Change happens.  That’s not just a bumper sticker slogan; it’s the state of business today.  Mastering change requires new ways of thinking, talking about, and doing business.

I believe the leading companies in 2011 and beyond will distinguish themselves by embracing these five ideas:

1.  value and values
Over the past decade, we’ve seen the pendulum swing from a focus on businesses’ value propositions to a focus on the company purpose.  Many companies have eschewed a hard core sales- and shareholder-driven mission in favor of one which emphasizes a nobler purpose.  Case in point:  Last month, Ad Age recapped the annual Association of National Advertisers conference with the headline “Purpose-Driven Marketing All the Rage at ANA.”

But to emphasize a company’s purpose over its business proposition neglects the fundamental driver of business – filling a customer need well.  Smart companies understand that it isn’t an “either/or” – it’s a “both/and.”  They must offer value and operate with values.

So they base their brand platforms on both the unique value they deliver to customers and the unique way they do business which reflects their values and purpose.  They are as rigorous as about what they do as how they do it.

2. experience channels
A key component of any business model is distribution channels.  Traditionally businesses have been designed around delivering goods and services to customers through channels – whether through retailers, wholesalers, distributors, or more recently direct channels.

But the different ways customers do business with companies is growing explosively – mobile, click-and-pick-up, co-ops and buying collectives, etc.  And the way customers are using these channels is also changing.  In addition to researching and making purchases, they’re comparing, sharing, collaborating on designs, customizing, giving feedback, subscribing, and exchanging.

Leading companies are changing the way they think about, develop, and use channels.  They’re making them open, flexible, and engaging two-way exchanges.  And they’re partnering with suppliers, media, affiliate, and customers themselves to offer differentiated and compelling customer experiences through them.  No longer a simple distribution point, a channel is an experience.

3. customer engagement measurement
While business gurus have been preaching the importance of customer engagement for years, few companies have embraced it as the primary way of thinking about and valuing their customers.  Most are stuck in the mindset of customer acquisition and retention – how can they get more customers?  And, once they “have” them, how can they keep them?

The reality is that companies no longer “acquire” customers because today’s customers can’t be owned.  In this age of access, very few monopolies — even perceived ones – still exist.  Customers often use multiple brands in a single category, even in B2B markets.  And customer loyalty may be fostered but the bonds of loyalty are no match against deep-discounting, breakthrough innovation, and simple customer wanderlust.

Companies wanting a more accurate and appropriate measure of their customer efforts look beyond customer acquisition and retention to customer engagement. They quantify and track the extent to which customers are engaged with the brand — in terms of depth (emotional commitment), breadth (range of products, services, touchpoints), and length (amount of time). They use these measurements to develop and optimize their customer strategies and to track the true health of the business.

4. advocate relations
Leading companies are also challenging the notion of media and public relations. After all, the lines between traditional media and social media have become blurred and an influential blogger has been proven to be able ignite or crush a story more powerfully than many reporters.

Plus communicating to the broader public is important to only the largest, mass brands. For all others, targeting interested parties and influencers is more efficient and effective.  Developing relationships with the select people who will spread the word on the company’s behalf is far more productive than reaching out to all those who can.

So instead of media relations and public relations, companies on the forefront of communications are working on advocate relations.  Advocates are bloggers, experts, social mavens, and other thought leaders who wield strong influence within the company’s target audience.  Like journalists, advocates are proactively enrolled to communicate messages to the broader audience without compromising their integrity – but unlike journalists, they can be openly biased in their communication of that message, praising a company or a product which resonates with them.

That’s why advocate relations is becoming a priority.

5. content supply chain
Several of these ideas speak to the growing importance of content.  Twitter streams, mobile applications, e-newsletters, online videos – these new communications are as valuable to customers as a company’s products and services.  They’re the way companies do customer service, sales and user support, corporate news and information, public education, community relations – oh, and yes, promotional marketing.

But content has clearly become more than a marketing function — content has become a product in and of itself.

In fact, content development has become a core competency for leading companies.  They’re investing in the production and coordination of content development to ensure its quality and consistency.  And they ensure they have the process and systems in place to produce content efficiently.  They have developed and actively manage a content supply chain.

As these five ideas demonstrate, business as we know it is changing. Companies can either lead the change or follow it.  Thinking differently and challenging the norms have always been the hallmarks of leading companies.

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!

Rich Thomaselli from Advertising Age called me recently 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).  He calls out companies for turning over their marketing to consumers through contests like Doritos’ Super Bowl campaigns and Folgers’ recent contest asking the Average Joe (pun intended?!) to update its famous “Best Part of Wakin’ Up” theme.

Rich reached out to me because of an article I had written several years ago for BrandChannel. In it I argued that “consumer-generated advertising as a marketing strategy is a lazy and irresponsible approach to branding.”  Because “brands are the responsibilities of the companies that produce them,” companies were missing out on the opportunity to demonstrate brand leadership and achieve internal alignment with the brand by leading the creative development of their ads.

It wasn’t a popular opinion at the time, since many brand managers were just discovering the benefits of a two-way dialog with customers and the creativity which new media unleashes.

But I stuck to my ground and wrote other op-eds on the subject, including a piece for imediaconnection which called for a reality check on “consumer-generated” ads: “The ads that win the contests and get exposure are not created by consumers. They’re made by aspiring film-makers and prosumers looking for their lucky break. By calling these ads “consumer-generated we are propagating the myth that they are engaging a brand’s users.”

Well now it seems others are coming around to embracing my point of view.  In the recent Ad Age article:

• Jackie Huba, co-author of the book “Citizen Marketer” and writer of the Church of the Customer blog, says “These contests asking people to create commercials and jingles are contrived…Marketers should be leveraging word-of-mouth jet streams.”
• And even Pete Blackshaw, who writes the Consumer Generated Media blog, concedes, “the novelty has worn off [and] brands are struggling with the harshness of the consumer voice. A lot of brands that jumped into CGA and the social-media conversation have found there are tradeoffs.”

The concerns I outlined in the piece were:

• “You’re getting these very poor quality spots, and it’s not even done in seriousness anymore…That’s definitely affecting the quality of what we’re seeing.“  When this new tact first started, professional or semi-professional people were the ones submitting their work, so even if it was off-strategy, at least it was good film.  Now everyone with a webcam or a Flip is making these ads and their amateur roots are obvious.
• Also using contests to get people to make ads about your brand seems disingenuous.  “…it lacks the authenticity. It’s going to happen with a brand real soon where there will be a backlash against this.“  People will realize that companies are essentially bribing them into promoting their brands.

I shared with Rich an additional point which got left on the editing room floor:   These campaigns are no longer necessary.  Brands which have enthusiastic customer bases don’t need to run contests to incentivize people to create ads – their fans do it on their own.

Having said all this against so-called user-generated ad campaigns, I do believe there are a couple of situations in which such an open approach might contribute real value:

• To promote consumer-friendly video production products – “User-generated” ads can showcase the results achieved by everyday people using your products.  So the aforementioned Flip camera might be an appropriate candidate for a consumer-generated ad campaign.
• To engage your employees – McDonald’s has been running a “Voice of McDonald’s” contest which has more recently evolved to include elements similar to a user-generated ad campaign. The program involves a contest in which employees around the world submit video entries of themselves singing a la American Idol.  They compete to become the official voice of the brand and to win a $25,000 prize.  McDonald’s has opened up voting to the public and used both traditional and social media to promote the program.  In this case, the “users” are actual McDonald’s employees and the program serves to engage them with the brand as well as strengthen their relationship with customers – it seems like a win-win-win.

So what do you think?  Are consumer-generated ads still an effective approach for brand managers?  Or have they lost their luster and should be put out of their (and our) misery?  Comments open.

related post:  a case against user-generated ad contests

I’m fascinated by the recent flurry of activity of designer PCs.  Having worked at Sony during the early years of VAIO (perhaps the first fashionable PC line, launched with its distinctive violet color and sleek features and all), it’s pretty amazing to me to see how the category has developed.

Both HP and Dell have introduced lines of designer PCs in the last couple of years.  HP’s launch of the Vivienne Tam Mini in early 2008 was the product of the PC maker’s partnership with the popular clothing designer and its success spawned a series of other limited editions.  In December of last year Dell launched Design Studio, a customization program in which customers pick from custom colors and pieces of artwork from artists.

A study of the two companies’ entries makes for some interesting comparisons.

Different Starting Points

HP’s efforts are rooted in its desire to attract more female customers.  They reached out to Ms. Tam and eventually gave her complete control over the design of the Mini netbook.  Satjiv Chahil, SVP-global marketing at HP, is quoted in a recent Ad Age write-up saying, “No tech company has ever addressed this market with great authenticity…Other efforts have been about making products pink. … This is a total fashion design...”

Dell was inspired by its history of made-to-order PCs when it decided to launch its Design Studio.  In a Brandweek article, Dell’s VP of consumer experience design, Ed Boyd, is quoted as explaining the rationale behind the effort as:  “You can have it Steve Jobs’ way or you can have it your way.“  Their motivation is to deliver “the most personalized products in the world” – including the design.

Different Positionings

HP started off with a single Vivienne Tam product and has expanded the program slowly and selectively.  The line now includes another Tam Mini along with a couple of other designers’ products and my sense is they will continue to emphasize the exclusivity of the designs.  This is designer PC with the emphasis on design.

Dell launched with 100 choices of artwork and now there are more than 350 images available.  Artwork comes from artists as well as “branding partners” such as Major League Baseball, (RED), and OPI nail polish.  They change their offerings every quarter.  As such, Dell has positioned the program squarely on the benefits of personalization.

Different Channels

In their own ways, both brands have eschewed traditional PC channels like Best Buy.  In keeping with the fashion strategy, HP sells its designer PCs at fashion retailers such as Macy’s and Neiman Marcus.  And Dell’s customized products are naturally only available through Dell.com.

Different Objectives

Although the Vivienne Tam Mini’s sales were so high that HP abandoned its original plan to make it a limited edition, it’s clear the line will never be a sales leader at the company.  It is, however, believed to play a critical role in improving brand perceptions.  “It raises the tide for all HP boats. It’s very specific and unique activity that’s lifted the entire company. The halo effect has been great,” Mr. Chahil said in Ad Age.  As such, development costs for the line aren’t booked as an R&D expense but rather as a marketing one. “These are not products with a marketing program, these are in fact marketing tools,” said David Roman, VP-marketing communications, HP.

Dell has more grandiose plans for its designer PCs.  The Brandweek piece reports the company hopes to see this kind of customization grow across much of its portfolio. The program is currently available in most of the Americas, but Boyd said Dell will be able to expand it worldwide by next summer.  “What you’re seeing now is just the tip of the iceberg,” he declares.

Same Smarts

Both of these efforts are customer-centric developments in a category which is growing.  Both represent exciting innovations at a time when many categories and companies are struggling with dry new product pipelines.

And although both approaches provide ways for customers to express themselves through their PC designs, each company is doing it in a way that makes sense for their brand.   HP needed to boost its cool credentials and so launching an exclusive, high-fashion design line provides an appropriate brand perception boost.  Dell, on the other hand, needed to reinvigorate their existing brand equity in customization – adding design into the mix opens a new avenue to do so.

Perhaps most significant of all is that, while the last few years has seen Apple waging war with its Mac vs. PC ads and Microsoft trying to fight back with its “I’m a PC” campaign, Dell and HP have taken the high road and actually developed products that take the self-expressive power of PCs to a new level.

related posts:

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

Recently Ad Age published a list of what it considered to be “America’s Hottest Brands.”   The list featured 40 brands that are “setting the pace for innovation — and getting results – right now.”  Although their selection criteria wasn’t clear and I can’t say I agree with all of the choices, I did find some instructive insights in the write-up. 

There seem to be some things the “hottest” brands have in common:

1.     They’ve been at it for quite awhile.
The success of many of the brands can be attributed to efforts that were initiated many years ago:

•    Jameson, the Irish whiskey brand – they’ve been running a word-of-mouth effort since the 1990’s – and that fueled the success of the larger multi-media campaign they launched this year

•   Pabst Blue Ribbon – for over 5 years they’ve been growing steadily by targeting the “retro, nonconformist crowd” with an under-the-radar campaign

•    Zipcar – their strategy of using street teams to target very specific neighborhoods was put in place nearly 5 years ago as well

•    Kettle Foods, the maker of cravable chips – they’ve been engaging their customers for input on new flavor combinations for more than 5 years and have developed a loyal fanbase of snackers

2.    They’re targeted to a specific segment of customers.
These brands don’t try to be all things to all people – they’re very specific about who they’re trying to appeal to and they’ve employed unique insights about that group:

•    5-Hour Energy – they set out to target working adults (vs. the teenage boys who historically have driven most of the energy drink business) who have quite functional needs for the energy boost

•    Bolt Bus, a new line of buses from  Greyhound – they targeted young, professional travelers who are looking for more affordable alternatives to air travel but who are not willing to sacrifice any of the comforts and conveniences

•    Bonobos, the online retailer of “better-fitting” men’s pants – with an average first-visit check of $200, this brand isn’t for everyone – they’re focused on solving the two main issues facing athletically-built men who hate to shop:  fit and convenience

•    Zico, a coconut water brand – they know yogis and their students are great ambassadors for the natural sports drink, so they target hot yoga studios whenever they enter a new market

3.    Their innovations delivered brand differentiation.
Some innovations launched new categories, so by definition, they’re differentiated offerings. And in mature categories, some of the “hottest brands” introduced innovations that clearly differentiate their brands from existing options:

•    Virgin America – they set out to “reinvent the entire travel experience” and “get consumers psyched about flying again.”  With in-flight Wi-Fi, spacious leather seats, mood lighting, and in-seat food and beverage ordering, Virgin created a truly differentiated customer experience

•    Off!, the insect repellent brand – they launched the Off! Clip-On fan, a wearable product that doesn’t require skin application – and in doing so, moved their brand from a functional product to a lifestyle solution

•    Tria Beauty, the brand behind the $795 home laser hair-removal product – essentially they’ve created a new category that has huge potential, so they have the enviable distinction of a leadership brand position

•    Subaru of America – they’ve put significant mileage between their brand and their declining competitors’ brands by engaging in programs that appeal to their “active, pet-owning, environmentally aware, socially-involved customers”

It will be interesting to see how many of these brands are still hot next year, or the year after that.  But I’m pretty sure these distinguishing characteristics will continue to define hot brands for years to come.

(image above from Ad Age by Tony Pettinato)

Last week’s Ad Age featured an article called “Why It’s Time to Do Away With the Brand Manager.” The piece, and the Forrester research report which inspired it, argues for “changing the name ‘brand manager‘ to ‘brand advocate,’ and fundamentally changing marketer organizations in response to the onset of the digital age.” It reminded me of an article I wrote several years ago.

Outlining my thoughts on the key roles needed in any marketing department, I argued for the creation of a position called “brand operator” — someone whose role it is to drive brand operationalization. I thought I’d share with you the full article now. I considered updating it to acknowledge the new marketing and communication tools that have arisen since I wrote the piece, but the more I thought about it, I realized that wasn’t necessary. The tools may have changed, but I believe the fundamental marketing roles I outlined are evergreen:

A CMO’s Dream Team

The 1995-96’s Bulls. The 1992 Clinton election team. These are dream teams. Extraordinary individuals who come together to accomplish extraordinary results. Marketing, like sports or politics, requires highly skilled people at the top of their game, working together seamlessly to compete and win.

Chief marketing officers, like coaches and other leaders, who seek dream teams must assemble remarkable individuals to generate remarkable results. In the past, CMOs knew who they needed on their team – some smart brand managers and some functional experts in research and media.

But the marketing landscape has changed dramatically and the skill sets and experiences needed on a CMO’s marketing bench have changed just as dramatically. New media, market fragmentation, and brand proliferation have given birth to new ways to go to market and new challenges in doing so. Today CMOs need to rethink the types of marketing expertise they need on the team.

Here are 6 types of players that can help produce winning results in today’s marketing environment:

1.  A Brand Operator – This isn’t just a fancy new label for the old brand manager function – a Brand Operator contributes a whole different perspective, skill set, and expertise. While brand managers manage activities to promote the brand, Brand Operators operationalize brands throughout the entire Company. Brands represent a way of doing things that should drive business strategy, define operating processes, and impact company culture. As such, a CMO needs someone to activate the brand in all of these areas – working with senior management, operational teams, and human resources. A Brand Operator is someone who truly understands the Company’s business and who can overcome organizational barriers to get things done.

2.  A Connections Planner – With the proliferation of new media options and the fragmentation of traditional ones, a CMO needs someone who understands the impact of different touchpoints on how customers make purchase decisions. A Connections Planner is savvy about search marketing, branded entertainment, and weblogs as well as traditional media – and is always on the lookout for emerging opportunities. He or she combines knowledge about customers’ lifestyles and media usage/exposure with data-based analyses of the efficiency and effectiveness of the different avenues to communicate with them. The result is strategies for making relevant and salient connections between the brand and its target. Until and unless agencies demonstrate the ability to plan and buy media agnostically, the responsibility for Connections Planning must remain an internal function.

3.  A Creative Leader – Far too often, CMOs leave leadership of the brand’s creative expression up to the advertising agency. In rare instances, this may come to make sense over time — but generally speaking, there is too frequent turnover of creative directors and/or agencies themselves to maintain consistency and explore the richness of brand understanding that develops only through many years. Furthermore, a Creative Leader provides inspiration and direction for the expression of the brand at all touchpoints — from tradeshow booths to corporate headquarters to salespeople’s collateral. He or she does this through an intuitive understanding of the essence of the brand and a vision for the brand’s ambitions.

4.  Customer Experts – A CMO needs a Customer Expert for each segment of the Company’s existing customers/prospects and at least one dedicated to uncovering new sources of business. While market researchers have historically been tagged as the “voice of the customer,” this approach falls short of the marketing need. The team needs someone who is more interested in customers than in methodologies — someone who synthesizes insights from all sources of information (database analyses, store audits, cultural scanning, syndicated shopping data, and even “grandmother research”) along with primary consumer research to develop a rich profile and deep understanding of the target customers.

5.  An Investment Analyst – Today’s boardroom requires a CMO to prove the return on marketing investments – and so a CMO requires an Investment Analyst on the team. This person implements the infrastructure and process for collecting the necessary marketing data, analyzes and evaluates marketing investments on a timely basis and in an objective manner, and makes recommendations for future budget allocation. Although the CFO’s office should be consulted, the job shouldn’t be left to controllers. A finance-savvy marketer will figure out how to account for, not dismiss, the subjectivity that comes with the marketing territory – and he or she will be familiar with market research data that can be used in the analyses.

6.  An Independent Advisor – The CMO needs an Independent Advisor for the same reasons Tony Soprano needs his conciliare and Jon Gruden needs a defensive coordinator on headset with a bird’s eye view of the game. When you’re in the trenches, it’s sometimes hard to see the forest for the trees – and it’s even harder to be objective about something the whole team has been passionately pursuing. Free from bandwidth and political constraints, an Independent Advisor can provide the big picture view when a reality check is needed — or dig deep into a problem to uncover an elusive diagnosis. He or she can be the source for “the word on the street,” contribute perspectives from different categories and brands, and play the role of a talent scout.

These 6 types of players can form the foundation for a winning marketing team. Of course, this begs the question of the role of the CMO.

I suggest the CMO’s primary role is one of a maestro – the conductor who brings out the specific talents of each player and brings them together to produce a great work. The CMO has the vision and recruits people with the potential to deliver it, entices and enables them to see it, and enrolls them in engaging in it – and then eliminates distractions and shores up resources. Moreover, a maestro determines spirit and style, setting the culture in which the team will operate.

The right players with the right leader and the right culture. This is the stuff dreams — dream teams, that is — are made of.

(image above is from Bill Frakes/SI)

related posts:

• invertising
• on marketing and leadership

Last week Ad Age announced that Anheuser-Busch InBev is holding an online contest in China in which consumers can pitch ideas for a Budweiser TV spot which will run during next year’s Chinese New Year.  The only brief to the aspiring ad-makers:  the commercial must include ants (a recurring theme for the brand’s Chinese New Year ads.)  I’m liking this idea as much as I did when these so-called “user-“generated content first emerged as an advertising approach a few years ago – which is to say, not much. Don’t get me wrong – I’m not against engaging consumers in conversations about brands as a way of stimulating word of mouth.  And surely content that brand fans create can be powerful expressions of the brand.

What concerns me is established brands actively soliciting “user-“generated commercials in widely publicized contests.  A few years ago I wrote a couple of pieces explaining my concerns about and words of caution for such an approach (one published by brandchannel.com; the other by imediaconnection).  Here is a recap of my main points:

•    lack of brand consistency. Branding 101 says brand strength is developed by expressing and delivering the brand promise consistently across all touchpoints and over time. A clear, specific strategic brief is the tool that delivers such consistency.  When a marketer invites different people to create ads without such a brief, isn’t brand inconsistency sure to result?  And just so we’re clear, I don’t think requiring the use of ants counts as ensuring brand consistency.

•    not demonstrating brand leadership.  The TV ads everyone points to as having been the most disruptive, and therefore the most successful, are ones that represent the thought leadership of the brand. Think Apple’s 1984 commercial and Nike’s original Just Do It campaign (p.s., if you know where i can find this online, please let me know). No consumer, no matter how talented or cool or brand fanatical, would have ever come up with those ads.

This is because consumers only know what they know at the moment—e.g., they know why they like a product—but they don’t know the vision of the brand. They don’t know the company’s dreams and aspirations for the brand, and so they lack the insight and foresight to realize an ad’s full potential. Their ads may be entertaining, but they won’t further brand leadership

•    missed opportunity to foster internal brand integration and alignment through the creative development process.  I fear ad contests cheat the companies that run them. Part of the benefit of the creative development process is the internal discipline it requires and the unity it creates. A team that takes the time to develop a campaign (to do the hard work of distilling down everything that could possibly be said about a brand into a simple, single message) and to search for a way of expressing the message that is worthy of the brand is all the better for it.

The debates and trade-offs inherent in the creative process result in a clarity on and commitment to the brand. This clear, consistent, common understanding of the brand serves the company well in everything else it does. Companies that side step this valuable process and simply screen consumers’ ads like judges of a beauty contest are cheating themselves (and all their stakeholders, including customers) out of the critical benefits of internal brand integration and alignment.

•    not real consumer engagement.  The ads that win these contests and get exposure are rarely created by regular users of the product. They’re made by aspiring filmmakers and “pro-sumers” looking for their lucky break. Case in point: the Doritos contest winner whose spot aired during the 2007 Super Bowl is not a consumer. He is a partner at a firm that specializes in creative video production.  According to Doritos’ website, his firm was “looking for any opportunity to launch the company into the public eye.”

This last point actually leads to my overarching point of view about “user”-generated ad contests.  I believe consumer-generated content is most effective when it happens organically – that is, when real brand users feel so strongly about a brand that they take the initiative to create something which expresses their feelings and then share it with their friends and, sometimes, the world.  The authenticity of such content makes it a much more effective promotion for the brand.

Do you disagree?  Please share your point of view.

related posts:

• my super bowl was filled with guacamole
• creative brief template

This week’s AdAge features a troubling piece, Want More Out of Your Agencies? Write Better Briefs:  Execs at Top Shops Say Clients Are Unclear About What’s Expected, Leading to Lots of Wasted Time.  The article cites research sponsored by Jones & Bonevac which includes some scary findings from 250 senior executives at a variety of top marketing agencies.

The survey indicates that more than half (54%) of respondents said fewer than 40% of client briefs give them clear indication of what’s expected from their agencies. Of that number, 30% said only 1% to 10% of briefs provide clear performance expectations.

One may argue that this is just a bit of disgruntled finger-pointing by agencies which are feeling rather marginalized these days — but having been on both sides of the table (client positions at companies like Jack in the Box and Sony and account planner role at the agencies for clients such as Burger King and Land Rover), one thing is clear to me:  the lack of a good client brief/briefing is detrimental to both the agency and the client.

So I thought I’d share with you the template I use for briefs.  It covers the points which I believe are critical for all stakeholders to understand and align with, prior to creative development.

Ideally the brief is developed collaboratively between the client and agency, with the client responsible for contributing the objectives, specifications, and “must-haves”.  As such, there is a good dialogue (and give-and-take) about the assignment between the two parties which only enhances everyone’s understanding and buy-in.  Once the brief is finalized, I recommend a “formal” briefing in which the brief is reviewed with the agency one last time to ensure everyone is on the same page.

Oh, one last point — although there are situations in which an assignment brief  (client develops and delivers to agency) and a creative brief (agency develops and client approves) are used, I offer this template as a starting point for the entire briefing process.  When desired, elements of this template can be separated out into more robust briefs for the different purposes.

Hope this is helpful — let me know your feedback/questions.

An open memo…

To: Richard Block, VP Marketing, Haier America

From: Someone Who Really Wants to See Haier Succeed

Subject: How to Grow Haier Into a Household Name

As Sony‘s former VP/GM Brand & Strategy and current fan of Haier, I read with great interest your interview in Ad Age last week.  I’m excited to hear of your goal to be as successful as Samsung or LG have been in establishing their brands in the U.S. — and wanted to share my thoughts on how you might do so.

Before I get to my recommendations, though, I believe it’s important to acknowledge the current state of the market when it comes to electronics and appliances:

• it’s highly commoditized — meaning, there is a lack of perceived differentiation among products.  Apple products are a notable exception, but for the most part, most electronics and appliances are perceived to have very similar features and capabilities.  As a result, competition is highly price-based and only companies with strong brands are able to gain market share and charge a price premium.
• it’s driven by the channel — the two major retailers in your categories, Best Buy and Wal-mart, have built such strong brands for themselves that manufacturers are competing as much with them as they are with other manufacturers.  Online outlets are also problematic, as they tend to reinforce the commoditization referenced above.  Manufacturers must generate enough “pull” with consumers.

Although these point to some difficult challenges to your efforts, I do believe there are some things you can do to combat their effects, break-through, and position Haier to become a real player in the market.

1. differentiate — I didn’t hear a focus on this in your Ad Age interview and yet it seems the most important, and fundamental, thing for Haier to do.  At Sony we used to talk about the “wall of black” — you know, the back wall display at Best Buy in which the TVs are lined up row upon row, black screen after black screen.  With all the products and brands looking the same, it’s easy to see why consumers usually default to price to determine which one to buy.  Haier must figure out a way to offer something different and to communicate that distinctiveness in a way that consumers understand and appreciate.  Differentiation can come from product design, user interface, product/content integration, applications, added-value services — there are a lot of options.  The important thing is for Haier to adopt a strong point of differentiation and to execute on it consistently.
2. sync marketing efforts with purchase decision process — most electronics and appliance purchases are considered, not spontaneous.  That means consumers are learning about options, doing research, comparing products/brands/prices among different manufacturers and different retailers, etc. before they purchase.  Haier’s marketing efforts must insert the brand at critical points in that purchase process.  In your Ad Age interview it sounds like you’re using the home tour as a jack of all trades marketing tactic, taking the movable home filled with Haier products to state fairs and food festivals as well as retailers and maybe a few places in between.  I wonder if it would be more effective to use it and/or a virtual version of a home tour to influence qualified buyers at specific points in their purchase process (e.g., drive visits from a product comparison site to a home tour locator).  You’d likely see more direct, immediate results from a more focused, conversion-oriented effort.
3. focus on a few key products — I counted over 23 product categories in the line-up on your website, with multiple products in each; 15-20 products are featured in your home tour alone.  While I understand showcasing multiple products/categories may seem like a way to position Haier as a big player, it may actually cause consumer confusion and detract from your efforts.  Your brand is more likely to stand out if consumers are clear about what it stands for and what it offers.  Plus, because your categories are so diverse (refrigerators to headphones) and as such they appeal to different customer groups, your marketing efforts may be spread too thin.   I recommend selecting 3-4 key products that you want Haier to be known for and channeling your marketing efforts toward them.

I hope these thoughts are helpful, Richard — and they are taken in the spirit they are meant.  That is, I believe Haier has the potential to become as strong a brand here in the U.S. as it is in China — you’ve got some great products and you’ve already made some significant inroads.  I’m rooting for you!

There’s a healthy debate going on over at AdAge.com this week — a POV by Michael Fassnacht, Chief Customer Intelligence Officer at DRAFTFCB entitled “The Death of Consumer Segmentation?” has prompted a lot of comments.  While the traditional consumer segmentation vs. “self-segmentation” discussion is interesting, I found myself wanting to return to the basics of segmentation.  It seems that, before we debate the merits of any segmentation approach, we should revisit why segment at all.

Broadly speaking, segmentation is a tool intended to guide strategy — but which strategy?  Different segmentation approaches are appropriate for different strategies.

The most common strategy is brand positioning — that is, segmentation is used to help determine how you want people to think of your brand.  You need to determine a prevailing attitude about your category (or frame of reference) which is held by a group of customers that spend enough to make them an appealing target, and then position your brand to appeal to that target mindset.  As such, an attitudinal or mindset-based segmentation is the appropriate approach to use in brand positioning strategy.

It’s important to note, though, that such an approach is limiting when it comes to the development of other strategies.  Media planning relies on primarily on demographic/firmographic and media usage variables, so a segmentation based on those factors is what is needed for media strategy.  In the same vein, customer relationship management relies on primarily on purchase data, so a segmentation based on current purchase behaviors and projected lifetime value is appropriate for CRM strategy.  Segmentation by technology adoption (e.g., pioneers vs. early adopters vs. early majority, etc.) is a useful framework when planning product introductions and product development/life cycle strategies.  And so on, and so on.

So when it comes to segmentation, one size does not fit all.  As such, a debate of the merits of traditional consumer segmentation (that is, in Fassnacht’s words, “brand-controlled segmentation” — i.e., marketers decide which customers they want to engage with) should consider what the segmentation is used for.

Despite the emergence of new ways to engage consumers and the rapid rate of change in today’s business environment, most segmentation approaches still serve the valuable purposes outlined above.