When some companies hit a downturn, those in charge instinctively begin to reinvent themselves

Big mistake.

Too often, companies are treating the symptom and not the cause. Usually, a lack of brand focus is the problem. An example of sharp brand focus is Volvo.

When you think car safety, you think Volvo. Sure, safety isn’t the trigger for everyone shopping for an auto. But for the segment of the market that cares most about safety, Volvo is its brand. The company seizes every opportunity to remind them of it.

When you check out this video, you know it can only be about Volvo.

Consistency of message is how brands become real. Companies that understand that find the emotional undercurrent that is unclaimed in the market and ring that bell as loud as possible.

Brands doing this become unmistakable, unforgettable and coveted.

Companies that find themselves in need of frequent change should look to the example of Volvo.

Firestone’s new brand promise is so good and so compelling that everyone in every category should take notice. Firestone found the highest intensity and claimed it.

“While we don’t make cars, Firestone is a car company,” is a stroke of branding genius. From an inside perspective, it takes a lot of brass to position yourself against your own product, but that is just what Firestone has done. It recognized that no one buys tires because of the enjoyment of the rubber. Customers buy tires as a necessity, while their emotional attachment is to a bigger idea: cars.

So watch this category carefully. You heard it here first. Firestone will steal market share from competitors who will scramble to play second best to the company that’s seized upon the highest emotional intensity. Firestone’s promise is simply more emotional than Michelin’s “you have a lot more riding on your tires.”

Firestone’s message instantly makes the brand more important and more preferred than those of its competitors.

Kudos, Firestone. A brand that gets it.

When most think of brand, they think of a logo, color palette and a marketing position. Brand is much more than that, but I’m not going into the details here. You can read plenty throughout this site about how we practice brand for our clients.

But I have to admit. Sometimes, there’s a little magic involved that’s difficult to define and often takes years to develop.

For that reason, it came as little surprise that Volkswagen sported a 28.4% increase in sales last month in the US from May of 2010. There’s something about the Volkswagen brand that has a kind of retro cool yet modern feel that can’t be solely explained into its “people’s car” image.

The brand’s in everything, from its famous “Think small” and “Drivers wanted” ad campaigns to the look and feel of the cars, along with different touches (such as the spot for a flower in its Bugs).

It works, and has an identifiable position in the market that’s different from its competitors. Detroit’s Big Three might be doing better now, but they are as undistinguishable from each other as lettuce to cabbage.

Even Volkswagen’s recent foray into online videos – subtle, but amazingly detailed send-ups of classic movies such as Jaws, Taxi Driver and Silence of the Lambs – is something only Volkswagen would try and succeed.

So, when Volkswagen CEO Martin Winterkorn says his aim is to pass Toyota as the world’s largest automaker by 2018, I believe he just might do it.

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.

Sometimes, there are certain categories of brands where every company associated with that category presents no significant difference from each other.

One such category of undifferentiated companies is auto part dealers.

This morning, on my way to work, I drove by one of these auto part dealers and, for or the life of me, I simply couldn’t remember if It was an Auto Zone or an Advanced Auto that I passed by. Thinking on it now, I still cannot accurately tell you which shop it was.

This kind of tells you something, doesn’t it? It has for Stealing Share, as it has reminded us that the auto part category is in desperate need of rebranding. It is also prime for a properly branded company to steal market share from its competition.

The sheer meaninglessness of these brands does not end with Auto Zone and Advanced Auto Parts. Hardly. In fact, it runs head first into the rest of the competition, you know, companies like: PEP Boys, CarQuest Auto Parts, and O’Reilly Auto Parts.

Where’s the difference between these dealers? And why would I personally benefit from shopping at CarQuest rather than at an O’Reilly Auto Parts? Is location the only thing that separates these shops? Nothing, as far as I can tell, has led to a brand preference.

Truth be told, there is not one iota of difference between the brands of these auto shops. It is a vague and undefined category. And what a shame. After the purchase of a home, the second most significant purchase of our life is that of our automobile. That means we should have an emotional affinity for the provider who helps take care of that car.

Even the external appearances of these shops lack any significant difference from one another. Step inside any of them, and the indistinctness shines through even more boldly.

At the end of the day, auto part dealers must do better and not consider their clientele as consumer cattle. So auto shops, it’s time you delivered.

It is deja vous all over again.

The Wall Street Journal had a story almost a year ago about manufacturers of high-speed rail that were furious China “stole ”the intellectual property needed to build these trains.

QINGDAO, China—When the Japanese and European companies that pioneered high-speed rail agreed to build trains for China, they thought they’d be getting access to a booming new market, billions of dollars worth of contracts and the cachet of creating the most ambitious rapid rail system in history.

What they didn’t count on was having to compete with Chinese firms who adapted their technology and turned it against them just a few years later.

Well today I heard that GM (you remember GM, the US automaker that US taxpayers own) is entering into a joint agreement to build electronic cars in China. This article just appeared in the Boston Globe.

HONG KONG – General Motors said yesterday that it would develop electric cars in China through a joint venture with a Chinese automaker, and would transfer battery and other electric car technology to the venture.

Yesterday’s announcement was being made as the Chinese government was putting heavy pressure on foreign automakers to transfer electric car technology to joint ventures in China. But GM took pains to say that its joint-venture agreement was not connected to its plans to begin importing its new US-made Chevrolet Volt electric car to China this year.

So, the Heartbeat of America has decided that it makes great short-term financial sense to enter into a joint agreement with a Chinese manufacturer. It can’t be a long-term decision considering China’s track record, can it?

I guess GM knows best. It is not knowhow and innovation that sets the US apart from the rest of the world, it must be the ability to manufacture. So GM, feel free to give our expertise away. At the end of the day, the Heart Beat of America is a brand as real and as valued as Budweiser, the King of Belgian InBev Beer.

Using social media to further your brand preference among target audience continues to baffle marketers because, as I’ve stated before, the tactics are rarely related to the brand.

But it’s not that hard to do. It’s simple, really.

Case in point: General Motors’ Buick and GMC divisions have configured their website so that, when you build your own new car, it can be saved instantly on Facebook to share and get feedback.

I actually think that’s a fine tactic, and one that appeals to one of the drivers of automobile purchases: What will my family and friends think?

However, there was even greater opportunity for those car brands if that driver was embedded in their brand messaging. But it wasn’t. In fact, in the case of Buick, sharing on Facebook has no meeting to its brand of “luxury.” (Although, it should be noted, “luxury” is owned by Lexus in the marketplace.)

GMC plays in the American heavy truck field with Ford and the brand messages tend to swirl around power. There’s nothing there about choice and control (building your own) or appealing to others (which, for example, would work for the Corvette) that this Facebook application suggests.

Social media is attractive to marketers because it’s inexpensive, it is a relatively new delivery system and it operates on a personal level for the prospective customer. To make it meaningful, however, and have long-term benefits, the tactics of social media must support the brand or it becomes the equivalent of a flyer on the windshield.

Think of it this way: Brand explains the reasons why you are doing what you’re doing, including executing social media tactics. Once you have explained the why (“Because those who buy our cars are opening their world, this new Facebooks application allows you to share the car you built with everyone,” for example), you become more memorable, preferred and in the considered set of those you are trying to reach.

It’s not that hard, really.

Not Ford. This year, Ford, which rose to it highest ever ranking of 5th in last year’s J.D Power and Associates U.S. consumer study, has descended to 23rd. Toyota meanwhile, has risen to 7th, recovering from the recalls that resulted in last year’s placing of 21st. The rapid rise and fall of rank is a reminder that, while new product offerings and product recalls might have effects in the short term, brand equity is what dictates the long term viability.

This is not to say that there is not equity in Ford’s brand, just that 23rd is probably a fair representation of that brand as it stands now. Likewise, 7th place is probably a more fair representation of Toyota’s brand equity.

Ford does heavy advertising, but awareness is not its problem. The problem is the messaging itself. Most often it talks about table stakes such as solid MPG or innovative features – claims that every competitor in the market makes. If companies only say what everyone else in the market can say, then they have no opportunity to create differentiation and growth.

Ford had a great 2010 but its future messaging must talk more about its brand and less about the specs of its automobiles. Talking about nice interiors, horsepower, MPG’s, and durability provides the rationale consumers use to justify the purchase. But brand is what makes them believe they need it in the first place.

Following up to yesterday’s post, I do believe we all need to look for cleaner and more sustainable ways to power things. As the electric car is both a hot topic and a meaningful attempt at becoming more environmentally responsible, I continued to dig a little after I wrote yesterday’s blog.

Nissan’s new spots simply build the entire category of “electric” cars, but, as I said yesterday, it lacks any preference-building for Nissan’s Leaf, which often means only the market leader will be chosen (think, Toyota’s Prius).

Here is the ad in its entirety:

[flv width="500" height="278"]http://www.stealingshare.com/video/NissanElectricad.flv[/flv]

It is interesting, but it is only about the category of electric cars and you only know who the spot is for in the last few seconds.

Now look at this ad:

[flv width="500" height="278"]http://www.stealingshare.com/video/RenaultElectricad.flv[/flv]

Do you remember who the first ad was for? I will give you a hint, it was not Renault even though you could be forgiven for thinking so.

These are two separate ads done by two different ad agencies that are exactly the same in nearly every way. How could something like this happen?  It happens because neither ad has a message to create preference for the particular brand nor is the brand itself embedded in them.

Instead they each rely on competing auto industry creative shops to come up with some clever way of talking about their brand of electric car when, in fact, each execution fell back to talking about the category of electric car because there was no strategy – and duplicated each other in the process.

This is what happens when there is no brand point of view (unless the brand of both Nissan and Renault happens to be exactly the same, which wouldn’t be a brand at all). The auto industry is floundering for meaning and has become so generic that the ads are no longer similar – they are identical. They are all saying, essentially, “Buy our brand because we make cars.”

Sadly, I think the automotive industry has done irreparable harm to itself and people are getting accustomed to buying a car brand simply because their cars have 4 wheels and an engine. and their previous one was running out of steam.

If that is what Nissan and Renault are after, they have succeeded.

It’s always frustrating to me when a TV spot is memorable, but fails in every way possible. It has a unique approach. It has a subtle humor. And it even prompts an emotional reaction.

Yet, Nissan’s new Leaf campaign, built around the idea of “what if gas powered everything,” gets it all wrong.

There are two basic reasons why. One is simply a pet peeve of mine. When ads are a skit or a story with the company logo appearing at the end, the spot does little to build brand meaning and awareness because the brand is not embedded into the entirety of the spot. It’s single biggest reason why most can’t remember who ads like this are for. They just remember the spot.

The second reason is one all marketers should remember. Are you creating preference for your particular brand or the category as a whole? In this case, it’s for the category of electric cars as a whole. It simply demonstrates, with humor, the reasons why you would want to buy an electric car. There is no differentiation between the Leaf and its competitors.

When you are creating preference for the entire category, you are counting on the rising water to lift all boats, including yours. But what happens more often than not is that the market leader benefits the most.

It’s that reason why you wouldn’t be the only one who thought the ads were for the Prius.