jmbelloso-blog

[jmbelloso-blog]

Sell Yourself

If the art of selling ideas is really about how you present yourself, then it seems it is more the art of selling yourself than the idea. This is all well and good if you know how to present yourself, but it falls a bit flat when you’re inept or don’t have the classic image buyers are looking for. This has been demonstrated time and again on Shark Tank, the television show about pitching your idea to a group of VCs. Many of the contestants have interesting ideas, but the ones who sell are the ones who know how to give a killer presentation. They cast themselves in a positive light, gaining the trust and respect of the judges. The ones who fail tend to be bumbling and awkward, or over the top.

In the below example, the presenter has an interesting idea, but he can’t seem to convince the judges that he is an integral part of the process. Even worse, the judges stereotype him based on people they know who are like him.

So how can we avoid falling into this trap? When you look around, it seems like the only solution is to attend a Tony Robbins seminar to become our best selves.

But for those of us who can’t (or more accurately, won’t) attend a Tony Robbins seminar, what can we do? I think it’s useful to start with the most basic steps.

1. Get a makeover: We’ve all seen those movies where the awkward girl gets transformed into a beauty queen overnight, and all of a sudden everyone thinks she’s amazing. 

No, this can’t happen to you. But if you are intentional about your appearance, and think about what your clothing and style say about you, then you have a better chance of influencing how others see you. If you are straight out of college working in an office for the first time, think twice before donning that pair of sheer leggings. 

2. Think before you speak: How many times do you say something, and then immediately cringe because it didn’t come out how you intended? Things you say can have a real impact on people around you. If you offend someone in the first 30 seconds of meeting them, good luck pitching them anything. In the Big Short, Christian Bale’s character starts off an office confrontation telling his main investor that he’s dumb. The resulting conversation doesn’t go quite the way Bale’s character wants it to.

At the end of the day, we can’t really change who we are. But we can put our best foot forward. 

[jmbelloso-blog]

Joining Adobe immediately after graduating from college was intimidating. I was the only one on my team without an MBA, and nearly everyone in the product marketing organization seemed to have ten or twenty years of experience. However, I believe being stereotyped as a “neophyte” due to my inexperience ended up being a huge asset.

When I saw the breakdown of our marketing budget, I was shocked. The majority of our dollars were allocated toward search and display. I had never managed a multimillion-dollar marketing budget before, so I was not in a place to challenge the way Directors had been spending our money for years. But being so low on the totem pole, I also knew I had nothing to lose by questioning the significance of SEO and display advertising. 

My colleagues looked mystified when I suggested shifting some of our search and display money toward building an emotional connection with our customers. I was envisioning something similar to Coke’s viral “Coke happiness machine”. However, my boss seemed to find the idea refreshing. She explained to me that good ideas were not enough to succeed at a company like Adobe, and I would need to put together a business plan to get approval from everyone. Once I did that, she arranged for me to partner with our Branding team to execute the concept. Together, we came up with the “Adobe Crane Game” - an arcade style claw machine stocked with creative prizes like chalkboard decals, portable speakers, and free Adobe Creative Cloud memberships. In order to earn time with the claw machine, participants had to study a card with fast facts about Creative Cloud and take a brief quiz at our kiosk. The more questions they answered correctly, the more time they were able to spend at the claw machine. Any social media posts about the event also merited additional seconds with the claw game.

Ultimately, the nationwide crane game tour proved to be one of our most successful tactics in driving deep awareness of Creative Cloud among our segment. Thousands of trials were downloaded, site traffic increased, and hundreds of students posted Instagram photos and tweets from the event.

As I spend more time in Marketing, I have a much better understanding of and confidence in search and display advertising’s ability to drive results. However, I hope I never lose my inner neophyte’s playful sense of curiosity and drive to reimagine tired routines. 

[jmbelloso-blog]

Suits vs Hoodies

In the context of an entrepreneur pitching to VCs, the person giving the pitch can have a tremendous impact on how the pitch is received.  This is due in part to the fact that above and beyond any natural biases that a VC may have, they are intentionally trying to pattern-match the pitch and team with others they have seen in the past to help them judge its likelihood of success. This is an unfortunate reality of how this business works and likely leads a lot of VCs to overlook great founders with great ideas because they don’t fit into one of the categories in their mental framework for what a successful founder should look like.  

One notable example includes Peter Thiel, saying that his VC firm, Founder’s Fund would never invest in any entrepreneur that showed up to the pitch in a suit.  In his book Zero to One, while discussing bad VC investments in the clean tech sector he said:   “Maybe we still would have avoided these bad investments if we had taken the time to evaluate each company’s technology in detail,…But the team insight —never invest in a tech CEO that wears a suit — got us to the truth a lot faster.”

Two of the most common types of founders that VC’s look for are they look for are the young technical genius in a hoodie, i.e. “the Zuckerberg”, and the bold, confident salesman who can inspire employees to join their team and close big customers. Unfortunately, the confidence exhibited by this second type of founder can often border on arrogance, sometimes leading some VCs to counter-intuitively invest in rude arrogant founders.  This is a phenomenon that was parodied well by the HBO show Silicon Valley, in which the founders of Pied Piper find that the ruder they are to investors, the better offers they get:

[jmbelloso-blog]

If not me, who? If not now, when? – Emma Watson

When thinking about pitching, most people will immediately think about pitching a business idea in front of investors or potential customers. I think pitching can be interpreted in a much broader sense. Pitching is about persuading your audience to not only buy into your idea but also take the course of action that you suggest during the pitch.

The pitch I find most memorable is a speech delivered by Emma Watson during a UN conference in 2014 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbEfDv9XSlE). The topic of her speech was on gender equality. We have learned that personality and idea are equality important when it comes to pitching. Gender equality is no longer a novel idea. Many feminists have fought about the issue for many decades. Arguably, the subject could be quite boring to most audience as they probably had heard about it over a thousand time. So how did Emma do it? I think there are three pieces to this success – background, persona, and techniques.

Background: Before the speech, Emma was already a well-known public figure. She is best known for her role as Hermione Granger, a smart young witch who is the only female lead of the Harry Potter franchise. Emma graduated from Brown university and was also a face of Burberry, a British luxury brand. Emma in real life and Hermione Granger in Harry Potter are both very smart, confident, well-educated and elegant-looking young lady. So even before the speech, most audience may already have a strong positive impression about Emma.

Persona: When Emma got on the stage, she appeared confident, but not aggressive in her formal white suit. The formal dress told us that she didn’t come here as an actress, but came here as an UN ambassador. When she started talking, we could hear her shaken voice during a part of the speech when she was overwhelmed by her emotion. Her body language conveyed to the audience how deeply she cared about the subject. We knew right away that she was there because she genuinely cared about the subject not because she was paid for.

Techniques: Even with the right background, and the right stage persona, Emma did not try to claim that she was a feminist expert, or someone who was qualified to talk about the issue. Rather she immediately said that she was doubting about her legitimacy herself. Then she used her self-doubt to her advantage by asking “if not me, who? If not now, when?” She used her innocence and her lack of knowledge to align herself with other people in the audience. She went on to talk about real struggle of women, and ended with the same question to call the audience to immediately start taking action.

This is what I learn from Emma Watson.

[jmbelloso-blog]

"People don't buy what you do, they buy why you do it"

I do agree with Bob Garfield and Doug Levy about how marketing shifted from a positioning and unique selling point, to a relationship era. And I do believe one of the biggest reasons for that shift is innovation. During Simon Sinek’s Ted Talk, he explains how Apple inspires their consumers to buy their products by communicating why they do it, rather than what they do. In other words, “people don’t buy what you do, they buy why you do it”. It’s a reverse logic, since most companies tend to explain the what and how very well, but often forget about the why, which is what gives them a purpose. Moreover, the most successful and innovative companies are those who are able to communicate their purpose very well, tapping into the human element, and inspiring all of their stakeholders to talk about their brand, thereby creating network effects.

[jmbelloso-blog]

Hashtag Fails

To better understand #McDStories, I did some research on a few other hashtag fails. Each of these highlight situations where the company’s (or indiviual’s) branding strategy did not align with its purpose.

#ILoveWalgreens 

People posted that Walgreen’s had to pay Twitter to get that hashtag to trend, nothing to do with people actually liking Walgreen’s. The hashtag was too broad and did not encourage customers to tweet about a specific event or program. #ILoveWalgreens is not something that people would ever say, therefore it must have been sponsored. Walgreen’s would have been better off focusing on what they’re good at - convenience.

#QantasLuxury

Mainly posts about people getting sick from the airplane food. The best? This photo of a “luxury” meal #qantasluxury. If you’re going to use a hashtag about luxury, you better make sure that all aspects of the product and service are consistent with that theme.

#OzsInbox

Again there was no specific theme to this campaign, not even “ask me medical questions.” With a tweet simply asking for followers’ “biggest questions”, Dr. Oz had to expect some sarcastic remarks. Furthermore, he should think about his audience and the nature of medical information. Many people are not comfortable sharing their health issues or concerns broadly, it is  a very personal matter. A public twitter campaign like this would discourage those people from asking him questions. 

Even though these are all considered failed hashtag campaigns, at least they are memorable. As we talked about in class, you either want to be the best or be the worst - those are the only ones anyone talks about, we forget everyone else in the middle.

[jmbelloso-blog]

Modern Feminism Done Wrong: Vera Bradley

Vera Bradley is a retailer known for its quilted cotton bags with colorful designs.

The Why It’s Good to Be a Girl Campaign was Vera Bradley’s attempt to attract a new target demographic, women 25-40, which were labeled “daymakers”.  According to CEO Rob Wallstrom, daymakers are idealist, go-getters who “balance 1,000 things”, love to host others, and are “joiners,” not loners. In addition to the change in target customer, the company rolled out a hashtag campaign called #ItsGoodToBeAGirl.

With this campaign, the company’s goal was to attract a younger buyer. The campaign ran in late summer 2016. #ItsGoodToBeAGirl tweets from Vera Bradley lovers were also used in print ads.

This poster was placed in a NYC subway.

The company’s choice of hashtag words and promoted tweets was what fueled the campaign’s failure. Given that the company wanted to attract women 25-40, using the word “girl” for that demographic was not appropriate.

The hashtags Vera Bradley promoted were those that endorsed traditional stereotypes of women: a lady that has to be treated delicately and loves fashion.

Vera Bradley’s campaign failed to attract younger women. It, instead, reinforced the negative stereotypes women have been working hard to break.  

Modern Feminism Done Better: Kate Spade

Around the same time, Kate Spade released commercials with Anna Kendrick and Gloria Steinem. Gloria Steinem was a leader and spokeswoman for the feminist movement in the 1960s and 1970s.

This campaign does a better job of connecting with younger women because it acknowledges certain things are not as important in comparison to the contributions made by feminists. Gloria also did two interviews for the brand about her impact on the world and her career. With this additional content, the company’s goal can be perceived beyond getting women to buy their products, it also wants to educate them. 

Reference:

1. http://jezebel.com/vera-bradleys-new-ad-campaign-asks-why-its-good-to-be-a-1786861851

2. http://jezebel.com/heres-gloria-steinem-starring-with-anna-kendrick-in-a-k-1730809855

[jmbelloso-blog]

How to create a cult?

No I’m not looking to create a an obsessive group of individuals fanatically bonded over a shared beverage who believe they are exclusive from the rest of society…or am I just trying to sell you on Starbucks? 

This week’s article from the Advertising Age discusses the end of the Consumer Era and the rise of the Relationship Era where companies who want to rise to the top will be forced to discard mass marketing and embrace the era of transparency and full embodiment of their corporate values. In short…companies will be forced to walk the walk and talk the talk to avoid being caught in a social media firestorm of hypocrisy. 

We have begun to see the power of alignment to core values through brand meltdowns such as Thinx and United. 

Thinx. A start-up alternative to traditional feminine products was founded on a mission of female empowerment and a solution to the stigma of menstruation. However, in the midst of its rise to power as the prominent brand its newly formed category, it founds itself embroiled in controversy. 

Thinx’s claims “By re imagining feminine hygiene products to provide support, comfort, confidence, and peace of mind, we aim to eliminate shame, empowering women and girls around the world.” However this is not held up in practice apparently as their current corporate policies deny employees sufficient maternity leave and allow her to freely grope her colleagues breasts. This activity was quickly reported on by the media which caused consumer to run as quickly as possible toward their direct competitor Knix Wear which saw a 300% increase in sales. While not even these were not the actions of the entire company, but rather one high level individual, the consumer is ruthless and condemns the entire brand for not living its values.

United recently saw a similar mishap…

United’s current slogan and mission statement is “Fly the Friendly Skies”…. given the recent actions that were made public due to social media and consumer, i’ll just leave that one where it is. This latest impromptu media campaign could not be more of a antithesis to this slogan. Thus creating a visual and visceral break between what their company desires to stand for and what their actions support…creating endless doubt in the eyes of the consumer. Unfortunately given the high switching costs and limited substitutes of the airline industry, it is unlikely that United will falter too much as a business from this episode. However if they were a more readily accessible consumer product, it would have been a significant blow to sales. 

These two examples provide clear support in response to the argument that we are entering the era of the Relationship and brands need to get in line to live up to their motto’s if they are going to survive. 

[jmbelloso-blog]

A Prescription for a Broken Healthcare System

American Well is one of several telehealth service providers who connect patients with doctors and healthcare providers to minimize the administrative and operational burden that contributes to the inefficiencies plaguing the American healthcare system. This video from American Well succinctly communicates the frustrations and hurdles that patients commonly experience when finding and visiting healthcare providers and illustrates how its platform provides a much needed solution.

While this is a radical shift in the way patients seek and receive healthcare, American Well has identified a huge opportunity to improve a broken system. But because it is such a radical shift, patients may be looking for signals of legitimacy to ensure the platform and treatment can provide the highest quality care that one would receive via conventional channels. American Well’s focus on insurance companies as customers, rather than individual patients, was a prudent decision in this regard. Insurance companies, like Blue Cross Blue Shield, who offer American Well’s service directly vouch for the legitimacy and quality of the product, which is a key to building trust with customers when such a radical and novel solution is being offered.

[jmbelloso-blog]

Building trust and consistency through online services

Reflecting on the American Well case, it seemed like a great idea to provide online appointments with doctors. Busy people could more easily consult a qualified medical professional, and the cost of a consultation would go down broadening access to medical care.

Indeed, 3 of 4 top reasons given by respondents for wanting email access to their doctor were time-motivated, so an online consultation would surely be a bigger hit, right? The question is: who are the doctors motivated to join American Well, and can an online consultation replace an in-person one?

A consistent and high quality user experience is the priority for American Well, yet it expects to attract doctors “working as usual, but on the weekend will be able to make additional money” and those “able to add a second shift in the evening time”. Maybe I’d be OK with those docs checking out my dog, but personally I’d prefer a well-rested and focused doctor.

Traditional doctor appointments also allow us to develop a history with our PCP and it’s (usually) easier to build trust in a physical domain. Despite the waiting times, in-person meetings generally result in high quality outcomes, hence expectations for American Well will already be high, and judgement is likely to be swift and brutal.

Let me draw a parallel with another trend for in-person ‘intimate’ liaisons that has gone online… dating.

Apps like Tinder and Bumble enable men and women to meet potential partners online, saving time and broadening access to a wider market. Eventually the time comes when a couple must meet in person and test their chemistry, and it’s at this point we can make a true judgement about the other person.

Online medical consultations - like initial chats with a date prospect - can help solve basic concerns and allow an initial screening for an ailment or disease. American Well has a mountain to climb building trust between its user base however, and the online dating scene is all too aware of that issue!

[jmbelloso-blog]

The article on American Wellness reminded of various companies also focusing on digital healthcare. Some failed while others are still running successfully. I am quite bullish in the space as there are plenty of inefficiencies in the healthcare industry and digitalization is where the future is trending. As long as a business has a sound working model and marketing strategy, I believe the company can have a high chance to be successful.

In the left of the photo, we see HealthSpot, a company established with a vision to run telemedicine kiosks all over the US. Since its launch in 2010, it partnered with RiteAid, Kaiser Permanente, and Cleveland Clinic. The business, however, suddenly closed in 2016. No one knows exactly why the business shut down, but there may be multiple reasons. 1) Unlike American Wellness, HealthSpot does not offer on-demand health – patients had to schedule with doctors before visiting kiosks. 2) It used expensive infrastructure to power its servers, and one single kiosk can expect 10 patients/day max. 3) Unlike American Wellness that partners with health insurance companies and expects a large customer base, HealthSpot targeted at the Urgent Care provider market, yet it could not offer the range of services an urgent care center could. Probably the most important reason is that it continued to tweak the product, but it never received high consumer engagement. The failure of HealthSpot gives important lessons on the need to create a product that speaks to the customers while being able to bring in cash.

On the right hand of the photo, Higi has a clear value proposition of “transforming the way communities take care of themselves.” Located in major pharmacies and grocery stores, Higi has more than 10,000 kiosks operated to measure body data and integrate the information to improve people’s lifestyle. People can take their vital signs, convert the data to an overall wellness score, and save the data into devices and fitness apps. People can also participate in competitions with friends and people in the community with the goal of improving their well-being and earning points to redeem rewards like a discount to grocery. The reason that Higi is quite successful is that it has a sound business and revenue model that encourages constant interactions between consumers and partners. It also positioned its brand to serve a diverse audience – all individuals, regardless of age or income.

[jmbelloso-blog]

American Well: Online Patient Visits, In-Person Lawsuits

When reading the American Well case, I found it very hard to focus on anything but the MASSIVE liability challenges the company would face as well as the difficulty these challenges would create in enrolling new Primary Care Physicians in the two sided market.  This obstacle is likely the largest targeting and marketing challenge American Well and “telehealth” in general faces.

The medical industry is known for lagging behind the general economy in adopting software and hardware innovations.  The numerous challenges that are unique to the healthcare industry (regulations, liability, reimbursement methods, etc.) all contribute to this effect.  American Well seems wishes to change this, but runs the risk of running full speed into a wall of resistance.

The case opens with a discussion about patients wishing to e-mail their doctors.  Despite this desire, doctors still haven’t taken to this practice in any significant number.  The liabilities associated with using e-mail, a highly insecure platform, to relay patient information is just too great.  I’ve personally recently been working on updating the website of my father, a hand surgeon.  I’ve created an online form allowing those interested in becoming patients to contact his office, but I had to work with his office manager to ensure that patients won’t attempt to transmit private patient information through the form.  Even after taking special care to ensure no medical issues are discussed, his office manager may not decide to include the form due to the risk of a lawsuit.  It’s unfortunate, but in the modern world a simple password system is insufficient to protect customer data.  Even now, years after the case, doctors are only recently adopting patient portals to contact patients, bypassing e-mail altogether.

Furthermore, the increased risk of misdiagnose through seeing a patient digitally seems to be a major new liability for doctors.  Despite America Well’s claim to have created inventive new malpractice insurance, doctors, for whom lawsuits and malpractice insurance is a major operating cost, would likely be unwilling to believe America Well can effectively cap these costs without significant lawsuit history for reference.  Complicating matters, there are significant state by state differences regarding malpractice insurance and doctor liability.  Currently, surveying the malpractice landscape is a major factor in determining where a doctor chooses to practice.  In some states, the certainty of lawsuits and the resultant cost of malpractice make malpractice insurance entirely unaffordable for doctors.  If a doctor runs the risk of being sued by a patient in such a state, American Well would have significant challenges in bringing on new doctors.

Because of the threat of lawsuits individual doctors face in America, American Well should explore markets that don’t face this challenge.  In particular, the pharmacy and international market seem compelling.  If Pharmacists face lower malpractice risks, they may be more willing to adopt the system.  Furthermore, I believe many pharmacists operate independently, allowing them to monetize more of their downtime in the manner American Well’s founders envisioned. So long as pharmacist’s can avoid significant liability (such as in It’s a Wonderful Life) American Well may end up being profitable.

Nations with government run health systems, meanwhile, may be particularly compelling.  American Well needs widespread adoption to become profitable and operating in government run systems would allow them to achieve this by signing only a single entity, the government, rather than the numerous stakeholders in America’s fractured medical payment system.

[jmbelloso-blog]

Gimmick vs Iconic

In early April, Ikea launched a marketing campaign aimed at Balenciaga’s $2,145 handbag. 

The print ad reads:

How to identify an original Ikea Frakta bag 1) Shake it. If it rustles, it’s the real deal. 2) Multifunctional. It can carry hockey gear, bricks, and even water. 3) Throw it in the dirt. A true Frakta is simply rinsed off with a garden hose when dirty. 4) Fold it. Are you able to fold it to the size of a small purse? If the answer is yes, congratulations. 5) Look inside. The original has an authentic Ikea tag. 6) Price tag. Only $0.99.

The add is so effective because of how similar the $.99 Ikea shopping bag is to the hugely expensive designer. Ikea is obviously playing on their target customer’s implicit thought that many high end fashion trends are somehow just “not worth the money.” 

But to look at a different example, take a look at this hypothetical alternative comparison I put together:  

This second side by side comparing the Ikea bag to a high end Gucci purse just doesn’t carry the same impact as the Ikea add. Now obviously, the bags aren’t as near of a physical match, but there is something about the Gucci bag, in it’s design, in it’s look, it’s accents, that just set it apart. 

If a brand is a promise, simply setting a high price is not enough to meet that promise. And there is about more to it than just materials quality; at a certain product level, the price of the product is way out of line with it’s marginal increases in quality over middle of the road options. So there must be something else at play. 

There needs to be a certain non-intuitive look that sets it apart from “normal.” And I think that’s key. High end fashion is meant to be distinct and to make a statement… Something you can’t quite do with an Ikea bag. 

[jmbelloso-blog]

Burp-Berry

The amusing component of the Burberry case is the success and failures at the company since its re-positioning in the early 2000s. Evident by the performance of its equity, the strategy has appeared to payoff. However, despite “check under cover” style mandates, the brand (equated with the pattern), remains as ubiquitous and diluted as ever. Particularly in the past decade with the acceleration of counterfeit products emerging from China and Southeast Asia and the ease with which they reach markets, a Burberry piece spotted in the wild is assumed to be as likely fake as genuine.  

Speaking from personal opinion, the brand has lost dignity.

An interesting occurrence moving parallel to the dilution is a secular shift away from the old guard of the late 90s and early 2000s (Armani, Gucci, Dior) and a reflection of the current preference for more ‘authentic’ and spontaneous brands. Brands that more fully capture the desired expressiveness and individuality of this era. 

If not already, I sense that Burberry is losing momentum and will soon find itself in the no-man’s-land between the protectors of tradition, and the millennials’ vanguard. 

For fashion, this appears to be a pattern of risk association with rebranding/positioning away from one’s core. Success initially appears, though risks of stagnation or rejection constantly loom around the corner. 

Though playing in a different segment of the fashion market, J Crew strikes me as a company that fell victim to this pattern. Initially a purveyor of American prep (and done so well), the company sought to venture beyond its world of wicker furniture and weekends on the Cape to more effectively harness the emerging tastes of ‘effortless urban’ style. Thus the pants got tighter, the colors more muted, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY (ed. personal rant), the collars on men’s shirts got shorter. Congratulations J Crew, you played yourself. At first this departure was well received, but consumers are a fickle bunch and recent results show that the market has soured on what once was a promising repositioning of the brand. 

What should Burberry do? The playbook is already written. Cut SKUs, consolidate product lines, and reconnect with its heritage. 

[jmbelloso-blog]

where lauren falls

Where Bravo at Burberry had the opportunity to seize control first of the number of SKUs to ascertain she could own the end to end product-to-customer experience and build a high standard for quality, the recent case of Stefan Larsson, former CEO of Ralph Lauren, illustrates a brand struggling with similar challenges to Burberry, but repeatedly coming up short.

Larsson, who brought H&M to the United States and scaled it for years before leading the Old Navy turnaround in the 2000s, adding over $1B to the brand revenue, left to be the first non-founder CEO for Lauren brand at a time where Lauren was facing considerable financial downturns.

In his time, he named they “worked hard to come to an understanding” on creative difference, but “didn’t.”

Their stocks fell by 50% in the past 3 years, and most recently, led to their closing their trademark 5th Avenue store. Lauren brand, so often associated with American preppy classics, has instead been victim to the very licensing challenges Bravo saw in Burberry.

With low quality control, significant sales in Asia, and a brand lagging behind traditional luxury, Lauren has to choose: will they meet trends more quickly to follow Bravo’s two pronged approach of fashion and continuity products? This would mean building supply chain capabilities and trend-consciousness across merchandising and design to compete with both high-end fashion and lower-end Zara, and would have been a place where Larsson excelled.

My instinct, though, is that Lauren strives to only own continuity products. Their most recent 2017 collection still transposes classics with tiny accents, and lacks the innovative nature key to meet a global and changing customer base. I wonder if under Lauren’s watchful eye, if any designer or innovative thinker will be able to effectively make the call to grow a new brand, evolve the Lauren identity, and be the Bravo to save Lauren’s 21st century life.

[jmbelloso-blog]

Check Please!   - Burberry

I think that Bravo did a great job instilling a brand discipline throughout the organization, however the signature check is both a blessing and a curse. Consumers desperately need the check to be visible, otherwise it’s not truly a “Burberry” item. However, there is really no limit to what consumers can choose to do with the pattern that immediately declares, “Burberry!”. So while target customers and first time buyers treasure the check, brand outliers are enough to stigmatize the brand. The questions becomes how can Burberry continue to expand their customer base and stay true to their English roots, without ostracizing groups of loyal consumers. To make matters worse, the case hinted at “Asian tourists” and “Urban youth and hip hop musicians” being outside of their core customer base and diluting the brand. That said, Burberry will need to tread very carefully on the space they carve out for themselves and the message it sends to shoppers.

When I think of Burberry, I think of raincoats and umbrellas sold at Harrods and fit for rainy London mornings. Needless to say, I am not Burberry’s target customer, however while I recognize that Burberry is a luxury brand, the functionality of their products is what stands out to me the most. Brands like Gucci and Armani may do more to signal someone’s economic status, but their products are hardly useful. On the other hand, Polo and Coach products have become staples for men’s golf and casual wear and women’s handbags respectively. Burberry goes back and forth between the range of functional mainstays to esoteric catwalk styles.

However, Burberry will need to develop a more insightful approach in order to engage the new generation of shoppers who have been nursed on retailers like Zara and H&M and accessory platforms like Etsy and BaubleBar. Consumers have grown accustom to frequently released styles and lower prices available at any shopping center or online. Prorsum was a good start, but they will need to further that innovation for the sake of their longevity.

[jmbelloso-blog]

Burberry: A Symbol of Luxury & Durability

(Picture Source: http://www.burberryplc.com/file.axd?pointerid=d63facb42631497ba02e45f1721ea55d)

I was blown away by the Burberry case. In business school, we sometimes focus mostly on the strategy aspect, but it was refreshing to learn about Rose Marie Bravo, and her ability to set a clear vision, and to bring in the right people to ultimately help execute that vision. Here are the biggest takeaways I received from the case: 

Licensing is a blessing and a curse. It’s definitely the latter for branding purposes. While you are bringing in more revenue, you can’t control the brand and how the product is being presented

Work with someone who can visually transform your product. From the case, it seems like Mario Testiono was the right guy for Burberry and he knew how the company should portray it’s brand image

Brand appeal can have a functionality side to it. Burberry did a great job of not only focussing on the look, but the functionality. This stems from its origins as a company that created products for combat situations 

(Gap Ad Picture Source: https://goo.gl/images/D00e1p)

The case ends on Bravo contemplating the future of Burberry and trying to figure out how to “continue to grow the brand without risking customer burnout?” In my opinion, I feel that brands such as Burberry need to constantly rebrand themselves in this age of disruption. Consumer tastes are constantly changing and brand loyalty is not always guaranteed. They should always listen to their customers (both the 25 year olds and the 60 year olds) and adapt to the trends of these consumers. I think brands such as Gap and Banana Republic feel a bit old and haven’t adapted to the consumer needs. Whenever I walk into Gap, I feel like it’s the same look as it was 10 years ago. Burberry has a huge opportunity in front of them; they must continue to innovate, in order to survive in the competitive landscape.