The Origin of Brands Blog

The classic 1-2-3

Strategy is strategy. Tactics are tactics.

A strategy should never change. Tactics should be changed frequently to adopt the new ideas, new concepts, new opportunities and new media that are constantly coming into the market.

But guess what? Company after company tries to win their marketing wars by constantly changing their strategies. The latest example is General Motors.

Years ago, General Motors had a brilliant strategy. Chevrolet was the entry-level car. Pontiac was the youth-oriented car. Oldsmobile was the high-technology car. (No really, the now defunct brand was cutting edge at one time. In fact, it was the first high-volume front-wheel-drive car.) Buick was the conservative car. (Bankers drove Buicks.) And Cadillac was the high-end, expensive car.

Today, everything is a mess at General Motors. Nobody knows what the individual brands stand for.

What is GM’s entry-level car? Is it Saturn or Chevrolet?

What’s the difference between a Chevrolet, a Pontiac and a Buick? Not much since the brands share many models with the only difference being the nameplates.

In Friday’s New York Times, Ryndee Carney, GM’s manager for advertising and marketing communications said that the divisions “operate independently.”

A big mistake. Strategy should be dictated by the corporation. The divisions should only have the freedom to determine their individual tactics.

If a company wants to be successful with a multiple-brand approach, it should set rigid rules for the strategy of each brand and then let each brand manager determine the appropriate tactics to execute the strategies dictated by the company.

In many categories, a company can be successful with what we call a one-two-three approach.

1. An inexpensive brand.

2. A popular-price brand.

3. An expensive brand.

Today, Toyota is a company flying high. Toyota has built the classic 1-2-3 strategy with

1. Scion

2. Toyota

3. Lexus.

You can distinguish by skills. Black & Decker is the consumer brand. DeWalt is the professional brand.

Or you could distinguish by distribution. L’eggs is the panty hose brand sold in supermarkets. Hanes is the brand sold in department stores.

If you appeal to no one, you are forced to sell your product on price. Not a very efficient or profitable way to run a business. A strong narrowly-focused brand helps to differentiate your product and makes the selling process easier. Strong brands attract consumers; weak brands need to be forced upon consumers with advertising and low prices.

Toyota is has done a brilliant job of building distinct brands. Toyota’s latest brand winner is Scion. In 2005, Scion spent the fewest in media dollars for each new vehicle sold at $284. Toyota was $422 and Lexus was $875. Compare those numbers to some of GM’s cars and you see the power of strong branding. Buick was $751, Saturn was $1012, Saab $2,116.

The introduction of Scion in 2003 has been brilliant. Toyota made great use of viral marketing and event sponsorships instead of advertising to build the brand the buzz surrounding it. Other brands have tried viral marketing, but the technique only works if you have a credible brand, a unique message and can target a narrow audience. Scion has all three and the brand completes the Toyota trifecta.

Read more on how to fix GM in Al’s adage.com column.

As well as Stuart Elliott’s New York Times' GM article on Friday.

Other companies with 1-2-3 strategies:

• Busch – Budweiser – Michelob
• Old Navy – Gap – Banana Republic

Price isn’t the only way to build a unified company strategy. You can distinguish your brands using age, MTV is for hip teens, and VH1 is for hip adults (or hope they are still hip.)

Apple put all the chips on white

It seems they are everywhere, iPods, Razrs, and Howard Stern. Brands with huge momentum and strength. And competing against them seems impossible. How does this happen?

Apple, Motorola and Sirius took three great ideas and then focused on them. They focused their resources, their marketing, their PR and their entire companies on these three ideas. They took products that represented a small percentage of their total sales but a large percentage of their future hopes and made them the essences of their companies.

Creating a big branding winner is not just good for one brand, but it creates a halo effect for the entire company. Success breeds more success.

Look at Apple Computer. The company has struggled for years with 3% of the personal computer market. Long considered to have a cooler and better product that the Wintel machines, they have been unable to make much headway against Hewlett-Packard and Dell.

Then along came the iPod, a new little music player product. So what did they do?

Apple put all of its chips on white. They put the entire company’s might behind the iPod. The majority of its promotion, advertising and PR dollars went to the iPod despite the fact it was initially an insignificant percentage of Apple Computer’s sales.

The result? The iPod is a runaway success and it’s leading a turnaround at the computer company itself. Apple sold 14 million iPods in the last quarter alone.

But despite 2005 being a sensational year, the iPod and iTunes together still only represents 39 percent of the company’s total sales. The other 61 percent of sales continue to come from computers, peripherals, software and services. The rest of Apple had greatly benefited from iPod’s success. Apple’s computer sales were up 26.8% over 2004. And today they have 4% of the PC market. The halo effect.

Yet look at how do most marketing dollars get spent at most companies?  A little over here, a little over there, and some there. Most companies allocate resources across all of their brands. Taking all its eggs and putting them in one brand’s basket, strikes most marketing people as risky.

Not only that, putting all your eggs in one basket makes the brand managers with empty baskets a little more than angry. It takes a strong and determined leader like Steve Jobs to pull off such a strategy, but the rewards are clear. Focus delivers. More companies need strong leaders with the conviction to focus.

Look at Motorola. In the third quarter of 2005, the company shipped 38.7 cellphones. But of those 38.7 million phones, only 6.5 million were Razr phones, 16.8 percent of the total. Yet almost everywhere you look you see only see Razr being promoted; you might think it is the only product Motorola sells.

Sirius satellite radio did the same thing. It has come storming back from a slow start against market leader XM. How? Out of the 120 channels offered on the network, Sirius is only promoting only one, Howard Stern, the crass and controversial shock-jock from New York. Stern is not for everybody, half of the Sirius subscribers probably never want to listen to the channel.

Does Sirius offer other exciting programming? Absolutely. But the focus on Stern has generated enormous PR. The focus on Stern has created memorable advertising. And the focus on Stern had boosted subscribers from 660,000 in 2004 to 3.3 million subscribers today. Myself included.

What should your company do? Take a look at the brands in your stable and pick your best bet. Even if it is small, even if it represents 0% of today’s sales, put all your energy and efforts into making this one brand a big success.

Focus. Make your best horse a big winner and the whole barn will share in the glory.

Starbucks and kid tunes? Oh my.

The most important thing in my morning is my coffee. I love and need coffee, especially after a night when my baby and my four-year-old have woken me up several times. When I can, I also love having my coffee at Starbucks. Sipping a tall skinny latte in a comfy chair reading the Wall Street Journal all by myself is heaven. But now the Starbucks nirvana we all know and love has been intruded upon by kiddie pop sensation Laurie Berkner. Starbucks is co-releasing Berkner’s latest CD and is selling it in its stores. These brands go together like oil and water. Sure the consumer might be the same, but brands are not. Is she going to travel the country doing live performances at Starbucks? I sure hope not.

I am quoted in today’s Wall Street Journal regarding Starbuck’s decision to partner with Berkner. As you can imagine I told the WSJ I am not in favor.

Here are some more detailed answers to what I think about the Berkner – Starbucks combo.

1) Do you think selling a kids music DVD is a smart extension of Starbucks' brand?

Selling a kids music DVD at Starbuck is a lousy idea. Most parents go to Starbucks to get away from the kids. It is an adult sanctuary. Coffee, comfy chairs, and cool music. The last thing I or any other parent wants to listen or think about is kids’ music. I don’t care if she is the best kids’ singer ever, it is still kids’ music. Selling relaxing music is one thing, annoying kids stuff is another.

2) Do you think that it's likely that the sorts of folks that shop at Starbucks will be interested in a kids music DVD?

Parents who have kids certainly are drinking coffee at Starbucks, but I don’t think they are in the frame of mind to buy their kid a music DVD while they are there. Starbucks had success selling music in the past when they sold the music playing in the stores. Customers hung out, liked the music and bought a CD on impulse. If they start playing Laurie’s stuff in Starbucks you might as well hire Chucky Cheese to work behind the counter, not a good move.

3) Laurie Berkner is considered one of the most successful children's music performers. Does it make sense for her to look for new audiences in Starbucks, where mostly adults shop?

It makes no sense for Laurie to be in Starbucks. It is true that Laurie Berkner has built a phenomenal brand. Kids adore her and she doesn’t grate on parents ears like Barney. But she doesn’t belong at Starbucks, she belongs at Gymboree or Monkey Joes. (A new inflatable play chain.)

4) Is there a danger to Starbucks brand if customers feel the stores are cluttered with product?

Starbucks is a powerful brand. But Starbucks is going to annoy people by cluttering the store with stuff. They need to focus on the coffee, the essence of the brand. Otherwise they will end up like McDonald’s. McDonald’s used to be a hamburger joint. But after years of expanding the menu and junking up the place, the food quality and restaurant quality has suffered enormously. When you take your eye off the ball of what your brand stands for things can deteriorate.

Delta no longer singing a Song

Bankrupt Delta Airlines announced it is discontinuing its discount airline Song. Launched in 2003, Song was created as a hip low-cost carrier to compete with high fliers Jet Blue and AirTran. The flights were all coach and included amenities such as increased legroom, pre-flight meal ordering and a music service.

So why is Delta/Song no longer singing? Well, there are two problems. Delta and Song.

Delta’s strategy was flawed. Song was destined to ring flat. Launching a second brand is a great strategy if you want to establish a new category. But you can’t wait forever to do it. Song was launched way too late. Southwest invented the low-cost category back in the 70’s. Delta had 30 years to match that success and did nothing.

Then there’s the name itself. Song? Crazy names can work for some brands in some categories. Google in search engines. Monster in jobs. Sir Richard Branson makes Virgin Airlines work, but no one else alive can pull off the PR that he can.

But Song was just a crazy name for the sake of being crazy. It has no “crazy” credibility. Just a weak attempt by a bunch of blue suits to establish a new airline. It’s like a super geek trying to act cool at the prom. It just doesn’t fly.

Obviously, Delta has troubles too. The airline is bleeding red ink and has filed for bankruptcy.  All the major airlines have made the same mistakes. Over the years they have chased every new category. As a result each airline has eroded its brand and its business model.

Every time there was a fork in the sky the airlines took both forks. First class and coach. Business and leisure. Domestic and international. Passengers and cargo.

They tried to do everything.

Not every air transportation company is failing. Those that have focused have succeeded. Southwest and Jet Blue in coach travel. United Parcel and FedEx in cargo.

Song is just another chapter in the book of brands that never had a chance to make it off the ground. There’s a chapter on Continental Lite, too. (Believe me, I’m not making this stuff up.)

Continental tried to get into the low-cost carrier business with the Lite name. Look where it got them! Then there’s a chapter on the Shuttle by United, which never got off the ground either. And I expect there will be a chapter on Ted, United’s latest effort to launch a no-frills carrier.

Martha’s Time Out

Welcome back Martha. We missed you. But we knew you’d be back. A woman with your smarts and a brand with your strength couldn’t be wiped out by a measly few months in jail. In fact, your time away is the best thing that could have happened to you and us, the public. It was a much needed time out.

Time outs work wonders for both brands and people. I use them very effectively with my 3 year old son. After being at wits end with my little boy, I make him stand in a corner for a time out at which point I can take a deep breath myself. Afterwards we both emerged refocused and I remember why I love him so much. Like a computer reboot it clears the system and allows to time to forget the bad stuff and look forward to a bright future.

Martha has emerged from her court-ordered time out, better than ever. There have been a few missteps, like Martha’s Apprentice reality show. But overall she is on the right track.

First of all, Martha’s live, syndicated television show is a daytime delight. Live television is the perfect remedy for toning down her image of absolute perfection. Let’s face it, nothing can be perfect on live television and you can tell Martha accepts that. It allows us to see the human side of Martha. And seeing Martha in this new way is marvelous. She is funny, warm, and engaging. And I think with practice she will continue to get even better.

Secondly, Martha has embraced the media. After the scandal she shunned the media and hid out for over a year. But today she is doing countless interviews to promote her brand and image. And Martha is answering tough questions with candor and humility. She’s even poking fun at herself and her situation. All of which have done much to resurrect her image and brand.

The worst scenario would have been a bitter Martha. But it is quite to the contrary. Martha is sweeter, kinder and funnier than ever. She has been able to move on from her situation and get back to business with grace. She has acknowledged her jail time; she has made fun of her jail time. We are now all willing to move forward with her into a new era of Martha.

But there are some problems. Let’s start with the Apprentice. In a word, The Apprentice: Martha Stewart sucks. There is no reason for this show to exist except that NBC needed a show to fill its lackluster line up. Mark Burnett must have snuck Martha some delicious scones into prison in order to get her to sign on to this dud. No doubt Martha wanted to come out of jail with guns blazing. But she has her hands full with the magazines, daytime show and Kmart stuff. And her perfunctory involvement with this show is evident; she obviously can’t stand being on it. It is a lousy show, and now that it will be up against ABC's Lost it is sure to be sunk. The Donald’s over-the-top antics keep his version of The Apprentice afloat, but even then the joke is kind of stale.

The second problem is Kmart. The problem here is the store itself much more than Martha’s foray into sheets and towels. Can’t she just somehow move her stuff into Target? I would much rather see her brand in the bright booming aisles of the chic Target brand. Kmart and new partner Sears are fading stars that do little to help keep the shine on Martha. They need Martha a lot more that her brand needs them. And Martha doesn’t make sense in either of them.

Nobody likes to get in trouble, whether fully deserved or not. But I think Martha’s jail time has brought a conclusion to the issue. Her public time out has done wonders in recharging a powerful brand that is likely to dominate homemaking for some time to come. Women everywhere are cheering your return Martha and embracing your new found humanism. Myself included.

Nano

All signs point to iPod’s nascent Nano becoming a huge hit. Apple’s iPod is a divergence brand if I ever saw one. And the new Nano enhances Apple’s reputation as the country’s most brilliant exploiter of divergence concepts.

Divergence products create a new category, have a new name, and perform a single function. Example: Gameboy in handheld games, Palm in handheld computers, Nokia in cellphones, Lexus in luxury Japanese cars, BlackBerry in wireless email.

Diamond Rio pioneered a new category, the MP3 player. Then Apple introduced the iPod, the first MP3 player with a hard drive. Now there were two categories of MP3 players: flash memory and hard-drive players.

The Nano makes it three categories. Instead of the 20 or so songs a traditional flash memory device can hold, the Nano has a high-capacity flash memory that can hold up to a thousand songs.

Apple is also making a wise move my discontinuing the iPod Mini which would have become a product in the mushy middle between the mega storage of the iPod and the small size of the Nano. The marketplace, just like nature, favors the extremes.

Unlike divergence devices, convergence products try to bring two categories together. Most companies are chasing this dream with products like interactive television, the tablet computer, the TV computer, and the smart phone.

But even Apple made the error of partnering with Motorola for the ROKR phone which can play iTunes. The early reviews were mostly negative and sales have been dismal. Yet critics still insist that Apple needs to hurry up with a true iPod/phone combo. And that they face a big risk by not going after the iPod-phone market quickly. Even though the ROKR is a failure, critics don’t ever question the validity of the convergence theory but rather insist that product execution is at fault.

Wrong. What iPod needs to do is stay away from phones all together. Animal species don’t combine and neither do product categories. While flying cars, auto boats, interactive television and smart phones capture the imagination of the public, they seldom do well in the marketplace. Think about it. An auto boat at best will only float like a car and drive like a boat.

A Nano will beat the combo device every time.

Apple’s iPod is not going to be a monster brand because it took a great idea and looked for ways to move it into phones. Apple’s iPod is a monster brand because it took a great idea and made it even better. Nano is another step in the right direction.

Divergence is the key to branding success.

Will Tide wipeout?

            After reading my post about the 14 different flavors of Coca-Cola, Kevin Delaney was kind enough to send me a list of the different varieties of Tide detergent he found at his local Target store. Would you believe, there were 32 varieties on sale. Here’s the list.

·        Tide - Liquid

·        Tide - Powder

·        Tide Coldwater - Fresh Scent - Liquid

·        Tide Coldwater - Fresh Scent - Powder

·        Tide Coldwater - Glacier Scent - Liquid

·        Tide Coldwater - Glacier Scent - Powder

·        Tide Clean Breeze - Liquid

·        Tide Clean Breeze - Powder

·        Tide Free - Liquid

·        Tide Free - Powder

·        Tide High Efficiency - Liquid

·        Tide High Efficiency - Powder

·        Tide High Efficiency - Clean Breeze - Liquid

·        Tide Mountain Spring - Liquid

·        Tide Mountain Spring - Powder

·        Tide Tropical Clean - Liquid Tide

·        Tropical Clean - Powder

·        Tide with Bleach - Powder

·        Tide with Bleach - Mountain Spring - Powder

·        Tide with Bleach - Clean Breeze - Powder

·        Tide with Bleach Alternative - Liquid

·        Tide with Bleach Alternative - Mountain Spring - Liquid

·        Tide with Bleach Alternative - Clean Breeze - Liquid

·        Tide with a Touch of Downy - April Fresh - Liquid

·        Tide with a Touch of Downy - April Fresh - Powder

·        Tide with a Touch of Downy - Clean Breeze - Liquid

·        Tide with a Touch of Downy - Clean Breeze - Powder

·        Tide with a Touch of Downy - Soft Ocean Mist - Liquid

·        Tide with a Touch of Downy - Soft Ocean Mist – Powder

·        Tide with Febreze - Meadows & Rain - Liquid

·        Tide with Febreze - Spring & Renewal - Liquid

·        Tide with Febreze - Spring & Renewal – Powder

            Choice is one thing. But who benefits when a manufacturer offers so many different choices that consumers are totally confused?

            Certainly not the consumer. Who are make a rational choice of laundry detergent from a list of 32 different varieties?

            Certainly not the manufacturer who has to produce, stock and delivery the 32 different varieties.

            I don’t think you can find a marketing person who would agree with Procter & Gamble’s strategy . . . in detergent or toothpaste. (Crest is available in an equally ridiculous list of varieties.)

            And yet when you look at the market share of Tide detergent, you find that Tide dominates its category with a 41.3 percent market share, more than four times as much as the No. 2 brand.

            As a matter of fact, there is no No. 2 brand. It’s not like Coke and Pepsi. In laundry detergents, there are a host of brands that trailing so far behind Tide that no one deserves to be recognized as a true No. 2 brand.

            It’s Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs all over again. Gain, All, Purex, Cheer, Arm & Hammer, Etra and Wisk are the detergent dwarfs with no one brand having more than 9 percent of the market.

            In detergents, in cola, in toothpaste and in any other categories, it’s become a battle to capture shelf space rather than a battle to capture the consumer mind. The consumer can’t buy what’s not on the shelf. So the leading brands in many categories launch line extensions to push competitive brands off the shelf, or in some cases to locations where consumers can’t find them.

            Terrific in the short term, but dangerous in the long term. What’s a Tide? I don’t know and I’m sure most consumers don’t know either. All they know is that Tide is the brand that’s all over the shelf “so it must be good.”

            That sets up Tide for a competitive attack by a single brand that can stand for something in the mind. And don’t think it can’t happen.

            Take Hoover, the leading vacuum cleaner for as long as I can remember. What’s a Hoover?

            Well a Hoover comes in six different types: uprights, deep cleaners, hard-floor cleaners, canisters, specialty vacuums and central vacuum systems. But that’s not all.

Hoover uprights, for example, come in 14 different varieties.

·        Hoover Bagged Tempo Widepath.

·        Hoover Bagged WindTunnel.

·        Hoover Self-Propelled WindTunnel.

·        Hoover Ultra Upright.

·        Hoover Tempo Widepath.

·        Hoover Tempo Upright.

·        Hoover Bagless Tempo Widepath.

·        Hoover Fold Away Widepath.

·        Hoover Fold Away.

·        Hoover Fusion Cyclonic Bagless Upright.

·        Hoover EmPower.

·        Hoover Savvy.

·        Hoover Self-Propelled WindTunnel Bagless.

·        Hoover WindTunnel Bagless Upright.

            You know what happened next. Dyson came into the market with a limited line and one single, powerful positioning idea. “The first vacuum cleaner that doesn’t lose suction.”

            Two years after its introduction, Dyson became the number one vacuum cleaner brand with 21 percent of the market (compared to Hoover’s 16 percent.)

            Could that happen to Tide? Sure. Years ago, Tide had a single powerful positioning idea. “Tide’s in. Dirt’s out.”

            In the future, the theme might become “Tide’s in. Tide’s out.”

Consider Divergence

Al's article on Divergence appeared in the Financial Times on June 27th. The text is not available online so I thought I would post the entire article. The day will come when the convergence bubble will burst. You would think the recent unbelieveable success of the iPod would encourage people to take a look at divergence. But the craziness continues as they try things like iPod Photo (another recent loser.)

Consider divergence. Financial Times, June 27, 2005.

               Convergence is an example of chaos theory in action.

                The flap of a butterfly’s wing in the Bahamas could eventually cause a tornado off the coast of Taiwan. Or so the theory goes.

                Chaos theory does ring true in the media. One story leads to another and pretty soon you have a full-blown tornado. On September 15, 1992, a butterfly named John Sculley flapped his wings in The New York Times: “John Sculley, chairman of Apple, has been preaching about a post-industrial promised land where four giant industries (computers, consumer electronics, communications and information) will converge.”

                “Mr. Sculley describes an emerging industry that he says will be a $3.5 trillion business within a decade. It will, he says, be more than half as large as the combined economies of the United States, Canada and Mexico are today.”

                Well, the decade has come and gone and the four giant industries have not converged and the $3.5 trillion business is nowhere in sight and John Sculley is no longer with Apple, but the concept of convergence is alive and well and running rampant around the world. Every major player in the high-tech field has jumped on the convergence bandwagon.

                “Put a mark on your calendars, 2005 is the year Sony will fulfill its digital promise by creating a formula that melds electronics, video game entertainment, movies, music and other forms of entertainment, and become more networked and converged than ever before.” Sir Howard Stringer, CEO, Sony.

                “At Intel, computing and communications will be indistinguishable. We will be a true convergence company.” Paul Otellini, CEO, Intel.

                “The whole new ballgame is these worlds (computing and consumer electronics) converging, and that’s a world we’re comfortable in.” Michael Dell, chairman, Dell.

                “The phone and the PC are coming together.” Bill Gates, chairman, Microsoft.

                With the world’s largest consumer electronics company, the world’s largest semiconductor company, the world’s largest personal computer company and the world’s largest software company solidly behind the convergence concept, who could doubt that one day it will all happen?

                With the philosophical support of a dead poet, I could, that’s who. “The best of prophets of the future,” wrote Lord Byron, “is the past.”

                Has convergence ever happened in the past? Not really.

                When the airplane was first introduced, many experts predicted that it would converge with the automobile. (The Wright brothers first flew in 1903. The first flying car story appeared in 1906.)

                As recently as September 26, 2004, The New York Times Magazine ran a four-page story on flying cars. “The age of the flying car may arrive sooner than you think,” said the publication. (How long do we have to have to wait?)

                When television was first introduced, many experts predicted that people would get their newspapers delivered through their TV sets. It never happened.

                When the Internet was first introduced, many experts predicted it would converge with television. Interactive TV became the battlecry. In 1997, Microsoft bought WebTV Networks for $425 million and has since poured more than half a billion dollars into the venture. Results have been dismal.

               Microsoft’s next convergence attempt was the “media center PC.” Watch television, play music, play video and show pictures, all controlled from the homeowner’s personal computer equipped with Microsoft software. So far, the media center PC is a non-starter.

                Microsoft, of course, is a major player in smart phones, the latest and greatest convergence fad. Global shipments in the first quarter of this year were some 10 million units. That may sound like a lot, but keep in mind that worldwide cellphone sales during the same quarter were 180 million. As a percentage of the market, smart phone sales are less than 6 percent.

                As a percentage of the media coverage, however, smart phone hype is something like 99 percent. “Everyone seems to agree,” reported the Economist on August 12, 2000, “that the mobile phone will quickly overtake the personal computer as the means by which most people gain access to online services.”     

                It hasn’t happened yet and it never will. Sure, some people will buy smart phones. Some people will buy anything. But most people prefer divergence devices, not convergence devices.

                The convergence crowd likes to point to the camera phone as proof that electronic products will converge. And it’s true that whenever convenience is a major issue, you’ll find some examples of convergence.

                Does a camera phone take better pictures than a digital camera? No, but it’s a convenient way to take a picture and then email it to someone.

               Currently the hottest consumer electronics product is Apple’s iPod, a classic divergence device. Expected sales this year: 22 million units.

                Will a combination smart phone/MP3 player replace the iPod? Don’t be ridiculous. Combination devices invariably end up as niche, not mainstream products

                The MP3 player demonstrates the natural course of technology. First there were flash-memory MP3 players like the Diamond Rio. Then hard-drive MP3 players like the iPod.

                What started as one category (MP3 player) is now two. (Flash-memory and hard-drive MP3 players.) That’s the way a technology evolves.

                Take the videogame player. It didn’t converge with television (although a videogame player without a TV set is useless.) It diverged. And now you have a new category called portable videogame player. (75 million Game Boys have been sold in America alone.) Next up, the dual-screen portable videogame player, the Nintendo DS.

               Divergence is a law of nature. In his book The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin credits divergence for the millions of species that populate the earth, like the branches of a tree that diverge from a single trunk.       

               Darwin’s genius was in recognizing that species like cats and dogs might have a common ancestor, but that they had “branched off” or diverged in response to environmental changes.

                What happens in nature happens in technology. The computer might have had a common ancestor (the mainframe), but today we also have midrange computers, network computers, personal computers, laptop computers, tablet computers and handheld computers. The computer didn’t converge with another technology. It diverged in response to consumer demands.

               Television might have had a common ancestor (broadcast TV), but today we also have cable TV, satellite TV and pay-per-view TV. Television didn’t converge with another medium. It diverged in response to consumer demands.

                The telephone might have had a common ancestor (the wired phone), but today we also have cordless phones, headset phones, cellphones and satellite phones. The telephone didn’t converge with another technology. It diverged in response to consumer demands.

                It’s probably a lost cause, but a divergence butterfly like myself keeps flapping his wings and hoping another tornado will develop.

Finger Food

Poor Wendy’s. One crazy woman wrongly accuses the fast-food chain of an unthinkable crime (serving Chili containing a severed finger) and boom the brand has been dealt a major PR and marketing blow.

It is the nature of our world today that information travels faster than the speed of light, even if that information is false. And before you get the chance to set the record straight the brand damage has been done and Leno and Letterman have skewered your reputation.

How can you prevent this from happening? Well the truth is you cannot prevent crazy people from saying crazy things. And you certainly cannot stop the media, the comics or the bloggers from talking about it and propagating it. But like Valtrex and herpes, there are ways of making the outbreaks less severe.

The worst thing about the Wendy’s situation is that if one thing been different I think the whole mess could have been handled quickly and effectively.

What is that one thing? If Dave Thomas were still alive.

Dave Thomas was one of the best CEOs, PR spokespersons and advertising pitch people all rolled up into one. He was honest, sincere, straightforward, likeable, smart and well spoken.

Had Dave been around, I imagine he would have hit the TV talk shows immediately and inoculated the brand against the PR destruction that one woman attempted to cause.

The public finds it easy to hate big corporate giants. Photos of severed fingers can quickly fuel anger and dampen chili sales. But the public believes in people. And Dave is the type of guy people like to cheer for. I think Dave could have quickly convinced the public that he would personally get to the bottom of the problem. And help ease the panic and fears caused by the story.

But instead of hearing from Dave, we saw Wendy’s conducting an employee finger check at the restaurant where the chili was sold. Overall the team at Wendy’s did a mostly acceptable job of handling the disaster. Unfortunately what they really needed most was Dave and unfortunately he is no longer around.

Wendy’s has been unable to replace the irreplaceable Dave Thomas. While it is risky to place too much of the brand in one persons hands it is also dangerous not having a well known personality to represent the brand especially when trouble occurs.

Without a high profile leader, brands can end up like big ships in the water with no captain at the wheel being thrown off course by rogue waves.

In the wake of this PR disaster, I believe Dave Thomas would have been able to set the Wendy’s ship right back on course with his charming smile and reassuring words. Something that even the best written press release could never do.

Can Martha make a comeback?

Can Martha make a comeback? Of course, there is nothing people like more than knocking someone down and then giving them the chance to get back up and prosper.

Martha, her brand and her company, have taken some serious hits in the last two years. The very public scandal and her subsequent silence and lies have wreaked havoc on Martha the brand and woman.

But going to prison and disappearing for five months is just what this brand doctor would have ordered to prepare for a brand turnaround. Let’s look at Martha’s to do list for a successful brand comeback:

Martha’s things to do:

1. Drop lawsuit appeal.

Continuing to proclaim your innocence is pointless. I understand you wish to somehow “clear” your name. But the legal consensus seems to be that your appeals will not be successful. Get over your need to have a perfect, unblemished record, besides you have served your time in jail already. The public will be much more sympathetic if you admit you made a mistake, did your time, feel remorse and want to move on with your life. When you start doing media interviews, you don’t want to be talking about your legal appeal, you want to be talking about the exciting new things you are doing in the future.

2. Pick one high-powered exclusive media interview.

You will need to do one high-profile interview to jump-start your comeback. It will be incredibly important to show your human qualities of remorse, humility and likeability. We need to see that Martha is a real person, who can laugh at her mistakes while at the same time be kind and genuine. But who to grant the interview? Katie Couric in prime time would be my first choice.

3. Resuscitate Martha Stewart Living magazine.

Readers and more importantly advertisers have shunned Martha’s flagship magazine. Making this star shine again should be your top priority. Creating new ideas, writing articles and appearing in photo shoots should all help you to get your magazine get back on track.

4. Get back on syndicated television.

Martha, you can be warm, persuasive and personable on television. You need a new show to highlight those qualities while delivering solid home, cooking and decorating advice. With the high profile team you have so wisely put in place at your company delivering a top quality show should be doable.

5. Cancel the Apprentice.

Martha, what were you thinking? Obviously Mark and Donald took you out and got you bombed on sushi and champagne to get you to agree to this crazy idea. A Martha Stewart Apprentice makes no sense at all. The concept of the show is to be a cruel, backstabbing aristocrat tormenting a bunch of spoiled kids who want to be just like you. The Donald somehow pulls it off since he is such a cartoon of himself. But this is the wrong image for you. Besides the show’s concept is wearing thin and the ratings are sinking with this third season anyway. While people might want to see you initially, I don’t think the format will showcase your best side. Ditch it!

6. Renegotiate with Kmart.

Now that Sears and Kmart are one company, why not push to move the Martha brand into Sears and get out of the troubled and image tarnished Kmart stores. Or even better yet, help the company create a new brand to replace Kmart which could feature Martha and be a better showcase for her brands. Clearly Kmart today does not live up to Martha’s standards. And the store’s format is not succeeding anyway in competition to Wal-Mart and Target.