dweave-blog1

[dweave-blog1]

DON DRAPER: an “Artist” Creative Persona in Disguise

Thinking about the pitch and convincing those with the power to make the idea reality that your theoretical proposition is a good one obviously reminded me of Mad Men and Don Draper. While I recognize that his success is in a TV show not real life, his talents are depicted accurately and his pitching talents are evidenced in a variety of successful pitches. I have seen his type of success, developed through a “personal brand,” more accurately described as creative persona, that comes from highly authentic leadership that comes from his underlying personality. I wanted to place him in one of the types, a showrunner, an artist or a neophyte. 

His inclination is a kind of combination of the showrunner and the artist that makes for a very convincing pitch. Despite being highly polished and showing expertise in execution, he also cultivates a highly artistic “creative personality” (direct quote from the show). He is enthralled with ideas and stories, sometimes so much so that he loses work (e.g. when he cries about what Hershey bars meant to him as a boy and tells them they should not advertise).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxMef0hYIWw

At times, he is also stubborn and has some of the characteristics of the “used-car salesman,” who is unwilling to compromise on small details. But while this is listed in “how to lose a pitch,” it is in part this insistence that builds this artistic persona that clients find so enchanting. For him it is effective in the long term even as it turns off or alienates clients at times in the short time.

It is no easy feat to replicate the persona Don Draper developed as a polished and expert-type artist. In fact he isn’t even real. But his success and combination of these types shown that there is no one formula for how to pitch, but that it is best to be authentic and develop this authenticity within the firm and to clients to be successful.

[dweave-blog1]

Intel

The response to the mobile phone market is a terribly difficult question. Unfortunately for Intel, there aren’t a whole lot of different models with different features coming from each cell phone. For example, Apple pretty much only has one flagship model (the only options are between old models, or models with slightly more memory) and Samsung primarily has one flagship model, the Galaxy III, then IV, and so on. As a result, consumers are much less focused on the components of the smartphone and more focused simply on the manufacturer (i.e. is it Apple or the Google phone), which means another Intel Inside campaign would be far less effective.

This is compounded by the fact that users are far less focused on the hardware, with applications and software being the far larger focus. People assume that the chip will be pretty commoditized and pretty good regardless of who purchased it. Thus Intel will STRUGGLE with a similar quality marketing campaign in the smartphone market.

Another interesting question from the case was whether to go with a features-based argument or a cutting-edge Blue Man Group type campaign. While this could be an empirical question, with different campaigns in different cities and checking the results, I suspect that the end user will prefer the featured based campaign. It doesn’t really matter whether they understand the chip or remember the model (”386″ anyone?). What matters is that the user sees intel as these nerdy wonky types who make the best chips ever. That is what users see when they see a bunch of numbers and stats on the screen.

[dweave-blog1]

Burberry: Everything to Everyone?

The old saying goes “Trying to be everything to everyone means you’ll be nothing to noone.” But Burberry seems to have done it: they are both classy and contemporary. They are both traditional, and cutting edge. How do they do it?

Burberry’s strength comes from its traditions as a classic quality British brand. They’ve used these traditional perceptions (of being akin to British royalty) to appeal to younger audiences looking for fashion forward products by releasing edgy products (such as the check bikini). These edgy products are especially fun because they are both traditional and at the same time fun, classy and at the same time sexy, fixed and at the same time changing. Part of the joy of wearing Burberry is being able to be edgy and fun, but still remain classy. Thus, Burberry’s source of brand differentiation is that it is both classy and edgy. It is not dangerously competing with fashion icons like Gucci or lifestyle brands like Tommy Hilfiger because it is differentiated in this respect: no other brand marries the classical and the edgy in quite the same way.

But Burberry does need to walk the line between classical and edgy. If they go edgy, they will lose the classiness that sells outwear and trench coats. Stodgy men will go to Brooks Brothers to buy their overcoats if Burberry strays to far from the traditional. And the loss of the traditional segment means they will appeal less to the younger fashion forward consumer because they will just be edgy, not classy. They do need to walk the line between a prominent and a subtle check. A prominent check can move products for aspirational customers, but if too many people walk around with prominent checks, the brand loses its classy subtly AND its exclusivity. In fact, I would argue that Burberry should err on the side of subtly: if Burberry is being edgy it is already pushing the envelope, it shouldn’t be pushing it with excessive visibility as well. While it can be tempting to push a lot of product through aspirational customers, it can take decades to reverse the cheapening of a brand by its logo being obvious and everywhere.

Also “urban youth and hip-hop artists” aren’t supposed to wear it? What? That’s racist. And anyway appealing to hip-hop artists is in line with its attempts to be edgy. This shouldn’t be any different from the Burberry check bikini. It needs to be careful not to be too edgy, but it can be edgy to yuppies in Brooklyn and urban youngsters in Harlem.

[dweave-blog1]

The Toyota Brand: Different Things to Different People and Evolving

Toyota has a rock solid, highly consistent product which is the bedrock of its reputation. However, the brand also means different things to different people due to the range of luxuriousness of its products. The Camry or Corolla are simple designs that always works and you can trust - they cater to a young person buying their first car but without a lot of money. To these people, Toyota is a guarantee of consistency. Moving up the chain, the Toyota Avalon is a semi-luxury car halfway between a Camry and a Lexus, which has additional features and is a classical big American car with a target segment of families and the elderly with greater disposable income. To this segment, Toyota produces excellent cars that rival luxury competitors like Cadillac but without the price bump from a luxury brand. And yes, you know it will still work in 10 years.

Separately, Prius owners view the Toyota brand as consistent and as pioners in the hybrid car movement. The brand evolved further with the introduction of the Lexus. To Lexus owners, the Toyota brand is a guarantee of consistency, but not of sufficient quality. The Lexus had the attraction that it was made by Toyota and still had that stamp of consistency that came with it, but had greater quality, including features and the engine. To Lexus owners, Toyota means consistency but insufficient quality, and the introduction of a Toyota product with a different brand convinced them of the sufficient quality. 

All of these different segments view Toyota in different ways but find the brand attractive enough to develop a relationship with it. Not only do they view the brand differently, they tend to develop different relationships with the brand as a result of their different perceptions. The Camry buyer is likely not to move past the second stage in the brand pyramid, where their relationship is limited to performance and imagery. In contrast, the Prius owners and Lexus owners are highly likely to develop an emotional bond and the Toyota brand combines with the Lexus sub-brand and the Prius model brand to develop a whole lot more brand resonance.

In fact, for my parents, they moved through different stages of the pyramid based on the different Toyota models they purchased over their 25 years of Toyota ownership. All of their last five cars have been Toyota. At first it was a Toyota Camry and as they had kids it became the minivan Siena: for both of these cars, their relationship with Toyota was mostly functional. They trusted that the car would continue to work for 10 years and got them from point A to point B. Then with the two Prii and as they aged the slightly fancier Toyota Avalon, their relationship developed into loyalty and attachment, even community as a Prius owner. Every time they knew and trusted that their Toyotas would be reliable but their relationship evolved as they bought different models.