Taglines verses Slogans

Lately I’ve been working at a company that is in transition. If you compare the company to a person, they’re moving from awkward teenager into young adult; they’ve just come through some tough times but have righted themselves and are ready to step up and be taken seriously. And now it’s time to define themselves.

But how?

In the last two months I’ve managed to get on two different projects: development of a new slogan and implementation of a new tagline. And while to me these two projects are wildly different, I’m finding that the blurred definition of these terms is causing confusion, and I fear deterioration in the effectiveness of the final outcome(s).

To me, a tagline is the brief summation of the essence of a company. It is a phrase that someone could utter to the completely uninitiated and would convey a sense of who they are and what they do. A slogan on the other hand is transitory – its purpose is to draw people toward the product/company but doesn’t necessarily define it. Therefore, a tagline can be used as a slogan but a slogan isn’t usually a tagline.

A few examples might help:

American Express. If you look at their press releases, they define themselves as “is a leading global payments and travel company founded in 1850” but their famous slogan is “Don’t leave home without it.”

Budweiser is “the King of Beers” but Wassup?! was the slogan for awhile.

And, one near and dear to my heart …

Toshiba. Their tagline is Leading Innovation but years ago while tasked with creating a new “brand” for them we developed the slogan “Choose Freedom.”

Sometimes a tagline makes for a good slogan, and there’s nothing wrong with that as these examples show:

Subway’s “Eat fresh”

Staples “It’s easy”

Petco “Where the pets go.”

Where I get worried is when companies avoid doing the hard work of figuring out who they are and instead use a transitory slogan to define them. When this occurs, companies tend to bounce around leaving both customers and employees slightly unsure of who they are and what they stand for.

I know as I write this I’m taking the purists point-of-view, but I honestly believe in the power and value of doing the work of defining yourself. Even if you don’t create a tagline from that work, it creates the vision needed to develop engaging creative … which often takes the form of a great slogan.

Marketing Women's Soccer

Yesterday saw the launch of the newest sports league … the WPS or Women’s Professional Soccer. As someone who has played soccer in leagues since I was seven, and coached AYSO girls aged 11- 14 for several years, it’s an exciting time filled with hope and promise. However, as a marketer I’m skeptical in the extreme about the success of the league and wonder about its true potential.

The WPS has several things going for it. First, it has the failed WUSA as a model for what not to do and clearly they have learned. Instead of going big they’ve stayed with smaller venues that don’t cost as much to run, they’ve lowered general salaries and their ticket pricing is low. (An especially appealing feature in these tough economic times.) Secondly, they’ve got the best women soccer players in the world all playing in the league so there is no shortage of talent or argument that better soccer can be found in another league. And thirdly, they’ve actually got a prominent sports channel (Fox Soccer Channel and Fox Sports Net) broadcasting the games so they’re accessible to the masses.

From a marketing perspective, they’re also doing some interesting stuff, the main being to broaden their target from simply “tween” girls to a larger female (and male) base. To this end, league players are, in their local areas, hosting viewing parties at local pubs allowing them to interact with the fan base and create some excitement in places other than the field. They’re using Twitter and YouTube and other social media sites to create buzz and some intimacy with fans. They’re trying to create personal connections to the players and the teams and the league vs. simply putting it out there and expecting that the combo of women and soccer to be enough to draw women and girls that play soccer.

So that’s the good news. Now for the bad.

At my soccer game yesterday I mentioned multiple times that the new league started today and only once did anyone even react. These are girls/women who grew up playing; played in high school and college, play in a women’s league now and most of whom play in a co-ed league during the week. These are committed soccer players who love the game and yet they’re completely apathetic to the league. They fit the new target demo … they’re definitely the type to go to the local pubs and hang with friends and I know they use Twitter and Facebook. So why the disinterest?

Unfortunately, I think it’s precisely because they grew up with soccer being there. Unlike me and my generation who had to hold bake sales in the student union to pay for the van to go to away games in college, these girls grew up with scholarships and uniforms and trainers on the sidelines. Women’s soccer isn’t a big deal it’s just a fact so there’s no compelling need to support the league (or for that matter the men’s). They’ve got new careers and shifting life priorities going on so finding the time or the will to support a soccer league just isn’t a priority. And what the means for the league is their back to the same audience the WUSA had – tween girls and their moms, a recipe that didn’t work last time.

Will this league survive? I’m not sure. I’d like to be optimistic but my head says it’s very unlikely. I do think they’ve made smart moves and if it ever is going to happen, this is probably it. Keep working the girls and their moms and do what you can to gain followers in college so they’ve established a viewing habit for their post-school years.

I wish them luck and I am committed to doing my part in viewship to keep it alive. And if watching entertaining soccer has anything to do with the leagues success, then the inaugural game between the LA Sol and Washington DC Freedom bodes well.

Hope

This isn’t my usual blog post dedicated to all things advertising and marketing. Well, maybe it is but not in any traditional sense of it. Today, I’m thinking about the current dichotomy between optimism and pessimism/hope and fear.

What got me thinking about this was juxtaposition yesterday of news stories about the pessimism regarding the economy and the optimism of the Obama presidency. The two seem so opposing yet they seem to be surviving at the same time and I have to wonder why.

Less than two months ago the US and, really, the whole world stood still for a couple of hours and took in the inauguration of the 44th President of the United States. Anyone watching, and even those that tried to actively avoid watching, couldn’t help but be struck by the shear numbers of people paying attention and the overwhelming sense of hope and happiness this event engendered. The reasons for the happiness varied for sure: change from the previous administration, change in political parties, a major race hurtle jumped to name just a few. But regardless of the reason, the underlying reason seemed universal: hope that things would be better.

Now contrast that with the talk of the economy. Or perhaps it’s the economy through the lens of politics. The talking heads on yesterday’s news programs discussed and disagreed about the amount of debt run up, nationalizing vs. not the banks, earmarks and the divide in Congress. However, one thing they all agreed on was that at the very core of the problem and the key to correcting it is confidence. Corporate confidence. Consumer confidence. People need to believe that we will get through this and eventually (not necessarily tomorrow) it will be alright.

So if the solution is to build and instill confidence, then why is everyone in the media (and a good many in government/politics) continuing to belt out nothing but the negative? How does someone like Rush Limbaugh get away with saying that he hopes the President fails (i.e. he hope the economy and thereby all the citizens fail) without everyone getting angry?! In all the conversations I’ve listened to, I’ve only heard one person (Erin Burnett of CNBC) actively try to inject a few positive signs. It makes me question whether these people really want to repair the economy or if these people are so cocooned that they don’t understand that what’s happening isn’t political theory it’s people’s lives.

The election of Obama and the worldwide reaction to it shows that people still have hope. And it’s that hope we have to tap into if we’re going to solve the problems we’re facing in the world. Don’t get me wrong, we can’t ignore the problems we must discuss them if we’re going to find solutions. However, we also have to hold on to hope and actively pursue it. We have to change the definition of hope from a passive to an active verb – hope is actionable not just wishful. And we have to enforce that hope to others (or maybe sell is the nicer way to say it) so we can push the politicians and media to work for solutions verses trying to gain from promoting the problems.

I believe it’s possible … at least I hope it is.

Branding – a misunderstood verb

Branding. It’s a term we’ve all heard – or at least any of us that work in advertising, marketing or senior management. In business, branding is a good thing and having a strong brand image is what we to aspire to and try to maintain. Conversely, when something tarnishes our brand image it’s all hands on deck to try to repair the damage.

But what does branding really mean and what value does it add? I’ve sat in countless meetings where people talk about “branding campaigns” when what they really mean is advertising campaigns. I’ve been a part of multiple brand development work sessions where the participants feign involvement while all the while muttering under their breath about losing valuable time to such frivolous pursuits. And I’ve heard multiple executives talk about the power of their brand while failing to put in the effort to support it.

To me, brand is that split second feeling you get when someone says the name of a product (or service or person). It’s why people would pay billions to buy Nike or Coke when the actual physical assets of the company are far less. And it’s why people pay $100+ for shoes that cost maybe five dollars to produce.

But for a brand to be a valued brand, it must live its image through and through. You can’t say you’re a quality brand and then make cheap products and expect people to like or trust you. You can’t claim to be customer-centric and then make it impossible for customers to reach you when problems occur. Brand isn’t an advertising campaign and it doesn’t happen overnight. Brand is who you are as a company – from the way you answer the phones to the way you treat employees to the products and services you provide your customers. Brand is the bond you build with customers over time.

A few examples of what I consider to be good brands are REI and Starbucks. I say REI because I believe they live what they sell and everything they do is consistent with supporting a community of people committed to enjoying and maintaining the great outdoors. From being a cooperative that actually gives back money to members to hosting classes on bike maintenance and rock climbing to organizing clean-up days for local parks and beaches, they live their brand and have created a loyal customer based. And Starbucks … well, they may be struggling a little with the economy but for the most part they’ve never wavered from their mission to provide a quality product in an upscale, warm environment. From the food they serve to the music they play to the merchandise they sell, it’s all consistently quality and a comfortable experience to those who go. And they’ve managed to create a community feel despite their ubiquitous locations.

When building a brand, it’s the ideal to start at start-up so it can act as a tool to inform the way the company is built out, who to hire and how business will be done. But in truth, it’s never too late if you’re committed to doing the work to develop your brand and implement it across the board. Just be aware that branding isn’t for the faint of heart. It takes work, a commitment to introspection about what you’re doing as a company and what you want to stand for, and a determination to implement the policies and personnel that will bring your brand to life.
I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on brands that either

Learning from Mistakes

The other day I got asked about mistakes I’ve made professionally and what I’ve learned from them. And to be perfectly honest, I kind of froze. My mind suddenly went on a massive “find all” scan only to come up with vague recollections of moments when the blood drained from my body with the certain knowledge that my life as I knew it was over. Because of the situation, I came up with an answer but the question continued to haunt me – both because I think it was a question I should know and because I couldn’t understand why I didn’t.

As with most things you’re trying to remember, a specific example came to me within ten minutes of leaving the conversation. And with some small amount of relief, it was something from very early in my career. Specifically, within the first year-plus of starting work, my bosses all got laid off and I was left to act as Production Manager for my agency. Now, I have to give credit because my boss had very generously been training me on the basics of print production, which in retrospect may have also been my downfall. Without going into great detail, I was scared of missing a deadline so I pushed an ad that wouldn’t print well. Fortunately for me, my now ex-boss had become my outside printer and he caught my error before it went to print. On the reprint of the never-released ad he wrote a message I quote here by heart, “there’s never enough time to do it right, there’s always enough time to do it over.” He was right and I learned some valuable lessons which include: when over your head – ask for help; and when you think you don’t have time, take five minutes to collect yourself and re-approach the problem … you might have more options than you think.

So I was feeling a bit better; I wasn’t in complete denial. But the question still remained, why hadn’t I remembered this or any of the other times it had happened in the past? Not to be political, but I was flashing on when G. W. Bush was asked what if any mistakes he had made and he couldn’t answer. I did not want to be that person that so lacked introspection or accountability that they wouldn’t admit fault and learn from mistakes.

Then it occurred to me. The reason I wasn’t remembering the error was that I’d learned from it and moved on. The lessons learned had become so much a part of who I am and how I work that I’d forgotten how I came to know them. Instead of being upset that I couldn’t remember, I was happy that my brain chose to focus on the positive rather than being dragged down by the negative. Which isn’t to say that I should forget the experience or the feeling; they act as a powerful incentive to never make that mistake (or any other) again. However, a certain amount of mental denial isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

It’s an old saying that we should learn from our mistakes and that’s absolutely true. However, we need to also remember to apply the lessons and move beyond the fear lest we lose the nerve to act. It applies to the individual and, as someone who has managed, it’s a good thing to remember when it comes to managees who mess up. Making mistakes doesn’t mean we’re bad, it just means we’re human. It’s if we have the capacity to learn and apply the lessons that is the ultimate test and opportunity. And for me, coming to recognize that is yet another valuable lesson learned.

Selling in the Age of Austerity

Who would have thought it just two years ago that the US economy would be in near freefall. Seems like just yesterday people were buying houses they couldn’t afford, unconcerned about the thousands of dollars in debt rolling over on their credit cards and freely purchasing the next latest gadget on a near daily basis.

Yet here we sit in a time of recession with the news of the day filled with which major companies had layoffs and which banks are on the verge of failing. With unemployment at 8% and growing, consumers have finally woken up to the reality that spending has consequences and money doesn’t grow on trees. People have tightened their belts and are delaying gratification even when the word sale is applied. And even more significantly, they feel good about themselves for doing it.

We’ve entered an age of austerity.

So what’s a marketer to do? Sell austerity itself.

Well, maybe not literally, that would be tough. But you can sell that feeling people get when they make smart choices. It’s about saving money in the long run with products that last longer or save on the need for other products. Light bulbs are the perfect example: buy the more expensive eco-blub and save long term while saving the planet.

People without money aren’t going to buy no matter what. But people with incomes still need products, and now more than ever they need/want a reason to buy. If feeling good about ourselves comes from NOT opening the purse strings, we need to make a compelling reason that it will feel better if we do. Now I’m not saying this will work for a Tiffany bracelet or Juicy jeans, but detergent, clothing, cleaning products, etc. have a chance.

Advertising has always been about giving the people what they want. For the last several years what they wanted was bragging rights about having the new/latest toy. Today, bragging rights are about getting the best/smartest deal. Selling isn’t impossible as long as we recognize that the drivers have changed drastically and people are still looking for a reason to feel good about their purchase.

The Joy of Research

You can tell a lot about a person by their attitude about research. There are those that think research is useless because depending on how you structure the search you can create the answers you’re searching for – they are the cynics. There are those that think research is an expensive tool that should be used sparingly – they are the optimists. Me, I’m an unabashed research geek that believes there is almost always something to be learned from research and it doesn’t have to be some massive, stilted study to get usable results – I’d like to think I’m the realist.

For those people I would categorize as cynics or optimists, I do understand their points of view but I think they come with one (mostly) incorrect assumption: that the researcher has a bias and therefore any results are what they made them. If you’re truly looking for answers to questions such as “what’s the key selling point,” or “is this something you would buy,” or “what would make this product more valuable to you,” or “what would you need to know in order to consider this” then to not do research is arrogant at worst and stupid at best.

Research doesn’t have to be hard, especially with new options created through the internet. (Think social networks, email chains, user groups, etc.) And it doesn’t have to be expensive. Years ago when I was working on a new business idea I hosted an informal focus group comprised of friends of friends and, for the price of a deli platter I got some good insight and was able to refine some ideas

That said, for research to be worth any time, effort and money (even if it is only a deli platter) there are three mandatory steps that must be followed: clarity regarding the information you’re seeking to learn, screening for the correct audience(s) and an open mind when listening to the results.

Far too often research is launched with a laundry list of topics to cover ranging from price point to packaging. In almost every case when you try to do it all with one study the results are too watered down to find any meaningful data. That’s not to say that focus groups that cover general impressions and reactions to a few specific concepts are worthless, not at all. But if your one true goal is to find out at what price point your product will sell best, then focus on that question so you get the best answer. If you’re clear about what you want/need to learn, you will get the best results.

Additionally, it may sound obvious but audience is key. I’ve done a great deal of work in the high tech world and if there is one consistent marketing error I run into it’s the assumption that the audience for their product(s) is them. The logic goes “I use a computer at work and at home. The people I want to sell to use a computer at work and at home. Therefore, I am the audience.” I’ve got a million stories about confronting this mindset, but probably the best example is from my work at a computer company. I worked in the web group and the men and women there were very smart and talented programmers who created and maintained the consumer website. One day a research company presented a website usability study to the group where they asked people to find particular information on the site. In multiple cases the people sat dumbfounded; unable to find the information requested. My co-workers yelled “scroll down” at the video of these people being confused – only to learn from the researcher that their audience, the very beginning computer user, didn’t know to scroll. In this case, the researchers got their audience right and the learning was great. But had the researchers assumed that audience was who their clients told them, they never would have learned how ineffective their site was or how to improve it. And that mindset is not just in high-tech, it’s everywhere.

Listening. It’s human nature to want to be right or be validated, and as marketers and advertisers we’re no different. (Possibly worse.) But if doing research is only about validating our assumptions, we miss the real potential for learning that could improve our results. Years ago I worked on a product in development that attached to a TV and allowed users to both play games and go out to the internet. (The product was made by a computer company and at that time the installed base for computers in the US was approximately 33%.) Our goal in doing research was to determine a positioning for the product and exactly who the audience would be. We did focus groups with three distinct audiences: confident computer users, beginning computer users and gamers – our thinking was that the product would make for a good/cheap second computer; a cheap/easy first computer, or a game system with internet capabilities. The early returns were not good: it wasn’t right for any of them. As part of the focus groups, we subdivided the participants and had them come up with their own positionings; and for the most part they gave back what we gave them. But there was one group who positioned it as a TV device not a computer, and suddenly I saw the light. Because it was made by a computer company, we (the client, the agency, me) had all unintentionally biased our research into only considering a computer-centric positioning – thus greatly limiting our potential. This group had unwittingly come up with a positioning that both opened up our market to the 99+% of Americans with TVs and made it a progressive add-on product verses a pared down version of an existing product. Everyone I was sitting with behind the glass said “they don’t get it,” when in fact it was dawning on me that we were the ones that didn’t get it. I spent the next several months trying to convince people that we needed to pursue this new positioning, but my pleas fell on deaf ears and the product ultimately got OEMed into kiosks and other similar technologies. And I remain convince to this day that had we listened and really heard what was being said, that product could have had at least partial success.

Okay, so I’ve gone on perhaps too long, about the potential of research. Forgive me but as I said above, I really am a geek about research because I believe there is so much to learn and it is so important to selling to understand who we’re selling to and what they think. I’d love to hear any thoughts, opinions, stories you may have – pro or con. Just consider it my mini focus group.