Brand Central Station

A great little piece on how Hallmark has worked to turn lemons into lemonaide.

From “The Church of the Customer” blog.

How to apologize, the Hallmark way

This is never going to get easy.

Politicians are trying to face down a signficant problem when it comes to running free and fair elections here in the USA. It’s laudable – but their response is predictable and problematic.

To paraphrase the piece that appeared on AdRants today, The Federal Elections Commission is looking into what modifications need to be made to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in order to make sure online advertising in support of candidates are regulated.

Much of this appears to be in response to the use of the Internet as a media to launch attack ads against opposing candidates (as reported in detail on C|Net’s News.com). Nobody wants to stand up for the Internet – after all, every candidate has been the victim of an attack or two – but because there is no defense being presented, politicians have only themselves to listen to when it comes to proposing solutions.

And those solutions are, typically, ill-conceived and inadequate. Two factors that proposed remedies seem to ignore are the increasing international interest in US domestic politics and the obiqutous nature of the medium itself. Here’s my point:

1. From my conversations with clients and colleagues abroad, one of the things that they don’t understand is the apparent narcissism of the American public when it comes to our politics. They can’t understand why Americans don’t realize how important our elections are to everyone else in the world. In the words of one of my close friends from The Netherlands: “When you elect your President, you’re really electing the president of the world – that’s why we care.”

Of course, from my point of view as one who constantly deals with cross-cultural branding and marketing/communications issues, I see this situation a little differently (and, I hope, objectively). Most Americans don’t really understand the role we play in the world and how many of the hopes and dreams of people outside our country depend on our ability to succeed and manage our own business efficiently and peacefully. The political roller-coaster we’ve been on since the Clinton presidency has caused internal, political extremism inside the US and, more importantly, created substantial doubt in the rest of the world on our own ability to work things out.

I am much more optimistic about our future, but that’s a rant for a different blog.

2. The nature of the Internet fosters international discourse, partnership and communication. That much we know. Heck, 80% of the time, I manage international business transactions through Brand Central Station from my home in Davenport, Iowa (that’s in America’s heartland, for those of you who are a little more geographically-challenged).

This fact may be useful for those of us who want to foster business between cultures and countries. But for the FEC and those people trying to keep a handle on how political speech is used during a Federal Election, it presents a signficant problem.

Don’t believe me, look at the proliferation of off-shore, Internet gaming sites that prey on US consumers. It’s worth millions (if not billions) of dollars a year. And what can the US government do to regulate it? Not much.

All it would take is for off-shore interests to start interjecting, hosting or sponsoring political attack sites focusing on US elections and the best intentions of the McCain/Feingold Act could be in jeapordy. And before you dismiss the idea that foreign interests would have better sense than to mess with a US Presidential election, check this out.

Although this went mostly unnoticed in the US press, it presents a snapshot of what could be done in a widespread and organized way – with or without advice or urging from political parties inside our own country. It’s messy and maybe my concern is a bit premature, but I think it deserves to be discussed.

Let’s talk.

Later.

Online Political Ads May Face Regulation

First Prince Harry and now this …

I, for one, won’t let my kids shop at Abercrombie & Fitch now. We can’t reinforce this kind of corporate behavior.

A&F’s Boys of Nuremberg

3:00 pm – AdRants’ Steve Hall now reports that he’s contacted A&F and they deny any involvment in the campaign. I’m still not letting my kids shop there.

Kudos to Kurt Warner and Amani Toomer for joining with the UN to share stories of their visits to parts of Asia devistated by the tsunami. The NFL can use ambassadors like Warner and Toomer. Now let’s see if they do something with it.

Thanks to Steve Rubel and his Micro Persuasion blog for the info.

NFL Vets Blog for the UN

The guy eBaying his head was one thing – we’ve now got a pregnant mother in the UK taking “out of home” media to a whole new level.

Mother auctions ad space on stomach

Oh my.

This blog, from Small Business Branding’s Michael Pollock, could be titled: “Everything you didn’t want to know about Buzz Marketing.”

Yeah, it can get bad. Count on it.

People talk.

Damned Psycho Customers

Thinking of taking advantage of the blogosphere to get press for a client? Better think twice about your pitch to the owner.

As the New York Times and other medias are want to point out, these guys aren’t journalists – they’re more careful and selective in how they handle pitches. And, oh yes, they offend easily.

Read about it in Steve Rubel’s blog: Micro Persuasion: How Not to Pitch a Blogger

And, I suppose, more importantly, should there be a difference? Here’s an insightful piece from the artful manager.

Searching, searching, ever searching

For those of you keeping an eye on product placements and branded entertainment, this is a pretty interesting announcement. The Hispanic market is growing and will soon be the major minority demographic in North America.

These guys are one step ahead of the curve here and should do quite well.

Hispanic Branded Entertainment Firm Launches

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.

I like to work. A lot. In fact, I spend more time reading, looking at websites, talking to clients, etc. than I probably should. In management consultant terms, I’ve let my “work life” bleed over into my “home life.” But it’s been my choice and I enjoy both immensely.

Unfortunately, that’s not the case for most people. Historically, we’ve been able to keep some kind of separation between the two – maybe we see different people socially than those we see at work. Maybe we have rules about what we can and can’t talk about outside of the office. Maybe we hang out with our work-friends, but avoid spending time with the boss.

All of those have been successful strategies in the past, but now thanks to advanced communication, a broadening geographic scope for many businesses and an increasingly demanding and responsive consumer base, one gets the feeling that things are going to change pretty dramatically. And not necessarily for the better.

In fact, I think we’ve seen the first signs of significant change just in the first month and a half of 2005.

Case 1: Things best left unsaid …
This article, found on the CNN/Fortune website, is an interesting piece on the impact blogs have had on a number of employees and their relationships with their employers. In these incidences, the employees lost their jobs for revealing information their employer thought was inappropriate.

Was the information important or vital to the business of the employer? You might be able to argue “yes” in a few cases, but not most. Was the information damaging to the employer? I think we could say “at the very least, embarrassing” in almost every case. But “damaging”? It doesn’t appear so.

In fact, much of what these bloggers published to the Internet is what they might have told a few close friends over a beer after work; shared with a spouse or family member; or written into a journal or diary. But by posting it to a blog, the author is opening up these “dirty little secrets” to millions of people who don’t know or respect the intent or interests of the author.

You have to wonder what people are thinking when they post that kind of information to a blog? Are they expecting to get fired? Do they think they can’t get fired?

I believe the easy answer is “yes.” In fact, many of these people think their right to be openly critical of their employer is a 1st Amendment Freedom guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The problem with that, of course, is the first Amendment to the Constitution merely prevents government from intruding on your speech – it says nothing about your employer.

As a result, employees who talk bad about their boss or co-workers run the risk of getting canned. That risk goes up substantially when the talking is done in front of literally millions of people (online) and in a form that can be easily shared and sent to the employer.

Honestly, why does some of this need to be shared in a weblog to begin with? Isn’t a little discretion called for here?

Clearly these employees are not thinking about the possible ramifications their “inside glimpse” might pose to the brand for which they work. Consumers aren’t so good at discerning between the sardonic wit and the whistleblower when it comes to brands they may find remotely appealing or tentatively suspect. Bloggers need to keep in mind the first rule of disclosure: “Assume everything you say will be used against you.”

That seems to go double for your brand.

Case 2 … Where there’s smoke, there’s unemployment.
Plenty of businesses have smoke-free environments, no smoking policies, Employee Assistance programs covering smoking, etc. But, as this article from WXYZ TV/Detroit points out, smoker’s addictive habits count at home as well as at work.

Under Michigan law, it looks like a practical argument can be made that these firings were legal. But looking on a broader sense, it may be that this ruling signals a signficant change in the influence employers have in the “off hours” lives of their employees.

All in the name of brand value, no doubt.

I’ve spoken plenty of times about the whole new level of intimacy the new marketing paradigm brings to the brand/consumer relationship. Well those rules of intimacy change in the employer/employee relationship as well.

As expectations of product performance go beyond features and benefits and start focusing on brand value, there are several things employees need to do – constantly – to maintain brand value. How smoking fits into that mix remains to be seen, but we don’t doubt it will play a rule at some time, either in this Michigan case or some other time down the road.

How employees and employers figure out the new responsibilities of living the corporate brand’s values at work and at home remain to be seen.

And it should be quite interesting to watch.

Later.

Jim Logan keeps it simple and straight to the point. This post on how and when to use a guarantee is great advice, especially for small and mid-sized companies looking for a way to stand out.