Weighted Down In The New Year

New Weightwatchers logo puts on some pounds.

One of the biggest decisions people worldwide make around this time is what to do in the New Year. The biggest resolution is always weight loss, but it seems like Weight Watchers — a major player in that particular arena — has put on some pounds with its new identity. The justification for the change sounds nice, but we fail to see “modern, open and energetic.” If anything it’s flat, not to mention squat and chunky.

New logo

Previous logo

We appreciate the attempt to illustrate a transformation by having the new logo gradate, but agree that isn’t necessarily the best way to do it. It’s a weight loss program — not an invisibility tonic. Weight Watchers offers a lifestyle change and an increase in health and vitality. By losing weight, you gain much more. We think that would’ve been more interesting — and valuable — to represent their brand image in their logo than what was used. Based on their primary audience (women) and how they try to make weight loss look fun and easy, the logo might also benefit from a more feminine, carefree look.

Color variations

It’s easy to get carried away with applying meaning when creating new organizational identities. But sometimes that’s the barrier you were trying to overcome all along — particularly when a company name itself has power. Jeff Halmos, a brand strategist in Toronto, may have summed it up best when referring to Microsoft’s recent brand changes:

“So the question, ‘What do you think of the new Microsoft logo’ is a futile one. You’re not supposed to notice, let alone ask. It’s not meant to be discerned. There is no story here. Nothing to talk about. That’s the point: ‘You have the word; it’s been around; everyone knows it; what’s the problem?’ Any implied or imparted meaning is now being defined by the tribe. Microsoft has no control over its brand anymore. The tribe owns it. The less Microsoft does to get in the way, the longer the tribe will feed.”

One of the main reasons we create identities is to make things easier. Clients shouldn’t have to spend time thinking about which iteration of their logo should be used in one application or another. Identity should simplify, not create more situations where people have to make decisions on color configuration, etc.

More colors mean more decisions, and more decisions mean more time spent not getting things done.

AIG Says "Thanks"

We say "Really?"

Well, it’s nice to be thanked.

AIG, or the American International Group insurance company, has launched a 2013 advertising campaign entitled “Thank You America.” The campaign, which will cover print, broadcast, and Web media, is intended to pass on the company’s appreciation to U.S. taxpayers for the largest financial bailout in American history. It also highlights the company’s return to profitablity, and its contribution to communities coast to coast.

We suppose it’s better to be thanked versus the alternative. We’ll admit, though, that the first thing we did upon hearing this news was to check to see if We The People are paying for the AIG’s expressions of appreciation.

We’re not. As of December, 2012, the Treasury has divested itself of AIG stock and has seen a profit of $22.7 billion on its bailout, dating from September 2008, which totaled $182 billion. All in all, that’s not a bad return from a fiscal episode that was, at the time, absolutely terrifying.

But here’s the thing — our well-thumbed ettiquette handbook tells us that gratitude is typically offered for assistance willingly given. Did any of us actually choose to bail out AIG?

Not by a long shot. AIG got bailed out because their bad decisions and poor investments effectively pointed a loaded gun at our collective heads. The Treasury opted to save AIG because not doing so would have likely sunk the economy.

And there’s something frankly self-congratulatory in this “Thank You” campaign. AIG knows, as do we all, that their corporate image was irreparably tarnished in those dark days of 2008. During the financial industry hearings on Capitol Hill, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), famously suggested on the record that AIG executives should resign — or commit suicide.

We won’t go (quite) that far. But we will suggest that AIG’s appreciation might be better expressed more constructively. Couldn’t they have written a check to the Treasury in the amount they’re spending on this campaign? Or given it to the victims of Hurricane Sandy or Sandy Hook?

Saying thanks is supposed to be an act of selflessness. If AIG is able to learn that lesson, we might be more inclined to say, “You’re welcome.”

The C4:

1. The American International Group, or AIG, was laid low in late 2008 after investing heavily in mortgage-based credit default swaps. When their likely collapse seemed destined to crash our economy, the U.S. Treasury bailed them out to the tune of $182 billion.
    
2. But happy days are here again. AIG has paid back all their direct loans, and the Treasury has sold off all the AIG stock it was holding. We’ve recovered that $182 billion, plus nearly $23 billion in pure profit.
    
3. Which is great. Better than most of us expected, in fact. Why then, does it leave a bad taste in our mouths to learn AIG has launched a massive “Thank You America” advertising campaign?
    
4. Because none of us chose to bail out AIG, and because something about “Thank You America” sounds a lot like “Aren’t We Swell?” For obvious reasons, we’re all in favor of advertising campaigns — the bigger, the better, in fact. But in this case we’d rather have seen AIG spend their advertising dollars on a true act of selflessness. That is, after all, how one truly says “thanks.”

The Death of Brands?

Not if branders really get (and give) the value of their value.

A recent Time Magazine story entitled Brand Names Just Don't Mean As Much Anymore posited that belt-tightening in the wake of the Great Recession has brought on the slow, steady decline of brand-name goods. The story cites the no-name or generic items that sit next to the similar (sometimes identical) brand-name equivalents on grocery store and drugstore shelves.

Consumers have long known that generics compare well to the brands in quality, and purely outshine them in price. It seems that in this "new normal" of everyday cost-consciousness (where 93% of shoppers report changes in buying habits due to the economy), consumers are now choosing generics with increasing regularity.

So should the brand names be panicking? Well, not exactly — especially since many of the brand-name producers also supply the generic or store-brand goods. This trend might be cutting into profits, but it isn't yet erasing them.

But consumer goods suppliers, and indeed brand managers everywhere, should definitely be paying attention. What we're seeing here is a shift in the consumer mindset, and a forecast into their brand-loyalty — or the lack of it — for generations to come.

Because brand loyalty hasn't died, it's just stopped being blind. Consumers really do want to embrace familiar brands, instead of scrambling for bargains each week. Consumers are happy to support companies, products, and yes, brands they believe in...providing they see those things as worthy of their support.

And what makes them worthy? Is it price? Not exactly.

It's value.

Don't make the mistake of conflating price with value. Price is an element of value, but it's not the entirety. Value is a complicated algorithm that's computed unconsciously in the consumer's head. It integrates variables like quality, availability, and even brand equity, to arrive at a value-based buying decision. And clearly, if two side-by-side products are identical in every way except price, that lower price tips the scales of value.

So brand managers, what can you do if you can't compete on price? Compete on value — make a better product, market it better, service it better, and build a quality-centric brand to stand behind it.

The best part of this formula for success is that it doesn't just apply to the consumer goods that Time was speaking of. If you've got a brand, no matter your business, focus on value and you can't go wrong.

The C4:

1. Time Magazine just reported that due to shifts in buying habits, brand-name consumer goods are losing market share to their generic, no-name, or store-brand equivalents. We like Time's reporting, but this particular revelation surprised exactly no one. 
2. Economies can change rapidly, but buying habits, not so much. Consumers are now in the habit of seeking out the best values, brand loyalty be damned. This is the new normal, and marketers need to get used to it.
3. It's not (necessarily) a matter of price. It's value. It's bang for the buck. If a no-name brand compares well in quality but is 20% cheaper, most consumers won't agonize over the decision very long before putting that no-name in their shopping cart. 
4. Marketers take heed. No matter what you're selling, you'd better be selling it with value. If you can't compete on price then you have to be offering something else, something of value, that the cut-rate brands just can't provide. This is an axiom we all should have been living by all along, but now it's a matter of success or failure.

Tend To The Trends

But beware of paralysis when mining your findings.

There's a lot going on in data mining,
and just as much when searching for it.

What's trending now? That's a culturally loaded question, and the answer very much depends upon where you look. What's trending on Twitter? What are the hot topics on Facebook? On a more macro level, what's trending with your customers? What are they buying, what are their gripes, what turns them off and what turns them on?

Start asking those questions, and it's all too easy to get sucked into a virtual world of information overload. You can data-mine yourself into paralysis, always parsing data but never acting on it. And if you're over-monitoring social network trends, you might find yourself with lots of online friends and followers, yet with a spiraling level of productivity.

None of which is to say that data-mining on topical trends isn't worth your time. It's free business intelligence, as close as the Connect channel on Twitter, or the Google Adwords keyword tool. You have at your fingertips some of the most powerful engines imaginable for getting inside consumers' heads, for seeing what matters to them, what they like about products (any products), and what they hate about them.

Just...beware that paralysis. Protect your productivity. Approach this venture with a plan — know which trends you want to monitor; make lists of search engine keywords you want to check hit rates for; identify in advance the specifics of your data-mining: demographics, product preferences, buying history.

Most importantly, know what you want to do with this info. Are you willing to make major changes based on what you find? Or will you at best make some minor tactical adjustments? Either answer is acceptable, as long as that's your plan going in. 

Things are trending right now. A lot of things. A few of them directly impact your business. It's easy to find them, a bit harder to act upon them...but it's all well worth the effort.

The C4:

1. "What's trending" is the new way of asking "What are people talking about?" With social media, they're talking quite a bit, and it couldn't be easier to eavesdrop.
    
2. So listen in. Decide what trends you need to know about — things impacting your business, your product line, etc. — and use the tools at your disposal to data-mine the trending topics in social media, and the most popular search engine keywords.
    
3. But beware analysis paralysis! You can expect a flood of info coming in. Budget your time and resources appropriately, and don't turn trend-mining into a full-time job.
    
4. Above all else, act! Find ways to turn trends (specifically, your knowledge of trends) into a business advantage. Think of your time and effort at trend-mining as an investment, and make sure you get a return on it.

News Strong to News Weak

A venerable giant in our news lexicon, Newsweek shifts from print to online only.

Newsweek, an 80-year-old standard-bearer for news magazines, announced on October 18 that they would cease print operations at the start of 2013, and switch to an all-digital format.

It’s hard not to see this development as gloomy, especially for we news consumers who’ve seen daily local papers shrink or disappear, and who’ve seen dramatic changes forced on venerable outfits like the New Orleans Times-Picayune, the Christian Science Monitor, and the The New York Times Magazine.

Newsweek’s editor-in-chief, Tina Brown, makes clear in her announcement that the organization is reacting to the same demographic shifts and economic forces that downsized the Times-Picayune and compelled the Monitor to publish only online. She cites the 39 percent of Americans who say they get their news from the Web, as well as the explosive growth in tablet users, who are perhaps the ripest targets for subscription-based digital distribution. She leaves unspoken the shrinking circulation of print editions — and the commensurate shrinkage of ad revenue — but there’s no doubt these were the spurs that made Newsweek’s shift inevitable.

We’ll miss Newsweek, at least the Newsweek we’ve come to know. Brown promises no change in editorial vitality and journalistic integrity, and we have no reason to doubt her word. But still, the nostalgia…

But we’re advertisers and business people, and nostalgia pays no bills. In that respect, what does an all-online Newsweek mean to us? 

It means that marketers had better come to understand, to master, the evolutionary changes in the news industry. Consumers will still be reading Newsweek, as well as all the other digital outlets, and they’ll still be receptive to our advertising messages.

But they’ll be a somewhat different set of consumers. On average they’ll be younger, more tech-savvy, more affluent. And as tier-based subscribers, they’ll be empowered to pick and choose which marketing messages they’ll see. These are the realities that create insurmountable challenges for some 21st-century advertisers and awesome opportunities for others.

So yes, we’ll miss the Newsweek we’ve known all our lives. But we’re ready to work with the new Newsweek, and ready to thrive in this new media landscape. We hope you are too.

The C4:

1. The December 31, 2012 issue of Newsweek will be their last in print. As of New Year 2013, Newsweek will join the Christian Science Monitor and the New York Times Magazine in shifting to an all-digital format.
    
2. Grant yourself a moment of nostalgia. Think about the noble history of print news in this country. Reflect on the sad fact that the print news industry is disappearing before our eyes.
    
3. But let that moment pass, and get busy adapting. For advertisers, this new media landscape presents awesome opportunities. It’s an entirely different world, requiring different approaches and newly developed skillsets.
    
4. We’re dedicating ourselves to embracing this new world, and we hope you are too. Tina Brown would agree: it’s a matter of survival.