Branding Products, Branding People



What's in a Name? The Power of Branding

A brief history of branding

1. Today branding is all about image ((תדמית. A brand name must be alive with associations: a Call to Action ( Nike) or Be Youthful ( Coca-Cola). But it was not always like that. Branding began as a method for ranchers to identify their cattle. By burning, or branding a symbol into the hide of a baby calf, the owner could be sure to get his animal back if it wandered off or was stolen. Before marketing became a branch of psychology, branding and advertising were simple ways for manufacturers to publicize and identify their product.

2. At first manufacturers believed in simple descriptions over hype, and text over pictures: “The more you tell, the more you sell” and “White space is wasted space”. Any illustrations used in an advertisement were directly relevant to the product itself, and not an emotional association as we have today. Although some pictures did appear in advertisements and on packaging as early as the 1800s - the Quaker Oats man showed up in 1887 - these were not intended to affect consumers psychologically. They were meant to help people remember one brand over another.

3. But things changed after World War II, when Americans turned toward movies and television and away from newspapers and radio. The advertisers’ focus then shifted from just naming and describing their products, to creating images for them. This is when the concept of a 'brand' really began, and pictures and illustrations took on a different role. Many pictures were based on family values, with illustrations set in recognizable situations, such as significant childhood memories caught on camera and labeled "Kodak Moments", or a mother serving Campbell's soup to her children on a cold day. One of the most successful early examples was when the Minnesota Valley Canning Company designed a figure called ' Jolly Green Giant ' to promote a rather boring product -- a tin of peas.

As the character (and the peas) grew in popularity, people began to understand that a successful brand image could have a considerable impact on sales.

4. But gradually these family-value based advertisements were left behind. Advertisments became more abstract and image-based, and only occasionally referred to a product’s actual qualities. This shift was partly based on the belief that often consumers could only distinguish between products because of their images. For example, most people cannot tell the difference between one brand of gasoline and another. So what determines their choice? David Ogilvy, a leader in the world of advertising says "It isn’t the gasoline they choose, it’s the image." Thus in the 1960s, Americans learned to “trust our car to the man who wears the star” not because Texaco had better gasoline than Shell, but because the company’s advertisers had created a better brand image.

5. Along with the 'brand image' people, another school of advertisers was busy learning about its audience. Marketers began conducting demographic polls and surveys on the people they hoped to influence. They took into account four factors: race, age, sex, and wages. Advertisements for most menthol cigarettes, for example, picture African-Americans because, according to demographic research, black men prefer them to regular cigarettes. Microsoft chose Rolling Stones songs to launch Windows 95, a product targeted at wealthy baby boomers.

6. By the 1980s, the two strands of advertising theory - brand image and demographic research - were used to develop campaigns that work on both levels. Another factor was also introduced - the target consumer’s psychological needs. It is this combined approach that is used by most advertising professionals today. So Volvo advertisements are aimed at upper-middle-class white parents who fear for their children’s health and safety, and the Harley-Davidson image appeals to those men who think of themselves as 'wild boys' , and want to rebel against the conventional way of life. Cartier watches and jewelry are designed for successful professionals who wish to show others, that although they are wealthy, they also have class, style and elegance.

Do you want to live safely or on the wild side?

The fame game: why brands want celebrities

7. As advertising cranks up the pace, celebrity endorsement is big business. Whether it's David Beckham brandishing a Gillette razor, or the Sugababes in Pretty Polly tights, we've all got used to associating big names with big brands.

For the celebs, the primary benefits are obvious. Turn up for a few photo shoots, appear on an advert or two, and bring a truck to transport the stacks of cash home. If we're talking facts and figures, Gary Linekar was paid £1.5m for a five year contract with Walkers, and Charlotte Church recently became another crips-crunching high earner, signing a £100,000 contract to star alongside him. Meanwhile, Jamie Oliver purportedly earns over a million a year from Sainsburys - not bad for a handful of adverts a year. Enormous one-off payments are also common, with Justin Timberlake banking £3.4m for his soprano one-liner to the McDonald's "I'm Lovin' It" campaign, while Madonna's netted £4m for a single appearance wearing Max Factor.

For a true cash hard-hitter, step up David Beckham, whose year long programme endorsing 12 separate products earned him £15m - enough to keep Victoria in clothes and make-up for at least a week. Then again, sometimes the products themselves are enough to tempt less wealthy celebs to fly the flag. French band Neimo are only too happy to wear clothing label Tsuibi in return for free outfits. "We don't have to buy any now!" says lead singer Bruno. "And they have the style we like. Obviously, fans will always try to copy what you wear onstage but I think it's question of image first for Tsubi. It's always cooler to have artists wear your clothes I guess."

But celebrities endorsing products get something besides money and freebies. Simon Seward of Touchdown, a global brand affinity marketing specialist, points to a number of additional benefits. "I see most big celebrities as brands in their own right," says Simon. "And endorsement can be a clever way to build that. Look at Ian Botham - he hasn't played cricket for donkey's years, but we still know him, partly because of his appearances on Shredded Wheat adverts.

"I think people see a human side with celebrity endorsement, which you wouldn't be able to get any other way. This works even if a celebrity has had personal problems, because it can add to their appeal. If you look at someone like Kerry Katona, she's probably more appealing to Iceland shoppers because she's experienced personal problems which makes people identify with her. Brands can seem quite cold and analytical, and some companies in particular will benefit more from the human angle. Supermarket shopping, for example, is generally seen as quite a chore, so most of the big chains use celebrities to make them seem like more exciting places to be."

In terms of building human feelings into larger brands, celebrities can also help bring a smaller brand into the wider media arena. Web-based company have recently made the decision to take on soap star Shobna Gulati (who plays Sunita Parekh in Coronation Street) as part of a wider push to launch their brand. For managing director Harjeet Johal, it's a move they believe will add credibility and value to their brand. "We've just got to the point where we feel celebrity endorsement is right for us," explains Harjeet. "Shobna was our first choice so we were very pleased to get her. We think she's right for our product and target audience. We've just finished a photo shoot with her and we'll be using the images on our website and in other promotional materials as well."

For both celebrities and business, however, endorsement is a very different business now than when it started. Stars recommending their favourite products spans back to the very first feature films, with Theda Bara providing the ideal advocate for make-up by Helena Rubenstein. In many ways the endorsements in this era reflected the media of the time, with movie-stars the main focus of product placement. Then, as media evolved, so did the celebrities. "There's just a lot more media now," says Touchdown's Simon Seward. "There are far more magazines on the shelves and channels on TV. The term 'celebrity' is stretched more thinly so there's a wider choice of people who might fit your customer demographic."

So now we're seeing Ricardo from TV show The Salon endorsing shampoo and Chantelle Houghton from Big Brother becoming an overnight national celebrity. But the other change has been for celebrities to take control of their own business acumen, and use their status to launch products of their own. Actress Leslie Ash has recently launched Matron, an antibacterial gel which was formulated as a result of her contracting MRSA in hospital. "When I was in hospital I noticed the nurses had to wear latex gloves because the antibacterial soaps they were using cracked their hands," says Leslie. "I thought, well we have aloe vera, and all that kind of stuff - why can't we have something similar which prevents against MRSA? We had to do loads and loads of testing, but after all that the results came through, and we had a product which did what it was supposed to do, we set about promoting.

"I have used my celebrity status to help get publicity for it. It has been quite helpful. I didn't just want to be another celebrity promoting a product they didn't believe in. Maybe some people think that about what I'm doing here, but I don't really care. If I can stop one person from getting MRSA and going through what I went through, it will be worth it."

Leslie's hand gel is selling well and has gained important recognition. But what happens when a celebrity association isn't so successful? After all, with the benefits of teaming a famous face to a brand come the obvious disadvantages - celebs are only human after all.

"There are lots of different aspects to consider, but some damage limitation is definitely advisable," says Stuart Whitwell of brand consultant Intangible Business. "Kate Moss got away with it, but the whole incident of her drug use could have been disastrous for the brands she was involved in. Then there's the possibility of celebrities being seen shopping at a rival store, or generally doing things which are not in keeping with their image in relation to the brand."

Stuart also points out that many celebrities have a limited shelf life - particular sports stars and athletes - and it is these who are, ironically, often favourite for a variety of lucrative endorsement contracts. In addition, the very success of a celebrity's association with a brand could cause problems were the relationship to suddenly terminate. Walker's Crisps, for example, should be wary of their almost inseparable association with Gary Linekar. "What happens if Gary Linekar decides to pull out of the deal?" asks Stuart. "It would be pretty hard to find a replacement." And so - hello Charlotte Church!

But despite the disadvantages to allying your brand with a famous face, it is a certainly a popular and successful means of promotion - and one which looks set to grow. In a survey carried out by GMI Inc. (the world's leading provider of global online market research) 30 per cent of US and European shoppers would be more likely to buy a product which came with celebrity endorsement. In Japan and China, this figure stood at around 55 per cent. So while it's a good option for Western businesses, there's room for improvement. Over the next decade, it looks as though images of stars drinking Pepsi will only get bigger.

SHOW ME THE MONEY

Celebrity endorsement is a big game. Here are the current top ten celebrity accounts.

CATHERINE ZETA JONES: T-Mobile, £11.2m

ANGELINA JOLIE: St. John, £6.7m

NICOLE KIDMAN: Channel No.5, £6.7m

JESSICA SIMPSON: Guthy-Renker, £4.2m

GWYNETH PALTROW: Estée Lauder, £3.4m+

CHARLIZE THERON: Dior, £3.4m

JULIA ROBERTS: Gianfranco Ferré, £2.8m

BRAD PITT: Heineken, £2.2m

SCARLETT JOHANNSON: L'Oreal, £2.2m

PENELOPE CRUZ: L'Oreal, £2.2m

We've all got used to associating celebrity names with big brands. The advantage of attaching a celebrity to a brand is that the brand literally has a face, name and personality that immediately projects an image of a living, breathing, person as opposed to a faceless corporation. For the celebrities, the benefits are obvious. In 2005 David Beckham, endorsed 12 separate products which earned him £15m - enough to keep Victoria in clothes and make-up for at least a week! Enormous, often out of proportion one-off payments are also common, with Justin Timberlake receiving £3.4m for singing one line in the McDonald's "I'm Lovin' It" campaign, and Madonna getting £4m for a single appearance wearing Max Factor.

8. But there are problems. Many celebrities have a limited shelf life - particular sports stars and athletes. And what about those who behave badly? There is usually a drop in sales when the celebrity associated with a product falls from favor with the public, or is no longer a household name. But despite the disadvantages to associating your brand with a famous face, it is a certainly a popular and successful means of promotion - and one which looks set to grow.

But who really has the influence? The brand or the consumer?

10. But the power of the brand is now being challenged by the consumer. Recent trends show that consumers can increasingly influence the behaviour of companies. Arrogance, greed and hypocrisy are swiftly punished. Nike has made major changes to its supply chain after being accused of running sweatshops in some Asian countries. Mighty Coca-Cola was humbled when impurities in bottles of drink produced in India were found to be a result of poor factory conditions. Sales dropped and people turned to their competitors such as Pepsi and Fanta. One observer commented “It is wrong to say that brands can be too powerful. Brands are all about accountability. If people fall out of love with your brand, you go out of business.”

11. But incidents like this makes brands highly effective tools through which to bring about change. Companies like Nike have been forced to invest heavily in improving their manufacturing standards in order to protect their brands. But World Bank studies show that when brands invest in developing economies, these countries also benefit. This is because the branded multinationals pay the best wages and have the best working conditions. Those countries that are more open to trade and foreign investment, particularly in Asia, have shown faster increases in living standards than relatively closed countries, such as those in much of Africa.

12. Brands not only have to stand for product quality and a desirable image, they also have to show that there is a value system behind the brand. David Horton, an expert in brand building, believes that today the big thing in branding is social responsibility. “Clever companies now say there is nothing different about our product or price, but we behave well.” Far from being evil, brands are becoming " an effective way of improving the lives of millions citizens in the developing world."

Adapted from:

-----------------------

[pic]

AN ATTEMPT TO BRAND A COUNTRY

"The Spirit of Romania"

What's the first thing that comes to mind when you hear the word Romania? Eastern European Poverty? Gold medal gymnasts? Dracula?

One of the last things you think of is travel and tourism. But a small Romanian based advertising company aims to change all that with the help of a daring re-branding project "The Spirit of Romania".

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download