HOW PRESIDENT PAUL KAGAME IS USING REVERSE BRANDING TO DEVELOP RWANDA

             Let’s say that you are an entrepreneur.  You know that the American market is saturated, and that little growth will continue there. You’re sitting home, and you receive a call from the President of Rwanda and he asks you to invest in his country.

            Rwanda is known for two things, Gorillas, and the 1994 Genocide, this is their brand. So you say no. Five minutes later, you receive a call from your best friend who is also an entrepreneur. He tells you that he has located an operation in Rwanda and that it is producing profits off the charts. You now are attentive. You’re best friend is attesting to the brand of Rwanda.

            You then get a third call. This is from Rick Warren, the evangelical pastor, and he asks you to invest in Rwanda. You may or not be a person of faith, but Rick Warren lends an air of credibility to Rwanda. It creates a brand for Rwanda. Now, you have an interest in investing. Why?  Rwanda has had a brand created for it. This is reverse branding.

The President of Rwanda, Paul Kagame, faced a dilemma. He wanted his African country to thrive. To do this, he knows that he had to create investment in his country.  His country had a sordid past that Western investors simply couldn’t ignore. President Kagame is using Reverse Branding to create investment in his country.

            Reverse branding is when the customers brand the entrepreneur, and this brand, brands the products. When Steve Jobs creates a new product, it instantly has credibility.  In the social media era, reverse branding is becoming an important branding strategy.

           In the social media era, there is so much content, so many players. There is so much scale created in social media. It is hard to create that significant brand. Customers have to do the branding to create credibility. This is what happed in Rwanda.  Successful investors told their story on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. This created a brand. Rick Warren, the evangelical pastor, created a YouTube video.  Rwanda, a nation with a dark past, now had credibility.

            President Kagame wanted foreign investment and not foreign aid. Investment has a profit motive---in a very unusual way,   this has created ethics in an economic-business system. Foreign aid is government to government and it creates corruption.

            Simply looking at numbers will bear this out. In the last 40 years, the West has spent $1 trillion. Just looking at the continent of Africa, it can be seen that this is unproductive. With a lot of money flying around and no controls, corruption is a natural consequence of aid. Corrupt leaders siphon it off. Inefficient leaders merely squander it, and this is just as bad. Millions of people get hooked on it. Economic development created by private investment is the engine that is needed to  drive African economies. Private investment creates jobs---foreign aid does not. Jobs create a middle class and a stable, uncorrupt government.

            President Kagame seeks to build his nation through reverse branding and a social media strategy.

Dean Hambleton

dnhambleton@gmail.com

           

HOW DID GM USE THE MODEL CHANGE IN 1923 TO DEFEAT THE MODEL T BRAND?

HOW DID GM USE THE MODEL CHANGE IN 1923 TO DEFEAT THE MODEL T BRAND?

            Social Media creates great scale and this allows companies to develop competitive advantages that they wouldn’t ordinarily have. A case in point is General Motors. Their strength is social media gave GM a competitive advantage in defeating the Model T brand of 1923.

            It seems ironic that a brand of 1923 would be a benchmark for contemporary social marketers, but that is what happened. Alfred Sloan, the CEO of General Motors in 1923 is a marketer that contemporary marketers should study. General Motors overtaking of the Model T is one of the most exciting stories in American marketing history.  It was done through social media. In 1923, nine out of ten cars on the road was a Model T. Alfred Sloan realized that the only chance he had of overtaking Ford was to use the social media of the day.

            He did what a contemporary social marketer would do to overcome his disadvantage. Sloan created a “friendship” with customers. This friendship allowed him to have conversations with them. He learned that customers did not want just one kind of car, as the Model T was. Customers wanted variety in their cars. They wanted a car that was stylish and fashionable. Customers wanted a car that was “cool”.  Customers showed Sloan the way to defeat Ford.

            Customers wanted a change in the model appearance on a continuing basis. To do this, a company had to have the manufacturing technology to change lines over to different styles. General Motors had this technology and Ford didn’t. The ability to change over gave General Motors a strong competitive advantage over Ford. The yearly model change could only be handled by larger companies. In 1923 there were many niche car companies. The complexity of yearly changeovers ended the existence of tens of thousands of companies. This allowed General Motors to focus their competitive forces on Ford, the industry leader.

            The model change gave General Motors a true competitive advantage. The market of 1923 had changed. “Cool” was now an important issue in marketing cars. People wanted variety and fashion cars. This meant constant change. This was a big difference between General Motors and Ford. General Motors was orientated toward change and Ford was orientated toward continuity.

            The annual model change and diversity of product were incompatible to the way that Ford did business---to their very core as a company.  At Ford’s plants every machine tool and fixture was fitted specially for the production of a single product. Even small changes in the design of the Model T bottlenecked its production. The switch over to Model A production was chaotic. Machine tools highly specialized for Model T production could not be converted to multi model production as was the case at GM. The first model change happened in 1923. General Motors started getting buzz and traction in the market place with their variety model. Ford couldn’t make a changeover until 1927. The result of this was that 32,000 machines used to produce the Model T had to be redesigned and rebuilt and half of the remaining ones had to be scrapped. This cost Ford $250 million to change over. Ford was flatfooted and unable to adjust to GM’s repositioning.  

            Ford had to rearrange all their manufacturing plants to compete with GM’s model change. This cost Ford four years. No market leader lost their position so quickly. Ford has never, to this day, come close to getting even with General Motors in market share.

Dean Hambleton

dnhambleton@gmail.com

SOCIAL MEDIA BRANDING AND STRATEGY; HOW ALFRED SLOAN OF GM USED "COOL" TO OVERCOME THE FORD MODEL T IN 1923

            To create a successful social media brand it is imperative that new material is constantly being created and shared with customers. In creating a brand, image is critical. Brand has two sides. There is a functional side, and there is a side that conveys a symbol. In branding, there is a “cool” factor. Many times it is the “cool” factor that sets a product apart. One of the first C.E.Os to understand this was Albert Sloan. Albert Sloan, though he was leader General Motors in 1923, is an excellent bench mark for contemporary social marketers.

            In 1923, Albert Sloan faced a dilemma that seemed insurmountable. The Model T Ford possessed 60% of the American car market. In terms of numbers of cars, close 9 out of 10 cars that were on the road were Fords. Only 12% of the market belonged to General Motors. Many executives at General Motors in 1923 thought the chance of overtaking Ford impossible. Albert Sloan knew that Ford could be overtaken because he understood social media.

            Albert communicated with customers much like today’s social media world. This engagement was two-fold.   As is the case today on a Facebook Page, Albert learned what customers “liked” in cars.  Times had changed drastically from 1908. There was now a middle class. There were a large group of Americans who had disposable income. The type of car that was driven was the means by which people defined success. The type of car that you had told people what income you were in.

            People wanted variety. In addition, to just supplying a nice ride people also wanted something that looked nice. Style now became important in selecting and buying a car. Sloan understood that image was a deciding factor in the marketing of cars.

            How do you show off variety and style in cars? How do you create buzz?  Albert Sloan decided upon an annual model changeover, a staple in today’s car industry, but a radical new way in 1923.

            The annual model changeover is the means by which General Motors became a social media brand in 1923. Billy Durant, the original creator of General Motors, left Alfred with 5 brands. Alfred had variety built into the GM brand. To enlarge on variety further and to emphasis stylishness and fashion, Albert decided that each brands appearance would change each year---the model change.

            This created buzz and excitement, not only among customers but also among GM personnel. There was a feeling of extreme anticipation on what the new models would look like. This anticipation created important touch points for General Motors. People started talking about the cars. This gave GM advertising that they didn’t have to pay for. The new models created 5 new touch points for GM. If a person bought an entry level Chevrolet, and an Oldsmobile went by while talking to a friend, they would say to their friend, “Look at that Oldsmobile”. Even if the Oldsmobile brand wasn’t bought by the customer, it still got their attention. General Motors wasn’t just one product; it was many products, each creating interest for General Motors.

            The models, the stylishness, the fashion, the brand image, created a new brand for General Motors. The brand of General Motors was that “GM was cool”. General Motors of 1923 became to be seen as Apple is seen today---the company of “cool”.  People wanted to be seen driving a GM car because they were “cool”, just as many people buy Apple products today because they are “cool”, and if you have them you are “cool”.

            “Cool” created a brand for GM in 1923. Ford began to be seen as “old”.

Dean Hambleton

dnhambleton@gmail.com           

WHAT PROCESS DOES MATT DAMON USE TO CREATE A BRAND IN WATER

            Reverse branding is a critical part of branding in the social media era. It is something that a social media marketer must be aware of. Reverse branding occurs when customers themselves brand the entrepreneurs. The brand for entrepreneur creates the brand for the product.

Reverse branding revolves around repositioning the market. Repositioning revolves redefining a market. Many times when markets are repositioned, the paradigm shift is not noticed by the general public. Game changing   entrepreneurs, such as Henry Ford and Steven Jobs, do understand that there have been sudden changes in the ways that markets operate. The only way that a new, repositioned markets can be created is because customers have great confidence in the entrepreneur---that because this entrepreneur is so talented, the new product must be all right. In 1908, Henry Ford realized that the auto market had repositioned itself around lowest cost. In 2007, Steven Jobs realized that the telecommunications market had shifted from a place that centered on communicating voice messages to a market in which data is communicated.

Water is more than $12 billion market.  Actor Matt Damon is creating a brand in water by positioning the market around “the least of these”---people in Third World countries who are dirt poor, who at first glance seem to have no resources to either create or consume at a level that is needed to create a world class brand. Matt is devising a world class brand in water by linking stakeholders. He is linking consumers and developers of water in the Third World. These people are the same. They are citizens of third world villages. Matt is creating jobs in villages to create water. His is arranging for microfinaniers to invest in the villages. This is an ironic combination.The people in the villages are economically destitute and the financiers are hardened businessmen with a cold eye for the bottom line.  Matt is bringing these two seemingly disparate groups together because, together, they have the ability to create a world class brand in water.

            This water brand is being created through reverse branding. Both groups have great confidence in Matt Damon. The fact that Matt Damon is involved creates credibility in the minds of the two disparate groups. Each has created, in their minds, a brand for Matt that allows this project to move forward. The poor villagers have motivation to create a good product. They cannot live without good water. Neither can their families, especially the children.

Because of the quality of the workers, they are an excellent investment target for financiers, who want to become involved in a major contemporary market. Matt Damon is an excellent bench mark for philanthropy. Almost all Fortune 500 companies “give back”. This is a wonderful thing. Matt Damon is developing clean water in destitute villages in Africa by creating significant jobs for good people. He has created a major investment opportunity for private banks. He has created the potential for a major brand in water to be created. He has done this because the confidence that the two separate and disparate groups have in him. He has created a brand in water through reverse branding.

Dean Hambleton

dnhambleton@gmail.com

REVERSE BRANDING: HOW MATT DAMON IS CREATING A WATER BRAND WITH CUSTOMERS AND NOT FOR THEM

REVERSE BRANDING: HOW IS MATT DAMON CREATING A WATER BRAND WITH CUSTOMERS AND NOT FOR THEM

            Reverse branding is a critical part of branding in the social media era. It is something that a social media marketer must be aware of. Reverse branding occurs when customers themselves brand the entrepreneurs. The brand for entrepreneur creates the brand for the product.

Reverse branding revolves around repositioning the market. Repositioning revolves redefining a market. Many times when markets are repositioned, the paradigm shift is not noticed by the general public. Game changing   entrepreneurs, such as Henry Ford and Steven Jobs, do understand that there have been sudden changes in the ways that markets operate. The only way that a new, repositioned markets can be created is because customers have great confidence in the entrepreneur---that because this entrepreneur is so talented, the new product must be all right. In 1908, Henry Ford realized that the auto market had repositioned itself around lowest cost. In 2007, Steven Jobs realized that the telecommunications market had shifted from a place that centered on communicating voice messages to a market in which data is communicated.

Water is more than $12 billion market.  Actor Matt Damon is creating a brand in water by positioning the market around “the least of these”---people in Third World countries who are dirt poor, who at first glance seem to have no resources to either create or consume at a level that is needed to create a world class brand. Matt is devising a world class brand in water by linking stakeholders. He is linking consumers and developers of water in the Third World. These people are the same. They are citizens of third world villages. Matt is creating jobs in villages to create water. His is arranging for microfinaniers to invest in the villages. This is an ironic combination.The people in the villages are economically destitute and the financiers are hardened businessmen with a cold eye for the bottom line.  Matt is bringing these two seemingly disparate groups together because, together, they have the ability to create a world class brand in water.

            This water brand is being created through reverse branding. Both groups have great confidence in Matt Damon. The fact that Matt Damon is involved creates credibility in the minds of the two disparate groups. Each has created, in their minds, a brand for Matt that allows this project to move forward. The poor villagers have motivation to create a good product. They cannot live without good water. Neither can their families, especially the children.

Because of the quality of the workers, they are an excellent investment target for financiers, who want to become involved in a major contemporary market. Matt Damon is an excellent bench mark for philanthropy. Almost all Fortune 500 companies “give back”. This is a wonderful thing. Matt Damon is developing clean water in destitute villages in Africa by creating significant jobs for good people. He has created a major investment opportunity for private banks. He has created the potential for a major brand in water to be created. He has done this because the confidence that the two separate and disparate groups have in him. He has created a brand in water through reverse branding.

Dean Hambleton

dnhambleton@gmail.com

MATT DAMON IS USING BRAND REVERSAL TO CREATE A WATER BRAND

MATT DAMON IS USING BRAND REVERSAL TO CREATE A WATER BRAND IN AFRICA

            Brand reversal happens when a customer brands an entrepreneur. The usual means by which brands are created are when an entrepreneur creates a product and then brands the product so that a customer selects it. This is the conventional means by which branding occurs. Social media platforms have changed how brand are created.

 There are times when an entrepreneur is so talented and so well known and their product is such a game changer that it is the customer that actually brands the product.

            Two examples of this are Henry Ford in 1908, when the Model T was created and Stephen Jobs when the I Phone was created in 2007. In both cases, customers knew that these entrepreneurs had game changing technology. Customers knew that if these two entrepreneurs had created a product, it would be a top brand, no questions asked.

            Matt Damon, the actor, is attempting to create a world class brand in water. Water is a $12 billion market.  Matt’s water brand is being created through reverse branding.  Matt Damon’s brands are somewhat different than the average entrepreneur. He has a few reasons for being in business. He is a serious businessman. He is goal in going into business is to make a profit for both himself and his investors. People should be clear about that.

            Matt Damon does this. Matt has a track record of successful social entrepreneurship. He has been involved in projects that have alleviated literacy, and dwelt with drought conditions, famine, and AIDS. These projects have been in the third world, but their goal hasn’t been straight philanthropy.  Matts goal is to earn profits. It is also to create real jobs in the villages that he works, and to create the infrastructure that humans need to survive.

            Matt’s business model can be summed up simply. “If you give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. If you teach a man to fish, he will eat for a lifetime”. Matt has been successful in his philanthropic-entrepreneurial endeavors. He has created needed infrastructure. He has earned a profit for himself and his investors. He has created legitimate, paying jobs for village people.

            Matt Damon has created a brand through his endeavors. The brand is that he doesn’t simply trade on his celebrity as an actor. The brand is he is personally involved with his projects. His projects are professionally run. Matt uses professional lending agencies and these agencies earn a profit.

            Matt is successful at doing by doing good. This is the brand that Matt has created with people. “If Matt is involved, it must be good”.  Customers create Matt’s brand.  Matt’s organization, Water.org, needs several groups to thrive. He needs African villages and the people of those villages to create water. He needs investors for his village projects. The only way that he can attract people is if they believe in him, that they will be treated well and that they will earn a profit if they become involved in water.org. Matt needs a brand and that brand has been created through reverse branding.

Dean Hambleton

dnhambleton@gmail.com

HOW DID REVERSE BRANDING CREATE THE I PHONE IN 2007?

HOW DID REVERSE BRANDING CREATE THE IPHONE IN 2007?

            Reverse branding happens when a customer brands an entrepreneur.  This branding creates the extreme differentiation that is critical in a social media era. Social media creates great amounts of information.  The information created is perfect information. This great scale of information creates a great many products.  This is the dilemma that a modern social marketer now has to face. How a brand is created that off sets a product from all the other products in that space? The answer to that is that the customer and not the entrepreneur create the brand. This is a role reversal that often happens in social media marketing. It is a new paradigm in brand marketing. In a social media era, brands are created by customers. This is an interesting concept.

            A product that has reshaped modern society is the I Phone. With the I Phone, a person can possess a computer and put it in their pocket book. The I Phone was created by brand reversal. Customers and telecommunication companies believed in Steve Jobs. It was who Steve brought the two together to create this historic product. It was the trust and confidence that people had in Steve Jobs, and that alone, that created the I Phone.

            Steve understood that a Smartphone had to be created. In 2002, people used a lot of gadgets at once for their digital needs. People had to have a phone. A PDA was used for computing. The PDA’s of 2002 were clunky instrument. For music, people had their IPod. Steve’s vision was to design a one product for all. To be marketable, this product had to be special. This new product had to visually elegant. It had to look nice.

            Steve observed something. Telecommunication companies were beating themselves up over price. The wireless phone had become a commodity. By this time in 2002 wireless had reached almost the saturation point. Competition among telecommunication companies was not over new customers---there weren’t any more. It was competition over stealing each other’s existing companies. The only way to do that was to create programs in which customers had to pay less for minutes. Steve knew that the market had repositioned itself. Steve understood that the only way that telecommunication companies could make a profit and become a successful brand would be to create interesting and attractive digital applications on the headsets of phones.

            Steve didn’t want Apple to spend the money to create a smart phone. Apple had the applications and technology for a telecommunication company to create a brand. Steve understood that the entire paradigm of the telecommunications business had changed. Steve understood that voice, making phone calls, was no longer the profit driver of the phone business. The brand now revolved around having a platform to make calls, watch movies, get news, text your friends in real time, listen to music, and play games. For a telecommunications executive whose whole career revolved around providing a voice service, the new paradigm made no sense. When your whole life revolves around a product, it is almost impossible to understand that you’re market has repositioned itself. This is the dilemma that Steve Jobs faced.

            To create the world class smart phone brand that Steve wanted to do, he had to convince a major executive, a first-class phone guy, that the world had changed. Steve was able to do this. He was able to convince Stan Sigman of Cingular Wireless to relinquish all power of design and product development to Apple. This is the story of the creation of the I Phone.

            Reverse branding created the I Phone. Stan had a brand for Steve Jobs. Stan believed that Steve knew how to create elegant technology that would translate into a mega brand or Cingular. Stan rejected all other technologists and listened only to Steve. In a sense, to be consistent with the definition of brand reversal, Stan created the brand for the I Phone. Steve created the product.

            Stan Sigman bet that Steve Jobs had the correct technology to create the Smartphone. The bet was made; the I Phone was created, using Apple technology and ATT networks. I Phone took off, and the rest is history. The I Phone has become one of the pre-eminent brands. The I Phone is the pre-eminent brand in phones because people have branded Steve Jobs. People feel that if Steve Jobs has designed a product, the product must be incredible. This is how brand reversal works.

Dean Hambleton

dnhambleton@gmail.com