ZIBS Blog

Talk about co-branding. One of the world’s leading medical research institutions is lending its brand to a skincare product line.

It’s nothing new as far as co-branding a newly launched brand with that of an established one. What is new is this established brand is one of the most-respected in the world with an image and identity that evokes prestige, trust, and cutting-edge innovation, not to mention its highly world-wide level of awareness. With such a positive and respected association it is only right that Cosmedicine would want to associate its foray into the market on a platform of that breadth and depth. On the other side of this brand association is J. Hopkins with its brand associated to a no name, no brand skin care line. Brand-wise, there is a fundamental disconnect with respect to the Hopkins brand.

A strong and trustworthy image and identity are hard enough to come by in such a trend-oriented industry that cosmetics happens to be. The cosmetics industry has most recently been using “science”, or at least the label, as a driver for new product marketing; thus, it seems that with each passing day comes a ground-breaking research study on a touted new (or old-turned-new-again) ingredient to deliver “younger”, “fresher”, “smoother”, “radiant”, and basically anything else related to transformed appearance to that of the perception of youth and beauty. It has got to the point where it is hard to believe in this industry where exactly science stops and marketing and branding begins.

Does it really always just come down to the Benjamins? And will consumers “buy” the branding or will J. Hopkins see a diminished brand result? (If so, where can a diminished brand go for funding then?)

Is this brand innovation or brand dilution? Your mirror may be the only relevant indicator.

Further reading:
You can read the details and the debate in Rhonda Rundle’s WSJ article from Wednesday’s edition [Subscription required].

You can find out more about Cosmedicine at Sephora online.

Posted by Dana Page at 04:18 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Movie theater attendance has fallen for three years in a row. According to the Motion Picture Association, domestic theater attendance fell 9% last year to 1.4 billion tickets sold, which is down from 1.64 billion sold in 2002. That situation is not quite as blissful as the “sound of music” to the ears of movie execs.

So what do you do if you’re a movie exec? How do you rebuild the buzz?

Well, coffee certainly provides a buzz, and Starbucks has “star” and “bucks” in its name which are two things a movie exec has to like. With a grande cappuccino priced at about $3.46 the people who frequent Starbucks must have discretionary cash to burn. And since people need discretionary cash to see movies which are priced at $10 a pop (when DVDs can be rented for $3) that makes Starbucks customers quite attractive to someone who sells movies.

Lions Gate Entertainment, a smaller Hollywood studio, inked a deal with Starbucks where the coffee behemoth will be marketing its upcoming film "Akeelah and the Bee"

How the Coffee Chain Will Promote Films
 Offer movie trivia on a chalk board
 Feature words from the film inside the pastry display case
 Sell DVDs
 Ads on Coffee-Cup Sleeves
 Show trailers over its WIFI network

Starbucks needs to be careful in choosing what movies to promote. "Akeelah and the Bee" is about a child with a passion for spelling bees. This seems innocuous enough, but Lions Gate Entertainment also makes slasher flicks like “Saw”. When you create an alliance you are effectively co-branding so if people associate Lions Gate with slasher films, and see Starbucks is promoting films from that studio it could impact the coffee giant’s brand negatively, especially since Starbucks takes great care to promote a social mission in its charter. Brand incongruity can be a brand killer.

As a mere promoter Starbucks might not have an impact on the overall movie going audience. Nielsen Analytics found that high ticket prices and bad movies are the top reasons people are going to fewer films. And 36% are avoiding the theaters because of high concession prices. Concessions are the lifeblood of theaters as they only keep half the box-office receipts. The rest of their profits come from the concessions, where profit margins can top 85%. However, it seems Starbucks has high hopes to improve the quality of the movies, as it has indicated it might tackle movie production. And since its customers are already used to paying high fees for convenient food the movie theater owners might find the Starbucks crowd a profitable one.

Sources:
- Horn, John, “Now Showing: Declining Sales at Theater Snack Bars,” Los Angeles Times, March 16, 2006

- Gray, Steven and Kate Kelly “Starbucks Plans to Make Debut in Movie Business”, Wall Street Journal, 12 January 2006

Posted by Greg Thomas at 08:23 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)