Category Archive

This recent account of Korn/Ferry’s rebranding efforts - which seem to be thoughtful and totally integrated across internal and external audiences - raises the question of why something so fundamental and logical as internal branding campaigns seem such a tough sell in many companies. Indeed, while many executives embrace the marketing principles behind the idea of promoting and celebrating a distinctive brand identity to customers, they often balk at applying the same logic with their own workforce. Why do we need to talk about our brand with employees? Don’t they already know who we are? Does this really help drive the business? Isn’t this just empty cheerleading? And what is the ROI of any internal brand campaign?

These are all appropriate questions, but they ignore the reality that ensuring employees understand, accept and deliver the brand promise is critical to a company’s success. And this is true whether the company sells directly to consumers or is more of a B2B operation. At the basic level, employees need to know what they must to do to deliver on the brand promise. Even better if they actually want to do their jobs well. On a higher level - perhaps harder to articulate and quantify - employees need to “live” the values and personality inherent in the brand. Ultimately, they have to be advocates of the brand across both personal and professional situations. None of this happens through osmosis or simply reheating marketing materials intended for customers.

All makes sense, right? So why is it so difficult to secure the funds for internal campaigns designed to educate employees about the brand and corporate identity, illustrate the brand attributes through examples or best practices or even celebrate the brand to generate enthusiasm and discretionary effort? It may be that executives are looking at all activities that fall under the umbrella of marketing and advertising - whether internal or external - with a more skeptical and cautious perspective these days. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing, given the dubious track record and flawed logic of many marketing mantras (e.g. Super Bowl commercials are worth the cost.) Or it may be that in difficult economic times anything beyond basic communication about the nuts and bolts of the business seems superfluous.

Whatever the reasons, executives who ignore the internal profile and resonance of their brand do so at their own peril. Employees want to know who they work for and what their company stands for - not just how to do their job. And most employees want to feel proud about their company’s distinctive heritage, achievements and/or identity.   

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal (which I can’t link to due to their arcane online search function) provides an interesting analysis of Ford’s recent advertising struggles, and their Sisyphean quest to find a campaign that can revive both their lagging business and their tired brand. The latest candidate: “Ford. Drive One.” Other than the obvious call to action, this is about as memorable - or distinctive - as their last few slogans: “No Boundaries”, “American Innovation” and “Bold Moves.” What are the chances this new campaign will catch on? Not very good, I would suggest. Here’s why.

Absent some smart ads from Volkswagon over the years and perhaps the Zeppelin-fueled Cadillac campaign, automobile advertising is hopelessly formulaic, shallow, dubious and - the worse crime of all - boring. Campaigns are introduced with great fanfare but often dropped several months later, fostering consumer confusion and inattention. The stubborn lack of imagination of typical car marketing - car driving down scenic roads, endless 3/4 shots of the gleaming metal, superficial appeal to stereotypical hooks (macho & flag imagery for trucks, quirky and green for hybrids) - makes it virtually impossible to differentiate what ad is for what car. Witness the recent blizzard of boring ads related to President’s Day in the United States. I was more bored and insulted by the insistence and vapidity of the ads than anything else (perhaps because I’m Canadian and the appeal to Americana had no relevance to me.) Too often the ads are trying hard to convince consumers of the inherent value or the latest model, a brave aspiration but one which has to be based on realistic assumptions of what consumers will believe. And to make matters worse - as the article points out - these global campaigns often have no linkage to local marketing driven by the dealers. So the result is often a confusing stew of loud, repetitive claims (which appear to me like desperate pleas), mechanical minutae, financial incentives and contradictory local campaigns. Yet, despite all evidence to the contrary, many auto companies continue to spend hundreds of millions on these clarion calls in the hopes of rehabilitating their brands and driving sales.    

Like too many other campaigns - for automobiles or otherwise - this latest effort by Ford has little chance of getting their cars under”consideration” by consumers, or providing a cogent, clear image of their brand. To their credit, Ford apparently worked hard with the dealers to ensure they would help reaffirm the campaign and become local advocates. And they obviously did a fair amount of research on the brand positioning of Ford and its peers. But I don’t give the campaign a big chance of getting any traction, let alone changing the minds of consumers. The article claims the inspiration for the campaign was Nike’s legendary “Just do it” tagline, one of the most memorable advertising slogans in history. But there are so many ways Ford cannot hope to replicate the impact of Nike’s efforts. For one thing, Nike can leverage a rich, credible heritage that supports their smart, innovative marketing which conveys a consistent, positive brand experience across advertising, local marketing, online platforms, retail experience and the products themselves. And yes, the product does matter.

Ford’s new CMO apparently wants this latest campaign to help position Ford as the “smart, green, quality and safe” choice. Sound a bit ambitious? Notwithstanding the merit of trying to latch on to themes like safety - which has essentially been owned by Volvo for years - this new brand identity is diffuse and hopelessly aspirational, rather than grounded in Ford’s resonant attibutes and values. In short, it may be too much of a stretch. You’ve got to give the Ford team plenty of credit for trying and they are doing some things right, but I suspect they will be back to the drawing board within a year. I wish them well…nobody said marketing was easy.  

The latest PR fiasco for Southwest was noteworthy for its timing. During roughly the same time period, I saw two widely divergent depictions of the airline. By coincidence more than otherwise, I witnessed several examples of SWA being positioned as a legend in the PR industry - savvy, successful and carrying a boatload of wisdom and kudos. One trade group was even positioning them as a savant in the area of social media (for what achivement it wasn’t clear.) A number of conference briefs on my desk featured SWA presentations on topics ranging from their unique, ”fun” culture to their mastery of media relation metrics. And this trend has been going on for years. It’s rare you attend a conference where SWA isn’t featured as a bright light in employee engagement, media relations, marketing or even lobbying.

But this laudatory, almost obsequious stream of industry hype was in sharp contrast to what was actually happening in real life. Not content to demonstrate its reactionary, outrageous tendency to ban passengers showing a little skin (at least three times in the past year by my count), Southwest has now really stepped into the mud with reports that it ignored safety guidlines and flew planes it had not properly inspected (it was subsequently confirmed 6 of the planes had cracks in the fuselage.)

How did SWA’s incredible, leading-edge PR machine respond to these claims? At first, their website and blog (which to me is little more than a light-weight, heavily perfumed platform for their marketing machine) made no mention at all. Never happened. I suppose there was no room with all the employee profiles, leadership pep talks and self-congratulatory features. In the face of the media onslaught over the weekend, SWA belatedly and reluctantly came out with a mix of denials, clarifications and excuses - including blaming the FAA. As the weekend progressed they decided to parade CEO Gary Kelly, who said he would vigorously defend his company’s commitment to safety and that the $10 million fine levied against the airline “felt unfair.”

There are two lessons one can draw from this sorry episode. One is how not to respond to a media crisis…but I’ll leave that to another time. But the more interesting one, to my mind, is how the PR industry tends to operate in a dangerous vacuum. Southwest was never as smart or progressive as they were positioned by an industry only too happy to have a super star at the ready. Industry events and awards have always flirted with irrelevance and a sense of detachment from the business world, but now they risk losing their credibility altogether. Now we’ll have to see what they present at their next conference keynote: How to leverage social media in a crisis, perhaps?

I had to chuckle when I read Google’s belly-aching about Microsoft’s proposal to buy Yahoo a couple of weeks ago. According to Google’s legal counsel, the bid raised “troubling questions.”  What’s interesting here is not the merit of Google’s arguments – or the irony that since they initially aired their concerns they’ve hinted they may jump into the process as a white knight – but the dissonance of their stance with their brand. Is this not the company that proudly proclaimed they would do no harm – certainly one of the most bold and original corporate mantras in history. At first Google acted as though their mission – and brand positioning – was more than a paper tiger. I’ll admit it, I applied for a couple of jobs there and was keen to join such an innovative and progressive company. And they have provided users with a huge array of free tools and programs. But in the past year or so, the brand veneer is becoming seriously scuffed. First they made a dubious deal with the Chinese government which went against the core principles of free speech. As they’ve grown bigger and more dominant, they’ve increasingly acted more like the cocky millionaire producer rather than the scruffy tech nerd.  And now, in the latest twist…the giant complains when their main rival (with its own famous hubris) takes steps to contest their domination in the field of online advertising. As far as I’m concerned, this puts the nail in the coffin of the old Google. I still love their attitude and their products, but I no longer consider them special or cool. In fact, they may even be a bully - going from do no harm to take no prisoners. Hardly the inherent message in their brand positioning.

It’s been fascinating to me to watch how the sibling disciplines of marketing, advertising and PR are reacting to the tidal wave of the Web 2.0 revolution. The way I see it, this race to awareness and wisdom has been a bumpy ride with laggards and leaders in all camps. But marketing teams and advertising agencies - despite some celebrated stumbles - seem to be well ahead of the staid PR community. This recent article in BusinessWeek makes a strong case of why, and how, the advertising community has led the way.

The quick reason is easy: fear of extinction. No industry is as threatened by the social media movement as traditional advertising. The slow but inevitable death of one-way messaging means marketing teams and ad firms can no longer dominate the brand message or discussion. In an environment with unlimited choices and massive amounts of information and commentary available to all, information about products is no longer controlled or even generated by the companies or their ad agencies.  Word of mouth is now the most influential marketing force, and overt selling is anathema to the free-flying ethos of many social networks and websites. Over the last few years the smarter ad agencies have accepted this paradigm shift (cliche alert!) and are focusing on engaging in, and shaping, the conversation rather than just pushing their products.

PR is a different story. The two main camps - in my humble opinion - are those in violent denial or others who aren’t even aware enough of these changes to have an opinion. (And no, going to one of those canned industry conferences on the topic does not count as awareness or understanding.)  Perhaps because their demise does not appear so imminent or obvious, many PR professionals are well behind their marketing cousins in terms of understanding the trends and the technology. It’s time they open their blinds and pay attention to what is happening - those who finish last may not get to compete again.

Some have accused me of being too complimentary with Apple, so this post will likely fan those critical flames. So be it. A recent article in BusinessWeek provides an interesting analysis of what makes Apple such a marketing  (and financial) juggernaut. In a nutshell, it’s not just the fabulous, buzz-worthy products - though those certainly are the crown jewels. As BW’s Sohrab Vossoughi argues, Apple is more than just a pretty face - the company has created a seamless and impressive ecosystem that creates strong demand, generates tons of (mostly positive) attention, and generates passion among its legions of fans. The ecosystem features the suite of products, of course, but also numerous innovative accessories, software, services, customer support, a retail experience, employee training, websites, marketing, advertising and even public relations. All of these link together beautifully to create a unique and superior customer experience. Every customer touchpoint is considered and perfected…and fully branded.

No - Apple is not perfect. I’ve written about some of its PR missteps. But the company carries important lessons not just for product designers or business strategists, but for anybody interested in how successful brands can outpace the competition and resonate deeply with customers.

Fast Company posted an interesting article this week which asked whether PR could save China from its recent spate of scandals. The article raises some interesting points about how China is leveraging some of the typical crisis management tactics, but also confirms China is most definitely a unique “client.” The context is interesting, since most observers would agree the Chinese government has very limited credibility as a source of information - so the “bank of goodwill” we always hear about is likely near empty. That tends to happen when you control (and censor) the press, stubbornly deny what has been verified and witnessed by millions and have a long history of highly dubious statements couched in hyperbolic Marxist rhetoric. The Ogilvy executive quoted in the story - who is working with the Chinese government - argues that China gets a rough ride because of an information vacuum and consequent misunderstanding by the Western press. This may well be true, but I suggest it’s due more to China’s atrocious track record in communication.

Ironically, China has some important PR assets in its favor and may be able to salvage and even burnish its reputation. For one thing, when it says it has started a “working group” to address and fix the problem - as detailed by the Ogilvy rep - that means something totally different than in Western countries. If the Chinese government wants to change something, it can and it does. Right away. No discussion, dilution or opposition. And it has shown it can take dramatic action - such as making a very public example of the poor officials in charge of whatever department has been sloppy. And it also helps that they are guaranteed to stay on message…save for the occasional demonstrators on street corners around the world. Ultimately, it will be the power of money that drives change; China will not let anything hinder its dramatic economic renaissance - not even corruption and scandal.  Not the greatest reason for probity, but if it ends up making the Chinese government more responsive and transparent we’ll take it.

With all the buzz about the latest hot topics related to employee engagement - namely how to leverage social media tools with internal audiences - one fundamental requirement for effective employee communications is often forgotten: the need for alignment across all “touch points” that reach employees. My friend David Kippen, who specializes in employment brand strategy at TMP Worldwide, discussed this point at a recent Conference Board workshop…talking about how various iterations of the company’s positioning as an employer was too often inconsistent, and even contradictory.

Thinking about my own career, I can think of several instances where the external employment (or recruitment) brand was totally different from my interviewing experience, and even more so from the initial orientation and on-boarding. So either the corporate brand was misrepresented, or it was not effectively conveyed to prospects and/or hew hires. And that doesn’t even touch on the messages and positioning that are shared with established employees - which are too often aspirational cheer-leading rather than a reflection of reality or cogent strategy. Furthermore, the actual work experience (an ocean of cubicles?) and HR programs (such as benefits or performance evaluations) sometimes don’t jibe with the company’s stated identity or culture. Add in typically woeful efforts to reach out to alumni, who are potential recruits and brand ambassadors, and you have a very disjointed employee experience. And we wonder why most employee campaigns are met with skepticism and are dead on arrival. Needless to say, it’s difficult if not impossible to have a clear, compelling external image as an employer if the situation is as sclerotic as described above.

Enlightened companies should put much more effort into defining and promoting a consistent brand positioning with prospects, new hires, employees and alumni. This will by necessity need to involve folks from various teams and agencies, and it may take some hard work to define the employment brand - both real and desired. But it’s work well worth doing. Otherwise, employees and prospects will continue to view corporate positioning efforts with cynicism and scorn.

Too often during discussions about branding - both internal and external applications - PR or marketing folks forget the most critical requisite for a relevant, sustainable and credible brand. No, it’s not delivering on the brand promise, though that is an essential factor if you hope to survive for more than 10 minutes. And no, it’s not a dazzling logo or award-winning creative, though those can also make an impact. And it’s not consumer insight, though that is a critical ingredient if you hope to be resonant. I would even argue it’s not the specific product or service you are marketing, though that will determine if you have a viable business. Ultimately, it’s about having something that is distinctive to sell… and say. It’s about being memorable, and standing out from the crowd. Word-of-mouth guru Andy Sernovitz makes this case (with bonus laughs) in a recent blog post. I can’t begin to count the awkward discussions I’ve had with executives who ask for my opinion on their hopelessly generic and trite corporate values. You know the kind: customers are king, we love employees, let’s be honest, etc….typically displayed on dusty table tents and fading posters. Even if they are all true, these tenets hardly hardly provide employees with a snapshot of the company’s DNA or unique value proposition. And they are unlikely to foster pride and engagement. The same storm of cliches happens outside the firewall. As Andy points out, far too many ads can be transposed across numerous competitors  - and most customers would be hard pressed to know the difference. In the rush to develop ads, or print a bunch of internal posters, communicators too often skip over the importance of defining what is truly different - and special - about a company or product. What is the company’s essence or cultural DNA? What will make people pay attention? What will make them care? What will make them associate a product or service (or related marketing campaign) with a specific company? What will foster buzz and even passion? If you can’t answer these questions with crystal clear answers, it’s time to go back to the drawing board.  

PR pundit Shel Holtz recently blogged on the ongoing debate of who should ”own” - or manage and lead - social media strategy. The post is a good snapshot of the conflicting arguments on this issue - which is much more than a theoretical polemic, since figuring out who does what is often a huge stumbling block to many organizations considering getting involved in social media. The question comes up in almost every presentation or conversation I have on the topic. For what it’s worth, I agree with two key arguments presented by Holtz:

- Specialized agencies should not own or lead social media projects, since giving up control to external teams - no matter how talented, smart and well-intentioned they are - takes decision-making too far from the critical teams inside the organization

- Social media strategic planning and execution should be directed by a cross-functional team, since various players should have a stake in the program but all have biases and shortcomings that could derail the effort without a broader perspective

The second point is the most important, from my perspective. It’s very tempting to try and leverage social media for narrow, tactical gains that ignore the broader implications and strategic priorities.  Marketing, for example, has plenty of expertise in digital content and online marketing, but they might be too tempted to push the selling envelope. IT is too often focused on its own internal roadmaps and might resist applications and programs that were created outside the firewall. PR might want to reinvent the press release to the detriment of larger branding initiatives or outreach beyond traditional media. In short, the team format is probably required to strike the right balance across diverse (and often competing) priorities and steer the effort in the right direction.

The best examples of companies engaging in social media (e.g. Dell, Procter & Gamble, Nike) seem to share bold, englightened leadership, strong agency support and broad, cross-functional programming. Probably not a coincidence.

I just returned from presenting at a Conference Board event in Chicago, which was focused on engaging employees in the brand. The workshop I facilitated with my good friend David Kippen at TMP Worldwide was about how to manage a brand in the face of the Web 2.0 revolution. It’s always an interesting gauge to compare notes with peers at an industry conference or event, and this one was no different. Here are some of my main observations:

• At this point virtually all companies or organizations in the session were aware of social media - though some only peripherally - and are thinking about if and how they get involved. From my unscientific poll of attendees, most seem intent on doing something, though what exactly they are not sure. A few had already started down the path of setting up wikis or blogs.
• There appears to be much more focus on how the Web 2.0 tools can be leveraged with (and for) an internal audience. This is great news, given the huge potential to leverage these tools to engage employees in relevant conversation, foster collaboration and leverage internal best practices and ideas.
• The IT and Legal departments are universally seen as the biggest barriers (perceived or real) to getting involved in social media. On the Legal side, the complaint is understandable - though I made a case at the conference that Legal’s resistance is often overstated and it’s not an onerous task to define clear rules of engagement (either for internal or external tools.) Still, there are numerous nervous discussions about worst case scenarios (what if our employees share secrets or badmouth the CEO?) despite the fact this can already happen over the phone, email, etc. The IT criticism is more problematic, and is certainly in line with my own experience and observations. The department that should be leading the charge in exploring and adopting new tools and technology is too often a laggard, stubbornly resisting change of any sort with little or no valid reasoning (is it really valid to suggest it takes several months for a project to get on the “roadmap”?)
• Folks from a wide range of departments - Corporate Communications, HR, Marketing, Internal Communications - were represented at the event and actively involved in the discussions. This is an excellent trend, since in most cases it will take a robust cross-functional effort to devise and implement a social media strategy.
• In some cases, Marketing seems to be leading the corporate charge in social media. On the one hand this is good, since the marketing folks are typically savvy in online trends and technology and certainly know their way around digital content (like videos and websites.) On the other hand, this should raise some red flags, since though smart and well-intentioned, folks in marketing are the most likely to ignore the informal rules of engagement and push the envelope into pushy and ill-advised pitching.

All in all, it was good to see this topic front and center in yet another industry event. Slowly but surely, seems like the PR industry is catching on that this is most definitely not a fad.

An article in the NY Times about the new Nike campaign on female athletes reminded me of a truism that is too often forgotten in the cacophony of hype about new technology and channels - it’s ultimately the resonance of the campaign message that matters most. From what I have seen, this campaign is everything that has made Nike a paragon of cutting-edge marketing over the past two decades, but it’s the storyline more than the delivery that is most impressive. Nike has consistently taken a brave stance in favor of promoting athletes that are women - rather than women who are athletes. That stark, simple theme stands out in a very crowded marketing environment. And it’s credible because this fits perfectly with the Nike brand identity and is the latest in a series of provocative messages that celebrate individual achievement. I’m certain Nike will use a variety of cool tactics and tools to get the message out and will generate discussion among consumers and critics alike. And yeah, they are likely to sell a lot of products, because that is how they stay in business. But without the core message these tactics would be meaningless. A timely reminder.  

In most if not all of the conversations I’ve had or heard about digital media lately, a topic that invariably comes up is who “owns” it in organizations. Or more pointedly, who manages and coordinates the digital programs, who creates the content, who manages the blogs…and who should drive the digital strategy. This prosaic topic may appear trivial, but as any consultant worth his/her salt will tell you process and organization is critical to turning an idea into reality. From what I’ve seen and read, digital media efforts are led by a wide range of usual suspects in major companies - marketing, advertising, corporate communications, IT and sometimes even branding. And this is no surprise, since the elements of Web 2.0 technology cut across all of these departments - relevant to all, but owned by none. The problem with this lack of obvious ownership is that it seriously inhibits coordination and focus - and ultimately effectiveness.

No matter where the digital apostles work in a company or who is the most learned expert or where the blog moderators reside, it’s critical that companies begin to create new structures and processes to help make sense of the Web and drive coherent, integrated programs. It’s also essential to find and leverage the wide range of skills and expertise that are required to design and execute a strong Web 2.0 strategy - including serious technology chops, editorial talent, video production, project management, advertising experience, research, marketing, website design, etc. The list is long. Getting organized can be as easy as forming cross-functional teams that incorporate members from all relevant teams. And it likely means creating  some new senior roles so leaders can direct and track the efforts. Without this grunt work, companies may be relegated to one-off efforts that are often disparate and even contradictory. None of this means organizations need to create a new bureaucracy or be paralyzed by analysis - since glacial consensus-seeking and rigid regulation is anathema to Web 2.0 tactics. Think of it more as providing a basic sense of direction and order…Web-style.  

The recent initiatives by CBS are a good microcosm of how companies far and wide are struggling to find the right approach to Web 2.0 technology. Or more pointedly, they confirm that nobody knows the right answer, though there are plenty of hints for pundits and futurists to dissect. Unlike the other major networks, CBS is driving an aggressive acquisition strategy designed (apparently) to push its syndicated programming to as many sites as possible. Income will be generated by ad revenue sold around the content. That stands in stark contrast to the approach taken by NBC and News Corp, who are apparently building their own Web-video supersite, which will feature exclusive programming. The CBS approach is nicely described by BusinessWeek media critic Jon Fine as “ubituity trumping pay-per-download.” Will it work? I consider myself an average online user, and it makes sense to me. The only reason I would go to a specific site to view (and pay for) programming in a world of YouTubes and MySpace is if the programming was incredible - a la HBO. Otherwise, why bother? (Bud TV anyone?) But we’ll have to see - there is evidence of success, and failures, on both sides of the equation.

This strategic battle among media giants parallels the conundrum all organizations face in the face of the Web 2.0 revolution. Do you build your own property or do you establish a foothold on existing sites? (This is sort of a digital twist on the “build it and they will come” vs “go to where your customers are” argument?) Do you try to control or limit content or do you open the doors wide and encourage it to spread? How close can you come to traditional marketing in the face of a ”no hard sell” attitude of the online community? How much do you involve viewers in the creation or mashing of content? Do you focus on driving brand awareness and positive share of voice or digging for sales leads? And how the heck do measure success in this protean environment?

The answer to these questions - unfortunately or fortunately depending on your threshold for excitement - is that there is no clear answer. Each organization needs to figure out the best approach based on their customer profile, brand image, business priorities and technical sophistication. One thing that is fairly certain, however, is that the old rules of communication no longer apply.