What is the Renewable Energy Brand?

What is the purpose of Renewable Energy? To save the planet? To become energy independent? To make a profit? To provide jobs? National security?

What is the Renewable Energy brand? Is it simple? Is it mainstream? Is it expensive? Is it patriotic? Is it friendly? Is it treehuggers? Is it Midwestern? Is it alternative? Is it cool? Is it caring? It is wise? Is it conservative? Is it green?

The “green” movement is about being environmentally-friendly. Is that what Renewable Energy is about? “Green” has meant saving or reducing, in addition to recycling. What image do these words have in your mind: save, reduce, recycle? For most, they mean inexpensive or less money.

Does that apply to Renewable Energy? Should it? Should we as Americans expect to pay less – or more – for the Renewable Energy brand? Isn’t Renewable Energy in fact a premium product? Shouldn’t we be willing to pay more for a product that will help save our planet and by the way, make us more secure as a nation?

Most people still think it's all about "green." Why? Because if you don’t manage your message, someone else will. We haven’t given the American public the right message (if any) about Renewable Energy, so they (we) interpret as best we can with little or no information. In addition, those that use “green” to talk about renewable energy are only harming the Renewable Energy brand, because they are confusing two different movements.

People hear about the green movement, renewable energy, environmental friendliness, alternative energy, energy security and conservation. Who really knows what they all mean? We must define the Renewable Energy brand. We cannot expect Americans to understand – much less, trust – Renewable Energy if it is not clearly defined and communicated.

It's Time to Get Started

Our nation is at a crossroads and we must confront the brutal facts of our current energy reality. The average American is just now waking up to this revolution. We are just beginning to understand crises like global warming and energy dependence, issues that are sure to define the next fifty years or more of our lives. We as consumers want to do our part, but we don’t know yet how.

There are many messages being conveyed in today’s media, each organization or association offering a slightly different angle on the issues and the solutions. Industries that should share the same purpose instead dilute the marketplace with conflicting messages. It is a very noisy marketplace and while awareness is increasing, consumers don’t yet know what to do - because no one has offered a comprehensive plan.

Renewable Energy (and all its various components) is not a known or trusted “brand.” In the public’s eyes, Renewable Energy is virtually unproven, if not thoroughly confusing. The Renewable Energy proposition seems too good to be true. Without a solid, clear brand, people have no reason to trust it. Without trust, we cannot expect people to embrace it. In order to garner the public’s trust, Renewable Energy, as a comprehensive brand, must stand out in logical and emotional dimensions. Appealing to the public with statistics and facts won’t inspire the average American to take action.

Many of us have the talent and the resources – and the responsibility – to help Americans make sense of it all. It's time to get started.

Thank you to Tim Kubista for contributing to this post.

Duh, It's Branding 101

Cornell University recently published a study that found switching the label on wine changed diners' opinions of the wine. What? Really? They've got to be kidding? Imagine, peoples' perceptions and expectations really affecting their opinions and behavior? Huh.

It's not exactly ground-breaking research by Cornell's Food & Brand Lab. We don't need a scientific study to prove branding theory. Check out this excerpt from an article by ScienceDaily.

Forty-one diners at the Spice Box restaurant in Urbana, Illinois were given a free glass of Cabernet Sauvignon to accompany a $24 prix fixe French meal. Half the bottles claimed to be from Noah's Winery in California. The labels on the other half claimed to be from Noah's Winery in North Dakota. In both cases, the wine was an inexpensive Charles Shaw wine.

Those drinking what they thought was California wine, rated the wine and food as tasting better... (Read the full article here.)

Well, duh! While I'm sure North Dakota vitners make some nice wines, they aren't exactly known for cultivating the fruit of the vine (North Dakota has only four wineries). California on the otherhand has Napa Valley and Sonoma. The state is home to more than 1,000 wineries which produce nearly 450 millions gallon a year. They market the hell out of the wine industry which may be why nearly two-thirds of all wine sales in the United States are of California wine.

Think of it like this. Take two nearly exact diamond rings in terms of cut, clarity, color and carat. Put one in a Tiffany's box and the other in the largely anonymous green box from local jeweler Greenberg's. The bling in that trademark little blue box has greater intrinsic value simply because the Tiffany name (and the instantly recognizable packaging) is standing behind it.

This video also makes the point. Water from a hose can be branded with the right attention paid to emotional touchpoints. In this case, appealing to pretentious idiots who want to be seen as connoisseurs of "luxury" items.

All Brands Are Not Created Equal

BusinessWeek/Interbrand recently released their annual rankings of the 100 best global brands.

Google, Zara, Apple, and Nintendo are among this year’s top gainers in BusinessWeek’s annual ranking of The Best Global Brands. For the seventh consecutive year, BusinessWeek has teamed up with Interbrand, a leading brand consultancy, to publish a ranking of the top 100 global brands by brand value.

Read the entire release here.

The top risers, and the big decliners, are really what makes reading the entire report worthwhile. Who's number one, two or three in the rankings isn't the most insightful part of the report. Coca-Cola still rules the world in brand value, $65 million - the cola juggernaut is everywhere for God's sake, but it still took a 3 percent hit.

But check out the double-digit growth from: Google = $17.8 million brand value (+44 percent), Apple = $11 million brand value (+21 percent), Nintendo = $7.7 million brand value (+18 percent) and Starbucks = $3.6 million brand value (+17 percent). These are the guys who are getting it right.

The biggest losers? Ford (-19 percent), GAP (-15 percent), Kodak (-12 percent), Pizza Hut (-9 percent) and Motorola (-9 percent).

What separates the good, the bad and the ugly? Brand management, touch point development, demand creation, modeling contingencies and planning efficiencies.

So what you ask.

Brand and its subsequent value is inextricably linked to solid business management and financial success. Even for the smallest businesses, company or product, brand is crucial. We preach it over and over, only the companies that stand out in logical and emotional dimensions will enjoy a strategic advantage over their competition.

What a Brand!

Across the country, little leaguers with dreams of making it to "the show" have parents and grandparents descending on baseball complexes and sports fields in droves. I can't explain the connection, but there is some weird, symbiotic relationship between watching baseball and eating sunflower seeds. My family is no different. Before we head to the diamonds, we always make the requisite stop at the local c-store to load up on our fav ... GIANTS Dill Pickle Sunflower Seeds.

Last week we made our purchase and headed to the ball park only to find the seeds didn't have the Dill Pickle flavor. On the first mouthful, my husband discovered the bag was full of regular, plain ol' sunflower seeds. His consumer reponse was one of disappointment and irritation at the mislabeled bag. He reacted by placing a call to the company to let them know there was problem.

What has this got to do with marketing ideas that stick you ask? Branding, baby, and this company really gets it!

GIANTS took the opportunity to turn an un-happy customer into a brand loyalist. Just a couple of days after the call to the North Dakota based company, we received a box in the mail with not only a replacement bag of Dill Pickle seeds, but also free bags of GIANTS Salt & Pepper and KC Style BBQ varieties. Included was a letter of apology thanking my husband for alerting them to the problem.

GIANTS took what could have been a negative touch-point and turned it into a positive impression about that company. In this case, GIANTS took the point of contact as an opporunity to build - not erode - their pyschological capital with my family. And they succeeded big time. My husband's response was "I'll never buy another brand of seeds again."

This company rooted themselves in the sacred ground of my husband's heart and mind. Yes, their Dill Pickle product exists in the real world, but the impression the brand made exists in the mind. It's this mindshare that has significant intrinisic value to GIANTS' bottom line.

Stunt Bad for Marketing

BRANDWEEK did a follow-up story the other day about the infamous stunt pulled by Cartoon Network to promote its Aqua Teen Hunger Force. The pub wanted to see what impact, if any, the bomb hoax had on the business of guerrilla marketing.

Early reports after the Jan. 31 hysteria had many speculating marketers would seer clear of this big-bang/small bucks school of buzz building. After all, Cartoon Network gm/evp Jim Samples resigned; parent company Turner Broadcasting and guerrilla agency Interference agreed to pay $1 million in compensation to Massachusetts and another $1 million to support federal homeland security.

"The smarter clients I spoke to [realized] that a $2 million fine equals $120 million in publicity," said Peter Shankman, president of New York-based pr/marketing agency The Geek Factory. "They said, 'Just get the damn permits first!'"

Drew Neisser, president of the New York integrated marketing agency Renegade Marketing, said the incident "really heightened awareness of nontraditional marketing. The irony was people were saying, 'I want that.'"

The stunt and subsequent negative publicity may very well have created some short-term gains and heightened awareness of the power of guerrilla marketing. But it pissed off an entire city and touched a nerve with politicos. I still contend it was incredibly stupid considering post-9/11 America.

Several months after circuit boards with LED lights in the shape of a Mooninite caused the closing of major subway lines and roadways in Boston, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass. co-wrote and introduced the "Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act of 2007." The bill will amend the federal criminal code to include a number of new clauses meant to up the ante on wasting government resources. Provisions in the bill would allow the government to take civil action against parties involved in perceived hoaxes if they fail to "promptly and reasonably inform one or more parties... of the actual nature of the activity" once they learn about investigative action taking place. In the case of Boston, this means that everyone involved could be sued for not immediately informing the police of the campaign upon receiving news of the emergency reaction.

Talk about making an impact on the guerrilla marketing world. Not exactly what Interference had in mind I bet.

DVR Owners and Political Communications

I was catching up on reading last week's issue of PR Week when I was surprised by the results of a poll by The Benenson Strategy Group. The firm works with many Democratic candidates, the DCCC, the DSCC, the AFL-CIO and corporate clients like Verizon and Proctor & Gamble. The firm's principal, Joel Benenson, lead the internal polling for Clinton-Gore in 1996.

From what I can gather, the survey was commissioned by MSHC Partners, a direct mail and Internet advertising firm that works with Democratic candidates like Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Chris Dodd and groups like NARAL, the Sierra Club and even the South Dakota Democratic Party.

The survey sampled 1,128 registered and unregistered voters both with and without DVR's to understand their habits and what it means for political campaigns. No surprise with a couple of the numbers.

• 60 percent of ads on recorded television are skipped by DVR users
• 50 percent of programming on TV is viewed in recorded form by DVR users

However, these next numbers left me a bit perplexed.

• 44 percent of DVR owners say TV ads are their most important source of political news
• 46 percent of non-DVR users say TV ads are their most important source of political news

Isn't that a tad bizarre? Sixty percent of DVR users say they aren't watching the ads, but they still use those ads as their main source of political news?

Since the survey was commissioned by a firm with a vested interest in the outcome, I question what this really means. MSHC has a lot to gain by convincing poltical candidates that direct mail and Internet is the way to go.

"What we found in this study is that this new technology does have an
impact on how voters get their information and while television still
remains the most influential source of information, as DVR ownership grows
it will become less efficient," said Hal Malchow, president of MSHC
Partners. "Cable television, with its hundreds of channels has also made it
increasingly difficult to reach the entire electorate, compared to the days
of dominance by three major networks. Between DVRs and cable television,
political ads are losing their punch."

Thoughts anyone?

The Way We See It

Starbucks is kind of blowing my mind these days.

To many they represent everything that's wrong with coffee: a cookie-cutter corporate cabal co-opting the cool culture of the coffee klatch.

To others, they're role models for business.

Now come a few reasons for both parties to hope -- along with a few that could turn both of them off.

First the downside: Starbuck's bizarre embrace of Paul McCartney as the first artist to sign with the company's Hear Music -- part of a division called "Starbucks Entertainment."

For me, this is just weird -- and validates a post critical of Sir Paul I'd actually grown to regret writing. It's another brick in a position that may attract some boomers but feed the revulsion of critics --  an example of what CEO Howard Schultz finally expressed in his much-circulated memo bemoaning the "commoditization" of the Starbucks experience.

"I take full responsibility myself, but we desperately need to look into the mirror and realize it's time to get back to the core and make the changes necessary to evoke the heritage, the tradition, and the passion that we all have for the true Starbucks experience."

Along with the strange brand extensions, the hyper-streamlining of the brand experience  (drive-throughs, automated espresso machines that block customers' sight lines, prepackaged beans, tables made intentionally uncomfortable to promote turnover -- some of which Schultz acknowledged) seems further evidence the company has lost its way -- not to mention its soul.

Here are two reasons Starbucks might be getting it back -- and both are examples of letting stakeholders control the company's message.

One's been in our face for a while: the "Way I See It" bits of customer philosophizing printed on to-go cups. One recently knocked me out of my seat:

Darwinism’s impact on traditional social values has not been as benign as its advocates would like us to believe. Despite the efforts of its modern defenders to distance themselves from its baleful social consequences, Darwinism’s connection with eugenics, abortion and racism is a matter of historical record. And the record is not pretty.

-- Dr. Jonathan Wells
Biologist and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design.

This is freaking nuts -- when have you ever read the words "abortion," "eugenics" and "racism" printed on a mainstream company's product!? That takes guts It says "If it's thought-provoking, we're willing to embrace whatever is on your mind, even though it makes us uncomfortable."

That, friends, is social media. A two-way conversation between the company and its stakeholders. It's about the way you and I see it, not the way corporate lackeys do. And it just so happens to be a great marketing tool, too.

By itself, provocative quotations on a zillion cups might not be enough for some critics. Maybe this is:

News that the company is going to release a CD of music written and performed by Starbucks Baristas. The blog "Starbucks Gossip" reports that "Off the Clock Vol. 1: New Music from Up & Coming Starbucks Artists" will be available in stores across the US and Canada tomorrow. 

To understand how huge this is, consider this: when I was a partner (yes, back in the glory days as a struggling young writer, before the advent of the cursed frappucino), Starbucks was actively shutting out both individuality (by making people cover up unusual piercings) and community (by refusing to let people post fliers in the stores).

To the extent they're actively letting you, me and employees back into the brand, that's a good sign -- because everybody wins. And if that's good enough for Starbucks, that ought to be good enough for you, too.

Social Video 101

We've tagged social video as "one of the important drivers for the next major growth in brand advertising." But where's the magic? Why are so many carefully targeted, big-money entries in the genre DOA, while shiny bits of DIY genius signifying not much of anything barge into our social consciousness and take up residence?

LA-based Feed Company answers these and other troubling questions of our time in Social Video 101, A Primer. A must-read for viral aspirants with paychecks. 

Guerrilla Marketing Becomes PR Nightmare

BKG has a guiding principle that is reminiscent of one of the basic tenets of the the Hippocratic Oath... do no harm. That's exactly what happened yesterday in Boston when a guerrilla marketing campaign promoting the late-night Adult Swim cartoon "Aqua Teen Hunger Force" went horribly awry. Magnetic lights placed throughout Boston were seen as potential threats by authorities who called out bomb squads to explode the suspicious devices. They also shut down major roadways and subway lines to deal with the situation.

Considering the post 9/11 atmosphere in America and the very real threat of terrorism, how anyone believed this was a good idea is totally beyond me. Sure the stunt created buzz, but how damaging to Turner Broadcasting's reputation is the end result? Was it really worth it? NO!!

I contend it all could have been avoided if only the PR pros had been in the loop. I preach regularly about how critical it is for the public relations hand to know what the marketing hand is doing. The PR execs at Turner Broadcasting should have put the brakes on this bone-head marketing move. Instead, they are in crisis mode scrambling to repair th e damage. The trite apology issued yesterday incensed Boston's mayor and police commissioner. They are out for blood and will attempt to extract a pound of flesh from Turner and the responsible ad agency through the courts. Two of the creatives behind the campaign have already been arrested.

As for Interference Inc., the New York City advertising agency that came up with the hair-brain plan, they had "No Comment." And all of us PR practitioners know how that's perceived... GUILTY!