Monthly Archives: September 2010

Cathy Horyn, Ford and Job One.

By
Steve Poppe
-
0

I love Fashion Week in NYC.  Not sure what it’s called this year sponsor-wise, so let’s just call it Fashion Week. One reason I like it so much is it allows me to read lots of Cathy Horyn’s fashion reviews in The New York Times.  She is one of my favorite writers. There is something intriguing about her prose.  Often I don’t even know what fabrics and garments she’s detailing, yet I’m captured by her words, descriptions and metaphors.

Ms. Horyn is quite powerful and has been the subject of many designers’ anger and has, in fact, been banned from some tents because of her pen. It gives her more power.

In today’s paper, she had a column about Tom Ford’s show — he of Gucci fame. The review of the show, his first with women’s clothes in 6 years, was nice and painted a wonderful picture of the “glamorous, controlled” event.  It explained the amazing presentation of his new line, but it didn’t do what Ms. Horyn normally does so well, explain the clothes.  She was so caught up in the event and Beyonce and other personalities that she forgot to strap on her editorial eye and dig into the linen.  Glad I read it. Glad she was invited. (Wish I was invited.) Hoped she has been a teeny bit less star stuck. Peace!

The Magazine Shakeout.

By
Steve Poppe
-
0

In 2009, according to David Carr in The New York Times, magazine ad revenue was down 25%.  Lots of business revenue was down 25% in 2009 so this statistic may not seem that startling.  Not unless you look at the performance of magazines over the last 7 years.  25% down in a business that’s been down by single and double digits for years and years in not good.  Reminds me of the car business. Magazines need to do something. And fast.

The user interface of a magazine is superior to that of a Blackberry or iPhone — paper recycling aside.  Magazines are not going away. Cars aren’t going away. 

What’s the difference between a publisher and a curator?  About a hundred grand.  Publishers are overpaid magazine dude(ttes) in a hemorrhaging business while Curators are underpaid Web content presenters in a growth business. If people with these two titles switched jobs for 6 months they might actually improve their respective lots.

I often simplify marketing down to two factors: Claim and Proof.  For magazines (on and offline) I simplify the business down to Reporting and Presentation. Magazines, to thrive, need to find out what their Claim is, mine the Proof, have that proof Reported by experts and Present it in new and exciting ways. Peace!

New Agency Leader Ship

By
Steve Poppe
-
0

Paul Gumbinner, a friend and one of New York’s more successful advertising recruiters, wrote a post this week about how little diversity there is among agencies today.  The unique agency segments of yore are no longer apparent.  He is quite correct.  Part of Paul’s argument is that the leaders of those agencies created unique cultures.  Bill Bernbach in the 60s.  Jay Chiat in the 70s. Dan Wieden in the 80s. Donnie Deutsch in the 90s.

Interestingly, the turn of the century brought agency start-ups and technology themed shops.  Leadership became secondary to coolness. Exciting, new brands emerged with selfless senior management: Anomaly, Barbarian Group, Razorfish, Naked, Organic, Strawberry Frog, Taxi, Renegade, Brooklyn Brothers, Mother, Droga5 (cheater) and Poke.  These leaders, smart marketers all, put their brands first. Built teams. Tried to figure out the new order and class of work, kept their heads down and promoted their brands.  It was a good strategy. BBDO, DDB, McCann went a little GM, if you will. (General Motors.)

As all agencies (big and small) move toward the middle these days, using a complicated quiver of arrows, we’re beginning to see some new leaders emerge from this new group.  These new leaders have been playing quiet offense thus far — and as Mr. Gumbinner points out.  But the decade of 2010 is providing a fresh canvas for new leaders.  Welcome Faris. Welcome Noah. Welcome Lori.  Welcome Gareth. Peace!

Product. Package. Brand.

By
Steve Poppe
-
0

Product, Package and Brand are three fundamental marketing words for the 21st Century. The traditional 4 Ps of marketing: product, price, promotion and place are still workable cornerstones but for my money consumers have evolved so far and product management has devolved so far that success can not be achieved focusing on these three alone.

Product.

These days a product has to be good. No longer can you spin a shizzy product or service and be successful. What constitutes a “good” product in this era though is debatable. Especially in the states. We sell a lot of cheese (poor product) here, but because the cheese is affordable and lasts a year, people buy it. The definition of good, at the lower to middle end of the market, has changed markedly. Make it good and they will come.

Package.

Before the web, packaging was what your product arrived in.  In 2010, with people spending billions on virtual goods, goods aren’t even goods. Packaging. Point of sale packaging is still important, don’t get me wrong, but the point of sale is different. For those who do product research online the website is the package. A lot of product website homepages are built like old school product packaging: features, bulleted copy, product shots (fail), but that’s a story for another post. These days — and they are amazingly exciting days — advertising, PR and promotion are all part of the package. Access and search have changed everything. The package is now a continuum.

Brand.

Whenever I hear an art director talk about branding I head for the hills. Sure, design contributes to brand development, in a very big way, but design manicures the brand it isn’t the brand.  Apple gets this. Branding is a strategy: an organizing principle that consumers and employees share. It’s a vessel in consumers’ minds filled by an idea and proof. Products may be virtual but brands shouldn’t be. Get the strategy and consumers will get you. Peace!

PS. Anyone digging the new Google logo art on the Google home page today?

Chase What Brand Strategy.?.

By
Steve Poppe
-
0

Question: What is a brand strategy? 

Answer: A brand strategy comprises a strategic idea or claim and three support planks that vivify the claim.  Three planks, because two don’t always allow for a complete, differentiated story. Getting the idea right is key. Selling it to consumers day after day is the heavy lifting…called brand management.

Chase What Matters.

JPMorgan Chase has a very identifiable idea: “Chase what matters.”  It’s a consumer directive from a very big company that knows how to make, save and invest money. Something they already get credit for.  The idea has ballast, but so far it is only an idea. Banks have been making promises without backing them up for decades. I’m not getting a read on the Chase support planks yet – the planks that allow me to believe Chase “knows what matters” to me and that they are the bank best equipped to deliver.   

One of Chase’s neater tactical ideas lately is the “Chase Loan For Hire” program, through which it decreases small business loans by a quarter point for every new employee hired, up to three. Though I have no idea what Chase’s planks are, forensically, I might assume this tactic supports a plank titled “Meaningful borrowing matters.”  I’m not talking buy a hot tub meaningful, I’m talking something that relates to what popular culture views as meaningful. Today that’s jobs.  Nice touch.

Banking is a tough category. In my bones I feel Chase has an idea, but the jury is still out on the organization of the proof.  I’ll continue to map its planks as they become evident and share them here at What’s The Idea? Peace!

Let’s Not Call it Strategy.

By
Steve Poppe
-
0

(A self-absorbed poem about brand strategy.)

My paper is power.

My paper is freeing.

My paper creates tension.

My paper doesn’t need pictures.

My paper is musical.

My paper creates language.

My paper is rose-colored.

Always rose-colored.

My paper creates feelings.

My paper encourages doing.

My paper is your paper.

My paper quickens.

If you fight the paper…you are fighting paper.

My paper is the idea to have an idea.

Burger King Futures.

By
Steve Poppe
-
0

The Burger King Whopper is a great product. Many people, myself included, feel it is far superior to McDonald’s Big Mac.  The problem with BK has always been product consistency. One day a Whopper can be sublime – the perfect fast food burger.  Fresh, crunchy, a perfect combination of backyard BBQ, veg. and condiments (the tomatoes are always an issue in the winter), the next day it can be cold, greasy and sporting an almost fruit cocktail-like mush of ingredients.    

As a student of Burger King, I thought their investment in new broiler technology a year or so ago was going to change the fast food world. It did not. McDonald’s is still kicking their butt in consistency. Broiling is BK’s point of difference, but it won’t hold up to poor in-store execution.

Today a Brazilian consortium of investors by the name of 3G is likely to make a move on Burger King.  In my view they are buying a business and a brand with so much upside it’s scary. The new owners need to establish almost NASA-like precision, though, with regard to product quality, especially in franchise stores. Forget the advertising for the moment. Forget the children’s playrooms and store color palette.  Get the core product right, make it consistent and the category will turn in your favor. Especially as you roll out internationally. Peace!

Under Armour. I wick. I mean, I will.

By
Steve Poppe
-
0

I love Under Armour.  I do. It’s an amazing, important brand. If the company didn’t invent compression shorts, it certainly gets credit for it.  The story is great, the product meaningful, and the company with its Baltimore provenance has people rooting for it.  Sports apparel is a category alone in its ability to push through the recession and Under Armour is leading that growth. Under Armour owns the “hard body.” But image-wise, it’s operating in a competitive field with players spending a lot more money.  Gatorade and Nike were first to hard body. Though all three focus on the flesh, sinew and sweat, Under Armour focus should be on the packaging (of that body).

Women’s Sports Apparel

Now Under Armour is amping up it targeting of women, who account for only 25% of sales. It is doing so by extending with the “I will” and “Protect this House I will” brand idea.  Don’t get me wrong, the imagery and music is rousing and I love Lindsey Vonn, but the brand idea is not tight enough to slap a pair of balls on some women’s training footage and make a lasting Under Armour product statement. Were I women watching the spots, I’d be inclined to go out and buy some Gatorade.

Under Amour’s Focus

Under Armour also brand extended into sneakers, cleats and sunglasses — a couple of moves which have hurt serious brand development. There is an amazing, ownable brand idea waiting for Under Armour to claim.  It has made to order brand planks, all of which can be mapped to its DNA…and it is unique to the category. Write me for the idea, if you haven’t figured it out already. Peace.

12Page 2 of 2
© Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv