Corporate Eye

...compare, compete, excel

Susan Gunelius

Susan Gunelius

Penske Rescues Saturn from GM

saturn-penskeI remember back in 1994 when I bought my first Saturn and in 1996 when I bought my second Saturn.  I didn’t buy another after that.

In the beginning, Saturn was a brand built on differentiation and word-of-mouth marketing.  It was a brand that created expectations and lived up to them.  It was a brand with a clear brand promise, “a different kind of car company,” and it lived up to that brand promise again and again.  The result was a powerful cult brand with a large band of loyal brand advocates.  It became a relationship brand that relied on brand experiences — in the showroom, in the service department, at the manufacturing plant, and even at the annual Saturn owners picnic, which drew thousands of loyal Saturn owners from around the United States each year to share their love of the Saturn brand.

In just a few years later, everything changed, and Saturn has never been the same. [Read more…] about Penske Rescues Saturn from GM

Brand Name Challenged Microsoft Cries ‘It’s Not a Netbook”

netbookWindows 7, Windows 8 — Microsoft is known for branding its products with nondescript, meaningless names.  Now, Microsoft is rebranding the netbook computer using it’s oh so boring brand naming strategy.  Ready for this one?  Here goes:

At the Computex event in Taipei, Microsoft announced that netbooks will now be called “low cost small notebook PCs”.  I’m reminded of Arnold Schwarzenegger in the movie “Kindergarten Cop” when he cries, “It’s not a tumor,” but in Microsoft’s case, the mantra is, “it’s not a netbook!”

Why is Microsoft renaming netbooks?  Because segmenting the market will differentiate machines that offer so much more than Internet access!  Although rumor has it Microsoft’s intentions have less to do with enhancing the features of netbooks to create something better than ever that consumers have been clamoring for as it does with trimming down the existing netbook by removing Windows Starter Edition from them.  Either way, it’s one more notch on the belt of confusion for Microsoft and its brand strategy.

Here’s an idea for Microsoft — how about focusing on making the products they already have actually work the way they’re supposed to?  I’m just saying.

How do the new “low cost small notebook PCs” fit into the existing marketplace, and how do you know exactly what you’re buying or what you already have in your hands?  Check out the hilarious netbook lexicon flow chart courtesy of The Register.  

If that isn’t evidence of consumer confusion, I don’t know what is.  There is something to be said for simple branding strategies.

Your thoughts?  If it looks like a netbook and smells like a netbook, is it a netbook?

Image: Flickr

Top 100 Global Brands of 2009 Ranked by Brand Z – Google Rules the World

google_logo_buildingEach year, WPP sponsors the annual ranking of the top 100 global brands through its report from Brand Z.  The results for 2009 are in, and the list isn’t that surprising. 

Google tops the list.  HSBC ranks 30th as the top international financial institution in terms of brand value — not surprising based on the financial meltdown in much of the world that affected most banks and finance companies.  Toyota ranks 14th and is the highest ranked auto brand (interestingly, Honda ranks a mere 50th).  Walmart comes in 3rd, and is the highest ranked retailer.

I find several things particularly interesting about this brand ranking report: [Read more…] about Top 100 Global Brands of 2009 Ranked by Brand Z – Google Rules the World

Brands Still Not Connecting with Consumers on Social Media Sites

social-media-profilesA new study from Knowledge Networks sheds some light on social media site usage, including the nonexistent connection between brands and consumers through social media.  The study reports that 4% or fewer consumers who use social media sites (such as Facebook, Digg, Flickr, and more) on a consistent basis actually seek out information about brands “regularly” on those sites in order to make purchase decisions.  24% or fewer consumers who use social media sites on a regular basis “sometimes” seek out information about brands on those sites to make purchase decisions.

What does this tell us as marketers and brand managers?  First, the secret to connecting with consumers through social media has yet to be found.  However, one thing is fairly certain, traditional advertising on social media sites is not getting the job done — no surprise there.  While consumers don’t mind seeing unobtrusive ads on social sites in order to use those sites for free, those ads are not having much of an impact at all on those consumers.

The missing link remains the elusive “connection” component.  The majority of respondents to the Knowledge Networks poll said they use social media sites to stay connected with friends and family and to connect with new people.  There’s that word “connected” again and again.  Is it surprising that ads which talk at consumers rather than with them (a much more social, and “connected” method) don’t work on social media sites?  That part of the equation is common sense.  The problem is still finding how to create brand experiences (or “connections”) through social media sites that are useful and meaningful to consumers and add value rather than just interrupting  and annoying them.

Let’s put this into perspective though.  The widespread use of social media sites is still in its infancy.  Without a doubt, the products, offerings, and players will change significantly over the course of the next 5 and the next 10 years.  The important thing is for brands not to give up testing ways to connect with consumers through social media.  The likelihood of social media dying a quick death is slim to none.  It’s here to stay.  The challenge is going to be getting executive commitment to a long term strategy of learning to leverage social media for branding and marketing success.  In other words, it all comes down to the money.  What else is new?

Your thoughts?

Image: Flickr

AOL Breaks Free of Time Warner but is It Too Late for AOL?

aolJust eight years ago in 2001, Time Warner paid $147 billion to buy AOL.  Time Warner even went so far as to add the AOL name to the company’s corporate brand, creating AOL Time Warner.  Fast forward to 2009, and AOL has been draining money from Time Warner for years.  Finally, Time Warner announced that it’s cutting ties with AOL and spinning it off as a separate public company in a press release distributed today.  But is it too late for AOL?

As one of my undergrad professors always reminded his students, business is cyclical.  Companies merge and centralize, and over time, they split apart again and become more decentralized.  History repeats itself again and again, and so does business.  Time Warner got too big.  Just as AT&T did in the 1990s, Time Warner couldn’t handle all the various, disjointed aspects operating under its umbrella and realized, it’s time to concentrate on its core to survive.  First, it spun off it’s cable and broadband Internet services business, and now, it’s AOL’s turn to break free of the Time Warner corporate stronghold.  Time Warner has made the decision to focus on it’s core — media — through movies, magazines, and cable networks.  It’s about time.

With its pending release from Time Warner,  AOL has a chance to revive its brand and rebuild its business in order to actually appeal to a broader audience with relevant products and services.  Let’s face it — the online world moves far faster than a corporate conglomerate like Time Warner can move.  A new AOL actually stands a chance of succeeding in the long term. 

The Time Warner and AOL split should be a good thing for everyone, including consumers.  What do you think? 

Image: Flickr