Are You Image Focused?

Your personal brand is your unique competitive advantage which is a precious commodity in today’s highly competitive business world; and your brand is significantly affected by your perceived image out in the big wide world. It doesn’t matter where you are on the career ladder or what skills and experience you have – unless you have somehow saved enough money for your brand not too matter anymore, how you ‘promote’ yourself and how you let others promote you will have a significant short-term and long-term impact on your perceived image by others – and hence impact your dreams and aspirations on a business and personal level.

 

As HBS professor Laura Morgan Roberts sees it, if you aren't managing your own professional image, others are; "people are constantly observing your behavior and forming theories about your competence, character, and commitment, which are rapidly disseminated throughout your workplace," she says. "It is only wise to add your voice in framing others' theories about who you are and what you can accomplish."

 

The art of developing our own brand is something that is lacking in many educational and business environments. Yet considering how important your image is in optimizing your potential future – the art of personal image and brand building should be a part of a teenager’s basic education from 16 years old at the very latest.

 

Professor Roberts highlights how “in the increasingly diverse, twenty-first century workplace, people face a number of complex challenges to creating a positive professional image. They often experience a significant incongruence between their desired professional image and their perceived professional image. In short, they are not perceived in the manner they desire; instead, their undesired professional image may be more closely aligned with how their key constituents actually perceive them. Members of negatively stereotyped identity groups may experience an additional form of identity threat known as ‘devaluation.’ Identity devaluation occurs when negative attributions about your social identity group(s) undermine key constituents' perceptions of your competence, character, or commitment. For example, African American men are stereotyped as being less intelligent and more likely to engage in criminal behavior than Caucasian men. Asian Americans are stereotyped as technically competent, but lacking in the social skills required to lead effectively. Working mothers are stereotyped as being less committed to their profession and less loyal to their employing organizations. All of these stereotypes pose obstacles for creating a positive professional image.”

 

The world has become a very critical and hypocritical place as we try to learn to come to terms with living our lives in such a public arena. The beauty about the human race used to be our unique individuality and yet this can feel like a curse in this new social-media focused world with people making blind judgements based on their own, often ignorant, ‘beliefs’ without even pausing to understand the situation and the facts. It’s quite scary just how quickly people are prepared to make huge assumptions and judge complete strangers based on as little information as a simple photo or set of words.

 

Professor Roberts reminds us that “even positive stereotypes can pose a challenge for creating a positive professional image if someone is perceived as being unable to live up to favorable expectations of their social identity group(s). For example, clients may question the qualifications of a freshly minted MBA who is representing a prominent strategic consulting firm. Similarly, female medical students and residents are often mistaken for nurses or orderlies and challenged by patients who do not believe they are legitimate physicians.”

 

She goes on to add that “In order to create a positive professional image, impression management must effectively accomplish two tasks: build credibility and maintain authenticity. When you present yourself in a manner that is both true to self and valued and believed by others, impression management can yield a host of favorable outcomes for you, your team, and your organization. On the other hand, when you present yourself in an inauthentic and non-credible manner, you are likely to undermine your health, relationships, and performance.”

 

30 years ago unless you were some form of celebrity or very successful business person, you were pretty much anonymous outside of your personal and business circle of friends and colleagues. You just had to worry about your ‘local’ image, which was pretty much in your hands to control. Probably 30 years ago people actually wished they could ‘market’ themselves more easily on a global scale, though it seems that we have gone from one extreme to the other.

 

In today’s business world “people attempt to build credibility and maintain authenticity simultaneously, but they must negotiate the tension that can arise between the two. Your ‘true self,’ or authentic self-portrayal, will not always be consistent with your key constituents' expectations for professional competence and character. Building credibility can involve being who others want you to be, gaining social approval and professional benefits, and leveraging your strengths. If you suppress or contradict your personal values or identity characteristics for the sake of meeting societal expectations for professionalism, you might receive certain professional benefits, but you might compromise other psychological, relational, and organizational outcomes.”

 

The desire to be noticed and be part of the ‘social media community’ must be tempered by the need to manage your personal image, both in the short and long term, to the extent that you feel in control of your ‘projected message’ allowing you to market yourself more effectively – which should be one of the core benefits of social media.

 

Professor Roberts concludes by reminding us that “first, you must realize that if you aren't managing your own professional image, someone else is. People are constantly observing your behavior and forming theories about your competence, character, and commitment, which are rapidly disseminated throughout your workplace. It is only wise to add your voice in framing others' theories about who you are and what you can accomplish. Be the author of your own identity. Take a strategic, proactive approach to managing your image.”

 

 

References:

 

Roberts, L.M. (2005). Creating a Positive Professional Image. Harvard Business Review, June [http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/creating-a-positive-professional-image]

Does the Internet Support the Luxury Brand Market?

Uché Okonkwo who’s recognised worldwide as one of the pioneer luxury business strategists wrote that “luxury has been built on the foundation of certain principles that can neither be ignored nor compromised. It is a culture and a philosophy that requires understanding before the adoption of business practices because its intricacies and output are essentially different from other types of goods such as daily consumer goods, (p.303).”

 

But how has the luxury brand market been able to respond to the modern era of the Internet and keep their brands exclusive but at the same time modern and current, attracting the new generation of ‘luxury’ brand customers.

 

Brands such as Versace and Prada, for example, did not have corporate websites until 2005 and 2007, respectively; where economic as well as consumer societies have expressed bewilderment at the slowness of the luxury industry in establishing an online presence in comparison to other sectors.

 

A major existing paradox however lies in creating and retaining ‘the desire and exclusivity’ attributes of luxury brands on the mass and classless Internet world and at the same time maintaining and enhancing the equity of the brand. Another contradiction that luxury brands face online is the task of increasing sales and the risk of overexposure while maintaining a fragile perception of limited supply. These factors are inherently peculiar to the Internet whose central features appear to be the opposite of luxury’s core elements.

 

Okonkwo highlights how “the characteristics of the Internet and e-Retail are a global reach; a pull marketing approach where customers are drawn to information and purchases, rather than a push medium where customers are driven by advertising; a lack of physical contact with the goods and human contact with the sellers; a low switching cost as it takes only one click to switch between websites; fast and convenient; more product variety and access to viewing them; availability and accessibility irrespective of time and location; less powerful sales as it is easy to say no to a computer; a universal appeal and uniform information. These characteristics indicate that the Internet as a medium of communications and retail is available to a mass consumer base, which is in direct disparity with the niche consumer base that luxury goods have always targeted (p.304).”

 

Luxury goods are regarded as sensory in nature and this means that the human senses of visual, smell, touch and feel are considered imperative in selling luxury goods. These above factors could imply that luxury goods are unsuitable to be placed and retailed on the Internet, but then the luxury goods market haven’t had to ‘compete’ and ‘recognise’ the existence of the Internet before now. So simply writing the Internet off for this unique sector may be a bit too impulsive.

 

Luxury itself has always had innate characteristics that are intricate to its very being and comprise of elements that speak more to passion than reason. These include originality and creativity in product and retail conceptualisation; craftsmanship and precision in creation and production; emotional appeal and an enhanced image in brand presentation; exclusivity and limit in access and high quality and premium pricing, all for a specific clientele. The application of all these elements often requires an unwavering dedication to perfection that sometimes defies logic, and this oftentimes requires a rather narrow approach, which has consequences for business management. The natural reaction to any possibility of interrupting this approach and thought process would be ‘apprehension and resistance’, which has been the initial reaction of luxury to the advent of the Internet.

 

So for those organisations looking at developing a luxury branded item, it’s worth having a relook at your marketing strategy in respect of the Internet. The ‘modern’ consumer likes to be able to find things on line – and if you can give them a ‘luxury’ experience when they are there, you may be pleasantly surprised by the impact this has both on image and sales of your product in the marketplace. 

 

References

 

Okonkwo, U. (2009). Sustaining the luxury brand on the Internet. Journal of Brand Management. Vol.16, Issue 5/6, p.302-310.

 

Is Business Really All About Trade-Offs?

In an interesting article back in 2009 by Kevin Keller and Frederick Webster, they wrote that “one of the realities of modern brand marketing is that many of the decisions that marketers make with respect to their brands are seemingly characterized by conflicting goals, objectives and possible outcomes. Unfortunately, in our experience, too many marketers define their problems in ‘either/or’ terms, creating situations where one idea, one individual or one option wins out, (p.13).”

 

In this scenario opportunities are potentially missed as the ‘organisation’ doesn’t look at optimizing the branding options through synergies between the ideas or looking at completely new ideas.

Keller and Webster also highlighted that “conflict and trade-offs are inherent in marketing decision making, and are the most fundamental challenges of marketing and brand management;” and highlight four broad categories for these trade-offs, “strategic, tactical, financial and/or organizational, (p.13).” But trade-offs are a key part of business, not just marketing management. 

Anyone who has been through a strategy development process will know that trade-offs are being considered all the time and what the best organisations do, is to look at the optimization of their future growth and see ‘trade-offs’ as opportunities to optimize ‘all the potential, positive, outcomes’ for their business; i.e. they turn the perceived ‘trade-off’ into a ‘new’ winning formula for success.

Where organisations miss potential growth opportunities, is when their operational philosophy encourages their employees to choose between potential trade-offs like, for example, setting performance targets that look at quantity, but don’t consider quality.

Keller and Webster highlight how “to understand the nature and extent of marketing trade-offs, some key questions must be answered: How severe are they? Are they unavoidable, inherent in the nature of the decision problem and situation? How have they been dealt with before? And of particular importance is to recognize whether the trade-offs result from internal organizational considerations or external structural issues inherent in the marketing environment where management has less control, (p.15).”

The key to dealing with trade-offs, not just in the marketing function but throughout the organization, is how you approach them and whether you see the process as ‘creating’ a win-lose or compromise result; or if your organisation seeks to create the ‘best’ outcome for the organisation.

At least Keller and Webster mention that “one compelling way to resolve potential marketing strategy trade-offs is through product or service innovations. For example, Miller Lite became the first successful nationally marketed light beer through an innovative brewing formulation that was able to retain more of the taste profile of a full-strength beer, while still having a lower calorie count, (p.15).”

As another example, when BMW first made a strong competitive push into the US market in the early 1980’s, it positioned the brand as being the only automobile that offered both luxury and performance. At that time, American luxury cars were seen by many as lacking performance, and American performance cars were seen as lacking luxury. By relying on the incomparable design of their car, and to some extent their German heritage, BMW was able to simultaneously achieve (1) a point of difference on performance and a point of parity on luxury with respect to luxury cars and (2) a point of difference on luxury and a point of parity on performance with respect to performance cars. The clever slogan, ‘The Ultimate Driving Machine’ effectively captured the newly created umbrella category - luxury performance cars.

Dealing with trade-offs is as much about ‘effective decision making’ as it is about the ‘culture’ of the business. If employees are debating the pros and cons of a trade-off because they want to ‘win’ then the business is very likely going to miss out on some real synergistic multi-dimensional solutions. 

Keller and Webster conclude that “achieving marketing balance requires penetrating insights, shrewd judgments and a knack for arriving at solutions that go beyond the obvious. Creativity, the combination of previously unrelated ideas into new forms, is often the inspiration to achieve marketing balance,” (p.17).

What is clear is that effective marketing is a key function of business success and organisations will always be presented with ‘trade-offs’ if that is how they wish to view their marketing opportunities. The ‘smart’ business will not see trade-offs but will see a set of ‘factors’, where some are opportunities and some are ‘limitations’ and they will work with these factors – not to choose one over and other – but to create the most effective marketing-mix of solutions at the micro level, for their range of products and/or services in their respective target markets, both for ‘today’ and the foreseeable future.

References:

Keller, K.L. and Webster, F.E. (2009). The Branding Sweet Spot. Marketing Management, Vol. 18, Issue 4, p.12-17.

How Has Your Approach to Marketing Strategy Changed?

As Professor Don Schultz mentions “it now seems fairly clear, we’ll never go back to the way things were in the latter part of the 20th and almost the first decade of the 21st centuries. Those halcyon days of economic growth and prosperity, at least for the majority of the global and national economies, are gone but, unfortunately, not forgotten. Vestiges of them remain in the empty, uncompleted or abandoned homes, vacation villas, boats and shopping centres that litter the landscape.” 

Don Schultz also highlighted that “the ‘go-go’ years of the recent past pose major changes for marketing, advertising and branding. Like the financial structures that must be reinvented, we’ll also need to reinvent our marketing and communication concepts, particularly how we think brands work, what they contribute and how they can be developed to provide real, not artificial, value - these changes are transformational – and what must be done is going to be so massive that most of our traditional approaches and methodologies simply may not be up to the task.  

Take marketing measurement and accountability for example. Who today can propose using the last three or four years of sales, expenses, output levels or whatever as the benchmark against which to create statistical marketing mix models that really make any sense? Yet we continue to pay homage to past events, past research and past experiences. That’s sort of like basing an economic forecast of success on the few years prior to New Orleans’ Hurricane Katrina. It makes no sense, yet we continue to do it simply because it’s the way we’ve always done it.” 

The other danger with these current times is that in many cases, way too many cases, the blind are leading the transformational change and ‘selling’ solutions that simply won’t stand up to the next ‘hurricane’ that comes along – and what’s even more amazing is many companies, again too many, are willing to spend money on unproven and unsubstantiated approaches to marketing and branding in the desperate hope that their ‘sales and revenue’ will increase in these difficult times. It’s like people with a life threatening virus who will start to believe anything that purports to be a ‘cure’ for their life threatening disease, where they are prepared to spending ‘big bucks’ just on wanting to believe that this is the cure. 

The last real transformation in marketing and branding occurred in the 1970s. Radical changes in traditional marketing and advertising thinking and practice occurred: a move from mass to one-to-one; the shift of money from consumer investment to trade support; an increasing focus on measurement and accountability of the entire marketing function; and, most importantly, the rise of brands and branding as the darlings of the marketing process. 

Take a product, any product, slap a name on it, come up with a clever marketing program, raise the price and take the money to the bank. Rising economic prosperity resulted in many of what today we believe are the basic principles of brands and branding. It was conspicuous consumption, supported by brands that shouted largesse. They were badge brands that could be worn on the feet, called out in the bar.  

“Brand it and they will come” seemed to sum up the 1990s and early years of 2000. 

As Don Schultz concluded, “the challenge, of course, is how we change and what we change into. Unfortunately, our western approaches of siloed, functional thinking and organization work against us. Clearly, we live in a holistic, networked world. In short, we’re all in this together. To bring some kind of future out of the present chaos is going to require a concentrated effort; not just of marketers, but through the efforts of consumers as well. If we really understand that the period in which we are living is transformational, not just transitional, that will help. But, we’ll need new concepts, new approaches, new methodologies and new thinking.” 

The fundamentals of business fortunately never change, like having a solid, well communicated but flexible strategy; the talent to implement it and the right systems to monitor ‘market and environmental’ information in real time. Yet it’s often the flexibility to adapt and transform that can cause problems especially when ‘history’ only helps so much – like, in telling you what not to do. So organisations need to reinvent themselves and their products and services in the ‘new’ global economy – that means being open to ideas but staying results focused and remembering the old saying “that if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is”. 

References: 

Schultz, D. (2009).Transformational Branding. Marketing Management; Sep/Oct, Vol. 18 Issue 5, p.6-7.

 

Does Your Organisation have an Identity?

Identity and reputation are two sides of the same coin; where Scott Livengood and Rhonda Reger (2010) state that “reputation is defined as stakeholders’ perceptions about an organization’s ability to create value relative to competitors and identity is the way the firm sees itself. Accordingly, actions that reinforce a firm’s identity will also reinforce the firm’s reputation, assuming the signals emitted from the firm are appropriately perceived by the outside stakeholders. It’s this reputation that establishes a firm’s “territory” as its identity domain and acts as a signal to other competitors that the firm is both willing and able to compete in this arena,” (p.58).

 

But in the 21^st Century do organisations spend enough time, or in some cases any time, developing their ‘identity’ with their employees?

 

Is it possible that part of the problem with 21^st Century business is that too many employees don’t or can’t ‘identify’ with the organisation they work for, not only creating confusing messages within the organisation, but sending confusing messages to their stakeholders as well?

 

The business landscape has significantly changed over the last century, not only due to globalisation but due to the nature of employment and how it is seen by the employee. There was a time, not so long ago, when the concept of life-time employment with the same organisation was the norm and where a generation would follow another into the same organisation.

 

The organisation had an ‘identity’ with the community, but it’s important to remember that the employees had a very narrow perspective of the business landscape. Families would stay in the same location for generations, where the exception would be that ‘rebel’ family member who would move out of their ‘known community’ to find fame and fortune elsewhere.

 

Now that we live and work in a globally visible landscape, we encourage our children to travel and work abroad, to gain precious International experience and the concept life-time employment is a distant memory that appears very weird with today’s generation.

 

But whether you work for an organisation for a lifetime or a year, the organisation should have an identity – in fact the leadership and stakeholders should want the organisation to have an identity that makes their business stand out from the competition, to make it a place where employees want to work and even when they move on, will speak highly of that ‘special identity’ and be a place they would like to return to later in their career.

 

But what creates an organisations identity and what makes that identity positive? Some of the key factors would include;

 

a)  The leadership at all levels in the organisation, where they set the ‘right’ example for others to follow and have a clear, realistic future vision and allow everyone to feel part of that vision;

b)  Where employees are recognised for their contribution, not just financially, but through simple verbal signals of recognition as well;

c)  Where employees relate to the products and/or services on offer and are proud to be associated with them (a concept that seems to be becoming rarer and rarer);

d)  An organisation that respects their customers and sees them as an asset;

e)  An organisation that doesn’t only recognise employee contributions, but values their ‘talent’ and understands their needs;

f)   An organisation that values all their stakeholders;

g)  An organisation that is in it for the long haul and focuses on sustainable generic growth (rather than a short term rollercoaster ride in search of quick profits);

h)  An organisation that implements socially responsible projects, appreciating that they are part of a community (compared to those that just talk about CSR and believe ‘they are the community’);  

i)   Ethical leadership and ethical stakeholders;

j)   A place that you are proud to be associated with and where you would want your family and friends to work.

 

So does your organisation have a recognisable identity and if so what is it? If you’re not sure maybe you should spend a few hours managing by walking around and ask them. You’ll be surprised by how much you might learn that can help your organisation be better tomorrow than it is today.

 

References

 

Livengood, R. Scott and Reger, Rhonda, K. (2010). That’s Our Turf! Identity Domains and Competitive Dynamics. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 35 Issue 1, p.48-66.

How Do You Create a Successful Brand in the ‘Service Sector’?

“In an era of rapid growth of service firms, both researchers and practitioners have come to acknowledge that employee performance plays a vital role in the success of a service brand. Unlike with product brands, for which consumers’ perceptions of a brand derive predominantly from a product’s tangible features, customers’ perceptions of a service brand depend highly on the behaviour of frontline staff. Thus, the task of getting employees to build and strengthen an organisation’s brand image -  to act as “brand champions” - is a challenge for service firms in many industries,” (Morhart, Herzog and Tomczak, 2009, p.122). 

The concept of ‘brands’ and ‘brand building’ is mostly associated with products, or is discussed where a ‘service brand’ has already been established. But when it comes to the service sector, actually developing a strategy to develop and create your own ‘service brand’ is often left out of most discussions. For some reason it’s assumed that your ‘brand’ which can be mistakenly assumed to be the same as ‘reputation’ is something that either does or doesn’t develop over time, where you have little influence over the speed of the service brand in the market place. But this is a mistake. 

Building a brand in the service industry is just as important as building one in a product driven industry. This means firstly you have to know what service you’re building your brand around – as often the ‘service’ you describe yourself as and on which you build your brand, can in itself be your competitive advantage in a highly competitive market segment.  

Take ‘dentists’ for example – this service industry has been mostly associated with pain and suffering in the past – so the opportunity to build a ‘brand’ around your firm in this industry may appear impossible to some. Yet some dentists have already been able to differentiate themselves from their competition by refocusing their primary service offering, seeking to ‘promote’ positive aspects of their full range of services that will attract the attention of the consumer – where you’ll find certain dental chains and practices that focus their attention on promoting  services that improves ‘your smile’. A service offering that is attractive to many in today’s image conscience society.

Through differentiating the service they offer – they already start to differentiate themselves and create a more positive expectation in the eyes of their potential customers.  

The next thing service firms must look at, though sometimes I’m not sure if it’s done consciously or not, is creating a ‘brand name’ that is attractive and can be used as the foundation to creating a global service brand. 

One of the obstacles for many service firms when it comes to brand development is that they already have a company name and through pride, ego and stubbornness, don’t want to consider changing it, even to create a ‘new’ service brand. So Joe of Joe Plumbing will often not even consider a name change, even when it’s shown that Joe’s Plumbing is unlikely to become a global brand as it stands…. 

So looking at your ‘operating name’ and creating a unique ‘brand name’ that can be developed in the market place is something every service firm should consider as part of its strategic process. 

Then once you have the basics in place – a potential ‘brand name’ and an exciting ‘service offering’, then the brand will be developed through the service you and your firm offer - where the greatest influence over creating a positive or negative brand image with your customers will be your front line staff.  

What can organisations do to enhance brand-building behaviours among their employees? 

Morhart, Herzog and Tomczak (2009) found that different leadership styles had either a positive and negative impact on employees being brand champions, where “a highly transactional style was counterproductive in terms of followers’ motivational condition. Owners and managers would do much better by opening their minds to a transformational leadership approach, which would entail behaviours such as articulating a unifying brand vision, acting as an appropriate role model by living the brand values, giving followers freedom to individually interpret their roles as brand representatives, and providing individualised support by acting as a coach and mentor. This would allow followers to experience the feelings of relatedness, autonomy, and competence in their roles as brand representatives, which would ultimately spill over into the commitment, authenticity, and proactivity that characterise a real brand champion,” (p.138). 

So if you run an organisation in the service sector, however small you may be – it’s worth spending the time to look at your brand strategy – as you may be pleasantly surprised the impact this has on your growth, when you get your brand and your brand image right. 

References 

Morhart, F.M., Herzog, W., and Tomczak, T. (2009). Brand-Specific Leadership: Turning Employees into Brand Champions. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73, Issue 5, p.122-142.

Are You Maximising the Opportunities from Non-Traditional Media?

As suggested in a NY Times (2007) article headline: “Anywhere the eye can see, it’s now likely to see an ad.” The creative potential of non-traditional media solutions is being recognized by advertisers all over the world, as evidenced by the development of specific categories promoting non-traditional media in international advertising award shows such as, for example, Cannes Lions.

 

Micael Dahlén  argues that “a non-traditional medium can be a (visual) rhetorical figure, more specifically a metaphor. The rhetorical perspective suggests that the manner in which a statement is expressed may actually be more important than its propositional content,” (p.14).

 

It might be important to pause and define the term ‘rhetorical figure’ which simply means ‘a figure of speech’ – where, a figure of speech is the use of a word or words diverging from its usual meaning.  Figures of speech often provide emphasis, freshness of expression, or clarity. However, it’s worth noting that clarity may also suffer from their use, as any figure of speech introduces an ambiguity between literal and figurative interpretation. Rhetoric originated as the study of the ways in which a source text can be transformed to suit the goals of the person reusing the material. For this goal, classical rhetoric detected four fundamental operations that can be used to transform a sentence or a larger portion of a text: expansion, abridgement, switching, and transferring. The advertising industry has taken the rhetorical figure and expanded it from simple text to a visual display that does exactly the same thing and creates ‘a freshness of expression’ that allows the ‘viewer’ to form different ‘messages’ in their mind.

 

Dahlén argues that, “in terms of rhetorical figures, a non-traditional medium would be best defined as a visual metaphor, which is one of the most powerful rhetorical figures. Visual figures are more effective than verbal figures because they are entirely implicit; creating an openness and ambiguity that invites consumers to ‘leap to conclusions’. Furthermore, metaphors are under-coded (i.e., they provide no explanation), and therefore require consumers to add pieces to solve the puzzle. When the non-traditional medium works as a metaphor for the brand, the consumer experiences the message through the medium, (p.14)

 

It’s worth remembering that “brand reputation can be defined as the ‘goodwill’ consumers ascribe to a brand based on their previous experiences of the brand and its visibility in the marketplace. In other words, the reputation is a historical notion of the brand’s past behaviours that guides consumer response when they encounter the brand.” It won’t be surprising to find that “research shows that a brand’s reputation affects its advertising effectiveness, so that advertising for a low reputation brand has less impact, is counter-argued more, and interpreted less favourably (Mitra and Golder 2006) than advertising for high-reputation brands,” (p.14).

 

Research has also shown that when faced with rhetorical figures in advertising, consumers try to ‘think into it’ and figure out what the advertiser wants to convey (Phillips 1997). As when using rhetorical figures there is no explicit connection between the metaphor and the brand, and hence consumers tend to produce a number of alternative, tentative, conclusions, so-called ‘weak implicatures’, (Dahlén, 2009, p.15).

 

To highlight this aspect McQuarrie and Phillips (2005) suggest that the resulting ‘weak implicatures’ could best be described as good-faith attempts to understand the message. That is, consumers tend to search for and find positive rather than negative aspects in rhetorical figures. This focus on positive aspects of the advertising, in turn, reduces the cognitive capacity that is left for challenging the advertising (McQuarrie and Phillips 2005; Toncar and Munch 2003). Therefore, one would expect advert and brand evaluations to be enhanced. Finally, research shows that the use itself of rhetorical figures may have a direct, positive, effect on brand attitude: the advertiser is perceived as clever and entertaining and is therefore better liked by the consumer, (p.15).

 

The main message in Dahlén’s article is that “one should think creatively in the media choice process. Whereas there is great focus on how to ascertain a sufficient level of creativity in the advertss, media choices tend to be made more or less from habit. As brands in the same product category tend to advertise in media with some kind of overlap in audience or theme, their advertising faces competition both from similar brands and from the media content. This may leave less room for positive effects of creativity inside the given advertising spaces and more room outside of them. As a non-traditional medium focuses processing on the positives and reduces counterarguments, it could also be well suited for communicating new messages and benefits to gain greater acceptance.”

 

“Whereas both low-reputation and high-reputation brands enjoy more positive advert and brand evaluations in a non-traditional medium, the former seems to have more to gain. Thus, we particularly encourage low reputation brands to employ non-traditional media in their advertising,” (p.22).

 

References

 

Dahlén, M. (2009). A Rhetorical Question: What Is the Impact of Non-traditional Media for Low- and High-Reputation Brands? Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising; Vol. 31 Issue 2, p. 13-23.

Do You Know Your Brands G-Spot?

Kevin Keller and Frederick Webster mention that “one of the realities of modern brand marketing is that many of the decisions that marketers make with respect to their brands are seemingly characterized by conflicting goals, objectives and possible outcomes. Unfortunately, in our experience, too many marketers define their problems in ‘either/or’ terms, creating situations where one idea, one individual or one option wins out. Opportunities are missed for finding an even better solution, a new idea that could have been discovered and developed by combining and refining conflicting points of view. As a result, resources may be squandered, consumers may be left unsatisfied or confused and the organization may find itself struggling with lingering internal conflict,” p.13).

In fact Keller and Webster highlight the following representative marketing trade-offs (p.15);

Strategic (targeting and positioning)

• Retaining vs. acquiring customers

• Brand fortification vs. brand expansion

• Brand awareness vs. brand image

• Product performance vs. user imagery

• Points of parity vs. points of difference

Tactical (design and implementation)

• Push vs. pull

• Continuity vs. change

• Existing vs. new channels

• Direct market coverage vs. use of middlemen

• Selling systems vs. selling components

• Creative, attention-getting ads vs. informative, product-focused ads

Financial (allocation and accountability)

• Short-run vs. long-run objectives

• Revenue-generating vs. brand-building activities

• Easily measurable marketing activities vs. difficult to quantify marketing activities

• Quality maximization vs. cost minimization

• Social responsibility vs. profit maximizing

Organizational (structure, processes, and responsibilities)

• Central vs. local control

• Top-down vs. bottom-up brand management

• Customized vs. standardized marketing plans and programs

• Internal vs. external focus

Now it’s possible that some may think that some of the ‘highlighted’ trade-offs – don’t have to be trade-offs at all and can be developed and incorporated within the strategy independently of each other. Retaining and acquiring customers for example, where marketers can develop strategies for each; however the issues Keller and Webster are raising is that the ‘marketers’ need to be aware of the potential cross-over implications of the ‘independent strategic plans’ – and in these cases simply asks the question;  have we considered any multi-collinear implications in our model development.

To understand the nature and extent of the marketing trade-offs, Keller and Webster highlight some key questions that must be answered: “How severe are they? Are they unavoidable, inherent in the nature of the decision problem and situation? How have they been dealt with before? Of particular importance is the ability to recognize whether the trade-offs result from internal, organizational considerations or external, structural issues inherent in the marketing environment where management has less control. Next, marketers must develop effective means for achieving marketing balance. Given the wide range of marketing tradeoffs that exists, it is perhaps no surprise that a correspondingly wide range of solutions is also typically available,” (p.15).

As an example, Keller and Webster remind us that “when BMW first made a strong competitive push into the U.S. market in the early 1980s, it positioned the brand as being the only automobile that offered both luxury and performance. At that time, American luxury cars were seen by many as lacking performance, and American performance cars were seen as lacking luxury. By relying on the incomparable design of their car—and to some extent their German heritage too—BMW was able to simultaneously achieve (1) a point of difference on performance and a point of parity on luxury with respect to luxury cars and (2) a point of difference on luxury and a point of parity on performance with respect to performance cars. The clever slogan, ‘The Ultimate Driving Machine,’ effectively captured the newly created umbrella category: luxury performance cars. Product differentiation can occur through technological innovation or creative repositioning,” (p.16).

The concept of an organisation taking the time to identify the ‘right’ marketing balance can often be missed in today’s fast paced business world, where many organisations who are not actively ‘forcing’ the pace as leaders – simply react to changes in the market place. It’s in these very instances that organisations should take the time to assess the potential trade offs – so that they can in fact develop a strategy to achieve market balance and in doing so reach the brands g-spot.

To achieve that market balance Keller and Webster highlight 6 factors that will help;

Breakthrough product or service innovation;

Improved business models;

Expanded or leveraged resources;

Embellished marketing;

Perceptual framing;

Creativity and inspiration.

In conclusion Keller and Webster state that “there certainly may be times that given extreme circumstances, dire straits or an overwhelming need to achieve one objective at all costs, radical solutions are warranted. But even in these cases, marketers would be well-served to recognize exactly the extent and nature of the decision tradeoffs they face, and the consequences of ignoring other options. Radical solutions should be thoroughly vetted and contrasted to more balanced solutions that offer more robust and complete solutions,” (p.17).

References

Keller, K.L and Webster Jr., F.E. (2009). The Branding Sweet Spot.  Marketing Management; Vol. 18 Issue 4, p12-17.

Who Responds Best to Exclusive Price Promotions: Men or Women?

Michael Barone and Tirthanker Roy mention in their 2010 article that “the notion that targeted deals are more efficient than across-the-board sales promotions, that provide unnecessary discounts to price-insensitive consumers, has prompted a dramatic growth in customized pricing and sales promotions. Recently, however, questions have been raised regarding the efficacy of targeted offers in general (Homburg, Droll, and Totzek 2008) and customized price promotions in particular (Acquisti and Varian 2005; Feinberg, Krishna, and Zhang 2002)” (p.121).

One might be tempted to assume, without checking the research, that targeted deals will always be the better way to go, both for the customer and the organisation. Yet, Barone and Roy highlight how “equity theory suggests that evaluations of a targeted offer will depend not only on the relative outcomes associated with the offer (i.e., whether the consumer is a recipient or non-recipient) but also on the inputs or costs associated with receipt of the promotion,” (p.122).

In a world where we’re often told it’s every man for himself the theme adds further credence to the logic that any exclusive price promotion must be beneficial to those receiving it and the offer ‘bought’ with appreciation and thanks.

What’s interesting is how Barone and Roy highlight that “research on self-construal suggests that recipient gender can influence how deal exclusivity affects the evaluations of customized offers. Specifically, Western men are often characterized as possessing independent self-views, while Western women more typically adopt interdependent self-construal’s (Markus and Kitayama 1991). Men’s independent self views should prompt them to value unique (i.e., exclusive) offers that provide them with the basis for self-enhancement to a greater extent than women, whose interdependent self views should result in less favourable evaluations of targeted deals,” (p. 123).

The research by Barone and Roy addresses an important theoretical void in the current literature by establishing the presence of ‘deal exclusivity effects’. Across their three different studies, they demonstrate that some consumers (e.g., male participants and those with independent self views) favour exclusive deals over inclusive ones. The findings further show that under certain conditions (e.g., when the level of relationship equity consumers have built with a marketer through their past patronage is low), both types of offers are evaluated equally favourably.

Perhaps most intriguing are the results indicating that certain consumers (e.g., female participants and those with interdependent construal’s) react negatively to receiving a targeted offer that is exclusive, instead preferring discounts that are more widely available, (Barone, M.J. and Roy, T.; 2010, p.129).

There can be a temptation at times like this to think of the women we know who don’t fall into this category – but that is often the natural inclination when one finds that the conclusions and answers to the research don’t meet our previous expectations. We also have to be honest with ourselves in respect of how much information we had prior to the research becoming available.

Bayone and Roy mention how “these results indicate that consumers who prefer more exclusive deals do so because receiving selective offers provides them with a basis for self-enhancement (e.g., by helping them attain values related to autonomy). In contrast, the negative reactions of participants exhibiting an aversion to exclusive promotions were driven by the superiority of inclusive offers to allow them to self-enhance (e.g., by confirming their desires to maintain harmony with others),” (p.129).

Barone and Roy conclude by highlighting how “evidence documenting the moderating effects of self-construal and gender on deal exclusivity underscores the need for marketers to judiciously consider the use of targeted offers on a segment-by-segment basis. Although gender has long been employed as a segmentation variable, note that self-construal is correlated with several demographic variables that represent market segmentation bases, such as country and ethnic group (Ahluwalia 2008). For example, consumers in the United States tend to have independent self-views, while those in other countries (e.g., Mediterranean nations) typically exhibit interdependent self-construal’s (Oyserman, Coon, and Kemmelmeier 2002),” (p.130).

Maybe it’s worth evaluating your customer base again and looking at how you can optimise your marketing and promotional strategies with your current target markets. Getting the strategy right will add value directly to your bottom-line; where as getting it wrong not only gives you a sub-optimal bottom-line, but can seriously upset some of your current customers. It’s worth giving your strategy another look.

References.

Barone, M.J. and Roy, T. (2010). Does Exclusivity Always Pay Off? Exclusive Price Promotions and Consumer Response. Journal of Marketing; Vol. 74 Issue 2, p.121-132.

Innovation and Implementation: Have You Got the Balance Right?

Whether you admire him or not, Richard Branson is a unique entrepreneur who ensures that he has the right management team to implement his ideas; and where Virgin’s success is undoubtedly due to his own ability to ‘innovate’ and consistently develop and deliver on a brand promise; as well as his willingness to be a central part of the brands publicity.

Branson has firmly held views on management, where “good managers are worth their weight in gold: they are the people who organise and handle the pressures of an ongoing business – the glue that binds the business together. Entrepreneurs have the dynamism to get something started – they create opportunities that others don’t necessarily see and have the guts to give it a go, but are not necessarily good at the nuts and bolts of running a business,” (cited in Altman, W, 2009, p.81).

The problem that many organisations encounter is having the correct balance of innovators and implementers within their leadership teams; where each individual is consciously aware of their own specific strengths and those of the team. One of the biggest failings of many great ideas is when the innovator isn’t honest enough to see that they don’t have the skills themselves to implement the idea successfully. Often these individuals will continue on a path of self-destruction, knowing the ‘idea’ is sound, but without being able to recognise their own failings in implementation, until it is too late.

As Wilf Altman highlights, when it comes to the Virgin Group and Richard Branson, “purists among top business school academics and senior executives might argue that no single group can run railways and airlines, mobiles and media, finance, health clubs, and spaceships and musical businesses. It goes against all proven arguments in sticking to core businesses. Diversification on this scale has rarely worked; yet Richard Branson has proved the opposite can be true,” (p.81).

There are some reports that he’s a tough business man, and ruthless with investors; yet I’m not sure why this would surprise people. He has had individuals and organisations wanting him to fail since he started the Virgin phenomenon 37 years ago. The lengths British Airways were prepared to go to in an attempt to destroy Virgin Atlantic is a good case in point.

What’s unique about the Branson-Virgin empire is that it is organised into about three hundred limited companies, creating a branded group of separate, individual organisations. Although as a combined entity the Virgin Group is the largest group of private organisations in Europe, each individual organisation is relatively small in its sector.

It hasn’t all been about success for Branson and he’s had his problems like any other entrepreneur and innovator;

1) The Virgin Media ‘disagreement’ with BSkyB;
2) Its £4.3 billion debt (payment of which has been deferred to 2012);
3) Starting and failing in a drinks war with Coca-Coal (though it could be argued that the publicity helped Virgin soft drinks in the US);
4) The failure of Virgin Clothes;
5) The unfulfilled dream of taking over EMI;
6) The failed efforts to save Concorde; and
7) The failed bid for Northern Rock.

Even with the few failures, the Virgin record (no pun intended) speaks volumes of its own success, where Branson leads from the front and believes “business requires astute decision making, leadership, discipline and innovation if you want to turn entrepreneurial ideas into outstanding business,” (cited in Altman, W, 2009, p. 81).

So the question must be: how good is your organisations mix of innovators and implementers; and do you know with certain which skills reside where? – Since you’ll need both sets of skills to be sure of optimising your future sustainable growth.

As a leader you need to be able to recognise both of these unique talents and manage them appropriately; and as an individual you need to recognise and embrace your core strengths as you are unlikely to be good at both. Believing you have both sets of skills could just be the equation that ensures you self-destruct your own career.

References

Altman, W. (2009). Branson: The Global Brand Builder. Engineering & Technology, Vol. 4, Issue 2, p.80-81.

Is it Time to Develop Your Own Individual Brand?

As organisations fight their way out of the recession, the acquisition and retention of human talent is proving to be a significant competitive advantage. Yet as organisations start looking for managerial and other specialised talent to take them forward into the 21st century, how are you going to ensure that you stand out, as an individual, from the crowd of ‘look-a-like’ talented employees.

Creating a recognised individual image and ‘brand’ has normally been left to the lofty heights of the CEO’s and top entrepreneurs, yet individuals will now have to start ‘developing their image’ much earlier in their careers, maybe even as early as university, to ensure they stand out for the right reasons.

Getting yourself noticed isn’t about shouting the loudest or being the most arrogant or opinionated individual in a group – in fact this is likely to create the wrong image going forward. It’s finding a balance between expressing, sharing, and practically implementing your knowledge; and having the patience and empathy to listen to others opinion. It’s creating a ‘history’ where people want to ask your advice and opinion; and where you accept these questions with grace and without letting the attention go to your head.

Organisations aren’t only going to be looking for individual talent, but talent that is able to work effectively with other talented individuals, in strategic or operational teams - finding the optimal solutions for their organisations, without a need for personal recognition.

In creating your own unique image and brand you should consider the following factors;

1. Develop a skill and talent you enjoy (and never assume that you’ve learnt enough about the subject);

2. Develop a basic understanding of the generic principles that drive a successful business;

3. Learn advanced communication skills, like NLP, that will give you an advantage when communicating with others;

4. Never assume that you are superior to anyone and learn to be humble (people will see your skills for what they are in practice, if you have to sell yourself too hard, maybe you still have a lot to learn);

5. Be aware of your image at all times, and learn to be confident, (but never over confident);

6. Network effectively, as you want people to remember your name for the right reasons;

7. Never burn your bridges (and learn to control your emotions);

8. Learn to be a good leader and a good follower (as you’re likely to have to perform both rolls as your career develops);

9. Become someone who can be trusted and relied on;

10. And when, at last, you have developed your personal ‘brand’ and are successful, never forget the journey, the people who supported you along the way, and don’t turn your back on others starting off on the same journey.

Talent acquisition and retention will become a core strategy for many organisations that have learnt from their mistakes in their journey through the global recession. For those individuals that have ambition, being part of one of these organisations must be your goal. This won’t only be the large multi-national organisations; as all organisations, large and small, whether in a global or niche market, will focus on talent management and development to give them a superior competitive advantage.

It’s time to get yourself noticed for the right reasons, so start developing your personal image, and create those business networks that will mean your name is on employers lips when they are searching for the best in your field. That doesn’t mean being a ‘yes man’ or worse - it means being knowledgeable, reliable and an effective team player, focused on organisational success.

Innovative Leaders Develop Unique Brands

Developing a strong brand is a key factor for sustainable growth and allows organisations to innovate and diversify new products and services; and take them to market as an extension of their existing brand status. This is a powerful competitive advantage and significantly improves the chances of early market success for these new product or service offerings.

In 1982, with a revenue of $693 million, Nike only produced running, tennis and basketball shoes for male teenagers and adults in the US, this then grew over the next 25 years to a revenue of $18 billion, where Nike produces shoes, clothing and sports equipment for all sports, in countries all over the world. As Kevin Keller and Donald Lehmann (2009) highlight, “the ability of the Nike brand and its brand promise of ‘authentic athletic performance’ to be leveraged across many product categories, market segments and geographical markets has been extremely valuable to the firm” (p.7). It was the ‘Just Do It’ campaign that transformed Nike overnight into the leader in athletic apparel.

Branding has now developed beyond the organisation, its products and services; where today you’ll find political leaders seeking to develop branding concepts around countries and cities; and also where employers seek to develop their own superior brand compared to competitor organisations.

Employer branding, for example, has received specific attention from leaders and organisations over the last few years, as part of their talent acquisition and retention strategies. If you can create a brand image around your organisation you can attract the best talent, and ensure that you retain and motivate this talent pool. As Lara Moroko and Mark Uncles (2009) state, “when a firm undertakes employer branding as a strategic activity, the ‘product’ they are branding is the employment experience that the firm offers, and the ‘customers’ of this brand and product are the prospective and current staff” (p.183). Of course understanding your customer segmentation is just as important with organisational branding (as with product branding), as recent graduates, for example, are likely to have different requirements that will attract them to an organisational brand, compared to other employee segments.

In today’s global competitive marketplace it takes innovative and visionary leadership to build a unique brand and image, and to identify latent market opportunities. As Keller and Lehmann mention, “many brands have latent brand equity that is never realised because of the inability or unwillingness of a firm to consider what the brand could and should become in the broadest sense” (p.7).

Remember a successful brand is associated with an image that resonates a distinctive form of quality with its customer base; where they are attracted to the brand as it meets their needs, exceeds their expectations and gives the customer ‘a feel good factor’.

Growing a brand can relate to the latent brand value that exists to develop new products or services that appeal to new target markets and customers, in the present and the future (Keller and Lehmann, 2009, p.9). The ability to grow the brand is not a guaranteed success as it depends on having the resources, in respect of capital and skills, to transfer the opportunity into a market reality.

Finally Keller and Lehmann mention that, “a good brand vision and positioning strategy has both a foot in the present and a foot in the future. Brand vision needs to be inspirational so that the brand has room to grow and improve in the future. The trick in developing a brand vision is to strike the right balance between what the brand is and what it could become and to define the right series of steps to get it there” (p.8).

So take a moment to ask yourself if you have identified all the potential opportunities for your brand?

References

Keller, K.L. and Lehmann, D.R. (2009). Assessing long-term brand potential. Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 17, Issue 1, p.6-17.

Moroko, L. and Uncles, M.D. (2009). Employer branding and market segmentation. Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 17, Issue 3, p.181-196.