The Today show has been on the air for over 50 years. It is the gold standard for morning television winning a record 512 consecutive weeks in the ratings war.
But the dominance of Today has taken a major hit. Good Morning America has come out fighting in past few years and last season came within a heartbeat of scoring a weekly win against Today. GMA missed the mark by a mere 40,000 viewers.
Some say this rating season could be the one that GMA overtakes the one-time juggernaut Today. And you can tell that Today is definitely feeling the GMA heat. This summer the show made sweeping executive changes to try and right the ship. With profits in the hundred of millions of dollars, morning television is big business. And sagging brands mean sagging profits and sagging stock prices.
So the question is: What happened to Today?
The answer: expansion.
If you look at the problem from a branding perspective, the answer is simple. Yet none of the articles about Today I have read even mention the idea or the problem of expansion.
Our Immutable Law of Expansion states that the power of a brand is inversely proportional to its scope. When you expand a brand, you weaken a brand.
At the height of Today’s success, they expanded the brand in an effort to squeeze every dollar they could out of the brand.
First NBC launched After Today, a one-hour spin-off, to expand the brand. Then in May 2000, NBC expanded Today from a two hour show to a three hour show. The After Today line extension eventually was cancelled. But Today continues to be a three hour show as compared to GMA which is still only two hours.
Originally, Today said that Katie and Matt would participate less in the final hour and Ann and Al would pick up the slack. But as the ratings troubles began, Katie and Matt are having to put in more face time later in the show.
Today, Today is a weakened brand. To fill three hours of television, Today has been diluted with silly segments and new reporters. Three hours five days a week, 52 weeks a year is a lot of airtime. Not to mention the weekend editions of Today.
On the other hand, GMA has stayed more focused. Let’s face it, it is simply easier to produce two hours of great television than it is to produce three hours especially on a daily basis. Yes, GMA has silly segments and network show plugs too. But overall, we see more of Charlie and Diane. The bottom line is that more viewers are making the switch to ABC.
Sometimes it takes a while for the effects of expansion to catch-up to a brand. In 2000, the NBC network was riding high with hit shows in prime time and Today dominating morning television. They thought they could do no wrong. Why not give the public more of a show they love? But more is not always better. The effects of expansion have caught up to NBC. In 2005, both Today in the morning and NBC prime time are hitting hard times.
At the height of success the temptation to expand is at its greatest. It’s also the time for self-restraint. It’s the time to keep your brand focused. Brand building is a marathon race. You want a brand that can make it not just Today, but tomorrow too.
Speaking of branding wars, Darren Rovell's new book, "FIRST IN THIRST: How Gatorade Turned the Science of Sweat into a Cultural Phenomenon," tells the tale of Gatorade's branding victory over Coca-Cola.
The Brand Autopsy blog, linked below, has an excerpt from the book as well as an audiocast.
--Rema
http://brandautopsy.typepad.com/brandautopsy/2005/09/first_in_thirst.html
Posted by: RemaTherne | October 2005 at 04:32 PM
Forgive me for straying on the topic. But remember that Apple never position nor name the iPod "Video iPod." Instead, they position them as "the iPod that does the same stuff. Oh, and it can play video as well." And then they eliminate the iPod Photo in order not to confuse the consumer. Put simply, they didn't make a new category to compete with the old one; instead, they upgraded the old category. Yes, I do think that Apple is doing a convergence--but will they fail with this move?
On a different note, I totally agree on your post on Martha Stewart.
Posted by: Bram Pitoyo | October 2005 at 12:55 PM
What on earth is Apple thinking with the Video iPod?? I think the Video iPod is another attempt at convergence that will fail. Think about it, a music player should be as small as possible. A video player should be small but have as large a screen as possible. Nature favors the extremes is what Darwin said. iPod is wildly successful because it was a divergence product. Why they are going against that I don't understand. Forget the Photo iPod and Video iPod. I predict all of them will fail.
Posted by: Laura | October 2005 at 10:39 PM
I agree with your previous post on the iPod Nano. Is their release of the NEW Video-enabled iPod fall into the trap of The Law Of Expansion? Do you view it as an expansion of the scope of the iPod brand or a and natural evolution of the device?
Posted by: Dennis D. Balajadia | October 2005 at 10:26 PM
I am not sure of the exact demographics for the shows. My feeling is that the demographics for each are very similar. I have been watching Today almost my whole life. And I have personally noticed the decline in the quality of the show when they went to a three hour format. The show feels thin compared to GMA's. Doing three hours clearly has taken a toll on the stars and the producers.
Posted by: Laura | October 2005 at 03:06 PM
I'd like to know your point of view on these:
What are the demographics of Today and GMA's viewers, and how have they changed? Are NBC and ABC adapting to the tastes of their morning show viewers?
Posted by: GabrielSalcido | October 2005 at 02:33 PM