Loath as I am to watch MLS soccer, it is my habit to check out whatever is on Fox Soccer Channel at all hours of my viewing day. I happened on a game between DC United and Houston Dynamo last week while flipping channels and I had my finger on the channel changer just as I heard Christopher Sullivan's voice doing the color commentary. The game was a dreadful affair lacking skill, creativity, and style from either side. And yet, I stayed with it because I love the unique perspective Sullivan, a former professional player, and member of the US National Team brings to his commentary.
I've heard other former (and some active) players who lack the polish and perspective I think Sullivan brings. His delivery is measured, understated, and at times, melodic. Because of some questionable audio work during the broadcast, the commentators were often drowned out by the stadium announcer and the crowd. I actually found myself straining to hear what Sullivan had to say. Let me tell you, with all to few exceptions, that has not been the case with other soccer announcers in this country. Honestly, if I know a game is also being broadcast in Spanish, I prefer to tune that channel even though I don't speak the language simply because most English speaking announcers tend to be more distracting than contributing. Sullivan reports what he sees in a cadence that lends a rhythm to the game without distracting the viewer. Rather than just report the game, he brings you into its unique character. Too many other former players try to provide a player's perspective, but merely report the run of play.
Sullivan is an astute student of the game. His analysis blends team tactics, individual tactics, and a coach's sideline perspective. He has an amazing command of soccer history, players around the globe, and the fine points that comprise each player's game. Like the sport itself when it is played well, he keeps his commentary fluid, concise, relevant and insightful. He knows how to assess a team's game plan quickly, and at times, his ability to predict what a team is trying to do and when it will happen is uncanny.
I think a key to his success is he doesn't watch the game the way many fans and coaches in this country do. The norm is "ball watching," focus on offensive build up, or one's own team's execution. Coaches and knowledgeable fans watch three parallel aspects of the game at once: our own team's execution of the game plan, the individual and collective execution of what we believe to be the opponent's game plan, and the combined overall dynamics of the game with emphasis on individual match-ups that offer opportunistic advantages. In some cases, it is clear to me, coaches are so busy watching their own team's performance, they can't even tell you the sequence of events or key factors in an opponent's attack. This is especially true at the high school and college level, but I believe Bob Bradley, coach of the US National Team suffers from this at times as well. He's earned the nickname, "Bunker Bob" for a reason. As an aside, I was watching a game being coached by a protege' of mine, and at half time she passed by on the way back to her bench and asked if I had any observations. I took the occasion to ask her if she was aware that all three first half goals were scored on exactly the same play by two players who alternated positions, assists and goal scoring? It was clear to me that they saw a weakness and deliberately, repeatedly exploited it. It was equally clear that the coach and her defense hadn't adjusted to pick up the play after the first or second goal. I was very proud of her that she adjusted, and each time the opponent tried it after the break, it failed. Her team pretty much shut down the opponent altogether through her astute adjustments throughout the second half.
But back to Sullivan -- he has such a thinking man's soccer mind. He would make a formidable coach. If you caught the telecast of the Marathon (Honduras) and DC United game this evening you saw exactly what I am referring to in his ability to predict what Marathon needed to do to gain the advantage over DC United. As the game progressed he accurately predicted where the American team would be most vulnerable. Unfortuntely for the right back and central defenders who had a hellish night for DC United, Sullivan was laser accurate. Again, this game was a dull and lifeless affair, as evidenced by the meager crowd in attendance, until the Marathon coach took exactly the steps Sullivan had been suggesting early in the second half. A generally sloppy and unispired game was made almost bearable by Sullivan's analysis.
I know there are people who dislike Sullivan's work because of his European influences, or sometimes quirky pharsing, but rather enjoy those trademark aspects. There are very few people with whom I like to sit and watch a game because I prefer to analyze the play in my head rather than socialize and speculate as is done at most American sporting events. However, Sullivan is one person I'd love to sit with and compare observations during a match.
Our beloved Brew.
R.I.P. Big guy.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Saturday, August 15, 2009
The Next True American Revolution
Watching the healthcare debacle that is playing out in this country embarrasses me as an American. If the rest of the world wasn't convinced before that this nation has lost its greatness, this episode may complete the picture. America is more divided today than any other time in its history other than the Civil War. Healthcare is just the latest example.
Lies and distortions are flying from both sides. Politicians desperate to protect their personal interests dance the dance of the insincere. Big Pharma, the Insurance Industry, and healthcare providers have both sides of the aisle in Washington right where they want them -- in their back pockets.
No meaningful reform will come as a result of the political "two-stepping" being done by all parties. The Democrats will claim victory if anything makes it to the President's desk for his signature regardless of how meager the change. Republicans will claim they saved the nation, future generations, and your grandmother from being snuffed out by government agents while she slept in the nursing home, if they can deny the Democrats in the slightest way. From what I've read of the actual legislation, it isn't the profound improvement some people claim, nor is it the evil face of Socialism some of the far right suggest. Frankly, much of if it is bureaucratic, bean counting and vanilla.
In the end, both sides are more interested in the 2010 election cycle than advancing the country. As such, Big Pharma, Insurance and the hospital/medical community needed only to disrupt and delay to get what what they want - to maintain the "status quo" as much as possible. Significant, and controversial legislation has a little chance of passage after January 1. The campaign season will take precedence with no candidate wanting to risk their neck being caught on the wrong side of a vote. So after the first of the year, all parties agree to "play nice" and keep hot topics in limbo until after November. Yet another reason, the entire election process in this country needs to be revamped. We'll wait eleven months for anything of value on any topic to happen. Elections, and the money tied to them, not public service, now command every heartbeat of elected officials.
History would tell us, that with notable exceptions like Germany in World War II, revolution is usually instigated by the "have nots." Given the climate in this country, I expect it will be the conservative middle to upper class that will seek to fight to protect what they consider theirs, in less than the peaceful terms we as a nation like to pretend to be our way of handling domestic disputes in these enlightened times.
At some point in my life, I anticipate I will witness a real, bloody revolution, in the form of a civil war in this country. Maybe that's not all bad. Maybe that's what every good democracy needs from time to time to clean out the cobwebs, and earn its freedom. We are certainly proving that under the veil of peaceful discourse, corruption, self-interest and profiteering have the upper hand. The foreign enemies of America who would like to see us destroyed may need not try to disrupt our way of life. Coupled with an unstable economy that is far from correcting itself, as some "wishers upon a star" would have you believe, left to our own devices, we appear to be doing it to ourselves.
Lies and distortions are flying from both sides. Politicians desperate to protect their personal interests dance the dance of the insincere. Big Pharma, the Insurance Industry, and healthcare providers have both sides of the aisle in Washington right where they want them -- in their back pockets.
No meaningful reform will come as a result of the political "two-stepping" being done by all parties. The Democrats will claim victory if anything makes it to the President's desk for his signature regardless of how meager the change. Republicans will claim they saved the nation, future generations, and your grandmother from being snuffed out by government agents while she slept in the nursing home, if they can deny the Democrats in the slightest way. From what I've read of the actual legislation, it isn't the profound improvement some people claim, nor is it the evil face of Socialism some of the far right suggest. Frankly, much of if it is bureaucratic, bean counting and vanilla.
In the end, both sides are more interested in the 2010 election cycle than advancing the country. As such, Big Pharma, Insurance and the hospital/medical community needed only to disrupt and delay to get what what they want - to maintain the "status quo" as much as possible. Significant, and controversial legislation has a little chance of passage after January 1. The campaign season will take precedence with no candidate wanting to risk their neck being caught on the wrong side of a vote. So after the first of the year, all parties agree to "play nice" and keep hot topics in limbo until after November. Yet another reason, the entire election process in this country needs to be revamped. We'll wait eleven months for anything of value on any topic to happen. Elections, and the money tied to them, not public service, now command every heartbeat of elected officials.
History would tell us, that with notable exceptions like Germany in World War II, revolution is usually instigated by the "have nots." Given the climate in this country, I expect it will be the conservative middle to upper class that will seek to fight to protect what they consider theirs, in less than the peaceful terms we as a nation like to pretend to be our way of handling domestic disputes in these enlightened times.
At some point in my life, I anticipate I will witness a real, bloody revolution, in the form of a civil war in this country. Maybe that's not all bad. Maybe that's what every good democracy needs from time to time to clean out the cobwebs, and earn its freedom. We are certainly proving that under the veil of peaceful discourse, corruption, self-interest and profiteering have the upper hand. The foreign enemies of America who would like to see us destroyed may need not try to disrupt our way of life. Coupled with an unstable economy that is far from correcting itself, as some "wishers upon a star" would have you believe, left to our own devices, we appear to be doing it to ourselves.
Today, the real soccer season begins.
The English Premier League (EPL) starts. YIPPIE! Coupled with Series A (the Italian League) and a little assist from Tivo that means I can watch worldclass soccer all day, everyday from now through next summer (the World Cup Finals in Sout Africa). My dance card is complete.
Monday, July 27, 2009
The Most Astonishing Month in US Soccer History.
Since you are reading this, I'll assume you are not media challenged, and have regular access to news sources. Ergo, it seems safe to assume you may have seen a rash of publicity about various soccer contests, or perhaps you are among the hundreds of thousands of spectators who attended international or national team games in the US this month, or pehaps you are among the millions in this country who witnessed these contests on television.
Most of this soccer enthusiasm is a result of two tournaments happening almost simultaneously around the country -- The CONCACAF Gold Cup, a regional title of little significance (not to be confused with CONCACAF World Cup Qualifying), and the World Football Challenge (WFC).
CONCACAF is an acronym for the region of North and Central America nations as designated by soccer's international governing body (FIFA). The World Football Challenge is an inflated title given to a "friendly"tournament among four prominent foreign teams touring the US as part of their preseason schedules.
As a tune-up to the WFC, Chelsea FC played a friendly on July 18 against the Major League Soccer (MLS) expansion team Seattle Sounders in front of more than 65,000 spectators. In addition, Chelsea FC who won the WFC played four matches before a combined attendance of 275,000 people ( an average of 68,700).
When playing each other, the remaining WFC participants: Club America (Mexico), AC Milan and Inter Milan (both of Italy) drew impressive numbers for their matches.
The Gold Cup showcased 12 teams playing in pool play through four groups with the winners advancing to a "knock out" round. The "knock out" round featured teams from Costa Rica, Honduras, Mexico, and the USA. Only Costa Rica used a team comprised of its best players. The US and Mexico excluded most of their best players from their rosters and fielded teams comprised of players with limited national team experience. Essentially, they competed with players trying to earn an opportunity to make the team.
Despite using largely unknown players, the semi-final games played as a double-header in Chicago, drew impressive crowds. To be clear, the reported attendance at game time for the US v. Honduras was 20,000. The second game of the evening between Costa Rica and Mexico had an announced crowd of over 55,000. While far from "near sellout" of Soldier Field as announced by the promoters, this was an impressive turnout driven largely by the huge Mexican population in Chicago and the Midwest. Note that the first game, with the host nation, drew less than half the evenings attendance.
The Gold Cup Championship game was played at Giants Stadium and sold out with over 82,000 spectators. Again, Mexico's participation was a key factor in this turnout. The outcome of the game, a 5-0 humbling of the US by Mexico, two teams usually well matched, is an indication of how lightly the US took this competition.
In the two tournaments, with four world famous club teams, playing the first games of their preseason training schedules, and a number of North and Central America nations playing less than their best players, drew very impressive numbers.
So what does this mean for soccer in this country? Hard to say.
This past week, MLS announced its attendance is down about 7% from last year, and this includes the spectacular numbers from the previously mentioned expansion team, Seattle Sounders who are averaging over 30,000 spectators per game. Take the Sounders out of the equation and MLS reported attendance is down double digits. This is especially troubling when you factor in the numerous media reports over time that MLS tends to inflate the attendance figures it reports.
MLS blames much of its decline on the economy. If that's true, some equal measure of the success of the two tournaments might also be attributable to the economy in that fewer people are taking vacations and attending these tournaments was a form of "staycations."
I suspect the tremendous numbers in attendance associated with these two tournaments is due largely to reputations of the international clubs and national teams who participated and is a trend toward visiting teams of fame, and will not translate into increased attendance for US leagues.
As an example, a week before the Seattle v. Chelsea game, the Sounders played Houston in a MLS league game that drew more than 32,000 people (about Seattle's season average). However, three days after the Chelsea game, Seattle played the same Houston team again in a U.S. Open Cup game that drew fewer than 5000 spectators.
The fledgling Women's Professional Soccer League (WPS) announces crowds somewhere in the neighborhood of 5000 spectators per match and as the season progresses, the numbers are getting worse, not better. WPS did a good job of sprinkling many of the best women players in the world and the US among its teams. It also put together a solid business plan, and works hard at forming relationships in the community. However, the caliber of play still leaves a great deal to be desired. They may be some of the best women players in the world, but they are not yet the best teams in the world.
What this says to me is, with the exception of a few superstars like David Beckham, the soccer paying public makes its decisions based on the reputation of the team, an opportunity to see foreign national team, and the anticipated caliber of play. As I was the first to predict in a national print publication, seeing David Beckham was a novelty that wore off after one or two times, and did not translate into improved attendance for anyone when he wasn't scheduled to appear.
With the proliferation of national and international competitions coming to this country, and the ever increasing television coverage of games from the overseas professional leagues, the US spectator is becoming more knowledgeable about the game, and more discerning. This could be a double edge sword for leagues in this country. By comparison, the US professional game in general still falls far short in terms of skill, and caliber of play of that of the best men's team in the world. Given the chance to occasionally see two world-class teams play is something Americans will pay to see, but that doesn't mean they will pay to see just anyone play.
Yes, Americans will pay to see the top six teams of England's Premiere League play from time to time, but who wants to see teams at the bottom of that table, or some second division team? If my instincts are correct, the floodgates are about to open as promoters of every stripe begin enticing foreign teams of varying skill and reputation to play in the US. The diluting of product will likely result in the abrupt end of what has started as a very promising trend. But trends do not make habits.
It is the rare opportunity and the high caliber of play that combine to contribute to the outstanding attendance at Gold Cup and WFC games. Sustaining that precise balance is the key to continued success, but even then, I do not see it translating into packed stadiums for US leagues. In those rare cases when powerhouse teams like those in the WFC, and others such as Barcelona FC, Real Madrid, Manchester United, Bayern Munich, et al, are involved, the crowds will come out. In other words, don't confuse passion for great soccer with passion for any soccer.
Most of this soccer enthusiasm is a result of two tournaments happening almost simultaneously around the country -- The CONCACAF Gold Cup, a regional title of little significance (not to be confused with CONCACAF World Cup Qualifying), and the World Football Challenge (WFC).
CONCACAF is an acronym for the region of North and Central America nations as designated by soccer's international governing body (FIFA). The World Football Challenge is an inflated title given to a "friendly"tournament among four prominent foreign teams touring the US as part of their preseason schedules.
As a tune-up to the WFC, Chelsea FC played a friendly on July 18 against the Major League Soccer (MLS) expansion team Seattle Sounders in front of more than 65,000 spectators. In addition, Chelsea FC who won the WFC played four matches before a combined attendance of 275,000 people ( an average of 68,700).
When playing each other, the remaining WFC participants: Club America (Mexico), AC Milan and Inter Milan (both of Italy) drew impressive numbers for their matches.
The Gold Cup showcased 12 teams playing in pool play through four groups with the winners advancing to a "knock out" round. The "knock out" round featured teams from Costa Rica, Honduras, Mexico, and the USA. Only Costa Rica used a team comprised of its best players. The US and Mexico excluded most of their best players from their rosters and fielded teams comprised of players with limited national team experience. Essentially, they competed with players trying to earn an opportunity to make the team.
Despite using largely unknown players, the semi-final games played as a double-header in Chicago, drew impressive crowds. To be clear, the reported attendance at game time for the US v. Honduras was 20,000. The second game of the evening between Costa Rica and Mexico had an announced crowd of over 55,000. While far from "near sellout" of Soldier Field as announced by the promoters, this was an impressive turnout driven largely by the huge Mexican population in Chicago and the Midwest. Note that the first game, with the host nation, drew less than half the evenings attendance.
The Gold Cup Championship game was played at Giants Stadium and sold out with over 82,000 spectators. Again, Mexico's participation was a key factor in this turnout. The outcome of the game, a 5-0 humbling of the US by Mexico, two teams usually well matched, is an indication of how lightly the US took this competition.
In the two tournaments, with four world famous club teams, playing the first games of their preseason training schedules, and a number of North and Central America nations playing less than their best players, drew very impressive numbers.
So what does this mean for soccer in this country? Hard to say.
This past week, MLS announced its attendance is down about 7% from last year, and this includes the spectacular numbers from the previously mentioned expansion team, Seattle Sounders who are averaging over 30,000 spectators per game. Take the Sounders out of the equation and MLS reported attendance is down double digits. This is especially troubling when you factor in the numerous media reports over time that MLS tends to inflate the attendance figures it reports.
MLS blames much of its decline on the economy. If that's true, some equal measure of the success of the two tournaments might also be attributable to the economy in that fewer people are taking vacations and attending these tournaments was a form of "staycations."
I suspect the tremendous numbers in attendance associated with these two tournaments is due largely to reputations of the international clubs and national teams who participated and is a trend toward visiting teams of fame, and will not translate into increased attendance for US leagues.
As an example, a week before the Seattle v. Chelsea game, the Sounders played Houston in a MLS league game that drew more than 32,000 people (about Seattle's season average). However, three days after the Chelsea game, Seattle played the same Houston team again in a U.S. Open Cup game that drew fewer than 5000 spectators.
The fledgling Women's Professional Soccer League (WPS) announces crowds somewhere in the neighborhood of 5000 spectators per match and as the season progresses, the numbers are getting worse, not better. WPS did a good job of sprinkling many of the best women players in the world and the US among its teams. It also put together a solid business plan, and works hard at forming relationships in the community. However, the caliber of play still leaves a great deal to be desired. They may be some of the best women players in the world, but they are not yet the best teams in the world.
What this says to me is, with the exception of a few superstars like David Beckham, the soccer paying public makes its decisions based on the reputation of the team, an opportunity to see foreign national team, and the anticipated caliber of play. As I was the first to predict in a national print publication, seeing David Beckham was a novelty that wore off after one or two times, and did not translate into improved attendance for anyone when he wasn't scheduled to appear.
With the proliferation of national and international competitions coming to this country, and the ever increasing television coverage of games from the overseas professional leagues, the US spectator is becoming more knowledgeable about the game, and more discerning. This could be a double edge sword for leagues in this country. By comparison, the US professional game in general still falls far short in terms of skill, and caliber of play of that of the best men's team in the world. Given the chance to occasionally see two world-class teams play is something Americans will pay to see, but that doesn't mean they will pay to see just anyone play.
Yes, Americans will pay to see the top six teams of England's Premiere League play from time to time, but who wants to see teams at the bottom of that table, or some second division team? If my instincts are correct, the floodgates are about to open as promoters of every stripe begin enticing foreign teams of varying skill and reputation to play in the US. The diluting of product will likely result in the abrupt end of what has started as a very promising trend. But trends do not make habits.
It is the rare opportunity and the high caliber of play that combine to contribute to the outstanding attendance at Gold Cup and WFC games. Sustaining that precise balance is the key to continued success, but even then, I do not see it translating into packed stadiums for US leagues. In those rare cases when powerhouse teams like those in the WFC, and others such as Barcelona FC, Real Madrid, Manchester United, Bayern Munich, et al, are involved, the crowds will come out. In other words, don't confuse passion for great soccer with passion for any soccer.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Quiznos
I stopped in our neighborhood Quiznos for the first time in many months. I noticed three things:
1. Their Torpedo product is essentially half the width of their previous sandwich and appears to be a total of three or four thinly sliced pieces of meat. 2. The width of their regular sandwiches has also been downsized by at least 30 %. 3. Prices have climbed by about 10% from what I remember.
A fellow operating the register, who I guessed was the franchisee was chatting with one of the food workers about all the attention the new Jimmy Johns was getting down the road. "They'll be back. Sure, everybody is checking them out, but once they realize that quantity isn't quality they'll come back." I watched the eyes of the worker and all I could read was "I wonder if JJ's is hiring?"
The handful of people in Quiznos, in the middle of the noon hour, confirmed he is feeling the competitive pressure. Just for the heck of it, I went down the street and saw the Jimmy John parking lot jammed. But out of curiosity, I went a block further to the Subway and found their parking lot as full, and the line of customers waiting to be served as they usually are. Directly across the street from JJ's is a Taco Bell that completed a major remodeling within the month. Looks like a brand new place. Some of the other adjacent fast food places were spruced up, with newly stripped parking lots, extra clean windows and fresh landscaping.
The Jimmy Johns has a prime location in the middle of "fast food" row, right next to McDonald's. Subway is just a short distance further past McDonald's. Quiznos is in the opposite direction from the major intersection, sits back from the road somewhat obscured by a bank that sits closer to the road, in a strip mall of "mom and pop" retailers. Although it has been in this location for more than a year, I give it less than a year before it goes under. Downsized product + rising prices + robust competition = poorer value. Note to Quiznos: location, location, location. Can't wait till Monday when I get to try Jimmy Johns for lunch.
1. Their Torpedo product is essentially half the width of their previous sandwich and appears to be a total of three or four thinly sliced pieces of meat. 2. The width of their regular sandwiches has also been downsized by at least 30 %. 3. Prices have climbed by about 10% from what I remember.
A fellow operating the register, who I guessed was the franchisee was chatting with one of the food workers about all the attention the new Jimmy Johns was getting down the road. "They'll be back. Sure, everybody is checking them out, but once they realize that quantity isn't quality they'll come back." I watched the eyes of the worker and all I could read was "I wonder if JJ's is hiring?"
The handful of people in Quiznos, in the middle of the noon hour, confirmed he is feeling the competitive pressure. Just for the heck of it, I went down the street and saw the Jimmy John parking lot jammed. But out of curiosity, I went a block further to the Subway and found their parking lot as full, and the line of customers waiting to be served as they usually are. Directly across the street from JJ's is a Taco Bell that completed a major remodeling within the month. Looks like a brand new place. Some of the other adjacent fast food places were spruced up, with newly stripped parking lots, extra clean windows and fresh landscaping.
The Jimmy Johns has a prime location in the middle of "fast food" row, right next to McDonald's. Subway is just a short distance further past McDonald's. Quiznos is in the opposite direction from the major intersection, sits back from the road somewhat obscured by a bank that sits closer to the road, in a strip mall of "mom and pop" retailers. Although it has been in this location for more than a year, I give it less than a year before it goes under. Downsized product + rising prices + robust competition = poorer value. Note to Quiznos: location, location, location. Can't wait till Monday when I get to try Jimmy Johns for lunch.
Starbucks update
I posted the previous blog yesterday. Today, I read that Starbucks is testing a new concept in one of their stores by not using the Starbucks name. I may not have this name exactly correct, but it's something 5th St. Coffee and Tea. The point is, they are playing with their concept. I find it amazing that the Starbucks brand has never talked about coffee. In fact, their positioning has always focused on being a person's third destination (1.Home 2. work/school 3. Starbucks) which would position them ahead of Church and play as dedicated destinations. It will be fun to see how this plays out.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
The Decline of Starbucks
I'll try to keep this short and sweet rather attempt to detail the long and illustrious history of Starbucks that has been so well documented elsewhere.
A client made the observation the other day that he considered Starbucks to be a model brand because it established a value proposition and market leadership position while completely avoiding the typical trappings of retail competitive pricing.
This led to an interesting conversation since I couldn't have disagreed more with my client's position. Undeniably, Starbucks is a brilliant brand. I often use examples of Starbucks to illustrate points in my various workshops and speaking engagements. My usual references emphasis the various facets of its unique positioning, powerful brand, and the enormous growth the company achieved without having relied on consumer advertising, which most people consider a cornerstone of brand building. But I will leave that aspect of my opinions for another time.
While I am a fan (but not a customer) of Starbucks, I believe its market strategy has its flaws. To suggest that Starbucks avoided pricing as a cornerstone of its brand positioning ignores the recent and rather rapid decline of the company stock over the past couple of years. Dunkin' Donuts, and McDonald's have landed severe body blows to Starbucks in the battle for premium coffee supremacy by being "more affordable" and a better value than the industry leader. The situation grew so severe that the company founder came out of retirement to replace the CEO and rescue the enterprise.
In designing and adopting a positioning centered on self indulgence, meant to justify premium prices (some would say highly overpriced), the company has absolutely declared a brand centered around price.
My client argued that the current economy and consumer belt-tightening have more to do with Starbucks' decline, and while there might be some truth to that, if we were just talking about a sales decline, I might agree. But I believe market share has definitely, and perhaps permanently shifted to the lower cost alternatives. If the Starbucks' value proposition was genuinely based on something other than premium pricing, the decline in sales and market share would not have been so rapid or so severe. At no time did Starbucks' customers, or the public fail to recognize this was an expensive/overpriced cup of Joe. In flush times, people were more accepting, but make no mistake, the rub was always there.
Starbucks greatest challenge is ahead. Once this economy shows signs of recovery how will it explain what I believe will be a continued decline in its business? Once people have altered their behaviors, it is very hard to win them back. Starbucks is yet another example in the marketplace of how consumer behaviors, based on little more than instant self-gratification will erode.
One of my favorite expressions (I think it comes from Tom Peters) is: "Every condition necessary for your best customer to leave you is in place and moving full steam ahead." The challenge of any management team is to forestall that exit by adapting while still keeping the brand authentic, relevant and consistent.
A client made the observation the other day that he considered Starbucks to be a model brand because it established a value proposition and market leadership position while completely avoiding the typical trappings of retail competitive pricing.
This led to an interesting conversation since I couldn't have disagreed more with my client's position. Undeniably, Starbucks is a brilliant brand. I often use examples of Starbucks to illustrate points in my various workshops and speaking engagements. My usual references emphasis the various facets of its unique positioning, powerful brand, and the enormous growth the company achieved without having relied on consumer advertising, which most people consider a cornerstone of brand building. But I will leave that aspect of my opinions for another time.
While I am a fan (but not a customer) of Starbucks, I believe its market strategy has its flaws. To suggest that Starbucks avoided pricing as a cornerstone of its brand positioning ignores the recent and rather rapid decline of the company stock over the past couple of years. Dunkin' Donuts, and McDonald's have landed severe body blows to Starbucks in the battle for premium coffee supremacy by being "more affordable" and a better value than the industry leader. The situation grew so severe that the company founder came out of retirement to replace the CEO and rescue the enterprise.
In designing and adopting a positioning centered on self indulgence, meant to justify premium prices (some would say highly overpriced), the company has absolutely declared a brand centered around price.
My client argued that the current economy and consumer belt-tightening have more to do with Starbucks' decline, and while there might be some truth to that, if we were just talking about a sales decline, I might agree. But I believe market share has definitely, and perhaps permanently shifted to the lower cost alternatives. If the Starbucks' value proposition was genuinely based on something other than premium pricing, the decline in sales and market share would not have been so rapid or so severe. At no time did Starbucks' customers, or the public fail to recognize this was an expensive/overpriced cup of Joe. In flush times, people were more accepting, but make no mistake, the rub was always there.
Starbucks greatest challenge is ahead. Once this economy shows signs of recovery how will it explain what I believe will be a continued decline in its business? Once people have altered their behaviors, it is very hard to win them back. Starbucks is yet another example in the marketplace of how consumer behaviors, based on little more than instant self-gratification will erode.
One of my favorite expressions (I think it comes from Tom Peters) is: "Every condition necessary for your best customer to leave you is in place and moving full steam ahead." The challenge of any management team is to forestall that exit by adapting while still keeping the brand authentic, relevant and consistent.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
The National Museum of Health and Medicine
This is my favorite museum in the world. I doubt you've ever been there. It's inconveniently located at Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington, DC. While it is a public museum, you are still required to show a photo ID at the guard gate to get on the base. Then, you have to wind your way through a maze of stately buildings to find the museum tucked away on the ground floor of the Armed Forces Institute for Pathology.
As part of an effort by Congress to trim military costs, and consolidate resources, Walter Reed is closing. More accurately, portions of it are moving and other portions are being what I call "decommissioned." In other words, put out of business.
A couple of years ago I was invited to assist the museum in formulating a strategy to keep it open. That was the beginning of my love affair with NMHM. First a little history . . .
NMHM was founded during the Civil War for the express purposes of collecting body parts and studying battlefield injury for military medicine. NHHM is one of only two facilities in the world that serve all the branches of the US military. They have millions and millions of relics and artifacts including the bullet that killed President Lincoln. Currently on display, you can walk through a field hospital that housed the most seriously wounded of our fighting men and women in Iraq.
NMHM is more than a museum. It's a working lab. It's had a role in the development of every prosthetic device used by the military from an old tree limb to modern day bionics. NMHM had a significant role in the development of body armor, which is saving thousands of lives on the battle field today, and it even has direct video hook-ups, to offer guidance in medical procedures to the field hospitals where some of our bravest and most seriously wounded military personnel are treated.
Working with NMHM has been a humbling and emmensely satisfying experience. Yes, I've been paid at times to provide my expertise, but I consider it a patriotic duty to stay involved, and as such, have volunteered my time, when necessary, to participate in a museum strategy session and voice my views regarding the museum.
When making the case for keeping the museum as it is, rather than breaking up the collection and distributing it to other parties, I make two points:
1. Every American should appreciate the solemn obligation we have to the valiant people who served our country and are now laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery. Those heroes gave the ultimate sacrifice for their nation and our freedom. Equally as important, those people whose remains are represented in the collection of relics and artifacts at the NMHM gave the "ultimate sacrifice" twice. Not only did they die in service to their country, their remains have been given over for scientific, historic and research purposes so that others may be spared the same fate, and in other cases, so the injured are spared undo suffering and hardship.
2. We lost 54,000 Americans during 14 years of the Vietnam War. If one compares the seriousness of injuries between that conflict and what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, the death toll would be significantly higher in the current conflicts were it not for the advances, such as body armor, developed or advanced by the people connected to NMHM. Simply put, more of our brave fighting men and women are surviving the most serious injuries because NMHM exists.
Within the next year or so decisions will be made in Washington as to where NMHM will move, who will control it, and what shape its future will take. I can only hope that the powers that be see the importance of NMHM and its immense potential.
Rather than being housed at a single, out of the way location, NMHM has the potential to expand its mission by expanding and forging alliances with a wide variety of medical and technological entities, to form satellite facilities, traveling exhibits, and forward thinking agreements to access loaned elements of the collection. It is critical that the main public facility be located in or around Washington, DC. A national treasure of the significance of NMHM deserves to be showcased in our nation's capital, and not relegated to some obscure military base without convenient public transportation, or adequate recognition. We owe the great patriots whose remains are part of the NMHM collection nothing less.
Visit the web site linked above to see for yourself.
As part of an effort by Congress to trim military costs, and consolidate resources, Walter Reed is closing. More accurately, portions of it are moving and other portions are being what I call "decommissioned." In other words, put out of business.
A couple of years ago I was invited to assist the museum in formulating a strategy to keep it open. That was the beginning of my love affair with NMHM. First a little history . . .
NMHM was founded during the Civil War for the express purposes of collecting body parts and studying battlefield injury for military medicine. NHHM is one of only two facilities in the world that serve all the branches of the US military. They have millions and millions of relics and artifacts including the bullet that killed President Lincoln. Currently on display, you can walk through a field hospital that housed the most seriously wounded of our fighting men and women in Iraq.
NMHM is more than a museum. It's a working lab. It's had a role in the development of every prosthetic device used by the military from an old tree limb to modern day bionics. NMHM had a significant role in the development of body armor, which is saving thousands of lives on the battle field today, and it even has direct video hook-ups, to offer guidance in medical procedures to the field hospitals where some of our bravest and most seriously wounded military personnel are treated.
Working with NMHM has been a humbling and emmensely satisfying experience. Yes, I've been paid at times to provide my expertise, but I consider it a patriotic duty to stay involved, and as such, have volunteered my time, when necessary, to participate in a museum strategy session and voice my views regarding the museum.
When making the case for keeping the museum as it is, rather than breaking up the collection and distributing it to other parties, I make two points:
1. Every American should appreciate the solemn obligation we have to the valiant people who served our country and are now laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery. Those heroes gave the ultimate sacrifice for their nation and our freedom. Equally as important, those people whose remains are represented in the collection of relics and artifacts at the NMHM gave the "ultimate sacrifice" twice. Not only did they die in service to their country, their remains have been given over for scientific, historic and research purposes so that others may be spared the same fate, and in other cases, so the injured are spared undo suffering and hardship.
2. We lost 54,000 Americans during 14 years of the Vietnam War. If one compares the seriousness of injuries between that conflict and what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, the death toll would be significantly higher in the current conflicts were it not for the advances, such as body armor, developed or advanced by the people connected to NMHM. Simply put, more of our brave fighting men and women are surviving the most serious injuries because NMHM exists.
Within the next year or so decisions will be made in Washington as to where NMHM will move, who will control it, and what shape its future will take. I can only hope that the powers that be see the importance of NMHM and its immense potential.
Rather than being housed at a single, out of the way location, NMHM has the potential to expand its mission by expanding and forging alliances with a wide variety of medical and technological entities, to form satellite facilities, traveling exhibits, and forward thinking agreements to access loaned elements of the collection. It is critical that the main public facility be located in or around Washington, DC. A national treasure of the significance of NMHM deserves to be showcased in our nation's capital, and not relegated to some obscure military base without convenient public transportation, or adequate recognition. We owe the great patriots whose remains are part of the NMHM collection nothing less.
Visit the web site linked above to see for yourself.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Upheaval in the House
Please, June, hurry up and get over. You'd think the graduation of your oldest child would lend itself to a month of bliss and fond memories. This has been both the longest and most stressful month in memory. Sure, my daughter had a lovely graduation, dear family and friends came in to share the occasion with us, and all, but that event triggered a series of other events like a line of dominoes, each tumbling into the next to the point where I am numb from the weight of change.
My little girl no sooner got her diploma than she was off to DC to begin her internship. Her mom spent the first few days with her to get her settled and acclimate her to the transit system and the routes from the dorm where she is staying to the office. I arrived a few days later and combined a couple of days of work with a visit.
Then I headed back home to find my son about to leave with his cousin to visit with his aunt who owns a resort in Upstate NY. My daughter popped in for a brief visit over the weekend but spent most of her time at her boyfriend's belated graduation party. Now she's back in DC ready for work in the morning. My wife is working and away for three days.
The dynamics of the house and family have really changed with everyone coming and going. Unsettled seems to be the word of the month. July can't get here soon enough.
My little girl no sooner got her diploma than she was off to DC to begin her internship. Her mom spent the first few days with her to get her settled and acclimate her to the transit system and the routes from the dorm where she is staying to the office. I arrived a few days later and combined a couple of days of work with a visit.
Then I headed back home to find my son about to leave with his cousin to visit with his aunt who owns a resort in Upstate NY. My daughter popped in for a brief visit over the weekend but spent most of her time at her boyfriend's belated graduation party. Now she's back in DC ready for work in the morning. My wife is working and away for three days.
The dynamics of the house and family have really changed with everyone coming and going. Unsettled seems to be the word of the month. July can't get here soon enough.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
LeBron James Dilutes His Brand
I admit it right up front, I am not an NBA fan and I would not consider paying to attend a game.
To this "non fan" the product offered by the NBA seems dominated by characters with whom I cannot connect. Tattoo covered bodies, "ghetto sheik" attitudes, and under-educated, over-paid man-children are not elements with which I can identify. In the end, all branding is about creating an "I see me" bond with the intended audience.
A prime example of everything I find distasteful in the NBA is personified in Cleveland Cavs star LeBron James. I admit he has become one of the biggest names in the league, and I am told, is considered by many to be the best player in the league, which no doubt has added immeasurably to his own brand advancement. Brands can sometimes be fragile things. Speaking strictly from a brand perspective, I believe he severely devalued his brand by refusing to shake hands with his opponents after losing in the league playoffs, which resulted in a firestorm of negative publicity.
Depending on which side of the argument you stand, he either advanced or detracted from the NBA brand value as well. There are those people who believe the league works hard to both embrace and control its "ghetto sheik" reputation because it draws urban crowds, and suburban "wannabes." Every "monster jam" is now followed by a demonstration of "monster" antics. The snarling, chest thumping, and primal screams by players get more and more theatrical and detract from the sport for me. I would never consider bringing my teenagers to an NBA game. There are exposed to enough ill-mannered examples in life without me appearing to endorse that kind of behavior.
Finally, Mr. James' actions reminded me of something someone else said, "Sports do not create character as much as reveal it." Perhaps Mr. James' actions will serve as reminder to all of us to examine our own behaviors and recognize examples where our own best character can come forth.
To this "non fan" the product offered by the NBA seems dominated by characters with whom I cannot connect. Tattoo covered bodies, "ghetto sheik" attitudes, and under-educated, over-paid man-children are not elements with which I can identify. In the end, all branding is about creating an "I see me" bond with the intended audience.
A prime example of everything I find distasteful in the NBA is personified in Cleveland Cavs star LeBron James. I admit he has become one of the biggest names in the league, and I am told, is considered by many to be the best player in the league, which no doubt has added immeasurably to his own brand advancement. Brands can sometimes be fragile things. Speaking strictly from a brand perspective, I believe he severely devalued his brand by refusing to shake hands with his opponents after losing in the league playoffs, which resulted in a firestorm of negative publicity.
Depending on which side of the argument you stand, he either advanced or detracted from the NBA brand value as well. There are those people who believe the league works hard to both embrace and control its "ghetto sheik" reputation because it draws urban crowds, and suburban "wannabes." Every "monster jam" is now followed by a demonstration of "monster" antics. The snarling, chest thumping, and primal screams by players get more and more theatrical and detract from the sport for me. I would never consider bringing my teenagers to an NBA game. There are exposed to enough ill-mannered examples in life without me appearing to endorse that kind of behavior.
Finally, Mr. James' actions reminded me of something someone else said, "Sports do not create character as much as reveal it." Perhaps Mr. James' actions will serve as reminder to all of us to examine our own behaviors and recognize examples where our own best character can come forth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)