[Cache #247]
By Andris Pone – President, Coin Branding
–
What’s the biggest brand in the world? It’s not Apple. Or Google. Or Microsoft or Coca-Cola or Facebook or McDonald’s.
Not for me, anyway.
The above are the brands defined by Forbes as the top five Most Valuable in 2016, calculated through a formula involving EBIT and price-to-earnings multiples.
I think it’s a lot more interesting to work from the definition of brand, being what people think of you. It’s a definition that begs the question: which brands stoke within you the most powerful thoughts and feelings, good and bad? Which are the richest with meaning?
Microsoft? Give me a break.
–
Sure, they have among the highest awareness in the world. And true, there are many millions of people who love to hate them. But this is not a brand abundant with meaning. Ditto for IBM, GE, AT&T, Cisco or Oracle – some of the other brands in Forbes’ tech-heavy top 20.
So let’s broaden our focus in two ways. First, by assessing brands on what you think/feel about them: what they mean to you. And second, by throwing off Forbes’ limited interpretation of what qualifies as a brand in the first place.
It is not only companies and products that can be brands. A brand is anyone or anything that anyone has ever thought about. These things and people can, depending on your point of view, be good or bad or even evil things. Most prominently, this list includes any human being, your pet, political parties and organizations, countries and regions, educational and religious institutions, terrorist groups, musicians and entertainers and that coffee shop or dry cleaner you love or hate down the street.
Based upon these criteria, and given that the Olympics are on, which brands in your world get the gold, silver and bronze – and why?
In reverse order, my personal podium looks like this:
Bronze: ISIS. Does this mean I like these clowns? Negative. But they provoke profound fear and loathing and constant headlines around the world. Related, note that I used the ISIS acronym as opposed to the other names this organization is known by, such as Daesh or IS or Islamic State. Proving that some names have more power than others, ISIS as a moniker has the highest ranking in the public consciousness because it is the easiest to say.
Silver: Harvard. Harvard has always been fascinating to me because I can imagine no single word in any language that commands such deep respect – instantaneously – year after year, decade after decade. All you have to do is say “so and so went to Harvard” and the conversation is over – except for the one other word very likely to be uttered in response: “wow.”
And obviously you can tell I didn’t go to Yale.
Gold: Donald Trump. Does this mean I like this clown? Personally, no. But there is presently no match for the level of apoplexy he provokes.
One of the beauties of this exercise is that you cannot possibly be wrong. Because there is no “wrong.” Your thoughts are yours, so whatever you think is 100% correct. Even better, you can change your mind: because of the fleeting nature of what occupies our thoughts, the way your list looks next month or next year could be very different than today.
So: what does your podium look like?
Earls: An Apology Well Done
[Cache #238]
By Andris Pone – President, Coin Branding
–
Here’s something you probably didn’t know two weeks ago: that Earls has been trying hard to serve only Certified Humane beef in its restaurants.
But now, in all likelihood, you do. And that’s all the evidence we need to declare Earls’ brand “blunder” to be, in fact, a major victory.
That’s the upshot of what I told Paul Haavardsrud of CBC Radio One in an interview yesterday, available here on Dropbox (my bit starts at 1:55).
As you know, two weeks ago Earls announced they would no longer serve Canadian beef – because Canada (said Earls) couldn’t produce enough that met the standard of Certified Humane. Instead, Earls would source its beef from the US, which could provide enough of the good stuff.
–
Alberta farmers became, to put it mildly, rather upset. They rallied on social media and called for a boycott. And then yesterday, Earls president Mo Jessa released a video in which he gave an obviously authentic, heartfelt and unequivocal apology for turning his back on Canadian beef. He said Earls would do everything in its power to get Canadian product back in its restaurants as soon as possible.
It was a brand masterstroke. For Earls is now clearly positioned as the Canadian leader when it comes to ethically sourced beef, an issue of rapidly increasing importance to consumers. Provided they work in good faith with the Canuck cattle farmers to up the supply of Certified Humane, Earls can own the position over the very long term.
So how did they manage to make filet out of chuck? And how did they manage not to blow this golden opportunity, as so many organizations would have?
It all comes down to these key components of an apology well done:
1.They apologized quickly.
The farmers had organized on social media, yes, but at least they hadn’t had the time to blockade Earls’ restaurants with their tractors. Taking too long to admit an error – or even denying that an error has been made (hello Chris Colabello) is one of the biggest mistakes a brand can make.
2.It wasn’t that big of a deal anyway.
Well…this one might be pure luck. Or great brand management. Either way, Earls’ error just wasn’t that egregious in the first place. In fact, it could easily be argued that Earls was trying to do something noble by pursuing the Certified Humane standard.
3.They meant it.
President Jessa didn’t do one of these weasel-worded “if you were offended” routines. From his words, and from his body language, it was easily apparent that he really did feel bad about it.
It’s a flip flop with fascinating effect. Because ethically sourced beef was not, two weeks ago, a component of the Earls’ brand proposition. Now it is – and the Earls brand stands for much more in May than it did in April.