Checkmate - Branding

Green Launching Pad innovates state-level clean energy branding

Fri, 03 Sep 2010 11:49:00-0400

One of the more innovative collaborations between a higher education institution, statewide and federal government is unfolding in New Hampshire.

This past February, the Green Launching Pad was launched. It’s a strategic partnership between the University of New Hampshire (UNH) and New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning, with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy (ARRA).

The organization connects entrepreneurs and private industry with technical, scientific and business faculty, students and state-level resources to successfully launch and accelerate the growth of new green businesses.

Five New Hampshire companies received funding in Year One of the program. Seventy-one businesses and entrepreneurs submitted applications for this funding, bolstered by $750,000 in federal stimulus funding.

An advisory board selected the five winners who are now being supported with an intensive business accelerator program aligned with UNH. The companies are connected to business, science and engineering faculty to develop product development, finance and marketing plans. The GLP also builds relationships on the financing side via angel investors and private sector business mentors (disclosure: Beaupre mentored one of the five winning companies, Air Power Analytics).

The new Green Launching Pad businesses are required to help the State reduce carbon emissions in sustainable ways. By building successful companies, New Hampshire believes it will also fuel job growth and broaden economic opportunities.

Governor John Lynch led a roundtable discussion with GLP companies last week, answering their questions and uncovering their needs and concerns. He said “I want to see you succeed in New Hampshire. I want this effort to create jobs. I want to help you win.”

So far, it’s a model bearing fruit in the Granite State.

This week “Venky” Venkatachalam, one of the original GLP founders, told Michael McCord of www.seacoastonline.com “You read about this when you have academia and industry working together. This has been a huge positive experience that could be a powerful force for economic development.”

Clean energy conscious state government, higher ed institutions, energy companies and the corporate sector may benefit by keeping a close watch on its progress.

Next BP victim: 'brand journalism'

Tue, 06 Jul 2010 11:15:00-0400

The brand journalist is the one of the most compelling marketing concepts I've encountered in a while. Leave it to BP to spoil a good thing.

Read more from our CleanSpeak blog here.

Six branding lessons from "Lost"

Fri, 28 May 2010 11:07:00-0400

I already miss “Lost.” Arguably, no TV show since “The X Files” was as gripping within the sci-fi genre (or whatever pseudo category Lost fit in).

There are lessons to be learned from “Lost” for communications professionals trying to build memorable brands:

Character development hooks – “Lost” grabbed us because of its fully-developed cast of believable characters. The writers gave us plenty of time to get to know them, building complex, multi-dimensional views. And not just in the here and now. We cared about these people, we hated some, we felt bad for others. They were our friends; we knew them.

Take risks – “Lost” was about plane crash victims stranded on a mysterious desert island. But its writers stripped it of clichés, envisioning bizarre happenings – from time travelling to polar bears to marauding black smoke. Major characters were sacrificed. A paraplegic could walk again, was killed off and later became death personified.

Keep it fresh – “Lost” was a giant onion with layers & layers of interconnections across all characters. It wasn’t enough to tell the tale of Ben leading ‘the Others’ or Sawyer as a former con man, they kept adding new dimensions. Just when you thought you had a character figured out, a new angle emerged. Jack was good, Jack was a leader, Jack was confused, Jack was angry, Jack was scared.

Connect the dots to build understanding – Every episode introduced confounding elements. But in the end, their writers brought most of it together, explaining why dead guys were walking around the island, what “Smokey” was all about and how Jacob came to be. They made creative zaniness work. They gave us enough information to form our conclusions without forcing a rigid interpretation.

Tell great stories – It’s harder to recall facts, but we remember interesting stories. They have beginnings, middles and ends. Stories have challenges and conflicts followed by struggle and resolution. They feature memorable characters. And they grab us. “Lost” personified classic storytelling elements.

Carve out a distinct position – How many reality, medical and law enforcement shows are there on TV? Certainly enough to exceed two hand counting. “Lost” stood out. It was the only show of its type on the air. It wasn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but it became one of the best of all time in part because it was so distinctive.

We can apply these same lessons to our communications, branding and public relations efforts. A little “Lost” can get a company or organization found.

Seven social media lessons from Nestle's reputation crisis

Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:03:00-0400

If a company still doesn’t "get" how social media has changed the rules of branding by empowering consumers, look no further than the ongoing Nestle firestorm.

Nestle has been in trouble for awhile, mostly related to its continuing use of palm oil in its products. Palm oil is linked to environmental nastiness, including deforestation, greenhouse gas emissions and endangered species loss.

Caroline McCarthy of CNET News shared a balanced post about the Nestle brand crisis, triggered by ticked off consumers on Facebook. Nestle was clueless about the power shift enabled by social media and acted in an old-school authoritarian “we own the brand” way. It not only didn’t work, it backfired.

There are vital lessons from the Nestle debacle for professional communicators advising their execs or clients:

1. Before diving into social media, make sure key decision makers who think they want to go social media truly “get” how the game is played. It’s not a press release.

2. Make sure they understand how Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc. aren’t one way vehicles (where the brand dominates the message), but an invitation to a never ending dance with constantly changing partners, some of whom are never your friend and may only want to dance if they can slap your ego and try to make you a better dancer.

3. Don’t go social media unless the brand is willing to take the risk of jumping off the cliff, giving up control to customers and consumers who will express their viewpoints, both positive and negative.

4. If your company or client wants to control the message, then social media isn’t for them. Look at how Nestle tried to tell people not to post their logos. It will incur a wrath not unlike "It’s not OK for people to use altered versions of your logos but it’s OK for you to alter the face of Indonesian rainforests? Wow!"

5. Creating LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter accounts is just the first step. The goal isn’t to tweet or post, it’s to build an active community and an authentic two-way relationship based on trust. It’s easy to get started in social media, but time-consuming and challenging to remain engaged and build a following.

6. Remember that even if your company or client decides not to engage in social media, this won’t stop rants, rebellion and revolution. People will find a way to express themselves and let it be known they’re disturbed, upset, confused, disappointed or whatever the view. The train has left the station, so be prepared.

7. As we’ve learned from Nestle (and so many others), people don’t want to be scammed, ignored or mistreated. It will come back to bite you. So if your exec or client wants social media to become a positive tool, the brand must be a concerned good listener prepared to take action to correct situations that aren’t right.

Has the Olympics brand jumped the shark?

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:26:00-0400

The Vancouver Olympics open today. What’s your reaction? Is it yay!, yawn, or yikes?

Watching the endless hype and hoopla as NBC prepares to broadcast the Games, I’m wondering whether the current Olympics concept remains right for these times.

Don’t get me wrong. I love my country and enjoy healthy competition among nations. I appreciate the ancient Greek credo of healthy mind/healthy body. I subscribe to Sports Illustrated. I’ll watch some of the Games.

It’s none of that. It just seems to be an awkward time for excessiveness.

Consider:

The current estimated cost for the Vancouver games is $6 billion – that’s nearly $6 billion of Canadian taxpayer money. Experts expect the final number to climb as high as $8 billion. It’s a drop in the bucket compared to the Beijing Olympics which racked up $50-60 billion (U.S. dollars).
According to the Vancouver Sun, the cost of security alone will be $800 million more than the budgeted $175 million.
NBC paid $2.2 billion for rights to the 2010 and 2012 Olympics. Meanwhile, Dick Ebersol, Chairman of NBC’s Sports Division said the network will lose money on the deal.

We observe (and sometimes experience) this mind-blowing spending every two years, in different cities/countries every time.

One month ago today, over two million people became homeless in Haiti and more than 200,000 people died. It may take that country 25 years to recover from the earthquake.

The Great Recession is in full bloom. More than 10 million Americans are unemployed. Home mortgages are being abandoned. Consumer confidence is low. Canada’s New Democratic party says 15,000+ British Columbia residents are homeless as the frivolity begins. It’s a climate of fear, uncertainty and doubt.

To make the point, some folks organized the Vancouver Poverty Olympics this past Sunday, protesting the billions being spent.

With this undercurrent, do you think it’s time to steer the Olympics in a new direction? Yes, a lot of it is funded privately, but does it feel like it’s too much spend for too little gain? Billions and billions of dollars for 17 days?

Aside from the massive spending, there’s also the issue of Olympics brand erosion.

Did the Olympics jump the shark when it shifted from every four years to every two years? Does the adage, “absence makes the heart grow fonder,” apply? Did dividing the winter and summer games dilute the brand?

This is supposed to be a global event, but Anheuser Busch, for example, is using the Vancouver Olympics as a “regional play,” according to Ad Age, strategizing the World Cup delivers a more global platform. Is it just this particular Olympics? Winter games always draw less than summer games (80 nations in Vancouver vs. 200+ in summer). Is this a growing trend for penny-pinching advertisers?

I’m all for fun and games. I like the Olympics concept. But is it time for this gargantuan bi-annual undertaking to be simplified and re-imagined?

I’m just sayin’…

Toyota should meet recall questions with big doses of transparency

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:59:00-0400

Until a few days ago, who didn’t want to be Toyota? They had it all. A sterling reputation for quality. The world’s most popular hybrid car. Insanely loyal customers. And in 2009, to crown it all, Toyota ended General Motors’ 77-year run as the world’s largest automaker.

It probably would have been nice for Toyota if it could have had some time to celebrate being top dog, but that wasn’t meant to be. The company is playing defense over recalls affecting 9 million of its vehicles worldwide. The news that gas pedal assemblies on its top models can cause sudden acceleration strikes at the most durable part Toyota’s brand image – its reputation for quality. Toyota got great by making quality cars that people could afford. It built that reputation one solid, reliable Corolla, Camry and Prius at a time. Even though competitors like Honda and Nissan were rated just as highly, Toyota was to quality what Volvo was to safety – first among equals and better than everyone else.

Now the auto company that could once do no wrong has shut down production lines and instructed dealers not to sell some of its most popular models. The New York Times reported that Toyota knew about the acceleration problems two years before it issued the recall. Rep. Henry Waxman, one of Congress’ most persistent consumer watchdogs, announced he will hold hearings to investigate the sudden acceleration problem next month.

What’s unfolding is the next great case study on the value of openness and transparency. Toyota has already said it welcomes the chance to address the issue head-on and publicly at Waxman’s hearings. The company has already started a pre-emptive media campaign. Toyota issued statements saying it started working on a solution this fall, when it learned how pervasive the problem was. Toyota CEO Akio Toyoda issued a public apology from the World Economic Conference in Davos. Toyota USA President Jim Lentz faced Matt Lauer on the “Today” show. The company announced over the weekend that it has rushed millions of repair kits to dealers.

So the court of public opinion is convened. How will the Toyota brand come out the other end? It depends how the company’s mea culpas resonate with the public. If Toyota is perceived as earnest and sincere, history has shown that the public will forgive it and continue to see it as a brand synonymous with quality. If it is perceived as elusive and defensive, then the Toyota brand could become just another name in the pack.

My top 10 PR, communications and branding trends of 2009

Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:53:00-0400

10. New levels of ravenous mass media spotlighting. Arguably, 2009 featured an insane level of “we will not let this story go.” Already saturated news stories were repeated - endlessly - way past the point of saturation. From balloon boy to Octomom to Gosselin vs. Gosselin to Amanda Knox, the same B-level stories were relentlessly beaten to death. While this isn’t a new trend, it is an increasingly annoying one.

9. Under-reported storytelling. One of the by-products of over-reporting is under-reporting. Too many newsworthy stories either didn’t get covered or were given marginal, brief treatment. These stories included (as TIME magazine summarized in its year-end issue) Nigerian blood for oil, experimenting with children and the Maoist insurgency in India.

8. Twitter & Facebook went legit for business. In 2009, Twitter broadened from a consumer-level experience to a pragmatic corporate communications tool. An increasing number of businesses are using it for real-time updates, blatant marketing and thought leadership. Ditto for Facebook. LinkedIn, the social networking tool most associated with business, opened up its API and became more Facebook-like.

7. Online media became credible. In a year when print media collapsed, most people finally “got” that online visibility/conversations have gone legit. Meanwhile, the enlightened understand how online and social media is a new paradigm much more impactful than traditional media because of its transparency, authenticity and conversational two-way belief building.

6. Blogs ruled but got reeled in. Blogs became the real-time voice of corporations, the best way to communicate and build a human corporate persona. But while they were more widespread, the Federal government cracked down on bloggers in the pocket of vendors, forcing full disclosure for paid-for-booty.

5. Green became greener. While greenwashing didn’t go away in 2009, most corporations understood the mantra of needing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. They also saw a direct line drawn between sustainability and profitability.

4. Personal corporate branding. Social networking is a one-to-many conversation loaded with self expression. Companies used to be cold and lifeless; now they're increasingly personified by flesh & bones employee personalities who put themselves out there online sharing opinions, interests and agendas. Now, thankfully, stakeholders can build helpful connections that humanize the company/customer connection.

3. Video became an accepted standard in corporate America. The days of writing extensive “case studies” and producing elaborate (and expensive) corporate videos waned in 2009. Thanks to guerilla-style, grassroots video acceptance, corporations increasingly added video to their arsenal of communications thanks to a triumvirate of benefits: believability, immediacy and low-cost. Why write a news release when you can post a three minute video of someone saying it? Would you rather read or watch?

2. PR was re-invigorated. The words “public relations” may still conjure negative imagery, but in 2009, the PR industry began making progress towards a renewed, positive and relevant position. Driven by social media which fosters conversations vs. pitches, the PR industry made significant strides in shifting from a media-centric one-way communications model to a two-way listening model.

1. Social responsibility became embedded. In 2009, “making the world a better place” moved from ‘philanthropy’ to an appreciation for and understanding of how authentic, integrated giving-back strategy and action positively impacts business objectives and the bottom line. There’s no turning back and that’s a very good thing.

Why Tiger Woods, companies and governors can't hide any more

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:16:00-0400

I don’t know if Tiger Woods cheated on Elin with Rachel Uchitel, is a reckless operator, was having an argument, was in a hurry to get out of his house around 2 a.m. or just wanted a new SUV.

And I really don’t care.

What bugs me in what I thought was an era of growing transparency for all brands (companies, organizations, governments, people) is a still remarkably frequent hesitancy to come clean publicly.

At the time of this writing, Tiger still hasn’t spoken with law enforcement authorities, choosing instead to post a statement on his Web site saying, “This is a private matter and I want to keep it that way.”

When you’re a billion dollar brand, this course gets a little dicey.

Tiger isn’t the first case of failing to come clean fast in 2009; we’ve seen this many times this year.

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford has denied doing anything wrong for months. He disappeared for days this summer, reappearing to finally admit to an extramarital affair with his Argentinian “soul mate.” Facing 37 ethics charges related to campaign money and airline travel, Sanford still isn’t coming clean.

Balloon boy’s Dad, Richard Heene cried crocodile tears, set up a box for reporter questions and told the world his son’s disappearance was “absolutely no hoax.” There were lots of statements and press interviews before the kid climbed down from his attic perch above his garage in Fort Collins, CO and spilled the beans by saying “you had said that we did this for a show.”

Apple got pressure when it continued to not disclose what was going on with Steve Jobs’ “hormonal imbalance” weight loss issue, the prevalent angle before his liver transplant disclosure in June. People were upset because boards of public companies need to comply with disclosure laws protecting shareholders when CEO illnesses keep them away from work.

It happened again last month when Lazard Ltd.’s CEO Bruce Wasserstein was hospitalized for heart problems. A lot of people were upset because they felt there wasn’t enough transparency around the prominent investment banker’s eight week absence and health disclosure in 2006.

Say what you want about David Letterman, but the guy got in front of it.

I agree with social media guru Chris Brogan. In his new book, Trust Agents, he said, “Those who are active on the Web now realize that they need to embrace this new transparency, that all things will now eventually be known. Companies can no longer hide behind a veneer of a shiny branding campaign, because customers are one Google search away from the truth. Further, they join activist groups to stay informed about new practices, so they are often one step ahead of the people trying to profit from them. Companies must acknowledge that they are as naked on the Web as individuals are."

Let’s transparently toast to a more transparent 2010.

How blogging positively impacts sales

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 10:09:00-0400

The CEO sitting next to me the other day heads a very successful company. She understands marketing and gets social media. But when the subject of blogging came up, she went down an interesting path.

“I still don’t get why we need to blog. Who’s going to visit our Web site to read our blog? On top of that, we're real busy and don’t have a lot of extra time to write content consistently. I don’t want to start and stop; that’s worse than never starting. So why is blogging so critical?”

She may appear to have a good point. After all, some 175,000 blogs are created daily. Technorati estimates the number of blogs at 113 million (with 7.5 million of them active). 184 million bloggers are creating 570,000 posts every 24 hours, reaching 70 percent of Web surfers daily.

With all this blogging going on – and the mind-numbing reality of 175,000 new blogs coming to life daily – why is it so important?

We’ve all heard the litany of high-level reasons why companies should blog, including:

builds two-way communication with your customers
creates a persona that’s three dimensional vs. one dimensional
an otherwise stilted brand can become approachable
it’s arguably the most personal form of communication
gives your company a voice
creates transparency and builds trust
more real time than traditional communication
triggers a conversation that builds community over time
imparts authenticity
yada yada yada

I knew the CEO next to me had heard this stuff before. So I didn’t go there. Knowing she was a pragmatic, revenue-enhancing, lead generating type, I talked, instead, about the correlation between blogging and sales (something you don’t hear enough about).

Blogging matters because of search.

Before explaining how blogging plays a central role in generating sales leads, I emphasized the need to get search engine optimization (SEO) right. That’s where the journey should begin. SEO and blogging go together; they're buddies. Once the SEO foundation is laid, a company can move forward with blogging which is one of the best ways to create pages that are keyword dense and optimized.

If you write compelling content that people naturally search for, they will discover you, visit your site, probe and (hopefully) become engaged. Just don’t make the mistake of writing myopically about your company, products, services and promotions. Build a higher-level voice based on topics people (who don’t know you) will search for. Whereas the majority of Web site content is static, blogs are alive with fluid, current thinking.

Remember that blogging isn’t an occasional thing; you need to do it often enough to build an authentic voice and aura of authority. That typically means daily or at least weekly. Nothing looks worse than a withering blog without a post for weeks or months.

Blogs directly impact sales because they drive traffic back to your blogs and Web site, including traffic from referring Web sites. They're one of the best ways to increase linkage (links) which is critical to broadening readership.

Another way blogs can stimulate sales is by gathering periodic "best of" compilations. Select 4-5 of your company's best posts and send them to a targeted e-mail list and social networks (LinkedIn and Facebook are good places to start). This way the content they may have missed by not searching or visiting your web site is delivered to their desktop. Do this every month or every other month to create a consistent flow. And don’t forget to tweet your blog posts.

My CEO friend asked one more question: “Does it matter that our company isn’t selling our products and services online?” I told her it doesn’t; we’re talking apples and oranges. Even if you’re not selling online, people are finding you online.

Thanks to search, the function of marketing shifted (awhile ago) from one-way push to many-to-many pull. Now, thankfully, a direct connection occurs, and it’s coming bottom-up - from prospects, customers, friends, fans, etc. - vs. top-down.

How to build customer communities

Fri, 21 Aug 2009 15:37:00-0400

As consumers, we instinctively sense product and service experiences at a gut-feel level. Within minutes, we can gauge whether a company is telling the truth, trying to evade, or scam us. We've developed a low tolerance for poor service - calls that aren't returned; e-mails that aren't acknowledged; rudeness; unnecessarily complex transactions; people who don't seem to care; interactions that should be easy, but aren't.

When companies do what they say they’ll do on a consistent basis, then we’re generally pleased and become loyal to that brand. When we’re not satisfied, we often start complaining, and ultimately stop buying.

Social media changed the game forever by giving us a voice (a.k.a. power, influence, clout) we never had. While the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) maintains an active Bureau of Consumer Protection, a bunch of other grassroots online sites emerged including complaints.com, pissedconsumer.com, iripoff.com, consumeraffairs.com and the influential consumerist.com.

Now when we're ticked off, we can immediately voice our dissatisfaction and get it spotlighted. People around the world are tuned-in and pass the word, triggering a "many-to many" conversation.

Take, for example, the recent "United Breaks Guitars" online video phenomenon, where one mistreated customer virtually turned the entire world against United for its poor handling of his damaged property. Or Whole Foods CEO John Mackey, who deeply offended a huge percentage of the chain’s progressive demographics and triggered a nationwide boycott when he railed against healthcare reform in a Wall Street Journal editorial.

Companies and organizations need to remember that a great brand is built when it dedicates itself to creating a product and service experience that consistently meets the needs of people who consume that service or product. The companies that try hard to listen and learn - and improve all the time – build the loyal followings. The ones that don’t fall by the wayside, are marginalized or die.

Listen to your customers and seek out their opinions on a regular basis. There are lots of ways to do this. Private, online, paid community platforms like Communispace encourage ongoing conversations. You can build relationships online for free with CrowdVine, Ning, Elgg and Joomla (some will be easier to set up and use than others). Discussion boards pre-date the Web, but are still an important (and often overlooked) tool in community building. Yahoo Groups and Google Groups are two of the most popular discussion forum platforms, and the original USENET/LISTSERV is still going strong. There’s also some open source discussion forum software you can customize to meet precise look-and-feel branding needs.

Use these tools to probe ideas, ask for feedback, debate and continually improve. Incorporate customer feedback into your offerings and they’ll know you appreciate their input.

If you don’t want your company to end up on consumerist.com or pissedconsumer.com, remember to:

· Build two-way relationships with your customers. People have relationships with people.

· Create an authentic persona for your company; give it a personality; make it human; share some behind-the-curtains perspective. Blogs are one of the best ways to nurture & sustain this kind of voice.

· Don’t avoid online problems, deal with negative online comments and emerging issues immediately. You don’t have to agree all the time, but you’ve got to listen. Share your perspective and be willing to entertain a different viewpoint. You may reach a logger-head where neither party will budge; that’s okay; just don’t be autocratic. It’s the genuine attempt & transparency that matters in social media.

· Make it easy for your customers to talk to you. Visualize those aggravating instances where your specific question as a consumer is answered with a generic email response, over and over again. Don’t do this. Be personal, be prompt.

When companies behave this way, they’re fulfilling the textbook definition of “living the brand promise.” Doing it right means beginning a conversation that never ends.

Strategy & tactics - the difference explained

Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:10:00-0400

I was in a meeting the other day and a CMO kept confusing “strategic” with “tactical.” It reminded me of all the times I’ve encountered this in my career.

Strategy is rooted in a plan of action that’s focused on accomplishing a specific goal that’s high level. Tactics are the way the strategy is carried out.

Borrowing from the journalistic “five Ws and one H,” strategy is the “who, what and why” and tactics are the “where, when and how.”

Strategy involves proactively determining the ultimate endgame. Tactics are the things you do to achieve the strategic goal.

A few examples within a communications context:

Strategic Tactical

Deposition a key competitor around the value ingredient	Create a head-to-head comparison online
Transform a company's persona from stodgy to approachable	Create short, fun YouTube videos
Shift a negative public perception to positive	Conduct thoughtful, transparent two-way communication with online communities
Create a new category position	Secure an influential industry analyst to embrace and evangelize the new category
Transform a company from an “also ran” to a first-tier position	Engage delighted consumers to advocate on your behalf via Twitter
Craft thought leadership platform that leapfrogs current vision and depositions	Architect an inside-out and outside-in blogging effort
Create more widespread awareness for an issue	Get Michael Arrington of TechCrunch to blog about it.
Build a larger community of followers	Write and publish compelling content that creates many-to-many online conversations

Doing something strategicallyinvolves the following:

Identify a specific outcome you want to achieve
Conduct research (market, competitive, attitudinal) to establish a realistic “baseline” starting point that takes into consideration internal and external realities
Put together a proactive plan that leverages the research findings, anticipates issues, looks at the big picture and incorporates specific strategic objectives and end results
Engage in consensus building with appropriate groups and individuals; get key people on board to support the strategy

Doing something tacticallymeans you:

Understand the strategic goals
Create plans focused on specific activities mapped into specific timeframes with specific outcomes
Make sure the tactical activities are carried out well
Measure their impact and help tie tactics back to the strategic plan

Strategy includes creating a different reality via creative, smart planning. Tactics are focused actions. The two are deeply intertwined. You need both to achieve branding success.

How to create customer personas

Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:06:00-0400

A company can never know its customers too well; that’s why an increasing number are creating fictional – yet amazingly accurate - personas to guide their sales and marketing efforts.

Companies are developing personas because they understand customers can’t be reduced to broad demographics – e.g., average age, education, ethnicity, family status – nor statistics. They intuitively understand the value of visualizing their audience better to sell and serve them. But rather than trying to know each and every customer (an impossible task for most), companies get to know the handful of proxies who represent them.

Personas are archetypal customers/consumers who represent the major categories of people who buy and use a company’s products and/or services. Many large consumer companies have embraced personas as a memorable way to segment and envision the people they serve. Personas energize companies by focusing everyone in an organization around a common view of the customer. Not surprisingly, business-to-business (B2B) companies are beginning to road test them.

Meet Molly. She’s 34, with a BA in business from a state university. Molly’s married, with two kids ages three and five. She cares about nutrition and runs as often as she can, sometimes competitively. She drives a mid-sized SUV, is into photography and social networking (Facebook especially). Molly works at an international consumer products company (athletic footwear, clothing) in the IT department where she manages security. She’s professional, appealing and straightforward, but sometimes harried and impatient. Molly wants to stay on top of the latest technology to reduce her company’s data risks while keeping internal constituents happy. She’s sometimes overwhelmed by the diversity of security options out there and appreciates helpful perspective and clarity.

Personas start with generalities like these and then get more specific to bring the representative character to life. They include demographic data and other characterizing elements such as career concerns, personalities, attitudes, motivations and objectives.

Here are 11 tips for getting started:

Convene a group of employees who interact with your customers and prospects, e.g., customer service, support, salespeople, channel partners and senior executives – those on the front lines. Gather their perspective but be wary of internal bias or myopia.
Conduct customer/prospect research including in-person meetings as well as phone-based interviews and online surveys. Tag along on in-person sales calls. Look for consistent patterns; common needs, expectations, frustrations, opinions and psychological motivators.
Reconvene and propose a few archetypal personas. How many personas do you need? There’s no single number of personas that works best. Go with whatever number accurately captures the major categories of customers; keep the total number as manageable as possible. Four to six are typical for most B2B companies.
Describe the category of company each works for; characteristics could potentially include: industry, size, vertical market, competitive environment, type of employer, and corporate culture.
Describe the person at the workplace to get a full, rounded picture of who this person represents. This should include demographic data; job title and focus; challenges they face; how the person fits within their organization; their role in the buying cycle; key questions they’d ask you; trigger words that would invoke a helpful reaction; skillset/competency levels; key job objectives and responsibilities; attitudes; key behaviors; what would make their job more effective; how their time is typically spent, etc.

Image credit: Image credit: L + E (Logic + Emotion) http://darmano.typepad.com/logic_emotion/
Describe the person outside the workplace – how they dress; what food they like; hobbies; habits; type of car; education; interests; and psychological attributes.
Find the areas of commonality and bring these all together under one persona. Create personas for each major customer grouping. Reach consensus agreement.
Describe them; find a photo; name the customer; give him/her an age, title.
Frame marketing messages, think about the marketing resources this persona might tap to learn more about your type of offerings/services/products, e.g. white papers, articles, Web sites, news releases, speakers, online communities, events, Twitter, etc.
Think about the way each persona will guide different functional areas within your company. Engage key players so they embed this unifying view of the customer in their own decision making and day-to-day activities in sales, marketing, HR, communications, finance, etc.
Update and modifypersonas as real-world insight unfolds.

One word of caution: Despite all your work to typify customers, experts warn against stereotyping. So go beyond quick and dirty brainstorming and take it seriously. Your personas need to be as real as the human beings they represent.

How to differentiate

Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:37:00-0400

One of the things I learned from Geoffrey Moore’s seminar is the notion of unique differentiation. He said a true “position” isn’t the one you’d like your company to have, but rather the position it actually occupies within a system you didn’t create.

In other words, positioning and differentiation isn’t an exercise in myopic navel gazing. It’s got to be externally driven and take into account the strengths and weaknesses of your real competition while also focusing on customer value. Understand what’s out there – and what’s needed - to set your organization apart.

To differentiate, go outside-in, and bottom-up:

Identify real people – Start by finding your organization’s real customers/consumers. Don’t focus on big picture targets (e.g. “this Fortune 500 company”), but rather specific individuals who may buy – and have bought –your products/services.
Talk to them – Differentiation isn’t about “making up” your company’s difference, it’s finding what objectively sets it apart. Understand what people want and why. If a customer, uncover what their experiences have been. Use social media to query larger samples. Online discussions and chat rooms are an effective way to gather opinions. Capture enough perspective so you can make accurate interpretations.
Understand customer value – Value is the difference between the benefits consumers realize minus the cost to buy, use and maintain your product or service. Differentiation is successful when the value perceived exceeds the cost of usage. For example, if someone buys a more expensive product with more features, but it takes longer to install and use it, then this competitive “uniqueness” may not be valued highly enough, thus eroding differentiation (and credibility).
Analyze your competition –Read blogs, troll social nets, and read articles and industry analyst reports to determine which particular companies “own” various strengths and leadership attributes within your market category. Also analyze competitive Web sites to capture their strategic messaging, leadership claims and customer testimonial insight. If other companies claim superiority in an area you believe your company has greater uniqueness, then you’ll need to work harder to create stickiness.
Evaluate core competencies – With external insight in hand, shift inward and identify core competencies. Most reliable? Easiest to use? Superior service? Higher quality? Remember, to successfully differentiate, a core competency has to be competitively unique but also be perceived by consumers as valued uniqueness. Matrix your core competencies into the external insight you acquired.
Isolate “the one thing” – As you zero-in on a core differentiating competency, force your company to articulate this in a “one thing” manner. Stand for one distinctive thing and people will remember.
Don’t forget longevity – Short-term differentiation isn’t ideal. Anticipate and discuss things like price erosion, imitation and competitive leaps. While you can’t plan against disruptive technologies, you can proactively assess what currently exists and try to factor-in competitive incrementalism in differentiation claims.

Fine-tune – If necessary, fine-tune your “one thing” differentiation to make it more appealing. For example, if your solution is more expensive, can you find ways to reduce costs in areas that are unimportant to the buyer? This will improve profitability while reducing the likelihood of competitors gaining ground from a price position.

Proof points – Claiming leadership and differentiation – by yourself for yourself - doesn’t cut it. You have to supplement this internal view with third-party perspective, viewed by the marketplace as credible and true. Consumers, customers and prospects are the best way to differentiate. So are objective (non-paid) direct comparisons. Get credible sources to step up to the plate and validate your differentiation. Also remember to identify any and all proof points that will credibly back-up your differentiation claims.
Be bold – To differentiate, you can’t be a wallflower – you have to stand out. Express differentiation in a colorful way so people notice and remember it.

Communicate – Once you’ve built your differentiation, work hard to integrate this messaging platform across all communication vehicles. Your Web site. SEO. Advertising. Web-news. Presentations. Great messaging is pervasive and consistent.

Experience is everything – What you say has to be consistent with what you do. If a company claims “best service” but a customer is frustrated dealing with one of their people, then brand position erodes in the mind (and heart) of that consumer. Walk the walk at every touch point.

New Prius ad raises the branding bar

Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:17:00-0400

I’m blown away by the new Prius ads.

David Kiley said this ad from Toyota may have been inspired by Honda’s earlier diesel engine “Hate Something” spot (compare the two yourself), but from my eyes, it’s the freshest creative in a decade.

But it’s not just creative for creative’s sake. Lots of agencies are living the creed “make it entertaining, engaging and disruptive” so consumers take notice and buy.

The new Prius spot is much more.

They’ve taken a car that was already the # 1 best selling hybrid in the world – the undisputed mainstream brand – and made it a vehicle of the people, for the people, by the people. Literally.

Using 200 extras, they created a layered - but somehow unified - sea of 1 million people parts. Everything (except the Prius, road and sky) was constructed from human beings who become “landscape texture.” Grass. Water. Trees. Clouds. Stones. Leaves. Sun. Flowers. Butterflies. The Bellamy Brothers’ # 1 hit from 1976 - “Let Your Love Flow” – is the audio glue.

The piece de resistance (besides the people, colors and music) is the movement. As the Prius drives by, clouds shift, grass sways, butterflies fly, flowers open, water flows, the sun glows.

It’s a visual trip, blending nature, technology and the human race.

Hopefully for Toyota, the new campaign will move more than grass. The Prius has been struggling in the U.S. of late (mirroring the rest of the auto industry). U.S. sales of the Prius were down from 15,011 in May 2008 to 10,091 for the same month this year. Year to date, U.S. Prius sales are 42,753 compared to 79,675 in 2008 – 45 per cent less than last year.

I feel better every time I see this ad. I actually want to see this ad.

I can’t remember the last time this happened.

Positioning, elevator, mission and vision statements

Fri, 22 May 2009 08:46:00-0400

They’ve been around a long time, are still in demand but the differences are often confusing. (I’m not talking about toothpaste.) Here’s what you need to know to make your own statement.

Positioning statements

A positioning statement explains what a company is, does, and most important, how it’s different from competitors. It’s externally focused.

My favorite positioning statement template is from Geoffrey Moore. It goes like this:
For (target customers)
Who (have the following problem)
Our product is a (describe the product or solution)
That provides (cite the breakthrough capability)
Unlike (reference competition),
Our product/solution (describe the key point of competitive differentiation)

The template may look simple, but crafting a positioning statement is challenging: (1) the statement must place a company within context of the external marketplace framework it already occupies; (2) competition must be the reference point; (3) the statement has to be brief; and (4) every part must be realistic and defensible.

If a company has a well-crafted positioning statement, it’s a good sign because it means it was able to reach consensus about how to talk about itself in a non-myopic way.

The toughest part of the template is the last sentence because you have to identify how the company is competitively differentiated. Here’s an example from Moore when SGI was at its peak:

For movie producers and others
Who depend heavily on post-production special effects,
Silicon Graphics provides computer workstations
That integrate digital fantasies with actual film footage.
Unlike any other vendor of computer workstations,
SGI has made a no-compromise commitment to meeting film makers' post-production needs.

Mission statements

Mission statements are aspirational, intending to unify employees around a common set of goals and objectives. It’s a corporation’s mantra, its raison d’etre, describing the overall purpose of an organization. While it’s primarily internally focused, it frequently appears externally.

Mission statements don’t address the issue of competitive differentiation which is the heart and soul of a positioning statement. A mission statement includes a company’s value system.

Mission statement examples:
Timberland: Our mission is to equip people to make a difference in their world. We do this by creating outstanding products and by trying to make a difference in the communities where we live and work.

Starbucks: To inspire and nurture the human spirit - one person, one cup, and one neighborhood at a time.

Elevator statements

An elevator statement is externally-focused and the shortest possible explanation of “what a company does.” The term refers to a person’s ability to tell a stranger - in an elevator between a few floors - what their company does with brevity and catchiness. A classic elevator statement would take one minute to say. Positioning statements can be used to develop brief elevator statements.

Elevator statement example: Our company sells software that designs better products. For example, Toyota uses our software to design cars that are more energy efficient. Boeing uses our software to design airplanes including things like more comfortable passenger seating areas. Trek designs awesome bicycles with our software.

Vision statements

Unlike a positioning statement, a vision statement is externally focused and defines where the organization is headed. It defines the desired future.

Toyota: Continuing in the 21st century, we aim for stable long-term growth, while striving for harmony with people, society and the environment.

Cisco: To change the way the world works, lives, plays and learns.

Here's a forward-looking vision statement from WalMart circa (1990): Become a $125 billion company by the year 2000.