HOW DO YOU KNOW your brand has extraordinary equity? When customers begin producing your advertising. And in this case, we could say as much for the brand equity of NYC as AAPL. (It's also an excellent example of how the Web is turning us from information consumers to information producers and distributors. See more here.)

The New Branding Cliché

AMAZING HOW APPLE has become the new branding cliché. Seems I see references to Apple’s brand, and in particular the iPod sub-brand, in executive speeches at every turn, and almost always in the context of “we need to be like this!”

Frankly, I don’t know that it’s in the best interest of every brand to strive for an iPod-esque, cult-like following. It depends on the brand attributes that the product or service naturally lend themselves to extending.

In the mid-1990s I was doing a lot of work with utility companies, most of which were going through deregulation and searching for new, non-regulated ways of making money. As they did, most were investing a bunch of cash in branding consultants to help them identify their new post-regulation brand identities. We saw brand essences along the lines of (fictional examples here) “Bringing Life to Life” and “Energizing Families, Energizing Futures.”

When the dust settled, these all fell flat. I don’t think there’s a consumer out there who’s going to perceive in themselves dramatically different personal attributes because of their electric utility. My energy company does not make me cool. I do not (and will not) think of it as the essential link in bringing my life to life or energizing my future. It’s a reach to say that I could better define myself as a person through my selection of gas company. What I want from an energy provider is reliability and the lowest possible cost: not much more, not much less. I will find brands that suggest efficiency and reliability appealing; any utility that tries to make me feel cool or smart or sexy or edgy or part of a special club will only look, well, foolish.

This is why I think Con Ed’s recent brand identity (disclosure: a CRA client and at times a client of mine, but for work unrelated to branding), “On It,” makes sense. Did they take some cheap shots when they rolled “On It” out to employees and the public? Sure. A creative and eloquent cynic can do a lot of things with a phrase like “On It.” But the brand essence captured what most people want from their electric company: reliability and responsiveness. It made sense. It won’t build any cult-like allegiances, but that’s not what they aim to do (regulated provider or not).

Every company should have a well-defined brand essence. Their brand should be compelling to their consumers. All elements of their consumer experience should be thematically consistent with that brand. If these things occur, the company will benefit. But these efforts need to be rooted in what’s relevant to the consumer, and not all consumer needs, when well met, will create cult-like loyalty.

It will be interesting to see what time makes of companies chasing the Apple standard. Some will surely stay the course and fulfill solid but realistic branding expectations. Most, I suspect, when they realize their brand isn’t up to Apple-snuff, will change direction yet again … and further dilute their brands as a result.

Tags: branding, apple

On Google

I'M INCREASINGLY CONVINCED that Google is one of the best-managed, highest-potential companies in the United States. I have no proof other than heuristics, the most powerful of which is my impression that everything the company does leaves me satisfied and impressed.

The search is just what I would want, and more. Gmail is just what I would want, and more. Google Maps is just what I would want, and more. Google Earth is just what I would want, and more ... and on it goes (although, admittedly, I outgrew Blogger pretty quickly, but it's right for its intended market). And these services get better all the time.

Other things I like: Their long-standing approach to employing knowledge workers, which takes some spot-on management wisdom Druker started writing about in 1959 and uses it to grow a dot com that works. More: Google's non-pretentious way of talking about itself. Simple without being simplistic; clear without being superficial ... it's probably the best on-line representation of a company's "About" facts in the world. Finally, their pervasive sense of intelligent fun. Take as examples this collection of Google holiday logos, and this collection of "inside Google" photos.

It's tough to make money in the dot com world, but I think Google's going to do just fine.

Full disclosures: Google isn't a client, but I do own the stock. And even at its outrageous price, I plan to buy more.

* Scheduled post, written earlier.

SlowLane Blog?

THIS MORNING IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL[1]  I read that GM is going to restate results for 2001, and possibly, subsequent years. I then clicked over to the FastLane blog to read GM's take on the issue and found ... nothing. Nothing yet, at least, and I'll be interested to see if Lutz or others offer an account on the site.

What's more, I notice there's not much at all happening at FastLane these days. There are only three posts on the front page, and only five over the past six weeks or so. (compared to eight in May and 11 in June).

When FastLane debuted most new media observers credited the site with being the "right" way for a big company to publish an external blog: posts by senior leaders, not highly spun by the PR group, and a mix of marketing flogs and candid takes on the company.

Now, though, I wonder if the site's losing its steam. We lose steam at CommLog from time to time, but we also don't widely promote CommLog as a portal into our firm. If anything it's a mix of hobby for us and service for clients, with any branding benefits a plus.

Is FastLane becoming SlowLane? We'll see, but the announcement of earnings restatement is exactly what a company using blogs in the "right" way would use a blog for: to offer an authentic, not-press-release take on the issue to supplement their other communication efforts.

We'll see if they do.

1. Subscription only; here's a link to Reuters' story.
2. I posted this over at CommLog, too.
   

Johnny-Come-Lately

FROM THIS POST by Kevin Ohannessian over at FCN:

Most companies want to be cautious and minimize risk. But, to get the most out of any technological or scientific progress you have to just jump in and take the plunge. Anyone who acts quickly will benefit, and anyone who takes a wait and see approach will be Johnny-come-lately. Just look at Sony and the MP3 player. Or the American government and stem-cell research. But only those who throw caution to the wind and attempt the daring strategy will further innovation in a field, and make the profits that come with such a position.

As I noted in the comments: Well, yes and no. Often it's the Johnny-come-latelys that are able to exploit the innovation of a first-mover, scaling an innovation (or incorporating it into an already-scaled business model) in a way that the innovator cannot.

This is clearly the case with Microsoft, which has repeatedly seized upon and scaled innovations that originated elsewhere (MS Word following WordPerfect, Excel following Lotus 123, IE following Navigator); why, MSFT's embracing of the Internet itself was late to the game, coming only after B. Gates was convinced of the necessity during one of his Think Weeks (WSJ link; may require reg.).

So, yes: those who jump in are often rewarded (FEDEX: Great example). But for every example of a large company that missed the boat, I think you'll find an example of a company that thrives precisely because it's astute at evaluating innovation and then scaling a concept once the innovating company has proven that concept’s viability (and in doing so they minimize their potential risk by shifting it to the innovator).

The Innovator's Dilemma talks about the multiple facets of this issue at length, detailing the paradoxes large companies face in being able to both cultivate and exploit disruptive innovations. Well worth the read.