Corante

About these Authors
EDITOR
Jennifer Rice Jennifer Rice
( Profile | Archive )

CONTRIBUTORS
Andy Lark Andy Lark
( Profile | Archive )
Johnnie Moore Johnnie Moore
( Profile | Archive )
John Winsor John Winsor
( Profile | Archive )

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.

BrandShift

Category Archives

October 11, 2005

Just Words

Email This Entry

Posted by John Winsor

Jennifer Rice has a nice post about buzzwords on her blog. The post made me think about marketing buzzwords that get under my skin me. One of them is ‘metrosexuals.’ Here's what I wrote in Beyond the Brand:

It’s human nature to use words as a way to classify other people’s actions or behaviors. Whether its right or wrong, we all categorize people at times. Companies, and especially their marketing departments, do the same thing. A recent popular example of how words can be appropriated is the term ‘metrosexual.’ Marketers now use this term to describe sensitive, image-conscious guys.

“Their heightened sense of aesthetics is very, very pronounced,” Marian Salzman, chief strategy officer at Euro RSCG(now at JWT), said of ‘metrosexuals.’ “They are the style makers. It doesn’t mean your average Joe American is going to copy everything they do,” she added. “But unless you study these guys you don’t know where Joe American is heading.”

It is somewhat ironic that gay writer Mark Simpson originally coined the term ‘metrosexual’ to mock everything marketers stood for. In the mid-1990’s, Simpson used the word to satirize the way that brands and consumer culture promoted the idea of a sensitive guy: one who shopped, used products for his personal appearance, and read magazines like Men’s Health.

Simpson felt that consumerism had taken its toll on traditional masculinity. From his point of view, men really didn’t go to shopping malls, use personal-care products or read self-help magazines. It was all a fantasy propagated by marketers.

A couple of days ago Salzman told the New York Tmes that her promotion of 'metrosexuals' was all a ruse to sell books:

While identifying a tribe of ‘metrosexuals’ ostensibly helped marketers reach that market, Ms. Salzman said her purpose was to sell her book. When the three authors' previous book, "Buzz: Harness the Power of Influence and Create Demand," was published in spring 2003, "we wanted to prove our own hypothesis, that you could buzz something around the world without paying for advertising."
Salzman and co-authors Ira Matathia and Ann O'Reilly have written a new book, "The Future of Men," they say the new ideal is the "übersexual."

The authors state that unlike metrosexuals, "übersexuals don't invite questions about their sexuality." They also produced a list of the "top 10 übersexuals," including Bono, George Clooney and Bill Clinton.

Ahhhh....I'm so confused! Who am I supposed to be? A metrosexual or an ubersexual? How about if I'm just me?

Companies should be hesitant to ascribe general classifications to their customers. While many times a label does a fair job of describing its target population, individual characteristics are completely subject to interpretation. Relying on a simplistic descriptive tool to give life to someone as important as a customer, or potential customer, is dangerous.

If you really want to know your customers; stop using labels and get out of your office and spend time in the context of their lives. Once you start understanding your customers as people, you can avoid the need to develop or depend on such generalized labels that seem to change in the whims of fashion.

Comments (0) + TrackBacks (1) | Category: Brand Theory

September 24, 2005

Brand Humanity: From Processes to People

Email This Entry

Posted by Jennifer Rice

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.

Comments (8) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Brand Theory | Community

September 21, 2005

What do you want to know?

Email This Entry

Posted by Jennifer Rice

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.

Comments (4) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Brand Theory

May 18, 2005

Law of Causality

Email This Entry

Posted by Jennifer Rice

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?

Comments (2) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Brand Theory

May 12, 2005

Preference, not awareness

Email This Entry

Posted by Jennifer Rice

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...)

Comments (10) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Brand Theory

May 04, 2005

Flexible Branding

Email This Entry

Posted by Jennifer Rice

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.

Comments (4) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Brand Theory

April 18, 2005

Defining Brand

Email This Entry

Posted by Jennifer Rice

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.]

Comments (12) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Brand Theory

April 08, 2005

It's Chaos!

Email This Entry

Posted by John Winsor

I just listened to Bob Garfield tell the tale of An Impending Period of Transitional Chaos for Media on NPR's All Things Considered. Here's what NPR has to say about the segment:

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.

Times, they are a changing!

Comments (0) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Brand Theory

Are We Living in a Bubble?

Email This Entry

Posted by John Winsor

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?

Comments (7) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Brand Theory

April 07, 2005

Finding Balance

Email This Entry

Posted by John Winsor

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?


Comments (6) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Brand Theory

March 19, 2005

The Executive As Brand

Email This Entry

Posted by Andy Lark

Washington Post reports on the rise of the CEO blogger with this observation:

Since blogs became the next big thing, an increasing number of companies have come to see them as the next great public relations vehicle -- a way for executives to demonstrate their casual, interactive side.

But, of course, the executives do nothing of the sort. Their attempts at hip, guerrilla-style blogging are often pained -- and painful. By Amy Joyce, Washington Post Staff Writer, Saturday, March 19, 2005; Page A01.

While it's a subject for a much longer post, I've long held the view that Execs can benefit from thinking of themselves as brands, and managing themselves as such. That doesn't mean they are brands - although some argue that a person is as much a brand as a product, especially one so much in the public eye as a Steve Jobs. There's no question in my mind that blogs (depending on execution) can either enhance or detract from the Executive's brand. She gives a couple of good examples of how in one instance the communications appears painful, and in another, hip, cool and wired.

Plenty of quotes from Jonathan Schwartz, COO, Sun Microsystems. He gets at the core issue of communicating via blogs - and in fact, of building any brand - authenticity. "Authenticity is fundamental," he said in an interview. "Blogs get pretty dull if you just blog your products. There has to be something personal."

As brand communicators work with Execs on their entry into the blogosphere, they should focus on authenticity. While the Exec is communicating on behalf of the company, it's them doing the communicating. Their blog can't be a marketing vehicle or alternate news distribution mechanism to PR Newswire. It's a place for them to engage in conversations with the market, and for us all to get a better feel for who they are and what they care about.

Blogs are arguably the most potent communications vehicle out there for the Exec to build their brand in a deep and personal way. And when done right, enhance the company's brand as well. That's a win-win.

Comments (0) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Brand Theory

February 18, 2005

Facilitation and Dialogue

Email This Entry

Posted by John Winsor

I really like the idea of facilitation how that creates the foundation for dialogue. David Boehm, the British physicist, has suggested a concept of dialogue as the glue that holds a community together that seems to make sense. He describes the nature of dialogue by saying:

“I give a meaning to the word dialogue different from what is commonly used. The derivations of the word suggest a deeper meaning. Dialogue comes from the Greek ‘dialogos.’ Logos means the word, or the meaning of the word. And dia means “through” – it doesn’t mean two. A dialogue can be among any number of people. The picture or image this suggests is of a stream of meaning flowing among and between and through us. This will make possible a flow of meaning in the whole group, out of which will emerge some new understanding. This shared meaning is the glue or cement that holds people and societies together.”

Jennifer, I think you’re right. It is about community. Through facilitation and dialogue brands can play a powerful role in creating meaning in their communities.

Comments (6) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Brand Theory

February 16, 2005

Marketing as Facilitation

Email This Entry

Posted by Johnnie Moore

Dustin makes an interesting observation to John's post, Co-creation Part 4. With the example of Build-a-Bear in mind, he says sometimes a great service organization doesn't do things customers don't want to do, but

They do something the customer doesn't want/know how to do ON THEIR OWN. Coming from an art/design/marketing background, I don't want to program the back-end of an elaborate website. I would LOVE to be involved in the collaborative process of that programming though. I would love to pick the brains of the programmers to find out what is truly possible and have some hand in shaping the functionality of the website. Back to Build-A-Bear. How many adults/kids would want to do that on their own? Yet the store thrives by FACILITATING the experience. Service companies need to facilitate the experience in a way that makes it enjoyable for the client.
I like this thought. Getting clearer about whether you're an agent (we take it off your hands for you) or a facilitator (we help you to do it) may be quite helpful to marketers.

For instance, when it comes to phone calls, BT (the UK telecoms giant) used to pour vast amounts of money into ads saying how marvelous it is to talk to people, posing as a facilitator of conversation. I thought this was patronizing nonsense. I want my phone company to be an agent: to make telephones work really well for me and not to dress themselves up as pseudo-therapists. Where facilitation may apply is in innovation - three way calling, integrated voice messaging etc etc.

Dustin's Build a Bear is one example of taking an agent market (here's a bear!) and creating an experience. That's an idea that could work well for others, and badly for some; there are some things I just want done, thankyou, and the less fuss you make doing it, the happier I am.

Some people talk of the brand as a place. Companies like eBay and Amazon are uber-facilitators, they've shifted from the business of just doing things for you, to helping to get things you want.

(What makes this interesting is that the goalposts move. One example: I used to just want my rubbish removed; now I want to know more about how it is recycled. I used to just buy Salmon at the supermarket; now I want to know a lot more about how it is caught. I'm becoming more interested in the inner workings of these businesses.)

On a related matter (as Hannibal Lector would say) it's interesting that we talk about advertising, PR and research agencies. That suggests an outdated business model. It used to be that companies would like to leave the sordid business of talking to customers to the ad men. The tedious chore of listening to them could be left to the researchers. Any direct contact could by hygienically removed.

I think what we need now are not agents that get in the way of the customer conversation but facilitators who help to enhance it. That is an enormous shift of mental models away from manipulation towards authenticity, one that some in the business will struggle with and that many others are going to relish.

Here's an interesting professional parallel. In the legal profession here in the UK, there is a big effort to shift disputes from the hideous Dickensian world of the litigators (the ultimate "agents": we'll be beastly on your behalf) to that of the mediators, folks who try to facilitate a solution that isn't a dumb second-hand battle in which those with most at stake are represented by those with a financial interest in obfuscation and delay.

I think the same thing is likely to hit the marketing trade, and the PR agencies in particular. There'll be less emphasis on speaking on behalf of clients in bland press releases, and more on helping clients speak for themselves with more authenticity.

Comments (2) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Brand Theory

February 08, 2005

Sorry I'm Late!

Email This Entry

Posted by John Winsor

I feel like I'm a bit late to the party! Sorry. First, I'd like to say it's an honor to get to have a dialogue with Jennifer, Johnnie and Andy. I'm really looking forward to this journey of co-creation. That's what I love about blogs, and I think this plays into Pig Lipstick. I've been riffing a lot about The End of Branding as We Know it on my blog. It seems that many companies forget that their products and brands aren't owned by themselves, alone. Hence, if you're customers think you're selling a pig, it's still a pig, no matter what color the lipstick is or what brand attributes the lipstick provides! Companies have to get out from behind the shield that they preceive their brands provide and start being more transparent, willing to co-create their products with their customers.

I hope BrandShift can help energize this co-creation, creating a vibrant dialogue around deepening the connection between companies, customers and communities for the benefit of all.

Comments (7) | Category: Brand Theory

February 06, 2005

Why BrandShift?

Email This Entry

Posted by Jennifer Rice

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.

Comments (5) | Category: Brand Theory