Branding With Strategic Foresight

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

We look at the present through a rear-view mirror. We march backwards into the future. The future of the future is the present.

This mashup of some of McLuhan’s most oft-repeated aphorisms highlights a particularly human dilemma. We are destined to view the future through the lens of the present – and more often than not, the past. In other words, we tend to imagine the future as an incremental extension of our own time, or of recent history. It’s hard for us to imagine things that don’t yet exist.

That’s because our brains are built to recognize patterns: we are naturally programmed to see things as we have already seen them. Conversely, we are naturally stressed by things we have never before encountered. Which is why many people fear the future, much less have the capacity to imagine it.

In developing strategy, the biggest mistake we can make is to design for the present. The brand you’re making now has to compete in the future. You have to design for what you don’t yet know. But how?

Our default when thinking about the future is to rely upon what foresight strategists call mental models, or “the deeply ingrained assumptions, generalizations or images that influence how one makes sense of and responds to the world”.  Changing these mental models is a key outcome of strategic foresight. It’s key because these models tend to be biased towards the past and based on faulty assumptions about the future. As Idea Couture foresight strategist Jayar LaFontaine writes, “These faulty assumptions, framed by an uncritical belief in incremental change, give rise to a ‘default’ future designed to preserve the prevailing way of doing things.”

Strategic foresight escapes the pull of the past by imagining futures that could occur, based on weak signals from the present. It helps us use these signals in combination with other data to speculate on how a product or a service or a brand might behave in any one of several possible scenarios, a process akin to wind-tunnelling.

Why engage in this kind of foresight? Because we are already creating the future, whether we are aware of it or not. So why not deliberately imagine it, and test the brand against a range of possibilities? Why not find ways to escape the trap of the rear view mirror?

For those who wish to escape a bias towards the past, strategic foresight reveals opportunities for differentiation in the future. Most brands, like people, look ahead by looking back through McLuhan’s mirror. By baking strategic foresight into the brand building process, therefore, you are already several steps ahead of the competition.

As Jeff Bezos has said, if everything you do is on a three-year time horizon, you’re competing against a lot of people. But if you’re willing to invest in a seven-year time horizon, you’re now competing against a fraction of those people. By lengthening the time horizon, you can engage in endeavors that you could never otherwise pursue.  wn

Image credits: All images from the archives of American industrial designer Norman Bell Geddes, designer of the General Motors exhibit “Futurama: The City of 1960″ at the 1939 New York World’s Fair

Join the conversation! I would be very interested in your thoughts. Just click on the ‘Leave a Comment’ link in the small grey type at the end of the tags listed below.



Share
Posted in creativity, design, design thinking, innovation | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Roaring Green vs. Rolling Coal

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Perhaps only in America, land of increasingly sharp extremes, could the forces of innovation and degradation coexist with such equanimity, synchronicity and contrast.

In a montage of attractions that would make Sergei Eisenstein proud, we have a brand that has historically been an icon of machismo, with its insouciant roar, commanding proportions, and belching exhaust – Harley Davidson – making a play for the environment with its Livewire electric bike. As Harley’s VP Marketing says, there are other green bikes out there. But there are no badass green bikes. Until now.

It’s only a prototype, but it’s a glimpse of where Harley Davidson wants to take its business. It needs a much denser battery to achieve a minimum charge that lasts 100km, and that means this is still a few years away from production. Realizing that the sound of Harley is a big part of the brand’s identity, engineers paid special attention to the noise of the engine, tuning it to create what resembles the sound of a rocket. So it hasn’t lost any machismo.

At the same time, we have the emergence of an anti-environmentalist phenomenon called “rollin’ coal”, wherein owners of diesel-powered trucks tune their engines to produce copious amounts of soot-laden black smoke which they gleefully unload on unsuspecting pedestrians, passersby, cyclists, and Prius drivers.

Talk about reverse engineering.

It would be difficult to imagine a more vivid cultural contrast. The former is driven by a desire to technologically redefine the future of ‘machismo’ in an environmentally friendly way, the latter by a desire to drive culture back to the stone age. It is perhaps to be expected when, despite living in the world’s most technologically advanced country, 14% of America’s adult population is illiterate. (That’s 32 million people, equivalent to the total population of Canada).

Mash that up with an always-on, sound bite-hungry media, the attention-seeking allure of user-generated content and an increasing fear of the unknown across all classes, and you have a perfect post-industrial, sociocultural storm.

Let’s hope the roaring green innovation of concepts like Harley’s Livewire leaves the sociopathology of ‘rolling coal’ choking in a carbon cloud of its own stupidity. wn

Share
Posted in innovation, social media | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

No Customer, No Brand, No Strategy

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Back in 1989 package designer Primo Angeli, fed up with the lack of respect that he and many other designers got from the marketing community, developed a process he called Rapid Access. Instead of developing the product first and then the brand afterwards, he proposed a reversal: create the brand first and the product afterwards.

His idea was based on the claim that it would be a lot less costly to develop a brand idea and a package design and test those with the customer than to invest in a lengthy product development process, then design the brand, and then test it with customers. To him, one of the advantages was that Rapid Access brought the customer to the table early in the process rather than later. It was both a way of mitigating risk and of basing product development on customer insight instead of on the ‘build it and they will come’ mindset that, even today, tends to be the rule.

He also hoped it would demonstrate to his clients that designers were more than just window dressers – they actually were capable of solving business problems and driving operational efficiency, something that would become almost a religion in management circles during the decades to come.

Jumping ahead to 2014, a recent blog by Mark Di Somma proposes something very similar: instead of building your brand around your business, build your business around your brand. In other words, ask the brand questions first and the business questions second. It’s interesting to note that the first question is, “who do you want to be your customers?”.

By inverting the strategic process, both Angeli and Di Somma demonstrate that the lines between brand strategy and business strategy are blurry at best. This notion was echoed in a 2012 post by Ashley Konson, who more or less proposed that marketing strategy and business strategy were basically the same thing: “Marketing strategy is synonymous with business strategy, not marketing communications. To limit marketing strategy to marketing communications is giving it short-shrift.”

He points out that “a business is successful when it profitably delivers a compelling value proposition to its customers”, and that profit is “the by-product of successfully creating, delivering and communicating the compelling value that customers are seeking.”

All three of these practitioners, in one way or another, prioritize the customer as the key to building a successful business. All three to a greater or lesser extent, manifest the wisdom of Peter Drucker’s now famous dictum that the purpose of a business is to create a customer. Would that more businesses saw things the same way. wn

Join the conversation! I would be very interested in your thoughts. Just click on the ‘Leave a Comment’ link in the small grey type at the end of the tags listed below.



Share
Posted in customer experience, marketing | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The Cluetrain Has Left the Station

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Twice in the last two weeks, I have been surprised to come across industry leaders suggesting that many ad agencies are only now discovering the disruptive effects of the technological revolution that has been underway since the early 90s.

One came in the form of a tweet about Winston Binch, chief digital officer at the agency Deutsch LA,  and a speaker at last week’s Future Flash conference, who apparently said, ”If anyone thinks advertising is not being disrupted, you’re crazy … the business will change.”

It struck me that what seemed to be very old news was making such a post-mortuary return in 2014. At a conference called Future Flash, no less. The message that digital will change everything about marketing has been around since The Cluetrain Manifesto of 1999, which, in its prescience, spoke of a world of ‘human to human’ marketing. So I tweeted back a prickly reference to the second Bush administration and moved on.

Then it happened again. This time in the form of an Econsultancy blog by Edwin Bos, VP Innovation at ratings and reviews provider Reevoo, enticingly entitled Are Consumers Killing Madison Avenue?. Within the first few paragraphs, Bos asks and answers a question:

“Why do they say we’ve no use for marketing? It’s because of the rising power of the voice of the customer.”

Duh! And then:

“With the growing availability of consumer opinions, the importance of brand messaging is diminishing. Consequently, things are changing in the world of advertising. Slowly, but surely.”

It took me back to being downsized, in 2001, from a global web development firm, like thousands of others at similarly affected outfits, in the wake of March 1st (the day in 2000 when the bottom started to fall out of internet stocks). I was fortunate to land a strategic planning role in a very reputable Canadian ad agency within two weeks of being thrown overboard.

Still smarting from my dishonourable discharge, I entered the advertising business and was shocked at how little everyone was aware of the gravity or what had just happened or of the fact that technology was about to turn their world upside down. Clearly, they were in a bubble of their very own.

They could be forgiven if they looked upon the burst of the dot-com bubble as a sign that this new medium really wasn’t all it was cracked up to be. It had over-promised and seriously under-delivered. There was still a lot of work to be done.

Thirteen years later, their world has indeed been turned upside down. Yet the speakers and the bloggers still complain that agencies have their heads in the sand. Why?

With the introduction of any new technology there is an initial investment bubble, a few years of market madness, stock market overvaluation and a precipitous collapse.  Then the real work begins, and the technology enters a long, quiet build out. It’s not until it becomes firmly entrenched that we realize that everything really has changed, just like the early enthusiasts said it would. This process takes years.

It was like that with the introduction of railroads, electrification, and automobiles. No different with the internet. Sad part is, the digital “clue train” left the station long before many in the industry realized it had come and gone.

Seems some of them are still on the wrong platform. wn

Join the conversation! I would be very interested in your thoughts. Just click on the ‘Leave a Comment’ link in the small grey type at the end of the tags listed below.



Share
Posted in creativity, design, innovation, marketing, social media | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Between a Bank and a Hard Place

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

I never thought I would say this, but sometimes loyalty can be a bad thing. Especially if you happen to be a Canadian bank.

When you’re in a saturated market like this one, where almost all Canadians bank with one or more of the Big 6, it’s a double-edged sword. There are only two ways to grow your business: keep the customers you’ve got, and/or steal loyal ones away from your competition. Trouble is, the ones you’re trying to steal are as entrenched in their loyalty to your competitor as your customers are with you.

Tim Kiladze of the Globe and Mail recently wrote an enlightening piece about the bind that Canada’s banks are in. With few customers willing to switch, banks have to be more creative than ever in devising ways to both keep and attract them. Much of that happens at the product level – credit cards, co-branded offers like the Cineplex Scene card. These are acquisition-focused. For maintaining loyalty, customer experience at the level of basic service needs to be constantly improved. Hence the trend over the last few years to build customer experience departments.

The challenge is that incremental improvements, while important, are generally invisible. As they should be – experience should be seamless. In online banking, it largely is. But it is difficult to differentiate with incremental improvement. A disruption may be necessary.

But here’s the rub: in Canada, where the reigning mythology is that we have the most stable banks in the world, disruption is counter-intuitive. There’s tremendous comfort in the belief that, in a fragile global economy, our banks are considered to be imperturbable. Mess with that and you’re asking for trouble.

The principles of branding are still important, but they are table stakes in a highly saturated market with complacent customers. As Kiladze pointed out in his piece, you have to screw up pretty drastically to lose a customer in this space. Which means you’d have to behave in a drastically different way to steal one. From a brand perspective, Canada’s big banks are between a rock and a hard place.

So if you were the CMO of one of the Big 6, what would you do? wn

Photos: Top, Nick Chow, Jay Alvah; below, James Howe Photography

Join the conversation! I would be very interested in your thoughts. Just click on the ‘Leave a Comment’ link in the small grey type at the end of the tags listed below.



Share
Posted in customer experience, marketing | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Turning the Brand House Upside Down

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

A couple of weeks ago this blog dared to suggest that brand practice needs some new rules to address the emergent realities of marketing in the 21st century.

Top of the list of blazingtuque‘s 6 ‘new rules’ was this one:

RE-HUMANIZE The practice of branding has for too long been focused on products, not on people. Putting people at the center of a brand means starting with human realities, not marketing fantasies or competitive look-alikes. Put real people at the centre of the branding process for authentic insights that lead to unique opportunities for brand experiences that can be almost impossible for competitors to duplicate.

In a recent HBR Blog entitled How to Execute  15-word Strategy Statement, Alessandro DiFiore, CEO of the European Centre for Strategic Innovation wonderfully illustrates how to “RE-HUMANIZE” strategic thinking, and how a subtle but significant change in the narrative structure of strategy statements changes everything.

Above is a typical example of product-based positioning statements. Pretty standard stuff, readily accessible via the internet.

Notice the hierarchy here: product first, category second, and customer third.

DiFiore, however, starts with the customer. Next comes her need. Then comes the product:

It’s a conscious inversion of the textbook positioning statement. More importantly, it tells a story, whereas the former is more formulaic, like an equation.

Reprioritizing the characters in the story forces you to frame your strategy within the context of a customer need. It still demands that you prove your claim, and that you test it against competitive offers to determine, as Kenichi Ohmae said, whether or not you are serving your customer more effectively than your competitors. And it still demands differentiation.

It’s important to note that, strictly speaking,  DiFiore is not proposing this as a brand strategy tool, but as a business strategy tool. The fact that he later dives down into proof points with the Blue Ocean strategic canvas should be a strong clue that we are not in Brand Kansas any more.

Or aren’t we? It not only strongly suggests that branding is a strategic process, but also that brand strategy and business strategy are basically the same thing. By making the customer the main character of a strategic narrative, you’re making your brand – and your business – more human. And humans engage with humans, not products. wn

Photo: Dennis Oppenheimer’s “Device to Root out all Evil”, 1997

Join the conversation! I would be very interested in your thoughts. Just click on the ‘Leave a Comment’ link in the small grey type at the end of the tags listed below.



Share
Posted in design thinking, innovation | Leave a comment

Lamborghini Spaghettini? Are You Kidding Me?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Nope. Not kidding. In an exhibit currently running at the San Francisco Museum of  Craft & Design, artist Paddy Mergui has applied luxury branding to everyday commodities like milk, eggs, yoghurt and pasta. The inevitable cognitive dissonance highlights one of the core concepts of branding: the power of association.

The example above forces you to consider what we associate with the Ferrari brand. What comes to mind when you think of Ferrari? Speed? Craftsmanship? Italian design? Assuming it would be marketed at a premium price point, would Ferrari pasta taste any better than, say, DeCecco? For students of branding, this is a fruitful mental exercise.

If the cognitive dissonance of Ferrari Linguine prompts a ‘teaching moment’, Campbell’s Chicken Noodle Cigarettes or Marlboro Cream of Tobacco Soup take that notion into the realm of the absurd. As surreal as that may seem, there’s still great educational value in it, for it raises cognitive dissonance to the level of dialectics.

In other words, in the right hands, the intentional juxtaposition of two such disparate concepts can erupt in flashes of creativity and insight that never would have happened had these seemingly unrelated ideas not been brought together in the first place.

As any brand practitioner knows, the power of association is particularly critical when considering brand extensions. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don’t. The general rule is, don’t take your brand into a neighbourhood where it has no street cred. Hooters, the restaurant for breast-obsessed male gawkers, thought that cleavage could fly. Boy were they wrong about that. The busty airline business tanked.

Well if boobs can’t fly, Virgins can. If there were a poster girl for the stretchability of brand equity, her name is most definitely Virgin. How is it that founder and Chief Executive Cheerleader Richard Branson can cross-dress so successfully? Comics, music, cars, trains, planes, radio, mobile, space travel – there’s no category Virgin is afraid to enter.

The key is that we associate the Virgin brand with a personality, not with a product. On the other hand, we associate Ferrari with fast, expensive cars. Cars have curb appeal, not taste appeal. You can drive ‘em, but you can’t eat ‘em.

Just as Virgin is a brand based on personality, WalMart is a brand based on price. When you think WalMart, you think cheap. Really cheap. Cheaper than dirt. Thus, WalMart can take its brand into any category and you immediately know what that brand represents. If cheap is your primary purchase driver, WalMart can sell you anything it wants.

So if you ever have any doubt about a brand’s extendability, subject it to the Cognitive Dissonance test. Or better yet, the Dialectical Cognitive Dissonance Test. Forces you out of your little brand silo. You might be surprised at what you discover.

Feel free to steal that. wn

Top Image: Paddy Mergui; Middle image: Marlboro Soup and Campbell’s Cigarettes, www.doobybrain.com

Join the conversation! I would be very interested in your thoughts. Just click on the ‘Leave a Comment’ link in the small grey type at the end of the tags listed below.



Share
Posted in brand communications, creativity, innovation, marketing | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Old Brand Tools, New Brand Rules

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

In the turmoil of the 21st century marketplace, the 20th century brand toolkit is starting to look as useful as a fax machine on a space station. Is it time for a new set of brand management tools and rules?

In the early 80s, Jack Trout and Al Ries gave us a simple, common sense approach to brand positioning. It was perfectly suited to the brand landscape of the time. It prioritized the competitive set over the customer base, in that its frame of reference was always other brands. It was always about figuring out how to wedge yourself into a part of the customer’s brain that was not yet occupied by any of your competitors.

It was a product-driven approach designed to operate in a much simpler media landscape and a more limited number of communication channels. Balance sheets were geared towards top-line growth and completely focused on customer acquisition. (Loyalty didn’t matter too much in a volume-driven marketplace). The focus in marketing was on messaging; customer experience wasn’t on anyone’s radar. Marketing communications were therefore a one-way street, where brands were doing all the talking and customers could only listen.

It was based on the assumption that the conditions of late capitalism would not significantly change. It did not anticipate the technological and economic disruptions that were about to happen. Its weakness was that it was perfectly designed for a mature industrial economy, not an emerging networked economy. So it was like giving marketers a knife to take to a gun fight.

Thirty years later, we are in a networked economy characterized by constant technological disruption, channel proliferation and fragmentation, over-populated categories and far fewer opportunities for differentiation. Far more technologically enabled and influential customers operating in much more intensely competitive categories are forcing a shift from customer acquisition to customer retention and from message to experience. They do not want to listen to brands; they want brands to listen to them. They want brands to back up their promises with action.

Jaded attitudes towards branding and advertising have resulted in lack of trust and the sharing of brand control with customers across social channels. In these conditions, traditional market research is at a loss; customers no longer want to be lab rats in front of a two-way mirror. They want a hand in making your brand. In this model, your customer is far more important than your competitor, and far more involved in brand-building.

Brand-building used to be about advertising and media. Now, it’s about experience, interaction, engagement, and response. In today’s brand-building, customer relationships are the platform and customer experience is the lumber. Post-industrial branding is still about occupying a unique territory on the competitive landscape, but you reach it through an intimate understanding of your customer’s unmet and unarticulated needs and by crafting a differentiated experience to match them.

So, herewith, blazingtuque‘s 6-point agenda for change:

RE-HUMANIZE The practice of branding has for too long been focused on products, not on people. Putting people at the center of a brand means starting with human realities, not marketing fantasies or competitive look-alikes. Put real people at the centre of the branding process for authentic insights that lead to unique opportunities for brand experiences that can be almost impossible for competitors to duplicate. (think Zappos)

UN-POSITION Amidst a sea of sameness, brands are still getting lost in the minutiae of indistinguishable features and continuing to claim implausible emotional benefits stemming from these.  In a market where customers have far greater influence and endless products that are “good enough”, smart brands are more concerned with how they fit into people’s lives and culture than where they fit in the competitive landscape. (think Method)

RE-RESEARCH Market research methods have grown tired and predictable. The effectiveness of the standard focus group is greatly diminished and increasingly anachronistic in a world of 24/7, real-time feedback via social channels. Surveys are great for making executives comfortable but are devoid of insight. As Roger Martin has said, data is no substitute for people. Today, insights require the listening and interpretative skills of the social anthropologist. Ethnography accesses the unmet and unarticulated needs that traditional market research misses. (think Campbell’s Go Soup)

EX-CATEGORIZE Why compete against the other million brands in your category? What nano-niche of positioning space is there left? Don’t compete with them. Compete with the whole category by creating a new one. (think iPad)

RE-WRITE The language of brand strategy has become completely commoditized. Brand attributes are selected from the same list of overused, generic terms that everyone in the business has access to. Imagine every book on the shelf in your library was written with the same 100-word vocabulary, and that describes most of what passes for brand strategy today. Finding the right language to articulate a brand strategy should be just as hard as writing poetry. It’s not supposed to be easy. (think The Brand Gap)

UN-REPLICATE You still have to be different. You still have to resist the temptation to ‘do the same thing only better’, which is what most brands try to do, and how most position themselves. And it usually amounts to a mere cosmetic difference. Meaningful differentiation is experiential. If you want to achieve meaningful differentiation, start with a real human need and work from there. Don’t be a solution looking for a problem that’s already been solved by a hundred others – and may not even be a problem that customers want solved. (think Airbnb)

Ready to rock? wn

This article originally appeared in the Spring 2014 issue of MISC Magazine. MISC is published quarterly by Idea Couture and is distributed in 28 countries around the world.

Join the conversation! I would be very interested in your thoughts. Just click on the ‘Leave a Comment’ link in the small grey type at the end of the tags listed below.



Share
Posted in brand communications, creativity, customer experience, design thinking, innovation, marketing | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Amazon: The “Coalface of Consumerism”

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Don’t you just hate it when a brand that you’ve grown to love turns out to be the operational equivalent of Fritz Lang’s iconic film, Metropolis?

In a recent article in the Guardian newspaper, you can read how working in a fulfillment centre for the world’s most successful online retailer is frighteningly similar to Lang’s dystopian take on the future. In Metropolis, the thinkers and planners live a life of luxury and decadence above ground while the workers who keep the city running toil endlessly below the surface as indentured slaves.

Needless to say, the conditions in which they work bear little resemblance to life in the gleaming towers aboveground. Talk about income inequality – Lang foresaw it clearly. The only difference is that his film is set in 2026. We’ve beaten that forecast by 12 years.

While they are not located below grade, the conditions in Amazon’s fulfillment centres come as close to a working hell as one can imagine. With no rights and no unions to protect them, workers have zero job security and work 10-hour shifts for a few pennies above minimum wage. If you’re sick, you get docked a point. If you’re even one minute late, you get docked half a point. Three points and you’re fired.

Why is this make my tuque blaze? Because I have had nothing but good experiences with Amazon. They really have figured out how to sell anything and everything online, and how to get it to me on or before the date I expect to receive it. They almost always have what I’m looking for. And they continue to optimize my user experience, making it as frictionless as possible. As Carole Cadwalladr, the writer of the Guardian piece writes, “We want cheap stuff. We want to order it from our armchairs. And we want it delivered to our doors.” From Amazon, we get it. But at a very real human cost.

There is another ugly truth about Amazon’s business model. It only locates its centres in states or countries that offer it huge tax subsidies. In the UK, for instance, it paid £3.2 million on 2012 sales of £4.2 billion. That’s a tax rate of .00076%. You can bet its underpaid, overworked employees paid tax rates far higher than that.

It’s just plain wrong for a brand to deliver a customer experience that so clearly depends on increasing degrees of employee exploitation. Amazon may be a 21st century success story, but it has earned that reputation by replicating some of the worst excesses of 19th century capitalism. As Cadwalladr so painfully but elegantly writes: “To work at Amazon is to spend your days at the coalface of consumerism.” Is this what happens when high tech meets operational efficiency? Fritz Lang must be turning in his grave. wn

Join the conversation! I would be very interested in your thoughts. Just click on the ‘Leave a Comment’ link in the small grey type at the end of the tags listed below.



Share
Posted in customer experience, employee engagement, innovation | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Porter Airlines: Putting Lipstick on a Raccoon

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

There are approximately 700,000 raccoons in the Greater Toronto Area, or about 1 for every 8 citizens. No wonder then that when design firm Winkreative was engaged to create the visual branding for Porter Airlines, they chose the raccoon as a mascot. The little masked bandit has worked overtime as an advertising mnemonic ever since.

Porter has been one of those rare brands that lives up to its promise. Its tagline, “Flying Refined” is an accurate reflection of the passenger experience, from check-in to baggage pick up, from the voice over on their radio spots to the packaging of their in-flight meals.

Add to that the convenience of a regional carrier that flies from a downtown location and you have an unassailable blend of value propositions not seen in the airline industry since the days before cost-cutting made air travel into the equivalent of riding in a cattle car. For all these reasons, Porter, like American regional innovators Southwest and JetBlue, has been a textbook case on how to build a customer-focused airline brand.

It’s been a cozy story up until now, but under inevitable pressure from investors to grow its business, Porter is aggressively changing from a lovable regional brand to a brand that is more concerned about its shareholders than the citizens who live and work in the city it calls home. Robert Deluce wants to add C-series jets to his fleet, which will require much longer runways than the current flock of turboprops the small airport is designed for. The change in aircraft will mean more flights, more noise, more traffic congestion, less harbour (due to the extended runways) and a drastic reduction in quality of life along the waterfront.

Porter has been lobbying city hall very heavily ahead of today’s council vote on whether or not its growth plans will be approved. A controversial radio and facebook campaign asks people if they’d like to fly to far-flung locations like Vancouver and Miami, then links them to a page encouraging them to ask their city councillor to vote YES for the airport expansion. Meanwhile, grass roots groups like No Jets T.O. are working hard to organize opposition to the scheme.

This is a classic case of stakeholder conflict. The financial agenda is at cross purposes with the community the brand serves. Porter, which has until now been able to balance the interests of its customers and its investors, is about to do that at the expense of a third stakeholder: its local community.

It’s also about to take its brand into much more hostile terrain. If Porter is successful in winning the vote at council, it will move the brand from its fairly unique position as a quirky, stylish regional carrier into the mushy middle of international carriers, where brand differentiation is much harder to achieve. And once jets are allowed to land at its coveted downtown terminal, other carriers will claim landing rights at what was once Porter’s private airstrip. Knock off another value proposition.

Suddenly, the cute ads, the upscale lounge experience, the quirky radio spots and the metrosexual brand personality are all beginning to look a bit like lipstick on a pig. Or, in this case, an increasingly rapacious raccoon. wn

Join the conversation! I would be very interested in your thoughts. Just click on the ‘Leave a Comment’ link in the small grey type at the end of the tags listed below.



 

Share
Posted in brand communications, innovation, marketing | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment