The Peanut Butter Manifesto

When I read the peanut butter manifesto memo from Yahoo!’s Brad Garlinghouse, I thought it was pretty bold and interesting. Interesting because this memo is a true reflection of how new age companies have made transparency a way of doing business and encourage employees to really live their brand. Bold because forcing focus is the best way to improve business expertise and secure a market leadership position.

Garlinghouse has a true desire to create an authentic environment where passion leads to innovation and success. Many other businesses could learn from his thinking and willingness to put his ass on the line.

Passion and focus are essential for success. Too many businesses, large and small, want to conquer all and over extend product lines and services. While I clearly understand that line extensions increase market share, over extension inevitably leads to failure. Failure happens when companies push unfocused growth over quality and sustainability. Sometimes it’s good not to be the corporate conglomerate monster that gobbles up everything in its path.

Look at the past to predict the future. When a company steps outside of its core competency and only sees the numbers, it will likely take on ventures it has little understanding of or expertise in. Decisive decision making is driven by a clear understanding of what your authentic brand is and everyone gets it. Not leading with authentic passion gives competition a chance to run you over.

I hope that Garlinghouse is able to lead Yahoo! and doesn’t loose his shirt in the process. If he is successful in transitioning the organization, he could position Yahoo! as the new leader.

Macs Aren’t for Everyone.

Stunned. In a word that was my reaction when I read in Adrants that Apple is firing its Mac Guy. When I first saw this ad I thought it was a great way to build loyalty among current Mac enthusiasts and bring some PC users on board.

For those of you who don’t know, Apple is firing its Mac Guy, who has provided witty comebacks for the past several months in a series of TV commercials insulting PCs. This campaign, I thought, was effective. The ads offered a clear and easy to understand message, which was perfect since Macs are often perceived to be a complex devise for creative types.

I think I can accurately speak for the advertising group that came up with the campaign when I say that the goal of the ads are to educate PC users on how user-friendly Macs are, all while not turning off Mac enthusiasts.

The ads hit the nail on the head! I loved the campaign. Then again I am huge fan of Seinfeld, Politically Incorrect and West Wing reruns, so I love witty banter.

So if these ads made sense, why in the world is Apple dropping the Mac Guy? Well, they let a few people influence their perception of effective marketing for their target demographic. Huge mistake! I see this all the time. Companies wanting to be everything to everyone – it’s not possible, so don’t waste your time trying to do it.

The whole idea of target markets, segmentation and demographics is to reach your preferred market. NOT the entire market.

Apple built Mac on targeting and did it well. So why change now? The Mac Guy campaign made sense and pushed the bridging of target demos in a way that did not turn off one side or the other. What more could you ask for?

If Mac goes for mass appeal, they may be loosing the loyal market that built them to what it is today.

To say the least, I am really disappointed that Apple is pulling its Mac Guy. I will be even more disappointed if they hire Ellen DeGeneres to take his place. That would be a sell out.

Altering and functionalizing brand logos: To do or not to do?

Over the years I have worked with many brand building marketers and strategists, some I would categorize as experts and some I would not. There seemed to be a consensus that you do not alter or functionalize the logo. This was something I paid close attention to because I often questioned their thinking. I started listening to rebuttals from creative types, monitoring the many master symbols in American culture and reading anything I could get my hands on. All to come to the same conclusion over and over again…

Altering the logo should only be done when the cost benefit ratio is largely beneficial to the growth of the brand itself, enhances the brand experience for long term benefits and aligns with the brand persona. In other words, examine the situation for the true opportunities that will present themselves through willingness to alter the logo. Really look at the cost benefit ratio. Don’t just do it on a whim because the creative director gets an idea or someone on the executive team got a wild hair up their you know what.

An example is Starbucks. The Starbucks brand is really about the experience, which is very much created through its coffee shops’ atmosphere and customer interaction with the brand, not necessarily the actual coffee. Starbucks has prided itself on providing a consistent style among all its shops throughout the country – providing contemporary plush furniture, soft lighting, conversational seating arrangements, and so on.

As their growth strategies stumbled because of community backlash based on complaints of neighborhood homogenization, Starbucks reevaluated its approach to its store motif standards. They started assigning regional designers to examine the neighborhoods where stores were breaking new ground to pull decorative influences from. They have even gone as far to examine how the logo and signage may be edited. All influenced by the local area, Starbucks is bringing neighborhoods’ style into the motif, experience and brand of the store, allowing for the new stores to fit into the community landscape and meet less backlash.

This is what I mean b y strategic evaluation of the cost benefit ratio. Had Starbucks not entertained the communities’ requests, their growth may have slipped, not to mention they could have been perceived as stubborn corporate types and their image may have been tarnished

Another example, and the one I feel really broke the mold, is Google. Ever check out their logo on a holiday? Google literally dresses up its logo in design costume. Now I am sure this may have started as a cool idea, but they actually tapped into a way for their audience to experience the brand in a new way and different way, completely different form any other search engine. I recall hearing people around the office saying, “Hey did you see Google today?” or “Check out the Google logo – cool. I love when they do that”

Again, the benefit far outweighs the cost.

This being said, I also strongly believe that once a brand makes the decision to consider alterations to its brand/logo, limitations and parameters should be set to maintain the integrity of the brand. This means that the changes should never trivialize the brand; it should only enhance what it already is. If the changes neither impact the brand in a negative or positive way, then don’t waste your time. I see many marketers and creatives doing things because they just want to, not because it actually works. Bottom line is do what’s right for the brand, not your ego.

For example, Google is about giving power to the people, staying in tune, making it personal, getting what you want -- these are my words, not theirs of course. So when they edit their logo on holidays, their users’ experience with the altered logo is true to its brand persona. It makes sense.

So in closing, to do or not to do should actually be to do if it is beneficial to the brand. Not to do if the costs are too high, offer no benefit and don’t fit the brand.

Read more about Starbucks’ approach (subscription required): http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116312829873619491.html?mod=mm_hs_marketing_strategy

Will Smear Make Competition Disappear?

I was asked by someone today how to counteract a competitor’s launching a similar product and if securing exposure about how the competitor is no good would be bad.

Of course that’s bad! Any time someone has put out a smear campaign and did so with smoke and mirrors, it has backfired.

I have always told my clients, and friends, to treat everyone as if they’re your grandmother. Meaning, do right by them. It’s ok to beat them, but don’t cheat – it will inevitably cause lack of sleep and disruption in your career advancement.

The best tactics are those that are tried and true – Like the 40/40/20 rule to be specific.

Response-oriented communications success depends 40 percent on audience targeting, 40 percent on the offer or proposition, and 20 percent on creative/newsworthy execution. What this really means is know your audience and your USP and focus your tactics on specific goals while making it all relative.

The next best practice is consistency. In the form of public relations or marketing, keep sending the same message - until you’re blue in the face. I have been told by some executives, ironically some communications experts, that I repeat myself too much, but they can surely regurgitate my point verbatim when asked. So you can imagine I take their criticism lightly.

If you follow these rules, then no smear campaign is needed – just time and a great team of communicators.

Mea Culpa!

I am always amazed at how many high profile people screw up and make it worse for themselves by not putting issues to bed.

When Rev. Ted Haggard hired a prostitute and got caught, he should have just said, "Yes I did it," and fess up to everything. Like a band aide – one, quick, swift motion – get it all off your chest at once. This allows you to be in control and shorten the amount of attention on the issue.

Rev. Haggard is keeping himself in the news. Every time this guy is in the news, often taking impromptu interviews from his car or on the street, he is saying something different. Doesn't this guy know that the media will keep coming if he keeps giving them something new to cover?

And why isn't someone telling this guy how to manage this issue?

Public apologies are so widely accepted by Americans, why isn't this guy learning from those that have errored befroe him?

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/5313.html
Some bad history:
http://www.showbuzz.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/05/people_hot_water/main2153600.shtml


Currently reading : Lipstick on a Pig: Winning In the No-Spin Era by Someone Who Knows the GameBy Torie ClarkeRelease date: By 31 January, 2006

Is Radio Sirius?

Recently, I have been hearing radio commercials in the Pennsylvania community that reek of poor strategy. These ads tell the listener they should not have to pay for radio and goes on to bash satellite radio, but without saying satellite radio. I’m confused. Why would a company use their own product/service to talk about a competitor? Especially when the competitor is already getting tons of press without their assistance. In addition, they are doing it during commercials – the very reason people leave radio.

I am so surprised by this strategy. ClearChannel, the heavy hitter in radio, seems to be the biggest offender in airing these “don’t pay for radio” ads. These guys are supposed to be masters of their medium – I mean when they started the whole national KissFM pre-packaged, branded stations thing I thought they were geniuses! It’s not my kind of music, but as a business plan, it was a great move.

So why do I think telling your own customers “not to pay for radio” is bad strategy?

Well, where do I start? First rule: NEVER talk about your competition to your target audience. This rule is only broken by the power-house brands that have such a stronghold on mindshare that they can toy with the rules.

Talking about your competition makes you look weak. In addition, any end-user that was not paying attention to your competitor will be after you tell them about the other guy.

Telling your customers they are making the wrong decision can create a great divide and even push people to your competition and make them very loyal to the very thing you wanted them to stay away from.

I see this strategy as a HUGE misuse of time and money. Instead of having their staff work on ads telling their customers about “not paying for radio,” they need to be making their product better! When has a consumer ever not used a product just because you told them they shouldn’t? -- NEVER. They want the best product and in the end the customers that were more concerned with pricing were not focused on product benefits and features to begin with. And now, more than ever, it’s about customized and personalized products. Radio should be leveraging their interaction with the consumer in ways that satellite can’t compete with. For example, local touch points, direct interaction, diverse talent, local information, relationship, interaction on the web sites, etc.

Satellite radio is not showing any signs of slowing down and they are working hard at beefing up their muscle to beat radio to a pulp. They focus on talent, music, no commercials, access, etc – making their points of product differentiation apparent in the minds of the consumers. You won’t hear them saying anything directly about radio or how you can get NPR, and local NPR, and not pay for it. They focus on how there are no commercials which highlights a weakness of their competition by showcasing their own features and benefits without referencing radio that requires no payment.

Another point is the people that pay for satellite are not the same audience that don’t or won’t pay. So radio is blindly throwing darts and missing the mark all together. Radio needs to stop and take a look at their demographics and make a marketing plan that hits the consumers that will be staying with them, not the ones that are going to be leaving anyway.

My message to radio is, “Stop telling your consumers your product is not worth paying for and doing it in commercials!” It all seems a bit ironic and moronic.