#mitsloanbrandingsectiona

[schheda-blog]

Who is the catcher?

The article for this class, How to Pitch a Brilliant Idea, discussed the selling of ideas to prospective clients, whether they be movie producers or business executives. The article categorizes ‘pitchers’ into four types and offers advice for each, as well as warnings to ‘catchers’ around not falling into traps when hearing these ideas. There is the implication that a certain type of pitch may be better than the final product itself. Although the article does acknowledge that people, i.e. catchers, typically make judgements about others within the first seconds or minutes of a meeting, there is also the inference that the burden of dealing with this human behavior falls on the pitchers. However, I would be interested to learn more about the types of people who are often on the catcher side of these interactions. If there is a certain level of homogeneity amongst these people, then it stands to reason that the ideas making it past them will also follow a similar pattern. This is something I have thought about often when faced with problematic advertising. When I see ads that to me, are so obviously offensive, I wonder who was behind them. Knowing that many people and sets of eyes go into marketing campaigns for large companies, it seems problematic that there isn’t a higher diversity around these decision-makers. The following are some examples of ads where I see a clear catcher problem:

This ad is offensive because it seems to imply that a white, blonde female is more beautiful than a person of color. This ad makes me think that none of the catchers on Dove’s team were people of color. If there were, it would have been clearer what the possible connotations of this campaign could be.

This ad is sexist and compares (and in fact, encourages) problematic behavior towards women with a workout.  I would guess that most of the catchers and decision-makers who created this ad were male.

This PETA ad mocks women who do not fit the media’s standard beauty type, and very offensively compares a woman to a whale. This makes me think that the ad, which is completely lacking in sensitivity, had catchers who were possibly all slim people who fit into stereotypical beauty norms.

Overall, if we want to see more diversity and higher awareness in advertising, it will be necessary to solve this ‘catcher problem’. Decision makers must be diverse in all manners, including race, gender, and body type to produce ads that can properly appeal to a range of consumers.

[schheda-blog]

Representation Matters

I am looking forward to hearing from our guest speaker, Claire Sulmers, because of the unique position she holds in the fashion world. Traditionally, fashion, like many other aspects of mainstream media and celebrity culture, has suffered from a lack of diversity, racial or otherwise. When minorities and people of color do appear, they are often typecast into stereotypical, and often offensive, roles. Moreover, it is not uncommon for the work of minorities to be misappropriated and not given the appropriate credit. While this is still largely the norm, the Internet has contributed to calling out these issues and taking steps in the right direction to rectify them. Now these underrepresented group have a platform to use their voice and express failures they see in the media. As a female who did not often see myself represented in movies, TV shows, or magazines growing up, it is excited to see this change slowly happening. I think it is essential for young people’s confidence and self-worth to see themselves represented in positive ways in the media, and I like that Claire, in her fashion blog and articles, presents women of all races and body types as beautiful and worthy of being celebrated. Furthermore, I admire how she has been able to strike a balance between self-publishing on her blog and having her voice heard in major publications such as Vogue. Some topics I would like to hear about from Claire are:

1)  What do you consider to be your brand, and who are your target customers?

2)  What do you consider to be the most important channels for your brand, i.e. blog vs. Instagram vs. magazine publications? Why?

3)  What are the ways you see the fashion industry changing in terms of becoming more accepting of different perspectives? Where do you still see the most challenges?

4)  Do you think the industry is taking enough steps to correct its lack of diversity? Why or why not?

5)  How do you decide what type of content you want to publish through a 3rd party such as Vogue vs. your own blog?

6)  Do you see any downsides to the Internet giving anyone the platform to publish their views?

[schheda-blog]

Consumers buying luxury goods want to feel exclusive

Although Burberry has been very successful in revitalizing its brand to appeal to a broader market, including younger consumers who may have only previously associated the company with their parents, it has to be careful of becoming too ubiquitous. Today’s fashion trends have moved towards the mixing of high and low end pieces in an outfit, a trend that has especially become popular with bloggers. For example, it is not uncommon to see fashion influencers mix expensive items from brands such as Chanel and Gucci with more affordable options from Zara and H&M. One reason this may have become popularized is that fashion aesthetics are becoming more minimal and new trends such as atheleisure are emerging. Thus, with the decrease in obvious logos and other branding mechanisms, people may feel less pressure to buy pieces that are clear status symbols and may instead veer towards subtler options.  Because people are more open to mixing different levels of fashion, I think that when they are spending the extra money on luxury items they want it to feel like it is worth it and that they are actually part of something exclusive. This is particularly problematic for Burberry’s extensive licensing of its trademark plain logo. No one wants to spend upwards of $1K on an expensive Burburry handbag and then see this:

Burburry’s straddled positioning, combined with the extensive use of its logo, will be problematic in the long term. If the company wants to appeal to both ends of the market, it has to do so more strategically. It can have a very high part of its line for luxury customers, like Burberry Prorsum. Accessories such as handbags can be more affordable, but still not within the price range of the everyday consumer. Instead, these items should be seen as attainable, but only as an indulgence for a special occasion or after enough money has been saved up. Where Burberry really needs to rethink its strategy is with its entry level pieces. They should be much smaller and less obvious, particularly if they going to have the company logo. Therefore, the company can still have accessories such as scarves, keychains, and sunglasses for aspirational customers. However, if Burberry still wants to be seen as a luxury brand, it cannot be free with its licensing and make it so easy to wear a head-to-toe Burberry plaid outfit.

[schheda-blog]

The challeges of rebranding while maintaining identity

From its inception, SIA prided itself on separating itself from its competitors via its superior service. Early on, the company was very strategic about ensuring it stayed ahead of the industry. First of all, at the time, Singapore was still considered a developing country. Therefore, SIA was able to take advantage of lower labor costs in relation to its Western competitors that were offering luxury airline services. Additionally, SIA kept its fleet much more current than most other airlines. It did this by strategically purchasing new planes during downturns in the airline industry, when manufacturers were more likely to offer discounts. The company also benefited from an ‘early purchaser’ discount when it was willing to take the chance to adopt new models before other airlines did. Finally, SIA did a much more effective job at creating a brand identity for itself. Using elements such as the poise and glamour of the Singapore girl, the company worked hard to market itself as a luxury experience, rather than simply a mode of transportation. Although the combination of all these elements helped put SIA ahead of the curve, it will need to rethink some of its strategy in order to remain profitable.

Although SIA should continue to distinguish itself by putting customer service first, it no longer have all of the same advantages it historically had. For this reason, the company should not invest $100 million in the new business class reclining seats at this time. Although it has already invested several million in research and development, this should be considered a sunk cost. At a time when airlines are struggling, SIA simply does have the luxury to invest in every single aspect of the customer experience and instead needs to make some tradeoffs. That being said, the company does not need to completely sacrifice this element of its business, but simply needs to prioritize what to focus on. Based on theories of customer behavior and perception, SIA should target specific phases in the customer journey. For example, studies have shown that people are more likely to remember an experience based on how it ended. Therefore, SIA should continue to invest in ensuring that the time customers spend at baggage claim is as short and seamless as possible.

Finally, although the Singapore girl has long been the company’s signature, it may want to create a new branding campaign. Although this persona may have held a strong appeal in the past, it now seems somewhat outdated in ways, and rooted in gender stereotypes and problematic exoticizing of Eastern culture, particularly as it relates to women. In order to maintain a more current and worldly image, SIA should consider new marketing that is more inclusive of all genders and relateable to a wider audience.

[schheda-blog]

“Do More Expensive Wines Taste Better?”

Both bottom-up and top-down expansion strategies pose benefits and challenges for Concha Y Toro. However, due to a number of market and cultural forces, the company has more opportunity to be successful if it uses a bottom-up approach. As a Chilean company from a country whose wines are known for their value, Concha Y Toro could capitalize on this reputation by become well established in the lower end of the market. However, because of the saturation of this segment of the wine market, Concha Y Toro will have to reexamine their 5 Ps in order to accomplish this. Of these tools, I think that initially, focusing on price will be the least effective because there is a very narrow range of prices the company can offer in the lower range. I also see packaging as less critical. Although Concha Y Toro will want to make sure their wines have aesthetically pleasing packaging, ultimately this is not an area in which they can be very innovative. Ultimately, the most important P for Concha Y Toro will be product as this will help them to stand out in the lower end segment, while giving them the credibility to move up in the market towards the more expensive segments.

The final 2 Ps pose more of a challenge in the bottom-up approach as they will necessarily have to change as the company tries to move into the higher-end segment. In terms of place, although Toro Y Concha might be tempted to put their product in places that are more traditionally associated with value, it will want to be careful that these locations are not perceived as too low-end. For example, if it tries to sell its wine in Walmart, this perception might make it difficult to move up in segments. Therefore, locations that carry a mix of both high and lower end wines would be more appropriate and help the company make the transition. Additionally, if the company becomes too ubiquitous in its promotion, it might later on not be able to compete with more luxury products, which like to maintain an air of exclusivity. Therefore, Toro Y Concha will have to be careful that they do not go too extreme towards the lower end of the spectrum when it comes to place and promotion.

As Toro Y Concha works to move its wines into the higher categories, it should focus on the ‘Made in Chile’ background as well as the product itself. Unlike products from European countries such as a France, Spain and Italy, Chilean wines do not have as much of a known history or mystique around them. However, if the company, along with other Chilean wine producers can work to create this type of heritage and perception, it will be greatly beneficial. This is because many consumers of wine tend to automatically perceive wines from certain places as being better than ‘New World’ products, whether or not that is the case. If Chile can inch closer to the ‘Old World’ mentality, it will become a more obvious choice for consumers. There are definitely marketing opportunities to change this perception. I was reminded of an episode of the Freakonomics podcast entitled ‘Do More Expensive Wines Taste Better?’, in which Steve Levitt played a trick at a meeting of the Harvard Society of Fellows. Many of its members consider themselves to be wine connoisseurs. When asked to rate wines, they almost always chose the ones that they thought were more expensive or from a certain country. When they found out that in many cases, Levitt had switched their drinks and the wine they had perceived to be better was in fact a lower quality wine, they were not at all pleased. Thus, a similar marketing stunt, along the lines of the Pepsi/Coke challenge, might be a good PR move for the company when they try to move into the higher end of the market.

http://freakonomics.com/podcast/freakonomics-radio-do-more-expensive-wines-taste-better/

[schheda-blog]

“If you drink Heineken, you’re probably just a dad”

Heineken and Corona, competitors in the US beer import market, have both developed very different brands for themselves. Over time, Heineken has tried to cultivate an image of having a product that is focused on quality and aimed at a more serious beer drinker. However, this has not always translated into an entirely positive image among all consumer segments. For example, according to a Buzzfeed article titled “What Your Beer Choice Says About You”, while stereotypical Heineken consumers might be perceived as more sophisticated than other types of beer drinkers, they are overall boring and people who wish they were interesting. As one staffer wrote, “If you drink Heineken, you’re probably just a dad”. Indeed, Heineken’s print ads, which are often simple and focus on its signature color and bottle, can be seen as reflecting this reputation as being a safe option for a particular type of beer drinker. Unfortunately, when Heineken has tried to expand upon the theme of its ads, it has often resulted in campaigns that targeted towards males. For example, many campaigns are very sports-oriented and the company has also produced the following ad, where the focal point is clearly the female’s legs, rather than the Heineken bottles themselves. 

On the other hand, Corona has developed a reputation as a beer that is much more accessible to a wider range of consumers. In contrast to Corona, the ads are not targeted towards a specific demographic. Instead, the company markets its beers as being associated with fun, particularly in the context of vacation. For example, many ads present the Corona bottles in a tropical setting on a beach. They typically only feature the bottle itself, making them more likely to appeal to any customer. Additionally, Corona has taken advantage of its unique association with limes, which are also frequently featured in its campaigns. All of these elements have made Corona a popular beer in large, social group settings.

Although both Heineken and Corona have work to do if they want to appeal to different customer segments, I would argue that Heineken has a more challenging job. Although the company can remain true to its mission of producing a quality product, it should focus on being more appealing to both men and women.

[davidbassani-blog]

The importance of “framing”

Right after our last branding section, I kept thinking about the importance of framing (the Princeton example). I remembered of a relatively old Ted Talk from Prof. Dan Ariely, which at the time I thought was enlightening (http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_asks_are_we_in_control_of_our_own_decisions). 

But even though I'm got to the point where I’m aware of how important framing is, it’s interesting how I feel I often still fall into the same mistake. For example, in a survey we had to prepare a few weeks ago, only at the very end, when the survey had already been sent out, did we realize that one of the alternatives was framed in a worse way than the others. In that specific case thankfully, I’m confident that the main takeaways will be the same, but this underlines once more how careful we have to be and how, in specific contexts, words have to be fully weighed, to minimize biases.

[prophetisaiah-blog1]

Neophytes

“Instead of displaying their expertise, the Neophyte plead ignorance. Neophytes score points for daring to do the impossible, something catchers (investors potential partners) see as refreshing.”

In my venture, we have artist and showrunners personalities in this organization but at the very least, everyone has the potential to be a Neophyte.*

This is something that if we have to communicate frequently at our schools, it only serves to benefit us as an organization. As students, sometimes we get caught up with what we are doing, putting our heads down and working, keeping this a private project instead of a movement and getting our institutions to support us.

Next year I am really going talk about what we are doing in my venture until people cannot stand it. From what I learned in a recent conversation we haven't (I definitely haven't) tapped that nearly enough.