2016 says goodbye to some iconic American brands …

December 21, 2016December 21, 2016 Phillip Nones Branding, Business, Economics, Social Commentary American Apparel, AP, Brand Casualties, Branding, Brands, Business Failures, marketing, Office Max, Olympic Gardens, RadioShack, Sears, SimplyHired, Sports Authority, Trends, US Airways, Vine

As in every year, 2016 has seen the fall of famous brands; some are young upstarts that flamed out quickly, but others are venerable names that have been with us for decades.

Here are ten of the more notable casualties of the year – albeit a few of them still kicking but for all intents and purposes, going lights-out:

A&P – This brand name goes back 150 years … but eventually even venerable A&P couldn’t survive in the cutthroat grocery market. Actually, this brand’s been on life support for a while now, but has always managed to scrape by. No longer. Albertstons Companies – itself facing big competition in the grocery segment – has purchased the remaining 600 A&P outlets and will re-brand those it keeps open under its Acme brand name. Nevertheless, at a century and a half it’s been quite a run – one that only a very few other brands can match.

American Apparel – When a once high-flying apparel company has its equally high-flying chief executive fending off salacious reports of secretly recorded sex videos – yes, they’re on the Internet – coupled with spiraling debt levels and plummeting sales, can Chapter 11 be far behind? You already know the answer.

Office Max – Sales at the big three U.S. office supply chains have struggled for a number of years, but Office Max was the one to fall victim first. Its merger in 2013 with Office Depot began the brand’s slide, and now the final nail is in the coffin with the merger of Office Depot and Staples. What’s the rationale for continuing to have three store brands under one company umbrella? Answer: No reason at all … which is why the weakest of the three brands is now becoming history.

Olympic Garden – In a development that some might characterize as divine retribution, the Las Vegas “adult” establishment colloquially known as “The OG” couldn’t handle its myriad legal battles even as it continued to attract big crowds.

RadioShack – OK, we still see RadioShack outlets in certain locations around the country – typically in small- to medium-sized markets. But they’re co-branded locations with Sprint. The reality is that this nearly 100-year-old brand is fading away; the only question is whether we’ll cease seeing the name in five years or just one or two.

Sears – Another iconic brand name has been struggling mightily in the past decade or so, despite its merger with Kmart. The company has lost more than $1 billion in each of the past three years. Now it appears that the Sears name is the one that will disappear as its store locations continue to dwindle – nearly 250 in 2015 and close to another 100 this year. At that rate, there’ll be none left before long.

SimplyHired – An international job search engine with upwards of 30 million active users that once sparred with the likes of Monster.com, ultimately this HR resource was unable to successfully compete in the space, shutting down in mid-year.

Sports Authority – A cautionary tale of what happens to a big retailer when it fails to keep its operations and product offerings fresh and appealing. This retailer has been absorbed into Dick’s Sporting Goods, which has been far more nimble – and successful – in the “big box” sporting goods niche.

US Airways – We knew this had to be coming eventually; in 2013, this airlines’ merger with American Airlines was finalized. Now that its operating systems are fully consolidated, one of the brand names was bound to disappear – and it’s US Airways. Just like we all knew that Southwest Airlines would eventually consign the AirTran brand name to the dustbin, the same thing is happening with US Airways now.

Vine – In October, Twitter shut down this video-sharing app so it could refocus on its (also struggling) core business. Vine was definitely a flash-in-the-pan brand – barely a half-decade old.

So, now it’s time say a fond farewell to these brands. For a good many of them, the names may soon disappear, but they won’t be forgotten …

Do you have other 2016 brand casualties you’d add to the list? Please share your choices with other readers here.

Which brands are America’s most “patriotic”?

July 2, 2015July 2, 2015 Phillip Nones Advertising, Branding, Business, Marketing, Marketing Communications, Social Commentary American brands, Brand Keys, Brand Values, Branding, Brands, Business, Corporate Image, Jeep, marketing, Patriotic Brands, Patriotism, robert Passikoff

With the 4^th of July holiday nearly upon us, sharing the results of a recent brand study seems particularly apropos.

Since 2013, Brand Keys, a branding consulting firm, has conducted an annual evaluation of famous American brands to determine which ones are considered by consumers to be the most “patriotic.”

In order to discover those attitudes, Brand Keys surveyed nearly 5,500 consumers between the ages of 16 and 65, asking them to evaluate American brands on a collection of 35 cross-category values – one of which was “patriotism.” (The number of brands included in the evaluation has varied somewhat from year to year, ranging between 195 and 225.)

Of course “patriotism” is a hyper-qualitative measure that’s based as much on emotion and each individual person’s own point of reference as on anything else.

Brand familiarity and longstanding engagement in the marketplace helps, too.

So it’s not surprising that the American brands scoring highest on the patriotism meter are some of the best-known, iconic names.

For the record, listed below are the “Top 10” most patriotic American brands based on Brand Keys’ most recent survey – the ones that scored 91% or higher on the patriotism scale (out of a possible 100 percentage points):

Jeep (98%)

Coca-Cola (97%)

Disney (96%)

Ralph Lauren (95%)

Levi Strauss (94%)

Ford Motor (93%)

Jack Daniels (93%)

Harley Davidson (92%)

Gillette (92%)

Apple (91%)

Coors (91%)

The next highest group of ten patriotic brands scored between 85% and 90% on the survey:

American Express (90%)

Wrigley’s (90%)

Gatorade (89%)

Zippo (89%)

Amazon (88%)

Hershey’s (87%)

Walmart (87%)

Colgate (86%)

Coach (85%)

New Balance (85%)

[As an aside … the only entity to score a perfect patriotism rating of 100% was the U.S. Armed Services.]

To be sure, “rational” aspects like being an American-based company whose products are actually made in the United States affect the patriotism rating of individual brands.

But other attributes — such as nationally directed customer-service activities and highly publicized involvement in sponsorships and causes that tie to the American experience — are attributes that add to a general image of being patriotic.

Robert Passikoff, Brand Keys’ president, expanded on the idea, stating,

“Today, when it comes to engaging consumers, waving an American flag and actually having an authentic foundation for being able to wave the flag are two entirely different things — and the consumer knows it.

“If you want to differentiate via brand values – especially one this emotional – if there is believability, good marketing just gets better.”

This is the third annual report issued by Brand Keys that’s been focused on brand patriotism – one of 35 brand values comparatively surveyed. Over the three years, there’s been some change in the patriotism rankings, with Colgate, Wrigley’s and Zippo falling out of the Top Ten and being replaced by Jack Daniels, Gillette, Apple and Coors in 2015.

What I find intriguing about the findings is that there isn’t a very strong correlation between the perceived patriotism of specific American brands and whether or not most of their products are made in the United States versus offshore. Of course, foreign production is more the norm than ever in the global economy. What’s important is how the consumer reacts to that reality.

With that point in mind … what about Jeep? Now that it is part of the global Fiat organization, should Jeep no longer be considered an American brand? Whether it is or not, the brand has the distinction of achieving the highest patriotism score outside of the U.S. Armed Services.

The bottom line is this: Brands, what they “mean” and what they stand for are based on the emotional as well as the rational – with the emotional aspect being the trump card with consumers.

Jeep, with all of its associations with winning wartime campaigns (particularly World War II), likely will always be a beloved “patriotic” U.S. brand, regardless of its recent Italian parent company ownership.

Are there brands not listed above that you would consider to be “highly patriotic”? If so, please share your thoughts with other readers here.

“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.

Social Branding: Reality-Check Time

March 16, 2014March 17, 2014 Phillip Nones Advertising, Branding, Business, Marketing Communications, Social Commentary, Uncategorized Branding, Brands, Business, Communications, Consumer Marketing, Kentico, Kentico Software, Marcomm, marketing, marketing communications, Nones, Social Branding, Social Marketing, Social Media, Social Networks

With all of the attention marketers have been paying to social media, it’s always helpful to look and re-look at information that gives us clues as to how customers are actually interfacing with brands in the social sphere.

Statistics published in a just-released report titled Digital Brand Interactions Survey, based on research conducted by web content management company Kentico Software, gives us a reality check on just how [non-]essential social media actually is in the greater branding picture.

The Kentico research queried approximately 300 American consumers age 18 or older via an online survey administered in February 2014. Let’s start with the most basic finding: the degree to which consumers “like” or “follow” brands on social networks such as Twitter, Facebook and Instagram:

No brands followed on social media: ~40%
1 to 10 brands followed: ~39%
11 to 20 brands followed: ~7%
21 to 30 brands followed: ~6%

Considering how many different brands the typical consumer encounters in his or her daily life (dozens? … hundreds?), following ten or fewer brands on social media represents only a very small proportion of them.

Yet that’s exactly where four in five consumers are when it comes to social branding.

So … how do companies get into that rarefied group of brands that are, in fact, followed by consumers? Here’s what the Kentico survey discovered:

Already interested in the brand and wanted to stay informed: ~40%
Followed on social media to receive special offers: ~39%
Followed because of a recommendation from a friend or family member: ~12%
Didn’t really know the brand before, but wanted to learn more about it: ~8%

These results suggest that the notion that social branding is an easy way to attract new customers may be flawed. Instead, social branding is better-suited to deepening brand engagement with existing customers.

Money talks as well (discounts or other special offers) – and be sure to offer them often.

In another piece of evidence that points to social branding’s relatively weak ability to drive incremental sales … Kentico found that ~72% of its survey respondents “never” or “hardly ever” purchase a product after hearing about it on a social network.

An equal percentage of respondents have “never” or “hardly ever” had brand encounters online that altered their already-existing perception of those brands.

So it would seem that much of the “heat” generated by social branding may be adding up to very little “light.”

On the other hand, there is also some good news for brands in the social realm: The incidence of people “unliking” or “unfollowing” brands is quite low: Only about 5% of the survey respondents reported such actions.

When that does happen, it’s often because a brand has been publishing too many social posts – or the content of the posts themselves is uninteresting.

The biggest takeaway notion from the Kentico research is to remind us to maintain a degree of skepticism about the impact of social branding – and to understand that in most cases, social media activities are going to remain the “ornaments” on the marketing tree rather than be the “tree” itself.

In fact, that’s probably the case even more now — as consumers become bombarded with ever-more marketing messages from ever-more brands with every passing day.

What are America’s “Most Influential” Brands?

June 12, 2013 Phillip Nones Branding, Business, Uncategorized Apple, Brand Influence, Brand Reputation, Branding, Brands, Business, General Motors, GM, Ipsos, MarketQuest, Nones

In my most recent blog post, I reported on equity analysis firm 24/7 Wall Street and its take on the “most damaged” brands in the United States.

While there was pretty universal agreement among readers on most of the nine brands that had the dubious honor to make it on the list, there were several cases where some readers disagreed — Apple and J.P. Morgan Chase in particular.

Now, as an interesting comparative exercise looking at the other end of the scale, New York-based research company Ipsos MarketQuest polled Americans earlier this year on which brands they view as the “most influential” ones.

Of the 100 major brands included in the Ipsos survey and rated by respondents, here are the ten brands cited as most influential in the 2013 survey (in descending order of score):

Google
Amazon
Apple
Microsoft
Facebook
VISA
Wal-Mart
Yahoo!
Proctor & Gamble
eBay

Google leads the pack – and it’s hardly a surprise. But an important (and perhaps surprising) thing we notice is how pervasive technology, media and web-based brands are on the list.

Clearly, these are the types of companies that are increasingly influential in the lives of everyday Americans.

In fact, just three brands in the “Top 10 Most Influential” predate the personal computer era: VISA, Wal-Mart and Proctor & Gamble. And they rank relatively low on the list at #6, #7 and #9.

Moreover, let’s not forget that all three of these more “legacy-type” brands have actually been quite active in online and social media activities. Clearly, their senior management personnel realize that a good measure of future brand health lies in the same space where the other leading brands are active.

Another interesting point that jumps out is when we compare the Ipsos “most influential” with the 24/7 Wall Street “most damaged” rankings. One brand stands out on both lists: Apple.

How can this be?

But on second thought, is it reall all so surprising? The 24/7 Wall Street inclusion was based on stock analysts’ reading of the company’s recent missteps and related share price declines … whereas the Ipsos list is based on the findings from a survey of “ordinary Americans.”

Applying the same comparative measures, I’m pretty sure the public’s view of General Motors stayed right up there long after the financial analysts had fled the stock and relegated GM’s brand reputation to the basement.

But in the end, public opinion eventually followed the analysts, in part because GM’s efforts to turn around company performance proved spectacularly ineffective. It just took more time for that knowledge to seep into the collective consciousness.

For Apple, the big question is: Will its future actions mean that it stabilizes its brand reputation? Or, will its effort fall short, leading to a loss of consumer confidence?

Let’s check in again after 18-24 months and find out.