‘Tis The Season. (For strategic planning.)

As this difficult economic year winds to a close, many companies will tell you they are happy to have simply survived. But as CEO strategist Dr. Rick Johnson writes in a recent article, “…now is not the time to dig deeper into the bunker. Now is the time to start thinking about revisiting your vision.”

In, “It’s Time to Revisit Strategy,” Johnson talks about the critical need for strategic planning: “A strategic plan is not a business plan and it is not the same as your annual budget with departmental objectives. However, these vehicles become a part of the tactical support for meeting strategic objectives once the strategic plan has been approved and implemented. To be successful in this century requires a heightened sense of awareness about what is going on both inside and outside of the business.”

But many organizations don’t readily see the value of strategic planning when change is rapid and profits are lean. Says Johnson, “Executive teams become so immersed in the day-to-day activities of running the business during a recession that strategic thinking with respect to long term planning is often not a priority. However, effective leaders recognize the value of strategic thinking backed up by a strategic plan.”

At Cohesion, we’ve watched as companies have come to view strategic planning as either “outdated” or something they will “get around to later.” But as Johnson points out, the need is more urgent — and more organic: “Strategic planning is a disciplined effort to support fundamental decisions and actions that shape and guide what an organization is, what it does and why it does it, with a focus on where it wants to go and how it is going to get there.”

As Cohesion shifts its model from ‘agency’ to ‘messaging company,’ more and more companies are seeking our strategic planning services. As part of an overall approach, Cohesion helps organizations develop insightful and practical strategic foundation in three phases:

1. Strategic Direction: Refine current business, brand and marketing strategy (based on the timing of your fiscal year), and lay the groundwork for next year’s plan.
2. Positioning/Messaging Direction: Refine the various brand, service and product positioning and messaging needs for your organization.
3. Tactical Direction: Based on your organization’s needs, develop specific messaging and tactical templates for internal execution — or turnkey development for you.

Should your organization update its strategic plan? From a positioning and messaging standpoint, are you living and driving your core purpose? Are you working toward every business and brand goal you’ve planned? If not, perhaps you could use a little help getting there?

While I’m working on my next post, I hope you’ll browse the archives. I also hope you’ll visit Cohesion to find out how we help organizations build stronger messaging to increase consistency, lower cost and drive growth.

The World Has Changed. (Are you telling the right story?)

“We need to rethink our message. What we’re saying doesn’t make sense anymore.”

–Fortune 1000 CMO, September, 2009.

This chief marketing officer isn’t alone. In the past 60 days, our firm has interviewed dozens of C-level executives and other marketing/sales professionals who agree. As they plan now for 2010, they’re including a (new) line item in their marketing strategies and budgets: messaging. Because for them, what worked in the past has little if any relevance today (much less tomorrow). According to McKinsey, “For the immediate future, business leaders will have to master the disciplines of uncertainty. (Managers) must drop the pretense that they can predict the future.”

An article in the October 19, 2009 issue of Entrepreneur, asks the question: “Is your brand story doing justice to your business?” Author Mary van de Wiel (Van), spells out a number of points, including: “Think about how you want your audience to react to your story. What’s the outcome–the object lesson here? What kind of conclusion do you want them to reach?”

Building the right story means developing a foundation of messaging that is flexible, adaptable and nimble to take best advantage of emerging opportunities, while mitigating unforeseen obstacles. As the business world continues to shift beneath your feet, a message platform (and the story that guides it) can be the roadmap for remaining relevant to every stakeholder in every situation.

As we all look to a more positive 2010, every company needs to question its relevance, its value — and yes, it story. So, do you have the right one? (If not, I know a firm that can help.)

While I’m working on my next post, I hope you’ll browse the archives. I also hope you’ll visit Cohesion to find out how we help organizations build stronger messaging to increase consistency, lower cost and drive growth.

‘The Idea’ Awarded Top Medical Blog Distinction



In a recent poll conducted by NewDoctor (a Medical Professional Database of more than 100,000 monthly users), The Idea was voted “an excellent source of information.” It’s great to know that marketing (and other) professionals in the healthcare category are interested in our point of view on brand and communications strategy.

According to an email from NewDoctor.com, the site has awarded The Idea with a Top Medical Blogs award distinction.

Thanks to everyone for your continued interest in The Idea. While I’m working on my next post, I hope you’ll browse our archives. I also hope you’ll visit Cohesion to find out how we help organizations build stronger messaging to increase consistency, lower cost and drive growth.

(Re)Discovering Relevant Value. (Part 2 in a series.)

“Procter & Gamble, the world’s largest consumer products company, has just announced a stunning new business strategy to jump-start growth. It begins in a startling, almost counterintuitive way — with company values and sense of purpose. Invoke the heart and care about human needs, the strategy seems to say, and the money will follow.” –HarvardBusiness.org, Sept. 2009

As the world economy emerges from recession, the corporate community is seeking new strategies to compete more effectively. Among them is a groundswell to (re)consider corporate values as a vital business tool that – when identified, articulated and communicated properly – can enhance economic value. To be sure, organizations aren’t examining their values solely out of a sense of altruism, community stewardship or to ‘feel good’ about themselves. Rather, this trend is emerging as a critical business strategy focused on boosting the bottom line.

In the second part of Cohesion’s white paper series titled, ‘The Fall of Incrementalism,’ we discuss the resurgence of corporate values as a catalyst for simulating relevant value – the reason why customers buy. We examine how the practice of incrementalism can be a barrier to such forward thinking, unless harnessed properly. When executed in the framework of a broader strategy, incremental moves can be a positive force for change. When they are not, the results can range from disappointing to disastrous.

To read the full white paper: The Fall of Incrementalism (Rediscovering Relevant Value), please click here. To read the first part in this series, please click here.

While I’m working on my next post, I hope you’ll read about how Cohesion helps organizations build stronger messaging to increase consistency, lower cost and drive growth, here.

The Fall of Incrementalism. (And the case for bold, new thinking.)

Cohesion, our brand and communications strategy firm, has just published a new white paper: ‘The Fall of Incrementalism. (And the case for bold, new thinking.)’ Here, we share a short excerpt from this new piece and offer the complete whitepaper, below:

In recent years, a growing trend has wound its way through every aspect of the business world, including marketing and marketing communications. The trend is incrementalism, the concept of making small changes that have broad appeal. Because they are purposely non-threatening, incremental changes can be easily adopted and institutionalized. On the surface, these appear to be positive changes that progress an agenda—however slight the perceived improvement might be. In marketing/communications however, the unfettered use of incrementalism can result in consequences that, while no doubt unintentional, too often move companies further behind than ahead.

The fundamental problem is this: Incrementalism, by its nature, works to replace bold and original thinking with simple, sometimes even rote, activity. People may look busy (and indeed they may be), but their work is often void of substance and direction. And that detracts from the purpose of marketing: to leverage a relevant point of value, different from your competitors’. Indeed, incrementalism drives everyone to think, look and sound the same.

To read the full white paper: The Fall of Incrementalism (and the case for bold new thinking), please click here.

While I’m working on my next post, I hope you’ll read about how Cohesion helps organizations build stronger messaging to increase consistency, lower cost and drive growth, here.

“A Messaging Plan? (Do we even have a message?)”

As businesses emerge from their long, dark marketing sleep, it’s important to recognize that things really have changed. From environment to attitude, the marketing factors impacting business have shifted. And whether you believe these are short-term changes, or changes that will last forever, one thing is certain: Your business message cannot be the same as it was before.

Recently, we were called into an organization to develop a messaging plan. Sitting with the company’s marketing staff, it became obvious that they wanted us to concentrate on the mechanics of distributing the message, and not the message itself. “Our message is still right,” said one of the marketing folks, after we questioned whether the economic events of the last year had shifted the relevance of their message.

As our conversation continued, the head of sales was called in to our meeting. Told that marketing was interested in developing a new messaging plan, his only response was, “A messaging plan? Do we even have a message?”

Sales, arguably the most critical messaging audience, didn’t believe the company had a consistent message.

As you plan for our new economy, strategic and tactical marketing planning are critical. But as you plan, don’t forget to evolve your message. (By the way, if your organization is ready to develop stronger and more relevant messaging, I know a firm that can help.)

While I’m working on my next post, I hope you’ll read about how Cohesion helps organizations build stronger messaging to increase consistency, lower cost and drive growth, here.

The (Not-So) Hidden Cost Of Saying The Wrong Thing.

As we study new ways to save money and grow business efficiency, one area has gone largely untouched: Communication. Interesting, because it’s one of the biggest issues facing business today.

An SIS International Research study discovered that 70% of small- to mid-size businesses claim that ineffective communication is their primary problem. Communication issues are not just annoying; they are also costly. A business with 100 employees spends an average downtime of 17 hours a week clarifying communication. This translates to an annual cost of $528,443.

As businesses get larger, so do the communications problems.

Most C-level managers readily admit that their organizations do a poor job of communicating. But while many admit the problem, few have focused on its answer. For most companies, communication is a major liability.

A typical organization pays the average employee $9,000 a year to read, write and answer email. Mid-sized corporations spend $2.5 million on internal meetings every year with little or nothing to show for it. A recent University of Maryland study states that poor communication in U.S. hospitals costs $12 billion a year, which represents more than half of an average hospital’s margin. Many other industries pay a similar price.

Add to this the inefficiencies in brand communications, marketing direction and sales efforts, and many companies simply throw up their hands. “Companies live in denial,” a CMO recently told me. “Because without a strategic path to change messaging and behavior, everyone is convinced that communication is too big and too soft a problem to wrestle.”

Not only is the problem complex, it’s fragmented. While many companies do a good job of project and/or vertical communications efforts, very few address the issue in a holistic way. Said my CMO friend, “The sad thing is, with the right approach you can make tremendous strides. Problem is, most managers don’t know how and where to start – or how to keep the process alive.”

(By the way, if your organization is ready to tackle the communications problem, or if you’re simply looking for stronger brand and communications messaging, I know a firm that can help.)

While I’m working on my next post, I hope you’ll read about how Cohesion helps organizations build stronger messaging to increase consistency, lower cost and drive growth, here.

Save Our Burning Library. (A plea to marketers.)

It’s not in vogue to look to the past for lessons anymore. Today, many in marketing have built a wall behind them – having decided that the world of business began just a few short years ago. These people believe that things are simply moving too fast and have changed too much for marketing history to hold any answers.

It’s been said that when an elderly person dies – because we lose their knowledge and wisdom – a library has been burned. Sadly, it appears that marketing may be suffering a similar fate. As we race to harness the speed of our new marketing world, the knowledge of our past is slipping away.

In a recent Ad Age article (sign-up may be required), Pete Blackshaw writes: “Speed is good, and change is gospel, but we might be moving too darn fast and making too many dumb or shortsighted moves along the way. That fuels cynicism, which is not what we need in an environment of increasingly empowered consumers, eroded trust and greater regulatory scrutiny.”

Blackshaw continues,”We blog, we Twitter, we litter e-mail boxes. We celebrate every online ‘conversation’ as though it actually matters. We’re breaking new ground, but we’re acquiring a few bad habits along the way.”

Marketing (like all forms of business) is an evolution. Where few things ever start from scratch, because history is always part of the context. The best marketers know this, and work to adapt new trends and technologies to existing schools of thought. They learn the lessons of the past so as to not repeat its failures.

Smart marketing is about the long view. Building credible, sustainable brands. Creating honest and relevant dialog with customers. Building business trust and value for the future. Technology (as wonderful and critically important as it is), is but a tool to achieve these things. It cannot replace the 150 years of learning that must be a part of every marketer’s point of view.

Because to deny – or worse, to not know – the past is to sell our marketing future short.

(By the way, if you’re looking to balance today’s marketing needs with tomorrow’s marketing goals, I know a firm that can help.)

While I’m working on my next post, I hope you’ll read about how Cohesion helps organizations build stronger messaging to increase consistency, lower cost and drive growth, here.

Marketing Gurus Are Giving The Really Good Ones A Bad Name.

Have you noticed an increase in the number of marketing gurus? Geniuses, too. Perhaps you’ve also noticed that these labels are often self-proclaimed, or bestowed by a book publisher or publicity firm. Funny. The smartest people I’ve ever met in marketing never considered themselves gurus, or geniuses. Then again, they were too busy successfully practicing the craft of marketing with real businesses to consider such fodder.

Practicing? Yes, the business of marketing is a practice. Tempered by the fires of time and experience. Integral to a commercial enterprise. The business of being a guru, is about…well, I’m not really sure what it’s about.

As this post is written, Amazon.com returns 529,142 results for “marketing” books. Some are seminal. Some are important. The majority are not. But increasingly, our culture embraces any kind of celebrity–warranted by deed, or not. And the realm of marketing is no stranger to this trend. Unfortunately, as more people seek ‘guru’ status and vie for attention, the points of view they espouse have become increasingly obscure, and in many cases, simply wrong.

A business writer once referred to me as a strategy guru. Back then I laughed. Today, I denounce my title.

As the adage goes, “those who can’t, teach.” Apparently, they also write books. And give seminars. And speak at conferences. Problem is, building real brands and real businesses is a bit more challenging than delivering a PowerPoint to 30 people at the Dayton Ramada Inn.

Nope, for my money (and I hope yours), give me the practitioner. The one who folds trends and new points of view into a long history of marketing perspective. The one who can think and do. The really good one, not the guru.

(By the way, if you need strong marketing practitioners for your business and brands, I know a firm that can help.)

While I’m working on my next post, I hope you’ll read about how Cohesion helps organizations build stronger messaging to increase consistency, lower cost and drive growth, here.

Truth In Marketing. (Will anyone buy it?)

We are experiencing a seminal turning point in the history of marketing: the power shift from company to consumer.

Until very recently, communications have been a one-way street, an imbalance that favored organizations. They have held all the power, reinforcing their decisions based on research conducted in artificial environments outside of true human experience. But no more. Today, social media is tilting power toward buyers for the first time in history, shifting the imbalance in the opposite direction. Now, customers have an instantaneous platform for telling the world how they feel and in what they believe.

In CMO Thought Leaders: The Rise of the Strategic Marketer, John Hayes, CMO at American Express stated, “In the 20th century, we did monologue marketing. We did most–if not all–the talking. And we expected the consumer to listen. Now, in the 21st century, we’ve moved to a dialogue. Consumers want to be heard. In fact, they will not tolerate not being heard.”

Which means that in the future, companies that tell the truth–where words mirror action–will succeed more often than those that don’t. Customers won’t buy anything less.

But there’s a problem. A problem so dark and secret that few would dare acknowledge its existence: Marketing isn’t very good at telling the truth. Never has been. Good at stretching it, yes. But telling it verbatim…hmmm, let me talk to legal.

Because business has been ‘talking at’ customers for so long, many a bad habit has crept in. With few, if any, checks and balances from customers, marketing has run amok with claims, promises and overstated benefits. With all the advancement made in the field of marketing, far too much of the underlying assumption is still founded in, “there’s a sucker born every minute.”

But to succeed, the craft must change. Marketing is no longer about driving a top-down message at customers. Today, marketing is about managing an active and ongoing conversation with customers–promising, yes, but delivering on that promise every time. And, working with customers to determine what that promise should be in the first place.

Perhaps Lincoln said it best: “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” (By the way, if you need help finding the real truth about your business and brands, I know a firm with an approach that can help.)

While I’m working on my next post, I hope you’ll read about how Cohesion helps organizations build stronger messaging to increase consistency, lower cost and drive growth, here.

And Now, The Brand Renaissance.

Those who have called a death to brands have severely underestimated their potential. In fact, as I suggested in an earlier post, brands – true brands – may be the answer to many of our current marketing ills.

In a recent post, entitled, Branding: The Next Generation, Martin Lindstrom of Branding Strategy Insider, says this: “There’s every indication that branding will move…into an even more sophisticated realm — reflecting a brave new world where the consumer desperately needs something to believe in — and where brands very well might provide the answer. I call this realm the HSP — the Holistic Selling Proposition.” Lindstrom’s HSP (Holistic Selling Proposition), follows an evolution that began with Rosser Reeves‘ original USP (Unique Selling Proposition). “Each holistic brand has its own identity, one that is expressed in its every message, shape, symbol, ritual, and tradition — just as sports teams and religion do today.”

True brands — those that can establish honest, credible rapport with customers — will thrive in our new marketing world. And while Lindstrom’s vision of ‘brand nirvana’ for some brands (think Harley-Davidson), is certainly accurate, there is also a place for those brands that simply have a relevant and differentiated premise, act on purpose and keep their promises. These brands listen to customer wants and needs and consistently incorporate comments and feedback back into their evolution and growth.

Not because they have to; but because they want to. Brands that work to become a conduit between company and customer, rather than a top-down contrivance of management, will win in our new marketing world. Those that do not will continue to function as an over-dressed product or service, but not a brand.

The days of so-called ‘branding’ (slapping a contrived name, a cool logo and a generic tagline on a product or service) are over. But the dawn of true brands — born of mutual respect, need and conversation between organizations and audiences — well, those days have just begun.

While I’m working on my next post, I hope you’ll read about how Cohesion helps organizations build stronger messaging to increase consistency, lower cost and drive growth, here.

Brands Are Dead. (Really?)

“Brands Are Dead,” according to Jonathan Salem Baskin, who wrote, “Branding Only Works On Cattle.”

In a November 2008 post, Mr. Baskin says, among other things, “Nobody carries brands around in their heads. Nobody has a relationship with a brand. Or lives a brand lifestyle. Brands aren’t conversations, and they’re not bought, possessed, or coveted. Companies don’t own them. Neither do consumers or shareholders.”

Funny. As I drove from Walmart through McDonald’s to the Apple Store the other day, I could have sworn he was wrong. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for a guy playing devil’s advocate to sell a few books; but c’mon, dead?

No, brands aren’t dead. Placing a unique label on something to: a) claim ownership over it, and b) differentiate it from similar items won’t die any time soon. But with any luck, the term branding will.

For the past 15 years or so, I have watched as marketing directors, CFOs, CEOs, ad agencies, design firms and others shifted from talking about brands in the abstract to branding in the specific. Branding was put into the hands of those who only saw (or perhaps understood) its tactical manifestations: colors, logos, taglines, ads, websites, etc. The more this happened, the more these surface items became a proxy for the brand itself. The terms ‘brand’ and ‘branding’ came to be used interchangeably. As this deterioration took place, ‘branding’ became synonymous with fluff. And rightly so. Problem is, this artificial concept of branding never had anything to do with what a true brand is in the first place.

As the economy grew, non-marketing people saw a quick buck in what they understood branding to be. “Gimme a logo and a tagline and a few cool ads and we’ll go sell some stuff.” With no hope of a differentiated position. With no intention of investing in one. That’s not a brand. That’s a house of cards.

You can’t brand a brand. You can position it. You can advertise it. You can publicize it. You can even promote it. But ‘brand’ is a noun, not a verb. It is the essence of a company, a product, a service — a shortcut path to all of the emotional and logical benefits a thing possesses.

Says Mr. Baskin, “…brands are simply irrelevant in a world wherein people know that one airplane seat looks like another, different clothes and PCs are made in the same factories overseas, and that most companies expect customers to help themselves. Or when price and availability matter.” True brands carry an emotional appeal — something that Mr. Baskin’s argument does not. (He does know that human beings are involved here, doesn’t he?)

Interestingly, true brands — those built for the right reasons that stand for the right things — are on the verge of a major renaissance (but that’s a post to come).

While I’m working on my next post, I hope you’ll read about how Cohesion helps organizations build stronger messaging to increase consistency, lower cost and drive growth, here.

The Numbers Don’t Lie. (They can’t tell the whole truth, either.)

In a recent Ad Age article titled, “Metric Madness: The Answer to Mathematical Failure Seems to Be More Math,” (registration required) brand and marketing veteran Al Ries says, “If you run a company by numbers alone, you’ll run it into the ground. You might be successful in the short term, but never in the long term, as the financial crisis demonstrates.”

Ries is concerned that the marketing community appears to be “drifting from the right to the left — from a right-brain approach to a left-brain approach.” He cites a prominent U.S. marketing executive who has held top marketing jobs at Procter & Gamble and other companies, as recently saying: “At its core, marketing is 70% math.”

Is measurement inherently bad for marketing? Of course not. It’s when measurement becomes a replacement for insight and experience that the problem begins. And today, more and more, that’s exactly what’s happening.

This is a deeper argument than one of science vs. art. Or even of logic vs. emotion. No, this is about the erosion of marketing wisdom. The enlightened integration of the right-brain and the left-brain. (Most humans I know are equipped with both.)

In an article published in this month’s Inc., leading corporate consultant, Charles Jacobs discusses how brain structure can impact business management: “Objective decision making is a myth. When the area of the brain responsible for logical thinking is activated, it also receives input from the area responsible for emotion. Without input from your feelings, you can’t think long term. You don’t learn from past experience; you can’t empathize. The more complex the problem, the more of the brain should come into play.”

Marketing wisdom accepts that an illogical thought can succeed. That counter-intuitive strategies can work. That some ideas cannot really be tested.

Marketing wisdom is not a replacement for measurement or analysis, but rather the totality of instinct, experience and observation, tempered by logic and data. You cannot google wisdom – it takes time and must be learned. Perhaps that’s why it’s no longer in style.

Marketing is still a business run by humans, for humans. To the dismay of marketing science, so is measurement. Which means, necessarily, that ‘the numbers’ are still open to interpretation, manipulation and sometimes, fraud. (Just ask Bernie Madoff’s accountant.)

Measurement for measurement’s sake is every bit as wasteful as creative for creative’s sake. Just because we can, does not necessarily mean that we should. I know of no company that ever measured its way out of an inferior marketing effort.

As we look to economic recovery, it’s critical to remember: Metrics are not the overarching context through which marketing decisions should be made. Wisdom is. It’s the thing most lacking in marketing today. And, the most valuable, too.

(By the way, if you’re in the market for a bit of wisdom, I know a firm that can help.)

While I’m working on my next post, I hope you’ll read about how Cohesion helps organizations build stronger messaging to increase consistency, lower cost and drive growth, here.

The Economy Is Ready To Grow. (Is your brand?)

By most accounts, including the recent address to Congress by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and a report by Charles Schwab’s chief investment strategist, the economy is about to start growing. By any measure, that’s good news for business, and even better news for the business of marketing. But before we dust off old marketing plans and begin to assess current budgets, let’s take away some learning from the recession.

As attention turns to marketing again, companies first need to admit that the business world has changed. Dramatically. And with it, the landscape that every brand now faces. In our new reality, brands cannot simply shout hollow promises; they must provide real value. Value, that can withstand the test of customer discussion and feedback. Social media has forever changed the ‘contract’ that companies have with their customers. Customers that don’t like your product, service or brand now have a forum through which they can instantly tell you — and others.

Today’s brand must hold true value, defined on the basis of long-term human benefit, rather than short-term shareholder value. Value, that an organization can honestly deliver on every front — from marketing and sales, through customer service and behavior, to management objectives and actions.

It’s easy to see that the tactical world of marketing has changed. From the death of the newspaper industry to the rise of social media, the communication paradigm is in transition. But before you address this obvious media shift, I implore you to study the relevance of your brand. Before you throw an old, inside-out promise into a new, outside-in world, your brand and its messaging will need a few tweaks. Some brands, more than others. Please, before you spend a nickel on execution, re-stage your efforts based on this strategic reality. Your customers, and your shareholders (in the long run), will thank you.

Is your company ready? Are your brands? Is your message? (By the way, if you need a bit of strategic assistance, I know a firm that can help.)

While I’m working on my next post, I hope you’ll read about how Cohesion helps organizations build stronger messaging to increase consistency, lower cost and drive growth, here.

With Apologies To George Carlin (and the Earth).

Well, now I’ve really done it. According to one reader of The Idea, my point-of-view is both against the principles of George Carlin and the sustainability of the Earth.

Commenting on my post “Brands Are Dead. (Really?),” Ruth Ann Barrett has written what she labels, “a Call to Arms about why branding may be considered just another word for covering up.” The same comment, she says, is also, “an ode to advocacy, to Earth, and Earth Day.” Yes, to Earth. Ms. Barrett also writes at a blog called Digital Savvy and you can find the above comment republished in a post entitled, “The Tainted Language of Branding.”

In her post, Ms. Barrett says, “What I think is that brand and branding were used in the service of so many unsustainable products and services with too many disreputable companies across a wide range of unsustainable industries that it may be viewed as a cover-up as a noun and covering up as a verb.” She also says, “The language of brands is rife with what the late George Carlin called a soft language and said, “I don’t like words that hide the truth. I don’t like words that conceal reality.”

Where is this language of brands that so masks reality? And which word is hiding the truth? In my work and in the work of my firm, truth and reality are the critical components of a brand’s foundation. The essential pieces that make a brand ring true. Anything less is not a brand, but simply a hollow promise.

Strangely, Ms. Barrett also twists sustainability into her argument against brands. (I believe she’s confusing product packaging with brand.) Ms. Barrett, if you’re advocating fewer disposables and more durability, I’m on your side. But please, don’t use the term ‘brand’ to make your case. It doesn’t deserve it.

Ms. Barrett closes with a plug for Jonathan Salem Baskin (see my posts regarding his points of view, here, here and here) and a call to not use the ‘tainted language of branding’ to save the Earth. “I think Mr. Baskin is being provocative and challenging the status quo. He’s getting attention and challenging us to meet the historic opportunity (to shape and encourage consumer demand for sustainable products and lifestyles) and steer the conversation towards how we are going to do that and not use the tainted language of branding. Let’s jump on it. Our scientists are telling us we are running out of time.”

Ms. Barrett, I am sure you are a passionate person, driven toward your cause. But c’mon: Brands don’t create problems. People create problems. Like the people that simply use brands to make a quick buck. Or hide behind them to abuse power. Or in this case, try to abolish their very being because they don’t acknowledge how good and valuable they can still be. Ms. Barrett, don’t you see? The very things you fight for can be accomplished with smart brand thinking — not in spite of it. Why would you throw away the learning of a hundred years, instead of working to harness its strength?

Here’s another George Carlin quote: “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”

Rest in peace, George. And to my friend the Earth, on your special day, may your reign be a long and prosperous one.

While I’m working on my next post, I hope you’ll read about how Cohesion helps organizations build stronger messaging to increase consistency, lower cost and drive growth, here.

Brands Are Not Dead. (The readers speak.)

We’ve had quite a spirited debate here during the past few days. If you are just joining this discussion, you may want to first read the two posts that sparked this dialog, “Brands Are Dead, (Really?)” and “Brands Are Dead. (Really?) Part 2.” While discussion on this topic is far from over, I did want to post an update on a few of the many comments I’ve received. (As reference, much of this conversation stems from the opposing view I have taken to Jonathan Salem Baskin, who wrote, “Branding Only Works On Cattle,” and argues in a recent post that “Brands Are Dead.”)

As your comments to my two earlier posts confirm, rumors of the demise of the brand have been greatly exaggerated.

“Brands are, of course, not dead,” comments John Bottom of the blog, Beyond. “They are useful labels to attach to otherwise apparently indistinguishable products and services. Most of us agree with Brian’s meaning; not many, I would suggest, side with Jonathan (Jonathan Salem Baskin). But then he is selling a book, whereas Brian is offering his excellent commentary for free. Perhaps that’s all you need to know.”

Writes Bret Kinsella, COO, “Brian has some great comments debunking the shock-literature of ‘Brands are Dead.’ The notion that branding is logos or tag lines or something that is unexplainable was discredited long ago. It is still about owning real estate in someone’s mind. Whether that real estate is well located or not is a question of the quality of branding efforts. It is important to influence that location and make the brand associations positive. Mr. Baskin needs to work on his real estate. He is on the wrong side of the tracks.”

And says Michael Kuhn, Communications Director, “I could have sworn that the new brand we created when we moved from an airline division (Air Canada Technical Services) to Aveos created a stir in the whole industry. Cattle you say? Not in the areospace industry I can assure you. Brand will continue to become the reason companies either succeed moderately or succeed phenomenally.”

In all, there have been 47 comments to these two posts–people have responded directly to The Idea, to its posting on several LinkedIn groups and to its inclusion on a number of other blogs and comment forums. All but three (3) have supported the point of view that brands are very much alive and well. As you may have expected, Mr. Baskin was a noted detractor.

But these ‘Brand Detractors’ exist for a reason. Brands have increasingly been the victim of undifferentiated positioning and shoddy advertising. They’ve been abused by senior managers who want their power, but refuse to invest in their future. They’ve been put at risk by those too inexperienced to leverage their real strengths, and worse, to manage their real weaknesses.

Brands have also suffered at the hands of charlatans. Yes, for every true brand expert, there are many more who aren’t. This doesn’t mean that brands aren’t important, or should be dismissed; it simply means that there are quite a few non-experts out there. You know: Ad agencies and design firms that slap ‘branding’ on their business cards to ride the wave. Authors and consultants that use ‘brand’ to their benefit, simply to make a buck.

No. It’s not time to call for the death of brands; but rather, to re-establish their true power. To look beyond the superficial era of ‘branding’ and into the intrinsic good that brands can provide: Where the experience of real value delivered creates a lasting pre-disposition based on the anticipated replication of that same positive experience. True brands help companies deliver consistent and sustainable value to grow their business. They also generate two-way trust that further bonds customers and producers. Consumers like true brands. So do smart companies.

The Idea welcomes additional comments from both supporters and detractors.

While I’m working on my next post, I hope you’ll read about how Cohesion helps organizations build stronger messaging to increase consistency, lower cost and drive growth, here.

Brands Are Dead. (Really?) Part Two, in an apparent series.

You may want to read my last post before you begin this one.

A short summation: Jonathan Salem Baskin, who wrote, “Branding Only Works On Cattle,” argues that “Brands Are Dead.” Says Baskin: “Nobody carries brands around in their heads. Nobody has a relationship with a brand. Or lives a brand lifestyle. Brands aren’t conversations, and they’re not bought, possessed, or coveted. Companies don’t own them. Neither do consumers or shareholders.” I, in turn, argue that far from dead, brands — true brands — are about to make a strong comeback.

Since then, Mr. Baskin has responded to my post. Here are just a few of his comments:

“Branding is the active, ongoing, real-time, reality give-and-take between producers and consumers. Very little of it relies on, or is the product of, the creative imaginations of branding folks, no matter how digitally brilliant they might be.”

How can one argue that brands are dead and then provide a treatise on branding? “Branding is the active, ongoing, real-time, reality give-and-take between producers and consumers?” No, Mr. Baskin, that’s called commerce. “Digitally brilliant?” That’s just weird.

But I do admire the all-or-nothing hyperbole: “Brands Are Dead.” I’ll give Mr. Baskin an A+ for shock value and a D+ for substance. Says he, “Don’t confuse recognition of logos or names with those artifacts possessing any established or lasting value. Brand is behavior, not thought or intent.” I didn’t know that I was arguing against these points, but now that you bring them up, you’re wrong. Again, this is not a consumer-only proposition — as you state yourself, there is a “give-and-take between producers and consumers.” For a customer, a true brand is an artificial proxy for the expected successful replication of a real experience; for prospective customers, a brand acts as the expectation for that same successful real experience. That’s what human beings do: they invent labels, words and visuals to describe experiences, feelings and thoughts. The dictionary is full of examples.

By the way, brand isn’t behavior — BEHAVIOR is behavior. It’s a perfectly good word to describe an understood concept. But I know, you can sell more books if you invent your own, confused terminology.

Mr. Baskin goes on, “Brian, thanks for your comments, and I encourage you to read my book. I think you’ve got things a bit backwards, and more than slightly out-of-touch with reality, but I understand why. After all, it’s tradition.” It’s tradition for me to get things backwards? Jonathan, I read your 693-word post “Brands Are Dead,” in which you twisted terms and confused issues to invent your point. And then summed your diatribe with: “I don’t presume to have the answer.” If this is digital brilliance, I want nothing to do with it. But as long as we’re trading offers, I would encourage your clients to engage my firm, Cohesion. (I’m quite sure they could use the guidance.)

My friend continues, “Brands ARE verbs, not nouns, and all of your static words describing the creative fantasies of the branding establishment — positioning, things that are ‘built,’ and that ’stand’ for things — are the reverse of what’s true.” Really? “Brands ARE verbs, not nouns?” As in, “I McDonald-ed yesterday, how about you?” Yes, my static words could never hope to keep pace with Mr. Baskin’s fluid and connected argument. But who am I? A man with a creative fantasy; a simple soldier in the “branding establishment.”

But I do know this: You can’t brand a brand. You can position it. You can advertise it. You can publicize it. You can even promote it. But ‘brand’ is a noun, not a verb. It is the essence of a company, a product, a service — a shortcut path to all of the emotional and logical benefits a thing possesses.

While I’m working on my next post, I hope you’ll read about how Cohesion helps organizations build stronger messaging to increase consistency, lower cost and drive growth, here.

Hiding: Not A Brand Strategy.

Companies that have reduced, or eliminated marketing efforts as a way to ’stop the world’ for a period of time, take notice: You are about to lose market share.

Brands, like businesses, do not exist in a vacuum. They exist in an open market — which today, is flush with new competitors, customers in transition and a brand new economic landscape. While no one can blame any company that took a deep, long breath during the past few months to revise and prioritize strategic direction, these same companies now need to be reminded that business is moving on — with or without them.

In a recent Ad Age article, Julie Roehm, a marketing consultant, says: “Stop hiding. No one ever got ahead by hiding themselves away. The same is true for brands. Now is the time to make a statement. Be bold, be present. It’s cheaper and just as many people are listening but far fewer are talking. The easy decision is to contract and hide yourself away hoping that if you as a company or marketer never lift your head up, it will never get lopped off. But if you never lift your head up, the consumer can’t see you. Be smart, try new things. In this economy, you can be noticed at a fraction of the cost and be rewarded for trying new mediums and new messages.”

In the same article, Anne Bologna, CEO of Toy, reminds us, “In the Great Depression, Kellogg continued to market its cereals while rivals cut budgets. Kellogg pulled ahead of Post in sales, a change that has never been reversed.”

Today, every company and every category, is different than it was before the recession began. The world has changed, and continues to change. Which means the company that simply sits back, waiting for all of this to ‘blow over’ before it resumes business-as-usual marketing and sales efforts, is in for a very rude awakening. Chances are, that company already has new competition ready and able to fill the void created by lagging marketing efforts. More challenging still, that company (and its brands) face a new reality in terms of customer relevance and meaning.

Positioning and marketing must address these issues, and they must be addressed, now.

Smarter, smaller, more value-driven companies are springing up everywhere…are you ready? Are your brands? Is your message? (By the way, if you need a bit of strategic assistance, I know a firm that can help.)

As I discussed in an earlier post, companies that plan today, increase their chances of winning tomorrow. Is your company planning to lead, or planning to follow?

While I’m working on my next post, I hope you’ll read about how Cohesion helps organizations build stronger messaging to increase consistency, lower cost and drive growth, here.

Steal This Idea.

Those of you who have reached the age of 40, may recall that in the early 1980’s, generic products in the United States had plain white labels with blue or black lettering, or yellow labels with black lettering, describing what the product was (i.e.: Yellow Cake Mix, Tuna In Water, Chocolate Flavor Syrup, Deodorant Soap, etc.) There was very little other information except for ingredients and preparation information required, and no brand name at all on the front panel. This was during a sharp economic downturn when many consumers were placing more emphasis on value than on brand loyalty. In the U.S. industrial Midwest, a region especially hard hit by the recession of the early 1980’s, generics became a common sight in supermarkets and discount stores.

Today, as consumers flock to WalMart and gain an increasing amount of product and service information from online and word-of-mouth resources, the tug of war between brand loyalty and basic value is being tested again.

Could the concept of true generic marketing work in today’s environment? Of course, the web has drastically changed retail and distribution dynamics. And, most savvy retailers have created house brands during the past 25 years, either branded with the retailer’s name, or a fictitious third-party brand. (Think Target’s ‘Merona’ brand.) But for discussion, let’s stick to true generics: Products, services or retail outlets that carry a product or category description as the label. (Think ‘Beer’ or ‘Gas.’)

Using Maslow’s Hierarchy as a guide to need-based, recession-area marketing, let’s look at retail food for just a moment. (And let’s limit the thinking to perishable, local sales where the web can’t compete as a true retail outlet.)

Would a place called ‘Hamburgers‘ that priced its products fairly, and carried limited offerings in a stripped down, minimalist retail setting do well today? Especially if it could create strong ‘buzz’ based on quality products and quality service? How about a quick shop concept called ‘Milk & Bread‘ that again, carried very few, quality milk and dairy staples.

In the 1980’s, a generic product’s perceived quality came from the retail environment in which it was sold. Often, the product itself wasn’t of very high quality. Today, as real value (quality+fair price) makes a comeback, and as the web gives consumers a way to express product/service satisfaction (or lack thereof), a successful generic product or service offered would have to be of solid, or very high quality. Today’s, “I’m-just-looking-for-good-deal” consumer would, in all likelihood, appreciate a stripped-down concept that carries a built-in ‘quality over marketing’ position.

Could your category utilize generic marketing? If so, please steal this thinking. If not, please look around: As we move through the end of a recession and into recovery, marketing opportunities abound — companies simply need to apply smart thinking, strong support and decisive action. And if you need a firm that can help you think, I do know a good one.

While I’m working on my next post, I hope you’ll read about how Cohesion helps organizations build stronger messaging to increase consistency, lower cost and drive growth, here.

Quick, What’s Your Message?

“We’re hoping the economy turns around sometime this year so we can work on crafting our message,” an anonymous VP of marketing said to me last week. That’s funny. The reason I contacted this company in the first place was because the lead salesperson (a good friend) told me what he — and the rest of the sales staff — need right now is, “the right story; the right message to tell clients and prospects.”

Marketing has been quick to respond to trimming fat from budgets. But in many cases, these same cuts are now beginning to tear into the meat and bone of an organization’s core message — of its brand and reputation. My salesperson friend says that in lieu of a defined message, he and his staff have been left to create their own. “I think it will be hard to unwind some of the ’survival mode’ sales tactics we’ve developed by the seat of our pants during the past few months,” he says. “We really need to find and stick with a core message we can all live with — right now.”

We’ve run into this situation several times during the past half year: Well-intentioned companies that needed to cut marketing budgets, cut them across the board, rather than prioritizing. Strategic planning and core messaging needs vital to the existence of the company were often cut to save a few short-term tactics that management hoped would produce short-term sales. The result: Brands have been driven backwards, and short-term sales haven’t been all that great.

By the way, what’s your message? Has it been left to wither during the past few months? Is it consistent and cohesive at every management, marketing and sales level of your organization? Does it need to be re-crafted to fit a new and changing direction? Regardless of the money you intend to spend on marketing — now and into the future — you will still need the right message. In fact, the fewer dollars you spend, the better and more consistent your message needs to be.

Coincidentally, if you’re looking for a firm that can help you craft and platform that message, I do know a good one.

While I’m working on my next post, I hope you’ll read about how Cohesion helps organizations build stronger messaging to increase consistency, lower cost and drive growth, here.

Marketing: Timing the Recovery

In his recent article, “How Marketers Should Plan For Recovery,” Harvard Business School marketing professor John Quelch provides advice to companies wondering when to resume marketing spending: “Don’t wait for permission. Most companies will not begin reinvesting until the Wall Street Journal or Ben Bernanke officially declare the recovery underway. Get ahead of the crowd. Craft your recovery plan now, and pull the trigger when your lead indicators say go.”

Unfortunately, many companies today have confused marketing spending activities with strategic planning efforts. Depending on your category of business, it may or may not be the right time for heavy marketing spending. But undoubtedly, and regardless of economic conditions, it is a critical time for strategic marketing planning.

Why? Because like it or not, your company, your brand(s) and your target audiences have been changed by the economic issues of the past few months. Understanding and articulating the relevance your marketing offerings now (and will) hold with audiences is imperative. Now is the time to rebuild your message for today, and for the future. By the time the recovery is in full swing, your competitors may have already rebuilt theirs.

(By the way, if you need a bit of strategic assistance, I know a firm that can help.)

Regarding the timing of your marketing spend, Quelch goes on to say, “Know your lead indicators. Every good marketer knows the specific indicators, macro or micro, that predict demand for his or her product in the next period. Use common sense. If the Wal-Mart parking lot looks less crowded, some consumers are probably migrating back to Target and vice versa.” As the 3rd and 4th quarters approach, sales people everywhere are beginning to question how their organizations will provide the marketing support they need.

Those companies that invest in planning today, increase their chances of winning tomorrow. Is your company planning to lead, or planning to follow?

While I’m working on my next post, I hope you’ll read about how Cohesion helps organizations build stronger messaging to increase consistency, lower cost and drive growth, here.

Marketing: To Build or Buy?

While I was courting the business of a Fortune 500 company last year, the company’s CMO turned to me and said, “You know, I can hire people to do everything but think.”

The company’s marketing staff – good, smart people, all – had become institutionalized. They were having a difficult time thinking outside of their own politics, and an even tougher time translating positioning and real benefits to those outside their own walls.

Thankfully, after the CMO overturned a longstanding policy of not hiring outside strategists, we were hired.

This illustrates a debate companies have been having for years: Should your company build marketing services internally or outsource them? Today, as the economy forces companies to more carefully scrutinize budgets, more and more companies have made the decision to take marketing matters into their own hands.

That’s certainly a logical option. Especially for those efforts that directly tie to the day-to-day operational and financial workings of the business. But there is another issue. Value. Does what you buy (internally or externally) provide you with the best possible chance for marketing success?

Twenty-five years of careful study have proved one point: With very few exceptions, when a solid marketing department supplements its efforts with a quality outside firm providing strong counsel, strategy and creative, the results will be more successful than that of an internal marketing department working alone. (And yes, I have been on both sides of the table.)

There are a number of reasons this truth holds. Among them:

1. Objectivity – an outside firm can ’speak the truth’ easier than someone on the inside, often solving problems that others may not see
2. Talent - pure strategists and pure creatives are more often found on the outside of corporations
3. Focus - because outside firms usually work in a specific role, the work is often more focused than that of a marketing department wearing many hats
4. Perspective - outside firms work with other clients; they tend to have a broader world view and can utilize the experience of similar situations and efforts
5. Collaboration – in situations where an internal department demands and champions great strategy and creative, and an outside firm develops and produces it, marketing success will follow (if not, you’ve got the wrong firm – but that’s another post…).

Perhaps the better question today is not “to build or buy,” but rather: Given your budget, how can you structure your marketing functions to give you the best possible opportunity for success?

Unlike any other time in the last 50 years, today’s economic environment offers companies a chance to wipe the marketing slate clean and start over. To customize functions and efforts based on real opportunity and need, vs. what has been done in the past. For most companies, the right answer isn’t an all-or-nothing proposition; but rather, a blended approach: of quality and affordability, of strategy and execution, of internal staff and external resources.

To those looking for a firm, find one that can provide continuity between strategy and execution. This will allow internal staff to partner with the firm at all levels, utilizing services as budget and need allow. This continuity will also provide insurance that the firm won’t build efforts in a vacuum — that each will be cohesively and consistently tied. Today, it’s more important than ever that you find a firm that will work with you at a business level, and not just a tactical or creative level. If you can, work with principals to ensure you will be working with the same people tomorrow.

(By the way, if you’re looking for a firm, I know a good one.)

While I’m working on my next post, I hope you’ll read about how Cohesion helps organizations build stronger messaging to increase consistency, lower cost and drive growth, here.