From  Blog  to  Book.  

     

www.dannielleblumenthal.com          

                     2008  2008  -­‐  01  In  defense  of  brands  -­‐  2008-­‐01-­‐01  09:32      The  Sydney  (Australia)  Morning  Herald  yesterday  ran  an  article,  “Twelve  steps  to  a  brand-­‐free  life,”   by   an   individual   who   a   short   time   ago   beat   his   obsession   with   consumer   labels   and  shopping.  The  author  had  been  an  avid  fan  of  brands  like  Adidas  and  Apple,  “to  the  point  that  I  could  not  contemplate  buying  products  made  by  their  rivals.”  He  relied  on  brands  “to  increase  my   confidence   at  meetings   (BlackBerry)   or  my   status   at   the   bar   (Ralph   Lauren).”  He   used   to  “escape  the  office  to  shop.”  This   person,   on   deciding   to   “destroy  my   previously   branded   life,”   set   up   “a   public   bonfire   in  central   London,   fuelled   by   my   possessions.   Twenty   years   of   designer   shopping   went   up   in  smoke.”  The  author  says  that  “I  have  struggled  to  live  my  life  brand-­‐free  ever  since.”  However,  this  is  difficult  because  brands  and  their  messages  are  everywhere.  

The  author   states   that   “The  message  behind  every  brand   is  we  will   feel  better   for   consuming  more”  but  “consumer  culture  has   transformed  our   lives   for   the  worse.  We  work  more  and  we  imprison  ourselves  in  debt.”  He  even  goes  so  far  as  to  blame  materialism  for  inhibiting  efforts  at  “tackling  climate  change.”  The  author   says   “the   symbol  of   a   sports   shoe  manufacturer   should  not   embody   freedom.  Nor  should  the  symbol  of  a  bag  manufacturer  embody  aspiration.”  What  is  a  brand-­‐avid  consumer  to  think  when  reading  this  article?  First,  obviously,  compulsive  shopping  is  different  from  compulsive  brand  identification.  Compulsive  shopping  is  no  doubt  an  unhealthy  thing,  but  needing  to  identify  with  brands  can  be  a  positive  one—brands  fill  a  human  need  to  identify  with  something  larger  in  life  than  just  oneself.  When  you  use  a  particular  brand  you  are  making  a  statement  about  yourself  and  your  beliefs.  There  is  no  reason  to  give  up  such  a  powerful  message.    Second,   consumer   culture   is   great,   not   terrible.   People   exist   and   interact   in   the  marketplace,  where   they   find  they  have  a  choice  about  which  things   they  buy—brands  provide   that  choice.  And  people  don’t  just  shop  because  they  want  to,  they  shop  because  they  need  to.    Third,  what  a  dull  world  when  people  resort  to  shopping  army  surplus  for  clothes,  as  the  author  does,   and   live   without   TV   and   the   like.   Brands   don’t   just   bring   meaning   to   life,   they   give   it  excitement.  It  is  fun  to  look  for  the  next  big  brand  and  to  purchase  items  from  the  brand  maker.  Why  should  life  be  boring?    Undoubtedly  a  lot  of  people  will  identify  with  the  author  of  this  story,  who  decided  that  brands  were  too  overwhelming  a  presence  in  his  life  and  to  minimize  that.  But  I  think  that  people  who  miss  out  on  brands  are  missing  out  on   life.  There   is  so  much  out   there  to  enjoy  and  consume,  and  brands  make  that  possible.            Word  of  mouth  marketing  and  "cheeseheads"  -­‐  2008-­‐01-­‐02  20:13          First,  an  item  from  Brandweek’s  December  31  edition:  word-­‐of-­‐mouth  marketing  is  “projected  to   hit   $1.3   billion   this   year,   up   almost   33%   from   $981   million   in   2006,”   and   “spending   is  expected   to   triple  by  2011.”  This   is  due   to   “the  explosion  of   communications  on   the   Internet”  and  “the  acceptance  of  WOM  as  a  separate  discipline  beyond  ads  and  public  relations.”  This   makes   sense   to   me.   In   an   era   where   the   consumer   is   taking   increasing   control   over  marketing,  it  pays  to  spend  money  to  facilitate  WOM.  What  the  article  doesn’t  explain,  though,  is  what  all   this  money   is  being  spent  on   if  word  of  mouth   is  mostly  done   for   free,  by  consumers  leaving   feedback   on   e-­‐commerce   sites,   social   networking   sites,   and   blogs.   True,   there   is   a  mention   of   a   company   that   “leverages   relationships   with   artists   in   underground   New   York  scenes   to   build   buzz.”   But   that’s   just   an   isolated   case.   I  would   like   to   know  more   about   how  companies  are  paying  to  generate  WOM.    Speaking   of  WOM,  Wisconsin   is   generating   some   buzz   as   it   is   trying   to   come   up  with   a   new  brand  besides   “cheeseheads,”  which   is  what   they’re  known   for—dairy  and  specifically  cheese.  They  seem  to  be  committed  to  the  project,  to  recognize  the  obstacles  (stereotypes  are  tough  to  change;   the   tourism   department   “has   used   numerous   slogans   in   advertising   campaigns”;   and  Wisconsin   has   “cold   winters,   high   unionization,   mid-­‐continental   location   and   relatively   high  

taxes”),  and  to  have  done  a  good  job  understanding  the  importance  of  positioning—finding  “that  single   point   of   difference”-­‐-­‐although   the   article   on   this   subject   doesn't   say  what   that   is.   They  also  hired   local   talent   to  work  on  the  campaign,   thus   increasing  the  chance  that   the  campaign  will   show   deep   insight   into   the   brand.   (The   CEO   of  Madison,  Wisconsin-­‐based   branding   firm  Lindsay,  Stone  &  Briggs  is  the  one  who  wrote  about  the  cold  winters,  unionization,  location,  and  taxes  in  a  paper  penned  eight  years  ago.)  Good  going  Wisconsin—good  luck!        Sneak  preview:  new  John  Wiley  book  on  branding  -­‐  2008-­‐01-­‐04  14:54      In a week, I will be interviewed for a book on aligning the internal and the external brand. The book, which is as yet untitled, is being published by John Wiley. The author of the book is Dr. Claudia Fisher, founder, Lemontree Brand Strategy. With Claudia's permission, reprinted below is the text of the interview and my early written responses to the questions.        1. Aligning internal and external brand activities is supposedly common sense. However, if one observes brand reality out there, this does not appear to be so.      

• Do you think this is a topic of importance/ relevance/ interest? Yes, it is critical. If the internal and the external brand are not aligned the result is a fragmented brand and that is not sustainable in the marketplace.  

 • Why do you think alignment is so challenging? Because organizational leaders

often do not receive upward feedback, they do not understand that employees are every bit as much stakeholders as external customers. They don’t understand that employees read the newspaper and go to the company’s website the same way that external customers do. They take for granted that employees are loyal to the company (because they are getting paid) and don’t try to earn that loyalty. Also marketing communications is siloed from the other parts of the organization that need to work with it to communicate the brand internally—human resources and the training function.  

 • What do you think are key sources for misalignment? Leaders who

communicate upward or outward only instead of downward and internally. Also failure to create cross-functional communication teams around the brand. Also failure to pay attention to building a unified culture around the brand.  

     2. More and more brand experts believe in co-creation of brands.      

   

• How would you define co-creation? Who are the key parties involved? Co-creation is when the customer has a voice in defining the brand, usually through the Internet – giving a testimonial on an e-commerce site, or authoring a blog, or even just e-mailing friends and family. However, co-creation can also be when the employees of the organization have a voice in creating the brand together with the marketing/communications function and/or the agency.  

 • Who should be the key parties involved? The CEO of the brand on the one side,

the marketing/communications department and the advertising/marketing agency in the middle, the employees of the organization as another part, and the customer on the other side.  

 • What is the impact on brand management? Ability to control? More and more,

customers and employees are defining what the brand is and does, but the brand manager still retains a great deal of control over the brand’s image. The brand manager can create the desired image and also engineer conversations via experiential marketing and Internet polling with consumers that generate the desired image. For example, Panasonic parks a truck in various retailer’s parking lots that showcases its electronic products, and invites customers to experience the Panasonic brand. Those experiences create impressions and conversations.  

 • What are the risks of not embracing co-creation as a reality? The risk is that you

create a disconnect in the marketplace between your positioning, or how you want your brand to be perceived, and your image, or how your brand actually is perceived. That disconnect can destroy your brand. It is especially dangerous when companies do not realize that their employees are effectively co-creating the brand every day, and that the message employees send in their interactions with customers may be different than the official party line.  

 • Does co-creation render the issue of internal/ external alignment meaningless?

It makes it more complicated. We are not living in a command and control environment anymore. People today are more independent of authority than they have ever been. They, especially employees, need to be inspired to rally around the brand, to make it a cause and to look at it the same way that the official leadership does. At the same time, leaders need to get closer to employees and customers and find out where their affinities to the brand lie, and mirror that in brand communication. For example, the Wii videogame is very popular among seniors in the United States , even though the brand is marketed to young people. Seniors have co-opted it. The makers of Wii therefore need to address seniors in their official brand communication, even if they create a subbrand to do it.  

     

3. In the past, branding was very communication-led.      

• Do you think this will change in the future? Why or why not? How? This will not change at all.. All branding is created continually through a form of communication and interaction with consumers, whether it is advertising or marketing promotions or word of mouth.  

 • Where do you see the key opportunities for brands going forward? The brands

that will succeed in the future will take one of two tracks. One possibility is to be very close to the customer by taking a scientific approach, polling and surveying statistically and continually to find out what the consumer wants and then to meet that. Another possibility is to be highly visionary, and create demand through some sort of unique insight into the world and where it is going. Or there can be some combination of the two. In the U.S., Oprah Winfrey is an example of a highly visionary brand, that takes a stand on a variety of issues important to her, but that incorporates constant feedback from television viewers and Internet readers.  

     4. Do you think the role of brands in general is changing? If so, how and why?      

• Do you think that brands today are more important or less important than in the past? Why? Both -- brands are more important and less important. They are more important because there is truly an endless proliferation of choices in the marketplace and they provide a shortcut to making a decision about what to buy. They are also more important than in the past because with the Internet and e-commerce, we are living in more of a consumer culture than ever before and membership with a brand provides status in that culture. They are less important also because there is such a proliferation of equivalent choices that the distinction can tend to become meaningless, a consumer may choose randomly or based on price alone.  

 • Who do they/should they primarily appeal to? Brands should make their appeal

to people who are willing participants in consumer culture, not to people who have rejected brands and branding, of which there seem to be a substantial number. It does not pay to go after everyone.  

 • Who should “own”/ be responsible for the brand internally? The CEO or leader

of the organization must own the brand, there is no other way to champion it. The marketing/communications department simply does not have as much impact as the organization’s leader—he or she sets the tone for everyone else in the organization.. At the same time, the leader must invest the employees themselves with ownership over the brand so that they carry it forward as if it were their own.  

 • What is the role of “authenticity”? Is it a fad or more permanent? In my view

authenticity is critical and permanent. People must believe that the story you are telling is true on some level. Look at the U.S. brand Harley-Davidson. That brand, which has to do with personal freedom, has traditionally been identified with men and their motorcycles but is now branching out to appeal to women. And the appeal stays true, despite the branching out, because the brand has that cachet of sticking to its guns and promoting freedom.  

     5. Do you think consumers are changing? If so, how?    I think the Internet fundamentally changed everything when it comes to being a consumer. For one thing, consumers are more price-sensitive than they have been in the past—they can look online for just about anything and get it from the cheapest vendor possible. From that perspective, the role of branding is diminished. However, at the same time, consumers recognize that they need to buy from trustworthy sources so that they don’t just send their money out into the vapor and never receive product. So from that point of view, the role of branding is dramatically increased. Another impact of the Internet, as has been stated repeatedly by others, is that consumers are talking back to brands—they are more willing to get out there and share experiences with product online. This makes them more skeptical and empowered about what brands are claiming to provide. At the same time, it also makes them more open to brands because they are always looking for the next new thing—giving innovative brands a chance to win their loyalty.        6. Do you think that the role of employees vis-à-vis brands is changing? If so, how?    It’s changing in a couple of ways. First, employees are learning from their external experiences with the Internet that they should talk back to brands, including the brands they work for. So their expectation is to have more of a say in the brand. This can hurt the ability of leadership to drive a certain brand culture throughout the organization, because employees see themselves as equally suited to say whether a particular course of action is appropriate. At the same time, employees are more brand-identified than ever before, and they WANT to be part of a great brand. So I think they are more willing to participate in creating a great brand, and are more able to see themselves as stewards of the brand in their interactions with customers.        7. Do you think that the way we do business is changing? Is there, for example, more focus on ethics or is this simply a reaction to the current political environment?    I think organizations are more conscious than ever of ethics, integrity, the environment, and so on. In the U.S., Bank of America is running ads demonstrating how its employees have contributed back to the communities in which they work, and saying in effect that you should

bank with us because we are socially responsible. I don’t know whether that will have an impact on using the brand, but companies seem to think that it will.        8. How important do you think company values are versus the brand? How do the two concepts relate to each other? Is it practicable / necessary to have both concepts? Why or why not? Where does culture belong? Can culture be controlled by branding?    Company values are absolutely critical to branding. It is essential that companies have values, and that the values be the right ones. Generic or bland value statements have no meaning and can actually detract from the brand. Culture is critical to branding—you cannot have a sustainable brand unless you use the brand to drive the organization so that the norms, beliefs, customs, rules, and regulations, training, organizational structure, and all of that supports the business results that the brand is supposed to create. As Barlow and Stewart argue in Branding Customer Service, you must start with the experience that you want the customer to have and then work backward to create a culture that will enable those experiences.        9. How can a brand grow and still remain true to itself?    The goal of every brand should be to grow and serve everyone in the niche that it has identified, without losing the integrity of its message. It is very tempting for brands to try to be everything to everyone, and unfortunately success can lead them in that direction. But the most important thing is to say, this is my core customer and this is the experience I want to provide to that customer, and I will not stray from that. If the brand is itching to do more, it can create another brand to serve another group of customers. But it should not expand beyond the limits of what Sergo Zyman calls “brand immunity”—it should never do things that are contrary to its character in order to sell to more customers.        10. Which brands do you admire most and why? What can be learned from them?      What are the key success factors for brands today? Key challenges and obstacles?    The brands that I admire most are people-brands, generally, not organization-brands. Oprah Winfrey and Hillary Clinton come to mind. They are both examples of stubborn determination, in the face of constant obstacles, to be successful in the way that they uniquely define success. And they never look back or second-guess themselves or try to leap out of the categories that they have defined for themselves. They are disciplined and persistent, and yet they are flexible enough to listen to their constituents and incorporate that feedback into their message. And that is what I think every brand ought to be. The key challenge for brands today is to stay in tune with what’s going on with customers, but at the same time not to get thrown off course or off-message.. That is a delicate balance to strike.  

     11. Are there any other issues/challenges/concerns that come to mind in this context?    I the biggest issue for brands is how much they are willing to gamble on their concept in a world where consumers are fickle and where a good idea can be copied instantly. At the end of the day this requires a certain disciplined irreverence. By that I mean that companies should do their homework, figure out exactly who they are targeting, down to a detailed psychographic of their customer, and then let their imaginations run free. This involves a certain amount of risk but it is a disciplined kind of risk, and companies should be willing both to invest liberally in new ideas and to pull the plug on those ideas if they are not working. They should also be prepared to change course frequently—offer new products, services, enhancements, etc. to keep the brand fresh. The important thing is to stay true to the spirit of the brand and the customer for that brand. If you know your brand and you know your customer better than anyone, and you stay focused on aligning the brand experience for the customer all the time, you have a recipe for sustainable brand success. And that is why the employees of the brand organization are critical. They are the ones who reach out to customers on the frontlines and they are the ones who must tell you when it is time to correct your course of action. If you don’t have a good pipeline from the frontline employees to leadership, then you don’t know when things are going wrong and it takes much longer to adjust as needed.            Customer  service,  social  media,  and  branding-­‐-­‐why  brand  makers  should  never,  never  give  up  trying  -­‐  2008-­‐01-­‐05  15:18      In an article for Brandweek, blogger Shel Holtz talks about the proliferation of “social media” (online participatory sites), including social networking sites and blogs. He cites a study showing that “22% of U.S. consumers are using social networking sites, a 5% increase in just one year.” What’s more, “19% use blogs, a 13% spike. And use of these channels has doubled among people over 55.”      What this means, says Holtz, is that consumers are more often “experiencing your brand in places where you have no control. What’s more, they’re making purchase decisions based on those experiences.” It’s true: people are going online to learn about brands from bloggers, people who leave testimonials on e-commerce websites, friends, and family. Interestingly, they are NOT learning much about brands from company-sponsored websites. So the situation, for brands, is pretty dire: let’s not even talk about co-creation! We’re approaching a situation of customer-creation.    Holtz pairs this with the fact that bloggers tend to write about poor experiences with

customer service/technical support, and consumers tend to read about those experiences online. “Every time someone reads a blog post about a tech support nightmare, he has a brand experience. Every time a prospective customer hears someone tell a customer-service horror story, she has a brand experience.”  For Holtz, this leads to the argument that “customer service and tech support are reporting to the wrong box on the organization chart. These functions are the front line of public relations.”  He couldn’t be more accurate. In an era where social media rules, frontline consumer-facing functions are absolutely critical to creating a positive brand experience.  Holtz offers three ways to ensure a positive customer service/tech support experience:  

• Invest in staffing and training for these company representatives (of course!)  • Have customer service/tech support actively look for people having trouble on

social networks (I’m not sure I buy into that one…it seems like a lot of trouble to go through and then you can’t even necessarily reach the complainer)  

• Make every company employee “a potential customer service or tech support rep.” What he means by this is that employees (as in #2 above) should be online looking for ways to be the face of the organization. (I’m not sure I buy into that one either…imagine a company with thousands and thousands of employees, all wasting their time looking online for people who are having bad brand experiences with the company.)  

He makes a good overall point, though: that “When any employee can reach out to a customer and solve their problem, the buzz is even better and the brand grows even stronger.”  I think the key takeaway here is that companies are in a fundamental, seismic shift of massive proportions going on and they don’t even realize it. Consumers are slowly but surely taking away control of the brand from the brand maker and putting it into their own hands. And that is a problem because branding, as I have stated repeatedly, is a matter of the brand maker creating a vision, or position for the brand and then reinforcing that vision in every way possible. The implication of Holtz’s argument, which has also been echoed elsewhere in talk about “curator culture” and other archetypes for consumer empowerment, is that brand makers are losing the ability to create brands in the first place. And that is a scary thing.  What should brand makers do? Should they just yield all control of the brand to consumers? Or should they strive to create an even tighter brand experience, a net if you will that will reach over and drape consumers in its web of positive customer brand experiences? If you ask me, I believe that they should make the effort. This means, as Holtz suggests, investing in training frontline customer service and tech support staff, of course. But it also means more than that. It means creating a special cadre of employees whose entire job is to represent the company online. That means infiltrating social networks (honestly, authentically, as company representatives, but infiltrating nonetheless) and finding ways to generate positive buzz about the organization. It means responding to blog posts; countering negative testimonials; and generally doing everything humanly possible to create a sense of consistency around the brand.          In today’s climate, the job of building a brand is undoubtedly harder than it has ever been before. Marketers, however, have no right to throw up their hands in despair and say “I can’t do it.” Rather, they must redouble their efforts to create positive, consistent brand experiences, both online and offline, through advertising and marketing promotions and creating physical, tangible brand experiences that are memorable in the right way. It means

hiring the right people at every level of the organization to create a consistent, positive brand culture that delivers on the values the organization ascribes to in every interaction with the public and with other employees. It means beefing up the website, because even if people don’t view it as the ultimate authority on the brand, it still carries a great deal of weight. It means, in short, making sure that wherever people encounter the brand, they are encountering the right set of experiences, tightly knit, heavily controlled, yet personally liberating, symbolic, and meaningful. That is true brand mastery and that is an art that will never, never go away.            McDonald's  goes  after  Starbucks,  Starbucks  freaks  out  -­‐  2008-­‐01-­‐07  20:41        Today’s   Wall   Street   Journal   (January   7,   2008)   reports   that   McDonald’s   is   looking   Starbucks  square  in  the  eye  and  going  after  its  core  customer.  “Starting   this   year,   the   company's   nearly   14,000   U.S.   locations   will   install   coffee   bars   with  ‘baristas’  serving  cappuccinos,  lattes,  mochas  and  the  Frappe,  similar  to  Starbucks'  ice-­‐blended  Frappuccino.”  Greedy  McDonald’s  forecasts  $1  billion  in  annual  sales  from  the  program.  The  move  is  a  good  sign  and  a  bad  sign  for  Starbucks.  It’s  a  good  sign  in  that  it  recognizes  just  how   mainstream   “upscale   coffee”   has   become—it   validates   Starbucks’   position   as   a   key  purveyor  of  that  type  of  drink.  It’s   bad   for   Starbucks   for   the   very   same   reason—it   shows   how   commoditized   the   Starbucks  experience   is—the   very   thing   that   Starbucks   chairman   (now   CEO)   Howard   Schultz   warned  about  in  his  famous  leaked  memo  of  February  2007.    It   is   sort   of   shocking   that   things   have   gotten   to   this   point.   Starbucks  was   supposed   to   be   the  polar  opposite  of  a  commodity  purveyor  of  food  like  McDonald’s.  But  guess  what?  They  added  food  to  the  menu  as  well  as  drive-­‐through  windows  to  achieve  growth,  and  they  became,  in  the  end,  somewhat  McDonald’s-­‐like.  Starbucks   is   very  worried   about   this   encroachment   from  a  potential   competitor—so  much   so  that  the  company  just  announced  it  is  bringing  back  Howard  Schultz  to  run  the  company  as  CEO.    Schultz  is  going  to  lead  “a  major  restructuring  initiative”  that  includes  a  series  of  initiatives  like  closing  poorly-­‐performing  stores,  new  products,  new  store  designs,   and  better   training   for   its  baristas.    I   can   understand   that   Starbucks   is   concerned.   But   I   will   bet   you,   dollars   to   donuts,   that  McDonald’s  will  never  encroach  on  the  true  Starbucks  consumer.  The  brand’s  “immune  system”  (to  quote   former  Coca-­‐Cola  Chief  Marketing  Officer   Sergio  Zyman)  won’t   allow   it.   Sure,   if   you  want   a   syrupy,   cheap   latte   you  will   be   able   to   get   one   at  Mickey   D’s.   But   the   Golden   Arches  cannot   imitate  the  ambience  of  Starbucks—which  still  exists,  no  matter  what  anybody  says  or  how  supposedly  commoditized  the  chain  has  become.        At  the  very  worst,  says  the  Journal,  “the  new  coffee  program  is  a  risky  bet  for  McDonald’s.”  Why?  “It   could   slow   down   operations   and   alienate   customers   who   come   to   McDonald's   for   cheap,  simple  fare  rather  than  theatrics.  Franchisees  say  that  many  of  their  customers  don't  know  what  a  latte  is.”  

I,   for  one,  am  absolutely  disgusted  at  the  lengths  McDonald’s  will  go  to  to  take  over  the  eating  experience  of  every  American.  Is  there  nothing  sacred  anymore?  Starbucks,  for  all  its  failings,  is  still  that  special  “third  place”  and  I  would  never  go  to  McDonald’s  to  replicate  it.    At  the  same  time,  I  can  understand  McDonald’s  motivations.  Like  any  brand  hungry  for  growth,  it   sees   an   expansion   opportunity.   However,   the   McD’s   brand   does   not   have   "permission"   to  expand  into  the  Starbucks  space.  If  I  were  Starbucks,  I  would  not  be  terribly  worried  about  it.  In  fact,   I  might  view   it,   if   anything,   as   a  way   to  expand  my  own  market.  And  Schultz  has   said  as  much.  As  the  Journal  article  notes:  “Mr.  Schultz  has  said  that  new  competition  actually  helps  Starbucks  by  expanding  the  specialty-­‐coffee   category.   ‘Those   consumers   over   time   are   going   to   trade   up,’   he   told   investors   in  November.   ‘They're   going   to   trade   up   because   they   are   not   going   to   be   satisfied   with   the  commoditized  experience  or  the   flavor.’  He  has  emphasized  that  Starbucks's  baristas,  who  are  instructed  to  memorize  customers'  drink  orders  and  make  genuine  conversation  with  patrons,  will  continue  to  set  the  chain  apart.”  At  the  same  time,  Starbucks  needs  to  see  this  as  a  major  warning  signal.  As  I  have  said  before,  it  is   time   to   reinvent   the   brand—now.   Starbucks   should   consider   killing   its   own   brand   and  resurrecting  it  as  something  even  better—the  ultimate,  uncopyable  “third  space”  that  is  suited  for   the  way  we   live   now.   There   is   no   growth   left   for   Starbucks   as   it   stands   anymore—it   has  saturated  the  market.   It   is  time  to  do  something  daring,  different,  and  better—astounding  and  delighting  the  millions  (billions?)  of  dedicated  Starbucks  fans  out  there  who  are  rooting  for  the  brand  to  survive  and  succeed.          Why  U.S.  federal  government  agencies  don’t  brand  themselves  -­‐  2008-­‐01-­‐08  20:55      In an article titled “Treasury's £2.4m on ‘image’,” U.K.’s The Sun newspaper states that England’s “Treasury chiefs have blown £2.4million in a year on image makeovers. The cash was spent on logos, branding and marketing staff to promote the work of the department and its agencies.”      The article notes that the “biggest spender was the shambolic HM Revenue and Customs, notorious for losing the bank details of 25 million people. It lavished £390,000 on seven brand management staff plus £750,000 on a marketing team last year. Chancellor Alistair Darling blew another £130,000 on ‘branding manuals’ for his departments.”  The article goes on in this vein, eventually quoting Tory spokesman Philip Hammond, who said: “It beggars belief that departments that are supposed to be responsible for the public purse are lavishing millions on self-promotion.”  This kind of story, in a nutshell, could be a key reason why U.S. federal government agencies don’t brand themselves. They could be concerned that the public will view money spent on branding as wasteful frippery rather than serving the taxpayers’ interests.  The job of a brand is to create an emotional connection between an organization and its (external and internal) customers. In doing so, the brand improves the relationship between agencies and their public stakeholders and unifies employees to perform the mission. Branding, in short, makes organizations function better. It is the furthest thing possible from

waste (unless, of course, it is done badly, incoherently, inconsistently, or inauthentically). Yet the media is ready to pounce on any dollar spent that is not purely operational—that does not go directly toward the mission.  I ask you, where would agencies be without other mission support areas, like information technology, human resources, finance? The answer: Nowhere, and everybody knows it. Agencies need mission support in order to function. The same is true of branding. Branding, and its sister function marketing, exists in order to make operations palatable to the public, to increase public consumption of products and services, and even to increase the likelihood that the public will pay attention to the informational messages that the agency is sending.  More than that, agencies have public affairs staffs whose job it is to disseminate key information to the public. Their jobs would be made immeasurably easier if their information were associated with a powerful brand, a brand that people paid attention to. How many U.S. federal agencies can you name, off the top of your head?  In short, U.S. public agencies need a brand. And it is up to agencies’ public affairs staff to make the case for branding both within and outside the agency as necessary. The problem is, branding is a “soft discipline,” so it is difficult to make a numbers-based business case—you can’t quantify exactly how much the relationship between the agency and the public will be improved, for example, or predict how much public consumption of agency products and services will go up after the brand has been instituted. I know that Interbrand and perhaps Young & Rubicam (through its Brand Asset Valuator) can quantify the value of a brand of a publicly held, commercial company, but no comparable measures exist for the value of a brand to a public agency.  Unfortunately, there isn’t much research in this area that I am aware of. It would be helpful if there were.  Until such best practice research arrives on the scene, perhaps in the form of a ground-breaking book on federal agency branding, we public affairs professionals working in government can wait for the winds of enlightenment to spring up and carry us to the promised land. But right now, with the lack of information/education available on the taxpayer benefits associated with branding, I wouldn’t hold my breath.        Country  branding  –  an  instructive  article  on  Brand  Kenya  -­‐  2008-­‐01-­‐09  20:15      Nairobi’s   Business  Daily   (8   January     2008)   carried   an   excellent   opinion   piece   on  what  Kenya  needs  to  do  to  build  a  country  brand,  especially  in  the  face  of  the  current  instability.  “Whereas  we   had   reached   a   point   where   Kenya   was   seen   as   a   case   study   in   political   tranquility   and  economic   stability,   we   are   now   being   showcased   in   the   international   media   as   a   war-­‐torn  economic   time   bomb,”   writes   the   author,   the   CEO   of   Interbrand   Sampson   East   Africa.   “One  solution  to  counter  this  is  to  create  a  strong  country  brand.”  

According  to  the  writer,  a  country  brand  offers  the  following  key  benefits,  and  I  strongly  agree:  

1 Improves  a  nation’s  image  in  general  (obviously)  

2 Aligns   citizen’s   way   of   thinking   about   the   country   “and             speeds   up   healing   and  reconciliation”…  “builds  up  patriotism  and  pride.”  

 3  4 Positions  a  nation  “way  above  its  peers”…offers  a            “competitive  edge”  as  countries  

“compete…for   tourism,   inward   investment             and   export   sales.”   (Maybe   this   is            three  separate  benefits?)  Specifically,  it  “gives  weight  to  the  ‘made  in’            label  because  it  will  positively  aid  the  sale  of  products  in  foreign            markets.”  

 How  do  you  develop  a  country  brand?  The  writer  notes  that  you  need:  

1. The  involvement  of  “government,  business,  the  arts,  education  and  importantly  the  media.”  (I  wonder  how  a  country  can  involve  the  media  if  the  media’s  role  is  to  maintain  impartiality  and  be  above  notions   like  branding.  The  media  might   report  on  branding,  but  how  would  they  be  a  part  of  it?)  2. “To  find  out  how  your  country  is  perceived  both  internally  by  citizens  and  externally  by  people   abroad  who  you  want   to   influence.”   (“You   should   also   consult  with  opinion  leaders…and  compare  their  views.”)  This  step  cannot  be  underestimated.  It  is  the  critical  marketing  research  piece  that  every  brand  requires  in  order  to  be  successful.  

The  resulting  “brand  idea  and  positioning…positively  and  clearly  differentiates  the  country  from  any  other.”  This  “enables  the  development  of  messaging  to  the  various  audiences  previously  identified.”  The  writer  goes  on  to  state  that  “the  most  difficult  part  of  country  branding  is  on  the  ground  roll  out.   You   should  work   out   a   programme   to  make   the   strategy   tangible   through   improvement  projects.”  (I’m  not  sure  I  understand  that  part.  What  kind  of  improvement  projects?  How  does  this  relate  to  the  brand?)    The  author   further  writes   that   it   is   challenging   to   create  a   collaborative   system   to   implement  the  brand  strategy  (across  government,  business,   the  media,  etc.),   “without  making   it   look  too  governmental,   because   people  will   instinctively   avoid  working  with   it.”   (My   question   is,   why  will   people  not  want   to  work  with   the   government  on  a  brand   strategy   for   the   country?  This  does  not  make  intuitive  sense  to  me.)  The  author  states  that  although  executing  the  strategy  takes  time,  the  important  thing  is  to  “be  consistent,   building   an   integrated   picture   and   always   backing   it  with   quality.”   This   should   be  unaffected  by  what   is   going  on  politically.   (I   am  not   sure,   again,   how   the   strategy   is   executed  unless   by   traditional   means—advertising,   marketing   promotions,   online   awareness-­‐building,  etc.)  Overall  I  found  this  article  very  useful  and  highly  instructive—for  country  branding  or  any  other  kind   of   branding,   for   that   matter.   The   key   equation   is:   collaboration   +   research   =   brand  positioning  and  messaging.    Of   course,   there   is   always   the   question   of   brand   vision—is   there   a   way   to   circumvent   the  research   process   and   come   up   with   a   vision   for   the   brand   that   is   derived   from   someone’s  personal  genius?  I  think  so  in  theory,  although  it  is  risky  for  an  entire  country  to  do  that.    Finally,  there  is  the  question  of  execution,  which  remains  murky.  How  exactly  do  you  implement  a   brand   strategy   for   a   country?   Aside   from   advertising   (or   maybe   the   primary   tactic   is  advertising)?  I  would  like  to  read  more  in  these  kinds  of  articles  about  specific  brand-­‐building  approaches,   both   for   country   branding   and   branding   in   general.   I   am   reading   another   brand  book  now  and  it  also  suffers  from  the  same  murky  approach  to  actual  implementation…more  on  that  in  a  future  post.    

     Branding  and  the  upcoming  U.S.  presidential  election  -­‐  2008-­‐01-­‐12  12:10          The News & Observer (January    8,  2008) recently published a negative article about branding in the political arena, “Choosy voters choose to go beyond branding.” It’s about the “fusion of ‘branding’ and politics that characterizes not only the way candidates and consultants pitch campaigns to the public, but also the way many of us now see public life.” The author calls this fusion “branditics.”      The   author   argues   that   “branditics”   reduces   the   complexity   of   politics   to   simplistic  messages,  and  says  “Brands  work  better  in  grocery  stores  than  in  the  White  House.”  The  writer  understands  branding  well:  It  is  indeed  “the  process  of  taking  something  on  a  shelf  or  in  an  office  park  and  transforming  it  into  an  emotional  experience  that  pulls  us  in,  makes  us  believe,  inspires  us  to  buy.  A  strong  brand  captures,  compresses  and  conveys  an  organization's  values,  the  promise  of  its  products  and  the  guarantee  of  a  consistent  customer  experience.”  However,  he  does  not  believe   that  potential  presidents   should  be   sold   like   “cans  of  Coke.”  He  does   not   believe   that   we   should   be   content   with   oversimplified   labels   such   as   “security”   for  Giuliani,  “competency”  for  Clinton,  “faith”  for  Huckabee,  or  “hope”  for  Obama.    The  problem,  he  says,  is  that  branding  closes  off  choices  for  the  candidates  whereas  they  need  “room  to  maneuver,”  to  be  flexible.    I   have   to   disagree   with   this   author.   I   think   the   candidates,   particularly   Obama,   Clinton,   and  Giuliani,  are  doing  a  great  job  branding  themselves  for  public  consumption.  In  an  election  where  it   is   sometimes   hard   to   tell   apart   the   candidates’   positions   on   complex   issues,   we   need   a  shortcut  that  helps  us  define  who  we  may  be  voting  for.  Branding  doesn’t  close  off  choices  for  the  candidates,  it  merely  encapsulates  exactly  who  they  are,  what  they  value,  what  they  promise  to  the  American  people,  and  how  they  will  make  that  experience  consistent.    Related   to   this   is   the   question   of   “rebranding   America”—which   candidate  will   be   the   best   at  giving  the  U.S.  the  image  makeover  many  feel  it  needs?  Some  feel  that  it  is  Obama,  because  of  his  race—“A   brown-­‐skinned   man   whose   father   was   an   African,   who   grew   up   in   Indonesia   and  Hawaii,   who   attended   a   majority-­‐Muslim   school   as   a   boy,   is   now   the   alleged   enemy”—they  believe  that  America  needs  a  nonwhite  president  to  convey  the  message  that  we  are  not  Anglo-­‐elitists  bent  on  dominating  the  world.  I  think  that  is  certainly  a  possibility.  A  Clinton  presidency  would,  to  me,  have  a  similar  effect—in  electing  a  female  we  would  be  sending  a  strong  message  about   our   beliefs   in   equality   and   diversity   and   those   beliefs   are   far-­‐reaching.  Would   electing  Giuliani   be   good   for   the  U.S.   brand?  Probably  not—right  now  we  need   to  project   an   image  of  world  diplomacy,  not  stubbornness  and  being  closed  off  to  other  nations  and  other  views.  How  about  McCain?  I  say,  eh—I  don’t  get  much  of  a  brand  image  there,  other  than  that  he’s  sort  of  a  standard  Republican,  whatever  that  means.  And  in  my  view  none  of  the  other  candidates  really  stand  much  of  a  chance  right  now…if  they  do  at  some  later  time  then  I’ll  weigh  in  on  their  brand  image.  

Any  way  you  look  at   it,  branding  is  really  critical  right  now  in  the  U.S.  elections.  It’s  an  overall  positive   for   the   voter,   who   gets   to   make   more   meaningful   choices,   and   it’s   a   way   to   hold  candidates  accountable  to  some  philosophy  or  value  system  that  they  will  have  to  stick  with.  It  is  further  a  way  to  help  the  American  voter  decide  what  kind  of   image  they  want  to  project   in  the  world  as  a  nation,  and  now  is  a  critical  time  for  that  kind  of  decision  to  take  place.          Switching  agencies  and  branding  -­‐  2008-­‐01-­‐15  19:08      A new article in Adweek (January 14, 2008) reports that in a survey of chief marketing officers, “nearly half of marketers plan to fire at least one of their agencies and change direction,” according to the Chief Marketing Officer Council’s second annual forecast.          A total of 825 chief marketing officers were surveyed. They are turning “away from traditional advertising and public relations and toward ‘customer-facing’ and lead generation programs such as event marketing and e-mail.”      Nearly half of respondents, 45 percent, said they were going to change agencies in 2008. They plan to fire their Web design and development firms, direct marketing agencies, general ad agencies, and PR firms.  

The article quotes Dave Murray, executive vice president of the CMO Council, who said that Web “is the top priority in terms of brand, customer engagement, insight.” And chief marketing officers are sick of “a lack of innovation,” “no value-added thinking,” and “poor creative.”      Not that they’re spending less money. Fully half of respondents say they will spend more on marketing, including “e-mail programs, CRM, marketing performance measurement dashboards and search engine marketing.”      It appears that the most marketing dollars are being allocated to “strategy and branding,” followed by events, trade shows, operations, direct marketing, sales support, online, and advertising.      So what does this survey show? Marketing officers want to get closer to the customer, and they believe that experiential marketing—direct contact—and the Web are the way to do that. They are less interested in advertising than they were before, certainly.      

   This is a seismic shift for branding. We are now witnessing the advent of the interactive brand age, and the death of one-way communication models like advertising. Marketers are paying heed to what customers are saying (whether directly or indirectly), which is that they want more in-touch modes of being connected with than just a 30-second commercial. It will be interesting to see where this trend takes us.        Employer  branding  and  Generation  Y  (well,  all  generations)  -­‐  2008-­‐01-­‐16  13:11      The   Caymanian   Compass   features   an   articleabout   employer   branding   and   Generation   Y.    The  article  notes   that  a  2004  study  by  Deloitte  Consulting  LLP  and   the   Institute  of   the  Future  found   six   basic   workplace   values   that   this   generation   holds.   These   are:    1.   More   loyal   to   the   same   company   than   Gen   Xers  2.   "Craves   a   sense   of   purpose   and   meaning"  3.   "Desire   access   to   mentors"  4.   "Want   to   work   in   a   tech-­‐savvy   environment"  5.   "Open   social   networks...are   important   to   them"  6.   "Work-­‐life   balance"    How   does   this   translate   into   branding?    Deloitte   uses   the   “Develop–Deploy–Connect”   model:    1.   Develop   people   by   offering   "real-­‐life   learning   opportunities"  2.   "Deploy   key   individuals   by  working  with   them   to   identify...deep   rooted   skills,   interest,   and  knowledge,   and   then   use   that   information   to   help   find   the   best   fit"  3.   "Connect   them   by   providing   the   tools   and   guidance   they   need   to...build   networks"    The  article  cautions   that   "your  employer  brand  must  reflect"   this  model,  noting   that  branding  "can't  be  done  simply  by  communicating  a  set  of  ideals,  particularly  for  the  cynical  Gen  Y  group  that   has   been   bombarded   by   advertising   messages   all   their   lives."    Rather,   employer   branding   "comes   from   the   actual   practices   that   make   up   an   organisation."  These   include:    1.   "The   products   and   services   you   offer"  2.   "Workplace   culture"  3.   "Points   of   differentiation   from   competitors."    I'm   not   sure   that   I   see   how   the   "develop-­‐deploy-­‐connect"   model   has   anything   to   do   with  branding,   but   I   do   agree   that   branding   is  more   than   just   providing   a   series   of  messages.   The  

brand  has   to   live   in   the  product/service   offering,   in   the   culture   (through   vision,  mission,   and  values)   and   in   positioning   (points   of   differentiation).   But   here   again,   I'm   not   sure   I   see   the  difference  between  the  product/service  offering  and  points  of  differentiation-­‐-­‐to  me  these  are  one   and   the   same.   So   the   brand   lives   in   the   culture   (which   can   be   the   unique   way   that   the  organization  develops,  deploys,  and  connects)  and  the  positioning.  And  this   is  true  not  just  for  Gen   Y,   but   for   all   generations.    Which  brings  me  to  a  book   I   just   finished  reading.   It's  called  Brand  From  the   Inside,  by  Libby  Sartain   and  Mark   Schumann.   The  book  purports   to   tell   you  how   to   build   an   employer   brand,  through   eight   steps.   But   I   thought   this   book  was   a   lot   of   nonsense   gibberish.   I   didn't   get   the  message   at   all.   The   authors   don't   provide   one   single   concrete   example   of   employer   branding  that  makes  any  sense  to  me,  with  the  exception  of  FedEx's  "Purple  Promise"  and  the  "Freedoms"  that   Southwest   provides   to   its   employees.   Plus   they   repeat   themselves   over   and   over   again.    Here   are   some   examples   of   the   vague   advice   this   book   gives:    1.   "Your   employer   brand   must   define   what   your   business   needs   from   your   employees."   (p.  31)Well,  duh!  But  why  not  just  call  it  the  overarching  brand  and  have  employees  contribute  to  that?    2.  "Your  employer  brand  must  define  on-­‐brand  behavior."  (p.  36)  Again,  duh!  What  do  you  think  an   employer   brand   should   do,   define   off-­‐brand   behavior?    3.  "Your  employer  brand  must  connect  what  happens  outside  to  what  happens  inside."  (p.  37)  This   advice   is   just   silly.   There   is   only   one   brand,   and   it   connects   everything.    After  reading  this  book,  I  am  starting  to  think  that  the  concept  of  employer  branding  makes  no  sense.   There   is   not   one   brand   that   faces   the   public   and   another   brand   that   faces   employees.  There  is  a  single  brand,  and  everybody  has  to  understand  it,  internalize  it,  and  contribute  to  it.  That  means  the  culture  reflects  it,  as  well  as  the  positioning.  No  special  accommodations  should  be   made   because   you're   talking   to   an   internal   audience   rather   than   an   external   one.    I   also   disagree   with   the   authors'   advice   to   make   a   so-­‐called   "business   case"   for   employer  branding  because  no  models  are  yet  available  (that  I  know  of)  that  can  determine  the  value  an  employer   brand   adds   to   the   business.    At  the  end  of  the  day,  as  former  chief  marketing  officer  at  Coca-­‐Cola  Sergio  Zyman  might  say  (as  in  his  book  The  End  of  Marketing  As  We  Know  It),  you  brand  your  business  because  it  helps  you  to  make  more  money  from  your  customers.  You  tell  your  employee  what  the  brand  is  all  about-­‐-­‐you  show   them  what   it's   all   about-­‐-­‐because   it  will  help  you   to  drive   sales.  That   is   the  bottom  line.  That   is   their  motivation-­‐-­‐to  help  the  business  succeed.  All   this  other  nebulous  stuff  about  energizing  the  workforce  with  an  emotional  commitment  is  just  pie  in  the  sky.  You  can  present  benefits  statements  wrapped  in  a  brand  until  you're  blue  in  the  face-­‐-­‐but  I  think  employees  see  right  through  it.  Everything  the  company  does  should  be  about  selling  to  the  outside,  not  selling  to  the  inside.  Your  employees  are  already  sold  on  the  brand  (or  else  they  should  be),  and  that's  why  they  work  for  you.  

     Leaders  apologizing  and  branding  -­‐  2008-­‐01-­‐28  18:38      Financial   Week   has   an   article(January   28)   about   apologizing   and   members   of   the   C-­‐suite.    "Mattel’s   Robert   Eckert   apologized   for   lead-­‐tainted   toys;   JetBlue’s  David  Neeleman   for   letting  passengers   rot   on   the   runway;   and   Apple’s   Steve   Jobs   for   uneven   iPhone   pricing."    Why   are   business   leaders   apologizing   so   much?    The  article  answers  that  "Branding  101  taught  us  all  that  a  brand  is  more  than  a  product  name  or   a   company   logo   and   that   loyalty   can’t   be   bought   with   an   ad.   Brand   loyalty   is   a   gift   from  customers   to   companies   that   consistently   earn   their   trust   and   demonstrate   credibility   over  time.   It   can   also   be   taken   away   at   any   time."    What  this  means  is  that  consumers  are  ever-­‐ready  to  withdraw  their  trust  from  brand  leaders  and  take  it  elsewhere.  It  is  upon  brand  leaders,  therefore,  to  consistently  demonstrate  that  they  are   worthy   of   brand   trust.    The  article   tells   leaders   to  be  always  mindful  of  whether   their   communication   is  good   for   the  brand.   Not   only   that,   leaders   should   open   up   two-­‐way   modes   of   communication   such   as  customer   advisory   councils   and   even   a   CEO   blog.    The  article  concludes  with  advice  to  make  sure  that  "every  executive,  manager  and  employee  in  the  company  understands  what  is  important  to  customers  and  that  every  meeting  ends  with  one  question:   “Will   this   decision   help   or   hurt   our   brand?”    I  think  it  is  important  for  leaders  to  be  ready  to  apologize  when  they  do  something  that  violates  the   brand.   Apologizing   restores   the   lost   trust   between   the   consumer   and   the   company   that  could   otherwise   be   expressed   in   hostile   blog   or   YouTube   posts.   It   is   good   business.          2008  -­‐  09  25  Ways  To  Use  Technology  for  Brand-­‐Aligned  Communication  -­‐  2008-­‐09-­‐26  11:54      This  week  I  spoke  at  the  ALI  Strategic  Internal  Communication  in  Government  conference  about  using   technology   to   facilitate   internal   communication.    The  starting  point  was   that  everything  a  communicator  does,   including   the  use  of   technology,  should   ultimately   be   in   support   of   total   brand   alignment.    

Then   I   progressed   into   a   discussion   of   technology   itself,   and   how   to   implement   it   effectively  given   a   specific   mission,   culture,   communication   style,   and   desired   brand.    Here   is   some   actionable   advice   on   this   subject:    

1 Put   your   logo   on   every   communication—external   website,   intranet,   blog,   etc.    

2 Work   within   the   culture,   not   against   it,   to   facilitate   technology   adoption.    

3 Keep   your   message   consistent   across   channels/platforms.    

4 Purposely   customize   your   external   website   to   an   internal   audience.    

5 Use   technology   to   facilitate   human   interaction,   not   replace   it.    

6 Reassess   user   rights   frequently   to   protect   against   information   leaks.    

7 Accept   criticism   (e.g.   via   blog)   but   insist   that   employees   put   their   name   on   it.    

8 Treat   technology   as   a   necessity   not   an   option.    

9 Use  technology  strategically—filter  information  to  the  right  people  at  the  right  time.    

10 Don’t  over-­‐write—short  and  simple  is  best  online,  where  people  scan  and  don’t  read.    

11 Longer   documents   should   be   in   deeper   links   that   people   can   print   if   they   need   to.    

12 Use   technology   to   inform   your   employees   of   an   issue   before   the   media   does.    

13 Customize  delivery  of  information  according  to  employee  usage  habits—email,  online,  handheld   device,   etc.    

14 Start  small  and  build  on  incremental  success  and  word  of  mouth—start  a  revolution  and   it   may   backfire.    

15 Build   in   extensive   support   and   training   for   new   technologies.    

16 Keep   print   materials   available—just   use   them   sparingly.    

17 Use   multiple   and   overlapping   channels   to   communicate—not   just   one.    

18 Make   the   business   case   for   incorporating   new   technologies—start   with   functional  needs   and   move   to   cultural.    

19 Collaborate   extensively   to   achieve   buy-­‐in   around   new   technology   initiatives.    

20 Keep   technology   simple—especially   for   the   communicators   who   will   use   it.    

21 Evolve   strategy   and   execution   continuously—never   rest   on   your   laurels.    

22 Ask   for   feedback   and   act   based   on   it.    

23 Obtain   metrics   where   you   can.    

24 Don’t  use  technology  only  for  technology’s  sake—make  sure  it  has  a  communication  purpose.    

25 Test   your  message  before   you   send   it—and   check  everything,   to   the   smallest  detail  (including  links!)  

     Bring  the  brand  specialist  in  upfront  -­‐  2008-­‐09-­‐27  16:14      I   hear   it   all   the   time   and   have   been   there   too.   The   designer   and   the   corporate   marketing  communications  team  (let's  assume  the  typical  setup  -­‐  not  integrated)  are  brought  in  at  the  last  minute   to   "finish   the   job"   on   a   project   by   "getting   the   word   out".   Nobody   has   consulted   the  marcom  team  to  see  if  the  project  makes  sense  from  a  marketing  perspective,  is  appealing  to  the  customer,  may  have  pitfalls,  etc.  And  they  think  the  designer  is  just  there  to  slap  a  pretty  picture  on  top,  no  need  to  coordinate  with  the  strategic  message  or  the  overall  brand.  Lots  of  time  and  money   wasted   this   way.    How   to   get   over   this   if   you   are   drawn   into   it?    1.   Be   honest   -­‐   ask   questions,   raise   specific   concerns.  2.   Stick   to   your   core   competency.   Don't   question   the   business   model   unless   you   have   the  technical   knowledge   to   do   so.  3.   Partner   with   the   designer   if   you're   organizationally   stovepiped.   Get   on   the   same   page.  4.  Do  the  best  you  can.  Focus  on  simple,  clear,  credible  messages  about  the  project,  even  if  it  is  not   perfect.  5.  Use  and  build  a  network  of  brand  supporters  to  promote  better  brand  alignment  in  the  future.        Random  thoughts  for  today  -­‐  total  branding  and  communication  -­‐  2008-­‐09-­‐29  11:56      A  few  things  I  don't  have  time  to  write  in  depth  about,  but  want  to  mention  and  hopefully  will  expand   on   in   later   posts:    1.  An  easy  way  to  tell  if  your  brand  is  aligned  is  to  look  at  the  quality  of  your  meetings.  If  people  are  disengaged,   unfocused,   or   focused  on   the  wrong   things   (like   side   conversation/humor),   9  

times   out   of   10   your   brand   is   out   of   sync.    2.   Teamwork   is   an   overused   word   but   it   has   a   critical   impact   on   brand   alignment.   If   your  organization  is  experiencing  turf  wars  of  any  kind,  particularly  when  it  comes  to  policy  people  not  communicating  with  brand  people  or  brand  people  not  collaborating  with  each  other,  your  brand  is  not  going  to  work.  Remember,  it's  all  about  the  OUTSIDE  image...the  purpose  of  internal  communication   is   to   feed   into   that.    3.  Communicators  need   to   train   their   clients  NOT   to  ask   for   immediate   communication  plans.  Any  doofus  can  go  onto  Google  or  get  a  book  and  create  a  generic  comm.  plan  (or  consult  the  old  comm.  plan  and  rework   it   into  a  new  one.)  The   job  of  a  communicator   is   to  CUSTOMIZE  each  plan   individually   for   each   situation.   That   means   research,   knowledge   of   the   subject   matter,  coordination,   meetings,   etc.   Doesn't   have   to   take   more   than   a   week,   but   one   day   is   just   not  reasonable.    4.  Similarly  to  #3,  communicators  need  to  be  at  the  table  when  their  plan  is  presented  to  senior  leadership.   They   created   it,   they   understand   the   reasons   behind   it,   and   they   need   to   be   in   a  position   to   negotiate   any   changes   with   decision-­‐makers   directly.    5.  Communicators  are  often  tempted  to  "cave  in"  to  difficult  clients.  This  is  understandable.  We  want  the  business  and  we  won't  get  it  if  our  working  relationships  are  poor.  At  the  same  time,  there   is   a   need   to   hold   the   line   and   insist   on   some   sort   of   integrity   to   a   disciplined   strategic  communications   approach.   One   way   to   handle   this   is   to   develop   governance   processes   (e.g.  guidelines,   templates,   councils,   etc.)   to   stand   in   between   the   communicator   and   the   client   to  keep  them  from  getting  out  of  control.  Then  the  communicator  has  an  overall  structure  to   fall  back  on  when  the  client's  demands  start  getting  unreasonable  or  when  other  communicators  on  the   team   start   getting   creative   only   for   creative's   sake.    6.  The  above  is  particularly  important  in  the  case  of  internal  branding,  where  clients  seem  often  to  feel  like  since  nobody  outside  will  see  their  communications,    they  can  be  as  "homemade"  and  sometimes   outlandish   as   they   want.    7.  Going  back  to  the  last  part  of  #5,  creativity  for  creativity's  sake  is  TERRIBLE  IN  EVERY  WAY.  It's  bad   for   the  brand  (because   it   fragments   the   image),   it's  bad   for   the  communications   team  (because   it   undermines   their   credibility),   and   it's   bad   for   the   organization   (because   it  wastes  time   and   money).   Do   everything   you   can   to   fight   this   cancerous   form   of   communication.    8.  Some  people  confuse  an  official  seal  with  a  brand.  Never  do  that.  A  seal  is  not  going  to  get  you  recognition  outside  the  organization.  A  brand  (encompassing  a   logo)  will.  You  can  have  a  seal,  but  your  focus  should  be  on  the  brand  and  accompanying  logo.        2008  -­‐  10  Total  branding  and  the  financial  crisis  -­‐  2008-­‐10-­‐03  07:51      

Total  Branding  is  about  aligning  an  organization's  functions  with  its  culture  and  communication  despite  the  fact  that  achieving  total  alignment  is  realistically  impossible.  In  an  absence  of  total  alignment   you   basically   do   the   best   you   can.    We  see  this  approach   in  action  with  respect   to  the  bailout.  Both  candidates  are  trying  to  align  their  operations  with  their  culture  and  communication  for  maximum  impact  in  an  environment  where:    1.  There  is  cultural  dissension  within  each  side  about  how  to  fix  the  situation  (e.g.  the  bailout  bill   is   contested)    2.  There  appears  to  be  inability  or  resistance  within  each  side  to  communcating  about  how  it   happened,   except   to   vaguely   blame   "Wall   Street"    3.   The   public   is   divided   about   what   it   wants-­‐-­‐bailout   vs.   no   bailout    As  a  result,  from  a  Total  Branding  perspective,  here  is  how  I  look  at  the  candidates'  approaches  to   the   issue:    1.  Demonstrate  functional  competence  -­‐  good  job  on  both  sides  but  undifferentiated:  Say  that   they   are   serving   the   people   (performing   their   overall   function)   by   assuring   the   bailout  effort   is   done   properly   (subfunction).   Not   coincidentally,   no   brand   differentiation   there-­‐-­‐they  are   in   effect   in   the   same   organization   (government)   and   this   is   basic   competence.    2.  Demonstrate  a  uniquely  valuable  culture  -­‐  partial  success:  Claim  a  distinctive  approach  based  on   their   record  and  party/peer  beliefs,  behaviors,   tradition.   Some  brand  differentiation  there  -­‐  e.g.  regulation  vs.  deregulation  -­‐  but  since  the  Republican  candidates  place  themselves  in  "maverick"   (e.g.   independent)   territory   this   is   a   bit   inconsistent   on   one   side   (they   can   shift  culture   depending   on   the   issue).    This   is   where   it   falls   apart:    3.   Lack   of   communication   clarity,   credibility,   and   consistency.     I   don't   know   what   the  candidates  are  saying  within  their  respective  organizations,  but  to  the  outside  world  something  is   not   working.    Specifically,  neither  candidate   is  credibly  and  clearly  articulating  what  happened  to  cause   this  crash   and   how   their   unique   approach   will   fix   it.   We   hear   catchphrases   like   "Wall   Street  corruption   and   greed"   but   that   is   not   enough.    What   does   the   Total   Branding   approach   recommend?    1.  Tell  the  story  in  a  unique  way:    Explain  the  crash  -­‐  very  basic  -­‐  what  happened,  how  did  it  happen,  who  is  responsible.  Don't  over-­‐focus  on  any  one  group  such  as  Wall  Street:  be  fair  and  evenhanded,   even   if   it   means   blaming   the   public   in   part.    2.  Envision  and  communicate  a  happy  ending:  Show  people  that  there  is  a  light  at  the  end  of  

the   tunnel.   Stop   calling   it   the   equivalent   of   an   "economic   9/11"   or   "Pearl   Harbor."    3.  Offer  a  unique  and  credible  functional  approach  to  arriving  at  the  happy  ending  based  on  a  unique  culture  of  the  potential  administration.  E.g.,  show  how  increased  regulation  will  work  or  show  how  less  but  more  effective  regulation  will  work.        Total  Branding  and  Social  Media  -­‐  Can  These  Seemingly  Opposing  Paradigms  Be  Reconciled?  -­‐  2008-­‐10-­‐06  11:38      Usually  people  don't  think  of  branding  and  social  media  as  opposites.  They  just  talk  about  how  to   deliver   the   brand   through   social   media.   But   in   point   of   fact,   from   a   certain   perspective,  branding   and   social   media   represent   two   completely   different   paradigms:    

• Branding  is  about  delivering  a  consistent  message  to  create  a  consistent  image  • Social  media  is  about  saying  whatever  you  want  to  say  without  regard  to  image  

The  way  I  see  it  is  as  follows:  • The   goal   of   branding   should   be   the   creation   of   a   message   that   is   consistent   yet  

authentic.  • That  way,  whatever   social  media   results   from   the   brand   (whether   it's   Tweets,   blog  

posts,  comments,  or  whatever),  it  will  sound  like  you.    Don't  lose  sight  of  the  importance  of  linking  branding  and  social  media  together.  If  your  brand  is  phony  your  social  media  will  destroy  your  image.    To  avoid  the  phony  brand  syndrome,  here  is  one  practical  thing  you  can  do:  Think  from  a  Total  Branding   perspective-­‐-­‐maximum   alignment   for   maximum   impact-­‐-­‐no   brand   is   ever   fully  aligned.    In  the  real  world,  this  means:  Discover  what  organizational  elements  are  getting  in  the  way  of   your   delivery   of   a   consistent   brand  message   and   try   to   eliminate   them   from   public  view.  You  won't  be  completely  successful,  but  you  can  probably  get  rid  of  some  of  the  offending  communications  clutter.  And  some  is  better  than  none.            Branding  when  there  is  no  brand  -­‐  2008-­‐10-­‐07  20:49      Be  aware  that  you  will  sometimes  need  to  brand  when  there  is  no  brand.  To  create  consistency  when  none  exists.  To  develop  guidelines  when  you  know  they  will  be  retracted   later  on.  Take  the  Total  Branding  approach  and  accept   this   reality  as  a  given.  Don't   get  upset   -­‐   take   it   as   an  opportunity   to   expand   your   skills   in   strategic   thinking   and   implementation.   Remember   that      1.   The   brand   exists   anyway   -­‐   whether   or   not   someone   "decides"   that   it   does  2.   There   is   never   such   a   thing   as   total   brand   alignment;   and    3.   Even   partial   alignment   is   better   than   none.  

 Now  get  out  there  and  do  your  best.            2008  -­‐  11  What  I'm  learning  lately  -­‐  2008-­‐11-­‐04  15:52      Branding   is   king   but   its   a   subset   of   marketing.   You   are   always   trying   to    sell   something.   Never   forget   that   and   try   to   build   a   Coca-­‐Cola   image   for    its  own  glorious  sake.  Also   technical   execution   is   critical.   You   can   have   great   ideas   and   great    plans   but   the   Powerpoint   guru   wins.   Or   in   branding,   the   good   template    that  is  comprehensive  and  usable.  Finally   there   is   focus.   You   cannot   do   it   all   at   once.   Pick   a   few   areas    to  focus  on  and  fight  fires  only  25%  of  the  time.  (Of  course  all  of  this  is  subject  to  conflict,  change,  and  debate.)  I'm   going   to   start   making   more   general   observations   here   as   its   all    relevant  to  Total  Branding  in  the  end.        Templates,  automation,  and  branding  -­‐  2008-­‐11-­‐05  07:17      Related   to   templates,   which   have   obvious   implications   for   branding,   is    automation.   Idea   here   is  -­‐   automate   repetitive   tasks   through   technology  -­‐   teach   people   to   use   the   tools  -­‐  free  them  up  to  do  more  important  work  Branding   is   something   that   should   be   done   in   the   bckground   not   something    that   should   be   discussed,   debated,   and   reinvented   and   reinterpreted    endlessly   until   it   loses   its   impact   and   weastes   people's   time.   Templates    and  automation  help  achieve  that.        Miscellaneous  Tweetlike  thoughts  after  attending  an  employee  engagement  conference  -­‐  2008-­‐11-­‐05  20:54      

• Military  in  the  lead  of  branding/social  media  -­‐  what  are  they    doing  right?  • Marketers   need   to   become   technologists   and   evangelists   for     technology   (and   vice  

versa)   -­‐   because  marketing/branding   and   technology   increasingly   go   hand   in   hand    

• Related   -­‐-­‐   tech   for   tech     sake   still   prevalent   -­‐   leaves   the   user   clueless   -­‐  much  more  marketing  +  organizational  development  insight  needed  here  

• Generational  differences  -­‐  boomer,  x,  y  -­‐    impact  technology  adoption  -­‐younger  must  teach  older  

• Too  much  focus  on    macro  adoption  of  technology  -­‐  need  focus  on  micro  level  to  get  to  what   works   at   broader   level    

• Issue  of  when  to  adopt  technology  hasn't  gone  away  -­‐  can't  be  first  in,  can't  be  too  late  either  

• Remember   the   user   perspective   -­‐   why   should   I   learn   this?    

• Training  vastly    underestimated  in  terms  of  importance  • Training  should  go  hand  in  hand  with  customization  for  user  -­‐  make  it  work  the  way  

user  needs  it  to  • What   is   the   strategic   goal?   We   don't     ask   that   enough   (in   any   context)  

 • Role  of  email  in  social  media  world  -­‐  is  it    dying  with  everything  else  replacing  it?  (e.g.  

Tweets,   wikis...)    

• Don't   get   addicted   to   any   one     technology   -­‐   just   use   whatever   works    

• Remember   that   tech   is   ever     changing   but   users   need   some   stability   -­‐   need   to   find  balance  between  the  two  

• Stupidest   thing   to   say   to   a   user   is   something   that  makes   them   feel   stupid   -­‐     "its   so  easy"  "anyone  can  do  it"  

• Remember  that  minority  of  users  create    majority  of  content  -­‐  just  b/c  a  lot  of  content  doesn't  mean  it's  mainstream  

• Accountability   function  of  electronic  media   -­‐  not  compelling   to    everyone   to  say   the  least...don't   use   it   as   a   selling   feature   to   the   user!!!    

     2008  -­‐  12  Do  you  have  the  level  of  the  brand  right?  -­‐  2008-­‐12-­‐15  08:14      Should   your   brand   have   an   identity   at   a   very   high   level   or   a   very    specific   one?   This   is   a   critical   question   (technically   called   a   "brand    architecture"   issue)   but   my   sense   is   that   it   is   often   ignored   in   favor    of   just   "going   to   market"   with   whatever   new   product,   promise,   premise   or    idea  someone  thinks  should  constitute  a  brand.  Big  mistake.  Big  potential  waste  of  money.  Need   to   decide   who   your   audience   is,   what   they   want/need,   and   whether    they   are   best   served   by   a   high   level   brand   (so   you   include   your   brand   in    that  one)  or  a  very  specific  granular  one  (so  you  start  a  new  one).  

Be   more   strategic   ahead   of   time   and   save   yourself   headaches   down   the    road.        What  prevents  total  brand  alignment  -­‐  in  government  or  anywhere?  -­‐  2008-­‐12-­‐21  08:46      I   just   posted   this   in   GovLoop.com   -­‐   see   what   you   think:    1.   Lack   of   understanding   about  what   branding   is   -­‐  misconception   that   it's   just   a   logo   or   seal  when  in  fact  it's  about  rallying  employees  and  the  public  around  your  clear,  compelling  MISSION  or   identity    2.   Fighting   within   the   agency   about   who   is   going   to   get   the   spotlight   -­‐   the   sense   that   if   the  agency   overall   has   a   brand,   then  my  particular   subgroup  will   not   get   recognized   for   its  work    3.  Related  to  #2,  lack  of  understanding  of  brand  architecture  -­‐  that  a  brand  can  be  organized  to  accommodate  various  sub-­‐brands  without  compromising  the  overall  identity.  The  tendency  is  to  think   in   extremes   -­‐   either   there   is   one  brand  overlord   at  HQ  who  won't   let   anyone   else  have  their   own   identity,   or   there   is   a   completely   decentralized   system   where   any   logo   goes.    4.  Chain  of   command   thinking   -­‐   failure   to   see   that   a  brand   is  only  as  good  as   the  people  who  support  it.  You  can't  tell  employees  what  to  do  and  how  to  feel.  You  can  only  educate,  motivate,  and   inspire   them   to   be   passionate   advocates   for   your   agency   and   its   brand.   And   that   is  accomplished  by  letting  them  have  a  say  in  things.  It's  not  necessarily  that  they  tell  you  what  the  strategic  messages  should  be,  but  that  they  are  free  to  discuss  internally  and  provide  feedback  on   their   experiences  with   stakeholders   and   the   brand   -­‐   and   that   informs   you   about   how   the  brand   is   shaped.  This  means   the   agency   is   sensitive   to   emotional   intelligence   type   issues   and  preferably   has   an   organizational   development   expert   on   staff   who   can   help   to   nurture   this  environment.    5.  Lack  of  coordination  within  the  agency  around  developing  and  deploying  the  brand.  Basically,  the  brand   is  everybody's  business,  not   just  public  affairs',   and  not   just   the   "soft  departments"  like   public   affairs,   HR,   training,   etc.   It   must   be   a   coordinated   effort   between   the   operational  (frontline)   offices,   mission   support,   and   especially   the   office   of   information   technology.    6.   Lack   of   objective   thinking/metrics   around   the  brand.  By   this   I  mean   the   tendency   to   think  impressionistically  or  anecdotally   about   it   rather   than   taking  a   fact/research-­‐based  approach.  How  do  people  perceive  the  agency  and  how  should  they  perceive  it?  Do  citizens  know  where  to  go  to  get  what  they  need?  Do  we  have  any  kind  of  numbers  to  support  these  conclusions?  These  are  the  kinds  of  things  that  senior  leadership  needs  to  see  to  support  a  brand  initiative.        Federal  agency  blogging,  ethics  and  branding  -­‐  2008-­‐12-­‐30  10:21  

   Social   media   is   all   the   rage   among   federal   communicators   today   -­‐   all   of    us   are   talking   about   how   to   implement   it.   And   one   of   the   most   mainstream    elements   of   social   media   in   the   federal   government   so   far   is   blogging.    Here   are   some   thoughts   on   blogging   ethics   and   the   connection   to    government  branding.  That   the   guardians   of   taxpayer   money   are   speaking   directly   to   citizens    is   a   good   thing.   But   the   rise   of   social   media   technology   like   blogs    brings   with   it   a   host   of   ethical   questions   and   issues   that   have   to   be    dealt   with.   A   key   example   is   representation.   Two   common   sense   components    here-­‐-­‐and   there   may   be   further   legal/ethical   requirements   as   well    (obviously  this  is  not  formal  advice!)  1.   When   an   agency   executive   writes   a   blog   on   the   agency's   official    blogsite,   we   the   public   assume   that   they   are   speaking   on   behalf   of   the    agency.   Yet   the   blog   medium   is   inherently   a   reflection   of   one's   personal    thoughts.   There   needs   to   be   a   disclaimer   on   the   site   distinguishing    between  the  two.  2.   This   one   is   well   known   -­‐-­‐   when   an   agency   employee   has   their   own   blog    site,   there   needs   to   be   a   disclaimer   stating   that   his/her   views   are    independent.   In   general   anytime   an   agency   employee   publishes   something    under   their   own   name   (not   as   a   representative   of   he   agency)   they   need   to    clarify  this.  3.   In   an   anonymous   web   environment   (like   a   message   board   where   the    username   is   not   a   real   name)   it   seems   ethical   to   me   to   say,   "I   work   for    x   agency,   and   while   I   don't   speak   for   them,   here's   a   comment."   However,    there   may   be   agency   concerns   here   about   non-­‐representative   employees    commenting   in   public   about   agency   matters   -­‐   further   clarification   is    needed   here.   **And   obviously   nobody   should   ever   reveal   law   enforcement    sensitive  information,  anonymous  or  not.**  4.   In   my   view,   while   everyone   has   a   right   to   express   their   opinions    freely,   the   fact   of   the   matter   is   that   the   person   is   an   embodiment   of    the   government   for   as   long   as   they   work   there,   and   the   site   should   not    contain  anything  that  would  embarrass  or  disgrace  the  agency.  Remember,   EVERYTHING   YOU   DO   AFFECTS   YOUR   AGENCY'S   REPUTATION-­‐IMAGE-­‐BRAND    -­‐   and   you   as   a   US   government   employee   have   an   obligation   not   to   shame    it.  This  is  a  general  rule  of  thumb.  So   for   example   anything   that   would   tarnish   or   undermine   the   agency's    dignity   (e.g.   vacation   party   photos)   should   be   kept   off   of   the   blog    especially   if   there   is   any   indication   made   that   the   blogger   works   for    the   government.   And   remember   someone   can   google   you   and   find   out   you   are    a  fed  even  if  that's  not  on  the  blog.    This  is  just  common  sense.  General   disagreements   over   agency   policy,   I   believe,   should   be   handled    through   internal   channels   or   private   correspondence   with   elected    officials   rather   than   aired   publicly.   If   the   potential   consequences   of    

the   disagreement   are   severe   and   the   above   won't   cut   it,   obviously   you    should  CONSULT  AN  AUTHORITY  about  what  to  do.  Now   if   you   believe   your   agency   is   doing   something   wrong   -­‐   e.g.   fraud,    waste,   abuse,   gross   mismanagement,   etc.   -­‐   you   also   obviously   have   the    right   and   the   duty   to   report   it   through   all   proper   channels   and   legal    advice  is  definitely  warranted.              

BlogBook  v0.5,  LATEX  2ε  &  GNU/Linux.  

http://www.blogbooker.com    

Edited:  February  14,  2015