Posts Tagged ‘microsoft’

Google Builds Its Brand by Challenging China

Tuesday, January 19th, 2010

google china flowers

Somewhere along my career I heard that character is defined by who or what you choose to fight against. A character’s foils define who he or she is—and “define” here means both creating and describing. Churchill was defined by his stand against Hitler. Lincoln was defined by his belief in a unified United States. And Superman is defined by his fight against those who would bring evil upon mankind. I keep this in mind here at this blog, choosing to call out meaningless marketers from time to time, at risk of pissing off prospective clients and partners. This lesson can be applied to Brand Characters as well, and Google—the most valuable brand in the world—took a large step toward further defining and improving itself by taking a stand against the evil within the Chinese government last week.

For those who missed the news, last week Google issued a threat to shut down its operations in China after it discovered several, likely government-backed attempts to hack into its servers in order to uncover dissidents’ emails. Google also spoke against the continuing censorship of search results. The business press expressed general shock and awe at the move, wondering how any company could ignore China, and then speculating that this was merely a way for Google to save face in a market where it is not the leader.

I do believe this was a highly calculated move by Google and its company leaders—they would never make such a big move without a lot of strategic thinking and analysis. However I believe the company’s choice is not another Machiavellian move by a bunch of MBAs. Rather, it is the product of a company culture that is founded on a desire to truly improve the world, and a fear for “doing evil.”

Since its very early days as a public company, Google has acted in ways that exemplify its culture, while founding hardcore capitalists. Google allows people to spend 20% of their time on projects of their own choosing. They splurge on free gourmet meals for all employees. And when the company issued an IPO it warned prospective shareholders that it would focus on the long term and refrain from artificially smoothing out earnings results to make large investors happy.

Perhaps one of its most-debated cultural features is the company’s belief that “You can make money without doing evil.” This phrase has attracted many positive feelings toward Google, especially in the technology world where everyone from dominant leaders such as Microsoft to legions of spammers and phishers abuse their access to our computers. This statement has opened Google up to criticism as well—ranging from its avoidance of taxes in the U.K. to using its leading search business to crowd out competitors in new markets. But nothing challenged the company more both internally and among the court of public opinion as when Google agreed to the Chinese government’s demand for censored results when it entered the country in January 2006.

We will likely never know what the conversations were like back then or now in the offices of Google’s leadership. But I believe the censorship issue has been a personal pain-point for some time. I choose the words “personal pain-point” very carefully, as I believe these leaders and many Google employees have had serious misgivings about playing along with government censorship. This is a company that believes that access to information can make the world a better place. The leaders have more money than they could ever spend. And they have a lot of people on their side. The flagrant hacking attempt was probably the personal breaking point.

This, my friends, is why Google is the best brand in the world. The company and its people believe in something good, and genuinely desire to make the world a better place. This is why people in China are laying flowers at the company headquarters sign in Beijing. And if it continues to follow these core values, Google will be a leading company for many years to come. Who knows—Google might even help finally usher in human rights reforms and freedoms in one of the largest corners of the world.

One of the other interesting lessons here is to observe how few companies we could imagine taking a similar stand. No other tech company jumped to Google’s side, and I struggle to think of any other large company in any industry that might follow its lead (much less lead to begin with). Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer has already blown off any thoughts of leaving the country. Not surprising at all; this follows Ballmer’s personality and Microsoft’s culture very well—it is a company based on beating competitors and retaining power. At least he has a personal and company culture, I suppose, as most leaders are simply beholden to the annual bonus and short-term shareholder demands.

I will continue to follow this story closely and root for Google in its heroic stand against evil. Meanwhile, I’ll continue using as many Google products and services as I can get my hands on. I hope you do the same.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Government, culture | 2 Comments »

Big Brands Borrowing Interest Everywhere

Monday, May 11th, 2009

I’ve been watching more live television than normal lately, mainly because I’ve gotten the NBA Playoffs bug. Something that has amazed me as I dip back into “normal” non-ad-skipped TV viewing is that there are a LOT of television commercials for big brands that advertise completely different products. Here are some examples:

Microsoft advertises Quiksilver. In this ad, Microsoft plays a sketchy and scratchy phone interview with Quiksilver President and CEO Bob McKnight, and we learn that “without technology, we would be nowhere.” There’s nothing in the ad about Microsoft, other than an animated, wadded-up piece of paper suggesting that Microsoft technology is “people ready.”

AT&T advertises TOMS Shoes. In the ad below, we follow the day of Blake, Chief Shoe Giver of TOMS Shoes. During a 30-second span, we learn that for every pair of shoes the company sells, it actually gives away a pair to a child in need. Blake is running around the world giving away shoes, so he depends on a global communication network that works. While his company doesn’t clearly endorse or even mention AT&T, there is a simulated, branded screen on Blake’s BlackBerry.

TrueNorth Snacks advertises Inspiration Cafe. This is one of a handful of ads in which TrueNorth (a Frito-Lay brand) highlights the story of an individual who is improving the world. The ad below (which I wrote about in this blog post a few months ago), tells the story of Lisa Nigro, who created the Inspiration Cafe to serve Chicago’s homeless population with dignity and respect.

There you have it: Three really big companies are spending millions of dollars on media and commercial production to advertise other brands. In each case, the spending brand plays a very minor part in the background of the message, somehow “powering” the featured businesses, or in TrueNorth’s case, sharing a mission to change the world.

My Takeaways:

1. Many brands are struggling to find a purpose and become meaningful. The fact that these brands cannot find a way to stand out on their own suggests a breakdown in their brand equities. I cannot fault these brands for leveraging others’ stories to break through and attempt to connect with their target customers, but I believe borrowed interest is very, very difficult to win with in today’s market. First, in a 30-second sitting when people are barely paying attention, they are lucky to recall the featured brand, much less the “sponsor” of the ad. My wife, for example, recalled everything about the TOMS Shoes commercial when the topic came up over dinner the other night, but she had no clue that AT&T was involved.

Second, people love TOMS Shoes for what it does, and likely cast aside the very weak connection to whatever global communications network the company happens to use. Further, I find it weak that none of these brands is actually doing something to be part of the mission/vision of the organizations they are borrowing interest from. AT&T is not offering free mobile service to TOMS Shoes efforts around the world, and TrueNorth is not actually helping establish new Inspiration Cafes around the country.

2. Meaningful brands attract attention, and maybe even free advertising. I tell people all of the time that there has never been a better time to launch a new brand. The costs of launching a new product are declining everywhere thanks to contract manufacturing efficiency and low-cost global marketing tools on the Web. All you need is a quality product, great story, and some fans to personally spread the buzz. Now add in the fact that big companies just might swoop in and put tens of millions of dollars of marketing support into your lap for the chance to borrow your mojo. Hell, the ads above show that your new brand doesn’t even have to explicitly endorse the big spenders.

So what should Microsoft, AT&T, and TrueNorth be doing instead? Simple: not rest until they have found a way for their brands to become cherished by their customers. Commit the entire organization to a brand purpose that resonates with the target customer, and then create marketing that itself delivers meaning.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Marketing Without Meaning, non-profit | 3 Comments »

The Year of… Equity Campaigns?

Thursday, January 15th, 2009

It’s 12:18 a.m. as I write this. I’ve been continuing work since putting the kids down for bed at 8 p.m. But something is keeping me awake—marketing WITHOUT meaning. It will keep me up even later if I don’t address it now!

In the past few days, I have run across several examples of big, powerful brands that are attempting to correct falling sales by simply launching a new TV campaign. All are losing opportunities to actually do something for people, rather than simply talking about themselves (see last Friday’s post for a good review of “do”). The script is usually the same: Sales are down; CMO and ad agency are fired; new ones are hired, and they need to recast the brand in a more relevant light. Solution: a brand-new ad campaign (preferably with celebrities) and a few hundred million to put it on air (preferably during the Super Bowl).

Gatorade first caught my eye with its “What’s G?” ads. A series of black-and-white commercials with voice-over of rapper Lil Wayne scrolls past a who’s who of celebrity athletes. I captured a screen grab above of some other individuals who make an appearance in the ads.

Most people who view the “What’s G?” ads are saying, “What the heck?” Viewers debate on Web forums that it might be for Nike, Guess Jeans, or… God. Some even thought it was the next Saturday Night Live digital short (that’s never good). The brand actually says the mystery was planned. According to spokeswoman Jill Kinney, “Our strategy is to create consumer intrigue and insure everyone stays tuned for more in our quest for G.”

Unfortunately, most viewers have tuned out. Number of YouTube views is the closest thing we have to a measure of a video or commercial’s popularity. It’s a good way to measure meaningful marketing—if people like something, they will choose to engage with it and share it with friends, who will view it in turn. The brand’s YouTube page shows a total of around 180,000 total views across its six posted commercials since its launch on December 23. That’s not exactly a home run.

For comparison, we just announced today that our Working Lunch live improv program for Healthy Choice has gotten 2 million video plays in only three weeks. I can guarantee our budget was a fraction of Gatorade’s! The main difference? Our program actually delivers value—it’s an entertaining program that allows the audience to play a role—while Gatorade is just talking at its audience as usual.

Gatorade is certainly not the only one using this cliche marketing playbook. Microsoft infamously launched its Bill Gates + Jerry Seinfeld “ad about nothing” over the summer thanks to Crispin Porter + Bogusky (who I usually praise here). Honda has hired celebrities to talk about “The Power of Dreams” in long-form ads that are appearing before short videos on ABC.com and Hulu. And Coca-Cola will unveil its new slogan, Open Happiness, with feel-good Super Bowl ads in two weeks.

Let’s compare these to other, smaller brands that have succeeded with something different. Red Bull has gained on Coke and Gatorade by launching events around the world. Scion became the best-selling new car brand by hosting invitation-only underground art shows. Google has never advertised on television; it just keeps pumping out valuable services.

Look, TV still remains the largest stage to get in front of consumers, and each of these brands certainly sells a “mass” audience. But I’m disappointed that none of them is trying anything truly meaningful. I predict that none of these campaigns will make a significant difference in the equity or sales of the brands that launch them.

A new TV campaign is the old success formula and definitely the path of least resistance, but the only kind of marketing that will drive breakthrough results is that which people choose to engage with—and that which itself adds value to people’s lives.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Marketing Without Meaning, Television | 2 Comments »