Tag: strategy

Brand Strategy

The right way

Clients often ask me the right way to execute a particular brand strategy, in which case I am happy to share best practices.

When the goal is to produce results in an effective and consistent way, it is wise to establish protocol and best practices for achieving optimal outcomes. However, protocol can become a crutch if it causes us to limit our approach. And can be a trap if it prevents us from widening our vision for what more is possible.

Best practices are a guide and effective when they are flexible. The only “right” way to execute is based on situation, environment and real-time influences, which may differ depending on the “right” situation.

Brand Strategy

The new obvious

A complete strategy is a combination of the most obvious and the not-so-obvious solutions. An ideal path will likely fall somewhere in-between the two. Sometimes we have a tendency to get caught in the cycle of identifying only the most obvious ideas, which may run us the risk of being outdated or disconnected.

When we combine the two polars of the obvious and not-so-obvious, what we create is something that we won’t believe we hadn’t discovered before…the new obvious.

Brand Strategy Perspective

G is for the newer Google

You may have heard by now, Google announced that it has created a new parent company named Alphabet. This brand portfolio strategy will likely have an impact on revenue and profitability, but that is a lesson for another blog post. First, let’s focus on the strategically crafted letter titled “G is for Google”, posted on abc.xyz, the new web destination for Alphabet.

This letter reads like a deceivingly simple explanation for the change, which makes it intriguing (to me) and effective (for investors). While Google doesn’t explain what Alphabet is until the 5th paragraph, we’ll only need the first 3 paragraphs to illustrate their brand strategy.

To do this, I’ve highlighted only the most essential points in an excerpt from their letter below; removing the clutter so we can see beyond the words and narrow our focus.

G is for Google

As Sergey and I wrote in the original founders letter 11 years ago, “Google is not a conventional company. We do not intend to become one.” As part of that, we also said that you could expect us to make “smaller bets in areas that might seem very speculative or even strange when compared to our current businesses.” From the start, we’ve always strived to do more, and to do important and meaningful things with the resources we have.

We did a lot of things that seemed crazy at the time. Many of those crazy things now have over a billion users, like Google Maps, YouTube, Chrome, and Android. And we haven’t stopped there. We are still trying to do things other people think are crazy but we are super excited about.

We’ve long believed that over time companies tend to get comfortable doing the same thing, just making incremental changes. But in the technology industry, where revolutionary ideas drive the next big growth areas, you need to be a bit uncomfortable to stay relevant.

Recapping the highlighted points, the letter could read…

Google is not a conventional company. We want to make smaller bets that may seem very speculative or strange in order to do important and meaningful things. We did things that have seemed crazy but now have over a billion users, and we haven’t stopped doing crazy things that we are super excited about. Companies get comfortable, but in the technology industry, you have to be uncomfortable to grow and stay relevant.

From this perspective, it is easier to understand that Google…

– Does not want to be perceived as conventional.

– Is a big company that wants to make smaller and speculative bets.

– Enjoys and has succeeded doing things that seem crazy.

– Does not want to get comfortable.

– Believes that they will have to be uncomfortable to grow and stay relevant.

My belief is that this is the same Google packaged in a new way. Like the original founders stated, they’ve always been unconventional. Their brand feels a need to reassert their unconventional position in a way that captures the attention of the internal team, investors, and users. As far as I can tell, Alphabet is the newer Google.

Brand Strategy Perspective

Selling sound

How do you sell sound? I’ve been observing the strategy of a music streaming service, Tidal, that is attempting to do just this.

While they’ve made some adjustments in their brand presentation since I wrote about them here, they are still misguided in their approach of promoting sound quality as the differential between them and their competitors.

The obvious reason that Tidal would try to sell sound quality is because selling screen quality has worked for television and other devices. But, the reality is:

Selling sound quality is not equivalent to selling screen quality.

Referring to science alone, sight is our most dominant sense. That is why we can distinguish between high and low screen quality. We don’t register the difference in sound quality enough to sway our purchase decision.

Considering this, how should Tidal adjust their overall brand strategy?

The tagline…

Current tagline: High Fidelity Music Streaming

The issue: What value does high fidelity add to me as an end user? I am not sure that most people could tell you the difference between high fidelity and the quality of their music now. It is not quantifiable in a way that people can extract value.

Suggested tagline: Flawless Music Streaming or Flawless Music

The quotes…

Current quote: “Forget Spotify. Get CD Quality Music” – Forbes

The issue: On Tidal’s website, there are several quotes that refer to the CD quality of the music. Meaning, Tidal is attempting to position themselves as offering new technology by comparing themselves to old, outdated technology? This takes away value and may be confusing to consumers, some of who may not even know what a CD is or have enough experience listening to them to understand the quality comparison.

Suggested quote: “I’ve never listened to music this flawless.” -Pannsy

Tidal should be inspired, not completely lead, by the sound quality of their music. They are trying to sell sound quality to the masses, when they should be selling to people who want their life, and their music, to be flawless. That is how you sell sound.