How do brands die

I have often mentioned that being born in the 80’s and living through the years after has offer me and my generation an un-paralleled advantage- We have seen the world change in bits and pieces, day-by-day. Technology from my childhood is obsolete in most cases today; the one still around only have classical value. What the changes have also resulted in has been the fall of dominant empires and rise of new ones which replaced them. Some like Sony who changed with times still hold their stature. I don’t think people rate the technology of a Bravia, Vaio or Xperia lower to the Walkman at some point in the 80s. Sadly, the ones which got lost in their own glory to forget the art of adaptation went on to immortalize Darwin.

One of the most appealing and fascinating gadget my father had was an SLR camera from Minolta as well as a point-n-shoot Nikon. But what had to be treated with immense respect irrespective of the make was the camera film. So it didn’t matter if Sakura was now Konica, Fuji was cheap or Kodak was expensive- if by chance the film from any one got exposed accidentally opening the reel cover, down the drain went the memories. The films also demanded respect as you could click only 36 shots per reel (yes, there were some shady ways to do more on the same reel), so taking a picture was like a responsibility.

I took some time to read up on Kodak for making a case study and realised that Eastman Kodak was the oldest and the biggest player in the camera film plate arena for close to 100 years when I might have held a camera. It was a legend that had over 90% market share at one point thanks to its smart selling strategy of cheap camera units and milking the film and photo paper cows. Along with Gillette and its shaving blades, this was another great example of making the big profits on the consumables- something still followed by a lot in the market.

After the patent for the film plate was taken, a folding Kodak pocket camera in 1890, which was pegged at a very affordable price of $25. The main stay was the $10 to process and print the pictures which in combination with the camera paved the road to greatness. I’m not sure when BTL marketing was officially recognised, but in 1897, Kodak sponsored an amateur photographer contest and saw 25,000 participants. In 1904, Kodak held a Grand Kodak Exhibition featuring 41 photographs to attract an audience for the art. This connect is so natural that I cannot imagine if this marketing proposition might change for such events today.

The ads were so powerful to take the photography to people other than professionals - “You press the button- we do the rest”. Not to mention, signage’s along the roads reading, ‘Picture ahead’ with the well-recognised Kodak name under the sign is fabulous use of ambient media. The term "Kodak moment" might be used for eternity for every memorable picture. This was the strong brand connect that Kodak has in the memory of every individual. Sadly, I feel it won’t be wrong to say that no one uses Kodak in taking pictures any more.

The demise of the brand to the levels of bankruptcy in 2012 has been a classic case of treating it as a product offering and forgetting that the brand was a living being with a personality. Much like a human being, it has to adapt to changes and transform its role in the life of people to maintain its relevance. Yes, handling competition was important- so was transition into technology that could change the business dynamics. Kodak had developed a digital camera in 1975, the first of its kind. But the product was dropped for fear it would threaten Kodak's photographic film business, which was already facing threat from Fuji by means of its competitive pricing.

Marketing Myopia, as my marketing professor preached was like being so much in love with your products that you become completely ignorant of what damage this obsession leads to your own self.  The outlook from the management always remained that profit for Kodak was in making money on the consumables side as the optics was just a one-time buy. Digital imaging transformed this myth and when Camera phones came out, Kodak went into the business of vendor driven memory chip business.

Kodak had a fabulous connect with people and their memories. They had done everything right from the very beginning to reach a stature no one else can possibly manage. All they needed to do was possibly maintain that connect irrespective of selling films to feed their camera. If the phone got a decent camera, the logical move was to bring out a super camera that could also be a phone. Photograph= Kodak; that was the least or most they has to ensure. Sadly, they missed the bus and ran out of business.

What all this only signifies is that brands are like living beings interacting with their users. People wish to be associated with a brand for a part of its persona that builds these bonds. If the threads of this bond are not recognised and the relation turns into a transaction; you might just be the next Kodak. 

Designation Overruled

My father, at the time of his retirement, was a highly respected professional in his industry. His position and authority was acclaimed by clients, competitors, coworkers and superiors alike. The reason was nothing great to be honest- just the fact that he had managed the art of balancing his industry knowledge, experience and people skill at work to the very best. Not surprising that even after 5 years of his retirement, people still do some back to him with offers for consulting, guiding or just personal advice.

Recently my father had a visitor- a colleague who had risen from being a service engineer was today heading a service department in the same organization. I usually like to sit around my father at such times as long as my presence becomes a problem in the discussion. Reason; the issues discussed are business adversities and I find it really interesting to learn more from the experience shared.

During the discussion, my father asked the person as to why the morale in the company was low? The other person was a little taken aback by the statement as there was not much discussed on this front. The reason my father gave to substantiate his claim was his meeting someone from a competitor organization saying that the sales persons he was seeing lately lacked the zeal for winning the contract. If the frontline sales team was lacking enthusiasm, the rest of the organization morale was just so easy to imagine.

A few days later, I was sitting with him talking how working has become difficult due to a drop in sales and overall morale going down due to market sentiments. He was quick to point out that such times exist in every business and actually test the mettle of the company of how well it has developed its management during the better times. I agreed to his statement- but also told him how the environment was going unhealthy when top management was getting down to closing deals at any cost.

To stand by my words I gave him a classic example. Our sales and business team was going to clients and making an offer which was competitive. Knowing that the markets were sluggish, most clients were delayed in response. While the sales guys had faith in the offer they had made and were prepared to wait for their bid to pay off, the management was pushing on closing deals quicker. Result, people who did not have much to do on day to day business levels were now actively involved in client meetings.

How did this affect? Well a sales guy was having GM Marketing or Sales Head along with him on meetings- how much ground did his position stand once they flashed their card to the client. What was happening next was the sales guy was automatically eliminated from the equation and all his hard work towards building the deal was simply out of the reckoning. Worst was when the VP Sales was answering calls from large contractors and dealers who wanted to push their credit lines beyond their allocated limit. Reason again was the VP giving out his business cards like a greeting card to boost his ego about knowing people right down the levels.

This was affecting the sales teams majorly. The month of May-June saw nothing less than 8 sales guys resigning from their jobs and serving notice. A large cause for the bunch to be dissatisfied with all this was intervention of the top brass in daily activities which saw the sales team lose face in a lot of ways. End of the day, there were also some people amongst the managers who loved to moot around ‘I got the project, I did it…’ The problem was small by no means as no less than 8 people in sales had put in their papers in a matter of 15 days.

In his usual ways, my father came around and shared an anecdote from his life which was a big learning by far. In his early days, he had closed a deal at a price and the mill owner shrugged his shoulders suggesting- that is a deal for you, I still have the ace up my sleeve, my relation with your MD. He did try to use his contact and contact the MD, but this was the place where a seasoned businessman showed his character. Instead of putting down his sales guy for some personal relations, the MD made a turn coat saying- You are very lucky, the guy was new and he gave up more than what was best possible in the hope of getting the order; if it was me, I’d settle on 2-3% higher than what he has.

The MD later met my father in confidence and told him not to be bogged down by such comments. For the company, it was word and offer from the sales person which was of prime importance and no personal contacts or relations came above that. It was all the sales team ever needed to know to justify how much they were valued.

It sometimes occurs to me how values in a family managed enterprise were more business oriented than what I see sometimes in MNCs. It is surprising how designations in an old school organization never overruled business goals- but somehow they are in a global MNC.