if “luxury kia” seems weird to you, read on

In teasers for what is sure to be a big Super Bowl ad push for Seoul-based auto manufacturer Kia (client of agency David&Goliath), the company is announcing the launch of a new model, hinted to be the brand's first true "luxury" vehicle. The jump into the luxury division is hardly surprising, as the brand has shifted towards more expensive models and trims over the last few years. While the decision is certainly bold, throwing a gauntlet at the feat of established luxury brands such as Audi and Lexus, it only formalizes what we already knew about Kia's future aspirations: To shirk its perception as an "economy" car.

Three years ago I wrote about the high cost of the redesigned Optima, which totaled around $26,000 at the time, and how it was an indication that Kia wanted to move up in the market. However, feedback on the article (available in the comment section) took issue with using the $26,000 price-point as a bellwether for the brand. The commenters all had fair points, but I believe were missing the forest for the trees, as the K900 clearly shows.

The point was not that Kia couldn't effectively reach various market-strata through trim options, but that Kia shouldn't try to do that.

Conventional wisdom suggests the greater variety of your offerings, the more customers you will reach (and the more money you will make). However, that's not the case when it comes to branding. Bygone are the days when companies made money producing average products for the average person. To paraphrase Darwin: The market today favors the extremes; not the averages. Brands who try to expand their territory -- either trying to move up in the market, or down -- often find themselves in a dangerous place branding pioneer Al Ries calls the "mushy middle" of the market. And, this is a place even the strongest brands go to die.

"When management sees the great success of its brand, the next thing they usually say is, ‘What else can we get into with our hot brand?'" writes Ries' daughter and fellow branding maven, Laura, in a 2010 article about this concept. "The answer is usually trouble." Laura uses Gap as an example; a brand once known as a "the" place fashionable, basics in apparel. Then, Gap success caused it to expand, adding GapBody, GapKids, and GapBaby. However, as Laura writes, Gap discovered that its core customers -- teenagers and 20-somethings -- didn't want to wear the same clothes as baby's and kids.

"All the expansion diluted the power of the Gap brand," Laura writes. Gap's hot brand turned into a hot mess. It lost its identity, and competitors had a foothold to overtake this once powerhouse name in fashion. It is no coincidence the company's strongest sister brands today are those occupying the low end of the market (Old Navy) and the high end (Banana Republic).

Taking this same principle and applying it to the auto industry, it's obvious why brands caught in the mushy middle, in particular American automakers, are struggling to carve-out an identity in a market that has evolved away from the everyday car for the everyday driver. The growing number of import options since the 1970s gave car consumers greater variety. As a result, the old model of a "one-size-fits-all" car gave way to a niche market where consumers could now be choosy about what they were looking for in a vehicle.

Today, there are domestic cars, "Japanese" cars (yes, people by cars simply by the fact that it is engineered by Japanese company -- the country itself has become a "reliability" brand), economy cars, luxury cars, hybrid cars, electric cars, etc. The strongest auto brands are those that clearly occupy a single space in the market.

There is little question that Kia is one of the strongest automotive brands right now. However, its success is largely because Kia is a brand born in the bottom of the market, which it then grew to dominate by producing a quality product for a budget price. In 2005, Al Ries even uses Kia as an example of a low-priced brand "doing great," while lamenting the "mushy middle" troubles of automakers like GM and Ford. Unfortunately for Kia, they must have overlooked his article.

Nobody can fault Kia with wanting to capitalize on its success. It's a natural thing, especially for an auto manufacturer; the existence of brands such as Acura (owned by Honda), Lexus (owned by Toyota), Infinity (owned by Nissan), and others are a byproduct of this desire for greater market share, especially at the top (Scion is Toyota's recent divergence into the low-end of the market). But, Toyota, Nissan and Honda recognized that it was better to create a new luxury brand than try to introduce a high-end model with mid-market brand ID. Many consumers have no idea those three luxury brands are really spruced-up, rebadged, lower-priced cars.

Even Hyundai, which debuted a luxury-model under its own brand, gave the Genesis its own logo and identity. Sure, it was the Hyundai Genesis, but you wouldn't know it from the badge. Hyundai recognized the need for keeping it at arm's length, even if it didn't want to fully commit to a full line-up of luxury cars.

However, Kia looks like it will release the K900 as a Kia, with a price tag decidedly un-Kia. And, that's the problem. The idea of a "luxury Kia" is an oxymoron in the consumer's mind; Kia stands for quality economy, not quality luxury. While the K900 is an astounding car on paper and will undoubtedly be one of the best "bangs for the buck" as luxury goes, the Kia consumer is not a luxury consumer, and portraying itself as a luxury brand dilutes the Kia name. Just like Gap, the move could have traumatic long-term consequences for the company.

At the moment, Kia enjoys the same sort of niche notoriety as its high-end German colleagues. Consumers know Kia as the premier economy vehicle, just as they think of BMW and Mercedes as the premier high-end vehicles. So, it makes little sense why it would want to leave a position occupied -- largely without rival -- in the economy market. A move to the middle would only cannibalize the success of its parent company, Hyundai -- just as Coke Zero merely cannibalizes the success of Diet Coke.

It's easy to sit back and suggest, "Well, surely if Kia got this far, it knows what it's doing." Yet, the same thing could be said for thousands of once-household names now defunct as a result of bad branding decisions, many of which were the same as Kia is making now. There is a reason why GM and Chrysler were bailed-out, and it wasn't all to do with Union-related overhead or quality issues. It was because everybody knows what an Audi is (German luxury, and thanks to the positioning work done by agency Venables Bell, it is becoming even more specialized as a German luxury auto for the younger generation), or knows what a Toyota is (Japanese reliability). There wasn't one "idea" consumers had about Ford, GM, or Chrysler, except they were "American" -- and the widespread availability of competitor imports (many of which are now more "made in America" than "American" cars) quickly showed how weak of a positioning that was.

In its teasers for the K900, the ad copy says "preconceived notions are the voices that distort reality." It's a great progressive philosophy, but it simply not true when it comes to a brand. A preconceived notion is the very definition of brand. Your brand is not what you say it is, but what a consumer believes it to be in his mind. That is why positioning in the mind of the consumer is one of the hardest, but most important aspects of brand management. It takes years, if not longer, to move the needle on consumers' "preconceived notions" about a brand. Hyundai's fight from the bottom to the middle of the market did not happen overnight.

Kia may very well think it's attempting to change the preconceived notions about the brand, but it's already been doing that over the last few years with industry-leading warranties, on top of industry-leading quality; not to mention stylish designs that challenge what an economy car has to look like. All Kia will accomplish with the K900 and the models that follow is muddying the waters for what the Kia brand "is" in the mind of a consumer.

call for reinforcements

A recent post at Nex Level Advisors, LLC has a headline that reads, “It’s important that you do everything possible to establish and reinforce a positive brand.” The article goes on to list several good suggestions for brands, such as basic (but, often forgotten) fundamentals like positioning and consistency. However, the headline itself drives home an important concept for brands: reinforcement.
 
The vast availability of knowledge now available at the fingertips of any one on the Internet has made for incredibly intelligent consumers. This has completely changed the game for branding, as not only are consumers demanding more from brands, but brands are also held to a higher standard.
 
Delivering a wanted product is no longer enough. Not only must brands deliver on their promised value, but they must also do it in satisfactory ways, and provide excellent customer service in the process. Oh, and brands should seek to create an exceptional “brand experience” for their consumers. A flat model for branding doesn't work when consumers expect brands to be three-dimensional. 
 
This wealth of information in today’s consumer environment means brands are no longer shaped by the messaging of their 30-second ad spots, or an endcap display at a grocery store. Brands are now defined by every thing they do — from production, to the actual product, to delivery, to answering the phones on the help line.
 
This is why brands should always “call for reinforcements” when taking an analysis of their branding strategy. Is there some process, or facet, of your organization that doesn’t enhance or help define the brand? More importantly, is there anything that underminesthe brand?
 
Chipotle’s emphasis on “food with integrity” digs out a brand position that their food is ethical to eat. You better believe they are constantly monitoring the sources of their food. With the speed at which information travels, a single chink in their armor — say, a source for their chickens that keeps them frozen in microscopic crates — could end up on a YouTube video exposing this hypocrisy, which would create a PR nightmare for Chipotle.
 
This situation is a bit more extreme, but the general principle of reinforcements for any brand is ensuring the branding signals all are aligned to promote, enhance, and reinforce your brand strategy.

the super bowl’s best and worst ads (based on what really matters)

Last Sunday, 111.3 million people tuned into NBC to watch the Super Bowl. It was the most watched television program in U.S. history. And, in among time outs, touchdowns, and player injuries, Americans were exposed to advertisements that cost brands an average of $3.5 million for 30-seconds of stardom.
 
Some brands nailed it. Some floundered. And, others should have never even set foot on the advertising field. The year seemed to be marked by a slew of cameo presences, most needlessly adding to an already bloated marketing budget. Some of the classics returned: the E-Trade baby, the CareerBuilder.com monkeys, and Danica Patrick’s boobs. Others, like the Budweiser Clydesdales, took us back in history to when the government did its best to keep people miserable (is Anheuser-Busch InBev seriously afraid of prohibition coming back?).
 
Yet, even commercials that are considered “Fan Favorites” may not have done what ads are supposed to do: move brands forward. While Super Bowl ads are expected to entertain, the pursuit of this goal sometimes leaves brands on the sidelines. But, no matter how entertaining an ad may be, it’s a bad ad if it doesn’t progress a brand in one way or another.
 
The following is a breakdown of the three best commercials, and the three worst, according to the four elements of an effective Super Bowl ad: attention-grabbing, entertaining, brand promotion, and brand recall.
 
The Best of the Super Bowl:
 
First Place — Kia: "A Dream Car. For Real Life" (David & Goliath)
Attention Grabbing: B
Entertaining: A
Brand Promotion: A
Brand Recall: A
 
Kia missed big last year with a complex, strange, and downright confusing ad featuring its newly redesign Optima blasting through time and space. However, they finally got the absurdity clicking in this year’s spot for the Optima. Joining it on a dream voyage around a racetrack was the striking Adriana Lima, the Motley Crew, a bucking Rhino, and a sub-sawing lumberjack who looked strangely like a burly John C. McGinley. While the commercial was one of the most outlandish of the Super Bowl, it still managed to prominently feature the car (yes, that’s right, Acura…car ads should feature the car). And, the absurd scenario that surrounded the Optima not only helped capture the thrill of driving it, it also served to drive home an excellent tagline: “A dream car. For real life.”
 
Second Place — Teleflora: "Give and Receive" (in house)
Attention Grabbing: A
Entertaining: B
Brand Promotion: A
Brand Recall: A
 
In what usually is a showcase of advertising absurdity (Kia Optima), parody (Honda CRV), and slapstick (Acura NSX), Teleflora’s ad featuring Adriana Lima cuts right to the chase. And, in the process, it sent millions of parents’ hands over their children’s eyes. If there is one thing that will grab a man’s attention, it is a scantly clad Lima. And, watching her slowly prepare her lingerie will entertain that attention as long as she wants. This created a perfect setup for the ad’s theme: give, and you shall receive. It’s that simple (wait…really?). While women viewers may not have been enthusiastic about this ad, it wasn’t them whom Teleflora was targeting. It was the guy who decides at the last that he needs a gift. Thanks to this ad, I’m sure Teleflora is going to be at the front of his mind.
 
Third Place — General Motor's Silverado: "2012" (Goodby, Silverstein & Partners) 
Attention Grabbing: A
Entertaining: B
Brand Promotion: A
Brand Recall: A
 
General Motor’s ad for its Silverado truck was one of the most controversial heading into the Super Bowl, largely due to the bellyaching of its rival, Ford. GM did a stellar job making the most of a post-apocalyptic nightmare as a stage for its manly Silverado pickup. And, ensuring things didn’t get too serious, over-acting and Twinkies (I hope GSP gave a hat-tip to Zombieland) lent it the scenario humorous edge. Hopefully the shot at Ford will be the opening salvo to fantastic advertising war between the two automakers.
 
Honorable Mention — Fiat: “Seduction” (Richards Group, Dallas) 
Attention Grabbing: A
Entertaining: A
Brand Promotion: A
Brand Recall: C
 
Fiat took the Teleflora model and applied it to a car. The sexual tension between the nerdy guy and his imaginary Italian seductress was palpable, which led to a fantastic setup to the revealing of the car, which was wearing the same “outfit” as the mirage. While the attention, entertainment, and brand promotion were all there, I’m skeptical about how well consumers will remember the “Fiat” brand, given its recent entry into the U.S. market.  
 
The Worst of the Super Bowl:
 
First Place — Samsung "Thing Called Love" (72 & Sunny)
Attention Grabbing: B
Entertaining: C
Brand Promotion: F
Brand Recall: A
 
If there is one person happy about Samsung’s 2012 presence in the Super Bowl, it’s probably one-hit-wonder “The Darkness.” Or, it could be Netflix, which was able to pass the crown for one of the worst product launches on to Samsung. While the commercial started with a strong concept (making fun of the Apple cult), it slowly drifted into a weird street party. And, when Samsung tried to pass off its “stylus” as the future of technology, it came time to call it a night. At least consumers will remember Samsung. Too bad it will be for all the wrong reasons.
 
Second Place — Century 21: "Smarter. Bolder. Faster." (Red Tettemer & Partners)
Attention Grabbing: B
Entertaining: C
Brand Promotion: C
Brand Recall: F
 
The selection of a real estate agent is a serious decision, and the Super Bowl is not an environment to try to sell a brand like Century 21. Unfortunately, they took a shot at it anyways. Their effort came off as an attempt to squeeze in as many celebrities as possible in a 30 second spot, and try to somehow make it all relevant to the qualities that make up a good agent. The cameos of Donald Trump and Deon Sanders may have been mildly entertaining to some, but the commercial (and the brand) was entirely forgettable.
 
Third Place — PepsiCo “King's Court” (TBWA /Chiat/Day)
Attention Grabbing: B
Entertaining: D
Brand Promotion: D
Brand Recall: D
 
Pepsi ended up plunking down some serious money to secure Elton John in one of the first spots in the Super Bowl. However, a better investment would have been using those millions to actually buy Pepsis for all, film it, and put it on YouTube. What TBWA/Chiat/Day produced for PepsiCo was downright stupid: from the premise of using the lovable Sir Elton John for a cold-hearted king, to the cheesy “No, Pepsi for all” line, to the gratuitous use of wash-up Flava Flave at the conclusion. For an agency like TBWA/Chiat/Day, it’s almost as much of an embarrassment for them as it was a missed opportunity for Pepsi.
 
Dishonorable Mention — Chrysler: "Halftime in America" (Wieden + Kennedy)
Attention Grabbing: B
Entertaining: B
Brand Promotion: D
Brand Recall: C
 
Nothing sells like America. Sarah Palin found that magic out early on and built an empire for herself. In a time of economic hardships, an emotional appeal that tugs on the heartstrings of Americans is a strong, strong technique. But, Chrysler is trying to sell cars— not American flags. And, unlike last year where a similar technique prominently featured Chrysler’s 200 model, the Chrysler vehicles in this year’s spot were virtually invisible. Americans may love the nationalist message that Chrysler was selling in the ad, but the fact remains that Americans aren’t looking to buy Detroit. They’re looking to buy a car that’s the best value for their hard-earned dollar. Chrysler’s 2012 Super Bowl ad received a standing ovation because everybody will clap for good old-fashioned American patriotism. But, that doesn’t mean people are going out to dealerships and buying Chryslers to save the country. People can do that with Ford and Chevy, which have done a far better job of marketing their vehicles.

four elements of an effective super bowl ad

According a National Retail Federation study conducted by BIGinsight, 73% of viewers of the Super Bowl see commercials as entertainment. This sets a high standard for advertisers for not only capturing the attention of viewers distracted at parties, or looking down from the television to check Facebook on their phone. It also requires that they keep consumers entertained.
 
However, this demand to create a commercial that can both capture attention and entertain sometimes causes creative teams to overlook the primary purpose of any advertisement: selling the brand. If consumers aren’t more motivated to support a brand after a commercial, then advertisers dropped $3.5 million to get a chuckle out of consumers. Or, if things get “overly creative,” they spent a significant chunk of change to either confuse or bore them. And, in the worst-case scenario, which occurred with Groupon in last year’s Super Bowl, the ad just pisses people off.
 
It’s a huge gamble. For many companies, a Super Bowl ad-buy is most (or, all) of the marketing budget for the entire year. If the ad bombs, or fails to drive the brand, all is lost.
 
“An ad can be funny, cute, viral, likeable, watchable, etc.,” writes Peter Daboll, CEO of Ace Metrix, in a recent editorial at AdAge about the gamble of Super Bowl advertising. “But if a consumer doesn't get anything out of it but a laugh, it's just not effective.” Daboll says Internet companies are particularly prone to Super Bowl failures, since their products are outside the norm, and their ads do little more than simply announce their presence to the world. On past Internet ads, Daboll says: “Not only did these companies spend millions on Super Bowl media, they also wasted significant dollars on hiring celebrities that did nothing to move their message or their brand forward.”
 
It’s easy to get a laugh. It’s much harder to get a laugh and then sell a product. And, even if an ad gets millions of YouTube hits, or is voted the viewers’ favorite, it doesn’t necessarily mean it was a “good ad” in what could be considered effective advertising. In the words of advertising legend Rosser Reeves: "Somebody, some day, is going to put advertising awards on the proper basis. And that basis is, does it work?"
 
Volkswagen had one of the most popular commercials last year. Yet, how many consumers remember the little Darth Vader compared to how many remember what that Volkswagen car looks like, or what model it was?
 
This year, I’ve decided to create an advertising matrix that puts Super Bowl commercials to the test. There are four key elements that make an effective Super Bowl commercial: attention-grabbing, entertaining, brand promotion, and brand recall. A commercial must grab the consumers’ attention, entertain them while promoting the brand in a relevant (and effective) way, and consumers should remember the brand at the end of the game.  If one of these elements is missing, then the commercial will have failed to fulfill its purpose.
 
To download the Super Ad Matrix for yourself, click here (or, you can find it on Google Docs by searching for "Super Ad Matrix"). And, come back after the game to report what you felt was the best commercial based on your findings.

billboard brands

Designing an effective billboard is always a challenge. This probably explains why so many are terribly executed. Billboards require concise copy — sometimes only a few words — that people are supposed to read, digest, and process in just a few seconds. If the copy is too long, or the billboard is too busy, consumers will take a quick glance and move on.
 
Branding should be approached in the same way.
 
You don’t want a billboard so junked up with extraneous items that consumers are unable to understand it. Brands, like billboards, should be simple and direct. The battle for a position in the mind of a consumer is much like battling for their attention in the few seconds they drive by an out-of-home advertisement. If it isn’t something they are already familiar with, you have but just a few precious seconds to grab their attention. The sharper, more narrowly focused your brand is, the likelier it is you’ll land a strike.
 
Brands that are complex, or vague, have a hard time fighting through the noise to reach the consumers. However, brands that are simple, narrowly focused, and clear as to their purpose, or value, resonate better.
 
If you have just a few seconds to reach consumers about your brand, what would you say? Think of what you would put on a billboard to describe your brand. Ideally, it would be just one key word. It would be the one word that your brand has come to dominate, and one that defines it. For example, here is what some of the top brand billboards might look like: “Apple: Innovation in Technology;” “Google: Online Search;” “Burberry: Fashion’s Luxury;” “Marlboro: #1 in Cigarettes;” “Toyota: Automotive Reliability.”
 
Just two or three words, paired with a logo, would be all these brands needed to not only advertise the brand visually, but also tell consumers everything they need to know about it. Apple is where to go for the latest technology. Google is where to go for online search. Burberry is what you buy to look posh. Marlboro is what you smoke (because if they are number one, they must be the best). Toyota is what you buy if you want a reliable car.
 
Taking a look at your brand, could you explain it to consumers in just a few seconds, with just a few words? Could you turn your brand into a billboard? If not, maybe it is time to revaluate the brand, and trim off some of the excess. The best brands are ones that are narrow in focus, simple, and consistent. If you have a busy brand — trying to be everything to everybody — it will never hold a spot in the minds of consumers, just as a busy billboard will never register with consumers.

outsource your marketing, outsource your ethics

Perform a Google search for the Avenger controller, made by video game controller manufacturer N-Control. Doing so will query a variety of sites containing information about the device. The search will also include stories about how a marketing firm contracted by N-Control nearly destroyed their brand.

When N-Control outsourced their public relations to Paul Christoforo at Ocean Marketing, they had no idea they were about to enter a PR nightmare that has forever tarnished the name of N-Control and the Avenger controller. While the actions of rogue egomaniacs can never truly be foreseen, N-Control should have known the dangers of letting their brand image be controlled out-of-house.

As attorney Eric Turkewitz says, “outsourcing marketing = outsourcing ethics.”

Managing a brand is more than deciding the colors on the packaging, or keeping your marketing message consistent. Brands are constituted via hundreds of moving parts, including every facet of the organization. From the ease of getting to customer service agents, to the copy on the packaging — everything a company does feeds into its brand image.

When marketing is outsourced, so are the ethics. And, if brands don’t keep a constant eye on the marketing, it can’t possibly ensure that the marketing tactics are within the ethics of the brand. This is why Popehat.com added to Turkewitz’s maxim, saying that one also outsources their “reputation” with their marketing, as N-Control saw in the worst way possible.

Outsourcing happens. Nearly every product that has been manufactured (outside of the lonely, wooden toy maker in a rustic Prague neighborhood) has used outsourced parts or labor. However, outsourcing a highly visible brand component, such as marketing or public relations, is a completely different story.

While not every instance is going to turn into Christofoesque nightmare, it has the potential to if not carefully monitored and managed. The Internet is fast. Christoforo’s infamous emails were sent on Dec. 26, 2011. The next day, they were on Penny-Arcade.com, one of the most highly trafficked sites in the nation (ranked 1,006 of US sites by Alexa.com).

The word “blindsided” does not even begin to describe what happened to N-Control. But, by handing the branding keys to a little man with a big ego, N-Control opened the door for this to happen, and was crippled when it came to responding.

The lesson here is to outsource what you need, but be wary about doing so with crucial elements to your brand’s image. All it takes is a few emails to cripple a brand.

marketing may fade, but the brand is forever

Apple’s marketing budget is $5.5 billion. Microsoft’s is $17 billion. Yet, according to BrandZ’s Top 100 global brands chart, Microsoft holds the number five spot, behind brands such as McDonald’s, IBM, Google, and…Apple. Why? According to conventional wisdom, the companies that spend the most on marketing should have the best brand, right?

Not so, according to a recent article at Fast Company's Co. Design, which suggests that the days of marketing are fading. “In an increasingly transparent, digitally empowered economy, where everyone potentially can know everything, companies can no longer use the other three P's (Price, Promotion, and Place) to gain a long-term competitive advantage,” writes Jens Martin Skibsted, founder of design agency Skibsted Ideation, and Rasmus Bech Hansen, London-based strategy director at Venturethree. “These P's, in other words, are becoming strategically less significant; they are still valuable, just less so than they used to be, and they don’t provide any long-term edge.”

Is this true? That’s the ongoing debate, and one that has monumental implications for brands large and small.

Skibsted and Hansen write further:

We, however, still believe that where a company sells and distributes its offerings is becoming less important relative to what it sells. The rise of e-commerce makes it much easier for consumers to buy the best product irrespective of where it is sold. Sites like Yelp, Lonely Planet, and Zagat point consumers to restaurants, hotels, or shops that provide real value and good experiences even if they are off the beaten track. And we think Apple’s retail success has a lot to do with creating an amazing brand experience that is an extension of the product experience by offering a real service (the Genius Bar). If you have an extraordinary product, customers will find it and buy it in a transparent economy.

So, is a brand strategy more important than a marketing strategy? Can a company with a strong brand stay afloat with a small advertising budget? Can a company with a lousy brand make it by pumping money into marketing? Or, are they both necessary?

Leave your thoughts in the comment section below.

yes, consistency in your brand is still important

If you're not already following Kaitlin Gallucci at BeneathTheBrand.com, you really should. She has a post everyday, and they're all branding gems that you shouldn't miss. Hers today on "consistency" in branding is especially relevant because, as she explains in the article, people seem to think the days of consistency are over.

Wrong.

According to Hunt, “research shows that businesses with well-managed, consistent brands are worth up to 20% [more] than those who aren’t.”

Gallucci continues:

Branding consistency is a primary means of brand recognition. Imagine if a company didn’t maintain a consistent brand name; not only would it probably go virtually unknown, it would appear unreliable, not to be trusted.

Bingo. If there are two things you should remember about branding, it's that consistency and singularity are the building blocks to brands with staying power. Change your brand, or junk it up with line extensions or silly bells and whistles, and you lose value -- or, kill your brand altogether.

a conversation about branding with stanley hainsworth

Advertising is very much a learning experience. Even the advertising greats received valuable knowledge from their predecessors. Before today’s advertising legends, there was David Ogilvy. And, before Ogilvy, there was Claude Hopkins. Each generation gives the next lessons from which they can draw upon in creating better advertisements, and stronger brands.

Over at Fast Company, Debbie Millman, president of Sterling Brands, sits down with a man who helped build Starbucks into one of the world’s most powerful brands. Stanley Hainsworth, who has served as the creative director at Nike, Lego, and Starbucks before leaving to start his own agency, knows something about branding, and making brands superpowers in the marketplace.

The whole interview (available here) is full of expert wisdom worth an entire read, the following excerpt is the most valuable for those seeking to build a brand with staying power. Hainsworth describes how Howard Schultz took a coffee shop in a crowded marketplace, and turned it into a global icon [parts bolded for emphasis]:

When Howard Schultz first came to Starbucks, he wasn't the owner of the company. He joined a couple guys that had started the company. He went over to Milan and saw the coffee culture and espresso bars where people met in the morning. He saw how people caught up on the news while they sat or stood and drank their little cups of espresso. That inspired the vision he crafted from the beginning--to design a social environment where people not only came for great coffee, but also to connect to a certain culture.

Howard was very wise in knowing that Starbucks was not the only company in the world to make great coffee. On the contrary, there are hundreds of other companies that can make great coffee. So what's the great differentiator? The answer is the distinction that most great brands create.There are other companies that make great running shoes or great toys or great detergent or soap, but what is the real differentiator that people keep coming back for? For Starbucks, it was creating a community, a "third place." It was a very conscious attribute of the brand all along and impacted every decision about the experience: who the furniture was chosen for, what artwork would be on the walls, what music was going to be played, and how it would be played.

Differentiation. That’s the key.

Starbucks didn’t just make coffee. Starbucks made an “environment” for coffee. It was this differentiating factor — a conscious decision, executed to perfection down to the very art that was hung on the walls — that moved Starbucks beyond its competitors and into branding glory.

What differentiates your brand from your competitors? How are you creating an emotional connection with your consumers? Read the interview, and take a lesson from one of the masters of branding.

looks like abercrombie got itself in 'a situation'

Brands pay celebrities all the time to sport their gear. Yet, clothing line Abercrombie & Fitch is taking a different approach. Instead of sponsoring a celebrity, they’re offering to pay the cast of MTV’s Jersey Shore to not wear their clothes.

According to A&F, the appearance of their label on the Guido and Guidettes of the Shore is “contrary to the aspirational nature of the brand.” I suppose reality stars puking in the streets while wearing an A&F shirt is not exactly what the brand wants people to “aspire” to become. (Then again, they are making a boatload of cash for being, well, talented at getting drunk.)

Yet, the request is a bit confusing. A&F isn’t exactly known for their aspirational advertising. The clothing line is wrought with its fair share of Shore-esque branding signals, including shirtless greeters welcoming customers into its club-like stores. And, as Shore cast member Paul “DJ Pauly D” Delvecchio pointed-out in a recent tweet, A&F has taken advantage of the Shore hype. “Hmmm if They Don’t Want Us To Wear Those Clothes Why Make GTL Shirts,” asks Delvecchio.

It’s a good question, and has a few people asking if A&F isn’t just building a PR stunt around the request. "With respect to The Situation, Abercrombie & Fitch saw an opportunity to get some advantageous publicity during the all-important back-to-school season," BMO Capital Markets Senior Retail Analyst John Morris told the Chicago Tribune. "It's definitely a good water-cooler conversation."

Stunt or not, it serves as a good lesson about the importance (and, consequences) of your brand narrative.

You have a product. That product has a brand image. That brand image is created through branding signals. And, your branding signals tell a story to consumers. If your brand narrative is one of youthful bacchanalia — as is A&F’s — don’t be surprised if your brand starts showing up in places where said bacchanalia occurs.

Pervasive brands have a tendency to get co-opted by consumers. Therefore, it’s important that your branding signals weave a narrative that ensures the brand is reaching the right audience.

state of regret: getting involved in discount wars

In an era of sales, BOGO, and discounts, it’s nice to see someone doing something…different. This is especially refreshing when it comes to car insurance. Geico set the standard for discount auto coverage in 15 minutes or less, and a plethora of companies have emerged to serve the low-end market with minimum coverage.

However, State Farm is doing something different. Instead of joining the discount frenzy with insurance, State Farm is leveraging their human capital to build their brand. In a recent ad called “State of Regret,” former State Farm customer “Jerry” calls his old agent pleading for help after putting his car up a pole. When she can’t help him, he says: “It only took 15 minutes to sign with that new auto insurance company, but it’s taken a lot longer to hear back.”

By refusing to participate in the discount game, State Farm is avoiding the crowded, low-end insurance market coveted by companies like Geico, Progressive, Esurance, The General, and local agencies. However, by pushing service rather than discounted prices, State Farm is able to attract business from the high end of the insurance market. This means State Farm can still bring in new customers without dropping their prices.

In the end, this is a much better branding strategy because they aren’t locked forever into discounted prices and won’t have to keep dropping premiums in order to keep customers. Customers came to State Farm because even with higher premiums than say, Geico, customers know that an agent will be there. So long as State Farm delivers on their promise of service, they’ll keep customers.

Looking at the top 10 insurance companies by market share in 2010, State Farm is at the top, followed by Allstate — another insurance company that has directly attacked the “cut-rate” insurance game in their “Mayhem” campaign.

Brands can take a lesson from State Farm and Allstate: although there is money to be made by dominating the low end of the market, discounting is a trap that keeps your brand locked into low prices. Should you try to raise your prices, you’re likely to lose any sort of customer base you managed to build.

google+ will fail

Google+ will fail. That’s a pretty bold position to take given that Google+ is in beta testing, and, after all…it’s Google we’re talking about here. However, despite the flurry of chatter, and the soaring subscriber numbers, Google+ will not be all that it is heralded to be. It will not be the Facebook Killer.

Google+ was launched with the typical fanfare that would be expected of an announcement that Google was getting into the social media business (again). These are the guys that revolutionized search and built a tech empire that has swiftly become the world’s second most valuable brand. The common logic goes that if Google can do what it did for search, they should be able to do the same thing for social media. And, since everybody loves a good fight, the “rivalry” aspect with Facebook is helping to fuel the buzz.

As of July 12, 2011, Google+ had added approximately 7.3 million subscribers, and was up to 10 million by July 14. According to one statistician, the service is expected to hit 20 million if kept at its current pace. When invites were limited during its initial launch, some even turned to eBay to get in on the action.

So, with the all the hype, interest, and backing of an online titan like Google, why will Google+ fail? It all comes down to the value proposition. The reason Google+ will fail is that there is no reason; that is, no reason for consumers to leave Facebook.

“In the high-tech field a new product or system is considered worthless without a ‘killer application,’” writes branding expert Al Reis in his book The Origin of Brands. “Take the Internet, which was something of a high-tech curiosity until the killer app came along. That application was email.” As of yet, Google+ features no “killer application” that would make it the assassin of Facebook. It may do most of what Facebook can do. And, in some instances, it may do it better.

However, in unseating a brand leader like Facebook — especially one that dominates the Social Networking category (even the word “dominating” falls short of describing how entrenched Facebook is as the category leader) — better isn’t good enough. If Google+ wanted to kill Facebook, as should be its goal, it needed to reinvent the Social Media category, and branch off into something completely new. Something so new, and so groundbreaking, that it would make Facebook obsolete.

But it hasn’t.

Instead, Google+ has opted for a “me too” brand, just as Google Buzz was a me-too clone of Twitter. There is nothing revolutionary about Google+. There is nothing worthwhile about it. It may be signing up subscribers by the millions, but how many of those will be active in a month, or even a week? People have stated that they’ll drop Facebook once their friends start using Google+, but if everybody is waiting on the sidelines, who will jump in the game? My guess is very few. The end result will be that Google+ has millions of barely active subscribers who will post on their Facebook wall about how lame Google+ is.

your brand doesn’t need a 'mr. t' strategy

Mr. T is one of the most iconic faces of the 1980s. He was the star of the A-Team, showed-up in the Rocky series, and has done a myriad of commercials over his acting career. His catchphrases reside among the immortal words of other American paragons like Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Paine, and Martin Luther King, Jr. Yet, in spite of Mr. T’s cultural and celebrity prowess, he won’t save your brand.

“American consumers insist that they are not swayed by celebrity endorsements,” reports Adweek on the results of a recent Adweek/Harris Interactive survey. “More than three-quarters [of respondents] answered that it has no impact on their intent to buy.” Furthermore, only 4 percent indicated it would make them more likely to purchase. So, what are brands getting for the millions they spend on “buying” celebrities in hopes they can get consumers to buy? More often than not, nothing more than a wasted advertising budget.

Of course, this should come as no surprise to brand managers. Advertising master David Ogilvy (himself once a cultural icon whose words still serve as teaching tools for young, and old, advertising junkies) wrote in his 1983 book, Ogilvy on Advertising, that celebrities don’t move product. “Viewers guess that the celebrity has been bought,” Ogilvy wrote. “And they are right.” Ogilvy also suggested that celebrities have a way of overpowering the brands they’re advertising, making the celebrity (and, not the brand) the only memorable part of the campaign. Any time that an advertising technique — be it a celebrity, or “humorous” copy — overshadows the brand, it’s not good advertising. It’s even worse when you spend extra thousands, or millions, to secure an endorsement.

Your brand doesn’t need a celebrity. It needs a strategy that’s based on solid branding fundamentals. There have been several famous non-celebrities as “brand figureheads.” For example, Subway’s “Jared,” or “The Man in the Hathaway Shirt.” However, the difference between these individuals and celebrities like Mr. T is that the ad campaigns made Jared famous; Jared didn’t make Subway famous. Their appearances in the campaigns were techniques that enhanced the brand instead of overpowering it. Jared wasn’t a celebrity. He was a product testimonial. Likewise, The Man in a Hathaway Shirt was story appeal.

Would Subway have achieved the same level of success with its “health and nutrition” positioning if they used someone like Justin Bieber? No. Celebrities have access to personal trainers and nutrition consultants. The “testimonial” technique would have been completely lost. And, what would have happened if Ogilvy had decided to use Frank Sinatra instead of Baron George Wrangell for the Hathaway campaign? Would consumers have even paid attention to the shirt? Doubtful.

This is not to say that celebrity endorsements fail 100% of the time. Using a celebrity who is an authority on the industry or product for which he is advertising can be beneficial to a brand. Rory McIlroy testifying to the quality of golf clubs, for example, might be a worthwhile investment. Maybe. At least it will certainly be more worthwhile than Mr. T hawking Snickers.

If your brand is looking to do something with endorsements, try focusing on delivering a solid brand performance to your customers. After all, it’s their endorsement that is the most influential to their friends. Yeah, it’s really cool that for $1 million you can get a celebrity to like your product. And, for $2 million, that celebrity will probably endorse your competitor as well.

Instead of dumping money into expensive advertising campaigns, or buying a head-nod from a celebrity, turn that money back into your business to improve upon things that will really better your brand. Denny’s opted out of advertising in the 2011 Super Bowl, saying they would rather spend that money on programs throughout the year. "It is a very expensive exercise and I don't believe it's necessary for us to continue to put all our eggs in one basket," says Frances Allen, Denny's Chief Marketing Officer, in an interview with AdAge. “We decided to focus our efforts on a broad, multilayer program that we believe better rewards our guests throughout the year, vs. doing a big, onetime push for Super Bowl.”

This lesson is especially apposite for small businesses with limited budgets. Never underestimate the power of smart branding fundamentals that resonate with consumers. There’s more evidence that a solid brand foundation will move product than there is for any endorsement from a celebrity. And, the return on investment is unquestionably higher.

are you doing too much with your brand?

The goal of every brand manager is to get the brand to resonate with consumers in a personal and lasting way. Branding is a war for the mind. And, if your brand is eventually able to overcome the noise of market competition and find that sacred spot in the mind of a consumer, it’s a remarkable accomplishment. The brands that most often find, and then keep, these positions are those that most easily cut through the noise because of their consistent focus on a singular idea.

Papa John’s began in 1983 and focused on a narrow menu that allowed it to deliver on the promise of “Better Ingredients. Better Pizza.” “By keeping the Papa John's menu simple, we ensure the quality of our product by using only the best ingredients,” says the company’s website. Through this narrow focus, Papa John’s was able to build itself from a pizza shop in the back of a bar to America’s third-largest pizza chain.

Simplicity allows brands to do more than improve the quality of their services. It also allows brands to have a narrow focus on new markets, and can even create new categories. Online dating services are a great place to look for this concept in practice. Although dating services like Match.com, eHarmony, and PlentyOfFish dominate the online dating market, splinter services with a narrower focus have created new opportunities for growth. JDate.com is a dating service for Jewish people. Because it leads the category for “online Jewish dating,” it can bill itself as the “most popular online Jewish dating community” (illustrating the power of category leaders). Other examples include dating sites for exclusively “beautiful people” (beautifulpeople.com), dating sites for mature singles (SilverSingles.com), and even dating sites for married people (AshleyMadison.com). It’s likely that this trend will continue, and even more new categories for online dating will emerge.

On the other side, brands that try to do too much have a hard time lasting in the market. These brands often fall for the fallacy of “convergence,” a branding idea that says that the more your product or service does, the more appeal it will have to a wider audience. Unless these products offer a convenience factor greater than their individual parts, the brand is doomed for failure. It’s because the more functions or service offerings that a brand promises, the harder it is to deliver. Consumers instead will opt for the “specialists.” A restaurant that offers fish, tacos, hamburgers, chicken, steaks, and salads may do one or two of those things well, but most consumers go to a Legal Sea Foods for fish, a Five Guys for hamburgers, or a Ruth’s Chris for steaks. These brands have established themselves as leaders because they have a narrow focus on their brand and excel at delivering on that focus.

If your brand is struggling, consider pruning it down and narrowing the focus. It’s better that you do one thing very well than several things poorly. By having a wide focus, brands lose to the specialists who can deliver a higher-quality product or service. Additionally, a wide focus makes it impossible for you to establish a brand position in the mind of a consumer. Don’t try to do too much with your brand. Keep it simple.

can you build a branding empire without advertising?

To the average Joe, advertising is synonymous with building a strong brand. If you don’t advertise, then obviously you can’t build your business because nobody will know who you are, or what you do. Therefore, the thinking goes, that the more you advertise, the better your brand.

Many small businesses fall into this trap. If sales are dropping, they throw more money into advertising in hopes that it will turn things around. It’s partially what fuels the buzz around Groupon and other discounted deals sites. Need exposure? Boom, run a deal on Groupon, and you’ll have a flood of new customers (at least in the short-term).

Yes, advertising is important; however, it isn’t necessary. Google, Amazon.com, Starbucks, Facebook; they are some of the world’s most powerful brands. They also happen to advertise only rarely. It’s not that these brands know something that others don’t. No, the “secret” to their success is strong branding; branding that doesn’t need advertising. By following the basic steps to establishing a lasting brand, they have created empires without advertising.

“While ad agencies and media companies tend to focus on producing spots for short-lived campaigns, great brands are more enduring because the compelling story they represent has to transcend any and all platforms or potential campaigns,” writes Gair Maxwell at The Seamless Brand. Maxwell says that if these types brands advertise, it’s usually late in the process, and only if it’s needed.

So, how does a small business go about building a brand like Google, or Starbucks?

1. Differentiate

The product or service that is offered is the foundation of any brand. Without a product that consumers want, no amount of effort you put into building a brand will save it from failure. And, in order for consumers to want your product, it must bedifferent from competitors in a way that they find valuable. You can’t break into a market with another product or service that’s not differentiated from the competition. Likewise, even established products need to stay updated to keep up with the competition. Create a product/service that consumers can’t live without. Do this, and your brand’s foundation will be rock-solid.

2. Position

The art of positioning is about owning a category, or idea, in the mind of the consumer. It’s staking a claim in the marketplace; a claim that nobody else can hold except your brand. Google owns “search.” Starbucks owns “coffee.” Facebook owns “social networking.” Sure, there were search engines before Google, just as there was coffee before Starbucks, and social networks before Facebook. However, each of these brands had a differentiated product that consumers wanted, so they knocked off the competition and were able to position their brands at the top of the category. Google and Facebook have done this so well that their names have become widely accepted verbs in our language. ‘Why don’t you just Google that?’ ‘Facebook me.’

3. Align

Once you have your product and an idea for your brand, you must ensure that your company is completely focused on this central idea. Your entire company must be aligned with the brand. From the manufacturing process to customer support, every facet of the company should not only understand the brand and what sets it apart from the rest, but they should also consider themselves a vital part reinforcing that idea. Google is Google because everything about the company is aligned behind the idea of technological innovation. Even the office structure is set up for maximum creativity and thinking. “At lunchtime, almost everyone eats in the office café, sitting at whatever table has an opening and enjoying conversations with Googlers from different teams,” says Google’scompany culture webpage. “Our commitment to innovation depends on everyone being comfortable sharing ideas and opinions.”

4. Deliver

Delivery of the value proposition inherent in your differentiated product is what ties everything together. And, before you launch a product, you should know that you can deliver on what you promise. It’s why you align your company around that central brand idea. Zappos.com became the top shoe seller on the Internet because it delivered on its promise of exceptional customer service. If Zappos tried to differentiate itself by promising customer service beyond that of its competitors, but failed to deliver, you would have never heard of them. Likewise, Facebook delivered on being a better social network than MySpace, and Google delivered on being a more innovative search engine than Yahoo. Don’t promise what you can’t deliver, and if you can’t deliver anything new, then don’t bring your product or service to the market.

The local Mom & Pop store around the corner will most likely never find itself on BrandZ’s Top 100 global brands list. Then again, Apple was started in a garage (and, here are 10 Fortune 500 companies with humble beginnings). However, by following some basic steps to building a lasting brand, that Mom & Pop store can dominate the local market without ever needing to spend a penny on advertising.

fix brands at the foundation

Selling a house a house in a down market can be a very frustrating, time consuming and tedious process. This is especially true if you’re trying to sell an older house with the problems that come from age. One major problem with some of these homes is the foundation, which can eventually lead to issues throughout the entire house. It’s a major problem because even if homeowners paint over cracks in the walls, or replace cracked bricks on the exterior, the problems with the foundation will still create expensive headaches down the road — not to mention never pass inspection when it comes time to sell the home.

Problems with brands are much like problems with houses. They can’t always be solved with new paint or fancy shutters. One must go straight to the source, or else risk spending resources on a quick fix rather than a long-term solution.

“Many potential clients call and ask for a new logo, a new package design, or typeface treatment,” says Allen Adamson, managing director at Landor Associates, in his book BrandSimple. “I tell them no.” Adamson says that before agreeing to any major change to the cosmetic elements of the brand, they must first define the problems they’re trying to solve. Only then will they be able to accomplish anything worthwhile. “It must be done from the inside out, not superficially,” says Adamson.

It’s easy to slap a new logo to your brand hope your sales go up. Companies try it all the time. For example, look at department stores, where Belk and JCPenney recently redesigned their logos. Sure, the new logos are nice, but new brand identities fail to address the real problems the two stores face. In a market plagued by a lack of differentiation, where discounts — not the strength of brands — drive sales, a new logo and a little more passion isn’t going to save them.

However, that’s exactly where superficial fixes leave brands. If quarterly numbers are dropping, it’s time to address branding problems at the foundation. If consumers no longer find that a brand is delivering a product or service that’s different from a competitor in a valuable way, then it’s a foundational branding problem that won’t be solved with a superficial solution. But, inspecting brands down to the core requires everyone from the copywriters to C-suite execs to get out of their comfort zone and start asking hard questions. It's not easy to do, but this type of probing analysis of a brand is necessary to avoid costly mistakes that only delay the inevitable decay of brand value.

It's more than passion. It's more than a logo. If something is fundamentally wrong with the foundation of the brand, its effects will be seen everywhere else until it is fixed.

the power of perception

The mind is powerful. So powerful, in fact, that people see what they want to see regardless of the reality that surrounds them. Hypochondriacs, even those that are self aware, suffer from the persistent delusion that they are plagued by a never-ending series of illnesses. In their minds, they are gravely ill, and no doctor can tell them otherwise.

Consumers can suffer from the same delusions. “There is no objective reality,” write marketing mavens Al Ries and Jack Trout in their book The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing. “There are no facts. There are not best products. All that exists in the world of marketing are perceptions in the minds of the customer or prospect.”

“The perception is the reality,” they continue. “Everything else is an illusion.”

If facts ruled the day in marketing, many of the top consumer brands would be bottom-shelf items. However, because those brands have established a perception of strength, quality, or leadership in the minds of consumers, facts are irrelevant. Consumers believe that leading brands are “better” than their competitors, and that’s all that matters.

Roger Dooley, a marketing consultant specializing in neuromarketing, recently wrote at his site about a new study that will be published in an upcoming edition of the Journal of Consumer Research. The study illustrates the power of perception in consumer behavior. “Individuals who are dieting or trying to eat healthy foods have learned to avoid some foods by name,” writes Dooley. “The researchers found that the same dish containing vegetables, pasta, meat, and cheese was rated as healthier when it was called a salad instead of ‘pasta.’ Another test showed that subjects ate more ‘fruit chews’ than ‘candy chews,’ even though the product was the same.”

What is the lesson for brands? Consumer perception — positive or negative — is a good place to start when developing any marketing campaign. It’s far easier to start with how consumers perceive your brand rather than developing an entirely new branding strategy or creating a new product. Doing so would require building a new idea in the mind of the consumer, which is much more difficult that altering a misperception.

For example, Porsche discovered through consumer research that its models were perceived as impractical as a daily driver. This perception was hurting sales, especially in a down economy. Porsche wanted to change the perception and began a multi-channel marketing campaign highlighting the value of Porsche as an everyday car, without actually changing the car. “We're not going away from the core brand values of performance, engineering and state of the art technology,” Porsche’s Vice President of Marketing David Pryor told DMNews, adding they simply wanted to focus on some of the more “every day” aspects of it.

For brands hurting in sales, the problem may not be with the product, but rather the perception of the product. The first step to turning around sales should be discovering how consumers perceive the brand, then building a campaign around that perception. The research can discover a weakness (or, even a strength), which can serve as a solid launching for rebuilding the brand. As the research shows, even changing the name of a product can result in an increase in sales.