The Full Blog

Entries categorized as ‘change’

There’s a right way and there’s a wrong way …

Friday 5 September 2008 · No Comments

I’ve just spent two weeks looking into a company whose brand has massive awareness.  Great, you might think, but no, because while everyone has heard of this business, it seems to me that they have massive negative equity.  Like Walmart?  No, way worse than that.  This business seems to be universally hated!

I say “seems to be” because I can’t say for sure - they have no research.  A basic omission you may think, but they didn’t seem to agree and don’t want to pay for any.  I did the usual on-line checking, but this was hampered by a massive web farm they had set up to control negative comment and social networking (a sure indication of a business that had their priorities up their arse!).  It seemed to support my intuition, but I didn’t come up with enough hard facts.

Staggeringly, this business is big, number one in their sector with fourteen years of YonY growth.  How did they do it?  Actually, it isn’t that big a mystery.  They succeeded on a rising market, with no competition, where all they had to do was turn up and set out their stall, then count the money - and they milked it!  Inexperienced and sometimes just plain stupid management had made just about every mistake in the book, screwing customers, suppliers and partners alike.  However - and I love it when this happens! - they seem to have reached the end of their road.  Economic conditions, social change, emerging competition and saturated markets have conspired to hack their share value to bits and turn their business into a Shadow of its former self - send for the consultant!

After that imagine how refreshing it was to come across not one, but two businesses that had got it all right.  Sadly, they are not my clients, but in an interview with Time Magazine’s The Curious Capitalist John Mackey, CEO and co-founder of Whole Food Markets and Kip Tindell, CEO and co-founder of Container Store, gave me the kind of lift that’s only possible when all your firmly held beliefs are affirmed in a single action.

These guys tick all the boxes in my Full Effect Marketing philosophy and Brand Discovery programme.  In this lengthy interview they explain how important it has proven to them as entrepreneurs to have defined the parameters of their brands up front.  They didn’t tackle this in a particularly formal way but, as is the case with so many great entrepreneurs they each instinctively created what I call a “Brand Model”, without which their businesses, and anybody else’s, would not be scalable.

Once you have this the rest is possible, if not always simple.  I still have a struggle sometimes driving my clients through the process of internal marketing - sharing the model, its reasoning and constraints with employees at every level and getting them behind the cause, but as John and Kip knew, empowering your employees is the vital key to growth.  The client, whose tale I opened this post with, complained at our first meeting that he was forced to micromanage because his people weren’t up to the job.  I argued that things aren’t always what they seem and that I usually find that the “people” aren’t always the problem that they seem.  “But what if they are the problem?” he asked.  “I guess you have to have a clear out” I replied.

Of course you have to have great people to have a great business, and John and Kip both underline how important it is to recruit the best, but how great they are is very much dependent on how well you manage them and again, instinctively John and Kip knew this.

A great business is built around a great brand.  Every brand is a community that all your stakeholders play a part in creating.  Again, after my experience with the client I feel the need to clarify - stakeholders are investors, suppliers, partners, employees as well as customers.   You have to ask yourself “Are these people, who I want to do business with going to want to be a part of my community?” and when you get a “yes” you then set about making them feel as welcome, engaged and comfortable as you can.

These two talk about the importance of engaging your employees and your suppliers, how vital it is to share information with your community and confirm that though there will undoubtedly be leaks as a result the advantages vastly outweigh the disadvantages.  They talk about the innovation and risk - both requisites of business growth, best quality and satisfying and delighting.  I could have filled this post with clips from the interview, but go there and read for yourself.

It didn’t take me two weeks to realise that what my client wanted was for me to paper over the cracks in his business.  He didn’t want to change it,  I doubt that he would even be flexible enough to do so and I suspect that anything I would do would be too little too late anyway.  I’m not even sure even now that he recognises how serious his situation is.

Unsurprisingly, he isn’t a client any longer.  Which is a pity, because I do love a challenge, I hate to give up on anything and I could see the glimmer of a couple of opportunities, but I doubt I would have been able to persuade him to explore them.  To quote John, or was it Kip, “Life’s short and then you are dead” so I’m off to find my next project.

Categories: Brand Model · Brand promise · Full Effect · Full Efffect Marketing · The Full Effect Company · brand name · branding · brands · business development · business strategy · change · community · container store · customers · employees · honesty · internal marketing · john mackey · kip tindell · marketing · phil darby · transparency · wholefood market

What’s HR to do with marketing?

Thursday 17 April 2008 · No Comments

OK, I know I rattle on a lot about the various vested interests within organisations that prevent real cohesion or an integrated approach, but that’s because I keep bumping into ivory tower-builders and political dead-heads who undermine organisations’ success.

For instance, those of you who know me will know that I have always promoted the idea of HR as a marketing function.  After all, the definition of marketing is to leverage an organisation’s resources in order to deliver something that people want or need in the most efficient way and the biggest resource any organisation has are its people. So, as long as HR is about managing the employee resource it has to be a marketing function.

The problem is that HR people so rarely see it this way. There’s something so separatist about the way that HR is set up in most organisations that I come across, you would think that their role had nothing at all to do with the business.

I came across a national retail organisation the other day that was having great difficulty recruiting good store managers. This same organisation however, had recruited a manager in waiting and put her “on ice” as a deputy manager at one of its stores . This manager made an real impact and was very highly thought of so when the incumbent manager went on extended leave she stepped into the manager’s role and immediately produced better figures and team spirit.

The regular manager walked back into her job after six months or so and the stand-in was stepped down again. Odd enough in itself, but for some months the organisation continued to pay her a manager’s salary, so she lived with it. Then came the whammy, because the organisation’s HR people discovered some months down the line that they had been paying her as a manager when she had been acting as a deputy and demanded the incremental salary back from her. They were at pains to point out to me that they were legally entitled to do so, but, of course, that’s hardly the point.  It takes a very special level of stupidity for any organisation to do this route let alone one that was having problems finding good people.

The HR position was that “rules are rules” and the woman wasn’t entitled to a manager’s salary if she wasn’t doing a manager’s job. It quite escaped them that it was their fault that she wasn’t doing the job and as for the small matter of pissing-off a valuable employee, they didn’t see it as their problem. Their job was to enforce the rules, it was the job of operations to field that one! Frankly, I hope they go broke (and it seems they might), but even then I’m sure they won’t get it.

A couple of weeks back I was chatting with the global HR Director of one of our most respected marketing services groups who was explaining to me why the marcoms sector had a really primitive approach to HR (Tell me about it!) However, I’m not sure they are as alone in this as he seems to think. There are so many things wrong with the HR set-up in most organisations that its hard to know where to start, but there are two critical issues:

A) Although they are dealing with people most HR departments appear to be hide-bound by bureaucracy - and we all know where that leads.

B) So few HR people understand how crucial their role is to the delivery of the brand promise and certainly don’t visualise themselves as marketers.

Brands are communities and that means they are the sum of the attitudes, standards and opinions of their members. I work with organisations to drive business growth by developing their brands, not, by means of the papering-over-the-cracks-and-making-empty-promises approach that appears to be the default position adopted by most organisations, but by actually delivering a promise that people respond to. Delivery has a lot to do with having the right employees, so recruitment (under general HR) plays a critical role. My agency friend waxed lyrical about the deficiencies of recruitment consultants and their numbers-driven approach and plans to solve this one by removing outsourced recruitment entirely and replacing it with an in-house department that serves the organisation’s global needs. More power to his elbow I say!

Success is also about getting all of your people behind the brand and pushing in the same direction, which is what internal marketing is all about.  This is also very much a job for HR under the general management of their marketing colleagues yet I frequently have to argue with clients for the inclusion of HR people in the brand discovery workshops I run, which to me is a key indicator of old-fashioned, unenlightened, inefficient, or just plain shoddy management.

Of course, HR people are often the authors of their own destiny in this respect.  While it all seems pretty logical to me, I often feel myself slipping into Columbus’s shoes as he received the reaction to his suggestion that the world wasn’t flat! Then again, identifying the chicken and the egg in this cycle is something of a challenge.  Maybe  HR people have just been trained into this viewpoint by generations of sadly-lacking general management.

In the final analysis though, the argument is redundant, because as soon as you start identifying the things that drive success, you inevitably home in on the brand and when you dig into this you can’t help but realise how critical the HR function is to your brand development.  It all comes back to the need for an organised approach like my Brand Discovery programme, which I know isn’t the only programme in this area, but you’ll excuse me if I stick to the view that its the best - unless you know different that is?

Categories: Full Effect · Full Efffect Marketing · HR · Human resources · The Full Effect Company · brand · brand development · brands · change · consistency · consulting · internal marketing · management · marketing · phil darby · strategy

That National Branding thing again!

Wednesday 26 March 2008 · 1 Comment

flags6.jpg

I’m back in the UK for a while at the moment and my inadvertent, but perfect timing landed me right in the middle of one of my favorite debates - national branding.

I wrote a post about this about a year ago and added it to this blog in January (”Brand Britain”). I’m fascinated by the issues of large-scale brand development projects and they don’t come much larger than national branding. I’m also fascinated by the workings of government, so this is an area where I get some seriously big kicks. Of course, the participants in this debate rarely recognise the subject as “branding”. I have heard it referred to by many names this week, but that’s what it is aright and all the private sector rules apply.

The subject seemed to come to the surface this week in reaction to a new report, commissioned by the government and prepared by Lord Goldsmith on “Citizenship”. In their usual helpful way the British press have leapt upon a small recommendation that Lord Goldsmith made within it - that British kids should swear allegiance to the Queen and/or the flag on a daily basis at school. Of course they have as usual and probably on purpose, completely miss-represented what he was saying. The interpretation that they have been pedalling being that if kids are made to swear allegiance to the flag regularly enough they’ll start to conform - of course this very much a reversal of the truth and I am sure nowhere near what Lord Goldsmith was saying.

By way of putting my cards on the table I have to say that I believe that many, if not all of the ills of our nation (and probably many other nations too) stem from a lack of national pride. National pride is a larger-scale equivalent of self-respect and very much the same kind of thing that drives the family communities that Conservative leader David Cameron is going on about. Its also that same emotional soup from which strong brands derive. Nations, and brands are both communities and communities are built on the reassurance, feeling of belonging and confidence that arise when beliefs, attitudes and values are shared.

I was having a conversation with a chap in Prague a few weeks ago who was convinced that the reason that Czechs have become so bickering, back-biting and self-absorbed since the fall of communism is that their hatred of their communist oppressors that was once a common bond wasn’t replaced with anything else. Sadly, being basically clueless, the politicians there haven’t even come close to being up for this key task. As a result the country now has no focus, no common objective, no shared belief and as a result a state of every man for himself has developed in the void. For the Czechs this fact represents a seriously missed opportunity - the country was a blank sheet of paper, everyone was looking for a lead. The invitation was out for someone to pull it all together and nobody stepped up to the plate. While the first second republic president Havel was great at galvanising a generally ambivalent nation towards revolution, he proved singularly incapable of filling the void he had created. Klaus on the other hand, as witnessed by his New York speech three weeks ago, appears to be representing the emerging grab-all-you-can philosophy that is dominant in the republic now.

In the UK the task of focusing or re-focusing a nation is rather more complex. In exactly the same way that the structures and practices that a large organisation develops to help it maintain a status quo become the biggest obstacle to change, the UK is finding that, even though it may have the will to change the structures and practices of government and all other interested parties, that have been built and reinforced over the centuries now prevent that change.

Its not unlike the story that is unfolding in the US right now too. Obama recognises the need for change and seems to have a reasonable theory for bringing it about, while Hilary claims that her experience and insights of the people and the system give her the understanding Barak lacks when it comes to pre-empting and overcoming resistance to change. She says he will fail because he’s not going to know where the ambushes are going to come from (Although I’m not sure that she agrees with the principles of change any more than the ambushers she is so familiar with!).

However, as Barak says, once you recognise the need for change you are duty-bound to start trying to bring it about and that’s where US politics are ahead of the UK - they have Barak Obama, we Brits don’t seem to have anybody focussed enough to make it all happen. This fact mirrors my experience in brand development too. I frequently come across organisations who have in the past brought in some of the heavy guns to help them address their brand issues only to find that while they are great on spotting the problem and coming up with solutions, they often fail miserably when it comes to implementing them. My answer to this is a logical step-by-step approach that tackles all the obstacles in order. I go through this methodically, which takes time, but ensures that ultimately the required changes are brought about.

The first step with any project like this is to establish common ground (That’s what my Brand Model is all about) and that’s where the problems lie in the UK. I’ve listened to the views on this subject of a good many spokespeople for different interested parties over the last week or so and while I can see that there is fundamental agreement between many of them few of them recognise it, many are arguing about semantics and a very large proportion of them are confusing cause and effect. None of the people who I have heard representing any of the organisations seem to have a clue how to get things moving and all are very narrowly and tactically focussed.

What we and every other nation need is a senior minister whose sole responsibility is as champion of our national brand. Only then will we begin to be able to introduce the understanding among stakeholders and the initiatives we need to drive brand development. Its what is happening in the private sector, many businesses have directors responsible for brand development.

Compelling kids to salute the flag is definitely not the way to go, but a sure sign of the success of any national branding initiative would be if kids really wanted to raise their baseball hats when they passed a national flag. Actually, its not completely beyond hope either. As a part-time resident of Prague I see more Brit tourists wearing the George flag or Union Jack as they wander the attractions (or more commonly fall over in a bar!) and we are all familiar with the crowds at international football matches and other sporting events. So there’s is something to build on. So where is that national brand builder going to come from?

Categories: Barack · Clinton · Full Effect · Full Efffect Marketing · Government · National Branding · The Full Effect Company · Tourism · brand · brands · change · communist · consulting · czech · hilary · internal marketing · management · marketing · phil darby · social groups · strategy · tradition

Trash brands

Thursday 6 March 2008 · No Comments

trashcan2.jpg

I have this art project thing that has been rattling around in the back of my head for years and I guess, when I have some spare time (Yeah, like, what’s that?) I might get around to looking at it again. It adopts a utilitarian icon that years ago everybody in the UK had, and highlights how these things mirror the development of our individual characters. The reason I have brought this up here is that this is not just about human character development, but the character of all living things, which, to me, and I hope to you, includes brands.

When I was a kid in the UK everyone had a pressed steel dustbin (trash-can, garbage can - insert as appropriate) that they kept outside their house and one of the distinctive sounds of my childhood was that of steel dustbins banging on the edge of the bin-men’s trailer when each week they came to empty the bins and haul the rubbish (trash, garbage) away. These days its all plastic wheelie-bins and automated heists and the music is less interesting.

Actually, these bins were multi-purpose and perhaps their most popular application, next to keeping rubbish in them, was as football (soccer) goal posts. We kids used to stand them up in the street to mark the soccer goal. Being kids, of course, we rarely returned them to their rightful place and so they were variously hit by cars or knocked over by drunks that didn’t see them in time. They were also dented as the bin men dumped the rubbish over the side of their truck.

trashcan3.jpgSome folks painted their bins and I am aware that there are projects by students and artists in cities around the world even now where rubbish bins in public places have been decorated too. In the UK at least some people added their house number to them (in case they were stolen, I guess!) and the lids, which were also steel received the same treatment. Over their lifetime, these various encounters gave each bin an individual character - just as all other living things (and I include brands among them) are influenced by events that happen to and around them. So, that’s where my idea to adopt dustbins as my icon came from. The only trouble was, that when I got down to the execution … Yes, you are ahead of me … there were no old bashed-up bins to be found. Back to the drawing board on that one then!

So, what has this to do with anything? Well, as I said, brands work in exactly the same way. A brand character is not a rigid, one-time only tablet of stone, it evolves just like you and me. We can change our views in response to stimuli, events and the actions of others and brands, partly because they are our communities too, do the same.

Like the street where we live the nature of a brand community is influenced by the individual character, values, opinions of its inhabitants at any one time, and people will come and go. Its also influenced by what competitors do, like introducing new features, as well as by political actions. The current most powerful political influences are things like GM, global warming, carbon neutrality, sustainable living, vivisection, the green issue, third-world debt, exploitation and fair trade, which brands like Starbucks have adopted as an element of their own brand character.

Its vital for any brand manager to have a finger on the pulse of what their community members (their customers, suppliers, investors, distributors etc.) believe is important. If you don’t, you’ll lose existing community members. Its also important to know what’s buzzing in the world outside of your community so that you can reach out to potential new members with whom you might have some affinity.Good marketing is always interactive and good brand stewardship is about listening and responding to your brand community, which is why good brands stay topical and popular and in a constant state of change. Its also why, over time great brands evolve distinct, vivid characters, just like a dustbin (trash-can)!

trashcan1.jpgPostscript: If you bump into a steel dustbin that you feel has character, by all means, snap a photo and send it to me. I’ll reserve the right to publish it in whatever way I see fit of course, but I’ll promise to credit you if I use your picture anywhere. If the numbers justify it and the quality is there, maybe we can create a gallery! Watch this space.

Categories: Full Effect · Full Efffect Marketing · The Full Effect Company · binmen · brand · brands · carbon neutral · change · community · customer · customers · dustmen · fair trade · icon · management · marketing · music · phil darby · rubbish · trash · trashcan · vivisection

Hilary or Barack - a dilemma of brands

Thursday 10 January 2008 · 4 Comments

Before I start, I have to thank Michelle Miller who promises me that her new book “The Soccer Mom Myth” due out in March, (make mental note to add to my Amazon “aShop”) will bring all this into focus, for prompting me to have my say before she has the last word! 

hilary-clinton.jpg

I’ve never really understood the US voting process and occasionally when I take time to study it and finally think I have it sussed, immediately something comes out of left field just to prove to me that I don’t. 

One of the things that threw me a loop recently was the suggestion that part of the process, when there’s a close result, involves a bunch of people getting together (over cocktails I guess) to decide that if the voters knew a few things that the politicians knew, but were keeping secret, they would have voted differently, throwing the result out of the window and just deciding the winner themselves.  So I must have bad information there because were it true it would make Zimabwe a great democracy!

However, one thing I do know for sure is that the current Clinton, Obama tussle is a brilliant illustration of consumer dilemma and the role of brand.

Politicians are brands of course, have no doubt about it and like any other brand they have an inherent promise.  In fact, in the case of politicians the promise is rather more up-front that with most other brands, which really just serves to emphasise the importance of what is the challenge for most brands - delivering the promise.  I always emphasise to my clients that the key to business success is to make a brand promise that apart from being relevant to your market is also realistic.  In other words, something that you might actually be able to achieve.  I guess that doesn’t influence politicians that much, but, I’m sure we’d all agree, it should.

In the case of the Hilary and Barack show, both are making big promises, which, to most people are attractive.  The difference, as Hilary was at pains, between sobs, to point out the other day is that one of them (and it wasn’t her) didn’t have the experience to deliver.  The other side to this particular coin however is that while Obama doesn’t have a record of delivery failure, Hilary is part of an establishment (I’m not talking parties here just politics) that has delivered successive disappointments, without flinching and without apology for as long as I can remember.

In a land that probably needs change more than most, Hilary’s strength is that she has the experience and ring-craft that, if we believe her when she says that the rest of the stuff that has prevented her cohorts from delivering in the past isn’t going to deflect her, means she might just pull it off.  Barack’s is the fact that he hasn’t - which means he’s as likely to succeed as he is to fail.

If the two were two tins of beans standing on a supermarket shelf - a new unknown brand and an old, but not particularly notable one - which would you choose, the familiar one that you knew was average, or the unknown one that just might be the best you’ve ever tasted?  Personally I’d go for the new one, but I’m not sure the American electorate, when the chips are down, is really up for a leap of fate.  The problem with that conclusion is that it means its all down to the packaging designers!  I guess there’s no change there either then!

Categories: American · Barack · Clinton · Democracy · Full Effect · Full Efffect Marketing · Obama · Senate · The Full Effect Company · US · Voting · brand · brands · change · consulting · hilary · marketing · phil darby · promise