Comfort can be a four letter word.

This week the movie rental retailer Blockbuster closed its remaining 253 Canadian stores. Victimized by pay TV, online rentals by companies like Netflix, and illegal downloading, Blockbuster could no longer compete successfully. 


Why did this happen?


Blockbuster got too comfortable. They became too comfortable with their typical brick and mortar locations and were too late to innovate and adapt to the changing habits of consumers. Competitors realized there was an opportunity - an opportunity to capitalize on the convenience factor of not leaving the couch to watch the newest flick (now made possible by technology and speed of delivery). 


Another example of a company that got too 'comfortable' with their strategy was The Gap. Think back to around the 2000s. The Gap was a cool, fashionable place to shop. I remember my mother giving gift certificates to The Gap to all of my cousins for Christmas, and watching smiles spread across their faces as they opened their gift. Unfortunately The Gap became boring and continued to offer the same clothes season after season.


Why couldn't The Gap and Blockbuster alter their strategy and get back on track?


By the time a company realizes they need to change their strategy - it's already too late. I'm a true believer that if you're too comfortable in the marketplace, you're doing something wrong. 


Check out Gap's recent rebranding efforts:


http://www.youtube.com/user/Gap?blend=11&ob=5#p/u/0/ER-iKU0pntY


I like purchasing from companies who are original. As far as The Gap's rebranding goes, it's a little too 'American Apparel' for me (Helvetica bold anyone?). But you decide. Is Gap too comfortable? Or is their rebranding strategy a winner?

The Effectiveness of Traditional Mass Media

I've always thought that traditional mass media was losing it's effectiveness. More specifically, I had this preconceived notion that television commercials and newspaper advertisements are ineffective.


Why?


We as North Americans lead hectic lives. We have so much going on, so much to think about, that we tend to tune out unimportant advertisements and commercials because our brains are constantly thinking about what task we will tackle next. Not only are we busy, but we are exposed to so many advertisements that we eventually tune them out. In the world of marketing, this is referred to as "noise."

Think about this, recall three advertisements from the latest newspaper. Can't recall any? Well neither can I.


How about television commercials? Can you recall three commercials from the last show you watched? I can't either...


An article I read a few days ago from the Globe and Mail completely changed how I thought about television commercials. If television commercials are so ineffective, then why did 30 seconds of Super bowl air time sell for a record price of over three million?


I then realized I have it all wrong. I am not being specific enough about the ineffectiveness of television commercials. What I have been meaning to say, is that the effectiveness of television commercials is seriously reduced when the audience is indifferent between watching the programming live or recording the program to watch at a later date. 

The Super bowl is watched by millions of fans in real-time. Therefore, many fans are sitting there, glued to the television set, intently watching both the programming and the commercials. This is also true of the olympics, various sports programming, the news, and popular reality TV shows. 


Are television commercials still effective? Or are you simply increasing your cost per customer acquisition?

You're All Thinking It.

"Innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower."

 - Steve Jobs

As you probably already know, Steve Jobs recently resigned as Apple's CEO. Pretty startling news saying that Apple is dominating in the smartphone market, and seeing major success with its Ipad.

Do leaders really determine the success or failure of a company? Or is a strong team of hardworking, dedicated employees with innovative ideas enough to maintain number one market share? 

Jobs' leadership has had significant influence over the Apple brand throughout the years. There was a time when Jobs left Apple, but later returned as CEO in 1997. Six months after his arrival, the Apple brand seemed to take off. Prior to his return Apple was struggling financially- they weren't profitable.

In 1998 Jobs was able to restore profitability and significantly increase sales through launching a marketing campaign around the slogan 'Think Different.' This campaign spread the idea that people who used Macs were "dreamers that could change the world." While Microsoft was focusing on selling the attributes of it's products, Jobs was focusing on the feelings associated with the purchase and use of his products. (As I blogged about before, if you can tie an emotional feeling to your product, you have a winner).

        How does this tie into leadership? 

This summer I read the book Onward, written by Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks. He spoke about how Starbucks lost its way after he resigned as CEO. It was not until his return as CEO that the company started to see the same successes they had once been familiar with. I'm wondering if the same will happen with Apple. We've seen a strong correlation between Apple's success and the return and resignation of Jobs as CEO. 

        Will Apple continue to 'Think Different'? Or will they slowly creep into the status  
        quo?