The Origin of Brands Blog

Sign Language

Understanding politics is as easy as reading signs. Forget the polls, forget the speeches, forget the pundits, just read the signs.

One look at the signs at a campaign rally says it all. Who will win. Who will lose.

When building a brand, words matter. And the words that matter most for a politician are the words on campaign posters and website home pages.

The candidate who has the best and most consistent words will build the strongest brand and most likely will win the election.

Politicians are certainly aware of the influence of rally signs, especially in steering media coverage when they are televised. When the President gives a speech, there will always be a sign on the podium or on the wall behind him with his key talking point. That way, even if reporters sleep through the speech or the public mutes the television, the message can be delivered.

Signs can even drown out the actual message. Sometimes with unintentional and disastrous consequences. Remember President George W. Bush’s famed 2003 end-of-combat speech delivered on an aircraft carrier? On May 1, 2003, Bush flew on a Navy jet to the carrier Lincoln, where he announced "major combat operations in Iraq have ended."

In retrospect, the speech was misguided in previewing what was to come. But the speech alone would not been as nearly as damaging without the sign behind him. Hanging behind him was a sign that said: “Mission Accomplished.”

Actually, it was a salute to the crew on the ship and not planted by Bush and his team. But that doesn’t matter. A sign is a sign and when it is behind you, you own it.

McCain is the Republican Party’s chosen candidate. He won a relatively easy battle for the nomination, not because of the strength of his message but because of the weakness of the competition. Without strong foes, a brand with no message can succeed. Bud Light may be a watered-down line extension, but without strong competition, the brand is the leader. Not good branding, just weak competition.

So far, John McCain has survived without a message, but going into the general election he won’t go far without one. If he wants to avoid being labeled as “Bush Third Term,” he’s got to start printing some good signs right away. Not an easy task, but without the right sign language, he is doomed.

What would I do for John McCain? First of all, for a message to work it has to resonate and reflect what voters already believe about a candidate. Nobody thought Hillary Clinton was “experienced,” so when she used that idea as a slogan, it fell flat.

A candidate can’t just put a word on a poster and own them. Just like a brand can’t be built by making a self-serving claim in an advertisement.

Just saying you are “experienced” doesn’t allow you to own the word in the mind. Firs, you have to establish credibility and authenticity with the idea.

Being President requires an understanding of a broad range of issues.

Becoming President requires simplicity and focus. A singular idea and a consistent message.

That’s why Bush made a great campaigner and a lousy president.

If I were running McCain’s campaign, I would focus on the word “Maverick.” He is known as a straight talker and willing to work with the opposing party. This is his best attribute. What will hurt him the most is the lack of a consistent message. Changing signs frequently is a bad strategy.

The Obama campaign demonstrates the value of having the right sign language. Barack Obama faced an uphill battle in establishing his brand. First of all, his first and last name are strange. And even worse, Obama rhymes with Osama the country’s number 1 enemy. Add to that he is black, young and new to the national stage. The wacky Reverend Wright hasn’t help him either.

When you compare Obama to Clinton, on paper she is the clear winner. She is the wife of a former and very popular and charismatic President. She is relatively new to holding a political office herself. (Being an insider with an outsider’s edge is a good thing in a campaign.) Most importantly, the Clinton machine gave her a huge head start in raising money.

Sure, she has flaws, but compared to other candidates, she was thought to be unbeatable. Early speculation was that the Republican primary would be a bloodbath and the Democratic primary would be more a Clinton coronation than a contest. How wrong they were.

Where did Clinton go wrong? It all comes down to the signs. She never had consistent sign language. I have never seen so many different and ever changing campaign slogans in my life. I complain about Coca-Cola changing taglines every year, but Clinton seemed to change her signs every day. Except for keeping the printing industry happy, her signs did little to build her brand.

In fact, her constantly changing message reminded people of one of the Clinton brand’s greatest weaknesses. A common criticism of the Clinton presidency was its constant change of strategy with every shift of the wind based on poll tracking data.

All that said, the race has been a tight one. But one I believe was definitively ended on Tuesday night. Not because of the primary results which gave one win to Obama and one to Clinton. But because of the images of each candidate’s “victory” speech. The sign language spoke loud and clear that Obama will win the nomination and Clinton will lose it.

Clinton stood in front of a crowd that held just a few signs. Many were barely readable. Many had various messages and inconsistent colors. In addition, Bill Clinton was brought out to stand stoically at Hillary’s side as if he knew it was over. One readable sign said: “Smart Choice.”

Another one of my favorite of her name slogans was "Let's make history." Now if Clinton were running against McCain that might make an ounce of sense. But against Obama, it is just a waste of paper. Obama winning would be much more likely to make history than Hillary winning. After all she is part of a political dynasty with a former President to back her up.

In North Carolina, Obama was brilliant. He stood tall in front of a sea of supporters all holding the same sign, with the same message, in the same colors. “CHANGE we can believe in.” Powerful stuff. Of course, his speech was incredible, but what clinched it was the sign.

An Achy Breaky Branding Blunder

She was named Destiny Hope Cyrus because her parents knew she would do great things. And that is exactly what the girl now better known as Miley Cyrus and/or Hannah Montana has done.

Miley has become an international pre-teen sensation and mega-brand for the Disney Company. She is only 15 years old but Miley is predicted to be a billionaire by her 18th birthday. Not too bad, all your typical teenager brings home is average grades and acne.

Miley Cyrus’ Empire includes:
- Hit Disney channel TV show: Hannah Montana
- 2 multiplatinum albums
- Sold-out concert tour and concert film
- Upcoming movie (due 2009)
- Book deal with Disney (reportedly seven figures)
- Merchandise including lunch boxes, bed sheets and MP3 players

Miley Cyrus is a teenager and a billion dollar franchise. That is a tough combination to manage from a business, branding and personal perspective. You have three forces at odds with one another.

Disney

Disney is in it for the short term. Disney’s goal is to milk the Miley brand as fast and as furious as it can. Why? Because of the short shelf life of a pop-princess. A pre-teen act has 3 to 5 years maximum before the kids grow up or their fans move on.

Disney can treat Miley like an ordinary brand. Ordinary brands in ordinary categories can develop, grow and mature over decades. (Like Red Bull introduced in 1987. )But in 20 years, Miley will probably be lucky enough to get a call back on a third-rate reality cable television show.

Miley Cyrus will grow out of her role as Hannah Montana brand before you know it. She has maybe 3 good years left. Nothing can stop time or puberty.

Ideally Disney would keep Miley in a bubble. With a short shelf life, nobody wants any major slip-ups.

Today Miley is incredibly important to Disney. But five years from now, they will have created another star to replace her.

Miley’s parents

While they are happy to make money now, Miley’s parents, who also manage her career, are also wisely keeping an eye on the future. Her Dad (Billy Ray Cyrus) knows all too well the realities of being a one-hit wonder.

Team Cyrus has to be very worried about how Miley can sustain her fame past 18 years old. It is not easy. There are very few Justin Timberlakes and Britney Spears who go from Mickey Mouse Club to mainstream stardom. Most fade into oblivion.

I imagine it was team Cyrus who wanted to do the Vanity Fair shoot. Vanity Fair is an upscale, sophisticated, cultural, adult magazine. It is the magazine that Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes gave their first baby photo to. And the one Bono was a celebrity editor of last summer.

The thinking goes like this: Appearing in Vanity Fair would give Miley her own credibility and authenticity with an influential adult audience apart from Disney. The photographer, Annie Leibovitz, is one of the most respected artistic photographers of our time and her images would lend an edgy, sophisticated look to young Miley. Clearly Disney would be against this; they want Miley to always be Hannah Montana and stick to Seventeen magazine at the raciest.

Miley Cyrus

Let’s not forget, Miley is a teenager. And as any parent will tell you, teenagers are not the most predictable or reliable of creatures. But for Miley and Disney things have gone perfectly.

The clean-cut, church-going, modestly-dressed Miley has been a dream come true for Disney and parents alike. But you could have said that about Britney Spears 10 years ago. So it goes to show you, you just never know. And sometimes delayed rebellion is far worse than one can imagine.

Britney jumped from Mickey Mouse club to "baby one more time" to this Rolling Stones cover when she was 17. And we have all seen the photos of her today.

Was the Vanity Fair shoot a good idea?

No. From the very start this strategy was flawed.

A few months ago Miley turned 15 years old. She is at the height of her success. Vanity Fair is the wrong magazine, Annie Leibovitz is the wrong photographer and the back-bearing shot was the wrong photograph.

But that was the point of the picture and it shouldn’t be such a shock. An adult magazine wants adult photos. The shot of Miley is a beautiful, artistic, edgy, mature photo commonly found in the book. Vanity Fair does not publish publicity shots, it is known for pushing boundaries. When you play with fire, you can’t complain when you get burned.

The time to move to Vanity Fair is when Miley turns 21. Then you have a story to tell of her move into adulthood. Managing the transition is not easy. Start too young and it is child porn. Start too old and it is creepy.

Will this hurt her brand?

It certainly didn’t help. But it is unlikely to do any long-term damage to the Miley Cyrus brand because:

1: There is nobody else out there for teens to adore. The lack of competition is the best thing she’s got going for her. Hillary Duff is in her 20’s. The Cheetah Girls are in their 20’s. And her biggest competition Jamie Lynn Spears (Nickelodeon star and Britney’s sister) got pregnant last year at just 16 years old.

2: The photo of Miley was shocking but not pornographic. It caused so much attention not because of its raciness, but because it was the opposite of her brand image.

Like I said, being the opposite and looking grown-up was probably the intent of Team Cyrus, but the photo obviously went too far. Although other girls have gone farther, quicker, parents thought that Miley would be different and wouldn’t try to grow up so fast like most other pop-stars.

3: She was not on the cover. Not being on the magazine's cover and being mostly covered is Miley's saving grace. This will allow the controversy to blow off relatively quickly as long as she doesn’t hitting the clubs with Paris Hilton or doing cocaine with Amy Winehouse. And her parents don't book her the cover of Maxim magazine.

Miley immediately issued a statement saying she is “embarrassed” by the photos; so she is likely to get sympathy. Her managers and parents on the other hand will get hell.

While it is good for Miley she is not on the cover. It is bad for Vanity Fair. All this free publicity and they are unlikely to reap any rewards or much of a spike in newsstand sales.

The Future?

While it lasts, Miley needs to enjoy the Hannah Montana ride. Her future is uncertain. If she is like the Olsen Twins, she won’t make it into adult stardom. If she is like Lindsay Lohan, she will make it and then throw it all away by doing drugs. If she is like Madonna, she will be as famous 25 years into her career as she was when she started. The secret to Madonna’s success is that she starts a trend, she fades from view and then she returns reincarnated. Hard to do, but when it works, it is pure magic.

Now playing: Blockbuster Bombs Big

Once upon a time Blockbuster Video was the quintessential success story. A company and a brand that was admired, feared and emulated. With its great name and focused strategy Blockbuster quickly swept the nation via growth and acquisitions to become American’s place to rent movies.

This fairly tale doesn’t end well. Today, Blockbuster is in shambles. Bad decisions, bad strategies and bad management have left the giant gasping for air. Where did it all go wrong? Let’s take a look and find out.

In the beginning things were great.

Great branding and rapid expansion made Blockbuster the world’s largest video rental chain with more than 7,800 stores in more than 20 countries (about 60% of which are in the US). Each year Blockbuster rents more than 1 billion movies and games. Impressive to say the least.

The brains behind Blockbuster was David Cook. In 1985, he created the brand known as Blockbuster by combining a flashy look, a great name and a computerized rental system. Entrepreneur Wayne Huizenga was the money behind Blockbuster.

In 1987, Huizenga took over Blockbuster and injected $18 million into the company. He set out to become the first national brand in the emerging video rental category and the category leader in the mind. In just three years, Blockbuster went from 130 stores to 1,500 stores. In addition, Blockbuster went global. With the purchase of Cityvision, Blockbuster became the largest video renter in the UK in 1992.

The beginning of the end.

Success can sometimes lead to arrogance. And arrogance in this case meant believing you can sell anything, putting your name on everything and being oblivious to the future. Several bad moves sealed Blockbuster's fate.

Bad move #1: Don’t line-extend into businesses you have no business being in.
Blockbuster Music

Feeling quite full of itself Blockbuster launched Blockbuster Music in 1992 by purchasing of the Sound Warehouse and Music Plus chains.

First of all, Blockbuster means movies not music. Second of all, Blockbuster means rentals not sales. Third of all, talk about getting into the wrong business at the wrong time. Retail music chains are a thing of the past. iTunes, Amazon and Wal-Mart are putting them all out of business.

Bad move #2: Be wary of huge corporations taking over your brand.
Viacom takes over Blockbuster and renames the division Blockbuster Entertainment Group.

Big companies have a lot of advantages including lots of money and distribution might. But unfortunately they usually have no marketing sense. Viacom looked at Blockbuster as an opportunity to expand the business into other “entertainment” areas. Bad move.

Corporate ownership isn’t always bad, but when it undermines your marketing strategy and your brand’s authenticity, it can be deadly. For example, Quaker Oats almost killed Snapple. But PepsiCo has done very well with Gatorade.

Bad move #3: Expanding into everything is a killer.
Blockbuster promotes itself as a “Neighborhood Entertainment Center”

Blockbuster greatly expanded the offerings in its stores to make itself a so-called entertainment center. They started selling videotapes (instead of renting them), selling books, CDs, gift items and music.

Consumers don’t use words like “entertainment center.” They rent movies and buy music and watch movies. Blockbuster had a strong and formidable brand in the movie-rental business. Blockbuster’s expansion into other types of entertainment undermines that. They should be saying “Don’t read or listen to music alone, watch a movie with your honey or family tonight.” And they should also be saying “it’s silly to buy a movie you only watch once.”

An attempt to regain its footing

Just when you might have thought all was lost at Blockbuster, the company did make one heroic comeback attempt. In 1997, Blockbuster refocused on movies and returned to its rental roots.

In one of the most brilliant business moves ever, they negotiated with the movie studios and forced them into a revenue-sharing agreement that replaced the standard practice of buying rental copies for as much as $120 each. This move allowed Blockbuster to stock all the latest movies in depth. It also lowered their costs, giving Blockbuster a huge competitive advantage.

Bad move #4: Giving up the future to be greedy in the present.
The DVD takes over and Blockbuster misses the boat.

One thing is for certain, the future will be different than the past, especially when it comes to electronics. In music, there was vinyl, then 8-tracks, then tapes, then CDs and now MP3s. In video, there was Betamax, then VHS and now DVD. Tomorrow it will probably be BluRay and in another ten years something else. Nothing lasts forever.

Blockbuster had a lock on the VHS rental market. With its revenue-sharing agreement, the movie studios received 40% of rental revenues. The formula was such a big success that everybody was happy. A rental window ensured a period of time where a movie was only available for rent before it was available for purchase. And the purchase price was high enough to promote Blockbuster’s highly profitable rental system.

But 1998 was the dawn of the DVD age. And a new technology meant a new agreement between Blockbuster and the studios. The facts are hard to find, but from press reports you can surmise that Blockbuster got greedy and wanted to keep more revenue for itself. Reportedly saying things like “The studios can’t live without a video rental business – we (Blockbuster) are your profit.”

Since rentals represented a $10 billion business for the studios, it was an important market, but today the VHS business is practically $0. Without a new agreement and system for DVDs, the future would be tough for Blockbuster. Too bad they didn’t know back then what they know now.

Warner & Sony which had sunk millions into DVDs didn’t want them to be the new laserdisc but the next VHS. So without a deal with Blockbuster, they moved to plan B. They basically knocked out the rental window and priced DVDs low enough so that they could be sold in competition with rentals. With Blockbuster’s outrageous late fee system, paying $20 to buy a movie could be a lot cheaper than renting it and bringing it back a few days late.

Bad move #5: Getting stuck in the mushy middle
Today Blockbuster is stuck in the mushy middle between Wal-Mart and Netflix.

Turns out people love to buy cheap DVDs. I have a whole closet of DVDs, most of which I haven’t even watched yet and probably never will. I see the case and say, “Gee always wanted to see that movie!” I buy it and then never have the time or patience to watch it. Then there is my closet full of kids’ DVDs. Those are the ones that get watched so many times that the DVDs wear out and I have to buy replacement ones. (All I can say is thank you to Volvo for selling cars with DVD players. Anything to keep two little boys quiet in the car is worth the price.)

By 2003, the studios were taking in three times as much money from DVDs as they were from VHS videos. DVD was the new king and Wal-Mart was the new queen beating out Blockbuster to become the new, single, largest source of revenue for the studios. Making things even worse for Blockbuster is the fact that mass retailers of all types began selling newly-released DVDs below wholesale costs to draw in customers with the hope of selling higher profit TVs and other electronics.

Add to all this, the arrival of Netflix. Like Amazon, Netflix used the internet to offer access to a wealth of titles (100,000 plus) which it delivers and you return via the old-fashioned postal service. A slow process indeed, but with no late fees, no due dates, no postage fees, endless variety and a personal movie queue, it is a system that is a killer. With its most popular plan, Netflix charges a monthly fee which gets you three DVDs at a time with no monthly limit. Simple, clever and cool.

Blockbuster is in the mushy middle. With cheap DVDs selling like hot cakes at Wal-Mart and easy rentals mailing out like crazy at Netflix, Blockbuster has nothing left to sell but its locations. Locations that are costing them an arm and a leg in leases.

Bad move #5: Merging with a loser
Blockbuster trying to take over Circuit City is insane.

Two losers don’t make a winner. Just look at the mess a combination of Sears and Kmart has created. A merger with Circuit City would result in two brands in two different businesses with two sets of problems to deal with.

The last thing Blockbuster needs is more real estate. And the last thing Blockbuster needs is Circuit City, a miserable brand getting clobbered by Best Buy.

In this epic movie, I’m afraid there is no happy ending. If only Blockbuster could go back and rewrite history, maybe things would have been different. But life is not like a movie. Once the scene is shot, there are no retakes.

Hand me a napkin, what a naming mess.

Kentucky Fried Chicken is the world’s most-popular chicken restaurant chain. But while Colonel Sanders’ secret recipe for fried chicken may be finger lickin’ good, the brand strategy has been finger pointingly bad.

In the beginning, things were great. The Kentucky Fried Chicken brand was born in the 1950’s. Colonel Sanders himself created his secret “original recipe” for chicken which he cooked in a pressure fryer to deliver his chicken faster and fresher than the competition. And the Colonel himself travelled from town to town cooking chicken for restaurant owners and signing up franchisees. By 1960, Kentucky Fried Chicken had more than 600 franchised outlets in the United States, Canada and England.

Keys to early success:

1. Be first in a new category.

Pressure-cooked fried chicken with secret spices.

2. Dominate the category.

Kentucky Fried Chicken quickly expanded the business becoming a national then an international chain. The rapid expansion blocked the competition and allowed them to own “fried chicken” in the mind globally.

3. Create a brand personality: Colonel Sanders.

Sure you can succeed by just being first (like Pizza Hunt in pizza.) But you can become so much more powerful if you use a strong spokesperson to lock your brand into the mind. Dave Thomas and Wendy’s. Papa John and Papa John’s Pizza. Michael Dell and Dell Computer. Howard Schultz and Starbucks.
How well known is Colonel Sanders? Well in 1976, an independent survey ranked the Colonel as the second most-recognizable celebrity in the world. Not bad for an old guy from Kentucky selling pressure-fried chicken in a funny suit.

Every brand needs a story. Every brand needs a spokesperson. And Kentucky Fried Chicken has both a wonderful story and a spokesperson. And even though the Colonel had sadly passed on, it doesn’t matter. His image and legend lives on today. It’s just as relevant and integral in selling his namesake chicken as it ever was.

The wave starts to crest.

The mistake most managers make is thinking the good times will last forever. They don’t. You ride a wonderful wave of brand success which eventually either crashes you into the rocks or slowly rolls you into the shore.

Kentucky Fried Chicken is still the biggest and most well-known chicken brand in the world. But it faces a serious problem. A problem management has incorrectly dealt with time and time again over the last 20 years.

The problem: fried food is unhealthy. And people are looking to eat healthier.

So what has Kentucky Fried Chicken been doing? You know what they have been doing, they have been trying to run away from “fried” the only idea they own in the mind, as well as copy every hot new chicken trend.

1. Running from Fried.

In 1991, Kentucky Fried Chicken changed its name and signage to KFC. As if using only initials removes fried from the name. It doesn’t. People may use the abbreviation to refer to the restaurant, but the abbreviation is just short hand for Kentucky Fried Chicken. The focus is still on fried albeit it with a weaker name. Initials are never more powerful than a strong brand name. Changing from a strong brand name to initials doesn’t make sense.

2. Chasing competition.

Boston Chicken was a big success, so KFC launched Colonel’s Rotisserie Gold and Tender Roast chicken.

White Castle was a big success, so KFC launched the Chicken Little sandwich.

McDonald’s was a big success with McNuggets, so KFC launched Kentucky Nuggets.

Were any of these successful line extensions for KFC? No. All have since been discontinued.

What is next?

Today, KFC is going back to basics and expanding all at the same time. And all slapped together in a new name.

First the good news. In 2007 company leaders realized their mistake and wisely went back to the original name and signage of Kentucky Fried Chicken. (Unfortunately most international locations remain KFC.)
Now the bad news. With “fried” still a worry, company leaders are adding “grilled” to the name. As if Kentucky Fried Chicken could become healthy like in some bad reality makeover show.

The new name expected to roll out nationally in 2009 is: Kentucky Fried & Grilled Chicken.

They will have the good, the bad and the ugly all together in one name and one giant mess.

What should they do?

The reality is that people are still eating fried foods and fried chicken. Not too many people are going for the carrot sticks over the fries. The future may belong to healthier alternatives. But the now belongs mostly to tasty higher fat and calorie eats.

I think there is a compromise right in front of Kentucky Fried & Grilled Chicken’s eyes. A way to keep the bad and include the good without resorting to a long and difficult name.

Why not just call it Kentucky Chicken? That name would work globally and solidify Kentucky Chicken as the dominate chicken brand for today and allow them to transition to healthier fare for the future.

Hand me a napkin, this is one mess that can easily be cleaned up.

Laura's Best Baby Brands

Babies bring joy to our lives and many new brands into our homes. I've had a lot of experience with baby brands in the last six years. As a Mom and a marketer it has been fun to evaluate them on both levels. I have watched the rise of lots of exciting new brands first hand. Here are my picks of the best brands.

You will notice that all the best new brands have several similar elements in common:

1. First in a new category.
2. Great name.
3. Tons of PR.

Boppy
$35.00 at Babies R Us

The most popular shower gift in America, Boppy is the must-have tool for all new Moms. The breast is best, say most Doctors, and Boppy makes it possible. I had one in every room I fed my baby. So I never had to reach too far when I heard a scream.

Designed with ergonomics in mind, Boppy provides support to reduce strain on your arms, shoulders and neck. It also can be used for propping a baby and allowing for tummy time. But its main focus is helping Mom’s feed their babies comfortably.

Dr. Brown’s
3 pack is $14.00 at Wal-Mart

For working Moms that breastfeed, a good pump and good bottles are a must. So I lugged my Medela “pump in style” breast pump all over the world from South Africa to India. But Medela doesn’t make my list because while it is a perfect pump it is a terrible brand. The name alone gives it little chance for success. I still can never remember it or how to say it.

While Medela did a lousy job of branding, the opposite is true of Dr. Brown’s. Dr. Brown’s initially focused on helping babies with colic. The bottle’s patented design helps with reduce air in-take a main cause of colic. Of course, what parent even wants to take a chance with colic. Like many parents, I used these just in case. And once you and your baby get attached to a bottle you seldom change.

Dr. Brown’s started as a narrowly focused specialty product but is now mainstream, not because the product expanded but because the consumer upgraded.

Dr. Brown’s is great example of using personalization in a name, like Papa John’s Pizza or Dell Computer. The name really gives credibility with this product, reinforcing the advantage of having the bottle designed by a doctor. (A kindly grey haired Dr. Brown comes to mind immediately.)

Bugaboo
$899 at BabyStyle

Best known for tulips Holland is also the home of great design. Bugaboo innovative strollers from the Netherlands are both functional as well as beautiful. Many times a hot brand will upgrade the whole category.

What Dyson did for vacuum cleaners, Bugaboo has done for strollers. While every other manufacturer was trying to make a stroller/car-seat combination, Bugaboo made a streamlined stroller with a look that appealed to parents not kids.

Seeing a Bugaboo for the first time certainly makes a lasting impression. When I first got mine, people would stop me all the time.

Robeez
$33.00 at Zappos

While most baby shoes are cute tiny versions of adult/kid shoes, Robeez are different. Robeez are designed especially for babies and toddlers. Barefoot is best for growing feet (according to most doctors and podiatrists) but babies’ feet also need protection and warmth. Robeez have thin soles, stay in place, are flexible and lightweight. As a result they are durable, breathable, skid-resistant and safe. Robeez is the doctor-recommended perfect first shoe. And with all the unbelievably cute designs, you hope your baby stays little just a little bit longer so you can buy more.

Bumbo
$40.00 at Babies R Us

A huge problem is that babies can’t sit up. Having to lie on your back or stomach all day is tough. New parents don’t realize how long it takes (at least 8 months) before a baby has the muscle strength to sit up. Bumbo offers a revolutionary seat that enables babies to sit upright all by themselves as soon as they can support their own head (around 6-8 weeks.) Bumbo is a brand are built by taking branding risks (not safety risks) and doing what nobody else has done or even thought of before.

Webkinz
$8-$15 at Amazon

Webkinz are not the same as your older sister’s Beanie Babies or your mother’s Cabbage Patch Dolls. Webkinz aren’t just a copy of the last toy craze they are something totally new and different.

The key to success is being first in a new category. Webkinz are the first stuffed animal that also lives in an exclusive virtual world. After ripping the code off the leg that allows online access for the pet on Webkinz.com kids basically throw the animal in the corner hardly to be played with again.

While many adults have checked out Second Life, millions of kids have stampeded to Webkinz World.

Crocs
$31.00 at Zappos

Looks aren’t everything. These funky-looking plastic shoes sure don’t look pretty, but wearing them is comfortable and contagious. When seeing a pair of Crocs for the first time, you think what are THOSE on your feet? The shock factor has greatly contributed to the Crocs craze. They are perfect shoes for kids since they are cheap, easy to wear and practical. Plus you can customize and decorate your Crocs to your heart’s content with Jibbitz (a nice second brand from Crocs). And at $2.50 a Jibbitz, that is money in the bank for Crocs.

Monkey Joe’s
Around $8 to play, Nationwide in the U.S.

In the 80’s every kid wanted to go to the fair to jump on the Moonwalk. In the 90’s every kid wanted to have an inflatable slide on their lawn for their birthday party. Now every kid wants to play every day at a Monkey Joe’s and have their birthday party there too.

Monkey Joe’s is the first chain (in the mind) of indoor inflatable playgrounds. Many companies have gotten into this emerging market, but Monkey Joe’s is the best because it has the best brand. Jump Zone? Way too generic. Too many companies that launch brands in new categories opt for a descriptive words when the best strategy is a new word (Bugaboo) or words used out of context (Monkey Joe’s).

As my kids move into school there are so many new brands to discover. We are all looking forward to the adverture of it.

Don’t coddle the cow. Kill the cow.

Much has been written about the failure to innovate at dominant companies like Microsoft, Coca-Cola and Procter & Gamble. These companies have little chance to innovate because innovation requires letting go, relinquishing control and potentially undermining a cash cow. Something not tolerated in corporate corridors.

Instead of developing innovative products internally, corporate behemoths tend to buy innovation. But like an absent parent who tries to make up for lost time by bringing home a box full of toys, the initial giddiness wears off quickly. After awhile, things haven’t changed and just get messy and difficult.

Why does Microsoft need to buy Yahoo? Why did Coca-Cola need to buy Vitaminwater? Why did Procter & Gamble need to buy Glide? Don’t these companies have some of the best engineers, developers and researchers on the planet?

Of course they do. But what they don’t have is marketing sense; they have only management sense. Management sense tells them to milk what they already have. Marketing sense would tell them to also invest for the future in new categories and new brands.

That is really hard to do when (a) it is so easy and sometime initially so profitable to milk your brands and (b) when you have so much cash you can buy whatever and whomever you want to buy. But is this the best way to grow? Is this the best way to run a company?

I think not. The best way to run a company is by managing your brands much like you would manage a stable of racehorses. Don’t over-train, over-race or over-fed.

Management people often confuse innovation with ideas like Oreo cake sandwiches. That is not innovation; that is a sacrilege.

Innovation usually involves abrupt change that can take years to fully realize. That is why small companies run by entrepreneurs are willing to take chances and big companies run by financial types can’t be bothered because they are more concerned with their next quarters.

Sometimes big companies can make innovation happen. Either because they are down and out and have nothing to lose. Or they get ahead of an emerging new technology and face little competition.

In the first scenario, one can point to Apple. By the end of the 1990s, its future looked bleak. Betting everything on the iPod wasn’t a threat to the cash cow, because Apple’s cash cow was bringing in very little cash. The company was free to chase the future.

In the second scenario, one can point to Orville Redenbacher, now owned by ConAgra but obviously run by entrepreneurial-types. Going from popcorn jars to microwave popcorn bags was a huge shift. Excellence in one area does not necessarily translate to excellence in the other. But the company wisely jumped on the microwave trend early and established its authenticity. Waiting could have cost them dearly.

It took many years to get there, but the future belongs to microwave. And you’d be hard-pressed to find a jar of Orville kernels at your local supermarket. Most are long gone from the shelves.

Sometimes the delineations are clear. Everybody goes from using popcorn jars to using microwave popcorn bags. Or from typewriters to computers. Or from film photography to digital photography.

Sometimes they are not. Most people still drink Coca-Cola but many people also drink Red Bull, Gatorade, Propel, Dr. Pepper and Snapple too.

Microsoft faces the same problem that Coca-Cola and Orville Redenbacher faced. Today everybody uses packaged software. Tomorrow things could be different. Today, all the money is in software packages and closed operating systems, categories that Microsoft dominates. Why would the company want to undermine that?

One motivating force for innovation is getting mad at the way things are and agitating for change. If the enemy is external, nothing charges up the troops like discussions of the enemy and its weaknesses.

But when the enemy is internal, it becomes a much more difficult game to play. It is not safe for internal marketers to offer up solutions that could be seen as hostile. That is why rational, management-type thinking usually prevails. “Let’s focus on what we’ve got, milk what we’ve got and if something else pops up, we’ll buy them.”

So Microsoft goes after Yahoo. Besides the obvious challenges of integration, people and cultures, a merger creates another problem. It creates a company without a focus.

A company without a focus is a company without an enemy. And a company without an enemy is a company without a purpose.

There comes a time when a company needs the courage to kill its own cow. Without the courage to do is, the company has no future.

Which is what happened to Western Union, Wang, Digital Equipment, Polaroid and many other once-famous companies.

By the numbers or by the brands?

By the numbers or by the brands, which is the best way to run a company? By the brands, of course.

The economy is slowing and gas prices are soaring, but consumers are still spending. And luckily for the Gap and other retailers, still wearing clothes. Bad times usually exaggerate the differences between brands: Which brands are doing the right things and which brands are doing the wrong things. Powerful brands survive even the worst of times.

So has the Gap been doing the right things or the wrong things? It’s a mixed bag.

One of America’s premier brands has fallen on hard times. Is the recent news that the Gap Inc’s fourth-quarter net income rose 21% a sign that things are turning around for the retailer? A closer look reveals a sad and resounding “no.”

Back in 1969, The Gap was started by Donald Fisher and his wife. The Fishers opened their first store near what is now San Francisco State University. (The name referred to the generation gap.) The Gap catered to teenagers and sold mainly Levi’s jeans. A classic example of a focused brand (The Gap) using a great name (Levi’s) to lead a movement and in the process create a new category.

What do teenagers want most in life? Not to be like their parents. Parents wear pants and teenagers wear jeans. The store that supplied the uniform of choice (Levi’s jeans and t-shirts) to teenagers throughout the 70’s and 80’s was The Gap.

What happened next? You know what happened next. They expanded.

First, The Gap faced what it saw as a serious problem. Its core customers were growing up and still shopping in the store. Not wanting to lose those valuable customers, The Gap added more active wear and styles suitable for people in their 30s and beyond. At the same time these customers started having children of their own.

As I said, what do teenagers least like to do? Look like their parents. If Mom and Dad are wearing Levi’s and shopping at The Gap, then forget about getting the kids into the store. Both The Gap and Levi Strauss suffered as teens drifted to other brands like American Eagle and Abercrombie & Fitch which their parents didn’t wear.

Second, The Gap line-extended the brand by opening GapKids, babyGap and GapBody. If shopping where your parents shop wasn’t bad enough, shopping where your baby cousin does is the kiss of death. Sure, some parents like dressing their babies in Gap clothes. But these expansions undermined the meaning of the Gap brand and essentially killed its coolness factor.

While all this crazy expansion and brand dilution was going on, The Gap made two wise decisions when they launched two successful second brands. In 1983, the company bought Banana Republic a chain of jungle-themed stores that sold safari clothing. After the novelty of safari-wear wore off, the company rebranded the stores and focused on more expensive and sophisticated clothes. In 1994, they launched the Old Navy chain to sell less-expensive clothing and regain some credibility with teens.

The current problems at The Gap are due primarily to the watering down of the brand. When a brand tries to appeal to everybody, it suffers. And in a fickle business like fashion, you can easily miscalculate the next trend, which is exactly what happened in the past few years to The Gap.

The company’s latest attempt at a turnaround involves the naming of a new Chairman, Glenn Murphy, who was brought in last July and who previously was CEO of Shoppers Drug Mart in Canada. So what is Murphy’s plan for success? Cutting costs. What?

He hopes to solve the company’s problems by cutting spending, advertising and inventory. The Gap doesn’t have a spending problem, The Gap has a branding problem. And a lack of investment in the brand is just going to exacerbate the problem in the long term. While cutting costs has produced a short term increase in net income, the future looks bleak at The Gap unless it addresses its primarily problem. How to build the brand.

It’s what we saw at Sears-Kmart. Eddie Lampert’s solution to the company’s woes was to cut costs. When you run a company purely by the books instead of by the brand, you usually run it right into the ground. Initially, investors cheered Lampert’s cost cutting. But today the company is in shambles. Once, Sears and Kmart were weak brands. Today, they’re on life support.

Could the same thing happen to The Gap? You bet, if the cost cutting continues and the brands don’t refocus, they face trouble.

Not all The Gap’s spending did a lot of good. The Gap has been a huge devotee of massive advertising, particularity television advertising. An established brand needs to advertise, but unless the message is right, the money is wasted.

What did The Gap spend most of its money on? Celebrities. A wide variety of expensive celebrities. Madonna, Sarah Jessica Parker, John Mayer, Audrey Hepburn, Forest Whitaker, Lucy Liu, Chris O’Donnell, you name the celebrity, he or she probably got paid by The Gap at one time or another.

The problem is two-fold. (1) Using too many celebrities diminishes the value of any one celebrity. (2) None of the celebrities had credentials with the brand. Madonna would rather be caught dead than seen wearing something from The Gap. The Material Girl is not going to parade around in the basics.

When your brand stands for “basic clothing for young people,” old celebrities are the last people that should be in your ads. This has been an expensive lesson for the company to learn.

What The Gap should do is to go back to basics. Literally. They need to better define and better focus each of their individual brands.

Successful companies manage the brands, not the numbers.

Backwards is the new Forwards

It’s getting ugly out there. And no, I don’t mean the political battle between Obama and Clinton; I mean the coffee battle between Starbucks and Dunkin' Donuts.

Starbucks has had a troubling year. After a decade of sensational buzz and near constant growth, things have cooled off for the coffee pioneer. This in not untypical and far from surprising since no brand can sustain rapid growth forever. There is always a limit to how much coffee people will drink, sneakers they will wear, hamburgers they will eat or insurance they will buy.

But when growth rates level off, Wall Street screams and management panics. As a result, many companies opt for expansion in an attempt to maintain growth. This tends to have the reverse effect. Instead of fueling growth, expansion undermines the meaning and focus of the brand. Authenticity, quality and the customer experience are frequently damaged. Sales and customer loyality decline.

Sound familiar? It should. It is exactly what has happened at Starbucks. After a decade of growth, same-store sales declined, the stock plummeted and competition heated up. The Street has screamed for action to reheat growth. Starbucks responded by adding more stores and more products to sell. In the last few years Starbucks has been busy adding merchandise, music and ramping up food sales with things like hot egg sandwiches.

But instead of fueling growth, the expansion has damaged the Starbucks brand by degrading the experience, damaging its authenticity and diminishing its quality.

Now what? Backwards is the new forwards. Bringing back the leader who knows the brand, understands the brand and loves the brand better than anybody else in the world is the new trend. Dell brought back Michael Dell. Schwab brought back Charles Schwab. Apple brought back Steve Jobs.

At Starbucks, that fanatical leader is Howard Schultz. Schultz came back and reclaimed his CEO title last month after ousting James Donald, a former grocery executive. (Why they had a grocery executive running Starbucks is beyond me. Groceries are one of the worst industries for branding and focus. Apart from Whole Foods, most grocery chains are a mess.)

To bring back the buzz Schultz has already made several bold and brave decisions. Valentine’s Day 2007, the now famous Schultz memo was “leaked.” In it Schultz bemoaned the watering down of the Starbucks experience. Setting the stage for a brand revamp that has finally arrived.

With Schultz firmly back in control, Starbucks is back to basics. Starbucks is back to coffee. Starbucks is back to baristas. And Starbucks is back to the celebration of coffee, the essence of the brand.

In the last month, Starbucks has cut 600 jobs, is closing 100 underperforming stores, is slowing U.S. growth and is finally getting rid of those foul-smelling hot egg sandwiches. At the same time they are accelerating international store openings which still represents enormous growth potential for the brand.

The piece de resistance of the Schultz master plan was the brilliant three-hour closing of all 7,100 U.S. stores on Tuesday for barista reeducation of all 135,000 employees. It was a public testament to of Starbucks’ renewed focus on coffee and quality.

Was it necessary to close every store on the same day at the same time to educate workers? Certainly, not. Was it a brilliant PR move? Absolutely.

The closing of Starbucks was national news. Celebrities who normally get out of bed around 2 pm were scrambling for their 4 pm “morning” cup of joe. The few bucks Starbucks lost in sales that afternoon was more than compensated by the massive PR coverage. It sent a message to consumers, investors, and most importantly, employees that Schultz was back and that Starbucks the king of coffee would defend its coffee crown with tenacity.

A minor blip in this story is the Dunkin’ Donuts move of offering 99-cent lattes during the Starbucks shut-down. In an attempt to take some of the wind out of the sails of Starbucks and ride the coattails of the publicity, Dunkin’ had a real opportunity to make a mark. But half-price drinks are hardly a reason to celebrate. My Mom won’t leave the house to go shopping unless she has several 50%-off coupons in her purse. They are a dime a dozen these days.

What Dunkin should have done is FREE! Offering desperate Starbucks fans a free trial drink would have caused a commotion and resulted in a meaningful PR story for the brand. Too bad they are not as brave as Schultz; you know Howard would have done that in a heartbeat.

The Oprah Factor

Are celebrity endorsements good or bad for candidates?

They are both.

Good because if everyone, including celebrities, is endorsing a candidate it enhances his or her appearance as the leader and a winner. And everybody loves to jump on the bandwagon of a winner. A winner is presumed to be on the side of truth, righteousness and justice.

Bad because too many times the celebrity overshadows the candidate. In order to win, the candidate needs to be the real celebrity. A candidate cannot win by association.

That's Hillary Clinton’s biggest problem. Bill Clinton is a major celebrity and is overshadowing her. And when Bill is around Hillary is put in the position of playing second fiddle. The more Bill campaigns for Hillary the worse things get for Hillary.

When George W. Bush ran for president, his dad, the former President, was nowhere to be seen. And that was a good thing. It allowed George W. to shine on his own without being overshadowed by his father. Believe me it sucks to be upstaged by your dad on stage.

The brilliance of Obama is not that he gets a lot celebrity endorsements. It is the opposite. Obama is the rock star, Obama is the celebrity. Obama doesn’t need celebrities to get people to come to his rallies. People are filling football stadiums just to see the guy.

Early on, Obama had to be careful not to take on too many endorsement. I think the Oprah endorsement came at the right time with just the right amount of attention. When Oprah endorsed Obama, hewas already a star in his own right. He had a message and momentum.

Of course, Oprah greatly helped him, but she didn’t make him and that is a key difference. Oprah also doesn’t hover over Obama all the time. If Oprah travelled around with Obama like Chuck Norris does with Huckabee, it would be equally as creepy.

Many celebrities bring more baggage than benefits. Many are usually quite polarizing or flaky. Being pretty and being in the movies aren’t exactly stellar credentials for giving opinions on national policy. If Sean Penn called to endorse my candidacy, I would hang up immediately.

Why do celebrities do endorsements? PR. Celebrities are in the business of selling themselves and what better way to get their names in the paper than to talk politics.

Endorsements don’t mean everything. Both Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004 had most of the celebrity and media endorsements, but that didn’t help either win. Why? Because neither Gore nor Kerry was a celebrity themselves. In order to win the White House, the candidate has to be the biggest name on the stage, in the media, in the mind and on the ballot.

Here are my comments on some recent celebrity endorsements:

Oprah Winfrey for Obama. Obama rally at UCLA.
"So I say I am not a traitor (to my gender)! No, I'm not a traitor - I'm just following my own truth. And that truth has led me to Barack Obama!” [audience cheers]

Laura on Oprah: Oprah’s remarks are well-written and well-spoken. She touches base with the negative then moves to the positive. Oprah is a one of a kind. There is nobody else like her. She is loved, respected and trusted by millions. Oprah’s strength is that she is a straight-shooter. She is down-to-earth, non-partisan and represents everyday people.

Susan Sarandon for Obama. Tavis Smiley Show/PBS.
“ Well, I'm going to back Obama. But I hope - I think that he, as a symbol, has really excited people, and he's definitely confusing to everyone who really hates America for hating Muslims because a name like Obama and a Black man, they're probably going to go "Oh, wait a minute - what?" It's kind of like when you're out on the line for freedom to have an abortion and you're incredibly pregnant. They just can't quite figure it out.

Laura on Susan Sarandon: Huh? Exactly the wrong way to endorse somebody. With weird remarks like these, she is certainly not helping Obama or herself. Her statements are way off message. Bringing up Muslims and abortion and people hating the U.S. is not wise.

Ted Danson for Hillary. National Press Club
"I take my hat off to Senator Clinton, to being the first woman in this situation, because there's a double standard. I throw my shoe at the TV a lot... out of frustration you know. Two guys go at it and they're good ol' boys you know, giving each other a good licking, and she says something mean, man, 'Dear God, what a terrible person she is... It's a very strange position to be in. Luckily it doesn't seem to phase her that much."

Laura on Ted Danson: Does anyone care what Ted Danson has to say? I don’t think so.

Robert DeNiro for Obama. Rally at the Meadowlands.
“Barack Obama does not have the experience to be president of the United States. [audience boos] And I can prove that. Remember, he wasn't experienced enough to vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq. … You know, that's the kind of inexperience I could get used to.”

Laura on Robert DeNiro: He is just repeating the campaign talking points. While the points are fantastic, they didn’t need DeNiro to deliver the lines. That is the lesson of Obama. He doesn’t need celebrities because he is one, but having them in the back of his bus cheering him on is icing on the cake.

Magic Johnson for Hillary. CNN
“Well, I still go back to the experience and the expertise, and also her foreign relationships, things that she's been doing for a long, long time, battling the health-care issue. Everybody wants health care for everybody, but you have been in that fight to understand what has been the pitfalls, why everybody doesn't have health care. So it's those type of things that I still think she still has the edge on Obama.”

Laura on Magic Johnson: I’m not sure people care who Magic likes to win the next NBA championship, let alone the presidency.

50 Cent for Hillary.
Reporter: Why Hillary?
50 Cent: I think she could do good job.
Reporter: Really?
50 Cent: Yeah, I mean Obama, ain't nothing bad about Obama in my eyes either. But, I just think Hillary that would be my choice.

Laura on 50 Cents: A nothing endorsement. Not even worth 25 cents.

Whoopi Goldberg for Hillary. On The View
"So, when I went in... I had to change what I was going to do. So, I put it towards Hillary. (She changed her vote from Obama because Hillary was the first to address the issue of American jobs going overseas)

Laura on Whoopi: What does she know about jobs going overseas? Who does she think she is, Lou Dobbs? These comments are way out of her field of expertise.

What about McCain? How should McCain rebut all those democratic celebrity endorsements?

He shouldn't. McCain should ignore them and establish his own brand and celebrity. McCain’s biggest problem is that he is well-known but doesn’t stand for any single attribute in the mind. He is a war hero and a Senate veteran. But elections are about the future not the past. Just ask Giuliani. And in this election being a Washington insider isn’t a good thing.

American politics and American Idol have a lot in common. The biggest celebrity wins. Let's just be thankful we don't have to hear McCain, Obama and Hillary sing.

Micro-Hoo!?

Micro-Hoo! Is bigger really better? It all depends.

Microsoft aims to get bigger with its unsolicited $44.6 billion takeover offer for Yahoo. Facing its own troubles, Yahoo seems to be considering the offer but hopes to up the price from the current $31 a share to something closer to $40 a share.

Will a combined Microsoft-Yahoo work? Unlikely.

And here is why:

1. Two brands. Two cultures.

Microsoft and Yahoo don’t share the same sense of style. Steve Ballmer of Microsoft and Jerry Yang of Yahoo would make awkward dinner companions, let alone business partners. For a merger or takeover to work, the companies and brands should be as similar as possible. If not, expect a mass exodus of talent from the cooler firm.

Buying YouTube worked for Google because the two brands shared a similar love of white space and embodied a similar culture of renegade youth.

2. Two losers don’t make a winner.

Putting Sears and Kmart together didn’t help either company. Because the best strategy for Kmart has little to do with the best strategy for Sears. The combination of the two companies just made things more difficult, more complicated and more expensive to manage.

Putting Microsoft and Yahoo together is likely to face similar issues. For instance, what will all the products be called? Who will sell what? How will they manage the overlap?

Microsoft tends to put its name on everything: MSN, MSNBC, Microsoft Office, Microsoft Live. The only stand outs are X-Box and Hotmail, both of which have done well in spite of operating without the Microsoft name.

What is a “Microsoft” anyway? Bill Gates would probably say something like the “future of computing.” But customers don’t think in such general terms like “quality” or “state of the art.” Consumers think in specifics. Toyota is “reliable.” Nokia is “cellphones.” The iPod is “portable music.” Starbucks is “expensive” coffee.

In the mind, Microsoft is PC operating systems and personal computer software. Microsoft Windows is the operating system running 90% of the world’s personal computers, an impressive and powerful position. One that the company seems to take for granted.

A company that owns a dominant share of a market should think about launching second and third brands. Like Toyota did with Lexus and Scion. Like Gillette did with Mach3 and Fusion.

Instead of giving the consumer a choice of operating systems, Microsoft introduced a one-size-fits-all behemoth. The latest edition of this philosophy is Vista, an overblown, overly complex, mind-boggling system that is getting some pretty bad reviews. I’m currently running Vista, so I know the pain.

3. Chasing the future by expansion.

Google took over the search-engine category through focus and simplicity. Chasing the future by expanding your brand to include every new technology rarely works.

Google didn’t beat Yahoo by launching a website with more services and features than Yahoo. Google beat Yahoo by narrowing the focus to search only. (Today, of course,
Google is going in the opposite direction. A bad move.)

Microsoft and Yahoo probably wish they could turn back the clock to simplify and strengthen their strategies. But that rarely works. It’s like pulling out your prom dress to wear to your next corporate function.

4. Not a cool place to work.

Acquiring new young talent is always a problem for an old-guard company like Microsoft. Young people are not just looking for money. They also are looking for the hot brand to work for. Where you work has a big impact on your life, your ego, even your future mate with more people finding love in the workplace.

Companies with a strong, narrowly-defined brand are better able to manage corporate cultures and attract the right talent. Southwest has been around for over 30 years but they remain a cool place to work because they have stayed focused.

A combined Microsoft-Yahoo is going to have problems starting with the fact that Micro-Hoo is not going to be a cool place to work.

Micro-Hoo? Both companies would be better off going it alone. Valentine’s Day is about finding love and a long lasting partnership. Micro-Hoo is unlikely to find either and much more likely to be the next Bennifer.