My Christmas Wish List: Give Garmin a Garmin, Budweiser a "Just Say No" Button

I've been pondering what to give as Guts Branding company gifts this holiday season. While my list is pretty long, and I've checked it more than twice, I've settled on two: I'd like to give Garmin a Garmin, and Budweiser a "Just Say No" button.

To get our bearings, I'll start with Garmin. The GPS maker is now selling a pair of watches, the Forerunner 50 and FR60 fitness. Neither is GPS-enabled.

Some might argue it's only two watches. Sorry, any product that isn't GPS-enabled is working against its brand. It's like Subaru selling a front-wheel drive vehicle, Starbucks adding drive-throughs and Budweiser creating yet another brand extension (more on that below).

To me, this is an indication that Garmin is losing its way and giving into bottom-line pressures. In the short run, it might see an increase in revenue with more products. But brand is a marathon. Over time, the more non-GPS products Garmin introduces, the more it will dilute its brand. Margins will shrink and the door will open for a more focused competitors.

Garmin: Switch on the Garmin and get back on track before you lose all sense of direction and drive your customers away.
__________________________________

If Budweiser is the King of Beers, Anheuser-Busch (A-B InBev) is the king of brand extensions. It's latest: Bud Select 55. It's touting the fewest calories, 55. Hence, the name.

I've yet to try Bud Select 55 but a friend who recently did said it was kinda watery. To me, what's really getting watered down is Budweiser. What are the differences between Budweiser Select, Bud Select 55, and Bud Light? Bud Select 55 claims it's the lightest beer. What about Bud Light? Oh, wait, Bud Light is about drinkability. Does that imply Bud Select 55 isn't drinkable? Is Budweiser Select neither drinkable or low something?

Bud Light and Budweiser continue to be the top selling domestic beers (Bud Light is actually number one, so who is really the King of Beers?). So, what's the problem? To begin, only one other A-B beer ranks in the top 10 domestically, Michelob Ultra. Interesting, you don't see the word Bud anywhere in the Michelob name.

According to one source, domestic beer sales as a category have dropped 22% since 2000 and 7% of that came in 2008. And A-B sells half as much beer as it did 15-20 years ago yet has over twice as many labels. Hmm.

Here come the arguments as to why domestic beer sales are slipping: People are more health conscious and drinking less beer and more wine. Maybe. But how do you explain the continuing surge of import beer sales in these United States?

Another argument: There are simply more brands of beer to choose from than ever before. True (hey, wasn't that a Bud Light campaign from the past? I digress). But that doesn't explain the categorical differences in sales trends between domestic and import beer.

One thing that can't be argued: With some 50 different labels, A-B is a big contributor to the ever-expanding beer aisle.

The top-selling import beers in the U.S. seem to have something in common: Fewer brand extensions. Heineken is the overall top-selling import with five siblings (though, it's moving in the wrong direction as well). Corona is the top-selling Mexican beer and has just two labels. Amstel Light is the top-selling European beer in the U.S. and has just three other versions.

Contrast that with some 15 kinds of Budweiser.

My recommendation to A-B: Let all other beer brands out of the stable except the following, and position accordingly:

Budweiser: Fuller-tasting All-American beer.
Bud Light: The drinkable light beer.
Michelob Ultra: The low-carb beer.
Select 55 (drop the "Bud" in the name): The low-cal beer.
Rolling Rock: The domestic micro-beer.
Natural: Cheap beer targeting legal-aged college kids.
Redbridge: The gluten-free beer.

This kind of focus would require sacrificing over 40 labels. But none of them are in the top-10 in domestic sales anyway. Subsequently, A-B would eliminate much of the domestic competition that it actually created.

By focusing on owning categories rather than brand extensions, A-B would eliminate confusion, cannibalization and most likely improve profitability.

I have been told repeatedly, especially recently - must also be the season for giving me something: Grief - that my points of view do not take into consideration a company's commitment to its stockholders. You won't get any argument from me. Because stockholders ultimately matter less than the real stakeholders: People that buy your products.

Companies can survive without boards. Companies cannot survive without customers.

Happy Holidays from Guts Branding!

Two Brands, Different Decisions

A former television news media client of mine just recently switched Internet Service Providers. It got a cheaper deal. Hey, who isn't looking to save a buck where they can in this economy.

That same week, there was major breaking news in this market. The body of a missing 9-year-old girl was found plus an arrest. My former client was all over it on its Web site. Immediacy and responsiveness are critical drivers of its brand mission. That laser focus and commitment to living its brand mission the past few years are the reason it is now the viewers' go-to source in the market for breaking news and weather.

Wanna guess what happened when the masses came looking for late-breaking developments on its Web site? A door slammed in their faces. A "do not" enter sign. A broken promise.

You see, when it paid more it got more bandwith. Now, it pays less and gets less bandwith. The Web site shutdown from too much traffic.

Wanna guess what information-hungry consumers probably did next? They went elsewhere. To competitors. And that leaves a mark.

You see, consumers don't care about your excuses. They want what they expect from you - what you've promised - each and every time they need it. Break that trust enough and they will ultimately break up with you.

Station ownership is private equity. Definitely bottom-line thinkers. Can't really blame them for trying to run lean. But they are shooting themselves in the foot. By nickel and dime-ing it, this news brand, after spending the past couple years earning back viewers' trust, has taken the first step toward breaking its contract with its customers. Isn't it customers that ultimately pay the bills and help you realize a return on your investment?

Now, some contrast. Last week, a new online-only news Web site, the Texas Tribune (http://www.texastribune.org/), went live. A few days later, in its own back yard, the tragic Fort Hood shootings.

The Texas Tribune could have covered it and in person. But it didn't. Why in the world wouldn't it?

"It wasn't our story. Should we have been just one more news organization that rushed to Fort Hood? I don't think so, " said reporter Matt Stiles, who joined Texas Tribune from the Houston Chronicle.

"We're about public policy and politics," said Evan Smith, one of the founders of the new not-for-profit. "What I wasn't going to do was send someone racing up the Interstate to cover something, however important, that wasn't ours."

Let those two quotes sink in for a bit.

Here is a brand-spanking new brand that could benefit from sampling. But instead it made a brand decision, not a bottom-line one. Time will tell how successful their enterprise will be. But it's off to a good brand start.

First, it appears the Texas Tribune has done an excellent job of immersing its staff of 12 mostly seasoned, enterprise journalists in its brand. They seem to grasp who they are and who they aren't. The Texas Tribune is creating it from the inside out, the only way to build an authentic brand and insure a consistent experience each and every time, at every point of contact, for customers and prospects.

Second, reminiscent of Southwest Airlines, it has a unique business model (funded by investors, endowment and donations) that allows it to be a brand first and foremost.

The Texas Tribune early on gets that your brand should be your most valuable asset, the thing you protect at all costs. That's THE real bottom line.

These are my Guts Feelings.

Kurt Bartolich
Founder, Brand Internalist
Guts Branding
www.kbartolich@gmail.com

Why Integrated (Insert Marketing or Brand) Is Backwards Thinking - FOLLOWUP

I read a review about the integrated marketing conference (see my previous blog) in the KC Star this morning. One quote in particular by a conference organizer got my dander up: "Your brand is not what you say about yourself. It's about what others are saying about you." She was referring to the impact social media has today on brands.

I guess she'd better get busy alerting the folks at Google, Nike, Volvo, Ritz-Carlton, OnStar, Coca-Cola, EA Sports, BMW, YouTube, Victoria's Secret, FOX Newschannel, Zappos, Southwest Airlines, Verizon, Maytag, Apple, etc., etc., that they should shut up now and stop force-feeding their respective messages about safety, driving experience, conservative values, freedom, dependability, etc., down our throats.

But let's not let facts get in the way. Like, virtually everyone of those brands I listed, that continue "pushing" out to consumers, dominates it's category.

I get that social media has changed the landscape of marketing. It can create groundswell, both good and bad, and you should have the cup against the social media wall to know what's being said about you. But I liken it to producing a commercial: When editing, you start with the offline or basic edit followed by the online or final post. You would never go to air with just an offline edit. So, why would you make decisions based on social chatter that has no controls in place for the sample, weighting and statistical accuracy?

If you are seeing or hearing things about your brand in social media venues, by all means, investigate. Just substantiate it. The woman in the article also noted that blogs are influential but lack credibility. I too have seen this in research. To draw a parallel, in a study conducted a couple of years ago by my former employer, Frank N. Magid Associates, Inc., a question was posed to Millennials (also loyal viewers of) about The Daily Show, and if it influenced their political points of view. It was an overwhelming, "no." One respondent went so far as to say, "it's on Comedy Central after all." People are smarter and savvier than marketers give them credit. Aren't Facebook and Twitter really just condensed blogs?

Building a brand has always, and will always be, a joint venture, driven by the company first. That's because a brand is a promise. It's the company that initiates the handshake. Smart companies do their homework first by finding and exposing the gaps - and unmet or under served needs - in the market place, then reaching out. The consumer's role is to help dial in, and articulate back, important things like what it means to them, if it's satisfying their desires, if it's fulfilling the promise, if it's veering off course, competitive perceptions, etc.

These are my Guts Feelings.

Kurt Bartolich
Founder/Brand Internalist
Guts Branding

Why Integrated (Insert Marketing or Brand) Is Backwards Thinking

I recently received an email invitation to an "Integrated Marketing" conference in my hometown. From the description, it promised that attendees would experience the future of marketing.

Actually, my first exposure to the term, "Integrated (insert brand or marketing here)," was through a young woman fresh out of college who joined the same company I was working for a few years ago. She often spoke about integrated brand and her desire to become more involved with it, and to get our clients to practice it. I had never heard of the concept until that moment. I admit I didn't quite understand it.

Perhaps, I was naive. Had my head buried in the sand. Maybe, I was just too old school for those super-smart Millennials.

But I had a hard time believing any of those things to be completely true because many of my clients were in rapid ascent mode, chewing up large chunks of market share and spitting out competitors. More importantly, they were building strong foundations to sustain their trajectories.

Instinctively, it seemed to me, integrated (insert marketing or brand) was another of those new-fangled buzzwords or phrases that comes out of nowhere but everyone starts using like, vertical strategy, optimization, value justification, etc. Marketers...gotta love 'em. Great at pilfering, repurposing and repackaging.

My gut reaction to the phrase, integrated (insert marketing or brand), was "really?" That's because I've ALWAYS practiced - and counseled clients - that their brand is their strategy, and everything they do, every decision they make, every program they initiate or system they build, every person they hire, every campaign they create, every dime they spend, etc., should be birthed and governed by their brand mission. If you haven't been thinking this way all along, there is a good chance you are not the dominate brand in your category. If you aren't thinking this way, and you happen to be the leading brand in your category, you are probably on top for reasons out of your control. Regardless, you are vulnerable.

Let me further explain: By embracing the notion, integrated (insert brand or marketing), you are essentially buying into the idea that you must fit together all of your company's existing pieces to create one idea or image. The biggest flaw in this thinking is believing that you can simply fit those pieces together to form the same image. Chances are, your parts and pieces were created independently and tactically to address a particular and present concern or need. Over time, they stack up. Stacks of unrelated things add up to confusion in the mind.

Essentially, integrated (insert marketing or brand) is backwards thinking.

That's because brand is the all-encompassing thing. Brand is your strategy. It comes first. Therefore, everything you do should flow forth from your brand, not be cobbled together to fit it. Your brand should dictate all the pieces you create. If this isn't the case, it's going to take separation, not integration, from those things that don't fit the brand, and the formation of new things that do fit it, in order for all of your parts and pieces to naturally form that single (and hopefully, distinct) impression.

Brand should also be your business model. Few brands were ever born from a spreadsheet. Though, many have been killed by one. Southwest Airlines is a terrific example of this premise. It's business model has always been about efficiencies. It makes no bones about it. SWA also leverages it in ways to create a fun, easy, and hassle-free experience for customers, whereas other airlines, that are now clamoring to streamline, are making customers feel like victims of their inefficiencies...and appearing to be greedy. Southwest's latest assault, the campaign about bags flying free, is brilliant. It was born from its brand mission and provides stark contrast to what virtually every other carrier is doing. SWA continues to separate itself in relevant, meaningful ways.

Southwest is also a shining example of creating a culture that bleeds its brand at every single point of contact, so promise and payoff are always one. That's how you create an authentic brand. It might just be the best example of building a transparent (had to throw in a buzzword) brand from the guts of its organization out to the consumer.

By the time I write my next blog in a few weeks, I bet there will be dozens of new buzzwords in the mainstream attached to revolutionary promises. Heck, I've already come across a Web site that portends to create your personal brand through aggregation (fancy term for integration) of all your social and professional sites. Sounds like another example of "integration." You can believe the hype if you want. Or, you can stick with what really works and always will: Building a brand from inside your organization out to your customers.

These are my Guts Feelings.

Kurt Bartolich, Founder/Brand Internalist, Guts Branding

These are my Guts Feelings.

kbartolich@gmail.com

Starbucks Heading Further Away From Home VIA New Ready Brew

According to dictionary.com, the word "via" in preposition form is defined as "by a route that touches or passes through." VIA is also the brand name of the new instant coffee from Starbucks. I was introduced to it last week by a young Barista. She made sure I understood that it's good for when you're at sporting events or camping out.

Or, as I retorted, "any place other than here."

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Starbucks built as a destination brand? Many referred to it as the "third place," with home and office being the other two. It seems Starbucks is moving closer to a new address: Your nearby Piggly Wiggly. Perhaps, it can persuade the grocery manager to put out a few bistro tables, pipe in some artsy music and install wireless Internet on Aisle 5.

If you feel compelled anymore to step inside a bricks and mortar version of Starbucks, take note of what's happening. It's redesigning, including installing new espresso machines, to make them more inviting and feel like your neighborhood, yet is launching products like VIA to send you away. In fact, the little trial sample of VIA I was handed has three boxes on the front that are X'd, with the first one denoting it's extra bold, the second to remind us (thank you) that it's coffee and the third to let us know we can take these little suckers "anywhere."

Exactly.

Guts Branding principle and reminder to Starbucks: Mass availability does not always equal mass consumption. In fact, making something less convenient, even in this era of instant access and on "our terms," still works if you have a powerful, desired brand. I once again cite CBS, the only network to grow in households and key selling demos in the 2008-2009 season. Unlike it's direct competitors, it made none of it's programming available via Hulu. You wanted CSI Miami, Two and Half Men or 48 Hours, you had to watch them on CBS's terms. What a novel concept.

Starbucks is again chasing "convenience," becoming more and more of a commodity and starting to blend (and not in the good coffee sense). That's physical and mental territory long-held by the likes of McDonald's and convenience stores. As much as I believe McDonald's could benefit from a good cup of focus, you don't see it packaging and selling its coffee in stores. At least not yet.

If you think about it, the Starbucks brand was originally built around the notion of "inconvenience." Loitering encouraged could have been their mantra. After all, that was a big piece of the original vision.

But then it was like the signs were switched overnight to no loitering when it added drivethroughs (at least you have to drive around the building rather than bypass it all together) to its grocery store line of prepackaged coffees, right there next to Folgers and Nescafe', which already dominates the instant coffee market. I'm sure VIA, which officially launches in two days, will have plenty of skews as well. One more reason to avoid your nearby Starbucks.

I'm really not anti-Starbucks. In fact, I wouldn't have a problem with VIA and other similar product offerings if Starbucks had started out as a store brand. Where I have a problem with it, or any other brand for that matter, is when after it tastes success, it travels in a direction opposite of what people want or expect from it. What if Subaru began making front-wheel drive vehicles or YouTube allowed people to post text-only stories?

My advice to Starbucks: Hit the brakes. Make a U-Turn. And find your way back home.

These are my Guts Feelings.

Fire Your "Offensive Coordinators" and You Might As Well Punt Your Brand

Earlier this week, my beloved Kansas City Chiefs fired their offensive coordinator. Head coach, Todd Haley, is now assuming that responsibility.

How many companies during this recession have fired or downsized their offensive coordinators, a.k.a, marketing professionals, and handed those responsibilities off to someone else, perhaps, in another department all together? Too many to count.

Indeed, times are tough. No business is immune. While the move by the Chiefs doesn't seem to be economically-driven, the impact will be the same: When you eliminate specialists, particularly those directly charged with brand communication, you are risking the future of your most valuable asset.

If you recall, in the 90s the old playbook was pitched and NFL head coaches tried tackling general manager responsibilities. And I'm not talking a bunch of second stringers. Future Hall-of-Famers, Mike Holmgren and Mike Shanahan, took a crack at it.

How did that work out? Not so well. It was too much for one person to handle. Divorce ensued shortly thereafter and teams went back to separate positions.

Why did this approach fail?

I offer a pragmatic but brand-centric reason: While the roles of the GM and head coach parallel in dealing with player personnel, functionally, they are on completely different playing fields. In a nutshell, the GM handles the bottom-line and the head coach handles the sidelines.

And you simply can't do two different things simultaneously well.

Specialization is the foundation of any powerful brand. FOX Newschannel can only be conservative, Las Vegas can only be sin city and Victoria's Secret can only be sexy lingerie. What would happen if FOX News tried to be both conservative and liberal? Vegas tried to sell itself as a family destination? Victoria's Secret marketed business attire? First, those positions are already taken, so it would fail on that level. Subsequently, they would dilute their own specializations, leading to mind share and ultimately market share erosion.

Todd Haley has credentials as an offensive coordinator. He called plays in last year's Super Bowl. But he has a different focus now, that is much different than being an offensive coordinator. It should be on pulling together a team of specialists like the defensive coordinator, offensive line coach and the training staff toward the common goal.

A head coach usually creates and manages the team's brand personality like Bill Walsh and his West Coast Offense, Chuck Noll's Steel Curtain, and Dick Vermeil's Greatest Show on Turf. Ensuring that ever person from the field up to the owner's box is living the brand is a full-time job in and of itself. It's going to be difficult for Haley to stay strategically-focused when he's tactically drawing plays in the dirt.

When you try to focus on two things at once, you end up making compromises to one side or the other but usually both. It takes absolute, undivided attention on one thing to be a specialist, to be a brand.

So, when you punt your marketing professionals, and hand these critical to your bottom-line responsibilities off to say your sales manager or business manager, you are taking the first steps towards killing your brand. You are sending the signal inside your organization that brand is not your priority without even realizing it. Whomever assumes marketing responsibilities, will in turn lose focus in their area of specialization. More dominoes will fall inside your organization that will eventually have an impact outside it.

If brand isn't your main focus, and building it from inside your organization out to customers and prospects, it should be. Nearly $210 million of the The Dallas Cowboys overall value is attributed to brand management. While there are other things that factor into the overall value of an organization, Jerry Jones' new stadium will eventually grow old and depreciate. The NFL revenue-sharing model that is so lucrative for teams could change. Star players will come and go. But your brand is really the only thing you can control. As your most important asset, it needs to be nurtured and grown by specialists, not handed off as an afterthought to bean counters and tactical thinkers in a short-sighted effort to save money now.

While there is great optimism under the new regime at Arrowhead Stadium, and I'm personally excited about it and Haley, it's his first time as a head coach, he inherits a team coming off a 2-14 season, and his starting quarterback is already injured and the season hasn't even kicked off yet. He already had a lot of balls in the air. He just added another big one, and that makes it even more likely he'll commit some costly fumbles this season.

These are my Guts Feelings.

What's In A Name? Everything!

Do you call it H1N1 or Swine Flu? Did you call it the Car Allowance Rebate System or Cash for Clunkers? Do you say Economic Stimulus Package or Government Bailout?

Unless you're a medical professional or a government employee, the latter most likely in all three instances.

For the same reason we use U.P.S., not United Parcel Service, FedEx not Federal Express, and I.B.M. not International Business Machine, our complex minds deal more efficiently and effectively with simple things. Or, as the old saying goes, K.I.S.S! (Keep It Simple Stupid).

But simple isn't enough. I recently worked with a client on developing a brand name. They got the simple premise, but weren't grasping the other two critical ingredients: Unique and memorable. This client was locked into a brand name that was generic like The Dog Groomer or H-E-B. These might be simple, but they aren't unique nor memorable. Names like Doggy Style (yes, it is a real name) and Whole Foods are, satisfying all three criteria.

Working with media clients over the years, particularly local market televisions stations, I encountered brand name issues often. Station call letters created the conundrum. With a few exceptions, most were forgettable. Only people on the inside knew what acronyms like KRGV, KSHB or WPPY stood for. Most viewers use channel numbers as their reference point. Yet, in markets where ratings are determined by how viewers fill out diaries, call letters is one way to receive credit for a program that was viewed. But if viewers don't remember who they are watching, what's the point? Call letters like KARE, WOOD and KAKE are the exceptions. Why? They form a word. Words are more memorable than acronyms.

You might be thinking at this point I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth. After all, I did mention U.P.S. and I.B.M. earlier. But they didn't start out as acronyms. They were birthed as words, much like the Entertainment and Sports Programming Network (ESPN) and shortened after being established over time. In these rare instances, they became more memorable as acronyms because in word form weren't unique, simple or memorable.

That opens up another can of worms: Names that on the surface really have nothing to do with the product itself like Nike, Amazon and Yahoo! Yet, I'd be surprised if anyone doesn't know what they represent. You can redefine the meaning of a word (think: "Spam" and "Blackberry") with the right strategy. Over time, the name and idea can become synonymous.

Don't let lack of URL availability influence your decision on a brand name. Do you think Google, Spike and Target would have changed their brand names if the respective URLs weren't available? My guess is they would have done whatever they could to secure the URLs even if they were already taken. Why? Keep in mind that Coca-Cola (mostly referred to as Coke, another example of simplification) is worth about $66 billion but it's physical assets are worth just around six billion. What accounts for the difference? Brand essence and brand name. Find the right brand name first and then find the ways and means to take complete ownership.

When you consider that what you do can ultimately be copied but not your brand name, then you must do everything you can to create one that is unique, simple and memorable, distills the essence of who you are and/or what you do, and won't be confused with anyone else in the mind.
These are my Guts feelings.