jlovett2018-blog

[jlovett2018-blog]

Are consumer brands a thing of the past?

In 2017, Brandless, a consumer goods company started in San Francisco (because of course) and Minneapolis was “brought to life” with the idea that branding products adds inefficiencies and unnecessary markups to the products we use daily. 

Despite the fact that “Brandless” is arguably a brand itself, its emergence highlights a significant consumer need that has been ignored by large, margin-conscious consumer goods companies for quite some time (in this case, the value consumer). The popularity of Brandless is a direct result of a product category fulfilling a niche for an underserved community (in this case, cost-conscious consumers who want a no-frills experience). 

The age where one consumer brand could completely dominate a product category is over. Cheap and available manufacturing, ample potential suppliers, slow-to-act consumer goods behemoths and swaths of ignored and underserved communities make it easier than ever to launch a new brand. In that way, the brand (as we know it) is dead. 

However, brands (and the consumer era) is more alive than it has ever been. There are a number of factors that are driving a resurgence to consumerism: 

More touchpoints - through social media and digital marketing, brands now have more touchpoints than ever with their consumers. Because of this, brand managers can not only engage with their consumers in a much more intimate way, but also use their content to enhance the brand image in market

More information - managers now have targeted information and real-time feedback about their brands. Due to this, brand managers can pivot almost instantaneously to better serve their populations. 

Despite these benefits brought by technology, tech will also lower barriers of entry and allow more brands to enter the marketplace and challenge incumbents. Perhaps there is a critical point where we become oversaturated by brands and “go Brandless”.  But for right now, brands that create a personal and meaningful connection with their consumers will always have a place in the market. 

[jlovett2018-blog]

The story of the creation of My Black is Beautiful

Over the past 15 years, global consumer brands have recognized and capitalized on the fact that a majority of their customers do not look like the models used to market their products. 

During my time at Procter & Gamble, I was able to meet the products researchers who created and championed the “My Black is Beautiful” marketing campaign. The initial idea came from employees in Beauty Care R&D and marketing, who recognized the gap in credibility P&G’s brands had with women of color. These scientists and marketers saw their family and friends choose non-P&G products that generated worse results for their hair and skin based solely on the fact that those products were promoted by a model or Youtube blogger who looked like them. 

After fighting for resources and finally getting a budget, the group created a hashtag (#myblackisbeautiful), and generated educational videos for women of color using P&G products. They also contacted Youtube bloggers and brought them in to test new product designs that were targeted for black women. 

P&G is still figuring out how to capture the value created by the My Black Is Beautiful campaign; they have explored packaging to signal products that would work well for black men and women. However, the campaign and the non-P&G products that have sprung up around it has generated billions of dollars in revenue and has created an in-group of fashionable, passionate users who look nothing like the traditional image of beauty we held 15 years ago. 

[jlovett2018-blog]

#Beychella, Burberry and staying #onbrand

Beyonce just exposed the rest of America to HBCU culture. 

*Insert praise hand emojis* 

Me: YAASSSSS! YOU BETTER SING THE BLACK NATIONAL ANTHEM (Lift E’vry Voice) 

Cynical Me: How long before some brand/artist appropriates this? 

As brand marketers, it’s exciting to jump on a new wave, especially when its brought to the mainstream by your fave. However, it’s also very easy to get it wrong if that wave isn’t your own. For example, if Burberry, a company with roots and traditions deeply tied to its British origins, tried to launch a new campaign including a step show, a probate and a show-stealing marching band, something would be off. Their core consumers and every black person who has ever line danced to a Frankie Beverly song would know it. 

Beyonce is a perfect example of how staying true to your roots can help refresh a brand. Beyonce’s choice to re-embrace her Louisiana/Alabama roots in the making of Lemonade resulted in one of the most critically acclaimed albums of this decade and a new appreciation of musical genres that were pioneered by black singer/songwriters. 

Lemonade, IMHO, was her most honest album; she made herself vulnerable in a way that is difficult when sang over hyper-engineered, electronic beats. She also called upon influences I could imagine her reading and listening to as a child. 

Brands, like people, aren’t static. However, by looking back to their origins, they can find fresh ideas. Burberry’s choice to use a cast of racially diverse set models in its recent campaign, “The Classics, Disrupted”, shows how it is looking back on its origins near London but from the perspective of someone living in the 21st century. 

Could their new campaign be alienating to their core consumer? Perhaps. But the UK has been increasing in diversity for centuries now. Burberry’s choice to use new faces to reflect the new face of England is a 

[jlovett2018-blog]

The Dapper Dan Story: Respecting ‘outgroups’ when they become influencers

Source: Instagram @usmarothonmann

In the 1980s and early 1990s, Dapper Dan ruled the NYC urban fashion scene. By mixing the edginess, flair and functional design he’d seen in U.S. Black and African fashion with traditional luxury brands, Dapper Dan created a completely new market segment frequented by athletes, rappers and drug dealers alike. 

In the 1980s, brand reactions to Dapper Dan’s creations were strongly negative; his shop was aggressively shut down by Fendi, who retained Sonia Sotomayor (among other lawyers). The reaction from brands in the 1980s was predictable. However, the embrace of Dapper Dan-esque designs has been much less straightforward.

In the 1980s and early 1990s, rap’s influence was growing, but it was solidly an ‘outgroup’ genre of music. Luxury European brands still retained a sense of respectability (i.e. white supremacy) and embracing new customers (read: unapologetically and flamboyantly black people) would immediately alienate them from their core audience. 

Today, rap is an internationally distributed art form and is solidly in the mainstream. As a result, designers who are looking to create new styles are becoming more willing to seek inspiration from previously vilified fashion trends in urban fashion (see photo above). This creates numerous opportunities for cultural appropriation (which is RAMPANT in the fashion industry today) and the associated negative press. 

Brands who are looking to tap into diverse talent should use the following guidelines to “respect the outgroup”. 

Give credit/power/employment where it’s due: Louis Vuitton’s selection of Virgil Abloh as their director of Menswear in March 2018 represents a good example of how brands can create value for themselves while also giving credit to designers of color. His selection not only gives Louis Vuitton credibility in a rapidly growing sector of fashion (street style) but also gives him the power and influence to create spaces for more designers of color. 

Pay attention to the crowd and bring in innovations from it: When designers, artists, etc. begin to remix brands, pay close attention to feedback given to the remixes. Social media analytics can help brands track reception to new ideas in a way that was impossible in the 80s. 

DON’T STEAL CULTURE: It’s not yours. Everyone knows that. Don’t be something you’re not unless you hire someone to help you become it. 

Sources: https://noisey.vice.com/en_us/article/8x9xn4/gucci-ruined-culture-by-suing-dapper-dan-now-theyre-ruining-it-by-ripping-him-off

[jlovett2018-blog]

Why didn’t satellite radio fail like the other innovations?

In “Four Products: Predicting Diffusion” we were given the task of determining which products would diffuse well into the market and which products would struggle out of the following set: 

Sliced Peanut Butter

Silver-infused Bandages

Satellite Radio

“Smell Vision”

Given the benefit of hindsight, satellite radio was the clear winner. In terms of Rogers’ Five Factors, satellite radio clearly provided its consumers an advantage over traditional radio (i.e. it solved a problem consumers had), it was consistent with existing experiences, easy to understand/use, easy to try (through partnerships with GM/Ford, the service was free for a trial period in cars where satellite radio was pre-installed) and observable to the target market (to anyone looking for a new car). 

Satellite radio had a few other things going for it that caused it to be more successful in market: 

Relevance and lack of substitutes - satellite radio solved a critical issue (i.e. commercials) faced by a very passionate group of people who had only one alternative (listening to commercials). The other innovations weren’t strongly adopted because they either didn’t solve a critical issue or there were competing with a host of substitutes that could function as well as the innovation 

Competition - competition by GM and Ford to get into the satellite radio space (through XM and Sirius) essentially ensured the success of the satellite radio industry. Because GM and Ford could use satellite radio as a feature to increase the value of their cars, they installed satellite radios in their premium cars. This increased trialability with a high willingness-to-pay customer base, which later led to conversion and word-of-mouth diffusion. Because of the threat of being late to the market, both GM and Ford invested heavily into XM and Sirius respectively to make the service as good as possible for their customers. Because the IP strategy for the other innovations prevented this type of competition between firms, the diffusion rate of the other innovations was markedly slower (or non-existent)

[jlovett2018-blog]

156 Americans tried to draw 10 famous logos from memory.

[jlovett2018-blog]

Find Your Beach: Corona and Country Specific Branding for Developing Markets

Corona chose to develop its U.S. brand around “fun”. Its primary visual in U.S. commercials featured images of the beach (Playa del Carmen) and U.S. consumers regularly added limes to their bottles, which created an exotic differentiation factor for their brand.

Corona’s strategy also gave it key factors that positioned it to beat Heineken in the U.S. market. 

Approachability - Corona’s fun, beach-vibes branding presented itself well to entering segments of the U.S. market where alcohol consumption is high (e.g. college students, happy hour crowds). By also targeting these demographics through specific co-branding and relationships with restaurants, Corona was able to position itself as a symbol of vacation. Heineken’s brand, which focused on product quality primarily, was considered stodgy

Exoticism - Corona, as an imported beer, created a sense of adventure within their product by relating it to places consumers would like to be (e.g. the beach), thus creating an aspirational brand image. 

Heineken’s brand, centered around product quality was weakly defensible; the growth of home brewing in the 1990s and early 2000s allowed consumers to create craft beers with similar or better quality and much more variety. Their strategy could be defended by adopting a country specific approach (e.g. highlight Dutch roots) but Heineken would have to be careful not to alienate younger customers who could see the European nature of the brand as being stodgy. 

sources: https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-facts-and-statistics

[jlovett2018-blog]

Social Identity Theory and MIT Sloan’s branding

Employers, alumni, faculty and rankings magazines generally agree; the MBA program at MIT Sloan is one of the best in the world. Despite critical acclaim from these groups, awareness of the MBA program remains low among potential applicants, particularly applicants of color. For those who are aware of Sloan, their perception of the program is heavily influenced by their preconceived notions of the entirety of MIT. Due to the reputation of MIT’s engineering program, Sloan is perceived as one of the most quantitatively rigorous MBA programs and a place where enjoyment and fun is an afterthought.

Would an applicant know which way points to Sloan?

In 2016, Sloan updated their branding and reinforced their connection to MIT, by having it as the largest component of the new logo. 

What does this mean for potential applicants? 

Many people who apply to Sloan will have certain characteristics

Majored/work in STEM, finance or consulting

From places where Sloan alumni tend to end up 

Deeply concerned with school rankings/going to an M7 school 

As a result of 1 and 2, probably not women or people of color

The student body will look like the applicant pool

The student body will reinforce stereotypes that create “outgroups” that prevent talented people from applying

What can Sloan do?

Rely on top 5 ranking; highlight non-quant aspects of the degree program - MIT’s rankings (both graduate and undergraduate) would definitely be a strong factor for a portion of MBA applicants who care about going to a good school. If Sloan chooses to keep MIT in the branding, they must also highlight Sloan’s ranking and attract non-quants by highlighting departments and degree programs that are not viewed as being quantitative.  To execute this strategy, Sloan must relentlessly focus on being a top ranked school (which could be problematic for a number of reasons) and building marketing campaigns centered around its MBA students who are not doing quantitative research.

Remove associations with MIT - removing MIT from MIT Sloan would be risky; MIT has strong brand associations (e.g. Wicked Smaaht) that positively benefit Sloanies. However, removing MIT from Sloan’s branding could allow it to break the institutional inertia that closely links Sloan to MIT. This would be incredibly difficult, as the methodology of teaching is partly derived from its relationship with MIT

Create strategic outreach for people who don’t fit into the “ingroups” listed above - To break the idea of being in an “outgroup”, MIT Sloan could increase targeting of select groups of people who do not fit the stereotype of a person who’d naturally apply to Sloan. Other schools (e.g. those who participate in Consortium) have a natural advantage, so Sloan could also join Consortium.