amurray322-blog - Tumblr blog

[amurray322-blog]

Branding in the classroom & beyond

In reflecting on the last week of Branding class (and my last week as a Sloanie!), I am thinking about the question - how can we apply branding to leadership?

Before Sloan, I worked as a middle school math teacher in Houston. Every year, I worked on creating a “brand” for my classroom and a mythology for the students in it. I did not want my classroom to just be a place where kids learned math, but a place where kids learned mindsets that would help them excel in the future. I wanted to evoke a set of feelings and emotions when students came in the room.

It was always difficult for me to set my “brand” or vision at the beginning of the school year because I often wanted the brand to exist of too many things. I would begin my brainstorming process by thinking of the core values I wanted students to embody, and the desired behaviors I wanted to observe. For example, I wanted my students to value the contributions of others, and I wanted to see them working collaboratively during team work. I also wanted them to not shy away from making mistakes and to ask any and all questions they had. I wanted them to never give up on a hard problem, and continue to try different strategies. 

After listing these values and behaviors, I would attempt to come up with a catch-all theme to embody my desired approach. I tried “exceptional mathematicians,” but realized that “exceptional” did not not actually tie to any behavior, it only tied to a quality. I then settled on “relentless” because I felt like it described the extreme motivation I was hoping to see.

“Relentless mathematicians” never really took off, however. My students saw it on their handouts, but I never heard them refer to the word. I realize now that I failed to incorporate the underlying customer need in creating a creative brief/brand slogan. The 5th and 6th grade students I have met need to feel like they are in an environment where people are willing to help them. They want to feel heard, appreciated, and not judged. They also don’t know what the word “relentless” means!  

What I really wanted, I realized, was not a bunch of “relentless” warriors attacking a math test. I wanted my classroom to be a place where students walked in and felt safe, supported, and ready to take on challenges. I do not think that coming up with slogans is my strong suit, but maybe something more like “safe and ready” or “risk taking family” would have been more appropriate for the mythology I was hoping to achieve. 

I do think I achieved this branding even without a slogan because we talked about these values a lot and practiced them. We practiced not giving up and working well with others. My students and I (well, maybe not in my first year teaching) grew to the top of the brand resonance pyramid because throughout the year, we took actions to build loyalty and relationships. To drive the metaphor further, I believe that I supported the mythology through operations. I created time in the class period for shoutouts and team feedback on collaboration. I asked students to reflect on mistakes and how they could learn from them. I wanted them to practice what I was preaching. 

At Sloan, I am often struck by how similar teaching is to general management. As a teacher, you are creating, monitoring, and leading a mini organization! As I move away from the education space, I am thinking about how I can use branding to be a more effective manager. Here are a few takeaways I will bring with me:

1. Understand the unstated customer need: What do my teams and employees really need from their job and from me?

2. Build relationships: Loyalty comes from trust 

3. Align my “operational” practices to the words I am saying: If I say that I believe in your development, without giving you helpful feedback or prioritizing our one-on-one meetings, my brand is damaged. 

[amurray322-blog]

Reflections on qualitative survey data

I would like to use this week’s tumblr post to reflect on my group’s Branding Lab project. First, MTurk is awesome. I have been telling everyone I know about it today! Last night, I published the final draft of a customer needs/interests survey, and we had 500 HITs within an hour from people of all ages around the US! What a fantastic and easy way to access a wide variety of opinions.

Second, I have an appreciation for the value of open-answer responses. I was surprised and impressed by the quality of responses to our open-answer questions - people revealed some very interesting insights and patterns. 

Our Branding Lab seeks to answer the question: How can we use lessons from foodie cities to brand Providence, RI?

We published an initial survey with the following goals: (1) understand how consumers currently view and rank foodie cities, (2) understand which consumer needs are important in foodie destinations and in visiting cities in general, and (3) understand consumers’ current view of Providence. Of our seven-question survey, two of the questions were open-answer. I will use the remainder of this tumblr post to reflect on some trends I found thus far in responses.

The first open ended question asked participants to explain their rankings of foodie cities (the ranking took place in the previous question). I read all 532 responses to this question, which may not have been the most efficient way to review the data, but I found people’s answers fascinating! I noticed the following themes:

1) Consumers rank cities higher if they are known for a particular item/type of item (e.g. Philly cheesesteak, Maine/coast seafood, Charleston southern food and BBQ)

2) Consumers assume that larger, more diverse and/or historic cities have higher quality food

3) Consumers take recommendations from friends and pop culture (Food Network, Mastercard travel recs, etc.) seriously

4) Many cities do not have one particular foodie reputation in the minds of consumers

Initial results indicate that theme #4 (and somewhat #1 in that Providence is a coastal city) is most relevant for Providence. Out of 532 surveyed, “Providence” or “Rhode Island/RI” was only mentioned in 14 responses. This is a huge insight in and of itself. Themes #1 and #3 also provide some ideas for ways to brand Providence (e.g., could Providence become associated with a particular type of food?)

The second open ended question asked participants to write what words came to mind when they thought of Providence. I know that word clouds are unscientific, but as a first step of my analysis, I constructed one to get an idea of general sentiments before diving deeper:

This very primitive analysis already tells our team a lot - mainly that Providence is known as a small, coastal city and the site of Brown University. Survey participants were primed to think about food given the earlier questions, so it does not surprise me to see words like “lobster” pop up given the high association between coastal cities and seafood. From talking to friends from RI, Italian food is apparently huge in the area, but this phenomenon does not seem to be well-branded currently. 

As next steps, I am excited to analyze this qualitative data with a more quantitative lens to add numbers and figures to the trends that are emerging.  

#2019mitsloanbrandingb

[amurray322-blog]

The link between people and product factors in diffusion

I thought the exercise of this week’s homework was very interesting. I enjoyed analyzing four products and determining factors that would encourage or hinder adoption, then comparing my thoughts to Rogers’ Five Factors. I drafted the following factors before reading Rogers’ work:

I then compared the factors that I thought of instinctually with Rogers’ Five Factors and found that my thoughts were fairly compatible. I sorted my thoughts into the Five Factors below:

It was interesting for me to note that many of the factors I instinctually thought of (based on my past experiences and contexts) matched well with Fosters’ factors. I then noticed where my ideas had difficulty fitting into Fosters’ mold. The two themes that I thought Foster did not capture were safety and freshness. When reading about individually packaged peanut butter, the first thing I thought was that this seemed instinctively gross, and I would be worried about quality. Additionally, the peanut butter and silver bandage products were not yet FDA-approved, and I would be hesitant to use any products not recognized in this official way.

This made me wonder - are these two themes particular to me or my people segment, or are they actually related to product categories? I believe that the gross feeling I felt in thinking of individual peanut butters or the discomfort with the lack of FDA reaction could actually be attributed to low compatibility or relative advantage. However, I think that some people segments might not care as much about FDA approval or “freshness.” Additionally, some of Fosters’ five factors might matter more to different segments than others. For example, individuals from the technical profession are not as concerned about complexity than individuals from other segments. Perhaps the relationship between people factors and product factors are more related than different. I concluded that product diffusion must be analyzed from both perspectives. 

[amurray322-blog]

In branding, how do you balance the opinions of consumers and experts?

It was fun to read this week’s case on Concha y Toro. I remember that during my senior year of college, Frontera was a household name amongst me and my roommates! I have also purchased Castillo del Diablo before without realizing that these two different wines, at different price points, are under the same umbrella brand. This reminds me of our conversation last week in class about using sub brands within umbrella brands in order to serve different audiences. In this case, Concha y Toro is a house of brands, not a branded house in that the umbrella brand name it is not particularly important or effective for obtaining customers. 

I am writing today about my thoughts on how exactly to brand Concha y Toro, or Chilean wine in general. Before CyT can choose the bottom-up or top-down strategy, they must first decide on their brand positioning - which set of perceptions, ideas, and feelings should CyT or Chilean wine evoke? As the case mentions, French and Italian wines make consumers think of old, romantic images of classic countryside vineyards. What do consumers really think about Chilean wines? Answering this question would help CyT make the best decision - either enhance the view customers already have, or attempt to change it through branding.

I know that I drink Chilean wine sometimes, but typically just because the label interests me and it is in my price point. I did a brief bit of customer research amongst my friends (aka, not a statistically significant sample at all), and I thought two reactions perfectly captured two differing views:

Friends A and B:

Friend C:

Friends A and B are similar to me - similar education level, income, and generally drink wine in the $5-15 price range. We have opinions about wine, but they are mostly collections of perceptions or things we have heard from friends over the years. Essentially, we are happy with a decent glass of wine at the end of the day (Friend B). 

Friend C, however, is a friend of mine who has worked in the wine industry for almost 10 years. This piece of information from Friend C immediately made me think of a way that CyT could differentiate itself. What if CyT branded the carmanare grape? If CyT could succeed in drafting a narrative about this relatively unknown type of grape - the affordable way to enjoy Bordeaux (or something) - this piece of information could gain traction amongst consumers. Obviously, this would need substantial qualitative and quantitative research before moving forward, not just the quotes of three of Alyssa’s random friends, but it struck me how talking to three customers could already yield productive insights.

I talked to a few other friends and came to agree with Friend C - most people I know who drink Chilean wine don’t have any differentiating opinion of it, or enjoy the taste at its lower price point. Given this reality, the top-down strategy might make more sense. However, I am wondering, how do advertising and branding firms utilize the opinions of industry experts alongside consumers? For example, Friend C, an expert, revealed a piece of information that could be used to drive CyT in a new direction, possibly toward bottom-up, if branded effectively. I am interested in continuing to explore the question - what is the balance between customer perception and expert insight in branding?

[amurray322-blog]

The ethics of nudging

I enjoyed reading this week’s readings on nudging and adapting behavioral science to the digital world. I found myself thinking of ethics throughout the readings. For example, there is something about nudging that feels undescribably, instinctly wrong. The examples presented in the Rotman article serve the greater good, such as putting unhealthy foods on higher shelves to promote health in children, but I cannot help but wonder - where do we draw the line as consumers between nudging and manipulation?

The Rotman article’s 12 dimensions of nudging feel inherently non-manipulative, given their defining attributes. For example, the nudges described in this article either activate a desired behavior, or boost self-control. If I were to be asked, “do you want help activating your desired behaviors or boosting your self-control?” I would respond with a resounding YES! 

The problem, I believe, arises when nudging is used to direct humans toward the desired behaviors of some outside organization or corporation, instead of toward the desired behavior of the consumer. For example, the article mentions the compromise effect, in which humans tend to choose the middle option. This effect was applied by a wine company to boost sales of a particular brand. This feels more like manipulation than nudging. It is possible that consumers enter a wine store with one particular brand in mind, but more likely, they enter hoping to see what looks delicious or interesting from the offerings presented. To use human behavior to boost sales in this way does not seem to activate a desired behavior or boost self-control. In fact, I would argue that it limits self-control because it prompts and manipulates human thinking. This argument takes us to a very odd place where we have to consider the definition of self-control, because one could state that choosing your own wine is an exercise of self-control. Either way, it is something I am grappling with. 

I did a bit of research about nudging in advertising and came across a fascinating commercial from Apple that was used at the 1984 superbowl:

The commercial implies that Macintosh will “break the mold” in some way and prevent our society from becoming George Orwell’s “1984.” Apple will inspire free choice and customizability. I love my Apple products, but my boyfriend is a huge Apple hater and loves to talk to me about all the cybersecurity issues facing us from big technology companies. I remember learning about Apple’s iBeacon program from him, and also in a Digital Marketing and Social Media Analytics class I took this past fall. I had NO CLUE that Apple was tracking my location and sending me location-specific offers and discounts. While this nudging may provide me with more options to boost my self-control, it still feels wrong, like I am being taken advantage of in some way. That doesn’t mean that I won’t use a discount that is relevant to me, but I do acknowledge that my boyfriend has a point - we are headed to dangerous territory. 

The article below also presents an interesting analysis of this topic:

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/231200

[amurray322-blog]

Intel Inside: Canibbalism & Identities

I enjoyed reading this week’s case! I thought about growing up with my dad, who was a huge tech geek. He loved to bring me to computer shows and talk to me about the parts that make up the computers. I have always known that a computer is only as strong as the pieces INSIDE, so the Intel message resonates with me. I also remember him buying me one of the Intel alien stuffed toys, so it was funny to read about that part of their marketing campaign! It looked like this:

image source: https://kookykitsch.com/index.php/ad-characters/by,ordering/results,1-150

Takeaway #1: Cannibalism can be effective

I felt confused when I initially read about the “Red X” campaign. First, would consumers even recognize “286″ versus “386″? It seemed odd to me that Intel was trying to raise awareness about what was happening inside computers by referencing random numbers that consumers would likely not understand. Second, I don’t quite understand why Intel chose to cannibalize its own products. I know that Intel wanted to move forward on 386 processors, but why do that at the expense of its 286 processors?

Obviously, this campaign seemed to work, but it still seems counterintuitive to me. I understand that shock value and confusion is eye-catching, and that the 386 would likely bring in more revenue than the 286. One lasting question I have, however, is when should brands cannibalize themselves? Are there overarching branding rules governing this practice?

Takeaway #2: Strong brands construct social identities 

I have been thinking a lot about what Professor Gosline said about strong brands producing symbols used to construct social identities. I am grappling with how that definition relates to Intel. Intel’s brand is about safety and leading technology, but I am unsure of who Intel’s target customer is. Is Intel searching for people who identify as tech experts? Average consumers? Who is dissociative from the Intel brand? 

This makes me think about other market leading brands that appeal to a wide variety of consumers. For example, who is the Starbucks customer? In a previous Starbucks case I read, it was mentioned that Starbucks aims to appeal to the intellectual, but I would argue that many Starbucks customers would find that dissociative. How do you build market-leading strong brands that identify with large, diverse groups?