Trying to be cool

I've noticed an interesting pattern in marketing articles lately: big brands trying to be cool.

1. HP's trying to be cool with a viral video and new ad campaign. From the New York Times:

(The FingerSkilz video) was revealed to be a “viral’’ advertisement from  Hewlett-Packard, the leading edge of a new global campaign that aims to imbue H.P.’s machines with some of the coolness more commonly associated with Apple.

H.P. executives say the new campaign, which includes television and print advertising in addition to a variety of edgier approaches, is aimed at shaking up perceptions of the company as slightly stodgy, an image that has been reinforced by conservative corporate brand campaigns with themes like “everything is possible.’’

Hmm, so HP wants to be cool like Apple? Ok. First, let's compare company names: HP: blah. Apple: cool. How about web site and advertising? HP: blah. Apple: cool.  Now here's a quick test. Which laptop below is cool?

Yep, you're very good. And what brand is the black computer below? Wrong, it's a Dell. Just kidding... it's an HP. But you probably couldn't tell at a glance, could you?

2. Walmart's trying to be cool by copying MySpace. Slashdot quotes AdAge:

"It's a quasi-social-networking site for teens designed to allow them to 'express their individuality,' yet it screens all content, tells parents their kids have joined and forbids users to e-mail one another. Oh, and it calls users 'hubsters' -- a twist on hipsters that proves just how painfully uncool it is to try to be cool."

I can't comment on this better than BL Ochman: "Watching big ad agencies (and corporations) trying to master new media is a lot like watching people who are having mid-life crises trying to look hip, cool and young by adopting the toys, tools, and language of youth. It's rather pathetic."

3. McDonald's tried to buy cool. From BBC News:

McDonald's, the world's biggest fast food chain, is desperate to keep in with the youth market and saw hip hop as the key to a piece of the action. Last year, they offered to pay artists to rap about Big Macs. The deal was cash per airplay for any song featuring a Big Macs. Not surprisingly, the idea never flew, as not a single band would take up the offer from McDonald's.

DJ Semtex, hip-hop DJ for the BBC's 1Xtra radio station, says artists don't want to be seen to be bought. "The way that they came up the scene was like 'yeah, we're going to get into this culture and we're going to exploit and make some money and you're going to buy our food'."

Ouch. Come on, McDonald's... this is so not the way to be cool.

So what makes a brand cool? Stephen Cheliotis, chairman of CoolBrands, said: 

"When we ask about what makes a cool brand, the kind of things we get back is authenticity, originality, uniqueness," he said. "These are things that people are trying to strive for. They don't want to be seen as having the same type of brands as everyone else. They're looking for brands that have that cool edge."

Authenticity, originality and uniqueness. If your brand doesn't inherently have these traits, please... don't attempt to be cool. You'll look like you're having a mid-life crisis, and you will be laughed at. You can play the "cool dad" who's still a grown-up and acts accordingly, but don't try to be 18 again. If it's important to connect with the younger audience, don't do it with your existing brand... this is the time for a new one that's created from the ground up to appeal to a different mindset.

Grassroots Innovation

Microsoft is the latest company to capitalize on the “customer-made” trend. According to the Mercury News, any game enthusiast can now create video games for the Xbox 360 video console. 

 “(Microsoft) will make available a stripped-down version of its game development tools for $99. The XNA Game Studio Express software will have everything someone needs to make a working video game…. The strategy is part of a plan to make the Xbox 360 more attractive by putting consumers in control of the content, much the way that consumers are taking to grass-roots entertainment on YouTube or on their iPods…”

There’s a lot being written about this trend that Trendwatching.com calls “Customer-Made," but larger companies have been slow to embrace the idea. According to Trendwatching, “tapping into the collective experiences, skills and ingenuity of hundreds of millions of consumers around the world is a complete departure from the inward looking, producer- versus-consumer innovation model so common to corporations around the world.”

Why is this trend a big deal? In a nutshell, product development becomes a profit center.  Customers pay Microsoft for the ability to create games for Microsoft’s Xbox platform. And by getting the tools into universities with game development programs, they’re building platform preference among future professional game developers.

Companies that jump on the customer-made bandwagon can provide incentives through contests (like Electrolux Design Lab), visibility (like LegoFactory) or royalties. In Microsoft's case, aspiring game developers are motivated to produce quality games because of the visibility, reputation, career and even revenue opportunities provided by this initiative.

With the tools, gamers can create their own games on Windows PCs and upload them into Microsoft's Xbox Live network, which could theoretically sell them to console gamers via download. Pete Moore (head of Microsoft's game business) said that game creators could share their work with others, for free or for purchase. "We're very excited to enable game development at the consumer and hobbyist level,'' said Moore. "For $99, you can create Xbox 360 games. My dream is that a high school student will get a royalty check from Microsoft some day for a game that sells on Xbox Live.''

Whether it’s called grassroots innovation, customer-made or co-creation, this trend is a win-win for companies and customers alike.

Innovation and brand extensions

The debate continues on whether brands must limit themselves to a single product. In my last post, Roger asks, "Amazon is doing very poorly of late.  To what extent is performance due to brand extension?"

I would agree with Scott's answer: Amazon has definitely overextended itself to a generic "online shopping destination." It no longer stands for anything meaningful or memorable. And I'm glad Scott brought up Virgin, which is the brand for an airline, a record label and a music chain. What makes Virgin successful doing this where others would definitely fail? I believe it comes down to a reputation for innovation.

Virgin = rebel = Richard Branson. Richard sets out to do something rebellious in whatever industry he chooses to enter. The Virgin brand is based not around what Richard does, but how he does it. Consumers understand that anything with the Virgin label will likely have a unique experience attached to it. Therefore, the only way Virgin can be successful with  new ventures is to make each one rebellious and new for its respective industry. If the new venture is innovative, it's consistent with the brand. Unfortunately, the Virgin brand is so closely tied to Richard that it will likely flounder when he leaves (ditto for Steve Jobs.)

And speaking of Apple, the Apple brand can expand from computers to music players and perhaps phones because they are known for "thinking different" and therefore setting an expectation of originality. We don't buy an Apple product, we buy the idea of what Apple stands for. The same goes for 3M, which makes a wide variety of products. Perhaps not so coincidentally, the 3M tag line and mission has always been "Innovation." Google is an innovation machine, generating a lot of new ideas that may or may not fly, but they all hang under its mission of organizing the world's information and making it universally accessible and usable.

An upward spiral is created when the brand drives focused innovation, and innovation reinforces the brand.

Company brands are like people brands. The only individuals whose reputations don't suffer when they switch from one area of focus to another (to another to another) are entrepreneurs who are known for breaking new ground. It is not out of character for Mark Cuban to go from software to basketball and HDTV.

Company brands, like people brands, are most successful when they don't try to pander to everyone's tastes. They have a definite vision that's different from the alternatives. Consumers buy into their vision or not. if it's a clear vision, it's easily recognizable regardless of the product to which it's attached. This is perhaps why some of the most successful companies are associated with a figurehead who has a strong personality. You either love them or hate them, but they probably don't care too much about what you think.

So pick one thing and do it really well. Make it ground-breaking. Earn a reputation for innovation. This gives you the credibility to extend your brand within a reasonable scope and reinforce your groundbreaking image. This isn't easy to do. It's not for everyone. But it's the best way to build flexibility into a brand.

So coming back to the original question about Amazon...although it was initially groundbreaking, its focus has become highly diluted; it's moved from innovative ideas to selling groceries. Big mistake; that's like Mark Cuban becoming a bag boy. By trying to be all things to all people, a brand becomes nothing to anyone.