The Tom Dougherty Blog
Former Secretary of State Robert Gates and now the leader of the Boy Scouts of America announced that it is time that the organization drop its ban on prohibiting gays from serving as Scout leaders. He received a standing ovation.
Well, it’s about time.
In the U.S., the tide has changed as far as public opinion is concerned on the civil rights and acceptance of gay citizens. Most Americans favor gay marriage and most Americans believe that gay citizens need their rights protected and discrimination eliminated.
What took the Scouts so long? Even this change of heart (but not a change in policy yet) is a lost opportunity for the Boy Scouts brand. The organization has sat too long on the wrong side of history. It was just another way in which the organization can be looked at as just slightly queer.
Brands must take the lead to remain important.
Brands that are trying to be for general audiences need to find ways to be slightly ahead of the curve…not way behind it. The Boy Scouts of America had demonstrated its narrow view of our general population (estimates are that more than 10% of the US population is gay). It has demonstrated that is is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent. It can now also be accepting and tolerant. It currently does not speak these final two values in its Scout Law because the organization (not the Scouts themselves) had a moral compass that is less rooted in belief than it is in the process of what is right.
Brands remain important and urgent when they become thought leaders, not thought followers. I hope the Scout movement remedies this shortfall and grasp on what is right and important in the society it mines for new members. It has made strides, allowing gay Boy Scouts.
It needs to have a belief in inclusion. A belief that always stands on the right side of history because it finds its beginnings in a core belief in tolerance. How can tolerance in any way be a bad thing?
Or, it could touch its finder to its tongue, raise it to the breeze and wait to discover the wind’s own direction. It may seem quaint, like making your own compass with a magnetized needle in a floating cork, but the direction the wind is now blowing will extinguish its candle in a quick puff if it does not move forward.
Can’t wait until gay Boy Scouts are grown and allowed to lead in the organization that they invested their time and trust in.
Long before today’s most outrageous acts garnered the most likes, tweets, views and laughs, there was the original outrageous act: David Letterman.
David Letterman was always the yin to the yang of Johnny Carson and Jay Leno. Where the Tonight Show tended to be tame and inoffensive, David Letterman tirelessly worked for the more brash and in your face (while still being inoffensive).
One may go so far as to just call it stupid.
But in that stupidity is where David Letterman’s genius works. Stupidity brought us Stupid Pet Tricks, Stupid Human Tricks and even his iconic top 10 lists. As an example, Mr. Letterman’s first top 10 list was, “Words that almost rhyme with peas.”
And, the number one word that almost rhymes with peas is (drumroll):
As we near the David Letterman last show.
As we head into the David Letterman last show, I believe he always stayed true to himself, even tweaking his bosses with jokes about GE when he was at NBC. He also made fun of himself, his guests and his band. But he was quick to address real events in a most sincere way (watch his first show back after 9/11).
Was he funny every night? No. But who could be for 30 years? What he did was keep his schmaltz-less persona intact, and had far more hits than misses.
Brands should take note. As with David Letterman’s brand, a company’s brand is not something that should be transient or the flavor of the day. Rather it should serve as beacon for what you are doing now and where you are heading. Brands sometimes fail in the short term, on a project or an initiative. But if a brand is true to what it is and stays the course, it ultimately will succeed. (As long as it’s meaningful.)
Could you imagine if David Letterman stopped doing his Top 10 list after “Words that almost rhyme with peas”?
So thank you David Letterman for reminding us of the importance of a brand staying true to itself, even when it gets a little rough. And thank you for sharing your brand with the world for the past 30 years.
A few days ago, my oldest son asked if I would like to join him on a venture to Lowe’s. I took him up on the offer, seeing that my wife was out of town and my only company was my dog.
As is typically the case with home improvement stores and me, there’s always something that I need to buy even if it’s something I don’t really need. This time, I needed dimmers for a few of the lights in my living room.
I followed my son around the store for a handful of minutes as he loaded his cart full with lawn care goods, bird feeders and other odds and ends (he is taking after me) before leaving him to find what I wanted to buy.
Here’s the rub: finding the light dimmer I wanted was like hunting for the Yeti. No thank you.
Location is paramount with home improvement stores.
I mentioned earlier that my son and I are a lot alike. So much so that we both have defined our home improvement shopping by the chain closest to where we live. For him, it’s Lowes. For me, it’s Home Depot.
Sadly, without either having a defining brand, the location of a home improvement stores has become the most important factor in deciding the winner in Home Depot vs Lowes.
The battle between Lowe’s and Home Depot was a subject of a recent article in Forbes, which stated that shoppers prefer the layout and design of Lowe’s over Home Depot.
I speculate that the real reason these shoppers prefer Lowe’s over Home Depot is because it’s the store closest to where they live. Consequently, they have backfilled that choice with things like design to affirm that they made the choice for a better reason than location.
What does this mean for the home improvement brand?
As I have previously written, the act of feeling like a “winner” is what drives us within the home improvement category (and most things in life). In the instance with my son, I “lost” at Lowe’s as I could not find the items I wanted readily nor did they seem better in quality. As such, there was no impetus for me to change my shopping pattern.
However, had my shopping experience been a breeze at Lowe’s, maybe this blog would have been written differently. As is, I’ll continue to be a Home Depot shopper.
Organic foods have a problem, a perception problem. Many Americans believe organic labeling is a scam, a marketing scheme that gives brands permission to charge higher prices.
That’s the finding in a new research study by Mintel that demonstrates that the organic wave is slowing down as consumers are getting more cynical about what “organic” really means.
You can see it in the bottom line. Whole Foods, the organic grocery leader, has seen its growth drop from the heydays of 20.4% growth in 2000-2008 to 9.9% last year.
The study backs up those numbers. According to Mintel, more than half of US consumers believe that labeling something organic is “an excuse to charge more” and more than a third (38%) view “organic” as simply a marketing term. Similar numbers show that consumers believe that organic-labeled products are not actually organic.
What is happening here?
There are several facets to all this. For one, as Mintel notes, the organic brands, including Whole Foods, have done a poor job in defining what organic really means. For some of us, we believe organic food is healthier, but we don’t really know nor, it seems, really care.
As sad as it may sound, lower cost trumps the need for healthier food. We are still a country in which we often choose less healthy items over better choices, even knowing that there might be health risks.
Who is the organic food shopper?
There’s another part to this, which I think is the larger issue. Even if you have defined what “organic” means, the consumer reflection of those consumers is not emotional and even seems untrustworthy.
The image of an organic food shopper is something soft and ill defined. It’s food in a hemp tote bag. The brands are too focused on the food and not on the definition of who those shoppers are when they buy organic.
Instead, the marketing is all about the foods and process: What are the good foods to eat, how to prepare them and how to shop for them. There’s very little focused on defining the emotional life of that shopper that would be an attractive aspiration to the target audience.
Organic brands are like any other failing brand, depending on product features and process, which are never enough to overcome price or the emotional brand reflections of non-organic foods.
That leaves shoppers with the idea that, “Hey, it’s just a tomato!” and choosing what they believe is the best tomato. It’s only natural that they then tell themselves that there is an organic food scam because few see themselves in the brands.
If the organic food brands continue to ignore market trends and the ability to tap into the emotional undercurrents of target audiences, “organic” will eventually be seen as nothing more than snake oil.
Did Tom Brady cheat? We may never completely know the answer to that question, but the Ted Wells report on Deflategate or Ballghazi or whatever you want to call it makes one reasonably assume that Brady had some involvement.
And I have to admit, when I heard about the penalties (four-game suspension for Brady, docking draft picks and $1 million from the New England Patriots), I initially thought the penalties were too harsh. Especially because the language in the Wells report was a bit vague.
Brady got the big penalty, in part, because the NFL believed he didn’t fully cooperate with the investigation, refusing to hand over any phone records that associated him with the deflating of footballs. (Wells also reported that the Patriots were less than cooperative too.)
But, as I think about it, maybe the penalties are appropriate as the NFL tries to overcome a distrust issue between the league and the fans (and other owners who believed New England owner Robert Kraft was too chummy with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell).
The NFL began to lose the public trust when it only suspended Ray Rice for two games after beating his wife in an Atlantic City elevator. Since then, the NFL has instituted much harsher penalties for domestic abuse (former Caroline Panther and current Dallas Cowboy defensive end Greg Hardy just received a 10-game suspension for such) and cheating (Atlanta Falcons booming in extra crowd noise at home games, Cleveland’s GM texting with coaches during games). If the regular suspension for cheating (using PEDs is an automatic four-game penalty and the Cleveland GM received four games as well), then Brady’s suspension is in line with that.
Now, do I expect Brady to serve all four games? No. He and his lawyers will go through the appeal process and, if that doesn’t work, they’ll take the NFL to court where it recently lost a case to Adrian Peterson. I can see the suspension being reduced.
A rule was broken.
Where I fall on this is that how much or how little the deflated balls impacted New England’s games is moot. A rule was broken. Penalties must be paid. The appeal process and any litigation will determine the ultimate fate. For me, Brady and his lawyers will have to prove that he had no involvement because the penalties line up with recent policies.
Even though the NFL is as popular as ever (I mean, people tuned in last month to watch the announcement of the NFL schedule), it still has some ways to go before we all feel it has righted its ship. Maybe Goodell steps down. Maybe more protections are put in place for the players. Maybe it becomes more proactive than reactionary.
But it seems to me that the NFL is attempting to be consistent based on recent penalties and policies that came after the Ray Rice incident. We shall see.
The Mad Men series finale will air Sunday night and it brings to a close a TV series that takes as its main theme an idea that’s close to this brand strategist’s heart.
The show has been about many things: Marriage, parenthood, aging and morality, among other topics. But the single theme running through it started right at the beginning when we learned that Don Draper is not who he says he is. Instead, he took on the cloak of someone else’s identity, thinking he could live a new life.
In a way, he was right (he became rich because of it) and he was one of several characters who strove for an aspirational vision of their own personal identity. Pete Campbell, at least for the first few seasons, wanted to be like Don. Peggy wanted to be the creative, with-it girl who could be respected. Joan wanted to be seen as an assertive woman who was noticed for things beyond her looks. And so on.
In each case, there’s a yearning for an aspirational identity that would describe who they believe they are (or want to be).
What Mad Men says about branding.
It’s the same thing with brand. I’ve have preached this ad nauseam, but the fundamental truth of brand is that the best ones are the aspirational reflection of who the target audience wants to be. When you wear Nikes, you are the person who just does it without all the fuss. When you buy an Apple product, you are the person who thinks differently.
But the reason I shout this outside-in approach so often is because so few brands really get it. Most brands are about product benefits or some of other feature of the brand itself. It’s rarely about the customer. Instead, themes are often, “We are here for you.” That’s not about the target audience. That’s about what the brand does, not who the customers are when they use the brand.
Somehow, Mad Men creator Matthew Weiner understands this because the series’ journey has been about finding those identities with varied success. He understands that the yearning for self-identity is the most powerful motivator in human behavior.
We buy the brands that identify ourselves. In that respect, I buy Mad Men because it satisfies my perceived identity of myself: A brand man.
A few years back, I wrote a blog suggesting that Nintendo should consider its present status in the marketplace and team up with some of the other big guns in the entertainment and technology circuit.
I felt Nintendo had room to capitalize on its wonderful array of character-driven games in a variety of platforms. I’m sure Nintendo fanboys would appreciate Mario Kart on their iPads or the newest installment of Super Mario Brothers on their Samsung Galaxy 6 phones.
Nintendo should be licensing the pants out of its trove of games.
Why should it? It’s simple:
Nintendo’s brand exceeds the competition.
While I am not a gamer, and don’t plan on ever becoming one, I do have a bunch of children who play video games. What I know is that Nintendo, unequivocally, has the strongest brand in the gaming industry.
When I consider Nintendo, colorfully timeless characters pop into my mind: Mario and Luigi, and Zelda, for instance. I couldn’t, however, do the same when thinking on the Microsoft or Sony game systems. Neither comes close to the breadth of character that Nintendo’s games offer.
Nintendo’s partnership with Universal is a great first step.
I was pleased when I read that Nintendo would be partnering with Universal Parks & Resorts. It’s about time the brains at Nintendo realized joining forces will propel its brand forward. Think about it: The Nintendo Universal partnership now means you can now visit a Universal theme park and you hop on a Super Mario themed roller coaster or immerse yourself in a 4D game.
That, to me, sounds like a kick in the pants.
My hope for Nintendo is that the partnerships do not end with Universal and that we will see more and more of the cherubic, red-capped, Italian plumber named Mario in more and more aspects of our everyday media.
The Nintendo Universal partnership signals the beginning of Nintendo taking over the world.
Talk about spin control. Today’s Dish Network earnings announcement touted that its profit doubled in the first quarter to $351 million, beating analysts’ estimates.
So, you think. Wow. How did that happen in today’s market in which streaming services are taking more and more market share from cable and satellite TV companies?
The answer: Profits may be up, but market share is down. You see, Dish actually lost 134,000 customers but only boosted its profits by increasing prices for its current customers. Now, that’s a fine way to fill the pockets of company execs.
But it speaks to what’s wrong at Dish and many other companies, whether they are in the TV delivery system business or not. When a company is public, beholden to shareholders, the future is simply the next quarter, not years down the road. So, to keep their jobs, CEOs enact short-term changes to ensure that the next quarter’s earnings look good.
Of course, it’s only a matter of time until that strategy catches up with them. Many floundering companies approach lost market share by raising prices (to increase profits) or laying off employees (to cut costs). In some cases, these may be needed adjustments to keep a company afloat.
Dish Network vs. DirecTV
But what stuns me is that there’s little effort to look beyond what’s happening in the next quarter. The important way Dish (and anyone else concerned with lost market share) can take back market share is to become more relevant to target audiences. For the long term.
My guess is that Dish isn’t just losing to Netflix, Hulu and Amazon. But also to DirecTV. You can sense it in Dish’s current marketing campaign, which says you get the same thing at DirecTV, only at a lower cost. (Although, based on Dish’s recent price increase, that may not be for long.)
The spots are defensive because they suggest that DirecTV is the market leader. But Dish and other companies need to know that switching for a lower cost isn’t a very strong switching trigger.
We’ve done research in various industries in which emotional reasons (and some rational ones) often trump low cost as the reasons why consumers choose. They don’t choose for the lowest cost because most of us believe you get what you pay for.
Dish isn’t going to stave off its lost market share by standing on low cost (while increasing prices) or showing off The Hopper, which is the same DVR technology that just about every cable and satellite TV company offers.
Even in light of Dish’s first quarter announcement, Dish is becoming less and less relevant, and its lost market share will catch up to its bottom line eventually. Saying you are the same as the market leader just says you aren’t good enough.