Tiger's Personal Brand of Apology?

Posted on February 21, 2010 by Steve Baird

Putting aside the questions of whether Tiger Woods needed to or should have made a public apology, the timing of it, and even the content of it, now that Brand Tiger made the decision to do so and did so last Friday, I'm interested more with how Tiger conveyed it and the likely impact it will have on his personal brand going forward.

What struck me most about Tiger's 14 minute public apology (actually Tiger worked in more than an apology during this time) was the fact that he read it, word for word, rather stiffly, from a prepared script, and from behind a podium. Doing so begged for me the question of who wrote it, in the same way we might ask who a famous politician's speech writer is. Reading from a script or teleprompter behind the security of a podium works well for politicians, I'm not sure it is the best way to convey a heart-felt apology, ok, I am sure, it's not.

After seeing the entire 14 minutes, I had to check with the U.S. Trademark Office to determine whether Brand Tiger had any registered protection for trademarks in Int'l Class 35 for the "production of public service announcements." But, I couldn't find any . . . .

So, why the script, why the podium, why the presidential-blue backdrop? No doubt, this was a carefully controlled message with nothing left to chance, and no chance for surprise. So, that probably answers that. However, it seems to me the tightly controlled format squandered an opportunity to create a more meaningful connection, or perhaps reconnection, with Brand Tiger.

This morning I saw an interview on ESPN with one of the golfers on tour who thought it would have gone better if Tiger had not read a script, but instead spoken from the heart, perhaps guided by a few bullet points in some notes. I tend to agree and believe doing so would have conveyed far more emotion, truth, and authenticity. So, who recommended or chose this format for Brand Tiger?

I'm thinking it was a left brainer, not a right brainer, because striving for a more natural, emotional, and authentic expression from Tiger seems like a no-brainer to me, at least, if the goal is to resurrect, or at least begin the resurrection of Brand Tiger. Or, perhaps a right brain advisor recognized that the target audience for Brand Tiger's apology skewed toward left brainers who would feel themselves more comfortable with this controlled format too? By the way, if you're not sure which of your hemispheres is dominant, here is an interesting and brief online 18 question test.

Left brain dominant Accenture was the only sponsor mentioned by name, do you suppose they had any say in the chosen format?

For further guidance on my hemispheric brain hypothesis, I consulted Al & Laura Ries' most recent and highly acclaimed book War in the Boardroom, which explains the conflict and divide between management and marketing types by their respective emphasis on left and right brain thinking:

If you're the CEO of a major corporation, chances are good you are a left brainer. Before you make a decision, you want to be supported by facts, figures, market data, consumer research. It couldn't be otherwise in a world where the ultimate measurement is the bottom line and the stock price.

If you have a job in marketing, chances are good you are a right brainer. You often make decisions by "gut instinct" with little or no supporting evidence. It couldn't be otherwise in a creative discipline like marketing.
Another striking difference: left brainers have a strong preference for verbal thinking, while right brainers favor visual thinking.
When a management type makes a speech, he or she usually stands behind a podium and reads a script or the words on a teleprompter.
When a marketing type makes a speech, he or she usually stands in front of a screen using dozens of visuals.

Again, all signs seem to point to the left side of the brain on the format. Now, I'm not suggesting that Brand Tiger would have benefited from a Ross Perot style speech complete with charts and graphs, but I do think that Tiger would have chipped his personal brand out of the rough far more effectively without a podium, without reading a speech, and he wouldn't have needed 14 minutes to do it. No doubt, this was only the first public step toward resurrection of Brand Tiger.

As Laura Ries blogged last December on Ries' Pieces, and as I suspect will always be the case, It's What Tiger Does Next That Counts . . . .

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Request Info

See our or enter your information below to send us a quick message and we'll reply in one business day or less.

Your privacy is ensured. We will never sell, disclose, or trade contact information.

Goodwill Hunting?

Posted on January 26, 2010 by Guest Blogger

Similar to the Hostess Brands, Inc. predicament, recently posted by Dan Kelly, Goodwill Industries International, Inc. (www.goodwill.org), the well-known and respected non-profit, didn't own the one domain you would expect -- Goodwill.com.

The domain went up for auction this past December after the original owner, a Japanese staffing company named Goodwill Group, Inc., changed its name and allowed Goodwill.com to expire. 

Instead of seizing the opportunity to own and control this element of their brand by simply buying it at auction, Goodwill Industries gambled, in my opinion, by trying to stop the auction. Ultimately, they lost their request as well as the domain. Their next act was to sue the owner of Goodwill.com for trademark infringement and violation of anti-cybersquatting protection act, amongst other claims.

As reported by Domain Name Wire, this month the case was dismissed without prejudice and the Goodwill.com domain finally went to Goodwill Industries. Although this resolution is good for Goodwill, not owning Goodwill.com earlier denied them the domain during the key December donation period, and, potentially, could have proven a very expensive and lengthy process to resolve.

Since monitoring a domain is relatively uncomplicated, it is puzzling why Goodwill industries would allow Goodwill.com to get away so easily. As a brand manager, I am surprised Goodwill wasn't more vigilant or diligent in pursuing and protecting something so apparently associated with their trademark and their brand.

The goodwill (pun intended) a domain name inures to a brand cannot be overemphasized. One of the more important aspects of branding is presence. On the worldwide stage of the Internet, domains perform a leading role in brand proliferation. 

A domain dispute and the associated confusion, as in this case, was unnecessary, considering resolution could have been reached without extraordinary effort and without hunting for legal remedy.

—Randall Hull, The Br@nd Ranch® 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Brand Signals: The Building Blocks of Brand Identity

Posted on January 19, 2010 by Guest Blogger

Brands communicate with the world through a series of message delivery systems such as broadcast advertising, web sites, company representatives and product interaction. These systems utilize brand signals to communicate. While these signals commonly take the form of brand names and logos, they can also extend into sight, sound, touch, taste, smell or even action such as a brand ritual.

Brand signals are far more than an aesthetic veneer. They turn abstract meaning into tangible cues, allowing consumers to better navigate the marketplace. Functioning as vessels, these signals carry learned and associative meaning. That meaning is often instilled by the brand owner and further enhanced by the audience. The connotation of a brand signal evolves over time, as either the brand owner or its audience fills the vessel with new meaning that displaces the original. Take for example, two well know brand signals that once represented something very different than they do today, the ENRON name and logo. The original meaning was displaced by consumers’ new understanding of “ENRON.”

The most effective brands use a wide array of signals to manage consumers’ expectations. Many of these are co-authored by the brand owner and its audience. These signals communicate on multiple levels: Specifically and Categorically, Individually and Collectively.

Specifically and Categorically
When a signal is specific to a given brand, it directly equates to that brand: The names McDonald’s and Big Mac directly equate to the McDonald’s brand as do the golden arches and Ronald McDonald. Yet, we also recognize brand signals by category. These signals indicate brands by type. We relate the yellow and red color scheme to the fast food/burger category. Have you ever noticed how McDonald’s, Burger King and Wendy’s all share the same color scheme? Coincidence? McDonald’s (first to market) established the color scheme that has defined the fast food burger joint category for generations.

Individually and Collectively
Some brand signals carry enough meaning to hold up individually such as a company’s name, its logo or even an iconic shape. Such is the case with Coca-Cola’s “contour bottle.” With its distinctive curves, it is one of the most recognized icons in the world. Designed so it could be identified in the dark and shaped so that, even if broken, it is identifiable at a glance; the unique bottle design ensures that Coca-Cola is never confused with competitors.

Other brand signals work collectively. A slice of lime on its own says nothing. However, when it adorns the neck of a clear beer bottle, the lime says Corona! Add a tropical beach and it screams!

Of course, individual signals can contribute to the collective, and categorical signals can contribute to the specific. Be they specific or categorical, individual or collective, not all brand signals are created intentionally. Many are associated with or equated to the brand over time. These signals are of no less value than those which are developed intentionally by the brand owner. The Corona lime ritual was not created by Corona, but rather a California bartender who, in 1981, made a bet with his buddy that he could start a trend. Corona might not have started the lime ritual, they may not own it legally, but they benefit from this well know brand signal.

Your own brand likely has signals that extend beyond its name and logo. By identifying and refining these signals, your brand can begin to own these mental cues to build a more engaging brand experience with your audience.

—Mark Gallagher, Brand Expressionist® at Blackcoffee®. 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Naming the Store Brand

Posted on November 7, 2009 by Guest Blogger

         

Every Sunday I go through the circulars in the paper looking for new products. I usually spend a lot of time with the ads from the national drug store chains (Walgreens, CVS, and Rite Aid). Recently, I observed that each chain seems to have a radically different philosophy on store brand naming. And while this observation isn’t earth shattering, it exposes the marketing strategies (or lack thereof) of each chain.

For example, check out the allergy section. The big brand names like Benadryl®, Claritin® and Zyrtec® all have store brand/private label competition. Walgreens naming protocol for its store brand is pretty straightforward and seems to be designed to help a consumer find the Walgreens knockoff of the branded product. You can buy Wal-dryl, Wal-itin, and Wal-zyr, and the packaging is color coded to make it easier.  This is a very consistent strategy that is designed to make life easier for the consumer and also designed to build the “Wal-“ prefix as a brand.

          Non-Drowsy 24 Hour Allergy,Tablets          

                    

At CVS, you have to be a well-informed consumer or a doctor to get it right because CVS attempts to align symptoms with branding. For example, the CVS version of Benadryl is called Allergy, while the CVS version of Claritin is called Non-Drowsy Allergy Relief (non-drowsy being a key benefit of the active ingredient in Claritin), and the Zyrtec knockoff product is called Indoor/Outdoor Allergy Relief (Zyrtec is the only brand with indoor/outdoor allergy claims).

                                     

At Rite Aid, you almost have to be a pharmacist to get the right brand. The first branded product to go generic was Benadryl and Rite Aid called the knockoff Rite Aid Allergy Medication. When the next generation allergy drugs went generic, Rite Aid had to improvise and so now you need to know the active ingredient to get the right brand (Rite Aid Loratidine and Rite Aid Cetirizine for Claritin and Zyrtec respectively). 

How about gastrointestinal products? Looking at four big brands, Zantac®, Metamucil®, Pepto-Bismol®, and MiraLAX®, and their knockoff brands at the drug chains show inconsistency at all three chains:

Branded: Zantac; Metamucil; Pepto-Bismol; MiraLAX

Walgreens: Wal-Zan; Wal-Mucil; Soothe; SmoothLAX

CVS: Acid Reducer; Natural Fiber Laxative; Stomach Relief; PureLAX

Rite Aid: Acid Reducer; Natural Fiber; Pink Bismuth; Laxative

So what is going on here? Walgreens, which appeared to be building the “Wal-“ prefix as its store brand champion, seems to have abandoned that philosophy in some parts of the store. CVS, which had been focusing on product benefits, gets dragged down into generic category descriptors in gastrointestinals. And Rite Aid is all over the place.

Doesn’t anyone worry about having a consistent branding strategy for the store brand? It sure would make life easier for us confused consumers! Hey Walgreens, CVS and Rite Aid…do you need some naming help?

- Mark Prus, NameFlashSM
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Bridging the Brand Consultant-Client Divide

Posted on September 15, 2009 by Guest Blogger

From My Cousin Vinny:

Vinny Gambini: I object to this witness being called at this time. We've been given no prior notice he would testify. No discovery of any tests he's conducted or reports he's prepared. And as the court is aware, the defense is entitled to advance notice of all witnesses who will testify, particularly those who will give scientific evidence, so that we can properly prepare for cross-examination, as well as give the defense an opportunity to have his reports reviewed by a defense expert, who might then be in a position to contradict the veracity of his conclusions.

Judge: Mr. Gambini?

Vinny Gambini: Yes, sir?

Judge: That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection.

Vinny Gambini: Thank you, sir.

Judge: Overruled.

Not fair. That’s just how it feels sometimes.

You believe you have a sound position, a fine strategy or a winning campaign, all backed up by solid arguments. But then you’re overruled. And you’re left shaking your head and saying to yourself: “This is a winner. Why don’t they get it?”

I’m sure that’s how brand strategists and consultants, whether internal or external to an organization, feel at times when their proposals are rejected. In fact, I know that’s how they feel. I’ve been there.

I’ve never sat on the agency side, but I know they’ve been there too.

On blogs, discussion boards and in conversations I’ve had with professionals working inside and outside of organizations, it’s not unusual to hear rants about bonehead clients.

“They don’t know what they’re talking about.”

“They’re too scared to change.”

“They think they know more than us. We’re the experts, but of course they know best!”

Look, I get the frustration. Consultants, for the most part, know their discipline and have a unique expertise their clients don’t possess. Otherwise, the client wouldn’t need the consultant in the first place.

However, let’s not forget that the internal brand steward or owner has a unique perspective as well. And it’s quite possible they may rightly reject or resist a consultant’s recommendations.

When it comes to the brand, brand stewards and brand owners don’t want to compromise. They’ve got too much on the line. As Janis Joplin said: “Don’t compromise yourself. You’re all you’ve got.”

Those who would choose to rant about client resistance, in my view, are missing an opportunity. And that’s to use the resistance and any reservations to better understand the client’s needs and then use that knowledge to help the client make the best possible business decision.

Pushing back is never the answer. Essentially, that’s exercising resistance in return.

You’ve got to be open to the possibility that you’re not right. And is that really such a stretch? After all, is anyone right all the time?

Instead, you should listen. You should listen carefully. And you should show that you’re open to the client’s concerns. After all, you want the client to be open to yours, right?

As a communications professional for over a decade, I’ve long listened to the complaints of colleagues about “difficult” clients who won’t accept their ideas.

Recently, I attended a writing workshop for communications professionals where, once again, someone belly ached about how their internal clients didn’t accept or respect their recommendations.

I greatly admired the workshop facilitator’s response, which went something like this:

We all have challenging clients. But we must not turn it on them; we must turn it on ourselves first.

You’re a communications professional. You’re supposed to be the expert at persuasion. You’re supposed to be wonderful at selling ideas and recommending change. You build and run campaigns to drive action. You need to look at your recommendations in the same way as any other campaign.

If you’re not having success with your clients, take a look at yourself and make sure you’re practicing the necessary skills to sell your solutions. Don’t be so arrogant to think it’s just the client’s problem.

I couldn’t agree more.

My view: present your case fairly and as well as you can. Then back off and listen to the client. Uncover the resistance and deal with it. In the end, you may just come up with even stronger solutions.

One more thought here. Whether you’re an internal or external consultant, invest time educating clients about brand building. Help them understand the nuances. Bring them into your universe. Help them understand the principles. Help them see what works and what doesn’t. Bring in speakers. Show them case studies. Ask them to participate in your strategic thought process with other clients.

In short, give them the knowledge and tools to better assess your recommendations. Bridge the divide.

In turn, brand stewards and owners also have a role in fostering a winning relationship. They can help the consultant understand their organization and its “whole story.” They can bring them into their thinking processes and marketing decisions. And, of course, they can be brutally honest about their concerns and reservations.

I’m sure many of you have experiences and good advice in how to bridge the divide in the consultant-client relationship. Why not share them here for everyone’s benefit?

—David Cameron, On Brands
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,