John Winsor wrote a post here a couple weeks ago titled "Ignore the Consumer?". He quotes a recent Ad Age article:

Companies spend billions on market research to divine the needs and wants of consumers and businesses. Yet the new-product failure rate remains high. And we’re not coming up with better product concepts by listening to the voice of the customer. Why? Maybe the customer isn’t worth listening to.

John comments:

Innovation can spring from any part of the company-customer community, but ONLY if the support and encouragement for this environment exists at every level of the business.... When involving customers, be sure to think about inspiration and not reliance.

My personal philosophy on customer involvement is this: Find out what they want. Then figure out how to deliver it. Customers should be involved in "need identification"... or as John puts it, they should serve as the inspiration. But it's the company's job to figure out the best, most cost-effective solution to that need.

I was thinking about innovation this morning when making my breakfast burritos. I'd purchased Mission brand tortillas... ugh. I'll never buy them again. Not because the tortillas taste bad, but because they didn't put plastic sheets in between each tortilla so they wouldn't stick to each other. You can just picture the brand manager's scratching his or her head, trying to find out why they're losing market share... doing taste tests and evaluating product placement. And all the while, it's because of some silly little plastic sheets that make customers' lives easier.

Two insights from my Mission tortilla fiasco this morning:
- Brands that aren't in touch with their customers miss out on small but critical innovation opportunities.
- Brands that seek customer insight only along predetermined lines of thinking (like taste tests) can easily miss out on the real opportunities (like plastic sheets).

Have you connected with your customers lately? Have you allowed yourself to be surprised by a need you hadn't foreseen?

Both the blogosphere and traditional media are buzzing about “customer focus.” You can’t go a day without reading about word of mouth, the power of blogs, the shifting balance of power to customers, importance of customer service, and so on. Trendwatching identified "Customer Made" as the next big thing.  Andy Sernovitz, President of the Word-of-Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA), rightly declared, “The weight of consumer opinion is greater than our advertising power.” And yet it doesn’t seem like anything’s really changing. The most lively discussion board about Comcast is the comments section of my “I hate Comcast” post. Last week Jake posted a complaint letter that he'd sent to American Airlines.

Do we think if we talk about “customer focus” enough, something miraculous will happen? Are we trying to convince the laggards? I don’t believe they’ll be convinced until they start going out of business. One would think that every smart business executive would be working furiously to improve customer service and product quality. There are enough examples, case studies, books and articles making a pretty compelling case that this stuff works.

So why aren’t all businesses noticeably moving towards customer-centricity? They’re either holding on because the old way of business is the only thing they know… or the current organizational structure doesn’t support the new way of doing business… or there’s something else that needs to happen first.

Here’s what I think is going on: contrary to popular belief, there’s no such thing as a product company, a telecom company, a consulting company or a retail company. All companies are people companies. People make products for people. People serve people. People work with people and for people. I’d venture a guess that the root cause of business problems is not financial, not product-related, and not structure-related. Businesses live and die by its executives' and employees’ talents, levels of empathy and ability to play well with others… and by their willingness to listen and acknowledge that customers just may have some valuable input. If a business is rife with internal politics, fiefdoms and one-upmanship, I doubt that it will be successful in this new customer-relationship era. If a company’s employees aren’t successful in their personal relationships at home, it can’t become a successful people company.

The current sea-change is problematic because the necessary solution is not a new business practice; it’s a new people practice. We don’t need a new ad campaign or a new org chart. There are no quick fixes. The skill sets needed in today’s times are not management consultants or word-of-mouth marketing specialists. If we’re all really honest with ourselves, what we really need are psychologists and coaches and relationship experts. We’re talking about real customer connections, not a personalized direct mail piece. And this is why blogging and other social technologies have exploded onto the scene. Evelyn Rodriguez writes,

"With everything you might have heard you’d think the blogosphere is anti-business. And it’s scary for businesses.

That’s not exactly true. But, yes, it is a response to the depersonalization - the dehumanization - of commerce."

Over the past few decades, we’ve lost the humanity in business. With the advent of mass-produced cars and org charts and relocation and nuclear families, we’ve forgotten our ability to relate and connect. How do we expect a company to build relationships with customers when most Americans have difficulty making genuine connections with anyone? In Bowling Alone: The Collapse & Revival of American Community, Robert Putnam notes that social and family ties are loosening and we're increasingly withdrawing into ourselves:

• In the past 3 decades, participation in government, local clubs and organizations dropped by up to 50%.
• Job instability, churn and the increasing numbers of independent contractors have resulted in a measurable decline of social connectedness in the workplace.
• Americans are entertaining friends at home 45% less frequently now than in the mid-70s; the number of picnics declined by 60% in the same time period.
• The fraction of married Americans who say that their family 'usually dines together' has dropped from 50% to 34%
• The number of families who vacation together dropped from 53% to 38%; watch TV together from 54% to 41%; sitting and talking, from 53% to 43%
• Reported charitable giving dropped by almost 20% from 1980 to 1995.
• The percentage of those who feel that "people in general today lead as good lives -- honest and moral -- as they used to" dropped from 50% in 1952 to 27% in 1998.

So we can keep talking about the importance of customer focus, authenticity and co-creation. But we’ll never get there until we recognize that it’s not that easy to overturn decades of societal depersonalization. We may have to make some difficult choices: letting go of talented employees who are more focused on being right than being empathetic; moving to a new job at a company that fosters a relationship culture; taking a risk and going out on your own. I’m sure that part of the free-agent trend stems from a rebellion against the dehumanization of business.

Evelyn continues in her post:

"Blogs harken back to an era before…

Megaphones. Before Super Bowl ads. Before celebrity-studded concert-format megachurches. Before Ryze, Friendster and LinkedIn.

To a time of community marketplaces, bazaars, neighborhood shops and pubs where everyone knew your name, and town squares. And going back further still to trading posts and tribal campfires.

We know this stuff. Perhaps conversing is nearly a lost art. But it’s fundamentally human too. Basic building blocks of humanity."

So yes, let’s keep talking about customer focus. But let’s also focus on what we can do in our own sphere of influence. Let’s start where we are.

I've been AWOL for a couple months; my apologies! I'm coming out of a severe blog burnout phase, but I'm back. I've missed everyone. To help me get ramped back up... do you, dear reader, have any specific areas of interest in this rather broad "branding" category? I think it would be great fun to discuss specific issues or questions that you have, rather than trying to come up with stunningly insightful, but not terribly relevant, ideas.

I was wondering: who's reading this blog, anyway? Are you agency or client-side marketers? CPG or technology? Terribly experienced or newbies? I suppose that's the problem with blogs; traditional measured media conducts reader surveys and knows exactly who's reading and who's buying. With a blog, you just throw out thoughts and hope they're relevant. Commenters may have blogs, but often they're just an anonymous voice with an email address.

What's important to you? Analysis of current marketing campaigns? How blogs & social technologies are impacting brands? Customer research applied to brand development? Written from agency angle or client angle? Let us know; we'd love to hear from you.

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."

What think you?

Something caught my eye when I read the interview with Tom Asacker at Jacobsmedia.com. Tom says:

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.

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.]

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.

John pointed me to a great new blog, HR's Brand New Experience. Regina wites about how good brand architecture involves organizational development, and how HR is (or should be) an essential part of the strategy alignment and execution process. Here's a snip:

Most of the agencies I have dealt with have not been able to provide the appropriate resourcing and/or expertise to be able to take their brand/rebranding efforts to this level.

Is the physical design and environment taken into consideration? Is the pay system involved if people’s behavior needs to change? Is the performance management system changed so that people are informed of new expectations of behaviors? and then given feedback on same? and then paid accordingly? Are work processes redesigned so that people can deliver “a brand experience” to customers? Are managers trained to help people deliver brand experiences? to recruit the right people who can deliver it? Does the HR department live the brand in it’s delivery of services to internal customers?

Creating and implementing a brand architecture is hard and a lot of work. Trying to change consumer behaviors based on a your brand is even harder. Adding the necessary components internally to change employee behavior is equally hard and daunting. But one can’t happen without the other.

Via Scoble, a great post on A VC about Apple becoming a "they" company.

"We" companies are built by and for a community of users..."They" companies are traditional companies that seek to optimize profitability at the expense of everything else.

Microsoft is the poster child for a "they" company. Craigs List is the poster child for a "we" company. Apple used to be a "we" company. I love Apple as I've blogged about many times. I still do. But Apple is not a "we" company any more.

One of the comments by Matt Schulte goes on to say:

I think Apple has always been a "they" company. I think the "blogosphere" and a more media-savvy public is making it more difficult for the "public-facing" part of a company to present/market themselves as a "we" company, when their actions say "they" company. People have been preaching "transparency" as a part of the code of doing business today, and the blogosphere is bringing that transparency to businesses whether they want it or not. So...the divide between how a company presents itself to the public, and what kind of company it 'really is' is dissolving...companies are getting transparentized. Zap.

"Zap" is right. All this talk of transparency reminds me of the classic scene in The Wizard of Oz where Toto pulls back the curtain on the wizard. He's furiously working his controls and microphone to operate the big talking head: "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

If you believe that transparency is a fad, or an option, or a warm and fuzzy buzzword, think again. What you believe doesn't matter. There are millions of Totos running around the blogosphere; they've got good noses for men behind curtains. And nothing pleases them more than to see another talking head fall.

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. As Matt pointed out, the blogosphere is shining a bright light on the gap between how a company presents itself and who a company "really is." Social technologies like blogs and community forums are forcing us to completely rethink the traditional tenets of brand management.

Transparency will happen to your company whether you like it or not. One obvious question to ask yourself is, how embarrassed will you be when your curtain is pulled back? If there are aspects of your business practice you'd rather customers not know, you might consider addressing them now. For example, in the land-line telecom industry, there are taxes and surcharges you're paying on your bill that are not mandated by the FCC and not passed on to the government; phone companies can discount the line price, jack up the fees and make the same amount of money while giving the illusion of a discount. Another example is Blockbuster's new "no late fees" program, for which it's now getting sued for false advertising claims. Bottom line: if you've got a business practice that you feel needs a "marketing spin job" to get customers to buy it, then it's time to reconsider. Gone are the glory days when you could safely hide behind a curtain.

But even if you have nothing to hide, chances are that customers are still distrustful. And they're tired of 'business as usual' where they don't have a voice. At this point, your best option is to come out from behind the curtain and make friends. Be proactive. Reveal the humanity behind the talking head. Start a company blog, or enable your employees to do so. Engage in dialogue. Become a "we" company instead of a "they" company. These open actions, more than anything else, will differentiate you from your competitors who are hiding behind official press releases, suing their customers and refusing to listen.

So in light of this new transparency trend, what does it mean for companies like Apple that have depended on keeping new innovations a secret until launch time? Are secrets (even good ones) possible -- or desirable -- in the new transparent marketplace?

John Winsor opens the first chapter of Beyond the Brand with this quote from Stephen Jay Gould:

"The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best -- and therefore never scrutinize or question."

Here are some stories that come to my mind:

• We know what our customers want.
• Everyone in our company understands our mission.
• Customers care about our brand.
• If we relinquish control over our brand image, it will be a disaster.
• If we allow customers and employees to speak their mind publicly, it will be a disaster.
• We're the experts, so we have nothing to learn from outsiders.

And the list goes on. What are the common assumptions floating around your company or department?  Hint: they will be the ideas that cause the most internal resistance. Who will be brave enough to ask... What if we're wrong?

At the very least, open up enough to test some alternatives on a small scale. You just might surprise yourself.

Chroma notified me of a new PBS show that aired a few days ago called:

Marketing To Your Mind, a show in which good spirit Alan Alda's mind is scanned with magnetic imaging as he is presented with cool (iPod) vs. non-cool (Buicks) to look at while we get to see activity in his frontal lobe.

The article states:

That part of the brain is used to reflect on yourself and how you might be viewed by others — and it often lights up when subjects imagine themselves using the particular product on display. "I think that's an interesting result," Asp says. "You don't just buy a product for its own sake, isolated from the rest of your world. It's actually a very social act and we're showing the world who we are by buying these products." Consumers take a lot more into account when they decide to buy products than dry economic theories of utility and cost might suggest.

I wrote about neuromarketing last year on my own blog (here and here) in which I disagreed with the basic premise. I think the problem with most marketing research is that it's reactive instead of proactive.

If I'm in a focus group and you offer me a choice between a snake, a roach and a June bug, I'm quite likely to pick the snake. Not because I'm a huge fan of snakes, mind you... I just think it's better than the alternatives.

...There are plenty of ways to understand your customer and learn -- before you test -- that a cat is preferable to a snake.

Besides reactivity, my other issue is that... duh, isn't it obvious that iPod is cooler than a Buick? I don't know how much it costs to do MRIs on a bunch of customers, but there are a lot of equally effective ways to find this out at a fraction of the cost.

I'm not averse to new technology; there will probably be some interesting applications for neuromarketing, and it's helping us learn more about the brain. But I think it's more important to actually engage customers on the front end. The better you know your customers, the less need you will have for fancy gadgets to test stuff that you've already spent a lot of money to develop. Seems like people will try anything rather than just sitting down and having a conversation.

Jake at Community Guy writes about community:

People often think that blogs, forums, wikis, and other tools are community. In actuality, those tools are just that - tools. They can help you to build community, but they aren't actually "community". When we talk community, we're simply talking about an interaction, a connection. Blogs or forums are a way to initiate and sustain that interaction.

He defines community as:

A group of people who form relationships over time by interacting regularly around shared experiences, which are of interest to all of them for varying individual reasons.

Great definition. I agree that blogs, wikis and forums are tools. But I'm not sure if I agree with the qualification that it's about relationships developed over time. For example, I write a blog post that generates discussion: readers make comments on both my post and on other readers' comments. I've formed a community, but it will only last a day... 2 days if we're lucky.

I see community as a group of people who come together and interact based on a shared interest. But that community may not result in relationships, and it may dissolve in a day. Or an hour. The interesting thing about the web is that is facilitates dynamic engagements; there's an ebb and flow of connections that form, dissipate and reform into new configurations.

So let's form a community around this idea of community. What do you think about all this?

Reveries has an interesting article about a French newspaper written for kids... and edited by kids.

Most other national daily newspapers in France are losing readers "in droves," but Mon Quotidien, a newspaper for kids, is "growing steadily," reports Emilie Boyer King in The Christian Science Monitor (3/1/05). "To make sure the newspaper reflects children's interests, kids from schools around the country take part in editorial meetings twice a week." They "apply for the jobs by calling a phone number printed in each issue," and are "chosen on a "first-come, firsted served basis."

"We always go with what the children want," says Olivier Gasselin, deputy editor-in-chief. "There are no vetoes." Sometimes the results are a little bit hard for the adult editors to accept... And that's exactly the way Francois, a 10-year-old editor likes it: "If it was [adults] who chose, it wouldn't be the same," he says. But for the most part "Mon Quotidien doesn't shy away from hard news," such as the proposed European ban on the display of Nazi symbols, and prisoner abuse in Iraq. The kids didn't like the pictures, but "all agreed that the news was important and should be mentioned."

...An American version is now being tested by the Miami Herald, and the Associated Press is also planning "to syndicate the newspaper's formula."

An important aspect of co-created brands is recruiting your customers to do some of the heavy lifting. Co-creation also means not assuming that you know what your target audience wants. It's all about relinquishing some control, which is a bit scary.... but does pay off.

Blockbuster's getting sued for false advertising claims (from Adrants):

Blockbuster has been caught with its pants down regarding its new "No More Late Fees" ad campaign. Unbeknownst to most, the video rental company's largest campaign to date amounts to a lie... New Jersey Attorney General Peter Harvey filed a lawsuit last Friday claiming Blockbuster did not disclose the reality of its new program.

While it's all in the fine print, Blockbuster's program does not do away with late fees. It simply recategorizes them into a "sale" on the eighth day. If, after 30 days, the video is returned, the charge is credited but then the company imposes the well known, "we'll do anything for a buck" trick and charges a restocking fee.

Ouch. Talk about a great way to destroy brand reputation. One of the tenets of the BrandShift philosophy is authenticity. I think the folks at TrueTalk have done a great job in defining a few key terms related to authentic conversation (go there for more):

- Honesty: We mean what we say.

- Transparency: We don't pretend or hide our true motives.

If this lawsuit has merit, then Blockbuster fails on these two items. I've seen the Blockbuster billboards: "No more late fees." They're trying to compete with NetFlix without changing the way they operate. Somehow they think that changing the label from "late fees" to "sale" changes the meaning of the transaction. Great example of putting lipstick on a pig.

I believe that all companies should start asking themselves the question, "Will this activity build or betray trust with our customers?"

We've been chatting about co-creation in previous posts (here, here , here and here). In my mind, good co-creation is about facilitating self-expression. I wrote in this comment:

Today's recipe for success appears to be: To serve as a facilitator for people to do, say or experience what they want. Because the underlying dissatisfaction in society today is having too much shoved down our throats. Witness the revolution of the masses. We want control.

So I really enjoyed reading today's Cool News in Reveries. The lead story's all about customers co-creating their radio-listening experience.

At Mercora.com, for instance, consumers "can create playlists of their favorite music, and with a few clicks of the mouse, 'broadcast' them over the internet to fellow users."...

The appeal to listeners is pretty clear: "When you've got only 30 slots on a radio dial, you're going to be programming to a lower common denominator," says Raghav Gupta, coo of Live365.com, another P2P radio station. "This opens the world to much more variety and diversity." P2P radio fans also "like the sense of community that comes with listening to playlists compiled by other listeners. Some say it reminds them of rifling through a friend's CD collection." At Mercora, consumers even have the option of joining a chat among fellow listeners as they enjoy the "broadcast."

Tom Mara of KEXP, a Seattle radio station, thinks traditional radio should pay attention here: "It's no longer a case of a person in a booth broadcasting to people anonymously ... Now we need to figure out new modes of interaction -- not only between the listener and the station, but between listeners."

What a beatiful example of co-creation and customer communities.

Thanks to everyone's contributions on defining the concept of co-creation (here and here), I think we're arriving at a pretty good place. Here's where my head's at now:

"An open, ongoing collaboration between employees and customers to define and create products, services, experiences, ideas and information."

Open brings in the idea of transparency, so that non-participants can easily see the collaborative process. This, in my mind, eliminates traditional customer research from the definition.

Ongoing implies that it's not a one-time shot at obtaining customer input and then taking the rest of it in-house. Anyone can participate at any time.

Collaboration brings in the spirit of teamwork. Employees and customers are peers in the process. In many cases, the company simply serves as a facilitator of the process.

Products are probably the most clear-cut application for co-creation: open-source software, Lego Factory, Google's API

Information is probably the next obvious application: epinions.com, Amazon.com, marketingprofs.com forum

Experiences: This gets a bit more fuzzy. A good example is probably Apple iTunes/iPod customized playlists... the company provided the tools to allow customers to create their own music experience. We could get really fuzzy here and say that because a brand is an idea in the minds of customers, then all brands are co-created. But I won't say it, because I think it's confusing the issue. Any more tangible examples of co-created experiences?

Services: This is another tough one. Typically a service company exists to do something that a customer doesn't want to do. Again, would love some ideas on how service companies could work with customers to co-create.

Ideas: What we're doing now. I love co-creating the idea of co-creation!

We've been having a great dialogue about co-creation. What I love about blogging is that your feedback helps me hone my own thinking. I'd like to propose a tighter definition of co-creation:

"Products, services or content that's created by non-employees."

I think this definition helps distinguish it from customer research. Research simply identifies the problem that needs to be solved. Co-creation allows customers (or non-customers) to own a part of the solution. It's a form of outsourcing that involves letting go of preconceived ideas about our products, services, customers or industries. It also means loosening our white-knuckled grip on our brands.

Examples of co-created products are listed in my earlier post: open-source software, Google's API and Lego Factory.

Another example: media companies could use the co-creation idea by providing a forum where anyone can submit articles for publication... and instead of someone at the company selecting the best articles, they allow readers to vote on the best ones.

I'd enjoy brainstorming with you on co-creation ideas for different types of companies. How could a professional services firm apply the concept of co-creation? What about someone in the hospitality industry? Or a retailer?

Alright! We're already getting into some juicy conversation in John Winsor's recent post. There's a comment that I'd like to bring to the forefront because it's an oft-misunderstood idea: co-creation.

"...good products are good products, they don't need transparency or co-creation. Co-creation is what people on the outside want when they want to associate themselves with cool products. You don't let the slimy masses in to medocritate the product, you keep them striving to be a part of the clique."

There are different levels of co-creation; how far you take it depends on your product and industry. Here are a few terrific examples of deep co-creation:

1. Open-source software. No explanation needed.

2. Google's new API for online ads. An article in eWeek reports:

"There are a lot of things Google hasn't thought of that people could do with their ad campaigns," said Nelson Minar, a Google software engineer. "One of goals is to enable advertisers and third parties to create tools for their own purposes."

3. Lego's Lego Factory, where kids design new Lego models using a Digital Designer and submit them to competitions. This is a primary source of ideas for new Lego products.

In each of these cases, no one made assumptions about what customers wanted. Customers were brought directly into the process. In shallower levels of co-creation, customers aren't directly involved in designing products... but companies still seek to understand customers' mindsets, desires and unmet needs.

Apple is one of those anomalies where one man had an aesthetic vision, created a company and products in his own image, and everyone jumped on the bandwagon. If you think you can replicate Apple's success in this fashion, go for it; but I'd suggest that some form of co-creation is infinitely easier. BTW, I do believe that Apple's brand is a form of co-creation: the "in-crowd" that formed around the Apple brand was created by customers, not by Apple.

Companies who view customers as "slimy masses" can never be successful in the long run; it is those customers who make corporate existence possible. Customers smell arrogance like a dog smells fear. Microsoft is a great example of a company who became incredibly successful based on following their own vision... which ultimately resulted in customer resentment. Now with over 1200 Microsoft employees participating in the blogosphere, the company has actively, publicly entered into dialogues with customers. Robert Scoble gets a ton of suggestions from customers and passes them on to the right folks internally. Microsoft is beginning to co-create.

Does this mean we should always do what customers say? Of course not. But we should always be listening to them to ensure that our products and services maintain relevance in today's rapidly changing environment. We design products and services that people will buy... and we find out what people will buy by listening, observing and participating in dialogues. There's a terrific example of this in the book "Hardball" that discusses how Whirlpool co-created their new line of appliances by deeply understanding the life of a woman named Gail.

If anyone has other examples of co-created products and services, I'd love to hear about them. This is a tidal-wave trend; customers want to be heard, and they will buy from those companies who demonstrate a willingness to listen. Sure, we could say that co-creation is just pig lipstick for customer research... at the shallower end, perhaps. But the concept of co-creation goes much deeper and farther than the traditional idea of research. In co-creation, customers truly feel like they are a part of the company (family, ecosystem, etc.) and that their voice is heard.

Since Johnnie brought up pet peeves in his last post, here's one of mine: renaming something unpleasant to get more mileage out of it... AKA, putting lipstick on a pig.

Chris Lawer points to a Peppers & Rogers article on Voice Marketing. He quotes from their latest paper, interestingly titled: "At the Eye of The Storm: How Retail Chief Marketing Officers can Deliver the Optimal Customer Experience."

Retail marketers have a range of interaction tools to choose from to get the job done. An emerging option is voice marketing. Voice marketing helps retailers strengthen brand and communicate with customers more effectively by combining pre-recorded, telephone messages with professional voice talent. Designed to connect with existing customers, voice marketing allows retailers to accelerate their relationships with individual customers and capture higher value.

A voice message is typically a 35-second pre-recorded audio message that sounds like a live call.The messages are left on answering machines or voice mail systems...

Hmmm... last I checked, that was called "telemarketing." And it's not an experience that customers want to have. Is the outbound TM industry really deluded enough to think that a new label is going to save them?

I see this pattern all the time in "rebranding" efforts. Hey, I know! Let's design a new logo and create a new ad campaign, and... ta da!!! We have a magically new brand. Um, no... you dressed up your current brand in different clothing.

Rebranding, when done by an ad agency (oh, excuse me... "marketing communications firm,") is nothing more than pig lipstick.

Rebranding, when done by an executive team that's passionate about driving change throughout the organization, is true and believable brand evolution. Let's not kid ourselves into thinking a fancy new label, logo or campaign is going to fix our ills. It has to be an inside-out process.

(update: When I went to copy the trackback URL, I noticed that Johnnie already ranted about this subject on his blog this morning. Great minds think alike :-))

A few years ago at at my high-school reunion, I met a guy who I swore I'd never seen before. Clean-cut, nice-looking guy. He must have seen me glancing at his name tag and his face, because he approached me and said, "No, you probably wouldn't recognize me. I used to be one of those long-hair druggy types who never showed up to class. I cleaned up and went to med school. I'm now married with a child on the way."

Wow, how people change. So do ideas.

Branding is an idea.

The traditional view of branding worked just fine back in the 70's and 80's when times were simpler, slower-paced, and we didn't have the proliferation of products and media that we have today.

But the traditional view of branding no longer works in today's context, and there are many who are trumpeting that "branding is dead."

I don't believe that branding is dead... any more than I believe that long-haired druggie from high school is dead. He's still alive and well, albeit in a new, virtually unrecognizable form. He changed to fit the times. He changed for his own happiness and survival. We all do.

And that's what BrandShift is all about. Helping brands to "grow up" and mature in the real world of tempestuous change and customer demands.

What does it mean for a brand to mature? The same thing as when people mature... we become more honest, direct, transparent. We become better listeners and communicators. We stop seeing ourselves as the center of our world and begin to see ourselves as part of an interconnected whole. We move from following rules to making value judgements.

The BrandShift contributors are all passionate about helping brands through this transition. We'll not only discuss the theory of branding, but also the practice. We'll have podcast discussions with CEOs and brand owners on how their brands are evolving in the new economy... growing pains and all. And we'll cover the new social technologies and discuss their impact on brands.

If there's anything specific you'd like for us to address, please tell us. If you have specific questions on the subject, please ask. We want BrandShift to be your resource for all things branding.