I'm back and ready to bore you with more of my opinions about branding. Buckle up and prepare for an, if not wholly interesting, at least mildly diverting conversation.

Wells Fargo: Who Cares About Teachers? They don't.

There is a commercial running for Wells Fargo bank right now that gets under my skin. The premise is a public school teacher who can't seem to save money because her job -- educating America's children -- actually eats into her income, as she has to buy teaching supplies out of her own pocket.

No problem! Wells Fargo to the rescue.

Yes, but they're not there to help her with the cost of the classroom supplies, but rather to help her SAVE -- by rounding up the amount of her purchases and then transferring that money from her checking account to her savings account. Wow. That IS helpful.

This ad and the conceit that drives it put on display the shameful state of our public school system, which forces teachers to foot the bill for the extras they need to provide engaging classroom experiences for their students -- our kids, and the Big Brand Banking mentality that not only should this be accepted as the status quo, it should be tacitly encouraged. We're supposed to believe that banking institutions are stepping up to teachers, our education system -- and our kids, to really help out. Unfortunately, the promise is not what it seems; the help is a hollow, self-serving gesture, because it's simply putting forth a mechanism for them to save their own money at Wells Fargo.

And obviously, in today's America, no money-making concern like a huge bank has responsibility to help that teacher (and those students) out in any other ways, such as an initiative for the bank to round up its transactions and give the resulting money to schools. That is left to individuals, charities (such as DonorsChoose), and, oh yeah, TEACHERS.

So while this commercial attempts to persuade us that Wells Fargo is a "people's bank" -- caring, human-scale, customer-oriented -- it fails miserably. Each time I see it I am struck with the nauseating awareness that banks in general and Wells Fargo in particular are out of touch with their customers...at least their average paycheck-to-paycheck customers.

Saving by rounding up is great for a person with disposable income who lacks the follow-through discipline of transferring money from one account to another. It's not for many teachers, who generously spend their thin margin of barely disposable income on vital classroom supplies. What they need is actual HELP. And not the pretend brand-based, Wells Fargo-marketing-manager-imagined version of help. They need the kind of help that is currently offered by individuals, pro-public-school charities, community-minded businesses, and, oh yeah, in theory, our government.

Wow -- Where've I been??

I've been away from dear Brand Provocateur for too long now. I have been busy being creative myself, while marinating in the world of marketing that carries on no matter what we do.

I will be looking closely at some brands in the near future and sharing my thoughts about them through this blog.

And I promise not to stay away so long this time.

Brand Zoo

I was recently at the zoo, and in looking at and enjoying the wonderful variety and apparent traits of all the animals I found myself thinking...as I often do...about branding. I was thinking about how we cannot, contrary to whatever Dr. Doolittle has led us to believe, "talk to the animals" in the sense that we say something, and they respond verbally back with an intelligent answer. Rather, we project onto animals things whatever we believe to be true about them--often anthropomorphizing them to suit our whims and sensibilities without really noting their natural proclivities. Hence, sadly, people can get mauled or attacked by some animal they have decided is tame or friendly--when in fact, being wild is actually part of its DNA.

In branding, companies seek to define themselves for their consumers through displaying recognizable and relatable attributes. But like the animal in the zoo, some companies hide their "wild" side and only portray to customers their cuddly, consumable side. The part of the brand experience you can get bitten by is kept hidden in the company's corporate culture and operating ethics that are at the foundation of the company--their DNA.

Here's an example: a brand that builds its reputation on "listening to the customer" but in fact has only automated customer service lines, never improves or innovates their product offerings according to consumer feedback, and is downright impenetrable on the web....well, it may take a while, but eventually customers will figure out they are not being "listened" to...or cared about, or served by the brand, and if they are paying attention to the diversity of the marketplace, they will take their business elsewhere.

As consumers, we are responsible for our own perceptions. So if you're going to jump into a cage with a cuddly polar bear or a "so like us" chimpanzee, you're assuming that there's no need to look further to see if that perception is wholly trustworthy. Likewise, when you're considering a purchase--and not to be too laborious, but in this economy it goes for considering a purchase of almost anything--make sure the brand you're predisposed to is what it says it is. Do a little research. Go to the product or company website and see if what you find there squares with what you're being told in branded materials. Google the brand or the product and see what shows up. Look at the Better Business Bureau rating, or Consumer Reports. See what the popular opinion sites such as Angie's List or RateItAll have to say. Because why not take advantage of the power of the Internet to make a better informed decision, and not just rely on what a TV ad, or social network ploy, has tossed your way in terms of "information"?

It's caveat emptor, plain and simple. And no, it doesn't mean as a consumer you have to be constantly skeptical and distrustful. Just be informed. Because a brand can be like a sweet little lion cub; so precious and appealing you can't take your eyes off it...but ultimately so ill-suited to being up close and in your life (or bringing anything positive to your household) for the long-term that you better not take your eyes off it lest things get ugly fast.

I encourage visits to the brand zoo. It can be lots of fun. But do your research before you cozy up to any one of the "brandimals", because not are what they seem to be. And it sucks to learn that truth the hard way.

Old Made New: "Interactive"

I am fascinated by all the people rushing to add "interactive" to their resumes and job listings as a "must-have" in the "been there, done that" column. Of course, mostly these folks mean "I've done some stuff on the Web"--but it is slightly irksome in the long view, as making advertising and marketing "interactive" is at the core of brand building.

 

If we accept the premise that a brand is a relationship, then there is de facto interaction. Because, as far as I know, there is no such thing as a one-sided relationship (okay, there is, and it's called stalking, and I don't know many brands that would like to be characterized as stalking their consumers). So, even before the popularity and proliferation of the internet as multiple channels--there was interaction with consumers.

 

I personally created packaging the goal of which was to get the consumer to pick it up--in other words, interact with it. Some of that packaging was meant to enable virtual trial of the product--again, interaction. I created merchandising with coupons for people to tear off. I created shelf talkers and danglers--all meant to interrupt the shopping landscape and engage the customer. And, of course--always with the goal of inciting the ultimate interaction--purchase. Then we'd go to work on the after-purchase interaction, known as customer service.

 

Today it's true we have many more ways to reach out and touch our consumers. We can push content at them and we can pull them into experiences on web sites (games, quizzes, communities, etc.)--the latter of which can also serve our purposes of gathering more data about our potential customers to use and sell (yes, Mr. Consumer, you are a source of revenue even if you don't buy anything!). But the thinking about "interaction" and "brand" should still follow the same lines:

• The interactive experiences should fit the brand personality
• The interaction should carry the consumer seamlessly through the purchase decision process
• There should be multiple points of entry, so we can cast our net more broadly
• There should be multiple levels on each interaction, so consumers can delve as deeply and become as involved as they like
• Each interaction should be, in some way, a value add to the brand and the consumer--never waste their time or confuse them
• No consumer should ever get the impression that they are being pointed to a web interaction when what is actually called for is a personal interaction--in that case, the web becomes a barrier to sale/brand building

The bottom line, interaction is interaction is interaction....from the sales floor to the Facebook page, consistency of brand presence and positivity of customer experience with a product and a brand is essential. And just because you've posted some bitchin' video to your company's web site doesn't mean it will resonate in any way with a qualified potentially purchasing customer unless it has context and dovetails with your branding efforts beyond the video.

 

It is a more intricate pattern of interaction that we set out to achieve in these technology-laden times, but the principles remain the same. The net effect is positive disposition to the brand and forward action of some kind--buying, sharing, discussing--as it was in the "old days" (10 years ago...), when a interruptive snipe on a package was considered pretty "in your face."

Mickey Mouse vs. Hello Kitty

So, any of you out there who live in these United States are aware of these two icons of kitschery: Mickey Mouse, the squeaky leader of the Disney motley crew, and Hello Kitty, the sweet, tiny featured mistress of the Sanrio collection. My question to you--how did Hello Kitty get where she is (e.g., made into diamond necklaces that celebrities wear) without spending half as much time/money pandering to the world that Mickey has? Well...it is an interesting question indeed.

One thing you may not know is that Hello Kitty, My Melody, Chococat, Kuromi, Cinnamoroll, Keroppi, and Badtz-Maru have a theme park in Oita, Japan AND they also have an all indoor park near Tokyo. These definitely serve to increase the wonder associated with the Sanrio menagerie in Japan, but do not explain the popularity of Hello Kitty in particular worldwide.

Here's my thinking: Mickey Mouse is, in some ways, too corporate. Disney is a behemoth marketing an entire range of assets the world over, of which Mickey is the leading edge of the wedge. They may be disciplined in the way they manage Mickey, with a character bible and do's and don't's regarding what he may be seen doing and who he may be seen doing it with--but in some ways he's gotten too slick. His secret to timeless appeal is trotting out his origins every few years, to remind people that he wasn't always the Mickey we see today.

In contrast, Hello Kitty is exotic and in some ways unexpected. First, she's from Japan--so how cool is that? Second she is a blank slate...in fact, other than their facial expressions, to Americans the entire Sanrio group are blank slates--which means we can project upon them whatever characteristics we like, pick them for their colors, or even just for the products Sanrio has made in support of them. And given their open, void expressions, we can decide exactly what they're thinking at any given moment. As opposed to Mickey and the Disney lot, Sanrio characters are pliable to our own interpretations. We can endow them with whatever personalities we want them to have.

Not unlike Beanie Babies, but with more staying power because of the licensing possibilities, Sanrio's characters can be seen on clothing, toys, jewelry, gegaws, everything--the world over. Of course, so can Disney's....but it seems so much more organic in the case of Hello Kitty. She seems intrinsically more appealing...even if the Sanrio stores in the mall are cramped and smell unabashedly of plastic versus the carefully crafted merchandising of Disney. I think it's the individual versus the conglomerate--Hello Kitty appeals on an individual basis; she is who you want her to be, with just a touch of the exotic, whereas Mickey is pretty much a pre-packaged experience, a kind of surrogate for Walt Disney and thus the symbol of the corporation; bigger than the individual, and when you invest in Mickey, you're knowingly investing in the Disney empire.

As far as branding goes, I think there is a level of serendipity on both fronts here. Mickey has certainly stood the test of time, and bravo to Disney for keeping him and the rest of the character catalog relevant over time. In contrast, hooray for Sanrio for keeping their characters relatively unchanged over time--enabling each new generation to imprint them with whatever personality those blank but friendly stares evoke in our hearts.

Hmmm....I wonder what would happen if Disney bought Sanrio? It's not such a small world, after all.

Brand Blogging

I am a brand freak, fascinated by the way we marketers/researchers look to influence the purchase patterns and choices of consumers. This blog will be dedicated to my thoughts about what I see in the marketplace today in terms of branding. One area of ongoing fascination--what actors are being chosen to do voiceovers for products, particularly cars. For example, it seems Mercedes recently replaced Richard Thomas (with his trusted John Boy intonations) with Jon Hamm from "Mad Men." What shall we make of that? A refreshing of the brand voice, obviously and literally, to appeal to a younger audience perhaps, and drafting behind the nostalgia "Mad Men" evokes and the smoothness of Jon Hamm in character as Don Draper and what he as an actor personifies. His reading is crisper than Thomas's, who is breathy and somewhat high in range in his delivery, which gave the brand a sort of rarefied, ethereal feeling--something beyond the reach of "everyday people." Perhaps one of the factors that Mercedes wants now is the low, smooth tones of old school "cool"--everything "Mad Men" and "Don Draper" stand for. More on my voiceover musings later...but look next for a comparison between San Rio (Hello Kitty et al.) and Disney (Mickey et al.), with a little Legoland thrown in. Talk to you soon.