What drives Booz's brand analytics tool?

Booz&co have ventured into the small but under-estimated brand valuation market with the launch of a brand vitality assessment tool designed to help failing brands redefine themselves..

The announcement comes off the back of Millward Brown's recent alliance with Brazil’s leading brand valuation consultancy, Brand Analytics, designed to complement its Optimor evaluation and measurement products in the South America market.

It also signals the tendency for global brand and business consultancies to merge strategy and engagement with valuation and analytics off the back of increasing client demands for transparency and justification in spend.

In the latest issue of Strategy and Business, Booz&co cite the success of revitalized brands like Abercrombie & Fitch, Johnnie Walker, Olay, and Ford’s Mustang as evidence that the success or otherwise of brand revitalisation and brand extension has been traditionally driven by "instinct and an appetite for risk".

Booz claims its new tool kit provides "data-driven analytics" to minimize the risk associated with these kinds of decisions. Called the Brand Vitality Assessment (BVA) and sounding much like Y&R's Brand Asset Valuation (BAV), it says it examines every aspect of a brand including communications strategy, pricing and the state of its competitors to reveal how much life is left in the name.

Booz's BVA is supposed to help companies "identify latent value — or the lack thereof — in their product portfolios before deciding what to do" or in other words, what the brand equity is. No surprises here and hardly different from their competitors.

Booz's BVA process is based on a brand having what they describe as "residual strengths" such as brand associations, the potential for or meaningful differentiation on at least one purchase driver and basic distribution infrastructure to support the revitalization.

It uses four related evaluations that incorporate consumer (where hoping that B2B hasn't been ignored here) research to create a holistic and data-driven view of how the brand is currently performing in the marketplace.

The evaluations seem fairly qualitative rather than quantitative and Booz is unable to cite any examples of what kind of measures are actually made and what kind of data is produced. Further, they don't provide any evidence of any brands they have worked with that have employed quantitative measures but apply only market share figures as demonstrations of how the process works.

The four evaluations appear almost entirely qualitative. They are:

1. The Purchase Funnel Assessment (PFA) is just another way to evaluate the purchase decision process and from DIFFUSION's experience this is generally qualitative as it relies on customer assessment from awareness to point of purchase.

2. The Brand Equity Review (BER) is designed measure residual brand equity and loyalty within the target customer segment. While it might identify the brand’s attributes, one would think these would be known and those attributes which have been eroded or been rendered irrelevant by competitors, again this seems more qualitative measure.

3. Competitive Dynamics Assessment (CDA) is a look at which competitors are taking away market share, why, and how easily the problems could be rectified.

4. Value Proposition Check (VPC, I suppose) analyses the brand’s benefits including marketing communications and pricing. It includes standard brand attributes and benefits check built around the functional, emotional and expressive against consumer, competitor, and internal perspectives. Nothing new here.

Booz's so-called Brand Vitality Potential (let's call it BVP and not sure how it snuck in) is the final evaluation, where the "cold hard facts, as uncovered by the previous four analyses, come into play". I guess this is where we might see some numbers.

Booz says the BVA is "not a panacea for tired brands" but that it offers is "a rigorous, data-driven approach to deciding a brand’s future" except we don't know what the real data is except it's all qualitative.

Booz could do well to state whether any other quantitative measurements are being used such as total market shares, sales by segment against overall PE ratios and how these are applied by the BVA. What scoring tools will be used? How will one tool be used against another? What are the weightings? If any?

More importantly, how will the assessment be reported and by whom and within what framework, particularly from the point of view of brand stretch and brand extension.

Then there are the issues of brand redefinition, activation and engagement, which follow on from such work. Booz and for that matter few other consultancies, have little capability or experience doing this kind of work despite talking about it and claiming it. The article cites no projects they have worked on this area, just suppose sos.

That there are so few consultancies and their clients who have undertaken these kind of complete lifecycle projects following a brand valuation, says much about the the general market wlllingness to understand the process behind brand creation and to make the actual investment required to revitalise dormant brands as it does about the abilities of the consultancies they use. The one's who have done it and been successful have obviously understood this from the outset.

Image courtesy of Chronicle Books.

Kluster's crowd naming rights and wrongs.

In naming a product or service, it's great to have the benefits of a large focus group, but everyone who works in naming knows that it's even better to have a focussed outcome based on a good brief.

So when US based crowd sourcing company Kluster launched their recent Namethis service, DIFFUSION was both interested and abhorred all at the same time.

Kluster philosophy is based on crowdsourcing, meaning if you can get a group of passionate people working together you can get better solutions for almost any decision-making problem than with a single person. Whether its writing an online encyclopedia like Wikipedia, designing a new logo, or creating a new product or a new name, the people at Kluster think the power of the crowd is a better way to do it. They may be a little off the mark.

While there is much debate about the ethical, social, and economic implications of crowdsourcing, it's a popular outcome of Web 2.0 but not without it's detractors. I'm going to join the critics.

Firstly, what's interesting about the whole naming proposition, is the idea that naming can be made simple and the result usable. It's a very clear three phase process that includes a company or individual paying the $99 fee, posting it up for 48 hours and letting people put their suggestions and then what is described a ssome" fancy math machine" makes some decisions (?) and payment is apportioned out to the crowd.

Sure, there's some good names in some of the suggestions but the outcomes seem bizarre and, in many cases, unusable. A case in point. An organic skincare company gets the name Altitude. The brief:

A unique combination of pure, natural and organic ingredients from the Swiss Alps that is USDA and ECOCERT certified natural and organic skin care. Rare medicinal plants plants found at very high elevations are combined with essential oils to nourish and protect the skin from losing moisture and keep the skin beautiful and healthy. The high elevations and exposure to extreme temperature and humidity changes and high UV has resulted in plants that have developed protective factors that have proven to be beneficial to our skin.

The result is 275 names including Altitude, of which 12,523 watts of power were invested in the project to come up with the name. Or by my calculations 576kWH. or around $172, depending on how much energy costs per kWH where you live.

Now the energy usage is all very well for green credibility, but the actual cumulative time taken by the 275 respondents could be something close to something like 91 hours, if we say that each individual spent on average 20mins on this project within the 48 hour deadline

Now if you want to attach a real monetary value for the project, it's close to three working weeks for a single individual. Or approximately $31,000 worth of value on global brand consulting naming rates (yes, I know what the rates are!) for a single consultant without any add on rates or taxes.

While it looks like incredible value and it is, what's troubling about social media being used as product naming avenue is the fact that the process, intellectual and economic value is being completely undermined.

In the case of Altitude, there's no real attempt to validate the name beyond possible domain name registration. I did a quick Whois.net check and the name Altitude is registered for the major TLDs. Forget any trademark or company name checks and any other legals registrations in whatever territory or country you wish to operate in.

With a single search engine check and I can come up with at least two global companies (Napoleon Perdis and Swiss Army) using the name Altitude as a product name. And I'm not even sure whether they have registered this name.

The likelihood of its use by the project sponsor is subsequently likely to be low, because really the exercise is just that..a exercise. Even the "winning graduate" as they are described, is unlikely to have any rights to the name if there annexure has been buried in the fine print. Sure there might be the opportunity to come up with some great names but really, Kluster proves crowdsourcing works but it doesn't prove that it's right for everyone. So far the Kluster people have come up with 10 names. The value of this $999. And to Kluster, $200.

So you see what the value is.

See this is the future of television. So why haven't the networks seen it?

Three events in the past two weeks have convinced me traditional television and traditional television viewing is being e radically transformed.

On Friday German publishing giant Axel Springer and Dutch consumer electronics producer Philips announced they had developed a system that will make it possible for television viewers to create personalized channels from their favorite TV and Internet video content.

And last Tuesday Sony, along with six of the biggest US cable operators Comcast Corp, Time Warner Cable, Cox Communications, Charter Communications, Cablevision Systems Corp and Bright House Networks, signed a deal that enables US consumers buy digital televisions that can receive a cable service without a set-top box.

Finally, last week a syndicate of Japan's largest electronics manufacturers announced that it may have reached agreement on a standard for a new internet television and new set, which will let users browse websites and watch streaming programs at the touch of a remote control, could be on sale as early as March 2008.

In each case, the opportunity was clear to all but those in what is now called "heritage media". Traditional network based and free-to-air television is being increasingly forced into a wider choice set that sees the television screen as a portal for all content and interactivity - both linear and non-linear - global, national and local.

Add to this increasingly expanding opportunities for delivering content to mobile, laptop and gaming devices, and you can see why brand owners and television network owners are fast becoming small fish.

The new Phillips software-based system, called TV Digital Personal, will be available on Philips television sets in Europe in time for Christmas. It will also be available for free download onto personal computers and can be used on digital video recorders and mobile devices.

TV Digital Personal is based on Springer's digital TV guide, so in effect another walled garden with yet another EPG. The software called APRICO is not unlike TIVO and automatically learns viewing preferences and suggests additional programming based on what has already been chosen by the viewer enabling the viewer to build their own channel.

Advertising could possibly be microtargetted according to viewer selections with an opt out permissions. This will be in addition to the regular TV commercials already embedded in programs.

The Sony announcement establishes a new US technological standard to be adopted by 2009 that will enable a new generation of TVs to include video-on-demand, digital video recording, interactive programming guides and other services.

By adopting a Java-based application called tru2way as a US interactive standard, it will enable the adoption of new "plug-and-play" interactive devices that can be used with TV sets.

The technology will also make it easier for consumers to receive the full range of cable-based services on other devices such as laptops, MP3 players, and cell phones.

Japan's new internet television is the brainchild of the TV Portal Service Corporation founded in July 2007 by Matsushita Electric Industrial Co, Sony Corp., Sharp Corp., Toshiba Corp. and Hitachi Ltd, set up a TV Portal Service with So-net Entertainment Corp., a Sony-affiliated Internet service provider and shareholder and is backed by the Japanese Government.

The companies aim to establish a global standard for the service and its portal, operating under the name acTVila, connects TV users free of charge to various web sites that provide consumer-oriented services, such as news and shopping.

From July Sharp will also sell TVs with an additional internet portal that offers access to Yahoo! Japan - the country's most popular website - as well as digitized print magazines and high definition video-on-demand.

In the end all of these announcements are still announcements but what they signal is indefatigable - television screens can no longer be viewed as just technology but as the conduit for an increasingly complex dialogue between media and content owners, producers, users, viewers, technology makers, brand owners and their agencies. And, if all the talk is right, the traditional television industry is showing all the signs of being undone by technology and its users just as the music industry was late last century.

Police halt Bill Henson opening on child sexualisation investigation.

NSW Police closed down the opening night of Australian and international photographer Bill Henson's new show at the Roslyn Oxley Gallery in Sydney's Paddington this evening.

I was on the scene when two NSW Police walked from the building and advised the waiting media and bemused art lovers like myself that the gallery owners and Bill Henson had halted the opening pending an investigation by the NSW Child Protection Authority. Henson was seen leaving before Police made the announcment.

Police said they would be interviewing one of the subjects of the photographs and her parents.

Henson's work is renowned for it's use of young models set against lush and often opulent settings. He featured in a major retrospective at the NSW Art Gallery in 2006.

NSW Police were reacting to a piece by Sydney Morning Herald journalist Miranda Devine in Wednesday's edition which in turn fueled Sydney's incendiary talk back radio commentators with critics describing the images as contributing to the sexualisation of children.

Expect outrage from many quarters against the conservative Devine's outpourings and a backlash from both the Australian art world and media and the start of a new round of censorship.

Brand heuristics: how we have all bought into the murky world of murketing.

I was recently sent a preview of New York Times' consumer columnist Rob Walker's soon to be released book Buying In and at the same time I was looking at some recent published research on the role of heuristics in consumer choice. It was timely.

Walker's book, also subtitled The Secret Dialogue Between What We Buy and Who We Are, underlines two main ideas - what he calls murketing and the creation of a desire code - as the basis of this "secret" dialogue.

Murketing, Walker defines, in two parts. First, it refers to what he describes as the increasingly sophisticated tactics of marketers who "blur the line between branding channels and everyday life", and secondly, through the "consumer embrace of branded, commercial culture" or what I would describe as participant marketing, "the modern relationship between consumer and consumed defined not by rejection but by frank complicity".

The second part of Walker's thesis surrounds something he calls the Desire Code, "the complex of factors, rational and otherwise, that spark us to make particular purchase decisions" but what he was really doing was identifying what neuroscientists and those at the sharper end of branding already have a name for - brand heuristics.

Brand heuristics IS the basis for the creation of the desire code. Essentially, heuristics are simple, efficient rules we use which are hard-wired by evolutionary processes or are learned via experience. They explain how people make decisions, come to judgments and solve problems, typically when facing complex problems or faced with incomplete information such as when they go to buy a particular product or consider a service. Heuristic rules work well under most circumstances, but in certain cases lead to what are described as systematic cognitive biases.

It is these cognitive biases which branding trades on. For example, in his 1899 book, The Theory of the Leisure Class, economic theorist Thorstein Veblen identified a penchant for people to perceive more expensive goods as being better than inexpensive ones (providing they are of similar initial quality or lack of quality and of similar style). He found this even holds true even when prices and brands are switched; so putting the high price on the normally relatively inexpensive brand is enough to lead people to perceive it as being better than the the other product that is normally more expensive. It's the typical Pepsi vs Coke taste test, which Walker also cites in his book.

Brand heuristics (and I have struggled to find a single simple definition) so here's mine: is a system of organised and systemic visual, verbal, olfactory and emotional cues and evidence that trade on and or create cognitive biases. In effect, this is Walker's desire code.

Walker sees the goal of branding to "narrow the range of actual differences in commodity attributes" to create "a different kind of value". And he's right. Brand heuristics puts in play, for good or better, the great sleight of hand. How else do you explain the desire to buy Hermes' Birkin Bag (see pic of Roger Federer from a recent campaign) for $16000 with a waiting period of six years versus an eBay knockoff for $169.99, which you can get now. Both, as Walker acknowledges, are likely to be of similar quality with little variation. So it's back to the desire code, the brand heuristics.

Or, as I have noted in DIFFUSIONblog 14/7/05 Replacing place, the specificity of luxury brands, what happens when Prada begins manufacturing their bags in the same factories that produce bags for Target?

It is murketing, as Walker puts it, that is being used to affect a great change in how we perceive and participate in brands. He cites examples of people signing up with "word of mouth" firms to become what are commonly called "brand ambassadors" you see on CraigsList postings who can spread the news about some new product or the hundreds of thousands of people submitting their own reviews of services and product offerings in places like Yelp.com and Trip Advisor.

So while Walker doesn't present us with a lot of new ideas here and he hasn't looked around at the research, he's good at filtering the ideas and packaging them up in a readable way. While many of these same examples cultural and brand critics have been citing for some time (it's the usual suspects like Timberland, American Apparel, Red Bull and iPod), what he does do successfully is popularise the idea of what I call participant marketing and the use of "desire codes" as a simulcra for brand heuristics, the successful and perhaps somewhat accidental exploitation of these hidden biases by both brand owners and their agencies.

Walker's book is released in the United States on June 3.

Coles Express and predictable irrationality.

As gas prices rise around the world, it's not hard to see why consumers and governments are getting more and more irritated with gas retailers but perhaps they only have themselves to blame.

In Australia, the dominant supermarkets chains - Woolworths and Coles - have seen spectacular revenue growth from their entry into the petrol retailing market and a major contribution to this growth has been shopping docket priced discounts, mainly available through their supermarkets and liquor stores.

So when a furore broke over Coles' petrol pricing policies this week, it best illustrated the predictable irrationality around our brand based buying decisions.

Not less than two government pricing watchdogs, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the new petrol price commissioner (yes, they do have one!!), warned Australian motorists to consider alternatives to the Coles Express stores following a survey into prices paid at the pump.

According to the price commissioner, Pat Walker, motorists who regularly used Coles Express discount dockets (available only after a $30 purchase in Coles Supermarkets and other Coles Group stores and offering an intial $0.03 off the per litre price), should shop around before buying petrol at Coles Express.

The Commission identified about 30 Coles Express sites in Sydney that were selling petrol for 155.9 cents a litre, when the average price was 143.3 cents a litre.

Although differences of 15 to 20 cents a litre among service stations were typical, the Commission had issued the statement because it believed the discrepancy was significant and was worried consumers might be buying out of habit.

The Commissioner's statement illustrates the kind of irrational behaviour identified by MIT professor Dan Ariely in his recent book, Predictable Irrationality: The Hidden Forces that Shape our Decisions.

In more than 20 years researching behavioral economics, Ariely discovered that people tend to behave irrationally in a predictable fashion. Drawing on psychology, economics and behavioral economics, Ariely's book demonstrates why cautious people make poor decisions about sex when aroused, why patients get greater relief from a more expensive drug over its cheaper counterpart (a 5 cent aspirin vs a 50 cent one), why we steal hotel soap. Or, in the case of Coles Express, why consumers are willing to buy petrol at more than 12c above the market rate just because they might benefit from a 3c cent or more discount.

According to Ariely, our understanding of economics which is currently based on the assumption of a rational subject, should, in fact, also be based on our systematic, unsurprising irrationality. It's also something that quantitative analysts in the financial markets have been dealing with for years.

Ariely argues that predictable irrationality provides an opportunity to gain a greater understanding of previously ignored or misunderstood forces (emotions, relativity, social norms and dare we say, brands) that influence our economic behavior brings a variety of opportunities for both consumers and brand owners to reexamine both individual motivation and consumer choice.

What's most interesting about the Coles Express example is that Ariely's predictable irrationality is being reinforced at the brand level. The station signage, ticketing and shelf ticketing provides a strong visual reinforcement of this irrational view that the consumer is actually saving. The constant message, right down to product naming, is always "saving".

Whether people associate Coles Express with value and hence saving, or its just plain laziness, can only really be explained by this predictable irrationality. And the brand messages simply serve to reinforce the perception of saving, even if it is, as the petrol price commission and the ACCC point out, it's not the case.

Woolworth's Thomas Dux challenges Coles.

Woolworths is set to add to Wesfarmers' supermarket woes with the first of its new Thomas Dux branded stores opening in Sydney.

With another store already earmarked for an August opening in Sydney's Paddington, Woolworths says the stores will concentrate on offering mainly fresh foods and a larger deli in smaller format supermarkets under the new brand. Some of the brands to be included in the new store include one's already stocked at Woolworths' deli counters as well as new ones such as Simon Johnson.

In a local release, Thomas Dux Grocer is described as "a bunch of people passionate about food" who care about "what you care about" and aim to make the food shopping experience "so much better." It's going to be prove challenging as no supermarket brand in Australia seems to be able to do this with all relying on similar strategies to maintain market dominance, yet with none with a particularly differentiating brand strategy.

The move marks a new chapter in the attempt by both Woolworths and Coles to capture what is an increasingly savvy grocery customer and replicates similar IGA formats in Victoria and Queensland.

The look and feel of Thomas Dux (retro name and logo) is very much in line with similar format stores in London for small grocers such as Shepherd Foods and Partridges, and the reliance of fresh and specialist lines for stores replicates similar strategies used by US organic grocer, Wholefoods.

Both Coles and Woolworths look to be under threat by changes announced last week by the Australian Federal Government which will see the market set opened up to international competition. Already US big box superbrand Costco is set to open in Victoria later this year.

Coles is increasingly seen to be on the backfoot in its battle to maintain the Australian supermarket duopoly (Australia is one of the world's most lucrative supermarket battlegrounds deliverying higher than world average margins).

While Coles is currently undertaking a major review of both its media and advertising buying and strategy under new CEO Ian McLeod, no new brand strategy has been revealed. It was the absence of a coherent strategy that so successfully undermined John Fletcher's tenure in the role.