Brand Winner...	And Loser...

John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week:

Winner: The American Auto Industry             

Loser: The Pope

Winner

As the marketing lens predicted months ago, the American auto industry is making a comeback, despite the odds and the naysayers. The last week has shown that the major auto makers are starting to sell significant numbers of vehicles again.

How did I know?

It was obvious once the major players began to embrace the core marketing value of listening and responding. When GM promptly abandoned the Vuick (the story and my take is here), it signaled the company was no longer simply going to pursue a build-it-and-they-will-buy-it approach. (There’s nothing like staring bankruptcy in the face to get the marketing concept going.)

Not only that, but GM’s flexibility suggested a new responsiveness that would mean the right products made it to market and the wrong ones didn’t. And that is exactly what’s been happening. Moreover, you’ll notice that all the major automakers are rolling out hybrids and electrics with more variety and choices much faster than anyone could have anticipated.   

Bottom line: the industry has gotten leaner, and as long as they continue to deliver what their Target Market wants, this turnaround will have staying power.

The Loser

Given that religion is always a sensitive topic, I want to preface my comments about Pope Benedict by saying this: my criticism is not personal; it’s about the business of branding and the urgent need for the Pope to do the work of branding better —much better.

Pope Benedict’s predecessor understood that, good or bad, the world was dominated by a video-dependent, sound-bite hungry media. As Pope John Paul II once supposedly observed about moments like his historic visit to Poland: “If something isn’t filmed, it didn’t happen.”  

Like his contemporary world figure, Ronald Reagan, he also understood that he had a specific brand, and that the image of this brand needed to be clear and consistent. In other words, Pope John Paul II challenged the world, but he understood the modern ground rules of branding and message-making.

Pope Benedict and those advising him must take a page from the John Paul II playbook, because over the past weeks —notably the week that just ended with Easter Sunday— they have done serious brand harm.

The first mistake has been the obvious defensiveness of the Pope and those around him. One leading Vatican figure dismissed some of the charges and accusations of pedophilia as “gossip.”  

Wow. That is simply mindboggling. Why not embrace this sad episode in the history of the Church and use it to teach that even noble endeavors run by humans will struggle with flaws and failing?

Sure, there might be anti-Catholicism involved in some of the coverage, but a story is a story, and this story —which is based on clear institutional mistakes and even criminality that led to the cover-up of abuse— is not gossip. And to call it such only suggests a continuing cover-up.  

The second mistake was made by Pope Benedict alone. He had a golden opportunity to use his Easter Sunday homily to the world as a platform to address this scandal, still festering after almost a decade of wide-spread coverage. He did not do so. This only reinforces the image of the Vatican as out of touch with people’s concerns.

Contrast what the Pope didn’t say with what Diarmuid Martin, the Archbishop of Ireland, actually did say: “There is no shortcut to addressing the past. This has been a difficult year. We see how damaging failure of integrity and authenticity are to the body of Christ. Shameful abuse took place within the Church of Christ. The response was hopelessly inadequate.”

Now that’s a statement. But for it to be truly effective, it must come out of Pope Benedict’s mouth. Once it does, the Pope shouldn’t stop there. The only way to combat the profound negativity and horror of this scandal is for the Pope to take an extremely active role in making sure it does not happen again. A strong statement of regret and an appeal for forgiveness must be followed up by the rollout of a comprehensive strategy that will be both preventative and punitive. 

Most importantly, the Pope must be seen to be listening to the people. What better way than for him to actively meet victims and families in a single, world-wide tour dedicated to this purpose alone? This would instantly broadcast that the Pope and the Church are serious about dealing with the problem and moving forward. It would be hard for even the Church’s most active attackers to criticize it for that. Moreover, it is a fact today that such bold and even grand gestures are necessary to counter-balance the negative images and ugly truths.  

While apologizing and reaching out to people, the Pope can also underscore that the Church may have done the right thing in many cases. He can remind the media that in the nineties, when this story first began to break, he pioneered a policy of zero-tolerance in such matters. He can also explain the Church’s thinking that meant in some cases offending priests were not defrocked —i.e., if kept as priests on a short leash they could be controlled, but if cut loose they’d be an even greater threat to children. In other words, the Pope can rebuild the image of the Church without appearing defensive. He or others can also begin to expose the anti-Catholic sentiment that might be driving some of the coverage —again, without appearing defensive.

The Pope’s brand has been seriously hurt, but the nature of the papal brand is one of fundamental strength; it is hard to imagine a more influential personal brand platform. If Pope Benedict taps into this strength, things will turn around faster than anyone can believe right now.

And, remember, things are always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.

TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY -

The worst brand response to negative attacks is to become defensive.

 

  

  

  

 

Apple's iPad makes covers of Time, Newsweek

Brand Winner...	And Loser...

John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week:

Winner: Tiger Woods             

Loser: The Republicans

 

This last week has meant that two brands that we’ve looked at before need a re-examination. As predicted, the Tiger Woods brand is clearly on the mend. And also as predicted, the Republicans need to take quick brand-fixing action fast —or else.

            

Winner

                                 

Even though divorce rumors are swirling around Tiger Woods again, the fact is, the Tiger Woods brand is back.

There’s no question that Tiger Woods could be finished with the women of this country. But from a marketing perspective this doesn’t matter; women were not his Target Market.

Using the marketing lens, instead of the pundit lens or the public relations lens, I predicted that Tiger’s brand would enjoy a comeback —and sooner than many thought. No, I don’t possess incredible powers of clairvoyance. I simply understood that when we talk about Tiger Woods, we are talking about a performance brand. And when we talk about Tiger Woods, we are also talking about a man who understands the rules as they apply to his brand.

Being a performance brand means one thing: as long as a performance brand performs where it counts (i.e. on the playing field, basketball court or golf course), the brand will remain strong. If scandals occur, a performance brand has plenty of room for redemption and correction by virtue of the positive exposure of continued victorious performance —not to mention the attendant media platform— of each major sporting event.

Soon after Tiger’s scandal broke, I wrote this about what redemption might look like:

People love stories of redemption. If Tiger does what he says he is going to do and works hard to heal his family and himself, he will re-enforce those aspects of his brand that made him a star. If, a year or so from now, Tiger tells his side of his story in such a way that he admits he was self-centered, his Target Market and the public will accept that he is a changed man who has applied himself to becoming a better man. This will actually make his brand stronger than it was before the scandal. However, to do this, he will need to tell people that while privacy is important, his privacy in the past was selfish and that he is now coming forward to tell his story for his fans, for his family and for his personal growth as a human being. Then people will say the prodigal son has returned  —the man we always believed in was really there.

Tiger did most of the above faster than I expected him to, but the point is that he did it, and it clearly worked. His polling numbers are strong. He is going to be playing in the Masters, and Las Vegas has him as the favorite. His long-time sponsor Nike has just shot a commercial with him in it.  

But here’s the public relations point: Tiger didn’t do his apology and response on a public relations timeline; he did it on a brand timeline. Bottom line: his Target Market expect him to tackle a problem head on and then devote as much time as he needs to triumphing over it. The public relations folks wanted Tiger to get out there and spill his guts on Day 1, but this simply isn’t consistent with Tiger Woods’ brand. He did end up making the tearful apology —but only after he had put in the hard work (sex rehab) to show that he meant it. The lesson from all of this is that public relations without marketing and an intimate understanding of branding truths is like going to war without being dressed for battle.

So what happens if Tiger Woods’ marriage fails? My guess at this point is that his brand is past genuine danger. Frank Sinatra had a pretty scandalous reputation, but he always delivered to his Target Market, and they always supported him.

Fact is, Tiger Woods’ brand is now well positioned for future growth, as long as he performs on the golf course, keeps true to his brand of excellence and makes sure that his public relations people keep the focus on him, not themselves. (Ari Fleischer’s high profile departure from Team Tiger only reinforces the “handled” image you don’t want to reinforce, but this time it shouldn’t be fatal.) 

The Loser

If you want to get a sense of just how in danger the Republicans are of destroying their brand, you don’t need to look any further than this YouTube remix of “Yes, We Can,” the successful Obama campaign video. In it, the positive Obama “Yes, We Can” message is interrupted by John Boehner screaming “Hell No, You Can’t!”

Whatever your politics, this is simply bad news for Boehner and the Republican Party. Propaganda, you say? Sure, it’s propaganda. But wow, does it work.

Why? Because the Republicans are feeding the caricature of themselves as unreasonable, hate-filled obstructionists who have abandoned the disciplined and optimistic spirit of Ronald Reagan for a brand unsure of what it is all about.  

Sure, a minority power in opposition must frequently say “no,” but it has to make this “no” ring with a positive affirmation of values and the electorate’s needs, and it has to explain why it’s saying no.  

Before the Republicans rush into trying to repeal Health Care, they ought to read Dana Milbank over at The Washington Post, who has just reminded all politicos that Alf Landon ran his disastrous presidential campaign of 1936 on trying to repeal Social Security.

People will always complain about medical care, and they will complain in particular about a problem-plagued system. As the inherent flaws of the new legislation become clear, Republicans should be ready to address them.

What the Republican Party needs to do is reposition themselves as the opposition party that listens and responds to the people.

This is called brand differentiation. When one brand (in this case, the Democratic brand) is not perceived as filling a need (in this case, actually listening to the people), then a competing brand (like the Republicans) must promote how it is different.

First, the Republicans must really listen to the people. Maybe the people won’t want everything about health care repealed. Maybe they’ll want it improved. Republicans can learn this by conducting extensive market research. The main point is to abandon the outright “we know best, and it’s repeal” approach and instead adopt a “listen and repair” approach.

Second, the Republicans must show the people that they are listening. To do this, all Republican candidates should hand out business cards with the number for a “Legislation Hotline.”  This number would give the voter the opportunity to weigh in directly on specific legislation, both pending and on the books. 

Successful brands have clear-cut visions of the future that are positive, not negative. End of story.

Whatever they do, John Boehner’s “Hell No, You Can’t!” must be replaced by “Yes, We Can.” If it isn’t, the Republicans will be in the wilderness for a very long time. 

And, remember, things are always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.

TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY -

Political Brands Must Have A Positive Vision To Succeed.

 

  

  

  

 

Brand Winner...	And Loser...

John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week:

Winner: Google             

Loser: Brand Obama

 

Sunday brought a historic legislative victory for President Obama and a major change for Internet behemoth Google. Only one event was good for the brand involved (hint: it didn’t happen in Washington). 

            

Winner

Google.  

After months of speculation, Google has announced that it is no longer going to censor service in China.

As a result, they are redirecting their search operations to freer Hong Kong and hoping that they will still be able to grow their Chinese search base, despite inevitable push back from the Communist government.

This is excellent branding.

Why? Because Google is a company that began with its “Don’t Be Evil” slogan and must be guided by it. Other international companies might be able to play it looser with authoritarian China, but that’s because people buy brands, not  companies. In other words, most international companies are in the business of moving products, and it is the products themselves that interest the Target Markets —not the way the companies maneuver behind the scenes to get those products to market. 

But Google is the product. The search engine itself as well as most of the services that Google is involved with depend on the impression that Google isn't “evil” and is doing its best to make the free flow of information and unfettered access to the Web a reality for its users.

Being seen as a participant in censorship to the extent demanded by China was simply not consistent with Google’s core brand features.

Moreover, Google’s company image is what has enabled it to develop other brands (i.e. products and services) and generate as much good will as they have. The massive book scanning project or its YouTube business would be harmed if they were seen as tampering with the user’s experience.  

This high-visibility stand which will certainly hurt Google’s search engine in China, at least for the short-term, will pay dividends for the Google brand in the long-term because it will reassure all of the search engine’s devoted users around the world that Google is putting the effectiveness, quality and freedom of their search first, above all other concerns.

Now that is marketing!

The Loser

On Sunday night, a major piece of legislation was passed without one Republican vote —this hasn’t happened in modern times.

Politically, Barack Obama managed to pull something off with health care reform that no one had been able to do thus far. This is an achievement.

Unfortunately, it is a brand-damaging achievement. To push through this game-changing legislation, the President had to align himself so closely to the Democrats that his image as an outside “change bringer” is virtually ruined.

Fact is, Obama has now cast his lot with the Democratic old guard, and the Republicans are now positioned as the hardened opposition. Forget all about bi-partisanship. Even if it were possible before, that window has closed now. (With their talk of repealing the legislation, the Republicans are signaling that they risk becoming the party of “no” which isn’t good for them either —but it’s easier to fix than Obama’s problem.)

From a marketing perspective, the fundamental problem for the president is that by turning to the old guard Democrats, he has turned his back on significant segments of his Target Market. Fiscally conservative Independents and Democrats, as well as the many cross-over Republicans who voted him into office, are not seeing the man they voted for occupying the presidency. They’re not seeing Candidate Obama in President Obama. This is political bait-and-switch, and it alienates a wide swathe of those who were supporters of Candidate Obama.

Bottom line, the die has been cast. Obama and the Democrats are joined at the hip. What’s next?

President Obama needs to put the pedal to the metal if he wants to have a chance of re-election in 2012. This means that he might as well start pushing every piece of partisan legislation he can because he won’t be getting his reputation as a new kind of politician back anytime soon. He can only hope that the legislation he passes (Wall Street regulation, immigration, etc.) works and makes those Target Markets he’s done such a good job of alienating happy again.

And, remember, things are always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.

TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY -

Listen to your Target Market!

 

  

  

  

 

"The net has empowered Imogen Heap to leave the labels behind and generate millions of fans worldwide."

Brand Winner...	And Loser...

John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week:   

Winner: Imogen Heap                

Loser: The Democrats and Health Care

     This week the Marketing Doctor is taking a look at two very different areas that both need to remember their Target Markets: musical performance and politics. Unfortunately, only our winner is remembering her Target Market; the Democrats in our government are not.

           
Winner

You might not have heard of Imogen Heap, but she is an incredibly successful pop musician and composer who has a devoted following.

She’s our winner of the week because of her decision a few years ago to abandon her big record label and manage her fan base and distribution herself.

Now, instead of spending a year in a studio making a single album, she composes a single track, perfects it, then puts it out on the Web. Today’s cheap production (off-the-shelf software and equipment) and almost zero distribution costs as well as the fact that live touring and merchandising bring in most of the money makes her business model not only possible but very profitable. The pop music world has been turned upside down: in the past touring was a promotional tool for an album, whereas now the tour is the moneymaker.

 Heap knows this and uses MySpace and Twitter as well as a video blog to keep her fans involved and up-to-date so that the touring machine remains primed. The result has been impressive. She has over 750,000 fans following her on Twitter, and there have been over 40 million plays of her music on MySpace.

Basically, she plans all of her tours based on the information she receives through social networking. Here’s what she had to say in a recent interview with Craig Mathieson about how she uses YouTube and Twitter to identify her Target Market plan her marketing strategy:

"You can plan your tours around where the love is on Twitter and YouTube. Before, you couldn't tell. I've been touring in Germany, where I've hardly sold any CDs, but the word spread via the Internet and I've come here because I know the fans are out there."

So hats of to Imogen Heap for keeping her Target Market first and foremost in mind and using the precision and interactivity of our new Internet-connected world to do what couldn’t be done before.

The Loser

Sad to say, our losers of the week (and probably the next election cycle) could learn a lot from Miss Heap. But more than that, they should simply know better.  I’m talking about the Democratic Party, which seems dead set on forgetting its Target Market with the push for health care reform.

As a marketing man, I know that there is always a temptation to think you know better than the consumer. But follow this temptation and you will almost always get into trouble.

The parallel here is with New Coke. Coca Cola made the mistake of forcing a new product onto the consumer in an extreme way that left no options. Theirs was a take-it -or –leave-it approach. As we all know, the approach failed miserably and there was eventually a “product repeal” —New Coke went to the ash heap of history and Classic Coke returned. The consumers had spoken.

The Democrats seem to be behaving like Coca Cola. Comments by Nancy Pelosi and others have indicated that they’ve adopted a kind of “We know better than you the electorate” attitude with respect to this legislation and are prepared to push it even if it means invoking the “reconciliation” maneuver on Capitol Hill.

The problem is that people buy brands, not companies. The Democrats seem to believe that because Barack Obama was elected, the party has been given a mandate to pursue big government policies. This is wrong. Obama was elected as a distinct brand from the Democrats. Not only that, but even if the Democrats were popular, the health care reform legislation (a separate brand entirely from the party) is clearly not popular nor in keeping with America’s long tradition of being wary of social service programs that encroach on individual liberties. 

This reminds me of the failed push for the super-deluxe mouse trap. The device failed because people like to throw away the mouse trap with the mouse. They did not want to clean up an expensive super-deluxe mouse trap and opted to stick with the cheap version. Basically, people simply couldn’t relate to the super-deluxe trap… it didn’t meet their needs.

The current health care legislation faces the same problem as the deluxe mouse trap: the people cannot relate to it. Not only has it been presented incomprehensibly so that no one really seems to be able to explain what it is all about, but the parts that can be explained don’t seem to meet the actual needs of the people.

Unlike Europeans, Americans have never been comfortable with the government taking care of them and acting as their primary social service provider.  Americans welcome situational or one-time assistance but not systemic assistance. The proposed legislation, however, moves government much closer to this role as a system provider —hence the wide-spread negative reaction so far.
Bottom line: by forcing this brand on the people, the Democrats will be identifying their party brand with it, and that won’t be forgotten anytime soon by their Target Market.

And, remember, things are always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.

TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY -

Never ignore or condescend to your Target Market.

 

  

  

  

 

Imogean Heap is using smart marketing..and the Dems..er.. not so much, or at least that's what Dr. Tantillo thinks.

Brand Winner...	And Loser...

John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week:

Winner: The Academy Awards                 

Loser: Book Publishing

This past week saw two distinguished industry brands that are in very different positions. One critical reason: marketing (both fundamental and promotional).

Winner

The first Academy Awards ceremony was held in 1929 as a brunch for 250 plus people and as a way of gaining visibility for the artistic and cultural significance of the movie industry.

As promotion and publicity tactic, it worked wonders. Not only are the Oscars now the oldest media awards ceremony, they are easily the most famous. The latest, this past Sunday’s 82nd Academy Awards, was one of the most watched, with a full 41 million viewers, easily beating out any other programs in competing time slots.

But my focus isn’t on the viewer numbers; it is on the intelligence of the marketing that builds such a complementary promotional brand for an entire industry.  

Go back to movies in the early 1900s. We’re talking about a largely commercial activity popularized by Nickelodeons (theaters that employed the new cinematic technology as a novelty for five cents a pop). Over the course of the twentieth century, this business not only prospered but became a major —maybe the major— cultural force in the world. The awards ceremony was a powerful tool that differentiated the developing film industry from its strictly commercial, Nickelodeon roots. 

Let’s face it: the Oscars started as a trade show with a twist, and that twist  —highlighting the cultural importance of the product and all the associated glamour— has made Hollywood a pre-eminent cultural brand (and kept the cash registers ringing at the box office). The Oscars have reinforced stardom, underscored artistic achievement and awarded excellence. By doing so, they have strengthened the industry, attracting the best and the brightest and maintaining Hollywood’s status as centerpiece of our culture.

This brand strength matters now more than ever since the product they are selling is being pressed on all sides by increasing distribution costs, competing media and even the drop in bar to entry by aspiring film makers who might be able to get around the studio system.

But if the 41 million viewers and the massive interest in everything Oscar on the Internet tells us anything, Hollywood has real marketing so wrapped up in its DNA that it will survive whatever challenges lie ahead, and it will continue to prosper.

Bottom line: long ago, the movie industry recognized its brand and the need to promote it in an effective way that appeared (and was) culturally selfless (many of the ten entries for Best Picture had very limited release). Hurrah for Hollywood!

The Loser

Another media industry facing incredible pressures from the Internet and new technology is book publishing. 

Book publishing could learn a lot from Hollywood, but so far the players are just fumbling.

Not only are publishers showing uncertainty with respect to the central question of correct pricing of product (i.e., the recent dispute between publishers and Amazon over how to price e-books), but more importantly, they’re making big errors when it comes to the heart of their business: being gatekeepers of literary quality.

After all, why buy a commercially published book if you can’t be sure that the content is professional quality?  

Last week, Henry Holt & Company recalled all copies of The Last Train From Hiroshima because of what’s thought to be major factual inaccuracies and fraudulent sourcing. Wow! You’d think that a publisher would have fact-checked and made sure that the product carrying its imprint was unassailable. Unfortunately, the dirty little secret of commercial publishing is that publishers simply don’t do this kind of fact-checking or quality control anymore. This quality control might be easy to eliminate for the bean counters, but it provides critical value for the product and the strength of the brand.

The recent Toyota debacle tells us where cutting corners on quality will lead.

But a more fundamental marketing question is this one: How can it be that an industry (publishing) that has existed for hundreds of years as opposed to Hollywood’s one hundred, and that has been so central to culture, doesn’t have the oldest awards ceremony?

The short answer: they never created one.  

Sure, there are the Pulitzers and others, but what Hollywood did was create an award show that appealed to both the industry insiders and their customers. Publishing awards and ceremonies are strictly inside baseball.

I don’t want to go into the reasons why publishing never did this (i.e., industry arrogance, belief in its own importance, etc.), but the fact is, not having done this means that today the industry has no recognizable center, no annual rite that reminds America that it’s important. Of course, someone could argue that Hollywood had glamour and mass appeal that books didn’t, but first think Hemingway, Dorothy Parker, then remember that in many ways Hollywood and publishing have a symbiotic relationship (so many movies were originally books); and, finally, some smart promotion could have borrowed Hollywood glamour and perhaps Hollywood celebrities to create a talked-about awards ceremony.

Maybe it’s in the DNA of publishers to speak the right marketing words but fundamentally reject the promotional necessities and genuine attempts at connecting with their Target Markets. Maybe the glowing book review is what they ultimately care about, and they will reject any attempts to follow Hollywood’s marketing example. But maybe they should try to fight against this culture and opt for a marketing bypass.

That’s where publishing is right now, trying to figure out just what the next step is, because the fundamentals of marketing their industry were ignored long ago. 

And remember, things are always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.

TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY -

Industries, like companies, need to promote themselves even when the times are good and build marketable brands for the long-term.

 

  

  

  

 

The Academy Awards exemplifies the best of Hollywood's marketing. The recent Henry Holt fiasco exemplifies publishing's rejection of its own core brand features.

Brand Winner...	And Loser...

John Tantillo%u2019s Winner and Loser of The Week:   

Winner: Tiger Woods

Loser: Johnny Weir
     
I want to take a look at two performance brands this week.  Without further ado:
           

Winner

The pundits can dissect every line and pause of Tiger Woods%u2019 statement Friday, but they%u2019re wrong. 

The media didn%u2019t like it because they were cut out of the picture%u2026 but this wasn%u2019t a press conference; it was a marketing conference. This wasn%u2019t about the media; it was about Tiger%u2019s fans, his clients and his customers.

Tiger went directly to his Target Market, and from everything I%u2019ve heard, people accepted what he said. 

Public relations as we knew it is over (i.e., catering first and foremost to the demands of the journalists and trying to shape their message). Marketing has taken its place. In Tiger%u2019s own case, he has followed a four-point crisis marketing strategy:

1.      Don%u2019t Panic.  Tiger did not panic, even though there were cries by media and media handlers to make impulsive remarks.

2.      Consider the core value of your product.  For Tiger Woods, it%u2019s years of winning golf tournaments and the respect he has received from his fans and customers;

3.      Assess what hasn%u2019t changed.  Tiger Woods has been great for golf and is a great golfer. It was his silly behavior that got him in trouble; it wasn%u2019t that he had cheated at the game. Because of this, as long as he addresses the current problem, he can get back to golf, continue winning and restore his brand. 

4.      Reach out to your Target Market.  Tiger did this on Friday. Something that%u2019s being lost in all the chatter is the fact that one of the enduring and consistent characteristics of the Tiger Woods%u2019 brand is his commitment to practice. The fact that he stuck to his therapy and waited until he was ready to speak reminds us of these champion-like qualities that he possesses and shows that they are still intact. In other words, getting this part of his %u201Cgame%u201D right, too, is classic Tiger and works to reinforce his brand in a very positive way. In other words, he%u2019s handling this crisis %u2014as ugly as it is%u2014 like he would handle a really bad situation on the green.

Above all, everyone needs to remember that Tiger Woods is a performance brand. That means that ultimately, even if a segment of the population cannot forgive him, if he stays true to his brand of golfing excellence and goes on to win, the Tiger brand will continue to be strong. No matter what the journalists say. End of story.

The Loser

Johnny Weir could take a page from the Tiger playbook.

He seems to have forgotten that it is his performance on the ice rather than his performance on the screen that will ultimately determine the success or failure of his brand.

Sure, he is a bright, creative, intelligent guy who seems to attract a lot of attention, but the reason he attracts this attention is because he is a champion athlete. 

Critics can say that Weir has a deep groundswell of supporters who don%u2019t care that he has had %u2014at least recently, and the Olympics confirms it%u2014 a middle skating career. 

The problem is that Weir%u2019s popularity has all the appearances of a fad. As I%u2019ve discussed before at length, fads can be a terrific marketing launching pad for a brand or product, but ultimately there needs to be substance behind the fad, or the fad will never mature into a solid, long-term brand.

In the case of Weir, the question is this: in the absence of champion skating, what will keep his brand going? He seems to sense this question and has been branching out into other areas, even most recently suggesting that he is going into fashion.

But it probably would have made more sense to spend a bit more time on the ice over the past two years so that he could have established something better than a 6th place finish at the Olympics. The performance aspect of the sports brand would have meant that he could count on more durability over the near term (i.e., regular media attention over the next four years). Now that part of the equation is probably gone, and he will have to move quickly to build on what brand equity he does have %u2014or risk
fading away, as so many fads do.

And, remember, things are always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.

TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY -

Go directly to your Target Market and avoid the media filter whenever possible.

 

  

  

  

 

The Marketing Doctor applauds Tiger Woods' apology and asks a few questions about Johnny Weir's brand strategy.

Brand Winner...	And Loser...

John Tantillo%u2019s Winner and Loser of The Week:   

Winner: John Mayer

Loser: Dick Cheney

This week the Marketing Doctor wades into controversial waters, but anything to show that the marketing lens even works in the murkiest of waters.

            
Winner

John Mayer.

He said some incredibly vulgar and awful things in that now infamous Playboy interview%u2026  So, how could he possibly be this week%u2019s winner?

Simple. Did he do irreparable harm to his relationship with his Target Market?

Answer Yes, and you%u2019ve got a loser. Answer No, and it%u2019s no harm, no foul.

And the answer is No.

Here%u2019s why.

John Mayer has built his career on %u201Creal%u201D music that is supposed to convey real emotions and observations on life as his demographic lives it. The interview with Playboy, while reprehensible, can simply not be judged by the same yard stick you would use to judge a politician or a business person. Mayer is an entertainment/celebrity brand, and one that is expected to say things that aren%u2019t palatable and might even be offensive. His yardstick, like so many (but not all) entertainment brands, is %u201Cbeing real.%u201D

If he overshoots, he needs to apologize in a credible way (breaking down in tears on stage, surrounded by his fans, is credible, and he did this). Fact is, entertainment has long been filled with the personal disaster and bad behavior that is forgiven by the Target Market. (Rat Pack, anyone?)

An entertainment/celebrity brand is like a sports performance brand in that as long as good music/performance keeps being produced, the brand will stay strong. In fact, an entertainment brand has even more resiliency than a personal sports brand because someone like Mayer doesn%u2019t really do corporate sponsorships.

Bottom line, Mayer%u2019s first concern in this world of music piracy is filling big venues with devoted fans. He did this after the Playboy interview (the same night he delivered that tearful apology). Forget the general polls on whether Mayer%u2019s brand is hurt: the crowd at the arena cheered and screamed his apology on.  

That%u2019s his Target Market, and they buy the tickets. John Mayer is going to do just fine.

 
The Loser

I%u2019m not someone who thinks former Vice President Dick Cheney was the villain many in the press have painted him as. In fact, I think history may very well vindicate many of the things that the Bush administration did in fighting a very difficult enemy.

But I%u2019m not here to talk history. I%u2019m here to talk marketing and, specifically, why it%u2019s a very bad idea for Dick Cheney to keep putting himself in the spotlight if the Republicans want a chance to regain power anytime soon.

To put it bluntly and with all due respect, Vice President Cheney needs to let someone else do the talking. He needs to get off the stage. Certain brands will never make a comeback.

President Bush seems to understand the importance of exiting the stage and then staying off of it. He knows that, fairly or unfairly, his brand%u2019s time has passed and does not add value to the quest to restore the Republicans to power.

History and reevaluation might change people%u2019s opinions in the long run, but the only opinions that count right now are the voters%u2019 opinions, and anyone being honest about that market knows that the Bush-Cheney legacy is widely perceived as toxic. This legacy alienates wide swathes of the electorate, which is just no good for a party that needs those numbers to stand a chance.  

One anecdotal %u201Ctest%u201D that shows just how deep these feelings run is that even those who are centrist and right-leaning often feel uncomfortable speaking up for the former administration in mixed political company. The Bush-Cheney legacy is just not socially defensible.

Every time Vice President Cheney opens his mouth, he gets the inevitable headline. In terms of drawing the nation%u2019s attention to gaps in our defense, this may be good %u2014but it also draws the nation%u2019s attention away from the kind of promising Republican, pro-defense figures who should be rising in stature for a future presidential run.  

Every time Dick Cheney takes a strong policy position, it has the effect of anchoring the Republican party to the previous administration, which is a negative.  

The Republicans cannot simply be the party of the negative opposition now (i.e., saying they were right all along and that rejecting all Obama initiatives is the right thing to do). For the Republicans to win, they need to embrace a positive, forward-looking and ultimately hopeful platform that rebuts President Obama and the Democrats without being merely rejectionist.

With a wagon load of negative brand baggage, Vice President Cheney will not be able to achieve this. In a way, Cheney has found himself in the Kissinger, post-Vietnam dilemma. He is an exceptional man with perhaps more foreign policy experience than almost anyone %u2014but also a man whose public performance poisons his party%u2019s nationwide agenda. Kissinger skillfully navigated these waters until he could once again be publicly tapped for his gifts (and it took a long time.)

If the Republicans want to move forward and the former vice president wants this too, he should take a page from Kissinger%u2019s playbook. Cheney can begin working behind the scenes to help ensure that our defense is secure and that the best candidate to lead the Republican party can emerge without a shadow. He can still lend his wisdom and tactical brilliance to the cause, but he must step away from the podium now.

It%u2019s natural for the party faithful to want to honor and support the former vice president, but they must being to recognize that his public actions are hurting the party. For the Republican party to be successful nationwide, it needs to expand its Target Market (i.e. beyond those people for whom Cheney is not necessarily a negative) by reaching out to independents and even moderate Democrats, for whom Cheney and Bush are old and bad news.  

And, remember, things are always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.

TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY -

Rather than trying to evaluate if a brand did well generally, always ask: Did it succeed or fail with its Target Market? Because in the end, that's all that matters for a brand.

 

  

  

  

 

The piece of work who will probably prosper anyway, and the piece of work who could keep the whole GOP down with him.