You're not a company silly; you're a vending machine

I was talking with a client about branding this afternoon. After the conversation ended, I started thinking about ways to convince this client more effectively that integrating the brand to the corporate mission is critical. End then it came to me:

From a marketing-centric POV, good companies are nothing more than brand vending machines. I'm sure some people would hear this and be up in arms. "But we offer highly customized solutions. You can't compare us to a commodity." Only - I can; here's how...

What do you offer your customers? What keeps them coming back, and entices new customers? A positive experience that meets their needs and expectations. You commoditize that experience. Let's go back to that weird title I am using.

There are three main parts to a vending machine. One - the front panel. Two - the coin slot. And three - the little basket where the soda gets delivered to the customer.

Item one - the front panel. That tells everybody that its a vending machine, and what kind of soda is being sold. It promises an experience. It tells you what its not (If it's Pepsi, it's letting you know it's not Coke). It's preparing the buyer and setting expectations. That's your brand, and your messaging, and your delivery.

Item two - the coin/dollar slot. Well - that's easy enough. That's the closing; when the expectations and messaging motivate the consumer to the point of no return - commitment to purchase. (It also helps pay to keep the front panel lit and the soda cold).

Item three - the basket dispensing soda. The customer punches the "diet pepsi" button, inserts money, and BAM - a diet pespi comes out. Just what the customer wanted. That's your commoditized product. Even if it's custom consulting - you are delivering what the customer expects. You complete the brand experience with the customer drinking your diet pepsi (and knowing where to go the next time you want one).



Think about overlooking a brand, or not fully building it into your message. An overlooked brand is like a soda machine that's been vandalized. Expectations are low, and the customer may move on to something more appealing and safe. You don't get that money into the coin slot.

Now think about not integrating it into your offering. Think about winging it, and not trying to make your company a brand delivery mechanism. Think about just using your brand as a pretty face, but not really committing to it. You might fulfill the customer experience sometimes - but not always, and not as often as you should. That's like a vending machine on the fritz. The customer punched in "diet pepsi" and you got Dr. Pepper instead. Your brand lied. It's not that the Dr. Pepper is bad, it's that it's not what the consumer wanted when they put money in the slot, and it wasn't what they were expecting. The customer walks away, feeling cheated and suspicious. That's not the way to build repeat customers.


What's the moral - understand your brand identity. Shape it - once you establish it, it should fit you, and you should keep the brand front and center - making sure you pop out one satisfying and expected customer experience after another. Be the vending machine.

Marketing in a Recession

This morning I heard the phrase "mini-depression". Here's hoping that doesn't make into the 2009 list of pop-culture vernacular.

I've spent some time thinking about marketing during this economic cliff we've jumped off of. Obviously, DGT have seen clients scale back their activities. But we've also had clients who are stepping on the gas. Rather than make flimsy "you should be marketing" post, I'll qualify who probably should or shouldn't, and the best ways to take advantage of it.

Who should be marketing right now?
If your business is not imperiled by the current recession, the choice to continue or expand marketing is a no-brainer. But what if your company is taking a hit. Marketing is an investment, and like all investments, it's a calculated risk. What do you stand to lose? What do you stand to gain? Are your competitors similarly affected by the slump? Does that mean you could expand market share to offset reduced current profits?

I'd break it down like this: if there is the possibility of expanding your market share, and you have any funds available - it's probably a good idea. If you funds are very tight, or you've essentially maxed out your audience already - it's time to circle the wagons.

Marketing for Recessed Customers
Most people are feeling the pinch. Consumers and businesses alike. It's important to understand that the traditional rules don't apply. First - market the value competitively. If you can point to a competitive vendor or choice, and establish you've got a better value - that carriers weight. If you can go one step further, and market lower prices, that's even more compelling. I traditionally advise customers against this last course of action - it puts you in a brand box that can get uncomfortable over time. However, these are not ordinary times - and being what they are - marketing lower cost and value is important. Wal-mart's cost-saving marketing blitz originated from the last recession when the internet boom went bust.

Incentivize contact
You want your prospects to become available and remain easily addressable. By incentivizing opt-ins with discounts, and other promotions - you are increasing your potential market. Don't think of the challenge as your customers can't afford enough of your offering. Change that challenge to become reaching more potential customers who can.

Get Darwinian
There are ethical guideline about competition. But it exists. In a downturn, there are going to be failures and weakening companies. It's the law of business, and is the only way for other companies to survive and thrive. If you have a competitor who seems to be ailing - speak to his addressable market. Particularly if you are not ailing as well - customers will want to switch from a hungry sick vendor to a hungry healthy one. You'll have to let them know you are hungry (and are keeping it a buyers market). There doesn't need to be negative campaining - simply co-opt a new audience, and give them a quality message.

Superbowl Ad spots

Of course the superbowl ad spots are at the forefront of the American viewing public's mind last night. Design Greater Than, along with other leading marketing and ad agencies, watch these spots with two types of anticipation. First, as stand-up citizens, we want to be entertained and instructed as how to go forth and spend our hard earned dollars in this recession. Second, as marketing gurus - the industry looks to see what trends to take away, and understand where positioning is going.

It's interesting to see how the ads have progressed over the last 15 years or so - not merely the ads themselves, but their relationship to the game. It's become the ultimate opt-in direct broadcast campaign. As the superbowl became a larger and larger cultural phenomenon, the advertising aspect of the event took on more weight. It reached a tipping point - and the ads are now the draw - and non-football fans simply tolerate the game (which was one of the best in recent years).

As always, comedy seems to dominate. That aside - there are some interesting trends to note, all based around a singular, dominating theme...

The Recession. The recession has hit America full force. Entertainment events are meant to disctract, but savvy marketeers were wise to try to capitalize. Monster and Careerbuilder seemed to ignore the real reason why people are going to their sites, but ponying up for 30 second spots says a lot. Career builder had the better ad, by the way - and indicates that they may take advantage of the current situation to close the gap between category leader Monster.

The Cash4Gold.com ad with MC Hammer and Ed McMahon was an even greater acknowledgement of the crisis. Two C-list celebrities who are known best for their fall from the top - hawking their gold. What was once symbols of excess (gold hip replacement, LOL) are now needed to bail themselves out. If that's not a love letter to the American people, I don't know what is. The fact that this company has the capital to run a superbowl ad, and thinks there is an ROI on 3 million dollars also says a lot. Priceline and overstock were others who were capitalizing on people's desire to get thrifty.

Motor vehicles. There was a lot of talk about who wasn't there, and it's important. None of the Big 3 were there. None. Not even Ford, who is doing slightly better. That was a shock. Toyota's Ad was for a small car, and the ad felt small. It seemed as if it was trying to sell people on compromising. Audi had a fun ad - I guess there's always a space for luxury cars. Who was the big dog on four wheels? Hyundai. They won the big awards Detroit - and these guys came out swinging. They've got a more impressive line-up, and they are letting people know they are now a threat to the big auto makers. It's also an acknowledgment that people are ready to compromise - but not on a sub-compact. Rather people are questioning things like the prestige value of owning a premium brand like Honda and Toyota.

Visio ran a pretty lackluster ad for electronics - but it was a similar assault on the premium brands like Sony and Samsung. This is important to note, because it signals that the underdogs feel there is an addressable market they can capture, and that marketeers feel that in fact, people are in the process of questioning the nature of how they consume. Is it really necessary to have the brand that will impress the Joneses, when the Joneses are fighting foreclosure.

Beer, beer and beer. Recession-proof (or maybe even recession beneficiaries) Budweiser stole the show with a massive blitz of ads. Not much new there, the mix of Clydesdale and humor ads. The sheer number may indicate some of InBev's colossal capital at work, and a desire to help American's remember that their favorite American beer is technically European now. Snack foods and soda, the mainstay of party time, also put up a strong showing. I have to say that SoBe's ad was an epic failure - they did nothing to tie their drink into the ad, and it was muddled and confusing. Leveraging the "3-D" gimmic didn't help, which brings me to...

3-D ad spots. Wow - this was a bust, and it does not bode well for the 3D technology that is again trying to get a foothold in cinemas. I took my son to see Bolt in 3D, and it was amazing. The new technology creates a real illusion of depth, and if you haven't seen it, it impossible to understand how amazing it is. But these glasses they gave out at home is the same old technology, and all it did was remind people what they don't like about conventional 3-D. Aliens versus Monsters, which is going to get the good 3-D treatment, used the gimmicky 3-D ads. If I hadn't seen Bolt, I would be expecting MvA to look like the ad, which is not good. They should have had a disclaimer at the end: Movie will look much better than this mess.


So that's the Design Greater Than superbowl roundup. An breathtaking 4th quarter, and some pretty interesting ads - in content, underlying message, and the players who chose to put skin in the game.