The Tom Dougherty Blog
I like to pull for teams. Fantasy sports teams just don’t get my blood going.
Mostly, I enjoy college athletics —basketball and football in particular. My favorites teams being the Temple Owls and the Florida State Seminoles (if you’re a long time reader of my blogs, you probably knew that already).
I grew to love John Chaney, the Hall of Fame Basketball coach for the Temple Owls; and how Bobby Bowden’s would recruit “speed”for the Seminoles football team. Even though both coaches have retired, I’m still a die-hard fan of each school. You could say my team pride runs in my blood.
As a team enthusiast, I grow to love the players on the field and court. I build an attachment to them, get to like their personalities, and moreover, how they grow through the course of the year.
That’s why I have mixed feelings about Fantasy sports (Fantasy Football, Baseball, Basketball, etc.). As a guy who has never played, but who has children and friends that do, I see the slow decline of a team appreciation, to a singular awareness of individual statistics.
Last year, the running back Chris Johnson had something to say about this:
“Public service announcement: I can care less about fantasy football. Key word fantasy. As long as we win I’m happy. I rush for 200 n lose y’all happy,” Johnson wrote. “U r the head coach n the owner of ur fantasy team so u should be mad at urself I didn’t ask any of u to draft me so if I’m so sorry y start me.”
I tend to think Chris Johnson is right. The brand of professional sports is changing due to Fantasy Sports. Owners of teams pull for players, who can at times be on rival teams, hoping they, as Johnson said, “rush for 200 yards,” so they can win in their league that week.
Is Fantasy a bad thing? I don’t think so, but it’s hard to deny that it is changing the complexion of how we view sports. For a traditionalist like me, that makes me a bit sad.
Buffalo Wild Wings is shaking things up. If you’ve missed the news, the chain is taking on the small, Dallas-based, Rusty Taco (known for street style tacos). Plus, it’s joined forces with PizzaRev, a health conscious pizza shop primarily located in California. Not bad.
Buffalo Wild Wings is a place where you can take your entire family for a fun and satisfying meal. It doesn’t break the bank or take forever to hit your table. It’s a place where you can roll up your sleeves and eat good comfort food. In fact, this type of dining (“fast casual”) is exploding. Technomic, a food industry consulting firm, reported that, in 2013 alone, fast casual grew 11% (faster than any other dining segment).
And, as I wrote yesterday, it’s part of the reason why Burger King is merging with Tim Hortons. The same holds true for Buffalo Wild Wings as it expands its base.
Kathy Bennings, Buffalo Wild Wings’ executive vice president and chief strategy officer, had this to say about the merger: “Buffalo Wild Wings’ investment is part of our strategy to partner with emerging restaurant concepts that have the potential for significant growth, can work throughout the country and have a highly engaged management team with a passion to grow the business.”
Unlike Burger King’s grab, Buffalo Wild Wings doesn’t seem to be acting in desperation. It’s simply expanding on what it already has.
In what experts say will save Burger King millions of dollars in taxes, the fast food giant is in merger talks with Tim Hortons – and will move its headquarters to Canada, a more tax-friendly country.
Personally, I don’t think anyone will care if BK moves its headquarters to Canada, but I do think there’s something larger at stake: The relevance of the Burger King chain itself.
BK dropped from second among US fast food restaurant chains to third a year ago (behind Wendy’s) and fast food itself is taking a hit. In fact, the Wall Street Journal reported this morning that McDonald’s, the market leader, is losing customers in the 20-30 age range to “fast casual” chains like Chipotle and Five Guys.
Tim Hortons fits into that category. It is known for its coffee, bagels, donuts and sandwiches. It is similar to Panera Bread.
In a joint statement, the chains said they would operate as separate brands and, while that may be true, it wouldn’t shock me if there were some overlap. Burger King isn’t making this move just for tax purposes. It desperately needs something new, while acting with some discipline.
One of the problems BK has faced in recent years is that few in the fast food industry change their menus over and over again as much as it does. BK switches out ad campaigns like a card dealer shuffling a deck and you never really know what’s on the menu until you drive up. (So you don’t.)
However, that means there are few fast food chains more open to change than Burger King. It’s just that it needs to hold firm on some of those changes and consider whether a franchise with the word “burger” in the title has brand permission to do anything else.
There’s much work to be done if this merger goes through. But don’t believe for a second this is only about taxes.
Update: Turns out Family Dollar has rejected Dollar General’s takeover bid because of anti-trust issues. Still, the problem still stands. No one knows the difference between all the dollar stores, so who cares?
Now, this is hilarious. Earlier, I posted that Dollar Tree was planning to buy Family General – and I said that it didn’t matter because, in the eyes of consumers, they are one and the same anyway.
Now, Dollar General wants into the game. Reports say that Dollar General also wants to buy Family Dollar and its unsolicited offer is actually greater than that of Dollar Tree.
The reason I find this so funny is that there isn’t a whisker of difference between all three. The only reason for greater market share from one to the other is simply location, which is why Dollar Tree and Dollar General are so hot to buy Family General. They want to have the most real estate.
They know it makes no difference because none of the brands bring any value to the purchaser or the seller. It’s like Pluto and Goofy joining forces. Aren’t they the same dog? (Oh, that’s right. Goofy wears clothes.)
If one of the buyouts happen (and, in my mind, they should just all join forces into one company), there is opportunity. The dollar stores compete against other discount shops, even the giants of Walmart and Kmart.
The idea is that the competition isn’t the other dollar stores. Or, at least, it hasn’t been because none of them have developed a differentiating brand that would present an emotional choice.
The aim is to create preference so that customers would inconvenience themselves to come to their stores. That means understanding that your competitors are all the ones that fulfill the want or need that you fulfill. If you sell a cheap plastic cup, then your competition is anyone who sells a plastic cup – including online retailers.
However this shakes out, the future of the combined retailer will have to uncover what makes a customer go to a dollar store that goes beyond price. What are the emotional undercurrents driving that action?
Right now, the dollar stores seem to understand that they are all alike. Which is why they are all trying to out-bid each other for the table scraps.
If you’ve been on Facebook at all recently, there’s one ongoing thread you haven’t missed:
The ALS Ice Bucket Challenge.
While I find it hard to deny the spectacular goodness of this movement, there are bits of the idea that seem backwards to me.
In case you are not aware, the Ice Bucket Challenge is a fundraiser to fight ALS and raise awareness of the disease. Basically, this viral movement begins with a person accepting a challenge to dump a bucket of ice water over their head or donate $100 to the ALS Association. That person who accepts the challenge then chooses three more people to take on the task.
So far the campaign has raised an incredible sum of $1.35 million. Last year, the ALS Association raised just $22,000. That’s a hefty leap and a lot of money for a vital cause.
Yet, the brand guy in me sees a fundamental problem with this campaign. You see, the videos highlight the wrong people. Sure, it’s fun to see your friends’ reaction to being doused with a heaping container of ice water — but folks, the action suggests they are choosing NOT to donate. (To be fair, most say they are donating as well, especially those among the celebrity/sports set.)
But considering it from a pure marketing standing, the celebration should be for the people who gave the money, not those seemingly unwilling to.
Despite my two cents, the outcome from the ALS Fundraiser is a wonderful thing. I just wish the viral component had a little more clarity to it.
It seems I can’t turn on the TV without seeing the Trivago campaign. If you are not familiar with Trivago, it is a web site that searches other hotel booking Internet sites and lists all the pricings for the same hotels as listed on the bucket shops like Hotels.com and Expedia.
OK, it seems like a reasonably useful site and one I would probably use – except for one thing. I just hate the character that Trivago has scripted as its spokesperson. Rolling Stone wrote that he was the “rare pitchman capable of haunting your dreams while simultaneously enflaming [sic] your loins.” Slate says he is ”a shallow avatar of middle-aged masculinity, a found object and a cult item, an accidental enigma.”
All indicators are that the campaign is working. But it can’t work in the long run. Sometimes when you are launching a brand, it helps to have a quirky, even annoying, personality presenting your goods. It makes it memorable, which is exactly what you want when a brand is launched.
But long-term growth is built upon affinity. How much the target audience identifies itself with the brand. Somehow, I can’t see how this pretentious coolness can be accepted as believable. I can’t help but think, every time I see the ads, that this overtly cool guy is not winking at me and trying to pick me up. This is not a guy you would want to have a beer with. It is a guy who drinks vodka martinis and flirts non-stop with your date.
His demeanor is unbelievable and, as a result, condescending and irritating. In a blog I read in the Wall Street Journal, one reader commented this: “You ever get that vague sense that something is not right, that the universe is somehow off? Then you realize you just saw the Trivago guy?” I could not have said it any better myself.
Amazon has unveiled a mobile payment app complete with a card reader that can be used on any smart phone or tablet. While this is in no way a novel technology (Square and PayPal have had them for some time), it nonetheless is a big deal for both retailers and Amazon.
The Amazon Local Register further cements Amazon as the retail leader from both a business and brand perspective. Square and PayPal, though earlier in the process, are nothing more than transfer agents. Amazon is retail – all things retail, including managing the monetary transaction.
Even to one of my colleagues who had used Square to take payments for Cub Scout popcorn, a half percent is a lot (it’s a full percent cheaper until January 1, 2016). Unlike the Amazon Fire phone, which was a departure from the core Amazon brand, the Local Register demonstrates a clear understanding by Amazon of the business of its brand. It is a clearinghouse of all things retail – even if Amazon is not actually selling the product. In true Amazon form, you can even spend the money you are taking in directly for Amazon products.
This is a good move by Amazon, one that will force Square and PayPal to respond – if they can overcome the power of when Amazon stays on brand.
Robin Williams’ passing is hitting me hard.
There are moments in life when a shake up can make you see clearly again. Most times, sadly, this happens in the face of tragedy.
I can, for example, remember everything that happened around me the morning the Twin Towers were hit. I can still see in my mind’s eye the way the sky looked on the way into work. I can remember what I was wearing, people’s expressions and what I ate.
It’s hard not to think of Robin Williams and smile. It was his brand. He exemplified boundless and childlike energy. I can recall almost every time I saw him on a late night talk show, too. Each time I wondered, “How does this guy do it? How can someone be that quick-witted and energetic?” He was inspiring.
Robin Williams was fearless and complete. He was a Picasso. He was an Elvis, and a Michael Jordan.
Yet, it isn’t that unprecedented talent that breaks my heart. No. It’s the sadness behind the comedy. I think of Tony Soprano calling himself the “sad clown,” and see that in Williams. And it breaks your heart.
I think it’s easy to forget, when we are caught up in the comings and goings of the day-to-day, how our true brands affect others. We forget how each of us is a unique piece of thread that, when woven together, makes a beautiful tapestry. With Robin Williams, his thread was a shining and recognizable one. One that all the other threads in the tapestry loved dearly.
In reading the reports, Williams’ agent said how sad Robin was of late, and how he felt alone and depressed.
My friend, if you can hear these words somewhere, remember this: you were always with us. You had the ability to make us present with laughter. You helped us lose time, if for just a short while, and connect with something more pure and divine.
Robin Williams, I can never thank you enough for that.