Last week I attended the Ypulse Mashup East. Met some awesome people and learned more about my generation that I thought possible. Today’s insight comes from Spencer of Virtue Worldwide . During his keynote he brought up an idea that I hadn’t really ever thought of before.
“Do brands have to last forever? Maybe they should only last for a short period of time and make the most of it.”
Pretty bold statement. But pretty awesome. I have two examples that I thought of right away, MTV and Mountain Dew. Other soda companies are known for this as well, but I guess I’m craving some sugar so I’m Doin’ the Dew.
MTV: By thriving on capturing trends, exploiting them to the masses, and then killing them, MTV has developed a business model that exists largely because of their ability to change. While their parent brand keeps the same positioning (being a pop culture trendsetter), their sub brands come and go. TRL is the most relevant today because of its recent cancellation , but many shows have started, saturated, and sayonara’d. This strategy works for MTV because of generational shifts. TRL was cool for kids that had their see through Vtech phones (don’t tell me you didn’t have one) and would call in while drooling over Carson Daly. But the next wave of kids ditched their land lines for their Nokia bricks (again, you know you had one) and quickly began to move towards texting based interaction. Personally, I think MTV should have killed TRL when Carson left, or after that whole Limp Bizkit phase. Skip it.
Mountain Dew: With sub brands ranging from short lived Dew Fuel to blockbuster driven Darth Dew, Mountain Dew is a master of short lived brands . What works for them is that many consumers will at least hit it and quit it (trial purchase) because they know that the sub brand won't be around forever. Others that can't get enough of their MDX will actively pursue brand purchases, and Mountain Dew is also aware of the relationship of these sub brands with the parent brand. They avoid brand dilution by temporarily expanding their product set instead of creating an arsenal of sub brands that has the firing power of dive bar buck hunter.
I think the idea relates really well with what companies can do with sub brands and products -- I'm still unsure of how you could churn brands after a period of time. If you have any ideas I'd love to hear them.
UPDATE -- Can't believe I didn't think of this until now, but our very own Minneapolis agency Space 150 is the best example I can think of for brands that adapt and radically change quite frequently. AND our very own Jacey works there! I've been to a few of the re-branding parties an they're quite fun. Everyone is excited and supports the demand for pushing themselves to be more innovative. What better way to show your clients/community that you're able to transform brands than by using yourself as an example?!
UPDATE -- Can't believe I didn't think of this until now, but our very own Minneapolis agency Space 150 is the best example I can think of for brands that adapt and radically change quite frequently. AND our very own Jacey works there! I've been to a few of the re-branding parties an they're quite fun. Everyone is excited and supports the demand for pushing themselves to be more innovative. What better way to show your clients/community that you're able to transform brands than by using yourself as an example?!
1 comment:
Really interesting thoughts. And you're right on with MTV--a few years back I got the opportunity to interview their head of marketing, Vanessa Hambidge, and her colleague Ryan Spicer and they made the comment that MTV continues to thrive because they reflect their audiences experiences and respect their views. Its also interesting to me that they don't claim to START any of the trends, just reflect them.
Anyway, I think you're right on with the Mountain Dew as well, but here's the rub. Some of those sub-brands created loyal consumers, who got angry when the product was replaced with the newest innovation (or they stop watching TRL because duh, it sucks now.) To keep those kinds of attitudes to a minimum, I think the brand would have to be transparent in saying that they're ever-changing and boast that change as something the consumers should look forward to, rather than fear.
That's tough. If a brand stands for something, you don't necessarily want that to change often. Can you imagine if Starbucks stopped selling lattes? I guess what the brand would need to stand for is innovation and change.
Post a Comment