• IBM — Blue, of course. In fact, the company is known as "Big Blue"
• American Express — Also, blue. AmEx’s famous logo is called the "Blue Box"
• UPS — Brown. Remember UPS’s recent tagline, "What can brown do for you?" (I always thought that was borderline creepy)
• John Deere – Green. In fact, in the tractor/construction machinery business, the different competitors’ lines are all designated by a distinctive color (Ford: Blue; Massey-Ferguson: Red; Caterpillar: Yellow; and Deere’s famous Green, etc.)
• Kodak — Yellow (are they even still around?)
• FedEx — Purple (Yahoo! is also a well known purple brand)
• McDonald’s — Yellow, represented by the famed Golden Arches
• Ferrari — Red (it is actually called Ferrari Red)
• Pittsburgh Steelers — Black (with other colors too, but black is the primary color in this, my all time favorite NFL uniform and helmet logo)
• KTM Motorcycles – Orange (also my firm THUNDER FACTORY’s signature color!)

As you can see, color can be — and frequently is — critically important in signaling a brand’s presence and personality. With many of the above referenced examples, you barely even need to see the brand name to know which one it is. The color quickly registers in your brain as standing for that well known brand . When a color becomes that much of a brand identifier, it can have a powerful and positive effect in the market.

Even holidays have colors. Halloween is of course famous for black and orange. St. Patrick’s day is Kelly green and Christmas is universally known for its bright red color on everything (a bit of green thrown in, too, but mostly red).

But, in what could be the biggest upset in color branding history, that might be about to change. A new movement is afoot to transform the traditional Christmas holiday red into a very festive — and very different — orange. This is a pretty serious effort, led by a rag tag group of marketing revolutionaries (I have sworn not to divulge their identities in return for getting the exclusive back story on their historic Red to Orange campaign). Who knows, it might even work.

Full disclosure: Orange is my favorite color. Consequently, I am rooting for this guerilla campaign. I have loved orange since my early days growing up in the Washington, DC suburbs, in an era when orange was having its first heyday. I have been seeking out this crazy, high profile color ever since. Why this obsession with the color orange? To me, it is happy, lively, warm and a little kitschy (and I appreciate kitsch in most of its forms). I do have to agree with the Red to Orange team…Orange looks to be "the new Red."

Here are some great examples of the power of orange (as a color, it kind of rules!):

• My 1969 Camaro Z/28 in "Hugger Orange" (runners up are the famously orange Pontiac "Judge" from the late sixties and the bright orange 1971 Dodge Challenger with a Hemi engine, of course)
• A classic early seventies Italian Laverda motorcycle in orange
• A new Lamborghini Gallardo in orange
• The Cleveland Browns orange helmet (no logo, just orange…that is enough!). The Cincinnati Bengals tiger stripe helmet also has a nice orange, as does the University of Tennessee (love that big orange "T")
• Many love the signature burnt orange of the Texas Longhorns, but I am not a fan (of the color that is…the team has always earned my respect)
• The Orange checking account from ING Direct (great branding!)
• The orange Cingular logo, before AT&T acquired it and dumped it…too bad
• The orange Eames chairs that are all over my office (stop by, you’ll see!)
• The big round orange rotating ball that was the signature of the original 76 gas stations (regrettably, 76 is getting rid of the big rotating balls, which have now become collectors’ items)
• European plastic design from the sixties and seventies, when orange was all the rage
• Crate and Barrel’s new CB2 store, which is rather obsessed with the color orange (in a good way, of course)
• The famous Harley Davidson XR 750 dirt track racer of the ’70s in that wonderfully bright orange and white striping…now that is the orange bike of all time
• My dear friend Roseann in London reminded me of Orange, the UK mobile phone company (they, who own the URL orange.com). Orange is a pretty impressive company. Roseann sent me a couple of their TV spots. The Snoop Dogg ad is funny, but the Patrick Swayze spot is brilliant!

So, orange is the new brand and design color of choice. It is not just a fad (I’ve been following it for years), it’s a true keeper. If the Red to Orange guys and gals have their way, it might even become the preferred winter holiday hue. Santa could use the wardrobe color upgrade. Red and black is so 20s.

What do you most like about orange? Share your examples of orange brands and cultural icons. Of course, if you despise orange, let us know about that, too. We know a good 12-step program for you, Orange Haters’ Anonymous.

First, it looks like the Congress (along with President Bush…yes he still is president) has come up with a compromise bailout package that will throw at least a temporary lifeline to the Big Three. The main impetus here was the disastrous unemployment announcement last week. The lawmakers realized that the economy is too precarious right now to let another major jobs provider just go down the drain. No one (even Senator Shelby of Alabama, who cares not a whit about union auto industry jobs) wants to be tagged with triggering a "real" Depression. And, make no mistake, we are darn close to that.

But, to me, the more interesting ray of hope for the beleaguered auto industry was the new Ford F150 advertising I caught on TV this weekend. I was able to view five separate spots during the Eagles/Giants game yesterday, and I have to admit, they were excellent. Believe me, this is the first time in a long time that I have said anything positive about car advertising — especially US auto ads.

This new campaign brilliantly features a sharp voice-over by Dennis Leary. The actor and comedian has a very New York sensibility, but his voice and personality fit surprisingly well in these spots for an iconic American truck. The copy is excellent and the F150’s primary benefits really come through. The visuals are fine, although nothing terribly special. Even so, the Leary voice-over really gives the campaign personality and bite. And that is exactly what Ford (and all the US car makers) need right now.

If Ford and its agency can come up with a strong campaign like that, particularly for a make or break product like the F150, then I think the Blue Oval is at least one US car manufacturer that has a future. By comparison, the recent Toyota Tundra ads are anemic, to say the least (the Tundra is Toyota’s "big" pickup that competes with the US models). Toyota makes great cars (I have a RAV 4, and I love it), but they don’t do everything right. In fact, much of Toyota’s auto design work is still chintzy and the advertising is generally lousy.

I also checked out the accompanying F150 launch site and it featured Mike Rowe, the host of the Discovery Channel’s hit show "Dirty Jobs." Rowe and team put the new truck through some difficult paces, all in competition with pickups from Chrysler, Chevy and Toyota. Needless to say, the Ford truck came out on top. It actually was a well done, and very persuasive website.

Good marketing (first, getting the product right) and communications can make a difference, even for a troubled industry. I am pleased to see Detroit developing some effective brand communications for what looks to be a very solid and improved signature truck. Let’s hope there is more of the same from Ford and its US competitors in the future.

And, Dennis Leary is a terrific voice-over talent!

Now, I have not always agreed with John McCain, especially after he jettisoned his famously independent persona and ran for president as a Rovian right wing acolyte. But, I do believe he is a serious, intelligent man. Which is all the more reason why he must be ruing the day that he launched these two new brands. Because, they are anything but serious.

But, that does not mean they won’t be hugely successful for a certain part of the consuming public. A recent GOP poll just reported that Governor Palin and Mike Huckabee are the two front runners in the 2012 presidential race. (Yep, the same Sarah Palin of the infamous turkey video and the latest news that the GOP spent $110K in just two months on her hair and makeup. Lotta lipstick on that pit bull…You betcha!). There is also talk of a multi-million-dollar advance for a Sarah Palin book, a talk show, a Senate run, and the list goes on. She has become quite the media sensation.

And, Joe the Plumber has inked his own deal to write a book about the “American Dream” or some such subject. He already has starred in a commercial and now has a website. This is the guy who got his 15 minutes of fame because brand builder John McCain was grasping for anything he could to stand up against the Force 5 hurricane called Barack Obama and Change. So, he found Joe and anointed him the instant All American brand. Then the real news came out about Joe, such as the fact that he was not a licensed plumber at all, and the “impromptu” (yeah right!) questions he posed to Barack Obama (starting this whole thing in the first place) were actually bogus. No matter, he has now become a brand in the great tradition of the Pet Rock and Chia Pet. Fleeting wonders that beguile the public — at least for a short while.

Where will these two Insta-brands go now? Some Republicans believe Sarah Palin is the future face of the party, while other GOPers are absolutely horrified by her ascension. Joe the Plumber will probably run for office, too. (Just what Ohio needs!) Interestingly enough, he is actually pretty bright. Unlike Sarah Palin and her tortured syntax and halting command of any facts or ideas, he held his own in quite a few press interviews. And you can be sure he did not have the kind of professional interview training given to Sister Sarah.

At this point, you might be asking the real point of this post. Am I going to make some grand comment about the declining state of American culture, as evidenced by the large swaths of the US public which apparently are smitten by these new brands?

Nah, I’m not going that deep on this subject. But, as a student of brands and branding (and particularly the use of branding in the political realm), I just think its fascinating how Sarah Palin Hockey Mom and Joe the Plumber have emerged as what appear to be the two most enduring and visible Republican brands from the recent presidential campaign. John McCain — a serious political leader and thinker and genuine war hero — has kind of faded into oblivion.

Now that says something about our culture. I am just not sure what.

Update: Today’s Wall Street Journal has an excellent commentary on social media in marketing, what the authors call marketing 3.0. It is a very provocative and well reasoned piece. A key takeaway from the article relates to a topic I have blogged about previously in this space: the growing power of “co-creation” in business and marketing. The new highly fragmented, social media environment further underscores the intense need for marketers to treat “customers” not as people to comunicate and sell ”to,” but as partners with whom we can co-create products, services, communities, whatever, 

OK, back to my original post: Once you have made the decision to jump into social media — or at least dip your toe in it to test the temperature — the question then becomes, how?  Based on my own experience, and the expert advice from my THUNDER FACTORY colleagues Mitch Wainer and Miranda Abernathy, here are some initial principles and steps that will help guide you along your way to social media engagement and, hopefully, success:

• Define Your Objectives — As with any corporate/organizational initiative, start with objectives. What do you want to achieve with your social media program? Do you mainly want to track what is being said about your company/brand/organization, or do you want to take a more activist stance in the social media space? Start with a few modest goals, and work up from there. By setting realistic goals and milestones, you can track — and optimize — your social media results. Management will love you for that.
• Monitor It – Even if you are not proactively driving social media activities, it’s likely that your company or brand is already being covered and/or mentioned in some way. That coverage can be much more widespread than you would ever guess. That is why the first thing to do is make sure you are regularly monitoring what is being said about your company, your brand and your people (and/or, what they are saying, because it is highly likely that they are involved, too, sometimes under the auspices of your company name). The last thing you want is to be unaware of what is transpiring in the social media realm that relates to your organization. You need to proactively monitor this media environment (just as you would major business magazines, newspapers and TV), so you are plugged into what is being said about you. Absent that, you’re just flying blind.
• Join It – To get something out of social media, you will need to get involved. Typically that means joining the social media sites that interest you and your organization. For business, LinkedIn is a very popular place to start. Make sure your people join up and then link to your website (it all helps in your search engine results). Facebook is also very popular, and not just for individuals. Many companies now have Facebook pages, including my own integrated/interactive marketing firm THUNDER FACTORY.
• Blog It – Probably the best known social media form is the blog. You probably already frequent a number of blogs, for professional purposes, news, entertainment, gossip (I admit it, I read Gawker.com!), hobbies, sports, etc. Why not start a blog for your company, or just yourself? It is a great way to expand your contacts and promote your interests, issues, products, brand, etc. Blogging is also a terrific way to establish and communicate your leadership in a certain area (like your professional expertise). As with any social media, once you start it, you need to keep at it. Having an inactive blog is worse than having no blog at all.
• Twitter It – Another very popular social media site is Twitter (here’s my Twitter profile). Probably more so than any other site, Twitter has become an increasingly important part of the social media framework for businesses and other organizations (and politicians, too, like President-Elect Barack Obama, who has 130,000 followers-plus on Twitter). On Twitter, you can post for yourself and your company. As with any other social media, the key is to get involved and stay involved. You need to post regularly (easy to do because a Twitter “micro-blog” post can only be 140 characters), and then follow other people and their comments/updates. (You also need to be careful in the viral world of social media; there are pitfalls. Motrin was recently flamed on Twitter by a “flash-mob” of moms and others who objected to a Motrin ad campaign that some felt was negative regarding the use of baby slings, presumably because the ad inferred that they can cause back pain. Motrin’s manufacturer J&J pulled that ad pretty quickly after the social media backlash ensued. YouTube has a bunch of videos of those irate moms who didn’t appreciate a pain reliever brand calling into question baby slings. Many have subsequently commented that J&J probably reacted too quickly and rashly in dumping the Motrin ad. The Twitter backlash to the ad campaign was not really that big, they say. And, if J&J had really been “listening” rather than just knee-jerk reacting, they might have gotten something positive out of the experience by truly engaging the mommy bloggers.)
• Manage It – Someone (or a group of people for larger organizations) needs to be in charge of managing your social media program. You can’t just leave it to colleagues to participate when they have the time. Their “real work” will always trump what needs to take place in the social media realm. It is actually better to limit your social media interactions if you are not willing to make a reasonable commitment to them. This is definitely a case where the more you put into it, the more you can get back. But, even with that, there can still be surprises in social media because of its open, viral nature. Having a manager for your social media efforts will do much to make sure you are optimizing this growing channel, while protecting your interests, too.
• Discuss It – More than anything, participating in social media is about getting involved in the conversation. That should be relatively easy to do, as most of us naturally like to talk and communicate (well, at least that’s true of us marketers!). This includes everything from commenting on sites that cover your industry (I comment frequently on AdAge.com), to participating in online discussion forums and blogs. One thing is certain: If you don’t join the conversation, you won’t get anything out of social media. 

Of course, there is a lot more to social media than the points outlined above. But, getting started is surprisingly simple, if you are interested, committed and persistent. There is nothing mysterious about social media. By starting a conversation online — and joining others in their conversations – you will become part of the social media revolution.

And you can start by commenting on this post with your own thoughts and recommendations on getting started in social media!

First, in my previous post, I talked about the pros and cons of a public bailout of the formerly Big Three — now Dwindling Three — auto manufacturers. As a car lover and semi-populist, I was hoping for a way to save the US auto industry (and the millions of blue collar, main street jobs it represents) through government loans with strict conditions attached. These conditions would include firing current management and the boards of any US car company getting the loans, eliminating dividends, enforcing strict accountability and forcing these manufacturers to focus on well built fuel efficient cars that people want and need today (like those from Honda and to a lesser degree Toyota).

After the Capitol Hill performances of the CEOs of GM, Ford and Chrysler yesterday, pleading for a big government bail out, I now have come to the unfortunate conclusion that there is not a snowball’s chance in Hades that these companies are getting anything from the taxpayers. They have so misjudged the mood of the country and bungled the essential PR challenge of building support for their cause, that it’s now clear that they cannot be helped. No matter the rightness of their case.

And on top of that miserable PR performance, the big news yesterday was that Messrs. Wagoner, Nardelli and Mulally (the Dwindling Three CEOs) were so tone deaf that they traveled to Congress in their corporate jets!! Needless to say, the media had a field day with that revelation. I was watching Chris Matthews on ”Hardball” last evening (God does he love to rant…every now and then he actually says something of value) and he could not get enough of this PR fiasco. He quoted from a reporter covering the Congressional hearings who compared the three CEOs traveling to Washington, DC in their personal jets to a guy going to a soup kitchen in a “high hat and tuxedo!” White tie and tails would be more apt.

Matthews interviewed two Congressmen — one from New York and the other from Alabama — and neither had anything good to say about the US car companies. The fact is, it’s pretty hard these days to find anyone who is positively disposed to GM, Ford and Chrysler, once proud icons of American industrial strength and ingenuity. Why? Because they just don’t get it anymore. They seem to have totally lost touch with the reality of the economy and culture as it shakily stands today. 

And, they also don’t have a clue about how to use effective PR in creating real grass roots support of their legitimate issues and challenges, and proposals to restore their industry to something resembling health.

Here are some of Detroit’s most egregious recent PR mistakes:

• Wrong Message– The US auto companies tried to buttress their case principally by emphasizing the jobs that would be lost if they went bankrupt. However, that fell on deaf ears because so many other people in America are already either out of work themselves, or in danger of getting laid off. In addition, the three CEOs stubbornly claimed that bankruptcy was not a viable option for their companies. In light of the many blue chip companies that have already gone bankrupt in the US during the past couple of decades (United Airlines is a good example), not many people were buying that “we are unique” argument.
• Wrong Messengers – The three fat-cat CEOs from Detroit have not exactly engendered a lot of sympathy for the plight of their companies. Wagoner has been GM Chairman for a long time, and almost no one beyond his lemming-like board and his head of corporate communications believes he deserves to keep his job. But, Wagoner still managed to act arrogant while he was begging for a lifeline. Bob Nardelli, the new CEO of Chrysler, really looks the part of corporate fat-cat. He was the fellow who was shoved out of Home Depot for being the most imperious, incompetent CEO ever. (He basically tanked the company and then got paid several hundred million dollars for his performance). Alan Mulally, the former Boeing executive who took over the CEO spot at Ford in the past couple of years, was nominally a better spokesperson for the cause. But, not by that much. First rule of PR: Make sure you’ve got a good spokesperson for your announcement. These three amigos from Detroit just embarrassed themselves and the hundreds of thousands of hard working people they represented.
• No Grass Roots Support – In a year when Barack Obama showed the world the impact of effective community organizing (yes, Sarah Palin and Rudy Giuliani, community organizers really do make a difference), the US auto companies totally failed to build any grass roots support for getting government assistance when they needed it the most. This is pretty ironic when you realize that Wall Street and the the financial industry got bailed out, and there is no greedier bunch than that gang. The car companies really could make the case that they represented the hopes, dreams and needs of true main street America, but they just flubbed this opportunity big time. Again, a massive PR failure.
• No Humility – There was a gross lack of humility in the messages, demeanor and proposals of the Detroit CEOs and their apparatchiks. These guys just weren’t willing to take real responsibility for the appalling state of their companies (”it was all the economy, Congressman”). Absent that honest accountability, they did nothing to elicit empathy or sympathy, and hence they got none in return.  Then of course there were those three corporate jets idling at National Airport, ready to take the failed CEOs back to Detroit. That didn’t exactly scream humility and “we really are changing our ways, America!”

Both Harvard and the Public Relations Society of America should use the US auto manufacturers’ PR debacle to create case studies of what NOT TO DO in the future. This is a stunning example of botched public relations that deserves to live forever in PR infamy.

 

On the one hand, I agree with Michigan Senator Levin who, on “Meet the Press” this morning, said that more than 3 million American jobs are at risk if we don’t do something to help the three American car companies. I agree with Levin that this is a main street issue, and that no other country in the world would just let its auto industry die.

On the other hand, I tend to agree with the opposing (mainly Republican) point of view, which is that the US car manufacturers brought these troubles on themselves by longstanding mismanagement, poor designs that nobody wants, questionable quality for too long, etc. I also agree with the position that if you bailout the big auto companies now, where does this end? Are the airlines or aircraft manufacturers next? Or the big retailers who, except for Wal-Mart, are bracing for the worst Christmas shopping season since the Depression era?

What do we do? My view is mixed, and so are my prescriptions to fix this untenable situation. First, I do believe that the US auto industry is an important part of our dwindling manufacturing base and we should not just let it die. And, if we were willing to prop up the struggling financial sector, then we should also be ready to give a helping had to a major American industry like auto manufacturing.

This blog is principally about marketing and branding, so where do these concerns fit into this bailout discussion? I don’t think I know of a soul who thinks the branding and marketing of the US auto firms has been any good for too many years — perhaps forever. In terms of branding, there is a depressingly large number of US auto brands that today should no longer exist because they are weak, undifferentiated and essentially have no future. These brands include Buick, Pontiac, Chrysler (BTW, Dodge is only just hanging on in trucks…their cars are DEAD), Mercury, Saturn (what does that brand now stand for??) and Hummer (don’t even get me started on this dinosaur brand). Even the once proud Jeep brand has been dangerously diluted because of Chrysler’s gross mismanagement of its brand portfolio.

I am not the only observer who has pointed out these brand deficiencies. But, how many US auto brands have been actually weeded out in the past generation or longer? Just two that I can recall — Oldsmobile and Plymouth.

The marketing for all of these brands is also pathetic, and I don’t just mean the truly terrible US car advertising (incidentally, I think the entire auto industry advertising, foreign brands included, is bloody awful with just a few exceptions). The American car makers just don’t know how to build value and demand in their products, and thus they can’t price them effectively to succeed. It is rebate every time, all the time. No wonder people don’t put much value in these products. Regarding the advertising, the big advertising agencies and their mega holding groups that have been turning out this dreck for the US auto manufacturers during the past fifty years (and making tons of money in the process), should have their auto gravy train derailed immediately — bailout or not.

Now, what to do regarding the current auto industry crisis? I believe we need to do something to shore up the rotting support pillars of the auto business. If the US government had to do it all over again, I would bet they would not just let Lehman Brothers fail like they did a few months ago. Everyone agrees that Lehman’s bankruptcy was the straw that finally broke the back of the financial system. If we had bailed them out, things might have been different. Perhaps. But, maybe not. Who really knows?

All of that said, if we do decide to help the three American auto manufacturers, I think the pre-conditions mentioned by the supporters of this lifeline need to be even stronger and more tilted to the American taxpayers, whose hard earned money will be used for the bailout. I think the management of every auto maker that accepts bailout money has to go. Rick Wagoner, GM’s CEO, cannot expect to keep his job (and neither should his board), if he gets money from the taxpayers. Chrysler and it’s private equity owner Cerberus Capital, should also be forced to have new management and a new financial structure. Cerberus bought Chrysler hoping for a financial windfall in a few years. They should now be forced to give up a big stake in the company to get government assistance to keep them afloat. Ford has done a comparatively better job, but like the other two companies, they cannot expect to get money and just keep the same governance in place. You want the money, you give up control. That is the capitalist way and it should apply in government bailouts, too.

The unions and suppliers will also have to take their hits, and agree to major changes to ensure the survival of the industry. Everyone in the system has blame in the car industry’s failure, and they all have to accept some of the pain going forward if they expect help from the US government and the rest of the American public. That is only fair.

Finally, as President-elect Obama has made clear, if they get money, the auto makers have to totally re-engineer their product lines to emphasize fuel efficient cars and trucks. That has to be a non-negotiable. For too long, US auto makers have fought the fuel efficiency and safety standards. No more if they want the public dough. We own you now. It’s our way or the highway.

I am a true and loyal car guy. I have also been sadly and deeply critical of the US car business for years because of its insistence on building crappy products that usually fail in the marketplace. While I don’t think we should reward that incompetence, I do feel that the US needs to think hard about letting a major part of the economy just die on the vine.  If the big three US auto companies accept the kind of tough conditions I outlined, then I think it’s worth giving them a hand. If not, then President-elect Obama and the congressional leadership should let them sink into oblivion and let Toyota, Honda and Hyundai divvy up the spoils.

For the car companies, it is now fish or cut bait time. If they want the money, they must essentially give up a lot of control and do things very differently. That is probably their only chance at this point. They should take it. If they choose not to, then I have no sympathy for them.

 

In the long list of historic accomplishments by Barack Obama in getting to that stage last week, perhaps none stand out more in my mind than the truly remarkable marketing campaign that he and his able team developed, managed and led. President-elect Obama really is our new Marketer In Chief. It’s not for nothing that Ad Age named him its 2008 “Marketer of the Year.”

What did our new Marketer In Chief Obama do to earn that title and the deserving accolades that have been rushing in from marketers around the world? For starters, he won, which is critical for the political marketer. There is no second place in presidential politics. And, he did just about everything right to ensure that win. Let me enumerate some of the key ways Brand Obama demonstrated its marketing expertise:

• Building the Obama Brand – Every brand marketing student should study what Barack Obama and team did to create Brand Obama, and then nurture, promote and protect it. Unlike his two key competitors, Senators Hilary Clinton and John McCain, Obama early on established a well defined and differentiated narrative for his brand, one that was clearly based on what voters (the target consumers) were actually wanting and looking for (change!). And, he consistently stuck to that brand positioning, especially when things got rough and difficult, and even when supporters were losing heart.
• Creating a Sharp Corporate Identity – The Obama logo was a classic almost from day one. (As many have already observed, the expensive new Pepsi logo is very similar, except not as strong.) The Brand Obama identity system was modern, clean, friendly and different. It complemented Obama’s “change” positioning, instead of fighting it. The only screw up (and it was a doozy!) in an otherwise flawless corporate identity roll out was the creation of the faux presidential seal based on the Obama logo. It made it onto one podium and then thankfully was banished. Let’s just hope that misbegotten signage doesn’t make its way onto eBay some day!
• Obamamania Marketing– If you’ve succeeded in building a powerful brand, you better have a great marketing plan and program to get it out there. Here again Team Obama excelled. They understood their target audiences, and segmented them effectively with tailored but consistent messaging. They built a truly integrated strategy, letting the ideas drive selection of channel, media and tactics (not the other way around, like so many marketers wrongly do). And, they embraced new media, particularly web based social media to huge and now famous effect. Another Harvard Business Case in the making.
• Weilding True Discipline – The Obama campaign was nothing if not disciplined. In the marketing world, that is an under appreciated virtue. This unique level of marketing and messaging discipline served then Senator Obama in a nearly two-year campaign, during which he was challenged constantly and sometimes brutally (as they say, politics ain’t bean bag). Years ago I worked on the Reebok global marketing business. As a brand and company, Reebok had almost no marketing discipline. Their arch competitor, Nike, was all about steely discipline and consistency. The result: Nike continues to grow as the athletic shoe and apparel industry colossus, and Reebok sort of faded away into irrelevancy in the past decade.  
• Sharing the Passion — Great brands have emotion and passion. People care about them. Here, too, Brand Obama shone during the long campaign. People just cared a lot more about Obama and his message and promise — and the man himself – during the general election. The only brand that got close to that level of emotional involvement was the relationship between Hilary Clinton and her supporters toward the end of the primary season.

As a marketer, I tip my hat to the master, Barack Obama, the new Marketer In Chief (and his world class team). As a citizen, my respect, thanks and support go to President-elect Obama, because he restored hope to a nation (and a world) that was sorely in need of it.

But, there are some marketing practitioners who believe marketing can strive for something more. One in particular caught my imagination recently. I actually think he may be on to something. His name is James Stengel, and he is the former head of global marketing for P&G. Recently retired from P&G, Stengel seems to be striving for much more than playing golf and fishing. He is opening up a consultancy, writing a book (with the clever name of “Packaged Good”) and positioning himself as a guru around the idea of “purpose-based marketing.”

In a recent Wall Street Journal article on the subject, Stengel described purpose-based marketing as ”defining what a company does — beyond making money — and how it can make its customers’ lives better.”

While I appreciated the sentiment of Stengel’s idea, my first reaction to his concept was kind of knee-jerk negative. I tend to dismiss most of these former corporate big wigs who anoint themselves as industry gurus to sell expensive (usually over-priced) consulting time. I initially saw Stengel’s purpose-based marketing idea in that vein, until I really started to think about it. The WSJ article includes some examples cited by Stengel of companies that are already using the concept to great effect – both in terms of stronger brands and sales and also improving people’s lives.

The more I considered the concept, the more the closet idealist/progressive/do-gooder in me started to warm up to purpose-based marketing. I think Stengel’s idea goes well beyond “cause-related marketing,” which too often was/is used by marketers as a fairly shallow way of generating more business while trying to look like a good corporate citizen. (Doing well by doing good.) I think Stengel’s purpose-based marketing is much more than that. It aims to tap into basic human values that are too often absent from business and marketing.

By defining a business, brand and the accompanying marketing around a “higher purpose,” companies can achieve a level of “connection” and “relevance” that has been largely out of reach to marketers. Given the deep cynicism that people have today about business, financial institutions and of course government, connecting your brand and company to some greater purpose can’t be a bad thing.

In the Journal piece, Jack Trout (formerly of Trout & Ries, the self proclaimed “fathers” of positioning), expressed skepticism about Stengel’s purpose-based marketing concept. Noting that consumers are “going for the cheaper guy now,” Trout said Stengel’s approach is “not going to save your bacon in this tough world.”

Perhaps not, Mr. Trout. But, even Wal-Mart, which has never been accused of being altruistic or high minded in its commercial practices, has in recent years embraced the cause of environmental sustainability as a defining “purpose” for its business. They did not just jump onto the green band-wagon because Al Gore suggested it, but because it made sense business-wise and marketing-wise. Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott has made environmental sustainability a cornerstone “purpose” of his leadership of the company.

I think purpose-based marketing could have special power in the PR profession. Many people who practice PR today have forgotten that a core element of the original definition of PR had to do with contributing to the “common/greater good.” Yeah, I know, you have not heard much of that from PR types of late, but it still is an important part of what PR originally stood for. By that classic definition, PR should closely align to Stengel’s vision of a new kind of marketing and communications that transcends business metrics by being about real values that matter to and benefit people and the world around us. In other words, striving for some higher purpose than just competing and winning in business.

I welcome Jim Stengel’s newest contribution to the understanding and practice of marketing. After pushing Tide, Crest and Pampers all those years, good for him if he finds a meaningful new career in helping marketers actually reach for a higher purpose in their selling strategies and campaigns. Lord knows the world could use all the higher purpose that it can get these days.

First, I totally agree with Mr. Bloom. I started my career as a journalist and then quickly moved into PR and then marketing, so I know a bit about the critical relationship between the media and the public relations function. The primary reason for being for PR people is to work effectively with journalists and the media they represent. Sure, PR people do other things, but media relations is still the core of the PR practice.

Mr. Bloom makes the interesting point that PR people frequently persist in acting in a very adversarial fashion with journalists when they should realize that they truly need each other. He argues that PR people need to find ways to work much more harmoniously together with their journalist brethren. I couldn’t agree more. With each reporter who loses her/his job, and every time a magazine or newspaper goes belly up, PR practitioners lose vital distribution options for their companies’ or clients’ messages.

I know, I know, PR people will argue that the parallel growth in social media will make up for this growing loss in traditional media. However, that is not entirely true (more on that later). The reality is that PR agencies and professionals will have to fight hard to get and/or retain the business of social media relations, as there are many new and nimble competitors who were born in that digital world and frankly know it better than most traditional PR types.

So, what does all of this mean for PR people? With the accelerating decline in traditional media, and the equally rapid fragmentation of the sources which people use to access information, news, entertainment, etc., the PR profession is under assault like never before. The PR function is both declining (related to the slow death of traditional media) and being seriously challenged (with respect to emerging, social media).

I would thus suggest to the good folks at the Council of PR Firms that the most “dangerous thing” about the future of PR is that there may actually not be much of one.

Unless, that is, the PR industry moves quickly to re-engineer both its business and operating model. Incremental changes will not suffice. This has to be a change of the magnitude of Bill Gates’ famous Dot Com era call to action that Microsoft would now be totally focused on the web (of course, it did not totally work out that way for Microsoft, giving Google the strategic opening it needed to emerge and ultimately rule).

I have been thinking a lot about this subject, and have commented on it several times on this blog. While I still believe PR practitioners and agencies can and should play a big role in the emerging digital/social media environment, that role is by no means assured.

This was made abundantly clearly in the recently announced quarterly earnings of the Omnicom Group, the largest of the big diversified agency holding companies. Omnicom reported that their earnings were up a reasonable 6.9 percent for the group’s ad agencies (presumably including the company’s major holdings in interactive firms) and up a strong 12 percent for its CRM business. But, Omnicom’s usually strong stable of PR agencies (i.e., my old firm Ketchum, as well as Fleishman, Porter Novelli, Brodeur, Gavin Anderson, etc.) saw their collective earnings fall about 1 percent. That, to me, was a major shot across the bow for the PR industry.

Just as I noted in a recent post that large ad agencies would have difficulty transitioning to the new digital media environment because their business models were built during a very different time, PR agencies are facing the same challenge. Large and even mid-sized agencies grew rapidly during the past 50 years, closely paralleling the explosive growth in media. The stock in trade of these larger PR agencies was (and largely still is) major media tours, events and media relations programs for consumer brands and especially pharmaceutical products. These programs typically generate retainer revenues of $50K to $100K a month and more. This world of expensive satellite media tours, massive product roll out campaigns, press junkets (common in the travel, automotive and entertainment industries), and spokesperson tours has been a huge boon to PR agencies.

Oh the good old days! Today’s new reality is that those rich PR retainer programs are rapidly vanishing, just as ad agencies are grappling with a diminished market for their big budget TV and print campaigns. The problem with the hope/dream that social media will replace these lost revenues is that there is not a 1:1 corresponding relationship between what clients have spent on the traditional media activities and what they will now be investing in the emerging digital channels.

The true power of digital social media is that it can go viral all of a sudden, and it is driven by consumers, who create the content and have no time for editor gatekeepers. This social media channel is largely uncontrolled by media organizations, who heretofore have charged a lot of money to access the audiences they reached. The old marketing agency business models crumble quickly in the face of the fact that so many of the social media opportunities are essentially free, or certainly a lot less expensive compared to high priced TV and print space.

Bottom-line, social media campaigns cost a lot less than the big PR and ad industry campaigns. That is great for marketers, not so good for the big agencies who are seeing their traditional revenue drivers fall away literally by the day.

In addition, those PR and ad agencies are not just competing with their own ilk as they move into the digital media space. There are a myriad of social and digital media experts who truly know the space, and who don’t have the same crushing overheads that a Ketchum or BBDO have to contend with as they compete in a very different environment.

Again, given all of these tectonic shifts in the industry, I was not even a little bit surprised to see Omnicom’s recent lower PR numbers. BTW, those results were from business booked prior to the global financial and economic crisis that is now gripping the world. I would expect that the next quarter will be even worse for Omnicom and the other major holding groups.

I wish I could be more optimistic for the agency executives attending the Council of PR Firms’ recent meeting. I do think that PR agencies and practitioners continue to play an important role, and that they are well positioned to pick up more of the social media work. But, the media and business worlds have changed too much for the larger PR and ad agencies to assume that they will just continue to grow as they always have done. If they have not already done so, they will also come to the realization that social media will not be the panacea they might hope it would be. To be sure, it presents opportunities for PR firms (and ad agencies), but the game is very different, and the corresponding revenue opportunities not nearly as robust (at least so far).

That is indeed dangerous territory for PR firms, especially the large agencies. But, the bold innovators who are willing to blow up the old business models and assumptions have a great opportunity to lead and thrive in this exciting new age of digital and social media.

First, let me admit that the very first item on my company’s corporate values statement is what we call “Clients First” (our version of customer focused). After all, everything we do as an integrated digital marketing firm is intended to help our clients achieve greater marketing results and success. We are in business for, and because of, our valued clients.

But, to live up to that core value of putting Clients First, I realize that my primary focus actually needs to be on my people, and how are they building and consistently delivering upon our THUNDER FACTORY brand promise. If we can get that internal brand promise and process right, then delivering for our clients is pretty well assured.

This “branding from the inside out” approach (our shorthand is Internal Branding) is in many ways the greatest untapped marketing opportunity for companies and their brands. In this and future posts, I plan to closely examine this Internal Branding opportunity, and explore how it is being effectively used (and not) by marketers and their organizations. Most importantly, we will outline how you can employ this approach to strengthen your brand and drive your marketing results.

There are multiple reasons why Internal Branding is so untapped by companies and organizations of all types. First, organizations tend to be outward directed, mainly because that is what they were designed to do. A company tries to sell more product, more profitably. To accomplish these goals they need customers. Consequently, the primary emphasis is on identifying, engaging and satisfying those customers, the lifeblood of the company. Non profit organizations are not terribly different in this regard. Their mission typically is to provide services and support for members, stakeholders and other constituents. Again, the focus tends to be externally focused.

Another reason why Internal Branding has traditionally been a stepchild in the marketing world is that it does not fall neatly into one area of the corporate structure. Actually, Internal Branding bridges a number of corporate departments, including marketing, HR, training, corporate communications/PR, customer service and operations. The fact that Internal Branding touches on all of these myriad corporate areas ensures that, as a function, it frequently lacks an essential internal champion (should it be the COO, CMO or head of HR?). This can lead to in-action.

Internal Branding is indeed a multi-departmental and multi-disciplinary function. That makes it even more important for the success of your company, organization and brand.

As readers of this blog know, my favorite definition of a brand is “a promise made and a promise kept…consistently over time.” If you are in the business of building, nurturing and growing a brand (or brands), wouldn’t you want to make sure that even before you reached out to any other audiences, you made sure that you were keeping your “promises” first and foremost to your employees? After all, they are customers and clients, too; with consumer products, they are probably major users and customers of your brand. As such, shouldn’t they be totally loyal to your brand, while also being true advocates and even evangelists for it?

That employee brand evangelism is the Holy Grail of marketing (and business overall), but how often does it really occur? How many times in your interactions with representatives of other companies — either as a consumer, partner, customer or client — do you feel like they truly understand their brand and are passionate about it?

Think about it? If they don’t deeply care about and believe in…and love…their brand, why should you?

There are some great examples of companies and organizations that have embraced Internal Branding with great success. They may or may not realize that what they are doing is Internal Branding, but that is what it amount to. In future posts, we will examine leading internally-focused branding organizations such as Zappos.com (the fast growing online seller of shoes), Southwest Airlines and the Marine Corps. All three of these entities have built category leading brands by treating their people as critically important audiences and stakeholders, and holding them accountable for delivering on the organization’s brand promise.

We’ll also delve into what we believe are the core principles of Internal Branding. I will briefly mention them here, and then provide much more detail on these Internal Branding imperatives in a future post:

• Co-Creation — Just as effective external marketing is no longer about just “telling and selling,” Internal Branding needs to be a collaborative effort between management and employees, and amongst employees themselves. From the beginning, you should not be thinking about creating your brand and then educating your employees on it. It is much more effective to ”co-create” your brand in concert and close collaboration with your employees. Senator Obama’s remarkable campaign has demonstrated the incredible power of leading and creating from the bottom up rather than directing by the top down. That is great Internal Branding at work.
• Empowerment– Yes, this is a bit of over-used corporate jargon, but it is central to an effective Internal Branding effort. You need to “empower” your people with the tools, information and support to live your brand and represent it consistently in the way you want it to be perceived. No empowerment leads to zero employee brand advocacy.
• Education – This is fundamental to effective Internal Branding, but it is much easier said than done. How many times in your career have you experienced a corporate education effort that really inspired you and/or had a tangible, lasting effect? But, without effective, focused and inspiring education, Internal Branding will not amount to much. It probably goes without saying that the education I am referring to is not just monthly employee town hall meetings, brown baggers with the CEO, email campaigns, corporate intranets or employee orientation sessions.
• Accountability– Internal Branding requires giving employees much greater responsibility for creating and delivering the brand experience. In doing so, we also need to hold employees and management accountable to the goals of the Internal Branding program. As part of this, the Internal Branding objectives and key metrics need to be built into the performance goals of both employees and management.
• Shared Incentives — As we enlist our employees as vital players in an Internal Branding initiative, while also holding them accountable for their performance and results, we need to make sure we are providing incentives that are appropriate for, and commensurate with, this effort. Of course, incentives are a cornerstone of organizational management, cohesion and success, but they become especially important when we are truly making employees front line participants/principals in the branding process. By the way, incentives are not just compensation based. Of course, that is certainly a part of it (and should be).
• Measurement– Another one of the roadblocks to greater adoption of Internal Branding programs is the perceived lack of measurability. And, I am not just referring to employee performance reviews. Actually, measurement is just as important to the successful Internal Branding program as it is to an external marketing campaign.

I believe there is significant potential for you and your ogranzation/company to improve performance, strengthen and improve your corporate culture and increase results through Internal Branding. This really is an untapped and under-leveraged process that bridges multiple organizational functions. In future posts, we will share with you specific strategies and steps to take advantage of this powerful form of marketing (or is it really marketing?).

Internal Branding works. You should consider putting it to work for you.