08.01
This is a pretty cool report issued by L2, in partnership with Labbrand (where I work), looking at the “Digital IQ” of prestige brands operating in China and ranking 100 of them. This version of the report identifies some strong positive correlations between Digital IQ measurements and the brand valuations published by BusinessWeek and Interbrand every year. Of course, correlations don’t imply causation, so the relationship between the numbers may bring more questions than answers.
Thanks to everyone at Labbrand and L2 that did the research and put this all together. Stay tuned for an article-form version of this report, which I’m currently helping to write. Should be available in a few weeks.
04.13
As seen today on Dictionary.com
10.01
Differentiate. Decommoditize. Zag. Conventional brand strategy wisdom dictates that in order to succeed, a brand must set itself apart from the competition. Examples of differentiation-driven success abound, and in fact most of the support for differentiation seems to be delivered through case study or anecdote.
But what do we mean when we say “be different?” Telling stories about brands that have succeeded by standing apart from their competition may support the point that differentiation works, but it leaves something to be desired when consulting with a client on how they can differentiate their organization. Instead of listing examples, I wonder if it’s possible to think more systematically about the dimensions along which a brand can differentiate.
I use the word “dimensions” because brand consultants (including me) are often guilty of simplifying everything down to a two-dimensional graph, plotting the competition on the axes, and pointing out where a client has room to stand apart. To illustrate, here’s one of my favorite two-axis graphs from xkcd.com, poetically entitled “Fuck Grapefruit.”
(I can hear the conference-room conversation now…
continue reading…
05.29
I’ve just read through some great blog posts and articles on Bing—the name as well as expectations for the upcoming Microsoft “decision engine.” Opinions on the name are all over the map, with (mostly) negative opinions led by naming professionals like those at Snark Hunting and Pollywog. I love the bitter sarcasm over at Snark Hunting, and they make a funny point comparing Bing (“ping” with a “B”) to Zune (“tune” with a “Z”). But one of the earliest lessons I learned about naming (or writing taglines, etc.) is that it’s easy—often too easy—to pick on someone else’s work. Or, to put it more bluntly, to dislike it because it’s not your own.
continue reading…
