Schwab, Google and Sony

For today's blog we're going to take a quick look at a few items.

I'm actually going to skip over the Charles Schwab example from the book. The example was supposed to highlight how Schwab was a trend driver in the discount broker industry. Maybe they were way back when. But, in my mind and given my age, when I think of trend drivers in the discount broker industry I'm thinking of E*TRADE and maybe an Ameritrade - not Charles Schwab. To me the brand Charles Schwab just sounds like some old, crusty white guy brokerage house. Obviously, Schwab hasn't done their job in connecting with the 20 to 30 something crowd (okay... the 20 to 31 something crowd).

Next on the list of items to discuss, I wanted to address category or subcategory defining labels. We're all familiar with Kleenex (tissues), A1 (steak sauce) and Xerox (copiers). Since these brands define a category and have entered our vernacular, they definitely don't have to worry about being relevant to a category - they are the category. On the other hand, since they define the category there can be serious issues of confinement to that category which can limit options (among other problems... see below).

While on the subject of brands that define a category, I really wanted to comment on the subject of Google and the use of this brand as a verb. I don't know how exactly "google", the verb, entered the American vernacular but it drives me absolutely crazy. You "search". You don't "google". It could potentially be acceptable to say you "googled" when actually searching on Google. But, too often I hear people say they "google" when they're actually using Yahoo, MSN, AOL (yes, AOL is technically a Google distribution parter), etc. Regardless, Google reaps the benefits of defining a category but they are also extremely concerned about protecting their brand (when a brand name becomes too commonly used you can loose several rights to that trademark... do a search and read more about the topic or here is a link to a BBC article I found real easily).

Lastly, the book shifts to differentiation and brand energizers. In the process, it offers a great look at the Sony portfolio. Sony is one of the most, if not the most, recognized brands in the world. It's an amazing brand and for me Sony means top of the line electronics. However, Sony is way more than a consumer electronics company. They are leaders in music, games, movies, theaters and even insurance and banking in Japan. What's interesting about Sony's portfolio of brands is that they've used the portfolio to develop extremely strong yet differentiated subbrands and endorsed brands that actually work to enhance the overall Sony brand. For instance, Playstation, Walkman, VAIO, Cybershot and Discman all serve their own markets yet at the same time act as brand energizers for the Sony brand. When you think of the Playstation or the VAIO, you think of another Sony innovation. Another interesting point is that Sony's portfolio strategy differs drastically from several of their main competitors. Toshiba, Mitsubishi and Canon all rely on a single brand. Obviously, Sony doesn't. They rely on several brands. Additionally, Sony bucks the trend when allocating resources to its portfolio. Whereas IBM allocates over 50% of its resources behind the master brand, Sony chooses to support the master brand by spending budgets and accumulating equity in the subbrands and endorsed brands.

BTW - I stand corrected... in a previous post I complained about Blogger defaulting into the language of the ip address accessed from without offering a way to get back to English. I was wrong. Thankfully, I found the link to get back to English.