Ingredient Branding

An ingredient brand is a well-known brand with well-known qualities that is included as a component or feature of another brand or product to enhance perceptions and the marketability of that brand or product. The ingredient brand calls out unique features or performance and is often used to increase the acceptance of a product or brand that is using a new technology identified by the ingredient brand.

Following are some examples of ingredient brands:

• Android
• Bluetooth
• Cinnabon
• Dolby Digital
• Plus a touch of Downy
• Gore-Tex
• Hybrid Synergy Drive
• Intel Inside
• NutraSweet
• OnStar
• Contains Scotchgard Protector 3M
• Shimano
• (Dupont) Teflon

 So, what leads to successful ingredient branding?

• The ingredient brand must be strongly associated with a specific feature, benefit or performance attribute
• The ingredient brand must have its own strong identity
• Ideally, the ingredient brand already has high awareness
• The ingredient brand’s unique feature or benefit must be a significant enhancement to the brand or product in which it is embedded
• The ingredient brand must be visibly featured on the product and its packaging
• Linking the ingredient brand to the other brand enhances both brands’ desirability and awareness
• The financial deal struck between the two brands must be mutually beneficial

 I wish you much success with your ingredient branding efforts.

Going Viral

This is a simple but little known trick in helping something go viral. Find the people who are most influential in their fields, the people who speak and write and are quoted and have blogs and are interviewed and whose voices are listened to. Show them your stuff. If they like it, it will go viral. It’s that simple. I have done this several times for different companies. At Hallmark, when we were launching our personalized Letter from Santa, we made one for Johnny Carson and sent it to him knowing there was a high probability that he would read it on air. When I took the marketing VP helm at Element K (now Skillsoft), I asked our customers to whom they listened for advice. It turned out that two magazines, one conference and two industry experts were all we needed to focus on to get our story spread throughout the industry. And it worked…inexpensively, I might add.

I just offered free copies of Brand Aid, second edition to top brand management professors at top business schools. I notified the heads of the top 200 ad agencies about the publication of the first edition of Brand Aid.

Think about it. If you can touch the heart or mind of someone who can reach 400,000 people, the impact is substantially larger than touching the heart or mind of the average person.

Yes, making something cute, clever, outrageous, unexpected or entertaining will help it become viral. But jump-starting its geometric spread will depend on getting it to the right people who can multiply its effect. Good luck.

Pre-order Brand Aid, second edition here.

Negative Labeling in Politics

To label something is to name it, to give it an identity. Usually, if a label sticks, it implies that the opposite of the label is not true for the person or entity that has been labeled. This is a way to create “us” versus “them” thinking. “You are this. I am that. We are different. You are to blame. I am not. I don’t like you.” While assigning labels is effective in repositioning opponents in a negative light, I find it operates from a lower level of consciousness. And it rarely leads to common understanding but rather divides and creates animosity. Having said that, politicians have been using labels for all of recorded history to reposition their opponents in a negative light.  Following are some recent examples of this:

• Liberals calling conservatives reactionaries, Neanderthals, obstructionists neocons and hawks.
• Conservatives calling liberals doves, bleeding hearts, “flaming” liberals, “nanny-state” liberals, left-wing ideologues, libs, Kool-Aid drinkers, socialists, communists and Pinko commies.
• Conservatives have also tried to characterize liberals as people who do not believe in the Constitution, a claim that is largely unsubstantiated.
• Many politicians have used the term “flip flopper” against their opponents.
• Several politicians have called their opponents “extremists.”
• Conservatives use the “Obamacare” label to diminish the credibility of the Affordable Care Act.
• Its opponents have transformed “Tea Party,” coined as a positive label by its advocates, into a negative label. “Liberal,” historically possessing very positive connotations, has also been transformed into a negative label by its opponents. That is why many liberals now choose to use the term “progressive” instead.
• Interestingly, both conservatives and liberals have labeled the other as lacking in intelligence.  Conservatives also label liberals as naïve, while liberals label conservatives as lacking in compassion. In response, George W. Bush labeled himself a “compassionate conservative.”
• The term “activist judges” has been used to describe judges who seem to reinterpret laws to fit their own views of the world. People who disagree with the judges’ rulings most often use this label.
• “Politically correct” was a positive label that was redefined as a negative label by conservatives.

So, what does one make of all of this negative labeling? While it tends to work in that it diminishes perceptions of the labeled parties, it does not lead to mutual understanding, compromise or shared progress. Also, people are tiring of this name-calling, propaganda and mudslinging. Most importantly, assigning negative labels dysfunctionally assigns blame to the “other” allowing us to abdicate responsibility for developing a solution. In the end, it is not productive.

Interestingly, applying positive labels to negative things is a related phenomenon. Consider the following. The MX-Missile was renamed “The Peacekeeper.” But this is a topic for another blog article.

While I have used negative political labels as examples, labeling is generally applicable to marketing communications. While I am not a fan of labeling, I have to admit that it works, at least as a shorter-term tactic.

The Power of Distribution

Distribution contributes to customer brand insistence in two ways. First, it increases brand accessibility so that brand preference is more likely to be converted to brand purchase. But, more importantly, it increases brand exposure, which increases brand awareness. So distribution affects two of the five customer brand insistence drivers. Brands such as Coca-Cola, KFC, McDonalds and Starbucks rely on this as an important driver of their brands’ successes.

If you slightly preferred Coca-Cola to Pepsi, and both are available in the same place, you would purchase Coca-Cola every time. However, if Coca-Cola was not available but Pepsi was, you might purchase Pepsi instead.

The only situation in which extensive distribution may not be right for your brand is if it is positioned as an upscale or luxury brand. Limited distribution in limited upscale places can add to the cachet of “exclusive” brands. Certainly, those brands would lose their allure if they were available in the mass channel, and especially in discount chains such as Wal-Mart. Some brands would even suffer from being available in well-known department stores. Consider how broadly and where Armand de Brignac Champagne, Bugatti, Desvall, Hermès, Rolls Royce, Savoir, Tesla Motors or Vilebrequin brands are sold.

But even extremely upscale brands can benefit from increased exposure to their target audiences. But the places where they are available are handpicked to scream exclusivity.

(c) 2014 by Brad VanAuken. Excerpted from Brand Aid, second edition, available at BarnesandNoble.com and Amazon.com.

Ethics in Marketing

Ethics is not a topic that I hear marketers talking about very often, however it is something that I think about frequently because I understand the societal impact of what I do. Marketers can often drive human desires and behaviors, getting people to buy things that they may or may not need, making them feel better or worse about themselves in the process.

So what are some of the ethical issues in marketing? First and foremost is using marketing to make a product that is clearly harmful more appealing to people - for instance, selling cigarettes by appealing to people at a deep emotional level.  This can be achieved by linking the cigarette brand to independence, rebellion, good times, coming into one’s own power, etc.

Next is getting people to buy stuff that they just don’t need. How many toys does one child actually need? How many pairs of shoes are enough? Or, how many homes are enough?

Then there is using fear to sell something. As we all know, fear works really well as a motivator, however constantly using fear to market products and services only serves to create a more fearful society motivated more by avoidance of potential problems than by embracing that which is beneficial or uplifting? In politics, campaign strategists know that negative campaigning and fear are effective in getting their candidates elected? Should the ends justify the means?

Making false claims is both unethical and illegal. I am personally not as concerned about what is generally considered to be puffery, for instance stating that one’s brand is “the best in the world,” because few people are going to take that statement at face value.

Certainly, an ethical dilemma that most marketing agencies face is whether to do (a) what is in the client’s best interest or (b) what the client wants (if you know that what they want is not in their own best interest).  In this situation, are you forthright with the client but then ultimately collect your fees for executing what they desire or do you walk away from the project or business if what you are being asked to do is not in their best interest?  Is the client always right or is the client sometimes wrong?

How about getting someone to pay a huge price premium for a product because your brand bestows status on that product? Is this just helping people climb Maslow’s hierarchy of needs or is it getting them stuck on one step in that ladder (at a hefty profit to the brand)? After all, ability to charge a price premium is one of the indicators of a strong brand.

Knowing that brands can sometimes make people feel more appealing, loved, smart, accomplished, valued, etc. I want to scream to them, “You are already appealing, loved, smart, accomplished, valued, etc. You don’t need a product or brand to be that.”

There is also this question: Does the relentless pursuit of more and better products, services and experiences lead to improved lives with more leisure time and a higher quality of life or does it just constantly raise the bar for what will satisfy while depleting natural resources and placing more demands on peoples’ lives?

How about those huge purchases that marketers can get people to make, for instance luxury cars, luxury boats, fine art, expensive wines, etc. Some people can easily afford these things and very much appreciate even minutely incremental improvements in quality. Others however may be stretching their budgets to “keep up with the Joneses.” This second group may experience immediate post purchase remorse after such a large purchase. Is it ethical to market to these people based on aspiration?

And, related to that, if people experience buyer’s remorse immediately after a purchase, is it a good thing or a bad thing to create a post purchase touch point that relieves their anxiety and makes them feel better about the purchase?

And what about selling functional substance, a real solution to a problem, versus good feelings? Many brands (and salespeople for that matter) are masterful at selling good feelings without really delivering much else. I often feel this way about motivational speakers. Is something tangible really more valuable than something completely intangible? Is it ok to sell people good feelings, even if the feelings are only temporary?

And, is it better to market to and deliver on a need or a desire? Is one better than another? What if one desires something that is not good for him or her? Is that the marketer’s problem? Is it another person’s right to judge what is good or bad for another? Should New York City have passed a law banning sales of super sized soft drinks within the city even though obesity is a key factor in disease, death and rapidly rising health care costs?

So how do I see that marketing can be truly helpful to organizations, brands and their customers? First and foremost, brands can help organizations focus on how they can best add value in the market, especially in unique ways. A brand’s unique value proposition can become the organization’s internal rallying cry, energizing employees and mobilizing them to deliver on the brand’s promise. Marketing can also highlight a particular brand’s unique advantage over competing brands, helping consumers to make more informed decisions. If one includes marketing research as a part of marketing (as well they should), there is a huge advantage to understanding what the customer actually needs and wants so that the organization can deliver it to him or her. Identifying and determining the best ways to meet human needs is a noble endeavor.

Keys to Brand Building Success

A completely updated second edition of my Brand Aid book will be published in December. One of the summary chapters outlines the twenty-one keys to brand building success. As a teaser, I will list (but not elaborate on) ten of them here:

1. A brand must stand for something.
2. A brand must know whom it is serving.
3. The brand’s identity must support its intended promise.
4. Aesthetics matter.
5. Brand identity consistency is critical to success.
6. Ideally, a brand’s values align with its customer’s values.
7. A brand can become a source of community for people who share its values.
8. A brand can serve as a self-expressive “badge” for people.
9. A brand can engage with its customers by co-creating its products and services with them.
10. Storytelling is central to brand building.

To learn more about these ten keys to brand building success and the other eleven keys to brand building success, you can pre-order the second edition of Brand Aid here or here.

Aligning Brand Values with Customer Values

A business associate recently asked me what I mean when I say that brands can connect with people on a values level. Here are the examples that I shared with him to illustrate the concept.

“The strongest companies/brands often connect with their customers on a values level. Toyota Prius is for people who are progressive, environmentally sensitive and care about "Mother Earth." Mercedes shouts social status and is for people who want to be perceived as having made it in society and the world. Patagonia is for people who love the pristine nature of the wilderness and who are passionate about the sports that they pursue (rock climbing, hiking, kayaking, etc.) in the great outdoors. Nike is for people who perceive themselves as, aspire to be or admire authentic athletic performers. Mini-Cooper is for people who want to be perceived as non-conformists, as being a little bit different or quirky. Fox News is for people who are politically conservative and who believe in a clear right and wrong, the sovereignty of the individual and a diminished/limited role for government. Apple is for smart, innovative, leading-edge, hip people who are a step or two ahead of everyone else. Reed College is for the self-directed, hyper-intellectual liberal student.”

While this may not always hold true, it does for a large portion of these brands’ customers.  So, for instance, some people will say, “I simply bought a Prius because gasoline prices are skyrocketing and it achieves a much higher MPG than most other cars.” However, many others will have purchased a Prius not as a simple spreadsheet exercise to save money but rather to do their part in creating a lighter personal footprint on the earth.

While brands can promise functional, emotional, experiential or self-expressive benefits, those whose values are aligned with their customers’ values are much more likely to achieve a much deeper and longer lasting loyalty.