Oscar Wilde once said “the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about”. Were he still alive, and especially if he was in business, he might be saying “the only thing worse than having no brand is being a brand.”
Let me elaborate. Of course, brand can mean a lot of things- it can be a mark on a cow, the hot metal thingy to put that mark on a cow, or as one dictionary put it a “type of product manufactured by a particular company.” However, in business the word is usually a more ethereal type of concept meaning, as Oxford put it “a particular identity or image regarded as an asset.” Gene Simmons the rock star understood it; he famously noted that other people started rock bands but he had started a rock brand. The difference put money in Mr. Simmons bank and Ferraris in his driveway.
Let's put it this way. Apple is a “brand.” Samsung is not. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Samsung make a range of good products. Their celphones are high quality, I”m half paying attention to a big screen Samsung TV as I write this. Back when I sold cameras for a living, I consistently found Samsung point and shoots (both at the tail end of the film era and the early days of digital photography) were high-quality and good values for the money. Yet they were tough to sell. People wanted name brands that to them spoke “quality” or had snob appeal. When you say “Samsung”, no real picture springs to mind. Compare that to Apple. Just the name alone conjures up images of clean, hi-tech stores populated with hipsters. Apple means clean lines, trendy gadgets, usually in white, a certain amount of elitism. They have been able to manage that image, that “brand” to make their products appeal even when priced far higher than similar competitors and make their company arguably the most valuable one going.
Few companies really are “brands.” Usually however, when you see a company struggling it's because they are trying to be something they aren't- they aren't true to their “brand.” In Canada, a perfect example was Eaton. Eaton was, in days of yore, the dominant department store chain in the Great White North. Long before Sears crossed the border, Timothy Eaton was putting his stores in every city and town and sending out glossy catalogs several times a year. Eaton was, in my parents, and their parents day, the place to go for clothing. And tools, And a new TV if you were fortunate enough to be able to afford one. Eatons stores had books, boots, beet seeds, even burgers at their in-store cafeteria. It was one-stop shopping at its finest. However, as specialty stores began to take hold and divert shoppers, Eaton flinched and decided to change gears. They dropped a number of their products- the boots and beets and burgers- and concentrated on simply high-end, high-profit fashion and expensive cosmetics. Things that earned them the greatest margin. It seemed a clever manouevre- get rid of the things available at lower prices in better selection at Big Box stores and expand the fancy things that the affluent loved.
Only as clever as it seemed on paper, it quickly killed the company. Seniors and the working class adults weren't going to buy many $100 bottles of eau de toilette or designer heels straight from the runways of Milan. They were royally pissed off at their favorite store when they went in and found they could no longer get a $4 screwdriver or a plain ten buck plaid shirt. Meanwhile the monied trendies wouldn't set foot in the store their grannies used to buy girdles and frying pans in. Eaton didn't understand their brand.
Which brings us to McDonalds. The world's largest fast food chain, which marked its 75th anniversary last week, isn't about to go belly-up. Neither though is it a spring chicken on top of its game. Sales have declined 9 months in a row, giving birth to a decline of 11% in revenue in the first quarter this year. Many reasons have been given for it, but really it all comes down to “brand”- and how the Clown doesn't understand his.
The company says it is 'simplifying” its menu and have dropped a number of items such as six different chicken sandwiches and two wraps from their menu in response to what their CEO calls a “cumbersome” structure- the Wall Street Journal recently tallied 121 different items on their menu. That leads to an average wait of over 3minutes in a drive-through, something which frustrates managers and customers alike. Personal experience shows that the wait in-store is even longer. Yet as they trim their menu of some items, they added several new 1/3 pound “sirloin” burgers to the menu. An unnamed franchisee in the WSJ article shared the disgust of many of his colleagues, saying “they are continually forcing new products on the owners...new products continue to slow service and frustrate”. He , or she, noted that the new burgers required stores to add red onions, mushrooms and even wooden cutting boards to their kitchens while head office was talking of “simplifying.”
The sirloin burgers might be good. But they won't be a hit, just like the similar Arch Deluxe wasn't , nor the McLean or McPizzas. The reason is obvious to everyone but their CEO Steve Esterbrook... it goes against their brand.
Think McDonalds and many pictures spring to mind. Fast food. Ordinary, but cheap burgers and fries prepared quickly. Affordable meals. Restaurants geared towards kids. Bright colored plastic furniture. What one doesn't think about when they hear “McDonalds” is fine dining. One doesn't go to McDonalds for gourmet fare, nor for burgers served on wooden platters to be eaten on plush chairs. There is a market for high-quality, big, expensive hamburgers- but the foodies who want that aren't going to be lured into the Clown house to get it, just as health-conscious vegetarians don't land there when desiring a nice salad.
Corporations aren't the only things that can have difficulty shaking off the image the brand brings. Case in point, last week's events here in my new city. A well-publicized gunfight between rival bike gangs resulted in 9 dead, 18 injured... and the “brand” of Waco (and Banditos bikers for that matter) being reinforced.
I don't care that much that the image of the Banditos suffered. People long assumed what the police said was true about them and other similar bike gangs- they are violent , ruthless criminals.That was their brand. The gang of course, long denied that and even organized charity rides to raise funds for hospitals or collect toys for poor kids, trying to show themselves as nice, helpful, upstanding members of the community who happen to enjoy motorbikes and tattoos. That concept got shot to hell in Waco, along with seven of their rival bikers.
It does bother me however, that Waco once again is shown poorly to the world. Other similar-sized cities in Texas are relatively invisible on the world stage, but Waco is known far and wide. Unfortunately, the city has a “brand” of being a “Six shooter Junction”- a place of gun-toting, bigoted idiots, an image reinforced in the 90s with the debacle that was the Branch Davidian Compound and the poorly-exectued FBI raid on it . That the compound wasn't in Waco; that the strange residents kept to themselves and were largely from out of town and that the deadly raid was perpetrated by Federal agents, not local police mattered not. To the world, Waco was wacko- and dangerous. It was a hard image to change. Now twenty years of no headlines, of urban redevelopment, of college championship sports teams and lately, the popular Fixer Upper TV show (showing a city of quiet streets, green gardens, nice houses and nicer people) are all for naught because of a few idiot bikers with Glocks and AK-47s. Waco is once again Six Shooter Junction to the world. It's the brand.
Let me elaborate. Of course, brand can mean a lot of things- it can be a mark on a cow, the hot metal thingy to put that mark on a cow, or as one dictionary put it a “type of product manufactured by a particular company.” However, in business the word is usually a more ethereal type of concept meaning, as Oxford put it “a particular identity or image regarded as an asset.” Gene Simmons the rock star understood it; he famously noted that other people started rock bands but he had started a rock brand. The difference put money in Mr. Simmons bank and Ferraris in his driveway.
Let's put it this way. Apple is a “brand.” Samsung is not. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Samsung make a range of good products. Their celphones are high quality, I”m half paying attention to a big screen Samsung TV as I write this. Back when I sold cameras for a living, I consistently found Samsung point and shoots (both at the tail end of the film era and the early days of digital photography) were high-quality and good values for the money. Yet they were tough to sell. People wanted name brands that to them spoke “quality” or had snob appeal. When you say “Samsung”, no real picture springs to mind. Compare that to Apple. Just the name alone conjures up images of clean, hi-tech stores populated with hipsters. Apple means clean lines, trendy gadgets, usually in white, a certain amount of elitism. They have been able to manage that image, that “brand” to make their products appeal even when priced far higher than similar competitors and make their company arguably the most valuable one going.
Few companies really are “brands.” Usually however, when you see a company struggling it's because they are trying to be something they aren't- they aren't true to their “brand.” In Canada, a perfect example was Eaton. Eaton was, in days of yore, the dominant department store chain in the Great White North. Long before Sears crossed the border, Timothy Eaton was putting his stores in every city and town and sending out glossy catalogs several times a year. Eaton was, in my parents, and their parents day, the place to go for clothing. And tools, And a new TV if you were fortunate enough to be able to afford one. Eatons stores had books, boots, beet seeds, even burgers at their in-store cafeteria. It was one-stop shopping at its finest. However, as specialty stores began to take hold and divert shoppers, Eaton flinched and decided to change gears. They dropped a number of their products- the boots and beets and burgers- and concentrated on simply high-end, high-profit fashion and expensive cosmetics. Things that earned them the greatest margin. It seemed a clever manouevre- get rid of the things available at lower prices in better selection at Big Box stores and expand the fancy things that the affluent loved.
Only as clever as it seemed on paper, it quickly killed the company. Seniors and the working class adults weren't going to buy many $100 bottles of eau de toilette or designer heels straight from the runways of Milan. They were royally pissed off at their favorite store when they went in and found they could no longer get a $4 screwdriver or a plain ten buck plaid shirt. Meanwhile the monied trendies wouldn't set foot in the store their grannies used to buy girdles and frying pans in. Eaton didn't understand their brand.
Which brings us to McDonalds. The world's largest fast food chain, which marked its 75th anniversary last week, isn't about to go belly-up. Neither though is it a spring chicken on top of its game. Sales have declined 9 months in a row, giving birth to a decline of 11% in revenue in the first quarter this year. Many reasons have been given for it, but really it all comes down to “brand”- and how the Clown doesn't understand his.
The company says it is 'simplifying” its menu and have dropped a number of items such as six different chicken sandwiches and two wraps from their menu in response to what their CEO calls a “cumbersome” structure- the Wall Street Journal recently tallied 121 different items on their menu. That leads to an average wait of over 3minutes in a drive-through, something which frustrates managers and customers alike. Personal experience shows that the wait in-store is even longer. Yet as they trim their menu of some items, they added several new 1/3 pound “sirloin” burgers to the menu. An unnamed franchisee in the WSJ article shared the disgust of many of his colleagues, saying “they are continually forcing new products on the owners...new products continue to slow service and frustrate”. He , or she, noted that the new burgers required stores to add red onions, mushrooms and even wooden cutting boards to their kitchens while head office was talking of “simplifying.”
The sirloin burgers might be good. But they won't be a hit, just like the similar Arch Deluxe wasn't , nor the McLean or McPizzas. The reason is obvious to everyone but their CEO Steve Esterbrook... it goes against their brand.
Think McDonalds and many pictures spring to mind. Fast food. Ordinary, but cheap burgers and fries prepared quickly. Affordable meals. Restaurants geared towards kids. Bright colored plastic furniture. What one doesn't think about when they hear “McDonalds” is fine dining. One doesn't go to McDonalds for gourmet fare, nor for burgers served on wooden platters to be eaten on plush chairs. There is a market for high-quality, big, expensive hamburgers- but the foodies who want that aren't going to be lured into the Clown house to get it, just as health-conscious vegetarians don't land there when desiring a nice salad.
Corporations aren't the only things that can have difficulty shaking off the image the brand brings. Case in point, last week's events here in my new city. A well-publicized gunfight between rival bike gangs resulted in 9 dead, 18 injured... and the “brand” of Waco (and Banditos bikers for that matter) being reinforced.
I don't care that much that the image of the Banditos suffered. People long assumed what the police said was true about them and other similar bike gangs- they are violent , ruthless criminals.That was their brand. The gang of course, long denied that and even organized charity rides to raise funds for hospitals or collect toys for poor kids, trying to show themselves as nice, helpful, upstanding members of the community who happen to enjoy motorbikes and tattoos. That concept got shot to hell in Waco, along with seven of their rival bikers.
It does bother me however, that Waco once again is shown poorly to the world. Other similar-sized cities in Texas are relatively invisible on the world stage, but Waco is known far and wide. Unfortunately, the city has a “brand” of being a “Six shooter Junction”- a place of gun-toting, bigoted idiots, an image reinforced in the 90s with the debacle that was the Branch Davidian Compound and the poorly-exectued FBI raid on it . That the compound wasn't in Waco; that the strange residents kept to themselves and were largely from out of town and that the deadly raid was perpetrated by Federal agents, not local police mattered not. To the world, Waco was wacko- and dangerous. It was a hard image to change. Now twenty years of no headlines, of urban redevelopment, of college championship sports teams and lately, the popular Fixer Upper TV show (showing a city of quiet streets, green gardens, nice houses and nicer people) are all for naught because of a few idiot bikers with Glocks and AK-47s. Waco is once again Six Shooter Junction to the world. It's the brand.