it forced them to relook at their strategies and uphold their emphasis on superior product offering because they too understand the cliched theory of survival of the fittest. While I do think there are a few daring ones who are taking the job on to themselves to take on the world, I think GLCs (government linked corporations) should really wake up.
The more I think about it, the more I feel Petronas made the right choice by going into partnership with Mercedez. Traditionally, we're all expected to 'stick' to one another because of ingrained cultural implication - this 'unity' is seriously misunderstood.
Malaysian brands should stand up and fight against each other on a global arena. Like Air Asia and MAS. And it forced them to relook at their strategies and uphold their emphasis on superior product offering because they too understand the cliched theory of survival of the fittest. While I do think there are a few daring ones who are taking the job on to themselves to take on the world, I think GLCs (government linked corporations) should really wake up.
Monday, November 9, 2009
everyoneconnects.net.
3,473,905 (6 plus this) mentions, 278,255 visits, 2,459 number of audio/video, 2,674 comments, 1,053 tweets, 9,434 FB fans. Well done!Question. From a marketing point of view - we're curious what exactly does everyoneconnects campaign serve? Broadband subscription? Favorable brand perception? Increase connectivity? Even if it's mobile connectivity? Promoting social media for mass acceptance? So that the rakyat won't 'potong'? How does the communication activity explains (or sells) TM's business competency? Or is this another mandatory effort to promote the Satu Malaysia konsep? Hmm.
While we think this is one of the most viral campaigns we've seen so far in Malaysia (no doubt with a big fat budget to boost), we're just curious - what kind of ROI does this justify for a connectivity monopolist?
Compare with BT's version of social media communication which is mainly to promote collaboration (same concept) across the enterprise in 170 countries, connecting 110,000 employees. Catering to the Digital Generation (same insight), BT understands that collective wisdom could perhaps propel the company faster than when it's not on social media. Some of BT's efforts in leveraging on social media:
1) BTpedia (BT's own version of wikipedia) enabling information sharing with 800 over articles and growing within the company
2) BT Collaborate allowing project teams to edit and add comments within minutes internally as well as promoting effective knowledge sharing amongst all team members
3) Blogging - from senior managers engaging their teams to executives sharing their learning experience from trainings
4) BT Today wiring employees to the latest news and happenings via an online newsdesk
5) MY BT - an enterprise social network similar to Facebook provides great functionality by allowing employees to connect with each other through their individual skill sets
6) Podcast to encourage user-generated content via audio and video material
Although the sound business case of ROI was unclear initally, for the deployment of social media in such scale but Richard Dennison (Senior Manager - Social Media at BT) believes that the value it adds on to the business is self-evident.
Read more of the case study here in Dennison's blog.
While we believe that social media is the future, but we're hardpressed to force fit the tool into practice just because it's trendy. The best part about social media is it could help you to solve almost anything if it's used strategically and its integrity respected. That includes solving non-existent problems. Social media solves future problems before they occur if the power to anticipate is accounted as part of the communication strategy. That's simply because communication can solve almost everything. Perhaps TM should reconsider its 2.0 strategy to focus inward instead, building employees collaborative skill sets which in turn contributes to the building of the company. Then again, this is just our two cents worth.
Sorry. What was TM trying to sell again?
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Blowing up Pepsi.
Read from Businessweek, April 27th 2009 issue:
D'Amore (CEO of PepsiCo Americas Beverages) informally called his undertaking The Big Bang. It was an apt metaphor. He was proposing not just devising new ads and slogans for the seven separate brands but redesigning 1,121 different bottles, cans, and other packages. And he wanted to have the reconceived products on store shelves in seven months (?!) to coincide with the 2009 Super Bowl, when PepsiCo was planning to unveil several new commercials.
Never had the company attempted to overhaul so many products so quickly. The danger was clear: In January consumers would walk into supermarkets and find that nearly all of their favourite PepsiCo beverages looked dramatically different - and they might hate the changes. What's more d'Amore's team wouldn't have time for the exhaustive market research that usually helps mitigate such risks.
***
He explained how his smooth new circle, which would replace the 3D look of the old logo with simple matte colors, mimicked the minimalist lines of Apple's music-and-video player. The logo's upturned curves, he said, were like emoticons: Diet Pepsi was a 'grin', Pepsi was a 'smile', Pepsi Max a 'laugh'.
***end of excerpt***
(Non-italics mine)
Originality is officially dead. For a multi-billion dollar company like Pepsi to 'mimic' another brand giant is no sense to me. And whatever that's planned and done looks like a hell of a risk to me. Shouldn't they try to look for the insights behind the iPod phenomenon to understand what makes the new generation tick, instead of 'borrowing' design cues from something which the world thinks it's cool!? A lot of brands can do that. But honestly, I would expect much more from a brand like Pepsi? It's like BMW wanting to be... Louis Vuitton (?!).
Hmm.
Anyway, I thought you may be interested in Peter Arnell's (D'Amore's appointed branding guru for this revamping exercise) pitch presentation for the rebranding of Pepsi. Dubbed 'Breathtaking', it looks more like a science paper to me. Yes, while I think it's cool to design a 'trick' logo with multiple viewpoints (that's a real first and real daring) but it also allows a huuuuuuuge room for distortion possibility and 'mis-recognition', no? Take a look:
Uh. Bottle's okay. Design's okay. But having not one but multiple 'sub-faces' of a logo? Yes, it is innovative and really pushing the envelope. But I guess we'll just have to wait for the real verdict and see how the consumers like their new Pepsi. Well at least, they left the formula untouched (lesson well-learned from their archrival perhaps).
D'Amore (CEO of PepsiCo Americas Beverages) informally called his undertaking The Big Bang. It was an apt metaphor. He was proposing not just devising new ads and slogans for the seven separate brands but redesigning 1,121 different bottles, cans, and other packages. And he wanted to have the reconceived products on store shelves in seven months (?!) to coincide with the 2009 Super Bowl, when PepsiCo was planning to unveil several new commercials.
Never had the company attempted to overhaul so many products so quickly. The danger was clear: In January consumers would walk into supermarkets and find that nearly all of their favourite PepsiCo beverages looked dramatically different - and they might hate the changes. What's more d'Amore's team wouldn't have time for the exhaustive market research that usually helps mitigate such risks.
***
He explained how his smooth new circle, which would replace the 3D look of the old logo with simple matte colors, mimicked the minimalist lines of Apple's music-and-video player. The logo's upturned curves, he said, were like emoticons: Diet Pepsi was a 'grin', Pepsi was a 'smile', Pepsi Max a 'laugh'.
***end of excerpt***
(Non-italics mine)
Originality is officially dead. For a multi-billion dollar company like Pepsi to 'mimic' another brand giant is no sense to me. And whatever that's planned and done looks like a hell of a risk to me. Shouldn't they try to look for the insights behind the iPod phenomenon to understand what makes the new generation tick, instead of 'borrowing' design cues from something which the world thinks it's cool!? A lot of brands can do that. But honestly, I would expect much more from a brand like Pepsi? It's like BMW wanting to be... Louis Vuitton (?!).
Hmm.
Anyway, I thought you may be interested in Peter Arnell's (D'Amore's appointed branding guru for this revamping exercise) pitch presentation for the rebranding of Pepsi. Dubbed 'Breathtaking', it looks more like a science paper to me. Yes, while I think it's cool to design a 'trick' logo with multiple viewpoints (that's a real first and real daring) but it also allows a huuuuuuuge room for distortion possibility and 'mis-recognition', no? Take a look:
Uh. Bottle's okay. Design's okay. But having not one but multiple 'sub-faces' of a logo? Yes, it is innovative and really pushing the envelope. But I guess we'll just have to wait for the real verdict and see how the consumers like their new Pepsi. Well at least, they left the formula untouched (lesson well-learned from their archrival perhaps).
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Brand Attributes vs Brand Essence.
Read in Branding Strategy Insider:
What Are Brand Attributes?
Attributes are more often used when referring to products than brands. A product's attribute might be a function or a feature. These functions and features often lead to consumer benefits. However, brands can have attributes too. The attributes may be personality attributes or they may be derived from the brand's products' attributes.
A brand's essence, on the other hand, has a very specific meaning. A brand's essence is its "heart and soul," its timeless quality. It describes who it is at its core. I like to express a brand's essence as [adjective adjective noun], so for Nike, it is "Authentic athletic performance" and for Starbucks it is "Rewarding everyday moments." Disney's essence is "Fun family entertainment."
*** end of excerpt*
Simple concise explanation.
What Are Brand Attributes?
Attributes are more often used when referring to products than brands. A product's attribute might be a function or a feature. These functions and features often lead to consumer benefits. However, brands can have attributes too. The attributes may be personality attributes or they may be derived from the brand's products' attributes.
A brand's essence, on the other hand, has a very specific meaning. A brand's essence is its "heart and soul," its timeless quality. It describes who it is at its core. I like to express a brand's essence as [adjective adjective noun], so for Nike, it is "Authentic athletic performance" and for Starbucks it is "Rewarding everyday moments." Disney's essence is "Fun family entertainment."
*** end of excerpt*
Simple concise explanation.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Does your brand have a social life?
An equally gung-ho-about-2.0 friend sent me this from mad.co.uk. I didn't have the time to read it until just now and absolutely have to share as it's right up the alley of some projects I'm currently considering working on. It's amazing how things just turn up at your doorstep when you have faith :)
Yann Motte, CEO of Webjam, discusses the part social networks can play in online branding.
Online branding has come a long way since the days when simply having a corporate website was seen as the cutting-edge. With the majority of purchasing decisions now being made online and an increasing number of online retailers, a unique brand web-presence and reputation will only become more essential. It is now common practice for brands to allow consumers to comment on them through blogs and forums and many brands also encourage consumers to share and remix brand content online through social networking sites. Yet, branding through social networks has still not matured into its full potential.
Branding through social networking appears deceptively simple, but is notoriously hard to execute. Not only are consumers extremely fickle about the information they will consent to pass on, but it is also increasingly difficult to be heard in our modern media-saturated environment. Yet, there can be no doubt that social networking can provide a powerful forum for brand building, since the influence of friend recommendations on purchasing decisions is well known. Additionally, social networking is fast becoming the conduit of choice for disseminating information very quickly, by making it easy to spread the word virally to “friends”. Add the ability to reach massive audiences (about whom you can access a lot of demographic and behavioural information) and you have a marketer’s dream. That being said, the interaction is very superficial at present. Brands need to go further in exploiting the potential to engage with their prospective followers that social media presents.
The popularity of the most well-known social networks, such as Facebook and MySpace, meant that they were often the first port of call for companies trying to build their brands through this new medium. However, marketers are now beginning to realise that the creation of a brand profile on these sites does not really achieve anything, since there can be no one to one relationship between a brand and a consumer. Simply having Nestle as a “friend” is unlikely to alter a consumer’s purchasing decisions. These brand “pages” have become little more than adverts embedded in social networking sites.
Brands need to encourage consumer interactivity in order to spread information about themselves across social networks. The future belongs to brands that will not only engage with their consumers but also empower them to create their own discussions on communities that they themselves manage. Consumers will soon be able to repackage the brand in their own words, which they are doing on some forums already, through reviews and recommendations. Brands may soon create their own social communities, with a goal more akin to social publishing than social networking. Social publishing refers to communities of consumers, who are drawn together online to form a community around a brand, a company or an organisation. Although a brand cannot communicate with individual consumers, these communities of consumers can connect and build relationships amongst themselves. These consumers can then collaborate on their own projects, inspired by their favourite brand or organisation - a shared passion for anything from Nike clothing to helping the NSPCC stop child abuse.
Social publishing allows consumer communities to cooperate across a wide variety of content such as blogs, forums, galleries, videos and polls. Through user generated content (UGC), social networking and shared editing of web-pages, consumers with similar interests can now collaborate on a common goal. Additionally, consumers should be able to talk to each other freely and not have the brand as the hub for all communications. However, brands may well choose to support community projects, such as sponsoring events or organising competitions.
Yet, the holy grail for most organisations is to build a character around their brand values that transcends what the product or service itself provides – to move from being a simple purchasing choice to a lifestyle statement. By allowing affinities between personalities to evolve toward affinities with a brand, social networks are a place where marketers can let brand personality blossom. If a brand has succeeded in communicating about its values, then it is normal that users start talking about those values rather than the product itself. For example, if Lucozade values sporting performance, then that is the type of discussions the brand should foster between
its users.
Within a brand network consumers can exchange tips, ideas and opinions not only about the product or service, but also about what the brand means to them or helps them achieve. It is through such networks that online branding will really come into its own.
(underline mine)
--- start ---
Yann Motte, CEO of Webjam, discusses the part social networks can play in online branding.
Online branding has come a long way since the days when simply having a corporate website was seen as the cutting-edge. With the majority of purchasing decisions now being made online and an increasing number of online retailers, a unique brand web-presence and reputation will only become more essential. It is now common practice for brands to allow consumers to comment on them through blogs and forums and many brands also encourage consumers to share and remix brand content online through social networking sites. Yet, branding through social networks has still not matured into its full potential.
Branding through social networking appears deceptively simple, but is notoriously hard to execute. Not only are consumers extremely fickle about the information they will consent to pass on, but it is also increasingly difficult to be heard in our modern media-saturated environment. Yet, there can be no doubt that social networking can provide a powerful forum for brand building, since the influence of friend recommendations on purchasing decisions is well known. Additionally, social networking is fast becoming the conduit of choice for disseminating information very quickly, by making it easy to spread the word virally to “friends”. Add the ability to reach massive audiences (about whom you can access a lot of demographic and behavioural information) and you have a marketer’s dream. That being said, the interaction is very superficial at present. Brands need to go further in exploiting the potential to engage with their prospective followers that social media presents.
The popularity of the most well-known social networks, such as Facebook and MySpace, meant that they were often the first port of call for companies trying to build their brands through this new medium. However, marketers are now beginning to realise that the creation of a brand profile on these sites does not really achieve anything, since there can be no one to one relationship between a brand and a consumer. Simply having Nestle as a “friend” is unlikely to alter a consumer’s purchasing decisions. These brand “pages” have become little more than adverts embedded in social networking sites.
Brands need to encourage consumer interactivity in order to spread information about themselves across social networks. The future belongs to brands that will not only engage with their consumers but also empower them to create their own discussions on communities that they themselves manage. Consumers will soon be able to repackage the brand in their own words, which they are doing on some forums already, through reviews and recommendations. Brands may soon create their own social communities, with a goal more akin to social publishing than social networking. Social publishing refers to communities of consumers, who are drawn together online to form a community around a brand, a company or an organisation. Although a brand cannot communicate with individual consumers, these communities of consumers can connect and build relationships amongst themselves. These consumers can then collaborate on their own projects, inspired by their favourite brand or organisation - a shared passion for anything from Nike clothing to helping the NSPCC stop child abuse.
Social publishing allows consumer communities to cooperate across a wide variety of content such as blogs, forums, galleries, videos and polls. Through user generated content (UGC), social networking and shared editing of web-pages, consumers with similar interests can now collaborate on a common goal. Additionally, consumers should be able to talk to each other freely and not have the brand as the hub for all communications. However, brands may well choose to support community projects, such as sponsoring events or organising competitions.
Yet, the holy grail for most organisations is to build a character around their brand values that transcends what the product or service itself provides – to move from being a simple purchasing choice to a lifestyle statement. By allowing affinities between personalities to evolve toward affinities with a brand, social networks are a place where marketers can let brand personality blossom. If a brand has succeeded in communicating about its values, then it is normal that users start talking about those values rather than the product itself. For example, if Lucozade values sporting performance, then that is the type of discussions the brand should foster between
its users.
Within a brand network consumers can exchange tips, ideas and opinions not only about the product or service, but also about what the brand means to them or helps them achieve. It is through such networks that online branding will really come into its own.
(underline mine)
--- end ---
Brands on social network need constant and careful monitoring. Unlike traditional media where bursts come and go, a social network once created cannot be undone less it brings unfavorable speculation towards the brand. Therefore, for those who are planning to go on a social network, be really careful and be ready to sleep, eat the brand, more so than ever now. Once a profile is created, it cannot be deleted overnight as it will leave footprints online. My advise is to engage a trusted team of brand guardians who are an all rounder - savvy in PR, branding, web 2.0, consumers, users, communications, etc - to take care of the profile. Building a presence amongst the consumers means brands have to be accountable and they are liable to questions posed by their fellow peers within the community. Honestly, how many brands can handle that kind of honesty?
*Interested in building a social life for your brand? Mail us here.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Brand showroom.
Consumers have evolved. Period. At least the urban ones have, becoming smarter, pickier and more distinguished in their choice of brand. Most often that not, this post-modern consumer who is bombarded with thousands of parity brands, make his or her choice based on an alignment of values - obviously between him or herself and the brand. When functionality and/or functional difference are/is out of the equation, then it all boils down to values, the shared vision and interests. If people really do buy brands like they make friends, then we really ought to think about the hospitality we're currently giving to our 'friends' when they visit. Audi did it right although it's not the first, following many other megabrands. Having a brand showroom versus a car showroom, provides customers an experience which definitely lacks in the usual dealer showroom. Long long ago, in far away lands, other brands have already been creating concept stores to showcase products, innovations, history and concepts - Sony has their Sony Centre (for your information, Sony Building in Ginza has been there wayyyy before our dear KLCC), Toyota has its Megaweb, Honda has its mother of all brand showrooms in the form of a circuit in Motegi, Adidas has its Original Store and Apple obviously did not lose out.I don't think it's necessary for a cool brand to own a conceptual space. Neither do I think its a sure ticket to cool-dom. I think what matters is what do you have to say to your customers whom you want to make friends with? Building a relationship means opening up your past, creating present moments and working towards the future together. It means shared interests, values and respect for each other. Isn't this how we all make friends since the day we dropped our diapers? How did we manage to forget such basic rule?
p/s: Audi Forum? Nice :) check back for some juicy R8s
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
