Three Dimensional rock and roll

U2 in 3D-  quite an exciting movie going experience, but also a bit odd.  Sitting in an oversized Imax theater with about 50 other people, silently watching a three dimensional rock and rock concert felt a little weird at first, but as the music I have grown up enjoying played in surround sound, I was able to enjoy the experience of seeing U2 while wearing oversized 3D glasses.

A popular band that has been around for more than 30 years definitely has some brand equity built up with their name and their music.  I think it would be difficult to find many people who have not at least heard of the band U2, and a majority could probably sing a song or two.  On the other hand, it is also a brand that definitely has developed brand communities, or fan clubs.  U2 has also used their name and status to co-brand with Apple when they released the U2 iPod a few years back.  

It seems to take away from the heart of the music to talk about it as a brand, but a band is a selling point and the more awarness that a band has, the more people will listen to their music and hopefully purchase it at some level, or pay to see them in concert.  Over the years, U2 has been very aware of their image and the way they were perceived in the publics eye.  During the 1980s, they came across as very serious, God searching activists, singing song's like Sunday Bloody Sunday and Bullets the Blue Sky.  They came into the 1990s breaking that image apart and reinventing who they were as a band, mocking the idea of rock and rolls stars and exploiting the lucious lifestyles that tend to follow stars around.  They got a bit lost in all the noise in the late 1990s with their album POP, while at one point in the concert for that tour the band emerged from a giant lemon and descended to the stage.  Again, in 2000, U2 adjusted their image and music to get back to the basic and who they were as a four piece rock band.  They played some small club venues and toured in smaller arenas.  Yet one thing they have done, is that they have kept reinventing themselves and re-branding themselves to stay relevant and to keep pushing their music to new places.  When I think of other bands that have been around for 30 years, most of them are either doing reunion tours right now, or their new music is no different than what they did 20 years ago.  Just their name alone, from a branding point of view, seems like a smart move.  It's simple, easy to remember, but at the same time a bit mysterious.  What does it exactly mean?  Is it a type of train in Germany?  Bono has also branded himself with his name.  If the world new him as Paul Hewson, it would not have nearly the same connotation and edginess.  

U2 has also been good about keeping their brand in the public's eye.  Almost every year they release something. If it's not a new album, then its a new compilation album, or a couple new songs, or a movie soundtrack.  This year their release is a 3D film of a concert they played in Buenos Aires.  It is not the full concert, but a very interesting idea in that watching it on a large screen in 3D at concert levels in the sound really puts you right in the heart of the show.  Even if someone is not a U2 fan, they could still be 'wowed' by the experience.  

Beyond the music, Bono's political activism has also added to the brand of U2.  It gives a human touch to the band in a way that is not exploitive of their personal lives or what you would typically find in some tabloid.  

I myself am a huge U2 fan, and have been since I was 7 years old.  I remember staying up until midnight on New Year's back then just so I could hear their song "New Years Day" because it always seemed to be played then.  The first U2 album I got was Achtung Baby in 1990, and I still have that original tape.  The band has history with me and personal stories.  I even met Bono at a pub outside of Dublin a few years back.  During a crazy time in college, me and a buddy left school over Spring Break and followed U2 up and down the West Coast, from Vancouver and Seattle, to San Diego, to San Jose and San Francisco, to Los Angeles, and Las Vegas. So I think of U2 in a much different way than someone who might buy an album or song every now and then, or someone who does not care for them at all.  But my personal experiences and history obviously add a lot to my enjoyment and how I feel about the band. 

These ideas tie into the ideas of authenticity and value, and real experiences with a brand.  On one hand, U2 is very commercial, but they do it in a honest way.  They are not run by a record label.  They own all of their master recording and are very picky to let their music be used in things like Tv shows or films.  They are first and foremost artist and musicians, but from an early time in the career, they knew they had to be smart about business to be able to stay around for a long time. The ideas that stories and personal connections can bring a greater sense of authenticity to a brand is true for me in this situation as well.  I have human interaction combined with the music. 

I am curious to see how they market their next album, in light of Radiohead's recent release and in light of how their manager Paul McGuinness is being quite vocal about the need for government's to regulate ISPs to make them crack down on people who use their 'pipes' for illegal downloading. 

All in all, I enjoyed the three dimensional U2 show, but since I saw that same tour twice, it did not feel quite as exciting and real to me.  Though the audience in Buenos Aires did feel more genuine and excited that the audience in Los Angeles I saw it with.  

southwest airlines

I have been a passenger on Southwest Airlines since I was a child.  I flew alone on that airline when I was 9 from Austin to Dallas.  It was the only airlines I flew from Los Angeles to Austin during my college years and since then (except for one fateful flight on Delta which ended up taking almost 12 hours in total).  My credit card is a southwest Airlines card.  For every dollar I spend I get a point and for every 1200 points I get a credit and for every 16 credit I get a free flight.  I am happy with this set up since I can put just about everything onto that credit card (bills, gas, school, entertainment) and the points add up quickly.  

As an airline, Southwest has always seemed more efficient to me.  In recent years, you can print your boarding pass out at home.  You can actually just check in at home and print it at the airport if you don't want to waste paper and you will still get your 'A' spot if you did it early.  I could always except people to be camped out in front of their line letters an hour or so before the flight was to board, because we all know that the first few people on the plane get the ultimate best seats.  Well, maybe not.  In my mind, Southwest has been a brand that provided cheap (sometimes free with an award) flights to places I needed to go and they made that process easy.  They offered incentives and low prices.  They offered an easy to use website and the flight attendents were always a bit more cheerful and goofy than on other airlines. When I earned enough points to get an award, they also sent free drink coupons in the mail, which were always nice to have on those short flights from Los Angeles to Las Vegas, to help get the party going.

Southwest has always been adjusting and making their process easier and more efficient.  They have a history of listening to the customer and treating their employees well.

Their mission statement is: The mission of Southwest Airlines is dedicaiton to the highest quality of Customer Service delivered with a sense of warmth, friendliness, individual pride, and Company Spirit.

My personal attitudes are changing about Southwest though.  The ease and low cost is going away and they are starting cater to a different group of travelers.  They now offer Business class, which is not a better seat, but automatic first priority seating.  (Think between the pre-boarders and group A).  They are trying to weed out the amount of Rapid Rewards that are used by only offering a few per flight.  They do offer a Freedom Award now which means you can combine two Rapid Rewards (2 free flights) to make 1 Freedom Rewards, and there are less restrictions and more availability to use those types of rewards.  When think about it in terms of my credit card points.  One freedom reward would be 32 credits, which would be 38,400 points.  I would have to charge $38, 400 on my credit card to utilize what used to be a regular Rapid Reward.  My thought on the brand are that it is moving away from it strong points and trying to salvage their business in a weakening market.  

As a brand, Southwest is well known and they have had some very well done marketing campaigns.  One that comes to mind is their 'Need to get away' campaign.  One of their price choices when purchasing a flight online is even called 'need to get away' to continue that idea beyond the television advertising.  Yet at the end of the day, the way a company acts and carries out its business speaks much louder, at least to me, than a mission statement or an advertising campaign.  I see them making changes, such as with the rapid rewards system, that are not looking to the customer's best interest and that are taking away from the quality of the company, and thus hurting the brand equity, for my part.  Someone who is a frequent flyer and is part of their business class may feel differently, because that says to me that Southwest is more concerned with the people that fly more often than they are about the customers that choose to fly Southwest less often- but those customer are still choosing to fly Southwest over another airline.  At least for now.  

An hour of TV commercials

For this blog entry, I chose to watch an hour long program on TV and to pay close attention to the advertisements and see how different companies are using TV advertising as one mean of marketing communication to sell their brand, or to build brand equity.  In an interesting twists, I had pre-recorded the show Chuck on NBC, but instead of watching the program and fast forwarding through the commercials I fast forwarded through the show and watched the commercials.  

Marketing communications are the means by which firms attempt to inform, persuade, and remind consumers- directly or indirectly- about the brands they sell. When it comes to having an effective TV ad, the ad should contribute to brand equity in some demonstrable way by enhancing awareness, strengthening a key association or adding a new association, or eliciting a positive consumer response.

Some of the main commercials I saw multiple times were for the companies and that showed aspects of building brand equity were:

H&R Block

Ford/ Knight Rider

Aflac

Kia - Kiamatch.com

Dunkin Donuts Coffee 

H&R Block is a place that assists people with their taxes.  Their current mantra in their commercials is the "I've got people."  One of the commercials involved two men that worked at a German type of restaurant and were looking through a catalogue of new German clothes.  One guys was talking about how 'his people' helped him to be able to write off a bunch of these clothes because they were a work expense.  The commercial was goofy and odd, but instead of the guy just saying that he uses H&R Block, the 'I've got people' mantra makes him sound more important.  The other commercial involved a couple and the guy was doing the taxes online from a program he bought from H&R Block.  He gets stuck and his wife, talking down to him because he did not just have them do their taxes, but reminds him that he can still get online help with the software.  So even though they were doing their taxes online, they 'still had people.'  If you go to H&R's website, you do not see that mantra, but you do see images of actual people who look like they are ready to assist you, so they are really trying to give an image of personability and appeal to an individual.  They really appeal to the fact that they can get a larger refund back to you, so they are building their brand equity with people because they are claiming that they can create more value for people when you use them to do taxes.

The Ford/ Knight Rider commercial was a spot for a new television series that is going to be on NBC.  It is a new series, but a remake of the old Knight Rider show, but the spot is more of a Ford commercial, because the car that will be featured in the show is going to be a suped up Ford Mustang.  The way the commercial plays feels like a car commercial and not a tv show spot.  A quick search on the Internet with "kight rider + ford" brings up more sites talking about the car than the new TV series.  Popular Mechanics has an article comparing the Ford Mustand to the old Knight Rider car (Trans-Am).  Ford's website features press releases talking about the car's new starring role.  NBC.com has a small picture and link to previews for the show in the very bottom left corner of their site.  So this is a co-branding opportunity for both companies.  Ford is attaching to a well known tv series (at least the old one was well known) and to a well known network.  NBC is doing the same in bringing back a known tv series.  The challenge with that is not creating awareness so much as it is upholding previous awareness and expectation that are created from the original show.

The Aflac commercial continued to use the Aflac duck as a central point, but more so in showing points-of-difference when a fictitious company does not have Aflac.  While an eager employee in a factory is asking the boss if they have Aflac, the boss begins to tell the employee they do no and he continues to explain all of the things they don't have because they don't have Aflac.  Meanwhile, their insurance company is represented by a dumb monkey that does not know what it is doing.  So, Aflac is the duck, and the bad insurance company is the monkey.  I personally do not remember what the main points of difference were and what exactly Aflac offered that the bad insurance company offered, but the main point was that a company would be ill equipped insurance wise if they did not go with Aflac.  The duck is smart and can talk, the monkey is mute and throws factory parts around.  The Aflac duck has also become a very recognizable marketing tool for Aflac and a consumer can easily understand the intended message for this commercial, which was presented in a creative and somewhat humorful way.  I personally think the duck is annoying and would be wary of choosing insurance from such a cartoonish image of a company.  Yes, I am very aware of Aflac, but I am aware in a negative way that deters me from ever wanting what they offer.  

The Kia commercial utilized the idea of Internet dating to compare their vehicle offerings, which can be found online.  The commercial is a spoof of Internet dating and customers find their 'match' online and talk about their news cars like they found a new boyfriend or girlfriend.  This commercial in itself is utilizing multiple marketing communication channels in that it makes direct reference to their online entity and how searching for a car at kiamatch.com.  The actual website also play to the idea of car dating sites.  There is a clear and consistent communication to the consumers from Kia.  It is simple and Internet dating is a well known fact of life these days, so targeted consumers can relate to this marketing campaign.  This campaign also seems to coincide with the upcoming Valentine's holiday.

The Dunkin Donuts commercial stuck out to me as a brand building communication because lately, Starbucks in facing increased competition from Dunkin Donuts, as far as coffee sales go.  This commercial was geared to make consumers aware that Dunkin Donuts coffee could now be purchased in a grocery store, and not just in a Dunkin Donuts store.  The idea of the commercial was that a stocker in a grocery store could not even empty his cart of Dunkin Donuts coffee onto the shelf before people grabbed it up.  The message of the commercial was one that showed the popularity and consumption of the brand, but also the new availability of the brand in grocery stores.  Dunkin Donuts, as a brand, has been around since the 1960s and is one of the top ten franchises in America.  I am curious as to how they will fare in grocery stores.  My personal feelings about the brand as a coffee maker are that the coffee is cheap and I have always found Dunkin Donut stores to be dirty.  Seeing their coffee brand in a store would dredge up those same feelings, as opposed to how I view Starbucks brand, which seems to me to be nicer coffee (maybe because of the price) with nicer stores that have character in their environment and look.  Yet, if the price for the grocery store Dunkin Donut coffee is cheaper than the Starbucks brand, I would give it a try I think.  But, I would never choose a Dunkin Donut store over a Starbucks based on my past experiences with the stores.

These were not all of the commercials I saw over the hour of programming, but the ones that really struck me as creating more brand awareness and attempting to build brand equity through the marketing communication of television advertising.

Weekend Brand Interactions part II

The second part of last weekend that I want to blog about in regards to branding is a trip to The Domain in North Austin.  The Domain is a new outdoor shopping development that is set up like a typical mall would be set up, with large department stores on the two end, and a myriad of shops lined along what looks like the main street of a small town.  In the heart of The Domain there are a couple of restaurants and a open area where bands sometimes play live music.

The concept of The Domain seems to be a trend in shopping areas around the country, in which they are set up to resemble a town center of sorts, where people can gather, eat, shop and socialize.  The Domain highly resembles a few outdoor shopping areas that I encountered in Los Angeles.  The Grove and Century City Mall (not really a mall though) were set up in very similar fashion.  The Grove looked much more like a small town center, with a large fountain and stage in the middle that was surrounded by nice restaurants, a movie theater, and a multitude of shops.  The Grove had some higher end stores, but not as many as Century City Mall, which was in the heart of Beverly Hills.  The Domain, I felt, was an attempt to be like one of the LA places, but one thing the LA places have going for them is that 90% of the time the weather is sunny and warm there.  An outdoor shopping area is not a choice destination in cold  and wet weather, or in the extreme Texas heat.  In Austin, The Domain is a brand itself, where the mention of the name can either elicit disdain or happiness.  Austin has an inner quality of being anti-growth and it attempts to remain different.  Austin takes pride that it is a small big city with a culture of music and art, as opposed to a busy city centered around finance and banking like some of its neighboring cities are (Dallas, Houston).  A place like The Domain comes across as new, modern, commercial, and excessive in the minds of some 'true Austinites.'  While on the other hand, for those who are newer to Austin and live further away from the downtown area, it is just a nice shopping area with stores they cannot find unless they do go to Dallas or Houston.  Austin also has a penchant for small family owned businesses, as can be seen in the adamant protesting of a new Wal-mart in North Austin.  The Domain is full of big corporate stores, which are a far cry from small, family owned businesses.  My personal feelings about The Domain are that it lacks authenticity because it seems to me to be just a copy of a similar place in Los Angeles.  It also seems to lack a feeling of authenticity because it is closer to the suburbs of Austin than central Austin, which to seems unauthentic in how tracks of houses all look the same.  Even so, if I had to choose between going to stores at The Domain or going to a mall, like Barton Creek Mall, to visit the same stores, I would choose The Domain for the reason that it is outside and more open, and that it feels more like a place for 'adults.'

A few of the brands that I either interacted with or noticed while at the Domain were Starbucks, Macy's, Bananna Republic, Tiffany's, Diesel, Puma, California Pizza Kitchen, Louie Vitton, Border's, Lacoste, Victoria's Secret, Apple and Sony.  Out of these brands, Starbucks, Apple and Bananna Republic are ones that I tend to frequent and use the most.  I have encountered Tiffany's a few times in buying gifts for my wife, and that is a brand that carries with it overpriced jewelry and instant gift giving praise.  Jewelry itself does not have a brand name.  A diamond is a diamond and silver is silver.  Obviously the maker of the jewlery can bring added value to it, but with a store like Tiffany's, the jewelry's value is increased by the Tiffany brand.  They have their signature light blue box and light blue bags, and from a guy's point of view, if I can find something to give my wife from Tiffany's that is within a reasonable price range, then I know that it will be a well appreciated gift.  I could find something that is very similar to the jewelry at another, lesser known store, but it would not have the same inherent value.  Tiffany's creates a certain imagery in the presentation and look that people can immediately define and know as Tiffany's/  Even the design of a single store builds its brand as a valuable jewlery store.  The double set of security doors along with the armed guard right at the front brings a serious and high class fell to the store, even if you are only purchasing a pair of $100 earrings and not a $20,000 diamond ring.  Compare this with the store Zales which you can find in most malls.  There is no single entry door and the walls are open to the mall.  But you can still find a pair of $100 earrings or very expensive diamond jewlery, but a gift from Zales does not carry the same value that a gift from Tiffany's would because the brands are viewed differently in the consumers mind.  There was never a movie made  called 'Breakfast at Zales' either.

Weekend Brand Interactions part I

Over this past weekend, the act of being consciously aware of the brands I came across showed me how many brands are put in front of me all of the time.  I will talk about two main outings I had over the weekend and the brands I came across.  The first outing to be discussed in this posting, was dinner out with friends and then a late movie.  The second to be discussed in a following post, was a trip to the outdoor shopping area in North Austin called the Domain.

The restaurant of choice was called Vivo, which is a modern and hip version of the typical Austin mexican food restaurant.  Just as any type of product communicates through presentation and other attributes, this restaurant did the same to attract a certain type of customer to it.  Since the restaurant itself is more of a service, I am not going to spend too much time discussing it, but wanted to point out a few things I did notice.  Austin is full of mexican food restaurants, and the choice of food is typically the same.  Vivo differentiates itself by appealing to a younger and more modern type of crowd, at least in theory.  There is a live DJ spinning tunes, a bar is the central focal point inside the restaurant, and the colors and artwork are very modern and edgy.  We actually sat at a large table that was hidden away near the bar, and the walls were adorned with photography of nude couples in various poses.  You would not find that in most Austin restaurants.  So while Vivo was creating a brand of it own by its look and modern appeal, the products that were offered there were typical of any restaurant.  The main interaction in deciding a certain brand was in alcohol choice.  Always one to try a margarita, I as faced with the choice of what tequila I wanted.  I ended up choosing to have Tito's vodka in the mix instead of tequila.  Tito's vodka is made in Austin, and my wife has a personal relationship with Tito himself through her job, so there is something very authentic to me about that vodka, and influences my choice to drink it.  Not too mention that we typically have a few bottles at the house because they were given to my wife for free, so again, the free factor highly influences brand choice.  Not being a vodka connoisseur, I am not partial to one vodka's taste over another, so I think I choose Tito's based on the personal connection and that it is a local flare not found in too many other areas outside of Austin (at least as far as I have seen).  It feels more 'authentic' to me, and thus gives me a different sense of ownership perhaps than a more recognized and well known brand of vodka. Titos has a higher brand equity for me in these respects.  It is also interesting to me, that if I had not come across it through my wife, I am not sure if I would have ever heard of Tito's.  I actually think I saw it in a bar once and just figured it was a type of Tequila because of the name.  This says to me that if my personal connection was taken away, then this brand would probably not be my choice of vodka because there is very little communication and awareness of the brand. 

Beyond the various alcohol choices, I did not come across too many other specific brands at the restaurant.  The movie experience presented other forms of branding, even in theater choice.  In Austin, as it is in most places, theater choice depends on what type of movie you want to see.  If you want to see a popular, blockbuster type of film, most of the big movie mega-plexes will be showing it.  Yet if you want to see a more independent type of movie that has a lower audience appeal, only certain theaters will show it.  I grew up seeing the major blockbuster at the Regal Arbor theater, but now that theater is the one that shows the lesser known films, such as the film Juno, which we went to see there.  My main focus of branding was during the previews for upcoming movies and noticing how usually previews really focus on the stars that are in the upcoming movies to sell that movie to the audience.  Since we were seeing a smaller independent movie, the majority of the previews were for other small independent movies, which focus less on star power and more on story and authenticity. This tells me that the marketers for these films assume that the audience watching a movie like Juno is more concerned with authenticity and story (or just less blockbuster themed films) and thus play down the brand power of big movie stars and allow the story and independent nature to be the main communication of branding for the films.  Yet, many of the actors that were in the preview movies were well known for their more quirky and independent types of roles, so their brand image was just as important as the brand image of a more mainstream star.  All in all, movies are selling an experience, and things like the plot, actors and directors sell different types of movies to different types of people and tastes, just as in any form of entertainment. Based on ingredients such as the actors or directors, people feel like they can then know what to except and that reduces their risks when it comes to spending money on a movie experience and possibly not liking that movie.  When it comes to seeing movies in the theater these days, I am very skeptical because of the price of a movie ticket and also because of the time commitment.  I was only convinced to see Juno after several people (who's opinions I respect) said good things about it, and because two of the actors in it were both in one of my favorite television shows (Arrested Development).  I liked the person who directed Juno (Jason Reitman, who also directed Thank You for Smoking), so I decided that this movie would probably not be a waste of money and not be a waste of time.  Authenticity also plays a large role in deciding whether or not to see a film when it comes to small independent movies.  When I see a big blockbuster, I know what I am getting into- the stories are usually cliche and predictable, the writing is generally average, and the big name stars usually are not the best actors- but I accept that going in and allow myself to enjoy the action and adventure and amazing effects without worrying about certain quality and authentic aspects.  But when it comes to independent films, I expect a great deal more in the quality (acting, story, writing) and in the authenticity.  Too many times have I seen an independent movie that was trying incredibly hard to be independent, or quirky, or witty, or edgy, that authenticity went right out the window and I did not believe it for a second (Down in the Valley with Ed Norton is a good example of this-  trying too hard to be quirky and show reality, that it comes off as completely unbelievable).

Friday Jan. 18th - My typical brands

When thinking about the different brands in my daily life, there are the normal staples of things that i interact with and use everyday, and then there are the things that are specific for only certain times and events.  From Friday morning, Jan. 18th until Saturday afternoon, there were a good mix of both types that I interacted with.

The brands that are typical for my everyday use would be those such as the specific products I use in the morning.  I am a constant user of Dove shampoo and conditioner, Old Spice soap and deodorant, crest toothpaste, polo cologne, and Gillette shaving products.  These products are all seemingly necessities, but I always choose the same ones when I need to replace them, so I am obviously tied to them in some way.  The products themselves all offer a core benefit, such as the toothpaste, but the specific brand I choose to use offer augmented features such as tarter control and whitening factors.  Most toothpaste brands offer these features, but Crest was what I used growing up and I have not felt any reason to really change what I use.  Crest has history with me and since I have never had a cavity or any major dental problems, Crest seems to work like it says it will work.

Overall, when it comes to these brands of products I use on a daily basis, I feel that I use them over another brand because I do not want to think about changing and have to put effort into trying out other options, and possibly spending money on something I do not like.  These brands offer me search cost reduction and risk reduction, but other than that I do not feel I interact with them on other levels.  

The brand of car that I drive on a daily basis is another brand that I interact with on a very functional basis, especially because the car came at a great price- free.  When looking at cars, brands speak volumes to me in regards to quality, style and price.  The Jeep Cherokee that I drive is low on quality and style, but also low on price.  It is not my first choice of vehicle, but since i have been driving the Jeep, I do feel an growing awareness and appreciation for the Jeep brand.  I have rented Jeep vehicles when traveling before and even test driven newer models.  This seems to indicate that even though I did not necessarily choose this brand of car, I take pride in the vehicle I drive and want to see how other vehicles of the same brand stand up to, or are better than the one I have.  Cars can be very much a social status symbol, and after living in Los Angeles, I saw many people who extended their means, often times living beyond their means, to have a car that would reflect on them a status of wealth and success.  That is not to say that that does not happen everywhere, but I personally saw it a lot in Los Angeles,  The first car I bought was in Los Angeles, and I bought a Ford F-150, mainly because I had always wanted a nice big truck and I thought a truck would be able to take the wear and tear that the low-maintained LA roads offered.  I also bought it to tie into my Texas roots and that it could be a status symbol al of its in own in that regard.  Needless to say, I drive a Jeep because it was free to me and it does the job.

Below is a list of other typical brands that I use and interact with on a normal daily basis.

 

Brands in my life:

Jeep

Dove

Crest

Old Spice

Polo

Kenneth Cole

Puma - All of my shoes are either Kenneth Cole or Puma

Starbucks/ Seattles Best

Apple - Computer of choice

Bose

U2

Sharp

Diet Coke

Banana Republic

Google