Johnnie Moore is a marketing consultant and facilitator based in London. As well as 20 years of marketing experience he's trained in psychotherapy, NLP and Improv. Find out more at his blog.
Andrew Lark's more than 18 years experience of all facets of marketing, branding, sales and communications spans technology, Internet, telecommunications and consumer sectors. There he has led award-winning programs and teams for brands such as Dell, Sony, SBC, IDSoftware, Nortel, Microsoft and Sun. He is a thought leader and innovator on the convergence of brands, communications and social networking technologies. Find out more at his blog.
Jennifer Rice is a strategist and evangelist for relationship-centric brands. She brings 15 years experience in brand strategy, customer insight and marketing communications, and has worked with companies such as Microsoft, Verizon, Alcatel and Corning. Her current passion is exploring how brands are being impacted by blogs and other social technologies. Her company blog is What's Your Brand Mantra?
John Winsor is the author of Beyond the Brand: Why Listening to the Right Customers is Essential to Winning in Business and the Founder/CEO of Radar Communications, a consumer-centric consultancy. You can find out more about him at Beyond the Brand.
About this Insider
BrandShift explores key trends in branding such as customer
experiences, market conversations and social technologies. Our goal is to
help executives and brand managers evolve their brands to thrive in the new
customer-driven marketplace.
Snapcast on Microsoft debate over anti-discrimination
Rober Scoble wrote a very punchy blog post to Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, challenging the way the company backed off supporting some anti-discrimination legislation in Washington State. This struck me as a bit of a step change in corporate blogging - and something that will surely have an impact - one way or another - on perceptions of Microsoft.
I recorded a snapcast (ie a short podcast) with bloggers in Canada and Australia. Details here. Snapcast here: MP3 (12m31s)
I had a conversation with a friend of mine who is a marketing executive at an outdoor products company last week. It seems, he had some extra time on his hands so stopped by a retailer to watch his customers in action. He watched as a few people drove up in their BMWs and dropped $500 buying some of his gear. As he observed his customers, he felt a little uncomfortable.
He said it wasn’t until a kid, who looked like a river guide, walked in with a bunch of clothing to return that he began to feel comfortable. It seemed that many of the things he was trying to exchange would not fit him. In fact, my friend thought that it was even possible the river guide had stolen some of the clothing.
My friend told me that after the experience he felt horrible because he could relate to the river guide spending absolutely no money better than he could to the customers dropping $500 on his equipment.
Do you love your customers or who you want your customers to be?
What happens to a brand when the underlying business model goes away?
Take Leica, for example. I've spent some time as a fine arts photographer and hold on to my Leica M6 camera as a symbol of those creative times. I love the Leica brand! But, as everyone else has, I've jumped on the digital photography bandwagon.
Over the last couple of years, I have contemplated selling my Leica equipment. Every time I come close a camera dealer tells me that I might as well hold on to it because it's such a highly regarded brand that the price will never go down among it's followers.
So, imagine my surprise when I dropped by Mike's Camera in Boulder over the weekend and asked the same question. This time the answer was different, "I'd get rid of that stuff unless you are planning on using it for a door stop!" According to the salesman, Leica is in trouble. He continued by saying that he had personally sold 80 cameras in the last month, three of them film. (Two of those being bought by students who had to purchase a film camera for a class.)
I guess this isn’t a shocker. All of the photography brands, Kodak, Leica and FujiFilm, who were late to the digital party, have a lot of catching up to do. It doesn’t matter what industry you are in or how much your current customers love your brand, anyone of us could wake up one morning and be irrelevant.
So, what can a company do? It seems the only alternative is to hold nothing as sacred, jump in the stream of change and begin to co-create innovation with customers, suppliers and even competitors. In this networked world, things move much too fast to not be involved in the change that’s happening around you.
I was approached by a writer at The Irish Times who's writing an article on content co-creation. So I gave my two cents and, like any good co-creation proponent, I suggested that I post the interview on my blog so that he could get additional input through readers' comments and trackbacks. Deadline is tomorrow, so please join the conversation that's happening in the comments sections. It's broken into four parts: Revolution, Motivations, Control and Balance.
I was recently alerted to this post at Marketonomy that talks about brand definitions. More specifically, Christopher delves into why I shouldn't offer my definition of a brand, and why my definition is wrong. (Side note: why don't people use trackbacks? it's the best way to keep a conversation going... but I suppose that's another rant for another day.)
So this looks like it could turn into a juicy debate. Let's get started.
First, Christopher highlights the following quote from me:
"My definition of a brand is an idea in the minds of your customers... and that idea is formed by what you say and what you do."
And then he comments:
(First) let's just parse the framing of this definition. It is "My definition". Not "the definition". "My definition". What, exactly is the purpose of a "definition" if its meaning can be determined individually? How do you transfer knowledge about a thing, if the meaning of the thing can be arbitrarily open to interpretation? We MUST stop treating such bedrock professional concepts as a blank page for waxing philosophical about meaning... Apparently we marketers don't know how build equity for our brand.
Christopher, you're right on. There are far too many definitions of 'brand' floating around. I noted over a year ago that (according to Jargon Universe) "there are 37 (37?!) definitions for brand ________, some of which I've never heard of. Brand personality. Brand promise. Brand fingerprint. Brand sense. Brand signature. Brand voltage. Brand commitment. Etc. etc. etc. And we wonder why there's confusion about the concept of branding?"
And yes, here I am adding fuel to the fire with my own definition. Not only that, but supposedly I've committed a double sin: I've proposed a definition that's incorrect. Christopher says,
There is a legal definition, and legal status for the concept of a brand. You own it. You can buy it and sell it. There are laws to protect it. Not one of these commercial facts applies to the concept of "an idea in the mind of your customer". Your brand is your logo, your name, your trade dress. Everything going on in the mind of your customer is derivitive and distinct. Call it brand image. Call it brand reputation. It is not your brand.
What I find interesting is that Christopher pokes holes in my definition but doesn't offer up his own, other than to say it's something that a company owns. I'm not sure what the "legal definition" is. Perhaps he doesn't want to muddy the waters with his own definition, which would be consistent with his earlier argument. The way I see it, the only way we can all agree on a definition is if several get thrown on the table, debated, massaged, and one is selected. We can't just throw up our hands and say that there are too many definitions and "we need clarity" without doing something about it.
(A tangent on "legal definition"... many traditional marketing concepts are shifting over time. This blog is titled BrandShift because many of us in the branding profession believe that the traditional way of viewing branding is no longer effective in the emerging networked economy. On a related note, the AMA recently offered up a new definition of marketing. This 'definition evolution' isn't because we're a fickle group; it's because changing times, dynamics and social structures demand it.)
OK, back to the rationale behind "brand as an idea."
Let's take a fictional character called Joe Shmo. Joe works hard to cultivate a reputation as a smart, well-connected and savvy business professional. He believes that these qualities represent his personal brand. Unfortunately, those who know Joe say he's overly opinionated, boorish and irritating. They believe that's Joe's brand. Who's right? Joe, or those who know Joe?
The answer is, both are right. Christopher would say that others' opinions represent 'brand reputation,' not the actual brand. I say that a brand is worthless without understanding how the brand is perceived in the marketplace. A brand is the ultimate co-created corporate asset. You cannot quantify brand equity without calculating the premium that someone is willing to pay for that brand... and the willingness to pay a premium stems directly from customers' perceptions about that brand.
What Christopher is defining as brand is really an intention. Joe Shmo intends -- and hopes-- that others will perceive him the way he wishes to be perceived. The intention does not have intrinsic value. The real value is created (or destroyed) when the customer intersects with that intention and forms an opinion about it.
So back to the definition in question. "A brand is an idea in the minds of your constituents. That idea is formed by what you say (marketing) and do (operations)." Yes, what you say and do is under your control; this is the part of the brand that you own. But the other half of the brand is how your intention is perceived. The magic in co-creating a brand with your customers is that it requires dialogue and behavior modification to ensure that the brand in your eyes is actually the same brand as seen through the eyes of others.
I welcome your thoughts on the subject. I'm not saying I'm right; but I do believe that this holistic, ecosystem view of the brand is more on track with reality than the traditional company-centric approach.
[Update: I discovered this article by Christopher in BusinessWeek that states that a brand is the name and logo. Hmm. In my world, that's called "brand identity." There are brand identity specialists who will design a logo for you. They do not do branding or brand strategy. But now we digress into the world of semantics.]
It dies. At some point it just dies. Is Verizon next on the block? Reading comments by their CEO in the San Francisco Chronicle this weekend you can't help but think so.
""Why in the world would you think your (cell) phone would work in your house?" he said. "The customer has come to expect so much. They want it to work in the elevator; they want it to work in the basement."
Saying this in a market with the most appalling cell phone coverage I've ever encountered is a little rich. When will CEOs realize that they are the most visible face of the brand? And that we now have unbelievable choice and power.
One of the most telling moments of the hour occurred just as the meeting opened when Nachison and Peskin put a slide up of Craig Newmark and asked how many people in the room of several hundred recognized him or his name. Only a smattering of hands rose. A few more hands went up at the mention of Craigslist and its free classifieds.
Nachison reminded the editors that the competition of Craigslist didn't grow out of a business model, but arose more spontaneously from Newmark's desire to create a community of trust - the same trust newspapers are struggling to regain.
Jarvis also spotlights this comment by Andrew Nachison
The bigger point was trust - and that there's someone "out there" who has built a business at the expense of newspapers not by trying to compete *against* anyone, but by trying to help others.
The business followed Craig's authentic devotion to helping people find each other in a trusted environment.
There's serious food for thought here for a lot of brands beyond newspapers.
Microsoft has scored Volvo as a sponsor of MSN Spaces... like they really need the money... but I guess there is nothing like a little commercial validation.
"As the Web becomes more personal, what is the right way for the advertiser to integrate itself into an increasingly personal experience?" asked Gayle Troberman, MSN's director of branded entertainment and experiences team. "Once a user chooses to go to a branded experience -- the advertiser is not just creating an impression, they are creating an advocate."
I'm not sure that by embracing an offer that uses advertising to make money actually makes us brand advocates... We do by default, but not by intent. Maybe that's a reason not to use MSN Spaces - the fact you don't get to choose who is advertising in your personal space. Or maybe they could make that a feature - in a bizzare way that might actually use some of the power of the blogosphere (self publishing and democracy) to drive - sorry for the pun - better products and ads to the forefront.
Pushed live as a Beta test in December, the MSN Spaces concept, which provides anyone with an easy way to start a personal Web log, has proven wildly popular. MSN said 4.5 million people -- or more than a million a month since testing began -- signed up to use the free feature.
William Safire wrote a thoughtful On Language column yesterday in the New York Times, where he stated:
In a world where the words new and fresh are relentlessly repeated on every product label, the name of the sales technique is getting old and stale. Where is the ad-Übermensch, the creative Ogilvy, who will put forward a new moniker for the name of the atmospheric marketing game? The time has come, as John Kerry puts it, to unbrand the word brand.
The working title for my book Beyond the Brand was Unbrand and at the time, many involved in the project thought that such a title would be too radical. Now, a year later, I feel, more than ever, like Safire is right. The word brand has started to loose it's magic through overuse. Is there another word that captures the same concepts? If so, what is it?
I've just posted over at 173 Drury Lane about a fascinating article by Judi Bevan in The [UK] Sunday Times of April 3: How Davis lost the Sainsbury throne. It recounts how Sir Peter Davis was fired as Chairman of the supermarket chain Sainsbury's, as well as touching on the issues Justin King, the new CEO, has had to deal with. Apart from being a highly engaging, if gossipy, tale, it's a good example of how human relationships and their weaknesses are at the core of any business, for good or ill. And further evidence that your brand in the public eye will be shaped by a lot more than just your polished, official communications.
This time with a twist... it seems another journo was being paid to do political reporting on the side has been busted and fired. But apparently Purcell disclosed his 'night job':
He said he disclosed the environmental state contract to the Herald and got clearance from the state ethics commission. His state contract pays $60 per hour, with a maximum of $10,000.
So what's the problem?
So what's the issue? If Purcell was reporting on the people or organizations paying him to also craft op-eds and assist in other writing then there clearly is a massive conflict of interest. A bit like an industry analyst being paid for consulting by a company and then writing suposedly independent reports on that company and the industry.
But if Purcell wasn't, what's the harm in taking a 'night job' - I think they call it freelance work. (I'm being facetious). Is the implication of much of the commentary on this that a journo can only do freelance work inside the profession - other reporting?
Where this is different - and Malkin gets at this albeit with an extreme parallel - is that this is in effect a Government subsidy. She says, "government subsidies for conservative columnists are as odious as government subsidies for crucifix-defiling "artists". She's getting at the perception issue:
Do we really need another paid partisan hack to confirm what the liberal MSM already unfairly assumes of all conservatives in the media--that we're all on the payroll of the Republican Party and incapable of independent journalism?
Two things here. First, the Herald's initial response was shameful. This guy should have been shown the door the second his government payoff became known.
Second, the conservative wing of the blogosphere has been all too silent to the poisoning of journalistic integrity represented by this example and others like it. (There are exceptions, I'm glad to say.)
This needs to stop if the media - the whole media - are to retain credibility. And the same standards need to be extended to the world of analysts. The same rule applies whether it is a corporate or government subsidy.
Media and analysts need to recognize that there is a difference between transparency and opacity. Behavior like this drives opacity, even when disclosing the details in advance with the intent of being transparent and ethical.
Microsoft Canada announced the creation of the Child Exploitation Tracking System (CETS), which is helping international law enforcement stop those who prey on children online.
"Our vision is to support more effective child-exploitation policing by enabling collaboration and information sharing across police services," says David Hemler, president of Microsoft Canada. "The tracking system will serve as a repository of information and will also be used as an investigative tool."
Using CETS, police agencies can manage and analyze huge volumes of information in powerful new ways, such as cross-referencing obscure data relationships and using social-network analysis to identify communities of offenders.
"CETS has helped police catch up with cyber-criminals on the Internet," Sergeant Paul Gillespie says. "The product has exceeded my wildest dreams. I have also been impressed by Microsoft Canada and their passion to do the right thing. I am overwhelmed with their sense of responsibility."
I continue to be pleasantly surprised with the work Microsoft is doing to become a "kinder, gentler" brand. So far they've spent almost $4 million on CETS (pocket change, I know) and plans to spend more as it rolls out globally. I hear many execs asking, "what's the ROI on social engagement? Connecting with customers? Being ecologically aware?" etc etc. Here's the ROI: people will like you. I know, that's rather simplistic and touchy-feely. But how do you put a dollar value on being liked and appreciated? What are the odds of people doing business with a company they genuinely like, versus with the many closed-off companies that are just focused on making a buck? Unfortunately there's no scientific model to prove this. We'll just have to wait for more companies to start demonstrating that the theory works.
Interesting read over at Slate on this week's media wars.
This week two giant companies took extraordinary efforts to gin up more favorable press coverage. GM, the largest automaker, said it would yank its advertising from the Los Angeles Times—the largest paper in the nation's largest car market—because it was unhappy with the Times' coverage. And Wal-Mart, which generally treats the press like a dead fish, invited reporters to its Bentonville, Ark., bunker for a media day. - Daniel Gross
I've been in their shoes before - both with media and analysts. Respect for independent journalism or analysis shouldn't come with a requirement to support that "reporting" with advertising dollars. I'm surprised more companies don't exercise their right to not fund views that don't agree with.
It's interesting that, even in the Slate story, there is an implication that advertising dollars result in a more compliant media - and that this is the intent of these companies. Maybe so. But maybe these companies just don't want to fund those views they regard to be as unfair or inaccurate. Or, whose bias they accept but don't agree with and don't want to fund. The implicit assumption in the media's argument is that journalists and their editors are fair, professional and without bias. Which as we have seen in the last year couldn't be further from the truth. Now I'm not attempting to brush all journalists with the same brush. There are many great reporters who are ethical, fair and accurate. There are many companies of a similar ilk.
Where the Slate story is right is that if companies engage in these kinds of activity with the belief they can influence the analysis or reporting, they are generally wrong. Vengence would be stupidity in this instance. Especially when it comes to Big Media. All they are likely to do is aggravate the situation.
For embattled executives, it's easy and convenient to think that the media—not their business model or management—is the problem. Morgan Stanley CEO Philip Purcell, fighting off an attempted coup, told the Financial Times today that the challenges will go away if the media stop quoting the dissidents. - Daniel Gross
The morals here for communicators are common ones - pick your battles carefully and get your own house in order before criticizing another. And be clear on what you are trying to achieve - are you trying to punish the media, make a point or simply not fund a point of view? If it's the last of these, you'd better prepared for a long hard road and one heck of a lot of confusion as to your motives. If it's the first two, there are much better ways of achieving your goal.
Either way, how you behave in responding to and dealing with the media says a great deal about your brand. Not only it's quality and integrity, but it's current status and challenges. Perhaps the very act of media relations needs to be considered more carefully by brandistas as a powerful influencer of the brand?
Network television audiences are down as cable, the Internet and a host of other new technologies emerge; and marketers are shifting their dollars accordingly. The media world faces an interim of chaos before a new order is determined. The co-host of On the Media delivers his take.
After listening to the show it made me think more about the uneveness of change. While those of use who work in the "New Media" realm view the world of marketing optimistically, those that live in the paradigm of the "Old Media" view these changes pessimistically and cling to their worldview with every once of energy they have.
TOC brings up a good point in a comment on my last post Finding Balance. TOC ends the comment by stating, "Anyone who thinks the era of corporate asshoes is ending, isn't paying attention."
So my question is, are we all here living in a bubble thinking that the world of business is changing?
Are the concepts of co-creation, transparency, balance and fluidity all things we see through rose colored glasses or is there a real change happening in the nature of business?
My sense is that there is a real change occuring. From the clients I work with at Radar including HP, Nike, Patagonia and Unilever plus companies I've interviewed for both Beyond the Brand and Spark, such as, Stonyfield Farms, Lego and Herman Miller there is a shift going on.
Companies that are focusing on co-creation, transparency, balance and fluidity with engaging both their employees and customers are finding it easier to suceed in today's environment.
I'd love to get everyone else's feedback on this. Are we drinking our own cool-aid or is there something happening here?
I interviewed Matt Jacobson, VP of Quiksilver Entertainment for Spark. Matt's done a terrific job of connecting the Quiksilver brand to their customers in a unique way using media. More importantly, he has a wonderful take on the importance of balance and fluidity, hard things to find in today's world. Here's what Matt has to say:
"I was at Disney for four years and NewsCorp for almost thirteen years and then I went to Broadcom, so I worked in the semi-conductor space for a little bit and then I came to Quiksilver. One of the things that’s been great for me – one of the things that’s really great about this company – is that it’s all about balance. I think that corporate America is changing one company at a time and things that are important to people now are different than what was important to people fifteen to twenty years ago – where before it was about power, prestige, money – now people who are savvy and understand who they are as people are really much more into a kind of balance, the balance of lifestyle.
It’s the balance between life and lifestyle – or work and lifestyle – I think that’s what this company is really about. So I think I’ve become a much more centered, more balanced person, because I’ve been able to pursue something that I believe in. It’s holistic approach to the way we do business. The era of bullies and assholes is over.
The way we go about doing business, by finding partners we like to work with, putting all of our wood behind a couple of arrows. The kind of fluidity that comes from how we pick and choose our partners our projects makes for a healthier company and a healthier person."
Can we all find more balance and fluidity by rethinking our relationships with our customers and team members, becoming healthier brands and people, in the process?
Last Friday, I interviewed two of the the founders of Zopa, a new organisation that is a kind of "eBay for Money". Zopa is a British company that creates a new market for individuals to lend and borrow money, bypassing the banks altogether. Zopa makes a 1% charge for matching up borrowers and lenders and provides essential infrastructure to support the lending process.
This interview gives some great insights into the vision behind Zopa, a brand which I think is a radical new departure in financial services.
It will be very interesting listening for anyone who has followed the long discussion here about co-creation.
I was excited by what Zopa is up to, and this interview gives some great insights into the innovative thinking behind the organisation.
The interview lasts just under 33 minutes and features Zopa's CFO, James Alexander and its Inventor, Dave Nicholson. My apologies for occasional lapses in sound quality - I think you'll find James and Dave well worth listening to.
0.20 Dave Nicholson explains Zopa is a lending-borrowing exchange, aiming to give borrowers and lenders more control over their finances. "We're not a bank... we're a way for people to lend and borrow money between themselves"
1.03 James Alexander emphasises that Zopa is an idea that is likely to adapt. They are at the beginning of a journey.
2.50 James: the core idea is about people trusting people with money
3.40 James: "99% of people are good and 1% of people are bad. Here is an industry that's set itself up to serve the 99 but through lens of the 1% that's bad. And what we'd much rather do is... create a sort of perimeter fence to keep the 1% out and then let the people within (be in) a much better position to work out how they exchange and what the appropriate rates are and what the appropriate products are... work that out for themselves...
...The central planning, product management role of the world shouldn't exist... why does someone sitting in a head office somewhere who's a product manager design products for everybody when people are better able to do that for themselves..."
4.40 Johnnie talks about fear and greed as the main levers used in traditional financial marketing and explores how Zopa breaks this pattern. James talks about how Zopa research showed how people wanted more control over how they transact. He says Zopa uses new technology to support an old idea: people lending people money; and talks about how people might be able to lend to specific communities or for specific causes.
7.40 Johnnie contrasts the exploratory style of Zopa with conventional marketing. Dave and James talk about the importance of customer feedback in shaping Zopa's approach. There's a discussion of the role of bloggers in this process. James says he is "stunned by the speed of response from blogs" and the "depth and quality of the input" If this had been paid for like traditional consulting advice, it would have cost "thousands if not hundreds of thousands of pounds."
10.20 How does Zopa contrast with egg, where Dave and James worked before? How did the idea start? They talk about how the idea of "eBay for Money" came into being, meeting the needs of consumers who want more control, and looking at why companies get better financial deals than invididuals.
14.25 Where might this evolve to? James reveals that they don't think of themselves as a financial services company. Their first move might be into social lending, moving on from setting loans only by term and risk category. What if you wanted to support, eg, social housing in Liverpool? The customers themselves could decide what markets to work with. There's a plan to expand into the US, where there is already a team at work for Zopa.
17.20 Johnnie talks about the possibility of using Zopa to help people currently trapped by money lenders with high interest rates. That this might offer him more incentive than just a better interest rate. James comments that Zopa hasn't so far emphasised the idea of customers becoming bankers themselves, but they could allow this idea to evolve. The opportunity for Zopa might not be in the prime market.
19.52 The theme of co-creation, where customers help to define the product. Dave gives one example of the sort of customer interaction they want to help build. James elaborates on the theme of co-creation and how, for instance, they are hoping to reinvent the way risk rating is done, getting away from credit-scoring... a system that denied their own CEO a mobile phone account! He talks about how eBay's system for assessing trust offers pointers to a quite different approach. Zopa wants to develop more human ways to help borrowers and lenders evaluate risk. "Zopa is a trust entity, that's all it is" Zopa shares credit ratings with customers, a different attitude from the banks.
25:50 James talks about the challenge of offering freedom of information while keeping a simple user experience.
26:25 The subject of "freeformers" is discussed. This term describes a growing group of consumers who distrust institutions and emphasise creating new ways to live lives that accord more with their values. James talks at some length about what Zopa understands about the needs of this group, based partly on ethnographic research in finding out what customers really want (in contrast to conventional market research). He believes these freeformers have needs that simply aren't satisfied by conventional banking.
31.30 James talks about how Zopa's own people are freeformers, often working more as consutlants rather than employees. Johnnie relates this to the attitudes of many bloggers.
Regina Miller points (with appropriate disdain) to this event: Chaos in the Public Square offered by Harvard Business School Publishing Conferences. (And I thought it was only advertising agencies that had ridiculously long names; but if I were at HBS I'd be happy to be two additional words away from a direct association with what follows).
The blurb is a great example of really dreary communication. First off what's with this new phrase "corporate speech"? Is that what used to be called PR in less complicated times? I wonder if they really mean "corporate drone", as eloquently fingered by Cathy Moore in her blog. This promo page seems like a pretty good example of it, with such gems as
In this forum we will tackle the contentious issues – not to advocate one side or the other but to define the parameters of the new reality
In short, the rules of corporate speech have changed -- and continue to change – making life turbulent in the executive suite.
How do you craft a strategic approach for navigating the new terrain?
Hmm, interesting theme here of "chaos in the public square" and "turbulence" in the exective suite. Sounds like some folks are terrified by what strikes me as an exciting time for engaged, informed public debate.
I was also intrigued at how they define their target audience:
Director and above management who are directly responsible for the public persona of the company
which strikes me as laughably sycophantic. Basil Fawlty was more direct; he ran an ad that just said "no riff raff". Why don't they just come clean and say "This is an important conference that only important people will understand".
Seriously, if the organisers haven't woken up to the fact that EVERY EMPLOYEE is responsible for the public persona of a company then they need to go to a conference themselves. And not this one.
Jennifer Rice
Andy Lark
Johnnie Moore
John Winsor
