BrandlandUSA

By Garland Pollard

We ran across a recent post on the future of AM radio that set out some ideas on keeping the format viable. While the idea of AM radio still lives, and is relied upon by millions each day, the audience is increasingly aging. Furthermore, the band has seen more interference in recent decades. It had a big revival in the late 1980s with talk radio, and a 1960s and 1970s revival with top 40. There is no reason why AM can’t reinvent itself again.

The Federal Communications Commission has rejected the proposal, but we still think it’s an intriguing idea. Let AM radio stations across the United States boost their signal power by a factor of ten. We found this on the Ars Technica blog.

“The time to get the static out of AM radio is past due,” wrote Richard F. Arsenault of New Jersey to the Commission in April. “We have watched the AM service degrade due to the increase in interference for too long. We must return AM radio service to comparable and usable coverage levels of the past.”

So over two decades the number of AM stations has dropped by more than 200, while the number of FM signals has almost doubled.

AM radio is still a viable format. It’s cheap to produce, and low-tech; click on the Flavoradio image above to see our story on these Radio Shack gems, collected by Phil MacArthur.

We need that redundancy in our telecom systems. We can’t have all our emergency systems dependent on the web, even though many AM stations now broadcast over the web. In emergencies and power outages, AM is the perfect alternative. Furthermore, it makes no sense to clog up valuable bandwidth with local radio, which is much more cheaply sent over the air.

Mind you, it’s not so important that THIS idea for AM get pushed through. It’s merely that AM is a useful format, not only in times of emergency, and we need different types of media systems to keep some sort of freedom in our system.

Our local AM radio stations are some of the most potent regional brand names around. While diminished from the 1970s, when they had large news teams, they still command enormous respect and audience, and form a critical part of local communities. The FCC needs to protect that. And radio companies such as CBS and Clear Channel need to continue to make a case to the FCC that the format is valid.

By Garland Pollard

It is assumed that China will take us to the cleaners because of their manufacturing prowess. And yes, that is true. I recall hearing the noted Chinese scholar Arthur Waldron speaking of export China in Britain in the 18th century. Even then, the ships came to England packed with these plates and dishware, and went home empty.

But what will really ruin us is the lack of respect for brands. The bankruptcy of General Motors last year was the best example of this I can recall. But if it were not for Buick’s popularity in China, the brand would not have survived at GM.

Americans are good at maintaining top-tier brands, but lately the second tier brands have suffered. Thus GM was incapable of keeping Olds and Pontiac alive. It squandered billions on new ideas like Hummer and Saturn, while valuable brand equity was squandered. Americans think we are masters at branding, but we lose many brands each year through disuse and neglect, what some call brandicide.

This year, Geely picked up Volvo from Ford. Nanjing bought MG, and SAIC has purchased Rover. These were all struggling Western brands, brands that incompetent Western leadership, both government and business, had ruined. Now, we can argue all day about what Ford should have done with Volvo. Selling it it might be the right course. But the reality is that through various means, great brands are moving overseas.

The Japanese model is to build its own electronic and automobile/engine brands; very rarely are great brands borrowed. The Chinese have no cultural point to prove. They are out to dominate, and will build their own brands AND redevelop Western ones.

Last year, the Ministry of Culture set out a formal program to revive many of the pre-Mao brands of China. There was no cultural compunction of association with non-communist China. Instead, there was pure recognition of the potential there, as over 16,000 brands were there in 1949, but now only 1,600 remain.

I thought of this last week, when the Financial Times reported that two Chinese state companies would revive old brands, including the limo brand of Madame Mao seen in the above video.

The most notable revival was First Auto Works, which is reviving the Red Flag car brand. Red Flag was a luxury brand launched by Mao in 1958 so China would have a luxury brand, and various historic pictures show premiers in one. The cars have become a subject of nostalgia where “Commie Chic” entrances Chinese and Westerners.

The other notable brand revival is by Shanghai Jahwa, which resurrected Shuang Mei, or two sisters. With a new image Shanghai Vive, the brand is sold at the revived Peace Hotel.

Just as a spoiled teen might run through cars, American companies have gone through and wasted thousands of American brands. Companies cannot figure out how to make them work, and drop them. This came very close to happening with Buick, and but for China, we would have lost that legacy. These brands still have life, but companies often do not see it. But the value is there.

The U.S. has had an advantage over other countries because of its brands. But that is now eroding, and we are coasting on old legacies. Some have written of how China is creating its own new fashion and lifestyle brands. All true, and some might rival Western brands. But things will become quite fascinating as this trend of Chinese ownership of Western brands continues. This won’t be all bad; after all the Chinese understand better than many Westerners that to keep brands authentic, you need to keep a Western presence, however token.

Americans think they are brand leaders because of Nike, Starbucks, Coca-Cola and McDonalds. While these brands are great, they do not make an economy. You need regional brands. Family owned brands. Niche brands. You need lots of brands to make a great economy work.

Brands like Charles of the Ritz and Dorothy Gray, once household names, were lost in corporate shuffles, and largely disappeared, though a few products remain. This is the case with thousands of other U.S. brands. Very often, few noticed. While companies often try to “squat” on dead brands and keep them from others, over the long term you have to use a brand to protect it. In addition, new companies can grab the goodwill of a brand by copying the style and feel of an old brand, and not use the name at all.

In the web analytics my website, I see over and over again where Asian companies are searching for things like “dead American brands to buy” and “old American brands” and such. Entrepreneurs call me too, as they think of ways great American brands could be revived. But very often, the companies don’t listen.

I helped an Asian entrepreneur who proposed to a major U.S. food company the revival of one of their old house brands. I need to keep the names private as he still hopes for a deal. Even at no cost, the American food company has not responded to his rather clever proposal. Too much trouble, I guess.

If American companies don’t get it, other countries will. Asian companies know that merely being the sweatshop for American brands is only a short-term strategy, and long term, they can thrive when they own the intellectual legacy of these great Western companies.

By a Staff Reporter

A BrandlandUSA reader laments the missed opportunity in Pontiac:

It may be that Pontiac is gone and erased from the accounting books of GM, and it may be that the heritage of Pontiac lives in the memoirs of Americana – but the fact of the matter remains that Pontiac outsold Lincoln, Mercury, Dodge, Chrysler, and the majority of imports, save Honda and Toyota.

They say that past history as a crystal ball to the future boils down to black-and-white numbers; these numbers say that Pontiac was a success for many years for GM. The truth of the matter is that Pontiac was placed between the premium GM brands and the standard GM brands – much like Saab, Oldsmobile, Plymouth, and so many other “middle brands” that have been eliminated over the years.

The fact of the matter is that the consumers in this country see two types of cars and trucks available from domestic manufacturers: premium brands and standard brands. Nevertheless, neither premium brands nor standard brands can service that one small part of the buying market that demands median branding that offers distinct style: Cadillac could never do this (remember the Cimmaron?), and Chevrolet could never do this. Too bad.

Pontiac was a great brand with great heritage that was just getting grounded in that middle market. It seems that there is no market between the big siblings, which leaves the consumers in this market with no choice but to settle for inferior branding, pay for premium branding, or switch to a foreign manufacturer.

Maybe this is why the Germans, the Japanese, and the Pacific Rim entrants are growing at unprecedented rates. In the end, all the elimination of these middle brands does is limit choice, force marginal consumers to weigh patriotism against reality, and reduce the ability to individualize one’s choice of ride.

By Garland Pollard

Early this month, many in the billionaire club signed a pledge to give away at least half their fortunes to charity, all led by Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. And who can argue with that? It’s their cash and their right.

But the story sort of struck me wrong after I looked up the ownership of Wrigley, and its languishing brand Life Savers. When looking it up, I was reminded that the candy brand is connected to Berkshire Hathaway which took a minority stake in Wrigley in 2008 (Mars is the majority owner). (It isn’t one of the main Berkshire Hathaway companies.)

As I wrote yesterday, the brand Life Savers is not in good shape. Not only were the last batches I saw in my kitchen all cracked up and ruined, but my six-year-old did not know what Life Savers were, a sign they were not marketing to youth. They were also made in Mexico. Mars does a good job with its brands, but Life Savers was pretty screwed up when they got it and they have some work to do.

That’s when I got a bit saddened by the charity story. Great that you are doing it, but to my mind I would rather that these folk were investing their portfolio gains and time in companies and factories, and matching their employees’ donations to charity, rather than setting up a next generation of non-profit bureaucratic foundations.

The world is better for Benjamin Moore Paint, International Dairy Queen and Geico and BNSF, and we need more of these companies. To put it more simply, anyone would prefer a job at a company run by Gates and Buffett to charity. Any city would prefer to have a Microsoft sales center in their city than a Bill Gates charity office. If people have jobs, good jobs, at factories and railroads and insurance companies, there won’t be a need for charity. Of course this is too simplistic, and a $1 billion can save probably millions of lives in Africa, but I believe it’s an important point.

Start With Life Savers

Perhaps Warren can start with Life Savers, a product that used to be made in the U.S., but is now made in Mexico. In 2003, Mr. Buffett wrote a Fortune cover story on the threat of the trade deficit. And now, his company’s investment is poster child. Right now, the Life Savers brand suffers because it is no longer made in the U.S. It’s like buying a Toblerone made in Portugal.

This is a product that can easily be made in the U.S. again.

Critics will say that it is cheaper to make the product in Mexico. Oh the excuses we hear. Unions ruined us! The sugar price is unfairly regulated in favor of Florida interests! Bad U.S. tax structures are to blame! Shelf space is expensive, and that is where we need to invest! All true, but with the power and influence of the company, and the Mars/Buffett interests, I am sure any of these political barriers can be pushed aside if the goal is bringing such a product back to our shores. Furthermore, it is time for business leaders to start fighting to change anti-business laws, and not just move production overseas to save a few pennies on each package.

Perhaps the Life Savers move back to the U.S. might be make “on-shoring”  have a snowball’s chance at working. The Alliance for American Manufacturing‘s Scott Paul, admittedly a pro-union group, watches the job trends and says that the actual numbers don’t yet show a trend to on-shoring, though the media has been talking about it.

Thoughts:

1. Food needs to be close to markets: Distance makes the shipping of the product obviously problematic (so many in my package were crushed), so being closer to markets will make the product better.
2. Automate it: The factory can now be mechanized quite completely, reducing staff overhead.
3. Made in USA matters: The brand has lost identity because it is no longer made in the U.S.
4. Spur for other allied industries: The creative sourcing of organic ingredients would be a spur to U.S. agriculture, and many different farms that could promote the fact that their fruit was part of the reformulated Life Savers. This “halo” would further help to quell persistent critics of junk food, and to increase Mars/Wrigley shelf space.
5. Tourism lure: The actual plant would be configured to be both a public attraction and a plant. The smell of the factory would be the first draw; it would be easy to design a modest retail operation and glass enclosed tour to go with it.
6. It does not have to be big: Machines can crank out lots of Life Savers, and a plant dedicated just to them would be easy to keep small. I bet the company could build a factory for less than a modest national ad campaign. Indeed, the factory would BE the ad campaign.
7. Location matters: The new location of the plant needs to be a national contest. Let cities compete to be the new home of Life Savers. This is the sort of prized factory that any city would fight to have. I can only imagine the tax advantages that Wrigley/Mars will receive.

Perhaps I have too romantic a conception of American business. But if this country is to survive, we need to do and build things. We can’t just push paper, and license brands. It might, in certain circumstances, be more efficient. But my how boring that is.

There is a darker reality. The business environment is such that perhaps Atlas is Shrugging. I do hope not.

By Garland Pollard

SARASOTA - One night last week, I helped melt Life Savers in the oven.

For my wife’s vacation bible school class, they made the week’s theme the stained glass windows in Church of the Redeemer. After seeing the windows of this Sarasota Bay church, the kids took cookies and topped them with “stained glass” chips of melted Life Savers that mimicked the windows. You take the Life Savers, separate them, and then re-melt them into a sheet. You can then break them into pieces, like shards. Note to brand managers: It’s always helpful to make sure your brand shows up somehow in children’s craft activities. In this case, you have two products, a candy and something like Shrinky Dinks.

But when we opened up the bag to start the process, many were broken. Not that it mattered for this project, but it would irk if I were eating them. They were stickier than I recall a generation ago, as well. My six -year-old loved the taste and all the varieties, but she did not know what Life Savers were, an indication they were skimping on advertising. They were also made in Mexico. It all got me thinking that the product is on the wrong trajectory. I realized that it was yet another of the once-great denuded and emasculated American brands.

Part of American History

Life Savers has a long history, born in Cleveland in 1913. But their recent unwrapping mimics the sorry story of American industry, a series of leveraged buyouts that each step of the way leaves some very much richer, and the rest of us poorer. After a series of owners including Nabisco, the company was purchased from Kraft in 2005 for around $1.4 billion. Coupled with the sale were some hefty tax advantages and the “regrettable” closing of a bunch of candy plants. Life Savers is now a part of Mars, which purchased Wrigley two years ago with the help of Berkshire Hathaway. Mars, we hope, has the long-term view. (Kraft, however, has just gone back into where they failed, and purchased Cadbury. We hope they show it more love than Life Savers.)

Looking at the bag of Life Savers, I tried to list what needed to be fixed with the brand. A few thoughts:

1. Where Are the Rolls? It is difficult to find Life Savers in simple rolls, so we had to get a hanging bag. In stores, they take up WAY more space than they need too. This changes the essential nature of the brand’s feeling, which was that they were wrapped in foil and wax paper, with a green little dental floss like thing. While I am sure Wrigley can point to some studies that show that procuring hanging rack space by the checkouts sells some candy, the rolls take up far less shelf space and are much more efficient all around.
2. Fake, Fake: The Life Savers were packed with artificial sweeteners, and the taste seems to be the same as the FDA-approved list from Monsanto, c. 1962. (I always thought the cherry was rather too close the smell to the cherry scented urinal cakes, but this cherry might just be another fake cherry flavor). While this chintzy sort of Nixon-era trick would work in 1969, this is no longer possible in an era when parents shop at Whole Foods. Recently, I read an article recommending giving kids peppermint aromatherapy for grumpy moments. How does the artificial sweetener do for that sort of mentality?
3. Messy Type: The LIFE SAVERS type on top of the Life Saver is hardly legible, though I guess it would show up if you took a pencil rubbing. Part of a brand’s appeal is making the type crisp, and that goes not only for packaging, but the shape and feel of the product.
4. No Marketing to Youth: The product is not on most candy shelves, and it is not marketed even to teens. Now, our six-year-old liked the candy, but amazingly, she did not know what Life Savers were. There is no reason why kissing teens can’t be entertained by the sparks in Wint-o-green.
5. Get on the candy rack: Little fingers reach for the low areas in the candy rack in the checkout line and at the convenience store. The candy must get back on these shelves. Occasionally, there are Gummi Savers on the rack, but that’s it.
   
6. Made in Mexico: When you turn over the package, you see it in plain English. Made in Mexico. To the consumer, and for a simple-to-make food product, this means the company was trying to do something on the cheap. The product message connotes sucking, not on a candy, but sucking as in the “giant sucking sound” of jobs and plants going abroad. Now mind you, don’t blame the poor factory manager in Mexico for the cracked up candies and our messed up bags. That’s all American made.

Tomorrow: Life Savers and U.S. production. It’s time for production to come back to the U.S.

By Garland Pollard

HONOLULU – Bringing back something as iconic as Hawaii Five-O is a major challenge. There is enormous love for the old, so you don’t want to change it up too much. But you don’t want to mimic the old too closely, which would desecrate the original, and obviate the reason for doing the redux in the first place.

The show will return this fall on CBS, its original home, on September 20.  The show ran on CBS from 1968 to 1980; after the show was canceled Magnum P.I. took its place. It ran on various nights, including Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.

It looks so far like CBS has it right, and could easily have a hit on its hands. Apparently foreign sales of the show have been through the roof. Nevertheless, numerous TV show redos have missed the point. A Bionic Woman was plain awful, and 90210 just didn’t get it.

Looking at how CBS approached the theme song, we realized it has lessons applicable to all older brand names that need a bit of spicing up.

Eight tips from the masters at the Columbia Broadcasting System:

1. Give the public what it wants. Many times companies think they know better, they are going to one-up things. This was the case with Burberry, that great brand was tarted up and ruined. However, with the show, Executive Producer Peter Lenkov said he listened to people who wanted a faithful version of the theme song, and then the rest would fall into place. Says Lenkov in the video: “The first thing people say– don’t mess up the theme song.”
2. Remember what worked: Composer Brian Taylor says in the video: “You have to do the theme with a true vintage cool vibe. If you move too far away from the original you are losing why it is so iconic.”
3. Change it up a bit: Says Lenkov: “You don’t want to mess with something that is great, something that works, something that people are looking forward to. So We are staying very close to the original but it is a little more aggressive, a little bigger.”
4. Don’t be cheap: When they got the band together, they aimed for the best, and got many of the original musicians. If you are going to take the trouble to remake something great,  you better be prepared to invest. Now,
5. Do Unhip Things To Be Faithful: Apparently, the new McGarrett will also drive a Mercury Grand Marquis, just as Steve did originally. Sadly, the Mercury brand has been discontinued by Ford, just months before it gets a hip revival from a CBS show. Perhaps Mercury can be revived at a later time, too?
6. Call it rebooting. Remake has a bad connotation. CBS is calling it a “reboot.” That sounds better.
7. Cliches can go both ways: The show website has a poll on whether to say “Book em Danno” once as a tribute, or lots. We vote for somewhere in between. The new social media is a great place to let consumers have their say about brands. But the key is that the companies need to listen.
8. Have a Blessing: The show production started with a traditional Hawaiian ceremony. Kono said it had a “sense of history and tradition to it.”

Follow the Tweets of the show at twitter.com/HawaiiFive0CBS

By Garland Pollard

Babo Cleanser 1951
Uploaded by DwightFrye. – Watch feature films and entire TV shows.

CHICAGO - Back in the 1950s, Bab-O was one of the top bathroom and kitchen cleansers. Today, the cleanser is distributed by Fitzpatrick Brothers of Chicago. The brand shows up at assorted variety and specialty stores.

Just below, the current packaging, a gel version with bleach.

Fitzpatrick Brothers also now owns Old Dutch Cleanser, the vintage cleanser whose brand came back into popular parlance during the Arlen Specter / Joe Sestak primary election where Specter lost.

The product still works well; its quite handy to have a simple bleach for the bathroom in a gel format.

Back in the 1950s, the company ran a vigorous amount of national advertising, some of it animated. Above, a commercial showing Virginia’s Capt. John Smith and Pocahontas. It was about how John Smith was saved by Pocahontas and Bab-O!

The words go something like:

Capt. Smith was in distress while she was stuck with sink smog mess.
Too Bad she didnt have Bab-o. So sad she didnt have Bab-o…..

Then appeared a medicine man who said ‘the cure is in this can.”

Anyone have any more memories of Bab-O?

By Garland Pollard

ALMA, Arkansas - Each summer, my grandmother in Somers, Virginia would save the watermelon rinds after we ate watermelon on the patio of the farmhouse.

I never could understand it; you want to eat the flesh, but the rind? Bitter!

That was until I tasted watermelon rind pickle. Yes, they were watermelon rinds, and they were technically pickled, but really they were pickled and sugared and then….chilled. To perfection.

Lucky that Old South of Alma, Arkansas is still at it. The company was founded in 1947 in the Ozarks of Arkansas. The site’s history page has it well:

While standing among the vegetable patches along the Arkansas River, one could still see steamboats gracefully cruising by. It was here that Philip F. Bryant began his business of canning jams and preserves. The business prospered, and Bryant Preserving Company products became nationally recognized.

Today, the rinds are a specialty item, and Bryant Preserving makes all sort of old south edibles including pickled okra and a strange invention called Tomolives.

Do you like watermelon rind or Tomolives?

By Garland Pollard

The original conditioner, Tame, is back on the shelves as a house brand at Dollar Tree. On the back, it has “Distributed by Dollar Tree” so you know its an exclusive.

The use of Tame as a store brand is part of a recent trend of retailers licensing old lower-tier brands that have some shelf appeal. The consumer thinks they are getting a national brand, and yet the discounter has an exclusive product.

The packaging says it dates from 1978 but I believe the product is much older. Originally it came in a round bottle and was called Tame Creme Rinse. The packaging says it is licensed by Silkience to Dollar Tree.

Above, a commercial from 1972. They did a smart thing by using the 1970s font for the new packaging. It’s sort of groovy, and while it does not resemble the font in the commercial seen above, it is seen in a later 1970s commercial.

I don’t remember that Tame was a product that consumers missed that much. Not that the product wasn’t good, it just sort of got forgotten. However, if others disagree, love to hear from them.

By Garland Pollard

With all the discussion of whether the Amoco brand might come back in the States, we thought it would be good to remind folks that the brand was much larger than the U.S.

A bit of news. If you plug Amoco into Google, it seems that BP is now calling itself BP Amoco in a Google Adwords link. The ad as it appears:

BP Amoco
BPBusinessSolutions.com Take Control Of Your Business Fueling Expenses. Apply Now!