“I’m a slightly mad aristocrat and I’m okay with that”

In this Beg to Differ: a shocking personal revelation from the Big Differ, who wonders if “Personal Branding” is too narrow to capture the range of authentic, but playful, roles we play in our professional lives.

Yes, that's DenVan as the Captain of the Pinafore with Meredith Matthews as Buttercup in Gilbert & Sullivan's HMS Pinafore at Centrepointe Theatre (Savoy Society of Ottawa).

Confession: I’m leading a double life

Yes it’s true. By day, I am indeed the mild mannered head of my brand strategy consulting company and the less-than-faithful blogger whose words you are reading right now (among other things).

By night, I am a slightly mad member of the British aristocracy – and I’m okay with that. I’m a Lord, a commander of troops, master of the Tower of London.  I oversee torture, beheadings, and a castle-full of sopranos. I find wives for dying men, support jesters on unicycles, drag rivers, and make sure Beefeaters stay off the bottle.

And that’s just this month. In the past decade, I’ve been a Japanese Lord High Executioner, the Prince of Darkness, the Captain of a warship,and a young Pirate apprentice.

Tough jobs all – and difficult to sum up on a resume.

Multiple personalities? Nope. Just one big ham.

As you’ve probably guessed by now, I’m either a) delusional, b) addicted to role-playing video games, or c) an amateur actor and singer. Although my wife might wish for an “all of the above” option, the answer is c).

Over the years, I’ve been lucky enough to land some fun roles with a couple of great local musical theatre and operetta companies. And on April 21, I’ll be hitting the stage again with a small lead in Yeomen of the Guard (see the promo video below for details).

It’s fun; it challenges me; I get to make an audience laugh (hopefully).

And in this role, I will try to be true to the character I am playing – to the playwright and director’s vision, to my fellow actors, to the audience.

But is “actor” my “personal brand”?

Um, kind of? It’s a role I sometimes play that lets me play other roles.

Yesterday, in a Twitter chat, the topic of “personal branding” came up again. And as always, somebody threw out the line that “personal brands need to be authentic!”

But if you accept that there can be such a thing as a “personal brand” (which I don’t) this idea of ”authenticity” comes to mean the same thing as “personal integrity” which implies “you must always play the same role, because your brand is who you are”.

A brand is not a person, and it’s not personal

This is true for corporate brands, professional reputations, and it’s true for the roles we play in everyday life. Being an “authentic” dad is very different from being an “authentic” consultant, or being honest as an actor.

In Social Media we play many roles depending on the app we’re in or the nature of the conversation. Even within this blog, I’ve played different roles: advisor , critic,  jilted lover, and poet. And I’d like to think I was authentic in every case.

In the corporate and product realm, one company can support many brands with different “authentic” personalities. Procter & Gamble can “be” Mr. Clean, Dolce & Gabbana, and Pampers to different customers – as long as each brand is “authentic” within its own brand role and, most importantly, within the expectations they build for each customer.

The play’s the thing

• A brand is a role you play for a group of customers.
• “Play” is an important word here – branding is a game with rules, boundaries, and expected codes of behaviour, so yes, play with integrity and consistency.
• But once you’ve established those boundaries, there’s incredible latitude for growth and creative movement.
• When you’re on the field, be true to the game. But learn to keep the game on the field.
• In your professional life, keep your “brand(s)” at arm’s-length from your “self”. Your customers will be happier, and you’ll be more helpful.

So what do you think?

Apparently iPad has been enhancing feature sets for a while….

So of course, Beg to Differ was riveted on Wednesday by “The Big Speech”. No, not the State of the Union Address: it was the unveiling of a new product by Apple that had our attention. And apparently, we weren’t the only ones watching: so were trademark lawyers for several other “iPads”. But will any of it matter for Apple? Read on.

Trying to pad the feminine market?

On Wednesday, our big question was not “what will this miraculous new product be?” Everybody knew that already. It was leaked long ago that it would be a tablet device that would look something like a big iPod or iPhone.

We were watching to see what they would call it.

The “i” naming convention was a given with iMac, iTunes, etc. But would this one become iSlate? iTablet? iShtar? Surely not <gasp> “iPad”?

Nope, iPad it was

The Fujitsu iPad product

Now, we’re fans of Apple branding in almost every possible way, and we lauded the return of Steve Jobs in a previous post. But instantly upon the announcement, we watched the media and the Twitter universe light up with criticism, and some really off-colour humour, about the name sounding like a feminine hygiene product (see the MadTV clip at bottom).

Even more shocking: it turns out that the hygiene connection was just the beginning. Neither the name itself, or the association with products aimed at females, were unique.

Fujitsu has already filed suit based on its own iPad product (above), and several others are out there.

But the one that jumped out at us was the “iPad” product sold by a small Canadian company called Coconut Grove Pads Inc.. It’s a bra insert like the one shown at the top of this post.

But will any of this matter?

In a word: no.

Let’s be clear: I would never advise a smaller client to go with such a name. There are just too many risk factors, as the media have been gleefully pointing out.

But Apple knows this. And they went ahead in spite of it because, well, they’re Apple. Their market awareness is just too big, and the new product just too smart, for any of this to matter.

They will settle with Fujitsu after some posturing by both parties, the Twitter wags will get their “Maxi” giggles, and the bra company will get its moment in the sun.

But most importantly, the name “iPad” will quickly lose its association with MaxiPads and other feminine products.

Why? Because we will all take ownership of the name as the way to refer to the Apple device – which will push all other uses to the back of the collective consumer brain bus.

And in the branding game, that’s what really matters.

What do you think? Are we artificially inflating our opinion? Let us know in the comments!

Bonus: MadTV scooped Apple on the iPad name in Nov. 2007

NOTE: This is very funny – but mildly gynecological humour might be a bit “edgy” for more conservative work environments, so view with caution.

Has Disney finally figured out how to deal with the Muppets?

Yesterday, Beg to Differ introduced you to the brilliant new Bohemian Rhapsody parody from the Muppets – but with no brand focused commentary at all. Since then, we’ve realized that the big story here isn’t the video itself (or the others we’ve included below). The big branding story is the Muppet brand itself and its current caretaker: Disney.

Keeping your Beakers and Bunsens apart

A Disneyland attraction that visitors liked, but the problem: the kids didn't recognize the characters.

When I showed the Bohemian Rhapsody video to my kids – aged 3 and almost 5 – they laughed and laughed and laughed, just as my wife and I had done. Of course, they totally missed the parody, but it was heartening to me that they seemed to love the characters and hooted along with that trademark goofy, over-the-top vaudeville campiness.

But when I asked my 3-year old what he’d liked about it, he said: “Those Wild Things were funny.”

Anaheim, we have a problem.

It’s not like we haven;t done our parental duty by exposing him to the Muppets. This is a kid who has an Animal doll, 50 Sesame Street books, and has sat and watched the Muppets on YouTube, as well as the season 1&2 DVDs with the family. But even he couldn’t identify the “Muppet” brand, and couldn’t recall any names except Kermit and Miss Piggy.

Turns out my son is the market in microcosm (I’m so proud). Kids don’t get the Muppets. And I blame Disney.

Disney’s problem with Muppets

Since acquiring the Muppet brand in 2004 Disney has been widely criticized by fans for under-utilizing the Muppets characters and failing to re-invigorate the brand for a younger generation. For an exhaustive insider background, see Jim Hill’s blog post from 2007.

But in brief, I think this verbiage from the February 2004 press release captures the problem in humourless, corporatese:

The transaction includes all Muppet assets, including the Kermit, Miss Piggy, Fozzie Bear, Gonzo and Animal characters, the Muppet film and television library, and all associated copyrights and trademarks…

Now read that again in your best Rizzo the Rat voice to hear how ugly, inhuman and unintentionally funny it becomes. These are cartoon puppet critters people!

It’s not easy being green (but it’s worth a try).

And it went downhill from there. Disney efforts have included an aborted attempt to make Kermit more “edgy” for his 5oth birthday in 2005, and a tone-deaf attempt to exploit the lead characters as commercial shills. The Ford Explorer ad shown here is a great example.

Demographic fact: Muppets are loved by nostalgic 30-40 somethings. Frog-leap of logic: Hey! Kermit can sell SUVs!

But through it all, the big problems that were festering under the surface were 1) a failure to generate any significant new Muppets content (or that the new content was bad), 2) erosion of the brand equity of secondary characters, and 3) lack of respect for the real brand qualities that made the Muppets so charming and relevant, and sustain them to this day in the hearts of 4) the brand’s real owners: who are you, me, and hopefully, our kids.

The Muppets of the mind

So that’s why it was so nice to see yesterday’s Bohemian Rhapsody video get hundreds of thousands of hits and quickly become a trending topic on Twitter. It’s also nice to learn that more videos are coming (watch for “Dust in the Wind”, “American Woman”, “Popcorn”, “Carol of the Bells” and “Stand By Me”) and that a new Muppet movie is in the works – among other interesting projects.

But most heartening of all, there’s the tone of the new content – which finally shows signs that Disney actually gets the Muppets. The new stuff is funny, and the characters seem like themselves again. And that’s why I felt like I had to share that video immediately.

To us, the real owners of the brand, the Muppets are about creating a warm space where comedy, pop-culture, kid-culture, and pure unadulterated silliness can come together. The real Muppets in our heads never take themselves too seriously (see the “assets” quote above), and they are also never mean-spirited or even “edgy” (they’re refreshingly nerdy actually – kind of like Queen music).

Oh, and take note: the Muppets in our heads would never sell an SUV, so they won’t help us buy one either.

Welcome back Muppets

But lest we be accused of getting too serious ourselves (we beg to differ!), below are a few more recent YouTube videos featuring some great second-string Muppets.

Bohemian Rhapsody – in case you missed it

Beaker does Ode to Joy:

The Swedish Chef carves a pumpkin:

Sam the Eagle gets patriotic:

Evidence for and against the term

“Personal branding” isn’t new, but it seems to be a term that’s spiking upwards right now, pushed by an enthusiastic tribe of “personal brand experts” who are starting to throw their weight around – particularly in Social Media. They dominate every Twitter search on “branding” for example. But for me, as a brand guy, a #brandchat conversation last week and blog posts by Mitch Joel and Rob Frankel set me to wondering: Is a “personal brand” even possible?

My son "branded" himself as Batman for a Halloween party over the weekend. But was it "personal"?

The case for “personal branding” (i.e. it’s not an oxymoron)

• Brands are important: I’ve built my career around the idea that the concept of a “brand” is a powerful tool to build relationships between people,  products, companies, services, government programs, charities, and various combinations of all of the above. So when I hear someone – anyone – reinforcing the importance of brand-oriented thinking, part of me yells out an involuntary “Amen, preach it brother!”
• Persons can have brands: individuals can and do become incredibly powerful brands – and many of them consciously cultivate these brands in much the same way a smart company manages their brand portfolio. No one can ignore the phenomenal impact of the Obama, Oprah, or even the Glenn Beck  brand – although impact may be the only thing those particular brands have in common.
• Tom Peters: I was inspired by a ground-breaking article in Fast Company from 1997 called “The Brand Called You” in which Peters says:

It’s this simple: You are a brand. You are in charge of your brand. There is no single path to success. And there is no one right way to create the brand called You. Except this: Start today. Or else.

• The rise of Social Media: this development more than any other is what is driving the growth of the “personal branding” industry. Just look at the Personal Branding Rock Star Apparent Dan Schwabel’s Web site, blog, or Twitter stream: your Social Media “footprint” is mostly what he’s talking about. And indeed, now that our thoughts, deeds, and misdeeds can be broadcast to the world with the click of a button, we all need to be aware of how our online actions affect our perception by employers, business colleagues, and potential customers.
• My own work: I myself have done almost a dozen seminars on branding for individuals at universities, professional organizations, and networking groups.  My first such presentation was at a “Company of Friends” meeting in  2001 (selected slides below), in which I encouraged attendees to look at their careers, areas of expertise, and public communications through the lens of branding. I even wore a T-Shirt with ”I AM BRAND” on it and encouraged them to repeat that phrase in their heads.

So let me be clear: I’m not against “Persons” “Branding”

To sum up, before I get to the negative stuff: the intersection of “Branding” + “Individuals” is a powerful connection that I strongly believe in and promote.

Clear? Got that? Cool. Let’s move on.

The case against “personal branding” (i.e. it is an oxymoron)

• Personal branding often confuses “identity” with “brand”. These are different things. Identity is the part of your brand that you control – that is, your name, what you say about yourself, how you look, etc.; but your brand is much bigger, and includes a lot of stuff that you don’t control – most importantly what other people say about you.
• Branding is not about you. It doesn’t matter what you are trying to promote, your brand is only as good as what it does for human beings - that is, how useful your brand is to human beings as a way of finding, understanding, and referring others to something they value.
• No one can “own” their own brand. Here’s my definition of brand for the record – one which I’ve honed and refined over 15 years of building practical brand strategy for companies big and small. Note as you read that “brand” can not be created ex nihilo (from nothing), nor can it be owned by the same people who own the “product”:

A brand is the whole set of ideas, words, images, and expectations that humans* associate with a product**.
(* “humans” means multiple customers / influencers / observers.)
(**”product” can mean a corporation, commodity, service, concept, or individual)

• Or, a shorter definition: “a brand is a promise.” And a really strong brand is a promise kept consistently, and reinforced publicly, over time. This is where the “personal” part starts to break down: it implies private, non-public, just between me, myself, and I. Say “personal promise” to yourself. Sounds wrong doesn’t it? That’s because a promise is only meaningful if it is made to someone.
• At its worst, the personal branding movement misses the point. Far too often, even most of the time from what I’ve seen,  ”personal branding” is a fancy word for “narcissism”. It’s a cover for the selfishness, greediness, and egomania that are temptations for all of us – and should never, never be celebrated or recommended.  That is, bad personal branding is about introspection or “self-help” – or making your life better, not about making the lives of your fellow humans better.

So can “personal branding” be redeemed?

Personally, I’m going to avoid the term as much as I can. It’s just too distracting for my corporate clients if I get too deeply tangled up in the narcissistic side of the field.

But there are people out there on the Light Side of the Force. And on that note, I’m going to leave the last word to Mitch Joel from Six Pixels of Separation:

The Key To Your Personal Brand

“If there’s one lesson/opportunity when it comes to developing your personal brand, it is to make everything  about the people you are connecting to and not about yourself.” (underline added by me)

- Mitch Joel

So what do you think?

Breakfast Cereal brands that didn’t stand the test of time

After yesterday’s post on Laser-Engraved Corn Flakes, Beg to Differ took a look at the Wikipedia list of breakfast cereals and noticed just how many of these cereals failed for one reason or another. Either they were meant to promote a short-lived movie, character, or cartoon, or given names that became liabilities for other reasons, or they were just hilariously bad ideas.

15 breakfast cereal brands we’ll never see again

1) Bill & Ted’s Excellent Cereal – Ralston (1989)

A short-lived cereal based on the equally short-lived Saturday morning cartoon of the late 1980s starring a pair of teenaged slackers – one of whom was a very young Keanu Reeves. Funny, he never made the cereal aisle again with subsequent movies. Perhaps  Dangerous Liaisons Crunch?  The Devil’s Advocate Loops? Matrix Flakes?

2) Baron von Redberry & Sir Grapefellow – General Mills (1972)

Interesting concept. These two characters were set up as mortal enemies – World War I flying aces in a dogfight for breakfast-table supremacy. They both spiraled down in flames, but you have to admire the effort.

3) C-3PO’s – Kellogg’s (1984)

This of course was a cereal based on the Star Wars character, C-3PO. I remember seeing this one on the supermarket shelf. Why the fussy, anally retentive protocol droid and not Leia Cinnamon Bun Crunch or Wookie Pops? Who can say.

Tag line: “A Crunchy New Force at Breakfast”

4) Cocoa Hoots - Kellogg’s (1972)

This cereal was described on the box a “sweetened chocolate flavored cereal – fortified with 8 essential vitamins”. Its mascot was named Newton The Owl.

But is it just me, or is there a striking resemblance to the logo of a certain chain of restaurants?

Coincidence? Probably.

5) Crazy Cow – General Mills (Late 1970s)

To me, this name is an odd duck – or perhaps a weird heifer? The idea is that it would turn your milk a “crazy” artificial pink colour. But as if that weren’t appetizing enough, I’m pretty sure after the Mad Cow scare of a few years back, this one won’t be making a comeback any time soon…

6) Dunkin’ Donuts Cereal – Ralston (1988)

The brand connection between the chain of adult focused coffee-and-donut stores and a kid-oriented breakfast cereal is a bit of a stretch. Particularly in 1988, when I would have expected this to taste like Styrofoam, day-old coffee, and cigarette ashes. Mmm.

Tag line: “Crunchy little donuts with a great big taste!” Two varieties: Glazed Style and Chocolate.

7) Flutie Flakes-General Mills (1998-2001)

Named for quarterback Doug Flutie, these ones actually lasted quite a while, and the cereal became an ironic pop-culture hit – with a box appearing in the background on Seinfeld for example.

Wikipedia also notes that Flutie Flakes became the subject of a minor controversy in January 1999 when after Doug blew a playoff game against the Dolphins, Miami Dolphins‘ head coach Jimmy Johnson poured Flutie Flakes on the ground and invited his team to stomp on them. This made Flutie very angry.

8 ) Freakies – Ralston (1972-1976)

Very elaborate product line and character universe, but a fairly sizable flop for Ralston’s first attempt at sugary breakfast cereal. But even today, you can order T-Shirts from this Freakies fan site: http://www.freakies.com/

9) Mr. T Cereal – Quaker Oats

As a famous man once said: I pity the fool that ridicules this cereal. So I’ll let another famous man introduce this cereal to you (and the other denizens of his demented playhouse).

Pee-Wee Herman eats Mr. T cereal

10) Mud & Bugs – Kellogg’s/Disney (2003-2006)

Mmmm. Tasty. I’m going to award this one the “Least Appetizing Name” award. Of course, it’s a promotional tie-in worked out with the Disney merchandising folks and meant to promote the launch of the Lion King franchise.

And yes, I can see the “gross-out-mom” appeal of “Mud & Bugs”. But even as a kid who loved grossing out mom, the name alone would inspire me to skip breakfast entirely.

11) Nickelodeon Green Slime Cereal – General Mills (2003)

Sorry, I take back the Least Appetizing Name award and give it to this You Can’t Do That on Television spin-off. Funny though, that this would have come after the lifespan of the show – with the golden era of You Can’t being the late 1980′s.

12) Nintendo Cereal System – Ralston/Nintendo – (1988-1989)

For a commercial product tie-in, the name and “System” concept are creative, different. We like that. Here’s how Wikipedia describes the “system”:

“The cereal box was divided in half. One side, called Super Mario Bros. Action Series, had fruity-flavoured Marios, Super Mushrooms,Goombas, Koopa Troopas, and Bowsers, and the other, called Zelda Adventure Series, had berry-flavored Links, hearts, boomerangs, keys, and shields.”

13) Punch Crunch – (Quaker Oats) (1970s)

Cap’n Crunch apparently had a few spin-0ffs, including this violent-sounding sidekick. The “Punch” refers to the fruit-punch-flavour of these cereal rings. The mascot was a hippopotamus named Harry in sailor duds, who actually does some villain crunching in the old commercial below.

Commercial for Punch Crunch:

14) Urkel-Os – Ralston (1991)

How did this kid ever get a cereal? Named for Steve Urkel – the supremely annoying fictional character on the ABC/CBS comedy sitcom Family Matters, portrayed by Jaleel White, this one was mercifully short-lived and now we have only the commercials on YouTube to remember how close we came to the end of civilization as we know it.

Commercial for Urkel O’s

15) Yummy Mummy – General Mills (1987-1992)

Funny, I’m married to one of these. But this cereal probably predated the wide use of the term for a nice-looking female with children. Also known as “Fruity Yummy Mummy”s, this cereal was part of the same cereal family as Count Chocula and Franken Berry.

From Mr. Breakfast.com: Yummy Mummy was a “fruit flavor frosted cereal with vanilla flavor marshmallows”. The yellow marshmallow pieces seemed to resemble the shape of a head. On some of the cereal boxes, they were referred to as “monster mallows”. The other cereal pieces were red and orange. They may have also been intended to resemble heads, but the primarily circular nuggets with two slits in the center looked more like colorful little pig snouts.

A few months ago, this video produced by Scofield Editorial, Inc. made the rounds virally among us creative industry types. It’s well done, and it poses a compelling question: what if customers in normal retail settings – where no one ever questions the price of things – behaved the way marketing people often treat their creative vendors? If you haven’t seen it, watch it.
Then read my response from the other side of the table .

The original video:

My tribe of creatives made this a minor YouTube sensation, with 1.1 Million views and climbing. Why? Because it’s true: the work we do is often not treated with the respect it deserves, or valued as highly as it ought to be – and certainly not as highly as we think it ought to be.

Which brings us to the other side. I remember my first experiences as a client-side marketing manager dealing with a big-city, big-ticket advertising firm. And I can tell you, clients aren’t the only ones with a problem saying “the price is the price”.

My response: a script for a viral YouTube video.

(Imagine it in a YouTube frame with millions of views under it. Then imagine laughing heartily and forwarding it to all your marketing industry buddies using the link below.)

• www.begtodiffer.com/2009/10/if-restaurants-charged-like-agencies

What if restaurants charged like creative agencies?

A Funny, Poignant, & Wildly Popular Viral Video

(© 2009 Dennis Van Staalduinen - contact me if you want to shoot this. But note that I call dibs on the waiter part.)

(Restaurant interior. Attractive professional couple is seen wrapping up their meal.  A somewhat arrogant-looking waiter is seen hovering in the background.)

(MALE DINER waves WAITER over to table.)

WAITER: (With a heavy euro accent) Yes sir. Everything is all right.

MALE DINER: Fine, fine.

WAITER: Of course it is.

MALE DINER: We’d just like to settle up.

WAITER: You will receive your bill then, yes? Wait one moment.

(WAITER LEAVES. FEMALE DINER leans toward MALE DINER, hushed voice)

FEMALE DINER: Are you going to tip him? He was obnoxious, arrogant, and he kept pushing stuff at us that was way different from what we ordered.

MALE DINER: Well yes, but we’re done now. Let’s just pay and get out of here…

FEMALE DINER: Then he through a hissy fit when I tried to send the undercooked beef back.

MALE DINER: He’s a creative soul honey, they’re sensitive…

FEMALE DINER: Oh, and then there was the “Brainstorming session” over the wine…

MALE DINER: Honey, we were looking for a creative option… Oh, shhh! He’s coming back!

(WAITER re-appears. Hands large portfolio to MALE DINER, who unzips and scans it)

MALE DINER: Oh, that’s very nice. Full colour. See that honey? Very creative presentation…

FEMALE DINER: (looking at price) Hey! $1,159! What’s going on here?!?! We only ordered $100 dollars worth of food and wine!

MALE DINER: What?(looks again) This is wrong. We asked you to help us keep our bill under $100!

WAITER: And I did. Look. Everything is itemized. Your food and wine came to $98.50 with a few dollars for tax.

MALE DINER: But we already paid you that weird $25 retainer when we walked in…

WAITER: Yes yes, standard industry practice.

MALE DINER: Then, you asked for a $50 fee when you brought our food…

WAITER: For phase 2 deliverables. Yes yes. All in the proposal I submitted, and all standard industry practice.

MALE DINER: Right, so I’ll give you $25, and… you can keep the change.

WAITER: (icily) Hup, hup, hup. Very generous sir. But. Let’s look at the invoice shall we?

(he snatches the bill and begins pointing and gesticulating)

You have forgotten about disbursements, expenses, colour photo-copying charges for menus and your bill, the standard kitchen service fees, revision fees for re-cooking your beef madame – that is not free! Then licensing fees for brainstorming music, licensing for third party ingredients in your food, professional consulting fees for the Chef and myself….

FEMALE DINER: (grabbing the bill back) And this item: “Yum Factory”. What is that?

WAITER: (changes tone to pride) Why, of course that is our proprietary kitchen management process. Presumably that’s why you came to us in the first place….

MALE DINER: No, we came because we were hungry, and because we had a bit of money left over in this month’s budget for one special meal, and we thought we’d go high end for once…

WAITER: Well, you forget that we have costs too! An expensive downtown location; exquisite interior design; silver cutlery; the owner’s new Aston Martin; our Foosball table – hmm?!?

FEMALE DINER: But we didn’t choose to spend money on those things, You did!

WAITER: Ah, but you chose US!  Perhaps next time you will consider not coming to a respected provider of high quality creative output, and instead go to some… some… street-corner taco stand!!

(pause)

MALE DINER: Say, honey. That’s not a bad idea. After those tiny portions and all that creative wanking, I’m still hungry.

FEMALE DINER: You’re right, a simple taco at a fair price sounds really good right about now.

(they leave)

WAITER: But wait… your bill!!

(gradually losing accent) Come back! We can negotiate!

We have this great Foosball table! Maybe I can let you play….

(he sits down dejected) Ah man. How am I going to pay for my accent lessons now?

(fade to black)

___________________________

That link again for forwarding:

• www.begtodiffer.com/2009/10/if-restaurants-charged-like-agencies

Again, if anyone wants to make this into a viral video sensation, let me know.

Guy Laliberté has always had his head among the stars. But all this week, the French-Canadian founder of Cirque du Soleil – and #562 on the Forbes list of wealthiest people – is actually circling the earth as a paid tourist aboard the International Space Station. And true to form, he’s using the opportunity to do a bit of “over-the-top” showmanship. Unfortunately, Laliberté didn’t match his lofty ambitions with the same sophistication, taste, and branding savvy he’s usually shown on Earth. Maybe it’s the lack of oxygen…

In space, nobody can hear your eyes rolling: Here's Laliberté sitting in the coolest place any human could ever be, with three very lame words on his shirt.

The event: stars will align tomorrow night

On Friday, October 9th at 8:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time) Laliberté will be hosting a Webcast from space in support of his ONE DROP Foundation.

You can find out more details about the event and performers here.

But in brief, the Webcast will pull together material from 14 cities around the world, and feature contributions from such luminaries as Al Gore, David Suzuki, and Salma Hayek, as well as performances by U2, Shakira, and, wait for it… Guy Laliberté himself performing from the International Space Station.

However, much to the disappointment of Cirque fans around the planet, he won’t be stiltwalking, eating fire, or even playing accordion (which, unlike terrestrial billionaires, he can actually do).

He’ll be reading poetry.

And you thought there was no gravity in space!

Before we get too critical, let it be known we think the cause he’s supporting is a great one.

This is what the event Web site says about the purpose of his mission (and we’ll ignore the clunky copy writing for the moment):

Laliberté’s mission in space is dedicated to making an impact on how water, our most precious resource, is protected and shared. And he will be applying tools he has used so well for most of his life to bring about change: arts and culture.

Information about our world’s water-related issues will be conveyed using a singular poetic approach. The messages he will transmit from the ISS will build awareness for ONE DROP Foundation initiatives, its objectives and dream of “Water for all, all for water.”

Good on you Guy, for using your media exposure for a good cause. We at Beg to Differ envy and admire your incredible  chutzpah for reaching so high in pulling all this together.

But sad to say, there’s a “leak in the capsule” on this one.

See if you can find the problem in the image below:

Houston (Montreal, Moscow, etc.), we have a problem:

One of the dumbest, most pretentious names ever.

And the event’s subtitle doesn’t help: “Moving Stars and Earth for Water”.

Sorry Guy. It’s awkward in English. It’s pointless in French. It’s self-defeating as a brand strategy. And it’s totally counter to the taste and sophistication you’ve always applied to Cirque.

And worst of all, it focuses away from the parts of your mission that are really cool and worthy of attention:

• Clean Water for earth! The wonder of space travel! A circus guy in space!

Instead it focuses on the lame (and painfully self-indulgent) parts of the picture:

• Poetry reading! That mushy word “social”! Our sneaking suspicion that this may have more to do with your ego than water!

So Guy, next time you go to space, call me okay?

A branding expert could help you figure this stuff out before you blow millions of dollars making it all look like one big vanity project … or maybe at least help you make it look less like one.

One easy approach I would have suggested would be to call this whole project the “ONE DROP Clean Water for Earth Mission” and focused all your energies on building that one brand.

But that’s just one way we could have approached this. So seriously Guy. Call me next time. You can reach me here.

Bonus: Guy Laliberté video-blogs from space

This is a message from one geek to another. I was raised on computers as a teenager in the mid 80′s, and have been on the Internet since before browser technology made it easy for everyone in the 90′s, the question seems pretty straightforward: “what is a browser?” But in April, when Google staffers from the Chrome browser team asked that question of people in New York’s Times Square, they were shocked with what they found out.

Less than 8% of people interviewed knew what a browser was

It isn’t scientific at all, but it makes the point very strongly. You can hear people struggling to distinguish between a search engine, an operating system, office software, and a browser.

And the results are repeatable as you can see in this video from Rotterdam (Dutch with English commentary) – which means we also can’t dismiss the people in the Google video as just dumb Americans /  New Yorkers / etc. Dutch people are pretty smart – and Dutch Canadians even more so (editor’s note: may be some bias here).

The Googlers were trying to figure out how to get people to switch to the Google Chrome browser, but they couldn’t even start the conversation because most normal Internet-using humans don’t even know what a browser is.
To their credit, Google has now gone back to basics with a simple site called www.whatbrowser.org that breaks it  down for the average human (if they care enough to visit).

The results seem incredible to me (because I’m a geek)

As a geek, I naturally assume that because I know what a browser is, so does everyone else, right? And if they don’t, they must be uneducated, luddites, or just totally out of touch. I’m like the mechanic who assumes that everyone knows what a catalytic converter is – because we all drive cars that have them.

But it’s not true. Most people don’t know because they don’t care what the technology is called. They just want to perform their daily tasks and would prefer the technology to be as invisible as possible. 

Three problems this example highlights for branders

I coach executives and companies on sharpening their elevator pitches – 30-second verbal descriptions of their companies or products. And these are smart people too. But one of the first problems we almost always have to overcome is this:

Problem 1: We assume that our listeners know more about our subject area than they actually do.

They don’t. I think it’s because we don’t want to insult the intelligence of the listener by explaining things that seem obvious to us. So we jump straight in at the deep end, using all of the same catch phrases and jargon that we use with internal colleagues.

I catch myself doing this all the time when talking about some obscure brand strategy model, and then have to consciously take a few steps back before I lose my audience.

Problem 2: The audience doesn’t want to seem stupid, so they won’t interrupt and reveal their ignorance.

Just because they’re nodding their head doesn’t mean they get it. Find ways to figure out where they are on the learning curve and help them along it – in terms that make sense to them.

All of which leads to:

Problem 3: If your audience never gets past basic understanding, you’ll never get to the next level.

Forget about “positioning”, “marketing” and “brand awareness”. Especially forget about “sales”. If they don’t have a category for you in their brain, they’re not buying.

They probably don’t even know you exist.

The writers at Sesame Street are obviously staying hip with the times – or at least with early 60′s Madison Avenue. Here’s their send-up of Mad Men, using Don Draper and company to teach kids about emotions. Catch the irony there? The most emotionally repressed character on television since the Professor on Gilligan’s Island… yeah, I guess you get it.

The lesson for branders

All right, you caught me. That’s a stretch, and I’m slumming it with this one. It’s actually just for fun.

True, it’s not as hilarious as the Sesame Street bits I watched in my own kindergarten  days, but of course, at that age I used to break into giggles at the word “armpit”.

The funniest line by far is right at the end, when the Draper character says “good work sycophants”. I’m pretty sure that’s not aimed at the kids, but at the adult in the next room. But then, isn’t that double-barreled approach what made Sesame Street so brilliant?

Wait! Maybe that’s a real branding lesson after all

What do you think? Still a stretch? Are there other pearls of branding wisdom hidden in this simple piece?

(Props to the great industry blog BrandFlakes for Breakfast for posting this video last week).

So yesterday, while Beg to Differ was breaking up with the Intel brand, we got sad news about another old flame:  Saturn is dead. Penske threw in the towel on its attempt to revitalize the brand, and GM is finally shutting Saturn down. We’re feeling sad about that today. We remember when Saturn was promising to be “A Different Kind of Company; A Different Kind of Car.”

As you may have guessed from our name, we like “Different”…

(above) The home page of the innovative "ImSaturn Network" community Web site. Everything looks different... except the cars... and apparently the end of the story...

You can read the whole sad Saturn history at Wikipedia. We’re going to focus on the Saturn brand, and how the promise changed over time, then died, and what brand managers can learn from it.

“I’m sure if everything I read is true, I won’t be disappointed”

Somewhere out there, this third grade teacher from a 1992 Saturn ad (below) must be a bit down today as well. In it, she says she read about Saturn, and makes a personal connection when workers at the company read her letter. If you ever cared about Saturn like us, you have to watch this (Spoiler Alert: it’s really sad in retrospect).

Different worked… for a while.

And I’m sure she was satisfied, for a while.  For her, and for the rest of us that were rooting for the “different” approach from the auto industry, Saturn succeeded at building  1) a “Different Kind of” brand promise, 2) a “Different Kind of” corporate mentality, 3) “Different Kind of” retail experience (no haggling), and 4) a “Different Kind of” tribe of devoted followers. They really did. The vestiges of those things are still around.

For example, Saturn has been much better than most other companies at embracing and building community online. Their fan site ImSaturn u r 2 is really engaging, and their marketing team really gets Social Media. A couple months ago, Beg to Differ was shocked and delighted when @tomfolger and a couple of Saturn marketing folks popped in to a Twitter #Brandjam to correct us when Saturn positioning came up.

Unfortunately the vehicles themselves, the “Different Kind of Car” was only ever marginally different from other cars. But the service commitment became legendary, and at least the cars looked just different enough that you could spot a “Saturn” on the road. If only they had built on their differentness…

But that’s where the story turns sour.

The big problem was, the “Different Kind of Company” was always beholden to the corporate logic of GM – a very un-different automotive behemoth.  So as the Saturn competed more and more with GM core brands, and sales never quite matched expectations, GM had two options:

Option A: Think like a bean counter = differ less:

• The approach: try to fix technical, marketing, and customer service problems by applying the same rusty old car industry logic. Gradually water down the promise and file off the edges, so only the most fanatical still hold on to the hope of Saturn rising again.

Option B: Think like and human being = differ more:

• The approach: Keep renewing the vision by continuing to make the cars even MORE different in ways that customers will appreciate, and keep innovating on the corporate, manufacturing, and customer service fronts (preferably by not having  it be a GM company any more).

Their choice was clear: differ less

Over the 90′s, the cars looked and behaved less and less different from other cars on the road, and by 2000, the line had expanded to include the same-old range from sub-compact to SUV – diluting the core idea of what a “Saturn” was. The passion and excitement of Saturn customers waned – as did their repeat-purchase loyalty.

So by the late ’00′s, when the really big financial meltdown happened, Saturn was dragged down by the gravity of the GM’s collapse. At Beg to Differ, we can’t help but think that stronger differentiation, coupled with the fierce (and geeky) loyalty of those early believers would have carried them through.

The big questions for brand managers:

• Which option are you choosing for your brand – differing more or differing less?
• Are you thinking like a bean counter (internal logic) or a human being (brand logic).
• Are your corporate pre-occupations hampering your ability to deliver on the human promise of your brands?
• If you disappeared tomorrow, would any third grade teachers miss you?

More nostalgia from YouTube.

Japanese language ad: ordinary American country folk buildin’ cars:

Saturn homecoming – playing on the wholesome geekiness of Saturn owners: