Again, our numbers show Sen. Barrack Obama the technical winner over Sen. John McCain in the third and final presidential debate conducted by Bob Schieffer of CBS News at Hofstra University in New York.
Sen. Obama scored a total of 74 points over Sen. McCain, 62 points.
We use a subjective analysis, based on the ideas the candidates share, their ability to communicate simply and clearly, and their passion -- essentially, whether the ideas they expressed were true, emotional, and heartfelt, or whether they were coldly crafted in the campaign war room.
In essence, you score well if you have a clear idea, you express it clearly and coherently, and you believe it. Your answer is everything. If you do well, we are single-mindedly focused your message. We understand it. We aren't watching you trying to fabricate or manufacture a response.
We scored each candidate's principal answer (on a scale of 1-5, five being best), and we scored each follow-up answer (on a scale of 1-3, three being best).
Here's what we saw and assessed:
Why is your economic recovery plan better?
Obama 10
McCain 9
What new spending will you postpone or delay?
Obama 10
McCain 6
You pledged to take the high road, but why is your campaign nasty?
Obama 11
McCain 10
Why are we better off with your vice presidential candidate?
McCain 8
Obama 7
By how much will you reduce our dependence on foreign oil in your first term?
McCain 7
Obama 7
How do you balance controlling health care costs vs. expanding coverage?
Obama 8
McCain 4
Will you nominate a Supreme Court justice who disagrees with you?
Obama 8
McCain 7
We spend more per capita on education, but why do we trail most countries in the world on outcomes?
Obama 8
McCain 6
Closing statement
Obama 5
McCain 5
This was a debate about domestic affairs. Therefore, no discussion on foreign affairs, typically a strength for Sen. McCain.
In an additional analysis, based on what drives or motivates people (or presidential candidates) to do what they do, and express themselves the way they do, Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain were evenly matched on 10 out of a total of 16 criteria.
Where they differed:
Obama more curious, more interested in the search for truth.
Obama more interested in people, and how they live and connect.
Obama more interested in families.
Obama more reflective of peace and tranquility.
McCain more competitive.
McCain more energetic, and energized (although restrained).
Still, in this debate, no coherent vision for America expressed by either candidate.
We know how they compete against each other. We know how they square off on the issues. We have a sense of what they supported and voted for in the Congress. We know where they stand on health care, the economy, social issues, energy, education.
But how would you, as a voter, definitively -- and positively -- describe their vision for the America they want to build, based on what they said tonight?
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Obama wins (by a mile)
Actually, by a significant mile.
In the subjective way we evaluate answers, Sen. Barrack Obama won the second presidential debate over Sen. John McCain:
Sen. Obama scored a total of 75 points, over Sen. McCain's 52 points, in the debate moderated by Tom Brokaw of NBC News, at Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee.
We use a subjective analysis, based on the ideas the candidates share, their ability to communicate simply and clearly, and their passion -- essentially, whether the ideas they expressed were true, emotional, and heartfelt, or whether they were coldly crafted in the campaign war room.
In essence, you score well if you have a clear idea, you express it clearly and coherently, and you believe it. Your answer is everything. If you do well, we are single-mindedly focused your message. We understand it. We aren't watching you trying to fabricate or manufacture a response.
We scored each candidate's principal answer (on a scale of 1-5, five being best), and we scored each follow-up answer (on a scale of 1-3, three being best).
Here's what we saw and assessed:
Fastest way to help people in the economic crisis?
Obama 5
McCain 4
What helps ordinary people most?
Obama 7
McCain 1
Can we trust either of you?
Obama 7
McCain 5
What must we sacrifice today for the future?
Obama 7
McCain 5
What about entitlements, social security and medicare?
Obama 5
McCain 1
What do we do about the environment and green jobs?
Obama 5
McCain 1
Is health care a commodity?
Obama 8
McCain 4
America as a peacemaker in the world?
Obama 8
McCain 5
Should we respect Pakistan's sovereignty?
Obama 8
McCain 5
Your Afghanistan plan?
Obama 3
McCain 3
Do we pressure Russia on humanitarian issues?
McCain 8
Obama 3
What happens if Iran attacks Israel?
McCain 5
Obama 4
What don't you know, and how will you learn it?
Obama 5
McCain 5
Sen. Obama's victory came from clear ideas, coherently expressed, naturally, and with conviction.
Sen. McCain's answers were somewhat unclear, and somewhat rambling. His conviction and passion, mostly solid and even, was diminished by sharing multiple talking points in a single answer, not coherently linked.
On foreign issues, however, Sen. McCain found his voice. He scored well, providing clear, coherent ideas, expressed with clarity and conviction.
Sen. Obama lacked those qualities in two of his foreign affairs answers.
Again, the tenor and tone of the debate was about fixing things that are wrong, dealing with tactical issues, and battling each other.
The real question remains. Who has the best vision for America?
Ultimately, that will be the test.
In the subjective way we evaluate answers, Sen. Barrack Obama won the second presidential debate over Sen. John McCain:
Sen. Obama scored a total of 75 points, over Sen. McCain's 52 points, in the debate moderated by Tom Brokaw of NBC News, at Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee.
We use a subjective analysis, based on the ideas the candidates share, their ability to communicate simply and clearly, and their passion -- essentially, whether the ideas they expressed were true, emotional, and heartfelt, or whether they were coldly crafted in the campaign war room.
In essence, you score well if you have a clear idea, you express it clearly and coherently, and you believe it. Your answer is everything. If you do well, we are single-mindedly focused your message. We understand it. We aren't watching you trying to fabricate or manufacture a response.
We scored each candidate's principal answer (on a scale of 1-5, five being best), and we scored each follow-up answer (on a scale of 1-3, three being best).
Here's what we saw and assessed:
Fastest way to help people in the economic crisis?
Obama 5
McCain 4
What helps ordinary people most?
Obama 7
McCain 1
Can we trust either of you?
Obama 7
McCain 5
What must we sacrifice today for the future?
Obama 7
McCain 5
What about entitlements, social security and medicare?
Obama 5
McCain 1
What do we do about the environment and green jobs?
Obama 5
McCain 1
Is health care a commodity?
Obama 8
McCain 4
America as a peacemaker in the world?
Obama 8
McCain 5
Should we respect Pakistan's sovereignty?
Obama 8
McCain 5
Your Afghanistan plan?
Obama 3
McCain 3
Do we pressure Russia on humanitarian issues?
McCain 8
Obama 3
What happens if Iran attacks Israel?
McCain 5
Obama 4
What don't you know, and how will you learn it?
Obama 5
McCain 5
Sen. Obama's victory came from clear ideas, coherently expressed, naturally, and with conviction.
Sen. McCain's answers were somewhat unclear, and somewhat rambling. His conviction and passion, mostly solid and even, was diminished by sharing multiple talking points in a single answer, not coherently linked.
On foreign issues, however, Sen. McCain found his voice. He scored well, providing clear, coherent ideas, expressed with clarity and conviction.
Sen. Obama lacked those qualities in two of his foreign affairs answers.
Again, the tenor and tone of the debate was about fixing things that are wrong, dealing with tactical issues, and battling each other.
The real question remains. Who has the best vision for America?
Ultimately, that will be the test.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Successfully packaging a $700 billion idea
There hasn't been a bigger idea than a $700 billion bailout.
That's an eye-opener, whichever way you look at it.
Yet, what actually happened to that $700 billion bailout concept this week, is a lesson for all of us who manage ideas, shape stories and messaging, and build futures.
As you know, the $700 billion concept failed.
It failed because members of Congress were uncertain about the program, and members of Congress were uncertain because their constituents were enraged.
Rage is a very difficult force to manage.
It doesn't matter that rage was misdirected. It doesn't matter that rage was pointing in the wrong direction. Rage is rage.
At the core of the $700 billion bailout, however, was -- and still is -- a very good business idea.
In essence, Treasury officials argued:
All those 'failed' mortgages aren't worthless.
They are certainly worth something today, and at some point in the not-so-distant future, they will be worth more -- in fact, much more than they are worth today.
So let's buy those mortgages, said Treasury.
Let's manage them intelligently and protect the assets.
And then, at some point in the future, when they have substantially regained their value, let's sell them.
In the process, we will recapture the investment we made in buying mortgages in the first place -- and then some -- and we will be in a great position to return the proceeds to the American people.
It's likely those proceeds will be worth more than $700 billion. A lot more.
Doesn't that make sense?
Effectively, that's what the so-called $700 billion bailout plan -- or rescue plan -- was all about.
It wasn't about giving money to Wall Street.
It wasn't about mega-bonuses to chief executives.
It was a serious, well-considered investment by Treasury in assets that will increase in value (probably sooner, rather than later) and can be sold at a profit -- or at zero loss -- for the benefit of the American people.
Which is a pretty sound idea, by any measure.
Best of all, it's not a difficult concept to understand or embrace.
But, amazingly, did you ever hear anything like this clearly articulated this past week -- by Treasury officials, House or Senate members, or anyone, for that matter?
No, you didn't.
You might have heard isolated voices, especially in the aftermath.
But the story above wasn't Treasury's pitch.
It should have been.
Our view is that it isn't hard to rationalize complex ideas, make them simple, and communicate them clearly so people can understand them and embrace them.
Or it shouldn't be.
But apparently, this week, that was a tall order.
We hope that reality, plain talk, and understanding will prevail in the days ahead.
That's an eye-opener, whichever way you look at it.
Yet, what actually happened to that $700 billion bailout concept this week, is a lesson for all of us who manage ideas, shape stories and messaging, and build futures.
As you know, the $700 billion concept failed.
It failed because members of Congress were uncertain about the program, and members of Congress were uncertain because their constituents were enraged.
Rage is a very difficult force to manage.
It doesn't matter that rage was misdirected. It doesn't matter that rage was pointing in the wrong direction. Rage is rage.
At the core of the $700 billion bailout, however, was -- and still is -- a very good business idea.
In essence, Treasury officials argued:
All those 'failed' mortgages aren't worthless.
They are certainly worth something today, and at some point in the not-so-distant future, they will be worth more -- in fact, much more than they are worth today.
So let's buy those mortgages, said Treasury.
Let's manage them intelligently and protect the assets.
And then, at some point in the future, when they have substantially regained their value, let's sell them.
In the process, we will recapture the investment we made in buying mortgages in the first place -- and then some -- and we will be in a great position to return the proceeds to the American people.
It's likely those proceeds will be worth more than $700 billion. A lot more.
Doesn't that make sense?
Effectively, that's what the so-called $700 billion bailout plan -- or rescue plan -- was all about.
It wasn't about giving money to Wall Street.
It wasn't about mega-bonuses to chief executives.
It was a serious, well-considered investment by Treasury in assets that will increase in value (probably sooner, rather than later) and can be sold at a profit -- or at zero loss -- for the benefit of the American people.
Which is a pretty sound idea, by any measure.
Best of all, it's not a difficult concept to understand or embrace.
But, amazingly, did you ever hear anything like this clearly articulated this past week -- by Treasury officials, House or Senate members, or anyone, for that matter?
No, you didn't.
You might have heard isolated voices, especially in the aftermath.
But the story above wasn't Treasury's pitch.
It should have been.
Our view is that it isn't hard to rationalize complex ideas, make them simple, and communicate them clearly so people can understand them and embrace them.
Or it shouldn't be.
But apparently, this week, that was a tall order.
We hope that reality, plain talk, and understanding will prevail in the days ahead.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Obama won (but)
That was a mild debate.
Using techniques we use to evaluate and score messaging and commitment, Sen. Barrack Obama scored 92 over Sen. John McCain's 67 in tonight's debate in Oxford, Mississippi.
That looks like a resounding victory -- but.
We use a subjective analysis, based on the ideas the candidates share, their ability to communicate simply and clearly, and their passion -- essentially, whether the ideas they expressed were true, emotional, and heartfelt, or whether they were coldly crafted in the campaign war room.
Our assessment is simple.
Tonight, Barrack Obama won.
But who did better than expected? Well, John McCain.
On the financial crisis, Sen. Obama scored 37 over Sen. McCain's 29 score, which involved answers to questions about the proposed $700 billion bailout, Presidential leadership, and given inevitable budget constraints, what has to be sacrificed in the future.
In foreign affairs, both candidates performed exceptionally well. Sen. Obama was slightly ahead in Iraq. They equalled each other on Afghanistan. Regarding Iran, equal again. A draw.
But when it came to Russia, Sen. Obama scored 6 to Sen. McCain's 4. Based on his comments, Obama has a better insight into Russia. His responses were more detailed, and scored better.
Moderator Jim Lehrer's curious question about a 911-style attack today also had Sen. Obama ahead, 5 to 3. (But why did he ask a question like that?)
If you look at the data, who did best? The answer says Obama, certainly, in detail, but nobody, really.
McCain did better than expected, which may be construed as a victory. But he didn't win outright. Neither did Obama.
In the end, the debate was about two Senators, seemingly comfortable with each other competing for another Senate term. This told us a lot about each candidate, and how they grind the details of Congress.
But this is a Presidential campaign about the future.
The debate told us little about how they see the future, how they would shape our lives, and how they would make the future happen.
Maybe that comes next.
Sen. Obama's option for the next debate: Don't hold back. Shape your vision for the future. Paint a vivid picture of the future that all of us can see, realize, and achieve. Show us how Government is on our side, hoping that we will actually achieve our future, and how you will help us make that happen.
Sen. McCain's option for the next debate: Don't hold back. Shape your vision for the future. Paint a vivid picture of the future that all of us can see, realize, and achieve. Show us how Government is on our side, hoping that we will actually achieve our future, and how you will help us make that happen.
We look forward to the next debate.
P.S. We have no political affiliations, connections, or contacts.
Using techniques we use to evaluate and score messaging and commitment, Sen. Barrack Obama scored 92 over Sen. John McCain's 67 in tonight's debate in Oxford, Mississippi.
That looks like a resounding victory -- but.
We use a subjective analysis, based on the ideas the candidates share, their ability to communicate simply and clearly, and their passion -- essentially, whether the ideas they expressed were true, emotional, and heartfelt, or whether they were coldly crafted in the campaign war room.
Our assessment is simple.
Tonight, Barrack Obama won.
But who did better than expected? Well, John McCain.
On the financial crisis, Sen. Obama scored 37 over Sen. McCain's 29 score, which involved answers to questions about the proposed $700 billion bailout, Presidential leadership, and given inevitable budget constraints, what has to be sacrificed in the future.
In foreign affairs, both candidates performed exceptionally well. Sen. Obama was slightly ahead in Iraq. They equalled each other on Afghanistan. Regarding Iran, equal again. A draw.
But when it came to Russia, Sen. Obama scored 6 to Sen. McCain's 4. Based on his comments, Obama has a better insight into Russia. His responses were more detailed, and scored better.
Moderator Jim Lehrer's curious question about a 911-style attack today also had Sen. Obama ahead, 5 to 3. (But why did he ask a question like that?)
If you look at the data, who did best? The answer says Obama, certainly, in detail, but nobody, really.
McCain did better than expected, which may be construed as a victory. But he didn't win outright. Neither did Obama.
In the end, the debate was about two Senators, seemingly comfortable with each other competing for another Senate term. This told us a lot about each candidate, and how they grind the details of Congress.
But this is a Presidential campaign about the future.
The debate told us little about how they see the future, how they would shape our lives, and how they would make the future happen.
Maybe that comes next.
Sen. Obama's option for the next debate: Don't hold back. Shape your vision for the future. Paint a vivid picture of the future that all of us can see, realize, and achieve. Show us how Government is on our side, hoping that we will actually achieve our future, and how you will help us make that happen.
Sen. McCain's option for the next debate: Don't hold back. Shape your vision for the future. Paint a vivid picture of the future that all of us can see, realize, and achieve. Show us how Government is on our side, hoping that we will actually achieve our future, and how you will help us make that happen.
We look forward to the next debate.
P.S. We have no political affiliations, connections, or contacts.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Probably the best campaign on television today
We don't know if U.S. oilman T. Boone Pickens has a major stake in American natural gas.
Frankly, we don't care.
Mr. Pickens's simple, plain talk introduction of a stunningly simple, brilliant plan for energy evolution in this country is, in a word, breathtaking.
No politican has articulated a concept so simply, so clearly.
No public interest group has expressed such a rational, common sense approach to taking responsibility for our energy future.
No critic, at least so far as we can see, has seriously challenged Mr. Pickens's approach, which is not only informative, but educational. This is the kind of idea we tell our friends about.
Mr. Pickens, and the people who worked with him to create these messages, deserve major kudos.
A complicated energy scenario is rationalized and made clear.
A major opportunity is clearly articulated.
A rational transition is explained in detail.
A viable choice is presented for all of us.
Communication does not get any better than this.
This is a program to be admired for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which is to be considered and evaluated by energy decision makers.
And there's a simple test for the Pickens Plan.
Does anyone have a better idea?
P.S. We have no connection with the PickensPlan, their people, or their agencies.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Driving (and expanding) Coach
Coach chief executive Lew Frankfort is, by any measure, a savvy, canny brand manager. He may be unique.
He has been involved with Coach for almost 30 years, sharing responsibility for sister Sara Lee brands during his long career, and enjoying a track record that's not only rare in corporate America but remarkable even among his luxury and fashion brand peers.
When Sara Lee released the Coach business in 2000, he took the brand public and has presided over seven years of extraordinary growth -- and use of the word extraordinary is not an overstatement.
This enviable, profitable growth has come from expansive licensing programs which dramatically expanded Coach beyond handbags (which today account for 64 percent of sales) into fashion accessories, scarves, watches, and even fragrance. These were followed with aggressive store expansion, mostly in malls, and equally aggressive global expansion, notably in Japan, where the brand is a highly successful 'import', ranking number two in total handbag and accessories sales.
In addition, Coach now has 30 stores in China with plans for 50 more. If you include Hong Kong and Macau, Coach is addressing a total handbag and accessories market of around $1.2 billion that will grow as dramatically as China's middle class expand their buying power.
Quoted this week in The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Frankfort says that Japan-like growth in China would double the Coach business in four or five years.
Very few marketers -- in any category -- are contemplating growth like that.
Of course, business writers and fashion writers look at Coach through different lenses. Curiously, both share the same questions about Coach design and merchandising strategies.
In a nutshell, they wonder how Coach can expand a classic brand to attract young female shoppers, even middle-class teenage shoppers, in new stores in Staten Island and Queens -- and yet still retain elite, traditional and somewhat conservative patrons on Madison Avenue.
It's a question that challenges (and tempts) most fashion and luxury brand marketers:
Does the success you achieve with one audience threaten your franchise with others?
Can your brand withstand seemingly contradictory design and targeting strategies?
As you increase accessibility for the masses, will your upper-class mystique and reputation actually take a nose dive?
Mr. Frankfort and his design team, lead by President and Executive Creative Director Reed Krakoff, clearly have made their decisions.
It's full speed ahead -- with both.
Like the legendary Ralph Lauren, Messrs. Frankfort and Krakoff are (1) creatively driven, (2) customer and audience driven, and (3) market driven. They share a similar feeling-in-the-fingertips about what they will create -- for whom -- and where, exactly, it will be sold.
Ralph Lauren has always known -- and Coach has proved to the world -- that they can develop stunning, innovative and highly desirable items for diverse and different consumers (segmented by age, style, taste, class -- choose your descriptor), all of whom they understand intimately. Both brands have also demonstrated an ability to intelligently and insightfully manage distribution, along product lines, virtually on a store by store, mall by mall, and chain by chain basis.
As Mr. Frankfort says, Madison Avenue shoppers don't know what's on the shelves in the store in Queens -- and the reverse is probably also true. Yet, for each audience, he is sure that the Coach products on the shelves in their Coach store will be perfectly positioned for them.
If you think there's a fault line in that logic, certainly there is some risk. As Mr. Frankfort admits, consumers today shop 'high' (on Madison) and 'low' (at Target). And some malls -- in Atlanta, for example -- bring together very diverse shoppers under one roof. Undoubtedly, some overlap of styles and customers is inevitable. As a result, there is some risk to brand perception.
If you are a classic Coach buyer -- stylish, but restrained in your taste -- and your nearest Coach store suddenly is filled with extravagant logo-dominant merchandise with chains, padlocks and buckles, well, that can be jarring. Suddenly, Coach isn't your store. And that's a risk to be managed. However, if the selection is not right for you, maybe it's perfect for your granddaughter.
Yet the challenge for Coach is never to lose you.
That's the distinction that English luxury marketer Burberry achieved in their highly successful brand expansion in the late 1990s. Virtually overnight, Burberry become very youthful, very extravagant, and very new -- yet still retained their traditional, upper-crust customers. Burberry today is the classic case of luxury brand expansion.
Fortunately, if you are a classic Coach shopper (stylish and restrained in your taste), you should know that very stylish, very restrained Coach designs are still available, still beautifully made, and there are more of them in Coach today than there have ever been.
Perhaps Coach needs to make you aware of that.
The fact is, if you are wondering about the Frankfort-Krakoff strategy and what impact it may have on brand perception, you haven't looked at Coach lately.
The Coach handbag selection alone is dazzling -- there isn't a style, or the shadow of a style, or a design or tonal note that Coach hasn't explored and found a way to attach two perfect handles and offer it in the sizes, colors and textures you prefer -- either logo'd to death, logo-free, patchwork or plain, classic and traditional, or -- for the younger shopper who is your granddaughter -- totally off the charts with color, metal, and pizzaz.
To be specific, Coach now offers 14 handbag lines, all beautifully conceived, a total of over 231 individual handbags.
Again, maybe Coach needs to make you aware of that.
Ultimately, successful brand management is a balancing act. Intuition is as important as insight. And as observers have noted, Coach is on the line.
But Coach has leaders like Lew Frankfort and Reed Krakoff.
They are creatively inspired, they understand and respect the DNA of their brand, and they know their customers.
Marketers like this always seem to find a way to make things happen.
Kudos to Coach.
He has been involved with Coach for almost 30 years, sharing responsibility for sister Sara Lee brands during his long career, and enjoying a track record that's not only rare in corporate America but remarkable even among his luxury and fashion brand peers.
When Sara Lee released the Coach business in 2000, he took the brand public and has presided over seven years of extraordinary growth -- and use of the word extraordinary is not an overstatement.
This enviable, profitable growth has come from expansive licensing programs which dramatically expanded Coach beyond handbags (which today account for 64 percent of sales) into fashion accessories, scarves, watches, and even fragrance. These were followed with aggressive store expansion, mostly in malls, and equally aggressive global expansion, notably in Japan, where the brand is a highly successful 'import', ranking number two in total handbag and accessories sales.In addition, Coach now has 30 stores in China with plans for 50 more. If you include Hong Kong and Macau, Coach is addressing a total handbag and accessories market of around $1.2 billion that will grow as dramatically as China's middle class expand their buying power.
Quoted this week in The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Frankfort says that Japan-like growth in China would double the Coach business in four or five years.
Very few marketers -- in any category -- are contemplating growth like that.
Of course, business writers and fashion writers look at Coach through different lenses. Curiously, both share the same questions about Coach design and merchandising strategies.
In a nutshell, they wonder how Coach can expand a classic brand to attract young female shoppers, even middle-class teenage shoppers, in new stores in Staten Island and Queens -- and yet still retain elite, traditional and somewhat conservative patrons on Madison Avenue.
It's a question that challenges (and tempts) most fashion and luxury brand marketers:
Does the success you achieve with one audience threaten your franchise with others?
Can your brand withstand seemingly contradictory design and targeting strategies?
As you increase accessibility for the masses, will your upper-class mystique and reputation actually take a nose dive?
Mr. Frankfort and his design team, lead by President and Executive Creative Director Reed Krakoff, clearly have made their decisions.
It's full speed ahead -- with both.
Like the legendary Ralph Lauren, Messrs. Frankfort and Krakoff are (1) creatively driven, (2) customer and audience driven, and (3) market driven. They share a similar feeling-in-the-fingertips about what they will create -- for whom -- and where, exactly, it will be sold.
Ralph Lauren has always known -- and Coach has proved to the world -- that they can develop stunning, innovative and highly desirable items for diverse and different consumers (segmented by age, style, taste, class -- choose your descriptor), all of whom they understand intimately. Both brands have also demonstrated an ability to intelligently and insightfully manage distribution, along product lines, virtually on a store by store, mall by mall, and chain by chain basis.
As Mr. Frankfort says, Madison Avenue shoppers don't know what's on the shelves in the store in Queens -- and the reverse is probably also true. Yet, for each audience, he is sure that the Coach products on the shelves in their Coach store will be perfectly positioned for them.
If you think there's a fault line in that logic, certainly there is some risk. As Mr. Frankfort admits, consumers today shop 'high' (on Madison) and 'low' (at Target). And some malls -- in Atlanta, for example -- bring together very diverse shoppers under one roof. Undoubtedly, some overlap of styles and customers is inevitable. As a result, there is some risk to brand perception.
If you are a classic Coach buyer -- stylish, but restrained in your taste -- and your nearest Coach store suddenly is filled with extravagant logo-dominant merchandise with chains, padlocks and buckles, well, that can be jarring. Suddenly, Coach isn't your store. And that's a risk to be managed. However, if the selection is not right for you, maybe it's perfect for your granddaughter.
Yet the challenge for Coach is never to lose you.
That's the distinction that English luxury marketer Burberry achieved in their highly successful brand expansion in the late 1990s. Virtually overnight, Burberry become very youthful, very extravagant, and very new -- yet still retained their traditional, upper-crust customers. Burberry today is the classic case of luxury brand expansion.
Fortunately, if you are a classic Coach shopper (stylish and restrained in your taste), you should know that very stylish, very restrained Coach designs are still available, still beautifully made, and there are more of them in Coach today than there have ever been.
Perhaps Coach needs to make you aware of that.
The fact is, if you are wondering about the Frankfort-Krakoff strategy and what impact it may have on brand perception, you haven't looked at Coach lately.
The Coach handbag selection alone is dazzling -- there isn't a style, or the shadow of a style, or a design or tonal note that Coach hasn't explored and found a way to attach two perfect handles and offer it in the sizes, colors and textures you prefer -- either logo'd to death, logo-free, patchwork or plain, classic and traditional, or -- for the younger shopper who is your granddaughter -- totally off the charts with color, metal, and pizzaz.
To be specific, Coach now offers 14 handbag lines, all beautifully conceived, a total of over 231 individual handbags.
Again, maybe Coach needs to make you aware of that.
Ultimately, successful brand management is a balancing act. Intuition is as important as insight. And as observers have noted, Coach is on the line.
But Coach has leaders like Lew Frankfort and Reed Krakoff.
They are creatively inspired, they understand and respect the DNA of their brand, and they know their customers.
Marketers like this always seem to find a way to make things happen.
Kudos to Coach.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Before it's news, it's Reuters
In the hands of advertising copywriters, the English language is a powerful tool. And copywriters, sometimes, are children.
Children should never be allowed to play with power tools.
Once in a while, however, a humble copywriter taps into something truly amazing, truly magical, that captures the essence of a brand in a heartbeat, stops competitors in their tracks, and reinvents the category.
Some brilliant writer, somewhere, not so long ago, coined five simple words, in an eternal verity, to announce Reuters sponsorship on National Public Radio. I almost drove off the road when I first heard it:
"Before it's news, it's Reuters."
In today's topsy-turvey world, where the news really isn't The New York Times anymore, nor ABC, nor NBC, nor CBS, nor frankly, even NPR. But rather, the Internet in all its forms, including Yahoo!News, just to give one example, where we can decide if we prefer the Associated Press (AP) view of the universe, or Reuters, or both on our home page ... this killer phrase defines Reuters in a new world.
We happen to like Reuters. We think Reuters offers a balanced, global perspective. And that's our perspective.
We have no connection to Reuters, just so you know. And to be truthful, we are shocked that Reuters doesn't use this brilliant 30-carat diamond idea anywhere else, at least so far as we can tell, other than on NPR.
Yet it belongs all over their brand.
This five-word pearl defines the Reuters brand.
If you know Reuters, tell them.
Children should never be allowed to play with power tools.
Once in a while, however, a humble copywriter taps into something truly amazing, truly magical, that captures the essence of a brand in a heartbeat, stops competitors in their tracks, and reinvents the category.
Some brilliant writer, somewhere, not so long ago, coined five simple words, in an eternal verity, to announce Reuters sponsorship on National Public Radio. I almost drove off the road when I first heard it:
"Before it's news, it's Reuters."
In today's topsy-turvey world, where the news really isn't The New York Times anymore, nor ABC, nor NBC, nor CBS, nor frankly, even NPR. But rather, the Internet in all its forms, including Yahoo!News, just to give one example, where we can decide if we prefer the Associated Press (AP) view of the universe, or Reuters, or both on our home page ... this killer phrase defines Reuters in a new world.
We happen to like Reuters. We think Reuters offers a balanced, global perspective. And that's our perspective.
We have no connection to Reuters, just so you know. And to be truthful, we are shocked that Reuters doesn't use this brilliant 30-carat diamond idea anywhere else, at least so far as we can tell, other than on NPR.
Yet it belongs all over their brand.
This five-word pearl defines the Reuters brand.
If you know Reuters, tell them.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Victoria's Secret wins Super Bowl XLII
Adriana Lima warms up for her Victoria's Secret
appearance promoting sales for Valentine's Day which
was broadcast immediately after Super Bowl XLII.
The most compelling of over 50 commercials aired, it
was the strongest, most authentic brand communicator.
Even better than the Clydesdales.
Fortunately, or unfortunately, the happy pranksters who typically write Super Bowl commercials were on vacation. This year's crop of spots were authored by minor leaguers. No standouts. No drop dead winners. And no wardrobe malfunctions. Certainly, it was not a toilet bowl (as in years past). But not a victory bowl, either.
As usual, brand messaging took a vacation, replaced by stunts, gags and games. But it's the Super Bowl. It's about entertainment, not marketing. There probably hasn't been a major marketing tour de force on this broadcast since Apple's '1984' epic in, well, 1984, created by Chiat Day's Lee Clow and Steve Hayden for Apple computer.
Popular favorites this year were a big, cosy brand commercial for Budweiser (a Dalmation carriage dog trains a Budweiser Clydesdale for next year's Super Bowl horse team) and an epic for Coca-Cola with Peanuts characters joining a mega-sized Coke bottle, portrayed as balloons over Fifth Avenue, in a Macy's-style parade that only had us thinking about high winds, uncontrollable balloons and falling light poles.
As for the rest, some very funny spots (and some unfunny spots) filled the gaps between the action in a great football game.
Notably, Charles Barkley, personally stunning in a brilliantly scripted and produced spot for ... who? And Will Ferrell, in a typically brilliant Will Ferrell performance ... for who? Otherwise, sometime-model Naomi Campbell with some creepy dancing gekkos, some with flashing diamond teeth, for someone (not Geico). Creepy cavemen (for Geico). A very creepy fang-nashing possum for ... a car? Creepy was a theme this year.
But supermodel Adriana Lima silenced the room, focused men and women, a cooed a soothing, sultry message for people with passions to indulge them in time for Valentine's Day. Check out Victoria's Secret for the real thing. This is what great brands do when they know who they are and what they have to do to connect.
Kudos of the Year to Victoria's Secret and, of course, to Ms. Lima.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Starbucks to rebuild the emotional core of the brand
Make no mistake. It's not about 'feeling good' about Starbucks. At least, not in any simplistic sense.
It's pure business.
In the same week that Starbucks Chairman and pioneering brand-builder Howard Schultz was (re)appointed by the Starbucks board to the instantly-vacated chief executive position, McDonald's announced their intention to expand coffee service in McDonald's restaurants and add barista positions.
Which came first?
On January 7, 2008, making a conscious decision to slow U.S. growth in order to refocus the customer experience, Howard Schultz announced an agenda committed to "re-igniting the emotional attachment with customers and restoring the connections customers have with Starbucks coffee, people, brand and store."
In a letter to customers on the home page of the Starbucks website, Howard Schultz says:
"Twenty-five years ago, I walked into Starbucks first store and I fell in love -- with the coffee I tasted, with the passion of the people working there, and with how it looked, smelled and felt. From that day, I had a vision that a store can offer a welcoming experience for customers, be part of their community, and become a "third place" that is part of their lives every day -- and that it can provide a truly superior cup of coffee."
Later in the letter, he promises a new Starbucks, which is actually the old Starbucks, re-envisioned and renewed. But the last phrase of his comment is critically important. If McDonald's, somehow, can provide a very good cup of coffee, perhaps at a lower price, then Starbucks faces a very serious threat.
The departing Starbucks chief was given great kudos for his business and operational management. But clearly Howard Schultz and the board felt more must be done to buttress Starbucks against McDonald's, particularly if McDonald's finds a coffee recipe that works and can also find the raw ingredients to make their expansion possible.
One of the big problems is the world's supply of quality Arabica beans.
Earlier this year, Howard Schultz defined his priorities as securing the world's best supply of the best beans by working with the best growers in the best way. That's great.
But perhaps we see there an inkling of other objectives -- to protect Starbucks, of course. To honor growers, naturally. But above all, to defend against the Golden Arches.
Obviously, that's the priority.
We salute Mr. Schultz for rebuilding coffee as the American beverage.
For years the folks at Maxwell House, we know, felt coffee had ceded ground to Coca-Cola as "the national beverage." But Starbucks ignored everything and actually changed how we think about coffee.
Thanks to Starbucks, we have a different idea in our minds about what coffee is.
Now Howard Schultz is determined to protect that idea and defend it against allcomers, including the greatest potential threat on the planet, Mickey D.
His offense and his defense?
The Starbucks brand, and the Starbucks experience.
It will be a great encounter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
