Page 2 - Brand Development

Scare tactics of new media

Friday, October 16, 2009 by Tony Fannin

by Tony Fannin, president, BE Branded

Are the new media "gurus" using old-time scare tactics to get people to follow them and become one of their disciples? I'm not against new media, hence my blog, linkedin, and twitter account, but I often read from social media mavens that "you'd better get on board or be left behind" or "your business depends on you blogging, tweeting, and linking to everyone." and on and on. I also hear from some that if you aren't ranked on Google, then you don't exist and thus, will be history as a business. This kind of rhetoric seems not much different than some cults and other dogmatic organizations. There are many self-proclaimed prophets out there claiming to be the expert in all of the different forms of social media. In fact, many have built businesses around being the social media how-to place. As I see it, I can show you how-to do it too, but what they don't tell you is how does it truly affect your brand in the long run or how do you monetize all of your followers? Also, because technology advances so quickly today, how do you know if twitter or Facebook is going to be the dominate platform in the next 4 or 5 years? If social media and Google rankings is all you need, then why aren't there more hugely successful companies than there are now? Where are the multitude of online dynasties? Since almost every online business and small business swears by new media, shouldn't there be a more significant numbers of millionaires who run billion dollar companies? Before social media can take the next step in becoming a serious business tool, I believe there needs to be some factors set up that are common among any discipline:

• Standards – Right now there is a lack of standards. Not in platform, but in standards. Everyone has their own interpretation of measurements, metrics, and what's important (click throughs, time spent, number of friends, number of followers, etc.) Without a consistent and unified standard of measurement, it's hard for a marketer to truly understand how the various social media platforms are performing and affecting the areas they want to see improvement. This leads me to the next point.

• Accountability – Without standards, there is no real accountability. It can be whatever you say it is. From a marketer's viewpoint, that's not very comforting. How do I know that your metric standards are better than someone else's who does what you do, but measures something totally different? Most of this social media environment is great at getting people to link to me or view my blog or video, but, what do those numbers really mean? And just because I get 100,000 friends, what does that really do to my brand and ultimately, my bottom line? Not every metric is important to every business. Each have their own lagging and leading indicators to follow.

• Monetization – This seems to be the main hurdle for social media. In this "Freemium" world, most social sites would have to drastically reduce the numbers of followers if they started to charge for their services and try to make money. Even YouTube is still struggling to make a profit. Sure, most companies would have a lot of business if they were to give it away for free. There would be customers lined up around the block 24/7. The biggest challenge to these sites is how do you make a living from it over the long haul? As of now, no one seems to have an answer. There are businesses who sell you services to help you get into the social media, but why pay them when you don't even know how this is going to add to your bottom line?

In the fear of not missing out, many companies have thrown out the core principle of ROI when it comes to spending on social media. They've lost the discipline to ask several key questions:

• Why get involved?
• What should I get involved in that will give me the best ROI?
• What kind of ROI should I be measuring in the first place?
• What metrics are important to my business and which ones are not?

It's too early to crown any social media as king or even a standard for marketing purposes. All are great experiments, but none are mature enough yet to be considered a serious marketing tool. It doesn't mean that it won't be in the future. It may not even be the platforms we know of today that may become the standard by which we measure our metrics to tomorrow. I have little doubt that social media will become an important tool in the marketing arsenal, but just because a business isn't involved in it a great deal doesn't mean it's doomed to go bankrupt.

www.bebranded.net
317-797-7226

Be relevant or be gone

Monday, October 12, 2009 by Tony Fannin

by Tony Fannin, president, BE Branded

This idea is a truth and is a part of nature. You either are relevant to the world or you become extinct. This is very true in business. Most already know that a company must evolve their products and services to compete in the marketplace. And most already know that they must change the way they do things or otherwise they are left in the dust by those who adapt better techniques or just a better way of doing business. Being relevant isn't about new technology or new media. Being relevant is about being meaningful to your customers and communicating to them in a meaningful way.

Brands can fall out of relevance because what they stand for is too narrow. They base their image on a piece of technology or a specific process. This is the quickest way to become extinct. True brands have a larger mission, a bigger cause they provide to the marketplace. For example, when iomega zip drives came out, they were the best thing that ever happened to digital storage. They made the floppy discs look floppy. iomega built their brand on this newfangled piece of hardware. In a matter of a few short years, they became irrelevant because of the invention of cheap CDs. The company is now shallow shell of itself. Instead the iomega should have built their brand on the larger vision of convenient, digital storage. This would allowed the company to evolve without abandoning their core brand.

New technologies are not immune to this cycle. Right now, there are many companies, mostly small, that are building their brand around a specific piece of technology. They are Twitter based, SEO based, facebook based, etc. What happens to these companies when the "next big thing" comes along and supplants these new platforms? What happens is the companies who proclaim themselves as "Twitter-enabler, Inc." become as irrelevant as iomega did. And it only takes a few short years to reach that point. Processes are no different. Just because you do things in a unique way, there will be others who can replicate it, improve upon it, and sell it cheaper because they have less R&D into the development of the process.

Being relevant also applies to marketing strategies and tactics. Yes, it's tempting to jump on the newest bandwagon (i.e. social media), but are these forms of communication relevant to your customer's lives? That's the bigger question. I had a discussion a few days ago with a client. They were venting to me the challenges of trying to keep up with "all that new stuff". "We know it's important, but don't know how to use it or even why it's important." they would say. When I asked them about how do their customers liked to be communicated to, my client responded that the vast majority still got their information through print, trade shows, and at industry conferences. I told them that they needed to still communicate to them in those arenas because that's where they "hang out". Include social media after developing a strategic plan on desired outcomes, integration with current marketing efforts, and what makes sense to their prospect base. Just because it's new, doesn't mean you have to use it. Being relevant means communicating in a way that is meaningful to your customers, not because the tactic or vehicle is new or cool.

Being relevant has less to do with you and more to do with them. If they don't get you, they don't buy from you. And if they don't buy, you become an irrelevant company with a bunch of cool apps.

www.bebranded.net
317-797-7226

Is it ok to buy creditability in the social media world?

Monday, October 12, 2009 by Tony Fannin

by Tony Fannin, president, BE Branded

I recently read in an article that Armani paid Kim Kardashian to tweet about their purses. I've heard other stories that are similar. Marketers paying celebs, bloggers, and the like to talk about their product. In the social media world, is that ok or is that seen as fake and disingenuine? I don't know that answer, but I does raises a few points about social media credibility.

• Myth: social media is a pure form of expression – I'm not saying that everyone is paid. The vast majority isn't, but marketers are reaching out and leveraging the social media landscape more and more. Ford is introducing their Fiesta by utilizing social media first then following up with a heavy duty marketing campaign. They gave 100 people a Ford Fiesta and they were instructed to tweet and facebook their travels and experiences every week at regular intervals. Though Ford isn't giving them cash, the use of the car for 6 months or a year is a substantial payment. Ultimately, marketers don't leave very many tactics up to chance, they do understand the pitfalls and how playing the social media game can backfire and are ready for them. They have a lot of resources at their disposal.

• Many of the social media stars have PR or marketing backgrounds – In my brief experiences in blogging and social media, I've had the opportunity to meet, communicate with, and read some wonderful social media colleagues (Jeff Jarvis, David Meerman Scott, and Holly Buchanan) Most of them have great followings and are very smart people. And most of them have "old school" media or marketing backgrounds. They've told me that their approach isn't any different, it just takes a different form and they've adapted their message to that form. This is further evidence that excellent marketing principles don't change because the technology changes.

• Paid buzz isn't new – Think of it as Tiger Woods endorsing Buick. They leverage his image and reputation in TV spots, print ads, online media, and in promotions. There are companies that are in business of paying people to tweet, blog, or facebook about their clients' products or services. It's not much different than sponsored media in the advertising and PR world.

• Paid media and social media work great together – As someone smarter than I said, "Paid traditional media and social media go together like peanut butter and chocolate." In fact, together they are more powerful than if they stood alone. According to Keller Fay Group, a word-of-mouth research company, says that having experience with a brand is most important ingredient in the effectiveness of word-of-mouth, increasing the propensity of someone else trying the product by 20 basis points. Add in marketing and advertising campaign at the same time, that percentage goes up another 20%. Nearly half of all conversations (online and water cooler) include some type of reference to paid media or advertising.

So is it ok to pay for your social media buzz? I guess it's up to the individual marketers and the community of social media. But, as I think about it, it's really up to the consumer. They will get their information how they want it and will believe what they want to believe. Because the consumer is in control.

www.bebranded.net
317--797-7226

Coffee wars: a good example of buzz marketing vs. integrated marketing

Wednesday, October 7, 2009 by Tony Fannin

by Tony Fannin, president, BE Branded

I've been watching the coffee wars between Starbucks, McDonald's, and Dunkin Donuts lately. What interests me is how tactics have been changing over the course of the "battle". Starbucks has long been held up as the anti-advertising poster child, especially for entrepreneurs and small businesses. Often, I've been told that they don't need to market. "If Starbucks can do it, so can I." they said. Most of them has seen "buzz" as their holy grail, not unlike the new grail of social media. "All I need is free buzz and a lot of free social media and I'm set." One of the main facts these businesses don't take into account is that Starbucks does do advertising. By building 10 stores in a 20 block radius, at $40,000 a pop, they are using a mass of brick and mortar as their advertising vehicle. Not too many other businesses are willing to put $400,000 in "street marketing" per community.

Back to the coffee thing, here's what I've been observing.

• Competitors have changed the marketing game. Starbucks used to be able to get by on buzz and word-of-mouth. Since McDonald's has been getting into the coffee business in a big way, Starbucks has had to up their marketing presence. McDonald's takes a no-prisoners attitude. They will swamp you with marketing dollars to gain mind-share and share of wallet. Their coffee push is no exception. They are gaining large chunks of ground on Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts. Starbucks has had to counter with a massive print ad campaign in publications such as NY Times and the Chicago Tribune. Over the last 3 months, Starbucks have taken out daily full or half page ads and bus advertising in major cities. They are also going to launch a full-scale marketing push (integrated marketing: online, traditional, street marketing) in support of their new VIA product. Dunkin Donunts has put extreme pressure on Starbucks as well by advertising in mass media such as print and TV.

• Basic retail principles still apply. Before, Starbucks didn't have to discount or reward their customers. Everyone was happy to pay premium for the experience. Now with McDonald's revamping their restaurants, lowering their prices, and doing what McDonald's does best (value menus), it's forcing Starbucks to play the fast feeder game. Starbucks now must compete on the retail level because they no longer are the only game in town with "premium" tasty beverages. Thus, a hand full of programs like the rewards cards, treat receipt, and buy 4, get one free, is becoming a staple at Starbucks.

• You're never alone for very long. If you're in a great niche and you've hit on a great concept, product line, or unique service, wonderful. Take advantage of it quickly because there is no such thing as a sustainable advantage in today's business world. Technology has shorten a competitive advantage from a few years to months. If it's a very profitable arena, you better believe the big boys will come in and compete in your sandbox. And they have more money for bigger toys and more of them to dominate the sandbox and eventually kick you out. (Some people call this the second-mover advantage). So, if you're fortunate enough to become a category leader, the battle just got started. You'll soon find how quickly competitors will join in. If you get stuck in your ways by saying that all you needed was buzz and social media to get the business going and built to the size it is now, you'll soon find out how quickly that early advantage will disappear. Your competitors will be well funded and have the know-how of integrating their marketing might to dominate the category that you helped create.

You must remember, what worked last quarter, may not work this quarter. The market changes and new competitors makes it crowded. It will take more to be heard than it did before. Your mindset must be fluid and open to change and adapt your marketing approach to defend your market position. Don't get caught in thinking that only a few tactics are relevant in today's marketing world.

www.bebranded.net
317-797-7226

New blogging guidelines from the FTC

Tuesday, October 6, 2009 by Tony Fannin

by Tony Fannin, president, BE Branded

The Federal Trade Commission announced today a new guideline affecting bloggers and marketers. It states that bloggersmust disclose when they received compensation, such as freebies or cash, from a company when they blog about their products or services. Bloggers are now legally seen as "endorsers" and could be fined up to $11,000 per post if they don't fully disclose their association with the companies or products they are writing about. This is from the FTC release:

"The revised Guides specify that while decisions will be reached on a case-by-case basis, the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service."

I don't see anything wrong with the guideline. As a long time marketer, it's nothing new to me. It is no different than having to put "Advertisement" on top of pages in a magazine that a company sponsors or has written to read and look like an article in the publication. It's also similar to TV spots and outdoor boards that must state who has paid for the space or time. Blogging is just another communications media outlet along with Twitter, facebook, and other social media. From a bloggers point of view, personally, it shouldn't change what you do. If credibility is supreme in the social media world, bloggers should disclose why they are writing anyway.

One of the things I find disturbing is that too many believe that "if it's on the web, it's true" just as people used to believe that if it's in the newspaper, it's true. It's too easy to be anonymous on the web. This gives people false courage to be as outrageous and extreme without any retribution or consequences. To me, that's wrong. There have been several stories where companies are falsely accused for an act or deed that goes viral. This forces businesses to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to clear their name for something they did not do. In the end, there is rarely a recourse the business can take against their accuser, let alone even identify them.

I believe that bloggers, tweeters, and all social media contributors should be accountable for what they write. I know as a marketer, we and our clients are responsible for the information we put out in all forms of marketing and advertising. The social media should be no different. We have to publicly identify who we are. Social media needs the same standards.

www.bebranded.net
317-797-7226

Google on TV?

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 by Tony Fannin

by Tony Fannin, president, BE Branded

Did you see that? Google is advertising on prime time TV! What are they doing advertising in traditional media? It this heresy? I don't think so. It's just smart marketing. One thing Google is, is smart. In reality, this isn't their only venture into traditional media over the years. In 2007, they spent approximately $850 million in sales and marketing and a huge portion of that was in print, billboards, and bus wraps in major cities around the U.S. In fact, their ad budget is about 8% of their projected revenues. That's very normal. We usually recommend to our clients they spend about that much as well, so Google is spending the industry norm in marketing and advertising. So, you may be asking, why was Google using TV to sell Chrome?

Google understands that some products needs to be blasted out there to the masses. Chrome is one of the them. They know to compete in the smart phone category, they must match the efforts of Apple and RIM. Traditional media is just one arena where this battle is taking place. Even the second tier players (Sprint, LG, etc.) are utilizing traditional media in a big way. This is not to say, online marketing isn't getting their share of the marketing budget and social media is being primed as well, but it may catch some by surprise that Google, of all people, is utilizing every piece of marketing artillery at their disposal. I applaud them for not being such purist to the point where they end up hurting their product launch just to say "they don't do old school". They are smart and smart marketers don't rule out anything without a good reason. For example, an agency in Minnesota was launching a marketing campaign for a bike manufacturer. Part of that campaign was a social media push. To promote the social media campaign, the agency used a tactic as low tech as you can get; giant airplane banners. The end result was their facebook page was "set ablaze" with friends, fans, and followers. How counterintuitive is that, promote an online property with old school tactics?

The main idea is that we are still people who live in a physical world. Yes, we have online lives, but a lot of our day is spent walking around, shopping, going to, and living in a real, physical place. Not a virtual world. This is also evident in the number of networking groups that are popping up everywhere. People are wanting human connection, face-to-face encounters that are meaningful. It's fun to have a zillion friends, but where's the fulfillment in that? Authentic, human connection is still the ultimate way to communicate and to create lasting relationships. That is what great marketing and branding does. It connects in a human way. People are deeper than just stats, charts, and reports. It's the intangibles that makes us loyal customers. It's the emotional connection that keeps your brand from being a commodity.

Smart marketers know when to use what tactic. They don't handicap themselves by limiting their marketing to the tech flavor of the week. They go where their customers hang out, even if it's in front of the TV.

www.bebranded.net
317-797-7226

Sometimes, brand is the only difference

Friday, September 25, 2009 by Tony Fannin

by Tony Fannin, president, BE Branded

In a discussion with a prospect and a couple of my partners, one interesting question came up; "What's so different about what you do?" That's a fair question for one of my partners to ask the prospect. (It's also a fair question to ask ourselves.) In this world of similar products and similar services at similar quality at similar prices, what is unique about what you offer versus anyone else in your category? Many times, it comes down to brand.

Brand is not only who you are, but it's also what makes you unique. For example, in the grocery industry, many of the top brands like DelMonte, Charmin, and Ballpark Franks have private label products they sell to grocers like Kroger, Target, and Food Lion. Each of these brands not only sell their premium brand in the stores, but also have a lesser line that they sell and private label on behalf of the grocer. It may not be the exact formula, but it does come from the same processing plants or manufacturing plants. Almost every major label, regardless of industry, has a lesser, private label line, they willingly sell to their retail partners. As you see, Brand is the key differentiating factor.

In today's world, having something totally different is rare. Sustainable advantage is a myth, because of technology, very few are able to keep their advantages to themselves. Almost all of the time, it is your brand and the experience your brand provides to your customers is what makes you unique. It's not your physical product or service you provide that is unique. We all know where we can get something "just like it". Just as it is with individuals, so it is true with companies. It's who you are and what your stand for (your brand) is what makes you unique and different from anyone else. It's probably the only sustainable advantage. No one else can exactly be you. You, your brand, are unique. Not your widget. Just like a logo is meaningless unless the company puts real meaning to the logo by being who they truly are. The emotion of brand gives life to a logo and real meaning that engages the senses and the mind.

So take a hard look at your company and be honest. There are many others in the world who can do what you do. But there's no one in the world who can be who you are. Brand is about experiences and standing for something, then communicating that in a real, emotional way. In the end, sometimes it's your brand that's the only difference. If done well, it's the most powerful difference.

www.bebranded.net
317-797-7226

Shotgun marketing

Friday, September 25, 2009 by Tony Fannin

by Tony Fannin, president, BE Branded

A recent experience with a small business has prompted me to enter this subject as a blog. They have been around for about 3-4 years and are established. They've gotten beyond the scary stage of a start-up (Am I going to make it?). They gave me a call to set up a meeting. Here's what I found out. They are trying to grow to the next level. They've been treading water for quite a while and have seen no significant growth or haven't been able to attract the more larger, lucrative clients. They service other small business and start-ups and feel that they take too much resources to get as clients and to maintain the relationship once they get them as clients. I asked them what have they been doing up to this point to achieve "breakout"? They gave me a list of several things they've either tried or going to try. After reviewing their tactics, I noticed nothing had to do with each other. There was no coordination, just a bunch of one-offs. I found out that in order to "save money" they chose single tactics and single campaigns to execute. When it didn't work, they tried something else. In the end, they ended up trying a lot of "stuff" and spent as much money as they would have if they actually committed to a "real" marketing budget. Their result: nothing to show for the dollars they spent, not even greater brand recognition.

This is not unusual for a small business trying to take the next evolutionary step to being a medium sized business working with larger companies. The problem I see is they still keep the "small business and start-up" mentality when they are wanting to work with more larger players. Their expectations are also not in alignment with reality. Here are a few points I see on this subject.

• The cycle takes longer – When you are going after another small business or start-up, the decision to sign with your company can happen on the first meeting. When you are going after larger clients, that rarely happens. In my experience, the cycle takes about 6 -9 months from initial contact to possibly getting your first job just to "try you out". Then it takes a little longer for them to become an official client where you are getting significant business from them. So, you can't plan your quarterly financials based on immediate sales anymore.

• Act like a big business – If you are going after larger business, you need to act like one. Businesses like to do business with peers, or those they perceive as peers. You've got to market and advertise as they do – with a comprehensive marketing plan with set goals that is backed by realistic budgets to achieve those goals. You need to be where they are and act as a player that belongs. Pros like working with pros, so your company can't be seen as "small business" in a negative way. Be seen as a great company that happens to be small.

• Do marketing for the long run – You'll end up spending the same or more money for little or no results. You won't even get the benefits of increased brand recognition. It's like a money pit. You feel like you're spending less in reality, the money you spend is wasted. To work with larger clients, you need to market for the long-run and not the quick hits. The larger businesses don't usually make decisions on the spot or even after one meeting. Gone are the days of meeting at Starbucks and being able to seal the deal there. They have several internal stakeholders that need to be involved and vetted. This takes time. There are also several other businesses just like yours who are trying to do the same thing. Large business have many choices because they can work with other large businesses and smaller ones who want to move up. Because they are more deliberate in making decisions, your marketing needs to be consistently out there and over a longer period of time. That way, when they do come to a decision of making doing something about their needs, your chances of being on the short list is greatly improved.

My advice to my example small business and others like them, it will serve you better if you changed your viewpoint of acting less like a small business by getting more sophisticated in marketing and building your brand. This will help you gain access to their "club" by being seen as a peer and someone they to get to know and work with. Just as with shotgun weddings, shotgun marketing usually doesn't work.

www.bebranded.net
317-797-7226

Can you plan viral marketing?

Tuesday, September 15, 2009 by Tony Fannin

by Tony Fannin, president, BE Branded

Here's a question that I don't know the real answer to; can you "plan" having your video, blog, tweet, etc., go viral? From what I've seen, almost all of it has been by "accident", but I'm not an expert at identifying what was planned and what just happened organically. I sometimes hear from marketers, "…and lets create a video that will go viral…" and I'm also asked if we can create a video that will be viral. Though I'm searching for some insight myself, here is my view about "planning to go viral":

• It still must be related to your brand – Yes, you can do outrageous videos and stupid human tricks, but does the video stay true to your core brand? One of the qualities I've seen where "going viral" is a big asset is the video content actually supports the brand position. From there it seems to grow organically and truly energizes your brand and your loyal customers. Otherwise, it looks like just a cheap trick. Any bump you may get in rankings or views will be short-lived and your brand will not have gained any long-term benefits. In many cases, it can damage your brand position and makes people go "huh?"

• Trying too hard can make you look stupid – I think this is especially true for brands that try to be cool and hip even though those qualities are not an authentic part of the core. It's like your parents trying to be "fly" in front of your friends. It's just weird. Being real and honest is critical in maintaining any credibility in the market place. That's especially true for marketing to teens. They can smell a fake in a nano-second. You must be true to your brand position and leverage the technologies that will reinforce that position with the appropriate message that will resonate with your customers. If your efforts go viral, great. If not, don't force it or make it your sole measure for marketing effectiveness. I'm not aware of any company who's made it in the long run just because their online efforts went viral. I'm also aware of many marketing efforts that didn't go viral that has been very effective and affected the bottom line.

• Smart marketing wins over video (or any other) gimmicks – Gimmicks and tricks can get you a quick bump in awareness, sales, etc. In the long run, it does more harm than good. Think of your efforts trying to go viral like sugar. You may achieve it, but that buzz only lasts for a short while. Afterward, you find your self more drained and down than you were before eating those 4 sugar cookies. It's the smart, purposeful, consistent marketing that will help build a great company. I don't deny that going viral is a fun boost, but it's not something you should build your marketing plan around. From what I've seen, if you do everything else effectively in a comprehensive marketing plan, you may find that going viral may become easier because you've gained momentum with a holistic approach. Going viral is just one more push on the fly wheel.

In my view, staying authentic, communicating the true core of your brand, and taking a comprehensive approach to your marketing, you may find out that going viral may be just a byproduct of a well executed plan. If any one else has thoughts and insights, I would love to hear from you and learn from you as well.

www.bebranded.net
317-797-7226

Do you have the courage to STAY a premium brand?

Friday, September 11, 2009 by Tony Fannin

by Tony Fannin, president, BE Branded

If you’re not a premium brand, then this may not be for you. But, if you consider your company or any product/service line you offer a premium line, this may interest you. As a premium brand, it’s tempting to cut your pricing or give too much in today’s economic conditions just to make the numbers (and most of the time, your margins will be too thin to sustain the brand). It takes greater courage to stay true to your brand. It’s those who remain consistent that are rewarded in the long run. Now, I’m not saying not to be creative with incentives or short-term promotions, but they mustbe in alignment with your brand. If you do too much, you run the high risk of devaluing your brand and you’ll spend even more money later just to recapture your lost margins. Here are a few points about being a premium brand in challenging economic times:

• Discounting doesn’t buy loyalty. Premium brands don’t discount because discounting doesn’t buy loyalty. It may get you a short-term rise, but in the end, it will erode your brand equity. You’ll spend many times over just to regain the lost margins you have so easily given up. You begin to reinforce the image that your brand no longer carries a high value and that it’s perceived worth is less than it was before. When people shop price, there is no loyalty. As soon as they find a cheaper price, they leave you.

• You could lose your core. By downgrading your brand through pricing or unrelated promotions, your core customers, who are willing to pay for the intrinsic value you deliver, will begin to shop else where. They will begin to feel like you’ve been overcharging them all along. Once your core believes that you’ve “sold out”, they will see your brand as something less than desirable and thus will not be willing to pay the premium any longer.

• Reward your best customers. During economic downturns is the time to reward your best customers. Give them specials that no one else can get. Reward them for their loyalty by being creative in what you offer them, like first access to new items or limited editions only for loyal customers. Find new ways to engage and reward your best customers. This will endear your brand in both the downturns as well as the good times.

• Emphasize your core purpose. This reminds your customers, your employees, and your executives of why you’re in business in the first place. This is beyond making money. It relates back to what you stand for, not what you sell. (see: Do you really know what your company sells) By reminding customers of your core purpose, you reinforce why doing business with your company is deeper than just a financial transaction. It’s a way to make a difference.

• You’re set up for the future. Once the economy begins to recover, you’re already miles ahead of the competitors who slashed and burned. You’ve created a deeper relationship with your core customers and they will be your catalyst when the recovery kicks in. Instead of trying to make up for lost ground because you devalued the brand, you’re already top of mind and have cultivated a deeper loyalty with your core customers. Your marketing investment can concentrate on accomplishing growth goals instead of spending dollars just trying to get back what you’ve lost.

I’m not saying that preserving a premium brand is easy. It’s not. But, if done right, the investment payback can be multiple times over what you would have gained with a short-sighted price war. It’s often said, if it was easy, everyone would be doing it. And if everyone is doing it, what value does it really have?

www.bebranded.net
317-797-7226

How to get the most out of your marketing agency

Thursday, September 3, 2009 by Tony Fannin

by Tony Fannin, president, BE Branded

My goal here is to educate so clients can get the best out of their advertising agency, know what to look for when they are looking for an advertising agency, know how to use their agency effectively, and, in the end, have a better relationship with their marketing partner. Now, I know that to experienced marketers, some of these points may be basic, but it never hurts to remind ourselves of the basics once in a while. In fact, we all lose business because we forget to do the simple things at times.

Know why you want one – This is not as clear as it first appears. Do you want an agency that is strong in strategy? Breakthrough creative? Someone to execute your ideas? Based on your marketing needs, look for an agency that will deliver what you want. For example, you have a very defined vision of what you want. You are told that you need to find a creative ad agency. That's the benchmark. So, you go out and hold a review and select one after several rounds. During the initial development process, you lay down your vision and how you want it executed (you are involved in everything from model selection, colors, fonts, and even layout). Your decisions are mostly based on personal tastes, not on market research. What you have effectively done is hired an agency who is known for breakthrough creative and turn them into a production house. Here's the problem. First, you're going to overpay for a commodity service – production. You should have hired a production house for half the hourly rate. Second, the agency will give you only their juniors to work on your account and still charge you rack rate. And finally, the agency and you will end up not really happy with the relationship. If you don't know what your marketing needs are, then I suggest you clarify that first before you begin looking for a marketing agency.

How to use an ad agency – Based on the reasons of why you have the need to hire one, leverage what they do best and minimize kind of work that doesn't allow them to use their talents to their fullest. Advertising agencies may have one or two areas of expertise, while some may have them all. Here are a few examples (among many) of agency qualities:

Breakthrough creative – this quality is about innovation, unique ideas, and dramatically changing the status quo. They specialize in breaking the norm and pushing the edge. This gets you out in front and to be known as a groundbreaker and pioneer. Some marketers say they want this, but when it comes down to it, they are too afraid to be the "first ones" to do something or feel they may offend someone. Great creative, by nature, will most likely alienate a few groups, but that should endear you to your core audience. If you don't want to be on the edge, this quality is something you shouldn't be looking for.

Strategy based – this agency looks at marketing through the lens of an MBA. They understand business, how it works, and where advertising fits into the overall business strategy. The best use of this quality is to have an end result in mind, but not dictate how to get there. That's what you hired them for. You have your experiences and insights to share, but you're great at making widgets, not marketing, or accounting, or corporate law, etc. This agency is creative in a different way. They research and discover a different or new marketing strategies, messaging, and media channels to communicate with your core audience where they live and deliver your message in a medium they are open to. If you already know how you want to market your company, this agency quality isn't for you. You'll be buying a service and not using it and that's a waste of money. If you already know for certain that your consumers only shop online and listen to NPR, then you need your agency to develop a creative, entertaining campaign that will appeal to your audience through web tactics and radio sponsorships. Strategy is not needed here.

Production house – this quality takes less investment. If you already know where your audience is, how to communicate to them, and what you want your marketing to look and sound like, this is the quality for you. All you need is a production house to execute your ideas and strategy. This service is usually half of most other services. A company that is purely a production house can charge less because they only need technicians, not creative brilliance or strategic thinking. If you expect this group to provide insightful strategy or groundbreaking creative ideas, more times than not, you'll be disappointed.

These are just a few of the qualities an advertising or marketing agency can bring to the table. The key is know what NOT to expect just as what to expect. There are several other ways to misuse your marketing partner:

• Giving them busy work when you have capable people already on staff – this is like using a tank to kill a rat.

• Not carefully listening and honestly considering their recommendations – if you're not going to listen to them, why hire them? That's a waste of money.

• Thinking that YOU are their customer – in reality, your customers are what's important, not your opinion. I've told several clients before, even if you hate it, but your clients love it, would you still be against it? The job of the marketing agency is to endear your message to your customers, not you.

• Being cheap – you do get what you pay for, both in talent and in results. If you pay low, you'll get bottom feeders. The best don't need your kind of business. If you invest little into the marketing campaign, but still expect huge results, you don't understand business physics very well or you're counting on "that viral buzz thing" that is gotten for free. Good luck waiting on that one. As I've heard before, you can't expect splashy results just by dipping your toe in the water. Just as you can't promise the world to your customers for the price point of your product, why do you think it's different with your suppliers and partners?

Understanding when you need an agency, how to chose one, and how to leverage their talents on your behalf will not only give you a great relationship, but a very powerful and profitable one as well.

www.bebranded.net
317-797-7226

The best product without marketing is a loser

Monday, August 31, 2009 by Tony Fannin

by Tony Fannin, president, BE Branded

"Beta format is superior to VHS, but it was VHS that won the marketing war. That's why your VCR uses VHS tapes and not Beta." I've used this example many times when talking with clients who believe in the myth that if their product is superior, they will succeed over their competitors without having to invest much into marketing. The "superior product will win" mantra is especially prevalent in techie circles (especially software boys). This same group that believes in the superior product myth also believes in the first to market also almost guarantees you win. Again, that's not true either. History is full of "second mover advantage". (VisiCalc came first, but lost out to Lotus 1-2-3, Remington Rand had the first large computers, but lost out to IBM) Being first is not a sustainable advantage either. In a lot of these cases, the initial leader leveraged their first mover advantage and created early success. Their blind spot was marketing. The products that came in after the pioneers put much more effort and resources into marketing and eventually dominated the category.

Here is a fresh example of where the pioneer lost out to the new entrant into the market category all because of marketing, or the lack there of.

Sony e-reader was revolutionary. It turned paper books into digital formats that could be read on a large screen device. It could hold hundreds of books that could be read on a 6" display screen. Many tech experts thought the features and craftsmanship was of superior quality. They introduced the product at the Consumer Electronic Show in 2006 with a big splash that got attention. Their fatal flaw was they never followed up with any type of marketing campaign. Then came along Kindle. It wasn't as technical advanced or the features as superior as the E-reader. But Kindle put a lot of marketing muscle behind their product by strong advertising and PR. They got a great PR boost from Oprah who named it one of her most favorite things. Kindle has captured share of mind like the iPod did over the Walkman.

Now Sony's E-reader is playing catch up even though it was the pioneer and had a technically superior product. They aren't going down without a fight. Michiko Araki, Sony's director of marketing, has stated they are going to focus on expanding to a more mass audience through TV and online advertising to drive customers to retail outlets. And that is one of Sony's advantages. They can offer in-person experiences Amazon can't offer. Through interactive kiosks, demo sites at retailers, and hands-on trials, Sony was able to reach over 2 million people in the last three months. This resulted in both awareness and purchase-intent increases. The battle has just begun, but it really shouldn't have been this close to begin with. Sony had the early advantage, but failed to capitalize on it by not having a marketing follow up to the initial launch. This opened the door for competitors to win the hearts and minds of consumers by marketing to them and not relying on superior product to carry the day.

This is not to say you can have a crappy product and still win. The old saying is still true, "Bad products fail quicker with good advertising." What I am stating is a superior product alone will not guarantee you will win. By not supporting a great product with equally great marketing, in the end, you become a loser.

www.bebranded.net
317-797-7226

Is traditional media becoming the new "new media"?

Friday, August 28, 2009 by Tony Fannin

by Tony Fannin, president, BE Branded

This is an interesting question. We all know of the stampede to everything online. No one wants to be left out. Marketers are joiningEVERYTHING just in case one of them takes off. It's kind of like the way some people place bets in Vegas. Because of this rush to online, special apps, and social media, it's becoming a very crowded space with some good stuff, but a lot more of crappy stuff. Online and social media is still in it's developmental stage. This leads to two deductions. One, it's an environment of experimentation and excitement. There are many cool things to be discovered and utilized. Two, because of the "wild-west" nature, there's no real discipline or set of core principles that has emerged yet. With all of this flood to new media, some think traditional marketing is on it's way out. The strange thing is that mediums such as magazines and radio have begun to reinvent themselves to the point I believe they may be the new "new media".

Here's why I think this. When I consider buying spots on radio, I'm able to get creative and strategic with how I buy. For example, instead of buying 100 spots on various stations at scattered times, I'm able to work with the stations to "own" the drive-time hour by being the onlyadvertiser during that hour. This gives me a significantly more effectiveness than scattering my radio buy. I'm also able to have my client be liked by the listening audience because the number of spots they listen to during that hour is reduced significantly. Because my client "owns" the hour, we only need 5 or 6 spots to air during the hour with DJ mentions. Compare that to 20-30 spots per hour.

The same concept goes for magazines. I'm able to dominate the pages by "owning" an issue through special inserts, fewer advertisers, creative, integrated promotions, etc. By reducing the number of advertisers in an issue through special arrangement with the publication, my client is able to easily stand out while readers are flipping through the mag. Also, by aligning product benefits with the editorial subject of the main feature articles, my ads are even more relevant.

One of the core principles of advertising is for your brand to own the media space you're in. Creatively using media vehicles accomplishes this. Traditional media outlets such as TV, radio, print, are more open than ever to work with marketers in developing creative applications to their media vehicle. They have to be. It's up to the advertisers to take advantage of that and present their companies in a more creative and unique way. Online is becoming bland and a too much of a "me too" approach. Too many web sites look the same. Too many banner ads look and act the same. Too much social media is very surface and not much depth.

New media is still in the process of defining itself and its true role in marketing. All the while, traditional media is becoming inventive and allowing new and creative uses to the medium. This allows a brand to be fresh and unique in how they present their messages and connect with their customers. And this creates online buzz, both online and off. (see: Does advertising help buzz?) The saying still is true, "what's old is new."

www.bebranded.net
317-797-7226

Does corporate brand and culture affect the bottom line?

Thursday, August 27, 2009 by Tony Fannin

by Tony Fannin, president, BE Branded

I was in a discussion with a client a few days ago. The topic that came up was does brand and corporate culture really affect bottom line revenue? Some of the executive committee believed it does. The other half thought the ideas were too "soft" to make any real difference. Of course, mission, core values, and purpose came into play as well (see: Mission, core values, and brand). Again, half thought it was very necessary and the other half thought it didn't affect how the company performed in the market place. Here are my thoughts about the subject.

First off, to me, culture is really internal brand. It's what a company stands for to their employees, stakeholders, and vendors. It's no different than the brand a company exudes externally. I do believe that internal brand/culture plays a big part in driving revenue. Because our customers are human, they operate on emotion. Granted, men tend to go more on logic, but in today's world, women drive an overwhelming percentage of purchase decisions both B2C and B2B (see: Women in control of your marketing dollars) The business landscape has changed as well. Women are achieving greater power in upper management and the executive suite. Men do use subjective measures to figure out who to buy from (golf anyone?), but they use a different set of emotional criteria.

Internal brand/culture is more than just a feel-good type of thing. It's not about people getting along, being a "family". True culture is a way of living. It's an esprit de corps. Some of the best cultures are hard and extremely demanding because they expect only the best performance, everyday. To those who are attracted to this, that's what makes it great. The feeling of belonging to an elite group who's on top of their game, ready to prove their worth under fire. Look at the Navy Seals, Apple, and WalMart. Other cultures can be centered around softer issues like Google and Starbucks. Either way, they still carry the same demands and expectations of adhering to what makes that company unique. So how does internal brand/culture affect the revenue?

• It attracts the right talent – Not everyone is built to work at every company. Just because they are a disaster at Company A, doesn't mean they're a loser. That's why you see some average employees move to a different company and become superstars. If your internal brand/culture is clear and the expectations are defined, you'll attract the type of talent that will align with the company's goals, mission, values, etc. It's been said, you don't get people to "buy in" on the company values and mission. They must believe that way to begin with. You don't have to manage the right talent. As a result, most people will agree, talent wins in the market place. The company with the right talent will dominate their sector and in the end, produce financial results. What would you rather have, a group of superstars or a group that just gets along?

• It creates unity – I'm not talking a "kum-by-yah" moment. It's about unity of purpose. A well defined internal brand/culture unifies individuals into a cohesive team. Everyone pouring their energies and talent into a singular direction. When talent is aligned with the company mission and purpose, mountains can be moved. This is where Tom Peters states that "soft is hard, and hard is soft." He's talking about the soft issues like brand and culture have the ability to move mountains because of the infinite resources humans possess. The hard are things like technology or the newest product extension. They can be easily overtaken by someone else who creates an 8-speed over your 7-speed gadget.

• It creates how a company is perceived – In today's environment, doing good is as important as what your company does for money. This is especially true amongst the up and coming 15 – 30 year olds. People know when you're being a fake and in the end, you'll be punished by the market place both financially and in PR. Your culture must be perceived as real and authentic. If you are genuine, the general public, your customers, and prospects will gain more respect for your company and will be glad to spend their money with you. This authenticity only comes when everyone in your organization believes in what it does and their purpose.

For those who want some stats to make this soft issue more concrete, I offer these:

• 46% of business financial performance results from corporate culture. Great companies have defined and known cultures.

• Companies with a clear internal brand outperform their competitors by 33% in customer retention.

• Culture driven companies outpace their sector in sales growth by and annual of 51%.

• These companies are 38% more profitable than those without a defined culture.

(from The Future of Human Resource Management by Meisinger and Ulrich)

To me, the biggest benefit of all is a company can invest their resources into activities that further their mission and purpose and spend less in trying to "manage" people. The right culture brings the right talent, keeps that talent, and leverages that talent to it's fullest. And, as a result, the company become financially successful, not because it chased money, but instead, it built a company where high performance is respected.

www.bebranded.net
317-797-7226

We still live in an analog world

Monday, August 24, 2009 by Tony Fannin

by Tony Fannin, president, BE Branded

Marketing is communication. Great marketing connects emotionally. New media, social media, and every other new app has allowed various communications in ways that were unheard of 10 years ago. It has given everyone the ability to communicate and connect with people they would have otherwise never get to talk with. It has created virtual social groups, solidified fans, and opened opportunity for customers to buy exactly what they want. All of this is a great tool for marketers and communications professionals. But, in the midst of this electronic revolution, I'm seeing an erosion of the core of what great marketing is all about – human connection.

Though we live with technology, remember, we still live in an analog world. People are human, not machines. (If it was all about technology, we should have our machines, go out, search, connect with other machines, make the purchase, and call it a day. There would be no need for humans to be in business, ever.) And as people, we carry characteristics that are not always logical, but mostly emotional. We buy not on logic, but by wants and desires (emotion). We buy because we like someone, not necessarily because they have the best. Where I see many tech companies and software developers make a major mistake is they believe in the myth that “If you create the best product, it will win.” Logically, that is a reasonable conclusion, but people are doing the purchasing, not machines. So, there are other “soft” issues that affect buying decisions. For example, you may have the best software application, but if you or your company is a pain in the ass to work with, many customers will settle for “second best”. (Though it is RARE that too many companies have THE corner on any category. Yes, Google is one for now.) We are all like that. The world is full of alternatives of companies that offer the same thing and you may even like working with them too. Bonus.

Another point that we still live in analog is the vast majority of our purchases is still real stuff. We want real food, not virtual food. We want real clothes to wear, not just dressing up our avatars. We are looking for real experiences, connections, value, and stories. Too many companies are forgetting about taking care of the channels that already exists in pursuit of chasing the “new tech thing” to do. What use is great SEO if your customer-service delivery experience sucks? What does it say about your company if your web site is cool and appealing, but when I go to your store, I feel like I just stepped into an imposter? That destroys brand authenticity and credibility. So what if you have thousands of “friends” on social networks, but you can’t even get my name right when a representative calls to explain why my order is delayed?

Here are a few guidelines that a book titled “Becoming a Category of One” has outlined that I think are still true, even in a digital world:

• Know more about the customer than anyone else
• Get closer to the customer than anyone else
• Emotionally connect with the customer better than anyone else

These ideas will give you the single greatest competitive advantage in a customer-driven market. Online apps are capable in assisting you in accomplishing these three ideas. Software is able to collect huge amounts of data so you can know more about your customer as an example. But in the end, without human, emotional connection, you’re easily replaced. Because you’ve been reduced to just a web address and a price point, I have no emotional loyalties to you or your company. If a company depends on technology alone, you will eventually end up losing to the guy who happens to belong to the same club as your best client. Because at least, your competitor is funny, has 2 kids just like your client, and loves to fly fish, just like your client, he feels like your competitor truly understands him and really likes him as a person. It’s hard to make that connection online.

Digital possibilities are endless. The smart marketers realize that this is an opportunity to expand and amplify a brand, not to replace the real stuff that matters. No media or channel can ever be THE answer. Not even social media.

www.bebranded.net
317-797-7226

Old school rules still apply to new media

Friday, August 21, 2009 by Tony Fannin

by Tony Fannin, president, BE Branded

I had a discussion a few days ago with a colleague who is into online marketing and social media. As we talked about the application of new media as it relates to traditional media, I began to realize how similar the core “rules” are. To me, the new media arena is still in it's beginnings. There's still a lot of experimentation, a lot of new apps coming online, a lot of everything. But, as the industry matures, there seems to be emerging some common ideas that really mimic the base guidelines that govern good marketing. Here are a few ideas that came up as solid, online practices:

• You must utilize different channels – This is a core of solid marketing. There is no silver bullet. You can't depend on just one tactic to drive all of your marketing efforts. In David Scott's book “The New Rules of Marketing & PR”, he states that it's not an either/or on whether you should blog, podcast, RSS, video, etc. He says you should integrate all of the online tactics into your campaign. Not everyone likes to just read or just watch videos. Individuals like to consume media differently. (sounds familiar?) I completely agree with David's assessment. Where I do differ from most new media evangelists is they believe all you need is blog, podcast, RSS, video, etc. Anything offline is old and dead. That kind of thinking is very ironic considering they will try almost anything online whether is really works or not. As long as it's online, they believe it's the thing to do. What happened to the concept of integration? To me true marketing integration takes a look at ALL possible channels and then decides on what tactics are best suited to achieve specific goals. In fact, there are recent independent studies out showing that a combination of traditional and online marketing increases word-of-mouth buzz of almost 4x as much as if you only utilized online tactics. (see: The realistic way to view TV in your marketing mix)

• Quality content is more critical now than ever – Because the internet gives everyone ability to be their own media center, you see a ton of crap. Not everyone is suited to make a video, design a web site, or even blog. Keep in mind, I'm not trying to criticize media that is for personal reasons only (though some of that is even crap). Too many business are DIY (do-it-yourself) and really have no idea what they're doing, and it shows, both strategically and tactically. Lets take video for example. Anyone can shoot a video, post it, and call it a day. That used to be good enough because the technology was so new then. Now, it's becoming different. We are starting to expect a level of professionalism, entertainment value, and quality that we see on TV. We are getting bored quicker online because the novelty of watching video from our computer is wearing off. The rules of producing a :30 spot or a 5 minute video still applies no matter where it's shown. Storyline, pacing, music selection, lighting, art direction, message, script all are important. Just as it is on TV. The business success of Hulu is, in large part, because of the quality content. They have quality shows, not just home made videos. Susan Boyle of Britain's Got Talent is a huge viral success. Again professional quality video contributes to the effect of her performance.

• Your online presence must have a personality – Again, I completely agree. Your web site, blog, twitter, and podcasts all must sound and "feel" like they came from the same company. It must carry a core personality. To marketing veterans, that's nothing new. We've understood that is the essence of brand. The specific application doesn't matter. The brand IS the core of who you are and what you stand for. It is the "personality" of your company. In referencing David Scotts' book again, he believes the same thing: your online voice must have a consistent personality. There are two key ideas here. One, you need to have a personality. Just like a person, who wants to be with someone with no personality? They're a bad hang. The second, is consistency. No one likes to keep company with Sybil. This is a company that doesn't know what they're about or does something out of character. We all know when a company says or does something that just doesn't feel right for them.
My ending thoughts lead me to believe that as new media matures, it will adapt core marketing principles that are still true and effective. Just because the medium is different, doesn't mean that what existed before no longer applies. In reality, it's just a different use of the same guidelines. Integration, quality, core brand are all as important now as it has been in the past. I would say, because of the vast new media choices, it's even more important. Just as though there are new types of alloys, glass, and construction techniques, doesn't mean that the "old" rules of applied physics isn't relevant anymore.

www.bebranded.net
317-797-7226

The realistic way to view TV in your marketing mix

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 by Tony Fannin

by Tony Fannin, president, BE Branded

The most common measurement of the TV spot has been the number of viewers it delivers. In ancient times, when there were only three stations, this made sense. Today, that measurement no longer applies. This continued line of thinking has helped erode the standing TV once had in the marketing mix of many marketing officers and brand managers. But, in reality, all is not lost. In fact, if you view TV differently, you'll see that it still is relevant and can have powerful influence in the social media arena.

It used to be the size of the audience was the measure. Now it’s what subset of that audience talks about their ad or product and was it a positive or negative conversation. The “myth” of the more word-of-mouth and buzz you have, the less advertising you need. An independent research study by the firm Keller Fay shows why this idea is a myth. The study included over 700 consumers every week, totaling 36,000 a year since June of 2006. Respondents were asked to take notes on conversations they had in 15 different categories over a 24-hour period. A few days after, they were called again to report what brands and companies were discussed in any of their conversations. They were able to track how many mentions and the media outlets that influenced the conversations. Here are some highlights:

• Over 7,000 brand mentions per week, 350,000 per year

• CNN found that its network viewers most daily mentions was about Lexus.

• Lexus utilized both TV and web properties of CNN. This resulted in generating 4-times more mentions during conversations than marketers who only utilized one media outlet.

• ESPN found that brands who advertised on its NFL and college telecasts scored consistently higher levels of word-of-mouth than those who didn't advertise.

• The study shows were influencers are getting their content to talk about:
Advertising – 26%
Programing/editorial – 14%
Point of sale – 10%
Promotions – 8%
Web sites – 8%
Direct mail – 5%

To me, there are two main points:

1. Word-of-mouth is not a silver bullet. In fact, word-of-mouth by itself is short lived. It needs fuel to feed the fire to get it started AND to keep it going. Other marketing strategies such as advertising and web marketing feeds the buzz machine. The influencers need to get their content from somewhere. Since they don't get paid, it's not their “job” to promote you, so they talk about things that find them. And you can’t find them if you’re only fishing in a single pond.

2. Judge TV differently. It's no longer about size of audience. The true effectiveness of TV is advertising on the right niche shows and provide creative and interesting content that’s worth talking about. It’s the second half where I see many marketers fall short. Their advertising is boring, unimaginative, and uninspiring. No wonder they think advertising doesn’t create buzz. It’s not worthy to be buzzed about. But, if your advertising agency can develop that core message that hits emotionally and is presented in a unique way, advertising is a very powerful tool. Combine that with the online tactics and social media, then you’ll have a message worth spreading and a brand worth talking about.

www.bebranded.net
317-797-7226

Brands that go dark, lose

Tuesday, August 11, 2009 by Tony Fannin

by Tony Fannin, president, BE Branded

There has been a recent study that has just been released. It studied the effect of going dark (cutting back on marketing to where it's practically non-existent) had on brands and revenue. It was conducted by ThinkVine, an analytics firm based in Cincinnati. They wanted to see how much real harm would be done if companies cut advertising and marketing spend drastically for one year and then fully funded their marketing budgets the next. Their findings are very interesting:

• For the first 16 weeks, sales volume stayed the same. There wasn't much of a drastic effect on the brand.

• By the end of the year, sales volume was down 20%

• When marketing was resumed the next year, the declining sales trend was reversed and the brand began gaining it's brand power back. But it never closed the gap in sales results that the company would have realized if they hadn't cut back advertising for the year.

• The cost of regaining brand power and sales ended up being a lengthy and expensive climb. The cost of regaining what they lost became more costly than the savings from the cut advertising budget.

• A brand that is already on the downward trajectory risked becoming irrelevant and becoming a shell of what they used to be.

• A brand that is flat or rising sales growth could weather the cut marketing budget better, but still ended up costing more than the savings.

Now, there are some businesses and industries that aren't as effected, but the majority of businesses and corporations will feel the difference. I know too many companies that, when times get tight, marketing and advertising is the first thing they cut. Unfortunately, that's the worst tactic you can do. Marketing and advertising is the life blood of almost all enterprise. Their critical role is to support the sales function. Sales without marketing support will find it a grind and very slow going. You lose momentum. Speaking of momentum, the funny thing about it is that when you quit, it quits. It’s not self perpetuating as you would like to believe. Marketing and advertising lets prospects know you exist, what you stand for, and how you can make their lives better. Sales is a one-on-one activity. It's the process of turning warm prospects into clients and customers. Without marketing, eventually you will run out of prospects and then you become invisible to the market place.

A case in point is Hardees. Once the main up-and-comer who was the main challenger to McDonald’s. They dominated breakfast and was shoring up their lunch and dinner menus to take on the giant. Hardees had momentum on it's side. For some reason, their C-level executives decided to drastically cut back on advertising thinking that their domination in breakfast would spread to the lunch and dinner crowd. As we all know, in a matter of 2-3 years, Hardees was struggling just to stay in business. They are still trying to regain the position they lost to Burger King and Wendy's. Many wonder if they ever will.

So, if you're contemplating on cutting advertising and marketing budgets just to “save” money, please think about the ThinkVine research and don’t become a Hardees.

www.bebranded.net
317-797-7226

Business and philanthropy

Tuesday, August 11, 2009 by Tony Fannin

by Tony Fannin, president, BE Branded

This entry is a little different than my normal thoughts about branding, marketing, and advertising. I felt the need to address the idea of big business and philanthropy. The idea came about through a conversation with a few business colleagues. One owned a business and the conversation came up to why should he try to grow a large business when all he wanted was to make a decent living and spend time with his family and doing charity work (which he loved to do and believed in)? One was as recent graduate who had ambitions to make a big difference in the world. The others worked at large corporations who had charitable programs that supported many organizations who were doing good. Most of the group saw philanthropy and growing a business as separate issues. I see it differently.

I see growing a business to it's maximum potential, or growing your division as profitable as possible, as a means to an end. To those who are passionate about philanthropy and making a “dent” in the world (as Steven Jobs would say), it takes capital and financial resources. As today’s economy has blatantly shown, without corporate profits, there is no major philanthropy. Both from a corporate side or the investor side. I know many see big business as evil. That's very narrow sighted and wrong. Big business is not inherently evil or good. It’s just a fact. What you do with the resources is what can be termed evil or good. Being a pastor’s son, I have been raised with a certain set of core values. I want to make a dent in the world for the better, but I see my way of doing so is by making my integrated marketing agency as big and profitable as possible. This will give me the resources to pour into the causes and organizations that will do the world the most good. I also see our role in helping our clients become as large as possible in order for them to fund the charitable programs they support. I see our role as much more than our own selves.

Why do I believe this? I hold this concept as true because I’ve seen what the power of financial backing can do when placed behind a great cause. My father’s church is on the front lines. Instead of building a $1mil wing to the church or adding amenities and luxuries for the congregation, they pour their financial resources into buying groceries for families in need and paying utility bills for those who would otherwise go without. The more money they had available, the more families they could help, the bigger the difference they can make in their community.

I believe that growing a business or division to it's fullest potential is a key driver in making a difference in the world. I know that human capital – the many volunteers – are very important. They are on the front lines doing the hard work. But as in any battle, soldiers without weapons and resources will not be able to do their jobs and are totally ineffective. That’s the key role big business plays. I know that I'm not alone. Jack Welch has often said that building winning businesses is extremely beneficial for society. Winning businesses contribute to the overall attitude of their employees. It contributes financial support to worthy charitable organizations. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are prime examples of taking big business and making a huge dent in the world. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet represent the two groups I mentioned earlier (corporations and investors). The recent grad in our group asked the question of why should she spend her time with trying to become expert in her field instead of going straight to a not-for-profit group? Knowing her well, I knew she wanted to make a big difference and wouldn’t be satisfied just donating her Saturdays helping out at public functions. My reply was who is going to effect more people quicker: the big business that has a philanthropy program that contributes $2mil a year or an individual who donates their Saturdays? In this she saw the point, which is beyond giving of your time, building a great business IS a means to an end. In addition to financial support, great businesses can give of their expertise and knowledge. I know that our agency markets for causes we believe in. We leverage our expertise in integrated marketing to get their message out and be as effective as our “real” clients. As we know, awareness is half the battle. The other half is to reach them emotionally of why they should even care.

So to those who only want to grow their business to just a corner store or two, or to those who just want to be comfortable, think about how much good you can do by building great businesses that reach their full potential. Our role is to help our clients build those great businesses so they, in turn, will have the resources to change the world for the better. As I’ve heard before, humans are the only things in nature that CHOOSES to not reach their full potential.

www.bebranded.net
317-797-7226

Components of a marketing strategy

Friday, August 7, 2009 by Tony Fannin

by Tony Fannin, president, BE Branded

Large corporations and Fortune 500 companies have seasoned pros developing their marketing strategies. They have deep resources and brain trusts. One of their key weapons is their advertising or marketing agency. These companies compete and play to win by bringing together the best minds they feel that give them the strategic and creative edge over their competitors. So, if you’re not that big of a player, how can you compete in a crowded marketspace? Even large corporations like 3M and GE approach their business as a collection of “Start-ups” and take the mentality of a “Out of the garage” business. They believe in instilling the entrepreneurial spirit into their divisions to make them competitive and hungry.

The answer isn’t complicated, it’s simple, but not easy. It comes down to a few core areas. One, your product/service must deliver. In today’s world, being great is just the cost of entry. There are so many great innovations, products, and services out there, not too many “features” stay as a sustaining competitive advantage. The second core area is invest with the attitude of “play to win”. Many corporations will tell you that one of the main reasons why divisions or product lines fail is usually not because of inferior products or services, it’s they didn’t invest enough resources and marketing into it to give it a real fighting chance. This leads me to the third area, marketing. Many medium and small companies don’t really know how to set up a marketing strategy. As a result, their “marketing” usually doesn’t work as well as they would like or not at all. They begin to believe that advertising and marketing doesn’t work when, in fact, they just don’t know how to truly set up a comprehensive marketing strategy.

Here are the 5 key areas to developing a solid marketing strategy: (footnote: you must be BRUTALLY honest in answering these areas, otherwise, you’re just cheating yourself and will not get the results you are looking for.)

1. What does the competitive environment look like? – Take a hard look at both, your competitors and your customers. You need to understand what’s going on now. Look at this like a benchmark. In the military, it’s being situationally aware. This also means know what’s going on in categories that is related to your industry. Do you know what your competitors brands stand for? Do you know what customers really want? (and it’s not the actual thing you’re selling. see: Do you really know what your company sells?)

2. In the last few years, what have your competitors done? – Be honest. Give credit where credit is due. Is their current marketing campaign dominating everyone in your category? Are they investing more into advertising than you? Are they reaching customers in a more creative way? Have they created a new, innovative product line? Did they take one of your best salesperson? These are the questions that need to be asked and answered honestly.

3. During the same time, what have you done to them? – Again, honesty is vital. You need to access your own marketing efforts and investments. What are you doing great? What are you doing that’s not so great? (I used “great” on purpose because anything less means you are not even paying the cost of entry) Have you realistically invested enough in marketing to make a difference? Remember you can’t expect splashy results by dipping your toe in the water.

4. How would your competitors attack you in the future? – Put yourself in your competitors’ shoes. What would you do to exploit any gaps and weaknesses? What marketing messages would make you look bad and your competitors look good? How much would you invest into marketing to gain an advantage over your company? What market niches would you exploit? This is the place to where you dissect your own company and formulate a plan of attack.

5. What are your plans to get your company beyond your competitors? – This is where many business owners and marketing managers start their marketing strategy. As you see, this is the last component in developing a marketing strategy, not the first. This is where you define tactics and goals that will help you leapfrog over the competition. This should determine your marketing investment. Not the other way around where you define a budget and then try to set goals and tactics. Otherwise you are setting yourself up to fail. Of course, many do it this way and that’s why they believe marketing doesn’t work. I agree with them. If I did it that way, it would work for me either. It’s important to stretch here. Just doing the same-old-thing will get you the same-old-results. One word of caution, if you like the results you’ve been getting and assume you’re going to get the same results again, you’re fooling yourself. By thinking your competitors will always be the way you see them now is not realistic and is very damaging in the long run. No competitor who wants to win will stand still. They will be improving and investing just as much or more than you do.

By answering these questions, you’ll be able to create a solid, comprehensive marketing plan. The benefit of this approach is that you’ll be able to anticipate your competitors’ next move and not be surprised. Instead, you’ll be prepared. In the best case scenario, you’ll be able to anticipate and preempt their move before they even put their plan into action. Most marketing and advertising agencies are able to put this kind of plan together for you. The other BIG asset they bring is the creative component. This is the “magic” that makes a marketing campaign stand out and connect in a real, emotional way with customers and the marketspace. Execute without a strong creative concept, and you begin to look and sound like the other hundreds of competitors that are out there. Your company will not have a unique voice in the market and will just add to the noise.

www.bebranded.net
317-797-7226