|
My favorite section of Business Week magazine, Innovation, published a provocative article on October 10th. Is Your Brand Headed for Extinction? was written by the self-described girls of 3iYing, a marketing and design strategy firm that specializes in marketing to girls ages 15 to 25....
In the article, the authors make a number of very salient points, and it is well worth reading. They point out the sheer number of products that have made entire categories undistinguishable. As examples, they then describe what it’s like to shop for shampoo or women’s shaving supplies at CVS or Walgreen’s, which are alternately referred to as “an indiscernible blob of hot pink” and “jellybean green.”
Excerpt from the article:
“In aisles filled with visual homogeneity, brands don’t snag our attention. It’s too hard to tell the difference between Pert and Prell unless we actually take the time to read the packaging. We don’t want to cross-reference product benefits in the aisle. It’s just not fun.”
I totally concur with this
The article also makes this succinct statement:
“In the end, the brands look the same, the packages look the same, the products look the same, the racks look the same, the stores look the same and the ads look the same.”
Ain’t that the truth?
In short, these kinds of tactics on the part of marketers and package designers, end up making products and their brands commodities in category after category. After all, how can customers be expected to make sense of the myriad product offerings out there if we don’t help them by differentiating our brands in a meaningful way? And how can we expect to build emotional connections to our brands, and any kind of loyalty if our widgets look just like everybody else’s?
It’s perverse to think that in this day of strong brand consciousness in business, and a proliferation of competitive products from one category to the next, that there appears to be less variety (read: differentiation) than ever!
As I’ve always maintained, a unique brand identity has to be developed if a company is to be successful with its products or services. It is the responsibility of the entire company to protect the brand, and to be its faithful representation and image across the organization, and most importantly, to the customer.
Everyone within the corporate structure is, or should be, a brand ambassador if the customer is going to be able to enjoy a seamless experience with that brand across all touchpoints. Trust me: the company that fulfills this mission every day will have a successful brand. The ones that don’t will have perceived commodity products and services and, as the girls at 3iYing stated: see their brands headed for extinction.
|
Comments
Ted,
Thoughtful post! Brand packaging is fast becoming a lost art. I always buy Tom's toothpaste, and it can take me five minutes just to find it among the myriad of like-looking packages. Not a good thing!
What are the causes? Cost cutting? Time? Lack of innovation and creativity? Don't think packaging matters much?
Posted by: Lewis Green | 11.01.06
I agree. Branding is so much more than packaging. Making it look different is not going to change much, and any small advantage one could gain from making one's product appear different will wane over time, as everyone else attempts to do the same thing.
Coca-Cola, for instance, changed its product in the '80s and kept its packaging the same -- to disasterous results. They were trying to give people what they wanted, which is admirable, but the crux of it was that they didn't understand what the market was telling them, or they failed to ask the right questions.
Posted by: Cam Beck | 11.01.06
Hi Lewis & Cam,
Thanks for your great comments and insights. I absolutely agree that in any CPG product line, everything goes back to sound branding first. However, packaging can and should leverage the strengths and uniqueness of the brand for the consumer. Color, structure, typography, and communications hierarchy are all part of the mix when researching and developing packaging. There are many ways packaging can be differentiated, in ways subtle and not so subtle to stand out on the shelf. As the article aptly put it: there's just too much visual homogeneity on the shelf. As Lewis pointed out, it shouldn't take 5 minutes to find his favorite brand of toothpaste when he shops in a store! And unlike some consumers, he's willing to put effort and time into getting his product of choice. How about all of the consumers out there who wouldn't bother?
Posted by: Ted Mininni | 11.01.06
ted, the succinct statement you quote from 3iying is sooo true.
a couple of days ago going through a female mag, i've counted four ads in the first half of the mag with the same model (kate moss). my question is: why i do remind of her and not of the brand she was paid by?
Posted by: gianandrea facchini | 11.01.06
Ted,
To be certain I am not being misunderstood, I agree with you. Packaging remains key to grabbing a shopper's attention, and it must represent our brand in the most focused, positive and unique ways. Can everybody say special (differentiation to use marketer's code)?
Good stuff, Ted.
Posted by: Lewis Green | 11.01.06
Hi...
I agree with what has been said in this article.And I personally feel that since all products are slowly turning into commodities and differentiation is the key to save them from extinction, Point-of-Purchase marketing is gaining importance more than ever before. Optimum level of POP marketing and advertising can act as a key differentiator and influence the purchasing behaviour of the consumer to a great extent. About 70% of the purchasing decisions are now taken after the consumer enters a retail store. And therefore good POP marketing is becoming essential. A brand has to hit the consumer before he enters the store till the purchase is made and even after that. But then again, the POP advertising should be such that it not only is attractive but is also differentiable from the other brands in the same category.
Posted by: Gunjit | 11.03.06
Ted the problem is made worse when you add in generics and store brands that are purposely packaged and designed to look like the market leader's offerings.
Posted by: Mack Collier | 11.03.06
Thanks, Gunjit & Mack for some very insightful comments. You've just illustrated the points the girls of 3Ying made so well in their article, and that I've cited here. When so many category products are packaged in such a similar manner, how on earth are consumers able to make a real choice? An informed choice driven by a clear perception of brand differentiation?
Posted by: Ted Mininni | 11.07.06