I was reading an article the other day about the failure of Blackberry. It was suggesting that they focussed too much on the weakness of their devices, instead of backing the advantages. In other words, they were playing catch up instead of pioneering. This in turn reminded me of an episode of Mad Men, whereby Donald Draper and his cronies were forced to re-invent the direction of a lucrative cigarette advertising deal, due to pressure from health groups publishing the fact that smoking can lead to cancer.
What they did, was simply highlight an advantage to smoking. The new Lucky Strike slogan was to be "It's toasted". Instead of trying to push the lifestyle or stating that smoking is healthy, they simply focussed on a different strength of the product. Now, take that approach and apply it to every day products. It is everywhere.
"The king of such a marketing tactic, however, are the golden arches"
When in Greggs the other day, the brown paper bags they put a pasty in proudly boasts that their Steak Bakes only have "prime cuts of beef". This is great news, something to shout about and gives off the image of a higher quality product. Of course, it is a mass produced pastry good, that costs under 10p to produce at most with all the nutritional value of, well, a Greggs pasty. But they have averted your attention away from such facts.
Lettice, must be good for me then
The king of such a marketing tactic, however, are the golden arches. McDonalds is always trying to tell us how "Fresh" their coffee is (despite being full of sugar) or how they sell bags of carrot sticks (that no one buys). The best ploy however is their British Beef campaign. The TV advert features innocent children (awww, so cute) playing around a farm in the countryside (full of green, green grass and fresh air) with the slogan something along the lines of "100% British Beef in our burgers". Well, great, well done McDonalds, by playing on a healthy environment with those who we cherish most, they come across all earthly. It may be British Beef, but that does not mean that a Big Mac is healthy for your children or that the meat is any good. I just meens they are playing on that little bit of jingoism we all have inside us. They even decorate their lorries with the slogan (which is probably just a lorry full of salt) and even the bit of paper on your tray as you carry your calorie filled McFlurry across the restaurant states it to reinforce how caring and sharing they are. Yeh, right.
This may read like a rant about Mcdonalds, but really it is genius and every company that employs similar schemes are the ones that succeed. Those that don't, flounder. Simple really, but with this in mind, it is genuinely surprising how blatant such campaigns are once you realise the workings behind it. Keep your eyes peeled next time you visit the supermarket...
I admit it. I like playing video games. I know, that makes me a smelly, over-weight, single hermit that lives in a dark room and collects figurines from Star Wars. Or that's what you would assume if you lived in 1995. But you don't, you live in 2012 and everyone you know plays games, even yourself. Wether it's your mum playing Wii Fit, younger brother playing Call of Duty or yourself playing Peggle on your iPhone while on the loo (yes, I'm looking at you) games are no longer the reserve of TheKeith-en-ator2000, playing hours upon hours of Second Life.
Some controllers, yo!
One thing that has been interesting to watch over the past 10 years or so is the fall from grace of the PlayStation brand, while at the same time the world now plays on Farm Ville. Surely in a world where more people than ever before play video games, Sony were the ones in the prime position to capitalize. As I mentioned in another post, managing to get your product as the "de facto" in it's field is marketing gold dust. PlayStation used to be the term for playing games. Every week another article (most likely to be featured in the News of the World) would claim how "PlayStation ruins 13 year old child's education" or a TV presenter trying too hard to be down with teh kidz would throw in the term "Playing PlayStation" at every possible juncture. Yet, much like the Murdoch's falling empire, PlayStation isn't exactly in the public's zeitgeist any more.
No, that is XBox. By reading any lifestyle review section in a newspaper or magazine and you won't be able to go 3 paragraphs before reading the word "XBox" or "Kinect". A quick glance at television reveals that every single living room in the UK has factually got a Kinect. While Sony continue to churn out great games on what is undoubtedly a wonderful machine (I use mine everyday), the PS3 just seems a bit, well geeky. Geeky is not cool. No one really wants to be geeky. No, Geek-chic does not exist, that's just a polite way of saying someone has glasses.
Dad clearly had some constipation issues
When you buy an XBox you are not buying a machine to play games. Technically you are, but Microsoft never tell you directly. The wider audience will never get an Xbox with Kinect because it can do this, or that, or that the graphics are crazy or the voice activation a technical marvel (even though the device is, honestly, a bag of balls). Neither are they simply buying a games console with a penchant for displaying red lights. They spend their hard earned cash to buy into the lifestyle created by those cheesy adverts, YouTube videos and those family orientated editorial adverts in glossy publications.
Sony do none of this. A fact that always seems to get the angry video game forum goer (and they are very angry, because that is an entitlement on the internet) never fails to raise. You are endlessly reading articles, comments and posts lambasting Sony for their poor efforts at "marketing". Sony are about to launch the new PlayStation Vita and there are a whole host of articles comparing it to SmartPhones ("where you can get games for only 69p as opposed to £45"), with a general feeling that it will struggle in a market place dominated by apps.
"What never fails to surprise me is the general public's perception of what marketing actually entails."
Well I'm sorry, but of course it will. That is missing the point totally. The Vita does not exist to combat that. Sony phones are designed for that job, a fact that everyone has completely forgotten. The Vita has one of the clearest target markets for a new product for quite some time. While other companies are trying to spread their wings in search of a giant slice of mainstream appeal pie, Sony has switched their focus (for the time being) at the core customer. There is always a danger of trying to appeal to everyone. This simply is not possible without potentially damaging what made the product so great in the first place (do not mention Rare Ltd, I start to cry).
What never fails to surprise me is the general public's perception of what marketing actually entails. An expensive TV advert is only a tiny, tiny part of it. Taking the Vita as a prime example, Sony have really listened to what consumers wanted. They realised that there will always be a market for the gamer. There are features that people complained that the old PSP never had (two analogue sticks). There are the massive PS3 game franchises like Uncharted, LittleBigPlanet etc etc and collosal power even by home console standards. All topped off with a sprinkling of 3G, OLED and Touch Screen. It is all things to all gamers. By targeting a very specific market you can achieve a very strong, hardcore, loyal following. This can provide you with a solid foundation from which to build on down the line.
2 typical Vita customers, and some men..
By aiming at the informed and technologically minded consumer first, the hope is they are the sort of person that will tweet about it, blog about it, post a video review on YouTube and generally spread the word to people they know who are perhaps less well informed. Ideally this will then snowball and in 2 or 3 years time you will still have a product that is selling well, provided you then start developing games aimed more at the FarmVille crowd.
So there, on paper the Vita is a perfectly executed Marketing Strategy. I just need to wait a while to see if the plan actually works. In the mean time, I'm off to pre-order one.
How many sequels does it take to break a series? The answer is perhaps unknown, I would always say a third iteration is more than enough, but one thing is for definite, the endless line of films, TV shows, games and anything entertainment related seemingly has more follow ups, 2s, 3s, 4 and even 5s than ever before.
The reasoning behind such a growth in endless rubbish and watering down of the entertainment industry (Final Destination 5. Really? 2 was bad enough, but 5? Did no one understand the irony of having more than one "Final" destination?) is so. We are in uncertain times. Money is tight and when people's marginal perpencity to consume is down (like in a recession for example) the first things that they tend to cut back on things that are not necessary. In an economy like this, our good friend Maslow shows us that keeping warm, fed and protected form the elements is at a much higher priority than popping down the shops and picking up the latest Fast & Furious (Again, the first was bad, the second worse, ditto 3, 4 and 5. In Five, they laughably think it is a serious film, the writers and actors seemingly oblivious to the over-blown and over-weight blubbering mass the series has become.)
As a result studios are nervous. It is seen as a much greater risk to invest in a new, original and up and coming writer/director than it is an established brand. Yup, brand. I always think that a film should be made because within someone there is a burning desire to create a story worth telling. Yet, money dictates and without money, there is no film. Now we use terms like "franchise". Films shouldn't be a franchise, they shouldn't be made simply because the first made lots of money. They shouldn't be made because there is a gap in the market. They should be made because there is potential for something new, different, touching, hilarious or thought provoking.
Puss In Boots - No Need.
In the past a film had a marketing department that had the sole responsibility of promoting the film to a wide audience. Now the marketing departments, after their research and focus groups, now help to decide if a project is green lit of not. The classic case is Transformers, for more of that visit Kermode's rant here. Having said all of that, if spinning out 97 Shrek movies helps to fund more interesting films then I really don't mind. But the fact remains, there is never, ever, under any possible circumstance for the 4 Scream films or 4 Scary Movies to exist. By plumping for a film that has already been a success, the risk is lower, investment needed lower and the rewards (potentially) larger. I just wish that it wasn't so obviously cynical at times.
In Marketing lectures we were always told that having a range of products is better than having just one. When shopping, research suggests that customers like to have choice. It is part of the fun to choose which flavour, variety, shape or size of a particular product you would like to buy. There are brands that have sub-brands, that have sub-brands, that have a choice of colour, taste or style. If you look at the male deodorant shelf in any supermarket you will see what I mean.
Lynx are the king of spinning off variants, special editions and new smells. First there is deodorant or anti-perspirant. Then there is spray or roller-ball. A million different smells. Even after-shave varieties and "The Final Ever Edition" (which isn't really). The same applies to any UniLever brand really like Head & Shoulders. Or anything made by anyone really.
But the stand out exception to that rule has always been the iPhone. By having one name, one model and by not really advertising the fact you can get different memory capacities, this alone has made it stand out from the crowd. No "X26" version, no different names for each model (a quick glance at the HTC range shows how many different names can be very confusing, the list is endless!), no research needed. It's a nice easy choice, all the adverts have the same name with a product that looks very similar. Yet, now there are 3 models. The older 3GS, the old 4 and the new-ish 4S. There will be four later in the year (around August time seems to be a good guess) with the introduction of the iPhone5. Surely then, by offering a range of goods, Apple are slipping away from what made it stand out so much
Mini Paceman - A 4x4/Coupe. Erm, no?
Another example is the Kindle. By creating one product with one name, it becomes a buzz word. Very simple, very effective. Again though, there are up to 3 Kindles now available. An even better example is Mini. Now there is not just the Cooper or quicker Cooper S. First there was the cheaper One, followed by the First. Then diesel and recently Cooper S quick diesel. Or a 5-door estate come hatchback thingy entitled Clubman, the Convertible, the Roadster (two types of soft-top Mini, really?) the Coupe and of course, the 4x4 Countryman. It will get even worse of the next few years with a Paceman 4x4 Coupe and even a people carrier Mini! By filling every conceivable niche (some that I'm sure that are completely made up) there is also the worry of stretching the brand too far and ruining the allure in the first place.
However, the core appeal of having something with a singular name is still manages to be effective to both Kindles and iPhone's alike. This is nothing new of course. The once proud king of electronics, Sony, knocked every other brand into a cocked hat with the Walkman. Likewise Hover with the, erm Hoover.
But, the Walkman and the Hoover highlight the downside of such an approach. By trying to carve out a brand that epitomises the present, you stand at great risk of not being cool any more. It is very "in" to say you downloaded an app to your iPhone, played a game on your iPad, read a book on your Kindle, all on the way to buy a Jack Wills jumper. But fashion moves on, brands fade and new things become the latest must haves (Jack Wills, becoming a little chavvy already, just saying). There is a risk that they simply become something to remember a by gone era by.
Of course, I'm not saying that these brands and products are doomed and the world is going to end. Many brands pull through by re-inventing themselves. As much as I don't put the latest Coldplay album down as a classic, the band have reinvented themselves yet again to remain current and still oh-so popular. If anyone has the marketing chutzpah to pull it off, Apple does.
Look at this harmless bottle of anti-perspirant. It says "96h Non-Stop". But wait, look again, there is an asterisk.
Yet flip the bottle round on the other and it's all in gibberish. Just look at how many terms, condition, warnings, languages and recycling instructions have to be placed on something to stop me sweating. More than that, where the heck are the caveats of the "96h Non-Stop"? It may mean "96h Non-Stop Indigestion" or "Only 96 hours when tested on rabbits" for all I know.
So it is credit to Loreal that the front of the packaging looks clean and cool. As products designers know all to well, it's not enough to simply have a design that catches your eye but you also have to jump through a million hurdles to approve and then hide EU regulation.
There is a new Kit Kat competition. If you haven't seen it, there are 4 "new" flavours of Kit Kat Chunky, which you can buy and the vote for your favourite in "Champion A Chunky". Someone asked me yesterday if I had tried all the variants yet and it got me thinking.
Champion A Chunky - Genius
From a customers point of view it is something new to try and they have to almost collect all 4. There is an inner-collector in all of us, even if we don't know it. Plus, if you do want to vote then you must try them all to have a balanced opinion, right? But from a Nestle point of view it is a genius marketing ploy.
Not only do you get people to buy just one chocolate bar, but potentially 4 and you can wheel out old flavours such as Orange and Peanut, yet brand them as "new". for their next trick, when you vote, you have to do it through Facebook. So, they get the customer to like the Kit Kat page on Facebook, which means related Kit Kat news and promotions will be displayed on their home page feed for the foreseeable future and when they do vote, it posts to their profile page for all their friends to see.
It gets better too. Facebook can provide Nestle with demographic information about the sort of person you are, which in turn can be used to target further marketing. I haven't even mentioned the clincher yet. Selling 4 types of Kit Kat Chunky is like a giant, live, focus group. Whichever "wins" will become a regular edition to the Kit Kat range, which will almost certainly become a sure fire hit because it was voted to best by their potential future customers!
Yes see, it's perfect in every way. This is a lesson in how to run a marketing campaign. Take note.
I own a Sony DLST camera. It's chief rivals would be cameras made by Canon or Nikon. My camera has won many "Camera of the Year" awards, has a much higher specification than rival models and yet it cost less. In every possible measurable yardstick, it is a clear winner. Yet most people will not even consider buying one. Sony cameras can't shake off the reputation of being a TV company, as opposed to a photography company. This is despite buying out Minolta's camera division entirely (you know, they launched the worlds first digital SLR camera...)
At a new years party I was taking some pictures when a friend of mine who does a photography course and uses a Nikon openly mocked my camera because it was a Sony. He reckoned it wasn't a proper camera. He is wrong of course, but at a house party I wasn't about to go into great lengths explaining how he was so out of touch. But my point is now, more than ever before, brand image is at the top of buyers wishlist's. This applies to seemingly everything.
BMW 3-Series Outsells Every Other Saloon On The Market
Take cars for example and BMW. Once a very premium brand in such a way where only the wealthy could afford one and thus they were quite exclusive. Yet for the past 5 years the BMW 3-Series has comprehensively outsold the humble Ford Mondeo. The Ford is comparable in many ways, apart from brand image, yet it is considerably cheaper. Far, far cheaper and comes with more goodies. So, BMW can charge a higher price and get the added benefits of economies of scale through being the major volume producer in the market. Think about that for a second.
You can charge a lot more for a Rolls Royce because of it's prestige and exclusivity. Yet, BMW (and Audi for that matter) can charge more for the sake of increasing profit margins. It hinges on their expensive marketing campaigns which all enhance the brand. So while "volume" makers like Peugeot and Renault have to be cheap, they are also losing sales at a vast rate of knots. For the French it's a worrying situation, meanwhile it is win win for the Germans.
The world's best-selling phone. Not that you know it.
In many respects this could apply to the iPhone. There are a myriad of Android devices that do what an iPhone 4 can do, and more. For less money too, or similarly priced but with more spec. In March will come a raft of quad-core SmartPhones that will provide a significant amount more oomph than the iPhone 4S. Worldwide the Samsung Galaxy S2 is the best selling phone by quite a margin. Not in the UK it isn't. Us brand-concious Brits plump for Apple's design masterpiece over more competitive options more often than not. Again, marketing is key. Why buy the brilliant Windows powered Nokia Lumia when Nokia is regarded as a cheap phone you once had in the early 00's that you played Snake on? Hey, right next to it is the eponymous iPhone, wow! It costs more, does less, but it looks good and has an Apple logo on the rear (which was stolen form The Beatles). Don't get me wrong, I admire Apple's position. Make more, for less and then charge more. They somehow have this halo effect, whereby if any other company had announced £13bn profit they would have been lynched as profiteering bastards.
The over riding point is brand is literally everything. I'm sure if BMW produced a medium-sized 4x4 made for 50p in the states that was sub-par, even it would sell like hot cakes because of image and image alone. Oh, they already do, it's called an X3. Yet, you can go too far. Lest us not forgot how Mercedes cannibalised it's own image with some shocking reliability in the late 90's, a mess they still haven't quite recovered from yet. Audi themselves took a good 15 years to recover from cars with faulty gearboxes in the US.
Perception is key and even if you make the greatest product known to man, it is utterly meaningless if you don't have an image that is seen as prestigious. My Sony camera is a prime example. Canon spend vast amounts of money not only advertising it's products, but paying for sales assistants training to embed the brand of Canon into their psyche. Despite being in a second recession, premium brands are prospering, while the middle ground is shrinking fast. Either you are a budget product or an expensive one, but no one wants to be stuck in the middle. While you could research your next car, phone or camera and know the ins and out of the market, this is also seen as geeky. Perhaps you buy an iPhone, not because it's the best, but because it is the default choice. As a friend at an art gallery told me today after I said I know nothing about the subject matter: "You don't have to know about it to like it." How very true.
Branding. Turns out it's like a Peter Brook painting.
