I’m sure the picture was chosen because of it’s not-so-subtle nod to the most interesting man in the world. The ad copy suggested to me that this company was in the business of selling performance-enhancing vitamins, lotions or plastic surgery — Fountain of Youth type of stuff. Whatever, I moved on.

Then the company’s ads continued to serve in my Facebook feed. It’s like there was no frequency cap when it came to targeting me on Facebook.

I can recall being served this ad at least five times and here’s the latest one as of this writing:

So I selected the “Why Am I Seeing This Ad?” button in the menu in the upper-right corner of the ad unit. I learn I’m desirable to Cenegenics because I live in the top 5% of U.S. ZIP codes according to household income. Also, I’m a man between the ages of 40 and 64 who lives or was recently in the U.S, based on my profile and where I’ve connected to the Internet.

I have a hunch these are not the only targeting parameters, but I can’t prove that right now. (Btw, a big interest of mine is sailing, and that is supported by the “Newport Apparel” ad I was served in the right column, along with the Cenegenics landing page featuring a sailboat below. Coincidence? NO!!!)

Then I went to the website and my reaction was, “this is wrong.”

In my unique circumstance, this was a case of targeting the wrong person with the wrong message — on many levels.

Yes, I fit the demographics. But no, I’m not seeking to feel 10+ years younger. To be fair, maybe I will in the future. But not now. And the copy and messaging made me question the legitimacy of the company.

Most important, the campaign made me feel uncomfortable the more I was contacted. Sure, they knew enough about my identity to narrow me down into a niche segment…that’s fine, I agreed to Facebook’s privacy terms and conditions for ad targeting. Yet it was the coupling of the targeting and the message that came off as arrogant and creepy. The fact that I could tell consciously that I was being targeted as a unique group for a niche product suggested they had intimate details about me. Then delivering me casual, intimate messaging like “make 2019 the year you finally feel 10 years younger” and “reclaim your glory days” suggested they believed they really knew something about me that I was grappling with.

But I’m not, at least consciously. Maybe they know something about me that I’m not conscious of? If so, they have not earned my awareness or trust to deliver me such suggestive calls to action. Which is why this whole experience is creepy.

To be sure, I’m not overly sensitive. I will continue to use Facebook periodically. But this is something both publishers and advertisers should be aware of in this age of increasing privacy scrutiny. Accurate targeting with sloppy messaging creates a bad experience for everyone. It doesn’t make the publisher look good, either.

To create a great customer experience in advertising, you can’t focus only on targeting the right people and lose sight of the creative. You must combine data that connects you with the right people, the right message and the right context. Media and brand message must align with the values and character strengths of the consumer to achieve the best outcome (and more to come on this later).

You can take this concept a step further to a pure media cost standpoint. The disconnect of targeting the right audience with wrong (or poor or stale) creative results in low conversion and acceptance rates. And on programmatic ad exchanges, that usually equates to increasing media bid costs over time. Your overall ROI goes down.

Of course, without connecting the data from media, creative and audience (or person), you can’t isolate the variables and levers that create good experiences for the consumers and performance for the advertiser. One creative unit may perform great with one audience versus another, while one audience may perform well with any given creative. So what is driving your success? Where is your learning to get smarter with each dollar invested in contacting your prospects?

Adland has a ways to go.

The news release headline:

Mastercard Evolves Its Brand Mark by Dropping its Name

Then the news release lead graph:

Mastercard today announced that it is dropping its name from its iconic brand mark in select contexts. The interlocking red and yellow circles, referred to as the Mastercard Symbol, will now stand on its own across cards using the red and yellow brand mark, acceptance marks at retail locations both in the physical and digital worlds, and major sponsorship properties. As the consumer and commerce landscape continues to evolve, the Mastercard Symbol represents Mastercard better than one word ever could, and the flexible modern design will allow it to work seamlessly across the digital landscape.

Despite the informative lead graph, the headline left open loose interpretation that the name no longer exists. If you are lazy, as most many readers are, you would only read the headline, draw your conclusions and go on your way. While a more accurate headline would’ve been “Mastercard introduces a new logo variation without its name,” the chosen superlative is more succinct and provocative. It is amazing how many reporters from widely read news organizations joined along — almost verbatim — to grab readers in their own headlines:

• Mastercard Drops Name From Its Iconic Logo in an Effort to Modernize – Adweek
• Mastercard ditches letters for its new logo in iconic brand move – USA Today
• No words: Mastercard to drop its name from logo – CTV News
• Mastercard Will No Longer Include Name in Logo – PYMNTS.com

With so many “Mastercard dropped its name” headlines, I couldn’t stop thinking about the famous rebrand we all know as “The artist formerly known as prince.” So far, that has not become a meme in Mastercard’s re-brand PR campaign.

Instead, the well-orchestrated PR launch provided Mastercard executives and spokespeople a stronger platform to communicate brand mechanics. More importantly, it provided a justified reason to communicate company vision and advantage to a broad audience. Raja Rajamannar, chief marketing and communication officer at Mastercard, earned no shortage of quotes that positioned Mastercard in a positive light. That was done ineffectively with many of the notable 2018 corporate re-brands I covered recently.

So Mastercard’s brand name is still Mastercard, and it’s logo drops the name in “certain contexts,” as was stated in the news release lede. The logo without the name is a variation in a more flexible brand architecture — NOT an outright death of the name, nor an outright drop of the name in the logo. We can see that from the company’s Website homepage, from the Favicon to site logo to feature promo copy:

According to this armchair quarterback, the flexible brand architecture makes sense for all the reasons Mastercard explains. It comes off as authentic, humble and reflects where the brand is today, and where it is going. From a technical standpoint, the nameless logo is more compliant to various new surroundings and use cases. The simplicity is more aesthetically pleasing as well. Importantly, the nameless logo is an option for the contexts in which it makes sense. This is similar to the nameless logo options that Apple and Nike brands have earned through their high equity over many years.

One of the more insightful “marketing guru” commentaries was from from Debbie Millman, chair of the Masters in Branding program at the School of Visual Arts. She texted to Nat Ives in the Wall Street Journal:

The only brands that are able to do this have developed a logo with global recognition over decades. It takes time, consistency and a good logo to begin with to be able to do this effectively.

My last armchair quarterback comment is: despite all that great re-brand work, the logo still falls victim to that distracting TM symbol off to the right. We all get the legal ramifications of trademarks; nonetheless, it is distracting, like a fly zooming around that you can’t swat away.

…and the timing. Given that Mastercard is very much a payments technology company, the CES 2019 monster technology exposition is a great backdrop for the re-brand narrative.

Btw, if you didn’t read my last essay on corporate rebrands, you should read it now and then come back and re-read this posting. )

1. A company decides to change its name or logo as part of a “rebrand.”
2. Then the corporate communications department does a PR blitz to launch, explain and justify the rebrand — and get the wheels in motion for broad adoption.
3. Then armies of Monday-morning quarterbacks marketing gurus, with limited knowledge of how the sausage was made, come out of the woodwork to offer their reactions and analysis.
4. The rebrand creates high engagement and emotions among a small percentage of people, especially the company’s marketing leaders and a small segment of customers and non-customers. Ironically, rebrands-as-news-events usually create anticlimactic responses, even among customers and marketing insiders.
5. Because multiple rebrands take place during the year, marketing gurus publish annual roundups, lessons learned, and scorecards.
6. Yet nobody knows how a rebrand will impact the business until the many layers of hard execution play out over many years. To be fair, the more credible marketing gurus disclose this fact following their own self-serving commentary.
7. Dry academics and historians will conduct more meaningful analyses as years pass. Even if the rebrand was successful and contributed to company performance, most people — even customers and employees who love the brand — still won’t care about the actual rebrand event.

And 2018 was no different. Insider published its “most controversial rebrands of the year.” I’m not sure how controversial they are, though they are the most prominent rebrands of the year.

• Weight Watchers to WW
• Dunkin Donuts to Dunkin’
• Céline to Celine
• Uber changed its logo to just Uber
• Toys ‘R’ Us to Geoffrey’s Toy Box
• IHOP to IHOb, the International House of Burgers

Now, answer this question honestly:

Do you care about any of these brand name changes?

Probably not consciously, unless you are a super fan, an investor or a marketing insider.

Of course, whether you consciously care is not the point of a rebrand. Naming and logos are material artifacts that contribute to a brand identity, which melds with the total experience and perception among stakeholders. Name and logo effectiveness is linked to revenue performance. And that is especially true with large multinational conglomerates.

I have no doubt the companies above had good reasons to rebrand; a common reason is to create relevance with evolving value propositions and business operations. Dunkin’ believes it is more than a Donut chain. WW thinks it is a wellness platform, not just a weight loss program. IHOb wants to be recognized for all the hamburgers it sells. You can bet there are a ton of factors behind the scenes, which you’ll never hear about. This is the sausage factor of branding, after all.

Logos and names are important artifacts, though they are only fractional components that contribute to brand experiences and perceptions. Collectively, things like user interface, service, product, cost, and availability matter much more. Those things are truer reflections of how companies live out their brand fundamentals. Names and logos are more often superficial, and more often a reflection of what a company wants to be, or how a company wants you to perceive it.

Brand fundamentals include: defining and articulating company mission; vision; purpose; values; along with stakeholders and product value proposition (or promise). And then you have to align the company internally with those fundamental concepts, and establish a disciplined execution plan to live them out authentically so they are what customers experience. That is extremely difficult to do.

Identity schemes, names and logos? They should be pursued only after the fundamentals are fulfilled.

That’s why the news in January 2019 of the death of low-cost no-frills Southwest Airlines founder Herb Kelleher is so timely. While his passing is sad, the celebration of the brand and culture he built is a great reminder to all who run companies or work in marketing and branding. Kelleher created a breakout company and a great brand based on brand fundamentals, less so on corporate names and logos.

Sure, Southwest Airlines had its own share of corporate rebrands over the years. Today, upon Kelleher’s death, we don’t remember the heart logo refreshes and changing fonts so much as we cherish a simple brand promise, an even bigger expectation through execution, upheld year after year. The way Southwest Airlines has behaved — less how it brands itself — has far more bearing on our collective brand perception and loyalty.

So when you get the urge for a rebrand, first check to be sure your brand fundamentals are in order. You don’t want to make the mistake of putting lipstick on a pig (otherwise lying), or trimming the hedges while your house is on fire (failing to manage what matters most).

And if you disagree with me, we can arm wrestle. That was one of Kelleher’s preferred methods for solving disputes.

That conversation prompted my own observation: Great B2B marketers are not unlike great D2C marketers. That led to an invitation to present “D2C lessons for B2B marketers” to the ANA’s B2B member group. Following are key concepts from this talk, including one major lesson.

D2C Companies Driving Growth & Performance

Given the ongoing buzz around Kawaja’s somewhat controversial presentation, delivered to a big group of old-school big-company marketers, I thought it would be fun to analyze his narrative and react through the lens of a B2B marketer.

I encourage you to absorb Kawaja’s presentation firsthand (pdf here and video). In summary, he described a trend prompted by digital-native gaming companies (recall Zinga or, more recently, Riot Games and Supercell). They mastered four things: a single product category, customer demographic, marketing channel and closed-loop data (linking identity through customer acquisition to service delivery to lifetime value). With marketing and customer acquisition prowess on par with product development, the great gaming companies of the past decade moved an extraordinary share of their marketing spend from the discretionary category on the balance sheet, to cost-of-goods sold. With keen understanding of marketing investment’s impact on results and customer lifetime value, these performance marketers adopted always-on investment models that had no limits so long as profit ensued. 

This digital-native performance-marketing model evolved to a broader range of consumer apps and services like those from Google, Uber and Airbnb. Eventually the model evolved to a broad range of demographics, consumer verticals and channels, like Bonobos, Dollar Shave Club, Allbirds and Stichfix. The common denominator was the closed-loop data that captured consumer identity and enabled visibility and mastery around customer acquisition, service delivery and lifetime value. With the meteoric rise of some these companies, venture money followed suit. 

The DNA of D2C Brands

Kawaja listed seven characteristics that comprise “the DNA of D2C brands”:

1. Digital native; mobile centric
2. Focus on product design / UX
3. Disintermediation (agencies, retailers, etc.)
4. Identity-focused customer relationship
5. Performance-oriented media spend
6. Content marketing for brand storytelling.
7. Growth-focused marketing talent

Importantly, several conditions enabled the breakout of digital-native D2C brands: VC funding; smart phones; low-cost cloud computing; e-commerce platforms like Shopify; and large audience platforms like Google and Facebook for customer acquisition. At the same time, online peer reviews fostered trust, the services offered convenience, and brand loyalty is less relevant today, according to Kawaja.

But Wait, There’s More! “Brand” Mysteriously Missing from Kawaja’s D2C Brand DNA

I agree with Kawaja’s seven characteristics of DNA among D2C brands. Some of the past marketing companies I worked at played big roles in the rapid growth of some of the biggest brands. However, brand is an important omission. Indeed, some companies invest in their brands (and branding) more deliberately than others in their early stages. Regardless, it is no coincidence that the most successful D2C companies tend to have very strong, distinctive and valuable brands — and they realize this pretty quickly. High-growth performance-oriented companies, with good and personalized consumer experiences, will yield valuable brands as they scale their prospect and customer footprints. One must consider brand as one of the major assets to sustainable growth; failure to do so is neglect.

Consider one rapidly scaling D2C women’s fashion service, now with millions of customers. I don’t have permission to disclose the company, as my conversation with the founder was private. She shared with me a fascinating insight: Originally her team thought they were “just a subscription box company,” and that they’d eventually hit a growth ceiling. Instead, the insight that prompted the box company later revealed and fostered a large community of women interested in the company’s values of empowerment. This led the executive team to elevate their purpose and aspirations and become a much bigger omnichannel company, with more brand extensions and customer segments — all led and held together by the core brand. “The brand turned out to be the most valuable and important asset we have,” this founder claimed. “It is our foundation to sustainable growth.” 

5 Pillars Of Brand Performance in D2C

If you think about the brand in a D2C framework, (at least) five key concepts emerge:

1. Brand equity scales with acquisition footprint
2. Strong brands fuel acquisition performance, customer experience and LTV
3. Brand plays offense, and defends, amidst crowded consumer product categories
4. Brand enables stronger omnichannel performance
5. Data loop informs brand evolution, extension and growth

In essence, a strong brand reinforces everything about an otherwise performance-minded company.

The DNA of B2B Brands

Now that we’ve covered Kawaja’s framework understanding D2C brands — along with my addendum of “brand” itself –let’s turn our focus to B2B brands.  As someone who’s invested his life in both B2B and conventional consumer advertising, I conclude five key characteristics that form the DNA of B2B brands:

1. Experience selling directly to their customers
2. Performance minded in sales, demand generation, customer acquisition
3. Know identity very well, and able to map complex decision networks
4. Expert in content marketing for sophisticated, high-consideration products
5. Deploy specialist talent in customer acquisition and customer journey

But where is “brand?” Indeed, some B2B companies — particularly ones with a large consumer marketing side of their business, i.e., IBM, GE, Verizon, etc. — have invested significantly in brand equity. Some of my favorite B2B brands are Slack and Google, and they are powerful, though I believe these brands are exceptions. While I have no scientific data, my heuristics tell me that consumer marketers deliberately prioritize brand investment. The proliferation of useful, friendly and personalized consumer app brands have played a major role in shaping everyone’s expectations of consumer experience and brand. 

Brand Less Appreciated, Though Critical To B2B

From personal experience managing the brands of some top B2B companies, I’ve found the core brand architecture to be critical to the operations and existence of the respective companies. Ideally, your brand differentiates you from your dozen competitors! Your cool brand and all the attention to detail will make customers, partners and talent want to associate with you! With lengthy enterprise sales cycles and complex customer relationships, a strong brand helps advance presence and momentum in between sales and delivery transactions. 

This all starts with a clear articulation of the mission, vision, values and value proposition. It also includes an aligned understanding of the company’s stakeholders, the competitive landscape, history, direction and character and reasons to believe. Then comes key messaging. Consumer marketers often start with the brand brief. Being that most of our decisions are more emotional and less rational than we care to admit, attention to design and context really matters. Like the world’s top restaurants, every little detail adds up to something spectacular, or a forgettable experience, or a let-down.

That’s my experience from the trenches. But the big consultants agree. According to a 2013 McKinsey study, branding is among the most critical pillars that drive B2B business. Among the report’s conclusions:

1. Brand is on par with sales in driving customer decisions
2. Strong brands drive 20% greater margin
3. Buyers pay premium for simple value prop, reduced risk
4. Buyers pick brands representing honesty and expertise
5. Brand fosters more seamless product extensions

In other words, it is irresponsible to not manage your brand for performance.

D2C Lesson For B2B: Invest in Brand

While top B2B companies hold many of the same strengths as D2C, I argue that brand is the biggest D2C competency where the B2B category can flourish. McKinsey outlined in its B2B branding report several reasons why brand is imperative. Further, each of the brand performance pillars I outlined for D2C brands hold true for B2B.

Category leaders tend to actively invest in — and manage — strong brands for greater performance. The rationale is not to look pretty, but to impact the bottom line.

Managing brand performance should be the final check on the list of characteristics that comprise the DNA of B2B brands.

 I thank two collaborators for educating me and pushing my thinking: Ben Seslija, head of commerce at Resonance Brands, a fast-growing D2C fashion company; and Raman Sehgal, VP of marketing, at TVision. They also participated in our lively discussion at the ANA.

She recently moved back to China and posted one of her first experiences to Facebook. Considering her recent immersion in U.S. digital platforms (i.e., Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, etc.), I was blown away by her reaction to WeChat, one of China’s leading consumer digital platforms. She gave me permission to repost here:

Been back in China for 3 weeks – day by day I’m truly amazed by how powerful a product (but really a platform) WeChat has become. I begin my day reading tons of subscription channels on WeChat, use WeChat to pay for almost all my bills, make appointments at various gov’t agencies, get discounts and offerings from shops, enjoy all kinds of customer services via texting, hail cabs, buy movie tickets and even get cash without bringing the physical card with me…let alone all the people I need to connect from business (yes WeChat is the new business card) to personal are all there – talking about all in one. What’s more, the technologies it uses to realize all these features are diverse and creative. Highly recommend whoever’s interested in products to try it out in every aspect.

Many Americans view U.S. technology innovation as an area no other market can compete with, including Internet platforms. The U.S. is truly a hub of technical innovation, but, as my former intern describes, it’s not the only one. And when it comes to social media and consumer services and infrastructure, there some serious non-U.S. players.

This sparks an important memory: a former colleague five years ago visited family in China. In order for him to post to Facebook during his travels, he had to circumvent Chinese firewalls and censors — he was a hacker and succeeded, yet was monitored closely.

This raises all sorts of questions around norms, conveniences, courtesies and laws in the quest for technological innovation and progress.

It’s an interesting global Internet society we’re progressing into.