The “Vision Thing” Does Matter

In recent weeks I’ve been involved in several projects that revolve around that challenging, nebulous communication exercise called the “vision thing.” More specifically, I’ve worked with clients to help develop, or uncover, and articulate their corporate mission…or vision…or purpose.

As you can surmise by my last sentence, these type of engagements are often rife with confusing, overlapping terminology and unclear intent. In fact, the very labels used in this type of work usually spark negative reactions, if not yawns, for many employees. Still, this is critical work that can help to direct business decisions and boost employee morale, engagement and productivity.

On the surface, helping a company to crystallize its purpose – or reason for being in business – seems obvious. In fact, shouldn’t a company already know who it wants to be, and what it wants to stand for in the marketplace? In theory yes, but the reality is many organizations don’t have a credible, relevant purpose – or mission statement – that captures their core aspirations and corporate DNA. Even fewer of them have defined their identity and core values. Much of the work I’ve seen in this area is generic, trite and lacks relevance or credibility with both customers and employees. Think of the clichéd values on the wall (sometimes as many as 12!) or the vacuous mission statement with no apparent link to daily operations or goals.

With this context in mind, I’ve developed a short checklist to help organizations develop and execute a valid mission statement:

• Use words wisely – Knowing that many employees (and indeed professionals) are fuzzy about what these words mean and often tune them out, start by carefully selecting and clearly defining the labels you will use. Perhaps the most frequent confusion I’ve seen centers around purpose – which identifies a company’s fundamental reason for being, and captures key customer benefits and/or market differentiators – and strategy – which is a plan of action, or roadmap, to achieve the purpose.
• Connect the dots – A purpose will only make sense, and drive real change, if it’s part of a strategic framework that clearly outlines the various elements of an organization’s strategic plan. There is the purpose, or aspiration, which is linked to the strategy, or roadmap to achieve the purpose. Beyond that, there are typically related elements such as: core values that define the “how”, or desired behaviors; market differentiators; cultural tenets; and so on. Whatever the elements are – since these will differ based on circumstance and industry – their relationship and relevance should be clearly and consistently communicated.
• Don’t forget the brand – Linked to the point above, a purpose should also inform a company’s brand positioning. That means marketing messages and themes should reinforce, if not specifically mention, the key elements of the purpose. Many companies spend considerable time developing their brand essence or positioning, as well as related tag lines or campaign slogans. This marketing approach certainly has merit, but the process – and implicit messages – must be aligned both with the purpose and related themes the company is promoting with employees.
• Be credible – Having a purpose that is a stretch, or aspiration, is fine. In fact, the purpose can be so ambitious the company may never fully achieve it. But the purpose has to be realistic and based on true marketplace advantages and cultural differentiators.
• Walk the talk – As noted above, the key to a viable, relevant purpose is having a robust plan of action – or strategy – that firmly anchors the purpose to the company’s business operations. Everything the company does – all the way down to capital investments, performance reviews and team priorities – should be linked to achieving the purpose. In short, it can’t just be an idea or concept.
• Tell a story – Though in theory a purpose should serve to direct and motivate staff, too often they fail to engage and drive any meaningful action. There is huge opportunity to leverage the inherent passion and pride in a purpose through compelling, consistent communication across all audiences. Companies that do this well use all the tools and sophistication of marketing and storytelling to bring their purpose to life and illustrate best practices and positive outcomes.
• Be disciplined – A purpose isn’t going to do much good if there’s no discipline behind it. It should serve as the North Star for a company, and a litmus test for investment of time and resources. If an activity or investment doesn’t support the purpose, don’t do it.
• Think long term – Many companies often make a big splash to announce their new purpose (or new strategy) but often fail to follow-up with updates and illustrations that provide a sense of progress and success. Though short-term priorities and even strategies will change over time, a purpose should have a long shelf life. The key to sustaining relevance, therefore, is to give stakeholders are sense of if/how the purpose is being achieved, and what impact that is having on the company’s success.

Every Picture Tells a Story

Through my career as a communication professional, one mantra that’s provided me with sustained inspiration and direction is the need to consider all five senses while communicating. In other words, though we tend to spend most of our time in written words (only using sight) there is benefit in using other senses as appropriate – particularly sight and sound – to try to reach and affect our target audiences.  As it happens, I got a great reminder the past few weeks of the impact and effectiveness of compelling visuals.

First, I finally joined the Pinterest bandwagon. I’d heard the increasing buzz about the booming site (or app?) from peers and friends alike, and now use it regularly to “pin” and share a wide range of images. I’m still not sure if it’s a fad or adds any lasting value to the on-line conversation, but from my perspective the images (most of them photographs or posters) are as compelling and informative as the best blog posts or Twitter comments – though it’s true the format limits the detail and nuance the images can convey. Still, I’ve discovered several stories and campaigns – including the much-hyped KONY story – through their Pinterest “windows.” And for what it’s worth my peers and friends have a much richer understanding of my personality and preferences from my selection of images.

The past few months some of the best blog posts I’ve read – or seen – involved info-graphics on a wide range of topics – ranging from the growth of the Internet to the DNA of social media. And by the way, they are much more compelling, memorable and user-friendly than equivalent white papers on similar topics. Check out this one as an example. I’ve also noticed a strong trend towards peers and friends sending me (or posting) photos and videos – often with little or no text.

My best personal anecdote of the power of visuals is about a simple photograph. While working several years ago in a global organization undergoing a massive transformation (both cultural and structural) we convinced the CEO to focus on several stark, bold photographs to convey the key themes behind the change. Over time these photos became widely recognized and even used as unofficial brands for the various facets of the program. One photo in particular – a fish jumping from a safe, small bowl of water into a larger one – came to symbolize the essence of the company’s revolution and was prominently displayed in the CEO’s office as a reminder. Of course, there was content behind the photo – without meaning using photos can easily invite sarcasm and even parody.

I’m not the only one thinking about this visual trend; this blog post in AdAge argues the shift to visual is part of a greater cultural trend sparked by technology: Smarter devices are prompting more occasions for people to create and consume visual content, while social media is encouraging that content to be shared on multiple platforms.

While the use of strong visuals and design has long been a best practice in advertising and entertainment (which could be described as both a form of marketing and communication), it remains nascent and uneven in the PR industry.  For many organizations, the focus on visuals (and related emphasis on graphic design) is limited to primitive PowerPoint slides and esoteric debates about fonts. Even simple internal branding or program collateral is rare in many corporate settings.  Where visuals exist, they are too often functional and lacking attention to creative, original design.  (When is the last time you’ve seen content on bulletin boards with any hint of imagination and visual originality?) Video also seems limited in many companies – at least in terms of internal use – despite the fact new technology makes shooting and editing content ridiculously easy and inexpensive. Even photography seems to be an after-thought in communication platforms and plans.  Years ago this might be explained by the cost of design and printing, but in this digital age there is no excuse for the paucity of pictures.

While one could argue the external world bombards us with too much visual stimulus – think a Blade Runner dystopia where imagery overload drowns out even compelling ideas – many organizations are stuck too far in the other direction. In a commendable effort to avoid hype and be direct, they have become too serious and formulaic, even boring.  Another possible factor behind this visual gap is the lingering firewalls between related disciplines like marketing, IT, design and PR. While it seems like a no-brainer to walk down the hall to your marketing team to leverage them in an internal promotion – one of many examples of potential cross-pollination – it seems to be a rare occurrence.

The result of this lack of visual imagination is predictable: many internal communication programs have limited resonance and impact on employee awareness and engagement. While our focus as communication professionals should always remain the message, we need to expand our thinking about how we communicate with our audiences. The power of images is too potent to ignore.

Social Media Growing Pains Persist

Social media technology – or Web 2.0 – has been around for several years now, and for most organizations debate on social media activities has shifted from if to how.  Despite an accumulation of case studies and ubiquitous social media “experts” selling their wisdom, however, many organizations are still struggling to define and execute a viable strategy.

Brian Solis, a thought leader with Altimeter Group, recently published a helpful checklist of best practices for brand building in social media.  Beyond the useful tips, Solis highlights some of the common challenges – and shortcomings – of social media activities in the marketplace. Perhaps most notable is the stubborn focus on marketing – impulsively building branded properties across social channels primarily to promote the brand and spur sales – at the expense of relevant content and sustained engagement. This myopic approach fails to consider the ultimate litmus test for any social media strategy: is the activity/channel providing relevant, long-term value to targeted consumers? Not surprisingly, there is still a strong “push” reflex to many of the social media programs.

But lack of strategic focus and self-serving outreach are not the only problems. In my experience, the biggest and most surprising shortcoming is the lack of originality and innovation in the social media activities of many organizations. Many programs are tentative forays (branded Facebook pages) using obvious, safe paint-by-number templates. But for those who are interested, and motivated, there are plenty of successful, smart programs that go beyond the ordinary and manage to break through the noise. As one example, check out Secret’s anti-bullying campaign – Mean Stinks. As noted in this AdAge article, while many of the ingredients (channels) in the campaign are fairly typical, the recipe of multi-media tactics and content is original and fresh (no pun intended.)  Included in the mix are a “good graffiti” app, referral info for counseling centers, a donation tie-in and the ability to upload personal video apologies or complaints. The result has been rapid growth in fans/friends, strong repeat traffic and a notable boost in Secret deodorant sales. (The program included links to purchase P&G products – a reminder that an appropriate link to sales platforms can be part of the mix.)

So what can we learn from this? While many organizations need to spend the time developing robust, focused social media plans, they can’t forget to add the pixie dust of creativity. That will help ensure they break through the noise and truly engage with their customers and fans. Smart, memorable marketing apparently never goes out of fashion.

Taco Bell Using Aggressive Crisis Response

Another week, another interesting corporate response to a crisis. This past week we have Taco Bell defending its honor against a lawsuit accusing it of misleading customers on claims of beef content in various taco products.

The official Taco Bell response – centralized on a page within their corporate website – typifies a “good offense is the best defense” approach. The company quickly raised the profile of the issue with sarcastic, defiant full-page ads in major U.S. newspapers. The response also features a video from the CEO Greg Creed (and taped interviews of the CEO with major networks), various fact sheets and a stern statement warning they will vigorously defend their integrity against the “bogus” lawsuit. The company also wisely leveraged its various social media platforms, including Twitter and Facebook – which showcased messages of support from hundreds of fans, and even a spoof on the lawsuit response. To their credit, Taco Bell management didn’t seem to filter the comments on either platform to skew a positive response.

Not surprisingly, there is a range of opinions from PR pundits on whether Taco Bell is using the right approach. Check out these comments in a USA Today article. One writer on the Huffington Post argues Taco Bell may have permanently hurt its reputation by bluntly admitting its beef is bland and needs to be augmented with flavor and fillers.

From my perspective, the company did many things right:

• They jumped right on the issue clearly stating their case to ensure consumers heard their side of the story;
• The CEO has been very visible and is definitely – for better or for worse – the public face of the company;
• The company leveraged various communication channels – ranging from traditional media to social media properties – and formats to get its message out;
• Taco Bell has shown some creativity and bluster despite tackling a serious topic, which is consistent with their young, hip advertising image (think barking Chihuahuas);
• Messaging from Taco Bell has been consistent and concise, if somewhat shrill.

The problem with Taco Bell’s strident response is that it leaves no room for error – after loudly proclaiming its “beef” is 88% meat (and not 35% as argued in the lawsuit) the company has little leeway for compromise or back-tracking if the facts are proven otherwise.

It’s too early to tell if their aggressive response is working in the PR arena (and the lawsuit will likely take time to be resolved) but judging by the hundreds of comments I’ve seen Taco Bell has plenty of dedicated fans who don’t believe – or don’t care – that their beef may not be 100% beef. Taco Bell may be gambling that many consumers aren’t expecting high quality beef for tacos that cost a dollar or two. Ironically, maybe Taco Bell is still suffering from previous PR fiascos (like widely publicized videos of rats running around one restaurant), so expectations may be so low their brand will rebound from this latest attack. Let’s check in a few months time to see if there is any obvious impact on their sales or brand equity. In the meantime, keep reading those Twitter and Facebook comments.

Crowd-sourcing: Be Careful What you Wish For

The recent uproar surrounding the introduction – and then demise – of Gap’s new logo has sparked vibrant discussion on the merits and risks of crowd-sourcing…or more specifically listening to customers and critics.

A few weeks ago, Gap introduced a new logo on their Facebook page with nary a peep of warning or consultation. The initial reaction among observers was swift and fairly uniform – harsh criticism. The Gap folks tried to address the situation with a belated invitation for consumer input – call it reactive crowd-sourcing – which only fanned the flames of critics and confused observers. Think of it as bad buzz. Subsequent updates by Gap positioned the new logo as a broader brand update, and provided more background on the rationale and strategy. But in a fascinating twist, a survey several days after the initial buzz confirmed that few consumers were aware of the new brand or related online polemic. Gap ultimately announced they heard the feedback and scrapped the new logo design; it appears they have learned their lesson and will tread carefully in future brand changes. (For another example of a rebranding effort gone wrong – witness the debacle by Tropicana, which surprised consumers with a new packaging look that was harshly criticized – and eventually scrapped.)

There are several lessons communication and marketing pros can take from this story:

• If you are truly committed to listen to online consumers or fans – have a crowd-sourcing plan and a system to back it up. Confirm how you will gather feedback and what you will do with it before opening the doors to input and ideas. Define rules of the game to manage expectations and legal/copyright issues. Most important, be prepared to respond and take action based on what you hear.
• Make listening and monitoring of relevant sites a constant activity rather than an ad-hoc, reactive event. That will provide solid context for dissecting the scope and potential impact of any feedback.
• Consider getting input before you make any changes to products or brands. That makes the process more credible and relevant for consumers.
• Know who/where your fans and customers are…and make sure you are always listening to them. There was interesting debate around the Gap issue about whether the logo uproar was truly a broad, grass-roots reaction from fans and customers or just a brush fire from a small but vocal group of malcontents in the design community.
• Have a brand strategy – and stick to it. Yes…consumers own the brand, since their perceptions are ultimately the reality and determine brand equity. And many passionate fans feel they have personal ownership of favored products or brands. But no brand can survive without careful management by inside folks who are trying to blend identity, marketing, products and PR to drive the business.

I’ve heard a few executives and peers whisper that the Gap episode provides further evidence that social media is risky and perhaps even counterproductive. I disagree. The problem here wasn’t with social media – though listening and dialogue has exploded with the advent of new technology – but with faulty strategy and planning. The famous Coke Classic fiasco happened years ago without the prominent presence of Facebook or blogs. The issue now is that criticism can spread much wider and faster than years ago…which puts more onus on active monitoring, smart planning and ongoing dialogue with customers. An excellent article in AdAge focusing on social media “screw-ups” (which goes beyond crowd-sourcing) suggests that such missteps are inevitable – despite increasing efforts by companies to listen and learn – due to the rapid pace of evolution in communication technology.

On a final note, I enjoyed this video post by my friend Paul Walker at the PulsePoint Group on crowd-sourcing projects that worked well…and why they did. It reminds us of the potential benefits of crowd-sourcing – including consumer/employee engagement, lower cost, innovation and speed-to-market – which to my mind greatly outweigh the risks. Check it out.

BP Spending Millions on Brand Rehab

The oil spill in the Gulf Coast is now over, but the PR debacle continues unabated for BP, the much maligned global oil company. In recent days, there’s been considerable media invective about the amount spent by BP on so-called “PR” – meaning advertising and marketing activities. While initial estimates from BP capped out at $50 million, the real number (obtained only after a request from the House Energy Committee) appears closer to $100 million, or an average of $5 million a week since April. Not surprisingly, BP claims the advertising – featuring a blizzard of full-page ads in major newspapers and heavy rotation of TV commercials – are designed to keep Gulf Coast residents informed on issues related to the oil spill and to “ensure transparency”. So why the outrage?

There are several reasons why BP is taking a hit on this issue:

• BP is a huge global company, and the numbers surrounding this issue are commensurate in their size. For example, it’s expected the Gulf Coast spill will cost BP about $100 billion, and the company has agreed to put $20 billion in escrow for reparations and support aimed at the Gulf Coast region. (Keep in mind BP made about $16.5 billion in profit in 2009.) In that context, $100 million on marketing doesn’t like much – at first glance. But the number doesn’t look so insignificant when compared to the relatively paltry sum paid out so far in grants (according to CNN about $400 million), and seems even more inappropriate alongside the obvious economic toll – estimated at $25-30 billion dollars – for thousands of Coast residents and businesses.
• While there is certainly merit on using paid media to keep consumers informed about the spill – particularly how impacted residents can get financial assistance or information – the reality is that the BP ads were 90% justification and 10% relevant contact information. In fact, recent TV commercials mention the contact info for financial grants almost as an afterthought, mentioning the special website and 800 number. And the fact most of the media spending has been in high-profile national media platforms – rather than local channels that are more likely to reach Gulf residents directly – casts further doubt on their claims.
• In crisis management context matters as much as content. BP seems to believe that showcasing local staff in every single commercial is enough to guarantee credibility and goodwill. But the ad script seems jarring alongside BP miscues throughout the crisis and is such an obvious attempt to position the company as a good neighbor it fails on all fronts. In addition, the promises of support are badly lagging the reality of assistance on the ground.

The ultimate lesson here for PR professionals is that even doing everything right on paper – in many ways BP is managing this crisis according to best practices – can ring hollow if events don’t match the rhetoric and credibility has been eroded. It will interesting to see if and how this promotion campaign helps to rehabilitate the BP brand. Early reports suggest it might be working, but it’s tough to tell if what’s driving a slight increase in public approval is containment of the spill or the media campaign.

Transparency Blurs Lines Between PR Audiences

One of the axioms in public relations is what you share privately with your employees will – eventually – make its way to the press and other external audiences. I can remember years ago having contests featuring bets on how long it would take for a CEO’s memo or news on a job action to leak. The difference now is the leak happens in minutes, not hours or even days. In fact, some sophisticated communication teams now plan their efforts with the premise that most if not all communication activities will eventually find their way to the public domain – no matter their initial target. The recent events surrounding the SEC charges against Goldman Sachs are a case in point.

In the space of several days, Goldman was the target of a mountain of media coverage (and social media chatter). In an unhappy coincidence – or great opportunity – Goldman needed to manage a number of high-profile activities – responding to the SEC charges, testifying before Congress, announcing earnings, and releasing its annual report among  others. Communication supporting these events – formal and otherwise – all found their way into the mix, helping to shape the dialog and public reaction.

In fact, ostensibly internal messages from Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein to his global staff served as a more robust and nuanced response than the official statements – which were succinct and formal, bathed in carefully crafted legal content. (A Goldman spokesperson commented on the purpose of the internal voice messages…with language that seemed carefully scripted.) Here’s a good summary of the SEC action and Goldman’s initial formal response. This article mentions a Goldman letter to clients as another key source of information on the issue. Finally, a letter to shareholders – featured in the annual report – added to the communication stew.

Did Goldman proactively plan and coordinate all these messages and activities – assuming they would collectively form its response? If they didn’t, they should have. Communication professionals should assume that audience silos – and firewalls – have become little more than rice paper in this age of social media, real-time news and transparency. For some time companies have communicated with their employees through public channels – like advertising thanking staff for their effort and achievements – but the Goldman situation suggests proactive PR planning and cross-functional coordination is now a price of entry, rather than a special tactic.

Toyota Employees Featured Players in Crisis Response

One of the most predictable tactics in any crisis response for organizations under fire is using employees as advocates. After all, who better to represent the company than workers who can speak with credibility about corporate culture, products and procedures? Right on cue, Toyota has featured its employees in prominent TV commercials,  community meetings and even flew a group of employees and dealers as part of its delegation to Congressional hearings in Washington D.C. Typically, these employees argue (with some merit) that they are the ones most negatively impacted by any scandal – in this case several recalls and production stalls – and personalize the company’s claims of commitment to quality, regret and restitution. And of course, it never hurts to raise the specter of lost revenue or jobs, and the related impact on communities with Toyota facilities.

But there is a risk to this strategy, and it can backfire badly if the employee outreach is too aggressive or off target. Too often, the employees are clearly choreographed by company management and come across as blatantly biased, self-interested and scripted, rather than credible advocates who are just caught in the middle. In other cases, the employees are off-message and even contradict the company storyline. That seems to have occurred in the Toyota situation. For example, the strident complaints of  Toyota dealers – including barely veiled criticisms that Toyota is being unfairly targeted because it’s a Japanese company – came as new information suggested Toyota tried its best to suppress and minimize potential acceleration problems, and just as Toyota’s president “profusely apologized” and took full  responsibility for the fiasco – several times expressing deep remorse for the victims of accidents. Even more important, for this strategy to be effective impacted employees have to be fully engaged and supportive of management. But according to some reports there are serious cracks in the vaunted Toyota culture – particularly in Japan – and some employees are disillusioned and disappointed at the turn of events.

It’s too early to tell if Toyota employees will help or harm the resolution of this crisis, but from what I’ve seen so far the results are mixed, at best. Their effort is dissonant, too defensive and downplays the problems as a fluke, rather than a fundamental departure from their core values. Toyota employees might do well to listen more closely to the remorseful President of their company for guidance; there are important lessons to be learned here beyond protecting the paychecks of Toyota workers.

Coverage of PR Growth Misses Inside Story

The always-erudite Economist magazine recently featured an article detailing the growth of the American public relations business this past year – in contrast to falling revenues in marketing and advertising. The Economist folks attribute this boost to a number of factors, including: a spate of high-profile corporate scandals; the explosion of social media; and, PR’s expansion into specialized fields like web projects and event management. An interesting side theme in the article is the increasing blurriness between PR, advertising, web firms and other agencies as evolving technology – notably the boom of social media and online commerce – forces consultants to stake out new ground and learn or buy new capabilities.

From my perspective, what’s missing in this analysis is the strong demand for counsel and support for internal communications. All of the developments listed by The Economist are also relevant for employee audiences – particularly the increasing use of digital technology to help communication and collaboration within organizations. In many cases, the corporate intranet is at the nexus of these discussions, and often becomes the main platform for information-sharing and networking. And much like the external side of PR, lines are blurring between departments that historically defended their fiefdoms – such as Human Resources, IT, Legal and communications. Presumably this  collaboration has been turbo-charged by the lingering recession, which resulted in millions of lost jobs in the U.S., and created even more need to keep the best talent. Informal discussions with my peers in the communication business suggest there is increasingly robust demand  for consultants who can help companies leverage the new technology to more effectively inform and engage their employees. Given the dramatic gap in technological savvy and appetite for progress across companies, I don’t see that changing in the near future.

Digital Marketing Trends Relevant for PR

One of the most important lessons for me over the past few years – marked by the emergence and then explosion of social media – is the growing irrelevance of boundaries between marketing, public relations and corporate functions like IT and HR. In fact, I would argue blurring these silos is not only beneficial, but critical, for organizations intent on fully engaging their audiences. Some of the best innovations in social media (and communications) have come from cross-pollination and collaboration across disparate corporate functions, and there is a rich crop of new ideas emerging on a regular basis.

As exhibit A take a look at these proposed digital marketing trends by Advertising Age. At first glance, some of these appear to have huge potential well beyond pure advertising, notably:

• Growth of viral videos
• Gaming becomes more social and mobile
• Boom in mobile web access
• Customization based on location
• Real-time search
• Social graphs and networks

Innovative companies are already leveraging some of these ideas in their communication programs, but imagine how much more could be done. Even with seemingly obvious assets like video and mobility, many companies seem hesitant to fully leverage these tools within their own communication networks. Imagine adding ingredients like GPS capability and real-time search in corporate intranets, for example, or introducing more gaming technology into communication materials and training. Why not use an application like foursquare, as another example, to help employees identify colleagues near their location and compete for “mayorships”? Or allow staff more leeway to create and leverage personal groups – either on internal networks or outside the firewall? The potential seems unlimited.

From my perspective, the barriers are typically not with end users – though there will always be inherent realities based on job function – but rather with executive timidity. Many companies don’t even let their employees access social networks the company uses for marketing campaigns. Leaders would be better served to explore what they could do, rather than what they shouldn’t do.

FYI – For an interesting comparison on trend prognosis check out David Armano’s take in HBR.