A New Logo for Wendy's?

Background
Wendy’s is an international fast food chain that ranks third in hamburger joints behind McDonald’s and Burger King (Hoover’s, 2009, p 1). It has over 6,500 locations in the United States and more than 20 countries worldwide. Management is considering changing the Wendy logo and brand character to keep it current. There is a concern that changing the well-known logo could have adverse repercussions. To study consumer opinion a series of personal interviews will be conducted.


According to Keller (pp 156-159), logos and brand characters are an easily recognizable way to identify a company and product. They are central to advertising campaigns and packaging. He says they can “create perceptions of the brand as fund and interesting.” However, (p. 158) he also notes they must be changed from time to time. Betty Crocker spent over $1M to update its tired brand character (pp 164-5). This $1M price tag is also the case for updating a logo (p. 157).

Sampling Method
The background information shows the importance of correctly updating a brand character, and that an appropriate budget must be allocated to this important task. Having an accurate cross-section that is representative of Wendy’s customers outweighs cost. We do not want to draw incorrect conclusions by using a sampling method known to be inaccurate.

The life-cycle of a sampling plan is to define the population, choose a data-collection method, identify a sampling frame, select a sampling method, determine sample size, develop operational procedures, execute the plan (see McDaniel and Gates, 2008, p330). This specific assignment is to select and justify a sampling method. Our first decision is between probability samples and non-probability samples. McDaniel and Gates (p. 334) note that probability samples are better for obtaining a representative cross section of our population. Given the importance of the logo or brand character, we need to have the best representation we can get. The trade-off is cost but we should have a budget commensurate with the task.

Next, we must decide among the several probability sampling methods. I like the stratified sample because it has a smaller sampling error than the other methods (see McDaniel and Gates, 2008, p. 341). It is more efficient because it eliminates one of more sources of variation through the stratification process. The researcher is making the “sample be more representative by making sure that important dimensions of the population are represented in their true population proportion.”

Wendy's should stratify on country. According to Hawkins, et al (2007, p 40) cultural factors that like language, demographics, values and nonverbal communications can impact marketing communications. A cultural faux pas with a brand character or logo can make Wendy’s appear like confused Martians. Using country to stratify, I can also avoid the main drawback on stratified sampling – we usually don’t know in advance the proportions of the strata (see McDaniel and Gates, 2008, p. 342). However, Wendy's consolidated financial statements do have that information.

Finally, should the method be proportional allocation or disproportional allocation? In this case, the method should be proportional because it is easy to calculate the relative number of locations in each country to the total number of locations (p 342). Within each country (strata), do simple random sampling with a sample size proportional to the relative percentage for the country.

To collect the data, the store intercept survey type can be used (see McDaniel and Gates, 2008, p. 150). As a style of mall-intercept survey, it would share many of the same advantages and disadvantages. The interviewer can show proposed Wendy’s logos, explain and probe (p. 171). On the other hand, the respondent may be distracted, or in a hurry. Further, there is a greater opportunity for interviewers to select the people to interview in a non-probabilistic manner. Strict operational procedures should be defined.


References
Hawkins, Del, David Mothersbaugh and Roger Best (2007). Consumer Behavior. McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Hoovers (2009). Hoover's Profile: Wendy's International, Inc. Retrieved on June 7, 2009 from http://www.answers.com/topic/wendy-s-international

Johnson, E. (2009). Quantitative Research: Surveys & Sampling. Retrieved on June 7, 2009 from http://www.imc.wvu.edu/.

Keller, K (2008), Strategic Brand Management. Pearson/Prentice-Hall.

McDaniels, C and R Gates (2008). Marketing Research Essentials. John Wiley.

MSN Brand Audit

Microsoft Network (MSN), also known as LIVE is a distant 3rd in Web site traffic, behind Yahoo and Google. In most portal categories MSN aka LIVE is competitive; it is the search service where it lags far behind the leaders. My WVU survey reveals that neither MSN nor LIVE have much brand awareness as search services.

There is great opportunity for MSN to increase revenues, though, because Google is not a commanding presence in portal services other than search. Likewise, Yahoo is struggling to maintain operations and is unable to keep current with advancing technology. Neither Google nor Yahoo have Social Capital with the most lucrative audience for Web advertising, “Strategic Buyers.” Microsoft does and this is also an important audience to Microsoft because of its vulnerability to Open Source, Software as a Service and other future industry directions.

For the complete brand audit with all recommendations see Redmond Review MSN Audit

MSN Brand Exploratory

In a brand exploratory, Keller (2008, p 129) advises us to seek out prior research studies. EBSCOHOST has proved a valuable tool in this regards and analysis by Tancer, Rosoff and Chickakowski, among others provided real insight into the external, customer perceptions of the brand. In addition, Keller (p 129) recommends that interviews with internal personnel have a high payoff. While not able to do this, I did survey WVU students.

Products and Services
MSN/LIVE has two audience categories, the site visitors and advertisers. It has services for both. With MSN/LIVE, the most important audience is site visitors because without them, the advertisers will have no interest. The finding I have made in this brand exploratory is that site visitors like Google and Yahoo while advertisers like MSN.

External Perception of the Brand
According to Rosoff (2006, p 2), the MSN reputation suffers with site visitors. MSN has ranked last in a 2001 Consumer Reports customer satisfaction survey. Rosoff holds that MSN deploys technology for its own sake, which can decrease customer satisfaction with the site. He also finds that MSN editorial content needs improvement.

The MSN/LIVE search service is held to be full featured but the general public does perceive some deficiencies. It is interesting to note that both MSN and Yahoo used the same search engine, Inktomi, until 2004 when Yahoo bought Inktomi. Microsoft then developed its own search engine for MSN. Wall (2006, p 2) finds that MSN search does a poor job at link analysis and therefore its results have less relevancy than Yahoo or Google, as well as a bias to rank commercial sites too high.

Likewise, there are some areas of concern with Hotmail, be it called MSN or Windows LIVE Hotmail. Arrington (2007, p 1) finds that while it has an intuitive interface it has slow responsiveness. What is worse, MSN deletes all mail information every 30 days if the consumer does not login. Rafferty (2006, p 1) expressed concern with this policy when he lost important documentation as a result.

On the other hand, the general public holds MSNBC in high regards. IQ69 reports (2008, p 1) that MSNBC took the top spot in the University of Michigan American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) survey. However, the ACSI survey did note that there does not appear to be a clear differentiator between news services and the leading brands are bunched together.

One specific public of interest is “strategic buyers.” Large corporations have made significant investments in the Microsoft franchise. They have end-users trained on mission critical systems that use Microsoft technology. They have trained their help-desk staff on Microsoft technology. They probably have significant Microsoft investment in the server room and with their application development staff as well.

Most importantly, Microsoft has the social capital of existing, defined relationships that make transactions easy to accomplish. Microsoft sales teams visit “strategic buyers” periodically and promptly answer phone calls. Microsoft is very good at relationship marketing. Every sales team has an architectural engineer assigned to it with the mission of understanding the information technology plan of assigned corporations, their enterprise architecture and how to advantageously apply Microsoft technology to affect solutions.

Competitive Environment from an Exploratory Viewpoint
MSN Competitive Exploratory

Marketing Support from an Exploratory Viewpoint
MSN Marketing Support Exploratory

An MSN, Yahoo and Google Perceptual Map

References
Arrigngton, Michael (February 8, 2007). Tech Crunch. Retrieved on December 2, 2008 from http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/02/08/a-comparison-of-live-hotmail-gmail-and-yahoo-mail/all-comments/

Chickowski, Erica (02/08/2008). Brand Identities After a Microsoft and Yahoo Deal. Baseline. Retrieved on November 22, 2008 from http://www.baselinemag.com/c/a/Messaging-and-Collaboration/Brand-Identities-After-a-Microsoft-Yahoo-Deal/1/

IQ69 (August 14, 2008). Yahoo tops Google in customer satisfaction survey. Retrieved on December 2, 2008 from http://iq69.com/index.php/2007/08/14/yahoo-tops-google-in-customer-satisfaction-survey/

Keller, K (2008). Strategic Brand Management. Pearson/Prentice-Hall.

Rosoff, M (October 23, 2006). The Future of MSN. Directions on Microsoft. Retrieved on November 22, 2008 from http://www.directionsonmicrosoft.com/sample/DOMIS/update/2006/11nov/1106tfom.htm#top

Tancer, Bill (August 3, 2006). Google, Yahoo! and MSN: Brand Association. Hitwise Intelligence. Retrieved on November 22, 2008 from http://weblogs.hitwise.com/bill-tancer/2006/08/google_yahoo_and_msn_brand_ass.html

Wall, Aaron (June 13, 2006). How Search Engines Work: Search Engine Relevancy Reviewed. Search Engine Optimization. Retrieved on December 2, 2008 from http://www.seobook.com/relevancy/%23short

MSN Marketing Support Programs Exploratory

Keller (2008, p 131) emphasizes the importance of marketing support programs, especially for establishing the points of parity and points of difference. This is essential to moving to desired brand equity.

Place
Microsoft has a small problem with place for some of its MSN sub-brands. The introduction of the Windows LIVE brand for some of the MSN branded properties means there are two places to go for MSN services. As an example, consider MSN Search and Windows LIVE Search. You can go to http://www.msn.com to begin a search using Microsoft search technology, or to http://www.live.com/default.aspx?form=MSNH11 .

Both sites use the same search engines. Both parent brands are applied to the sub-brands. In most cases analysts such as Rosoff and Tancer refer to Microsoft Online Services using the MSN brand rather than Windows LIVE. 75% of my classmates prefer the Windows LIVE brand to the MSN brand and the remaining 25% are indifferent to Microsoft in general. Only 12.5% were aware of MSN as a brand.

Price
The pricing of site visitor services is free while the price advertisers pay is based on the type of ad and a bid process that incorporates click through rates in the costing algorithm. MSN is perceived to be fair in its pricing of advertising. Advertisers are in fact concerned about potential pricing abuse by Google and Yahoo.

According to Harrison (2008, p 1) 400 advertisers have filed a complaint against Google and Yahoo with the U.S. Justice Department. The Association of National Advertisers (ANA) comments that Yahoo and Google erode competition with the potential for higher advertising prices. In the final analysis however, Agarwal (2006, p 1) summarizes that while advertisers like MSN technology and price, they don’t plan to spend more with the search portal because it does not draw as much traffic as Google.

Promotion
Brandweek (2000, p 1) awarded MSN a Silver Award for its marketing tactic to sponsor the NYC Road Runners Club and the NYC marathon. As mentioned in section two, sponsorship is an important aspect of MSN marketing support. In addition, Carter (2005, p 1) commends MSN’s masterful incorporation of TV and online advertising with events to promote the MSN brand. MSN promotion is given high marks by external analysts.

Personalization
Elkins (2001, p 1) quotes ad execs, “MSN’s strategy of customizing ad programs to marketers’ specific needs is what company officials hope will give it an edge.” Thus personalization is another marketing support program tactic used by MSN. Furthermore, MSN personalization is held in high regard by advertisers.

References
Agarwal, Amit (May 03, 2006). Bloomberg spoils the MSN Advertising party in Redmond. Retrieved on December 2, 2008 from http://labnol.blogspot.com/2006/05/bloomberg-spoils-msn-advertising-party.html

Brandweek (04/03/2000). Silver Awards. Retrieved on November 24, 2008 from EBSCOHOST.

Carter, B (2/5/2005). MSN takes on Google with search engine launch. Marketing. Retrieved on November 24, 2008 from EBSCOHOST.

Harrison, Todd (September 8, 2008). Are Yahoo and Google playing Monopoly? Retrieved on December 2, 2008 from http://blogs.moneycentral.msn.com/topstocks/archive/2008/09/08/are-yahoo-and-google-playing-monopoly.aspx

Keller, K (2008). Strategic Brand Management. Pearson/Prentice-Hall.

Kirk, Jeremy (10/31/2008). Google introduces service-level guarantee for its Apps suite. Retrieved on December 2, 2008 from http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/10/31/google-introduces-service-level-guarantee-its-apps-suite

MSN Competitive Environment Exploratory

Ethical Concerns about MSN Paid Placement Tactics vice Google
McLaughlin criticized Microsoft MSN for its Paid Placement tactics while giving Google accolades (2002, p 116) for their class and morality. For Microsoft, she only says “others, like MSN, do a poor job.” MSN was charged with two counts: 1.) Mixing real content with paid placement to misinform users of its search engine with annoying search results; and 2.) Rigging search results (p 121-2) by low-ranking competitors, for example travel sites, while high ranking their own, like Expedia. Google gets high marks (p 117) in its handling of paid placement.

Paid Inclusion, different from paid placement, is a shakedown racket. Yahoo for example, charges $299 so its spider does not “miss” a company’s Website. Google firmly opposes Paid Inclusion (McLaughlin, 2002, p 123).

Google Offers Software as a Service and it has a Service Level Agreement
Kirk (2008, p 1) reports that Google is offering a service level guarantee for users of its Google Apps suite. This suite is a direct attack on Microsoft’s revenue stream and it is offered free, supported by advertising revenue. This Service Level Agreement is a move to attract corporate customers and Microsoft must address it with its own Software as a Service through MSN. Google does not have extensive social capital with corporate customers and this is an advantage Microsoft can leverage, at least for now.

Yahoo Struggling
Hardy (2006, p 1) notes that Yahoo is struggling to keep up with MSN and Google. The cost of keeping current with the relentless advance of technology is proving too much. The Associated Press (2008, p 1) goes on to say that Yahoo has deep concerns over its viability now that Google has withdrawn its offer to support Yahoo with advanced technology. Google made that offer during the recent Microsoft-Yahoo merger negotiations.

Content editors: MSN versus Google
Rosoff (p 2) notes that MSN is a destination site that supports edited content. MSN has skilled editors collate collections of information. Other MSN brands also use content editors to manage information collections germane to the brand. On the other hand, Google is merely a platform for visitors who want to set up their own links to information. This information can be aggregated from other web sites or from RSS feeds.

The advantage of content editors is that they can represent a community of interest (COI) and create and provide access to information specific to that COI. The COI then has a place to go for the information they need that has been vetted for relevance and credibility. It reduces the noise in their searches for information and increases the trustworthiness of what they do find.

Analysis of Search Service Offerings at Google, Yahoo and MSN
Google and Yahoo are the search portal market leaders today for an Internet characterized as an Aristocratic network. This is to say that a small number of nodes (like Google and Yahoo) are “super-connected” so that most people visit these sites. However, physicist Mark Buchanan’s report (2002, p 124-7) on mathematical studies of networks that show the phase of “super-connected” hubs (such as Google and Yahoo today) eventually gives way to more egalitarian networks from the simple processes of history and growth. Many nodes connect to Yahoo or Google as a start to searching out information. However, Buchanan’s conclusion on networks is that “Whenever limitations or costs eventually come into play to impede the richest getting still richer, then a small-world network becomes more egalitarian, as seems to be the case with airports and a number of other real-world networks.”

Niche search sites have established themselves as a brand. Today’s two largest super-connected nodes on the Internet, Google and Yahoo get the majority of advertising revenue. However, the trends in marketing may also be working against the continuation of the current aristocratic nature of the Internet.

Marketing is moving away from the mass advertising of the same message to a large audience. According to Duncan (2005, pp 211-212) the value of the Internet is the ability to send custom messages to highly targeted customer segments. The reach of a specific message to a small but coherent group is higher than a general and therefore mostly irrelevant message to a large group. As the ability to identify and verify audience characteristics for smaller, specialty sites improves, advertising revenue may shift from Google and Yahoo to this new direction.

The message to Google and Yahoo is that super-connected nodes don’t last. Just as the few air network super hubs gave way to geographically dispersed regional hubs, so will the Internet. In short, Google and Yahoo are vulnerable as Amazon is already exploiting. MSN, like Amazon, has the opportunity to move profitably into the future of software services, if it acts appropriately.

Finally, Yahoo is already fading fast. They foolishly rejected Microsoft’s overly generous offer earlier this year, and now on their own again they seem to have lost control. Their stock price has fallen from $30 per share six months ago to $8 per share today (see Yahoo, 2008b, p 1). Significant employees have left the company.

Mail comparison: Google the best
Agarwal (2007, p 1) compares MSN Mail, Yahoo Mail and Google Mail according to five characteristics: 1.) User Interface; 2.) Spam Controls; 3.) Storage Space; 4.) Speed; and 5.) Advertisements. His findings are that Google Gmail is the winner in four categories: 1.) Spam Controls; 2.) Storage Space; 4.) Speed; and 4.) Advertisements. Yahoo!Mail has the best User Interface. He also notes that the Windows LIVE Mail or MSN Hotmail has bugs in it, has poor performance and makes egregious use of advertising.

Site visitors prefer Google and Yahoo while advertisers prefer MSN
The Experian/Hitwise survey (see Tancer, 2008, p 1) clearly shows that site visitors prefer Yahoo and Google ahead of MSN for the search and portal services being offered. Advertisers, to the contrary, prefer MSN. Blank (2006, p 1) cites numerous media firms and marketing research companies that express a decided preference for Microsoft. However, as Agarwal (2006, p 1) notes, advertisers pay more for Google and Yahoo because of the higher traffic count.

References
Agarwal, Amit (May 03, 2006). Bloomberg spoils the MSN Advertising party in Redmond. Retrieved on December 2, 2008 from http://labnol.blogspot.com/2006/05/bloomberg-spoils-msn-advertising-party.html

Agarwal, Amit (February 05, 2007). Yahoo! Mail vs GMail vs Windows Live Mail. Retrieved on December 3, 2008 from http://labnol.blogspot.com/2007/02/yahoo-mail-vs-gmail-vs-windows-live.html

Associated Press (November 5, 2008). Google drops Yahoo advertising partnership. Retrieved on December 2, 2008 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27555004/

Blank, Christine (June 8, 2006). MSN Advertisers Report High ROI, Less Traffic. Retrieved on December 2, 2008 from http://www.dmnews.com/MSN-Advertisers-Report-High-ROI-Less-Traffic/article/91483/

Buchanan, Mark (2002). Nexus: Small Worlds and the Groundbreaking Theory of Networks. Norton.

Duncan, T (2005). Principles of Advertising & IMC. McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Hardy, David (May 18, 2006). Yahoo! advertising set to take on MSN and Google AdWords. Retrieved on December 2, 2008 from http://www.bigmouthmedia.com/live/articles/yahoo-ads-take-on-google.asp/2969/

Kirk, Jeremy (10/31/2008). Google introduces service-level guarantee for its Apps suite. Retrieved on December 2, 2008 from http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/10/31/google-introduces-service-level-guarantee-its-apps-suite

McLaughlin, Laurianne (2002). The Straight Story on Search Engines. PC World. Retrieved on November 19, 2008 from
http://www.pcworld.com/article/97431-5/the_straight_story_on_search_engines.html

Rosoff, M (October 23, 2006). The Future of MSN. Directions on Microsoft. Retrieved on November 22, 2008 from http://www.directionsonmicrosoft.com/sample/DOMIS/update/2006/11nov/1106tfom.htm#top

Tancer, Bill (August 3, 2006). Google, Yahoo! and MSN: Brand Association. Hitwise Intelligence. Retrieved on November 22, 2008 from http://weblogs.hitwise.com/bill-tancer/2006/08/google_yahoo_and_msn_brand_ass.html

Yahoo (2008). What is the combined market share of the Google, Yahoo! and MSN? Retrieved on November 15, 2008 from http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006032905387

Yahoo (2008b). Yahoo Six Month Staock Chart. Retrieved on November 23, 2008 from http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=YHOO&t=6m&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=

MSN Brand Inventory

According to Keller (2008, p 129), an inventory is a “supply-side” view of the brand. He also notes that an inventory profiles competitors to understand points of parity and points of difference.

Products and Services Offered
From 1995 through 2005, MSN was the umbrella brand for all online services offered from Microsoft (see Rosoff, 2006, p 1). Beginning in 2006, the Windows LIVE brand was introduced and applied to certain online properties with a goal of reinvigorating them to compete more effectively through association with the Windows brand name. For example, MSN Hotmail became Windows LIVE Mail, MSN Messenger became Windows LIVE Messenger, and MSN Search became LIVE Search. However, Rosoff (p1) goes on to note that several of the MSN brand names are category traffic leaders so that Microsoft decided to also keep the MSN brand for many online services.

Tancer (2008, pp 1-2) works at Experian, and uses the Experian categories for segmenting online services. MSN has a point of parity in each Experian category, with the exception of Sports, Employment, and Personality. In terms of total share of Internet visits, MSN captures 2.4% compared with Google at 7.7% and Yahoo at 13.2%. Both MSN and Yahoo have portal services that Google does not. SiteSeeker (2008, p 1) characterizes search as the dominant service in the competition between the three giants. Rosoff and Tancer have a more balanced perspective that includes a complete set of online services that draws traffic to the site.

In its SEC 10-K filing (see SEC, June 30, 2008), Microsoft characterizes its Online Services Business as an online advertising platform. This platform offers personal communication services such as email and messaging, the MSN portal, LIVE Search, MSN Hotmail, MSN Mobile Services, MSN Premium Web Services, MapPoint and MSN Internet Access. Here is a list of MSN properties with sufficient traffic to rank in the top four sites by category.



Now I will review the MSN services that attract advertisers to the site. There is a parallel set of products and services to support marketing efforts to advertisers, the paying customers for the MSN brands. Sterling (2005, p 1) reports that the MSN AdCenter product is well liked by advertisers. It has advanced demographic and psychograhic mapping capabilities that allow them to better target communications. Marketing Vox (2006, p 1) commended MSN on the high quality of its AdCenter platform.

To help advertisers optimize their return on investment with MSN, Microsoft now offers a training program and a certification credential. The training program instructs advertiser staff on different strategies and tactics to use for different marketing communications to different publics. Zol reports (2007, p 1) that this is important and needed for point of parity in the category. Keller (p 110) notes that MSN’s service is not required to be equal to Google to establish a point of parity but rather just “good enough.”

Finally, Microsoft offers a community forum to assist advertisers with their Web marketing through commentary by Web analytics experts, software development experts who talk about the ability to customize AdCenter services through application programming interfaces, and a variety of other topics. A typical example is Brian Eisenberg discussing the Seven Biggest Mistakes of Web Analytics (see Ad Center).

Links to other aspects of the inventory follow:
MSN Competitive Environment Inventory

MSN Marketing Support Programs

MSN Brand Hierarchy

Evaluating MSN against Keller's Six Criteria


References
Chickowski, Erica (02/08/2008). Brand Identities After a Microsoft and Yahoo Deal. Baseline. Retrieved on November 22, 2008 from http://www.baselinemag.com/c/a/Messaging-and-Collaboration/Brand-Identities-After-a-Microsoft-Yahoo-Deal/1/

Keller, K (2008). Strategic Brand Management. Pearson/Prentice-Hall.

Marketing Vox, (October 4, 2007). Ballmer Sees Ad Revenue as Microsoft's Future. Retrieved on November 19, 2008 from http://www.marketingvox.com/ballmer-sees-ad-revenue-as-microsofts-future-033446/

Rosoff, M (October 23, 2006). The Future of MSN. Directions on Microsoft. Retrieved on November 22, 2008 from http://www.directionsonmicrosoft.com/sample/DOMIS/update/2006/11nov/1106tfom.htm#top

Site-Seeker (2007). Search Engines. Retrieved on November 15, 2008 from http://www.site-seeker.com/seocompetition.cfm

SEC (June 30, 2008). Microsoft Corporation Form 10-K. Retrieved on November 19, 2008 from http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/789019/000119312508162768/d10k.htm

Sterling, Greg (March 17, 2005). MSN AdCenter. Search Engine Journal Retrieved on December 2, 2008 from http://www.searchenginejournal.com/msn-adcenter-joins-yahoo-and-google-in-search-advertising/1438/

Tancer, Bill (August 3, 2006). Google, Yahoo! and MSN: Brand Association. Hitwise Intelligence. Retrieved on November 22, 2008 from http://weblogs.hitwise.com/bill-tancer/2006/08/google_yahoo_and_msn_brand_ass.html

Zol, James (December 3, 2007). Google, Yahoo!, and MSN All Offer Accreditation Now. Semvironment. Retrieved on December 2, 2008 from http://www.semvironment.com/google-yahoo-and-msn-all-offer-accreditation-now/

MSN Competitive Environment Inventory

Market Share
According to Tancer (2008, p 1), the market share for Internet visits are:



Tancer goes on to breakdown the total visits into the Experian Web site segments as follows.

Click image to expand.


Market Segments and MSN Points of Parity
Chickowski (2008, p 2) notes that Yahoo, Google and MSN all offer similar services, although Google has been far more effective in establishing points of difference in services that attract high page hits. A chart of favorable brand salience with each group is based on the studies of Rosoff (2006), Tancer (2006), and Chickakowski (2008).

Microsoft can use this chart to map its competitive brand strategy for MSN/LIVE. As we will see in the next section, MSN has strong presence in the Editor Collated Content arena. I propose this area can be exploited to establish rich communications with strategic buyers by placing noteworthy Editor’s in a Corporate Governance line extension of MSN/LIVE. In addition, MSN has a valid point of presence in each category.

Like Yahoo, MSN has the same set of tools and applications as those provided by Google, according to Chickakowski (2008, p 2). Keller (p 110) notes that MSN’s service is not required to be equal to Google to establish a point of parity but rather just “good enough.” Finally, the Tancer (2006, p 1) study found that while Yahoo was considered as a destination site and Google as a search site, MSN/LIVE was both.

Click image to expand.


MSN Points of Difference
According to Rosoff (2006, p 2), MSN makes content available that is collated by editors who work for either MSN or an MSN content partner. As noted in sections one and four, my proposal is to create customized and searchable corporate governance collections for customers who are strategic buyers. They will be attracted to Editor Collated Content that has been customized for them and that regards corporate governance. This will not only create a rich communication with these wealthy buyers on MSN/LIVE and thereby enhance the MSN operations, but will also enhance the communications between Microsoft and these corporate clients, which are increasingly lured by Open Source and “Software as a Service” alternatives to Windows.

Another point of difference would be that Microsoft has major resources world-wide that it can utilize to provide customer assistance to strategic buyers. It has a skillful sales force that is accustomed to fulfilling demanding assignments. It has a well-organized support structure to disseminate information and software updates as well as a competent consulting arm (MCS) with a field-tested project methodology that has a proven record of success. Finally, Microsoft has stable relations with the corporate world, which makes negotiating and executing contracts straightforward. This is known as social capital.

References
Chickowski, Erica (02/08/2008). Brand Identities After a Microsoft and Yahoo Deal. Baseline. Retrieved on November 22, 2008 from http://www.baselinemag.com/c/a/Messaging-and-Collaboration/Brand-Identities-After-a-Microsoft-Yahoo-Deal/1/

Keller, K (2008). Strategic Brand Management. Pearson/Prentice-Hall.

Rosoff, M (October 23, 2006). The Future of MSN. Directions on Microsoft. Retrieved on November 22, 2008 from http://www.directionsonmicrosoft.com/sample/DOMIS/update/2006/11nov/1106tfom.htm#top

Tancer, Bill (August 3, 2006). Google, Yahoo! and MSN: Brand Association. Hitwise Intelligence. Retrieved on November 22, 2008 from http://weblogs.hitwise.com/bill-tancer/2006/08/google_yahoo_and_msn_brand_ass.html

Evaluating MSN against Keller’s Six Criteria

Keller (2008, p 140) uses six evaluation factors to study and define a brand image. The criteria are: 1.) Memorability; 2.) Meaningfulness; 3.) Likeability; 4.) Transferability; 5.) Adaptability; and 6.) Protectability.

Memorability
Keller (p 147) discusses brand name aspects that can increase memorability and awareness. Two important aspects are “simple to say” and “easy to spell.” That is the case with MSN and LIVE. A brand name should likewise be familiar and meaningful. MSN does have familiarity in that it is a contraction of MS Network or Microsoft Network. Windows LIVE also has associations with Microsoft. Both can thus draw on associations with Microsoft. Furthermore, Keller holds that the name should be distinctive. The word Network distinguishes MSN from Microsoft and the three-letter acronym nature of the brand name is an orthographic device to distinguish the name with linguistic characteristics (see Keller, 2008, p 152).

Meaningfulness and Likability
The MSN logo has rich meaning. The logo is a butterfly, which has meaning on several levels. Russell (2003, p 1) notes that it has long been a symbol of transformation. In the case of both Microsoft and its customers, the transition is to the new world founded by the Internet. Russell also holds that our fascination with the butterfly is because if it “mesmerizing beauty.”

For each market segment there are two types of MSN customer. The first is the site visitor who wants to use the services offered by MSN. The second are advertisers who want to communicate with the site visitors. MSN has a mantra for the advertisers: “Easy to sell, easy to buy.” Experienced advertising professionals at MSN make the mantra true in actual practice according to Cuneo (2003, p 1) in Advertising Age.

Transferability and Adaptability
Keller defines two aspects of transferability (pp 142-3). The first is the ability of a brand to transfer across categories. For example, how well do the Microsoft Network brand elements transfer to a news channel? Shepard (1997, pp 35-8) discusses the marriage of MSN and NBC into MSNBC one of the sub-brands in the MSN portfolio. She found Microsoft bringing Internet and technology credibility to the joint venture and NBC the news credentials and trust. This is still one of the most successful Internet news programs. The second aspect of transferability is to add brand equity across geographical boundaries. Again, Microsoft Network has done this. Koranteng (2004, p 1) observes “that Microsoft Network [has] presence in 40 countries.”

Keller defines Adaptability (p 143) as the brand elements capacity to address change over time in competitors, or in consumer tastes. Both have happened to Microsoft Network during its history. Its first competitor was AOL, America On-Line in the mid-1990s. As late as 2001, MSN had still not dispatched AOL as a portal competitor and the Seattle Times (2002, p 1) reports that Microsoft spent $300M in the launch of the Butterfly Logo as a campaign against a still powerful AOL. Since that time, AOL has faded as a portal site and now Microsoft faces two new powerful competitors in Google and Yahoo.

Their surprising success resulted in MSN losing its footing. However, it is now reorganizing and as Kafka (2008, p 1) reports is actually gaining market share on both Google and Yahoo in the early part of this year.

Protectibility
Keller categorizes two types of protection for brand elements: 1.) Legal; and 2.) Competitive. A logo such as the MSN Butterfly and the Microsoft Network brand name can be legally protected especially when unauthorized use is a bad faith attempt to mislead the public and misdirect trade and economic livelihood from a corporate body that has invested in that name for commercial purpose (see Wikipedia, 2008a, p 1). Trademarks and registered names also receive international recognition and protection.

References

Kafka, Peter (January 18, 2008). Nielsen: Google, Yahoo, Losing Search Share To MSN. (Not A Typo). Silicon Valley Insider. Retrieved on November 24, 2008 from http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/01/nielsen-google-yahoo-losing-search-share-to-msn-not-a-typo.html

Keller, K (2008). Strategic Brand Management. Pearson/Prentice-Hall.

Koranteng, Juliana (11/20/2004). MSN's Euro Moves. Billboard. Retrieved on November 24, 2008 from EBSCOHOST.

Seattle Time (October 14, 2002). Microsoft Puts $300 Million into MSN Internet Service Butterfly Campaign. Retrieved on November 24, 2008 from EBSCOHOST.

Shepard, Alica (March 1997). Webward Ho. American Journalism Review. Retrieved on November 24, 2008 from EBSCOHOST.

Wikipedia (2008a). Trademarks. Retrieved on November 24, 2008 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark

MSN Marketing Support Programs

Keller (p 131) observes that to achieve the ideal positioning of a brand and obtain congruence between what customers currently believe about the brand and what they will value in the brand, a strong supporting marketing program must be in place. Microsoft Network does have a strong marketing support program and it has evolved throughout its history. The products are listed above in section 2.1 and will be listed again in section 2.4 below on competitor analysis. The place is the Internet, now including mobile.

MSN has used a variety of promotional strategies over the past 14 years. Brandweek (2000, p 1) reported on a common marketing tactic for MSN, which is to sponsor events that can be reported and tracked on the Internet. Sponsorship is one aspect to MSN marketing support, and these events helped MSN prove the value of online tracking.

Carter (2005, p 1) describes how MSN incorporates TV and online advertising with events to promote the Microsoft Network brand. This work is coordinated by McCann-Erickson and is coordinated across countries. In the case of the launch of LIVE’s new search engine, the campaigns in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and Brazil were all synchronized.

Haar reports (1998, p 1) that in its early years, Microsoft had an annual $100M marketing budget for MSN. MSN does not advertise solely to generate site traffic. They also market to advertisers and Microsoft believes that its technical skill will give it a competitive edge. Finally, the MSN advertising engine can be customized for each advertiser, and so personalization is another marketing support program tactic.


References
Brandweek (04/03/2000). Silver Awards. Retrieved on November 24, 2008 from EBSCOHOST.

Carter, B (2/5/2005). MSN takes on Google with search engine launch. Marketing. Retrieved on November 24, 2008 from EBSCOHOST.

Haar, S (1998). MSN Holds Back Marketing Bucks Until 1999. Interactive Week. Retrieved on November 24, 2008 from EBSCOHOST.

Keller, K (2008). Strategic Brand Management. Pearson/Prentice-Hall.

Perceptual Map of MSN, Yahoo and Google

A Perceptual Map is a marketing tool to graphically compare consumer attitudes towards competitor companies. Most commonly, two salient characteristics of the market niche occupied by the companies are used to form a two dimensional map that shows how each company fares with the customers of that market segment.

Online services is becoming an important market segment for Microsoft. Marketing Vox (2007, p1) reports that Steve Ballmer, Microsoft CEO, sees advertising revenue earned by Online Services as contributing 25% of Microsoft’s business in future. Such advertising revenues will help support the Microsoft Cloud Computing initiative code-named Azure (see Mackey, 2008, p 1) and Software as a Service (SaaS) offerings.

Already its competitors are starting cloud computing and SaaS services that Gartner believes will soon be “good enough” (see Smith and Austin, 2007, p 1). The top two competitors to Microsoft MSN in Online Services are Yahoo and Google. There are two dimensions I propose to use in assessing corporate customer perceptions of these three largest Internet sites. The first is the market perception of the corporate services that are offered by each vendor.

The other dimension is social capital. As I have argued in the Open Source Gamblers Ruin posting (see Gambler's Ruin), “strategic buyers” are an important customer segment for Microsoft generally and the most profitable customer in terms of sales revenues. These customers are corporate and governmental organizations that would have a major impact on Microsoft if they shift away from Microsoft to its Open Source or Web Portal competitors because they are big buyers. A move like that would reduce Microsoft revenue while significantly enhancing that of its competitors. In addition, by being big buyers, they also attract advertisers so that they have significant meaning for MSN operations. Therefore, the second dimension in this perceptual map is the social capital each competitor has with corporate customers.

Buchanan (2002, 201-204) gives a laymen’s explanation of social capital as the “ability of people to work together easily and efficiently based on trust, familiarity and understanding.” In lieu of a formal survey, I will use the sales, marketing and consulting employee counts of each organization as a proxy for social capital thay have with large corporate customers. This seems reasonable; the greater the investment in marketing communications between one of the vendors and the corporate world it serves, the greater the social capital.

To calculate the correlation strength of each vendor in the social capital dimension, I normalize employee counts to a percentage by summing all employee counts and dividing the total count into each company count. The employee counts are derived from the SEC 10-K filings for each company. Here is the raw data:



Here is the relative percentage of employees dedicated to marketing communications and services in the three organizations, reflecting social capital strenths:



For the other dimension in this map, the portal corporate functionality, I will use Tancer’s market ranking comparison of the three sites that is published at HitWise. However, not all attributes Experian tracks are related to corporate interests. For example, sports, dating, games, personalities and music would not be. The following are the Search Portal characteristics I will use in the perceptual map: Portal Pages, Email Service, Search Engine, News/Media, Business Information, and Maps.

For the corporate portal functionality dimension, I use a balanced scorecard approach based on those rankings in Tancer’s survey. The notion is that the current market share ranking of each Web site reflects the market’s perception of the company’s ability in each of these categories: Portal Pages, Email Service, Search Engine, News/Media, Business Information, and Maps.

Here is the score card calculation based on rankings in those categories:



Here is the relative strength of each ranking factor:



Combining the Portal Functionality numbers with the social capital, we then get the following sets of coordinates for our perceptual map:



Here is a perceptual map based on those coordinates:





I included a desired point in the map that would reflect the combined strengths of Yahoo and MSN, which is what I believe Microsoft was after in its merger attempts with Yahoo.

References

Buchanan, Mark (2002). Nexus: Small Worlds and the Groundbreaking Theory of Networks. Norton.

Keller, K (2008). Strategic Brand Management. Pearson/Prentice-Hall.

Mackey, Kurt (October 27, 2008). Microsoft has head in the clouds with new Windows Azure OS. Retrieved on November 19, 2008 from http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081027-microsoft-has-head-in-the-clouds-with-new-windows-azure-os.html

Marketing Vox, (October 4, 2007). Ballmer Sees Ad Revenue as Microsoft's Future. Retrieved on November 19, 2008 from http://www.marketingvox.com/ballmer-sees-ad-revenue-as-microsofts-future-033446/

Rosoff, M (October 23, 2006). The Future of MSN. Directions on Microsoft. Retrieved on November 22, 2008 from http://www.directionsonmicrosoft.com/sample/DOMIS/update/2006/11nov/1106tfom.htm#top

SEC (12/31/2007). Yahoo Form 10-k. Retrieved on November 26, 2008 from http://apps.shareholder.com/sec/viewerContent.aspx?companyid=YHOO&docid=5760286

SEC (2/15/2008). Google Form 10-K. Retrieved on November 26, 2008 from http://www.secinfo.com/d14D5a.tvTt.htm

SEC (June 30, 2008). Microsoft Corporation Form 10-K. Retrieved on November 19, 2008 from http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/789019/000119312508162768/d10k.htm

Smith, D and Austin T (June 5, 2007). Microsoft and Google: Who's Going After Whom? Gartner Research, ID G00148622.

Taft, Darryl (October 10, 2007). Ballmer Talks Cloud, Advertising, SAAS. eWeek. Retrieved on November 19, 2008 from http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Enterprise-Apps/Ballmer-Talks-Cloud-Advertising-SAAS/

Tancer, Bill (August 3, 2006). Google, Yahoo! and MSN: Brand Association. Hitwise Intelligence. Retrieved on November 22, 2008 from http://weblogs.hitwise.com/bill-tancer/2006/08/google_yahoo_and_msn_brand_ass.html