A key to building segments with high loyalty is to create brand relationships that have traction and meaning. To understand relationships, it’s useful to recall the classic work of Susan Fornier going way back to her dissertation in the mid-90s in which she used human relationships as a metaphor for brand relationships. She examined the work of psychologists who studied the nature of relationships and the characteristics of ideal relationships. Drawing in part on this body of work plus her own consumer research, she identified seven types of relationships that are important to understand and had intriguing insights into how brand-customer relationships should be conceived, measured and managed.

These dimensions provide lessons on brand loyalty but come at it from different perspectives. A brand can use them to understand the nature of their customer relationships and how they might expand and deepen them.  The two statements associated with each dimensions provide texture and items for a measurement scale.

The Seven Dimensions of Brand Loyalty

Behavioral interdependence

The degree to which the actions of the relationship partners are intertwined. Indicators are the frequency of interaction and the importance of and involvement in the use occasion.

• This brand plays an important role in my life.
• I feel like something’s missing when I haven’t used the brand in a while.

Personal commitment

The partners are committed to each other. There is a desire to improve or maintain the quality of the relationship over time and guilt when it is compromised.

• I feel very loyal to this brand.
• I will stay with this brand through good times and bad.

Love and passion

The intensity of emotional bonds between the partners, the inability to tolerate separation, and the reflection of love and passion that exist. In brand relationships, customers can develop passionate links to brands. Substitutes create discomfort.

• No other brand can quite take the place of this brand.
• I would be very upset if I couldn’t find this brand.

Nostalgic connection

The relationship is based in part on the memory of good times.

• This brand reminds me of things I’ve done or places I’ve been.
• This brand will always remind me of a particular phase of my life.

Self-concept connection

The partners share common interests, activities and opinions. The brand reflects the interests and activities of the person.

• The brand’s and my self-image are similar.
• The brand reminds me of who I am.

Intimacy

A deep understanding exists between partners. The consumer will achieve intimacy by knowing details about the brand and its use. One-on-one marketing programs enhance intimacy by fostering mutual understanding.

• I know a lot about this brand.
• I know a lot about the company that makes this brand.

Partner quality

The evaluation by one partner of the performance and attitude of the other. The evaluation by the consumer of the brand’s attitude toward the consumer.

• I know this brand really appreciates me.
• This brand treats me like a valued customer.

“These dimensions provide lessons on brand loyalty but come at it from different perspectives.”

Read it in Chinese: 7种可以提高忠诚度的客户-品牌关系

P&G’s Pampers completely reframed the diaper category in China, and in doing so created enormous growth for the category and for the brand. It is a good example of how focusing on category competition is a better route to growth than trying to win the “my brand is better than your brand” battle. The story is fascinating and informative, not only with respect to framing a category but to entering a new country with a different culture.

Pampers entered the China market in 1998 with a strategy of making a cheaper version of their Western product. The result was indeed cheap, and also was of inferior quality. The product was perceived as plastic and irritating, and it didn’t go anywhere. In 2006 a revised product, called the Pampers Cloth Like & Dry, was soft, effective and half the cost of U.S. versions. But still, sales lagged. The problem was that Chinese consumers were not motivated by dryness or convenience. They did not see a problem that would merit changing their existing habits. But a solution was on the horizon.

P&G was in the midst of in-depth research on consumers that revealed that the quality of a baby’s sleep and its impact on the future development of the baby was a real concern for many parents. This was coupled with the insight that a sleeping baby tended to stimulate a mother’s thoughts of the baby’s future. A study was then commissioned to the Beijing Children’s Hospital’s Sleep Research Center that revealed that babies wearing Pampers fell asleep 30% faster, slept an extra 30 minutes every night, and had 50% less disruption throughout the night.

“Look for a new benefit, application or segment to define a subcategory that will consist primarily of new customers.”

In 2007, Pampers launched the “Golden Sleep” campaign, which included extensive advertising, mass carnivals and in-store campaigns in urban areas. The objective was to frame disposable diapers as aides to quality sleep and to communicate the research data from the Sleep Research Center. The cornerstone of the campaign was getting women to post a picture of their baby sleeping on the Pampers website that would be incorporated into a huge photomontage. Can you imagine the appeal of a sleeping baby? The hook was their goal of beating the Guinness World Record for the largest photomontage in the world. They got over 200,000 responses and indeed used over 100,000 of them to break the Guinness World Record with a 7,000 square foot photomontage that was hung in a retail store in Shanghai.

Sales went up 55% but, more importantly, the category exploded. From 2006 to 2011 the baby disposable diapers market grew to nearly 3 billion, and it’s much larger today. And Pampers continues to be the market leader.

A pioneer in energy drinks three decades ago, Red Bull is now the world sales leader with estimated 2012 fiscal sales of over $3 billion, profits over $400 million, and a 43% leading US dollar market. To establish a new category in the face of Coke and Pepsi and then hold it for decades is very impressive.

Four observations about Red Bull’s unique approach to brand building:

1. Red Bull’s brand building is largely based on associating its brand with an amazingly wide range of people, teams and events.
2. Red Bull believes in owning teams and events rather than being one of several sponsors.
3. Because of this ownership model, they can and have turned this buzz machine into a profit center.
4. Their on-brand activities reflect two very different personalities that live side by side.

The scope of Red Bull activities is overwhelming. It gets involved in a wide mix of sports such as wakeboarding and motorcycle racing, dozens of Red Bull music events, sponsoring athletes such as motocross racer Ashley Fiolek, teams such as the New York Red Bulls soccer team and much, much more. The Red Bull website has entertainment features such as the Red Bull Soapbox Racer video game, weekly rock music bulletins on the Rock Report, plus sections on movies and TV shows as well. The list of their entertainment features goes on and on and is captured on their Facebook Page, which has more than 37 million followers. With well over 100 potential points of contact, Red Bull will connect to their target market many times, in multiple ways. And more importantly, Red Bull becomes a big part of their customers’ lives.

Red Bull believes in owning teams and events so that they have control over the content and the cost. They do not subscribe to the normal sponsorship model where they would have their name attached to an entity they do not control. They own two professional soccer teams, two Formula One car racing teams, the Red Bull X-Fighters (freestyle motocross) World Tour, the Red Bull Air Race (an international series of air races in which competitors have to navigate a challenging obstacle course in the fastest time), the Red Bull Cliff Diving World Series and much more. Even when Red Bull backs an athlete, they get involved; it is not about a logo on a shirt. Their four-year association with Shawn White, who ultimately won a gold medal in snowboarding at the 2010 Olympic Winter Games, involved building a half-pipe training facility in Silverton, CO, complete with support staff to help him train.

And then there is “The World’s Biggest Jump.” In mid-October 2012, well over 10 million watched Felix Baumgartner rise more than 24 miles above the New Mexico desert in the 55-story ultra-thin helium “Red Bull Stratos” balloon, jump off, and reach 830 mph during a 9-minute fall, setting records for both the height of the jump and the speed of descent. Since then, more than 33 million have watched the YouTube video. With the pre-jump and post-jump news features, videos and documentaries there could have been over a billion quality impressions, which meant an incredible ROI, even though the cost might have exceeded $40 million.

Its ability to stage sporting and music events and manage special athletes means that its rich library of video content will always be fresh and will always be expanding. The Red Bull Media House, launched in 2007, creates and markets new and existing content through TV, mobile, digital, audio and print. For example, the 2011 film The Art of Flight showed hundreds of don’t- -try-it-even-in-your-dreams sequences. There are partnership deals such as the one with NBC, the Red Bull Signature Series, which is made up of 15 events spaced out throughout the year. The brand’s magazine, Red Bulletin has a global distribution of 4.8 million. The media presence is extensive and includes the Red Bull TV channel in Europe and Red Bull documentaries elsewhere. There are versions of content in any length and form. The Red Bull mission, to fascinate, is compelling to content users and audience members alike.

“And more importantly, Red Bull becomes a big part of their customer’s lives.”

Although all the activities are around high energy, there are two brand personalities that live side-by-side. One is the serious athlete excelling in difficult challenges. The other is a fun-loving, humorous, whimsical personality as represented by much of their “Red Bull gives you wings” advertising and humorous cartoon videos on their website.

And have you seen a Red Bull Flugtag? It’s a contest that challenges teams of everyday people to build homemade, human-powered flying machines and pilot them off a 30-foot high deck above a water landing. Entrants are judged not only for their flight’s distance but for the creativity and showmanship of the designs and the people operating them. There are designs stimulated by flamboyant kites, by space-age vehicles and by entities that are, for lack of a better expression, hard to describe.

The first Flugtag took place in Vienna, Austria in 1992, and since then more than 35 Flugtags have been held around the world, attracting up to 300,000 spectators. The record for the farthest flight-to-date currently stands at 207 feet set in 2010 at Flugtag Minneapolis/St. Paul. It is just one representative of the whimsical Red Bull brand personality.

What are the most impressive brand-building efforts in the last 15 years? In constructing such a list, it would be hard to leave out Dove. A $200 million soap brand in the early 1990s has grown into a brand that has been estimated to be worth nearly $4 billion dollars today. They play in an intensively competitive arena with large, smart and established competitors. And in my view, the Dove brand-building effort played a big role in their success story.

Have you seen the latest from the Dove ongoing “Campaign for Real Beauty” that originated in Brazil and was done by Ogilvy & Mather in 2004? A forensic sketch artist draws several women, first based only on their descriptions of themselves (he does not actually see them) and then based on the descriptions of a stranger who has observed the women. The subject, seeing the resulting sketches side-by-side, realizes that the sketches inspired by strangers are much more flattering than the versions from their own self-descriptions. The tagline? “You are more beautiful than you think.”  The first two versions of these videos each got over 35 million views within two weeks of being posted to YouTube. Thirty-five million!!

Dove’s success is, of course, driven in large part by a business strategy that involved brand extensions, product innovation and geographic expansion. The Dove^® Campaign for Real Beauty set out to make women aware that they have real beauty that is not based on the common standard of a young, model-thin body with excessive makeup. The goal was to make a fundamental change in the way that women are perceived and in the way they view themselves. The campaign started with advertisements, showing real women that may have been older or heavier than the “ideal” but exhibited beauty. Billboard ads invited passers-by to vote on whether a particular model was, for example, “Fat or Fab” or “Wrinkled or Wonderful”, with the results of the votes dynamically updated.

The Real Beauty campaign involves substantive programs with girls as the prominent target. Since 2002, Dove has been collaborating with Girl Scouts of the USA to promote self-esteem and leadership programming among tween and teenage girls with programs like uniquely ME! and It’s Your Story – Tell It! An annual Dove Self-Esteem Weekend, started in 2010, aims to inspire moms and mentors to talk to girls in their lives about beauty, confidence and self-esteem supported by discussion aids. The goal is to reach 15 million girls global about self-esteem awareness by 2015.

The Real Beauty campaign resonates at several levels. It connects with an issue of deep concern within the customer base, their appearance and self-confidence. Additionally, it addresses the insecurity and self-esteem issues of young women to which customers could empathize. It strikes a chord. It provides a higher purpose to the brand and a shared interest with customers.

The impact for some of Dove’s efforts has been estimated to be 30 times their expenditure. One of its ads, Evolution, showed how much effort goes behind creating the “model look” and won advertising awards as well as created unpaid exposure estimated to be worth over $150 million. There are anecdotes about dramatic sales increases tied to the campaign and surveys showing that those aware of the effort are more likely to use and recommend Dove products. But the creation of a huge business base is the best evidence to its impact.

“The goal was not to avoid being disliked but to connect to the target.”

The campaign has had its critics, though. In part, this scrutiny has been stimulated by and is a testament to its success and visibility. But during a panel discussion at the WEF at Davos once, Phil Knight dismissed critics to some controversial Nike ads by saying that the goal was not to avoid being disliked but to connect to the target. Exactly.

Dove’s success is, of course, driven in large part by a business strategy that involved brand extensions, product innovation and geographic expansion. The energized brand with its higher purpose and clear value propositions supported by branded innovations simply amplified a remarkable business strategy.

The extension strategy was to leverage the moisturizer heritage of the brand into new categories supported by meaningful innovation. The first extension success was the Dove Moisturizing Body Wash with the innovative Dove Nutrium technology that deposits lipids, Vitamin E and other nutrients onto the skin. This was followed by entries into deodorants, disposable face cloths, shampoos with Weightless Moisturizer, Nutrium soap, and lotions with Shea Butter. Dove also entered the male market with Dove Men+Care. Each extension’s success was based in part on compelling value propositions.

Additionally, an aggressive global expansion resulted in the brand, once a factor in only a few countries, now having a presence in some 80 countries. However, the business strategy would not have had its remarkable success without the brand-building effort to support the offerings and to drive the higher Real Beauty purpose.

My last blog post, “Three Models of How a Brand Personality Impacts,” discussed three ways in which a brand personality can impact customers and the marketplace. And its reception, measured by views and comments, indicated that brand personality is a highly sought after and intriguing concept. Many recognized brand personality as a key brand vision lever for brands that are facing dynamic markets and a fragmented media presence. A brand personality can be a crucially important driver of self-expressive benefits, brand-customer relationships and the communication of functional benefits.

If a brand strategist wants to explore the potential of creating or enhancing a brand personality, then they have to address one basic question.

What should my brand personality be?

One place to start is by deciding which personality elements should be on the table. My advice? To start with an established brand personality scale designed to span products, much like the scale developed by my daughter, Jennifer Aaker. It contains 15 traits organized into five factors as follows:

• Sincerity—down-to-earth, hones, wholesome, cheerful
• Excitement—daring, spirited, imaginative, up-to-date
• Competence—reliable, intelligent, successful
• Sophistication—upper class, charming
• Ruggedness—outdoorsy, tough

This can provide one checklist. Which of these 15 traits or variants would work?

A second source of ideas comes from looking at other brands inside or even outside of your category that are admired or relevant and ask some basic questions. What is their personality? How strong is it? How was it created and maintained? In what way does it enhance the brand or the marketing program? An airline like Emirates, for example, could look at hotels, financial services firms or online retailers for brand personalities that stand out and are advancing a business strategy or brand.

“A brand personality can be a crucially important driver of self-expressive benefits, brand-customer relationships and the communication of functional benefits.”

A third vehicle is to look at the “three models…” concept from my last post and examine whether any of these three could be relevant in your business context. They can be the source of ideas for brand personality elements as well as serve as criteria to select from.

Finally, the brands and their offering could be appraised to see what personality elements, if any, are already prevalent. What elements could be compatible with existing image and relationships? It is much easier and less contrived to build on an existing or embryonic brand personality than to try to create one from scratch.

What is the worst thing you can say about a person? That they have no personality. Who wants to spend time with someone who is so boring that they are described as having no personality? It’s better to be a jerk; at least you will be interesting. Having a personality is equally helpful to brands.

Not all brands have a personality, or at least don’t have a strong, distinctive personality. Those that do have a significant advantage in terms of standing out from the crowd, having a message and supporting a relationship with customers. Personality is an important dimension of brand equity because, like human personality, it is both differentiating and enduring. Once established it will provide benefits (or harm) over a long time horizon. Creating or supporting a personality should be part of the brand vision discussion.

The power of brand personality can be seen by conceptualizing three models of how personality impacts:

The Self-Expression Model

People express their own or idealized selves in part by the brands that they buy and use. Using Apple’s MacBook expresses for some a non-corporate, creative self-based in part on the perception that Apple-as-a-person is an unpretentious, irreverent and somewhat off-the-wall person. The use of Betty Crocker expresses the homey, maternal, nurturing side of some of its users because Betty Crocker-as-a-person is a mother figure who is traditional, small-town, and all-American, a person that cares about cooking and about her family. Wearing the Nike brand is a personal representation of an active lifestyle personality for many. Nike-as-a-person is exciting, provocative, spirited, cool, innovative, aggressive, and into health and fitness. A brand can serve as a person’s personal statement even if that person were stranded on a desert island.

“Personality is an important dimension of brand equity because, like human personality, it is both differentiating and enduring.”

The self-expressive power of the brand can depend on the context. One study suggested that a brand personality can transform the use experience by creating feelings during use. Respondents were asked to project themselves into one of two scenarios. One involved a break after a daytime hike on a mountain, while the other was during a small evening barbecue with close friends. During the scene, the beer served was either Coors or Löwenbräu. Coors, with its outdoorsy, active, healthy personality, created feelings of “warmth,” “friendliness,” and “wholesomeness” in the mountain setting, but not in the barbecue setting. In contrast, Lowenbrau, with a warm, social personality, the reverse was true.

A brand can serve as a person’s personal statement even if that person were stranded on a desert island. However, there are socially visible or “badge” brands, particularly for statement products like cars and clothes, that have substantial social impact and thus enhance to a self-expressive brand role. Driving a Prius or Mercedes provides a self-expressive benefit that is extenuated by an awareness that others will observe.

The Relationship Basis Model

A trustworthy, dependable, conservative personality might be boring but might nonetheless reflect characteristics valued in a financial advisor, a lawn service, or an auto brand such as Volvo. The concept of a relationship between a brand and a person, analogous to that between two people, provides a different perspective on how brand personality might work. For example, consider the following relationship metaphors:

• A weekend fun companion: Pepsi might be better than Coke if perceived as a fun, energetic, social person.
• An old-fashioned mother: A down-to-earth, honest, genuine, reliable, always there for you personality brand like Campbell’s Soup or Pepto Bismol might fit.
• A well-liked and respected family member: Warm, sentimental, family oriented, and traditional personality linked to growing up. Think of brands such as Hallmark, Kodak and even Coke.
• A person who you respect as a teacher, minister or business leader: An accomplished, talented and competent person as represented by IBM or the Wall Street Journal.
• A boss who exercises power or a rich relative: A pretentious, wealthy, condescending personality perhaps reflecting the personality of BMW, Mercedes or Lexus (with gold trim).
• A companion for an outdoor adventure: An athletic, rugged, and outdoorsy personality such as Nike or Wells Fargo.

Think of a brand relationship that involves two-way communication. What might a brand say to you? One customer segment who perceived a credit card brand as sophisticated, educated, a world traveler and confident believed that the card would make comments like:

-“My job is to help you get accepted,” and

-You have good taste.”

A second, “intimidated” segment who considered the same credit card brand to be sophisticated and classy but snobbish, aloof and condescending believed the card-as-a-person would make comments such as:

-“I’m so well known and established that I can do what I want.” and

-“If I were going to dinner, I would not include you in the party.”

The user segments had remarkably similar perceptions of the brand, but the attitude of the brand toward the customer was a big discriminator and the relationship metaphor helped provide that insight.

The Functional Benefit Representation Model

A brand personality can also be a vehicle for representing and cueing functional benefits and brand attributes. It can be easier to create a personality that implies a functional benefit than to communicate convincingly that a functional benefit exists directly. Further, it is harder to attack a personality than a functional benefit. Consider:

• The Harley Davidson-as-a-person rugged, macho, America-loving, freedom-seeking individual who is willing to break out from confining society norms of dress and behavior suggests that the product is powerful and is a bike with substance.
• The Hallmark-as-person is sincere, sentimental, warm, genuine, wholesome and ageless as well as being competent and imaginative. This says a lot about the Hallmark offerings.
• The Benetton-as-a-person is daring, trendy, exciting, provocative, spirited and imaginative, and this affects people’s perceptions of Benetton and its stores.
• Michelin as reflected by the Michelin Man has a strong, enthusiastic, energetic personality that suggests a tire with strength and energy.
• Wells Fargo, as represented by the stagecoach, reflects an independent, cowboy type that delivers reliably. Although competitors may actually deliver superior reliability and safety of assets, because of the stagecoach, Wells wins the battle for perceptions.
• The Energizer rabbit is an energetic, upbeat, indefatigable personality who never runs out of energy–just as the battery runs longer than others.

Most brand strategists focus on developing points of difference that will give consumers good reasons to prefer their brand. The key to winning is assumed to be differentiation.

Points of Parity vs Points of Differentiation: What’s the Difference?

Points of differentiation is a phrase used to describe the areas where brands differentiate themselves from others. Many strategists believe that this is the way to come out on top in terms of brand preference.

On the other hand, we also have points of parity. Points of parity are elements that a brand needs in order to be considered in the eyes of the consumer. This is where a brand may have similarities to others—leading consumers to believe that brand is “good enough” to be included in the conversation.

If there is a must-have dimension on which your brand is perceived to inadequately deliver, your brand will not be considered. You will not be a player, which means you have no chance of winning—no matter how compelling your point of differentiation is. It will not compensate for a fatal liability.

The solution? Change that liability into a point of parity (POP). In other words, change that liability so that on that dimension the brand is good enough to no longer exclude it from the conversation. The point of parity concept provides another perspective on how to make or keep a brand relevant. In this post, I’ll discuss two different points of parity you should consider experimenting with.

Category Points of Parity

A category point of parity means that the brand offers necessary category features. A bank will not be suitable, for example, unless it offers adequate ATM service. At first, some German car manufacturers resisted adding cup holders, believing that car purists would not want such distractions in their cars. But this became a “must-have” for many and they eventually had to add them.

Jaguar executives saw their brand as being irrelevant to those that wanted four-wheel drive. When that group hit 50 percent of purchases in their top geographic markets, Jaguar introduced an all-wheel-drive model. These vehicles were intended not to be superior to others but rather good enough to eliminate, for most buyers, the reason to exclude Jaguar from consideration.

“Change that liability so that on that dimension the brand is good enough to no longer exclude it from the conversation.”

Competitive Points of Parity

A competitive point of parity is designed to negate a competitor’s point of difference. A common brand problem is when the quality of the offering is not adequate in comparison to the competition. In the 90s, Hyundai made inferior quality cars. But even in 2000, after fixing their quality problem, people still shunned the brand because of the bad quality perception. It took years, but through a variety of programs and communication channels, Hyundai found ways to communicate their increased quality levels and gained quality parity. Their quality was perceived to be good enough that attention could turn to points of difference such as price, styling, gas mileage and warranty.

Case in Point: McDonalds

McDonald’s had a competitive parity problem when it began losing customers concerned with healthy eating. They were vetoing the brand altogether. So, they began to offer grilled chicken sandwiches, a variety of salads, fruit smoothies, a choice of apples in the kids’ Happy Meals and started making their signature fries with dramatically reduced “bad” fat. The goal was not to make McDonald’s a destination for the healthy-eating segment but to create enough parity to reduce the number of customers who wouldn’t even consider the brand.

They then ran into another competitive parity problem. The success of Starbucks was a serious threat to their breakfast and other off-hours business. But it was also an opportunity. The advent of McCafé in 2007, with a line that included cappuccinos and lattés, changed the competitive landscape. McDonald’s was not aspiring to be better than Starbucks; the goal was to be close enough to the Starbucks experience to create a point of parity with respect to quality. The result was that a segment of the Starbucks base started to include McDonald’s in their consideration set.

One of the empirical facts of business strategy is that “big” innovations that create new categories or subcategories do not come from the leading incumbents – they come from outsiders.

Successful incumbents have the resources to lead but, in fact, success breeds complacency, lethargy or arrogance. What is also disturbingly true is that incumbents not only fail to innovate, but also fail to be relevant to major innovations of others and sometimes lose not only their momentum but their very existence as a player.

“Success breeds complacency, lethargy or arrogance.”

In a brilliant new book, Unrelenting Innovation: How to Build a Culture for Market Dominance, Gerry Tellis explains why this is. His answer, based on nearly a dozen major clinical studies conducted by he and his colleagues, is that it is the culture of the incumbent firm that is inhibiting the firm from innovating or even responding to innovation.

He identifies three cultural traits and three practices that inhibit incumbents from “big” innovation, which is the only route to real growth as I argue in my book, Brand Relevance: Making Competitors Irrelevant. Understanding these traits and practices is the key to creating a culture where “big” innovations can be nourished.

6 Reasons Incumbent Firms Do Not Innovate

1. Refusal to Cannibalize Previously Successful Products

Firms want to protect their golden goose and certainly not kill it. Kodak had many of the patents that were the basis for digital photography, but they were protective of its film business. Microsoft had a model for paid search before Google but was afraid it will kill the banner ad business of MSN. Sony came out with an MP3 player two years before Apple, but Sony Music was petrified that a successful MP3 player might foster music piracy. Compare these examples with Gillette’s willingness to, again and again, obsolete successful products.

2. Reluctance to Take Risks

Failure is endemic to innovation, with rates ranging from 50% to 90% at various stages of development and commercialization. And executives rarely get blamed for missing a major innovation, but having one fail is often a career buster. The safe course is to avoid risky initiatives and stick to incremental innovations on the existing businesses. But big payoffs require big risks. Toyota gambled with the Prius with respect to undeveloped technology and uncertain demand. Both Amazon and Federal Express took a big risk in sacrificing profits with a big bet that scale would pay off.

3. Inability to Focus on the Future

In has been shown in one of Tellis’ studies that, for incumbent firms, major innovations go through two main stages:

• A Flat Stage: During which the innovation is being improved and gaining market traction. This stage can be lengthy. Firms tend to accept this first stage data as predictive and fail to analyze the potential technology or distribution developments that may ensue.
• Take Off Phase: As a result, they fail to invest or even stop an innovation that is in the marketplace. For example, Blackberry had a smartphone prior to the iPhone and HP had an e-reader before the Kindle or the iPad, but the potential of each, based on the existing market, seemed too weak to merit investment. Apple and Kindle, of course, proved them wrong.

In addition to these traits, incumbent firms also lack three practices that promote the traits that engender innovation: providing incentives for “big” innovation, fostering innovation competition and empowering innovation champions.

4. Using Outdated Incentive Methods

In successful, dominant firms, incentives are often set to current sales or satisfaction of current customers and are even biased toward employee seniority or loyalty. Innovation, when it is evaluated, has a heavier weight on failure than success, which can take years to determine. Google is the model for getting innovation incentives right. Employees are expected to spend 20% of their time on innovation, a “license to pursue dreams.” The Founder’s Awards, which run into millions, recognize employee innovations. There are innovation reviews whereby employees can present new product ideas to Google’s top management, including the CEO. And there’s more.

5. Lacking Internal Competition for Innovative Ideas

As a result, innovation is stifled. Silicon Valley is successful in part because of the frenzy of competition for ideas and people. The firms that keep coming up with “big” innovations have found ways to create such energy inside a firm. For over a decade, HP supported inkjet and laser technologies with competing printing divisions within the company. Each division worked hard to outdo the other, and innovation was the beneficiary. Some firms have idea fairs, research contests, competitions for internal startup funding or autonomous innovation units. The idea is to find and nourish embryonic business ideas that can be a growth platform for the future.

6. Not Championing Innovators

Firms like Apple that have been serially successful at innovation empower innovation champions, or individuals within the firm that are charged to develop major innovations and are provided with a team and resources. Successful innovation champions have a vision for the future mass market, tend to be mavericks and dissenters, have the conviction to persist against heavy odds and are willing to take risks. Such people are rare and need to be attracted, cultivated, supported and rewarded. Not easy for most organizations.

P&G’s “Thank You Mom” Olympic marketing program was a brilliant effort to draw on a universal human value to create a program with energy, relevance and emotion that spanned brands and countries. Plus, it’s ongoing with life beyond one Olympic Games.

In my book, Spanning Silos, I noted that brand and country silos have advantages. They are close to market and product technologies, they promote accountability, and they encourage decisive decisions. But they simply don’t work in today’s environment. One reason is that brand messaging, especially as it is spread through global digital communities, is hard to confine to local markets. As a result, a brand that has different local positions can become confused. A second reason is that the necessary scale of advertising, promotions, and big idea brand building are virtually unavailable when local brand building dominates.

So how might firms deal with the silo issue? The organizational answer is to overlay coordination and communication between silos. The brand-building answer is to find driving ideas in the form of human values that are universal, that everyone can relate to. That answer could be found in education, health issues, water conservation or others, but it needs to apply to all silos and be capable of maintaining relevance over time.

P&G’s “Thank you Mom” campaign uses both answers to conduct a successful cross-silo global marketing campaign. Applied at the Vancouver games of 2010 and the Special Olympics of 2011, it made its major push during the 2012 Olympic Games in London. It’s all about celebrating what moms do and thanking them for their efforts, their care and their achievements.

The campaign came to life with the short film, “Best Job” which touches the heart and celebrates the role that moms play in raising Olympians and great kids. There were also videos of the moms of some of the 150 athletes sponsored by P&G brands. A mom was shown watching their child excel through an exceptional performance or by medaling an event. The campaign was promoted through a host of media channels. A companion in-store worldwide retailer program was enacted five months before the London games and involved four million retailers. It was tied to an effort to raise over 25 million dollars to support youth sports programs that would aid both the Olympics and moms everywhere. The promotions involved some 34 P&G brands including Tide/Ariel, Pantene, Pampers, and Gillette. There was a “Thank You Mom” app that allowed people to thank their own moms with personalized content in the form of a video.

“It provided the prestige and energy of being involved in the Olympics, plus the “feel-good” aspect of supporting youth sports.”

The marketing program was a winner for several reasons, besides the fact that it scaled over dozens of brand silos and many countries and was estimated to have generated $500 million in sales. It provided the prestige and energy of being involved in the Olympics, plus the “feel-good” aspect of supporting youth sports. Further, the connection with real moms provided a hearty dollop of authenticity and emotion. It’s easy to empathize with moms that have fed babies, provided lunches, supported at swim meets, bandaged skinned knees, attended recitals and shared in the joy of winning gold at the Olympics. Everyone has a mother, and everyone can relate to the best aspects of a mom’s role.