There’s a segment out there for everyone. It’s YOU. It’s truthful, relevant, unique, and engaging

So, in this economy, instead of trying to bark louder than the big dogs, try something unique

Avis has a great twist on it…

Try harder at being YOU, and the rest should follow closely behind.

Food for thought…

Keep Cooking!
Andrew

Over the years, I’ve seen some incredibly successful marketing campaigns and some pretty dismal ones. Two questions I’m continually asked are: “What works?” and, conversely, “What doesn’t?”

My answer is usually something along the lines of “It depends,” which is usually followed by the ubiquitous blank stare… Sorry, but it’s the truth.

I can’t give you one sure-fire solution for marketing success. And no credible marketer/branding agent/advertising professional worth their salt would offer you a blanket success solution like that.

But, from experience, I can point out some marketing foibles and pitfalls you should avoid… And being “The Brand Chef,” they’re provided in a rewarding baker’s dozen for easy consumption.

Enjoy!

1. Not “Speaking the audience’s language” — What the heck does “improved focal resolution and light reciprocity control” mean? I just want a better lens for my camera.
2. Holding on to the “If you build it, they will come” misconception — If you have a brilliant product/service, you’ll probably need to let someone know about it… (Darn that Kevin Costner)
3. Misunderstanding the target audience — A direct mail campaign for your new accounting software is being sent to the human resources department? C’mon.
4. Not being truthful to your brand — The truth shall set you free… If you can do it, make it painfully obvious to everyone. Conversely, if you can’t do it, it will be painfully obvious.
5. Marketing function over benefit — It’s not about what you can do. It’s about what you can do FOR ME!
6. Not providing a compelling “Call to action” — Fact sheets, outlines, data and the sort won’t make me WANT your product or service. Give me a reason to WANT.
7. Not positioning your brand as Unique — If you don’t make it clear how you’re different, then you’re just a commodity and I’ll shop based on price.
8. Not targeting the decision-maker — See #3… The HR manager may LOVE the software, but who cares?
9. Underestimating the resources needed for an effective campaign — I hate it, but the old adage “It takes money to make money” is true. Your investment in your marketing should reflect your expectations… Which leads to #10…
10. Unrealistic expectations — If you have a champagne and caviar dreams, you’d better not use a beer and pretzels budget.
11. Not tracking results with the expectation of making changes based on the findings — Research, plan, apply, follow-up, research again… If you’re not changing with the program, then you’re standing still.
12. Not having a defined plan — Don’t take the journey unless you have a map. Otherwise, guaranteed, you’re going to get lost.
13. Trying to “Do It Yourself” — I don’t do my own dental work, so why do some companies insist on doing their own marketing? For God’s sake, trust the professionals.

While the above points just scratch the surface; by avoiding these pitfalls, you’ll be well on your way to making wiser, more deliberate marketing and communications decisions. Sure, your base ingredients should remain the same. TRUE. If you have a recipe based on True, Relevant, Unique and Engaging criteria, the rest of the ingredients can be folded in to create marketing and communications efforts that garner TRUE results.

Bon Appétit

Keep Cooking!
Andrew B. Clark
- The Brand Chef

Remember back, just a few years, a cartoon with Daffy Duck where he pulls his tail feathers up and exposes, emblazoned in all its glory, the WB logo – smack dab on his protruding rump? As a kid, (and admittedly, even now) I thought a logo on a duck’s butt was hilarious – I guess that’s why the creatives at Warner Brothers took that particular visual route. It certainly left a lasting impression (no pun intended).

Now, with a quick leap to the present, you may ask, “Why this walk down memory lane?”

Well, in a few days, we Americans will be able to look at virtually any cut of meat and see something similar — a label that says where the meat came from!

Laughing yet? No kidding… Starting Sept. 30th, manufacturers and grocery stores must comply with a new federal law that requires “Country of Origin Labeling,” or C.O.O.L., on beef, pork, chicken, lamb as well as some perishable items, such as fruits and vegetables and a variety of nuts. You can read more here.

Some say this will enable consumers to avoid food that, just as an example, comes from countries that they have heard have food safety problems. It also will allow consumers to stick to American-grown food, if that is their preference.

Without getting into the logistical details, there have been a slew of comments running around the Web for and against this new guide. I’ll leave my opinions until I hear a bit from you, but some of the buzz is centered around:

Its accuracy: What about the beef industry that is very well known for importing and combining cuts from other countries in their ground meat and hamburger patties?

Its safety: Some safety groups have hailed C.O.O.L. as a necessary step toward broader education; while at the same time complaining that the Department of Agriculture hasn’t defined the law narrowly enough (e.g. many foods classified as “processed,” such as mixed frozen vegetables, are exempt from the law). So, frozen peas are to be labeled, but frozen peas-n-carrots aren’t?

Its authenticity: According to the Chicago Tribune, many in the meat industry fought C.O.O.L. because,

“…they don’t want consumers to know that they’re buying imported hamburger and beef cuts.”

Its cost: According to Lloyd Day, head of the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service, they opposed the law,

“because of its projected impact on consumers and its estimated cost to the food industry: $2.5 billion in the first year.”

Hmmmmmm… A marketing and PR mess? … Food for thought?

In any case, Congress pushed ever forward and after an arduous six-year battle, C.O.O.L. takes action on Sept. 30, so the debate over its merits is largely over.

Or is it?

“We don’t know exactly how it’s all going to work,”

said Colin Woodall, the executive director of legislative affairs for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.

“And we won’t know until it’s fully up and running.”

So, what do you think of C.O.O.L.? Is it COOL? Is it bureaucracy? Is it for you? Chime in. Does Congress need to explain this to consumers a bit more?

Let’s get this conversation boiling and find out if you want your rump labeled “COOL!” COOL?

Keep Cooking!
Andrew B. Clark
The Brand Chef

In a recent post by Mike Sansone over at Converstations.com, a couple of videos (example below – feed readers, click through to The Brand Chef) illustrated the vast differentiation in information resource vehicles and how generations have changed the way they acquire information.

Although the post was geared toward education, it really showed, from an input and resource point of view, how differing generations choose to receive their messaging. So, in complete irony, I’d recently finished management training at my new job (subject of a future post) and thought the timing of Mike’s post was impeccable.

The focus of my training sessions centered on the generational gaps between employees and how to effectively communicate and direct each for the best results. Considering this is the first time that businesses have had the opportunity to employ four distinct generations at the same time, effectively communicating with and managing them has become nothing less than daunting.

Generations / Workforce Characteristics*:
1. Matures – (born before 1946) = 7.0% of workforce
2. Baby Boomers – (1946 – 1964) = 41.5%
3. Generation X – (1965 – 1977) = 29.5%
4. Generation Y – (1978 – 1989) = 22.0%

Now, if you think about the application of my training, it was simply “how do you manage across the generations;” but if this structure applies to the workforce, then wouldn’t we assume the same should apply to the marketplace as well? They all have jobs. They all have money to spend. And, just as management styles differ for each group, each group will be influenced differently by marketing and communications.

So, from a marketing and communications standpoint, how do you address the following characteristics?

1. Matures: Loyal, Driven by commitment “to do the right thing,” for the company, community, family, etc. Somewhat resistant to change without need. Resistant to technology in majority of situations.
2. Baby Boomers: The first “Me” generation, with a clear expectation of ROI. What can you do to EARN a piece of “the good life?” Accepting of change in the face of justice, revolution. Less socially driven… Intimidated by new technology, but understanding of the need for advancement…
3. Generation X: Low loyalty in the face of opportunity and accepting of change. Do it fast and get on with “life.” “Anything is possible” “Technology Immigrants,” but comfortable with innovation.
4. Generation Y: “I want it now, ‘cause I don’t have the time to wait.” Individual within a disconnected community (face-to-face communication is virtually absent). Minuscule attention span with increasing productivity… pushing technological advances, and the first “Technology Natives.”

We now have the opportunity, as marketers and communications professionals to communicate to a wider generational span than ever before. How has your company changed to accommodate the gap? Can you create blanket programs to cover the masses? I think not.

Come on in to the kitchen and join the conversation. I’d love to cook up some dialogue with you!

Keep Cooking!
Andrew
The Brand Chef

*Reading reference:
“Managing the Generation Mix – From Urgency to Opportunity” by Carolyn A. Martin, Ph.D. and Bruce Tulgan

And thank you, Mike, for revealing the video for us.

With a blog titled “The Brand Chef,” you don’t expect to hear political rhetoric or commentary on the current U.S. presidential skirmish. But when small fissures in campaign brands rear their ugly heads, I have to set aside common thought and comment.

In a “Face the Nation” interview with Bob Schieffer, General Wesley Clark renounced Senator John McCain’s military experience as a benefit to his presidential capacity. Now, Clark – a consummate Hillary Clinton backer – has never been known for treading lightly, but with a virtual backhanded cuff to McCain’s white scalp, he smacked down everything from the Senator’s political accountability to his responsibility and credibility.

While seemingly in shock, Sheiffer pushed back, prompting Clark’s brilliant headline-making statement:

“I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.”

Ouch.

What was the Obama team’s response – a sound slap on the wrist?

Okay, I see it’s the week before the 4th of July, but if Patriotism is the “political theme of the week,” wouldn’t you think the Obama team would have sent a spokesperson with a little more diplomacy – let alone a bit less venom? Was Clark sent out as a representative of the Obama campaign or as a hit man from the Soprano family?

From a branding standpoint, where is Obama’s brand message consistency? Obama’s campaign has never questioned McCain’s military credibility – less his ability to be commander-in-chief. Obama has wisely skirted the military point from campaign stop to campaign stop. To have Clark step up and throw the first stone creates a brand disconnect that could be huge trouble for the Obama campaign.

As expected, Obama’s camp sent out a statement on Monday rejecting the comments made by Clark and reinforcing the fact that,

“[Obama] honors and respects Senator McCain’s service…”

But has the damage already been done?

Disconnect in messaging = Brand cyanide.

Let’s stir the pot and cook up some conversation. Do you think this is an Obama brand faux-paz or is this more from the dysfunctional Democratic Party? Where does Obama go from here to quell the ire.

Keep Cooking!
Andrew