Community

Winner:

Brand Obama has come back from the mid-term elections fighting.

His announcement of a pay freeze on government workers, his decision to send an aircraft carrier into the Yellow Sea to confront the North Koreans and, yes, even some of the WikiLeaks revelations that show that some of his behind-the-scenes diplomacy were tougher and a lot less naïve than many thought have served to bolster his beleaguered brand.

Has our incredibly disappearing president made a comeback?

No, Pres. Obama is not out of the woods yet. And he might never be. But in terms of taking the first steps, he’s definitely doing it and this could be a Bill Clinton moment.

The pay freeze is a major brand statement. Why? It shows that he can be tough on issues that count to his opposition even against the instincts of his political base. After all, this pay freeze was basically John Boehner’s idea a few weeks ago.

The move sends a message to the Republicans that will be hard for them to counter. John Boehner wisely supported the president’s announcement, but there’s a built-in limit to how far the Republican opposition can go along with the White House –especially since the GOP brand is still seen as the party of “no” to Obama’s big government image.

The announcement also shows that Obama can play hardball. Christmas is coming so the toughness is even more underscored. It also made him sound a little chastened (a little, not a lot, he’s still got some room to grow in the humility department). Still, he actually said he had learned a lesson from the latest election. His actions to freeze spending, praise small business and argue for the value of future American economic dominance in the world re-enforced this.

He also handled the fat lip from basketball pretty well –the fact that it didn’t spiral into a Jimmy Carter killer rabbit moment should tell Republicans something (this presidential brand isn’t at the terminal Carter point of weakness yet). By the way, my opinion is that our president should probably stay off the basketball court (but if he doesn’t and he gets visibly injured again, he better pull a Ronald Reagan and stay away from the cameras).

Bottom line, we might be seeing the start of a turnaround here in Brand Obama. Stay tuned.

Loser:

WikiLeaks is our loser for the week and let’s be honest so are some of its journalistic allies in big media like The New York Times.

Previous leaks might have been justified, but dumping tens of thousands of diplomatic cables on the world just because you can isn’t journalism, it’s vandalism.

WikiLeaks has had many enthusiastic supporters –especially among the left-leaning intellectual global “elite”— but my guess is that the organization might have gone too far this time.

Fact is, there’s a reason why diplomacy and governments don’t make everything public. It’s the same reason that ordinary human beings don’t… A lot of the things we need to say to one another are simply not intended for a general audience.

The revelations of these cables are entertaining. They might even be valuable. But most adults will recognize what WikiLeaks recklessly and immaturely has not: there’s a good reason that some things need to be kept secret.

In not recognizing what is obvious to adults, WikiLeaks has revealed both malice and naiveté that many in its Target Market (i.e., people who will actually plunk down donation dollars to support the operation) will find unappealing. In the end, WikiLeaks might have been best dismissed by Hillary Clinton who said there was nothing “laudable” in the leak and reported that a diplomatic counterpart joked: “Well, don’t worry about it. You should see what we say about you.”

My guess is that the WikiLeaks brand has just sprung a leak that it will find impossible to plug.

And, remember, things are always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.

TODAY’S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY:
Brands must strive to make clear and definite impressions.

John Tantillo is an AMA member and president of the Marketing Department of America, a New York-based marketing firm.
http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv/

The opinions expressed in this post are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the American Marketing Association.

Posted by Elisabeth at 4:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Winner:

Every so often you need to toot your own horn. This week, please forgive me for doing exactly that with respect to my prediction for General Motors.

Almost a year and a half ago now, I argued that the naysaying pundits were wrong about GM and that the grand old company would make a comeback because of its great brands-–which it was clearly focusing on once again.

The post appeared headlined under “What Will They Say When GM Makes a Profit For Taxpayers?”

Well, not only is GM profitable-–they’ve earned $4.77 billion in the past nine months—but their stock IPO has generated unprecedented demand. In fact, just today, GM’s underwriters lifted the initial price per share into the $30 to $33 range.

There’s a good reason for all this excitement: GM’s future looks very, very bright indeed.

How did this happen?

Sure, bankruptcy and government aid helped a lot, but what really helped and will help even more is GM’s fundamental strength which is the strength of individual car brands.

Remember, people buy brands, not companies! Consumers don’t by a GM car, they buy a Cadillac or a Buick or a Chevy. And on the backs of these brands, GM has come roaring back as a company.

I’m not recommending stock here, by the way, but if GM keeps focusing on its brands, then the company should be with us for a very long time.

Loser:

Sometimes brand crises come out of the blue and the brand isn’t really responsible for not seeing the problem coming. The Tylenol poisonings of the early '80s are a good example of this.

In the case of a “bolt out of the blue” branding crisis, you can’t blame brand managers for the initial problem, but you can hold them responsible for what happens next. How do they respond? How do they fix the damage? In Tylenol’s case, the answer to both questions was “brilliantly.” So brilliantly that Tylenol actually gained market share.

Now some may argue that Carnival Cruise Lines is in a similar situation with the heavily reported “cruise from hell” on board their ship Splendor. Fact is, they’re not.

Why? I’m not going to say that poor brand management is behind the fire that caused the ship to become literally powerless in the water (but, folks, if cost-cutting somehow contributed, then this instantly does become a brand management issue under the Doctor’s "marketing concerns everything about running a business" rule).

But poor brand management is behind the inability for Carnival to respond more rapidly and independently than they did.

Where was the contingency planning? Why did the ship, its passengers and crew need to be rescued by two Mexican tug boats and a United States aircraft carrier?

Basically, brand damage has been done here because questions that the general cruise-taking public never had in their heads about safety and what happens if there is a fire are there now and won’t be going away anytime soon.

Bottom line, because Carnival didn’t have the kind of contingency plan to take immediate and independent action like, for example, a way of getting passengers off the ship or improving their lives on board, non-stop media reporting of a ship helpless at sea with a corporate management helpless to do anything about it are what people will remember –some of the reports and images even reminiscent of the ordeal in New Orleans.

Carnival is starting to do the right thing now by extending generous compensation to the rescued Splendor passengers, but my guess is that they ought to do more.

They need to address the contingency plan question by explicitly putting into place and publicizing fallback measures to prevent anything like this from ever happening again.

The Carnival brand has always been about escape in a good way (and part of this means safety and security on the high seas). They’ve got their work cut out for them now. Full speed ahead.

And, remember, things are always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.

TODAY’S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY:
Many brand crises that seem to come “out of the blue” don’t. In fact, they can (and must) be planned and prepared for!

John Tantillo is an AMA member and president of the Marketing Department of America, a New York-based marketing firm.
http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv/

The opinions expressed in this post are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the American Marketing Association.

Posted by Elisabeth at 9:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

National retailers are putting major reinforcements into their social media pages to attract swarms of Facebook and Twitter followers in advance of Black Friday.

Lowe’s, thanks in part to an early November Black Friday tease on its Facebook page, saw its following more than double in the last couple of months, says Ronald Ladouceur, EVP and executive creative director at marketing agency Media Logic in Albany, N.Y. Walmart, which has north of 2.3 million Facebook fans, received approximately 100,000 new followers in a day when it introduced a Groupon-like discount feature for fans of its Facebook page, says Stephen Mader, senior analyst at Kantar Retail's office in Cambridge, Mass. and a social media instructor on behalf of the consultancy.

By building up their bases, retailers will be able to use Facebook and Twitter to promote deals, ignite word of mouth and address customer service issues on Black Friday and beyond. But despite the big guys' exceptional resources, Mader says small retailers actually have the flexibility to use social media in better ways that can help the consumer--and their own Black Friday sales.

"I would say the bulk of [social media's] benefit can be for small players, one or two stores, maybe a regional chain," Mader says. "[Small retailers] may not have the resources to do a national TV campaign or circulars for Black Friday, but they can use Twitter to put out deals."

The major retailers, by comparison, are so big their Twitter and Facebook messages on Black Friday can't be very advanced in terms of one to one dialogue, he says. "For example, I don't know if Target will have the ability to have every single Target store have its own Twitter feed where they can tweet how many people are in line."

"If you are a small chain of five or six stores, I think there's a potential higher degree of interactivity via Facebook and Twitter on Black Friday," he continues. "For smaller retailers there's an ability for them to describe specific in-store activities or in-store conditions [on Facebook and Twitter]." For instance, they can communicate which stores still have hot items in stock, extremely pertinent information for any consumer fighting to get a must-have gift on the stressful shopping day.

Mader and other retail marketing experts discuss their anticipation for retailers using more social media marketing on Black Friday and how they can make their Twitter and Facebook communications effective in this week's edition of Marketing News Exclusives, Marketing News' e-newsletter. You may access the article here beginning Nov. 18.

And for more data regarding retailers use of social media, click here to read Media Logic's new report, and click here for illuminating survey findings presented by the National Retail Federation's digital retail division Shop.org.

Posted by Piet at 3:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Winner:

Let me put it this way: I’m not exactly Keith Olbermann’s demographic. That said, my business is evaluating the strength of brands and Olbermann is one strong brand.

You may not agree with him-–and I don’t on most things—but he does what strong brands do (what Beck and Hannity do on the other side): He knows his Target Audience and he consistently delivers.

Fact is, it’s this consistent delivery of opinion, invective and, finally, dinero-–putting his money where his mouth is—that got him into trouble last week for violating MSNBC’s policy on anchors not donating money to political parties.

But what better way of saying brand commitment than by getting into trouble by doing what your Target Audience will invariably see as the right thing to do?

That’s why Olbermann wins this week. When a brand-–specifically a commentator brand like Olbermann—is seen to risk itself for its core values (read “core characteristics”, died-hard marketers) it wins. Plain and simple.

Hats off to Olbermann, also, for coming out of the bomb shelter today and thanking his fans and taking aim at MSNBC for an “inconsistently enforced” rule that caused this mess. Staking out his ground like this can only help his brand by cementing his connection with his fans and diminishing his dependence on his network.

Loser:

When a major media player doesn’t know its own brand… well, that’s sad.

But this is exactly what happened last week with MSNBC in the Olbermann flap.

As I’ve said, with the exception of crisis situations that genuinely come out of left field, marketing should never be about what happens after things go wrong. Why? Because marketing is about planning so things don’t go wrong.

In the case of MSNBC, this meant making sure that they never ran into a problem where their internal rules regarding the ethics of their key broadcasters would cause external problems.

Fortunately, MSNBC has reversed its decision to suspend Olbermann, but, frankly, the brand damage has been done. And they deserve all of it.

A few years ago, the network made the decision to move away from a stricter broadcast news format into the kind of opinion generating political commentary that really generates viewership numbers. They also took sides by employing left-leaners like Olbermann and Maddow.

Nothing wrong with that from a brand perspective, but if you take that leap as a network, you had better acknowledge where the journalism ends and the commentary begins. Fox does this. No one would call Glenn Beck a journalist. Similarly, no one should call Olbermann or Maddow journalists. Or Colbert. Or Stewart.

Fact is, I don’t think MSNBC really has its brand act together. For example, there are reports that since MSNBC supposedly has “apolitical” in its DNA because it was a joint venture between Microsoft and NBC, a corporate memo has circulated internally advocating changing the msnbc.com website and name to get away from the left-leaning associations.

Bad idea. It’s the left-leaning associations that have built the brand in recent years. Moreover, you simply don’t walk away from a heavily-trafficked URL like that. MSNBC might as well get out of the business altogether if they aren’t prepared to embrace the brand that they have cultivated so far.

Stay tuned.

And, remember, things are always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.

TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY:
Marketing needs to happen from the start so that a brand crisis never does.

John Tantillo is an AMA member and president of the Marketing Department of America, a New York-based marketing firm.
http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv/

The opinions expressed in this post are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the American Marketing Association.

Posted by Elisabeth at 4:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In the wake of major news stories regarding suicides committed by bullied homosexual teens, the It Gets Better Project has grown into a popular viral video campaign. Since early October, the campaign has motivated thousands of people to become fans of its Facebook page and to appear in videos on YouTube telling lesbian, gay, transgender, bisexual and questioning teens why life is worth living. Many have shared their own personal stories. Celebrities, preachers, politicians, even Barack Obama, have appeared in official It Gets Better videos, and collectively the videos have been seen north of 10 million times. The campaign has contributed to spikes in website traffic, information requests and third-party fundraising events for The Trevor Project, a suicide prevention association targeting LGBTQ youths, and the campaign has inspired a book that will be out next year.

But now what? Where does the It Gets Better Project go from here? How can it stay fresh and relevant, and continue to make a difference?

Because the campaign's primarily driven by user-generated content, and because there has been so much content, campaign marketers will need to continually showcase new submissions and promote content through social media, says Risa Sherman, senior consultant for Cause Consulting in Boston. But beyond promoting consumer content, Bob Witeck, CEO and co-founder of Witeck-Combs Communications in Washington, a marketing agency specializing in LGBTQ cause campaigns, says marketers will need to promote more personal stories and success stories spotlighting people whose lives have been transformed by the campaign. And beyond featuring thousands of voices saying "It Gets Better," marketing will need to prove the campaign is making things better. Marketing has already begun to do so, taking credit for encouraging a school board member in Arkansas to quit after he posted homophonic language on Facebook, after It Gets Better called upon its Facebook fan base to call for his resignation.

To learn more about It Gets Better, tips for making a public service campaign take off, and ways to measure such a campaign's success, read the article "Public Service Campaigns Benefit From Social Media, Simple Messaging," appearing in this week's edition of Marketing News' e-newsletter Marketing News Exclusives, available here beginning Nov. 4. And click on the links below to watch the first It Gets Better video from project founder and Seattle-based columnist Dan Savage and his partner Terry Miller and another video from Barack Obama.

Posted by Piet at 3:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Winner:

It’s a personal branding truth that often the best way to promote your brand is to simply be yourself.

That’s what Juan Williams did on Bill O’Reilly last week and it worked wonders.

As a result of Williams saying what he felt –and what many people feel— NPR decided it had grounds to fire its long-time correspondent.

The result of NPR’s decision was an immediate outcry against the injustice. After all, Williams wasn’t appearing on O’Reilly in his capacity as a reporter but as an analyst and even as a private citizen just voicing his opinion.

The immediate effect for Williams –other than the loss of a job— was the recognition of just how strong and well-liked his brand was. People genuinely wanted to defend him not only because a wrong had been done but because the Juan Williams brand is something that many people value.

Why?

Because NPR’s take aside, Williams is seen as an honest broker, a thinker and journalist who delivers solid analysis that can cross party lines and see the big picture.

He also handled his dismissal with his usual coolness and charm.

No question about it, Juan exited a bad week with a brand that was stronger than ever. It’s often been said that you can tell a great deal about a personal brand not when things are going right but when things are going terribly wrong. Juan has raised himself in almost everybody’s estimation after this incident. That means his brand profile has more appeal than ever before.

Now the big question is what he will do with this appeal. It’s critical to exploit the opportunity. For Juan this means promptly figuring out what he should do next.

The NPR door is closed. He’s already well ensconced at Fox. Probably the next thing is a) his own show and/or b) a book that gets to the heart of the current conservative/liberal battle and highlights strengths and appeal. By doing this, he can position his brand for future growth and also cement our perception of it.

Loser:

NPR wasn’t as lucky as Juan.

But then again, luck doesn’t have anything to do with it. Bad brand management does.

Bottom line, if you are NPR, you simply can’t afford to be seen as reactionary. The NPR brand is supposed to be about high-quality, non-partisan news gathering and analysis. Its mission is to stand above the political fray not to descend into it.

But that’s exactly what NPR by firing Juan Williams. Even worse, it took a side in the political battle. By going after him for something he said on Fox made them appear to be trying to quash the “other” side of the political debate.

Worse for their brand, they gave their opponents plenty of ammunition to argue even more persuasively now that NPR should be defunded because it is too partisan.

What can NPR do to repair the brand damage? It could hire a few well-known and credible conservatives to help strike the kind of editorial balance that would suggest that they really do represent all Americans. They might even consider admitting their mistake and re-hiring Juan.

But, folks, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

The other thing that’s suffered here –and the reason many liberals groaned at NPR’s decision— was that it gives liberals a black eye. Let’s be honest. After all, Fox, long considered a conservative operation, hired Williams knowing his liberal-centrist pedigree, so NPR’s decision simply re-enforces the idea that liberals are intolerant of positions that differ from their own. In this sense, it’s a very pubic tarring of their brand’s supposed openness.

And, remember, things are always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.

TODAY’S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY:
Remember: Every action your brand takes might be held against it.

John Tantillo is an AMA member and president of the Marketing Department of America, a New York-based marketing firm.
http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv/

The opinions expressed in this post are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the American Marketing Association.

Posted by Elisabeth at 12:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)