Does the iPad suck?

I have no idea if the iPad sucks, but this guy does.

I disagree with him regarding the iPad name, though.

iPad: Apple will get the last laugh

There have been plenty of jokes about the iPad name referencing a certain feminine hygiene product.  Some people have even suggested that the iPad’s name is a blunder that will ultimately doom the product. 

My reaction is to ask:  should we also rename a pad of paper?  How about helicopter pad and mousepad?  Or pad, being the place someone lives?  Surely these names reference tampons too.

The reality is that iPad is a great name for this product (more on that later). And that because the iPad is about to become ubiquitous in our lives, we will no longer think consciously about the name anyway. For example, what comes to mind when you think about Lays? Chips, right?

Advisory: this MadTV parody contains some content that may not be suitable for everyone.

Starbucks VIA finds a fan in Taster’s Choice

The critics were everywhere when Starbucks introduced VIA, an instant coffee that’s packaged in single serving sizes, designed for use on the go.  I took the contrary view that far from a betrayal of Starbucks’ premium positioning, VIA was neatly aligned with two key attributes of the Starbucks brand:  convenience, and strong, great-tasting coffee.  As the spot-on tagline says, Never be without great coffee.

At any rate, the product is apparently selling well (if the very positive feedback and taste reviews on Twitter and Facebook are any guide).  And it seems there is profit to be made – the evidence coming from Nescafe’s Taster’s Choice, a venerable instant coffee that for the first time, is on supermarket shelves in the same, single-serving format as Starbucks.  The Taster’s Choice tagline?  Enjoy anytime, anywhere.

Imitation is the best form of flattery, as they say.  Although the taste of Taster’s Choice pales in comparison with VIA (the former is those same old brown crystals, whereas VIA actually looks like coffee grains) Nescafe’s knock-off is a positive sign that VIA is a winning product.

New:   to receive posts by email, subscribe on the right-side navigation bar.

iPad news

I’ve not yet had a chance to form an opinion on the new iPad, but here are the first media reactions, as well as Apple’s own spin:

Apple unveils iPad device - BBC

iCountry News – New York Times

iPad Apple Tablet Announced – butterscotch.com

Jobs unveils iPad – YouTube

iPad – Apple.com

Kindle Killer?  Not Quite – Globe and Mail

Steve Jobs pulls back the curtain on Apple’s new iPad - Globe and Mail

Apple unveils tablet computer called iPad – New York Post

iPad - Wikipedia

Top 5 (or is it Bottom 5?) Worst Brands of the Year

Last week, I wrote about the Top 10 best brands of the decade on the basis of position clarity and consistency.   And I asked for your vote on who you thought deserved the #1 spot.  Click here to see the results!

Again on the basis of position clarity and consistency, this week I offer for your consideration the Top 5 worst brands of 2009.  Why just one year?  I didn’t have the stomach (or let’s face it, the time) to dig through an entire decade of disasters.  Please forgive me.

 5.  Head and Shoulders
Head and Shoulders has always been about fighting dandruff, period.  But it seems P&G wasn’t satisfied with world dandruff domination.  So in 2008, they tried to expand their brand position to encompass beautiful hair – with the tagline A truly great hair day begins at the scalp.  At first I thought it was a great idea.  It still seems obvious that a healthy, dandruff-free scalp is a precondition to beautiful hair.

But their ad campaign has suffered from inconsistency that muddies the intended brand position.  Already, Head and Shoulders has changed their tagline – to Respect the scalp.  Love the hair.  And they’re also talking about “the seven signs of healthy hair.”  But exactly who has the time or inclination to remember seven things about their hair?

While the “seven” theme has been smartly integrated with a wider campaign, the message is further confused by running ads with NFL football player Troy Polamalu, who has a head of hair not unlike The Simpsons’ Sideshow Bob.  

The ultimate problem, however, is that Head and Shoulders is a victim of its own success.  They so completely own the dandruff position that your average person would not be caught dead buying this product – unless they have dandruff. 

No amount of advertising is about to change this perception.   So guys:  dandruff ain’t sexy, but it works for you.  And you’re stuck with it. 

4.  Subway

Subway has the distinction of being in both the top 10 of the decade, and the Bottom 5 of the year.  Specifically, it is the Canadian division of Subway that deserves the Bottom 5 honour for the stunning breakdown of brand consistency and discipline involved in changing their tagline, Eat Fresh, to the quizzical Think Fresh. Eat Fresh.  

Exactly what is gained by deviating from the parent brand, which has doubled revenue and stores – to $8.2-billion and 30,000, respectively – this decade?  It could be that the Canadian operation wants to establish a degree of independence from its American parent.  Which would be a very bad idea – the equivalent of a very small tail wagging a very large dog.  Which segues nicely into a quip, which Subway’s hosers would do well to recall, about not pooping where you eat.

3.  Shoppers Drug Mart / Baléa

There’s a good chance you’ve never heard of Baléa, the value brand that is replacing Life in a number of categories at Shoppers Drug Mart.  I recently discovered it only by accident, or rather by necessity, while looking in vain for some Life brand shampoo.  Shoppers maintains that its customers don’t want the same brand name across all categories – hence the change.   

The name change has not been well executed.  Brand names have a job to do, and Baléa falls far short.   Chief among the jobs a name must do:

• Communicate the brand’s point of difference
  • Life = yes (stuff you can use for everyday living); Baléa = no (because it has no intrinsic meaning in English.  If you’re interested, it refers to a lake in Romania)
• Pass the cocktail party test:  can you hear it at a cocktail party and then remember it well enough to Google at home? 
• • Life = yes; Baléa = no (a lack of meaning makes it difficult to remember, and its spelling and pronunciation is not obvious)
• Be rich in associations / have multiple levels of meaning :  key to memorability
  • Life = yes; Baléa = no (again because it has no apparent meaning)

That Baléa does not measure up on any of these dimensions is of particular concern for a value (read:  discount) brand that will not receive much advertising support.  All said, Shoppers has not only blown a major opportunity to define an exciting value proposition for its value brand, a lack of naming savvy means Baléa risks losing share vs. the national brands it’s supposed to be competing with.

Finally, the lack of naming discipline employed here is a curious contrast to Shoppers’ 2008 introduction of Nativa, the wonderfully rich name selected for its line of organic food products.

2.  Lululemon

In addition to making this list of brand bumblers, Lululemon, along with Subway, has the distinction of being one of the top 10 brands this decade.  Their top 10 status derives from a crystal-clear position (empowerment / your butt will look great) so compelling that the brand flourishes overwhelmingly on word-of-mouth referral (they spent just $37,000 on advertising in a recent year). 

To position clarity add consistency:  Lululemon has continually referred to the spiritualism of their Manifesto to guide their behaviour – the Manifesto offering such life lessons as “dance, sing, floss and travel.”

So how exactly can you square this brand’s professed spiritualism with their recent attempt to profit from the Vancouver Olympics without paying for the right to do so?  Answer:  you can’t.

Lululemon’s decision would be inexcusably poor and off-brand for a multitude of companies with far less integrity.

1.  Bell

For perfectly demonstrating that a logo and tagline do not a brand make, Bell is our big winner for the worst brand of 2009.

They call their new logo and new tagline, Today just got better, “a significant rebrand from the basement up.”  But we know the truth – that in contrast to their wishful thinking, their reprehensibly bad service continues, unchanged from my observations in Marketing magazine last October:  http://www.instinctbrandequity.com/newsletter/pdfs/marketingMag08.pdf

**

What do you think?  What brands deserve worst-of-the-year status?

The results are in: Apple, Porter are the decade’s top brands

It’s Apple in a landslide.

Thanks to those who participated in this poll, which asked:  Based on positioning and consistency, which brand do you think is the best of the decade?

Here are the results as of December 31: 

Apple = 54%

Porter Airlines = 15%

WestJet = 12%

Starbucks = 7%

Subway, MasterCard, Lululemon, Energizer, Four Seasons = 2%

Volvo = 0%

Brand: It Ain’t the Logo* in 2009’s Top 10

Books for Business recently announced its top 10 sellers of 2009.  The book I was privileged to co-author – Brand: It Ain’t the Logo* (It’s what people think of you™) – made the list.

Poll: Best Brands of the Decade

Top 10 Best Brands of the Decade

The essence of branding is being different.  The logic is simple:  if you hope to outperform competitors, you must give customers reasons to do business with you instead of someone else.  And so you must clearly articulate these reasons in a brand position, defined as how we are different. 

But it’s not good enough to carve out a position and leave it at that.  The goal is to maintain ownership over the long term, which is a difficult matter of delivering consistent experiences at every touchpoint – say, for a decade or more.

10. Starbucks

Position:  most expensive, strongest coffee / the “third place”

Position clarity: 90

Consistency: 50

Total score = 140/200

Despite a surprising number of dirty stores, mis-made drinks and holier-than-thou baristas, Starbucks has still delivered enough great experiences to boost its stock price by 263% this decade.  It is frontline employees that are at once this brand’s greatest strength and weakness:  with an average age in the 20s, they turn over at an enormously high rate – with a commensurate, negative affect on service quality.  Scary to think how well Starbucks might do if they could solve the turnover problem (perhaps by diversifying their employee demographics).

9. Volvo

Position:  safety / old and boxy

Position clarity: 75

Consistency:  90

Total score = 165/200

In the context of a brand discussion, you can say “safety” to someone and there’s a very good chance they’ll respond “Volvo.”  Their ownership of the safety position is an achievement so remarkable, and so profitable, that the pointy heads at Ford – Volvo’s owner – have been looking to sell the unit for some time.

But Volvo also owns a negative position – old and boxy – which an audience will tell you if unaided.

Update:  My bad – Volvo is actually losing money. 

8. Lululemon

Position:  empowerment / your butt will look great

Position clarity: 90

Consistency:  80

Total score = 170/200

Launched in 1998 by Vancouverite Chip Wilson, Lululemon went public in 2006 with a valuation of $225-million.  In a recent year, they spent a measly $37,000 in advertising – underlining this brand’s unsurpassed word-of-mouth power.  Yes, Lululemon’s success is driven by female consumers’ connection with the spiritualism of the brand’s Manifesto (which includes proclamations like “dance, sing, floss and travel”), but in the end, it’s all about the status that accrues to possessors of $100 stretch pants and resultantly beautiful bottoms.

In the dying moments of the decade, Lululemon gets docked 10 consistency points for disgracing their brand by trading upon the Vancouver Games without paying for the right to do so.  Most unspiritual.

7. MasterCard

Position:  priceless / for everything else, there’s MasterCard

Position clarity: 75

Consistency:  100

Total score = 175/200

For running its ever-entertaining “Priceless” campaign since 1997, MasterCard earns a perfect consistency score.  The ads, long since embedded in the popular culture, were being seen in more than 100 countries, in 50-plus languages, by 2006.  Thousands of people actually spend their time writing jokes and piecing together funny videos that build up to the “Priceless” punchline; a search of YouTube yields 50,000 results for “Priceless” and 18,000 for “MasterCard.”

Although perfect consistency has helped drive up the stock price by 468% this decade (vs. 38% for Visa), I struggle with what the brand position really is.

6. Porter Airlines

Position:  flying refined

Position clarity: 90

Consistency:  87

Total score = 177/200

How do you know you’ve got your brand position nailed?  When it’s expressed with 100% accuracy in a tagline as succinct and elegant as Flying refined.

When I first started flying Porter to Ottawa in 2006, the planes were basically empty and the prophets of doom were everywhere.  But next year this brand will move 2,700 passengers every day, and in 2011, expects a total of 1.6 million of them.

The value proposition inherent in Flying refined has always been inescapable:

• For all, a glamorous service that delivers many perks associated with business class
• Prices competitive with economy fares on WestJet and Air Canada
• Ultra-convenient downtown airport, meaning shorter, less-stress trip times
• Genuinely fresh and friendly (non-unionized) staff on the ground and in the air

Wrap it up in wonderfully disciplined and consistent (yet playful) brand communications, and you have a rare brand that people love to talk about.

 5. WestJet

Position:  we care

Position clarity: 97

Consistency:  85

Total score = 182/200

Air Canada’s stock has lost 94% of its value this decade.  WestJet shares have risen 152% over the same period.  Just as diametrically opposed are the experiences customers have with these organizations.  Despite spying on Air Canada in a manner perversely off-brand, WestJet’s clear differences from its rival make it one of the very few brands (along with Volvo) for which you can do a word association exercise in reverse:  ask a group of friends “which is the brand that cares?” and you’ll see what I mean.

4. Subway

Position:  healthy

Position clarity: 95

Consistency:  95

Total score = 190/200

It’s been a great decade for Subway.  In 2008, they celebrated their 10th year with Jared, the guy who lost 245 pounds eating subs.  Since hiring Jared as the exemplification of their healthy brand position, Subway has doubled its stores and sales:  to 30,000 and $8.2 billion, respectively.

Subway knows on which side their buns are buttered.  They’ve turned down no less than four hotshot ad agencies since 2000, who – surprise – wanted to make their mark, which naturally involved getting rid of Jared.   

And so it is greatly frustrating to see the Canadian operation tinker with the longtime tagline – Eat Fresh.  In a pointless diversion from the messaging of their U.S. parent, the Canadians have moved to Think Fresh.  Eat Fresh – disavowing one of the greatest positioning stories in the history of brand management.

3. Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts

Position:  the world’s best hotels / unbelievably good service

Position clarity:  95

Consistency:  100

Total score = 195/200

No one ever says they want to be “the Ramada” of their industry.  Or even “the Westin.”  It is Four Seasons, often used as a synonym for the best there is, that is so honoured.  Despite their exotic locales and stunning designs, these hotels are renowned for the people that work in them:  ask anyone about their stay at a Four Seasons and they will focus on the incredible service they received – not the property itself.

2. Energizer

Position:  the longest lasting batteries

Position clarity:  97

Consistency:  100

Total score = 197/200

It may be that MasterCard’s Priceless tenacity was inspired by Energizer’s long-running Bunny campaign, now an incredible 20 years old.  Both brands have continually met the difficult creative challenge of coming up with fresh twists on their messaging, while keeping threats to consistency (primarily in the form of restless executives and ad agencies) at bay.

1. Apple

Position:  really cool technology that works so much better than PC

Position clarity: 100

Consistency:  100

Total score = 200/200

Apple is a shining example to branders everywhere:  living proof that you can stake out a single, narrow brand position, and through single-minded consistency, grow your stock price by 682% in a decade.  As with any brand that aspires to greatness, this kind of clarity and consistency can only be driven from the top – in this case, of course, by CEO Steve Jobs.  The consistency he demands can be experienced at every point of contact with this brand: at the Apple Store, in the quality and aesthetics of the products, and in the relentless brilliance of the long-running “I’m a Mac” ads.

Next week:  Top 5 Best Brands for Executives, and the Top 5 Worst Brands of 2009.

Tiger’s brand today: hypocrisy of the highest order

How much will Tiger’s transgressions cost his brand?

What his endorsers are paying for

Companies like Nike, American Express and Accenture are paying Tiger megabucks to convey certain characteristics they want to be associated with, including:

• Discipline
• Intelligence
• Good judgement
• Strategic and tactical brilliance
• Winning

What his brand is now

Woods has acted in a way fundamentally at odds with these brand traits.  He has demonstrated remarkable stupidity and recklessness by sending racy texts and voice mails to his mistress, and by trusting a groupie not to blow his cover in the first place.  It was a further bad strategic move to lie to the public in his first apology, wherein he slammed the rumours of infidelity as false and irresponsible.

Tiger’s most recent apology, on the other hand, appears to be genuine.  The degree to which he accepts responsibility goes far beyond today’s standard for politicians, celebrities and multimillionaire athletes. 

But there’s a big but:  in the apology, he pleads for privacy and claims surprise at the intrusions of the media.  Which, for a man who chose to compromise his privacy by sending raunchy texts and voicemails, is hypocrisy of the highest order.

People, Americans in particular, can be very forgiving.  What they just can’t stand is hypocrisy.

What the future holds

The future of Tiger’s brand value is very much dependent on the intensity of the media circus around him.  If Tiger continues to rail against these intrusions while further examples appear of his recklessness – and hence voluntary relinquishment of privacy – the media and the public will be tough on him.  And so will his endorsers.