March 28, 2013 in Brand Strategy, Branding, Media, PR and Pop Culture by Clay Zeigler
HEADS UP: What the New Pope Is Teaching Us About Marketing

Screen shot 2013-03-28 at 1.21.36 PMI can’t get enough of the new pope, and apparently I’m not alone. Google “pope-francis” and you get 656 million results about someone who has been going by that name for just a few weeks. And whether or not Pope Francis is able to take the Catholic Church in a new direction, he’s already demonstrating how a damaged brand can be protected — even enhanced — by focusing attention on initiatives that counter objections to the brand in new ways.

The Catholic Church’s problems are well-chronicled, led by the painful clergy-sex scandal, its lingering effects, and more recently the tales of stolen records and Vatican misconduct. But these days, the Church’s problems are mentioned only in passing, as in this story from Reuters:

The 76-year-old former Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio of Argentina has inherited a Vatican rocked by a scandal in which documents leaked to the media spoke of alleged corruption in its administration and depicted prelates as fighting among themselves to advance their careers.

But that’s the fourth paragraph of a story that focuses instead on something new. Here’s the lead:

Beginning a busy program of Easter events, Pope Francis on Thursday urged Catholic priests to devote themselves to helping the poor and suffering instead of worrying about careers as Church “managers.”

That’s just marketing manna from heaven: The pope is busy. He’s telling priests to help the poor and suffering. (Who can be against that?) And he’s telling priests to get out there and help people instead of sitting around in “introspection,” which is a nice word for squabbling.

Continue Reading

 
0
May 16, 2012 in Brand Strategy, Media Orchard by Reg Rowe
ADVICE: Go Ahead, Share Generously — Even Your Flaws Are Beautiful

Trendwatching.com’s April 2012 Trend Briefing covered the consumer trend of transparency or companies being “flawsome.” Flawsome is the name for brands that are still brilliant despite having flaws. Even being flawed can be awesome. Therefore, flawsome.

Everything from disgust at business practices to the influence of online culture is driving consumers away from boring brands in favor of brands with some personality. And consumers are benefitting from increased brand transparency.

This isn’t a new theme. Back in 2008, Shel Israel coined the phrase “Lethal Generosity” — the idea that companies that are more generous with information are more credible and influential and as such, can devastate their competition in the marketplace. Lethal generosity results in rising to the top not just in followers and engagement, but in search results as well. Sharing information freely means sharing the flaws along with the good stuff – usually counterintuitive to corporate lawyers.

Let’s be real: things go wrong all the time. Brands that open their kimono, admit fault and work to fix the problem will engender good will and trust among consumers. Why? Human nature dictates that people have a hard time genuinely connecting with, being close to, or really trusting other humans who appear to have no weaknesses, flaws or mistakes – and the same holds for brands.

Letting the Goodness Shine Through

Those brands that work at sharing information and giving back to their communities – even if they have a flaw or two – are most likely to succeed in earning the trust of consumers. Take TangoTab, a Dallas-based startup that enables consumers to find and redeem specials, events, and exclusive offers at their favorite restaurants.

Continue Reading

 
0
November 14, 2008 in Advertising, Brand Strategy by Scott Baradell
A Brand for a Company Is Like a Reputation for a Person — Except When It’s Not

“A brand for a company is like a reputation for a person.”

– Jeff Bezos

Branding is all about personification — giving human traits to things that aren’t human.

If you think about it, Nike, or Disney, or the company where you work are no more than a stack of papers filed by a lawyer somewhere. They are legal entities created specifically so that their activities are considered separate from those of the people who formed them (for liability, tax and other reasons.)

But a stack of legal papers can’t make decisions, or have a personality, or do anything but sit there. And we’ve established that the corporation is distinct from the people who created it or who run it; they can leave the company at any time. The only thing that really holds a corporation together is its shareholders — and they’re here today and gone tomorrow as well.

So really, there’s no there there — is there?

Well, yes and no.

Brands Create Continuity

You see, whenever a shareholder sells his or her stock in a company, the buyer has certain expectations of continuity. And the people the shareholders entrust to run the company are expected to maintain (and increase) the company’s value by meeting these expectations — not only in terms of sheer dollars and cents, but by having a predictable business model that shareholders can count on for the long term.

And that’s where branding comes in. Branding communicates the continuity of a company’s business model — to shareholders, to customers, to employees. It says, “This is the kind of person we are — if we were actually a person.”

So Disney is family-oriented, fun, magical. Nike is outdoorsy, rugged, adventurous. And so on and so on. To the extent a company’s products, advertising and other projections of itself support these traits, the brand has continuity — which over time, can become a company’s most valuable asset.

In this sense, it is like your reputation or mine.

Corporations as Wannabe Humans

But there’s a point at which branding is not the same as reputation. At a certain point, we must face the fact that while people actually are human, corporations are merely wannabes. This has all sorts of implications for PR — and specifically, for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programs.

I help companies with their brands for a living. I think one reason I’m good at it is that I don’t blow sunshine up people’s behinds. So here’s the deal:

Corporations are not human. And that’s a good thing, because if they were human, they would be sociopaths. This isn’t a cheap shot. A sociopath is a person who is interested only in their personal needs and desires. By definition, corporations are designed expressly to serve the interests of their shareholders — and only those interests.

ROI of CSR

Yes, CSR programs can do good. The thing to keep in mind is, these programs only exist to the extent shareholders can be convinced that the spending will ultimately boost the bottom line — like any other marketing expenditure. It’s the equivalent of doing something good so someone will see you doing it.

People are smart enough to know when someone is doing good for the right reasons — and they value these efforts far more than they value the efforts of those who do it for appearances’ sake (like corporate brands).

So what does this mean in terms of dollars? Let’s say you’re a large corporation that spends $50 million annually on CSR. Now, let’s say the public only values your spending about half as much as they do that of a grassroots organization whose motives are considered pure. Well, that means you’re spending $50 million to buy $25 million worth of good will.

Maybe you’re Exxon, and considering your reputation, this still sounds like a pretty good deal to you. Or maybe there are other places to better spend your money.

All of which is to say that a brand for a company is like a reputation for a person — except when it’s not. To keep your bearings, and hold on to your soul, in today’s corporate world, it’s important to know the difference.


Image source

 
1