Tuesday, January 21, 2014

House of Brands, Branded House or Both




What story does the architecture of a brand convey? Is it only corporate brand experts losing sleep over it? Why does it feel like everything hinges on it or it won't change much at all relative to the cost of rebranding in the same thought?

I've felt all these things. In an imperfect world where brand acquisition, legacy brands, and brand affiliations are established over time the question of brand architecture can be 'tricky.'

With the focus of digital branding bringing story telling, content sharing and peer to peer endorsement into the offline world a brand voice matters. It matters more than a presence, as communication travels fast and wide oblivious to distribution or target market constraints. A voice provides insight into a purpose, an intent, acquired knowledge, even a perspective.

Branding branches into a number of expressions to convey its story: corporate
brand, product brands, employee brand, social brands, personal brands, retail brand, business to business brand, internal branding...etc.



So what does this all mean for brand architecture models? Does this mean that a branded house is a more authentic approach? Is it important for a house of brands to clearly associate itself with the corporate master brand?

What I believe it means is that corporate branding needs to be integrated across all branding, so the portfolio has meaning, a voice when required, and credentials when entering into new markets or extensions.

Brand architecture is a critical strategy in conveying authenticity. Brand portfolios may be eclectic or designed as a tight family, in either case strong branding is driven by a core philosophy that is consistently delivered internally and externally. This vision lives across an organisation and by definition filters into every brand touch point.

The architecture applied comes down to market relevance in how stakeholders engage and relate to existing and new brands. This is the role that I see brand architecture playing:

   Corporate branding is playing a critical role in stakeholder influence and therefore in brand architecture frameworks.

   Authenticity requires stakeholders to know who you are, what you stand for and why you care about what you do and the way you operate.  Brand architecture models provide a clear understanding of what the corporate brand image, values and positioning is.

   A house of brands is a strong model, especially when there are well established heritage product brands; in this case the corporate brand plays a subtle role.  The connection can bring a 'brand voice' when required to build, advocate or protect.

   A One Brand approach is as much about shared values and relevance, as it is about a shared visual identity. Brand architecture models that highlight why brands exist in the portfolio, the role  they play relative to the master brand add great value to brand marketers.

   A branded house is powerful when there is a single minded focus and innovation that can be consistently associated back to the company.

   Visual cues are powerful. Brand architecture can integrate branding through unifying brands through colour palettes, clever ways to visually use master and product banding together, and  shared design elements.

   Both brand architecture models can exist in companies successfully if the roles of brands are clear. The watch point being brand dilution through lack of standards and/or a lack of affiliation with the corporate brand impacting on overall equity and advocacy.

   Don't be envious of other companies well designed and integrated brand architectures, as the bigger the organisation is the greater the chance is that there  is a complex branding matrix and hierarchy.

   You know your brand architecture model works when it provides a solid framework for story telling, content sharing, and derives benefits from peer to peer endorsement. In other words when the corporate brand voice can be activated vertically and horizontally in a meaning way.

   Regardless of the brand architecture model it should never be the corporate (master) brand vs product brands; to build business value they must work together, share common values, and most importantly understand the position they are working together to enhance.

Pleasant dreams about brand builders and architects creating sustainable houses :)

Sunday, January 5, 2014

Retail Stores Can Differentiate Through Humanizing Interactions














 

Retail shopping and on-line shopping may offer similar products, however the experience that shoppers are wanting is very different. The creation of a retail destination needs to tap into an experience beyond the products on offer. Even though the way we shop has evolved our need for social interaction and face to face service remains as strong. The question is can traditional retailing tap into these latent needs to revolutionise the shopping experience in the same way as on-line retailers have.

Product design and displays are the 'hero' when browsing through stores.  Clever product innovation and promotion is abundant. Customers look for
product brands with distinct benefits. Even supermarkets have increased their branded line of products. Product seeking has become a key choice driver for shoppers.

It seems that the focus on the customer experience and service excellence at many retail outlets has given way to product promotion. The retailer customer value proposition is determined by the products on offer. With products being widely available or easily substituted across competing distribution outlets, including on-line shopping sites, loyalty to a retail store brand seems pointless.


In many retail stores it feels as if the customer is an annoyance and self service is expected. This is not a complaint, rather an observation. This had contributed to the growth in on-line shopping as customers have little emotional reason to stay loyal to traditional retailers. The on-line shopping phenomenon highlights the importance of creating a compelling customer value proposition for shoppers.

Virtual retailers have stepped up to deliver reliable service, intuitive on-line user experiences, customised communications, as well as, value for money. They have built a clear customer value proposition and most importantly delivered consistently on their promises.

The successful on-line shopping sites have realised that exceptional user experience offers benefits for shoppers. Quality products attract customers, however it's the shopping experience that converts to sales. Tapping into how 'we want to shop' and delivering this has driven their success.

A great example of how this philosophy has been successfully implemented is the Apple store vs on-line proposition. The on-line experience is about user intuition, access to information, superior functionality and customised on-line communications. The store environment is about customer interaction, knowledge, expertise and training. There are lots of staff and people. To put it simply it's all about 'technology interaction' vs 'human interaction.' As shoppers we desire the benefits of both, and seek them out for different reasons.

Creating a retail destination is the aim of shopping centres and stores. The customer value proposition therefore revolves around 'human interactions.'  It is this focus that differentiates the traditional shopping experience from the on-line one.

It seems that on-line providers have embraced user experience and follow up, where as retailers have lost their focus on their key differentiator. Beyond product and convenience, there is the value proposition of assistance, care and socialisation.

A refocus on human interactions would differentiate retail shop brands. Ways for traditional retail brands to "hero" the experience.

Customer recognition: We all like to be treated like an individual and valued as a customer. Greeting regular customers has a "huge" impact and builds affinity. It does not even have to be by name, just being recognised is enough eg. welcome back. On-line sites create the perception of personalisation with friendly greetings and constant name usage.

Product knowledge: Engaging with staff who do not know anything about the products on offer is frustrating for customers. Potential customers are driven on-line because they feel it is the only way to get information. Having knowledgable staff available for customers to ask questions too or get advice from secures sales.

Engage the senses: Sensory impressions are benefits that on-line shopping  can not provide. Captivating shoppers in an experience beyond the products on offer reinforces the retailer benefits. Even simple hygiene factors such as cleanliness and presentation create an impression.

Customer care and support: Create an environment where staff support each other and customers to create positive experiences. A friendly and welcoming atmosphere is always remembered and positively perceived. It needs to be conveyed in all interactions, including the way staff treat each other. On-line shopping services have the advantage of customers being removed from staff appearances and attitudes impacting on service perceptions.

Unique quality and/or belief: Defining a quality or belief that is unique to the retail brand helps frame the proposition in customers minds. With retailers all offering similar products demonstrating a rational and/or emotional reason for choice can be the most effective way to attract customers.




Wednesday, January 1, 2014

Is your marketing plan sitting on a shelf?


Great marketing plans come to nothing if the business is not ready to deliver the actions.

Seems like an obvious statement. The simplest of considerations to take into account. 

Consider these scenarios which you may have seen in play:

- Creative executions with limited media investment
- Communications channel activation with limited resources to drive content and dialogue
- Marketing initiative roll-out without sales engagement/support
- Customer events with no follow up or database building
- Technology not aligned to planned activities/communications objectives
- Marketing planning teams misaligned with product/branding 'go to market' groups
- High production costs, low promotional funds
- Great idea without the internal 'know how' to execute
- An articulate and well thought out plan that sits on the shelf collecting dust

The list could go on. In large companies planning and strategy are often separate groups to the teams that execute initiatives. In small companies, business owners are often 'minute managers' and employees multi-taskers. These two dynamics often mean there is a misalignment on strategy intent and how ready the business is to deliver the actions required to achieve the outcomes. 

Below is a template that incorporates a business ready assessment phase. It requires thought about the changes needed within the business to deliver the marketing plan. It is a process that can therefore be used to prioritise short term tactics or to identify longer term changes needed to achieve goals which can be built into a phased approach.