Brand Central Station

I ran across this post as I was working on my Much Ado About Marketing blog (a daily summary of interesting blog bits concerning marketing, branding, corporate leadership and other things of interest — at least to me).

This post, by Edelman’s CEO, Richard Edelman, discusses how different “experts” on the teen market view the potential, attitudes and future of today’s youth.

Surprise, surprise, surprise. Each expert has a different opinion. And, as a father of four, I can tell you that they’re all right.

Maybe the problem is not who’s right or wrong but rather the idea of lumping an entire generation into a category and making sweeping generalizations about them is not all that accurate a method in the first place.

Well, maybe that isn’t entirely fair.

I could certainly make the case that generational labels and profiles have been useful marketing conventions for the past few generations. But I see that more as a result of our own history, cultural development and available technology than as some sort of scientifically-provable premise on which to rest an entire profession like marketing.

Here’s why:

● Over the past two to three hundred years, America has been populated by ethnic groups that have arrived in “waves” to our shores. The motivating factors behind these mass immigrations have varied from generation to generation – but inside each generation, the motivation to come to America was fairly consistent. In the 17th century, Europeans fled religious persecution. In the 18th century, war in Europe drove people to our shores. The 19th and 20th centuries saw people come to this country in search of new opportunities or to avoid famine or political persecution.

● At the same time, political and social culture was continuing to evolve but, for the most part, generalizations about race, ethnicity and culture were the accepted norm. Ethnic stereotypes were a kind of social short-hand and mixing of cultures through inter-marriage was considered improbable (at best) and problematic (at worst). It was easy to say a certain ethnic group would identify with a certain product because those ties were strong – in many cases stronger than that group’s American identity, but that would change over time.

● While ethnic ties to the “old country” started to weaken in succeeding generations and an American identity was forming based on our own short history, information and communications technology continued to develop. Over the last thirty years we’ve seen technology break through the conventional bonds of community (ethnic, age, geography) and draw divergent groups together in new and exciting ways.

What’s the result of all this?

The result is a much richer and diverse social landscape with people of various ages sharing similar views and insights rendering the old method of slapping a label on a certain age demographic more and more useless.

This “two-dimensional” demographic map of our country is becoming less and less accurate. And while marketers can sense that something isn’t quite right, no one seems to be finding a solution to this problem.

At some point, someone will.

I suppose a new market model will evolve that will still consider age as a factor – but from more of a scientific standpoint with regard to cognitive ability and from a social standpoint with regard to legal rights, responsibilities, etc. Attitudes and cultural influences should probably be evaluated and measured without respect to age (first) and then shaded appropriately based on the role age plays in physical maturity and social responsibilities.

What we will probably find is entirely new demographic clusters that span a number of years that are built around common interests and needs. Each cluster will probably be arranged in a hierarchy that has some dependency on age but not solely reliant on it.

Who can build such a model? Not me. I’m just one guy. But when it comes to one guy with the resources, maybe Richard Edelman has an idea? He certainly has the rolodex file that can do the trick.

Later.

This information is (c) 2004, Brand Central Station, all rights reserved. If you are interested in receiving news and analysis directly from BCS, please log onto our website.

In the world of tourism promotion, there is not a single, more important document prepared each year than your “Visitor’s Guide.” So now comes a report from Oklahoma that the official state tourism guide features pictures of a cow pie throwing contest and a Confederate battle reenactment.

“We discovered the material in the event guide was culturally insensitive and contained errors,” said state tourism director Rob Gray. “Images are powerful. They have to be selected with caution.”

Boy, no kidding. Talk about the shit hitting the proverbial fan.

The point here is not to poke fun at Oklahoma (as tempting as it might be for someone who went to college in Texas), but rather to talk about the selection of images and the impact those images can have on your brand. It may be obvious to some, but it deserves re-statement: “What you say and the way you say it – in pictures and in words – tells people how they should perceive your brand.”

After all, who knows more about your brand than you?

When a business or, in this case a state agency, is careless with the images and messages it presents to the public, it’s sending another message: “We don’t care about ourselves enough to care what you might think about us.” And that can be a perceived attitude that spells trouble for your brand.

We see it happen all the time in the business world. A company that’s a bit careless with how it presents its logo or uses its corporate colors are guilty of this carelessness. Think about it for a minute … how much credence do you put into product claims made by a company that can’t seem to keep its own “identity” in order?

If your company is guilty of this brand neglect, what should be done about it? Take a page from the Oklahoma state department of tourism – you eat a little humble pie and start pulling the literature and other material that is inconsistent (at best) or inappropriate (at worst) back in-house. Do a little damage control and then move on.

Next, it’s vital to nail down a communications platform from which to work. Identify the key messages that support your brand’s position and move your company further along on your mission. Along with those key messages, you have to set some kind of guidelines for the graphic elements that support your communication: colors, pictures, icons, etc. Believe it or not, there is a way to craft a communications strategy that covers these graphic elements. Spend a little time online (or reading future Brand Central Station blogs) and you’re bound to find advice and instruction on how this can be done.

Finally, make sure you have some method in place to constantly review and re-evaluate the communications materials you produce on a regular basis. Remember, brands are elastic and the messages used to communicate their value need to be constantly updated and kept relevant.

And what is the result of all this work?

If it’s done right, you’ll find customers, employees and all of the other people who matter most to your brand to be more engaged and understanding of what your brand represents. You’ll be forming relationships between your brand that can mean a lot to you and your business in the future.

So it’s no longer just watching what you say, it’s carefully determining the best way to say it that makes a difference. By paying attention to these details, your reputation can improve, profit margins increase and brand value continue to improve.

Let’s hope the guys in Oklahoma figure this out.

Later.

CNN.com – Oklahoma recalls tourist brochures featuring cow manure tossing – Oct 6, 2004

So, here I am in Las Vega$ … city of lights, fast action, endless buffets, easy money and hard-luck stories. And so what does my mind turn to when I have my first chance to take a break out by the pool?

Branding.

Yeah, it’s a sickness. But I can’t help it. I used to work with casinos and the gaming industry quite a bit in the 1990’s, during the explosion of gaming across the country. It was a great chance to get in on the ground floor level of a new industry.

And while deciding not to become an “expert” in marketing gaming establishments was a choice I made, I do owe a great deal of what I am today to the time I spent in the market then. You see, if you learn one thing in the marketing of casinos and games of chance, you learn how important it is to keep the promises you make to the customer.

Maybe the casino promotion business is a little different than most – but I can’t think of another industry where the business turns so much on brand perception.

Think about it. With the exception of a few percentage points, the odds for every game in every casino are equal to the odds for similar games in competing casinos. There is, in essence, extreme parity in the casino marketplace.

So the challenge for a marketer is how to differentiate your “product” from the similar games and products offered by other casinos. To make matters even more confusing, when it comes to slot machines (by far the most lucrative part of a casino operation), almost every casino has the exact same games as their competitors. Add to that the fact that there are literally thousands of slot machine “brand names” and claims of unique games or slot “titles” becomes almost irrelevant. Prospective customers can’t hear the claims of one casino over another because of the excessive ring-a-ding-ding of slot payouts.

That’s why in the 1990’s casinos started to lead the way in customer segmentation and maximization strategies. Player’s clubs started to evolve from the Telly Savalis days (“who loves ya’ baby) into a kind of hyperactive preferred customer program. Comps (complimentary goods and services) were bid by casinos in an effort to attract the best players. Players learned how to play this game as well as blackjack, poker or slots and quickly learned how rating systems worked and how to maximize the comps for the least amount of play.

As a result, more than one casino saw their drop increase (the amount of money bet) but their margins erode. They were, in effect, buying market share and not managing their margins.

About the mid-90’s, Gary Inks of High Performance Profits and I started working with smaller casinos to teach a relatively new concept. The idea was to integrate the external promise making function (advertising, promotions and PR) with internal customer service training to create a more “customer-centered” experience. The results were pretty remarkable.

Working with casino brands that didn’t have a reputation for high-rollers or lavish environments, we developed ad campaigns that went beyond the traditional “stand-up” shot of a slot winner holding a big check to show our winners were actually people who were able to do something with the money they won at the casino. On top of that, Gary worked inside the organizations to make them more responsive and engaging with customers.

We were actually able to show that trained and engaged dealers (slot or table game employees) managed to stimulate higher average bets, more profit per hour at their station and – best of all – elicit bigger and better tips from customers as a result of the experience. We made it okay for dealers to root for players rather than act staid and bored by following the house rules. We made singing and dancing in the casino an expectation.

Everything was a show and the customers showed their appreciation by leaving larger tips and staying longer.

It worked so well that most of the casinos we worked for were bought by casino-operator roll-ups who wanted to “capture the magic” for their larger organizations. But, of course, in order to afford the acquisition, they had to cut out the consulting contracts for those services they deemed “non-essential” to the operations of the casino.

Gary still works in the industry and is continuing to do great things for casinos and resorts in outer market destinations and start-ups. I’ve moved on to apply what I learned about making and keeping promises to customers in industries outside the gaming business.

I think that, in a way, we’ve both won.

Later.

This information is (c) 2004, Brand Central Station, all rights reserved. If you are interested in receiving news and analysis directly from BCS, please log onto our website.

Kristen Osolind, who writes the re:invention blog provided some great insights into a growing new media trend: Bloggers pitching bloggers.

I think I’ve been pretty clear that I feel there’s something a bit incestuous about this whole blogging thing. It seems bloggers’ favorite subject is blogging. It’s just too damn circular – I keep getting dizzy.

It’s kind of like the literary version of pop-up windows. Ugh.

But Kristen’s points in her October 1 blog entry are well taken – especially when you read the blog entry that inspired it which eventually leads to an apologetic posting from the originators of this entire chain of events – the guys from Marketing Playbook.

Dizzy yet?

OK, the point of this entire entry is not to point out the silliness that is blogging about blogs and bloggers, but more importantly to demonstrate how important it is for a person to understand the needs, wants, desires and (most importantly) expectations of people when you approach them with a new idea. This is certainly true of members of the “traditional” media and it is also true, as all of these bloggers point out, with members of the blog community.

Guess what, though. It’s also true with customers and employees. In fact, I’d hazard a guess that any successful, interpersonal relationship relies on mutual understanding.

I don’t mean to make it sound like common sense, even though it is. You would be amazed how many people don’t practice common courtesy as soon as contact is relegated to less personal/less direct methods like telephone, fax or e-mail. I listen to employees pitch stories to the media and new concepts to clients and can tell which relationships matter.

The interesting thing is we’re all in a position to do things differently and form relationships that matter – whether they are with customers or faceless bloggers in another time zone. The basic listening and understanding skills that worked in elementary school still apply and, for the sake of repetition, are re-stated below:

1.) Deal with people on a personal level – find a way to make a connection. If you’ve never met them, read about them or read what they’ve written to gain some insights that will help you associate with them.

2.) Respect their space – don’t litter it with useless gifts, don’t send unwanted attachments don’t “make yourself at home” unless you’ve been invited to do so.

3.) Identify and reinforce the culture in which they operate – if they’re formal, be formal. Talking to someone who is in a hurry and doesn’t have time for small talk, don’t go into what you did this weekend. Pitching a snarky blogger? Better be ready to trade jabs.

4.) Make sure communications channels are open in both directions – don’t send your message/make your pitch without providing adequate methods for responding to you. You can’t make a sale if you’re not listening.

5.) Look for opportunities to work together – collaboration is a relationship building activity. You don’t start off as friends. But by accomplishing something together, you might become friendly.

6.) Understand what constitutes an acceptable reward – some call it a “thank you” gift. For me, I just appreciate a “thanks” or an update on how things have gone after concluding an assignment. For others (like Kristen), shoes seem to do the trick.

If these basic rules may seem universal, they are. Use them when you pitch blogs, producers, your boss, a new client or whoever matters the most to you right now. And realize that if you do it right, you’ll be building your own brand equity in the process.

re:invention blog – for women entrepreneurs

This information is (c) 2004, Brand Central Station, all rights reserved. If you are interested in receiving news and analysis directly from BCS, please log onto our website.

There is probably no more telling evidence of brand depreciation than if your business takes a position and no one cares. And that’s precisely the subject of Tim Porter’s recent article in the American Journalism Review.

Porter provides an in-depth analysis of whether or not newspaper endorsements of political candidates really matters any more. The conclusion? Besides a select few (primarily political junkies, habitual newspaper readers and the candidates themselves), the answer is that people don’t know and they don’t care.

In the last study conducted to determine the importance of newspaper endorsements (the 1996 election), nearly 1/3 of the readers of newspapers endorsing Bob Dole thought their paper had actually endorsed Bill Clinton. Over 10% of the readers whose newspapers had endorsed President Clinton thought their paper supported Dole’s run for the White House.

While this may be a timely topic for discussion today – after all, the next US presidential election is just a few weeks away – it can also form the foundation of a timeless discussion concerning the consistent erosion of brand equity faced by newspapers (specifically) and the news media (in general). After all, while newspapers continue the tradition of endorsing one political candidate or another, you don’t see other media stepping out to voice an opinion.

Although, really, would any of us be surprised by the candidates chosen by most of the major news outlets. Let me see, just who do you think FOX News would endorse for President? What about Dan Rather and CBS? Ok, so there may not be much suspense to these choices.

But, more importantly, we don’t expect television, radio or magazines to annoint a candidate for one reason or another. Why is that?

Get those college history books out, boys and girls. If you know anything about the tradition of the free press in America, you’ll find newspapers played an important role in building candidate credibility (and tearing down the opposition) since the time of Washington. The editorial endorsement is a mere shadow of that original genesis.

As late as the 1940′s, newspapers were railing against opposing politicos in front-page screeds, shabby investigative journalism and the like. Newspapers represented select communities and supported ideas, beliefs and attitudes that were fostered inside those communities.

But as newspapers merged and journalism strove to extricate itself from political influence (thanks in no small part to Richard Nixon and Watergate), you started to see newspapers become broader and less opinionated. Yes, that’s right, LESS opinionated.

Was this a good or bad thing? It was, by all accounts, an economic thing. Using economies of scale and monopolizing ad markets by being the only game in town, newspapers focused on generating profit and not necessarily creating an editorial “mission” or clear point-of-view. In the short term, that was great for IPO’s, bonus checks and employee profit sharing – but it took the teeth out of the brand.

And, worst of all, it opened the door to other medias to adopt the standard of “thought leader.”

Newspapers are paying for these mistakes now. But look no further than the editorial page and the power (or relative weakness) of editorial endorsements to see that brand value for more newspapers is barely negligible. Can they come back? That remains to be seen.

But the big challenges faced by newspapers when it comes to media diversity, the Internet and a 24-hour/7-day a week news cycle are small when compared to the decades of self-inflicted damage when it comes to brand credibility and value.

Do editorial endorsements count for anything anymore? To a precious few they do. But for the vast majority of Americans, they’ve already turned the page on newspapers for good.

Later.

American Journalism Review

It’s become a classic marketing case study. First, Coca-Cola jacked with its famous formula. Then there was a revolt among customers: “How dare you mess with a product and flavor that has become part of the American landscape over the past 100 years?”

Coke, to their credit, reacted quickly and decisively. They introduced “Coca-Cola Classic” which was, basically, the original formula. Eventually, Coke Classic replaced “New” Coke and the world of soda returned to something like an equilibrium.

Now Jack Daniels has announced it has reduced the alcohol content in its classic sippin’ whisky from 86 proof down to 80 proof. The Daniels distillery and Old No. 7 have been around for many years (over 100) and this is the first significant change in their product in recent memory.

Consumers are, of course, upset by this whole turn of events. Apparently, there are several well-educated pallets that can distinguish a 3% change in alcohol content.

Actually, that’s pretty doubtful.

What isn’t doubtful, though, is that people feel betrayed by a trusted brand. Formulaic changes to an entrenched brand like this can cause major problems in terms of perception – even if in “blind” taste tests consumers can’t tell the difference.

Problems have more to do with the perceived “promise” made by a brand people trust and the emotional impact breaking such a promise has on those long-established relationships. Consumers will mourn and grieve their “loss” – some will even switch brands to a competitor, never to return. For those consumers, nothing Jack Daniels will do will make up for this perceived slap in the face.

But the brand’s long-term success or failure will have everything to do with how JD-parent, Brown-Forman handles this situation. Undoubtedly, there’s a room full of MBA’s back at headquarters somewhere who are completely perplexed by this “brew-ha-ha” – but some brand manager in the organization is going to be watching customer attrition rates very closely over the next few weeks.

I have no doubt that B-F will play this situation out as quickly and intelligently as possible. Part of the problem, of course, is that product turn on something like Tennessee whiskey is a bit slower than 12-packs of Coca-Cola. But that may serve as a blessing to the folks at Jack Daniels, allowing them to develop a sense of perspective before making a rash move with this long-established brand.

It would make sense that JD can withstand a gnashing of gears once or twice, but too much indecision or inept handling could cause long-term damage. Let’s watch and see what happens.

And if you order a Jack Daniels, you might want a little extra Coke in it to put the kick back into it.

Later.

1010 WINS – New York’s All News Station : Jack Daniels ‘Waters’ Its Famed Whiskey

If you haven’t noticed that even though there are literally hundreds of television channels available to most of us (after all, over 60% of Americans have cable television), there’s almost nothing worth watching.

This is not just a rant about the sorry state of television. I promise. (Please note that the operative word in the above sentence is “just.”)

Television ratings, from those friendly folks at Nielson Media Research helps advertisers evaluate the audience reach and demographic make-up of television programs on a market-by-market basis. This is more than just a popularity contest, though. Based on the data collected from Neilson’s statistical sample of 5,000 television-watching households, marketers are able to evaluate the income level, demographic make-up, buying preferences and a host of other key factors about the people who might see their ads. A more complete explanation of how it all works can be found on the How It All Works website (makes sense, doesn’t it?).

More importantly, the same information – as well as information on viewing and channel-changing habits – are available to the producers, studios and broadcasters who create, produce and air the programs in which the ads air.

And I’m not so sure that’s a good thing.

History seems to confirm my suspicions. The demographic and viewing data has been available (and used) for years. I suspect the reliance on this and related information has been the driving factor behind the persistent lowering of the “common denominator” that is the standard of broadcast fare.

Just look at the symptoms. Everything is starting to blend together. There is a cross-platform blending of themes, genres and story lines that makes more channels equal “more of the same.” Dramas, for example, are promoted as featuring stories that are “ripped from the headlines” – sometimes covering on-going news stories that have not yet worked through to their conclusion. Broadcast journalism, talk shows and reality television are converging and have become virtually indistinguishable from one another.

It’s interesting, isn’t it, that the only part of network programming that has remained fairly consistent over the past twenty years has been late-night programming (maybe because people fall asleep rather than switch channels resulting in a decision to continue providing what’s worked in the past). And the grand irony of it all is that a recent political survey showed regular late-night viewers as being more aware of key political issues and differences of opinion than self-professed news junkies.

So, what’s happening here?

It appears that producers and programmers have fallen into the same trap that befall many marketers who consider themselves “at risk” of losing out big if they make a risky or wrong decision …

… they’re relying too heavily on market research to give them insights.

As a result, product quality is sacrificed to create the broadest possible appeal to the most people. That is why, to such a large extent, all of the prime time programming in America looks the same. That is why the Laci Peterson, Michael Jackson and Kobe Bryant and stories featuring celebrities or telegenic victims get coverage while most stories about spousal abuse, child endangerment and date rape are relegated to positions deep inside the daily newspaper.

You have to wonder if television was so much better back in the 1950′s and 60′s not because the writing was better (which, in many cases it was) or because the actors were more talented (which I doubt) but rather because the people calling the shots as to which shows were to get produced and which were to be cancelled had to rely on their own tastes and sensibilities rather than demure to the wishes of the perceived masses.

And they wouldn’t get caught dead producing schlocky reality television shows or allowing their newsmen to run stories based on half-baked, unconfirmed allegations. No, instead they had to satisfy a much tougher customer, themselves.

Need proof? Just look at Gilligan’s Island. No kidding. That show was a ratings hit. Renewed by CBS, some programming genuis used the sitcom featuring Bob Denver, Alan Ladd, Jr. and others as a replacement for the freshly-cancelled western drama, Gunsmoke.

Huh?

Yeah, that’s what CBS president William Paley said when he got back from vacation. In a matter of minutes, the schedule was adjusted and Gunsmoke, Paley’s favorite show and a top-notch drama (ok, it was a western) was back on the schedule.

The fact is, Paley had a clear idea of what CBS stood for from a programming point of view and was willing to sacrifice a better-rated show to stay true to the vision. Are we worse off for suffering a premature end to Gilligan et al.? I don’t think so.

Why all this matters to you …

The question you should be asking about your company and the brand you stand behind is this: “Are we true to who we are or are we trying to appease everybody and as a result, we don’t really stand for anything special?”

The latter usually occurs when you’re too reactionary to customer feedback or off-hand comments about your company or brand. The interesting thing is that people are (generally) attracted to things they understand and that means you have to clearly communicate what your brand stands for and your position in the market.

Avoid the trap of acquiesence and strive to do better. Great

This information is (c) 2004, Brand Central Station, all rights reserved. If you are interested in receiving news and analysis directly from BCS, please log onto our website (www.brandcentralstation.com) to learn more.

I’m not much of one to blog about blogs – it seems self-serving and hopelessly redundant – but this is an exception.

And that’s because it’s a blog about an exceptional person.

David Monroe was my friend and he passed away very suddenly on Sunday. A number of us have contributed our memories to a blog about him and how we feel. (Thanks to Greg Brooks from West-Third for pulling the site together.)

But there’s something else happening here that’s pretty interesting. You see, many of us who have contributed to this memorial have never met. I was fortunate enough to meet David face-to-face along with his girlfriend Elly Trickett – but I would hazard to guess that most of the people who are blogging on about what David meant to them saw his face for the first time when they went to the memorial website.

David, Elly and most of the rest of us subscribe to the Young PR Pros bulletin board on Yahoo! Groups. It’s a great source of information and inspiration for young and old PR professionals – but more than that it’s become a great online community of people who care for and about each other.

It’s ironic, actually, that many of the people I consider to be my closest advisors and friends in the PR world have come from this online community. Many of us, in fact, make a point of getting together when an out-of-towner (like me) comes to visit.

So maybe, just maybe, one of the most enduring legacies David Monroe will leave behind – beyond the loving relationship he had with Elly and his young son who now lives in Houston with relatives – is a virtual community that David helped to start and shepherd with his advice, insights and frequent job postings.

We’ll all miss you David. Safe journey, my friend.

Later.

Remembering David Monroe

OK, I know this may be hard to believe – but I have a soft spot in my heart for the Miss America pageant. It’s not some weird, I-like-smart-girls-in-swimsuits thing … although, my wife is exceptionally smart and, well, TMI.

But back when I was in high school, my first brush with “show biz” was working and singing in the Miss Iowa pageant. We were all teenagers back then (the singers and the dancers) but we worked with professional musicians and a couple of “C” or “D” list celebrities who would come in and serve as the host.

Still, it was enough to give this kid the bug and convince him that he wanted to work in television, music or film.

So, it’s just a little more than painful to see how the Miss America brand has become so in-grown and distorted by its own devices. Check out the Miss America website now and this week the site is dedicated to the annual pageant – which, I suppose it should be. But included in there are plenty of opportunities to purchase merchandise, apply for an affinity credit card, etc. All revenue generators intended to support the Miss America organization and support a mission that is not easily definable or blatantly obvious off the site.

Too bad. The Miss America program does a lot to help promote the education of young women and has, I think, contributed greatly to society.

The problem is that darn pageant, low television ratings and the fact that the Miss America brand has been allowed to become passe. Look, the Miss America beauty pageant was one of the original “reality” television shows. I remember, as a kid, staying up late to watch it and rooting for Miss Iowa who always got cut in the first round. Apparently, playing Camptown Races on a corn cob xylophone just didn’t impress enough judges.

Whatever.

But by the mid 1970′s and early 1980′s, Miss America was in trouble. Bert Parks was getting old – literally and figuratively – and the pageant format, content and brand promise was nothing short of a 1950′s throw-back. The Miss America pageant jumped the shark when they hired Ron Ely, television’s Tarzan, to host the show. Yikes.

Now, if it’s at all possible, the powers that be at MAO properties have jumped back over the shark and straight into its gaping maw. By signing a 2-year deal with Speedo, MAO has gone from flash to flesh and put contestants in bikinis. The talent competition has been cut waaaay back to allow for more “physical fitness” exhibition.

Yeah, right.

I think Miss Utah’s physique looks fine and fit to me, too. She won on the third night of competition. Miss California, who has also won a preliminary talent competition (doing a jazz dance) is also highly ranked/rated. There’s no word if Miss California’s scholarship will be awarded in one dollar bills or if she’ll actually get a bonus scholarship by table dancing for some of the judges.

Oh brother.

How could it get this bad and what’s this mean for businesses who are into something other than beauty pageants? Well, the beauty of this whole thing is that there are direct implications for business owners and managers to keep in mind.

1.) You have to keep your brand’s promise fresh and relevant. By keeping Bert Parks and a crusty, out-of-step format for too long, MAO surrendered the high ground and has failed to re-claim it.

2.) You have to remember who your audiences are and make sure you spend as much time understanding them as you hope they spend getting to know you. MAO and several of the state pageants have had more than their share of ups and downs with political infighting which took their collective eye off the ball.

3.) Look at the potential threat posed by new competition in and out of your favorite medium and understand the long-term social issues. You could say it started with Playboy Magazine, but the Miss America pageant (and specifically the swimsuit competition) was doomed as soon as Sports Illustrated finally figured out the real appeal of their annual swimsuit edition. Add everything from Maxim Magazine to Victoria’s Secret catalogs and it all spelled trouble. As for pageants as entertainment vehicles – their days were numbered as soon as variety television shows started biting the dust. Actually, it’s remarkable the Miss America pageant has lasted this long.

So, what should Miss America do? Is cutting back on material (literally and figuartively) during pageant week a smart move? I think it may be relying on “too little” too late. Titillate or not, these girls and the pageant they represent are in trouble. It’s too bad a great brand has to die such a long, lingering death.

I fear it is too late to save it.

Later.

CNN.com – Less talent, more skin at pageant – Sep 17, 2004

This is a marketing column, right? So, what’s with the political analysis.

Well, in truth, this is not so much about political analysis as an evaluation of what our media coverage (or lack thereof) of our presidential election is doing to the brand known as USA. Tim Rutten, in his LA Times piece on our national political coverage, only covers half of the issue. Rutten starts off with an interesting observation:

“The most serious problem confronting the American news media today is neither creeping political bias nor the tensions between new and old technologies … [but rather] corporate managers’ growing inability to distinguish between the public’s interest — fascination with entertainment and celebrity — and the public interest — a deference to the common good.”

Rutten’s complaint is clear and valid. Big media – specifically the three major television networks (ABC, CBS and NBC) have made a business decision with significant editorial and civic implications. By reducing their coverage of the political conventions to no more than an hour a night, they’ve abdicated coverage of the political process to a patchwork of newspapers, magazines, radio stations and cable networks.

And while I share Rutten’s concerns vis a vis domestic coverage of the political process (the last thing we need are uninformed opinions going into November) – he’s missed a very important point. There are 15,000 journalists at the DNC this week – and one would assume a similar number of journo’s covering the RNC in August. In both cases, the number of journalists covering the story will outnumber the delegates attending.

And not all of those journalists will be Americans.

In fact, what is happening on this country’s political horizon is of the utmost importance and interest to people living around the world and their media is here to cover it as well. Embarrassingly so, coverage on many foreign television networks will be much more thorough than what most American’s will be seeing on the big television networks that command most of the eyeballs in our country.

Everyone is here from Al Jazeera to the BBC. There are media representatives from as far away as Nepal in attendance.

Apparently, there’s just not enough reality television in the world to bring everyone to our level.

But my concern centers around what the implications are for Brand: USA if we’re disinterested in our own political conventions while the rest of the world watches and wonders.  What’s the signal we’re sending?

Much as the contentious situation in Florida in 2000 was widely misunderstood and misinterpreted by the world at-large when it happened, I fear we’re treading down the same path again in 2004.  It’s in our own best interest to be actively engaged and invovled in this election, no matter who’s side you’re on.  The more engaged the US population is in the electoral process, the stronger the signal we send to the rest of the world that the American people stand behind “our” brand.

And that will count for something.

If you travel abroad, you know that people in other countries are often quick to say that while they don’t like America, they like Americans.  What’s that mean?  It means they create a clear distinction between what our country does and the people they meet from the USA.  That’s understandable.  It’s much easier for people to “hate” a nameless, faceless institution rather than a person with whom they can make a one-to-one connection.

The secret to branding success, of course, is to create as much of a personal relationship between the customer and the brand as possible.  In this example, if people from other countries see and can identify with the people in America who stand behind Brand:USA, they’re less likely to dismiss concerns, fears, policies or decisions as being unilateral.  And, just as importantly, the more engaged the American public is in creating its brand’s promise, the more likely our policies will take these international relationships into consideration.

The end result, I think, will be a brand we can all stand behind.

Later.

15,000 journalists and still a dearth of coverage

I can’t take credit for the line I’ve paraphrased and used as a headline. The idea of distinguishing between working on your business and working in it should go to Michael Gerber the author of the E-Myth series of books. But it’s such a great concept and it was the first thing that popped into my head when I read this article from today’s USA Today.

In fact, this list of business tips compiled by Rhonda Abrams is something that should go in the front of every business leader’s daily planner if they want to consistently build their brand’s value. Ms. Abram’s elaborates on each point in a bit more detail, but let me summarize them for you here:

- Have an “elevator speech” that summarizes your brand’s story always at the ready.

- Don’t nickel and dime clients.

- If you’re giving someone a deal, make sure they know it.

- When on the road, simplify, simplify, simplify.

- Pay your bills on time.

- Diversify your client base.

- Look at your clients’ long-term value to your business,

- And don’t be afraid to “fire” the unprofitable ones.

- Organize your note-taking with a simple solution that works for you.

- Keep in touch with your best contacts – ON PURPOSE.

- View customer complaints as an opportunity to learn, not just criticism.

- Set time aside for planning.

- Never compete on price alone.

- Do everything with integrity.

She provides more tips than just these – and her travel tips (which I’ve summarized as “When on the road simplify, simplify, simplify”) are things that took me nearly a year to figure out on my own, but for small businesses, start-ups and growing companies who can’t afford to throw money around, these are great tips for staying focused, economizing and making it all work.

So many of the partners and clients I work with get too wrapped up in the daily details and grind of their business – handling clients, vendors and snarly employee situations – that they lose sight of the bigger picture. That’s part of the reason I work with folks, sure. But there’s a big difference between getting the “30,000 foot view” from an objective consultant and taking it in for yourself.

In fact, if I can get a partner or a client to learn how to see the big picture and spend some quality time working “on” their business instead of “in” it all the time, I’m allowed to do what I do best: adding perspective by questioning assumptions, providing research and outside experiences that may open up new opportunities or help make unexpected (and highly profitable) connections.

Don’t take this the wrong way, there is significant value in getting folks to come up for air. But once a partner or a client is comfortable in that position and able to recognize when it’s time to get in and out of the business, that’s when we’re able to really make some progress.

I’m there now with a few clients and will spend a good deal of time next week in planning meetings with one, in particular, where we’ll set the table for the next twelve months. I fully expect us to make major strides this coming year. It’s our third together and we’ve been able to improve our year-on-year performance each of the last two years. But like a garden (which is supposed to sleep, creep and then leap by year three), I think we’re really going to take off this year.

And we’ll never know if we don’t get outside the business and take a look from time to time.

Later.

USATODAY.com – Tips, tricks to help business run smoothly

Subway commits 20% of it’s marketing budget to fighting childhood obesity; but is it a sincere effort or an attempt to jump on the bandwagon?”

You’re seeing it happen in a matter of months. Fast food restaurants from McDonald’s to Wendy’s to Subway are all trying to provide healthy meal alternatives for youngsters and more health-conscious adults. But is this really concern for some newly-defined audience segments or merely an attempt to diffuse consumer backlash to decades of unhealthy food options being foisted on the public over the counter of franchises across the USA?

The Ad Age article we reference here presents a concise review of a brilliantly integrated marketing program, identifying three key front-line changes being made by Subway: a pledge program to encourage children to adopt healthier lifestyles, activity-based toys in kids’ meals and sponsorship of the American Heart Association’s “Jump Rope for Heart” program.

There are media deals with Nickelodeon, VNR packages served up nationwide and eleven different television spots featuring a “trio of kids who have changed their lives by eating better.”

David Lubars, president of Fallon Worldwide – the agency who conceived and produced the spots before their break-up with Subway – makes sure to back away from any child exploitation claims: “You don’t want to exploit kids and we just wanted it to be the truth. None of the kids are skinny and we were not promising any miracles.” he says in the Ad Age article.

And in that one statement, you see what I think is an important distinction in this campaign. Sure, the effort to fight childhood obesity is laudable – but in the hands of some, it could easily devolve into nothing more than a grab for “high ground” in the battle for mindshare among health-conscious consumers and concerned parents. The fact that both the advertising and PR in this campaign appears to deal with “real” kids, situations and outcomes tells us that Subway has spent a considerable amount of time to craft a careful message that will both build brand value and change attitudes in the process.

I think it’s fair to assume that some people will question Subway’s motives behind this campaign. After all, this campaign will help reinforce what Subway’s marketing VP, Chris Carroll identifies as “a position within the consumers’ consciousness that we (Subway) can actually change people’s awareness and people’s understanding of eating and exercise habits.”

By investing nearly $60 million behind this message, Subway will undoubtedly influence people’s awareness and understanding of childhood nutrition issues and, I think, should be applauded for bringing it this issue forward. Let’s hope those well-meaning advocates who rail against any kind of marketing aimed at children don’t try to read more into this than it deserves.

The fact is that in order to change the nutrition landscape for our youth, we’re going to have to market to the youth. If we’ve learned one thing over the past few generations it’s that parents either don’t want to (or can’t) control the eating and consuming habits of their children. No matter what age.

Although it’s not fair to lay all the blame at the feet of the parents (as some corporations and marketing types are want to do), it’s also not fair to blame only the large companies that found the door to these young consumers left unattended. I believe the only way solutions to several of the problems we have with young people today stand a chance is if we all work together to solve the problem.

Please, no allusions to “It takes a village …” please. It may not take a village, but I do think it takes – at the very least – a committee. Teachers, parents, civic leaders, advocates, kids and commercial enterprises all need to gather together and work it out. It’s not easy or fast – but it does work.

Subway has just asked for a seat at the table. Do you intend to let them in? I know my wife and I will.

Later.

SUBWAY LAUNCHES MASSIVE CHILDHOOD OBESITY CAMPAIGN