You can find out more about Bryan Rahn and join in the discussion over on his blog at www.lifeintheblue.com.

________________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.inc.com/inc5000/2009/company-profile.html?id=200900350

Number 35 on the Inc 500 List – Diapers.com. I think this company could relate to the branding conversations we have been having.  Before you spend much time on the site, you should just go to the home page and write down your very first impressions: Diapers.com

• What does this site provide?
• Who is their target audience?
• What is the UVP of this site?

When I first saw the site on the Inc list, I thought, “I remember seeing them around online before. Do they really do that much business only selling diapers? But within just a few seconds of being on the site I can tell they provide all kinds of baby gear. The site feels very “soft” and friendly. Inviting and welcoming. From what I can gather, the target market of diapers.com is people with not a lot of spare time who are willing to pay well above Wal Mart prices for relatively simple baby gear. It seems to me like their UVP is that they can get you items fast. It is necessary that their items ship quickly, and they arrive within one day. Shipping is free over $49 or else it is $10.
So, I would pose the following questions –

1. Is diapers.com brandable?
2. Have they successfully branded themselves?
3. How does this relate to branding any of our sites?

In my opinion, yes, they have a brandable name. It doesn’t matter that they sell way more than diapers, but diapers.com is enough to let you know this is a site for baby gear. I think people buy from diapers.com because it is easy. We think that is a reason why a lot of people work with us, to avoid the red tape. It doesn’t really matter that they don’t just sell diapers. If people buy because of benefits, then the only real benefit of diapers.com is that they do not have to go to the store. This is similar to the benefit we provide, that they don’t have to go to a local lender, who may be less experienced.

It seems that diapers.com figured out that what people want the  most is to be able to avoid having to go to the store to buy baby gear, even at lower prices. We need to figure out what people want the most from us.

Do they want:

• specialists?
• ease?
• quickness?
• lowest cost?

A lot of people have avoided answering these questions due to the famous ‘boxes’ where we can try to catch all different kinds of people who want different things. But I think for actually ‘branding’ we have to have 1 simple answer to the question “Why do people want to use us?”  We have to find what the single thing potential buyers are most hung up, nervous or apprehensive about, and then be the answer to that problem. Much like diapers.com is the answer to people who don’t want to go to the store problem.

This is meant to be a collaboration so please by all means post your reply below.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Question of the Week:
Rupert’s News Corp Swings to $203 Million Loss

What does this make you think about? What can be done by people that know how to monetize online content? We know people won’t pay for what they can get for free. If major news sources are going to start charging where is the opportunity for free to make money? Is there an opportunity or are online newspaper readers astute enough to look past the ads? How long can newspapers sustain a free model before going bankrupt or changing century old techniques? How long can they sustain a paid model before losing readership?

Columbia Tribune has had Netflix ad pop ups for a long time now. I wonder how much they make? Where are all of the newspapers online aggregation spending going? Are they losing all of their money in the hard copy sales? Are journalists not a dime a dozen right now? The Missourian loses money year in and year out and the University is picking up the tab as a classroom expense.

“Murdoch said that the success of WSJ.com has proven to him that he can charge for content online, and thinks the pay model can be transferred across all of News Corp.’s Web properties”

Does the WSJ have the same news readership with the same disposable income to spend on other pay for news sites; especially if people are offering it for free?

Departing Questions:
Is there an opportunity in aggregating news and monetizing this content while still offering it for free to readers?

Is there an opportunity to learn how to monetize newspaper sites and offer a solution for these newspapers? Think CJ for newspapers?