An interesting one from the "Brand Coach" -

This just hit my email box the other day from Ted Matthews of Instinct Brand Equity, the self-styled "Brand Coach" - http://www.instinctbrandequity.com/newsletter/current/newsletter_74_Mar.html

Matthews' point is that when Tropicana changed their packaging style on their top selling orange juice, they threw out the brand's core identity and their sales plunged. Fair enough, and a pretty firm grasp on the obvious.

Matthews/Instinct goes on, however, to say that the company failed by not "taking into account the millions of customers who are comforted — especially in panicked times — by consistency."

There is no reason to believe that consumers, in "panicked" times are comforted by consistency. Not in the least. In fact, what Tropicana was trying to do was recognize that in troubled times, such as these when consumers are feeling adrift, anxious, and afraid (not panicked at all), theyv tend to fall back a couple of notches on the hierarchy of needs, and subconsciously try to connect with images. icons and themes they associate with 'better times' - which is why an understandfing of brand history is so important in recessions.

Many companies are bringing back packaging, themes and images from earlier successful campaigns that take advantage of this. Connecting back to old friends associated with earlier, simpler, better times can be very effective.

Where Tropicana failed is that they attempted to change their packaging without recognizing this and they not only disconnected consumers from the core brand attributes, they failed to reconnect with the images that reflected what would, in fact, comfort consumers today.

Nothing wrong with changing the packaging in recessions to reconnect with the values consumers have during those times. Tropicana's failure was one of not doing adequate or correct research to find out what in it's brand history would gives consumers comfort in relation to their brand, and whether or not that would be stronger than the brand's current associations.

Thoroughly bad research on the CBC this morning!

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/03/13/comscore-video.html?Authorized=1&AuthenticationKey=2_25_febf6be6-7f8f-44a4-892e-26c018c187e7.pakgaihmohgcjj

A thoroughly stupid article in the CBC news this morning. One day reporters might figure out that they should think a little befofre loudly proclaiming "Canadians Glued to You Tube, Study Finds".

Looking at the article, the main premise presented by Comscore Media Metrix Canada is that because their research shows that 88% of Canadians who went online in January viewed media content, and that 3.1 billion videos were viewed, that means Canadians are addicted to online video content.

Pure rubbish, and a huge misuse of market resrach.

First - it's virtually impossible to go online and NOT watch a video. They are everywhere, and embedded into most popular sites - Amazon, CNN, just about every media site, online ads, search engines - just about everywhere. That means nothing at all.

What exactly does 'watch a video online' mean? Does it mean it happened to pop up on a site and it couldn't be avoided? Was it actively viewed and/or sought, or was it inadvertently viewed? How long was spent watching videos actively? Was the video content specifically what was sought or was it part of a broader activity? Is video an integral part of the online experience or a peripheral one? Does online video content drive online behavior, supplement it, or have little impact on the experience?

Those are the key questions.

The assertion in the article that YouTube accounts for half the online video viewing, and that therefore Canadians are "glued" to YouTube, is just outright laughable. YouTube videos are linked and embedded in millions of sites, as YouTube has essentially become a platform.

I would imagine that 88% of Canadians encountered a toilet in the month of January too. That hardly means the CBC should trumpet a headline that Canadians are glued to their toilets.