Apr 3, 2025 | Branding, Marketing
I should define ‘Lousy’.
A lousy ad is one that fails to build on what has gone before. In the absence of anything before, it fails to leave a positive impression in the mind of current and any potential buyer who falls within the profile of the ideal customer.
When a lousy ad is recognised, it is usually dropped, but often against much corporate bleating.
The accountants will bleat that the ad cost x to make, the media cost y, and the other costs such as POS material, money flung at ‘influencers’ digital agency costs, and so on, cost Z, giving a total cost to the marketing budget as X + Y + Z = big sunk cost.
The product manager in charge will bleat that the ad did not have time to work, or that it has been misunderstood, and the initial reaction of the intended audience misleading.
The operations people will bleat that they have stacked inventory to the roof in expectation of an increase in demand.
Everyone has a reason.
Brand advertising, as distinct from the ‘get it now for a give-away price’ advertising is all about influencing behaviour in your favour, now, and into the future.
The greatest outcome is that a ‘purchase habit’ is formed. This is to my mind different to the standard definitions of ‘brand loyalty’ which usually include a set of trade-offs in the consumers mind that settle on the brand to which they are loyal most often.
Habit is different.
Habit does not include that internal conversation. It is the autopilot that lifts the product from the shelf, and simply does not consider alternatives.
When you materially change a product, even in a superficial way, you force those habits to be questioned. Elsewhere I have recounted the greatest marketing mistake I ever made by disregarding this truth, which I did not at the time consider.
Publishing an ad, or any sort of media or marketing collateral that is inconsistent with that basic assumption of the habit, will risk the volumes and margin of those most habitual customers.
There are sometimes good reasons to update.
Times and the world change, so brands must also evolve to continue to reflect the worlds in which customers live. When that strategic choice is made, the astute marketer will ensure there is a highly visible ‘line of crumbs’ between the old and the new to minimise the potential disruption to normal service.
Failure to define that line will result in nothing good.
Consider the recent advertising for Jaguar, trumpeting a rebirth of the brand.
Pity the cars will not be on the market for some time, although I suspect even if they were, the sales register would not notice.
Elsewhere I have panned it, but to continue, it breaks any connection anyone, potential Jaguar buyer had with the brand. This ‘New jaguar’ nonsense means they must start from scratch, if not behind the starting line, to establish a set of behavioural drivers that result in the choice to buy a Jag instead of one of the many alternatives.
Are you building your brand, or giving money away?
Mar 20, 2025 | Branding, Change, Marketing, Strategy
We no longer own stuff, increasingly we are renting it in one form or another.
That lack of ownership discourages brand loyalty and makes defining the boundaries of a contested market all that much harder to do in a way that reflects the psychology of potential customers.
Years ago, while marketing fast moving consumer food products the logic was, we did 90% of the prep work in the packet. The strategy was to suggest to the overworked stressed woman who in those days did all the cooking, to add some garnish and therefore feel she owned the result. The best example is cake mix. Almost everything was done in the packet, all a cook had to do was add an egg, beat it with a fork, and stick it in the oven.
We’ve taken that idea much further now.
One of my sons lives in the inner the suburbs of Sydney and does not own a car. When he needs one, he simply uses the app and within a few minutes walk, there is a car waiting for him.
What we’ve lost in this process is the sense of ownership, the psychological comfort that something was ours. This spreads past the ownership of a car to things like music.
I have an irrational attachment to a couple of 50 year old vinyl records that played a significant role in my young life. The music on those records is ‘mine’. I do not play them anymore, don’t even have a working record player, but separating from those old vinyl records and their memories by association would be painful.
The challenge for marketers now competing in a subscription and rental driven world is how you replace that sense of ownership. If you can figure it out in your product category, you will win.
Jan 17, 2025 | Analytics, Branding, Marketing, Strategy
Small improvements in average price drive large improvements in profitability.
Do the numbers.
The normal expectation in consumer markets is that volumes will increase when you promote. Usually they do, but that period is usually followed by a period of lower volume, as what you have done is pull volume forward. This gives those who would have bought at the full price a discount, and rewards those who only buy on price, but who will move on next time to the cheapest on the day.
Brand equity flattens the peaks and troughs of price driven demand, reducing the volatility of price driven volume.
A reduction in the volumes driven by price alone, and an upward to the right movement in average prices paid, act together to drive profitability.
The challenge is to be in sufficient control of your distribution to be able to manage the balance of price based promotional activity often demanded by distribution channels, and investment in brand equity held by the end consumer.
In Australia, the power of the supermarket duopoly together with poor management of that balance by weak minded and brand equity unaware management has resulted in the brand equity of most consumer brands being trashed by supermarkets. It has been replaced by cyclic price promotions, with mandatory participation if distribution is to be maintained.
One of the great missed opportunities to build and leverage brand equity (in my opinion anyway) is the use years ago of Al Pacino by Vittoria coffee.
I have no idea how long the campaign went, or how much they spent, but I clearly remember seeing the ad on TV, and on posters in coffee shops around Sydney. I still buy Vittoria coffee as my preferred coffee, but have been ‘trained’ and rarely need to buy it at the full price of close to $40/kilo, when it is ‘on promotion’ regularly at between $20 and $25. I drink a lot of coffee, so the low price is a pantry stock opportunity.
Unless I am highly unusual, Vittoria has missed out on many millions of dollars of profit over the decade. Heavens, they miss out on several hundred a year just from me!
The potential power of human emotion on the purchase choices they make is huge.
Most fail to leverage it to its fullest extent.
The campaign for Meadow Lea margarine that ran from about 1977 to the mid-eighties is another example. ‘You ought to be congratulated’ not only drove the brand to massive market share leadership at an average price that was a premium to its natural competitors, but it also drove the size of the whole market.
When the dopes who took over the brand failed to recognise the dynamics, and cut advertising, while bowing to retailer pressure, the brand shrunk like a balloon with a slow leak.
Nearly 40 years on, the ‘you ought to be congratulated’ positioning may retain enough equity to be revived. Similarly, I am sure Al Pacino still drinks coffee every day, but may now be a very expensive spokesman.
Maybe not. Worth a try?
Dec 2, 2024 | Branding, Innovation, Strategy
A phenomenon in my local area, Sydney’s inner west.
Suddenly, there are electric cars everywhere from manufacturers I had not heard of a couple of years ago. That is in addition to the venerable brands, Volvo, MG, Lotus, and others now owned by Chinese investors, leveraging brand heritage.
China now is manufacturing very good EV cars at a fraction of the cost of traditional manufacturers. They have established technically sophisticated and innovative supply chains and are discovering and leveraging the benefits of technology. The US, Japan and Korea can only wish for the cost base the Chinese now have across their industry. Chinese manufactured EV’s now control 40% of the biggest market in the world, China.
Central planning pointed Chinese industry towards EV’s, and assisted development, while western manufacturers relied on lobbying and subsidies to maintain the dominance of petrol and diesel. The only real innovation over the last decade they have undertaken has been in racing, particularly F1. The logic expressed was that the innovation would ‘trickle down’ into our everyday cars.
It didn’t work so well with economics, but that lesson has been ignored.
Tesla may have started the ball rolling, but China has given it momentum, and now delivers 60% of global EV registrations, and accelerating.
The acceleration of global EV market penetration, perhaps hobbled only by the shortage of recharging infrastructure, and the time necessary to recharge has come at an astounding pace.
It is a classic case of don’t just change the rules, change the game.
Steve Jobs did the same thing with the iPod, then the iPhone.
The header is by DALL-E, and highlighted the further takeover of the auto industry by using Pirelli, now Chinese owned, on the track hoarding.
When you need to think differently about your strategy, revise your thinking, and figure out how to compete in the future, call someone who has seen it before.
E&OE. This analysis of the comparative costs of EV manufacturing came out a week after publishing the post. It delivers numbers that highlight the problem faced by western legacy car-makers. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/juergenstackmann_544-minutes-worth-watching-ed-conway-ugcPost-7271897558170456065-ETSC?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop
Nov 22, 2024 | Branding, Marketing, Strategy
Brands are not built by superficial ‘Brand-building’ marketing activity. Ever.
They are built by doing hundreds of small things that matter to customers and those who aspire to be customers, well, time after time, after time. In this way, customers learn to trust the performance and value delivered. Then they become apostles for the brand amongst their friends and acquaintances who might similarly benefit.
The brand becomes much more than a label with a product attached. It holds a ‘Position’ in the mind of those who have truly consumed the whole experience.
Advertising is simply a reminder of what they already know and understand.
From time to time, a brand building ad comes along that tweaks the understanding of what is possible. Such an ad builds on the foundation, and perhaps adjusts it a bit in a desired direction. However, it remains an adjustment, a ‘refresh’, a polishing of the emotional response of adherents to reflect the evolution of circumstances.
Radically changing the foundation is a short road to oblivion.
As a young bloke, a long time ago now, I lusted after an XK150. The body design, feeling of success and freedom, and the snarl coming from that exquisite straight six designed in the 40’s and lasting well into the 70’s as the pinnacle of engineering was utterly seductive. That lust was never totally replaced by a similar lust for its genetic descendant, the E-Type, but it came very close.
Even now, 65 years later, that visceral pull of ‘Jaguar’ remains.
It is undimmed by time and the rubbish cars produced as Jaguar was handed around, owner to owner, like a parcel with frayed wrapping, at a kids birthday party.
Has this latest iteration to the Jaguar brand finally killed the goose?
My kids, and grandchildren have no connection at all with Jag. As my peers who did have that connection drop off the perch, any remaining brand equity from those glory days will die with them.
What a waste.
Mark Ritson in his column on the rebranding (death?) of Jaguar put the blind stupidity of the urge to ignore heritage better than I ever could.
It is possible that the visceral connection felt by some could be rebuilt from the crumbling foundations of Jaguar of the 50’s, and 60’s?
I suspect so, but that is from the perspective of someone in the thrall of that connection.
What would I have given to have been asked to contribute to the rebuilding of an icon of my youth. The effort may not have been successful, but I guarantee it would not have killed it off as comprehensively as this deluded nonsense now assaulting us will.
Nov 13, 2024 | Branding, Innovation, Strategy
One of the five costs in your business, in most cases, under recognised, under managed, and misunderstood, is Opportunity cost.
Doing A, means we cannot do B.
It is not always such a binary choice.
Opportunity cost is impossible to calculate with any precision, as it is forecasting the outcome of something you did not do, an opportunity forgone. It is however a critical component of any consideration of the manner in which the available capital of a business is deployed.
It is also driven by the strategy, which is another calculation of the shape of the future, and how you can optimise the leverage your resources deliver.
Commonly used models like discounted cash flows and the more demanding internal rate of return calculations are commonly used by accountants to make the choices between differing capital allocation options. Unfortunately, they both rely on cash forecasts, which are at best fragile. When the strategy calls for ‘innovation’ cash forecasts are usually over-optimistic, and the timing is wrong, so that beyond a ‘pin the tale on the donkey’ analysis, often grossly misleading. Such techniques favour doing more of the same, with at best incremental improvements. Deploying capital towards riskier uses means these calculations are less and less valid, putting off the risk averse amongst management, which is most of them.
We have a fantastic example facing us right now.
Intel used to be the dominating producer of semiconductors. ‘Intel inside’ remains one of the best known and respected brands around, and yet, Intel has fallen radically from grace.
Since the glory days, when they dominated the market, and had customers lining up to place orders years in advance, they are now struggling for relevance. The value of the business as reflected in the share market has plummeted, along with their market share in a market that continues to explode in volume and value.
Arguably, Intel should still be in the position now held by Nvidia, current market cap 3.64 trillion, and rising like a kite in a hurricane. Intel, while still worth over a billion dollars, is small by comparison.
Any calculation of the opportunity cost of strategic choices made in the past by Intel would make shareholders kick their cats. Intel delivered astronomical profitability resulting from then CEO Andy Gove making the choice to move away from memory chips and pioneer the semiconductor market. The emergence of the PC in the 90’s made Intel one of the biggest and most profitable businesses ever seen. They then missed the move to chip sets designed to enhance gaming, which doubled as the enablers of the exploding AI market.
At least Intel shareholders can feel better, as the missed opportunity club is a very large one, with some distinguished members.
Note: the graph in the header is the Intel stock price. $1 in 2000 is now worth $1.83 adjusted for inflation. In other words, the current year low price of $19/share is worth just over $10 in 2000 dollars after inflation. This is in a market Intel used to dominate, and that has exploded over the last 5 years, with Nvidia grabbing the chocolates. That is the opportunity cost intel has suffered.
