Your Brand, In Plain English

I'm not a big fan of buzzwords. Why? They dilute brands more effectively than almost anything else. And I promise, these have all come from real corporate documents, though names have been withheld to protect the offenders.

The Compound Buzzword
This is what you get when you take a perfectly good normal word - like "organic" - and cram it into some business-related context because it sounds cool, often smashing it together with some other buzzword. Something like:

We create organic solution stacks to solve our clients' infrastructure issues.

You've now compounded the confusion by making up collections of words that independently may (or may not) mean something to your customer, but have lost all context.

The Noun-Into-A-Verb
Ever heard this one?

We've tasked our customer service team to meet your every need.

Beside the fact that this violates every grammar rule because it's just a made-up word, it sounds self-important. As if you're too good to just have customer service teams that are dedicated to meeting needs. They have to be "tasked" to do so. Ergh.

The Tech Upgrade
This practice uses technically-related terms and applies them to non-technical subjects.

Our mission statement outlines our read-only values: integrity, creativity, and collaboration.

In essence you're trying to say that those values can't or won't be compromised. So why not use a word designed for that purpose? Like, say, uncompromising?

The Mashup
It can be tempting to create a whole new word, hoping that someday, someone will know you coined that term. Most of the time, you just sound like you're trying too hard:

We keep our client meetings centergistic and focused on outcomes.

What do you think? Does this make you want to hire them, or does it make you wonder if their meetings will be equally difficult to interpret?

The Misnomer
Here we've got words that are either oxymorons - meaning that that by definition the two words are opposites - or words that are completely redundant and unnecessary. My favorite example of late:

We form collaborative partnerships to help you meet your goals.

I don't know about you, but I haven't met a partnership that wasn't - at least by the pure definition of "working together" - collaborative.

Ok, Amber....What's your point?
Ok. The above are kind of fun, and you may have gotten a chuckle out of it. (For even more laughs on the buzzword front, check out BuzzWhack.) But the truth is these kinds of offenses are rampant in the world of marketing, and even more so now in social media.

Everyone wants to be different, innovative, the first to the finish line. And in the process, we've left behind some very simple words to describe what we do.

A brand isn't about 20 point Scrabulous words (or Scrabble, for you analog folk). It's about clearly defining your brand in words that make it easy for your customers to explain it to someone else.

So next time you're writing copy for your website or putting together your pitch for a new client, skip the lingo, and don't try to be a hero. Use real words that real people use and understand, and they'll be much more likely to talk about you. If you have trouble explaining your brand in a sentence, you ought to spend some time distilling it down until you can.

Sometimes, simple really is better.

Social Media: What About The Risks?

Someone asked this a couple of weeks ago on Twitter, and I've been chewing on it ever since.

Is social media risky?

Business in general is fraught with risk. The next client or contract or customer isn't assured. Our advertising campaign could offend someone, our direct mail campaign could be beautifully designed and tested but still fail to achieve the results we want.

Accounting errors happen, and even worse, fraud. Customer service reps have a bad day. IT departments have meltdowns and failures. Products fail to meet expectations, budgets get missed. Employees misbehave, embezzle, share trade secrets. And it all happens on channels outside of social media.

As a very public, lasting, and dynamic communication platform, social media has it's share of potential challenges. And for as powerfully as I believe in its potential to elevate brands, it would be irresponsible to assume that venturing into social media territory doesn't carry some level of risk. Here are a few of the risks associated with social media that we've been talking about:

A customer could leave a negative comment on your blog, or on a social network about your brand.

Criticism happens all the time, and companies need to respond appropriately and thoughtfully. Crisis communication strategy exists purely for this reason. I don't think that social media necessarily increases the chances that something negative will be said about you, but it certainly can amplify the message. Companies embarking on social media adventures need to understand how to monitor their brand online - especially on the company-owned channels - and learn how to engage and respond in a way that bolsters the brand.

An employee could say something on behalf of the company that's not authorized, is potentially offensive, or share something confidential.

Kellye Crane today pointed me to a post that Leigh Durst put on her blog about Whole Foods' potential misstep on Twitter. Apparently, their Twitter representative(s) reposted a tweet with questionable language, and some fallout ensued. Can one misstep like this have more staying power than five smart moves? Social media folks always say that Google never forgets, and more and more we find proof that it doesn't.

Beth Harte penned a great post about her recent experiences on Twitter; the height of the political season has folks tossing barbs left and right, and there is certainly potential for brand damage - both personal and corporate.

We've spent years now using the phone and email to communicate, and the potential exists to really screw up there, too. So what makes social media different? Is it the ubiquitous, open and organic nature of conversation on the web? Does the anoynmity of a computer screen encourage poorer judgment?

Participating in social networks or blogging requires dedicated resources or productivity, and can be difficult to sustain at an active level.

For a moment, I'm going to put aside the argument of whether engaging in social media is a waste of time in the first place, and assume that it's not. But engaging in social media the "right" way requires a commitment, and can be hard work. Understaffing, underestimating, and doing it poorly can be worse than doing nothing at all. A blog with one post that hasn't been updated in months can send a lack of commitment message that a mere absence of blogging might not.

As Mack Collier deftly points out, putting the wrong resources to work can misfire, too. Just because only one employee is familiar with blogging doesn't mean that they're the right choice to blog on behalf of a company. Choosing social media stewards for your company needs to be as well thought out as appointing any major project managers. (One could even argue more so, considering the very public nature of this kind of role.)

The corporate message can't be as easily controlled or managed.

Yes, it's true that you as a company don't necessarily control all your messaging anymore, and your customers are having a greater and more lasting impact on your brand.

But Jeff Summers and Jane Chin are both smart to point out that some industries carry more risk and liability than others for that very messaging. Financial institutions or health care organiations very likely have regulations they must adhere to, and legal obligations that control what kind of information they can disclose and how. For companies in these spaces, social media is a very serious business and legal consideration that has to be approached carefully (if its appropriate at all).

It's more than clear that a sound social media strategy involves analysis of potential issues that can arise as well as the potential benefits. And like any other smart business move, stepping into social media should be treated with respectful planning and communication. Just because it's a shiny "new" toy doesn't mean that it ought to be treated lightly.

Are these risks different than those for other areas of business? Are the standards for social media the same or different, and why? Is there equal risk in doing nothing at all and missing the boat on social media altogether?

Let's continue the conversation in the comments. This is an important subject!

Thanks also to Sonny Gill, Tara Whittle, Tim "Masiguy" Jackson, Rhonda LaShae, and Barbara Baker for weighing in on the conversation, and their great contributions as always (which you can read here on Plurk).

Image by hellolapomme

The Brand Damage Snowball Effect

All of us, at one point or another, have had a bad experience with a company. Sometimes, it's mild enough for us to grumble for a few moments and go on our way, and give them another shot another day. Other times, it's bad enough that we'll never do business with that company again, but we don't spread that to other people.

Then, there's the tipping point where we're so ticked off, we not only vow never to do business with them again, but we tell everyone.

And if you're the company that's at the business end of that shotgun, you had better be paying attention.

My friend (and disclosure: client) David Alston is undertaking a move this week, which sucks in and of itself. And he was relying on U-Haul to help him with that move. When his wife dealt with some absolutely abominable customer service regarding their truck reservation, he put his gripe on Twitter for thousands of people to see. He also blogged about it (in a much more objective and level headed way than I might have).

What ensued was an onslaught of responses from David's Twitter community, and a great post from Catch Up Lady detailing some of the responses and the snowball effect of David's tweet reaching his followers and their followers and so on. (Just in case you think Twitter still doesn't matter. But this, for another post.)

One of those followers posted the CEO's phone number, and David sent him a message. He did call back, but as of this post, I don't think they've connected. I'll be curious about what this guy has to say about the behavior of his field locations and representatives (and the subsequent damage they're doing to his brand). I'll also be curious to know whether the phone call is merely a gesture, and if this guy is aware of the negative publicity he's receiving across the web (of which I'm sure David will make him aware).

David also did his part by canceling his reservation with U-Haul and subsequently booking with Penske, and he then tweeted about how great their customer service was.

If anything to me, this is yet another powerful case for why listening to social media is critically important, and you can do that even if you don't have a blog or a Twitter account. Hearing what's being said can uncover a gold mine (or quagmire) of information from your customers - or former customers - just waiting for you. If I were the U-Haul CEO, I would sure as heck want to know that all these people, in the span of a few hours, had just shared how much they think my company sucks.

Dozens and dozens of people responded to David with their horror stories (and I have one of my own). This many horror stories, and they're still out there managing to do business? What if no one had managed to give David the CEO's contact information? Would they have heard a thing? Or cared? Do you think this experience is significant enough to teach an old dog new tricks?

And then the next level: Where is the tipping point, I wonder, to take down a giant like U-Haul or force them to do things differently, and when does our collective patience run out? How do we translate the negativity we feel and express in words, and translate it into action by not supporting the brand enough where they have to change or perish? What separates a stubborn brand from one willing to evolve based on what they learn?

Can social media tip the scales and turn talk into action?

Diluted Brands: Just Add Everything

I was talking to Jane Chin on Plurk about her conundrum of too many blogs, and too little focus, and she’s not alone. My feeling was that in today’s hyper-niched world – brought to you by the wide and vast internet – brands are forced to go narrow and deep instead of wide and broad in order to retain their relevance. I’m not the first to say this, of course. (Check out The Long Tail.)

Here’s why I’m adamant that a focused brand beats an “everything” brand any day (unless you're a bagel).

Managing expectations.
Focusing your brand means that your community always knows what to expect from you. This doesn’t mean that you never do anything innovative, it just means that your innovations are focused on the things that add value, interest, or dimension to your brand while still responding to the needs of your community.

Solving real problems.
As the saying goes, you can’t please all of the people all of the time, and if you try, you risk your brand feeling a little schizophrenic. But if you focus your efforts on the things you’re passionate about and you can do best, you’ll truly be able to solve problems for the community that needs you.

Longevity.
Brands that are built with purpose and depth have the foundation to endure, adapt, evolve.

Some discussion amongst the smart folk yielded a few examples of brands that may have lost their focus:

• Starbucks and their forays into music and chocolate?
• Mercedes by offering lower end cars for mass markets?
• Barack Obama by hitting the campaign trail with Hillary Clinton?
• Coke – too many varieties?
• Harley-Davidson and their cake decorating kit (no, I’m not kidding)
• Target – are they getting into too many things?
• Martha Stewart – just how many things can one license in how many quality/price tiers and still be competitive?

Do you have examples of brands that are diluted? How important is it for a brand to stay narrow and deep? What keeps a brand relevant to you even as they evolve? Let’s talk more.

Photo Credit: Bripc

Brand Adversity? Meet It Head On.

The Tour de France has had it's share of scandal for the last few years. Doping allegations, disgraced champions, the absence of reigning champions, struggles about how to govern this flagship cycling competition. It's been a rough road for them, to be sure.

Versus, the cable sports network that covers the Tour, has taken matters into their own hands to try and motivate cycling and Tour lovers alike to Take Back The Tour. The TV spots are unapologetic and in-your-face. And they're effective for an evangelist like me that loves the sport, loves the race, and wants to see the world's greatest bike race regain its former glory.



So what's the lesson here to be learned?

Brand tarnishing happens to the best of the best. In today's market of interconnected and superconnected online networks, referral- and review-minded consumers, and customer-driven branding, it's inevitable that the negative will creep out amongst the positive. And whether it's a small smudge or a giant smear campaign, nothing can be gained by hiding amongst the trees and hoping it will all blow over. (Jusk ask fans and users of Twitter these days).

Engaging those that are talking to you and about you can do wonders for healing - even improving - a brand's reputation. Yes, it's scary sometimes and it can sting to take a few blows. But your credibility is heightened when you speak in your own voice and try your best to have a dialogue with those criticising you. Companies are populated by people and a human face is critical to meeting adversity with credibility.

And if you've been the unfortunate victim of bad apples spoiling your bushel like the Tour de France has, take back your brand by denouncing bad behavior and reaffirming your commitment to your company and your customers. Skip the corporate-y crisis press release and put out real, human responses by real people. Get out there and engage with your loyal evangelists, and rally them to the cause. Apologize for your mistakes. Commit to correcting them. Thank your community for caring enough to be angry.

After all, isn't your personal Tour de France worth defending?

Yeah, What He Said.

Many of you who read me know how much I admire Chris Brogan's work and contributions. And he's done it again, so I had to just do a ridiculously gratuitous plug for his post today, which is full of super duper helpful guidelines for branding, especially in the online and social media space, and I couldn't have said it better. So go here and read it.

Marketers: No One Believes You.

Christopher Penn, blogger and creator of the Financial Aid Podcast, has this to say on a recent post about why marketing sucks:

When companies, organizations, or individuals focus only on the short term, whether it’s quarterly results on the Street or whether you can get some action at the single’s bar tonight, the same desperation is created by short term thinking. That combined with a profit above all else mentality has turned marketing into the corporate equivalent of that guy in the bar who smells of equal parts aggression, fear, and desperation - and the target audience stays far, far away.

Yep. I can't tell you how much I cringe when someone says to me "we need to do some of that New Media" or "can you get us some marketing on the internet?" Yikes.

What's worse, Penn's point above makes me cringe even more because it echoes something more sinister.

If you're a marketer, no one believes you will use your superpowers for good rather than evil.

So how do you overcome?

Chris Brogan is a fun blogger to read, and he usually comes up with something that makes me think. His recent post talks about Personal Branding and how important and challenging it is. I think it's even more critical for those of us who purport to be in the business of helping others elevate, define, and create awarness for their brands.

I've blogged before about the fact that I believe that your brand is really created not by you, but by the people that use your product or service or seek you out in the vast online universe. Sure, we can contribute to the conversation about how we'd like to be perceived, but ultimately, someone else is going to make up their mind. If you haven't checked out the interesting Brand Tag site, it's interesting fodder for my point. If you look at the words that people choose, sure, some are super intuitive. But it's amazing how many of these "tags" are words that the companies might or might not have chosen for their brands in the first place, for better or for worse.

That didn't answer my question.

Ok, sorry. My point is that in order to really have people believe that there ARE marketing people out there (I'd like to think myself included) that are honestly, truly dedicated to the good side of this craft, we have to continue to bring people interesting, relevant, different, and compelling stuff and stories.

It's not enough to extoll the quality, value, and convenience of Bob's Buttered Biscuits, we have to dig deep, find the unique elements, and tell THOSE to people without shouting at them to pay attention. You can lead a horse to water, after all...

As a marketing person, I think it's my duty not to whore out any old product and polish turds, but rather to find the diamonds in the rough. The untold stories. The nifty, keen, funny, exciting, exhilirating ones. And to be honest, if someone or something doesn't have ANY of these qualities? Well, that's not a problem that any marketing person - no matter how much of a rockstar they are - can fix.

Are you in marketing? How do you avoid being cast as a deceitful, manipulating liar? Or do you?

Retro Marketing

It's only a matter of time before the big CPG companies look to resurrect their old classics. And they're doing it - remember Brim, Salon Selectives, Underroos? There's a movement underway to bring these brands back to life because of their powerful recall. Kellogg's has announced that they're bringing back the "beloved" Hyrdox cookie.

Which makes me really wonder something.

Does recall still make the brand? We marketers have always touted brand recall as a signal of its success. I'm just not sure that does it anymore.


First of all, it's the quality of the product that ultimately determines whether it has a long or short lifespan. If Brim has a great jingle but tastes like crap, it's destined for the dustbin. Reason #1 why I don't think recall is enough.

This all sounds to me like big companies are finally feeling the pinch of traditional, big bucks marketing and rather than spending the time, money, and effort to innovate something truly powerfully great, they're riding on the coattails of nostalgia in hopes that it will bring them around. (I wonder if Seth agrees with me - I doubt he thinks that Hydrox revisited is a Purple Cow, if a Cow at all).

What do you think? Would the reprise of your favorite Quisp cereal make you rush to the store, or just make you think "hey look, Quisp!" and go on your merry way?

Hacked! LifeLock's CEO Gets Unlocked, After All.

Today, the LifeLock CEO was on the Today Show talking about how he got himself hacked by identity thieves - the very thing his company is in business to prevent.



Last week, Drew McLellan commented on his blog about the bravery of the marketing campaign in which Todd Davis boldly displays his own social security number on billboards, TV spots and the like as if daring the identity thieves to come and get him. I agreed! Talk about putting your money (and your credit and your private information) where your mouth is.

So what does this mean for Davis and LifeLock now? Have they lost brand equity because their very own CEO has been victimized?

I don't think so. Why? Because Davis came out and addressed the issue, point blank. He admitted that many people had attempted to use his information without success. And he insists that the damage would have been far worse had LifeLock not been protecting his identity.

I know that's probably a little happy-hearted, thinking that just because he talks about it, everything is ok. But the question is, was it really a failure of the company to fulfill its brand promise, or did Davis open the floodgates for people to attack him more vigorously, just like a Double Dog Dare?

Guess I'll be keeping an eye on LifeLock to see what's next for them. And I'll be shredding my documents more carefully, of course.

Communication is Key

Recession or no, don't make the mistake of thinking that an economic downturn means that you should put the brakes on everything you do that's considered "marketing".

Marketing is sometimes construed as a dirty word. So let's clean it up and consider the most basic of all marketing principles - communication.

Every business feels the symptoms of economic strife a little differently. In my neck of the words, for instance, clients are super focused on targeted, economic methods of communication. Which is a beautiful thing, because that's what we advocate anyway. But there are also those people who say "Amber, I'm halting all marketing spending right now." Yikes.

Especially for growing businesses and non profit organizations, there's a lot of noise in the market on a GOOD day. When it's a dog-eat-dog environment where every last customer or donor or volunteer is a gem (they should be anyway, but that's another post), I think the worst mistake you can make is to stop communicating.

Marketing, done well, is a dialogue. It's an ongoing communication with your clients and those you wish to be, and you need to be talking to be heard. In fact, when the frantic sales cycle is cautious and slowed, it can be an incredible time to spend developing those relationships with your customers and reminding them of how you're there to help them, serve them, provide them with a valuable product or service. Now is not the time for the hard sell - it's the time to have a conversation and be great at the most important part of all - listening.

And the bonus? Great dialogue with your customers doesn't have to be expensive. Pick up the phone. Launch a blog. Send out a handful of handwritten notes.

How can you spend a few minutes building relationships with your customers and clients so that when the sales cycle picks up pace, you'll be top of mind?

Over Deliver.

How many times have you heard these words when talking about customer service or the work you do for your clients? Do you do it? Really?

Nordstrom has legendary customer service, and I am never disappointed. Personal attention, and the unrelenting drive to have me leave a happy customer. And I do. Even when the alterations done on a suit I bought were not quite right, my frustration quickly dissolved when a quick phone call promised that they'd do it again and fix it, with lightning speed.

One of the very best things you can do for your product or service, and your brand, is to deliver on promises. All of them. Meet deadlines. Return phone calls. Answer questions or offer to find the answers when you don't have them. And of course, exceed their expectations with whatever you deliver to them.

If you're not sure whether you're delivering on your promises, the best and most effective way to find out is to ask them!

One of Altitude's 60 Minute Marketing tips is to do a quick survey of your customers to connect with them and ask their thoughts. There are so many great tools out there now that make creating a simple online survey a breeze - we like Survey Monkey because it's super simple and straightforward. Not up for sending out an email survey? No worries. Go low tech and just pick up the phone and call some of your customers. Send them a note.

Most important, no matter what else you ask them, borrow a page from the Net Promoter Score methodology and include the question "Would you recommend us to your friends, and why or why not?" That answer will tell you how well you're delivering on the promises you make - even unwittingly - to your customers. And you might be surprised at what you learn.

Lastly, make sure that you DO something with the information you glean. It's not enough to just ask the question and walk away. The best thing you can do for your business and your customers is to address any of the shortcomings you might learn about. Your customers will know you're listening to them, and the value of your brand in their mind increases.

What are you doing today to over deliver on your promises to your customers?

You don't own your brand.

Your customers do.

Seem counterintuitive?

Branding is an art, not a science. And the cardinal sin that you may commit is assuming that you (or - gasp - your marketing agency) knows your customers best, knows what they want, understands them perfectly. Absolutely, you should aspire to do just that. But at the end of the day, your customers and clients are the power behind your brand.

Uberbrands are built by the consumers who love them. They shape them, react to them, talk about them. The most brilliant marketers can merely hang around, listen closely, and respond to what their customers are already asking for.

That also means that the ever-elusive “buzz” is not something you can manufacture. You cannot force something to be “viral”, as viral - by its very nature - is something organic, self-populating. There are no guarantees. Create things and ideas worth talking about, and let your customers and would-be customers do the rest. That’s the beauty and simplicity of this kind of marketing, which really isn’t marketing at all. It’s conversation.

Be true to the brand that your customers have helped build for you. Give them more than they could ask for, be sincere, and they’ll return the favor.