After hearing a very educational lecture given by Method’s Eric Ryan about the power of the brand, I found the approach of Google’s Head of Innovation, described in Business Week magazine, a little disconcerting.
The Business Week article paints Google’s Head of Innovation as a rather hard nose business woman. Marissa Mayer grew up as one of those high school super stars in Milwaukee and entered Google as their twentieth employee.
Mayer’s approach is to pour out a lot of products early – believing it creates an internal environment of fearlessness – and that consumer’s don’t remember your less successful products.
It’s a very product led strategy rather than a brand led one: the strongest idea will survive, the weaker ones will perish. However, it doesn’t appear to try to establish a defendable emotional connection between the brand and the consumer. This is reflected in the examples Mayer gives of brands and their lesser successes: Madonna’s Sex Book and Apple’s Newton. “Nobody remembers [them]," she says. I’d differ to agree – the Newton and the Sex Book are some of the ingredients that make the relationship people have with Madonna and Apple today.
Google’s approach isn’t about people, not even the staff: an
internal email discussion list set up to allow the flow of ideas is normally
used by Google employees to beat newcomers into Googlethink – “It’s
about 50% new ideas, 50% indoctrination of new employees,” she told
BW. Her response to a team presenting possible names for a new Google personalized service: “You’re killing me.”
Eric Ryan looked at a category where everyone owned the product benefits: ‘kills all germs’, ‘cleans better’, ‘longer lasting’. It was a low interest category because no brand owned an emotional benefit. Ignoring the financial market hype, do you see a similarity with the ’search’/'portal’ space?
Today, Americans proudly display their bottles of cleaning products when in the past they would have hidden them under the sink. They products are on display because they’re Method products. In four years in a sector tightly controlled by the channel, Ryan and his colleagues now sell 25% of all hand soaps in Target.
Search doesn’t have distribution restrictions. Brands based on product benefits are at even greater risk. While everyone marvels at the colors and the fit of Google’s Betas, when is a little boy (or brand) going to raise his finger and point out the obvious?
Method
Google
Business Week Article
Further PSFK Reading: Eric Ryan On Method’s Success
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Good one Piers. Amidst the “everything that Google does is great” hysteria, your post asks some very important questions. Hope Brin & Page are listening.
September 30th, 2005 at 12:04 pm
Thanks Sukumar. Anyone, care to differ?
September 30th, 2005 at 12:14 pm
I’m not a marketing expert, but I don’t agree with the statement: “However, it doesn’t appear to try to establish a defendable emotional connection between the brand and the consumer”.
As a consumer, and a devoted user of all things Google, I find the fact that they let the general public in on their betas a liberating and empowering aproach to developing products and services. I love how Gmail has changed over the years with each new feature only making it better.
Google as a brand means ‘innovation and simplicity’. They’re on the cutting edge and providing early access to these technologies/services puts them ahead of their peers.
Just my $.02.
September 30th, 2005 at 1:22 pm
A very intersting point of view Patrick. I would argue that altho Google does have a clear position today, ‘innovation and simplicity’ is not a defendable platform in the long run. It’s still product focused. It’s still ‘kills 100% germs’.
September 30th, 2005 at 1:31 pm
Product extensions need to strengthen not broaden the meaining of a brand.
As long as what google has to offer continues to support their trueline “making the world’s information easier to access” (or whatever it actually is) fine. But as soon as they start moving outside of that, the meaining of the brand will begin to change in the public’s mind.
Eric at Method was asked about whether he had considered extending his brand because it was so successful.
I cringe when I hear about people starting to extend their brand—most often it results in bad decisions. As long as Method continues to pay off on “people against dirty”, or Google on their promise it should be fine—but start wandering too far off and you may see the beginning of the end.
September 30th, 2005 at 5:56 pm
Well look at that—they’ve already started to wander. What do candles have to do with “people against dirty”?
http://www.methodhome.com/products/candles.php
September 30th, 2005 at 5:58 pm
I’d like to see a source for the claim that Method sells 25% of hand soap at Target. I’ve seen the real ACNielsen data and Method’s share in barely existent. The brand is LOSING distribution in many stores. Why? Because the product is a poor performer, the cost is 2x other well known brands, and most people have never heard of it.
Don’t just buy into the hype – get your facts straight.
September 30th, 2005 at 9:02 pm
Well, it’s the figure banded around at the Influx conference last Tuesday. Maybe it’s 25% of total revenue if it’s 2x.
I disagree most people have never heard of it. I’ve never known so many people who would never step into a Target before, own the product.
October 1st, 2005 at 3:26 pm