Media properties’ new formula: Publish … re-publish … and publish yet again.

August 17, 2014August 17, 2014 Phillip Nones Advertising, Business, Content Creation and Content Management, Media Business Insider, Cosmopolitan Magazine, digital media property, Magazines, Media, media properties, Publishers, Publishing

As media properties have moved away from finite schedules of daily, weekly or monthly publication to something more akin to 24/7 content dissemination, it’s becoming quite a challenge to deliver new content.

The reality is, building a digital media property in today’s “always on” world that can successfully deliver new, original content on an ongoing basis is quite costly.

In fact, it’s economically unfeasible for many if not most publishing enterprises.

This explains why readers have started to see a parade of news items that have been reused, recycled or repurposed in an effort to present the items as “fresh” news multiple times over.

This is happening with greater regularly, and it’s seemingly getting more prevalent with every passing day.

Here’s a representative case: Business Insider. This finance and news site has doubled its traffic over the past several years. Business Insider now attracts more than 12 million unique visitors each month – each of them presumably interested in consuming “fresh news.”

But for content that is fairly “evergreen” in nature, Business Insider is perfectly content to serve up the same (or nearly similar) stories two … three … four times or more.

For example, one of its stories, “Facts About McDonald’s That Will Blow Your Mind,” has been published no fewer than six times over a span of three years.

The various iterations of that article varied very little each time. Sometimes there were a different number of facts presented (usually 15 or 16). Business Insider even published the identical list twice in the same year, using the exact same headline while revising only the introductory paragraph.

Beyond the fact that publishing essentially the same article six times within three years took some of the burden off the news-gathering and writing team, it turns out that topics such as this one really do engage readers — time and again.

Business Insider’s first iteration of the McDonald’s article attracted more than 2.5 million views. And overall, the story has been clicked on more than 8 million times.

(Of course, the final time the article ran, the story generated only around 400,000 views, so at some point the law of diminishing returns had to come into play.)

I like another example, too: Cosmopolitan Magazine. In April of this year, it published an article titled “25 Life-Changing Ways to Use Q-tips.” That story generated only 44 shares — hardly earth-shattering results for a media property with over 3 million subscribers.

But then Cosmopolitan promoted the article on Pinterest in May … and also on Twitter in May and again in June … and on Facebook in early May and again there in early June.

Whereas Cosmopolitan’s original posting of the article on its own website didn’t result in much engagement to speak of, just the two Facebook posts resulted in nearly 1,500 shares.

With these kinds of results being generated, it’s no wonder publishers have decided to “publish … re-publish … and then publish again.”

So the next time you have a sensation of déjà vu about reading an article, chances are, you’re not dreaming.

“Surprise & Delight” vs. “Tried & True” Branding

August 13, 2014August 13, 2014 Phillip Nones Advertising, Branding, Business, Content Creation and Content Management, Creative and Production, Marketing Communications American Consumers, brand loyalty, Branding, Brands, Business, Consumer Advertising, Consumer Branding, Consumer Marketing, IntelliResponse

All the emphasis on having consumer-facing brands “surprise and delight” their customers isn’t what many people are looking for at all.

In the interactive age, what we hear often is that companies and brands need to go beyond simply offering a high-quality product.

Many companies and brands have the notion that they should strive to engender a kind of “personal” relationship with customers – so that consumers will develop the same kinds of feelings for brands as they have with their close friends.

How true is this?

One marketing company decided to find out. Toronto-based virtual agent technology firm IntelliResponse surveyed ~1,000 online consumers in the United States earlier this year.

When asked what sort of relationship they would prefer to have with the companies whose products and services they purchase, here’s how the percentages broke for these respondents:

Prefer a “friendship” where they get personalized service: ~24%
Prefer a “transactional” relationship where they receive efficient service and that’s all: ~59%
Prefer both equally: ~17%

Evidently, “boringly consistently good” beats “surprisingly delightful” far more often – assuming the company is minding its Ps and Qs when it comes to product quality.

Here’s what else consumers are seeking: They want to be able to get the same information and answers from a company’s desktop or mobile website … online portal … or social media sites as they do from speaking with company representatives over the phone.

The IntelliResponse survey found that two-thirds of the respondents will go to a company’s website first when seeking out information regarding a product or service – so the answers better be there or the brand risks consumer disappointment.

The takeaway is this: No matter how much breathless reporting there is about this “surprising” social media campaign or that “delightful” interactive contest … the majority of consumers continue to view companies and brands the way they have for 100 years: Companies are merely the vehicle by which they can acquire the goods they need.

Rather than spending undue energy trying to make the interactive world “fun” or “sticky” for customers, companies should focus on the basic work of delivering products, information and answers that are easy to find, easy to understand, and easy to act on.

And related to that — make sure support systems (and support people) are in place so that customers can get any problems or issues solved with a minimum of time or hassle.

Do those things well, and companies will naturally please the vast majority of their current and future customers.

Everything else is just window-dressing.

Internet Properties: No Longer an American Monopoly

August 10, 2014August 11, 2014 Phillip Nones Advertising, Branding, Business, Content Creation and Content Management, Marketing Communications Business, Business Communications, Communications, Content Management, Facebook, International Business, International Marketing, Internet, Internet properties, Internet usage, Languages, Marcomm, marketing, Mary Meeker

The amount of translated content is also showing big-time growth.

According to an analysis by venture capitalist and Internet industry specialist Mary Meeker, in 2013 nine of the ten top global Internet properties were U.S.-based.

For the record, they were as follows (in order of ranking):

Google
Microsoft
Facebook
Yahoo
Wikipedia
Amazon
Ask
Glam Media
Apple

Only China-based Tencent cracked the Top Ten from outside the United States — and it just barely made it in as #10 in the rankings.

And yet … the same Top 10 Internet properties had nearly 80% of their users located outside America.

With such a disparity between broad-based Internet usage and concentrated Internet ownership, the picture was bound to change.

And boy, has it changed quickly: Barely a year later — as of March 2014 — the Top 10 listing now contains just six American-based companies.

Ask, Glam Media and Apple have all fallen off the list, replaced by three more China-based properties: Alibaba, Baidu and Sohu.

Paralleling this trend is another one: a sharp increase in the degree to which businesses are providing content in multiple languages.

For websites that offer some form of translated content, half of them are offering it in at least six languages. That’s double the number of languages that were being offered a year earlier.

And for a quarter of these firms, translated content is available in 15 or more languages.

What are the most popular languages besides English? Spanish, French, Italian and German are popular — not a great surprise there. But other languages that are becoming more prevalent include Portuguese, Chinese, Japanese and Korean.

In fact, the average volume of translated content has ballooned nearly 90% within just the past year.

The growing accuracy of computer-based translation modules — including surprisingly good performance in “idiomatic” language — is certainly helping the process along.

Moreover, when a major site like Facebook reports that its user base in France grew from 1.4 million to 2.4 million within just three months of offering its French-language site, it’s just more proof that the world may be getting smaller … but native language still remains a key to maximizing business success.

It’s one more reminder that for any company which hopes to compete in a transnational world, offering content in other languages isn’t just an option, but a necessity in order to build and maintain a strategic advantage.

Fade-to-black for movie film? Not quite so fast …

August 6, 2014 Phillip Nones Creative and Production, Social Commentary, Uncategorized Ben Fritz, Bob Weinstein, Christopher Noland, Digital Video, Eastman Kodak, Eastman Kodak Company, film directors, Fuji Film, Hollywood, J.J. Abrams, Judd Apatow, Kodak, Kodak Film, Lasse Hillstrom, Motion Pictures, movie directors, Movie Film, Movies, Quentin Tarantino, Trainwreck, Weinstein Company

Just last week, I blogged about how print magazines are hanging in there, even in the face of relentless competition from “free and easy” digital media, with more new print magazines launching so far this year than folding.

And now come reports of renewed life in another reputed “dinosaur” medium in the communications arena: movie film.

Journalist Ben Fritz reported in The Wall Street Journal that Eastman Kodak Company is close to inking an agreement with the top Hollywood movie studios to supply a set quantity of film over the next several years.

This, despite the fact that most motion pictures and TV shows are shot these days using digital video.

Because of the steep decline in film sales – Kodak’s movie-film sales are reportedly off by a whopping 96% compared to just 8 years ago, and are projected to amount to less than 450 million linear feet of output this year – Kodak had been mulling the possibility of closing down its film manufacturing capabilities.

If that were to happen, the last of the major movie film manufacturers would have exited the market. (Fuji, the other major supplier, stopped producing movie film in 2013.)

As it turns out, however, there are a number of “name” film directors who remain quite keen on using film – among them J.J. Abrams, Judd Apatow, Christopher Noland, Lasse Hallström and Quentin Tarantino.

These and other movie directors lobbied the heads of the major film studios to commit to purchasing film in sufficient quantities to allow Kodak’s Rochester film manufacturing facility to remain open.

And now the major studios have reportedly decided to do just that – even though they don’t actually know how many movies will be shot using film versus the digital medium.

About the pending deal, Bob Weinstein, co-chairman of Weinstein Company said this: “It’s a financial commitment, no doubt about it. But I don’t think we could look some of our filmmakers in the eyes if we didn’t do it.”

The big challenge for movies shot on film is that very few younger film directors have any experience working in the medium. That sort of filmmaking is hardly even taught in cinematic arts classes anymore.

Besides, post-production work is much easier and faster with digital.

Still, just like audiophiles are convinced of the superiority of analog recordings over those recorded digitally, some movie directors swear by film. “I’m a huge fan of film, but it’s so much more convenient digitally,” film director Ian Bryce told reporter Ben Fritz.

Judd Apatow is another director who loves the film medium. While he also recognizes the benefits of digital, “it would be a tragedy if suddenly directors didn’t have the opportunity to shoot on film,” he says. “There’s a magic to the grain and the color quality that you get with film.”

By the way, Mr. Apatow is shooting his latest movie – Trainwreck – using film. And the Lasse Hallström film The Hundred-Foot Journey, which just opened in theatres, was shot on film as well.

“Digital cameras are not able to capture all the subtleties of the forest,” Mr. Hallström reported. His goal was to capture the lush landscape and greenery in the scenes of mushroom and wild berry picking that helps make The Hundred-Foot Journey such a feast for the eyes.

“We compared film and video, and the video simplified all the greens. On film, you could see the nuances of all the shades,” Hallstrom emphasized.

With all the conflicting factors, what is the prognosis for the film medium?

Well, we now know that Kodak will continue to manufacture it for the next few years at least. With set purchase commitments comes the ability to plan for operational efficiencies.

We also know that film remains the “medium of choice” for long-term preservation of all types of movies – including those shot digitally.

But practically all movie theatres have switched over to digital projection by now, whereas projection film used to represent a far bigger portion of product sales than preservation film.

So I think we can safely say that short-term, the prognosis is good.

Medium-term is iffy … and long-haul, it’s likely that the term “film” to describe “movies” will be accurate only from a historical perspective.

Do you feel differently? If so, share your thoughts with other readers here.

The “Snowden Effect”: The U.S. cloud computing industry is getting hammered.

August 3, 2014August 4, 2014 Phillip Nones Business, Economics, Government, Social Commentary Business, Cloud Computing, cloud computing services, Cloud Security, cloud services, Digital Spying, Electronic Surveillance, Hans-Peter Friedrich, Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, International Business, ITIF, National Security Agency, Nelson Nones, New America Foundation, Nones, NSA, PRISM, Snowden Effect

I’ve blogged before about the fallout from the Edward Snowden affair and its effects on the U.S. cloud computing industry.

In fact, back in the summer of 2013 I read an interesting thought piece published by my brother, Nelson Nones, Chairman of Geoprise Technologies. His experiences as an IT specialist who has lived and worked outside the United States for two decades has made him particularly sensitive to what the international implications of the Snowden revelations may be.

In his 2013 analysis, he claimed that the NSA spying revelations would likely have serious consequences for the cloud computing industry. As he wrote at the time:

“… these threats will be perceived to be so serious that many businesses could decide to abandon the use of cloud computing services going forward — or refuse to consider cloud computing at all — because they bear full responsibility for compliance yet now realize that they have little or no ability to control the attendant non-compliance risks when utilizing major cloud services providers.

Out front: Geoprise Technologies’ Nelson Nones was among the first to warn about the negative consequences of NSA surveillance programs on the U.S. cloud computing industry.

In view of recent revelations, the tantalizing cost savings and efficiencies from cloud computing may be overwhelmed by the financial, business continuity and reputational risks.”

And his prediction as to what would likely happen as a result if these concerns played out in the market was even more chilling:

“Revenues and profits of U.S.-based service providers will suffer to the extent that businesses of every nationality abandon the public cloud computing services they are now using, or refuse to consider public cloud computing services offered by U.S.-based providers, in response to the heightened customer risks that have now been revealed.”

Shortly thereafter, I began to notice similar writings back here in the United States – in particular those by members of the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF), a DC-based think tank focusing on technology policies. It projected that the U.S. cloud computing industry would forfeit somewhere between $22 billion and $35 billion in lost business as a result of the NSA-related revelations.

For anyone keeping score, that’s between 10% and 20% of the worldwide cloud computing market.

And now, one year later, the full scope of the impact is being realized. New America Foundation, a not-for-profit, non-partisan organization focusing on public policy issues, released a report this past week which outlines the impact of Snowden’s NSA revelations.

Here are just two examples of the findings it published:

Within days of the first NSA revelations, cloud computing services such as Dropbox and Amazon Web Services reported measurable sales declines.
Qualcomm, IBM, Microsoft, HP, Cisco and others have reported sales declines in China – as much as a 10% drop in overall revenue.

Not only that, foreign governments are giving U.S. tech firms wide berth when it comes to contracting for a range of products and services that go well-beyond cloud computing.

Among the casualties: The German government ended its contract with Verizon as of June … while the Brazilian government selected Swedish-based Saab over Boeing in a contract to replace fighter jets.

In the current environment of security jitters, it’s much easier for foreign competitors to portray themselves as “NSA-proof” — and the “safer choice” for protecting sensitive information.

And unambiguous comments like this one made by Germany’s Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich just add fuel to the fire:

“Whoever fears their communication is being monitored in any way should use services that don’t go through American servers.”

Even more ominous, a number of countries are debating – and indeed close to enacting – new legislation that would require companies doing business within their local to use local data centers.

Sure, some of the countries – Vietnam, Brunei, Greece – aren’t overly significant players in the grand scheme of things. But others certainly are; Brazil and India aren’t inconsequential markets by any measure.

In all, the New America Foundation report forecasts that the fallout from the NSA’s PRISM program will cost cloud-computing companies multiple billions in lost revenues – from $20 billion on the low end to nearly $200 billion on the high end.

This, plus the collateral damage of lost contracts involving ancillary and even unrelated tech services and manufactured products, may result in a contraction of the U.S. tech industry’s growth by as much as 4% — not to mention seriously undermining the United States’ credibility around the world.

Isn’t that just what America needs to have right now: international credibility problems not only in the political sphere, but also in the economic one.

Unfortunately, what I wrote in my blog post a year ago still stands true today: “OK, U.S. government and administration officials: Have fun unscrambling this egg!”

Print magazine startups: Hope springs eternal.

July 30, 2014July 30, 2014 Phillip Nones Advertising, Business, Marketing Communications 12th & Broad, Advertising, Barbecue America, Jet, Ladies' Home Journal, Magazines, Media, Oxbridge Communications, Print Advertising, print magazine, Publications, Publishing, San Franciso Cottages & Gardens

I’ve blogged before about the number of print magazine launches versus closures in the age of the Internet.

Now the latest report from media database clearinghouse Oxbridge Communications shows that when it comes to this most traditional form of media … hope springs eternal.

In fact, Oxbridge is reporting that in the first half of this year, new magazine start-ups outstripped those that ceased publication – and by a substantial margin.

The Oxbridge database, which includes U.S. and Canadian publications, shows that 93 magazines were launched in the first half of 2014, versus just 30 that were shuttered.

True, this represents a lower number of start-ups than is the historical average … but it’s also a lower number of closures.

What specialty audiences are being targeted by these new pubs?

In the continuation of an existing trend, there’s growth in new “regional interest” magazines such as 12^th & Broad (aimed at the creative community in the Nashville metro area) and San Francisco Cottages & Gardens.

Food and drink is another category of growing interest, with publications like Barbecue America and Craft Beer & Brewing hitting the streets for the first time.

And why not? Despite ever-changing consumer tastes and interests, all of us continue to share at least one fundamental trait: We eat!

But on a cautionary note, the smaller list of magazine closures do include two vaunted “historic” titles: Jet (Johnson Publishing) and Ladies’ Home Journal (Meredith).

These closures underscore the point that the magazine industry shakeup continues – and who knows what other famous titles might cease publication during the second half of the year.

As for the biggest reason behind the magazine closures … isn’t it obvious? It’s decreased advertising revenue.

Continuing a trend that’s been happening for the better part of a decade now, Publishers Information Bureau reports that total magazine ad pages declined another 4% in the First Quarter of 2014 as compared to the same quarter of last year.

For the record, that’s 28,567 ad pages for all U.S. and Canadian publications.

While that figure may seem like a healthy total, it’s not enough to sustain the total number of publications out there.

The harsh reality is that print journalism remains dramatically more expensive than digital production. Unless a magazine can obtain enough subscribers to justify its ad rates, the only other way it can survive is to cover its costs via a “no-advertising” business model.

The vast majority of subscribers will never pay the full cost to produce a print publication. And with more free information resources than ever available to them online, many people aren’t particularly inclined to commit to even a subsidized subscription rate.

Indeed, the wealth of free information means it’s more difficult these days even to get qualified business readers to subscribe to free B-to-B pubs that target their own industry or markets.

What changing dynamics would portend a shift in the downward trajectory? It would be nice to anticipate a bottoming-out followed by a turnaround.

Unfortunately, if the past five years have demonstrated anything, it’s that there may be no “natural bottom” when it comes to diminishing advertising revenues in the print magazine business.

Genericide: The Biggest Threat to Trademarks

July 27, 2014July 28, 2014 Phillip Nones Advertising, Branding, Business, Marketing Communications, Sales brand equity, Branding, Consumerist, Genericide, Goodwill, Intellectual Property, marketing, Mary Beth Quirk, Patents, Trademark Protection, Trademarks, USPTO

When reading articles or promotional copy about certain brands, the extensive use of footnotes plus “®” designations dangling off of words like ornaments on a tree look clunky and can be a real distraction.

But there are important reasons for companies to police and protect their brand equity … because if you spend some time snooping around the English language, you’ll find any number of words that began life as trademarked terms but became “genericized” over time.

Trademark lawyers refer to this progression as “genericide.” And there are a surprising number of high-profile examples they can cite.

Recently, business writer and editor Mary Beth Quirk compiled a list of once-trademarked brand terms that have become victims of genericide, and she published her findings in the Consumerist, an e-zine put out by Consumer Reports.

Among the trade names she highlights that have “gone generic” are these:

Aspirin — Originally registered by German firm Bayer, aspirin’s trademark was confiscated by the U.S. government in the wake of World War I. Considering the massive headache Germany would unleash on the world barely 20 years later, perhaps this aggressive move wasn’t the best course of action!

Dry Ice — Believe it or not, this was actually a trademarked term, dating from 1925. To nearly everyone, it sounds so much better than “solid CO₂.” The clearly preferred “dry ice” descriptor everyone uses is probably why the company lost its trademark by 1932.

Escalator — Registered in 1900 by Otis Elevator, the company lost its trademark when the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office determined that Otis had used it as a descriptive term — even in its own patent applications.

Heroin — This was yet another Bayer trademark. It seems strange that heroin started out life as an actual branded product … but there we are. Presumably, these days Bayer is happy that its company is no longer associated with such a problematic substance.

Laundromat — This term started out as a General Electric trademark back in 1940, issued for the first wall-mounted washing machine. GE failed to renew its registration after the 1950s.

Linoleum — Here’s an example of a brand name that had already entered the generic lexicon before the manufacturing firm even attempted to register it. Coined in the mid-1860s, the company’s efforts to register the flooring name were to fail just a decade later.

Thermos — This trademark was established in the early 1900s as a more pleasing way to describe a “vacuum flask.” After too much loosey-goosey use of the term, the USPTO pronounced it genericized in 1963.

Trampoline — It appears that this term, coined by inventors George Nissen and Larry Griswold in 1936, was never officially registered. The real generic descriptor is “rebound tumbler,” but “trampoline” sounds so much more effective to me. Everyone else seemed to think so, too, leading to its ineligibility for trademark status.

ZIP Code — An acronym for “Zone Improvement System,” the ZIP code began life in the mid-1970s as a service mark of the U.S. Postal Service, but the registration was never renewed. I guess the USPTO chose not to notify its sister agency of the renewal — not their business to do so even among friends and colleagues, evidently.

The next bit of interesting information in Quirk’s article is her listing of brand names that remain trademarked to this day — even though some of them seem to epitomize the essence of generic terminology.

Quirk concurs in the view that these terms may be on life support as proprietary names, noting that they are “trademarks who need to watch their backs” because of how pervasive they are in everyday language usage. Among the terms she cites are these:

Adrenalin® (owned by Park-Davis)
AstroTurf® (Monsanto)
Band-Aid® (Johnson & Johnson)
Bubble Wrap® (Sealed Air)
Crock-Pot® (Sunbeam)
Dumpster® (Dempster Brothers)
Fiberglas® (Owens Corning)
Frisbee® (Wham-O)
Hula Hoop® (Wham-O)
Jet Ski® (Kawasaki)
Kleenex® (Kimberly-Clark)
Lava Lamp® (Mathmos)
Mace® (Mace Security International)
Memory Stick® (Sony
Ping Pong® (Parker Brothers)
Plexiglas® (Rohm & Haas)
Popsicle® (Good Humor-Breyers)
Q-Tips® (Unilever)
Realtor® (National Association of Realtors)
Stetson® (John B. Stetson Company)
Styrofoam® (Dow Chemical)
Taser® (Taser Systems)
Teflon® (DuPont)

Thinking along these lines, do other trade names come to mind that could be in danger of losing their trademark status? If you can think of any, please share your nominations with other readers here.

Get Ready for Internet Sales Taxes

July 23, 2014July 23, 2014 Phillip Nones Business, Economics, Government, Sales Business, David French, Internet, Internet Tax Freedom Act, Marketplace and Internet Tax Freedom Act, Marketplace Fairness Act, National Retail Federation, Nones, NRF, Retail Industry, sales tax legislation, Taxation

Are sales taxes finally coming to the Internet?

After years of fruitless attempts, it would seem so.

On July 15^th, five senators introduced legislation on a bipartisan basis to make taxation of purchases made over the Internet a reality.

The legislation is called the Marketplace and Internet Tax Freedom Act, and it combines the efforts of two initiatives that had been separate before: The Marketplace Fairness Act and the Internet Tax Freedom Act.

On the one hand, the legislation would keep access to the Internet tax-free by limiting what state and local governments can do to impose Internet access fees – at least for the coming decade.

On the other hand, it gives states the unambiguous ability to enforce their sales tax laws on businesses selling to buyers located within their borders – including if those purchases are made online.

In other words, the 44 states that currently have sales tax laws on their books will be able to collect online sales taxes.

Not surprisingly, the National Retail Federation and other trade groups that represent brick-and-mortar retailing are lauding the actions of the five senators in introducing the legislation.

David French, the NRF’s senior vice president for government relations, noted that it’s high time “for Congress to eliminate the sales tax disparity, which disproportionally impacts community and independent retailers.”

Unlike in prior years when Senate and House lawmakers seemed incapable of coming together in support of sales tax legislation, this time appears different.

Why?

I think part of the reason is the sense that, at the end of the day, it just isn’t fair for offline retailers to shoulder the burden of collecting taxes – along with being at a competitive disadvantage – versus online retailers who benefit from being able to offer lower the same products at a lower overall cost, while also benefiting from lower overhead costs in most cases.

The fact that the current legislative bill is being introduced by senators from across the political spectrum as well as a diverse geography (the Northeast, South and Midwest) — tells me that the legislation will go through — and that the days of tax-free online shopping are numbered.

It will be interesting to see what the ramifications might be if and when the legislation passes. Will 24/7 armchair convenience trump the sudden 5%-7% higher cost to online consumers?

Those consumers can be notoriously price-sensitive … but they’re also creatures of habit and great lovers of convenience.

My prediction is that the new regulations will turn out to have little or no impact on the broader retail buying behaviors. If you concur — or if you have a different opinion — please share your thoughts with other readers here.

The most respected brands in 2014: Who’s up … who’s down.

July 21, 2014July 21, 2014 Phillip Nones Advertising, Branding, Business, Marketing Communications Brand Image, Brand Respect, Branding, Business, CBI, CoreBrand, Corporate Branding Index, marketing

In recent years, there’s been more press than ever about “brand respect.” Building on this interest, brand strategy firm CoreBrand decided to use historical survey data to attempt to determine the sentiment behind the world’s best-known brands.

CoreBrand uses proprietary Corporate Branding Index data – 23 years’ worth – that it has been compiling through consumer surveys covering nearly 1,000 of most famous brands.

CoreBrand’s 2014 Brand Respect Study covers the 100 brands (limited to publicly traded companies) in the CBI that chart the highest levels of market familiarity among all of the brands tracked.

CoreBrand’s scoring mechanism is pretty straightforward: Brands with the highest familiarity and favorability are defined as “most respected,” while brands that have high familiarity but low favorability levels are the “least respected.”

For the record, here are the most respected brands as determined from the 2014 CoreBrand research:

#1: Coca-Cola – the most respected
#2: PepsiCo
#3: Hershey
#4: Bayer
#5: Johnson & Johnson
#6: Harley-Davidson
#7: IBM
#8: Apple
#9: Kellogg
#10: General Electric

In comparing 2014’s results to the previous year, Coke and Pepsi remain at the top of the heap – although they traded places from one year to the next. Moreover, both brands’ favorability scores declined slightly – perhaps due to the burgeoning “better for you” foods movement that seems to be souring some consumers on soft drinks and related beverages.

New on the “Top Ten” most-respected listing this year are IBM, Apple and GE.

At the other end of the scale, these ten brands came up as the ones that are the least respected – with Delta Airlines earning the Booby Prize as “the worst of the worst”:

#1: Delta Airlines – the least respected
#2: H&R Block
#3: Big Lots
#4: Denny’s
#5: Best Buy
#6: Rite Aid
#7: J.C. Penney
#8: Capital One Financial
#9: Family Dollar Stores
#10: Sprint Nextel

While it’s certainly no fun to be on the “least respected” list, two of the brands – Denny’s and Family Dollar — have actually seen their scores improve significantly this year compared to last. So at least they’re headed in the right direction.

Two other brands – Philip Morris and Foot Locker – have gone off the list. In the case of Foot Locker, it’s because its brand favorability ratings have improved significantly enough to lift them off the list.

For Philip Morris, the reason is far more mundane: it’s simply because its familiarity level has deteriorated so much, the brand no longer even qualifies to be part of the annual CoreBrand Brand Respect evaluation.

And finally … we come to Delta Airlines. It’s the air carrier everyone loves to hate — and it’s dead last in the brand respect rankings.

There’s some consolation for Delta, though: The only two other U.S.-based air carriers that qualify for inclusion in the study based on their familiarity levels (United and American) also score on the low end, although they (just) miss being on the “least respected list.”

Evidently, the airlines in general could benefit from earning more brand respect. Good luck with that.

Charting Social Media’s “Maturity Continuum”

July 13, 2014July 14, 2014 Phillip Nones Advertising, Business, Marketing Communications, Social Commentary Business, Communications, Gord Hotchkiss, Marcomm, marketing, Maturity Continuum, Social Media, Social Platform, Social Platforms

As social media has crept more and more into the fabric of life for so many people, it’s only natural that social scientists and marketers are thinking about the wider implications.

One of these thinkers is someone whose viewpoints I respect a good deal. Social media and online/search über-strategist Gord Hotchkiss has come up with a way of looking at social media vehicles that he dubs the “Maturity Continuum.”

According to Hotchkiss, the Maturity Continuum is made up of four levels of increasing social media “stickiness” — meaning how relevant and important the social platforms are to people’s daily lives and routines.

Specifically, these four levels are:

The Fad Phase — This is when people start using a social media platform because it’s the bright shiny thing … and “everyone else” in their circle is doing so, too. This dynamic is commonly found among early adopters — you know, the folks who try out new things because … they’re new.

Of course, early adopters don’t necessarily stick around. A new social platform has to have some sort of “there there” – to deliver some measure of functional benefit – or else it won’t keep fad users around for long.

Also important at this early stage is the aspect of uniqueness and novelty — which is always important among this group of people who tend to be higher on the ego and narcissism scale.

Making a Statement — If a social platform makes it through the pure novelty gauntlet, it continues to be used because it makes a statement about the user. In the case of social media, it’s often as much about the technology as it is the functionality.

Thinking about a platform like FourSquare, here you have social tool that’s probably at this level of maturity. With FourSquare, there may be a few utilitarian reasons for using it — getting vouchers or other “free stuff” from restaurants and bars — but it’s probably a lot more about “making that statement.”

A Useful Tool — At this point on the Maturity Continuum, here’s where a social platform breaks into a more practical realm. Going beyond the novelty and ego aspects, users find that the platform is a highly beneficial tool from a functionality standpoint — perhaps better than any other one out there for facilitating certain activities.

Thinking about a social platform like LinkedIn in this context, it’s easy to see how that particular one has done so well.

A Platform of Choice — This is the highest level of social media maturity, where users engage — and continue to engage — with a social platform because they have become so familiar with it.

At this level, it becomes quite a challenge to dislodge a social platform, even if “newer, better” choices come along. Once social habits have become established and a large critical mass of users is established, it can be very difficult to change the behavior.

Facebook is “Exhibit A” in this regard: Despite near-weekly reports of issues and controversies about the platform, people continue to hang in there with it.

Thinking about other social platforms like Instagram, YouTube, Twitter, SnapChat and Pinterest, it’s interesting to speculate on where they currently fall on the “maturity meter.”

I’d venture to say that YouTube has made it to the highest level … SnapChat is still residing in the early “fad” stage … while Pinterest and Instagram are transitioning between “making a statement” and being “a useful tool.”

Where Twitter resides … is anyone’s guess. I for one am still wondering just how Twitter fits into the greater scheme of social — and how truly “consequential” it is in the fabric of most people’s social lives.

What are your perspectives on the Maturity Continuum in social media? If you have opinions one way or the other about the long-term staying power of certain platforms, please share them with other readers here.