Reinvigorating the Right Guard BrandI think they are on to something here. The sagging sales of the "Lad Mags" (accompanied by Maxim's drive to reposition itself) shows that the hedonistic, oversexed young male image is so last year. And that can't be bad.
This is a bold opening launch for Henkel to create a new consumer brand in the competitive bodyspray market, and in doing so, it is going against the grain of how bodysprays smell and have been marketed. Henkel is making a serious effort to extend the Right Guard franchise into new territory to help invigorate it.
"Right Guard is a great brand that has earned the loyalty of millions of U.S. men, including today's younger generation," says Koven. "We are saying that RGX is 'powered by Right Guard.'"
An Ignored Market: Maturing "Regular Guys"
With Henkel's encouragement to pursue innovation, Dial product managers conducted extensive market research to identify target consumers who were not currently using bodysprays, but who were open to the concept. "Current competitor bodysprays rely on marketing that is saturated with runaway sexual imagery," said Koven. "We believe their scents are overpowering for most women, and their consumers tend to be young teens on the prowl. We found that this positioning was a turnoff for many 'regular guys' who are a little older and more independent. Regular guys believe maturity and confidence can be better aphrodisiacs than an overwhelming fragrance. We are offering these guys crisper, cleaner fragrances that don't overpower. With RGX, they will get an 'air of confidence'™, not an air of arrogance."
The motivating tagline for RGX -- Are you ready to step up? -- also aims to capture young guys who are maturing. RGX television advertising features a confident young woman who educates on the qualities of a man vs. a boy, and how to have an air of confidence vs. an air of arrogance."
The CRB's new royalty structure begins at $.0008 per performance, retroactive to January of 2006. While that may not seem like a lot at first, the CRB decision defines "per performance" for Web radio as streaming one song to one listener.Obviously, this establishes an uneven playing field between Internet and broadcast radio. One might argue that "the difference in technology already establishes an uneven playing field." But that is the nature of the free market - that is what drives technological advancement. This regulation is, by it's very nature, Luddite.
Kurt Hanson, writing for his Radio And Internet Newsletter (RAIN), calculated that an average Web radio station that plays 16 songs per hour would owe 1.28 cents per listener per hour. And the more listeners per hour, the more royalty fees the station would have to pay, "in the ballpark of 100% or more of total revenues," according to Hanson.
The rates would continue to increase each year. In 2007, Web broacasters would owe $.0011, $.0014 in 2008, $.0018 in 2009, and $.0019 in 2010. Those royalty fees only cover the actual broadcast of the songs to listeners -- the station owners would also have to pay royalties to the performers as well.
The owners of SaveNetRadio.org claimed that a royalty fee of $.0011 would tally up to "about 1.76c per hour, per listener. A station with [an average of 500 listeners] would be hit with fees of $211 per day, $6,336 a month or $76,000 a year."
I want to go on record as adamantly opposed to the recent U.S. Copyright Royalty Board decision on fees paid by Internet music content providers. The small capital investment required for start-up of one of these operations has yielded a rich landscape of programming, which simply isn't available through terrestrial or satellite broadcasters. It is vitally important that this nascent industry be protected.
Please inform me of precisely where Congressman Rohrabacher stands on this issue, and what actions he plans pursuant to it.
Kevin L. Connors