That Microsoft brand thing...

Thu, Sep 18 2008 05:23 | Brand Strategy, brand experience, brand realization, naming, advertising | Permalink

I have been meaning to write an article about the new ads from Microsoft, you know the ones – with Bill (Gates) and Jerry (Seinfeld). I had developed a theory about just what Microsoft might be up to, but before I could put the proverbial finger to keyboard, the interweb became awash with rumours that the ads have been pulled, or have possibly ‘done their job’ – depending on the spin you believe.

For those of you who haven’t heard about them (where have you been?), or seen them – here they are (assuming youtube continues to show them that is).


So what was Microsoft up to?

Well before I go too far, I have to express an interest in Microsoft, having just worked on an assignment to help rebrand most of the advertising revenue generating businesses within Microsoft – snappily called Microsoft Digital Advertising Solutions (MDAS for short) into – wait for it – Microsoft Advertising.

Now I know you may think that job didn’t need a whole heap of consultancy thinking, but as I like to think – great brand ideas in hindsight should always look kinda inevitable. The fact was that working with Microsoft was a delight – and that they really do have more big brains than you can shake a stick at, but unfortunately they are mostly huge brains that would rather focus on technology and products and functions and ‘neat stuff’ than branding – so this is where we came in.

So, far far away on another Microsoft planet (it really does feel that big) some big Microsoft brains have been pondering the ‘b’ word (brand – keep up), and why they aren’t the most loved brand on earth, as they rather feel they should be.

For 25 years they have increasingly dominated the I.T. world – particularly with those two huge cash cows, Windows and Office, but somehow their enormous portfolio of industry dominating products and services still doesn’t seem to add up to a great brand – why not?

Well, like most brand problems, the answer is incredibly simple, and incredibly complicated all at the same time. For why?

Microsoft is a very very complicated company (however hard it tries to simplify it’s organisational structure), with some very complicated products, services and propositions. It has a vast workforce of smart people coming up with smart things – and mostly what Microsoft loves best is coming up with more and more new smart things.

I have to admit I have sat through more than one meeting at Microsoft where I hadn’t the least idea what they were talking about (but hey, I am a brand consultant), and as I have already said – Microsoft is an awfully big and complicated place.

On the other hand, you have a company like Apple, that has been socking it to Microsoft on a daily basis for the last few years with their ‘Get a Mac’ campaign – you know the one – ‘Hi, I’m a Mac, and I’m a PC’ (I’ve included a few just for fun – see below).



Obviously Apple aren’t the only competitor, but for brevity lets stick with them.

I may be an aknowledged Mac fanboy, but even the most diehard Microsoft fanatic has to admit that Apple have successfully positioned themselves through this campaign at the expense of Microsoft, and we have heard barely a peep from Microsoft in defense.

Apple want their brand to stand for simplicity and elegance, with a hip and stylish panache, because they truly feel that the purpose of their products is to be simple and elegant – ‘they just work’. Their vision is delivered through the customer experience, and they are fanatical about every aspect of the experience – user interface, visual identity, websites, products, they all seem to be guided and created by one hand (and we all know who – right?).

The fact is Apple probably has the single most well managed branding programme on the planet – and it shows. They clearly pay top dollar for design talent, but what most impresses is the sheer attention to detail – it ALL looks so consistent – not in a uniform, dull and boring way, but in a beautiful, stylish cool looking way. And make no mistake – this cost a lot. But it works.

Alas Microsoft just doesn’t have such a well connected vision to experience. In fact Microsoft seems to think what it does is just too diverse to have any singular visionary idea that can be translated through a consistent brand building experience.

Don’t get me wrong, there are lots of really smart branding people within Microsoft, but the empire is just so large, so very VERY large, that very few people get a sufficient overview to draw a sufficiently singular and collectivising vision together, and the organisation doesn’t have the will or the discipline to deliver a consistent and desirable customer experience.

Microsoft is run much more as a business than a brand, so where all decisions within Apple feel like they have come personally from the hand of Steve, the decisions passing up and down the layers of management in Microsoft just don’t appear to have any cohesiveness – and that’s assuming you actually understand what most of the guys are talking about, because from my very limited experience and perspective, the one thing Microsoft really seem to enjoy is complexity.

And so this is where I think the super smart guys from Crispin Porter & Bogusky came in – the hottest advertising agency on the planet – and tasked (or challenged – you choose) to come up with an advertising campaign that will help to reposition Microsoft (and most likely create a repost to the Get a Mac campaign) with some sort of coherent Microsoft vision.

Crispin Porter & Bogusky have made a reputation creating smart, funny, insightful and effective advertising (and like all advertising guys – they all use Macs! But like a challenge) and the feeling is, if they can’t do it, nobody can.

But what is that singular vision, and how to coalesce it into a 30 second advertisement. We all know advertising on it’s own won’t solve the vision thing (right guys?), but I’m sure the Microsoft troops and their friends would at least like something to make them feel better about being at Microsoft.

So what was the big idea (at least so far…..?) because much of the commentary (and there has been lots) in the blogosphere has been along the lines of ‘what is this about?’


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/18/business/media/18adco.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

http://valleywag.com/5051455/microsoft-to-announce-jerry-seinfeld-ads-cancelled-tomorrow


http://daringfireball.net/2008/09/theres_nothing_there


Well, for what it’s worth, here is my view on what the advertising is all about….

Apple is cool – the ads are cool, the products are cool, Steve J is cool.

Microsoft is not cool, the products are not cool, and Bill G (and Steve B, especially Steve B) are not cool.

But…

Apple is kinda smug. And PC (John Hodgman in the Get a Mac ads) is kinda sweet in a not cool way. And whilst Microsoft is not cool, it is useful, and it is successful, and and (take care now – hold back the Microsoft instinct for world domination) it creates some useful products which – ahem – mostly work.

So….

Lets portray Microsoft (ie use Bill – because he IS Microsoft – and incidentally, who knew he could be so funny?) as a personality living in a dreamworld of hyper normality – Shoe Circus, Grannies that mow the lawn – ie create a rich everyman world where Bill (Microsoft) is part of – a world where Apple wouldn’t fit in, because it is just too cool and elitist.

Microsoft is anti-cool, just like the rest of us. And by making Microsoft just like the rest of us, they mis-position Apple as an outsider.

So if Microsoft is more like us (warts and all) then we are going to feel better about them, and feel more and more that somehow Apple are just too smart, too slick, too….. unlikeable.

Of course, to follow through with this strategy, Microsoft would have to build that sense of ‘us together in un-coolness’ into something wide and deep, and then drive it into the muscle of the business.

It could be a brand that reflects what we are actually like – ordinary, funny, kind, quirky – and it could help us do the things we really need to get done, and the things we actually want to get done. It could be our friend, someone you would have a beer with (not just a Starbucks), someone you would welcome into your home without worrying about how tidy your house is or whether they will hit on your wife or daughter.

But as I have said, they just don’t have the instinct, will or discipline to collectivise that vision into a consistent customer experience. And more significantly, I don’t think many of the senior executives will want to jump on the ‘us together in un-coolness’ bandwaggon. You need great discipline to subvert your own instincts for the greater good of the brand vision.

It’s a size thing, but it’s also a culture thing, and in the end I’m not sure Microsoft really have a culture that understands or accepts the basic principles of singular visions and connected collectivised customer experiences.

But hey – it makes a gazzillion dollars a second and has bred more millionaires than any other company. So who knows what will be the next move on brand Microsoft – I for one am looking forward to what Crispin Porter & Bogusky do next, and three cheers to Steve Balmer for giving them the chance…

Jonathan Mercer

Brands up to snuff?

Mon, Jul 28 2008 06:44 | Brand Strategy, brand realization | Permalink
There is a small revolution going on in the tobacco sector, and the main players may not have even noticed. But it could over the next few years change the nature of the market, and save a few lives at the same time.

Snuff, (the dry tobacco that you sniff, note: not snort) the product that brings to mind elegant georgian dandies brandishing their jewell encrusted snuff boxes is making a comeback, and strong branding is a key feature of the marketing mix.

Snuff was the main way tobacco was taken 200 years ago (at least in Britain), far outselling pipe tobacco. It had taken longer for the British to take to snuff, which had long been a European passion, but during the 18th century snuff became a phenomenon - something every man and women of culture took, in astonishing quantities. Napoleon was said to use 7 lb. of snuff a month!

Snuff went into a steep decline as the popularity and availability of machine made cigarettes increased. It still survived as the nicotine product of choice by workers like miners and factory workers, where fear of fire prevented 'sparking up'.

By the 1980's snuff was down to a few specialist suppliers, the big guns of the tobacco trade having long lost their enthusiasm for the product and followed where the profits were greatest. Cigarettes.

Come the turn of the millennium and the landscape has really changed, the full health implications of smoking are now known, and the opportunity to smoke is under serious attack, it seems the game is up for smoking (at least in the 1st world countries), and smoking in public is becoming seriously difficult.

And this is where snuff might make a comeback. Firstly there is no credible medical research that shows any negative health effects. It's the inhalation of the smoke from the cigarette that causes all the diseases. There are admittedly question marks around nicotine, but no research to suggest that the sorts of quantities in snuff are any more dangerous than say drinking modest amounts of coffee or the odd glass of wine. 

Many of the snuff manufacturers have been in business 250 years, and have had not one claim or prosecution in their records. Anti-smoking activists might prefer to suspect that snuff must surely have some problem associated with it, but the research and crucially anecdotal evidence simply isn't there, and actually tobacco (unsmoked) has traditionally been associated with many health giving properties.

And the news gets even better. Many people (including myself) have found that the best way to give up smoking is to simply take snuff whenever you have a hankering to smoke. It also has the benefits of tactile accoutrements - i.e. things to do with your hands. The tins and snuff boxes and colourful handkerchiefs give you plenty to take your mind off smoking, and you don't have to go outside to do it - you can snuff to your hearts content at your desk!

Unlike smoking, where the majority of smokers are incredibly brand loyal, the general snuff taker doesn't so much take snuff, as collect it. And there are now plenty to collect. Probably for the first time in a generation brands are launching, to take advantage of the voracious snuffers appetite for new brands and new snuff experiences.

A small collection from a snuff taker called 'Filek' on one of the many online forums

Snuff comes in different textures and moistness, and crucially in literally hundreds of 'flavour' variations. From traditional 'tobacco' aromas, to florals, menthols and mints, to citruses and spices, and more recently food and drink flavours like chocolate, coffee, cherry and grapefruit, there is even gin & tonic!

And then there is the cost - snuff is not taxed, so a snuffer can indulge their passion for new smells and textures at a fraction of the price of cigarettes. A 25 gm tin of snuff will cost you less than £3.00 and last - well a long time... A pinch in each nostril roughly equates to the nicotine of one cigarette, and there is a mighty number of pinches in a tin!

So the average 'collector' doesn't just have a handful of different snuffs, they have shelves of them, drawers full of precious tins and tempting aromas. And snuffers are passionate about their 'hobby', there are specialist websites where snuffers exchange views on flavours, qualities and everything under the sun you could think of about snuff.

There are online shops breaking out all over the world (traditional retailers don't even know most of this exists - when was the last time you saw a tin of snuff in your local newsagent? Ever?), and new brands are starting up, offering tempting new packages of nasal promise.

There are a handful of traditional manufacturers, some who have just continued (no mean feat in itself if you were established 250 years ago using a water-wheel), some who have even tried to innovate, experimenting with modern packaging concepts. Interestingly, and possibly uniquely, the avid snuff connoisseur values all the manufacturers, creating an infinite world of possibilities, and all under the noses of the mainstream smoking public, who barely know this sub-culture exists.

New brands are being developed by one man start-ups, exporting around the world, brought together by the online network of enthusiasts. One Indian manufacturer is developing 'western style packaging' as they tap into the online market, and an interesting modern touch is that the brand owners are getting very close to their customers, contributing to the online communities on a personal basis, classic attributes of the passionate brand leader. They don't just listen to what's going on, but use the forums for research, development and just to 'keep it real'.

Where will it go? How big could it get? 

Well the chances are you didn't even know it was going on, it hasn't yet gone mainstream, the major tobacco makers have shown little interest in the area, although cousins of snuff like Snus and Dip (tobacco you stick under your lip) have large and growing markets in the USA and parts of Northern Europe. These products have more dubious health implications, although still far far less deadly than the average cigarette.

It does seem that the issues of health, price, product and brand innovation, the customer's urge to collect and online distribution have coincided to create a fertile ground for a potentially huge market. 

At the moment, the market isn't probably worth much more than £100m worldwide. So if it took off, it could be worth a 1000 times that (and probably then some). The product is presently untaxed, and could cause a serious tax shortfall if customers switched in any significant quantities. How many governments could resist taxing snuff if it seriously offered competition to cigarettes. Of course if it did that, the cost to health services could liberate enormous costs in future years.

The present brands are essentially not competing with each other, such is the nature of the customer usage. If the product was to seriously penetrate traditional retail, then the stronger brands would compete for shelf space, and a more traditional competition model would resume. Brand positioning would seek to carve out space in the greater snuff landscape, seeking to fulfill customer needs. It's likely the newer entrants would do better than the traditional players, since they have not relied on heritage and habit, the new players will be more innovative and experimental.

The real challenge is how to build the market as a whole. Every player will help, but the tipping point for mass awareness is probably a long way off yet, and the anti-smoking lobby may well continue to put all tobacco related products in the same basket. Large brand owners, the manufacturers who years ago lost interest could afford the sort of lobbying and promotion that could build a real platform for growth.

It's possible someone somewhere is going to realise that snuff just could be the most phenomenally profitable replacement for the evils of smoking tobacco. Someone just might make a fortune!

It just needs one serious player to take responsibility to build the market, and the benefits of brand primacy will be theirs, but in the meantime, all the players will help to build a mutually larger market.

What if every smoker turned to snuff, how many people's lives could be saved? 

Probably the main barrier to entry is the indecorous thought of what comes out of your nose, eventually, after you have spent a day snuffing. Still it's better than the thought of what your lungs probably look like if you smoke, and you'll need more than a brown handkerchief and a good blow to get rid of that!

Some of the Interesting Brands:

A longtime german player, they have invested in innovative packaging and are extremely popular in Europe. Their mainly moist menthol inspired flavours are found widely in Europe. 

A UK startup based in Berwick upon Tweed, CEO Roderick Lawrie has created a powerful brand based around lively freshness, mostly food flavours, with contemporary branding and has been nominated for packaging awards. Roderick has spent a fair bit of time researching the market and health issues, and is a strong advocate for the benefits of switching from smoking to snuffing. Imagine the motivation if you thought your brand could actually save lives?


McChrystals: www.mcchrystals.co.uk 
Based in Leicester, England, they have a funky flash based website and a history going back to 1926, and the owner of one of the market standards - 'Original and Genuine'. 


Dholakia Tobacco: www.snuff.co.in  
An Indian company with 150 year history, they have kept their ears to the online ground, and are launching a range to suit more mainstream western tastes. Their traditional products are valued for their fineness and exotic flavour variants. The world is truly shrinking and offers infinite opportunities for the brave and adventurous.


Wilsons of Sharrow: www.sharrowmills.com 
One of the grandaddies of the english snuff market, tracing it's foundation to 1737. They also produce the illustrious Friboug & Treyer range of snuff, which was once sold from it's famous regency premises in the Haymarket London right up to the 1980's. Snuffers are grateful to manufacturers like Wilsons who carried on regardless through good times and bad.

Forums:


Online stores:


Humour:

Jonathan Mercer

Small is the new big.. (or how we run a distributed agency)

Fri, May 23 2008 02:04 | Brand Strategy, brand realization | Permalink
If you happen to be a fan of 37 Signals (which we happen to be – and if you don’t know who they are – try this {http://www.37signals.com}) you might read their blog {http://blogcabin.37signals.com}, which recently had a great quote about size – ‘“If you think you are too small to be effective, you have never been in bed with a mosquito.” -Betty Reese.

Now we are a decidedly small branding agency – there are less than 10 of us. We have been bigger, but about 5 years ago we decided we wanted to be smaller.

We tend to see the ‘branding agency landscape’ roughly fitting into 3 sizes:

The big – probably over 100 people, maybe lots of offices around the world, working on huge brands, and soaking up miles of PR related column inches and blog pages. You know the ones – Interbrand, Futurebrand, Landor, Wollf Olins – often the grand-daddies of the branding world.

The medium – these are the 30 to 100 guys – with a big tidy business, maybe more than one office.. more ‘middle aged’ – happy with their position, doing good work for established clients – but somehow less ‘newsworthy’.

The small – the 1 to 30’s – one office, maybe hot young gunslingers on the way up, or more long in the tooth and ploughing a more lonely furrows on the way down. Maybe one big client and a few smaller ones, or lots of ‘prospective’ breakthrough clients.

Except we don’t really fit into any of these – because we work differently – and a lot of it is thanks to our friends at 37 Signals… and we think it’s the future for a lot of businesses…

We are small, but we have a number of offices, on several continents. We have a range of clients – from HUGE to tiny. But the way we work now – well I don’t think we could have done it even 5 years ago very easily.

We use a suite of tools that help us stay small, stay connected, keep us apart (in a good way – less travelling), help us manage our business, organise diaries, manage our clients, keep them connected, store all our crucial documents and data, and most importantly help us to be creative. Sounds good eh? And it doesn’t cost much…

This is what we use….

1. Phones for ringing people
3. Basecamp for project management {http://www.basecamphq.com/}

4. Highrise for storing and logging all our client-centric correspondence and ‘stuff’ {http://www.highrisehq.com/?source=37s+home}

5. Backpack for our ‘corporate intranet’ {http://www.backpackit.com/?source=37s+home}

6. Campfire for running online chats {http://www.campfirenow.com/?source=37s+home}
7. Macs and iPhones because we love them (one of our partners does own a PC - but it’s days are numbered…)
8. A few great applications like Keynote, Pages, Numbers – but most things end up as pdf’s.
9. Some local servers, but once again, their days are numbered…
10. Small IT bills – few hundred dollars a month max

What we don’t have (now) is:

1. Any IT staff – or indeed any ‘junior’ staff at all
2. Big servers with VPN and tricky stuff like that
3. Large maintenance agreements to manage big hot servers and ‘kit’
4.Trouble finding stuff like files and presentations and pictures etc..
5. Anxiety about ‘stuff breaking or crashing’
6. large pieces of capital investment
7. No time to talk and meet with clients
8. There are probably more things but I’m bored with this list now…

The four core products (which all run in a browser) – Basecamp, Highrise, Backpack and Campfire do everything we need, and help us do things better, without the need for IT support or training. You should check them out to see all the things they do, but the most important thing they are is SIMPLE.

What’s the downside? Er…

Well, theoritically there are of course some potential downsides, but any risk is still much less than the alternatives – at least as far as we are concerned.

The benefits however, are that they allow us to manage our clients and their work, and our time and our ‘stuff’ more efficiently, and quicker, and easier. They essentially allow us to get on with what we are paid to do, help solve our clients problems with minimal problems.

This article was written straight onto a section within Backpack, edited (or at least looked at) by all the partners. All our work is managed in much the same way – so whether an assignment is in the USA, or London, or somewhere just outside Paris – we can work and share our ideas, thoughts and conclusions – without the automatic need for unnecessary plane trips, or long tiring journey.

Don’t get me wrong, we do get out though, and we spend lots of time with our clients, wherever they are – in fact that was one of the reasons we chose to work this way – more time dedicated to our clients.

Our objective is to add real ‘grit’ to any branding project, to ask the ‘unaskable’ and challenge the status quo. I guess our role is all to often to be the ‘mosquito in the bed’ – and we have found that by spending less time and effort managing our business, we can spend more time and effort helping our clients to run their businesses.

Bzzzzzzz
Jonathan Mercer

Do you get it?

Fri, Jul 20 2007 04:41 | Brand Strategy, brand realization | Permalink
by Eric Goodstadt 
CEO - Brand Guardians USA 

The separation between those who get it and those who don’t continues to grow... 

Putting the brand first is the difference between growth and stagnation. 

Recently, Fortune Magazine published their annual edition of America’s Most Admired Companies; if you study these annual lists like I do, you would see something very distinct and telling about today’s business environment. All top 10 companies are known for focusing on a higher purpose beyond financial performance. Ironically however, they all are also among the top financial performing companies in the world. 

What is this correlation between a higher purpose and significant financial performance? 

As a former executive member of a few public companies, I saw first hand the pressures to meet the streets expectations. These pressures could, and often would, force executive teams into decision-making purely based on financial results, rather than what was in the best interest of the company, the clients and employees. For me, one of the final straws during my career was listening to a CFO’s plan to add a million dollars to the bottom line profits. His route to do so was by deferring a larger portion of the healthcare cost to the employees, whom at this point were already carrying more than 60% of those expenses. 

When you look at the top 10 admired companies, you see an impressive group of organizations that act purely on their beliefs and have amazed the street by consistently performing financially. Whether it is GE’s Immelt bucking the cut throat tactics of Jack Welch for a more nurturing culture with an emphasis on becoming an environmental responsible organization, or Howard Schultz of Starbucks offering part-time employees a comprehensive healthcare program. Each of these companies and their leaders ignored the street and followed a higher purpose to drive their actions. Although this idea of a higher purpose may sound spiritual, it is actually a sound business strategy grounded very effectively in their respective brands. 

For Howard Schultz it was has been written many times over that he never created Starbucks to be the best coffee maker in the world. Instead, he wanted to create a special respite, or 3rd place for humanity, in our hectic over anxious society. With this brand essence, Starbucks does a lot more then just make innovative and delicious drinks. They are among the most charitable organizations in the world, they offer comprehensive healthcare to all employees who work as little as 20 hours a week, and they consistently create environments that reward their customers with the respite the brand promises. 

Conventional wisdom would say to cut back on the funding to third world farmers for education and clean water, as the charity is too far removed for the average consumer to care. Conventional wisdom would also say to eliminate expensive healthcare costs for part-time employees (just ask Walmart, which is no where to be seen in the most admired list) and to replace those expensive, soft, and cushiony lounge chairs with cheap durable plastic ones. In the end, while conventional wisdom may provide short-term financial benefits, it has always been the long-term consequences that Howard Shultz has been concerned with. His vision for Starbucks has helped countless people in third world countries have a better life and has also provided over 145,000 employees and their families with quality healthcare coverage. In addition, if you judge success by the consistent throngs of loyal people jamming their tranquil store locations, Starbucks has succeed in achieving not just third place status but quite possibly a 2nd place stature among its customers. 

Some will argue that Starbucks, while admirable, is quite unique and shouldn’t be an example for all to follow. To counter that argument, let’s take a look at a company that once was the darling of the street, until the star lost its shine in the 1990’s only to be resurrected by an unconventional choice for CEO. 

AG Lafley was universally agreed to be a shocking selection to take over the CEO position of the ultraconservative Proctor and Gamble. The spiky gray haired CEO looked more like an advertising executive then a groomed successor to the CEO position, but he has proven to be the wisest choice the company could have ever made. P&G has become one of the biggest companies in the world on the basis of maximizing productivity and efficiency of its value chain. 

In its long storied past, the company would have never be confused with a leading design company, as it traditionally chose to sacrifice style and design for low cost production. However, as the technology age has exploded and the consumer has migrated to experiential buying preferences, AG Lafley saw that P&G’s tried and true operational behaviors were no longer valid in this new world. Ignoring his critics and some long time P&G traditions he sunk millions into redesigning packaging of the companies most popular products. In addition, Lafley consolidated brands counter to P&G tradition, creating flagships like Mr. Clean, as well as forced his management to look outside the P&G walls to find new innovative ideas. 

So while the street criticized Mr. Lafley for sinking millions into the redesigning of a $4 shampoo bottle, it was Mr. Lafley who realized that for today’s consumer the design of the shampoo bottle and how it looks in the shower is just as important as the product itself. 

In the end, both of these companies, and the other 8 organizations that appear on Fortune’s list of Americas Most Admired Companies, know something that unfortunately most companies refuse to accept. They know that if you put the brand first and execute the brand promise for the benefit of the company, customers and employees, the financial rewards will come. 

So whether or not you are number 1 GE, embracing its brand of innovation to create environmental friendly solutions, or number 7 Apple destined to be the enablers of melding life and technology, or number 8 Google who is determined to create unique user experiences (for both consumers and employees), it is finding your central purpose that will lead your company to its greatest success. No one can argue with the financial performance of these top 10 companies, and if each one of them achieved this success by honoring the brand holistically, wouldn’t it make sense that your company could benefit form doing the same?
Kate