By: Anna Bielejec
While the economy has undoubtedly impacted the way in which consumers allocate their available monetary resources during a trip to the grocery store, the degree to which the consumers seem to be opening their wallets appears to depend less on price than it does on value. Los Angeles marketing analyst Wes Brown, says the variability of brand loyalty in a down economy depends on the product category. So while a large part of the grocery shoppers in times like these are willing to forgo loyalty to their snack-of-choice Cheetos Brand Cheese Puffs, a decision to splurge on a tasty brand name snack is far more likely to occur than a splurge in a pricier category of purchases on say, a fancy new king size, extra deep, pillow-top mattress. Furthermore, Wes Brown sees a bag of M&Ms as an indulgence that is well worth a consumer’s dime, on grounds that if everything else in your life sucks, why would you get rid of the one relatively low-cost thing you like?”
The fact that consumers are increasingly purchasing products that define their individual lifestyles is another reason consumers may not automatically be forgoing the pricier grocery products. Consumers who are unable to purchase all the products that match and enhance their desired organic, macrobiotic, and vegan lifestyles will engage in a trading game of sorts, where they will opt for generic private label goods in certain low interest categories to enjoy a higher standard of grocery “living” in the others.
To combat the threat of losing certain consumers, many household-name brands have begun executing value-driven marketing and rebranding campaigns. While Kraft instituted the “why Snackrifice” slogan, and Oscar Meyer Deli Fresh Meats rolled out the tagline “deli fresh, without the deli counter price,” Kool-Aid added “more smiles per gallon.” Also eager to boost its value “image,” Lean Cuisine recently introduced the phrase “we believe in food that’s good for you and good for your wallet.” In theory, the idea of boosting the perceived value of a product by changing its brand image makes sense. In practice, though, I would love to know how well it has actually worked.
Interestingly enough, there has been some debate over whether a company’s decision to creatively reimage its brand during an economic downturn is actually wise. While some marketing professionals believe this type of brand reimaging is a smart decision because it tracks to consumer expectations, others disagree. Marketing guru Miles Smith of Pittsburgh’s Smith Brothers Agency believes that companies should exercise caution before making the decision to alter the value perception of its well-known brand, on grounds that doing so could “discount your brand into being considered a commodity, and train consumers to expect a sale everyday.” So where is the balance between it all? What should a company do with its brand during economic upheaval? I’m going to leave that question for the marketing pros, end this blog, and go buy myself a bag of Cheetos. I’ve earned it.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
New Blog Series: Thoughts on Branding
This week, I am pleased to post a series of blogs written by Anna Bielejec, one of our fabulous summer associates. This summer, Anna took an interest in branding, brand development and branding decisions, an interest shared by another guest blogger and attorney at our firm, Steven Shapiro. This interest manifested itself in a series of delightful blogs with some thoughtful insight. I hope you enjoy them!
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Continuity: Licensing, Product Placement and the Comic Book Industry
By: Steven Shapiro
I did a double take the last time I walked into a supermarket. Prominently displayed for sale in the beach toys was a boogie board with a giant image of Smiley: The Psychotic Button screened on it. Yes, the blood-thirsty, imaginary friend-given-life of Chaos! Comics’ Evil Ernie… on a boogie board.
I mean damn.
For the uninitiated, Evil Ernie was one of the most metal comics produced in the 90s. Chronicling the undead adventures of an emotionally disturbed, yet psychic (!), teenager, who cut a swath of terror across the American heartland in order to bring his one true love, Lady Death, back to Earth, Evil Ernie was like a zombie movie dipped in a Dethklok concert and baked at like a million degrees. Unfortunately, Chaos! went belly up back in 2002 and sold off all of its kickass intellectual property. And though Lady Death’s skull-studded bikini has found a home on wince-inducing D2V cartoons and a series of sword & sorcery books that feel more like Dungeons and Dragons than Demons and Wizards, Pulido and Hughes’ brutal heavy metal icons have not reached anywhere near their former epic glory.
This in mind, coming across Smiley: The Psychotic Button seven years later as a brand license deal for a boogie board was disconcerting. Stephen Hughes is a pretty remarkable artist and his imagery clearly has value beyond the page. So much so, that some kid who has never heard of Ernest Fairchild might want to identify with that toothy grin and skull & cross-bone icon. But is the goal here to suck every last shred of brand equity out of these properties? Marc Gobé, the fantastic author of Emotional Branding and Brandjam, would have us believe that if we have learned anything from the Apples or Googles of the world; it’s that brands should not be about commoditization, but individualized resonance. There is a subsidiary of Omnicom out of Chicago called RiverWest, which is part brand licensing agency and part venture capital house. At RiverWest, they take ‘dead’ brands and reanimate them into ‘zombie’ brands. By this, I mean that RiverWest takes defunct companies that pretty much exist only as intellectual property (trademarks and maybe a trade secret or two) and infuses a management team and capital into it to make the brand live again.
Appropriate, hm?
Making a zombie brand of Evil Ernie and friends would create a certain poetic justice that the ‘90s nostalgia hounds as well as a group of metalheads, who would never dream of entering a comic shop, would dig. Chaos! Comics largely zombie and horror-related properties slated to come back from beyond the retail grave? Epic. Yet diluting the brand through window-dressing fast cash hits, not only fails to achieve this resonance, but can place the goal of capitalizing on the long term equity in the emotional reaction to the Chaos! properties that much harder to accomplish. No one likes a sell-out. Especially when the brand is on its sunset or, in the case of the Chaos! properties, past it.
Consumers are savvy. Whether they have the language to articulate their opinions on marketing campaigns or not, they know what they like and they know what works. As Gobé would remind us, what ‘works’ isn’t necessarily logical either. But these consumers, who have been inundated in marketing noise since they were infants watching Sesame Street, are kinda cynical. If a brand licensing campaign causes them to be jarred out of the ‘magic’ of the retail experience, its failed.
Related to this, and though it KILLS me to call attention to it, is the product placement buzz that’s been plaguing one of my favorite comic titles, The Amazing Spider-Man. Marvel has apparently entered into a deal with mattress retailer, Sleepy’s, to incorporate Sleepy’s logos and ads into the billboards depicted in Marvel’s flagship title. Of course, cash is king, and if Sleepy’s is willing to pay for the 2-D real estate of Puny Parker’s Friendly Neighborhood, I can’t really fault Marvel for assenting. But where’s the cross-promo synergy? Spider-Man moonlights as a superhero- he’s not even in bed that often, right? Is this a Ford Mustang Pony Girl thing, where we’re trying to get consumers’ loyalty BEFORE they have the need or ability to buy? When a fanboy moves OUT of his parents’ basement, he’s going to need a bed of his own-- and he’ll turn to the Mattress Professionals for it.
I would argue that there has to be other prominent brands with deep pockets that actually resonate with a comic book fan (and more importantly, potential NEW comic book fans!), avoid that jarring electro-shock of inappropriate pairings, and give back to both brands. In the case of Spider-Man, the tried & true everyman from New York, how about the New York Mets? Unlike most comic book fans who debated whether The Mighty Thor could beat up the Incredible Hulk in a fight, my friends and I discussed whether Peter Parker was a Yankees or a Mets fan. Not that I’m biased, but CLEARLY, the kid from a working class family in Queens, would identify with the blue collar underdog vibe of the Mets brand. And Mephisto’s Brand New Day aside, did he get married in the Bronx or did he get hitched at Shea Stadium?! ‘Nuff said. Spider-Man plus the Mets could sell books, tickets and contribute to the promotion of the mythology of both New York icons.
So the moral of the story is continuity isn’t just about whether Spider-Man was in the Savage Land with the New Avengers at the same time that he was battling the new mandibled Vulture in Amazing. Or whether it’s cheaper to just dust off the cool old psychotic button, rather than make something new and cool for that boogie board company. Brand licensing and product placement tools are also aspects of a long game. They are about fidelity across product lines and industries towards the goal of promoting the narrative of all brands in play.
Steven Shapiro is an attorney and Vice-President at Exemplar Law Partners, LLC. He specializes in brand licensing in the comic book and apparel industries.
I did a double take the last time I walked into a supermarket. Prominently displayed for sale in the beach toys was a boogie board with a giant image of Smiley: The Psychotic Button screened on it. Yes, the blood-thirsty, imaginary friend-given-life of Chaos! Comics’ Evil Ernie… on a boogie board.
I mean damn.
For the uninitiated, Evil Ernie was one of the most metal comics produced in the 90s. Chronicling the undead adventures of an emotionally disturbed, yet psychic (!), teenager, who cut a swath of terror across the American heartland in order to bring his one true love, Lady Death, back to Earth, Evil Ernie was like a zombie movie dipped in a Dethklok concert and baked at like a million degrees. Unfortunately, Chaos! went belly up back in 2002 and sold off all of its kickass intellectual property. And though Lady Death’s skull-studded bikini has found a home on wince-inducing D2V cartoons and a series of sword & sorcery books that feel more like Dungeons and Dragons than Demons and Wizards, Pulido and Hughes’ brutal heavy metal icons have not reached anywhere near their former epic glory.
This in mind, coming across Smiley: The Psychotic Button seven years later as a brand license deal for a boogie board was disconcerting. Stephen Hughes is a pretty remarkable artist and his imagery clearly has value beyond the page. So much so, that some kid who has never heard of Ernest Fairchild might want to identify with that toothy grin and skull & cross-bone icon. But is the goal here to suck every last shred of brand equity out of these properties? Marc Gobé, the fantastic author of Emotional Branding and Brandjam, would have us believe that if we have learned anything from the Apples or Googles of the world; it’s that brands should not be about commoditization, but individualized resonance. There is a subsidiary of Omnicom out of Chicago called RiverWest, which is part brand licensing agency and part venture capital house. At RiverWest, they take ‘dead’ brands and reanimate them into ‘zombie’ brands. By this, I mean that RiverWest takes defunct companies that pretty much exist only as intellectual property (trademarks and maybe a trade secret or two) and infuses a management team and capital into it to make the brand live again.
Appropriate, hm?
Making a zombie brand of Evil Ernie and friends would create a certain poetic justice that the ‘90s nostalgia hounds as well as a group of metalheads, who would never dream of entering a comic shop, would dig. Chaos! Comics largely zombie and horror-related properties slated to come back from beyond the retail grave? Epic. Yet diluting the brand through window-dressing fast cash hits, not only fails to achieve this resonance, but can place the goal of capitalizing on the long term equity in the emotional reaction to the Chaos! properties that much harder to accomplish. No one likes a sell-out. Especially when the brand is on its sunset or, in the case of the Chaos! properties, past it.
Consumers are savvy. Whether they have the language to articulate their opinions on marketing campaigns or not, they know what they like and they know what works. As Gobé would remind us, what ‘works’ isn’t necessarily logical either. But these consumers, who have been inundated in marketing noise since they were infants watching Sesame Street, are kinda cynical. If a brand licensing campaign causes them to be jarred out of the ‘magic’ of the retail experience, its failed.
Related to this, and though it KILLS me to call attention to it, is the product placement buzz that’s been plaguing one of my favorite comic titles, The Amazing Spider-Man. Marvel has apparently entered into a deal with mattress retailer, Sleepy’s, to incorporate Sleepy’s logos and ads into the billboards depicted in Marvel’s flagship title. Of course, cash is king, and if Sleepy’s is willing to pay for the 2-D real estate of Puny Parker’s Friendly Neighborhood, I can’t really fault Marvel for assenting. But where’s the cross-promo synergy? Spider-Man moonlights as a superhero- he’s not even in bed that often, right? Is this a Ford Mustang Pony Girl thing, where we’re trying to get consumers’ loyalty BEFORE they have the need or ability to buy? When a fanboy moves OUT of his parents’ basement, he’s going to need a bed of his own-- and he’ll turn to the Mattress Professionals for it.
I would argue that there has to be other prominent brands with deep pockets that actually resonate with a comic book fan (and more importantly, potential NEW comic book fans!), avoid that jarring electro-shock of inappropriate pairings, and give back to both brands. In the case of Spider-Man, the tried & true everyman from New York, how about the New York Mets? Unlike most comic book fans who debated whether The Mighty Thor could beat up the Incredible Hulk in a fight, my friends and I discussed whether Peter Parker was a Yankees or a Mets fan. Not that I’m biased, but CLEARLY, the kid from a working class family in Queens, would identify with the blue collar underdog vibe of the Mets brand. And Mephisto’s Brand New Day aside, did he get married in the Bronx or did he get hitched at Shea Stadium?! ‘Nuff said. Spider-Man plus the Mets could sell books, tickets and contribute to the promotion of the mythology of both New York icons.
So the moral of the story is continuity isn’t just about whether Spider-Man was in the Savage Land with the New Avengers at the same time that he was battling the new mandibled Vulture in Amazing. Or whether it’s cheaper to just dust off the cool old psychotic button, rather than make something new and cool for that boogie board company. Brand licensing and product placement tools are also aspects of a long game. They are about fidelity across product lines and industries towards the goal of promoting the narrative of all brands in play.
Steven Shapiro is an attorney and Vice-President at Exemplar Law Partners, LLC. He specializes in brand licensing in the comic book and apparel industries.
Labels:
branding,
comic books,
licensing,
marketing,
trademark
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Kickstarter a Great Option for Indie Artists
Alright artists - calling all filmmakers, musicians, designers, ALL artists - you guys need to check out Kickstarter.com I don't want my blog to be a substitute to visiting the site, so make sure you go there and give them the traffic. But in a nutshell, it's a micro-financing site for creatives and their projects, allowing users to pledge and fund thee projects as they see fit. Artists, you are entrepreneurs and innovators - get in on this! Get funding @ the same time as you're spreading word about your creative endeavors. God's speed, may the force with you, na-noo-na-noo.
Labels:
financing,
independent artists,
music
Monday, August 3, 2009
Social Gaming On the Rise
Great article in the San Fransisco Chronicle today about Social Gaming. You know, games like Mafia Wars that you can play on F/B and annoy all your friends with your constantly updated news feed. I really shouldn't be so critical. For the gaming industry, it appears these babies are a little bit of a cash cow; simple concepts, graphics and mechanisms means lower development (and possibly maintenance) costs. Plus, because they don't require you to play "live" with others, casual gamers have the option of logging on and contributing to game play as it suits them.
Do any of you guys play these games? What are your thoughts on these games and (new) direction of gaming?
Do any of you guys play these games? What are your thoughts on these games and (new) direction of gaming?
Labels:
casual gaming,
gaming,
social media
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
