GM Marketing Wakes Up to Reality

Those of you who read my blog know I’m not a fan of most auto advertising. Even in recent months most of the material coming out of Detroit – in particular – has been trite, disingenuous and ultimately irrelevant (judging by the plummeting sales numbers.) It’s as if they believe they can fool us into ignoring all the bad news, as well as their uneven product, with hype and flash. So I’ve got to hand it GM for taking a stab at a fresh start – both in terms of its business future and its marketing. 

As outlined in this BusinessWeek article, the marketing campaign is refreshingly candid about GM’s troubles and essentially positions GM as a new company…asking for a second chance. Instead of trying to rehabilitate or avoid its recent debacles, the campaign seeks to accept blame and move beyond them. The storyline reads something like…we screwed up very badly, but we learned our lessons and are paying the price. We intend to move forward as a smarter, leaner company that builds products that you want. Really. Complementary campaigns for the surviving GM brands are set to begin in the coming weeks. This report in the NY Times is a good read on the marketing plan.

GM still has some old marketing habits it needs to break – witness the irrelevant patriotic filler in the ads – but this is good progress that will increase the relevance and credibility of the campaign. To its credit, GM is also investing a nice chunk of its marketing budget in social media, and will encourage new GM buyers to share their experiences on Twitter and Facebook. I’ll be watching to see what comments get through…that will be the ultimate test of GMs openness to customer feedback.

Are Slogans Good or Bad?

In the latest Fast Company the authors of “Made to Stick” argue that the urge to use catchy slogans has created a cacophony of flip, empty catchphrases at the expense of substance. In their post, these guys raise some great points – namely that too many communicators (or wanna-be copy writers) focus most of their intellectual energy on developing snappy phrases and not enough on a broader strategy to communicate a marketing position or corporate program. I agree that the end result is often vacuous, misdirected top-heavy campaigns that are dead on arrival.

That said, a cogent, catchy phrase can play an important, even critical role in an advertising or communication campaign. There is logic behind the urge to develop slogans – as communicators we’re often trying to convey complex themes and messages in a crowded, busy environment. We’re competing for eyeballs, after all, whether we work in PR, internal communication or advertising. So it can definitely help to develop a phrase or slogan that nicely captures the essence of your message – if only to have a “label” and facilitate the promotion and delivery. The catch is that slogans have to be relevant and credible, and backed-up by supporting activities and information that provide the required context and drive the desired action (whether to buy a product or support a strategy.) The other challenge is that one slogan can be great, but in too many companies several teams are throwing a number of competing slogans (and brands and icons) into the mix, which  dilutes the impact of all except the best.

Perhaps the lesson here is that execution matters. There is nothing wrong with a great slogan – as we’ve learned from the world of advertising. But making it great is more than a cool phrase.

The Fragility of Brand Equity

The recent economic turmoil, and virtual imposion or acquisition of a number of celebrated financial institutions, raises interesting questions about the value of brand equity. In short, what is it really worth in times of crisis?

For years we’ve heard that a strong brand provides a cushion of goodwill in difficult times and allows firms to charge a premium for their products and services. There is a great deal of empirical evidence and logic to support that theory, but then what happened on Wall Street the past month? Firms like Lehman Brothers, AIG and Merrill Lynch have spent billions over the years burnishing their reputations and had what appeared to be strong brands supported by long histories. (Newcomers like WaMu and Countrywide were also big advertisers, but most would agree their positioning with customers was less solid and mature.) But those celebrated financial brands held little or no value when customers and investors began to doubt their liquidity and/or business acumen. Their reputation – built over years of consistent performance and marketing muscle – did little to slow or stop their disappearance. Whatever inherent confidence customers had in these customers was apparently fragile and transitory.

One could make a case that firms like Morgan and Goldman Sachs have survived the crisis partly due to their strong reputations – and brand equity – but their survival could also be due to smart management and a few lucky guesses on investments. And it’s certainly true that brands cannot survive serious strategic mistakes or bad financial bets. But the very brand essence of these firms was trust. Was all the marketing a waste of money?

I think the answer lies in the fact shaken consumers have lost trust in a wide range of institutions – not just Wall Street firms - and that goodwill and reputation is more ephemeral than ever. Furthermore, I believe the companies that have disappeared all did serious damage to the trust equity they had built by selling, promoting and investing in financial products built out of smoke and mirrors. When customers realized these firms had peddled risky products, they lost confidence and fled to higher ground - both for self-interest but also likely as a punishment for a breach of trust. Strong brands will still do better than others in most circumstances, but a powerful brand is not a guarantee of safe harbor in difficult times.

Grading the Microsoft Ad Campaign

The new Microsoft ad campaign by iconoclastic agency Crispin, Porter & Bogusky has sparked a frenzy of debate in the past few weeks. This blog reflects the fairly negative slant of most of the commentary.  But not all of the churn was negative. Check out this post by what appears to be an Apple fan, or this one, which points out that the initial TV ads were designed as teasers for a much broader campaign focusing on Windows and Vista.  Mission accomplished.

The critics focused largely on several key points: the ads seem pointless – without a key message or “selling” line; focusing on geeky Gates was a mistake; the ads are unoriginal and dated (featuring Jerry Seinfeld); and they seem a poor response to the wildly successful Apple vs. PC ad campaign. All of these might be true, but the reality – and the point emphasized by fans of the campaign – is that they put boring old Microsoft on the top of the buzz meter. Heck, one of my older relatives, who rarely watches TV and thinks advertising is a bunch of balloons on top of a car dealer, asked me what they ads were about. Not all of the attention was positive, but there was clearly a great deal of attention and discussion. Now Microsoft has a rapt audience to launch the subsequent elements of the campaign – which are apparently designed to highlight the positive attributes of Vista and Windows.

While the initial broadcast ads were not my cup of tea, I admire Microsoft for doing something different and risky. For me there is no worse sin in advertising than being boring and forgettable. And there are many successful, celebrated campaigns that had little or no mention of specific products or a clear pitch in their ads – including Apple’s own legendary “1984″ commercial. I’ll take thematic and lifestyle ads over pedantic “hard sell” ads (hello Big 3) any day. So I say let’s give Microsoft a chance to show it’s full hand and give them credit for making some noise and appearing…if only tentatively… a bit hip.

The Presidential Candidates as Brands

As a Canadian, I have watched the presidential campaign in the United States with a detached fascination. As the campaign has progressed, I’ve become increasingly numbed and disappointed, and not just by the torrent of disingenuous and shrill attack campaign ads. What’s even more interesting – as a student of marketing and PR – is how the candidates have ignored some of the basic rules of communication – in particular the core tenets of marketing. If the candidates were being judged as brands competing in the marketplace - they would get very mixed reviews. Let’s review how they rank against some key elements of successful branding.

• Focus: One of the central tenets of effective branding is having a clear, cogent brand identity. If customers (or voters) don’t have a clear sense of what you stand for, you have a serious problem. I would argue both candidates have muddled their identity and messages to the point where most voters are unclear what they really believe and what they stand for. Take McCain as an example. He starts the year as a renegade maverick who proudly bucks most of the Republican establishment. In the past few months, he has predictably softened his message on key issues and taken on the mantra as the Straight Talk Express. More recently, shaken by the implosion of the financial markets, he has apparently turned his back on decades of traditional Republican dogma about small government and free markets and remade himself a deathbed convert to regulation and Wall Street bashing. His focus on key issues has gone through a similar windmill depending on the vagaries of the campaign. Now he has belatedly joined Obama as the candidate for change and positioned himself as the real outsider. Whatever your political views on these twists and turns, it’s likely unclear to many what McCain stands for anymore…beyond perhaps getting elected. It doesn’t help, of course, that McCain’s opponent Obama is doing all he can to attack McCain’s positioning (see friend of George Bush ads) and protect his own turf.
• Differentiation: As per the above, while both candidates are striving to carve out their distinctive positions (and inherent advantages as candidates) their drifting positions have likely made their pitches more diffuse and confusing.  Here’s a test: who is running as the most credible change agent, Washington outsider and somebody who no allegiance to lobbyists? Yes…both of them. This one should be easy given the inherent polarization of politics and electoral campaigns, but aside from splits on a few fundamental issues the candidates are stepping on the same platform.  
• Credibility: This is a tough one given the inevitable histrionics and exaggeration of political campaigns, but even by those low standards of probity I would suggest the aggressively partisan advertising – which is usually quickly debunked by most impartial fact-checkers – seriously erodes the credibility of both candidates. It’s never a good thing when voters (or customers) expect most of what you say to be only distantly related to the truth.
• Consistency: See comments above. Even the most ardent political junkie would be hard pressed to keep track of the protean positions of the two candidates. It’s fine to adjust your position on key issues, but another thing altogether to do so for political expediency. The only thing that is consistent is the reactive and poll-driven messaging. I would also give Obama some credit for being consistent about his campaign theme and core messages – despite pressure from insiders to change it when the polls dip.
• Relevance: Most brand stewards stive to get to know their customers and respond to their desires and aspirations so they’ll buy your products or services. In politics, you use the same method to get their votes rather than their money. Given the amount of polling involved in this campaign, it’s clear the campaigns are working hard to be relevant to the voters…all the way down to specific voter segments or even neighborhoods. I’d have to give them decent marks on this one – in fact this may be one area where marketing has something to learn from politics.
• Third-party (customer) endorsement: Though the parties and candidates have thousand of passionate fans, it’s much harder to find impartial supporters who are not partisan or dogmatic. It does appear Obama has generated genuine enthusiasm among many who have not traditionally voted, so give him higher marks for creating buzz outside the traditional Democratic circles.
• Positive word-of-mouth: See point above. Plenty of noise and ardent cheer-leading but it’s not clear how much is real or will last beyond the election.   
• Compelling advertising: Though many pundits claim critical campaign advertising is effective it’s clear that most of the advertising we’ve seen in this campaign has been formulaic and largely lacking in creativity and imagination. You know the type: highly critical attack ads that stick closely to the tried-and-true formula of dramatic banner headlines and splashy visuals. No subtlety here. Ads that break the monotony (and cacophony) are very rare…I can’t honestly recall one that stuck out. And there lies a major flaw of these campaigns – they are hopelessly predictable. Even if they work and some of the mud sticks - which is debatable – I firmly believe they ultimately erode the reputation and credibility of the candidates rather than enhance it. 

Of course, unlike the real world one of these candidates will end up making the sale – and getting elected – no matter what they do. That’s lucky for them, because if they were in an open marketplace they may not close the deal.

Managing Change – First…Answer the Obvious Questions

Few topics have generated more articles, books or consulting dollars than the topic of change management. It’s one of those labels that seems to carry gravitas, and it’s loosely used across a range of situations – many of which have nothing to do with managing change.

In recent weeks, I’ve been involved in several discussions with peers and colleagues about how to manage and direct change in an organization. My experience is that while there is often consensus and even excitement among leaders (and consultants) about the need for change, and usually a favored approach by one guru or another, there is rarely enough thought given to confirming the purpose and implications of said change. In short, why do we need to change? And why and how is this change different from the routine that occurs in most companies every day?
With that in mind, I developed a short checklist that has served me well when this topic comes up. Consider it a due diligence template for communication professionals.

·         Burning Platform or Opportunity– The best impetus for change is when there is a crisis, such as a critical downturn in the business, leadership change or a dramatic competitive shift. But in some cases organizations feel compelled to change despite satisfactory performance, perhaps to boost performance or gain competitive advantage. Either way, leaders need to define a platform - burning or visionary - that will compel employees to consider dramatic shifts in their behavior or performance. Making a case for change when the situation is relatively positive and promising, in my experience, is a more challenging proposition. Defining a compelling vision or goal is not as easy as it sounds; the call to action must be relevant and credible – which eliminates most self-serving and trite corporate slogans. It involves defining the desired future state, what “better” or even “excellent” looks like. How big and successful will we be? How will our competitive position change? How will our organization change? All these elements have to be defined to a certain extent for employees to get on board. In short, you need a clear destination…not just a roadmap.

·         Focus on the rationale – Building on the point above, one of the critical drivers to employee acceptance of any change message is the underlying rationale…why do we need to change? Why now? Why this way? What are the fundamental reasons for the new direction or strategy? The logic and credibility of this core argument will determine the success of the change effort. Sounds obvious, but many organizations  do not get past this point. Their case is muddled or lacks traction. As a result, the effort falls on deaf ears.

·         What’s in it for me? – One of the critical elements required in any change communication effort is a clear indication of how employees across all regions and levels will benefit from the change. How do they win if the company wins? These benefits can be intangible (pride of global leadership, external recognition) or more practical (increased opportunity for career advancement, financial gains, increased security) but they need to be addressed prominently in the outreach. It won’t be good enough to demonstrate how the change is good for the company – we need to make the link between company gains and personal benefits.

·         What will not change? – With talk of change, most employees will be very interested in confirming what won’t be changing, particularly with regard to their daily jobs and more esoteric issues like culture. Will there be change to the core values, for example, or compensation strategy. If that’s the case, that needs to be emphasized in the communication effort. Confirming these surviving pillars – whatever they are — will provide some sense of continuity and security to employees.  

·         Dialogue vs. push – It’s particularly important during broad-scale change efforts to go beyond basic “push” communication tactics to fully engage employees in the topic and drive understanding and support. The communication effort should engage the employees in the change process through discussion and participation where appropriate, rather than just as recipients of the messages.  If the old adage is you cannot over-communicate during times of change, I would adapt that to add you also can’t listen too much. It will also be critical to engage managers as active participants in the communication process.

• Consider integrated communication campaign– Many companies leverage broad, multi-year internal marketing campaigns to direct and support change. This helps package a complex set of messages into a compelling, logical thematic framework that can appeal to employees. A well crafted campaign can also help to address the points above – for example defining the vision but also reinforcing the “how” or culture – through engaging collateral and messaging.

·         Integrate internal and external messages – Whatever organizations do around change communication, they need to ensure their directives and messages are consistent across audiences, particularly related to marketing messages. Not everything communicated internally needs to be shared or identical to external messages (for example internal messages exhorting additional effort may not be relevant or appropriate for customers) but they need to be aligned and based on a common platform.

• Engage Hearts and Minds – While it’s critical to have solid empirical evidence to back the call for change, too often leaders assume facts alone will sway the organization. To increase chances of success, communicators should ensure their change program appeals to the emotions of their employees. That can be done through the messaging, packaging and tactical plan. The best change programs have an almost visceral, personal element. 

• Devil in the Details – As with any organizational directive, employees must understand how they need to do their jobs…how they have to change. A critical element of any change program is clearly defining what employees at all levels and roles need to do differently – whether it’s behavior or process. If the scope of change is massive, the company will likely need to engage in substantial training and briefing programs.

 

Is TV Advertising Tone Deaf?

I continue to be fascinated by what appears to be a huge gap between the reality of the market and what I see on television advertising. Take automobile ads. For months now, we’ve been reading about disastrous financial results for the Big 3 automakers (and even some of their competitors) as customers move away from gas-guzzling SUVs and macho trucks. The CEOs of these companies are finally acknowledging that their business model is broken, and are belatedly changing their product lines, manufacturing priorities and supply strategies.  So where does that leave their advertising? Apparently, firmly entrenched in 2002.

I’ve made no secret that I think most automobile advertising is depressingly timid, repetitive and devoid of creativity. But now the marketing also appears to be hopelessly out of sync with reality. In the past few weeks I continue to see numerous TV ads pushing trucks, SUVs and beautiful vistas. The push for large vehicles seem to vastly outnumber those for newer models (like Ford’s Edge.)  Even Toyota has been relentlessly pushing their Tundra, their version of a truck behemoth. The one campaign that stuck out to me was, ironically, the pitch that Chrysler would guarantee 3 years of locked gas prices for buyers. How’s that for delaying the inevitable.  

Even acknowledging the fact many of these campaigns were purchased and developed months ago and there is a built-in lag in the system, it’s surprising to see the torrent of advertising that appears oblivious to the existing reality. And most importantly, they are clearly not working. The Honda Civic has become the hottest selling model and smaller, fuel efficient cars are booming in popularity. This past quarter the U.S. auto firms reported decreases in sales ranging from 20% to almost 40%. The Big 3 appear to be mortally wounded, bleeding money and seemingly unable to change their fortunes. Perhaps their archaic advertising is part of the problem.

The Maturation of Twitter

Though I’ve dabbled in many areas of social media, I’ve never jumped on with the Twitter bandwagon. To me – and I suspect to others – it remains a fun but essentially trivial fad that is not worth the trouble. But things seem to be changing. Check out this article in the Toronto Star, which suggests Twitter may have reached a tipping point into relevance with timely and critical news updates from recent disasters and political events. As the article puts it, Twitter has become a critical real-time, unmediated, globe-spanning conversation, with everyone a 24-hour news service. Even more than blogs or even social networks, a micro-blog platform like Twitter can provide reach and grass-roots immediacy that easily trumps the major media outlets.

Beyond becoming a news channel, Twitter continues to evolve as a useful networking tool that overlaps across the major players (Facebook, Linkedin.) The best example I’ve seen is several informal user groups in the tech sector and the Twitter updates that have mobilized participants in SXSW in Austin the past couple of years. And as Dell has shown, Twitter can be used as a marketing tool by posting specials and blog links to interested “friends”.

The lesson here is not so much that Twitter is protean and appears to be maturing into a more useful platform, but that it’s a risky game to predict how things will turn out in the Web 2.0 environment.

The Last Breaths of TV Advertising?

Chalk up yet another example of the wide reach and lasting impact of the Internet on traditional marketing. This report on the annual advertising purchasing by the major American TV networks has two main headlines: the ratings continue to plummet, and the participants continue to look for alternatives to the typical TV advertising blitz. More marketers are purchasing advertising “bundles” that go beyond the 30-second ad to include other media and placements. The new buzzword is apparently integration – buy a few ads, stream the show on select websites, place the product in the program or script, etc. Just to make things more exciting, the companies and networks are also trying to figure out how to measure the popularity of their programs – and the related advertising – in the new world of streaming (both free and pirated), iPhones and Tivo. Welcome to the brave new world.

Why is Internal Branding a Tough Sell?

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.