Comments on: Can P&G build "real brands" with soul, history & substance?

By: Amazing Brand: Red Bull

Amazing Brand: Red Bull — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:34:36 +0000

[...] I think Red Bull is truly a real brand with soul, hisotry & substance. [...]

By: 1urk3r

1urk3r — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 03:44:04 +0000

This thesis seems to ignore the fact that product authenticity trumps the illusion often created by brands. Dunhill, Doc Martens, Zippo, etc. have not only survived but maintained leadership (sales or brand metrics) – all with a marketing spend that is dwarfed by the Levers and Procters of the world. Diluting your product will only lead to an exponential rise in marketing budgets over time. She still remains your wife, not a consumer.

By: Brian Siegel

Brian Siegel — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:25:56 +0000

What is P&G doing to ‘adapt to change’, and move faster in an ever changing environment? Yes, you do have shareholders to please, and this builds focus on having leadership that at times micro manages from above at any large company, fine tuning the P&L’s and orchestrating strategies that take longer to implement than private/smaller companies time to make a decision and move ahead. Are you suggesting that P&G should go “Neil McElroy” Part II and extend on the decentralized management system so there are smaller/faster independent business units? In theory this would work, but what do you think would happen if your leadership brands operated independently? They in a sense do, but in no way are they nebulous, which is good, and are structured to fit in the P&G way, culture, and processes that (in good and bad ways) work. I am curious as to more thoughts on changing organizational culture, how to harness energy and passion, and oiling up the machine and adding parts to stretch/perform in more agile motions. P&G isn’t going anywhere, but it sure would be neat to shake up the culture, work with different ideas, and challenge established systems = true innovation. The structure, leadership, training, and tradition works, but nothing is perfect, no one has 100% market share (unless it’s a rare metal or some outlier), and there is always room to grow and improve. Great perspectives and retaliation! When are you getting your tatoo and what of? I thought of getting the Kool Aid man or “Punchy”, ha. Rock on Dave, rock on!

By: Dave Knox

Dave Knox — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:59:35 +0000

Brands are about stories. The best brands have stories you want to share with others. It might be about how you found the brand or it might be about the brand/company itself. If a company creates that story with no truth behind it, people won’t be willing to share in the experience. Yes the company might be successful and stil lmake a lot of money…but it wont have passionate users and without them, the brand wont have a very long life.

By: Robin

Robin — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:44:08 +0000

Brand “authenticity” is not about provenance. Brands cannot develop authenticity via a fictional history. Authenticity is about the relationship that a brand has with the consumer.

By: Vincent Chan

Vincent Chan — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:09:57 +0000

Dave, after reading this article, I have been thinking about what a “Real Brand” truely is for a long time…I have a few questions though.

If ‘real’ brands define as brands with soul, history and substance. I am wondering if a brand can make up the history part itself…

For example, for some new brands like “Gilly Hicks: Sydney” & “RUEHL No.925″, the company actually created a fictional background/history/story for their brands. Then the whole brand is built around that story. Do you consider these brands as real brands, too? If so, we can write anything we want for a brand’s history? I heard the founding stories of eBay and Starbucks are false, too…

Lastly, while I believe P&G is the best in CPG brand marketing in the world, I think Limited Brands has done a great job in apparel brand marketing. They always bought underperform companies and changed them into some great brands…do you agree?

Thanks a lot. Sorry that I am not as experienced as other readers here.

By: Matt Carcieri

Matt Carcieri — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:05:34 +0000

What people often forget about P&G is its core driver. As the authors of the 1994 classic “Built to Last” discovered, there are very few companies that have succeeded over time. And what’s driven the success of P&G (and its 17 other enduring peers in the book) is a deep sense of human values — the very stuff that fuels the new “soulful” brands that PSFK highlights as attractive. P&G will certain need to reinvent the way it cultivates its brands, but it certainly has the DNA to thrive in the new world.

By: Dave Knox

Dave Knox — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 00:59:42 +0000

All – Thanks for the great responses. With just 5 comments, this has been one of my popular posts. I guess that goes to show that people are reading this blog in part because of my P&G association…so they like it when I talk about something realated to the company! P&G is a company with a lot of pluses and minuses…but frankly we have many more pluses and a whole lot less minuses than most company our size. The fact that 2 P&G Brand Managers (and no Unilever BM’s) responded to the PSFK post says something right there. So thanks to all and keep up the good conversation!

By: Finn McKenty

Finn McKenty — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 00:55:02 +0000

Dave, great thoughts, and echoes some of the things I’ve often said about P&G.

That said, I think most of the people who buy into the P&G-as-outdated-dinosaur line of thinking haven’t worked with the company. Obviously I don’t want to name names here, but I’ve had the pleasure of working with a ton of really incredible, passionate, smart people at P&G who absolutely “get it” as much as anybody at Method or whatever other upstarts and cool new rivals that are out there.

As you said, the real challenge will be to see what happens to Method when they start to get big- really big. Also, what happens when the trends turn to something new? They’re making some excellent products right now, and the super minimal thing happens to be on trend, but it won’t be forever. And then what?

This is the challenge of the rockstar: beating the “sophomore slump.” P&G has an amazing, well-oiled product development machine with some great people running it, and while they’re not likely to be the first to do anything cool, they’re also not going to burn bright and fade fast. If I could introduce doubters like Piers Fawkes to the bright, passionate clients I work with at P&G, I’m 100% sure they’d be singing a different tune.

I know I was surprised. When I started working with P&G 3 years ago, I couldn’t have been more bummed. I had been working on action sports and entertainment stuff for the past few years, and wasn’t that stoked on fabric care. But looking back, I can say without a doubt that the stuff I’ve done with P&G is the most rewarding, and I can’t wait to see it hit shelves.

Method, Innocent, etc are great brands and I think they’re doing great work. But let’s see where they’re at in 10 years before we start digging P&G’s grave.

By: Robin Brown

Robin Brown — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:19:19 +0000

Well, it is hard for a leading packaged goods brand to have the kind of authenticity that is so appealling to a certain segment of consumers. (Although that doesn’t alter the fact that consumers are highly committed to brands like Tide)

However, there is one opportunity …sustainability. Marketers are required to open up their brands to scrutiny and develop a dialogue with consumers as a result of the increased focus on sustainability. This is the greatest opportunity for established CPG brands to develop an authentic, genuine relationship with consumers.

Although not related to sustainability per se, I think Hellman’s ‘campaign for real food’ comes close to this.