A Long-term View of Marketing Wisdom

I read a lot of books about marketing. My bookcase is full of them. And I have learned quite a bit from those who wrote those books. (My theory is that authors of marketing books have one really good book in them and, after that, they just re-hash that theory over and over.)

What bothers me about many books on business/marketing (especially more recent ones) is that to sell that book or at least to create greater awareness of it, the author had to bash all marketing approaches that preceeded their book. Most of us who have been in marketing for a decade or two have seen different philosophies come and go with respect to how to sell things.

My "marketing hero" was Rosser Reeves, who brought the advertising world the Unique Selling Proposition in his landmark book, Reality In Advertising. Rosser's philosophy of sticking to one relevant point and hammering away at it with as much TV as you could buy sold a lot of products. Smart marketers still think about Rosser's lessons when they review advertising.

However, in his day, Rosser debated relentlessly with his friend David Ogilvy and with Bill Bernbach, who founded Doyle Dane Bernbach and ushered in the creative revolution. The truth is, all of them had valid points about how to sell things and their philosophies, when implemented, sold a lot of products for a lot of companies. They all worked, to some extent, depending on market conditions.

Were any of these three thought leaders correct in every way vs. what their competitors believed? Of course not. Each had some wisdom and tried to apply it as best they could to create sales for their clients.

What is happening today is that virtually every book you read is trying to tell you that everything you ever learned about marketing is irrelevant in 2009. We all (ought to) know this is simply not true. They want you to think that their approach is the new (and only) way you are going to sell anything to anybody.

A lot of brand-building happens before the first word is spoken about the brand.

I am certainly not saying that there is nothing new under the sun. For sure there is. Consumers have a voice now that they never had. Smart organizations can listen to them much more inexpensively than they ever did in the past. And they can communicate back with with those consumers when consumers are not happy with their brands. And they better.

What are our clients to do? Should they be doing "experience marketing" or "word-of-mouth marketing" or building "brand communities" or what? The truth is, they need to be doing it all. Or at least most of it. Because most of it will work.

However, they also may want to think about continuing some of the other, more traditional brand-building tactics that worked for them in the past. If they don't know what worked and what did not, they need to find ways to determine that. New technologies have made it amazingly simple and inexpensive to measure customer attitudes about brands. No one really knows how we form our brand preferences. We sometimes think we do but those are secrets that marketers will not uncover for a long, long time.

So much of what is written these days has to do with reach tactics. But clients need to think first about why their brand is relevant to their customers. A lot of brand-building happens before the first word is spoken about the brand. There is so much up-front work to do if the customer is going to find satisfaction with the brand. And satisfaction is paramount.

So, go ahead and buy those marketing books and I will, too. There is wisdom in them. Combine that wisdom with what you aready know to be effective. The goal should be to add to that snowball of marketng wisdom that you have been rolling along for years.

Thanks for reading. More to come.

Dismantling Critical Infrastructure

I recently heard the CEO of a marketing communications firm talk about the advantages to organizations of maintaining marketing budgets in the face of this economic crisis. While I agree with him philosophically, I think the issue is broader than just maintaining a marketing budget during these tough times.

What I am witnessing almost daily is the dismantling of critical operational infrastructure of many organizations. And, as these organizations know, the building of that infrastructure was not easy. It took time to design the processes that were needed and to build an infrastructure to support that process. Then, they had to hire all those people and ensure they were trained adequately to support the process. THAT was a lot of work!

Now, organization after organization seems willing to throw out that infrastructure for the sake of what? Profits? Or real survival? I think this is a key question every "for profit" CEO and their board of directors need to think about. If it is actually the survival of the organization, I support those decisions. But I am not so sure that is always the case. There is increasing pressure on every publicly-traded company to deliver profits every year. And, most senior-level executives will admit that sometimes future opportunities are sacrificed for present profit. Even when those future profits might have far greater potential than the current market situation might offer. That is a reality of our "give it to me NOW" society.

In addition, I fear that businesses may be reacting like some of the journalists I have been listening to and giving in to a panic that only makes our situation worse. These challenging times call for courageous leadership from CEOs (and their boards) everywhere.

During the last recession, I owned a small consulting practice, which I sold in 2005. Near the end of 2002, I realized that I needed to revise my goals for that year and the near future ... that the ambitions I had entered the year with were not going to be realized. The insight I had at that time was that I needed to do whatever I could to make sure that my company made it through to the other side as unscathed as possible, regardless of what my personal lifestyle (that came from salary from the business) became in the interim. I knew that my company needed to be ready for that inevitable recovery when it did come.

What I am witnessing almost daily is the dismantling of critical infrastructure of many organizations.

Interestingly, I had witnessed three competitors close their doors and I did not want that to happen my business. So, I made the changes that allowed me to survive those difficult 18 months so that I could rise with the tide that came in 2004. And rise it did and my company did. But in those dark times, I made a decision that I would take very little income (and minimize my debt) so that I did not harm its ability to compete when things began to turn around. In essence, I sacrificed current profits for future profits.

As I look at these times, I cannot help but wonder if some organizations would not be better off if the shareholders made a decision to forgo profits in 2009-2010 for the sake of maintaining as much infrastructure as possible. To be sure, some cuts most likely have to be made. But there is also a sound argument for maintaining as many people, particularly in critical customer service areas, as possible. Every business owner will have to make this call themselves as they consider goals beyond our current economic conditions.

Thanks for reading. More to come.

[Photo used under the Creative Commons License courtesy of Flickr.]

Brand Relationship Channels (sm)

In tough economic times, it is even more important that organizations solidify their brand reputations with their publics. They just can't afford to lose a sale because of a tarnish to their reputation.

There are three key relationship channels that every organization needs to think about. Usually, they only think about one of these. The one they think about is the company's relationship with their customers. Actually, this is only half correct. The real relationship channel they need to develop and ensure it is managed well is the relationship between their employees (teams) and their customers.

But there are two other, equally important relationship channels that organizations should develop and manage. The first is the relationship management has with their employees (teams) that ensures the brand is understood and represented professionally. I call this the Vertical or "top-down" channel, but it is as much bottom-up as it is top-down.

In tough economic times, it is even more important that organizations solidify their brand reputations with their publics.

The second relationship channel is what I alluded to above: the relationship between employees and customers. The reason this is so important is that most organization CEOs and management don't have the time to spend with their customers so they better have confidence is what their employees are doing with them ... that relationship better be solid. I call this the Horizontal or "down and out" relationship.

The third relationship channel is Circular and I call it "out and around." This is the relationship between current customers and prospective customers. These prospective customers may be their friends, families, colleagues, etc. Or, they may not even know them. But current customers can still be a huge influence on prospective customers if this relationship channel is developed and managed well.

The crux of all this is that human beings are the most authentic representation of any brand. People who truly understand the brand and are committed to representing it well could be a powerful brand-building resource in an organization's marketing mix.

Maybe the most powerful resource in their entire arsenal.

Thanks for reading. More to come.

[Photo used under the Creative Commons License courtesy of Flickr.]

The LIFE(sm) Approach to Brand-Building

Several years ago, I was helping some University of Georgia college students with job-hunting and I told them about a customer contact philosophy I use that has the acronym, LIFE(sm). Before I tell you what LIFE stands for, I want to discuss brand messages and a way to approach what organization say about themselves.

More than anything else, an organization must achieve a level of trust from those who will do business with them. According to Stephen Covey, trust is a function of two dynamics: competence (how well you do your job), and character (your integrity). I think there is a third component and I call that commitment (how much you care about your customers' issues). These three form the basis of trust and determine how much organizations are trusted by their customers. There are many ways to build trust among customers but each must be grounded with a genuine effort. Sadly, many organizations continue to market their brands without the authenticity that is always present in great brands.

Perhaps not as important as trust but also critical to success is defining the relevance a brand has in solving the problems its customers have. Great brands continue to be relevant in the lives of those who use them. Staying close to your customers' needs via quantitative and qualitative marketing research can help companies keep their brands relevant to their user base.

Sadly, many organizations continue to market their brands without the authenticity that is always present in great brands.

Once a company has crafted a message that is both relevant and genuine, the question becomes "how"that message is conveyed to the target. By "how" I mean in what ways and how often are customers reached.

Every time a prospective customer or current customer comes in contact with a brand, I call this an "encounter." This can be a call from a salesperson, a drive by the store, a call into the company's customer service office or actual use of the brand. Every one of these is an encounter and there are hundreds of other ways that customers and prospective customers have encounters with brands. Some of these encounters are controlled (outbound) and others are not as controllable. The trick is to control as many of these as possible and, if your brand is genuine in every way, your chances of having positive encounters between your customers and your brand are good.

Just looking at those encounters that you control, the LIFE approach says that you will need a frequent number of encounters to build a memorable reputation for your brand. As a point of reference, pharmaceutical companies tell their reps that they will need to call on physicians 9-11 times before the doctor writes the first prescription for the drug they are selling. Wow! An average of ten sales calls before the first prescription is written. Does that tell you something about the power of perseverance and the importance of frequency?

Now, if you need that level of frequency of sales contact to build a brand, then it stands to reason that those frequent encounters need to be of a low intensity, or you will turn off the prospective customer. Said another way, if you are going to be "in their face," you damn well need to be nice about it. Thus, your authentic and relevant messages need to be presented in Low-Intensity Frequent Encounters (LIFE) to prospective customers. While I generally have given this advice to those marketing professional and business services, in the age of the empowered consumer, the rule applies to about every industry.

In future posts, I will discuss this concept as it relates to brand-building via your own employees and customers. Thanks for reading. More to come.

[Photo used under the Creative Commons License courtesy of Flickr.]

The Brand Community

When some businesses talk about branding, they want some type of facade to cover their business that will "say" something about their brand that will increase sales. This is unfortunate because these businesses have gotten the idea that branding is a game, or even worse, a charade -- something that does not actually have to be true, but can be whatever they want it to be, as long as they pay their ad agency.

The businesses that acted on this premise are in a lot of trouble right now. The recession is eating these guys for lunch. Actually, the recession and the Internet are doing them in together. The recession because these days consumers and businesses are being much more cautious about who they spend their money with. The Internet because 1) the word can get out much more easily than it ever did before about poor customer satisfaction, and 2) there are many more options that can replace the poor performer than ever before.

In the 19th century, it was a frequent joke that "God may have made men, but Colonel Colt made them equal." The truth in this was that Colt's handguns being available to almost anyone made self-defense not just something that a large man could be assured of. These days, it is the Internet that is the Great Equalizer of business. A small company that does business right can eat the proverbial lunch of a large company that does not listen to its customers. And that is how it should be.

What all businesses need is a way to do this. How can they best listen to their customers? Ben McConnell and Jackie Huba offer a technique in their book Creating Customer Evangelists called Customer Plus-Delta. It is a simple technique in which businesses find out what they are doing well (the Plus) and what they need to work on (the Delta). And businesses need to hear the Delta just as much as they do the Plus. Then, they need to act on that feedback. If it is true, fix it. If it is not, explain the misunderstanding.

Instead, many organizations increasingly use technology to act as a barrier to their customers. They don't seem to want to be in contact with their customers. What kind of businesses are these? Take the automated phone system of most larger businesses: you can answer quite a few prompts before you get a real person on the line. This happened to me with Sears last weekend. Then, I got disconnected twice before I ever got connected to the right person. Did they make me feel important to them?

Some businesses have gotten the idea that branding is a charade -- something that does not actually have to be true, but can be whatever they want it to be.

Or have a look at most Internet websites. It is not easy to contact many organizations about a problem you are having. One could get the impression that they really don't want to hear from their customers, that they just want their money. Say it ain't so, Joe!

But the facades are there for many organizations. They want to act one way and have you perceive it another. That is not authentic marketing.

But there is a light. And, many time it is with the entrepreneur. The small-business person who actually wants her business to be a reflection of her values. And wants her customers to surround her organization with ideas for product or service improvement, new ways to use her product, new customers that she can do business with. She has the wisdom to speak with every customer, particularly the ones who may not be happy with her business for any number of reasons. As she listens, every customer she listens to becomes more loyal and begins to connect on new levels with her brand.

In so doing, a brand community is formed. This brand community protects sales during a recession and contributes to increased growth when money becomes more available. No facade here, but live human beings who identify on both a logical and emotional level with what she sells.

The good news is that no one can buy a brand community. They have to earn it. Authentically.

Thanks for reading. More to come!

[Photo used under the Creative Commons License courtesy of Flickr.]

Who is building your brand?

Here is the thing: Everyone who represents your organization is contributing to your brand reputation. Everyone.

Not just sales people or the receptionist or your spouse at a community event -- everyone. Your most discontented employee is building your brand for you right now. At the grocery store, at a little league baseball game, at church, at lunch. That has got to terrify you.

And not just employees but current customers, former customers, people who have just heard "something" about your organization. That doesn't even begin to consider what your competition may be telling your customers about you. Now, there's something to think about at 2 a.m., huh?

Nowadays, it is even more critical to relentlessly pursue building, enhancing, and maintaining your brand to those who have potential to do business with you or influence those who might consider your organization for future business. Trust me -- if you have a vulnerability in your brand, it is going to surface and hurt you when it does.

Your most discontented employee is building your brand for you right now. That has got to terrify you.

So, it may be worth thinking about who is building your brand, how they are building it, and if you can influence their construction.

Unfortunately, tough economic times give some organizations an excuse to reduce their investment in brand-building and that puts them at more risk than any recession ever could.

The bottom line: Representatives --> Reputation.

[Photo used under the Creative Commons License courtesy of Flickr.]

Creating Brand Relevance

Several months ago I wrote a column, "The Reality of Branding." When that was published it was suggested that I follow-up that column and discuss how marketers can make what they sell more relevant to those who purchase that product or service. Said differently, how can marketers better connect with prospects and their real needs?

Branding has less to do with product features/benefits and more to do with customer needs, wants and aspirations. Without insights into the prospect’s attitudes and behavior as they relate to the product, branding assignments can be pretty speculative and highly risky. Brand relevance comes only from a genuine understanding of the stated (and unstated) needs and wants of the target market. How do we get at these needs and wants?

If “location, location, location” is the success formula in the real estate business, “research, research, research” is a key ingredient of successful branding campaigns. Unfortunately, many businesses are unwilling to invest in (or don’t understand) the strategic research that might reveal unknown customer and prospect needs/wants.

If you are interested in getting to know your customers/prospects a lot better, a good place to begin is with a Segmentation Study of your industry. This type of quantitative research will tell you how the industry is segmented in terms of different buying preferences/motives. After all, not everyone purchases your product or service for the same reason.

How large is each segment of the market? Do your customers segment the market as you do? Which brands do customers associate with each market segment? What product performance issues are most critical to each segment? What brands are most relevant to each segment of the market?

Once you know something about how the industry is segmented, it might be helpful to know how your customers actually use your product or service and how they feel about using it. This type of research (also quantitative) is called an Attitude & Usage (A&U) study. Larger marketers conduct an A&U study every few years.

Importantly, A&U studies attempt to get at exactly how customers relate to brands. What are they happy about? What product improvements do they want? What needs are not being met by the current brands in the marketplace? Do they use the product exactly as the marketer designed it to be used? Marketers are going to understand a lot more about how relevant their products and services are to their customers when they invest in an A&U study.

If “location, location, location” is the success formula in the real estate business, “research, research, research” is a key ingredient of successful branding campaigns.

At this point someone must be saying, “But what about focus groups, aren’t they valuable?” Focus groups are certainly valuable at exploring the range of feelings customers have about the market and the product/services being evaluated. However, focus groups are probably the most misused research technique on the face of the earth. There are a number of reasons for their misuse.

First of all, they are relatively cheap to do and if your budget is small, you can do them and feel like you have done some marketing research. Second, what one hears in a focus group tends to be what one wants to hear (selective retention). I can recall more than one discussion following a focus group where we argued about what the respondent was really saying in the group. Third, if you don’t know squat about research, you think you sound smart saying, “lets do some groups to see what we learn.”

What is so bad about focus groups? Nothing -- if you are going to follow them up with some of the studies mentioned above. But many marketers don’t ever follow them up with quantitative research. Thus, important marketing decisions may be based on what 15-20 people said in a room to/with folks they had never met before.

One-on-ones, a variation on focus groups, puts one interviewer with one interviewee, allowing for greater confidentiality and perhaps greater learning about needs, wants and product usage. However, they are also a qualitative research method and suffer from the problems associated with qualitative research.

Legitimate marketing research is not cheap. However, the more you know about your prospect and their needs, the better you can design your product or service around meeting those needs. Then, when you set your ad agency team loose on a branding project, they won’t be asked to perform miracles, just to communicate a relevant benefit clearly to your prospects.

[This article first appeared in GSA Business. Photo used under the Creative Commons License courtesy of Flickr.]