Duets Blog : Creativity and the Law: DuetsBlog

I commend Gatorade for shifting their philosophy in 2010. In 2010, they will redefine their target consumer. Their 2010 efforts will focus on the serious athlete that desires peak athletic performance. This is closely aligned with their origins. For many years, Gatorade has tried to widen their audience, and not succeeded. It is very difficult to be all things to all people, and a laser focus on a specific group of people is a strong strategic approach.

The best decision that Gatorade made for 2010 is to remove high fructose corn syrup from all of their products. A few years ago, Gatorade changed the sweetener from sugar to high fructose corn syrup. The nutrition value (or lack thereof) of high fructose corn syrup has been intensely debated in recent years (here, here and here). Many attribute high fructose corn syrup to causing higher rates of obesity. It is not smart strategy to use an ingredient that can be perceived as harmful to health, particularly when your target consumer is athletic and health conscious. This move gives Gatorade a competitive advantage over chief category rival Powerade. High fructose corn syrup is an ingredient in Powerade products other than Powerade Zero (low calorie version). It also falls in line with the Coca-Cola model of returning a product to the original formula.

Gatorade is planning to revamp their packaging, for both G and the lower calorie G2. Packaging was a key reason why Gatorade struggled in 2009. Consumers did not recognize the nebulous “G” packaging and had no perceptions of the meaning of the “G” brand. The decision to redevelop the packaging is correct. The execution is likely to be a failure. Recently, PepsiCo has redesigned the packaging on the Pepsi line of products and Tropicana. Both redesigns were poorly conceived and executed. There was such a strong backlash against the Tropicana redesign that PepsiCo quickly reverted back to the old packaging. With regards to Gatorade, the only acceptable package redesign is a reversion to classic Gatorade packaging. If the packaging does not resemble classic Gatorade packaging, they will be wasting time and money.

The worst aspect of Gatorade’s 2010 marketing strategy is the expansion of the product line. A product line extension should accomplish at least 1 of the following 2 things: expand the size of the market and/or expand the number of a brand’s product offerings that a given consumer purchases. Gatorade’s line extension will not accomplish either.  By adding the “Prime” and “Recover” beverages to the existing product line (G and G2), Gatorade now has at least 4 distinct segments of their product line. It is bound to cause consumer confusion.  Generally speaking, it is difficult for consumers to perceive how the brand’s multitude of products is going to benefit them. Because of this confusion, consumers are more likely to choose a simpler alternative. This strategic problem is augmented by the current economic climate. Asking the target consumer to adopt product line extensions in the worst recession since the Great Depression is a recipe for disaster. Through this decision, Gatorade is showing how out-of-touch they are with their target consumer.

Gatorade’s stubborn refusal to return to its roots and provide simplicity in its branding strategy will continue to damage brand equity and negatively impact revenue. In the first four decades of its history, Gatorade had all of the makings of an iconic brand. The product was consistent, as well as the overall themes of the marketing communication messages. Consumers perceived the brand as valuable in its category. This is similar to iconic brands such as McDonald’s, Nike, Budweiser, BMW and Crest. Coca-Cola also fits this description, with the exception of a period of temporary insanity in the mid 1980s. Coca-Cola remains the best precedent for Gatorade, but Gatorade continues to reject their methodology in restoring a classic brand after an ill-conceived revitalization.

—David Mitchel, Norton Mitchel Marketing

Goals and Objectives

There are definite similarities between these two, but it’s important to remember that Goals serve as a crucial bridge between the Vision and Objectives:

GOALS

• Goals summarize principal program, development, administrative or other major accomplishments that the company or brand hopes to achieve in order to realize its vision and fulfill its mission.
• Goals descend from and are validated by the vision.
• They are general, not quantifiable. Think about this.
• Whether goals are short or long term, they must be reviewed and evaluated annually.

OBJECTIVES

• Support the goals and answer the "who, what, why, when, how" questions.
• I have found it useful to use the "SMART" acronym – (I didn’t develop it) :
  • Specific - tasks and programs
  • Measurable – driven by metrics: date, outcomes, responsibility
  • Attainable - doable within time prescribed and with existing restraints
  • Results-oriented - focus on short-term activities to gain longer term goals
  • Time-determined - time frame established for completion

Strategy and Tactics

This is the most common area of confusion, exacerbated by the difference between Left Brain, process types who are laser-focused on “how will this happen?” and Right Brain visionaries who want to know “what will the intended results be?”. 

"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
                                                -Sun Tzu

STRATEGY

• Think of it as the rigorous planning of a campaign
• It should be a carefully devised plan of action to achieve an established and agreed upon goal or objective
• Sound strategy is focused on the big picture and the long term
• It can be defined as a planned program of direction

TACTICS

• Tactics are limited, short or near term actions
• Therefore they are focused on limited, immediate or short-term aims
• They’ve been developed to solve specific problems or accomplish specific goals.
• Tactics is how we accomplish strategy.
• They can either be planned or ad hoc activities that respond to demands of the moment

Here’s an example:

STRATEGY

Expand presence in targeted markets to block competitive development

TACTICS

Generate increased awareness and brand loyalty through promotional activities and program sponsorship

From this point on, the tactics can get as granular as need be, perhaps being referred to as “Field Activities” or “Specific Actions” .

Vision and Mission

I am well aware that the creation of vision and mission statements is anathema to many of you, and for good reason. All too often they are mandated from above by management that feels that they are necessary but don’t know why. All too often they are created in an orgy of vague, jargonized exercises that primarily have a nightmarish quality of futility, irrelevance and redundancy about them.

Even though I tend to function in a Right Brain, organic fashion, I do have a clear and disciplined process: THE BRAND expresses THE CULTURE which expresses THE MISSION which expresses THE VISION which addresses THE NEEDS of a target audience or THE OPPORTUNITIES of the marketplace.

So we can see that Vision and Mission have a crucial place in the journey from recognizing an opportunity or need in the marketplace and the creation of a successful brand.

VISION

• Vision describes the organization or brand and its potential impact in the future
• It is guided by dreams, not constraints. “Visionary” – get it?
• Ask: What do we hope will happen when our dreams are realized?

Vision inspires and serves as an internal touchstone. My theory of Internal Congruence demands that internal branding is in place before communicating to the outside world – the target market. It’s good when everyone who is part of the culture is on the same page, sharing the vision!

MISSION

The Mission has two elements:

• It is really the philosophical expression of the values-based needs that the organization or brand meets (why you exist, how your brand changes the lives of those who engage it)
• It should be expressed as a BRIEF summary of what the organization or brand does to meet that need. “Brief” is the key word here.

SWOT

When it’s time to engage in a SWOT analysis, I find the simplest rule of thumb is this:

Strengths and Weaknesses refer to INTERNAL dynamics and influences, and Opportunities and Threats refer to EXTERNALdynamics and influences. Often participants are loath to point the finger back at their company, or else are a bit too happy to blame their own culture for negatives that are truly the result of marketplace or economic realities. Keep them separate and clear.

FINAL MINI-EXAMPLE

Here’s how an example might roll out. This is pretty broad-brushed, but should provide some idea of what we’ve been discussing:

Goal:

Increase Sales of Drug Brand K

Objectives:

Generate sales increase of 20% in the first two quarters of the year.

Hit targets and metrics based on management-approved budgetary targets.

Penetrate specialist market through referrals programs.

Brand Strategy:

To emphasize the economic impact of deficiency through raised awareness of the value of early diagnosis and early stage supplementation

Strategic Imperative:

Generate meaningful clinical data

Leverage clinical data to expand advocacy base

Tactical Recommendation:

Develop promotional campaign utilizing alternate channel marketing (webinars, peer-to-peer-education, seminars)

Incentive-based referral program development

Become familiar with these words and the criteria that determines their usage and you will attain a level of consistency and congruence that will serve your planning well. Hopefully this primer will serve as a handy guide to develop or review planning as you move forward!

—Jack Cuffari, Jack Cuffari Consulting and Brand Smacks Blog

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, NameFlash^SM