Three-initial nobodies

Anyone who's followed this blog know I rail about companies who insist on labeling themselves with three-word, multi-sylabic names that inevitably become three-initial names. Three-initial names are just that: three initials - no meaning, no humanity, no BRAND.

Turns out I'm not the only guy who thinks that way. I refer you to Bob Killian's latest newsletter. Bob is top dog at Killian Advertising, and I've enjoyed his commentary on branding and marketing practices for several years now. Always insightful, well-written and refreshing.

Anyway, you can read his commentary on three-initial names at:

http://www.killianadvertising.com/wp20.html

Martin Jelsema
Signature Strategies
Helping smaller companies profit from the power of branding

A branding dilemma

There's something of a dilemma in branding that harkens back to several blogs I've penned in the past month or two about tension in branding.

I expressed the need for a powerful brand to create a certain tension between novel and utilitarian.

This is really a concern when branding a new company, product or service. For the consumer to put a new product in context to their needs and desires, they must have some sort of understanding of the purpose of the brand - they must comprehend its utility.

In my own sphere, I'm still not clear just what Blackberry means to me. Nor do I know enough about Blue Tooth to know if it even applies to me. Until I've actually experienced the technology and gotten past the strangeness of it can I begin to appreciate its benefits to me.

So do I begin by branding uniquely and then through my marketing efforts build some familiarity, or do I attempt to brand  based on knowing my customer's collective mind-set well enough to make the new product familiar right from the beginning?

To me the challenge is to brand with a novel name and icon structure that conveys benefit in a context in which customers can immediately identify.

Most technologically driven companies won't stand for that. They claim the product is so revolutionary that it's no longer

relevant to "the old paradigm". So begins the long gestation period where market segments, usually one at a time, begin to "get it".

There's a bit of arrogance in this position. And an expensive approach to market penetration.

So I say, yes, make sure the branding elements are unique, but place them and your "brand story" in the familiar arena of your prospects' frame of reference.

Martin Jelsema
Signature Strategies
Helping smaller companies profit from the power of branding

The Yellow Book...

is using borrowed interest in an awareness-raising campaign. An awareness-building campaign using borrowed interest? That's almost an oxymoron.

The commercial I've seen suggests that Yellow Book could expand into all sorts of other businesses - skate boards, clothing, and four or five others. Each suggestion has the Yellow Book prominently displayed on a skate board, etc. Then it ends by saying, well, perhaps we'll just continue as a phone directory.

If you had no awareness of Yellow Book, this would certainly be a confusing ad. If you did, it gave you no reason to use it.

I was a newly-hired account executive with a prominent NYC ad agency back in the 1960's on an account called SBC - Service Bureau Corporation. It had just been "unbundled" from IBM and needed to establish awareness with the business community.

Our creative staff came up with a campaign based on borrowed interest. Each cartoon-like illustration featured an irrelevant character (I remember a trapeze artist) and a headline that said something about "this guy doesn't need to know about SBC".

I quietly told the account supervisor about my doubt that this approach would garner relevant awareness, but in this shop, creative was king. He told me to go sell the campaign.

Two months later, I was gone, and the campaign lasted just another couple of months before SBC changed agencies.

For me, I'd find things of interest and relevance in my company and its products. Then I'd promote them to people who might have an interest in those benefits.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, or maybe I'm a sly old fox. What do you think?

Martin Jelsema
Signature Strategies

Helping smaller companies profit from the power of branding

Is "Plus" a differentiator?

As I've admonished anyone who'll listen, the key to building a successful brand is to differentiate your company or offering in such a way that you stand out from competitors, and that your differentiator will be hard to imitate.

So, what do you think of those companies whose name states their prime business and then goes on to expand upon that idea? It's like being in the prime business is just not enough.

I'm thinking of companies like Bed, Bath & Beyond; Brakes Plus, and Containers & More.

Did they rationalize that "more" differentiates them? Or were they afraid they'd miss customers if they really niched, so they  "hedged their bets" with a name expansion?

Jack Trout, author with Steve Rivkin of Differentiate or Die, states that "breadth of line" is a difficult way to differentiate. It costs lots of money, competitors with money can copy this strategy easily, it blurs what the brand represents.

For really big box chains, having lots of inventory may be a customer plus in and of itself, but most of those stores - Home Depot, Pep Boys, CompUSA - never claimed to narrowly focus in the first place. Their differentiation is a combination of breadth of line, lower prices and customer service. Within their retail categories - home improvement, automotive after market, and hi-tech electronics - they can and do focus.

I'd like to hear from you on this subject: Is adding a name expansion helpful in establishing a solid brand? Does it dilute the company's primary differentiator, or does it enhance it?

Martin Jelsema
Signature Strategies
Helping smaller companies profit from the power of branding