If you’re the head of your company, you have to be able to define not just what your company does, but why it does it.
Having difficulty? That’s normal. You can blame it on the way your brain works. The part of the brain that contains decision-making and behavior doesn’t control language, so when you’re asked questions about why you do what you do, it’s natural to get tongue-tied.
That’s where great leadership comes in. Leaders are required to put in to words what a group does; they’re required to cross over between the decision-making and behavior sphere and the language sphere. Leaders are great because they’re good at putting feelings into words that we can act upon.
So it’s up to you, as company leader, to define your “why.” Here are four reasons you should, if you want to survive as a company.
1. Your company’s “why” generates loyalty.
Apple can sell phones not simply because they have the smarts to make phones; every single one of their competitors can make phones too. What gives Apple permission to sell products beyond computers is the fact that it doesn’t define themselves as a computer company; rather, it is a company that stands for something. It represents an ideal: Down with “the man”; attack the status quo; champion the individual.
As long as Apple’s products are consistent with its cause, the company has the freedom to do things other companies cannot. Those who identify with Apple’s cause, in turn, will say they “love” Apple–even if they think it’s because of the products.
2. Organizational success (or failure) often dates from inception.
Most great companies were founded by a person or small group of people who personally suffered a problem, went through an difficult experience, or had someone close to them face a tricky challenge–and then came up with a solution or alternative. That original solution to that original problem is what they formed their company around; it’s why they do what they do.
Organizations that just look to capture some market opportunity, or are born out of some market research, often fail (or else need endless pools of money to keep going). No one has passion for a problem revealed in market research. People have passion to solve their own problems or to help those they care about.
If you’re the head of your company, you have to be able to define not just what your company does, but why it does it.
Having difficulty? That’s normal. You can blame it on the way your brain works. The part of the brain that contains decision-making and behavior doesn’t control language, so when you’re asked questions about why you do what you do, it’s natural to get tongue-tied.
That’s where great leadership comes in. Leaders are required to put in to words what a group does; they’re required to cross over between the decision-making and behavior sphere and the language sphere. Leaders are great because they’re good at putting feelings into words that we can act upon.
So it’s up to you, as company leader, to define your “why.” Here are four reasons you should, if you want to survive as a company.
1. Your company’s “why” generates loyalty.
Apple can sell phones not simply because they have the smarts to make phones; every single one of their competitors can make phones too. What gives Apple permission to sell products beyond computers is the fact that it doesn’t define themselves as a computer company; rather, it is a company that stands for something. It represents an ideal: Down with “the man”; attack the status quo; champion the individual.
As long as Apple’s products are consistent with its cause, the company has the freedom to do things other companies cannot. Those who identify with Apple’s cause, in turn, will say they “love” Apple–even if they think it’s because of the products.
2. Organizational success (or failure) often dates from inception.
Most great companies were founded by a person or small group of people who personally suffered a problem, went through an difficult experience, or had someone close to them face a tricky challenge–and then came up with a solution or alternative. That original solution to that original problem is what they formed their company around; it’s why they do what they do.
Organizations that just look to capture some market opportunity, or are born out of some market research, often fail (or else need endless pools of money to keep going). No one has passion for a problem revealed in market research. People have passion to solve their own problems or to help those they care about.
If you’re the head of your company, you have to be able to define not just what your company does, but why it does it.
Having difficulty? That’s normal. You can blame it on the way your brain works. The part of the brain that contains decision-making and behavior doesn’t control language, so when you’re asked questions about why you do what you do, it’s natural to get tongue-tied.
That’s where great leadership comes in. Leaders are required to put in to words what a group does; they’re required to cross over between the decision-making and behavior sphere and the language sphere. Leaders are great because they’re good at putting feelings into words that we can act upon.
So it’s up to you, as company leader, to define your “why.” Here are four reasons you should, if you want to survive as a company.
1. Your company’s “why” generates loyalty.
Apple can sell phones not simply because they have the smarts to make phones; every single one of their competitors can make phones too. What gives Apple permission to sell products beyond computers is the fact that it doesn’t define themselves as a computer company; rather, it is a company that stands for something. It represents an ideal: Down with “the man”; attack the status quo; champion the individual.
As long as Apple’s products are consistent with its cause, the company has the freedom to do things other companies cannot. Those who identify with Apple’s cause, in turn, will say they “love” Apple–even if they think it’s because of the products.
2. Organizational success (or failure) often dates from inception.
Most great companies were founded by a person or small group of people who personally suffered a problem, went through an difficult experience, or had someone close to them face a tricky challenge–and then came up with a solution or alternative. That original solution to that original problem is what they formed their company around; it’s why they do what they do.
Organizations that just look to capture some market opportunity, or are born out of some market research, often fail (or else need endless pools of money to keep going). No one has passion for a problem revealed in market research. People have passion to solve their own problems or to help those they care about.
By Jeffrey Hayzlett, from his book, The Mirror Test: Is Your Business Really Breathing?
“The 118 is my version of what some people still call “the elevator pitch” — an out-of-date name for the worthy idea that you need to see what your company offers (and you)_ in the span of an elevator ride.
The 118 comes from the 118 seconds you actually have to pitch: 8 seconds to hook me and up to 110 seconds to drive it home. The first eight seconds is the length of time the average human can concentrate on something and not lose some focus. It is also the length of time of one of the toughest rides in the world: a qualified ride in professional bull riding. In these first eight seconds, you must be compelling, strong, and focused to be successful. You must hold on as one of the meanest, toughest animals in the world tries to throw you off — just like any good prospect will. Make it those 8 seconds and I’ll give you 110 more to drive your message home with no bull. But if you have not sold me at the end of the 118, I will start to tune out. At that point, we are moving forward to a sale or not.
I speak at hundreds of meetings, conferences and events worldwide every year, and I am constantly amazed by the inability of entrepreneurs, business owners, their managers, or their sales and marketing representatives to deliver a great, relevant 118.
The 118, like the elevator pitch before it, sells much more than a business’s products or services and unique selling pro[position (USP). It is an essential piece in building your brand.“
Purchase replay: THE MIRROR TEST: A New Way To Look At Your Company’s Marketing and Sales Strategy. Presented by Jeffrey Hayzlett, bestselling author, celebrity CMO, digital thought leader and cowboy.
Other quotes from Jeffrey Hayzlett:
Your marketing will and should reflect the personality of your company, and if you are not genuine, you won’t last very long. Anyone who says otherwise is just trying to sell you something.
So it is with social media and will be again with the next “big thing” in marketing. Hard and fast, it too shall come again, startling us with its power and speed and forcing us to mistake it for something it can never be: the be all, end all.
You may not think customers are always right, but now they are always in charge.
Conversations are about talking and listening and then acting
The Holy Grail of Marketing is the one-to-one relationship.
Think “story” not “Placement.”
Scale is the new black. Leverage everything to make many out of one.
Make your business as transparent as possible.
Buzz is not sales.
- Ensure your niche is viable and stays that way. Are there are enough prospects who want your type of product or service? Do they value what you specifically offer vs. what your competitors offer? Are they willing to cough up what you charge? Will you to earn the level of profit you want? Which social, economic, political, or technology trends might influence your business – and how will you stay ahead of the curve?
- Listen carefully to existing customers. How happy are they with your product or service? Why do they buy from you? Are they recommending you to others? Why or why not?
- Increase “share of wallet” with existing customers rather than constantly trying to seduce new customers. What other wants do your customers have and how can you help them fulfill those desires (whether they’re mental, emotional, physical, or spiritual)? Can you offer new products or services? Can you build a strategic partnership with a company who can round out your offering to provide more benefit?
- Deliver the right message at the right time to the right audience. Are you communicating with your audience using the right vehicles or media? Is your message compelling and relevant for where they are in the sales cycle?
| Comments |
| RE: Can You Niche Yourself Out of Existence? |
| Harp: Great list for any marketer who is tempted to do whateve sells. I particularly like number 3…that’s the key to keeping something going when you’re already in the middle of it. Too many people want more customers instead of sales from the same customer. They seem to forget how difficult it was to gain that customer in the first place, and are more than willing to abandon them to go after fresh prospects. Thanks for taking the time to share this with us. |
The economic situation is certainly affecting all of Corporate America in so many ways. Budgets are tight, but there is even more of a need for CSR and Philanthropy in these tough times. Here is one man’s take on the need to not cut back on your CSR efforts.
Link to the video message from Stephen Howard, CEO of Business in the Community.
This post was based on the Communitelligence webinar by the same name. You may purchase the replay of the webinar here.
It’s often difficult for executives at the top of a corporation to understand how anyone can dislike their company. Top corporate leaders often have spent their whole careers inside their company. They like their co-workers. They believe the products or services they provide are helpful, useful and often even essential. And they believe they’re being responsible as they work to maximize earnings for their shareholders. From their point of view, what’s not to like? They fail to see how their company can be tarred by the actions of another company, and they find it almost impossible to see any flaws in their company that might lead to public concern, skepticism or distrust.
The first is with stakeholder groups who can help the company further its philanthropic interests. The partnerships Habitat for Humanity has with many different firms in construction and home products is a great example of this. Habitat receives building materials and supplies; the companies strengthen their reputation by giving back to the community.
The second type of engagement involves companies with nonprofit and advocacy groups that at first glance might appear to be uncomfortable for both. The partnership between the Sierra Club and Clorox, for example, wouldn’t strike most people as a natural fit, and it has caused controversy for both the company and the nonprofit. Each, however, saw the other as beneficial to furthering their mission and enhancing their reputation. I believe both also have been exposed to new ways of thinking and hearing that will make them more open, more transparent and more effective.
If you want to learn more about how to forge alliances between companies and nonprofits, sign up for the Communitelligence Webinar on Thursday, May 7, from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m eastern time. I have the honor of moderating the session, and you’ll hear from two corporate pros, Bob Langert of McDonald’s and Ed Nicholson of Tyson Foods, about how to make alliances work. It will be worth your time, so take a moment and register today.
So, we’ve all been wondering whether corporate America would walk away from corporate responsibility commitments when the going got rough. Shareholders might tolerate some dabbling on the social and environmental fronts when there’s plenty of cash in the coffers, but wouldn’t corporate executives feel pressured to reroute the money back to earnings and dividends – or to mitigate losses – during a downturn?
The surprising answer, according to Fortune magazine, is that many companies are taking the long view. Rather than decimate these programs in tough times, they’re continuing to provide resources. Prudent management will, of course, always look for efficiencies and cut support for efforts that aren’t producing results, and citizenship programs are undergoing this kind of scrutiny. But to a surprising degree, companies are continuing to back their citizenship efforts.
The farther down the road a company has gone, the more likely it is to continue its commitment to citizenship. For example, companies that serve on the board of Business for Social Responsibility indicate that cost-cutting efforts will leave their citizenship programs mostly untouched. These include the likes of Ikea, Microsoft, Rio Tinto, Chiquita and Shell. Starbucks and General Electric also have become strongly identified with citizenship efforts and are keeping their budgets intact.
These companies all have committed to corporate citizenship as one of the pillars that supports their reputation. They’ve weighed the costs of damaging their reputation against the dollars saved by reducing their citizenship efforts, and they’ve decided that reputation has the greater value. That’s a real ray of hope during some extraordinarily difficult times.
Cupid must have hit columnist Nick Nichols with a vinegar-dipped arrow this year. Mr. Nichols chose Valentine’s Day to publish his latest column, History’s Cesspool of Bad Ideas: Socialism and Corporate Responsibility.
After a lively diatribe against the government’s stimulus package – or “congressional crapola,” to quote Mr. Nichols – he says: “When Americans actually start investing in the markets again, I suspect they will not take kindly to the Corporate Social Responsibility crowd who pressured hundreds of publicly traded companies to spend hard-earned shareholder cash on socialist projects that had little to do with the bottom line. I pray that investors will relegate the Corporate Social Responsibility movement to history’s cesspool of bad ideas and once again reward CEOs who focus on making a profit rather than posing for publicity shots with left-wing political activists.”
At least Mr. Nichols didn’t argue that the downfall of so many businesses can be traced back to their CSR spending. Instead, he says we’re in a mess “that past social engineering programs created—to wit, forcing lending institutions to offer mortgages to those who could not afford them.” I’d say there’s just as much evidence that lenders, caught up in the need to keep producing results for shareholders, wrote bad loans to cash in on servicing and processing fees with little regard for how the loans could be repaid. I don’t recall many government bureaucrats putting the screws on loan managers to write million-dollar loans to people making $40,000 a year.
I’d also submit that the shareholder money directed toward CSR in this country is dwarfed by the shareholder money lost to mismanagement, dumb decisions and malfeasance. If we want to start protecting shareholders again, there are plenty of places to look other than companies’ CSR budgets.
I’m not sure which CSR projects Mr. Nichols had in mind when he described them as “socialist.” The CSR efforts I recall have to do with projects like protecting wetlands, building hospital wings, improving education, building parks and the like. I can’t remember any company putting its CSR money behind comrade recruitment or indoctrination.
I am, I believe, every bit as much a red-white-and-blue capitalist as Mr. Nichols. (Interesting how the words “red” and “blue” come together in that phrase.) Unlike him, however, I don’t equate CSR with socialism but with good business. It makes good sense for companies to do their part in strengthening communities just a little beyond providing jobs and quality goods and services. Good CSR programs enhance reputation, build trust, help attract and retain good employees, and provide a quality of life that helps keep communities viable for the long term.
No sensible person is asking companies to shirk their responsibilities to shareholders. No one is forcing companies to jeopardize their earnings statements or their balance sheets to solve all of society’s problems. Well-run companies, however, will pursue prudently managed CSR programs. They serve both society’s interests and their own at the same time.
Here are some thoughts on creating content in today’s always-on world. Rather than a how-to guide, these are simply some observations on what impacts the process.
It’s entirely too easy to feel the lure of social networks. The immediacy of Twitter, the connectedness we feel with friends on Facebook, the endless boards of pinned images on Pinterest and the hipster art on Instagram – these are all false idols when it comes to creating content. We’re more likely to be consuming content on those sites. As such, they qualify as distractions.
But just as the martial artist knows how to absorb energy from an enemy’s attack, we too can learn to pivot with these tools. Asking a question on Twitter as I did was a diversion rather than a distraction. While my question focused on the challenge I was having, it allowed me to focus on the conversations instead.
Over on Facebook, you’re probably likely to have surrounded yourself with people who share your hobbies, beliefs, geography, etc., and therefore you may not be inspired by a diversity of thought. Seek out people you might not have interacted with in a while. Change your feed settings from Top Stories to Most Recent. This will mix up your content a bit. You can also create Interest Lists and visit these customized feeds with a specific purpose in mind. These small actions could provide a little variety to what you’re seeing and from whom.
Understand who you’re trying to reach
Kind of a no-brainer, but when you’re tasked with creating content that needs to live somewhere, it’s a good idea to know a little bit about that somewhere and the people who frequent it. It could be your corporate website, a Facebook page, recipients of a white paper or email, viewers of a video, etc. If you don’t understand a little bit about them, you may miss the opportunity to connect with them. Based on previous interactions, what kind of content do they like? Have they indicated other brands or interests that matter to them? What have their comments told you? All of this should help fuel the content you’re making.
Look to industry leaders
There are others who are doing this well. Let them inspire you. About a year and a half ago, Mashable took a look at a handful of leaders in content marketing (How 3 Companies Took Content Marketing to the Next Level), highlighting Mint.com, HubSpot and American Express. And just this week, Forbes ran a piece titled 5 Big Brands Confirm That Content Marketing Is The Key To Your Consumer. Their list was made up of Virgin Mobile, American Express, Marriott, L’Oreal and Vanguard. All respectable brands. But one stood out to me.
Read full article via Scott Monty’s Social Media Marketing Blog
The basic idea behind “brand alignment” is pretty simple – When it comes to delivering on your marketing promises, make sure everyone in your organization knows what’s going on and they’re able to walk the talk. Living up to that ideal, though, isn’t simple at all. It takes a concerted effort to get everyone tuned in and turned on to the principles and practices that align the “do” with the “say.”
Promise Broken
One revealing way to test if an organization is living the brand is to observe how they deal with customer complaints. I recently had an experience with a new service I subscribed to online that told me a lot in a hurry about what they believe and how they operate.
Within an hour after subscribing, I got a notice that the first program would be broadcast that same evening. They described the event and what the participants would learn during the one-hour session. I didn’t want to miss it, but I already had another meeting scheduled. Reluctantly, I contacted that person and asked if we could reschedule for the following evening. She agreed, so I was set to take part in the new program
About halfway through it, they still hadn’t talked about the topic that was advertised. I was getting suspicious that I had been sold a bill of goods – that this was yet another company that promised one thing and delivered something else. By the end of the program, they still hadn’t discussed the topic they had promoted, and I was fuming. It had been a long day … I was tired … I had wasted an hour … and I had put off another meeting.
Customer Disappointed
I decided to share one of my Inside Out lessons with them in the form of a “strongly worded” e-letter to what I thought was some nebulous person in the ether-world. To my amazement, I got a reply the next morning from a sales manager named James, expressing regret for my problem and promising to look into it. Later that day I had my next pleasant surprise. I got a real live phone call from James explaining how I had been connected to the wrong program. He also thanked me for informing them because they were able to contact other people who experienced the same problem. Then he said I would be set up in the near future to participate in the program that had been advertised.
Relationship Renewed
That would’ve been good enough, but then I got a call from David, their head of marketing. He had received my e-letter, too, and he also wanted to apologize for what happened. Then he really floored me – he said he wanted to give me a FREE lifetime subscription to their service. The only thing he asked in return was for me to give him occasional feedback on how I felt the service was meeting their customers’ needs.
I told him I thought his offer was very generous but I probably over-reacted a bit in my note, and his compensation was way more than I expected. To his credit, he would have nothing of my attempt to downplay my initial disappointment, and he apologized again for “wasting my time” and failing to give me what I was promised.
Execs in some companies might say he was crazy to give away so much. But I’m betting they don’t get many complaints like mine, and when they do, few people raise a fuss because the service is probably impeccable most of the time. Since it’s an online program, it’s not really “costing” them anything to give it to me free, but it still speaks volumes about their commitment to delivering on their promises – and living their brand.
Les Landes, Landes & Associates
Buy Les’s webinar replay: Getting to the Heart of Employee Engagement
My second job was in a large corporate environment, and I had been given the responsibility to produce the employee magazine. I was writing a typical article about a committee’s planning efforts so that everyone in the organization had a feel for what was happening. I asked what the team was doing, who was on the team and when they expected to finish the work, and I got a blank stare from the manager who was my source. She said she didn’t want to put a date out there because the team might be held accountable to that date.
That’s when I first learned the truth about truth: it’s a moving target. And it’s why so many brands are so bland. When there’s no truth – no authenticity – there’s no focus, there’s no goal, there’s no accountability to the brand.
It’s happened time and time again since that day…a client, for example, will boldly make a claim that is different and relevant, only to back down when it’s put in writing for all to see. “I’m not comfortable with that” is the common response (usually during the second or third round of the approval process, just before the piece goes to print) because they realize they can’t guarantee the claim operationally.
As communicators – as brand warriors – we have only one choice: speak up, loudly and often, and demand our co-workers or clients be true to the brand. It’s the T in a D.I.R.T.Y. brand. And it’s what will help us move out of the tactical conversations and be part of the strategy conversations in our organizations.
A few years ago, I was facilitating a brand discernment process with a group of employees at a small bank client, when the receptionist asked if she’s supposed to hold the vice-president accountable to the brand. I said “absolutely” and the whole room went quiet. A smile slowly crept over the face of the vice-president, a quiet man who completely bought into the premise, and he said “yes, you should.”
It’s difficult to demand authenticity across an organization. If the brand is understood by everyone, positive brand management examples are shared with everyone, and there’s buy-in at the top of the organizational chart, however, it’s easy to be a brand warrior.
And there’s nobody more empowered to be the brand warrior than the communications professional. You can use your skills to:
• thoroughly explain the brand,
• demonstrate how others are living the brand,
• help the leadership craft a brand story and
• take it to the market.
And keep telling the story so others know how to tell the story, too.
By Mark True
This past week, I attended a Phoenix-area event, the Third Annual City of the Future 2020 Summit. The event grows out of the efforts of Arizona LeaderForce and the Collaboration for a New Century, which work to bring together nonprofit organizations with Arizona business managers so each can learn from the other.
The groups’ work is noteworthy, and I might discuss it another time. But for now, I want to tell you about the event’s keynote speaker, Brad Casper.
Casper is the youngish-looking CEO of the Dial Corp., the folks who help keep your body, your clothes and your home clean with such products as Dial soap, Right Guard antiperspirant, Renuzit air freshener and Purex bleach. Dial was purchased in early 2004 by the German-based Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, and Casper came on board as CEO about a year later. He previously had worked for Procter & Gamble and Church & Dwight (the Arm & Hammer people).
Casper detailed all the good corporate citizenship work being done by Dial and its parent company, and you can learn about that at the Henkel Web site. It includes a number of initiatives to conserve resources, make products more environmentally friendly and partner with service agencies in fields as diverse as supporting the “Lost Boys” of Sudan in Arizona, furthering science education in cooperation with the American Chemical Society and providing aid to children undergoing physical therapy in California.
His personal story illustrates the importance of top-level commitment in making corporate citizenship happen within a company. Casper graduated in 1982 with a degree in finance from Virginia Tech University. After a short stint in finance with General Electric – which he described as boring – Casper joined Procter & Gamble and soon found himself and his young family in Japan. He credits his time in Asia with teaching him what it feels like to be a minority and believes he is a stronger leader as a result.
About 20 years into his career, Casper said, he took his first Myers-Briggs test, which is used to reveal insights into personality and personal style. He learned he was an ENFJ, which in a nutshell, means he is warm, empathetic, responsive, responsible and capable of providing inspiring leadership. His fellow ENFJs include three U.S. presidents – Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama.
Casper’s experience with Myers-Briggs led him on a journey of self-awareness during which he read a book by Bob Buford called Halftime. The book challenges its readers, who usually are successful in their careers, to think about how they want to build on their success to do something significant in their world. In part, this question led him to join Dial and Henkel, which, like many European companies, has been engaged in sustainability and social responsibility initiatives for more than half a century.
In December 2008, Dial and its Scottsdale, Ariz.-based employees moved into a new building (LEED-certified, by the way). Casper said he considered giving employees a day off after the move, which demanded a lot in terms of individual packing, adjusting to new routines and the like. Instead, he declared a day of community service, and even with the holidays fast approaching, employee response was overwhelming. He plans to make this a regular event for Dial.
The point of all this is simple: Commitment to corporate citizenship really does come from the top, and thoughtful leaders see it not just as something to be checked off a list. Instead, they understand that it can energize employees, help communities and help their companies to find added significance beyond the good their products and services create.
Why do weaker creative brains have a tendency to steal in broad daylight, and why is big money spent in promoting look-alike names, despite knowing full well that these names are stolen from other famous brands? Is it really human nature or just sheer stupidity? Unfortunately, some lack the basic skills for recognizing The Three Golden Rules of Naming.
Millions of entrepreneurs and thousands of account executives from major ad agencies all over the world are losing their sleep these days, most sleepwalking in search of new names with some extra “OO”s to ride along with the success of Google’s name.
During the day, they daydream about coming as close to this name as possible. Copy, modify or steal, who cares, as long it as sounds like Google. OOGLE, BOOGLE, FROOGLE, NOODLE, POODLE, CABOODLE, who cares? Just leave the Google brand name alone.
Look-Alike Names
Why do weaker creative brains have a tendency to steal in broad daylight, and why is big money spent in promoting look-alike names, despite knowing full well that these names are stolen from other famous brands? Is it really human nature or just sheer stupidity?
Unfortunately, they seriously lack the basic skills necessary to recognize The Three Golden Rules of Naming:
- Rule One: Do not hide under someone else’s umbrella, you will still get wet. Don’t be a copycat. It is very bad to copy or borrow from an established identity. A look-alike, sound-alike name, resembling the personality of a powerful, established, legendary name would be fruitless in the long run. Stay clear of legendary names.
In the current battle with Froogle, Google has the full right to challenge as the spelling of frugal was changed to appear like Google’s. Just like in the past, Apple, as in computers, faced copycats called, Pineapple, Banana and Cherry, but all perished in the copycat game. There were also Boohoos, UHOOs after Yahoo. Creative agencies love to steal. That is why there are ALTIVA, ALTIPA, AMTIVA, by the hundreds or ENGENT, PANGENT, and CANGENT. Ever wonder why most cars, beer, banking, medicine commercials are just the same? The corporations pay millions and do endless research that is all wasted in the end, as the resulting names or ads are always just the same. Surely, they are not all out of new ideas — or are they?
- Rule Two: Creativity is a spark of genius. Over-creativity can cause fire and damage. Don’t get too creative. Do not twist, bend, stretch, exaggerate, corrupt or modify alpha-structures to their extremes in naming. It might result in difficult, confusing, unpronounceable and only silly names. Avoid overly creative solutions. Studies have shown again and again that most ad commercials or strange branding themes and names, which surely win top awards from their peers, are simply shut out by customers. Next time, just check the top 10 most-awarded campaigns and their related sales performances. Here, raw creativity is rewarded whether it rings clients’ cash registers or not.
- Rule Three: Work locally, think globally and name universally. Do not short-change. No matter how small or local the project, think of the future and think of this small planet. A name is only good when it is free and clear to travel around the globe, without encountering translation problems or trademark conflicts. Name for the universe. Ninety-five percent of the corporate and major product names will fail a test of global protection and suitability. It is so easy to have a global name identity.
Clarity Needed
Global branding and rules of corporate branding in just about every sector are faced with the massive proliferation and commoditization of leading brands. This factor alone demands clarity in the name identity and a precise definition in the marketplace. Copying and stealing famous names is the first step to a big failure.
Globalization is at a serious crossroad. Nationalistic posturing is demanding localization of brands at a much faster rate. At the end of the day, global corporate nomenclature is the most sought after issue of any serious branding exercise. This process is not to be confused with name branding exercises that are primarily looking at global directories and stealing famous name ideas by changing a letter or two, all in the name of big branding.
Creative agencies should pack up all gear, leave the success of Google’s name alone, and wake up and smell the coffee.
I’ve quoted my friend and mentor, David Berlo, numerous times in this column. Here’s one of his more curious gems. “The key to being effective is sincerity,” he said, “and if you can learn how to fake that, you’ve really got it made.” He was joking, of course. But like the old saying goes, there’s a bit of truth in every joke.
Key to Leadership
I was reminded of David’s quip recently when I attended a presentation on a report entitled “The Authentic Enterprise.” It was published two years ago by the Arthur W. Page Society from a study that examined the role of senior communicators in the 21st century.
Based on comments from numerous CEOs and chief communications officers, the report summed up the study’s pivotal finding like this – “In a word, authenticity will be the coin of the realm for successful corporations and for those who lead them.” The report goes on to say, “Demands for transparency are at an all-time high, and give no sign of ebbing.”
Reality is Fabulous
Perhaps it’s not surprising that businesses have struggled with the elemental need to be straight shooters. It’s certainly not new – just look at what Henry David Thoreau wrote in Walden more than 150 years ago …
“Shams and delusions are esteemed for soundest truths, while reality is fabulous. If men would observe realities only, and not allow themselves to be deluded, music and poetry would resound along the streets. Let us settle ourselves, and work and wedge our feet downward through the mud and slush of opinion, and prejudice, and tradition, and delusion, and appearance, till we come to a hard bottom and rocks, which we can call reality.”
Despite the apparent yearning for greater authenticity … or sincerity … or reality, some skeptics think it’s mostly a hoax. They argue that when stakeholders – inside or out – say they want more authenticity, all they’re really looking for is consistency. I guess they haven’t run into as many consistently inauthentic “spinners” as I have.
A Choice and a Voice
Still, the remark made me examine what I mean when I use the word authentic. It was easier to grasp its significance by describing what I mean by IN-authentic. Here are some words and phrases that come to mind – doubletalk … misdirection … sanitizing bad news … glamorizing good news … manipulating the truth … distorting the facts … empty jargon … phony platitudes. It’s rarely an outright lie – just an artful shading of reality. Sound familiar? From where I stand, that’s a whole lot more sinister and unsavory than merely being inconsistent.
Professional communicators have a choice and a voice. We can play along and help our organizations engage in “shams and delusions” that strain credibility – or we can be champions of authenticity. Promoting the latter, the Page report says, “If we choose this path, we can transform our profession, open up new and meaningful responsibility and learning, and create exciting new career paths for communications professionals.” Now that’s something to look forward to – sincerely.
Les Landes, Landes & Associates
Buy Les’s webinar replay: Getting to the Heart of Employee Engagement
B. L. Ochman wrote an interesting article this week for Ad Age – Why Big Companies Are So Scared of Social Media. She briefly discusses Motrin’s recent venture into social media, in which the pain-relief product offended some young mothers with an online video. The video discussed the pain that can come with carrying a baby in a sling all day and suggested Motrin as a remedy. A large, vocal contingent of mothers complained that the video was condescending and out of touch through postings on Twitter, YouTube and other outlets. In no time, Motrin killed the video and accompanying ad campaign and issued a public apology. (You can, of course, still find the video and its hordes of detractors on YouTube.)
I’m sure this spooked many CEOs familiar with the incident. It provides them with ammunition against the use of social media and the notion that active, sustained engagement with customers and stakeholders is a good idea. I’d argue, however, that Motrin’s error was not in using social media but rather in failing to understand the consumers they were trying to engage. In the long run, avoiding social media and stakeholder engagement is only prolonging the inevitable.
For all the skepticism and distrust that surrounds modern corporations, we can never lose sight of the fact that they exist because they provide products and services that meet human needs and desires. Despite how it sometimes feels inside a corporation, most people don’t want to see big business disappear.
They do, however, expect corporations to live up to common principles of honesty, openness, fairness and justice. With the democratization of publishing made possible through social media, interested parties now have powerful tools to express how they believe those principles should play out in practice. Organizing protests and boycotts is easier than ever.
Smart companies will engage with their major stakeholders to come to common agreement on key issues – or at least to have an honest discussion of differences of opinion. Traditional executives still balk at this notion, protesting that no one other than directors and shareholders has a right to tell them how to run their business. But a company that ignores or hides from key stakeholders only riles them more, and it pays a price in more intense media scrutiny, heavier regulatory interest, and a more difficult time in recruiting and retaining employees.
The real fear in the C-Suite is lack of control. Stakeholders don’t take a paycheck; they can’t be fired or disciplined. Executives ignore them at their own peril, however, especially when stakeholders have more tools at their disposal to organize and be heard.
It’s always been an axiom of media training that you can’t control the media; you can only try to shift the odds in your favor by engaging with reporters and trying to be heard. The same is true in this new world of social media. Stakeholders can’t be controlled, but smart companies will listen to them, engage them and adopt their best ideas. It’s the way to build and strengthen reputation in this new, online world.
Vault.com, Inc. (http://www.vault.com) is proud to announce the release of the company’s first digital-only book, the Vault Guide to Green Programs. The guide details how many prominent North American companies are incorporating environmental concerns into their business practices.
Companies profiled in the guide include: Accenture, Apple, Boeing, Burt’s Bees, Citi, DuPont, Gap Inc., GE, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Northwest Airlines, Random House, Seventh Generation, Sony BMG, Starbucks, Whole Foods and many more.
http://www.vault.com/store/book_preview.jsp?product_id=53449&industry=190
One of the most unique features of Google+ is the “circles”. Circles allow users to group followers into different groups for communicating different things.
This means brands are in a better position to share more relevant information with their followers, as against churning out the same information to everybody.
A good example of this can be seen with Intel, who invited users to select the photo which best represents the circle best aligned with the interests. This subtle but very effective move proved to be the right one as it ensured that people were getting exactly what they wanted.
Google+ is set to introduce more features very soon and if these stories are anything to go by, it’s about spotting an opportunity and going for it. It is important to keep a keen eye on these developments, as the opportunities are limitless.
Many of us grew up apprehensive that an Orwellian world of an omnipresent Big Brother would invade our lives. We never anticipated that the people, as well as the state, would have the power to see and report virtually everything, everywhere – at least in wired countries.
Hertz just learned what it’s like to live in this new world of empowered stakeholders. In Fort Lauderdale, one hapless employee was left alone to staff the car rental counter about 10:30 p.m. one recent evening. About 15 customers stacked up in line, each waiting to be processed; they never should have been put in such a difficult situation. The employee ended up walking away, telling one angry customer that she was now off the clock. She never should have been put in such a difficult situation.
That customer used his cell phone to video the incident and post it to CNN’s iReport Web site. The video has been viewed nearly 1,500 times on iReport, and it may be going viral before long. I learned of it at Ragan Communications’ PR Junkie Web site. Follow the link, and you’ll be able to see the video and Hertz’s tepid response from a PR trooper, who, of course, never should have been put in such a difficult situation.
Granted, this incident is just one data point in Hertz’s customer service record. It becomes a prominent, memorable point, however, because of the outrage Hertz created and the power now in the hands of everyday people to document and share their lives on highly visible platforms.
All this is a lesson for companies trying to strengthen their reputation. Excellence across the board, or at least garden-variety competence, is more important than ever. At any point at which companies interact with a stakeholder – be it customer, employee, vendor, shareholder or neighbor – people now have the tools to package and distribute their complaints and disappointments. A company’s efforts to pursue higher-order goals such as citizenship, responsibility and sustainability will be met with a jaundiced eye if they’re built on a platform of everyday mediocrity – and odds are that everyday mediocrity, sooner or later, will be documented and revealed.
So, for now, I won’t be interested in hearing data points about what a good corporate citizen Hertz is, no matter how true they might be. I want to know that the company has its act together on the everyday basics of quality, value, reliability and service.
