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.
It's time for you to understand the role of media beyond advertising. Adage gets right to the heart of the issue on the escalating practice of pulling advertising based on media bias...
The primary reasons for advertisers to invest in any media product should be the bond that product has with its audience and the relevance of that audience as a marketing target. Such relationships are often based on trust and credibility. Tools such as ad-pull policies can damage that credibility. They make clear to editors and publishers that if they don't create an editorial environment friendly to a marketer's message, the money will go elsewhere. - AdAge
Moreover, it's time for all PR teams to get ahead of this issue by briefing both their procurement functions and media buying teams on media policies and editorial. This issue could easily be corrected by a little education... I feel for the communicator that once jumped by this issue, then has to manage it.
A separate story points to thinking gone astray: "The memo cites a new BP policy document entitled "2005 BP Corporate-RFP" that demands that ad-accepting publications inform BP in advance of any news text or visuals they plan to publish that directly mention the company, a competitor or the oil-and-energy industry."
BP says: "This is not meant to be Draconian or to influence coverage. We are just asking for a head's up" about a cover story about the oil industry. We never asked to read [editorial] copy in advance."
Um, if you aren't going to influence coverage why do you need to know at all? Of course the intent here is to influence coverage by pulling advertising from unfavorable editions. This is nothing short of reprehensible however innocent it might seem.
Brands are dependent on a free media environment. One in which Darwinistic forces exit and incompetence, poor quality and hubris can be punished or exposed. Trying to manipulate this environment so overtly is incredibly short sighted.
As an aside, this points to the prevailing environment in which media buying teams rarely speak to communications teams. Any PR team worth their salt could let the media buying team know which stories are in play with which publications.
Saying that I'm going to indulge in what might be seen as hypocrisy - but isn't. I've been a big advocate of companies not funding media or analysts that they deem to be unfairly reporting on them - the media have a right to free speech as much as companies have to free investment of marketing dollars.
But only in the most extreme circumstances and only where all other channels have been exhausted. And on this basis the GM action against the LA Times might be warranted.
Implementing this as a standard operating practice is just plain wrong and amounts to a futile attempt to manipulate the media. Shame on anyone who attempts to do it and good on AdAge for calling it into question.
One of the key features proponents of the GoogleNews brand have put forward is it's lack of bias. Machines do the work to assemble stories from media outlets that are, well, biased. It seems that GoogleNews might not be as clean as it seems.
A study by USC Annenberg School for Communication suggests that "Articles returned by Google News tend to be significantly more biased in one direction or the other than articles from Yahoo News." And that non-traditional news sources are a cause of that bias. Some background:
Google News, still in beta three and a half years after its launch, tracks the top stories on some 4,500 English-language news sites, updating its index roughly every 15 minutes. The ability to effectively search this huge collection of timely information has helped make Google News one of the Internet’s most popular news portals, drawing about 5.9 million visitors a month... Ranking news stories based on some measure of quality may be a step in the right direction, but to maintain its credibility, Google News needs transparency – both in its selection criteria and its list of sources.
First it was Carley's comments at a graduation - now it's Pepsi with CEO Indra Nooyi making inflamatory remarks regarding America's role in the world today:
After talking of her childhood back in India, Ms. Nooyi began to compare the world and its five major continents (excl. Antarctica and Australia) to the human hand. First was Africa - the pinky finger - small and somewhat insignificant but when hurt, the entire hand hurt with it. Next was Asia - the thumb - strong and powerful, yearning to become a bigger player on the world stage. Third was Europe - the index finger - pointing the way. Fourth was South America - the ring finger - the finger which symbolizes love and sensualness. Finally, the US (not Canada mind you) - yes, you guessed it - the middle finger. She then launched into a diatribe about how the US is seen as the middle finger to the rest of the world. The rest of the world sees us as an overbearing, insensitive and disrespectful nation that gives the middle finger to the rest of the world. According to Ms. Nooyi, we cause the other finger nations to cower under our presence.
Pepsi has posted a comment and a copy of her remarks. The blogosphere is wound-up on this one. Frankly, it isn't a great speech, it's geographically incorrect, the metaphor doesn't work and is offensive, and the comments are definitely controversial...
It breaks most of the rules of effective public speaking, some of which are - ensure your content, tone and comments are in line with your brand - both personal and company; ensure the topic illuminates the brand and doesn't detract from it; focus on subject matter that is relevant to your message; use clean and clear metaphors that aren't so multilayered that they cloud the content and your message... the list is a long one. What did Pepsi hope to gain from speaking on this topic?
Aside from all that, there is another lesson here for all communicators in that the blogosphere is an incredibly powerful medium for distributing executive's remarks, and stimulating debate on them - so much more than conventional media.
Brands are being shaped at wire-speed in the blogosphere. Having a blog might not just be a proactive communications tactic but also vital for reactive communications. Rather than the staid press release or statement, imagine a Pepsi blog right now with dialgoue taking place and Indra engaging with the enraged community of Pepsi drinkers. She might even rally a few supporters along the way.
Transparency and open dialogue would have enabled a much better response to an unfortunate metaphor.
Yesterday, I had a brand experience that rocked my world. First, I was driving to meet a friend in the morning. I called the company that he worked for to ask directions (Hertz was sold out of Neverlost). I was bummed after I called three times and no one could tell me how to get to the office from the Pacific Coast Highway. I had to stop at a retailer to ask and found that the office was only a couple of miles away.
That afternoon I drove up to do some work with Patagonia. I called in to ask directions and Patagonia's "Gatekeeper", Chipper "Bro" Bell, answered the phone while sitting at Mission Control. You see, instead of having an entry level receptionist answering the phone and interacting with customers, Patagonia has Chipper.
When I asked Chipper how to get there, Chipper started off by saying, "You've got it bro, " and then gave me detailed, simple instructions on how to get there. When I told Chipper thanks, he said "Believe it!" It was magical.
Soon after we talked, I realized I was going to be early so I called back looking for a friend to borrow a surfboard and get some exercise before my meeting. I called Chipper back and he paged my friend. Unfortunately, my buddy was in a meeting. When Chipper asked what I needed, I told him I wanted to borrow a surfboard. Chipper said, "No worries, come see me and I'll have a board ready for ya, bro!"
When I arrived, there was Chipper, stoked to see me with a board ready to ride.
I returned from a nice surf session and I sat out front watching Chipper spin his magic. He was treating everyone in a very human way, no matter what they needed, trying to solve everyone's problems. What really blew me away is that Chipper keeps this stoke that exudes the Patagonia brand 1800 times a day!
What would happen if your company had a brand gatekeeper instead of a receptionist? Would your customers be more stoked?
To learn more about Chipper, check out the fun article about him on the Patagonia web site.
Freddie Daniells has a nice commentary on the following blurb taken from the Spring issue of the Marketing Society’s Market Leader magazine:
Marketing’s proximate mission must be to change customer behaviour – it is customer behaviour change that leads to top line growth. Changing customer behaviour is the link that connects the CEO and finance directors requirements with marketing.
...Changing customer behaviour should be formally set as the header objective because it gives direction to the whole marketing enterprise.
I agree with Freddie... this approach is rather backwards. Top-line growth comes from providing a product or service that people want to buy. It's about giving them a better choice than their current options. Sure, this can result in an apparent change of behavior... but the change is an effect, a result. You cannot reverse the law of causality. That's like saying "our objective is to make money." But making money is an effect of a primary cause, ie. selling something that people want. You can say, "I want to be loved." But being loved comes naturally as a result of being loveable, or being loving. Wishing will not get you where you want to go... but taking action and initiating a cause will generate the desired effect.
Too many companies (and individuals) are focused on the effect, not the cause. Their objectives are to be "the leading provider of xyz service" or to "generate x million by 2006"... or "to change customer behavior." But really effective companies simply focus on being more attractive than the alternatives. Change always starts with yourself.
For companies to be loved by their customers, they must be loveable. And they must be loving. And if you love someone, you don't expect them to change. You meet them where they are. Good relationships involve mutual giving, mutual evolution, mutual change. As Freddie noted, it's about co-creation.
Sure, Starbuck's changed the way many people drink coffee... by going to a Starbucks location instead of making coffee at home. But "changing customer behavior" wasn't the primary objective... the objective was to offer a compelling coffee-drinking experience. It turned out to be a better (and more convenient) option for many people... but not for others. So Starbucks started offering bags of coffee for those who wanted to make it at home.
The backlash against the RIAA is the best case study of what happens when you try to forceably change customer behavior. Customers will do whatever they want to do. If you can't create a really compelling reason for them to change (other than passing laws to make their actions illegal), then give them another option that's more of a win-win. RIAA should stop fighting the inevitable and work towards a more realistic objective: ensuring a revenue stream for musicians regardless of distribution method. Sure, it requires more creative thinking. But it's better than being hated.
One more thought: the easiest relationships are the ones in which neither party has to change. When both parties' motivations, desires and actions are complementary, and both are marching to the same drumbeat. The key here is to stop trying to be all things to all people, and be true to your own vision. Customers who are in alignment with that vision will be attracted to you. Whole Foods attracts customers who share their passion for healthy, organic food. Apple attracts customers who share their passion for simplicity and innovative design. And so on.
David Cowan (the author of the article in question) comments on Freddie's post that he agrees that companies should not "arrogantly demand that customers fit the way they do business"... but he does reiterate that "behaviour change is what marketing is all about."
More and more product launches, communities and brands are incorporating blogs as a way of engaging with their constituents. Today's new entrant is Star Wars who have buried blogs in their community site. To find them you are going to need to force on your side but they are there! Here you go...
Blogs are much more than traditional brand extensions. They are brand activators, providing a platform on which the community can come together to share, interact and broaden their experience. You've got to pay to play, but hey, every community membership has its price.
I was disheartened today when reading Jeff Leeds' article about Russell Simmons in the New York Times today. In a civil deposition in July, Simmons is quoted as saying:
"You give out false statements to mislead the public so they will then increase in their mind the value of your company."
In a February 2003 appearance on CNBC Simmons stated that Phat Farm was "doing $350 million" in sales when, in reality the company had revenues in 2002 of $14.3 million. Talk about hype!
He also told Newsweek that Phat Farm's sales at $340 million "accurately reflected my optimism or my brand position statement, a good brand positioning statement. In other words, did I say it? I was hoping it would sound good."
I agree with Seth Godin's premise of his new book, All Marketers are Liars, that storytelling is important. But, it seems that some stories, like Simmons' are so outlandish as to damage the power of storytelling itself and call into question all marketing.
And people wonder why customers have a lack of trust?
Nick Denton of Gawker Media made this interesting comment to NY Times writer Tom Zeller Jr.:
"There are too many people looking at blogs as being some magic bullet for every company's marketing problem, and they're not," he added. "It's Internet media. It's just the latest iteration of Internet media."
Just because I have knowledge of something doesn’t mean that I desire it. Branding is all about creating something that is truly desirable. Something that people will go out of their way for, pay a premium for, and tell their friends about.
Try it with your friends. Ask them to name the first brand that comes to mind when you say . . . Pizza. They’ll likely name Dominoes or Pizza Hut. Then ask them where you should go to buy a great pizza. Different answer. Right? For me, it’s Sal’s on South Willow Street.
I was just thinking about this while watching the NBA playoffs last night (go Mavs!). American Airlines sponsors the arena in Phoenix and Dallas; what exactly do they get from those sponsorships? Sure, there's "American Airlines" plastered all over the courts, building awareness... but where's the ROI? How does seeing the words "American Airlines" entice people to fly with AA instead of Southwest, JetBlue, or any other airline? They spent millions to get their name on two arenas, but I bet those millions could have been better spent improving the customer experience. On a related note, they're spending more millions on a new ad campaign. Sure, I like the campaign, but let's face it: I fly AA because they're based in Dallas and I have a lot of frequent flier miles. All this effort to brand AA is just putting expensive lipstick on a pig. It's still the same non-descript, commodity experience.
If you're working with an agency that talks about building awareness as the primary objective, get a new agency. Your primary objective is to create preference, not awareness. And that usually happens by investing in your product or service and creating a compelling experience. Create preference, and awareness will follow.
(PS. According to this article, it looks like AA is working on the experience, primarily through customer database and CRM initiatives. IMO, these are ancillary nice-to-have's, but I still have to pay $3 extra to get something more than pretzels on a 3-hour flight, and I still experience delays... I'd rather see improvements in the flying experience itself, versus little perks like flight-status alerts. But hey, maybe that's just me...)
Halley @ Worthwhile has a great post on managing bloggers who are writing about your company.
"The real story in the corporate blogging arena these days which I didn't anticipate back then, is bloggers outside a corporation who decide to create "corporate fan blogs," in other words, people who love your products so much, they launch a website praising your product without your knowledge or consent. And sometimes, they go a little overboard."
And not only corporate-fan blogs... there are plenty of corporate-bashing blogs and forums out there as well. All this buzz, completely uncontrolled by the company, molding brands into something that wasn't exactly planned. Scary. We're in the midst of transition from command/control managerial style to a grassroots economy. As Halley points out, execs like Steve Jobs can't handle the loss of control.
What survives unscathed in a massive storm isn't the huge tree but the flexible grass. A company's ability and willingness to flex in the grassroots economy, rather than rigidly trying to maintain a fixed brand, will be the one that endures. Yes, there will be bloggers writing about your company. There will be creative souls who decide to make their own commercials for your company. Customers will break your rules and create their own. You will wring your hands in anguish because what's happening isn't consistent with your brand strategy. You can either ignore them, sue them... or flex. Like it or not, they're part of your brand ecology. Join their discussion instead of requiring them to join yours. If you don't like what they're saying, rethink your business and give them something better to talk about.
Grass doesn't try to bend against the wind. Smart sailors plan their routes with the trade winds, not against them. Smart companies don't fake reality and pretend that they maintain 100% control over their brands.
Jennifer Rice
Andy Lark
Johnnie Moore
John Winsor
