Innocent not so fresh?

David Taylor, a well known marketing author and blogger, writes regularly about Innocent, the smoothie brand. He is a fan. We all are, right?

Well, perhaps not.

This week David points out that their sales were down 20% in 2008. He warns that they may be losing focus with their recent brand extensions. Another possibly reason is that their communications are not as fresh as they used to be.

Personally I can't help but think the recession might partly explain the drop in sales. I'm still a fan.

Can a brand name be a substitute for superior product?

Nobody doubts that companies that can bring some emotional appeal into their brands can strengthen their position. But can a strong brand name be a substitute for superior functional benefits?

Hamel & Prahalad believe that the reason Porsche's US sales plummeted from over 30,000 in 1986 to just over 3,000 in 1993 was because it was living off their brand name far too long and the cars were not up to scratch anymore, compared to Japanese models.

Adrian Ho has some wonderfully insightful slides where he explains that United fired their agency and decided to "invest in airline seats, not advertising". In product. Not brand image.

As all marketers know, Innocent Drinks have mastered the art of bringing a personal, friendly face to their drinks. There has been loads written about them and their tone of voice. But Innocent are quick to point out themselves that while this is important, it would be foolish to think that clever, witty copy on their packs is a substitute for superior smoothies. They are adamant that they have the best product available.

But I suspect they have enough loyalty to buy them time if another brand caught them off guard with a new superior product.

Paul Feldwick shares a good example in his excellent book What is Brand Equity Anyway. Cadbury's Smash was the UK leader in the instant mashed potato market. You might remember their Spash laughing Martian's advertising, with tag line "For mash, get Smash". They had built up a good reputation over some years.

But in the early 1970s, a competitor, Wondermash, arrived onto the market with a clearly superior product, which would take a fair bit of time to imitate. However, because of the loyalty that Smash has built up, Wondermash had difficulty persuading consumers to trial their product. Which gave Cadburys time to improve their product without losing market share.

So can a brand name be a substitute for superior product?

Not in the long term. But possibly yes, in the short term.

Is advertising enough to build a brand these days?

Is advertising enough to build a brand these days?

Intuitively this feels like a stupid question. Surely the answer is no, right? Today, brands are complex. Each interaction we have with the brand leaves an impression on us. Yes, their advertising is important, but our relationship with brands is a lot more two-way than before. If we're not happy, we can contact the brand. We can even contact the CEO if we please and we expect a response.

I remarked recently about Aer Lingus on why they would spend a load of cash on a TV ad to make us like them more, if their communication on their website gives us a different message.

But it would be wrong to completely dismiss advertising. When done well, it can do wonders.

I don't know how good Godfather's Pizza actually is compared to, say, 4-star pizza. But I have a higher perception of it. They feel like a higher quality outfit to me. I don't order in pizza much so my perception of Godfather's Pizza is based almost entirely on the brand image they have carefully crafted through their TV advertising. Their 'We know where you live' theme is very clever and their agency Bloom manage to be very creative even when constrained to 10-second stings like above.

And in fact, my perception may be inaccurate.

A friend of mine recently called the offices of both Godfather's and 4-star pizza - and found 4-star to be much better organised. She was surprised. We both were. She expected the opposite. She thought Godfather's would be the more professional place. Why? Because they look high quality. Their advertising has built their brand.

Conclusion:

1. Even in this age of conversation, advertising can still play a critical role in building perceptions of a brand.
   
   
2. However, I suspect this depends on how much interaction you are expected to have with the brand. How many FMCG brand managers will you call in a year about their products?
   
   
3. But regardless of what you can do with advertising, you can probably do so much more if you pro-actively manage the other brand touchpoints. The Godfather's Pizza website feels cheap compared to their TV advertising. Shame. They could learn from marketing's poster child - Innocent Drinks. They are pure FMCG yet they bring their brand into their packaging, their tone of voice, their website, their 'Banana' customer phoneline, their 'Fruit Towers' offices, their blog, their grass vans and their email marketing.