Cometh the Hour, Cometh the Man?

This month saw the annual Macworld conference take place in San Francisco. For Apple, this is a major event, used to launch spectacular new products to an always-eager world. Apple’s customers almost seem to beg the company to sell them something new...

Notably, Apple’s charismatic CEO Steve Jobs was absent, attracting much media comment. Jobs - a co-founder of Apple along with Steve Wozniak – has not always enjoyed an easy relationship with the company. Nevertheless, he is seen as a shrewd entrepreneur who enjoys a positive profile – Jobs is Apple to many, and his infectious explanations of the latest company gems at Macworld are a key part of the Apple brand.

Jobs is a cancer survivor, and his failure to attend the event has provoked some to ask who his successor could be, and what qualities that individual should possess. Jobs has sought to distil the media furore by stating he is suffering from a hormone imbalance, from which he will recover. I hope so.

This event underscores why the role of the CEO is so important. How they build a corporate image in a way that reflects positively on a company’s products has been recognised as a way of ‘building brand awareness and knowledge in a cost-effective manner to reach specific audiences’ (Kotler & Keller 2008, p. 317). Jobs’ role at Macworld has been to promote the brand of Apple as an innovative producer of desirable products, and how successful he has been!

The power of CEOs to influence the public perception of their organisations, and thereby contribute to corporate health, is undeniable. Here are some other notable examples:

Richard Branson, who seems to enjoy a similar profile to Jobs. Virgin does possess a very strong brand identity, and Branson’s publicity stunts are well known.

Gerald Ratner, whose gaffe in the early 1990s when he described his company’s products as ‘crap’ at a key speech, was disastrous. (Now apparently known as ‘doing a Ratner’).

Bill Gates, whose massively successful company Microsoft has adopted business tactics that have been brought in to question on a number of occasions. Gates’ profile has been variable at best, although he has now started to enjoy greater recognition for his philanthropic work. How this has influenced the public’s perception of Microsoft remains to be seen, although Gates has appeared in recent adverts (‘I’m a PC’) designed to challenge Apple’s ‘I’m a Mac’ campaign. Would this have been appropriate 10 years ago?

My questions are these: if the power of mass advertising is weakening, should companies be more reliant on the personality of their CEOs? Will charismatic leadership combined with a positive media image be of more value in future, and what are the risks involved? 

Strong Brands

Companies such as Prada, D&G and Christian Dior have established themselves as top of the line brands. Their strong image allows them the opportunity to penetrate markets outside of their primary focus. Although these three are high fashion brands, they have moved into the mobile market. Christian Dior, a high fashion brand, has recently announced they will be releasing a line of cell phones. Although the average price for a smart phone is $101, Dior will be retailing their new phones for a high $5000 each. Due to the price range, Dior’s cell phones will not be competing with Motorola or Nokia but rather Prada and D&G in the newly created market for brand-name cell phones. Does strong brand awareness allow companies the ability to create new markets?

http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/hughes/27919

Comparison Commercials

It was a big surprise to me when I came to United States that a commercial could directly specify a competing brand's name. In India, this is against law. So, arch rival brands, especially duopolies such as Coke and Pepsi, engage in showing the other brand with all the characteristics except the name and logo. They usually mimic the name and tweak the logo of the competing brand a bit, and make fun of the their product - making the experience ugly. The extent depends on how aggressive they want to take on the competitor. Needless to say, the competitor would retaliate. Often, it's a series going on. Funny thing is that people enjoy them mostly and there is lot of attention they gain. What else do advertisers care about!

While I find the direct comparison commercials (like in US) really a healthy way of promoting one's own product, I always wonder whether viewers would consider it as a too-aggressive and desperate approach, which might have effects on loyal customers having a high image on the brand. Also, to some extent, it unveils to the customer, the other options the viewers might not have known otherwise.

One comparison ad I still remember is of a Hyundai's car. It starts with showing all the nice features of a Toyota. Though all those features are nice to see, they are all extravagant - which is implied (subtle). At the end, they say that its nice to have a Toyota, but its nicer to have a Hyundai at almost half the cost.