bionmit-blog

[bionmit-blog]

#6: How to Pitch an Idea

Kimberly Elsbach, in her article “How to Pitch a Brilliant Idea’, argues that the three main types of “pitchers” that she has seen be the most successful are the show runner, the artist, and the neophyte. Each of these pitchers carry themselves in a different manner and carry unique skill sets: the show runner is suave and experienced, the artist is awkward but charming and a technical expert, the neophyte is ignorant but full of enthusiasm and passion. She goes on to describe how a “catcher” will usually size you up and form an impression of you within the first few seconds of meeting you and so you want to try and give off the vibe of one of the 3 types mentioned above. The first impression bit made sense to me and is common knowledge. However, I do not necessarily see how the first impression relates to the 3 pitcher types that most of the article is about. I don’t think that a catcher will be able to understand if a person if a show runner, artist, or neophyte in the first few milliseconds as a conversation needs to happen to understand this. Rather, the catcher will judge based on your clothes, your posture, the way you speak, and any other stereotypes he/she may have based off your appearance. 

Elsbach also seems to indicate that a pitcher might only be one of the 3 pitcher types. Yet, I would argue that a great pitcher acts, to a certain extent, in every pitch / sales meeting and thus, based on their audience, the pitcher may give off a show runner vibe in one meeting versus neophyte in the next. 

At the end of the article, Elsbach goes on to say that reputation is actually the most important attribute - “a resume full of successes is the best calling card of all”. Essentially, if someone’s reputation precedes them, they may not actually have to be a great pitcher (i.e. they may not need to be one of the 3 pitcher types). I would agree with this to some extent - I think if we are talking about a well-known name that is pitching, then catchers may be eager to be associated. However, in lieu of a famous name or publicly known work, a resume with “great successes” or speaking to “great successes” often times is not enough. 

[bionmit-blog]

#5: Final Project update

Our team is conducting our final project on FIFA, the international governing body of soccer. While FIFA is associated with the World Cup and the best-selling video game, they have also been associated with bribery and corruption which has very much undermined their brand quality. Suspicions peaked when, in 2010, FIFA awarded Qatar the honor of hosting the 2022 World Cup, despite the fact that Qatar is a country known for human rights violations, has little to no soccer infrastructure, and experiences temperatures well over 100 degrees in June and July (typical time of the World Cup). All of this came to a head when, in 2015, US authorities raided a Zurich hotel and very publicly arrested 16 FIFA executives on bribery and corruption charges. Soon after, FIFA's then-president, Sepp Blatter, was issued an eight-year ban from football by the world's ethics body (subsequently reduced to six years).

Our team thought this was an interesting branding issue because for most companies the above charges would mean financial ruin, or at least a loss of customers. However, due to the unwavering world-wide passion for soccer, viewers still tune in to World Cups, at record breaking numbers, to support their national teams. Thus, despite the recent scandals, does FIFA even need to work on its brand image? Can they just continue to operate as-is? We would argue no - if anything because corporate sponsors are very nervous about their association with FIFA. They have already had a few tier 1 sponsors drop. We believe FIFA can do a lot with their brand to build corporate sponsor confidence and increase consumer association with the brand. 

Our project is currently in a fairly good spot. My responsibility is to research consumer insights about FIFA. A tactic I may take is to try and conduct a social media assessment to see what people are saying on, say, Twitter, especially as it relates to the World Cup. I think our classmates will find out topic and our presentation exciting and informative.

[bionmit-blog]

#4: Burberry

Outside of the remarkable turnaround that Bravo was able to engineer for Burberry (increasing sales, making the brand high-fashion yet functional, consolidating licensing, etc.), there were two aspects at the end of the case that were really interesting to me from a branding perspective: 1) the “non-target” person has started to buy Burberry 2) Bravo wanted to reduce the “check” footprint.

 To point number 1 – Burberry has gotten so popular that everyone wants to buy it; everyone from high-fashion celebrities to urban youth to Big Brother cast members. While this is clearly a sign that Burberry is growing in popularity, it causes an interesting dilemma because Burberry, at its core, is targeting individuals that want to be associated with its brand that is a mix of heritage, function, and luxury. In other words, these people are looking for class, and a bit of exclusivity, when they buy Burberry. When non-target customers start to buy Burberry, it begins to dilute the brand image and may “cheapen” the brand in the eyes of the core customers – similar to what happened when Burberry’s licensing got out of hand in the 90s. If demand is so high that non-target customers are buying, Burberry might consider raising its price to continue to protect the integrity of its brand.

To point number 2 – I agree with Bravo’s strategy of downplaying the check. Again, it’s an interesting dilemma because many people presumably buy Burberry for the check (the case mentions that 25% of all company revenue was directly derived from prominent check products). Buyers presumably want others to know that they are wearing Burberry. However, now that Burberry has established itself and so many people are buying (as discussed above), it can afford to tone it back and use it more subtly in order to protect the cachet of the check. If it is utilized too much and is seen too much, it loses the value and, again, cheapens the brand. Additionally, consumers run the risk of looking like a mannequin if they wear multiple items (trench coat, scarf, umbrella). Louis Vuitton has the LV print on many of their products but I believe LV is a higher luxury category, and predominantly leather goods/accessory based, so odds are people won’t be wearing multiple LV items at once.

[bionmit-blog]

#3: Singapore Airlines

I have only flown Singapore Airlines one time, 7 years ago, but I still rave about the airline. It was by far the best flying experience of my life. Even as an Economy class passenger, I distinctly remember the meticulous service – from boarding to baggage. All of the flight attendants were smiling, the food was fantastic, the entertainment system was great, and the plane was comfortable/modern. I was not surprised to learn from the case that Singapore Airlines has consistently been considered the best service airline in the industry. SIA has been able to be so successful relative to their peers because they understand that customers are willing to pay for premium service and accommodations – especially in an industry where expectations of service are so low. While driving to the airport, you’re likely to get stuck in traffic. When checking in, you’re likely to wait in line. When going through security, you’re like to have to wait a while. Once you are inside the security area, your flight might get delayed. Once it is time to board, the boarding process might take a while. There are so many areas leading up to a flight that can cause a passenger frustration and angst. SIA does whatever it can to leave those pain points behind by going above and beyond once you’re on the plane until you have your baggage. In other words, they do everything to make sure that your overall travel experience ends on an up note (per the Chase and Dasu article). Most other airlines would like to think that they have good service, but I would argue that the servive probably isn’t 1) at the level of SIA and 2) as consistent as SIA. Also per the Chase and Dasu article, being consistent / ritualistic are key. Customers expect great service to be repeated. SIA, through various efforts like hundreds of millions of training investment per year and their post-flight logs, ensure that customer expectations (even though they may be high) are met. In my opinion, this is why SIA is able to charge a premium for their flights and this is why they have been able to stay ahead of the game.

[bionmit-blog]

#2: Concha y Toro

The two readings definitely reinforced my own wine-drinking experience. I do not have any sort of sophisticated palate for wine and, as a result of this, I choose my wines based on 1) price and 2) region / country. If I am at a really nice meal I will let myself “splurge” on an Old World wine but on more casual nights I will tell myself that California will do. I probably wouldn’t order a wine from North Dakota even though it could taste exactly the same or better. There’s a certain amount of assurance, sophistication and association that I want due to the fact that I know I won’t necessarily be able to taste the difference but maybe the rest of the people in my party will. This past January, I was in Argentina with 3 other Sloan buddies and we went to Mendoza, Argentina to taste all of the Malbec we could get our inexperienced hands on. They were all fantastic? I am willing to admit that it probably had more to do with our setting (at a vineyard with Andes in the horizon) and the fact that we were having a great time exploring a new country rather than the Malbec actually being of better quality than other Malbecs that I have had back in Massachusetts.

I know that I am not alone in my easily manipulated perception of wine, as evidenced by the Texas A&M study referenced in the Concha y Toro case and the North Dakota experiment referenced in “Fine as North Dakota Wine”. Most of us need help with our wine selection because we are not comfortable/familiar and thus succumb to the brands of wine – the most powerful part of the brand being the region/location. It is for this reason that I think Concha y Toro initially pursue what they call their top-down strategy. Chile does not yet come top of mind as a premium wine location, Old World or New World. Thus, if they drop their basic brands (which currently constitutes ~70% of their sales volume and ~50% of their revenue), and only go for premium/super premium, they likely will find themselves in a sales hole unless their marketing efforts for premium/super premium are exemplary. 50% of the wine sold in the US, which is by far Concha y Toro’s biggest market, are basic wines. That being said, growth prospects for premium and super-premium wines over the next 3 years are expected to be ~50% stronger than basic wines. I suspect that this is for premium/super-premium wines from established and recognized Old World and New World wine countries. Once Concha y Toro increases its margins through economies of scale for its basic wines then it should make a concerted effort to push premium/super premium. Hopefully by this point Chile will be considered an emerging New World wine country.

[bionmit-blog]

#1: Corona vs. Heineken

In 1996, Heineken had some self-reflection to do with respect to its US strategy. There were some things that were seemingly going well – for example, it was the #12 beer brand in the US and #1 importer, based on shipments. However, when it came to growth, Heineken was struggling. From 1985 to 1996, Heineken’s US beer shipments grew from 35.8 M cases to 37.2 M cases, which is only a .35% CAGR increase. Meanwhile, Corona, which Heineken dismissed as a fad in 1986, had its US shipments grow from 5.5 M cases to 28.9 M cases in the same time period, which is an impressive 16.28% CAGR increase. A large part of the stagnation of Heineken’s sales was due to the fact that they were complacent and arrogant when it came to its brand. They were one of the top brewers in the world and had been a leading importer to the US for quite some time. Rather than finding ways to use this to their advantage, they leaned on their success and, from an advertising/branding standpoint, decided to tout their product and quality, very literally. Thus, this arrogance was definitely a vulnerability of Heineken’s that Corona can, and did, capitalize on. To compound this, Heineken was very disorganized in their advertising efforts. Heineken USA would be conducting their own marketing initiatives while Heineken HQ was running research/insight reports behind their back. They did not seem to be cohesive in their advertising strategy / branding so Corona could take advantage of both of these factors by putting together a cohesive branding approach that markets Corona as more than just a beer. Corona cleverly pushed paradise and relaxation with their advertising to evoke positive emotions and associations with the brand – tropical beaches, palm trees, limes. Contrast this with Heineken’s ads that were predominantly images of just their bottle and stale one-liners – the brands could not have been more different in terms of perception to consumers. On top of all of this, to help with consumer wallets, Corona also absorbed much of the tariffs placed on the beer so that less cost was passed to consumers which helped Corona offer lower prices than Heineken. All of these factors culminated in Corona being able to penetrate many different US markets at a rapid pace.