It's with great pleasure that I announce that my company, Three Deuce Branding, is a recipient of a 2009 Small Business Excellence Award from the Cincinnati USA Regional Chamber.
Nominees were judged on six categories: Company background; customer focus; leadership style and company culture; strategic planning and sustainability of business; community involvement; and financial performance and sustainability. The awards ceremony is May 19; more information is available from this page on the Cincinnati Chamber website.
I'm honored and humbled to receive this recognition within Cincinnati's thriving small business community. And I owe a debt of gratitude to my clients, partners, family and friends, without whom this (or any success) would not have been possible.
April 26, 2009
Subscribe to That Branding Thing via email
I've just added a Feedburner gadget that allows you to subscribe to That Branding Thing via email. Simply enter your email in the box at the top right of this page, and new posts will arrive in your in-box.
I hope this new feature provides additional ease and convenience for That Branding Thing readers. Please take advantage of it!
I hope this new feature provides additional ease and convenience for That Branding Thing readers. Please take advantage of it!
April 22, 2009
Agencies and Brand Positioning
On April 15, Jeff Welch of MercuryCSC (Bozeman, MT) wrote an interesting article entitled "Find Your Authority, Then Own It" for AdAge's ongoing "Small Business Diary" section. In it, he advises agencies to get focused on their particular area of expertise. He's also a pretty good writer.
Below is an excerpt of my response to Jeff (see the "comments" section of his post for the full thread). It's written for an agency audience, though these principles would hold for most any industry or category.
There's always been a paradox with agencies. They're supposed help their clients differentiate their brands, and yet most agencies (as in, 80-90%) do a horrendous job differentiating themselves.
This does not enhance their credibility.
I'm not talking about what agencies SAY (though there's a tremendous sameness in that). I'm talking about what agencies DO. Most agencies define themselves by the nature of their work (print, digital, whatever) and that's their first mistake. That tells me what you do, but not how you're different.
Smaller agencies have a tremendous opportunity to differentiate vs. their larger brethren, almost all of whom are on the "one stop shop" model. Smaller agencies can be more focused. They can do one thing great. They can develop specific expertise. But most choose not to, opting instead for a "sure, we can do that!" approach.
If you want to successfully position your agency, consider the intersection of three overlapping circles:
* Your Company - roots, values, beliefs, strengths, passions...
* Your Clients - wants, needs, dreams...
* Your Competitors - weaknesses, whitespace...
Each of those circles requires some healthy exploration, so be prepared to give your own positioning the time it deserves (months, not days). And, as Jeff points out, you have to commit to living it (years, not weeks).
My company, Three Deuce Branding, is a pure positioning, strategy and ideation consultancy. It's easy to articulate our difference: "We help brands answer their two most important questions: What will we stand for? And how will we get there?" Most agencies aren't nearly as clear about what they do, nor are most agencies truly expert in brand strategy (which they too often confuse with communications strategy). And so we win a certain amount of business from them on this basis. (Since Three Deuce doesn't touch creative or execution, we also partner with agencies quite often, each of us doing what we do best.)
In the 12 years since I founded Three Deuce, and the 20 years I've been in some form of marketing, I've seen a number of extremely talented creative people and organizations fail because they neither defined nor lived their difference. That's a small tragedy. Take Jeff's lead and make your own positioning a priority.
The benefits of a clear brand positioning and bold brand strategy are almost too numerous to list, but they include efficiency, profits and customer loyalty. To find out more, visit ThreeDeuce.com, or contact me directly at matthew[at]ThreeDeuce[dot]com.
Below is an excerpt of my response to Jeff (see the "comments" section of his post for the full thread). It's written for an agency audience, though these principles would hold for most any industry or category.
There's always been a paradox with agencies. They're supposed help their clients differentiate their brands, and yet most agencies (as in, 80-90%) do a horrendous job differentiating themselves.
This does not enhance their credibility.
I'm not talking about what agencies SAY (though there's a tremendous sameness in that). I'm talking about what agencies DO. Most agencies define themselves by the nature of their work (print, digital, whatever) and that's their first mistake. That tells me what you do, but not how you're different.
Smaller agencies have a tremendous opportunity to differentiate vs. their larger brethren, almost all of whom are on the "one stop shop" model. Smaller agencies can be more focused. They can do one thing great. They can develop specific expertise. But most choose not to, opting instead for a "sure, we can do that!" approach.
If you want to successfully position your agency, consider the intersection of three overlapping circles:
* Your Company - roots, values, beliefs, strengths, passions...
* Your Clients - wants, needs, dreams...
* Your Competitors - weaknesses, whitespace...
Each of those circles requires some healthy exploration, so be prepared to give your own positioning the time it deserves (months, not days). And, as Jeff points out, you have to commit to living it (years, not weeks).
My company, Three Deuce Branding, is a pure positioning, strategy and ideation consultancy. It's easy to articulate our difference: "We help brands answer their two most important questions: What will we stand for? And how will we get there?" Most agencies aren't nearly as clear about what they do, nor are most agencies truly expert in brand strategy (which they too often confuse with communications strategy). And so we win a certain amount of business from them on this basis. (Since Three Deuce doesn't touch creative or execution, we also partner with agencies quite often, each of us doing what we do best.)
In the 12 years since I founded Three Deuce, and the 20 years I've been in some form of marketing, I've seen a number of extremely talented creative people and organizations fail because they neither defined nor lived their difference. That's a small tragedy. Take Jeff's lead and make your own positioning a priority.
The benefits of a clear brand positioning and bold brand strategy are almost too numerous to list, but they include efficiency, profits and customer loyalty. To find out more, visit ThreeDeuce.com, or contact me directly at matthew[at]ThreeDeuce[dot]com.
April 18, 2009
Domino's: How Should They Respond?
That Branding Thing reader Sean Grace asked a great question in the "comments" section of my previous post. He wrote:
"Matthew, what kinds of things do you think Domino's can do in the near future to begin to win back the trust of customers? What would work in your opinion?"
I won't claim to be a PR expert, but I'll offer a few ideas.
First, I'll say I like Domino's response to date. They've maintained a tone of customer gratitude and care throughout. The YouTube video featuring David Boyle (see it in my previous post) hits all the right notes, though they might have coached him to look a little less shell-shocked and a little more conversational. That's a minor quibble though.
They've also been very active on Twitter: visit http://www.Twitter.com/dpzinfo. Most related tweets are very supportive of Domino's brand and response to this crisis.
As Mr. Boyle notes in the video, the employees in question were fired. (And they've since been arrested.) Further, he says, the store in question was shut down & sanitized from top to bottom. He claims Domino's will re-evaluate its hiring practices, and he notes that auditors are in Domino's stores as a regular practice.
So, to answer Sean's question: What else can they do?
For me, the first step is assessment. Domino's should assess the impact this has had on consumer perceptions. That will help them to measure their response. (I'd guess they've already done some form of assessment.) The conservative approach would be to assume significant brand damage, but that could also lead you to an "over-response" that has negative consequences of its own.
The next two steps should happen simultaneously: Consumer outreach and employee outreach. Let's take consumer outreach first. Domino's might create another YouTube video or series of videos, enlisting their team members to tell a story of both food safety and pride. They also need to articulate food safety standards and policies. Some certification of their cleanliness, food safety, etc., by an independent, recognized third party also couldn't hurt.
As far as employee outreach, there should be an internal messaging program that keeps all team members appraised of their response to this crisis, and, as importantly, reinforces Domino's trust in their employees. If Domino's throws a ton of new internal policy at this problem, it could have the unintended negative consequence of ruining morale and creating an air of distrust. If Domino's truly believes that its policies were strong before this crisis, and they believe in their team, there's no need to overdo it on knee-jerk policy changes.
What else do you think Domino's should do? Please add your thoughts to the "comments" section.
"Matthew, what kinds of things do you think Domino's can do in the near future to begin to win back the trust of customers? What would work in your opinion?"
I won't claim to be a PR expert, but I'll offer a few ideas.
First, I'll say I like Domino's response to date. They've maintained a tone of customer gratitude and care throughout. The YouTube video featuring David Boyle (see it in my previous post) hits all the right notes, though they might have coached him to look a little less shell-shocked and a little more conversational. That's a minor quibble though.
They've also been very active on Twitter: visit http://www.Twitter.com/dpzinfo. Most related tweets are very supportive of Domino's brand and response to this crisis.
As Mr. Boyle notes in the video, the employees in question were fired. (And they've since been arrested.) Further, he says, the store in question was shut down & sanitized from top to bottom. He claims Domino's will re-evaluate its hiring practices, and he notes that auditors are in Domino's stores as a regular practice.
So, to answer Sean's question: What else can they do?
For me, the first step is assessment. Domino's should assess the impact this has had on consumer perceptions. That will help them to measure their response. (I'd guess they've already done some form of assessment.) The conservative approach would be to assume significant brand damage, but that could also lead you to an "over-response" that has negative consequences of its own.
The next two steps should happen simultaneously: Consumer outreach and employee outreach. Let's take consumer outreach first. Domino's might create another YouTube video or series of videos, enlisting their team members to tell a story of both food safety and pride. They also need to articulate food safety standards and policies. Some certification of their cleanliness, food safety, etc., by an independent, recognized third party also couldn't hurt.
As far as employee outreach, there should be an internal messaging program that keeps all team members appraised of their response to this crisis, and, as importantly, reinforces Domino's trust in their employees. If Domino's throws a ton of new internal policy at this problem, it could have the unintended negative consequence of ruining morale and creating an air of distrust. If Domino's truly believes that its policies were strong before this crisis, and they believe in their team, there's no need to overdo it on knee-jerk policy changes.
What else do you think Domino's should do? Please add your thoughts to the "comments" section.
April 15, 2009
Domino's, YouTube and Moron Employees
The internet is abuzz today with reports of the two Domino's employees who tampered with food, videotaped it, and uploaded it to YouTube. As Emily Bryson York writes in the April 14 AdAge, "...two youths identifying themselves as Kristy and Michael besmirch a pair of sub sandwiches and the pizza chain's reputation. Michael inserts pieces of cheese into his nose and waves pieces of salami behind his backside. Both the salami and the cheese are placed on the sandwiches. The video had gotten more than 21,000 YouTube views at press time. " (UPDATE, April 16: According to AdAge, from April 14 to 15, the number of YouTube views had jumped from 21,000 to 760,000.)
The offending (and offensive) video can be found below. A warning: If you're looking for either humor or intelligence, this is not the video for you. (UPDATE, April 16: The video below has been taken off YouTube for "copyright" reasons. You may be able to find it elsewhere online.)
The video, its circulation and the resulting Internet buzz clearly point out the importance of monitoring brand reputation. No need to elaborate on that point further, except to say I'm quite surprised that, according to the April 14 AdAge article, Domino's had "decided not to issue a press release or post a statement online" because "a strong response from Domino's would alert more consumers to the embarrassment." By today, their stance had changed: Domino's president Patrick Doyle has posted a response video on YouTube (see below). Still, the response time is not what it could have been.
(UPDATE, April 16: Domino's has also been active on Twitter, responding to posts in real-time with the handle "dpzinfo." The Twitter-verse generally gives high marks for this level of engagement and for the video below. Certainly, there's more Domino's should and will do to respond.)
More troublesome, to me, is the behavior of the employees. I'm not going to suggest that this kind of thing doesn't happen elsewhere and often, because I've worked in restaurants and I know better. However, I'm also a believer in a kind of "implicit contract": When you agree to work for an organization, you should strive to help that organization succeed (or at the very least do it no harm), no matter how unhappy you may be with the organization, your job or yourself. If you find yourself unable to do that, then do the honorable thing and quit. Both parties - employer and employee - have legal and ethical responsibilities, whether overtly stated or not.
According to Domino's president Patrick Doyle in the above video, the "two team members have been dismissed, and there are felony warrants out for their arrest." Whatever their ultimate punishment, it will pale in comparison to the potential damage they've done to the Domino's brand.
The internet and social media provide tremendous opportunities for voices to be heard. But with that comes responsibility. This is an example of what happens when that responsibility is ignored. I hope the two employees in question pay a significant price for their inane choices.
The offending (and offensive) video can be found below. A warning: If you're looking for either humor or intelligence, this is not the video for you. (UPDATE, April 16: The video below has been taken off YouTube for "copyright" reasons. You may be able to find it elsewhere online.)
The video, its circulation and the resulting Internet buzz clearly point out the importance of monitoring brand reputation. No need to elaborate on that point further, except to say I'm quite surprised that, according to the April 14 AdAge article, Domino's had "decided not to issue a press release or post a statement online" because "a strong response from Domino's would alert more consumers to the embarrassment." By today, their stance had changed: Domino's president Patrick Doyle has posted a response video on YouTube (see below). Still, the response time is not what it could have been.
(UPDATE, April 16: Domino's has also been active on Twitter, responding to posts in real-time with the handle "dpzinfo." The Twitter-verse generally gives high marks for this level of engagement and for the video below. Certainly, there's more Domino's should and will do to respond.)
More troublesome, to me, is the behavior of the employees. I'm not going to suggest that this kind of thing doesn't happen elsewhere and often, because I've worked in restaurants and I know better. However, I'm also a believer in a kind of "implicit contract": When you agree to work for an organization, you should strive to help that organization succeed (or at the very least do it no harm), no matter how unhappy you may be with the organization, your job or yourself. If you find yourself unable to do that, then do the honorable thing and quit. Both parties - employer and employee - have legal and ethical responsibilities, whether overtly stated or not.
According to Domino's president Patrick Doyle in the above video, the "two team members have been dismissed, and there are felony warrants out for their arrest." Whatever their ultimate punishment, it will pale in comparison to the potential damage they've done to the Domino's brand.
The internet and social media provide tremendous opportunities for voices to be heard. But with that comes responsibility. This is an example of what happens when that responsibility is ignored. I hope the two employees in question pay a significant price for their inane choices.
Three Deuce on WNKU
On Thursday-Friday, April 16-17, I will once again join Crystal Faulkner and Tom Cooney on their "BusinessWise" radio show between 5-5:30 on Greater Cincinnati's WNKU/89.7-FM.
We'll be discussing "Finding Difference in the Sameness Era," with tips for those of you seeking to make your brand or business stand out in a crowded, competitive environment. Please listen live, or check the podcasts at www.WNKU.org. And thanks, as always, for your support!
We'll be discussing "Finding Difference in the Sameness Era," with tips for those of you seeking to make your brand or business stand out in a crowded, competitive environment. Please listen live, or check the podcasts at www.WNKU.org. And thanks, as always, for your support!
April 12, 2009
Wealth Dimensions Group: Three Deuce clients launch new identity, website
It's my pleasure to announce the new website of Three Deuce clients Wealth Dimensions Group. Please visit: http://www.WealthDimensions.com.
The Wealth Dimensions Group partners – Tom Curti, Doug Loftus and Mike McCaw – are continuing their company's 20+ year tradition of disciplined, long-term investing that is driven by the life goals of their clients – not by commissions (their services are fee-based only). And the entire Wealth Dimensions team is focused not on "biggest," but on "best." They're great folks, and certainly a breath of fresh air in the current financial environment.
I began working on brand development with Wealth Dimensions Group in early 2008. (At the time, they were known as Spectrum Financial Services.) The project began with Discovery, including internal interviews, client interviews, a competitive audit and an internal visioning session. Three Deuce Branding also assisted in naming development.
The strategic portion of the project was capped off with the presentation of a new brand positioning, including overall equity, target, benefits, points of difference, brand character and key building blocks. Three Deuce also developed a Strategic Guide (outlining key platforms and priorities) and a Messaging Guide (identifying core brand messages for consistency and focus).
With strategy in place, Linserpelle Creative developed both the new Wealth Dimensions logomark and website. Many thanks to Dino Pelle, Becky Linser and their team for bringing the Wealth Dimensions brand to life.
I invite you to visit www.WealthDimensions.com to learn more.
Need to define what your brand will stand for and how it will get there? Visit www.ThreeDeuce.com, or contact Three Deuce founder Matthew Fenton directly at (513) 871-3100 or matthew[at]ThreeDeuce[dot]com.
The Wealth Dimensions Group partners – Tom Curti, Doug Loftus and Mike McCaw – are continuing their company's 20+ year tradition of disciplined, long-term investing that is driven by the life goals of their clients – not by commissions (their services are fee-based only). And the entire Wealth Dimensions team is focused not on "biggest," but on "best." They're great folks, and certainly a breath of fresh air in the current financial environment.
I began working on brand development with Wealth Dimensions Group in early 2008. (At the time, they were known as Spectrum Financial Services.) The project began with Discovery, including internal interviews, client interviews, a competitive audit and an internal visioning session. Three Deuce Branding also assisted in naming development.
The strategic portion of the project was capped off with the presentation of a new brand positioning, including overall equity, target, benefits, points of difference, brand character and key building blocks. Three Deuce also developed a Strategic Guide (outlining key platforms and priorities) and a Messaging Guide (identifying core brand messages for consistency and focus).
With strategy in place, Linserpelle Creative developed both the new Wealth Dimensions logomark and website. Many thanks to Dino Pelle, Becky Linser and their team for bringing the Wealth Dimensions brand to life.
I invite you to visit www.WealthDimensions.com to learn more.
Need to define what your brand will stand for and how it will get there? Visit www.ThreeDeuce.com, or contact Three Deuce founder Matthew Fenton directly at (513) 871-3100 or matthew[at]ThreeDeuce[dot]com.
April 8, 2009
Microsoft: Lauren - another loser
Microsoft's latest effort in its war vs. Apple is the "Lauren" spot, in which an Everywoman is given $1000 to shop for a computer that meets her specs. Inevitably, she selects a PC. Check it out below.
The spot is flawed in both concept and execution.
Concept: The fact that Microsoft, the market leader by far, feels the need to respond so overtly to Apple's "I'm a Mac/I'm a PC" campaign proves that campaign is either working, or really getting to Microsoft management, or both.
Microsoft might have considered simply ignoring the campaign, concentrating instead on its own branding and messaging. Except for one thing: Microsoft doesn't really have a brand. It's a classic example of "bigness," not "betterness." They've never had a consistent, meaningful branding campaign. I can't tell you what Microsoft stands for, and I've been on PCs for my entire career. Apple has done an outstanding job attacking this core brand issue.
So, instead of playing to its strengths, Microsoft dignifies Apple with a response. Lauren says, "I'm just not cool enough to be a Mac person." This is clearly meant to be a competitive jab, but it also reinforces Apple's position. I can't imagine they find this too troubling at Apple headquarters.
Lauren proceeds to find a laptop PC that meets her specs for $700, and gets to keep the difference. So Microsoft is effectively saying, "We're cheap." And that's not much of a response at all, because Apple has been saying, "Your stuff is hard to use and it's riddled with errors." One would expect such a brand to be cheap. No news here.
And I won't even get into the obvious "true cost of ownership" argument here, except to say that a few negative, time-consuming operating experiences quickly negate a few hundred dollars in purchase price savings.
The lesson: Either position yourself, or your competitors - even if they're significanly smaller - will happily do it for you.
Execution: Denizens of the web have worked their magic once again. Last week, Freddie Laker reported in AdAge that Lauren, who is presented in Microsoft's spot as an average everyday computer shopper, actually has her SAG card. Yup, she's an actress.
Further, people have deconstructed the ad and smell something fishy. Check out the :13 mark of the spot - there's a tall guy in a black jacket to Lauren's right as she walks into the Apple store. Then check out the :15 second mark, when Lauren walks out - the same guy is just a few paces down the sidewalk. So does she walk into the store at all? Is the whole thing staged? Good questions.
The lesson: Authenticity counts. It's all too easy to find out these days if you're trying to pull the wool.
April 5, 2009
Tropicana: Out with the Old, In with the New, Out with the New...
AdAge reports that not only was Tropicana's recent packaging change a customer-relations fiasco, but also a financial drain on the brand: Dollar sales of Tropicana Pure Premium dropped 19% from Jan. 1 to Feb. 22 of this year (category dollar sales fell 5% in the same time period). On Feb. 23, Tropicana announced that it was pulling the new design and reverting to the old. (The full AdAge article can be found here: http://adage.com/article?article_id=135735. Registration may be required.)
Both designs are shown below, with the original design on the left, and the new (recently removed) design on the right.
Both designs are shown below, with the original design on the left, and the new (recently removed) design on the right.
This has been a major design snafu (I can't think of a bigger one in recent history), and there's been quite a bit of talk in the marketing community about what exactly went wrong. Consensus seems to be that it's a failure of marketing research - that research should have kept this design from hitting the shelves. I've got a different point of view.
To me, this is a failure of design strategy. There must be a strategic reason behind every design choice that you make. Peter Arnell, whose agency is responsible for the new design, said at the time of its launch, "It's time to remind consumers that Tropicana Pure Premium is pure, natural and squeezed from fresh oranges." If that was the design objective, the increased prominence of "100% orange" makes some sense. But why select an overall design that feels so "generic," especially for a brand with such a heritage of "premium"? And why, especially, would you walk away from the "straw in the orange" - a smart symbol of the purity of the juice inside, and an ownable element of the visual identity - and replace it with a standard-issue, unownable glass of orange juice?
I can't comment intelligently on whether "pure, natural and squeezed from fresh oranges" is the right message for Tropicana. It's clear, however, that their design strategy in conveying that message was wildly off the mark. That's not a research issue - that's a strategy issue.
The lessons for the rest of us: If you're going to make significant changes to your brand's visual identity, there must be clear strategic reasons to do so. And if you're going to walk away from strong elements of your brand's equity - such as Tropicana's "straw in the orange" - you had better be certain you're moving to something even better.
What's your take on the Tropicana redesign?
April 3, 2009
Want better results? Dig deep.
Looking for better results from your marketing and branding efforts? The answer may be as simple as digging a little deeper.
Too often, we opt for the fast, easy or cheap choice, when it's really the accurate choice that we need. As budgets are reduced, this pressure increases. When this happens, we sacrifice long-term benefits for short-term convenience.
I see it happen all the time. I know of one brand manager who waited until the very last minute to create his annual marketing plan. With his back against the wall, he simply added 5% to the previous year's sales and spending assumptions, and submitted it for approval.
That's not the scary part of the story. The scary part is that this "plan" was approved by management with a minimum of questions.
The idea of a marketing plan is that you consider the best available data, challenge assumptions and create new ideas that will get you to your objectives. If you want a better marketing plan, you have to dig deep.
Another horror story: A marketing manager for a category-leading brand told me about an incident with her agency, a major player in the advertising world. She asked the agency team to develop a set of possible taglines for her brand, and to recommend one. Their recommendation, it turned out, was nearly word-for-word the same as another brand. Even worse, that brand was also in her company's portfolio!
The agency hadn't done even the most basic exploration before starting its tagline work. The failure to dig deep corresponded to a failure in the mission itself.
This is why, when I'm working with a client to build a positioning statement, the process takes months, not weeks. Visualize three overlapping circles: One labeled "company," one labeled "competitors," and the last labeled "consumers." Your ideal brand positioning is found at the intersection of these three circles. And the better the information you gather within each circle, the stronger your positioning will be.
So, before we start any work on the positioning statement itself, we dig deep. We might interview company leaders, survey employees, take a tour of the client's manufacturing facilities, analyze strategic and marketing plans, and audit client communications from the past three years. And that's just for the "company" circle!
The other two circles receive their due diligence as well. For example, some well-conceived market research is often useful in order to determine what consumers truly think about the strengths and weaknesses of your competitors. Or we may identify latent consumer needs – those insights that have the potential to shake up the game and provide real differentiation.
Then we take all of that information and put it to use in the form of a "visioning session." Here, company employees are able to create bold, tangible answers to the questions of what the brand will stand for, who it will serve, and how it will do that.
The process takes time. Clients sometimes ask if it can be done faster. And it can, but at what expense? I could hand you a positioning statement a day after meeting you, but it wouldn't be the right one. The real value of a positioning statement is in its long-term benefits – sharper focus, smarter targeting, enhanced marketing efficiency and effectiveness. So it actually saves money to do it right.
The next time you're thinking about cutting corners, consider the real costs. Sure, things like market research can be expensive, and plenty of useless research hits the field every day. But if the research is well-constructed and objective-driven, it will help you to make better decisions in the future. (That's really the only reason to field research, right?) In doing so, you minimize the potential costs of a bad decision – costs that may be incurred, even unknowingly, for years.
The big insights – the ones that change the game – aren't just sitting there on the surface. For best results, dig deep.
Want to dig deep to get to the heart of your brand? Contact Three Deuce Branding at (513) 871-3100, www.ThreeDeuce.com, or hello-AT-threedeuce-DOT-com.
A version of this post appeared in the April 3, 2009, edition of the Business Courier of Cincinnati.
Too often, we opt for the fast, easy or cheap choice, when it's really the accurate choice that we need. As budgets are reduced, this pressure increases. When this happens, we sacrifice long-term benefits for short-term convenience.
I see it happen all the time. I know of one brand manager who waited until the very last minute to create his annual marketing plan. With his back against the wall, he simply added 5% to the previous year's sales and spending assumptions, and submitted it for approval.
That's not the scary part of the story. The scary part is that this "plan" was approved by management with a minimum of questions.
The idea of a marketing plan is that you consider the best available data, challenge assumptions and create new ideas that will get you to your objectives. If you want a better marketing plan, you have to dig deep.
Another horror story: A marketing manager for a category-leading brand told me about an incident with her agency, a major player in the advertising world. She asked the agency team to develop a set of possible taglines for her brand, and to recommend one. Their recommendation, it turned out, was nearly word-for-word the same as another brand. Even worse, that brand was also in her company's portfolio!
The agency hadn't done even the most basic exploration before starting its tagline work. The failure to dig deep corresponded to a failure in the mission itself.
This is why, when I'm working with a client to build a positioning statement, the process takes months, not weeks. Visualize three overlapping circles: One labeled "company," one labeled "competitors," and the last labeled "consumers." Your ideal brand positioning is found at the intersection of these three circles. And the better the information you gather within each circle, the stronger your positioning will be.
So, before we start any work on the positioning statement itself, we dig deep. We might interview company leaders, survey employees, take a tour of the client's manufacturing facilities, analyze strategic and marketing plans, and audit client communications from the past three years. And that's just for the "company" circle!
The other two circles receive their due diligence as well. For example, some well-conceived market research is often useful in order to determine what consumers truly think about the strengths and weaknesses of your competitors. Or we may identify latent consumer needs – those insights that have the potential to shake up the game and provide real differentiation.
Then we take all of that information and put it to use in the form of a "visioning session." Here, company employees are able to create bold, tangible answers to the questions of what the brand will stand for, who it will serve, and how it will do that.
The process takes time. Clients sometimes ask if it can be done faster. And it can, but at what expense? I could hand you a positioning statement a day after meeting you, but it wouldn't be the right one. The real value of a positioning statement is in its long-term benefits – sharper focus, smarter targeting, enhanced marketing efficiency and effectiveness. So it actually saves money to do it right.
The next time you're thinking about cutting corners, consider the real costs. Sure, things like market research can be expensive, and plenty of useless research hits the field every day. But if the research is well-constructed and objective-driven, it will help you to make better decisions in the future. (That's really the only reason to field research, right?) In doing so, you minimize the potential costs of a bad decision – costs that may be incurred, even unknowingly, for years.
The big insights – the ones that change the game – aren't just sitting there on the surface. For best results, dig deep.
Want to dig deep to get to the heart of your brand? Contact Three Deuce Branding at (513) 871-3100, www.ThreeDeuce.com, or hello-AT-threedeuce-DOT-com.
A version of this post appeared in the April 3, 2009, edition of the Business Courier of Cincinnati.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
