Corporate Eye

...compare, compete, excel

Stakeholder

2010 – The Year of Brand Transparency, Honesty and Trust

brand_honestyEarlier this month, I wrote an article that was published on Entrepreneur.com where I listed 10 marketing trends for 2010.  The top trend on that list was transparency and trust (which includes honesty), and that trend should define 2010 for brand strategy.

The question is – will companies actually follow the trend like they should?  Some will, but unfortunately, more will probably not.

So why are transparency, honesty and trust so important for brands in 2010?

It’s simple.  Consumers aren’t naive anymore.  There was a time when consumers believed the marketing messages in ads.  There was also a time when many people believed in political propaganda, but thankfully, with advances in communications and technology, more people than ever can see through those skewed messages.  The same holds true with advertising claims.

Banks have collapsed, economies are faltering or failing, auto manufacturers took multi-billion dollar bailout packages, and many consumers have lost their last hopes that the pie-in-the-sky claims made in ads are even remotely true.

And that’s why transparency, honesty and trust are so important for brands in 2010.  Give people something to believe in.  Create expectations for your brand in consumers’ minds that they can believe and rely on.  Then, deliver on those expectations every time and in every customer interaction.

Make them believe in your brand through truth, not veiled propaganda.

Yes, I’m a copywriter and I’m saying this.  It might seem like a contradiction to say I’m a copywriter and promote a brand strategy of transparency, honesty and trust in 2010.  However, successful copywriters, brand managers, and marketers understand that the world has changed thanks to communications and technological advancements like Twitter, social networking, online video, and more.  Brands that stretch the truth are called out faster than ever and word of a brand’s dishonesty will spread faster and farther than you can imagine.

Of course, there are exceptions to every rule, and you need to analyze your brand, audience, competition, and so on before you modify your own brand strategy for 2010.

In fact, that’s a great area for discussion here on the Corporate Eye blog.  What brands, industries, categories, etc. would fare better to avoid embracing the transparency, honesty and trust trend?  Can you think of any?  Leave a comment and share your thoughts.

Image: Flickr

An Employer Resume?

 

Resume 1

The other day I heard a story on my local public radio station about the virtues of having a two minute verbal resume.  It’s an interesting idea—especially because it derives from a very realistic observation:  Very often, the interviewer has not read the candidate’s resume, or at least doesn’t remember much about it.  Therefore, the recruiter will often invite the candidate to “tell me about yourself.”

Performance consultant Scott Peek recommends a formula for responding, which I’m summarizing this way:

  1. Restate your name (just in case).
  2. Spend 45 seconds recapping your relevant experience.
  3. Spend 45 seconds highlighting how your experience and abilities fit the company or position.
  4. Use the last 15 seconds to ask a question that will open a conversation with the interviewer.

Seems like a pretty good technique, speaking as one who has floundered through more than one interview.  In a way, the verbal res is sort of an elevator speech for “Brand Me,” but it also has a nice tennis rhythm that delivers the ball back across the net.

What really struck me in thinking about resumes, however, is that candidates have them, but companies don’t.  I suppose this practice reflects the presumed relationship between employer (superior) and employee (inferior) –but that view seems a bit antiquated in the days of “talent acquisition.” So I am going to float the idea of an employer resume.

After all, why not?  The whole idea of the Careers site and the employer brand is to convey a value proposition.  Condensing that proposition into a resume format might be a stellar strategy.

I think job-seekers would be very interested in a link or tab on the website labeled “Our Resume” or “Our CV.”  The page could look just like a typical candidate resume, listing the company’s accomplishments, experience, objectives and vital statistics.  The information would be presented from the viewpoint of what job-seekers want to know about prospective employers—which means including achievements in promoting employee satisfaction, diversity, career development, and so on.  Then visitors could download a PDF copy.

The Employer Resume could also be put in recruitment packages, handed out at job fairs, emailed to prospects, and made available via the corporate weblog, Facebook page, et cetera.  In short:  An all-purpose PR piece that not only summarizes the employer brand but also signals a distinctive approach to candidate relationship management.

I haven’t seen any examples of corporations using this device, and a fairly thorough search came up with nothing. (There are some examples of “company resumes” used by small companies for business-to-business sales, but nothing oriented toward recruiting.) Perhaps there’s a perception that big companies are already well known to the public, or that their story is just too huge to be captured in a summary format.  But most companies are not well-known as employers, and all stories can be presented effectively at a very high level—it just requires a little creative effort.

Love to hear comments!

Introducing the Online Behavioral Advertising Privacy Icon

behavioral_advertising_privacy_iconIn mid-2009, U.S. advertisers came together in an attempt to ward off threats by the Federal Trade Commission and consumer advocacy groups against online behavioral advertising targeting claiming the process was a violation of individuals’ rights to privacy.  A group of 12 companies that represent some of the biggest advertising spenders in the world, including Google, Microsoft, General Electric, and more, developed a document listing seven self-regulatory principles in an attempt to appease the opposition (you can view the 48-page PDF here).

Part of the plan those companies came up with was to create an icon that would be used in online ads that are served based on behavioral data to fully disclose to consumers why they were seeing these ads.  This month, the icon was unveiled and reported by The New York Times.  You can see the privacy “i” icon pictured above.

Individuals who see this icon in an online ad can click on it to learn more about the process used to serve it to them, including the use of behavioral data.

There are two sides to this story.  First, consumers have a right to dislike behavioral segmentation.  As a consumer, I can see how it can be construed as an invasion of privacy.  On the other hand, marketers and brand managers are likely to become more dependent on behavioral targeting once they see the boost in conversions it’s likely to deliver.

The simple truth is that demographic segmentation lost much of its allure years ago.  In fact, I wrote an article about that exact topic in November 2007 for branding and marketing expert Drew McLellan’s popular blog, Drew’s Marketing Minute.  The post was called “Is Demographic Segmentation Dead?” and discussed how demographic segmentation was already being usurped by behavioral segmentation.

In other words, the shift from demographic to behavioral targeting in online advertising is not new.  It’s been coming for years, and the question now becomes — will advertisers find themselves faced with regulations preventing them from doing the behavioral targeting they so desperately want to use or will self-regulation allow them to continue without interference from government regulation?  Only time will tell.

What do you think?  Leave a comment and share your thoughts.

Are All Brands Global in the 21st Century?

globeAre all brands global?  That’s a question we could have answered easily a decade or two ago, but today, it’s not as simple.  With the growth of the social Web, tools like blogs, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and so on make the global conversation immediate.  Could it be argued that because of the power of the social Web in terms of spreading information wider and faster than ever, all brands are global by default simply because they have the potential to get in front of a global audience?

It’s an interesting concept to consider.  Brands that once had no intention of becoming global in the short term might find themselves on a global stage simply through a popular blog post or tweet.  And that means brand managers have a global image and messaging responsibility, whether they want one or not.

Even small business brands can become global brands thanks to the conversation and sharing of information that happens on the social Web, so it stands to reason that corporate-backed brands shouldn’t just wonder if the same could happen to them.  Instead, they should expect that it will happen to them and plan accordingly.  That means your brand strategies should be positioned to speak with a global audience now.  Consider how your brand promise, messages, and image will translate in front of a global audience now before you find yourself in an unfavorable position at the hands of a social Web conversation.

Many brand managers dream of the day that one of their messages goes viral and spreads around the world bringing more word-of-mouth marketing and online buzz than they could ever have hoped for.  But what if that word-of-mouth marketing and online buzz happens and you’re not ready for it?  What if your brand suddenly ends up in the spotlight of the global stage?  It could happen.  Are you ready?

Do your brand promise, image and message translate to a global audience?  It’s time to ensure that they do.

Image: Flickr

Starbucks: Full Court Press!

 

Starbucks NYT

Okay—pun intended.  But blame the New York Times for introducing basketball in its recent story titled Now at Starbucks: A Rebound.  In its Q1 earnings report, SBUX showed a net income of $241.5 million (up from $64.3 million in the year-ago quarter), revenue up 4%, and same-store sales up 4%.  After several quarters of steady declines, the new view must look just like heaven.

So what has Starbucks done right?  First let’s consider how this connects with the subject of Careers.

Back in May of 2008, when Starbucks was still assumed to be bullet-proof, HR guru Kevin Wheeler wrote an article about employer branding titled Why Google or Starbucks? In it he wonders what makes people especially eager to work at certain companies, and decides:  “More people are attracted to causes than things.”

We could argue whether this is still true in times (like now) of high unemployment.  But let’s say for the moment that Wheeler’s proposition is at least basically true.  He sees Google’s “cause” as free information, and asserts that:

Starbucks’ cause is community. It’s a place, like in the old television show Cheers, where everybody knows your name. It feels good to go into your local Starbucks every morning, be greeted by a smiling barista who knows your name and your favorite drink, and to meet some friends.

That is indeed the role Starbucks plays in my life, and in spite of corporate ups and downs, my local baristas are always warmly waiting when I walk in the door—and I regard every Starbucks location as a remote office plus home-away-from-home.  But even when Wheeler was writing, SBUX was in trouble.  That same year saw the beginning of extensive store closings and layoffs, along with a barrage of downside publicity.

To the extent that their reinvention campaign is succeeding, it’s not only because of streamlining or process improvements. There has also been a focus on reenergizing employees—and Starbucks has joined the new culture of customer engagement: lots of social networking, a listening campaign, special offers, and even an affiliation with MSNBC’s feisty AM talk show, Morning Joe.

The Starbucks Career Center website now reads like an excerpt from Wheeler’s article.  The headline:  “It’s a lot like working with friends.” And the pitch:

We call each other “partners”. We respect our customers and each other. We’re dedicated to serving ethically sourced coffee, caring for the environment and giving back to the communities where we do business. And we’re still small enough to remember your name when you walk in the door.

Reinforcing the message is a festoon of employer awards, from the trusty Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For to Forbes 100 Best Corporate Citizens and Best Places to Work for LGBT Equality.  So the “cause factor” is definitely full court press.

Not that everything is perking perfectly in the inner world of Starbucks.  There are employee complaints—and because Starbucks is big, and actively represents itself as a responsible employer, those complaints get coverage.  But the percentage of unhappy workers seems proportional, and there is definitely no lack of barista wannabes.

Now for the punch line. If you compare Keven Wheeler’s prescription for establishing a strong employer brand with NYT’s account of what’s behind the Starbucks rebound . . . there is a very strong similarity.  Wheeler’s five steps to “Make Your Company Memorable”:

  1. Gain perspective and know yourself.
  2. Define the promise.
  3. Develop a strategy.
  4. Create a “buzz” to communicate your brand.
  5. Measure your progress.

In short—what works for getting and keeping employees works for getting and keeping customers.  And vice versa.