Mark Vandegrift
Welcome to the latest episode of the Brand Shorthand Podcast. I'm your host, Mark Vandegrift, and with me is the big brand of positioning, Lorraine Kessler. Thing one, your moniker touches on our topic today, which is Big Brands, Big Trouble. Do you remember where you were or what you were doing when this Jack Trout book was published? If not, I'll give you a hint.

Lorraine Kessler
All right, well, give me the hint.

Mark Vandegrift
Okay, 9/11.

Lorraine Kessler
So, wow, that would have been 2001. And I would have been at Innis Maggiore interviewing the principals at that time to determine what our position should be.

Mark Vandegrift
Excellent. Well, that's a good year, except for 9/11, but it was published four weeks after 9/11 on October 5th, 2001. I'm kind of surprised he didn't delay the publishing of it because I know a lot of people delayed a lot of things, but it's been 23 years. And I don't know that many of the big brands in this world have yet to learn the hard lessons that Jack codified in this book, Big Brands, Big Trouble. We have plenty of new examples of brands breaking these principles today. But Lorraine, I can't just dive right into our topic. So let's discuss some brand news and some of these are big brands. I'll give you two options and you take us down a rabbit trail to the side you want to go on. Number one, did you hear about Dominion's energy name change to Enbridge? That's E-N bridge. Or number two, did you hear that Applebee's and IHOP are going to share kitchen spaces? Similar to KFC, Long John Silver's and Taco Bell. And they are commonly found sharing kitchen space. In fact, A&W, which I didn't even know they still had those around, also share spaces there. So both are news. You grab the one you want to talk about and I'll grab the other.

Lorraine Kessler
Man, I can't talk about both? I mean, I can do it really fast. Enbridge is a terrible name. And even though they're the bigger entity who bought Dominion, they should have dropped their ego and gone with Dominion. Much better name. Enbridge, end-bridge, end of whatever. It's terrible.

Mark Vandegrift
Yeah, the bridge to nowhere.

Lorraine Kessler
…bridge to nowhere. And then, you know, I have to laugh at like these people sharing kitchens. I don't know. I can't imagine a strong brand ever doing that, right? A strong brand would never share a kitchen nor anything like that. Share spit, share a kitchen. I don't know. To me, it's like the flag you wave before defeat, right? Why would you do that? I don't get it.

Mark Vandegrift
Well, I haven't ever seen a KFC with a Long John Silver's and a Taco Bell, but I can only imagine trying to order a spicy filet taco. Try to get all those three mashed up together.

Lorraine Kessler
My mind is... I'm sorry. I'm like totally confused by that. Totally. My mind can't handle it.

Mark Vandegrift
Yeah. Well, I guess what happens at the back of the kitchen stays at the back of the kitchen and, you know, the retail spaces are out and about. So anyhow. Applebee's is just, I don't know, it's sunk so badly since the pandemic and IHOP's been going downhill for a long time. So it's like you said, probably that last gasp of air before they go under.
 

Lorraine Kessler
And last gasp of air before, I mean, really as strong, can you ever imagine a strong brand doing that? Doing this, it sounds, it's so desperate.

Mark Vandegrift
Well, this is to mentally prepare you for today's episode and our listeners because we're talking big brands, big trouble. That doesn't mean rainbows and unicorns. So.

Lorraine Kessler
Well, I think between 70 degree weather and snow the next day and back to 50 and up to 60 and down, I really need a mental reset.

Mark Vandegrift
That's for sure. Welcome to Ohio. Well, Lorraine, let's name this episode and maybe it will be the start of a new book. We'll call it Big Brands, Big Trouble, the 2024 edition by Lorraine and Mark. How's that for a new book title?

Lorraine Kessler
I think it'd be great because I think that poor Jack is probably turning in his grave and itching to add a few more of the mistakes to his list that he came out with in the original book.

Mark Vandegrift
Yep, yep, good. Well, here's what we'll do. We'll show our viewers the nine common mistakes that Jack codified in his book. And then once we list those, I'll let you walk us through each one and explain each one in your shortest description possible.

Then we'll go back and expand on them as we talk about the brands that are impacted by those mistakes. And that will be a little bit longer discussion. Who knows? We might even end up with two episodes out of this? So here's what's going to be on screen here for our listeners. The number one mistake, the “me too” mistake. Number two, the “what are you selling” mistake. Number three,

“The truth will win out” mistake. Number four, the “other guy's idea” mistake. Number five, “go opposite” mistake. Number six, the “we're very successful mistake.” Number seven, the “everything for everybody” mistake. Number eight, the “live by the numbers” Wall Street mistake and number nine, the “not attacking yourself” mistake. So those are the nine mistakes. We have those up on the screen that our listeners and viewers can see. And Lorraine, let's go through again in a short description, give us what these mistakes are and then we'll go back and cover the brands that are impacted.

So number one is the “me-too” mistake. Give us a definition.

Lorraine Kessler
Sure, I think that's a mistake that's caused by benchmarking that has this concept that people believe objective, that there is an objective reality and therefore objective quality and that you can just compare brands and one brand is going to be superior than the other based on this comparison. And the mistake of this mistake is that it's all about perceptions, right? So, and you're already, if you're not number one, you're already in a disadvantage because in a category if someone is a generic in that category like Kleenex or Q-tips or Gore-Tex or whatever, they're always going to believe perceptually no matter what facts you put out that that brand is superior. So whoever got their first wins.

Mark Vandegrift
Very good. Okay, number two is “what are you selling?” Mistake. Give us your definition.

Lorraine Kessler
Yeah. This is one of my big bugaboos with a lot of times when we get into a situation where a client wants to redefine a category, but they use terms that no one understands, right? Or you see an ad and you have no idea what this thing is, what the product is. So if you present a confusing category, your chances of getting into the mind are slim to none. So you know, the thing is that make the category as simple as possible. 

I'll give you an example. Years ago, and I know we're going to do examples, but this will help real quick. Hamburger Helper was originally going to be Hamburger Extenders. I mean, terrible category. 

Mark Vandegrift
…sounds like hair extensions!

Lorraine Kessler
So again, choose the name of the category in a way that people really understand and relate to with very common words.

Mark Vandegrift
Okay, very good. That's easy to understand. Okay, number three, the truth will win out mistake.

Lorraine Kessler
Yeah. And again, this goes back to this idea that people compare based on reality and that your reality is their reality when we know that battle is really in the mind is a battle for perception, who has the best perception. So again, it's insisting that the more I tell, the more I sell, the more people will understand and rather than concentrating on creating the right perception.

Mark Vandegrift
Yeah, we have clients that want to educate, educate, educate. And if they just tell enough and write enough and talk enough that they're going to win it out.

Lorraine Kessler
And education is the slow boat to the goal. It's like taking a paddle boat across the ocean. You know, you see those things, right?

Mark Vandegrift
Very good. Yup. Okay, number four, the “other guy's idea” mistake.

Lorraine Kessler
Yeah, and this is the “Me Too,” and this is where what happens is, and it's a little different than the first one we were talking about, but it's saying that if I copy my competitors, I do what they do, then what will happen is I'll be successful like them. And the problem is that if you're “Me Too,” you're always playing catch up. You're always behind. You're never gonna get ahead with the “Me Too” strategy. You're never gonna stand out.

Mark Vandegrift
Very good. Okay. The next one, number five is the “go opposite” mistake.

Lorraine Kessler
Yeah, no, actually this isn't a mistake. This is, I mean, he called it, he talks about the go opposite in the book, but it's not a mistake. It's actually the right way to go. If you're number two brand in a category, you should go east to the west. And it's perfect advice for number two. If you're not number two, there's a little limerick that Trout had. And I don't, I don't know which book it was from. It might've been from the book about the genius or something, but it was one, two or something new.

So if you can't be number two, you can't be the opposite to number one. If they're the fastest, maybe you're the most reliable or you sacrifice speed for reliability. But everybody else, one, two or something new, find something else.

Mark Vandegrift
Very good. Okay, number six, the “We're Very Successful” Mistake.

Lorraine Kessler
Yeah, this is a big one. This is the one that breeds arrogance. A lot of leaders get stuck in their own accolades. They love giving themselves their own awards based on the past or the near present, and they stop thinking of the future. So they stop innovating and they see leadership as a stuck place or a fixed point. Dangerous as heck. Breeds complacency and arrogance and it really opens you up to attack. So you must always be attacking yourself. You must always be leading as an active verb versus just a leader as a noun.

Mark Vandegrift
Would you say most of corporate America is stuck in this at this point?

Lorraine Kessler
Well, I don't know about most quantifying it that way, but I would say that it's a very common mistake. The bigger the brand, the easier it is for this to take hold.

Mark Vandegrift
Very good. Number seven, the “everything for everybody” mistake.

Lorraine Kessler
Yeah, and this one is the gross unfocusing, which leads to line extension beyond any kind of logical sense that a consumer would associate the brand with. And it's usually done because the manufacturer or the product sponsor or service company thinks that, again, it kind of comes from hubris, this idea that we're bigger than we think, and that we can go into areas that don't logically fit because we can do whatever we want to do. And it leads to devolution of the brand. What happens is the more you add, the more you subtract. That's what history has shown. The more you add in terms of different… it's not just products that are part of line extension. It can be formulas, it can be varieties that get out of hand and become really impossible for the consumer to weed through. But what happens is it weakens the core brand.

If you try and stand for all these things, then the sharp focus of what you stand for just starts to wane and eventually becomes so fuzzy that you're now, again, opening yourself to attack in any one of those areas.

Mark Vandegrift
Good. Number eight. Thre “Live by the numbers” mistake or what's also known as the “Wall Street” mistake.

Lorraine Kessler
Yeah, this is the, you know, and we have seen these things where companies are driving themselves to constant growth. They don't have a desire for growth. They have a desperate need for growth. And I think that was said by, was that Milton Freeman? I don't remember who said that. And so what happens is, and this happened to my husband's corporate company, right? He had these quarterly meetings called AOP.

And they would say, we want to grow 20% in this market sector and here's the profit and turn it over to sales and marketing as if that's even realistic. It's a category that has negative growth. And how are you supposed to do that? So it's…

Mark Vandegrift
Go out and shoot the competition apparently.

Lorraine Kessler
Yeah, and I'm happy to say that company is now no longer got purchased because their stock prices kept going down. So this is forced by kind of a need to please investors and/or the stock market, the people on Wall Street and really profit and success and revenue should be driven by doing the right things in the right way. And then that's a byproduct rather than that's the goal and now somehow people have to figure out how to get there and sometimes impossible territories to conquer. It also leads to what we've seen as this fear of missing out kind of idea where we have these investors, these huge investment banks and things who want to invest in things like WeWork or Theramils or Bitcoin, right? And they jump on and they give this false evaluation to these companies.

And I don't have to mention where what's happened to all three of those. So this is just a bad thing that's happened. And I think that the thing about the investors, what do they call those? Like they have a term for this type of investors. The angel investors. That's almost a newer phenomenon that I'm not sure was as big in 2001 when Jack wrote the book, but I'm sure he'd have a lot to say about it.

Mark Vandegrift
Yeah, good. The last mistake in his book is the “not attacking yourself” mistake.

Lorraine Kessler
Yeah, again, this comes from that complacency of like, you know, thinking I'm the leader and you get complacent and then what you do is you just, you kind of stay stuck and or you are trying to stave off a technology that's simply going to leapfrog where you are. And you try to either block that in some way, like Kodak with digital cameras and digital photography.

They invented it, but they internally kabashed it because they thought it would eat their current market share in film. Well, you've got to be, you have to have, you have to take the right risk, calculated risk. You can either have someone else eat the market share in film or you can eat it. And it does take some discernment, but this is a problem where companies just don't attack themselves to stay current with where the trends are going.

Mark Vandegrift
Right, good. Okay, you ready to do our deep dive now? Okay, so we'll go clear back to the top again. And the “me too” mistake, and the first time I ever saw this in play, and this is going back to the 70s, so I'm dating myself here. But I always remember VHS and Beta. Okay, and do you remember which was the better product?

Lorraine Kessler
Well, I think Beta was the better product, but they didn't win the battle.

Mark Vandegrift
They did not. They said they were better. They said they were better, but who went to town and marketed like crazy? VHS. So they felt by saying we're better and people knowing that their product was better was going to help them win. And that's not the way it played out in the marketplace.

Lorraine Kessler
Yep. And if I'm not incorrect, someone who's listening could correct me if I am. But I believe Polaroid was the first to come out with the Polaroid camera that made those instant photos. That was such a joy to see pop out. Right. And then Kodak, who was the leader in film and photography, came in afterwards with their product. They got sued for patent infringement and lost. But it just shows that they tried to be me too. And that would have been a time for Kodak to leapfrog. But what they did, they tried to be me too. And even though they were the leader in the category, they lost. They not only lost because of the patent thing, but no one's ever going to associate Kodak with the Polaroid. And so, you know, I just think that was an interesting example. And by the way, we have one of those Kodak cameras, and I'm wondering if it's worth any money.

Mark Vandegrift
Well, don't leave yet to find out. We need you for a few more minutes, Lorraine.

Lorraine Kessler
No, it's in my basement. It's in my basement. It's one of the few things I didn't get rid of.

Mark Vandegrift
Put it out on Facebook marketplace for a thousand dollars and see if it's worth anything…

Lorraine Kessler
It could be worth something because they had to stop making it, as I recall.

Mark Vandegrift
Yeah, well that'd be interesting to see. Any other “Me Too” mistakes that you can think of that are more frequent? We see this happen with clients a bit, but any brands you can think of that had fallen into the “Me Too” mistake recently?

Lorraine Kessler
Well, there's just, I mean, I don't have a specific, there's just so many. I mean, if you take any category almost, right? I would say the automotive, automobile category is so full of “me too.” It's insane. And I don't know how anyone makes a decision other than an affinity for a certain brand. Right? Like, oh, I just happened to like Kia or I happened to like Nissans and for whatever reason. So I don't really have any more specifics. I think those are good ones.

Mark Vandegrift
Yeah, car is great. There are a few that stand out and why people buy anymore. But I think folks in the past might have been, I'm a GM guy, I'm a Ford guy. I see people jumping all over the place. Families own multiple different brands and it's more around a personality than it is anything else. And the car commercials, I mean, they all blend together. They just...

Lorraine Kessler
They do. It's so commoditized and, you know, other than like Tesla or something extreme on that end of the equation.

Mark Vandegrift
Yeah, very good. Okay. Let's go to number two, which is the, “what are you selling” mistake? And I know we have a recent example on this one, but I always like to share with people because we do so much in the web world that the way this jumps out at me in the web is we have, uh, what we call prototyping that leads out the process. Some people call it information architecture. Other people call it wireframing.

But they say you have all of three seconds to make that impression as to whether someone's going to stay on the site or not. And it blows my mind how many times we see websites come in and you look at them and you don't know what they're selling. You have no clue. They could be called ABC company, which doesn't tell you what they do. And then you go to their site and it says products, services, applications, markets, and about, right? Well, and then the photo is a stock photo. So you go, okay, ABC Company, I have no idea what they're selling, and now I have to click to see, okay, what products do they have or what markets do they serve or something? And there's that void of telling me what category are you, because until we know the category, then I don't know why I would buy from you versus someone else, because I don't even know who this someone else is, because I don't know what category you're in.

Lorraine Kessler
That's right. That's right. And that, so you're pointing to something that's like twofold. One is just naming the category, right? So I talked about Hamburger Helper. There was a new product, a new confection, which ended up being called a cake pop. Have you had cake pops? Well, they started out calling cake on a stick. Well, which one connects better with the mind? Cake pop or cake on a stick. I don't know what cake on a stick is, but I know lollipop and this is kind of a new thing. So, you know, there's some ingenuity that has to go into the naming of the category to begin with so it's clear. And then there's the advertising itself. And I think a lot of times, particularly I see this in business to business where clients feel they have a very sophisticated solution, whether it's a service solution or whatever.

And they feel like they have to talk in a highfalutin way to their audience about solutions. That's like the worst word ever, right? Like we have earth solutions. What is earth solutions? Right? I don't know. Is that manure? What is that? Why are we, you know, obfuscating that with some highfalutin language? And for a long time, you'll know this now, I didn't know what a logistics company was. Like they're trucking. Okay.

I understand they've evolved now. Most people know that it's about the planning and all, but it's taken quite a long time to do that. But my point is why confuse your audience? Why not start with the most handable idea that captures the greatest mind share and then differentiate your brand within that? So.

Mark Vandegrift
Well, and if you think about it, solutions, how many years did we have to get clients to get away from solutions? Solutions doesn't do anything. It's an extra word in there to say that we couldn't figure out what it was that we do. So we'll just call it solutions.

Lorraine Kessler
Absolutely. Right. Because we feel like being pedantic with just saying we're a lender is somehow, oh man, so now we have financial solutions. Well, what kind of financial solutions? For who? What is that? The lack of specificity in marketing is deadly, really deadly. So...

You know, yeah, we can talk on this one forever because there's just so many examples.

Mark Vandegrift
Well, we talked on one from the Super Bowl, if you remember the apartments.com and homes.com. Do you remember that? Talk us through that one.

Lorraine Kessler
Well, I still don't understand completely what Apartments.com does. And lo and behold, now they come out with Homes.com, which is the worst advertised commercial. I have no idea what's going on in that commercial. And they have more than the one that aired in the Super Bowl. And I mean, it's just, I don't know what they're doing. I don't know what it is. I don't know who they're marketing to. Is it to me as a consumer? Is it to another real estate agency? I know it has something to do with real estate, right? But that's about it. So I just feel like that fits this category. I'm glad you brought it up.

Mark Vandegrift
Yeah, for our listeners, if you don't recall, it was Jeff Goldblum that was talking to two aliens after the soldiers are ready to wipe them out. And he walks in and goes, I know what they want. They want a one bedroom, whatever. And then the aliens talk and of course he solves the solution, but we're all sitting there at the end going, what?!? Why do I want aliens living next to me? So.

And then homes.com got into the like, we know your neighborhood better than anyone. And they were doing really weird, even perverted or I don't know, crazy things in the neighborhood, like getting in the huddle of a little league midget football game or something like that.

Lorraine Kessler
Yeah. It just requires, it requires so much interest to be involved enough to then figure out if you ever figure out what they're trying to sell and realize it doesn't pertain to me. So I think great advertising is a benefit to the consumer and that it helps you immediately understand is this something I could possibly be interested in or might be interested in?

And I think when confusion is kind of the name of the game, it just doesn't work.

Mark Vandegrift
Well, doesn't it remind us to put things in the right order too? When I think of that, I could see where homes.com could take those videos and maybe make them a little longer and make them funnier, but put them on their website or in their social media where people are already engaging with the brand and then they build on the brand meaning a little bit. It's just like what we say, when you first get to a website, I need to know what you're selling before you tell me why you're different. And so this is a hierarchy thing, isn't it?

Wouldn't you say that's the best way to look at it?

Lorraine Kessler
I think it can be. I think it can be. Yeah, I think it can be very much just that because the texture of the humor and how they're approaching it could become part of a brand value if first I had that clarity understood. I agree with you. I think that could work.

Mark Vandegrift
Good. Okay, the next one I think is also pretty self-explanatory, but we have a really good example of this. The number three mistake, the truth will win out. So I think the one that we always like to share, and believe it or not, even the young people can understand this, who weren't around when it happened, was the Pepsi Taste challenge. Share with us, Lorraine.

Lorraine Kessler
Right. Well, you know, Pepsi has long been number two to Coca-Cola when colas were the king of beverage that were non-alcoholic for most of Americans. And Coke got there first. So Coke had the number one position. So it's a perfect example, too, of going, you know, what happened, what it leads to. But in the early days, what Pepsi did is they wanted to prove that Pepsi tastes better than Coke to more people. And so they did the Pepsi blind taste test. 

And I'm not opposed to taste tests. But in this case, what they were banking on is that by winning the taste test, they could prove they were better than Coke. And it never happened. It never translated. And even though in taste after taste, Pepsi won hands down, two to one, Coke retained its market share and Pepsi barely gained at all. So why is that? 

It's because ultimately people taste images. I mean, they were, these were blind taste tests. So I want to say that first. So in a blind taste test, meaning you don't know what you're drinking, people would choose Pepsi. But what would happen is that that didn't affect their buying mentality in terms of their perception of the product. So it's a perfect case of how reality doesn't win out.

Mark Vandegrift
Yeah, and what's interesting, where I think this manifests itself quite a bit, is when you hear brands mention other brands in their own marketing. I think it was either McDonald's doing it with Burger King or Burger King doing it with McDonald's, and the competitor's market share went up, even though the other one was the one initiating the marketing for it.

And it was, “we're better than these guys.” It's kind of the combination of, you know, number three and number one, which is, you know, the me too, we're better, we're better. But this truth will win out. It's, it's taking that principle that, um, if you just compare and you see how good we are, then you will want us. And that goes back to your point about reality versus perception.

Lorraine Kessler
Well, and here's the thing about comparisons and what a lot of clients are really fascinated with product comparisons. If you're comparing on the same factors and you're not the winner, you're not number one in the mind, you're not the leader, you're going to lose. You're comparing on the same factors. It’s much better to contrast to compare on things that the leader doesn't have or doesn't do or can't do well. You know, there's no defense for that from the leader. And the defense for them would be to become a me too, which in the end weakens them. So it's really important we understand what kind of comparison works. It's comparing on contrast, not comparing on the same thing.

Mark Vandegrift
Yeah, it really is. You know, the word you always use is let's find the things that make us incomparable so that even the competition can't come in and compare us because they don't even have those things. So that's always a good approach for it. 

Well, Lorraine, we only got through three things today, but that's OK because this podcast continues each week. And I hope for this week you stay out of big trouble. At least for the balance of today, okay?

Lorraine Kessler
Yeah, I hope so too. I'm hoping so. The week is early yet still, right? It's Thursday.

Mark Vandegrift
Yeah. Well, we have Easter coming up this Sunday, so you have to remember to be on your game there.

Lorraine Kessler
That's right. Yeah, I have to go from my bunny outfit to being taken seriously.

Mark Vandegrift
Yep. Very good. Yeah. It's an early Easter this year. 

Well, to our listeners, thank you for joining us again. And if you haven't liked, shared, subscribed, or told your friends about the Brand Shorthand Podcast, please do. And until next time, have an amazing day.