If you’re a fan of the ABC show, “Modern Family,” you’re familiar with Sofia Vergara, the hot mama married to the family patriarch. If so, then you may have noticed the new Diet Pepsi ad featuring her.

If you’re anybody else, you didn’t.

That’s because the campaign demonstrates exactly why the beverage industry is stuck in park with nobody shifting into drive to take even a few market share points. This is a spot that does absolutely nothing new.

The thrust of the ad is this: Sofia tries to work her way through a Miami nightclub, chasing an elusive can of Diet Pepsi – but is thwarted throughout by men trying to impress her. The idea is that she is more enamored of the soda than of the men around her.

Hmm. Haven’t we seen this before, especially with men being more impressed with Bud Light or Miller Lite or Coors Light than what’s going on around him?

What’s new here? Vergara’s style, dancing and personality are certainly attractive (just ask our creative director), but it’s another forgettable spot among the many ads Pepsi and its competitors have spent millions of dollars on to produce and air.

Let’s be basic here: The first rule of stealing market share is that you must be different than your competitors. (There are other rules, such as being more meaningful, but that’s another story.) The blending of ads and their messages have become just a whole lotta noise because no one can distinguish one from the other.

It’s nice that the song in the spot is “Whatever Lola Wants” and it has a clever line from Vergara at the end – “I’ve been looking for you all night.”

But I’m just looking for something different. And I’m still looking.

I will sometimes fill up my gas tank at a Citgo down the road, but my usage is based on its proximity to my home and the lack of traffic getting in and out of it. Not because of any preference with Citgo. On recent visits, I noticed posters Citgo has hung around the station with the slogan, “Citgo is good gas.” My question to Citgo is, what percentage of the market believes that the gas they buy at gas stations is bad?

Gas, at least from my perspective, is gas. I either get gas here or I get gas there. No matter where I buy gas I believe I already have “good.” Regular is “good,” Super is “better” and Supreme is “best.” Beyond that, the assumption is that, if I buy gas at Citgo or at BP, both make my car go. This position is even more nebulous because, differences between gas stations aside, I am not absolutely sure what the product difference is between regular, super and premium. I assume that each grade must just be a bit “gassier” than the previous.

Citgo’s ads remind me a bit of the ads by Carlsberg beer, which say, “Probably the best beer in the world.” Except Citgo’s message is void of the personality that made the Carlsberg’s ads memorable. Without personality or an interesting tone, Citgo’s message becomes unimportant. However, for “Citgo is good gas” to work, it requires changing beliefs that already exist in the market. Beliefs like, “unless the gas nozzle is rusted out or falling apart, I do not not be worry about putting it in my car.”

This is not to say that this campaign could not work. Citgo has simply chosen a harder task: Changing the beliefs of consumers who already believe they can get good gas just about anywhere. If Citgo truly is “good” gas (the implication being that others have “inferior” gas), it should take a page from Proctor and Gamble. Do side-by-side comparisons. Act like your gas is the t-shirt in a Tide commercial covered with grass stain, dirt and ketchup; then make it white again.

My suggestion however, is to drop the “good gas “ and find something more emotionally important to the market. Using an intensity that a brand can align with is a much more effective strategy than convincing consumers that their belief is wrong.

The cruise industry is about to go into shambles, which is not the most profound thing I’ve ever written in light of the inane and tragic crash of the Costa Concordia cruise liner near Italy.

I’m not going to get into the specifics of the tragedy, although the cowardliness and ineptitude of the cruiser’s captain is beyond my understanding. Instead, from a consumer point of view, let’s briefly examine what mistakes the industry has made that means it will struggle to overcome the increasingly negative perception of the industry and what it could have done about it.

For years, the cruise industry has gotten lazy in its branding and marketing as, essentially, they all looked and said the same things. Relax, have fun with the entire family, see the world, be catered to, look how beautiful it all is. It was simply marketing the category benefits without making any distinction between the cruise lines or reflecting who the customer is when they use the specific brands.

Let me take this one further. When the cruiser tipped over on the reef, without minimizing the tragedy of it, was anyone surprised? Taking a cruise lately has meant bad food, brief stops at the most undesirable tourist traps and a general letdown.

The cruise industry had been rising some in recent years – with total revenue increasing 9.5% in 2011 over the previous year – but that was attributable to new ships, increased prices and an increase in new bookings (as opposed to repeat bookings).

Now, comes this and the reasons why you would take a cruise, as spoken by the industry itself, are no longer important. Relax? Are you kidding? Have fun? Not important anymore.

If the individual cruise lines had given travelers a reason to choose them based on how those travelers see themselves, they would covet those brands an any declarations about the disaster near Italy would lessen the impact.

Word of warning to all: The cruise industry got lazy. And it’s about to pay for it.

I may remain perpetually baffled with the technological outfit, Research In Motion (RIM). As you may recall, several weeks ago, I gave RIM a wagging finger of disapproval for its maligned understanding of cell phone prerequisites. This is now a moot point, as unbelievably, RIM is now displaying that it understands the tablet world even less than it does cell phones.

My sensors went into overdrive as I read Ian Austin and Brian Chen’s New York Times article, “Analysts Fault Additions to RIM Playbook Tablet.” After the first paragraph, the necessity of tablet “table stakes” came into full fruition in my mind. Moreover, the article served as a testament that the Playbook Tablet is a symbol for a company (RIM) that lacks all understanding of branding table stakes.

As you may not know, 10 months ago, RIM released the Playbook Tablet. Upon its release, the Playbook was missing e-mail capabilities, calendar syncing, and access to the Blackberry Messenger services and other vital intangibles.

Say what?

How can RIM release a business-oriented tablet – I am giving them a shred of branding respect by calling this a “business” tablet – without e-mail or a calendar sync? Simply said, you cannot and should not. These are the most basic of all needs for any business user.

Said in the Times: “RIM has never publicly explained the reason for that omission. But many industry and financial analysts have said the features were absent because the company could not make the device work with its unique global data network.”

Truly, the best option for RIM would have been to wait to release the Playbook until it was perfected. Why go to the races with an already inferior product, especially when you are selling it against the perfected iPad? First impressions are hard to change, especially when releasing a new product. This move was errant and fundamentally foolish.

Worse yet, it will take RIM until February (eleven months since its initial release) to provide Playbook owners with an update where the table stakes of tablets are even offered to the owners.

Until RIM does, may I suggest we start calling the Playbook the Pretendbook?

Recently, the online video subscription service, Hulu Plus, announced that it ended 2011 with a whopping 1.5 million subscriptions. Specifically, what is it that the Hulu Plus brand is doing right? More importantly, why is Hulu Plus in route to supplant Netflix?

Let’s take a look at Hulu.

Hulu offers current content.
Sure, Netflix has a substantial collection of television series that have been or are still in syndication, or it simply has past seasons. Not current ones. But it doesn’t deliver the current content that Hulu does. For example, perhaps you are a Parks and Recreation fan. With Hulu Plus, you can view the latest episode the day after it aired on national television because Hulu is a joint venture of NBC, Fox and ABC. With Netflix, you must wait for the current season to finish and be released on Blu-Ray and DVD before it can be granted release to Netflix. That’s a long wait. Too long in a digital world where we want immediate gratification. For the networks, Hulu represents a way to, in essence, skip the middle man (Netflix).

Hulu is partnered with major networks ABC, FOX and NBC.
Be a part of “The Big Three” enables subscribers of Hulu Plus to have that aforementioned immediacy. What’s more, Hulu has Comedy Central and PBS on its side among a plethora of other major and independent networks that keep viewers satiated.

Hulu has sponsors, which means better content is underway. While the advertisements on Hulu are somewhat annoying (isn’t it odd that two commercials every 15 minutes can drive us bonkers?), what’s good about them is that Hulu has built up a stockpile of revenue (a half-billion dollars, in fact) to remain financially stable. This will only aid Hulu in adding new and significant content to the site. This is a huge advantage for Hulu Plus.

Hulu offers a free version of its site.
This is non-existent with Netflix. While Hulu’s free site is minimal and lacks the breadth of shows that the Plus site boasts, there is at least the chance to explore content. This allows users to connect with the service and build preference before committing to the slim $7.95 a month asking price for Hulu plus (which is one dollar less than Netflix). Doesn’t the Hulu brand seem a little smarter to viewers? We think so.

Hulu understands its brand and hasn’t upset its users as Netflix has.
We’ve heard this repeatedly in the news, but many Netflix users have become jaded or worse with many completely withdrawing their memberships. Netflix almost committed branding suicide. How? By attempting to divide into two services (a way to make more company profit), it only made its faithful mad and feel used.

Ultimately, a successful brand is brand that recognizes its own worth. It is also one that embraces its commercial role and identity. Most importantly, it values its loyal customers. If history is any indicator, Netflix has failed significantly with all of these critical attributes. Conversely, Hulu has embraced these attributes full-heartedly.

The difference? One company is on the verge of full bloom while the other is slowly withering away.

Even though it seemed to be shown far too often over the weekend, there was no doubt that the smartest commercial that ran during the NFL playoffs over the weekend was by BMW.

In case you haven’t seen it, don’t worry. You will. It introduces the types of cars we drive: a sports car, an SUV, a hybrid and a luxury sedan. Each introduction says, “We don’t make a (type of car).”

The spot ends with the narration saying, “We make (pause) the ultimate driving machine.”

It is, of course, a brand ad and it demonstrates that BMW gets it. It’s not selling cars. It’s selling a brand.

If only other brands would get that. The mistake many make is in thinking they are selling product, when that’s not what we all buy. If it was about product and product benefits, then why isn’t the universally accepted “best” the market leader in any category?

We don’t buy the best laundry detergent because we don’t have the time to closely test each brand until we have our own personal winner. Instead, as most of you know, we choose because the brand is an aspirational reflection of who we believe we are or want to be.

The best brands in the world understand they are only selling brand. Apple does not talk about its iPad in terms of technology. Nike does not talk about its shoes in terms of how they are built.

BMW even went a step further, by saying what you buy isn’t even a car, which is dead on the money. When you are part of the BMW brand, you are buying a BMW, the ultimate driving machine.

The BMW spot especially shines because automakers are among the worst when it comes to brand. What does a Ford truck stand for that’s any different than one from Dodge?

Kudos to BMW. They get it.

As we have been speculating at Stealing Share, Barnes & Noble is in dire need of extensive rebranding if it wishes to stay afloat.

Recently, rumors have surfaced that the Nook, Barnes & Noble’s e-reader, may spin off as an entirely separate business entity. Maybe this is Barnes & Noble’s realization that if it does not rebrand now, it is destined to become the next Borders.

In other words, go belly up.

Let it be known, I still love the good, ole’ fashioned bookstore. But the fact is, bookstores are slipping away as fast as CD stores once did. Media retailers must learn from this and act accordingly. In the music business, MP3s, MySpace and the iPod revolutionized the way we listen to music. Each completely altered the marketplace from a tangible medium to the near entirely digital marketplace today. Presently, wasting time on any physical media business (such as book, video and CD stores) is as wise a move as investing in Netflix. Ask Blockbuster or Hollywood Video how badly people want to rent physical DVDs. Or Turtle Music and Borders what a wide-ranging selection of CD’s can do for you.

The fact is, we want what we want instantly. And the digital world provides us with this capability.

Books are clearly heading in the same direction as CDs. In fact, e-reader and other digital content sales for the Nook were up 43% this holiday season, while physical sales for Barnes and Noble increased only 2.5%. That’s a pretty significant difference.

This brings us back to our initial topic. It is also why I believe whole-heartedly that having the Nook as a separate business is a massively wise move for Barnes & Noble because it separates its brand from that of the brick and mortar one of B&N.

Barnes & Noble should not waste any time with this rebranding effort. It has a sleek and interesting product in the Nook. What’s more, it has grabbed hold of 30% of the e-book market already. This is reason for it to celebrate, but not to remain complacent. Embracing this change is just what Barnes & Noble needs and it is smart to realize that this change must happen.

Good news for all you Sony tablet oglers out there who just couldn’t bring yourself to make the purchase because its pricing was just too high: Sony just announced that it is dropping its price on its Android-based tablet base unit from $499 down to $399.

The misconception by many manufacturers releasing tablets priced at $499 is that consumers are willing to spend that $499 on a tablet since they purchase iPads so readily. This however is not true. Consumers are, in fact, willing to pay $499 for a tablet from Apple. Another tablet and an Apple tablet are not the same. With the latter, you have the ability to charge a premium because it matches a premium brand.

This pricing issue is not a first for Sony. The pricing teams still believe in the equity and clout its brand once carried, even though consumers don’t. From the P3S to the recently released Vita to its tablet to the upcoming release of its personal 3D viewer, Sony believes its brand justifies the premium pricing. It is not until sales figures begin rolling in and the over-forecasting of consumer interest becomes apparent that Sony’s prices find a more realistic level.

Big news from Sony at the 2011 E3 was a new “affordable” 3D television priced at $499. Now, a few months on the market, and it is regularly priced at retail stores for $399 and as low as $299 leading up to the holiday.

The point here is that only premium brands can justify premium prices. The power of a meaningful brand is that consumers will pay more for it and even inconvenience themselves for it. The fact that you are overpriced only becomes that much more apparent when the power of the brand doesn’t match it.

All hope for Sony is not lost. It just needs to get back in touch with the highest emotional intensities that exist in the market. Until then, expect more disappointing sales figures – and dropping prices.

As is being reported, RIM’s Blackberry is losing crucial market share, plummeting to fifth place among active cell phone suppliers. Which leaves me to wonder, is this free fall any surprise at all?

In truth, and I imagine I am not alone in this speculation, the Blackberry conjures up ancient technology to me. Once the impressive model for the business worker to “stay connected,” RIM technology is about as interesting today as the Palm Pilot did several years ago. Blackberry was once the “it” phone. Now, just like the aforementioned Palm Pilot, Blackberry may soon be without any significance at all.

What can Blackberry do to increase market share?

1. Reduce the number of phones: If you visit the Blackberry website, you find a list of six different smartphones. Each of these smartphones has about 4-5 variations. Which leads to about 25-30 different Blackberry phones when all is said and done. Maybe this is the first problem? Too many options may not be all that wise for Blackberry. I consistently reference Apple, but what works for iPhone is that the 3GS, 4 and 4S are all variations of the singular iPhone. These are not entirely different pieces, but they are all part of the simple and unified iPhone umbrella. Blackberry, however, has six entirely different phone models with seemingly endless variations. Why not simply master one phone and revise it with significant improvements just as Apple does? That surely seems to work.

2. More touch screens: People want touch screens. Why? Because these days a touch screen is intuitive and they bring the user into the experience. When I had a Blackberry years ago, and from the models I have seen on its site, the Blackberry functions mostly with a small and clunky “scroll and select” interface. Which is really boring if you ask me. If you are marketing technology, you must be current, hip, sleek and smart. I don’t think any of these adjectives can be equated with Blackberry.

3. Make it simple: Likewise, when I was a Blackberry owner, I never had any idea how to set any component of my Blackberry correctly. Setting up email was unnervingly difficult, reaching the internet application and even searching on the internet was archaic and lacking any technological joy. Ease of use is paramount.

Adjusting these components of Blackberry may give it new life. But what truly must happen with Blackberry is that it must take on a new meaning in the marketplace. Ultimately, to get back to prominence, Blackberry must make a change, its brand must take on new meaning and prove again that it is the smartphone for the business savvy customer.

One of the greatest branding faux pas a company can make is failing to deliver on its brand promise.

Let’s take Best Buy, for instance. It is a company whose name alone suggests a brand that is your “best alternative” for electronics. This, however, is a branding promise that is hardly the truth and has led me to the assumption that Best Buy is hardly the “best” in anything that it does. That’s especially true when it comes to customer service, satisfaction and shopping experience.

Before I delve into my own Best Buy holiday shopping horror fiasco, let’s look at its recent online holiday shopping debacle.

As The Wall Street Journal reported a few days before Christmas, Best Buy was alerting customers that it couldn’t fill online orders. The crux of this situation was that droves of online customers turned to Best Buy to fulfill their shopping needs for Christmas. (Best Buy called the amount of online shopping “Overwhelming”).

The overwhelming response was a good sign for Best Buy. To stay relevant, it must combat the Amazons of the world as well as other prominent online retailers. Yet, Best Buy failed to deliver — and failed to do so during the most important retail time of year. Now, those hordes of hungery customers will most likely turn elsewhere next season. I surely would.

My personal experience didn’t go any better. Just a few days ago, my flat screen TV went kaput. I was really bummed out, of course, and quickly opted to hit Best Buy to get a slightly better replacement. In retrospect, I really should have gone to Costco as I would have saved time, and my shopping experience would have been much more positive, believe it or not.

Let me run down a list of what made Best Buy more like Miserable Buy.

1. It took 40 minutes to get any attention from an employee.
2. It took Best Buy four attempts to find me in the computer system. After the fourth attempt, I told them to “forget it.”
3. I had no idea which TVs were still available for purchase and which were not.
4. Having finally found a TV, I paid. I waited in my car at the loading dock for 20 minutes. Having lost patience, I returned to the employee who rang me up and asked where my TV was. To which the employee asked, “Have you paid?” I responded, “Yes! You rang me up!”

I wonder how can a company like Best Buy, with customer service as dreadful as this, truly look you in the eye and expect you to believe its promise of being the “best” of anything. I don’t believe it anymore? And, as its online and in-store shopping experiences continue to wallow, more customers just may purchase their products from a company who has the capability of fulfilling their brand promise.