Jeremy Miller's Blog, page 20

The Cost of Naming Prescription Drugs Is Insane

Pharmaceutical companies are spending big bucks to name their drugs.

An average naming project costs $250,000, and that doesn’t include the costs of registering, trademarking, and getting the name approved in the various regulatory bodies. At the end of the project, pharma companies can spend up to $2.5 million on a brand name.

Those costs might seem outrageous, but they are a symptom of a high stakes game and a diminishing resource.

$2.5 Million Is a Rounding Error

According to Scientific America, the cost of developing a prescription drug that gains market approval is $2.6 billion.

The bulk of these costs go into the testing and validation phase. Matthew Herper writes in Forbes, “90% of medicines that start being tested in people don’t reach the market because they are unsafe or ineffective.” These failures are rolled into the overall cost of bringing a new drug to market.

It’s the 10% that pass market approval that get a brand name. These are the drugs that have to pay for all the R&D and failures, and deliver a healthy return for shareholders.

When the stakes are this high, investing 0.096% of the project cost into the brand name isn’t so outrageous.

Brand Names Are a Diminishing Resource

Across all sectors, . Domain names are being gobbled up, and thousands of trademarks are being filed annually. In 2016 alone, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) registered over 309,000 trademarks.

The issue is even more acute in the pharmaceutical industry.

According to a report in CNN, “Two departments within the FDA — the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research — scrutinize each proposed name and then reject about 20% and 35% of the names, respectively.”

This means more than half of all proposed brand names are rejected.

With thousands of drugs on the market, 84% of rejections are due to potential confusion with existing market names. The FDA does not want drug names to be too similar when prescriptions are filled.

For example:

Celebrex vs Celexa. Celebrex is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, whereas Celexa is used to treat depression.

Losec vs Lasix. Losec is a medication used in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease, and Lasix is used to treat fluid build-up due to heart failure, liver scarring, or kidney disease.

Lamictal vs Lamisil. Lamictal is used to treat epilepsy and bipolar disorder, and Lamisil is an antifungal medication.

Zantac vs Xanax. Zantac is used to treat heartburn, while Xanax is an anti-anxiety medication.

These similarities can lead to serious issues if misprescribed.

A Name Creates Preference

Beyond the regulatory issues, an effective brand name delivers significant financial returns.

Advil costs 50% more than a generic container of ibuprofen. The same is true for brand names like Claritin and Tylenol, but consumers reach for the brand names more often than not.

In the prescription realm, a recognized brand name can lead to a conversation. For example, patients diagnosed with atrial fibrillation, or AFib, may ask their doctor to tell them more about Pradaxa.

AFib is an irregular heartbeat that can create blood clots that lead to a stroke. To treat the condition doctors typically prescribe an oral anticoagulant — either Pradaxa, Xarelto, or Eliquis. Once you become aware of the disease you’ll start to notice the hum of advertising coming from these three brands.

A patient that asks for a drug by name will likely have it prescribed. When all things are equal and the efficacy of one drug over the other is similar, a doctor isn’t going to argue with the patient. They’ll prescribe based on the patient’s preference.

That simple conversation can turn into a long term prescription, which in its simplest terms is a long term customer.

Pharmaceutical naming is a unique niche with high stakes and big costs, but it’s a microcosm of what we see in all areas of branding. To be a recognized brand, you can’t be one of the guys. You’ve got to stand out like an orange tree in an evergreen forest.

Think of your brand name like the title of a story. It’s what people remember, and how they refer to you again and again.

You're reading The Cost of Naming Prescription Drugs Is Insane by Jeremy Miller, originally posted on Sticky Branding. Did you enjoy this article? If so, sign-up for more of Jeremy's articles at Sticky Branding.

The Gods Must Be Brands: How Brands Draw their Names from Greek Mythology

The gods may be horrified to discover their names are being used to peddle everything from soap to software.

Greek mythology has been a treasure trove of names for marketers to associate with their brands — whether companies, products, or services. The lure of naming a brand after a god just makes sense. The brand gains credibility by connecting virtues of the product or service with the mythological character.

What’s a little surprising is the number of highly recognized, category leading brands that draw their names from Greek and Roman mythology.

Nike — Nike was the Greek goddess of victory. No doubt a great choice to name a company that sells footwear to athletes and sports enthusiasts.

Hermès — Hermes was the messenger of the gods and the god of trade. What a perfect name for a brand that specializes in leather apparel and lifestyle accessories. The brand is actually named after its founder, Thierry Hermès.

Amazon — Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, chose the name because the Amazon is the largest river in the world and it could function as a symbol of the company’s vast selection of books. But the river got its name from Greek mythology. The Amazons were a race of women warriors known for their fierceness in battle.

Oracle — The oracle was a seer or psychic. They were mortals who could convey messages from the gods. This is a fitting name for Oracle Corporation, one of the world’s largest software companies and a pioneer in database technology.

Olympus — The gods lived at Mount Olympus. It’s an interesting association for Olympus cameras.

Mars — Mars was the roman god of war, and today one of the world’s largest confectionery and food manufacturing companies. Like Hermès, the name actually originates with the founder, Franklin Mars.

Trojan — The Trojans were the residents of Troy, a city in ancient Greece. For 10 years the Greeks waged war on the city of Troy, and for 10 years they made no progress. It wasn’t until the Greeks changed their strategy and presented a gift, the Trojan Horse, did the city fall. The word “Trojan” has become synonymous with courage, strength, and perseverance — presumably all the characteristics you’d want in a condom.

Ajax — Ajax was a heroic Greek warrior who gained fame during the Trojan war. Today, brave Ajax is best known as a cleaning product. He’s keeping our sinks and toilets sparkling clean. As the tagline used to proclaim, “Stronger Than Dirt!”

Orion — Orion was another great warrior in Greek mythology. You might know him better by the constellation, Orion’s Belt. For a brand, Orion Pictures is a Hollywood movie studio with notable films like Dances With Wolves and The Silence of the Lambs.

Pandora — Pandora was the first human woman created by the gods. Each god helped create her by giving her unique gifts. She later became known for her role in opening Pandora’s Box, and releasing all the evils of humanity. Pandora is now a streaming music service, recently acquired by Sirius. The founders liked the story of Pandora, because she was known for her curiosity (which is probably why she opened the box). This became a symbol as they conducted the “most comprehensive analysis of music ever undertaken.”

History is a rich source of inspiration and stories in brand naming. The Greek and Roman mythology may be picked over, but you can look into many more corners of the world to find an inspirational name that shares the virtues of your product, service, or company.

You're reading by Jeremy Miller, originally posted on Sticky Branding. Did you enjoy this article? If so, sign-up for more of Jeremy's articles at Sticky Branding.

Häagen-Dazs Sounds Foreign So It Must Be Good

Häagen-Dazs may sound Danish, but it’s a completely made up brand name from the Bronx.

Häagen-Dazs is a story of a brilliant entrepreneur who understood the power of language. Reuben Mattus, founder of Häagen-Dazs, immigrated to the United States in 1921 with his mother and sister.

Upon settling in America, Reuben and his mother, Lea, began working for his uncle’s Italian ice company. They squeezed lemons to make the ices, and then peddled their products in local neighborhoods by horse and carriage.

With hard work and a bit of frugality, mother and son prospered. By 1929 the two had saved up enough money to go out on their own, and Lea founded Senator Frozen Products. Reuben took over sales and marketing for the family business, and helped build the company over the next 20 years.

Like any company, Senator had its ups and downs. Following World War II the company went through a challenging period as the market shifted. More people were shopping at grocery stores, and this played well to the giants of the industry. The large ice cream manufacturers were able to dominate the freezer aisles with high quality products at low prices. This was challenging for Senator, because they didn’t have the quality or price point.

Reuben could see the shift happening and he pressured his mother to change. He argued that Senator needed to upgrade its ice cream equipment and formula to deliver a better product with less air and more butterfat, but his mother refused. Lea wanted to stick with what she felt the business did best, serve candy stores and lunch shops.

It took Reuben nearly a decade to change his mother’s mind, but Lea finally relented. She was tired of being beaten up by the big guys.

(I laugh at this part of the story. Anyone coming from a family business can probably relate to Reuben’s pain.)

With his mother’s blessing, Reuben began developing premium ice creams designed for the grocery store market. His first brand was called Ciro’s. It did well for a couple years, but then the big guys noticed they were losing some market share to this small firm. They attacked.

In an interview with the New York Times Reuben said, “When the large companies found out I was infringing on them, they almost put me out of business.”

To avoid the onslaught of direct competition Reuben made the decision to go up-market. He wanted to find a niche they could own. He continues, “If I could use the best ingredients and watch everything, then people wouldn’t mind paying a little more money.”

Today the super-premium ice cream category seems completely logical, but in 1955 it was a risky bet. Senator bought all new equipment, developed new formulas, and created an exclusive brand that would shed the family business’s roots as a small company from the Bronx.

The key to Reuben’s new brand was the name. In an interview with Tablet Magazine Reuben explained his strategy, “The most important thing is to make it taste good. But the second most important thing was to market it properly.”

He continued, “If you’re the same like everybody else, you’re lost. The number one thing was to get a foreign sounding name.” (We should all take Reuben’s message to heart. If you’re the same, you’re lost.)

Reuben began brainstorming names for his new brand. His daughter, Doris, recalled her father sitting at the kitchen table late at night pronouncing various made up names. Reuben was trying to find one that sounded just right.

According to Doris, her father wanted the name to sound Danish. He felt it made the brand seem more fancy. The word he landed on was Häagen-Dazs.

The name is completely gibberish, but American ice cream consumers of the time were unaware. It sounded like an ice cream from the old world. Actually, you could say the same today. The name has become a timeless symbol of quality, and very few consumers questions the name’s origin.

Reuben was a brilliant marketer, and he doubled down on the idea. The first tubs of ice cream included maps of Scandinavia, just to make it clear this wasn’t a product from around here.

The brand was positioned to win:

Exceptional quality. The chocolate was from Belgium, the vanilla from Madagascar, and the coffee from Columbia.

Exceptional price. When the brand launched in 1961 ice cream was sold for 50 cents a tub. Häagen-Dazs sold at a 50% premium for 75 cents a tub.

Exceptional branding. The package and story created a new category of ice cream, super-premium. It wasn’t competing with the big guys, because it was creating a new niche.

Reuben’s gamble paid off. By the 1970’s the company had national distribution. In 1976 it launched its first branded ice cream shop, which ballooned to 900 shops in 50 countries within 7 years. And in 1983 Pillsbury bought Häagen-Dazs, and the brand has steadily grown since. It’s currently owned by Nestlé.

Reuben’s instincts to create a foreign sounding name was completely sound, and it has been since backed by research. According to Valentyna Melnyk, co-author of the research report , “Approximately one-quarter of consumers make purchase decisions on the basis of COO [country of origin] information.”

“For example, research has suggested that French brand names enhance hedonic perceptions of products, whereas German brand names evoke utilitarian associations with products,” she continues. “In any case, foreign brand names provide consumers with an implicit COO cue.”

A name begins the story. It helps to position the brand in the consumer’s mind and it indicates what to expect.

Reuben understood that the name Häagen-Dazs told a special kind of story, especially to American consumers. It created an expectation of something old, premium, and foreign. It indicated that this product, while hard to say and even harder to spell, was worth paying a 50% premium for compared to alternative choices.

The name positioned the brand, but the brand had substance. Häagen-Dazs has grown into a global brand, because the product has more than great marketing. It’s a premium product with exceptional ingredients and great tasting flavors. The name is simply the label you associate with a great experience.

You're reading Häagen-Dazs Sounds Foreign So It Must Be Good by Jeremy Miller, originally posted on Sticky Branding. Did you enjoy this article? If so, sign-up for more of Jeremy's articles at Sticky Branding.

Nike’s Kaepernick Campaign Is a Brilliantly Engineered Marketing Strategy

It’s hard to miss the controversy Nike sparked with its Kaepernick ad campaign. Boycotts. People burning their shoes on social media with #JustBurnIt. Countless talking heads on cable news debating the logic of the campaign. Even tweets from the President.

What was Nike thinking?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 7, 2018

For any other brand this campaign would have be a disaster, but Nike is laughing all the way to the bank. It’s is a brilliantly engineered marketing strategy.

According to Bloomberg, the Kaepernick campaign generated more than $43 million worth of media exposure in less than 24 hours. And the early sales results are positive too. In the first 4 days of the campaign, Nike’s online sales rose 27% compared to the same period last year.

The Kaepernick campaign is working, because Nike sparked a conversation. Every advertising dollar the company spends is multiplied in publicity and shared media as people discuss the topic.

This is an example of a Brand Storyline — a communication device designed to engage your market in a conversation. (For more insights into Brand Storylines download my free ebook, Spark Engagement.)

It’s like the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty. The conversations that campaign sparked translated into real sales results. Between 2004, when the campaign launched, to 2014 Dove’s sales rose from $2.4 billion to $4 billion.

What’s even more impressive about Dove’s success is it grew a declining brand in a mature category with little room for growth. Remember when Dove was simply the white soap that floated in the bathtub? Now it’s an iconic brand changing the conversation on fashion and beauty.

Nike picked up Dove’s strategy and amplified it.

A Brand Storyline has 3 key elements to be effective:

Expertise
Strong Opinions
Point of Sharing

The conversational element is in the Strong Opinion. There’s no doubt Nike picked a side in a politically charged issue and spokesperson, and we’re seeing the reaction. Consumers and the media have engaged in the conversation, and it’s a rough and tumble one. This makes the discussion interesting and fun (depending on how you look at it).

The more fascinating part of Nike’s strategy is in the Point of Sharing. Nike made a calculation to identify with one market while taking the risk of alienating another. But this is why the campaign is brilliant. It’s focused deliberately on engaging the market Nike wants.

According to the New York Times, “Nearly two-thirds of individuals who wear Nike in the United States are under 35 years old, and are much more racially diverse than the baby boomer population … those consumers want their brands to take visible, social positions, and this is an opportunity for Nike to do just that.”

There’s nothing accidental about this campaign. Nike did the math and they picked a side. The expectation is their core market will identify with them and reward them for having a set of shared values and beliefs.

What do you think? Is the Kaepernick campaign genius or a mistake for Nike?

You're reading Nike’s Kaepernick Campaign Is a Brilliantly Engineered Marketing Strategy by Jeremy Miller, originally posted on Sticky Branding. Did you enjoy this article? If so, sign-up for more of Jeremy's articles at Sticky Branding.

3 HR Challenges that Derail Every Strategic Plan

People are the achilles heel of strategic planning. Your best laid plans can be derailed by you and your team.

The heart of all businesses are people, but this is often overlooked in the strategic planning process. Developing a strategy is relatively easy, but implementing and achieving it is difficult because of the people gap.

There are 3 HR issues that derail every strategic plan.

1. The Wrong People

Having the wrong people on your team is like driving on bald tires. You can get to where you want to go, but you’re not very efficient. There’s lot of wasted hours micromanaging and supporting people who just don’t seem to pull their weight.

Building the right team is fundamental to achieving your strategic plans.

As Jim Collins famously wrote in Good to Great, “Get the right people on the bus, the wrong people off the bus, and the right people in the right seats.”

2. Misaligned Priorities & Compensation Plans

Structural HR issues lie under the surface, but they can wreak havoc on your strategic plans.

A few years ago I worked with a product marketing team to turn around a failing brand. The product was losing over a percent of market share per month to its direct competitors. We had to turn things around quickly.

The marketing team developed a brilliant strategy, but it hit a wall with the sales team. The sales reps didn’t see the need to change their behaviors to adopt the new strategy, because they were achieving their quotas. This was a case of misaligned priorities.

The two departments had different objectives:

The marketing team was measured and rewarded on market share.
The sales team was measured and rewarded on budget.

The problem wasn’t resolved until the two departments’ compensation plans were aligned, and they were both working to the same objective.

3. The Inability for the Leader to Change

The ability for a business to grow is dependent on the ability of the leadership team to change.

Growth strategies derail when the CEO is unable to change to meet the requirements of the next level. For example, the CEO of a $10 million business has the leadership skills and habits to run a $10 million business. If he cannot develop the leadership habits to operate a $25 million business, the company won’t be able to break the $25 million revenue plateau.

No matter how good the strategy, a leader’s inability to evolve will derail the strategic plan.

All Strategies Depend on People

All great businesses are built by people — smart, ambitious, creative people. People like you and I that care deeply about the work we do and the brands we are growing.

It’s this insight that is so key to how you approach strategy. You and your team, and your ability to evolve, defines what you can achieve.

Put the HR questions at the forefront when developing your strategy:

Who here is part of the team moving forward, and who has stopped growing and can’t keep up?
Is everyone aligned, rewarded, and empowered to implement the strategy?
Does the leadership team have the support and coaching they require to do what’s expected of them?

You're reading 3 HR Challenges that Derail Every Strategic Plan by Jeremy Miller, originally posted on Sticky Branding. Did you enjoy this article? If so, sign-up for more of Jeremy's articles at Sticky Branding.

Play the Game: How Brands Win in Competitive Markets

“Create. Don’t compete … Move your organization from cutthroat markets with bloody competition — what we think of as red oceans full of sharks — to wide-open blue oceans, or new markets devoid of competition,” wrote W. Chan in Blue Ocean Strategy.

Blue Ocean Strategy is one of my favorite books on strategy, but it doesn’t work for a lot of companies. If you sell your products and services in retail or e-commerce, you’re stuck in a red ocean. This requires a different mindset and branding strategy to succeed.

For example, wineries that want to sell in Ontario, Canada have to deal with the LCBO. The LCBO is a boozopoly. It’s a government agency that controls the sale of wine and spirits in Ontario, and it’s a big business with over $5 billion in revenue.

From a consumer perspective, the LCBO is pretty good. From a brand perspective, it’s problematic.

LCBO puts its customers first and delivers an excellent buying experience. The stores are modern, easy to navigate, and offer a broad selection of wines, spirits and beers from around the world. The staff are knowledgeable and always willing to make a recommendation.

To deliver a broad selection the LCBO emphasizes categories, not brands. You can see this in the wine section. Consumers don’t seek out a specific label or brand. They’re encouraged to buy based on region, grape, and price. For instance, you may look for a California merlot that’s between $20 to $25, or a Chateauneuf du Pape in the $50 to $70 range. The product you choose is based more on what’s available than the brand itself.

LCBO is a quasi-monopoly that defines its own rules. Wine and spirit companies have little to no influence over this retail environment. If they don’t want to play by the rules, the LCBO will simply select another brand to put on its shelves.

The LCBO is not unique. Any brand that sells on a major marketplace has to play by the rules of that market. If you want to sell your products on Amazon, eBay, Walmart, or Target, you’ve got to play the game — their game.

Amazon is transparent and has three constants that define its brand. They want to deliver their customers:

Lots of choice;
Low prices; and
Fast delivery.

Amazon promotes brands and products that help fulfill its mission, and removes products that don’t.

Do a search on any category on Amazon, and you can tell which brands are playing to win. Every detail of their listings target their customers’ wants and needs. They know who their customers are, what they want, how they buy, and they tailor their brand for maximum impact. This is what it takes to win in a red ocean.

Branding for a red ocean is a competitive sport. Your brand has to make your products stand out when customers are comparing options down to the littlest details:

Product
Price
Brand Name
Package design and identity
Imagery
Product description
Keyword optimized copy
Social proof via reviews
Inbound links via review sites, endorsers, and influencers
Promoted posts to rank higher in search results

Each detail matters in a red ocean. You’ve to got to play the game better than your competitors to win.

You're reading Play the Game: How Brands Win in Competitive Markets by Jeremy Miller, originally posted on Sticky Branding. Did you enjoy this article? If so, sign-up for more of Jeremy's articles at Sticky Branding.

Content Shock Is a Branding Opportunity

We are living in an interesting time. There is more digital content being produced every day then there are human hours available to consume it.

Mark Schaefer predicted this would happen in 2014 with his seminal article, Content Shock. He wrote, “The amount of available web-based content (the supply) is doubling every 9 to 24 months … However, our ability to consume that content (the demand) is finite.”

Content Shock is changing our consumption behaviors. Not too long ago, let’s say 2015, it was common practice to subscribe to email newsletters, “Like” Facebook Pages, and follow people on social media. This was driven by FOMO, fear of missing out. A steady stream of content was helpful and even entertaining.

Fast forward to 2018, FOMO isn’t all that influential, at least from a marketing context. We’re overwhelmed. Instead of subscribing we’re unsubscribing, deleting, and filtering our inboxes. There’s just too much content being thrown at us on a daily basis.

Instead of subscribing, customers are bingeing.

In 2016 I noticed that customers would binge before they buy. I wrote, “When a buyer has a major purchase to make, they read everything! They download your white papers. They watch your videos. They search your blog. They engage with you on social media. They read the review sites. They binge on everything.”

Customers binge before they buy to mitigate their buying risks. It’s like putting on armor. The more you know, the more secure you feel.

I am now noticing a new behavior. Bingeing is becoming a standard part of buying, and even mundane purchases can trigger a binge.

I became acutely aware of my binge behavior when my wife incredulously asked, “Are you seriously watching beard videos on YouTube?”

In my 41 years I have never once attempted to grow facial hair. Sure, I’ve let it grow for two or three days, but never as a fashion statement. I was just being lazy. But this summer I decided I was going to doing it. I was going to grow a beard.

I won’t bore you with my beard journey story. It’s really quite lame. But I did notice I was going to Google and YouTube to answer my naive questions. How do you avoid the itch? How do you trim your neck? How do you avoid looking like a douche?

Of all the sites I visited one brand stood out, BeardBrand. They had tons of YouTube videos and content that answered all of my questions. Soon I found myself bingeing on their content. I was learning stuff and it was entertaining. I was also buying.

BeardBrand incorporates their products into their content in both product placements and advertisements. They are unabashed at promoting their brand, but it works. The content is great and the products are relevant, and as a result I followed their recommendations and bought their products.

You can do this too.

Companies that facilitate the binge are creating a competitive advantage:

It’s a branding opportunity. You create trust and build relationships when you offer valuable content that answers your customers’ questions.

It facilitates the sales process. Content is fulfilling the role of sales people. It’s educating customers and guiding them towards purchase decisions.

Both behaviors help to grow your brand and drive sales. This is very effective, tangible marketing that solves a defined customer need — the need to binge.

Binge behavior started with big ticket or high risk purchases, but now we’re seeing buyers binge on the littlest things. Like me bingeing on $15 to $50 purchases of beard oil and clippers.

This is creating a substantial opportunity for every brand. How can you help your customers get educated and answer their questions before they buy? The brands that do this best are achieving a competitive advantage.

You're reading Content Shock Is a Branding Opportunity by Jeremy Miller, originally posted on Sticky Branding. Did you enjoy this article? If so, sign-up for more of Jeremy's articles at Sticky Branding.

From Fad to Brand: How Hula Hoop Captured a Category

The Hula Hoop was one of the biggest toy fads in history. It’s estimated that 80 to 100 million hoop toys were sold in 1958 alone. But like all fads, the Hula Hoop craze ended abruptly. Rich Knerr, co-founder of WHAM-O said, “It was born in January and dead as a doornail by October.”

Unlike Pet Rocks, Mood Rings, and other cheesy toy fads, Hula Hoops are still a profitable, branded product. Lots of kids are buying them, even today.

The question is why?

WHAM-O sparked the Hula Hoop craze in 1958, but the toy actually originated in Australia with a company called Toltoys. Toltoys knew they were onto something big in 1957 when they sold 400,000 units in Australia.

Alex Tolmer, President of Toltoys, brought the idea to WHAM-O — America’s most innovative toy company at the time. Rich and Spud, founders of WHAM-O, jumped on the concept and renamed it the Hula Hoop.

The name originated from the Hawaiian Hula Dance. Twirling a plastic hoop on your hips reminded Rich and Spud of a Hula dancer gyrating her hips.

WHAM-O launched the brand using the power of television. Suzy Melin, Spud’s wife, explains, “Spud and I went on TV shows together … We’d just cold call them. We’d show up and demonstrate the Hula Hoops and ask to be on the show. It was 1958 and studios were wide open to that sort of thing. We got on lots of shows.”

The tipping point for the Hula Hoop came when the couple were featured on Dinah Shore’s national TV show. Dinah unknowingly sparked a phenomenon, and sales took off.

The problem though, WHAM-O didn’t have a patent for its plastic hoop toy. As soon as competitors noticed the craze, they were producing knockoffs: Hooper Doopers, Wiggle-A-Hoops, Hoop Zings, Spin-A-Hoops, and Hoop-de-dos, to name a few. By mid-1958, WHAM-O was competing with over forty toy manufacturers offering identical products.

Even with this unrelenting competition, WHAM-O achieved 25% to 35% market share. It could have been even higher, but WHAM-O couldn’t keep up with demand.

By 1959 the Hula Hoop fad was dead and sales all but disappeared. One by one, WHAM-O’s competitors abandoned the market. Nobody believed the Hula Hoop was ever coming back. But Spud and Rich were believers. At the very end of the craze, Spud filed for a patent covering the Hula Hoop’s weight, diameter, and shape.

Rich and Spud didn’t do anything with the patent for five years. They were busy turning the . But in 1963 the Hula Hoop made a comeback with the slogan, “If it’s not a WHAM-O, it’s not a Hula Hoop.”

The Hula Hoop became a perennial seller for WHAM-O. Rich bragged, “When we sold the company in ‘82, we were selling a million and a half Hula Hoops a year.”

This leads me back to the original question. What made WHAM-O successful when everyone else failed?

There were two ingredients to WHAM-O’s success:

1. Teach Your Market

WHAM-O didn’t just sell a toy, they taught people how to use it. TV ads taught kids how to do tricks with their Hula Hoops:

Kill the Buzzard: Around your neck
The Natural: Around your waist
The Knee-Knocker: Slip it way down below your waist

Ads taught kids how to play games, how to use multiple hoops at a time, and how to have fun. As a result, children didn’t just have one Hula Hoop, they had five or more.

2. Commit for the Long Run

Branding is a process, not an event. WHAM-O’s competitors were opportunistically riding a toy fad. As soon as the fad ended, they abandoned the market. WHAM-O perceived the market differently.

Rich and Spud understood the potential of the Hula Hoop as a toy, and they were patient. They knew the Hula Hoop would never rise to the heights it achieved in 1958, but that was ok. Serving a small, yet consistent market can be very lucrative too.

WHAM-O’s long term commitment coupled with its marketing savviness elevated the Hula Hoop into an iconic brand. Sixty years after its launch, children are still playing with Hula Hoops.

You're reading From Fad to Brand: How Hula Hoop Captured a Category by Jeremy Miller, originally posted on Sticky Branding. Did you enjoy this article? If so, sign-up for more of Jeremy's articles at Sticky Branding.

How Hurricanes Influence Baby Names

There is a curious correlation between severe hurricanes and baby names. Big storms like Katrina, Sandy, and Harvey influence how parents name their children.

According to , “names that begin with K increased 9 percent after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. And names that start with A were 7 percent more common after Hurricane Andrew in 1992.”

Berger explains, “The more you hear a sound, the more you like it.”

This is a form of exposure bias, and we see this phenomena frequently in brand name testing. To evaluate the effectiveness of a brand name we test preference and recall. Preference gives us an indication of likability, while recall helps us establish stickiness.

The names that tend to score highest in preference are the most familiar. But when you test recall, the names that have the highest preference scores are usually not the most memorable.

We prefer names that feel more comfortable and common, but being common can make your brand less memorable. This leads to a strategic decision:

Do you choose a name you prefer, or
Do you choose a name that’s hard to forget?

In branding, you may gravitate towards what you like, but take note of what is more memorable. Brands that stick in customers’ minds tend to outperform their less memorable competitors.

Back to the hurricanes.

Hurricanes have a fascinating naming convention. According to the , “it was learned that the use of short, easily remembered names in written as well as spoken communications is quicker and reduces confusion when two or more tropical storms occur at the same time.” As a result, the National Hurricane Center began giving storms boys and girls names.

Today, hurricane naming is maintained by the World Meteorological Organization. They have developed names for the next six years. For example, in 2018 you may see some of these storms make the news:

Alberto
Beryl
Chris
Debby
Ernesto
Florence
Gordon
Helene
Isaac
Joyce
Kirk
Leslie
Michael
Nadine
Oscar
Patty
Rafael
Sara
Tony
Valerie
William

Hopefully 2018 is nothing like 2017, but if any of these storms cause devastation you can expect two outcomes:

Parents will gravitate towards baby names that have the same first letter as the storm.
The use of the name will plummet following the storm.

Parents are less likely to choose a baby name if it’s associated with a hurricane that caused death and destruction. According to a report in , “the name Katrina all but disappeared from nurseries following Hurricane Katrina.” It went from 1,327 baby girls in 2005 to just 190 in 2016. That’s a 96% decline in usage in less than a decade.

The same is true of Harvey, Irma, and Sandy. Parents don’t want to associate their children with a natural disaster. Which is logical!

I find these two behaviors fascinating, because they demonstrate how easily we can be swayed by trends. There’s lot of things that influence and shape our preferences, and this can affect how you choose names — either for your children or brands.

You're reading by Jeremy Miller, originally posted on Sticky Branding. Did you enjoy this article? If so, sign-up for more of Jeremy's articles at Sticky Branding.

The Unseen Brand: How Central Smith Thrives by Building Its Clients’ Brands

The hardest brand to promote is one that makes other brands the hero.

This is the case for Central Smith, one of Canada’s largest ice cream manufacturers. You may have never heard of the company, but if you’ve had dessert in a Canadian restaurant you’ve likely eaten their ice cream.

Central Smith’s products are prolific, but the brand flies completely under the radar. Unless you visit their scoop shop in Peterborough, which I highly encourage, you won’t see their logo. Restaurants don’t feature it on menus, and retail brands don’t tell you they’re co-packing with Central Smith.

Now, I don’t want you to think of this brand as a contract or “white label” manufacturer, because that’s not the case. Central Smith has an awesome brand. For instance, their tagline is one of the best in the business, “We Dream In Ice Cream.”

More importantly, they produce high quality, great tasting ice cream. I am biased, because Central Smith is a client. But I’m also a foodie who loves ice cream.

Back to the branding challenge. Central Smith has a branding challenge that many B2B companies experience. They operate in the background and make their clients’ brands the heroes. That’s what they do best.

Jenn Scates, VP of Marketing for Central Smith explains, “Central Smith comes to the table fully prepared to work with our partners, our clients. And that’s the thing that separates us from everyone else.”

Many food companies focus on their products, their systems, and their brands. For instance, it’s commonplace to make scoop shops feature signage and labels indicating this “ice cream brand” is served here. Central Smith takes a different approach.

“We believe our customers are our partners, and it’s our job to make them successful,” says Jenn. “We don’t impose our brand on them. We partner with our clients: from R&D and product development, to creating house brands, as well as deep integration of our supply chains.”

As a result, Central Smith’s customers are large, loyal, and successful. The partnerships work, because they are harmonious and win-win.

Central Smith has an incredible industry reputation and brand for three key reasons. And I think these reasons can be applied to almost any B2B brand flying under the radar:

Positioned to win: Central Smith has strong positioning and core messaging. They know where they play and how they win, and that’s reflected in their sales, marketing, and operations.

Be so good they can’t ignore you: Central Smith’s products are simply delightful. They rise to the top in every taste test. More importantly, the company has built its operations, team, and systems to serve clearly defined markets in food service and co-packing. Ice cream could be considered a commodity, but Central Smith’s service, flexibility, systems, and product innovation are hard (if not impossible) to replicate.

It’s always about people: Building a brand based on partnerships is intrinsically human. Jenn says, “Customer service, flexibility, and responsiveness are core values of our team. We are completely committed to our clients’ success.”

This leads to the heart of why Central Smith has such a good brand. Successful businesses create great brands, and never the other way around. There’s absolutely no way people would admire a brand if the company was unsuccessful.

Central Smith stands out in the food service and co-packing categories, because it partners with its clients and makes their brands the heroes. This creates a relationship and a partnership that’s hard to beat.

So I encourage you to experience the brand. National Ice Cream Day is this Sunday, July 15, 2018. Go out and get an ice cream cone. And if you’re in Canada, ask your local scoop shop or restaurant which brands they’re serving. Chances are they’ll have Central Smith on hand, and you can discover why so many food services and co-packing companies choose Central Smith first for their ice cream.

You're reading The Unseen Brand: How Central Smith Thrives by Building Its Clients’ Brands by Jeremy Miller, originally posted on Sticky Branding. Did you enjoy this article? If so, sign-up for more of Jeremy's articles at Sticky Branding.