According to Mark Earls individual choice is not the big thing it has been cracked up to be. Evidence has come to light, which seems to suggest that our choices are for the most part driven by the social groups we inhabit. This thinking also has significant repercussions on how, we as customers relate to brands.

Important stuff and it all makes absolute sense especially given the new social interconnectedness afforded by the new digital networks. In other words not only interesting – this new stuff is also very timely.

And yet… I couldn’t help thinking of something my mother said to me when I was 14 or 15 years old. ‘It’s funny,’ she said. ‘Every generation thinks it’s the one that invented sex.’ Listening to Mark Earl’s speak you could be forgiven for thinking that this new thinking is err… new. And that this new way of thinking which gets to the bottom of how we really behave and what drives that behaviour will revolutionise the way market research is done in the future.

And yet…in 1984 a report was carried out which showed that when the suicide of a celebrity was reported there was ‘a significant increase in suicide rates in the months those articles were published.’ It’s not the only report there are countless others – not all of which have suicide as the main topic – they just have the same conclusions. If in doubt, which is where most of us are most of the time, then follow the crowd. When someone comes along with what looks like an answer that fits our inclination, be that inclination hunger or the wish to end it all, we say I’ll have some of that thank you.

The fact that we take our cues from the social networks we live in is hardly news – at least not new news. Behavioural psychologists have long since known the influence groups exert on our behaviour and decision-making. People who go to weight watchers might say they are going there to lose weight – most will probably believe that this is the case. But if we dig a little deeper we soon see that the reason they are going is to hang out with other fat people in order to feel okay about themselves. If I am an alcoholic I’ll hang around alcoholics that way I can have my behaviour confirmed as normal and socially acceptable.  The weight watchers business model is nothing short of sheer genius – certainly the closest thing I’ve come across to a perpetual motion machine.

What Mark Earls is saying is interesting. What’s more he says it in a way that is cogent and well thought through. You don’t get to have several books published on a subject without being able to string a sentence together. Mark Earls has certainly strung a lot of sentences together and strung them well. Herd is well worth reading as indeed was his previous book Welcome to the Creative age.

But really is this stuff new or are we just being strung along? In his opening gambit he sets out his stall by posing the question ‘what do we do in a world in which social learning is the prime means in which people shape their behaviour?  Although not explicit the inference and the argument it sets out is that the world we now inhabit is somehow different. Digital social networking has changed the way we operate and we need to rethink our approach to branding and the way we do market research.

Mark Earls latest book, Herd, provides us with the new methodologies and the new way we need to think about branding and market research. Herd is the new frontier a bright new dawn and  a brand new day in market research land. If all goes well it won’t be long before we see market researchers and marketeers rolling up to become Herdsman or Herdswomen.

Mark Earls is a master ‘brandsman’ – you only have to look at the Mark Earls brand to know this to be true. If he is half as good at delivering other companies brands, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, then to have him shepherding your company’s assets to the promised land would be a very useful thing indeed.

Although not part of the book’s main premise Herd has one other important message, that brand owners and those who work to improve them would do well to heed. And that is the only thing that sells better than sex… is the new sex.

Whilst I’d like to claim this insight, credit where credit is due. My mum – who incidentally and for the record went to weight watchers – was right, there’s nothing new under the sun just the latest generation who think there is – very insightful my mum. Think I’ll call this a Mumism. Perhaps there’s a book in there somewhere?

 

You can find the video of Mark Earls talking about his new book Herd on the Roy Langmaid website

 

 

Mark Earls, Marketing, Researc Hide

Labels can be misleading. Most of us have at one time or another probably met a teacher who isn’t or a doctor or lawyer who ought not to be. The principle of course can be applied in reverse. Take Rory Sutherland someone who would not label himself as a researcher and yet you only have to listen to him speak for few minutes to get that he’s more of a researcher than many who would claim to be. By researcher I am referring to someone who does more than gather and collate facts.

I would like to label those researchers that simply collect facts in the same way as the Inland Revenue collect tax returns, ‘fact shovelers’.  ‘Fact shovelers’ would have us believe they are masters of some technique or other, the mastery of which enables them to find out what makes customers tick. More often than not these techniques follow well-established scientific principles, which require people to be subjects and the researcher the detached and dispassionate observer.

The results are nearly always the same – a regurgitation and reorganisation of existing information. If that’s what you are looking for – and it can certainly be useful – that’s fine – but if you are looking for an insight that changes the way we see things or how we might do things differently, then employing a ‘fact shoveler’ is an utter waste of time and money.

Worse still ‘fact shovelers’ have the unerring ability to kill great ideas stone dead or leave them so badly mauled that there’s not much left worth saving. Imagine how ‘Vorsprung durch technik’ went down in research focus groups? Answer: Like a pork pie at a Jewish wedding. Fortunately the idea belonged to BBH and the findings were ignored; countless other ideas weren’t so fortunate to have a BBH on their side.

So why do companies employ ‘fact shovelers’ to deliver insights? One reason is that most clients are unsure of what is meant by the word ‘insight’ and the processes involved in unearthing them. A situation not helped by the fact that ‘fact shovelers’ are more than happy to continue peddling that big red herring that insights can be found in filing cabinets, in the same way that a Turner might be found in an attic.

Another reason, one most companies won’t admit to, is that even though they say they are looking for insights the truth of the matter is they are not. Insights while the lifeblood of any brand are often uncomfortable things to have around because they require us to do things differently. What’s really on sale and what’s being bought isn’t research that will shed light where it is needed but the illusion of safety. Our second red herring.

So what is it that makes Rory Sutherland an authentic researcher and not a ‘fact shoveler’? I’ve heard Rory speak before, once on Ted.com and on the Langmaid Practice. Engaging stuff. Listen to him speak for a few seconds and you get that Rory is out on an adventure, making connections, having fun – its like going for a spin in a convertible, roof down, hairpin bends, it’s exciting. When you get in the metaphorical car with a ‘fact shoveler’ it’s about as exciting as travelling down the M25 in a Ford Fiesta having just left the in-laws.

No matter how colourful the slides are there is something rather lifeless and colourless about the insights ‘fact shovelers’ serve up. The world as we know it reshuffled like a deck of cards. It looks like it ought to taste of something but it never really delivers on the expectation.

I believe that what makes Rory Sutherland a researcher in the true sense of the word has nothing to do with methodologies but good old-fashioned curiosity. An itch to find out what really lies beneath the surface and he won’t, or more accurately I suspect can’t, stop scratching until he’s found it. Perhaps we should call this new methodology Curious Economics.

You can find the Rory Sutherland video on the rather excellent Roy Langmaid website … well worth watching.

 

 

Authentic, Research, Rory Sutherland Hide

Bill Bernbach, of the renowned ad agency Doyle Dane Bernbach, once said, “More and more I have come to the conclusion that a principle isn’t a principle until it costs you money.”

 

Principles are nice. When the sun is shining and all is well with the world we tend to stock up on them. When the sun ‘isn’t’ shining we often find ourselves forced to make a choice. Stick with our principles or be pragmatic. Faced with the same choice most companies will choose pragmatism over principles. For pragmatism read profits.

Treading the fine line between profits and principles has always been risky. Even before the advent of YouTube and Facebook getting it wrong could have dire consequences.

When Nike along with Tommy Hilfiger were found to have chosen profit margins over working conditions back in the 90′s – both companies were using sweatshop labour to produce their products – the press screamed foul and profits dropped.

Pragmatists, at least those that believe themselves to be pragmatists, would have us belief that neither Hilfiger nor Nike had any real choice in the matter. The competition where using sweatshops to produce there goods. If Nike and Hilfiger didn’t they would incur higher production costs. The competition would have an unfair advantage. Caught between the devil and the deep blue sea they took the only option that was open to them.

However the thinking that underpins this argument bares as much scrutiny as a FIFA election. As we shall see both Hilfiger and Nike could have chosen to go down another route; one that would have enabled them to profit from their principles.

Back in the late 1990’s when the scandal broke both brands sustained a prolonged attack from the press and pressure groups. In 2006 with sales declining and the rumors still circulating Hilfiger sold the business to Apax, a private investment company. It took Apax four years to rid the company of its sweatshop stain. Once removed the Tommy Hilfiger brand was sold on to the business owners of Calvin Klein for a whopping $1.4 billion profit.

Nike’s fate at the hands of the press and pressure groups was no different than that of Hilfiger’s. The harder Nike tried to free itself of its sweatshop label the more ingrained the stain seemed to be. Then in 2008 help came from an unexpected and highly improbable quarter, Speedo.

The Olympic team sponsored by Nike said they’d prefer to wear Speedo because they were faster in trials. They weren’t the only ones. Olympic swimming teams sponsored by Adidas and Arena were also keen to wear Speedo.  Nike agreed. Not only could they wear Speedo Nike would sponsor them anyway. *

Nike had just invested in one of their core values – the principle of putting athletes first. In doing so they had brought that principle to life. But was it worth it?

Nike profits dropped by 7% Speedo sales went up by 9.3%. On the face of it the winners were Speedo and the athletes that had been given the opportunity to wear the swimsuits of their choice.

In the long run the real gold went to Nike. In one fell swoop they had re-established themselves as an authentic brand that really did put its athletes first, a powerful message that rippled out far beyond the confines of the swimming world.

Nike had invested in its principles. In return for that investment it delivered a message that no amount of advertising could have bought. Rather than seeing the Speedo scenario as a problem Nike had seen it as an opportunity.

As Bill Bernbach so cannily pointed out values only become principles once you’ve invested in them. Recent events would seem to suggest that principles are in short supply these days. With so much competition and so little real product differentiation to separate one brand from another customers are increasingly looking to for brands with integrity.

If the law of supply and demand still holds true then any brand that is prepared to take a pragmatic approach and invest in its principles can expect a good return on their investment.

 

*In response to requests to use Speedo, Arena dropped its sponsorship of the Italian team and Adidas insisted their team wear the Adidas brand.

 

 

Bill Bernbach, Brands, Investment, Nike, Principles, Profits, Tommy Hilfiger, Values Hide

I usually find myself writing about two kinds of brands. The ones I like and by default work and the ones I don’t like and don’t work. Today I’d like to write about a brand I don’t like that works.

The T-shirt Company, Johnny Cupcakes Inc., was founded by Johnny Earle in 2001.  Earle’s father helped the budding entrepreneur convert a boat garage in Hull, Massachusetts into a retail space back in 2005. Johnny Cupcakes Inc. now has shops in LA, Boston Massachusetts and has just opened its fourth outlet in London.

The shops, which are called bakeries, in keeping with the cupcake theme, have a distinctive American retro feel about them. Think Grease with Olivia Newton-John and John Travolta or the highly successful TV series Fonzie  (Happy Days) starring Henry Winkler.

In 2008, Business Week placed Earle at the top of its “Best Entrepreneurs 25 and Under” list. Newsweek, The New York Times, MTV and Inc. Magazine have all run features on Johnny Cupcakes Inc. or to be more precise on Johnny Earle. Those of us who don’t want his T-shirts want his secret.

Where once we idolised movie stars we now idolise successful entrepreneurs – especially those that are young and appear – according to the press releases, ordinary, down to earth and decent. Johnny Earle is currently on a nationwide tour lecturing at colleges and schools.

The Johnny Cupcake insignia is a skull and crossbones, with a cupcake silhouette replacing the skull. The shops display the T-shirts in chiller cabinets, and colourful wall mounted ovens. T-shirts are served up on baking trays and packed into cake boxes for hungry shoppers to take away. T-shirt sizes and styles displayed as ‘Nutritional Facts’ provide the finishing touch.

Johnny Cupcakes Inc. is a textbook example of how, with a bit of luck, a lot of hard work and the right smarts you can take a simple product, that inhabits a vastly overcrowded market, and turn it into a sticky brand.

So what is it that I don’t like about this brand? From a brand strategy perspective I’d have to say almost nothing at all, from a personal perspective just about everything. And that really is the point of this article. Sticky brands are personal.

Johnny Cupcakes engages us on level that we find hard to resist. It’s not so secret ingredients; the ones that have turned the company into a multi million-dollar concern, are its values.

These values form the backbone of the Johnny Cupcake Inc. story. The story is coherent and familiar: humble down to earth kid overcomes challenges, works hard, makes good, lives the American dream. He does this by virtue of his values. Those values are unashamedly white, middle class, Judeo/Christian and coated with a thick layer of American icing.

There is no room for confusion, no attempt to add any values that might confuse. The story is told at every possible opportunity; blogs, news articles, interviews and lectures. Johnny Cupcakes Inc. makes no excuses for who and what it stands for.

You won’t find any fudge at Johnny Cupcakes Inc.

Not my cup of tea

Reading the values below, taken from an interview with Lorraine Earle, you could be forgiven for thinking you had just come across some scripted outtakes from ‘The Waltons’ or ‘Little House on the Prairie’. The storylines for both programmes, which became hugely successful, were heavily sanitised and paid scant attention to the gritty reality of the authors’ original stories.

By putting the family into the shop window Lorriane Earle has mixed fact with fiction. Are we to believe the Earle family are really so down to earth, so wholesome, so apple pie perfect?  Apparently we are.

Some would say they are selling the dream. What’s wrong with some good old-fashioned escapism? Nothing provided you are not trying to pass if off as reality. But then fact can often to be stranger than fiction. And maybe just maybe they really are the perfect cupcake family. Either way I think I’d pass on this particular dainty, a tad too sweet for my tastes.

And those values:

Hardworking – While others are out partying, the unassuming Johnny stays at home and makes pin money designing and making badges.

Homely – Lorraine, Johnny’s mother and CFO of Johnny Cupcakes Inc. has lived in the same house for 30 years with her husband. She works in the dinning room that doubles as her office, surrounded by pressed flowers and special presents from friends.

Down to earth – The Mac is as high tech as it gets. Bills are filed in accordion folders. Lorraine has been using the same calculator for 25 years. ‘It’s added up a lot of money over the years. Subtracted it, too. If it ever gives me a wrong answer, I’ll stop using it.’

Determined – Johnny has borderline ADD and found college hard. Unable to participate in the most common college sport (i.e. partying) because he doesn’t drink or take drugs – Johnny works at his ideas.

Ordinary Folk – Johnny is a typical teen kid he almost gets thrown out of college for a prank involving itching powder. Lorraine, Johnny’s mum, worked 9 -5 as an office manager.

Family Values – When Johnny pops by on his way to the warehouse or one of the shops in Boston, mummy cupcake makes him blueberry pancakes. They talk about the business. She sees more of him now than she did when he was younger.

Business Values – Dad helped build the first store, Johnny’s sister, 23, is head of HR. Mum takes care of the finances and is training Kelly White, Johnny’s sister’s best friend to do the books.

Community Values – Mum and dad live right up the street from the first retail store, the manager sometimes pops in before the store opens. The employees are young “…. So it feels like the old days when this was a house where the neighborhood kids hung out”.

Johnny the Dreamer – Johnny is a dreamer, doesn’t care about the money, mum is the practical one. Mum takes care of the money. Johnny owns 100% of the business. (Just in case you wondered)

Tradition – Johnny flew the workers to the LA store for Christmas, interviewed everyone about their favourite childhood toys and then bought them all as presents. According to Johnny’s mother, “Johnny is always doing things like that”.

The story goes something like this….

Johnny Cupcakes Inc. started out as a joke, a few T-shirts for friends, everyone wants one. Emboldened Johnny takes his cupcake apparel on tour. People love them, Johnny is amazed, they sell like hot cakes, hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands…

Johnny is just a kid, 24 years old. He knows he’s just a kid, a lucky kid who kept his head down worked hard, overcame the obstacles that life had put in his way and followed the American dream. In 2009, Johnny Cupcakes is placed at #237 on the Inc. 500 list of fastest growing private companies in the U.S.  Story to be continued….

Article Sources:

Interview with Lorraine Earle Inc. Magazine

Johnny Cupcakes Inc website/story.

 

 

 

 

 

 

No tags Hide

Compared to the other celeb chefs – Delia, Nigela, Jamie, Heston, et. al, the Gordon brand is looking a little less wholesome these days. You could argue that Gordon never fostered the wholesome look but that would be missing the point. The fact that Gordon swore, and swore a lot, was a refreshing admission of honesty. Gordon’s off screen persona was the same as his on screen persona. He was authentic. Hurrah!

Like most authentic brands he alienated and delighted TV viewers in equal measure. A virtuous circle of publicity that most companies can only dream about, the more people complained the more people watched. TV viewers had acquired a taste for Gordon’s straight talking no nonsense approach.

In a bid to take a larger slice of the ratings Gordon Ramsay decided to serve up his family and with it more of his off screen persona. Gordon the loving husband, Gordon the good dad, out hunting with his son. But like most politicians who are all too happy to feed their family to the media the strategy was doomed to leave a bitter taste. The press who had seen this one more times than ‘The hills are alive with the sound of music’, licked their lips in anticipation. Rat was on the menu.

Gordon had started out serving good honest meat and two veg and then he added the family to the mix. What had looked like authentic fare now started to look like more like porkie pies.

The first batch of porkie pies to emerge from the Ramsay kitchen involved revelations about Gordon’s steamy love life. Not long after this we had the frozen food affair. The latest porkie pie to make its way onto our tables involves the dodgy dicing of a trailer to promote his latest and aptly named Kitchen Nightmares USA.

Reveille Productions, who produce the show with Shine TV, told Entertainment Weekly: “We have reviewed the footage and it’s clear that the scene was enhanced in post-production.”

Evidently Reveille Productions hadn’t quite mastered the soufflé edit – the art of making small groups of people expand into large crowds. If you are going to cheat it probably pays not to use a fat chap in a bright red jacket as the main character for cloning. News Corp International would never have employed a company like Reveille Productions.  Amateurs.

 

branding, Gordon Ramsay, Values Hide