chrisbrogan.com - Latest Comments in The Multi-Branded Human

Re: The Multi-Branded Human

Sesli Sohbet — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 16:26:47 -0000

Brand loyalty? I think it works both ways. I am very loyal to my broadband provider (Irish - u.tv) because their customer service is excellent and when I had a problem the supervisor rang me back the next day to check I was OK. (That NEVER happened with my previou provider who are now doing the business equivalent of flowers, chocolates and dinner to get me back. I on the other hand feel a strong antipathy to Apple (no hatemail please...there are a few of us out there :-)). Why? Because I had more technical problems with Apple Macs than I ever had with PC's, because they are supposed to be pretty...and I don't see why I should pay a "pretty premium" when my purple Dell is gorgeous. Because I think iPods are all over priced compared to my beloved Creative Zen MP3 player. Well, I could go on...but I have very few brand loyalties...I look at their substance...

Re: The Multi-Branded Human

maherjimmy — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:06:45 -0000

What I find fascinating is the gap that still exists between users and the technology..and I wonder if technology has to become really complex underneath to offer a really smooth seamless user experience. Curious about the implications of that for both the users and developers.
Multivitamins

Re: The Multi-Branded Human

Shannon Ehlers — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:01:58 -0000

I think that maybe we can look at this in a different way. It isn't uncommon for both Coke and Pepsi to advertise using similar media (billboards, for instance), perhaps even the same media property (Superbowl commercials spring to mind). Is this more ethical than Coke and Pepsi both implementing their social strategies using the "medium" of Chris?

Re: The Multi-Branded Human

neilkevin — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 07:10:26 -0000

Such a nice post! There is no doubt that focus is a key driver of business growth and historically almost all multi-brand groups have developed from one core brand that often will remain the major contributor to profitability for the group.
In order to determine if multiple brands is a trend, or was just considered a good idea at the time but in hindsight may be a disaster, it is worthwhile to consider why a company may consider operating another brand.

christmas shopping

Re: The Multi-Branded Human

addytseng — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:26:08 -0000

In reality I would probably avoid working/consulting for competing companies in the same area. I see myself as a integral package. I give my all. I cannot fence off one piece of knowledge or wisdom to be off limits....

Hm.. even as I type this, I take that back. We can, and we've all done that before. E.g. we've all successfully told ourselves not to let any biases or previous knowledge of a person/event affect our decision. We can temporarily fence off something that we know about so that it does not affect our decisions/conduct.

However, we have to keep reminding ourselves. It's easy to slip. And who can constantly track what goes on in the deep recesses of our minds? Not me! That's why I think Honesty is the best policy. It takes too much work to keep track of lies. It would drive me crazy!

Re: The Multi-Branded Human

Charles LeRette — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:10:00 -0000

Interesting point and you may be right. However, as a marketing professional I'd personally have a hard time using that to justify conflicts of interest and have just always chosen to never work for a competitor on any level, even if it's just to keep them comfortable.

Now, there is a time limit and I wouldn't decline an offer from a competitor of a previous company I'd worked for if a reasonable time had elapsed. Of course with large companies it's usually a moot point because they expect us to sign a non compete.

Re: The Multi-Branded Human

addytseng — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:08:23 -0000

Exactly.
A lot of times we are "loyal" only because the cost of switching is too high....Inertia is one. We have no time to go learn another programming language, another device, another protocol.
Companies are also making it hard for us to switch - contracts, penalties, etc. etc.
We "stick around" also because inherently we don't like change.
All of that is not brand loyalty. More like imprisonment? lol

Re: The Multi-Branded Human

addytseng — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 11:58:49 -0000

I agree that as consumers we are not obligated to be "loyal". Companies cannot shame us if we switch brands.
If we somehow FEEL disloyal by checking out other brands, then it's all in our heads. We mature, we change, our needs change as we move through stages of life. Why do we feel guilty checking out new ideas, concepts and products?

I also like the quote "Do your duty, do not expect returns". I can easily and freely recommend the same insight/strategy to 2 competing companies,... because neither are paying me. It's up to them to figure out how to implement. Once I accept payment...that's when it gets perplexing.

LOL What that tells me is I can never be a paid consultant. I love sharing ideas and brainwaves. I just cannot get paid. :-)

Re: The Multi-Branded Human

addytseng — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 11:42:57 -0000

Right on.
I guess companies "steal" competitors' employees all the time, intentionally or unintentionally. Doesn't that level the playing field over time? Isn't that good for consumers because they get the same "features" that matter? Thus shifting the ultimate test to "customer relationships" maybe?

Re: The Multi-Branded Human

addytseng — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 11:30:04 -0000

Yes, how do they do it?

Re: The Multi-Branded Human

addytseng — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 11:28:27 -0000

I would find this situation the most challenging:
Consulting for a competitor (say Coke) after I've consulted for Pepsi. I will have learned from the Pepsi experience, invariably adding to my wisdom. Why would I pretend I'm only as wise as I was pre_Pepsi?

How DO you do it, Chris? How DO you keep it straight so you don't overlap?
If you recommended a truly million $ strategy to one, do you not recommend the same strategy to the second company? Or do you modify it a little? You KNOW it worked, so if you did not recommend it, you may be withholding something the second company needed.
While this is just a theoretical/academic discussion for me right now, it does perplex me...

Re: The Multi-Branded Human

fabulousphotogifts — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 05:20:00 -0000

Hi Chris

When I started reading this post, I thought it was like playing chess against yourself - even though you move the board around, you're still thinking of your next move as the 'other side'.

However, by the end, I think it boils down to doing the best job you can with the materials your given (web design).

Ultimately, the newer job will benefit from the shared learning you learnt on previous jobs - so there's a good case for re-visiting old clients and offering them an 'update' based on what you learnt on the latest job, without breaking any confidentiality of course.

Thanks for putting a moral dilemma down in writing.
Jonathan.

Re: The Multi-Branded Human

Christine Green — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:27:36 -0000

Chris,
I'm due for a new cell phone made in this century. Thinking Blackberry Bold or iPhone, but leaning toward Blackberry for the physical keyboard and better email for multiple addresses. Now thinking seriously about the Droid. I hope you will review it if you get it. Thanks!

Re: The Multi-Branded Human

Clint — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:46:35 -0000

Chris, what am I missing here with the your awe over the Cadillac CTS? Terrible gas mileage and sub par tech accessories are all I can see. There are 50 cars out there with 30+ mpg and all sorts of fun doo dads that a techie would love. The CTS is for your Grandpa who just started emailing.

Re: The Multi-Branded Human

Clint — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:45:10 -0000

Re: The Multi-Branded Human

Distility — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:26:57 -0000

Great question Chris,

We have a client in the retail space (we're brand developers) who openly acknowledges how his clients buy his brand and the competition's. He is not at all bothered if buyers are loyal to more than his brand. But were I to work for both at the same time? Hell no. That would not go.

I think the emotions behind the issue -- vulnerability, privacy, weakness, ambition -- are stronger than the logic you'd like to see in play.

-- Axle Davids
@1day1brand

p.s. I fell in love with the CTS after the Matrix Reloaded. Thanks for adding another fave pop-culture reference to rationalize my desire for a car I don't need at all.

Re: The Multi-Branded Human

MotorMouths — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:16:50 -0000

Chris, can't really go wrong with the CTS. It's one of the best reviewed vehicles on the market right now. Averages an 86 in published reviews:

http://motormouths.com/car/...

Re: The Multi-Branded Human

ggruber66 — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:47:04 -0000

Chris, 2 different kinds of comments on this post.

First, I think that in most cases it's perfectly acceptable to work with competitors in a given space, as long as you don't cross any lines with respect to disclosing one client's intellectual property to another. The truth is that clients want domain expertise, they just don't want to know where you got it. At my last company we provided software product development services to 2 of the top 5 ERP companies and 3 of the top 5 networked storage companies. By instituting the right governance procedures we were able to provide great services to all our clients while continuing to build our knowledge around the technology, develop a deeper understanding of their businesses and bring a point of view on how to creatively solve underlying business problems, which is where the real business value is created. It's called practice building and, as a much smarter guy than me, you know it's done all the time. Clients know it too, all though they may hem and haw during the process, but more often than not, it's to negotiate some advantage for themselves.

The only time I feel it's crossing the line is if you use your knowledge of specific program(s) you just instituted at one client and then go to the competitor and help them build a defensive strategy or stage a counter-offensive (basically becoming an arms salesman who supplies opposing armies).

The other point I wanted to make was in regards to the Caddy CTS. I just recently went through the car-buying process and ended up with the Infiniti G37. I looked at the CTS. Thought it was beautiful inside and out. I was American too. I really wanted to like it. But then I drove it. For some reason it just fell flat for me...and it was 10% more expensive than other cars I looked at, which for a company that should be driving for share and going through a structured reorganization was seemed a poor strategy. Additionally, while there was a lot of consternation about GM & Chrysler paring back their dealers, they should have focused on revamping them. I went to 2 Caddy dealers and both felt no different than any Hyundai, Honda or Ford dealer. For a luxury car brand, the experience was pretty low budget and was another factor in my decision.

Re: The Multi-Branded Human

Bill Gemmell @simplifywithus — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:55:57 -0000

Without doubt companies need to appreciate the emotional edge of branding and forget the one-size fits all approach. You have emotional ties with GM and the cars you have "loved". Each car will bring back an emotional connect. Why shouldn't we have different emotional connects for competing companies? I use Virgin Mobile for voice calls and Vodafone for data. Why? Because Virgin as ever meet my custoemr service needs whilst Vodafone has a better signal coverage in turn giving me better access to the net.

Why not competitors? They claim to be different with unique USP's so your are doing work for two different companies.

Re: The Multi-Branded Human

Ian M Rountree — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:53:22 -0000

It's not easy to tell someone the truth abour how you percieve their actions; it's even harder to hear that truth. One thing I don't percieve many big brands getting is that loyalty comes down to benefit for the consumer, and that consumers, having so many choices, are free to choose any aspect of the company's business to pick on to say "This reduces your benefits to me" and companies in general have only the response of "But our product is useful, right?"

It's a pretty weak bargaining position to be in. Vendors (Coke, GM, etc) are the product in hand, and they're speaking to a lot of the wrong people, sending the wrong messages. I work in electronics retail, currently - I'm a walking Elbow, carrying ptoducts-in-hand - and I've never felt much support for my place from vendors. I may be loyal to some brands as a consumer, but spending a lot of my time behind the counter fielding questions on behalf of these vendors, my personal loyalty can't become an issue in the same way yours can't; it's bad for my business, and unethical of me to impose my opinions on my clients.

Vendors are in an odd place. They can speak to everyone, but they never seem to have anything meaningful to say, it's all fluff. Even the training we recieve is, in general, a PR pitch - which is useless to Walking Elbows willing to be the final face of their products. Some cohesion of message would be nice, for once.

Re: The Multi-Branded Human

Dorethia Kelly #MoneyChat — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:41:32 -0000

I'm loyal as long as a product or service works for me and the price is agreeable. I recently stopped purchasing my favorite healthy cereal brand because the price has just gone beyond reason. I'm loyal to my cleaners although the price is a little higher because they do last minute fixes for me and have great customer service.

As for cars, I'm in Detroit and GM is my brand! So, yes I'm definitely brand loyal there. It's all I've ever driven, except for my first car - a big hunk o' metal - Ford Fairmont!

Re: The Multi-Branded Human

Charles LeRette — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:30:33 -0000

For example: Let's say that I had worked for Apple and I knew that they considered the fact that their battery couldn't be swapped out for a freshly charged one (because it was internal) to be their Achilles heal and they knew that was something their advertisers would use against them so it was my job to find ways to make it a non issue.

Now, let's say that 6 months later I'm no longer working for Apple and Motorola hires me to help them market the Droid. If they know I worked for Apple before I'm screwed, because the first thing they're going to ask me is how I can develop a marketing plan that will exploit Apple's Achilles heal. Obviously, if I know what we came up with to make that seem like a non issue while working for Apple, I'm going to know exactly how to make it an issue.

Re: The Multi-Branded Human

Charles LeRette — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:16:59 -0000

Good question but I'm still going to have to say yes. We're all human and no matter how ethical we consider ourselves, we're bound to learn inside information from one company that could help the other at some point, and if it's our job to suggest a marketing approach, how can we do our job effectively if we ignore that information?

Look at the Droid vs. iPhone ads. They're almost vicious. If the agency handling the Droid account had previously worked for Apple, they'd probably have a good idea what marketing technique could be effectively used against them. If they didn't offer those suggestions because of their ethics, even though they knew they'd be valuable, they wouldn't be doing the job they were being paid to do and thus doing a disservice to the company that was currently paying them.

Re: The Multi-Branded Human

davelutz — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 08:41:23 -0000

Chris and Nick, I deal with this quite frequently w/ my business consulting for the meeting & event industry. Some clients want me to sign a non-compete to not work with a defined list of primary competitors. I'm not opposed to that, but will scale the non-competition period to the size of the project. All clients want and expect complete confidentiality of the information shared.

Once you develop a trusting relationship and deliver quality results, I believe you can have a conversation with client #1 about prospect #2 that happens to be their competitor. If you've earned the deep trust of client #1 and disclose the opportunity to all parties, I find that most projects can move forward and waive the non-compete.

Re: The Multi-Branded Human

Ellie Becker — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 07:47:57 -0000

This is certainly an important topic and thanks for bringing it up! Here are a few thoughts. The love of my life is a psychotherapist who would rather sacrifice a limb than divulge the confidences of someone who is in therapy with him. Likewise, over the years I have often said to new clients that in order to serve them well as a PR professional, they need to think of me as their shrink, revealing the good, the bad and the ugly, and that part of the deal is full confidentiality. Both of these circumstances impose a ral burden on the professional to treat privileged information as sacrosanct.

That said, regardless of personal ethics, for a variety of reasons I've always made it a practice not to work with direct competitors at the same time or to develop a vertical practice. There is that good old 'appearance of conflict' to deal with. For example -- if I have two medical products clients and an opportunity for one to comment for a New York Times story, who gets the coverage? In many instances, companies simply won't hire me if I'm also working with a competitor - or have in the recent past. Beyond PR, I have friends in the market research world who also face this dilemma.

I know that many companies have built single industry agencies, particularly in healthcare/pharma and financial services and it would be interesting to have their weigh-in on this meaty issue.

I can see working with direct competitors in large enterprises where working within one segment of the business for one of them, customer service for example, doesn't conflict with work in a segment of the other, maybe sales & marketing. But all parameters of confidentiality and boundaries would have to be set forth and clearly understood/agreed to by the parties in advance.