Brand Central Station

After posting my piece on Consumer 2.0, I received a Tweet from one of my friends on Twitter.

@BrandCentral – Consumers need to make companies stop taking us for granted.  We are your source of income – respect us, dangnabbit!

Not only did I find the Tweet to be interesting because I hadn’t seen “dangnabbit” spelled out in a while, but the sentiment of the post was indicative of a larger problem I see brewing for marketers in the future.  ”Engagement” is a big word circulating through the marketing universe at this time, but in reality, engagement requires two-way interactions between parties. Real interaction is built on a foundation of mutual respect.

And according to my informal survey of one and a just-released study of the nation’s political climate conducted by BIGresearch, Americans are feeling a little disrespected on all levels.

(more…)

You have to give the Association of National Advertisers credit, it’s not like they’re not trying.

But no matter what they seem to say or do, American advertisers don’t seem to understand the importance of minority markets to their brands’ success or profitability. There seems to be only one answer to sum up the majority of the obstacles cited by ANA members in a recent survey which attempted to divine the rationale for the dearth of marketing initiatives aimed at including minorities.

Ignorance.

(more…)

Oh well, from a rant on the need for multicultural to this little gem exploiting the US’s first African-American President a full sixty days before he’s even sworn into office.  We all know a person’s right to privacy flies out the window when he’s voted to be the next “most powerful dude on the planet” – but seriously, shouldn’t there be a law about this kind of hucksterism?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWN1Au4HNFY]

Well, at least it’s not real money.  I guess it could have been worse.  In Bermuda, monetary officials are having to explain why they allowed their engraver to change the bill of the White-tailed Tropicbird to more closely resemble that of a Red-billed Tropicbird instead.  Huh?

So they now have a “mashup” of two birds to create some kind of hybrid, megabird for their $50 bill. Next thing you know, they’ll put a Pushmi-pullyu on the $100.  Hugh Lofting would be proud.

(Bet you never thought you’d get a D.D. allusion in a marketing blog, did you?)

Hat tip to the “Make the Logo Bigger” blog for the tv spot.

Are the expectations for the incoming Obama administration too high?  The Obama-Biden campaign certainly re-set the rules of political campaigns with their 2008 effort – raising more money, spending more money and engaging people on a level unlike anything in living memory.  But will the public’s anticipation and expectations of the new administration and, more specifically, the promise to continue reaching out and engaging the public, be met to everyone’s satisfaction?

It reminds me of the expectations and constant chatter surrounding Social Media.  In fact, I don’t think there’s any question that an Obama Administration will be the first to fully embrace the uber-democracy that is the online/Social Media world.

My only question is: can a 18th century institution like the US Federal Government adapt quickly enough to not get completely balled up in an avalanche of 21st century Social Media interactivity?

(more…)

Americans are among the most measured and monitored people on the planet – and for a society built on civil and social liberties, that serves as a confusing paradox for many foreigners. (more…)

Culturally, Americans have a handicap when it comes to collaborating (online or in person). And unless we do something to identify and address this problem, we’ll come in to every international opportunity at a severe disadvantage.

Blame it on our forefathers – the original settlers to the New World were, in many ways, a bunch of malcontents who didn’t fit in and couldn’t get along with those they left behind. In later years, immigrants to America came with their own dreams of glory, riches, freedom, etc. But rarely was it a dream to “work with other people.”

No, collaboration – as a value – is not necessarily inherent in the American DNA. Just look at several of the icons that symbolize America and American values: the stoic outsider, the religious Puritan, the lone cowboy, the rugged farmer, the resourceful entrepreneur. Each of these images celebrate the individual as much as his or her accomplishments.

The values represented by these symbols aren’t bad. In fact, the American historical experience that has made ideals like creativity, honesty and hard work valuable tends to reward the output of collaboration particularly well – innovation. Look at all the firsts coming from this culture over the past 250+ years and you see a steady stream of innovations that were an interesting blend of one person’s idea mixed with the resourcefulness and passion of others.

You see, when we put our mind to it, Americans can be very good at collaborating. My point is that it has to be an intentional thing. Collaboration is not second nature to us. Not yet, anyway.

Keeping that in mind, it’s easy to see why our political leadership can get cross-wise with peers from other parts of the world. Claims of American hegemony are painful but understandable (whether they’re true or not is, and always will be, a subject of debate) and are a direct result from our initial desires to “do our own thing” rather than to collaborate with other partners.

There are two other aspects of American social culture that play into this discussion. The first is our tendency towards self-segregation and, on a much larger scale, isolation. The historical roots behind this run deep. Physical barriers separated the first colonists of our continent and, as a result, it was commonly accepted practice to favor those with whom you were raised. Cultural biases from the old world were carried across the Atlantic, as well. Just because everyone was in the Americas did not mean their dislike for one another had been left in Europe.

Segregation was never directly addressed until the 1950’s – and even then, the causes of civil liberties and civil rights have had a rocky history. A good bit of this arises from the tendencies of those in power to want to retain that power – both political and economic. Add to that a myriad of opinions and accusations all made under the protection of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution and you have a dynamic situation that is still generations away from being solved. (More on that another time.)

The second aspect of American culture that works against the need to collaborate is our physical size and location in the world. For hundreds of years, it was hard to get here. America operated alone and in isolation. This country wasn’t even considered to be a world power until the Imperial Era of the late 19th Century – and even then, our approach tended to be more laissez-faire than England, France, Spain and the other Western European powers that be.

Our tendency towards isolation was probably most notable in the run-up to World War II. But there are still shards of this attitude left today. Our country’s reaction to 9/11 is a direct result of this underlying tendency towards isolationism.

So successful collaboration between Americans and others in the world is possible, just not automatic. It takes work – possibly even more work from the American in the group or committee – to be successful. But given our history of creativity, our passion to succeed and an honest, American curiosity to see how good things can be, collaboration can be a winning strategy.

Technorati Tags: Marketing, Branding, Collaboration, Partnership, Hawthorne Effect, Customer Relationships, Vendor Relations, Leadership, Culture

(c) 2006 – Brand Central Station, all rights reserved. For more information on Brand Central Station, please visit our website.

We’ve been spending time on the BCS blogs this week, talking about the importance of “vision” as a guiding element behind the creation of brand value. I maintain that this is especially true in the United States and that the idea of using a stated “vision” as a management tool is due, in large part, to the culture of America.

The concept of “vision” to describe an idea or, more specifically, an ideal state, is not unusual. Humans have always tied something of the divine to the sense of sight – arguably the most important sense we have. The ability to see is directly dependent upon our optic nerves which are just extensions of our brain. Humans take in a majority of their information through site. In short, we’ve evolved to the point where seeing and vision is very critical to our species’ survival.

Ancient people recognized this to one extent or another. Mystics who were thought to be able to converse with the gods were called “seers”. Visions were considered to be shared among those who were blessed. Back in the days of ancient man, if you had a vision you were destined to become a priest of some kind – a pretty good job if you could swing it a few millennia ago.

Then the politicians had to move in and spoil everything. Military men and ancient rulers would claim some vision from one god or another and then march off to war against their enemy. Apparently, either the gods who sent the visions didn’t know how to communicate very well or the visions themselves were too convoluted to be of much good, because many of these campaigns ended in disaster. Visions were, it seemed, not particularly well-suited for war unless they were supplemented with a heavy dose of strategy.

One military man who seemed to do okay with his visions, though, was the Roman Emperor, Constantine. The night before the battle of Milvian Bridge, Constantine had a vision in which he was instructed to place the sign of Christ on the shields of his soldiers. Fortunately for Constantine, he won the battle of Milvian Bridge and eventually co-opted his relationship with the Christian church, turning it into an instrument of imperial policy.

But the die was cast. A “vision” was given special standing in the eyes of mere men – and it would remain that way for generations to come.

The difference between this imperial/holy vision and what we’ve come to know and understand as a vision in America can trace its roots back to the Declaration of Independence. This was the work of men, working together to make a stand against imperial power – a power claiming authority from a higher power. But the work of Jefferson, Franklin and the others on the committee drafting the document did not rely on visions delivered in dreams but rather the combined works and philosophies of men seeking a more “natural” explanation of rights and the place of man in the world.

During this period, known as the Age of Enlightenment, man started claiming visions for himself – inspired by God, nature, beauty, whatever. The word “vision” started to take on a new meaning that didn’t mean a literal sighting of an event or person but rather an idea.

Over the growth and development of the American experience, the vision identified by the Founding Fathers of our country has had to grow and change to meet the changing social landscape in which we live. Keeping the vision “fresh” seems to be an important part of the process. The vision of America (often referred to as the “American Dream”) has changed in the last two hundred years to embrace the rights of women and minorities as equals to property-owning white men (as represented by the original founders).

And technology has played its part, too.

Originally, a “vision” had to be expressed solely in words and actions. But now, thanks to an ubiquitous media, Americans (and people around the world) try to understand by looking at something rather than really understanding it. This may be placing too much literal value on “vision” as opposed to its conceptual worth.

There’s debate even today that some of our great speech writing presidents (e.g. Lincoln) and leaders (e.g. Washington) never would have passed muster in today’s political climate because we’ve discounted the value of the words and thoughts and put more emphasis on style and eye appeal.

The danger we face here is that we often accept a visual representation as a “vision” without really listening to the words or “substance” that goes along with it. It’s easier. It’s faster. But it’s often wrong. Unless everyone in the audience shares the values, concepts and lexicon of the speaker, misunderstanding is bound to occur.

Then there’s the “follow-up” problem. You see, as the American experience shows us time and again, a vision won’t work unless it’s constantly communicated and re-defined to reflect the changes in the environment. That’s why successful leaders must always reassess and reassure people on the accuracy of their understanding and the value of the plans the build on that understanding.

For the past 231 years, we have shared in a common vision for a place where people can pursue life, liberty and happiness. It’s meant different things at different times – but that’s okay. Keeping a vision alive isn’t supposed to be easy.

(c) 2006 – Brand Central Station, all rights reserved. For more information on Brand Central Station, please visit our website.

If you’re like me, you probably used to roll your eyes during history class when the teacher would talk about George Washington being the “Father of our country.” It sounded like such nonsense.

But yesterday (Monday) was President’s Day – a lame, lazy-history holiday that somehow combines Washington and Lincoln’s birthdays into one day and then mixes in an allusion to the other forty or so “other guys” in the what must be the world’s most exclusive fraternity (at least for now).

Today (February 22nd), though, is Washington’s birthday. His 273rd to be exact. And I’m concerned that the further away we get from Washington’s time on this planet, the less we understand (or appreciate) what he meant to this country and how much we are, in fact, his beneficiaries.

Quite a bit of what we consider to be idyllic in American culture is drawn from Washington’s character – or, at the very least, from the reputation of his character. A good bit of what sets us apart from the rest of the world can be traced back to this amazing man as well.

Take your time to get to know George Washington as a man and you find a person who was very concerned with creating a stoic image of fairness and civility. He was firm and focused. What compassion he felt for the weak and helpless was tempered with an iron will and determination to achieve. For many in Colonial America, General Washington represented the determined and honorable American soldier, faithful and steady in the face of undeserved British criticism; bold and heroic when it came to battle.

For those who studied Washington’s careful management of his resources, time and political equity, a much more complex (but no less amazing) portrait emerges. This man was wiley in war, losing more battles than he won but winning the war in the end. He knew how to position himself carefully and almost always in the center on divisive issues.

George Washington embodied consensus – sometimes to the frustration of his more devout acolytes and rabid political enemies. But it was that sense of what was “in the middle” balanced with a desire to find the just remedy that made Washington the only man who could hold together the Constitutional Convention and the only man who could serve as the first President of the new republic.

There are a few aspects of Washington’s life that I think are distinctly American and, up until Washington did them, had never been accomplished:

1. Washington sensed a need for military leadership in the early days of the American Revolution. Although he had been elected as a representative from Virginia, he showed up for the Continental Congress dressed in a splendid uniform – even though there was no Continental Army at the time! Washington had designed his own uniform and wore it to show he was ready (or at least looked ready) to lead an army against the British should one be required.

2. At the end of the American Revolution, Washington could have seized control of the government and ruled as king or emperor. In fact, there were calls to have Washington crowned as king of America. Instead, Washington resigned his commission as a soldier (in fact, he was “Commander In Chief”) and went back to Virginia to farm.

3. Following his unanimous election and unanimous re-election, Washington ended his career as President of the United States with his second term. His unwillingness to serve a third term set a precedent for the peaceful transition of power from one chief executive to another – an American tradition that has been reproduced in countries around the world but started here first.

4. Upon his death, a full 65 years before the Emancipation Proclamation, Washington freed his slaves and provided for their well being. Had America continued on the path originally set by Washington, Franklin, Adams, Jefferson and other Founding Fathers, slavery might have been addressed in a more peaceful way with a resolution much less bloody than the Civil War that tore at the heart of the United States in the mid-1800′s.

These were bold, creative moves taken by a man who put his country and his countrymen first – literally sacrificing everything he had for his country and letting ultimate personal power pass him by for the long-term well-being of his countrymen.

Thank you, George Washington. We’re all indebted to you.

And, happy birthday, Dad.

(c) 2005 – Brand Central Station, all rights reserved. For more information on Brand Central Station, please visit our website.

In this recent article in B2B Magazine (“Weak dollar lifts some firms”), writer Sean Callahan investigates some of the factors helping to drive foreign sales for some smaller US manufacturers. While the weak US dollar (versus the euro and British pound) is certainly one factor, it’s not the only factor driving sales volume.

As it turns out, ease of communication is a key factor in developing a preference for US-made goods versus other foreign sources of products for EU-based customers. Companies are finding an advantage in diverting resources into communications in order to make their products features and benefits more apparent in various European markets.

According to Callahan’s story, the Internet, in particular, has created favorable conditions for US-based manufacturers. E-mail and simplified communications that when combined with the American’s “sense of urgency” helps speed transactions and product delivery.

“It’s not necessarily the weak dollar [that attracts business from Euorpe];” writes Callahan in an interview with Bill Gilber, president of Serville, NJ-based Branch Environmental. “In part, it’s the Internet, because it’s much easier to reach us.”

The Winning Formula
So, what seems to be important in order for US manufacturers to compete effectively in Europe and other parts of the world? Price alone is not that important. In fact, as China continues to grow and its manufacturing capacity continues to increase, the US will have problems competing with China at almost any price.

Production capabilities, quality and capacity are important factors. But where those factories are located and who staffs and runs them will vary from US manufacturer to manufacturer. Heavy manufacturers, like Deere or GM or Caterpillar will probably continue to find and locate plants in Europe to produce product for sale into the market. Lighter manufacturing companies may decide to maintain a domestic production operation in the US and ship to markets that express a demand. Either method can work, but demand must be created and maintained.

And in order to create and maintain that demand, US companies must learn how to market their product in a way that’s slightly different from how it’s done in the USA. Marketing for any product, especially B2B products, can’t be done on an international basis by merely setting up distributors or indepedent sales representatives.

American marketers must consider making a long-term investment into the markets that are most appropriate for them. Whether that investment is in advertising, public relations, events, trade show support, etc., those decisions remain the purvue of the client. But three general rules applly in this situation:

1. Take your time. One of the early lessons taught by US-based marketers who attempted to establish their brands elsewhere is that Americans don’t have a lot of patience. In some countries, they’ll deliberately avoid buying US-made products for as many as five years to make sure the American company’s management has a true interest in their country.

2. Remember to “tell” before you “sell”. To us, your product’s benefits might be obvious. But in places like Europe and Japan, consensus is vitally important so you must win over a number of people on the client side, first, before you even ask for the sale. This is especially difficult for US-based companies who are competing in an RFP-based, bidding system. A native counsellor is highly recommended in these situations to give the US company a clear view of where they stand in the cutlural understanding.

3. Be aware of cultural filters. Cultural filters for both parties in a negotiation (or sales pitch) can completely derail a conversation and make working together an near impossibility. Spending time with a knowledgable marketing advisor in the market would be tremendously helpful in identifying and addressing the various cultural biases that are likely to cause problems for a US manufacturer.

Of course, this would be the best opportunity to talk about our international network of business partners and our free search and selection services – but I won’t do more than that. If you want to know more, just follow the links.

Good luck to you all.

The English language is a wondrous thing. I love it because I love history and our language is absolutely filled with old words from a variety of cultures. This isn’t an elegant, pure language like French. Rather, English is a dirty, bastard-child of a language with an impossibly tangled lineage that makes it rich and interesting.

Add to that the fact that we often hide symbolism in our speech and stories – often times, without even realizing it. If you’ve studies deconstructionalism at all, you know what I mean. The French philosopher, Jacques Derrida, helped lead the way in challenging language on its surface and looking into what went unsaid and what that, in turn, said about the speaker. (I’m paraphrasing decades of philosophy here, but I hope you get the point.)

So, why quote modern French philosophers and an ancient language when talking about marketing the brand that is America? For the simple reason that we, as Americans, often don’t realize there is a greater meaning to our words than what we may intend. Americans are quick to offer opinions and frequently use extremes to make points or defend a position. But what we usually ignore is the nuance inferred by our choice of words, use of symbols, tone and manner of speech.

These things are not overlooked so easily by the rest of the world – although, the rest of the world may not realize that what they’re hearing isn’t what we mean to say but rather a faint, historical echo resonating from what we’ve actually said. Let me give you a very simple example:

In the American election this November, newscasters, politicians and pollsters were busy yacking up the airwaves with talk of “red states” and “blue states.” As far as I can recall, every broadcast booth had a map of the United States with some states marked in red and others in blue. Interviews with disgruntled Democrats and haughty Republicans portrayed a country divided.

To those of us in the cultural “know” we realized that while there was disagreement, in some cases disagreement stridently presented, we were (and will continue to be) one country, indivisible. But to much of the rest of the world, this election looked like some kind of civil war. Red versus Blue. Conservative versus Liberal. Rural versus Urban. Don’t forget, we’ve seen civil wars over the past three hundred years that were dominated by people associating themselves with a particular color: White, Orange, Green, Blue, Grey, etc.

Add to all of this mess a number of campaign strategists who often used the terms of warfare to discuss what was happening at the polls (mobilizing, rapid response teams, etc.). It’s not hard to see the signals we were sending unintentionally.

Deconstructionists were probably having a “field day” – a term that, no doubt, has its own military lineage.

My concern about all of this Red State/Blue State nonsense is the signal it sends to our friends and enemies abroad. The sour grapes of 2000 gave people the impression that the US was in dire straits and on the verge of some kind of collapse. The shrill nature of the primaries in 2004 reinforced this idea – which culminated in a presence of “foreign observers” stationed at various US polling places to make sure there were no voting irregularities for the first time that I know of.

The rest of the world sees America as poised on some kind of cliff – the result of budget deficits, rampant military spending, overwhelming dependence on fossil fuels and a variety of social ills from childhood obesity to indecent halftime shows during the Super Bowl. Yeah, America is just one good shove away from a total meltdown.

The problem, of course, is that even if we know the meltdown isn’t going to occur any time soon, we continue to use language and send signals that say otherwise. The last great empire to suffer this fate was the United Kingdom who, thanks to the good works of patriots like the American Founding Fathers, eventually found that the sun had, indeed, set upon their empire long before they came to realize it.

Despite their words to the contrary, the blue-bloods of the privileged classes, the red coats of the military and the royal purple all gave way to a new world order and a lesser place in the world. And if it can happen then, the thinking goes, it could happen here.

(c) 2005 – Brand Central Station, all rights reserved. For more information on Brand Central Station, please visit our website.

For starters, let’s get something out on the table. Even a crank can be right.

Whether or not we like to admit it, the USA is a “consumer-driven” society – and we’re not very graceful about it. I suppose it’s possible a society focused on meeting the needs of the consumer can also pay attention to larger, communal issues like public health, energy conservation and the rest. But it’s not very likely.

At least, that’s what our history tells us.

And with a history of consumption with little regard for the impact that consumption has on the environment in which we live, is it any wonder why Americans often find a fundamental disconnect with people from other cultures who do not live in a land of plenty?

Most Americans, especially those who have never been out of the country (by current counts that’s over 60% of the population), don’t realize how different life is beyond our borders. Unfortunately, this contributes to how other peoples view Americans in general and our authority figures, in particular.

American ignorance is often confused with American arrogance (there are plenty of instances where the two go together). To compound the confusion and angst, most of our leaders have a unique ability to blend the two – sending exactly the wrong signals at the wrong time.

But I maintain it’s not all their fault. Core American traits like optimism and enthusiasm and values like self-reliance lie at the root of this cultural snaggle. Given our country’s historic capacity for producing food and other essential supplies, Americans have learned to become very self-reliant and to produce what they need to survive (if not thrive).

Over the past two hundred years, as innovation and ingenuity have created larger and larger bounties, Americans have (quite literally) grown to meet the available supply. That curious blend of attitudes that combine optimism and hope for the future with the reality that we might not get a chance to eat for the foreseeable future yields an enormous appetite for food, entertainment and other entertainments.

I maintain we’re generally larger, heavier, taller and rowdier than ever because of our own success and the lack of pestering neighbors from other countries looking over our shoulder, wanting in on our action or offering to help when we’re down. The need to depend on one’s self has lead to an innate understanding that “More” is usually better than “Good”. In fact, it’s hard to find all-you-can-eat buffets in other countries, yet there are plenty of them in the US. In general, the food quality suffers at a buffet of this kind as the quantity of food offered can increase.

Much of the “quantity over quality” approach to life reflects Americans’ quest to consume. No other country takes consumption to the max quite as aggressively as Americans. In fact, it was in the USA where businesses developed techniques of selling ideas and products to the masses. Mass marketing through the media or mass production of consumable items wasn’t possible for decades in other western civilizations because of cultural and language barriers.

With a history of consumption and mass marketing, American’s often equate buying and consuming with happiness and status. “The Good Life” in the USA is often defined by the number of possessions one has. Ironically, as the tendency to mass consume has gone up, so has the incidence of depression.

The lesson: “More” may not always mean “Better.” So, where is society headed?

Re-establishing quality over quantity seems to be an essential factor in cutting down Americans’ quest to consume. Directly related to this are other factors like chemical dependencies (e.g. nicotine or alcohol dependencies), fitness and energy use. One other key factor seems to require attention in order for Americans to consume less.

Speed.

If Americans slow down, the general wisdom says, we’ll consume less. Quality of experience will eventually replace quantity of experience because people will take the time to enjoy the experience in the first place. But how hard will it be to change this “American” way of life? We suspect it will be very difficult – probably requiring some kind of national “crisis” in order to influence and enforce the behavioral change necessary.

Here’s hoping we live to see the day.

(c) 2005 – Brand Central Station, all rights reserved. For more information on Brand Central Station, please visit our website.

John Wayne and Ronald Reagan had more in common than their short-lived football careers and more successful movie careers. Sure, they were both Republicans, but I’m not talking politics here, either.

Instead, both mean epitomized the American icon I refer to as the rugged individual.

This icon has been often seen in American media in the form of a cowboy, a soldier, a preacher, a steel worker, a baseball player, a cop and just about any other person set at odds against a foe (or foes) whose sole objective moves from mass destruction of the system to a mano-a-mano vendetta against the hero. It’s a bit narcissistic when you think of it, but then again, aren’t we?

We celebrate the rugged individual’s guts, his sacrifice, his ability to endure, his courage. Most rugged individuals in our media stand for something and are willing to do whatever it takes to make things right in the world. All the responsibility rests on their shoulders.

We’ve had this figure of the “go it alone” American etched into our national consciousness for generations. And, to a large extent, there’s much about that approach to life that has been reinforced by our experiences. Our history is filled with stories of people who take responsibility into their own hands and act. Whether it’s Paul Revere or the Lone Ranger, Americans are taught from a very early age that we know what’s right and have to do it or it will go undone.

The rest of the world is torn between admiring this quirk in the American approach to life and despising it.

You have to admit, this model cuts attempts to moderate, bide time and build consensus off at the knees. Sometimes our rush to judgment is either rewarded with the spoils of being the first into a situation or penalized with harsh criticisms from the folks we assumed would be right behind.

Then again, when you’ve so blatantly taken the point position on so many things, to suddenly shift to a more pensive, thoughtful approach can be fraught with difficulty, too. (Look at the criticism recently heaped on the USA and other western countries for taking three or four days to make an aid commitment for tsunami relief.)

I don’t want to justify either approach. We are who we are. Americans are always going to be bold – we’ve had to be for the past five hundred years. But we need to develop a keen understanding and – if possible – appreciation for how other cultures approach similar situations. And, more importantly, we have to learn how to explain the differences between our cultures so our actions aren’t misinterpreted and misunderstood.

As rugged individualists, we should know that if we don’t take the time to do it, no one else will.

(c) 2005 – Brand Central Station, all rights reserved. For more information on Brand Central Station, please visit our website.