Pages Pick: The Brand Gap

I devoured The Brand Gap by Marty Neumeier yesterday while on a long ferry ride. I had never heard of Marty and this book was recommended to me by a designer friend who told me my eBook echoed many of his concepts and philosophies. I highly suggest giving this digestible and practical primer a read if you can.

I’m going to break down some concepts from the book on the blog over the next week or so. But for today, let’s just focus on his principle of brand as competitive differentiator. To avoid commoditization, you need to build a strong brand to enable you to ask for premium pricing as well as to create a predictable expectation and experience among your target audience. This is not to say that branding means creating only luxury brands – it just means people will pay for the soul, the experience, the “promise” of something, vs. a cookie-cutter substitute that does not really stand for anything.

He also talks a lot about how to structure brand building within your organization. The best structures are ones that still retain internal brand stewards to constantly monitor and educate on the brand, and ensure all touchpoints carry forth the promise. You can’t “outsource” branding per se – you can only assemble a strong team to help you achieve branding success and execute on it. That would be like someone “outsourcing” their personality to a more likeable person. Your brand is what you are, so you have to walk the talk.

What’s Your Brand Story?

According the the WSJ, advertisers in China are becoming entertainment producers. Seems they are building series and films around their products – I guess if you have to pay someone for product placement, it may as well be yourself.

Pernot Richard SA is promoting its Martell Noblige cognac through a web film called “Style, Experience.” In the 8-18 minute film, a James Bond-esque bachelor, played by a popular talk-show host, shows viewers a day in his life of executive meetings and techno-gadgets. The film’s lengths depends on choices the viewers make. Viewers get to interact and make decisions for our heero, that wil either leave him with the girl and the corner office – or alone and unemployed..

The product placement is very subtle, with just background shots of the cognac in glasses or bottle, so the film is much more focused on entertainment and on building a community. They are banking on the “halo effect” of associating the brand with this high-flying young, handsome bachelor.

China is a more receptive market for this type of “brand-ertainment” since the audience has less options for entertainment in general. As long as they are entertained, they don’t mind it so much. Other companies have done similar concepts in the market, with an “Ugly Betty” clone and a copycat of an Portuguese Web series. Brands to have tried this include Dove, Sony, and Clinique.

While the levels of engagement and length of visits to their website have been great signs, the Martell folks still need to see if the gamble pays off in people pulling out their wallets and buying – the ultimate test of any ad-related venture, no matter how hip or cool it may be.

What do you think? Is product placement okay but has manufactured content crossed the line? If it’s good entertainment and content, does it matter? Or do you prefer keeping content and ads in separate silos?

DIY Branding

Many of you are struggling with the economic downturn and perhaps want to revisit your branding and marketing plans for extra sizzle – but can’t afford a consultant right now. If you want to get started on your own, I’ve put my brand strategy process into an entertaining little eBook foryou DIY’ers out there! It’s a great deal for the content provided and is full of tips and anecdotes to guide you through the 10-key questions you need to answer for your brand strategy. I’m so over dry, boring, unrealistic business books, so this simple eBook is easy to follow, snappy and sassy. Check it out here.

"Friends" Don’t Really Shop at Pottery Barn?

Saw in the WSJ that the FCC is now scrutinizing product placement and may be putting new rules in place to require more overt disclosure of who has paid to “use their products as props.” Seems someone from under a rock still thinks that the “Idol’ judges just all happen to like drinking Coke – what a coinky dink.

Product placement has been on the rise since more and more viewers are zapping their way through ads via TiVO and DVR. In an effort to be more creative, more product placements have crept their way into our favorite fictional worlds, making them seem a bit more real. I can forget I’m watching a fictional character much easier when I see him drinking Bud Light rather than a can of “BEER.” Call me crazy.

Some call this “Trojan Horse” advertising. What do you think? I personally think that if advertisers want to continue to sponsor entertainment in a non-obtrusive way that not only keeps the costs I pay down, but makes the show I’m watching seem more real, I’m all for it. Where it gets sticky is when writers are forced to write placements into the script or create situations that requie a trip to Target. I don’t agree with creative constraint, but most of the time, it seems harmless enough, doesn’t it? And for me, the added realism is a nice touch. Now, I’m not for the character turning to the camera and saying “Buy this” but when CSI has a meeting with various law enforcement agencies via a Cisco video conferencing device, it appears rather seamless to the storyline.

Why do you think daytime dramas were ever called “Soap” Operas, after all? The concept of sponsoring content is not a new one, although having it creep into Teri Hatcher’s laundry room on Wisteria Lane is something we are going to start seeing more and more.

Thoughts?