Ingredient brands are extremely useful when there is little to no “perceived” differentiation among brands (the word “perceived” is key here.) Think about banana. Unless you are an expert, you cannot tell if the fruit is tasty by simply inspecting the outside of the banana. That’s when the Dole seal of approval becomes handy. Same logic applies to computers. Dell, IBM, HP laptops might look different, but when it comes to performance we don’t know how to rate them. That’s why the Intel Inside marketing program was widely successful. Likewise, consider you will buy a snowboard glove. You might like certain brands and design, but to be 100% sure about performance, you would look for the “Gore-tex” seal of approval.

There you have it, an ingredient brand gives you peace of mind when you are buying a product that has little perceived differentiation. So, leave everything you are doing and create an ingredient brand. Right? Nope. Ingredient brands are particularly useful if your brand is weak, undifferentiated or average quality in a fairly commoditized category. If your brand does not fall under this category, then be very careful, because ingredient brands are dangerous!

Ingredient brands need “partners.” Ideally the partnership should be an equal one, where both the ingredient and the host get enough equity. However, powerful ingredient brands are like cancer for host brands: they suck most of the equity (thus the Spiderman alien Symbiote analogy.) Think about Teflon. Let’s say you are going to buy a non-stick pan and you already have a favourite brand. But what if your preferred brand does not have Teflon, and other brands have it? Which pan would you buy? Who has the equity? Where does the loyalty lie? Who makes more money?

Consider ingredient branding as “outsourcing.” Business strategists say that “core competencies” should not be outsourced. By the same logic, you should not accept an ingredient brand takes away your core competency. If you are in bicycle business and use Shimano gears, how will you differentiate your bicycles? Gear is where the “performance” lies. If you use Shimano gears like your competitors do, how different can you be? Instead try to find an ingredient brand that “compliments” your brand. Service? Connectivity? Guarantee?

Today’s actionable tip: When considering an ingredient brand “offering added value outside of your core competency” should be your mantra.

Mervin is a designer and manufacturer of snowboarding and skateboarding products. What I love the most about Mervin is its culture, which is the brand’s core differentiator: Mervin is managed and staffed by snowboarders (It is literally written on my GNU Carbon Credit) who innovate and experiment, ride and refine new shapes, constructions, geometries. The brand is by far the most innovative player in the snowboard business. Mervin’s constant “build, ride, refine” philosophy (IDEO calls it “quick prototyping”) has created many important developments in snowboard evolution. That philosophy and the brand’s quirky personality are the reasons why its clientele is loyal to the brand as religious fanatics. (I am one of them.) Mervin owns many brands and manages them almost to perfection. Let’s see what I mean.

When we talk about brand hierarchy and roles, we usually refer to five levels:

1. Corporate brand
2. Master brand
3. Sub brand
4. Product
5. Product descriptor

Corporate brand is often the parent company, which is usually not consumer facing. Mervin Manufacturing is a perfect example of a corporate brand. You cannot buy a Mervin board, binding or jacket. It is the holding entity (Actually Mervin is owned by Quicksilver, which is the higher corporate brand.)

It is the master brands that drive the customer relationship. They must have their own logos, personalities and values. Mervin owns five consumer brands: Lib Tech, GNU, Roxy, Freedom Dolly and Bent Metal. Every brand is unique. For instance GNU is “weird” in a cool way, whereas Lib Tech is more of a hardcore, performance-driven innovator.

Sub-brands are the differentiated brand promises within the master brand. In addition to five master brands, Mervin Manufacturing has two sub-brands: BTX (Banana Technologies) and MTX (Magne-traction). While MTX does not have its own look and feel (“Red flag” if Mervin is reading this!), BTX has its own logo. It even has variations. These are 2 great sub-brands that are shared by all Mervin boards. As a matter of fact, these sub-brands are also called ingredient brands, which we will discuss on the next article. (GNU also has the pickle technology, but I  don’t think Lib Tech is using it.)

Next, we have product lines. GNU has the Carbon Credit Series, the Street Series, Pickles and more. Lib Tech has the famous Travis Rice series. The role of a product line is to identify a specific form within the master brand. Products don’t have their own look and feel. That said, they might have proprietary fonts, but not their own logos.

Finally, we have product descriptors, which distinguish the uniqueness of the product. Within the Carbon Credit series, there are “Wide” boards. The “Wide” is the product descriptor.

As you can see, Mervin Manufacturing manages its complex brand portfolio very well. As far as I can see, the main red flag is the absence of a logo for Magne-traction. MTX is a clear differentiator for Mervin boards, just like BTX is. Therefore, it’d better have its own logo. Speaking of MTX and BTX, on the next article we will look at the two sub-brands and talk about “ingredient branding.”

1. Monolithic, where the corporate name is used on all products and services offered by the company;
2. Endorsed, where all sub-brands are linked to the corporate brand by means of either a verbal or visual endorsement;
3. Freestanding, where the corporate brand operates merely as a holding company, and each product or service is individually branded for its target market.”

A great example for the monolithic structure is Four Seasons. From hotels, to spas, from residences to private properties, everything is branded as Four Seasons. You deal with one brand. No confusion. Easy to manage. Yet, quite limiting.

Endorsed structure is the most common one. Think about Nestle. It is the name of the corporation, but it is also a master brand (You can buy a Nestle chocolate bar.) It has sub-brands such as Nesquik, Nesfit. It also has products such as Nestle KitKat.

Finally, the freestanding structure… It is best explained by Viacom. You have freestanding brands such as MTV, VH1, Paramount Pictures and Nickelodeon. In the minds of consumer, these brands are not attached to Viacom (except if you are an investor.)

Of course you ask yourself the big question: “How do I decide which structure to use for my brand?” Unfortunately, there is no easy answers. But, I can give you a cheat sheet. Wearing three hats (in the right order) can help you pick the right structure:

1. First, wear the consumer hat. We live in a world of over communication. Keep it simple. As Ian Wood of Landor says: “You should have as few brands as possible and as many as you need.” Do you think the consumer needs to build a relationship with a new brand? Or can you leverage your existing relationship with them?
2. Second, wear the business analyst hat. What business are you in? What is your brand’s differentiator? Do you think the new brand is aligned with your business strategy? For instance, if your business strategy is to sell mass market olive oil, then you need a new brand should you decide to enter premium olive oil market. More specifically think about Toyota and Lexus.
3. Finally, wear the financial analyst hat. Is it economically viable to create a new brand? Do you have resources (money, staff,and time) to invest in a new brand? Jack Trout once used the airplane analogy: “It takes 110 percent of rated power for a jet to get its wheels off the ground. Yet when it reaches 30,000 feet, the pilot can throttle back to 70 percent of power and still cruise at 600 miles per hour.” Launching a new brand is like an airplane taking off. Do you have what it takes to support a new brand?

On the next article we will talk about brand hierarchy and roles by dissecting one of my favourite brands of all time: Mervin Manufacturing.

Keep in mind that online brand audit is quite a methodical task. You may want to print webpages and create a big collage. Or maybe you use Evernote. The key is to keep a record of everything because we are going to accumulate a lot of information. For every brand, we will check three fundamental things: the brand’s websites, its online footprint and its visuals. This will be fun. Let’s see what we find out!

I always start my audit with the brand’s website. At this point we are trying to understand what the brand currently claims about itself. Highlight the key messages on its landing page. Pay particular attention to the “About Us” section. Most often this page contains facts, meaningless numbers and a soulless narrative. However, this is where your brand should communicate its story to the world! Check if there is a compelling narrative on the About Us section. Your personality, your values, what you stand for should all be reflected. That said, we like it better when those messages are subtle. You want the reader to feel that s/he’s personally addressed. As Chris Grams suggests, print out those pages and highlight key words and themes. If your brand does not have a compelling story here, then it won’t be compelling elsewhere.

Winner: Mont Sutton by a landslide. Here is how the brand describes itself. Doesn’t it make you want to go there? Wow!

Our second stop is Google. Type the name of the brand and see what the first official entry says. Mind you! Most often your brand is not what you say it is. It is what Google says it is! Do you convey a clear message on Google? Be succinct and compelling. Try to capture your core with that short message.

Winner: According to Google, Ski Bromont has the clearest and most complete message.

Next, we will check the brands’ online presence. Look at their Twitter accounts. Go to their Facebook pages. Read the Wikipedia entries about them. Here are a couple of things to pay attention to on Twitter:

1. How does the brand describe itself on Twitter? Is it consistent with your existing findings?
2. Does it use a colloquial language? Or does it treat Twitter as a channel to push news or sales?
3. Is it visually consistent with its website?

Winner: Owl’s Head. The brand is very approachable on Twitter. It responds to messages in an informal way. Feels like it is a member of a close-knit community. Also it does not overuse its Twitter account to promote its offers. As a rule of thumb, 1 in 4 messages should be about your promotions and the rest should be just conversation. Finally, is it possible to dislike that funny Owl?

Next, look at the brand’s Facebook page. Here is what you should pay attention to:

1. How does the brand describe itself on Facebook? Is it consistent with your existing findings?
2. Does the brand focus on engagement or sales? Does it respond to messages from its fans?
3. Does it reward its fans exclusively?
4. Is it integrated among all channels?
5. Does it offer customer support/service?

Winner: We have two winners: Ski Bromont has the largest community and it responds to its fans punctually. Mont Sutton too, deserves credit because of its Facebook Tree Planting campaign. That said, all of the mountains can learn more from studying the Facebook page of MAC Cosmetics.

Last, check the Wikipedia entry about the brand. Wikipedia is an entirely open, transparent platform and your brand is fairly naked there. That does not mean that you can’t participate though. People check your Wikipedia entry to get detailed information about you. Here is where you should list all the facts that you usually post on your About Us page. Spoil the readers with information. Aim to satisfy the knowledge thrust of your biggest brand advocates. Pay attention to these:

1. Is there a Wikipedia page about the brand? How extensive is it?
2. Is the content one sided? (Positive or negative) Or is it neutral?
3. Can you find absolutely all the information you are looking for?

Winner: None. Although Ski Bromont has the most complete entry, it is far from tapping into its great potential. This is where all four mountains should study Whistler Blackbcomb.

Finally, analyze brand elements such as name, logo, tagline and overall look and feel. Here are our winners:

• Name: We don’t have a winner here, as all ski resorts are understandably named after the respective mountains they are located at. That said, we realize that Ski Bromont has a brand architecture problem: The brand’s name is “Ski Bromont”. That said, the resort is open 4 seasons and even the Aquatic Parc or biking sections are under “Ski Bromont.” That creates confusion.
• Logo: Seems like Owl’s Head really nailed this one. Their iconic owl is ageless. It makes the brand approachable and its simplistic design makes it cool… Actually, very cool. Sutton is the runner up.

• Tagline: Mont Orford and Ski Bromont communicate the size of skiable area. I prefer Mont Orford as “3 mountains” clearly communicates grandeur. Either way, I think these two are better practices compared to Owl’s Head, which lists its services. Sutton does not use a tagline.
• Overall look and feel: Sutton has by far the best website. It is a treat for your eyes. The natural wood concept is consistently applied everywhere. Actually, Sutton has one of the best websites of ALL mountain resorts – not just among the ones in Eastern Townships.

Of course, this is just the online part of our brand audit. Nonetheless, if you follow the above-four steps, you will be able to find many insights about your brand. What do you think? Fire your comments!

Happy holidays to all!

2012 Global consumer trends by Euromonitor

2012 Consumer trends by Trendwatching

2012 Consumer trends by Trend-Strategy

2012 Retail trends by Retail is Detail

2012 Branding trends by Landor

2012 Colour trends by bvcolorstrategy

Michael Jordan is arguably the greatest basketball player of all times. But his skills and will are not enough to explain how he became the magnetic person that he is. During his Hall of Fame induction speech, Michael Jordan said: “There won’t be a new Michael Jordan.” This is a false statement, because who we knew and adored as “Michael Jordan” was actually not an individual. The magnet was the “Warrior/Hero archetype.”

Jordan was the ultimate ” Warrior/Hero” – an archetype that resonates extremely well with Americans. MJ followed the archetypal storyline: He was an ordinary guy from North Carolina, who stepped into an extraordinary world when he hit the game winner at the NCAA finals. Then, he encountered a new and superior enemy (first Bad Boys then Pat Riley’s Knicks), made new friends along the way (Pippen became the textbook description of the word sidekick), almost failed yet managed to overcome the challenge against all odds (won multiple championships) and finally saved the damsel in distress (City of Chicago and then the NBA basketball.) This is a typical storyline of a hero. Try to replace Michael Jordan with Luke Skywalker, or Rocky, or Harry Potter. What you will see is that the storylines are exactly the same, which proves that we witnessed the embodiment of the Warrior/Hero archetype by Michael Jordan.

What makes a Warrior/Hero so successful is his fierce competitiveness. Jordan’s obsession to win resurfaced during the lockout. Back in 1998 he advocated that NBA players should earn more. Now as an owner, he advocates that owners should earn more. That is perfectly fine and inline with the archetype. I don’t see why or how it will cause a backlash against Brand Jordan. Allow me to explain.

NBA players, who are paid to wear Brand Jordan are carefully handpicked: Wade, Paul, Anthony. I believe Jordan selects players not only according to their skill set but also according to their will (personality). They are highly “competitive” individuals. I don’t think any great AND competitive player would turn down an offer from Brand Jordan in the foreseeable future. Because, deep down those competitive players know that they’d do the same thing had they were in MJ’s shoes. That is the nature of a competitor. That said, Brand Jordan faces a bigger problem.
Michael Jordan’s behaviours over the last couple of years have been… uncharacteristic. As a player, he was extremely careful about his image and legacy. Marketers and PR people did a great job in promoting the positive aspects of his obsession to win. Yet, during the lockout and -actually, more obviously- his Hall of Fame speech the shadow side of the Warrior/Hero became obvious. According to Carol Pearson, the shadow attributes of a Warrior/Hero are: “Arrogance, developing a need for there always to be an enemy, not fighting for what really matters, ruthlessness and unprincipled, obsessive need to win, use power for conquest, a view of all difference as a threat.” A wise Warrior/Hero perceives his inner demons as his greatest enemy, and tries to beat his shadow before fighting others. Jordan is having tough time containing the shadow of his archetype. That is the real problem. Somehow PR people have to make sure that MJ’s competitiveness is under control and he is perceived to serve the greater good.

A brand is not a logo. It is a promise. Maui Jim’s promise is to enable me to see the world at its best, to bring the brilliant colours to my life. Its polarized sunglasses literally do that. They are engineered to overcome intense glare and harmful UV. But the brand does more than offering top-quality sunglasses to enable me to see the world at its best. To begin with, Maui Jim is not a pretentious brand, it is not for prestige-seeking ruler types. Actually, it is quite the opposite: Maui Jim embodies the easy-going, Hawaiian spirit. They name their products after places in Hawaii. On their website, they use Hawaiian words such as “Send a Lei” instead of saying “Like us on Facebook”, which puts a smile on your face in a world full of negativity. They share the Hawaiian optimism and peacefulness with the world. That is exactly the raison d’être of the brand and they do it very well. Recently, Maui Jim managed to improve the quality of our relationship by making me smile again. Let me explain how.

One of the temples of my sunglass was broken. I sent my sunglass –with a brief explanation of the problem- to the Maui Jim. I basically asked them to replace of the temples. A couple of weeks later, my sunglass came back. I was pleasantly surprised to find out that BOTH of the temples were replaced. The brand exceeded my expectation, which is usually enough to create goodwill. But, Maui Jim took one more step and sent me the above invoice. The otherwise boring invoice had stickers and a handwritten note on it. Clearly, Maui Jim achieved its goal of enabling me to see the good things in life. The quality of our relationship and my loyalty to the brand went up. Maui Jim’s products, promise, purpose and touchpoints are perfectly aligned. This is branding at its best.

Today’s actionable tip: Ask yourself why your brand exists. This is your purpose. Then ask yourself what you enable people to do. This is your promise. And finally, try to instill your purpose and promise into all touchpoint, even to the boring ones like an invoice!

This is actually a decade-old theory. Professor Fournier conducted in-depth interviews with female consumers to understand the relationships they form with the brands they know and use. At the end she identified 13 unique relationship forms, ranging from best friendships to flings. Later on, same study was replicated with male consumers and 15 unique relationship forms were identified. This is a breakthrough finding because it clearly explains why and how brands establish different emotional bonds with consumer. According to Professor Fournier, relationships are purposive: they add and build meanings in a person’s life. Brands help us create, maintain or transition to our key roles in life. For instance, when you become an adolescent, or a parent your role in life changes. To cope with such transition, you surround yourself with brands that help you build the right personality.

Most brands make the common mistake of trying to build more passionate, intimate and committed relationships with consumers. Relationship is a two-way street. As Professor Fournier stated, “for a relationship to truly exist, interdependence between partners must be evident.” You cannot force a relationship. It has to happen naturally. Simply laddering up the benefit does not suffice. The key here is to name your role in their lives. We all have relationships with hundreds of people in our livese. Not all of those relationships are built on high engagement. And that’s OK… For instance, I go to the same coffee shop everyday. I say “Hi” to people there, and occasionally we talk about daily stuff. But it would be silly of me to try to make more of what we have than is really there by let’s say inviting them to lunch. Had I done that, I would be harassing them. Every relationship is different in its nature. If you try to build a more emotional connection with your customers without knowing the exact role you play in their lives, you risk being labeled as a “harasser.’ Unfortunately, that’s what most brands do.

Today’s actionable tip:  Try to see things through the eyes of the consumer. You DON’T have to be his/her “best friend” unless you are granted that status. There is so much more you can do with a less intimate relationship, if you understand your role as a partner and act accordingly.