#2021sloanbrandingb

[mandyrohrer]

SIA’s Virtuous Reinvestment Cycle

Singapore Airlines (SIA) has been exceptionally successful in establishing their brand and executing on their business strategy. What I found most compelling was how well they integrated the brand into their strategy, thereby facilitating many interconnected and reinforcing decisions. Unlike other airlines that focused their brand on the aircraft, SIA recognized that customers’ perception of quality and satisfaction is more closely tied to their experience with people.  

Hence, SIA deeply ingrained their brand within the company itself. Their brand became ubiquitous with their culture. They recognized that mastering their employee value proposition was critical to ultimately achieving their customer value proposition. Since their service-oriented brand was synonymous with their customer value proposition, they needed to ensure that every employee embodied the brand. They did this by focusing on their culture and people. They invested heavily in employee training, they innovated their use of technology to improve the service experience, and they recognized and rewarded employees that proactively owned and “lived” the brand. This focus on culture and people was critical in allowing their brand to permeate through their workforce.

SIA’s approach reminds me of the capability trap from system dynamics, which shows how companies seek to either work harder or work smarter when they hit hard times. This in turn fosters a virtuous reinvestment or a vicious ruin cycle. Fortunately, SIA has found itself in the virtuous reinvestment cycle as its early investments in its people and fleet are akin to improvement efforts, which take time before they translate into improved performance but improve your stock of capabilities. In addition to its “capabilities”, we could view this stock as its “brand equity” and its “employee loyalty.” Its investments in its human capital, reward systems, and brand during prosperous times has allowed it to build a strong reserve of each over time. When other airlines began cutting costs aggressively to stay competitive, SIA was able to draw on these reserves. This has allowed it to continue to adapt and invest internally to maintain its competitive advantage over the long-term. Let’s see if they can continue to do so forever.

[qq-miao]

Consumer Behavior Online: (Omni)Channel Triaging and Social Shopping

The article by Soman, Kim, and An on how the digital shopping experience has changed (compared to the in-store experience) was fascinating and brought back memories of one of my favorite projects on the Future of How People Shop. The mandate of the project was to help my client understand how the consumer decision journey “CDJ” has evolved since McKinsey updated its famous CDJ framework in 2015 (below), and to propose new insights that substantiated, elaborated upon, or countered the framework. In this post, I bold the words and phrases that are concepts from the reading.

Image credit: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/marketing-and-sales/our-insights/the-new-consumer-decision-journey

The new CDJ “The accelerated loyalty journey,” that McKinsey proposes derives from the advantage of online shopping, one-click purchasing, personalization algorithms, and fiercer competition among brands for consumer headspace. Due to these trends, companies are now able to short-circuit two key phases of the original CDJ: “Consider” and “Evaluate.” Thus, companies are taking advantage of consumers’ heuristics and mental shortcuts to push consumers from the “Awareness” phase directly to the “Buy” phase.

However, through my research, I landed on a key insight that counters McKinsey’s new model and proposal. I found, through expert interviews and a custom survey, that the omnichannel nature of shopping has actually extended the “Consider” and “Evaluate” phases. Armed with mobile phones, consumers are savvier than ever before and more inclined to invest time in research. This leads to two outcomes: (1) (omni)channel triaging and (2) social shopping, which I describe in detail below.

Image credit: https://veloxity.us/commercial-cell-phone-charging-stations-for-retail-stores/

(OMNI)CHANNEL TRIAGING: This is a term that I made up, which refers to the consumer behavior of comparing prices of a product in-store with prices they find online. Think about it: when was the last time you were in a store agonizing over a purchase because it was outside of your budget, and then did a quick search on your smartphone for a lower-priced deal or for a comparable substitute? Channel triaging! Consumers are able to take advantage of offline and online image displays to have instantaneous side-by-side comparisons, a sort of aggregate market preference for pricing. The nuance to channel triaging, however, is that the behavior is more prevalent for products that are expensive, such as technology. For mundane, affordable goods like toothpaste, consumers are not willing to spend the time for the potential cost savings. This also speaks to the impatience element of purchasing described by Soman, Kim, and An. Because of channel triaging, retailers like Best Buy have a “Lowest Price Guaranteed” scheme in which they will match their price with the lowest price that you find for a product, offered by a legitimate retailer. Here, BB offers a strategic choice architecture for consumers (“context-dependent choice” described in the article) to retain their purchase at BB’s location, instead of at a competitor’s location.

Image credit: https://www.business2community.com/instagram/how-to-use-instagram-to-drive-sales-like-a-marketer-02222011

SOCIAL SHOPPING: With the advent of highly visual social media (e.g. Instagram, Snap, Pinterest), consumers are now blending the “Consider” and “Evaluate” phases of research with the “Buy” phase. If you have not participated in social shopping before, imagine this: You are scrolling through your favorite fashion influencer’s Insta feed and see that they’ve done a collaboration with the sustainable shoe brand, Rothy’s. You tap the shoe and purchase the exact same pair, all within the Insta platform. That’s social shopping. I was surprised that the article did not discuss social shopping, since it incorporates a few concepts like peer influence (the admiration you have for the influencer spills over to Rothy’s), heuristics (the influencer has already “curated” the shoe decision for you, giving you a cognitive shortcut), and visual bias (the influencer’s post is aesthetically compelling and draws you into the purchase). And due to the connectivity effect, when you tap on this post, you get a lot more information by viewing all the comments and emojis supporting the post, sometimes even enjoying real-time review of the product itself. Companies and brands that leverage social shopping can turn the online purchasing decision into a conversation. They will have a lot of traction with digitally engaged consumers, especially when they are notin a purchasing mindset.

[poojasj]

21st Century: Fair & Lovely is Pretty Dark & Stormy

I found this reading to be especially interesting given my South Asian heritage. While I personally have not been victimized by my “darker skin” nor has my family intentionally made me feel that fair is indeed lovelier, there are subtle actions that have continued to push this idea that fair is beautiful. The number of times I would hear “get out of the sun or your skin will get dark” and “oh wow you’ve gotten so dark!” or “Use this homemade paste to lighten your skin” from family or friends created this image from an early age that beauty is defined by the lightening of your skin.

I believe that the way that you get into the heads of customers is through these subtleties that have been built over many years. Is it coincidental or purposeful that actors / actresses in Bollywood are fair skinned? Is it coincidental or purposeful that there is a concern of your skin getting too dark being the sun? The question is how to erase years and years of this belief. I found it interesting that there are these campaigns to promote darker skin but socially this belief has still not changed. It will take a lot to undo the many years of promotion and get in the heads of these customers.

These social identities we’ve built up will interfere greatly with consumer-brand relationships. The Dark is Beautiful campaign has a beautiful message but the question it poses for me – is it as profitable for the company to promote this message? Do consumers WANT to believe this? Consumers want to destigmatize beauty but at the same time they don’t want to darken their skins because in their hearts they still believe that “fair is lovely”.  My cynical take is that it will take a lot more to redefine beauty standards though I truly applaud brands for the efforts they are putting forth.

[rafaellaf]

Observing Green Behaviors

Gourville’s HBS case on “Four Products: Predicting Diffusion” highlights the massive divide between good ideas and products people actually want. All four products had a clear customer in mind, solved a particular need, and had some degree of experimentation before arriving at the finalized product. However, the products failed to achieve massive diffusion. These product failures led me to reflect on studies we’ve been doing around consumer adoption of green product alternatives. A Harvard Business Review article, “The Elusive Green Consumer,” focuses on the paradox of what people say they want (65% said they want green products) and what people mostly buy (not green products; only 26% actually do so). Why do people not purchase what they say they will? Many reasons, but two key factors in “Rogers’ Five Factors” likely have the most weight: relative advantage and observability.

The article provides several studies that support techniques for narrowing what they termed the “intention-action gap.” This gap can also be understood as a product diffusion failure.

For one, green products need to have a relative advantage over their competitors. They must be as effective and cannot force target customers to also sacrifice any convenience. It must also be aligned with the brand. For example, men often report avoiding green products as they are too feminine. However, Jack Daniel’s got around this by first establishing themselves as a strong, masculine brand. Then they introduced their initiative toward zero waste to landfills with the tagline “With all due respect to progress, the world could use a little less plastic. Even Jack Daniel’s waste is too good to waste.” This tagline and environmentally conscious initiative was a win-win for the company and it’s customers. Customers did not have to sacrifice any advantage and they were also able to still enjoy consuming Jack Daniel’s with all of the previous, strong brand connotations.

Another technique they recommend is using social influence to motivate pro-environmental behaviors. They gave the example in Halifax, Nova Scotia, residents were required to start placing all of their garbage in clear plastic bags. Now all could see if recyclable or compostable materials. Garbage to landfills went down 31%.

 In conclusion, brands can get consumers to engage in greener practices and achieve better product diffusion when they can guarantee the relative advantage of the product and their behaviors are recognized by their peers.

[alerigotoro]

Five Factors & Product Success

Rogers' five factors provide a framework for us to determine whether or not a new product idea will be able to gain traction in the market.

As a point-in-time evaluation, this is a useful tool, but we have to take it with a grain of salt as many of these change over time. Additionally, I believe that these factors should not necessarily be viewed in isolation; in my system dynamics class, we have considered how many different variables can build on themselves and each other in order to form complex systems, and that those variables change drastically given the existing conditions. This is especially true when we consider where people fall along the innovation spectrum - different populations will respond to different forces: where an innovator might focus on relative advantage when deciding whether or not to make a purchase, a lagger will place significantly more weight on simplicity and compatibility. Therefore, in order to ensure success we must shift these factors over time.

Replacing complexity with simplicity, we can provide different products a score from 1 (low) to 5 (high) along each of Rogers' five factors to determine whether or not they should be pursued:

PB Slices - maybe, in the right market

PB slices were rated low on relative advantage. It is simple enough to use a knife and peanut butter the bread - if its too hard, you can microwave it 10s to soften the PB and avoid tearing it. It scored low on observability as well: you might see people buying it or packing as a snack, but rarely will see people making sandwich. PB slices scored slightly higher on compatibility, as they might not be compatible with peoples' traditional perspective on peanut butter. However, they are pretty compatible with existing activities, such as eating fruit or assembling a sandwich.

PB slices did score high on both simplicity and trialability. The design, similar to Kraft singles, is simple enough for children to use and is already familiar to consumers. Assuming free samples come back to us, it's also very easy to trial - even if not, should be a cheap enough option that you can buy one pack to see if you like it. I'm not sure if a post-covid would helps or hurts these - on one hand, we are less likely to get free samples, but on the other, people prefer single-use, individually wrapped items, so it may be a good time to launch this product if one can get contracts with lunch box prep services like the one we have at MIT

Collapsible wheel - nope

The collapsible wheel scored the lowest out of the four products. IT has practically no relative advantage over locking a bike up - true, the tire won't get stolen, but now you have to lug around a bike wheel. It's incompatible with existing bikes and requires a different model, so compatibility is low. Additionally, it seems difficult to use, and is likely difficult to fix in the event that it breaks

The wheel scored slightly higher on trialability and observability. At this point, they would be even lower, but as this bike becomes more popular over time it would be easier to try it at a store, or borrow a friend's (though it's so expensive I wouldn't lend mine to anyone). As bike racks are in public spots it would be hard to miss someone collapsing their bike tire. That said, these both require a high enough degree of adoption before they become meaningful.

Stave Puzzle - sure, for a cult following

Personally, this was my favorite product! I am a huge puzzler. Unfortunately, these are too expensive to be trialable (you also can't truly trial them without completing one), and as most puzzlers enjoy their hobby indoors, is not very observable, leading to low marks on both of these criteria. It received high marks on the other three, as it's a very unique take on a simple, familiar concept. One might say that it holds limited advantage over a traditional physical puzzle or brain teaser, but it holds a significant advantage over a traditional puzzle (not to mention these are significantly harder for my dog and nieces to eat)

If Stave is able to make these more affordable, they would become more trialable and better-suited for a larger product market; however, this would cause it to lose its small-town, handmade charm. In reality, it lends itself to a cult following

Polytrack - yes!

This scored the highest of all the products. It received the lowest marks for observability, as it is difficult to distinguish between polytrack and traditional sand. However, tracks that use it are likely to be proud and therefore would have signage or PA announcements at races. In terms of compatibility, it's very similar to the existing sand and should have no issue in replacing it; however, it gets a lower score because of the traditional mindset and the momentum required to shift it. Lastly, it gets a 3 for trialability - in theory one could test it out on other tracks (as a rider/owner) but as a track-owner it would be difficult to do so.

Polytrack received full marks on both remaining criteria. Regarding relative advantage, the main issue is that it is expensive to install, requiring $5M to convert one track - however, the amount saved on horse injuries/euthanizations and the increase in starts that you get from horses means owners might be more willing to pay to enter their horses in races on polytrack tracks, breaking even quickly. In terms of simplicity - it's sand, but better! How hard is that to understand?

Solos glasses (branding project)

The product for my branding project (smart glasses) has a high trialability, and is highly compatible with existing systems and mindsets for people who already wear glasses. I imagine we might struggle with observability, as they are very sleek and look like normal glasses. Additionally, they are relatively simple to me but might not be for my parents' generation. As we conduct market research, it will be interesting to see what the perceived relative advantage to these glasses are, so that we can focus our efforts on bridging the gap and enticing potential customers.

[kmgunson]

Creating Value with CX: Ending with a "Stylistic Flourish" in the E-Commerce World

"Finish Strong" the first principle in the Harvard Business Review article seems simple enough but presents an interesting challenge as consumers continue to rely on online shopping for many of the purchases that, just a few years ago, would be made at a traditional brick-and-mortar storefront. The article does address that many web designers make home pages very attractive, but fail to make the final pages that consumers see as streamlined or as aesthetically pleasing as the home page (or a layer or two deeper). With this, the article focuses on those consumers that do not make a purchase. But what about those who do make a purchase? How can e-commerce retailers "finish strong" and end with a "stylistic flourish"?

In a traditional retail setting, a store can offer an experience that leaves consumers with a positive view of it. That experience can include knowledgeable and helpful sales associates, fully stocked shelves, a quick and streamlined checkout process, and so on. In the virtual world, however, the consumer clicks "purchase", receives his or her confirmation email, and the experience with the retailer is largely forgotten about until the confirmation emails for purchase and shipping arrive in his or her inbox. After that, the consumer again puts the retailer to the back of his or her mind until the package arrives. E-commerce retailers have a unique opportunity to remind consumers about what they value in the company when that package arrives. Whether it be including a freebie in the package or a handwritten note or a discount code, e-commerce retailers have an extra opportunity to end with a "stylistic flourish" that traditional retailers do not. In my experiences, most e-commerce retailers do not take advantage of this. However, earlier today, when a package with a new pair of running shoes came with a handwritten note, I was not only impressed with the ease of purchase and fast shipping times, but viewed the experience as better than previous purchases from other retailers. Yes, there is likely a time and monetary expense associated with these flourishes, but could more retailers act on this unique opportunity to finish strong?

[bobrand]

The Psychology of Nudge Neutralizers

This week’s reading was especially interesting to me because I’ve always been fascinated by consumer psychology and human behavior in the context of free will and decision making. When I read “The Practitioner’s Guide to Nudging”, I reflected heavily on the implications free will when utilizing nudges in marketing and product development. More specifically, I wondered how consumers feel with regards to nudging (conscious or subconscious), the change in nudging efficacy depending on point 1, and finally the idea of nudge neutralizers. 

Most individuals treasure being able to make their own decisions. This wouldn’t necessarily be a problem when we are discussing nudges that are self-imposed. However, with externally imposed nudges, how do consumers react to being influenced? As consumers get more and more savvy, leaders might need to become smarter and more subtle when using nudges. I also wonder whether being conscious of nudging produces any negative effect at all overtime. Advertisements are o also a form of nudging which the majority of consumers have come to accept as normal. Perhaps nudging has already overcome the chasm and is widely accepted. 

Similarly, I’m curious to understand whether there are efficacy or differences in success rates depending on whether the end user is aware of the nudging. On many highways, there are speedometer readings and signs that allow drivers to see how fast they’re driving. This is an external nudging effort to have drivers slow down and stay within the speed limit. For most drivers, seeing the contrast between their own speed and the posted speed limit would result in them slowing down their vehicles. On the other hand, if a driver knows that the contraption is there to try to “trick” them into slowing down, would the driver still slow down? While this might not be the best example, it is a curious point I’d love to try to understand. 

Finally, all of the above thoughts on user mindset in relation to nudging led me to the idea of “nudge neutralizers”, a term I created to label any factors that actually undo the influence of nudges. This could be the consumer mindset as mentioned above, consumer consciousness, the social climate etc. In some ways, these neutralizers would be uncovered during the “mapping context” phase but are different in that these neutralizers could change and appear at any time after the nudge has been created! I imagine that, depending on the scenario, there could be countless neutralizers. 

[vinke]

Nudging or Deceptive Influence?

I spent some time over the summer investigating consumer behavior for a Fintech startup I was working with, and we found out a few interesting ways to influence the customer's decision.

For context, this was a challenger bank whose revenue was generated from interchange fees (customers using their credit card), and from the customer's savings fund (which were invested in high-yield securities.

1. Follow the Green: in the app, a common theme was used. Any "smart" choice was always shown with a green button. For example, the withdrawal button was a faint gray, while the deposit money button was big bold green. Similarly, the company would suggest a savings goal, and as expected, the highest amount was highlighted in green. These examples were subtle but identifiable ways of influencing the user's experience and decision-making. During an interview with a customer, I recall her saying specifically "I like how you make it easy to follow the green".

2. Incentive to Spend? ironically, another strategy was to influence the user to spend money. Since the company generated the most revenue on interchange fees, they would offer the customer a "savings boost interest rate", "more points", or some other benefit for spending a minimum amount of money during that month with the cards. To this extent, coupons or cashback offers would also be advertised to the user for typical products that person would consume (eg. coffee at Starbucks).

In this way, the company was influencing the user's behavior into a saving and spending cycle. What is interesting is that people would come to use the service because of an original need, but the gamified strategy behind the product would make the original value proposition of the product loose its intended effect (in my opinion). Granted, the user was always "in control": he/she could choose when to take their money out, and what to spend it in.

This raises the question, how many behaviors are actually self-initiated versus nudged? And to that extent, could we even consider it a nudge, or is it a deceptive influence?

Think of all the data collected by companies like Facebook. By monitoring your cookies, they could show you on Instagram featured posts of influencers wearing the shoes that you've been considering getting. Without realizing it, your next purchase are the shoes after constantly seeing them across your social media platforms. A very powerful tactic.

As the case suggests there are 12 types of nudges. Upon reviewing them, I wonder whether some of these should be limited by industry. For example, mindless nudges that encourage and activate a desired behavior perhaps should be limited to activities or products that incentivize a positive behavior as opposed to an impulsive decision. In this manner, it would be interesting to further investigate the line between nudges and ethics.

[esilvabtt]

Fun, Sun, Beach

“People don’t drink beer, they drink marketing” Although this statement by Michael Foley is not necessarily true for every segment of the beer market (especially nowadays with the explosion of the craft beer scene), it definitely captures the reality of a great majority of beer drinkers. The case took me back to the year 2000, when one of the most famous beer advertising campaigns first aired in Brazilian television, featuring a little crab mooning a couple at the beach after stealing their beer (if you’re curious: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S02-slF7e4g). The most amazing aspect of this memory, and one of the reasons why Foley was correct in his statement, was that in 2000 I was 8 years old, still 10 years away from being legally allowed to drink in Brazil (!). Even so, more than twenty years later, I still remember the epic ending when the crab hums “nãnãnãnã”. Much like the Intel 5-tone jingle, this demonstrates how powerful marketing and good advertising can be. Two things struck me the most when reading the case. (1) First, the diametrically opposite approaches from Corona and Heineken back in 1996 in terms of the visceral connection with the customer (or the promise of an experience, as we discussed last class). While Corona was advertising their product as part of a beach experience filled with good memories (fun, sun, beach, summer), which is something most Americans yearn for every year, Heineken was stuck for a long time with a much more rational view: product quality is the best driver for success; if our customers recognize that, we don’t have anything to worry about. Although quality certainly plays a key role, this differentiating advantage fades away with time as competitors catch up, as shown by the much faster growth of Corona in the US and worldwide compared to Heineken in the early 90s. (2) Second, the strategic incorporation of consumer behavior in advertising strategy - squeezing a lime inside the bottle, which was embraced by the company and became an icon that is still alive nowadays, over 25 years after its first appearance.

[waywardwoodwork]

Beer Goggles

Consumer preferences are constantly changing, and Grupo Modelo had the insight to identify a changing relationship to beer in the US, it saw a window of opportunity and took it. They understood that their relaxed, authentic, and drinkable beer matched current and incoming beer drinker desires.

However, consumer preferences will continue to shift over time. I wonder whether Corona’s ability to identify and leverage this opportunity one time is evidence of this brand’s resilience through inevitable future shifts in desires. Once the next major consumer shift in drinking comes, can Corona adapt? How much can Corona, or any brand, commit to an identity without subverting its ability to adapt with its consumers. For instance, I question Corona’s ability to position their recent launch of “Corona Hard Seltzer”, which is part of a new drinking category associated with a leaner and more active lifestyle which is at odds with the chill attitude it has been leaning into for decades. Leaning into one's brand identity is critical, for not doing so risks not creating sufficient personality, but leaning in too much may generate irreversible brand constraints.

Although I am confident in Modelo’s institutional ability to hustle and adapt in the face of crises, like they did when rumors spread about urine content in their product, their brand may be too entrenched in their image: a relaxed lifestyle, association with Mexico. Without proper preparation the Corona brand may be faced with a similar situation to what Heineken faced, sticking with an image that no longer resonates with their clientele.

On a final note, I think it makes sense, therefore, to manage brand portfolios in conjunction. Since this case, there has been an intense concentration in the beer industry. About half of the top 20 beer breweries cited at the time of this case are now joined in as one, under ABI. Not only has ABI become a massive conglomerate of legacy breweries, it learned a lesson from their experience with microbreweries in the US during the 70s and 80s and now intensely buys up burgeoning microbreweries in less developed markets before they become too large to acquire. In my mind, ABI has become a Disney of beer; owning a humongous set of brands and focusing on maximizing their overall value. They now continually modulate their branding and marketing in such a way that aims to maximize the aggregate brand value of their portfolio rather than just focusing on a single brand’s individual success.

[qq-miao]

Intel Inside - Computing, not Computers

“We need to be thinking about computing, which can encompass any number of different devices.” This is my favorite line from the case, because it captures a lot of the internal struggles I saw companies go through as my consulting clients. In my old job as a foresight strategist, I helped companies envision and set resources against where they wanted to be in 7-10+ years from today. For a car client, it was helping them make the mental leap from automobiles to mobility. For a tech client, it was helping them shift from technology to connectivity. For Intel, it’s making the shift from computers to computing, which is the question at the end of the case. Should they extend their chips to non-PC applications? I think they should and provide some thoughts for conversation here. (Spoiler alert: I googled “Intel chip smartphones” and have found out that they missed the mobile train. Would love to discuss with classmates why!)

1. Intel could expand to non-PCs through Intel Inside because the umbrella brand is broad enough. The original campaign was created to house multiple generations of products and help make clear to customers differences between products (based on the insight that end users weren’t aware). Their co-op advertising program was brilliant (and continues to live today under the Intel Inside Program Associate Membership), providing strong incentives for their OEM partners to cast them in the best light. Intel’s problem at the end of the case is that they’re afraid of brand dilution, because their two top brand attributes of Safety (reliability) and Leading tech have been so closely tied to computers. (Black & Decker had a similar problem with brand dilution after they expanded product line outside of heavy-duty power tools to home gadgets after the acquisition of GE’s household goods division. The dilution led to very low sales among tradesmen, a key segment for B&D, because they perceived B&D to be too “homey.” The fear of dilution is valid!) However, the attributes of Safety and Leading tech are also incredibly important for mobile phones, which I’ve heard many people describe as a “mini computer in your pocket.” Intel could have collaborated with a current customer who also manufactures mobile phones (e.g. Microsoft) to articulate how they are using the power of their chip to make phones as fast and high-performing as computers. Intel’s messages around innovation could be heavily applied to the phone market, helping consumers understand that they’re taking us into the future by liberating us from large, bulky computers for our daily computing needs. And Intel can do this because its technology is truly superior, backed up by the double cycles for R&D. Questions leading off of this is: what type of market research did Intel conduct to understand the appetite among core customers (IT heads and CTOs) and potential customers (everyday consumers) for their chip in mobile phones? What were the findings? In response, how did their B2B communication and branding strategy for IT heads need to change for B2C communication to consumers? Although Intel missed the mobile market, they seem intent to NOT miss the next big wave: Internet-of-Things and smart homes.

I think that IoT creates the PERFECT opportunity for Intel to leverage its Intel Inside branding to help consumers understand the reliability of their chips in powering connected devices. For many consumers, IoT is a black box, the hardware and software are relatively new, and there are concerns about privacy and data protection. If Intel can demonstrate how its technology seamlessly connects multiple devices to create a more modern, comfortable, secure - and of course, intelligent - home experience, then they can capture market share in partnership with key players like LG and Phillips. 2. Another reason I believe that Intel could have capture the mobile market is that their marketing team (lead by the likes of Ann Lewnes) was visionary and knew the importance of capturing consumer HEARTS, not just their minds. I actually watched the 1992 “Star Wars” advertising where you travel inside the computer and reacted very viscerally. It was cool, but also kind of creepy. It was technical, but not technical enough for me to understand what was special about their chip. In contrast, I loved their Blue Man group advertisement for the Pentium 4 processor.

This was fun, quirky, unexpected, and most important - innovative and human. Intel’s marketing team held their ground against criticism to the Blue Man group, which signaled to me that they would continue on this insight that creative campaigns must connect emotionally. And...I’m pretty certain that Apple was inspired by Intel’s ads and took a page from their emotional advertisement playbook to create their own ads which are centered around limitless creativity and bringing people together. I’ve cried during an Apple ad before. :)

With ads like these, Intel was building an emotional connection to customers by showing them that Intel’s products can help unleash they creativity and innovation. This emotional connection is arguably more valuable to build for the mobile phone market than for PCs, because of the small and by-your-side nature of phones and the fact that their primary function is to connect us to other people. Now that Intel is entering people’s smart homes through their smart ovens, smart microwaves, smart toilets, smart speakers, etc., I am curious to understand how they will maintain the emotional side of their products to connect with customers. What are your thoughts?

[helnli]

Inside Intel Inside

As a brand, Intel is generally considered a B2B company; the company’s core product line are microprocessor chips that are key components of PCs, but are not products that end consumers often know much about. As such, this Intel case was an illuminating example of the power of branding, even for non-consumer businesses. The key insight that drove the motivation behind Intel’s Inside Intel branding campaign was that end user perception matters – regardless the industry or complexity of the product. In this case, Intel’s end users had misconceptions about the differences between Intel’s 286 and 386 chips and didn’t fully understand the superior performance of the 386 chip. Through its initial “Red X” campaign and ensuing Intel Inside campaign, Intel was able to shift the mindset of its key end users – IT heads – to align with the capabilities of their newly-launched, superior chips.

One obstacle facing Intel in launching a successful campaign was that the fact that Intel’s OEM partners – who produced PCs and were thus, closer to the end buyer – may have objections in Intel circumventing their PC products and branding themselves directly to end customers. Intel solved this issue through its co-op advertising program, which benefitted all parties involved: OEMs were able to secure advertising dollars and Intel was able to get free exposure through and alongside well-known consumer brands such as Dell, as well as through their own additional advertising. Throughout the years and over various ad cycles, the performance and quality of Intel’s products have continued to bolster its brand image of cutting-edge technology and safety.

At the time of the case, Intel was at crossroads over whether to expand their branding and presence into the burgeoning market of handheld digital devices (e.g., cell phones, PDAs). On one hand, extending their branding and investing into these new and growing markets could dilute valuable brand equity and power in their profitable core PC market. On the other hand, the PC market seemed to be stagnating while these nascent markets were growing quickly. In hindsight, we know that Intel chose not to invest in these markets, a mistake that gave Apple and Google the opportunity to start creating their own chips in the last couple years. While hindsight is 20/20, this decision was an oversight in Intel’s innovation strategy, and resulted in Intel missing becoming a major player within the rise of the mobile market in the past couple decades. This case demonstrates that a lack of investment in branding for nascent spaces has potentially immense consequences when assessing your company’s long-term strategy and trajectory.

[taylor-carter]

Fair & Lovely vs. Dark is Lovely: The great misconception of complexion

While I read the Fair & Lovely vs. Dark is Beautiful case I couldn't help but notice the parallels to the black is beautiful movement that helped serve as a catalyst to the civil rights movement in America. Both movements were very intentional about highlighting the impacts the politics of color had on a variety of factors in society and show how far these implications reached beyond the field of advertising. Each movement also stressed the importance of redefining negatively preconceived notions in an effort to highlight the beauty people saw in their complexion, and subsequently themselves, to create more confident individuals and a more inclusive and socially conscious society. One part of the text that stood out to me specifically was when Emanuel spoke about why she launched the campaign: "Skin color bias affect people psychologically. It affects how a child performs in school because their confidence level goes down; they feel they are not good enough. And when it comes to marriage, we again find skin color plays such a vital role. We decided not to remain silent any longer but to raise our voices, talk to people, and see how they respond." The misconception around the superiority of fairer skinned complexions is real and far reaching. But the basis crux of the solution (at least on an individual level) can be boiled down to one simple word... confidence. Das's prominence as an actress gave her a platform to spread a message of hope and opportunity for millions of women and men who had been told that their darker complexion deemed them to be less fit for excellence. But instead of exploiting that insecurity for profitability, she was able to help people redefine the beauty people saw in their complexion to create more confident and optimistic consumers. While I had not heard of Nandita Das or the WOW movement prior to today I couldn't help but notice the parallels to my own upbringing and the intentional ways in which my parents inundated me with positive images of black people (via art, film, history etc. ) to reinforce my own positive self-image. A lot of discussions in branding revolve around changing a consumers perception in order to nudge or convince them that they need to buy "this" product to embody "that" persona. Ultimately, while comforting, the happiness/comfort associated with retail therapy has proven to be fleeting, which reinforces the desire for the next purchase. The WOW campaign for Dark is Beautiful flipped that conception on it's head and reinforced a refreshingly positive campaign of self-confidence that clearly resonated with a large portion of consumers. This unique empowerment approach supporting inclusivity was refreshing and embodies the type of marketing I would love to support if I was to go into branding.

[gmargaing]

False beauty standards

As I read about the Fair and Lovely vs Dark and Beautiful case I couldn't help but think about how we are constantly being inundated with a false reality everywhere. If it is through Instagram "influencers" or in skincare products advertising, we are only exposed to a not-very-realistic way of living.

The most obvious example of this is the selection of models for any type of advertisement (skincare, clothing, hair care, etc.). I believe this has been slowly changing/improving in the way that brands are now more conscious of portraying themselves in a more inclusive and diverse way. For instance, we now see an overweight model every once in a while or a racially diverse selection of models in ad campaigns. Nonetheless, there is still much work to be done.

On another side, advertisements and social media content are commonly highly retouched. Natural skin is just seen as taboo, where any slight "imperfection" is retouched. Bodies are skimmed, faces are smoothed, as much as needed to portray a "flawless" image. The sole result of this is the creation of a false beauty ideal for everyone. Imagine what it would be like to see a model who looks just like you!

I'd like to point out a couple of beauty brands that have taken on the change initiative to not retouch their models before publishing ads. Hopefully, one day we can also count with our hands the ones that do the retouching, instead of those that don't.

1. CVS launched their CVS Beauty Unaltered campaign. They implement a special mark for any images that aren’t altered—and promise to be 100% honest about the ones that are. 2. The Dove Beauty Pledge consists of three vows: The brand will always feature real women, never models (with diverse ages, sizes, and ethnicities in mind); The brand portrays women as they are in real life (there is zero digital distortion of women and every image is approved by the women featured); The brand funds the Dove Self-Esteem Project, a community of mentors, teachers, and educators that help young girls bolster confidence.

3. In February 2020, Olay announced it is officially committed to “zero skin retouching” in all of its advertising materials, including content created by Olay’s influencer partners.

[shaharks]

Innovation Diffusion: Diffusing the iPhone's Success

Reading through Rogers' Five Factors, I, unintentionally, started analyzing existing products by the different factors. Today, I will focus on the iPhone’s success by evaluating it by the five different factors.

The first iPhone was launched in 2007 and changed our lives. Let’s understand why -

Relative advantage— the iPhone replaced the ordinary cellphone, sidekicks and palms, and our iPods and mp3 players; in some sense, it even replaced our personal computers for some tasks. It was better in the sense that it was faster, had a smoother experience, and did a lot more than what a plain old cellphone would do. It had a relative advantage compared to the products it replaced.

Compatibility— as disruptive as the iPhone was, it was still a phone. This was its primary functionality, and this was the way it was marketed – a phone and much more. Switching from your old cellphone was not a complicated task but a seamless one. The iPhone’s interface had a great and simple user experience that made it easier for new adopters to get on board. People could listen to music as they did with the iPod and even send emails like they were used to from their personal computers. The experience was still aligned with the previous one. Yet, it was better.

Complexity— as I mentioned above, the iPhone interface was simple, and at first, it did not have so many apps. Thus, the iPhone was easy to use. As Apple is known for its great UI and UX, new adopters had no issue understanding how to use the product, making the onboarding process smooth as possible.

Trialability— I remember the long waiting lines at the Apple store. Everyone wanted to try this new fantastic phone, and Apple made it very easy to just go to any store and play around with it. The availability and the extensive showcase of the new phone created a buzz around it. Moreover, those lucky people who did get their hands on a new iPhone were regularly asked to hand it over to play around with it and experiment.

Observability— as mentioned, people noticed the iPhone. It had a different look, so you immediately knew it was an iPhone. Furthermore, even the default signature when writing a new email through the iPhone mentioned it was “sent from iPhone.” Apple created this halo around people using the iPhone. It became a status symbol. Everyone wanted to get it and walk around with it for others to see.

Rogers' five factors clearly show it - It is undeniable that the iPhone was a successful innovative product. And now, we know why.

[kmgunson]

Inside Intel Inside

The Intel case offers an interesting example of a company that saw a problem - the slow adoption of the 386 processor as the 486 was in development - and took a risk in addressing that problem that ultimately set up the company for long-lived success. In this instance, Intel knew that the OEM's could understand the technical jargon surrounding new processors. The end consumer, however, just saw another number, an expensive product, and no benefit to purchasing that expensive product, as evidenced through the market research indicating that most buyers thought the 286 could do everything that they needed so an upgrade was unnecessary. The simple "Red X" campaign proved fruitful and, on some level, set the stage for Intel to take risks in their marketing strategy.

Intel's unique approach is highlighted through its co-op advertising campaigns. This is a perfect example of aligned incentives - Intel gets its chips in PCs and the OEM's get up to half of the cost of any ads with Intel's logo paid for. Combined with Intel's own advertising campaigns, this helped to make consumers more aware of what is in their computer simply from repeated views of similar information. These advertisements also gave Intel (and OEM's) the opportunity to highlight to consumers what made each new processor better than the last. 

Being at the cutting edge of processor technology, Intel was in a difficult position. Yes, first mover advantage exists. However, this means nothing if the consumer is not aware of 1) what the product is and 2) why it is better than alternatives (or previous versions). I think that we see this issue today with many high-tech products. Take, for example, the iPhone. When the iPhone first launched, it was a novel idea - no keypad, no hinges, nothing like what we knew as cell phones. Apple was on the cutting edge. As competitors entered the space with their own smart and touchscreen phones, Apple has tried to maintain competitive advantage through new product launches. These launches, especially today, depend on consumers knowing why the iPhone 11 Pro Max is better than the iPhone 11 Pro, for example. This is similar to Intel in that it too had to make sure consumers (both B2C and DTC) knew why a new chip was better and, due to the unique marketing and the efforts put in to link marketing and technology teams, Intel succeeded in this and built a well-known, strong brand image.

With this strong brand equity, it is somewhat surprising that Intel was so concerned about the risks that going into a new product category would pose to the brand image. The case mentions the worry that new products would "dilute the brand in some way". Of course, a failed new product would eliminate capital that could have gone to the development of new processors, which Intel knew it was already good at. However, I think it is unlikely that if Intel entered a new product category and failed, people would not believe in Intel's existing products. In the case that the new product was a success, this could ultimately boost brand image further - not only is Intel good at processors, they are good at this new product too! To my knowledge, Intel stuck with what it knows but I certainly wonder what the company (and the technology space) would have looked like if it had not.