In a post earlier this week, I started to address why some companies don’t operationalize their brands.  I suggested that there are 3 kinds of business leaders who fail to leverage the full potential of their brands.

The first are Naives:  “Naives simply do not understand the full potential of their brand.  That the brand is the core of the company is a foreign concept to these business leaders.  They don’t know what they don’t know.”

Then there are Aspirers:  “These people are knowledgeable about brands and definitely interested in leveraging them more broadly and substantially, but they don’t know how or they’ve run into roadblocks in their efforts to do so.”

Today we come to Emperors.

The last group of business leaders is comprised of people who think they are leveraging the full role and value of brands, but they really aren’t. Just as the emperor in the popular children’s tale foolishly wore clothes made of “invisible” cloth, these “Emperors” fool themselves and others into thinking that creative ads and clever marketing programs are enough to build a brand.  They spend a lot of money and energy on promoting their brand externally, but they don’t consider or they even ignore the internal, operational changes needed to actually deliver their brands’ value.

Unlike Naives whose omission of a brand-driven management approach may be attributed to their lack of knowledge, Emperors’ resistance is the product of skepticism.  They choose imperial nakedness out of distrust and cynicism about brands.

They think of operations and brand as two separate things.  In Emperors’ minds, the operations of the company fulfill the purpose and objectives of the business – i.e., making a product, offering a service, etc. – while the brand is the icing on the cake.  But when you operationalize the brand, there is no such distinction.

Emperors are often entrepreneurs who thrive on launching new ideas but who are less skilled at driving an operational system in a focused, integrated, consistent manner.  In an effort to propel their new business, these entrepreneurial Emperors often develop creative ideas on a one-off basis and disregard the disconnect between their aspirational vision of the brand and the stark reality of a fledgling operation.

Leaders of image-oriented businesses such as fashion and automotive also tend to be Emperors.  Because their customers’ purchase decisions seem to be based primarily on style and status, their focus tends to be on what the company says (the image it projects in advertising and marketing) vs. what it really does (the value it delivers in daily operations.)

And some retailers and restaurant leaders are Emperors because they are so preoccupied with pricing and promotions that they overlook many of the opportunities to build their brand through the in-store customer experience.

Really Emperors can be found in all sectors of business.  Most company leaders don’t operationalize their brands because they are skeptical of the brand’s role as a business driver.  They wrongly resist putting stock in something they consider to be too conceptual or qualitative to pass muster in an analytical or performance culture.

An intervention may be the only way to challenge an Emperor.  Only when forced to be thoughtful and honest about the way they currently view and use their brand will they discover the gap between delusion and reality.

—-

If you’re on the client side of the business, I’m curious to hear whether you see yourself in any of these 3 descriptions – Naives, Aspirers, or Emperors — or perhaps you’re someone who “gets it?!”  If you’re on the service provider side of the business, what kind of leaders do you most commonly encounter?  Please let me know!

My intent in outlining these categorizations is not to judge or criticize people – in fact, it’s the opposite.  I hope this might be a helpful step on everyone’s brand-building journey.  If we clearly understand the challenges before us, there’s a greater likelihood of surmounting them.

related posts:

• why not operationalize brands? part 1
• what’s a brand for?
• express vs. operationalize

Over coffee the other day a colleague asked me a question I actually get asked a lot:  Do you find that people “get it?”  By “it” he was referring to operationalizing the brand, the approach I teach and help my clients implement.  He asked because he’s found, as have I, that although many company leaders claim to understand the difference between expressing and operationalizing a brand, the fact is, most don’t put their brand in the driver’s seat of their organization.

Our talk prompted me to think about why this is the case.  Most business leaders are eager to leverage the full potential of their brands, but they’re not following through. 

I concluded that most are held back by holes in their experience, roadblocks in their organizations, or their own blinders.  I would say business leaders fall into one of three categories when it comes to the subject of operationalizing their brands.  (In today’s post, I’ll outline the first two, and later this week, I’ll conclude with the third.)

Naives.  Some business leaders can be described as “Naive” — those who think of brands only in literal terms.  To Naives, a brand is simply a logo or perhaps at most an advertising campaign.

The buzz that brands have received in recent years has piqued the interest of Naives but they’ve been misled by misinformation from so-called experts.  Many agencies, consultants, and even authors talk about “branding” in terms of slapping the company logo on everything, or using a particular color or tagline consistently, or working the social media circuit.  As a result, after researching how to build their brand, Naives usually end up with a long list of things they think they should be doing, but they remain unconvinced that any of them are going to have an impact on their bottom line.

Not surprisingly, executives with technical or financial backgrounds usually fall into this group.  In these leaders’ experience, brand development has usually been something relegated to the marketing department — so their exposure to what a brand really is and how to use it properly has been limited.

Salespeople are also often Naives, because of their relentless focus on the sale.  Brands may serve as fodder for a great sales presentation, many salespeople believe, but they’re unsure of their value beyond that.  And leaders of B2B and technology companies may not recognize how a strong brand can impact their relationship- or innovation-based business models.

Naives simply do not understand the full potential of their brand. That the brand is the core of the company is a foreign concept to these business leaders.  They don’t know what they don’t know.

In order for Naives to operationalize their brands, they need to learn to think about brands differently.  An open mind and a willingness to test a new approach are the required first steps for these folks.

Aspirers. Another category of business leaders are “Aspirers.”  These people are knowledgeable about brands and definitely interested in leveraging them more broadly and substantially, but they don’t know how or they’ve run into roadblocks in their efforts to do so.

A typical Aspirer is a former Chief Marketing Officer who has taken on line operating responsibilities – a common occurrence at packaged goods companies.  Having worked with brands throughout their careers, these Aspirers see the potential brands have for creating value throughout the organization but they lack the internal traction to implement the brand-driven approach.

Other Aspirers may have previously worked at or heard about other companies which have opertionalized their brands and are interested in engaging a similar one in their organization.

For Aspirers the key needs are instruction and equipping.  They need to learn the specific tools and methodologies and examples which make a solid business case for operationalizing the brand.  They need help in conveying the importance of the brand to every stakeholder of their organization and persuading them to adopt the brand as the driver of the business.

I hope this has provided some good food for thought so far.  Please check back on Thursday for my description of the final group of business leaders who aren’t operationalizing their brands.

related posts:

• brands vs. branding
• gaining the competitive edge
• missing the brand boat

Those of you who are Star Trek fans would have felt right at home with me the other day.   I went to check out the new Microsoft store which just opened at Fashion Valley mall here in San Diego because I wanted to do a compare/contrast to the Apple store in the same mall.   My fellow fans would have felt at home in the Microsoft store not because it was a cool look at the future of culture and technology, but rather because it seemed to be the Mirror Universe.

For those of you who don’t get the TV show reference, the Mirror Universe is a parallel universe in Star Trek episodes – it’s the “what could have been” if the “what actually happened” hadn’t.  In the Mirror Universe, most of the same characters are there but they’re slightly different, whether in looks or personality.  The settings look familiar enough to cause some confusion at times, but the story lines are different enough as there’s usually more violent conflict than in the “normal” Star Trek universe.  Things are just a little off.

And that’s exactly what it felt like to be in the Microsoft store.  It was if I was in the Apple store –  but not really.  From the use of the Windows logo above the store entrance (no “Microsoft” logotype), to the big open space, to the young employees in colorful t-shirts, to the cool products displayed on tabletops, to the Answer Desk… — everything seemed oddly familiar.  I felt as if I was having a déjà vu, but then I realized that it wasn’t there at the Microsoft store that I had been before – I had been at the Apple store before.

microsoft store exterior

apple store exterior

I rushed over to the Apple store to make sure I wasn’t imagining things – and I did indeed find a similar store layout, similar display and visual tactics, similar employees in similar garb.  But there was one big difference – the Apple store was packed. Now that’s not to say the Microsoft store was empty – on the contrary, there were a lot of people and they seemed to be having fun browsing around and tinkering with the products.  In fact, I was pleasantly surprised by the feeling I got there (remember, it felt like the Apple store to me!)

But in comparison, the Apple store was on fire.  I would guess there were 3 times the number of people in that store – and there was an energy, perhaps spurred by the noise volume generated from everyone talking, that made it feel like an exciting place to be.

microsoft store interior

apple store interior

I walked away from my field trip confused and disappointed.  You see, I am a Microsoft customer and someone who actually likes Power Point!  Although I admire the Apple brand for many reasons, I really want Microsoft to be successful.  It has some great products and its brand could be so much better than it is. 

The Microsoft store could have been special – but it wasn’t.  It was simply an imitation of Apple.

Microsoft missed an opportunity to do something different, to interact with customers in ways only Microsoft can, to present a unique vision of its brand:

• Instead of putting all of its videogame products and displays in the back, why not put one of the company’s greatest strengths, XBOX, front and center?! It could have created a lot of excitement by creating an interactive gaming experience complete with real-time challenges between customers who other customers could cheer on and vote for, different pods to demonstrate the breadth of games available, special sound and lighting to add dramatic effect, etc.
• Furthermore the company’s KINECT launch on 11.04.10 is just around the corner, so why not promote it by giving a sneak preview?!  The highly-anticipated breakthrough XBOX platform will include 15 new titles and interfaces unlike anything we’ve ever seen, including voice control and Mission-Impossible-style hand gesturing. The store should be a place where the company builds anticipation for the pending launch – and perhaps select customers might be given exclusive access to experience a taste of the interface.
• Knowing that many of its customers are businesspeople, why not show complete home office set-ups equipped with multiple productivity tools already connected and synched?!  Or promote its enterprise solutions by using displays to tell compelling success stories?
• To show off its software, why not have ongoing demonstrations like the ones you see at shows and conventions?! The store was clearly pushing the new Office 10 product – watching someone in a booth with a mic and an enlarged screen walking through the new software’s features and capabilities would have made me consider purchasing it more than boxes of software piled high did.
• Why not show off Bing, Microsoft’s search engine, with a special interactive and/or live display which compares Bing results vs. Google ones?

The list of possibilities goes on.

The point is that Microsoft could have done some really special things with its store – things to leverage the unique capabilities of retail combined with the company’s unique offerings.  It could have boldly gone where no one has gone before – but instead, it chose to do the equivalent of Star Trek: Voyager.

Voyager was the last and least remarkable of television series based on the original Star Trek.  Although mildly entertaining, the show lacked imagination and failed to advance the overall Star Trek storyline in any meaningful way. And so it won’t be remembered or regarded nearly as well as its predecessor — just like the Microsoft store.

related posts:

• seinfeld isn’t going to rescue vista
• microsoft’s ad misses the mark again

Forrester’s Customer Experience Forum 2010:  Creating Breakthrough Customer Experiences featured a fantastic line-up of speakers — including company leaders from client organizations as diverse as H&R Block, FedEx, and Sprint, as well as thought leaders from Forrester and other service providers.

From all of the presentations, it was clear that “creating breakthrough customer  experiences” (defined on Wikipedia as “the sum of all experiences a customer has with a supplier of goods or services, over the duration of their relationship with that supplier“) requires systematic, cultural, and organizational changes within a company.

Here are some of the best bits from the presentations (including a brief video of John Costello, Chief Global Customer & Marketing Officer, at Dunkin’ Brands talking about the efforts at his company):

other content recently posted elsewhere:

• my take on Forever 21′s new store in Times Square (video)
• dueling ads: iPhone vs. Verizon (a blogpost on imediaconnection)
• notes and quotes from the Red Herring North America 2010 conference
• Bigger Isn’t Always Better (article from QSR Magazine)

Now that summer is officially here, I wanted to take a look back at the past 6 months and see what kinds of conversations had been sparked by brand as business bites. The following are the top posts from each month in terms of number of re-tweets, comments, or emails they generated – I’ve also included some of the commentary.  I’d definitely like to hear more, so please take a look and then add your voice to the conversation by clicking on the “comments” link below.

January

Brand impact in 2010 – I started off the year with a post of three key areas that I predicted brands would have an immediate and significant impact – M&As, social media and networking, and workforce engagement.  Apparently this last point resonated with quite a few folks – including:

Jacco DeBruin:  Great points and couldn’t agree more. Especially the “workforce engagement” is often undervalued but essential since it is all about delivering and exceeding (high) expectations in this transparent era. Happy new year!

Ray Hartjen:  Interesting thought on workforce engagement, and really important for companies and employees to fully understand and embrace. After all, the brand is really nothing more than a reflection of the people of an organization, both past and present. Good post, DLY.

February

The post, in csr, nike just does it, praised Nike for its Corporate Responsibility Report FY07-09.  My read of the extensive report led me to believe Nike is giving CSR more than lip service.

Mark Anderson agreed:  As a prior VP/GM of NIKE Swim and NIKE Inneractives (intimates – Brandy Chastaine – world cup), I can tell you that NIKE practices what they preach and they were on the sustainability bandwagon way before it was the popular thing to do!  They did it a long time ago because it was the right thing to do – not because it would make them look like a participant to their consumers.  NIKE doesn’t just promote sustainability issues – they invest in it – considering it their responsibility and they employees are inspired by the commitment that they witness day in and day out.

Jonathan Salem Baskin didn’t:… I still don’t buy it (it’s still marketing hype). The reality of its business model is 1. Producing products in Third World factories is cheaper than doing so in factories closer to the markets it serves…If Nike cared about doing the right thing it would make gym shoes in Maine (or something), but that would never happen. 2. Shipping products around the world, which is probably one of the most environmentally wasteful/damaging activities any company can do… 3. No number of partnerships with special interest or single-issue pressure groups erases the simple fact that doing the right thing is about business practice, not how Nike chooses to narrate it….

And Tom Asacker left the cryptic comment:  Reality is the name we give to our disappointments.

March

Having completed an extensive retail audit for one of my clients, I wrote a post to share my thoughts on six best practices in retail.   I wrote about great retailers like Wegmans and The Container Store which have distinctive brand personalities, offer 2.0 cross-channel shopping experiences, and reflect strong organizational culture and values.  It got bounced around the Twittersphere a bit, thanks in part to John Moore.

It prompted Marc Rullo to ask:  While the retailer, any retailer is a brand destination unto itself, how does the assorted brands within that retailer (brand destination) fair?…Once upon a time a retailer was defined by the brands they assorted and the expertise they provided to support those brands to the end user.  Then the value of retailers brand (differentiation) and their house brand became much more paramount based on volume and obvious margin opportunities compared to historically established recognized brands with less direct margin opportunities.   These are elements of the bundle of attributes as well…..

Janet Morgenstern Passani commented:  Enjoyed your retailer post. IKEA’s out-of-box campaigns inspire consumers to be bold w/ their purchases. http://bit.ly/9Klpi1

April

Marketing myopia was a post I wrote after reading an op-ed written by Larry Light, marketing guru and former McDonald’s CMO.  Larry had argued that marketing “needs to assert its rightful role making it the central force of brand-business management.” I questioned if the issue is whether marketers should try to increase the marketing function in the organization — or whether they should try to increase the marketing capability of the entire organization.

Craig Hoffman wrote a couple of thoughtful responses – excerpts:  I’m a firm believer in making the marketing pervasive in an organization!  It only helps spread the message and reinforce the benefits of buying a product if everyone who comes in contact with the company gets a similar feeling… its up to management to keep the focus in the right place.  I think management has a role to create a belief for all employees about their company that makes them want to “sell” their company from all angles…I think companies who get this right will be more successful at generating and sustaining revenues with stronger margins, allowing for greater possible profits to retain!  Companies that “live their brand” come to mind – Google, Apple, Gore, Lululemon all come to mind as examples.

Ric Brockmeier added:  Well thought argument Denise. It’s critical for companies 2 see that they must be marketing driven not just have a mkt dept

Pierre Loic-Assayag offered a different perspective:  Marketers see the future of their contribution being jeopardized, squeezed between Executive Management slashing budgets and customers much more vocal and opinionated about “owning” the brands they care about.  As a recovering marketer, my sense is that the marketing function probably has a very bright future but it needs to be fundamentally redefined. Successful marketers won’t be defining the brand they represent but rather make themselves an indispensable resource to fans and brand advocates who will be the ones shaping the brand and probably products/services.  Twitter, Harley Davidson, Trader Joe’s are some very interesting examples of fans taking over brands and very skillful marketers trading control for greater brand equity.  Food for thought…

May

In May, Rich Thomaselli from Advertising Age called me for some comments for an article he was writing, “If Consumer Is Your Agency, It’s Time for a Review.” The piece turned out to be a great analysis of how the use of John Q. Public to develop ads has “jumped the shark” (as Rich refers to it).   It sparked a lot of commentary on AdAge’s site:

Richard Todd Aguayo wrote:  Give a million people a shot at making a hole in one, you’ll surely have a winner. That doesn’t mean you bet on that winner to win the Masters.  Professionals are called such for a reason.

Carl Hartman agreed:  Crowd sourcing is the same as Craig’s List or any of the sites that cater to freelancers. It is bottom feeders looking for a great deal, without regard to the quality of the message. Crowd sourcing is like using a shot gun to shoot down a jet flying at 30,000 feet. – Rarely, you’ll hit something. Usually a bird or one of Dick Cheney’s friends – but it won’t be the real target.  Everyone wants it cheap. The cheapest way is always the most expensive. — It is not about cost, it is about value.

Brian McMath dissented:  …Will UGC ever reach the ultra-polished, slick-as-hairgrease production quality that today’s average 30-second TV spot exhibits? Of course not. But why should it? That’s not what it’s for. Contrary to what the author thinks, these people are not out to replace you. UGC is just one more way to get people to engage with a brand, to open up that all-important dialogue with the consumer…

I wrote the consumers as creatives post to explain some of my thoughts further and to pass along the comments which ended up on the editing room floor.

June

Reposition? just do it was a post contrasting two big and juicy brand repositioning projects I’m working on.  I predicted one is going to be successful and the other, not, or at least less so, and explained why.  Essentially it comes down to whether or not the company leadership will decide that taking on such the risk of a significant repositioning is the right thing to do, and if they’re going to do it, to decide to “do it anyway” and to “do it well.”

Mark Gallagher commented:  As always, you make a great point. Fear of change is often the single biggest obstacle preventing companies from reaching their goals. However, what impresses me most about your post is your honesty. Not many consultants would preemptively state that their client was likely to fail. Usually that sort of talk is reserved as an excuse for why the new direction didn’t work, AKA “the client failed to properly implement the strategy.”  Your honesty is as refreshing as your insights.

Thanks for making it a great first half of 2010!

I’m working on two big and juicy brand repositioning projects.  While both involve quite significant departures from the companies’ current strategies and it’s still pretty early on in the projects, it’s likely one is going to be successful and the other, not, or at least less so. I thought the reason for the difference between the two would make for a good post.

Essentially both companies are suffering from poor sales performance and little reason to expect recoveries without making big changes.  For each brand we’ve identified new spaces in the competitive landscape which hold the potential to not only stabilize the businesses but also to unleash new growth.

But both companies have long heritages and have experienced successes in the past, so they suffer from organizational cultures which are somewhat resistant to change.  And both enjoy broad awareness and loyalty among core groups of customers who like the brands the way they are.

So, both are looking at taking on significant risks by repositioning – quite literally betting their businesses that it’s a smart move.

The difference is that one company is going to move forward and the other is only going to sort-of change.  That is, one company is assessing the risks and requirements of the repositioning and is choosing to do it, while the other is getting cold feet and will probably end up trying to straddle between its old and new positions, leaving itself in a kind of no-man’s brand-land.

On many levels, I understand the latter’s ambivalence.  Making such a dramatic change usually means being willing to lose a significant amount of business in the short-term with the expectation that you may potentially reap greater returns in the long run – a stance which investors and Boards tend not to reward.  It also requires considerable investment at a time when cutting costs and managing cash flows are the priority.

But when you recognize that doing the same thing quarter after quarter and expecting a different result is indeed the definition of insanity, not only does a new brand strategy make sense, it becomes imperative.  Plus the business may not be deteriorating so dramatically that it’s considered a burning platform which must be abandoned immediately, but the ultimate destiny of a slow steady decline is nonetheless the same.

So at some point, the company leadership must decide that taking on such a risk is the right thing to do and so they’re going to do it.  At that point they are in fact deciding to “do it anyway” and to “do it well.”

do it anyway

It’s likely that a decision to reposition will contradict learning from consumer research. That’s because getting consumer input on a brand repositioning is tricky – particularly if the brand is well-known and brand perceptions are generally neutral to positive.

If you use traditional concept testing methods, consumers are likely to reject the new brand.  It’s human nature to resist change – and people are hardwired to dislike something if it causes cognitive dissonance (the mental state that can result when new knowledge conflicts with existing knowledge.)

Repositioning is all about changing people’s minds. Changing the minds of current customers who know they brand and accept its current state is difficult.  The most frequent, loyal customers are the most resistant to change – but if they’re not generating enough sales and profits to keep the business growing, they probably shouldn’t be the priority. Changing the minds of folks who have rejected the brand usually depends on the execution of the concept (see my next point below – “do it well.”)

So, asking consumers about the appropriateness of a brand change is generally not helpful.  Instead of assessing brand fit of the new concept, evaluate its unbranded appeal – and then explore how the company might make the concept believable for its brand.

Armed with these insights, the company can determine whether or not the appeal of the concept is strong enough and whether or not they are willing and able to do what it takes to make the concept believable.  If the answers are yes, then they can move forward understanding the consumer risks, but “doing it anyway.”

do it well

Equally if not more important than the decision to proceed with the repositioning is the commitment to executing it fully.  That means, not simply changing the logo, image, and messaging, but driving the new brand strategy through everything the company does.   It must be willing to re-think everything and align its entire operations with the new direction.

It also means not doing it half-assed.  The company needs to decide — either execute the heck out of its current positioning and adjust its growth expectations accordingly OR reject it in favor of a new direction and pursue that with abandon.

I realize this sounds unrealistic and perhaps naïve – designating priorities and hedging bets are the stuff of business after all.  But in the case of brand strategy, trying to embody two positionings almost always results in a weaker competitive position.  And it’s usually a more expensive and more complex undertaking.  At a time when the company is already struggling, it just doesn’t make sense to pick a middle ground.

Certainly the repositioning must be tested – whether in prototypes or virtual reality or in live markets in a limited geography or designated segment or channel – and refined over time.  But once the new direction is set, the company needs to either pursue it or cut bait.

By neither embracing its core, limited niche nor shifting to a new, more broadly appealing identity, I fear my client will try to be all things to all people and end up being nothing to no one.   The company is likely to remain directionless and continue to struggle.

Believe me, I’m trying to prevent this from happening – I want them to succeed as much as they do – and I haven’t given up hope yet.  But at the very least, I thought I’d share this tale of two repositionings in the hopes we can all learn something from this.

related post:  a tale of two re-brands

A couple of months ago I gave a workshop on my topic “Brand as Business:  How Companies Drive Business Growth by Operationalizing Their Brands.”  Feedback was so positive I thought I’d get a brief video of excerpts made to share with my readers here.    Please check it out and let me know what you think (run time:  approx. 8 minutes).

denise lee yohn brand as business workshop from Denise Yohn on Vimeo.

Earlier this week I posted some key takeaways from the keynote speakers and panelists at the Southern California Business Growth Conference.  As a panelist on the marketing track, one of the things I said during the “Brand Implementation & Impact: Bring your Brand to Market” session seemed to spark some interest of its own – and so I thought I’d say more about it here.

I referred to political platforms when I explained why I call a brand strategy a “strategic brand platform.”  Just as a political candidate or group has a platform which outlines what they’re advocating, I explained, a brand should have a platform to delineate what it represents.

Specifically I see three similarities between brand platforms and political ones:

1.    a platform outlines what the brand – or candidate – stands for

For example Meg Whitman, who is running for Governor of my fair state, has outlined 3 goals she has for California.  On the platform page of her website she says:

“I am running to reinvigorate California’s economic potential and help employers create two millions jobs by the beginning of 2015. I am running to rid our state government of waste, duplication and inefficiency so we can get control of runaway spending and create long-term fiscal stability.  I am running to fix our failing schools so we can give our children the opportunity to advance up the economic ladder and achieve their fullest potential.”

From these brief statements, we get a clear understanding of what Meg stands for.

In the same way, a brand platform should clearly outline the values and attributes of the brand. A tagline, mantra, or even brand essence serves as a useful tool to summarize and/or communicate the brand strategy, but it’s not the same thing as a rich and thorough brand identity which fleshes out all that the brand stands for.

2.    a platform gives buyers – or voters – reasons why they should choose the brand/candidate

The storied Contract with America which the Republican party created during the 1994 congressional election campaign is another example of a political platform.  In it, the Republicans promised a list of actions to bring on the first day of their majority to floor debate and votes, including
* cutting the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third
* limiting the terms of all U.S. Congressmen and U.S. Senators
* banning the casting of proxy votes in committee
* requiring committee meetings to be open to the public

By outlining these specific plans, the group made a clear case to those who were seeking governmental reform – if you elect our people, you will get these results.

Similarly brands need to outline what customers will get when they buy them. A strategic brand platform should include a brand positioning which states the unique benefit or value the brand delivers to customers.  It shouldn’t necessarily be about specific offerings or value propositions – rather, the platform should articulate the broader, higher level brand value.

3.    a platform explains how the brand – or candidate – differs from others

In the 2008 Presidential campaign, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton sought to differentiate themselves from one another by adopting distinct platforms.

Each used postures (the establishment vs. the challenger and the tested vs. the inexperienced) to denigrate the other. But more importantly, the candidates’ positions on policy and major issues also were points of differentiation.

For example Clinton’s American Health Choices Plan provided a mandatory path to universal health care for all, ensured coverage is not denied because of preexisting conditions, and gave small businesses a tax credit for health care coverage.  Obama’s platform outlined universal health care (although not mandatorily), a reduction in family premiums, and the establishment of a National Health Insurance Exchange to oversee plan fairness and standards and increase competition amongst insurers.

On the campaign trail, these differing plans and the philosophies behind them were hotly debated between the two candidates.

As noted above, the unique value or benefit delivered to customers is an integral element of a strategic brand platform – here the emphasis is on the word unique.  Oftentimes a brand platform might also include a list of key differentiators. The point is to articulate what makes the brand different and better from the other choices the buyer has.

The similarities between brand platforms and political platforms are reinforced by some of the definitions of the word “platform” listed on Dictionary.com including:

- a public statement of the principles, objectives, and policy of a political party, esp. as put forth by the representatives of the party in a convention to nominate candidates for an election
- a body of principles on which a person or group takes a stand in appealing to the public; program
- a set of principles; plan.

I hope this examination has been helpful. I also hope it has led you to an important conclusion about campaigns — political ones and brand ones.  That is, a campaign is only the promotion of a platform – it’s not the platform itself. So when a company is looking to develop or optimize its brand, it should start with the platform first – it should ensure the strategic foundation is right before seeking a creative way to communicate and promote it.

Furthermore, the integrity of the campaign really becomes apparent only after the purchase (or election!)  Hopefully brands have a better track record than most politicians when it comes to doing what they say they will do.

For more of my thoughts on the elements of a strong brand platform, see this post.

Oh and of course I must point out that all of the above examples are used for the purposes of explaining my point, so please don’t try to surmise my political leanings from them.

other posts inspired by politics:

• the brand mavericks
• brands are more than symbols and words

I usually try to keep my critiques to categories I’ve worked in, primarily because I think it’s irresponsible for me to comment on what works and what doesn’t when I have little basis for my assessment other than being a consumer.  So I initially demurred when some folks have asked for my POV on AT&T’s new campaign, Rethink Possible.

But then I started wondering whether my expertise in other categories might actually shed some light on the issue — that’s when I realized that there are some instructive parallels between AT&T and fast food chains.  And while AT&T has adopted some of what drives fast feeders’ success, there are a couple of important lessons it might want to learn.

Before I get into those takeaways, though, I do feel the need to address two of the more inane criticisms I’ve heard about AT&T’s new effort:

To those protesting the incorrect grammar of the tagline, Rethink Possible, I say, “get over it.”  It’s important to note that I consider myself somewhat of a verbifore, or at least a lover of language (R.I.P. William Safire), so I don’t take grammatical errors lightly.  But I do understand and value the use of creative license, and I see this tagline as just that – a creatively-worded phrase that is meant to evoke and provoke by the use of seemingly grammatical incorrectness.

The folks who take issue with such license are probably the same ones who would criticize the highly successful lines of Apple’s “Think Different” and the California Milk Processor Board’s “Got Milk?” campaigns, so I’m not giving them a lot of credence.

Also people have been critical of reports that AT&T is pursuing this tact in the hopes of becoming a “lifestyle brand.” To some, it seems ludicrous for a telecom company to have such lofty aspirations.  Others reject the idea of any brand promoting a lifestyle.

But the reality is, becoming a lifestyle brand is a common brand development goal – brand managers in automotive, nutritional supplements, apparel, consumer electronics, and fast food — practically every brand I’ve ever worked on – have wanted to be known less for the products they sell than for the lifestyle their products facilitate.  I’m not saying this is right but let’s not be too hard on the folks at AT&T.

telecom and fast food – who knew?!

The telecom and fast food categories are actually quite similar in some respects.  The major brands are targeted to the mass market.  Commoditization is prevalent, as are price wars.  Competitive advertising is the norm.  And purchase/usage is driven as much – if not more — by availability (that is, coverage and hardware in telecom land, penetration and prime locations in fast food land) as it is by any sense of brand loyalty.

With these parallels as a backdrop, it’s clear that brands in both categories need to rise above the fray.  McDonald’s sponsorship of the Olympics earlier this year gave it an important reprieve from the tit-for-tat price wars which have been littering the fast food promotional landscape.  Many QSRs are trying to go head to head with Subway’s $5 foot-long offering; others are pushing unbelievably low prices.  But McDonald’s was able to increase its brand appeal with its inspiring and emotionally resonant campaign for the winter competition.

AT&T is making a similar move, abandoning its back-and-forth map and app wars with Verizon and communicating the bigger ideas behind the brand.  They’re getting away from that petty competition and trying to remind people of other factors in the value equation.

AT&T is also smart to consolidate its efforts and promote one brand/one message to all stakeholders.  In telecom and fast food both — where billions of ad dollars are spent each year and priorities among different groups often conflict — the norm is to operate in silos and this leads to message fragmentation.

But AT&T’s Senior VP-Brand Marketing and Advertising Esther Lee is quoted as explaining, “It’s not going to be the old model that there’s brand work, and then there’s consumer work or enterprise work; it’s all ‘Rethink Possible.’”  The singular message route worked well for McDonald’s ever since it launched “I’m lovin’ it.”  The theme and what it stands for has unified diverse product efforts and served as a rallying cry for all of the company’s stakeholders.

lessons yet to be learned

Despite these smart approaches, there are a couple of things AT&T could learn from fast food companies. The first is:  you’ve got to deliver on the basics before you can you credibly promote innovation or image.

New products have become the life blood for many fast food chains, but slow speed of service, unclean facilities, and rude servers quickly take the wind out of the sails of these innovations.  McDonald’s understands this and that’s why they continue to emphasize solid execution amidst their McCafe concept, McWrap Snacks, and other new product introductions.  Mastering the basics is not only the cost of entry into the category – it’s also the cost of compelling innovation.

A lot of the criticism directed at AT&T’s effort is really about the company’s failings in providing basic service. Whether it’s fewer dropped calls, broader coverage, or the ability to tether the iPhone, people want their basic needs met.  People argue that the money the company is spending on the new campaign would be better spent on addressing infrastructure and service issues (an argument I’ve previously made about Microsoft’s lavish ad campaigns.)

I’m not an AT&T customer so I’m not in the best position to judge whether or not such claims are warranted but perhaps perception is more important here anyway.  AT&T must have a base of credibility today in order to present a credible vision for the future.

The second lesson from fast food is related to the first – that is, the battle is fought in the trenches. Fast feeders know that they must win at the store level.  Regardless of the brand image the chain might enjoy, the offer at the restaurant has to compete head to head with the one across the street.

In the same way, AT&T needs to focus on their points of purchase.  Whether it’s retail stores or the company website or VARs, their new brand promise must be delivered at all of these channels.  I haven’t read anything about the company’s efforts in this area and a cursory attempt at shopping on their website didn’t reveal anything different from the norm.  Rethink Possible shouldn’t just be a brand campaign idea – it needs to drive sales at retail as well.  AT&T needs to establish competitive advantage where it really matters – that first moment of truth.

I realize there’s a limit to the relevance of fast food lessons to AT&T – the breadth of usage/applications, the purchase cycle, and the price points are just a few of the significant differences between telecom and fast food.  But I do believe AT&T would do well to embrace the commodity-like nature of their offering and glean appropriate lessons from those who have mastered such competition.

related posts:

• perception is at&t’s reality
• seinfeld isn’t going to rescue vista

Jay Ehret (aka @themarketingguy) of The Marketing Spot was kind enough to invite me to participate in his latest Marketing Roundtable.

I enjoyed the chat with Jay as well as Bill Schley of David ID and Harry Hoover of My Creative Team.  Our talk covered issues from the social media bubble to listening to customers to operationalizing the brand (guess who brought up that topic?!)

Please check out the podcast and record your own thoughts/reactions by calling the audio comment line: 254-433-8529.  And while you’re at it, check out Jay’s other recent roundtables and interviews including a talk with Marty Neumeier (author of The Brand Gap) and Steve McKee (author of When Growth Stalls.)