Yes, I said it. As “The Brand Chef,” that’s something I never thought would come out of my mouth.  But in a recent meeting with a friend, I closed my laptop, pushed my chair back and looked him straight in the eye and said these exact words:

“Your marketing can’t fix crazy…” (and this was in reference to HIS company!)

Now, this could either be a lesson on how to shoot yourself in the foot during a casual meeting with a friend; or it could turn into a logical discussion on branding versus marketing.  This discussion could cover how, because branding is at the core of a company’s culture, business and communications model, your brand isn’t something that you can just decide to give a “face lift.” Marketing, on the other hand – what many people think of when branding comes up in a conversation – can be changed to suit an ever-evolving brand…

Here’s the difference: Marketing is the strategic communication effort that results from a TRUE core brand promise, targeted to a specific audience, with the goal of enticing engagement with that brand.

So, to say it again, just for affect:

“Your marketing can’t fix crazy….”

You see companies, almost on a daily basis, “rebranding” themselves.  But deep-down, without a TRUE brand strategy, the marketing that results is guaranteed to reflect what is going on inside the company – for better or worse…

Based on the conversation that ensued after my “shocking” statement, my friend and I came up with five simple takeaways.

Marketing can’t fix…

1. … a company that has changed its “brand strategy” 5 times in the last 5 years. This happens when deeper brand issues stall out the progress marketing should be making.  Instead of stopping and performing a TRUE brand evaluation, the CEO or CMO simply jump the track to find a different way.  Different doesn’t fix what’s broken.
   
2. … a company’s inability to make brand-based decisions. Unfortunately a company with this problem usually slows or destroys its marketing efforts simply by not being able to take action.
3. … a broken marketing communication system by only using “internal staffers.” Few “Internal Marketing Departments” have enough perspective to do all of the brand evaluation and execution without outside counsel. Trust me, I’ve seen many companies try and many have failed.
4. … a company with a lousy product or service (even at a discount). In this economy, when people are looking for value, quality still is at the core of our decision-making process.  If your product or service is at the bottom of the quality scale in that category, you’d better re-think more than your brand.
5. … a program with an insufficient budget. The phrase “money talks and B.S. walks,” for this point, is painfully applicable.  Plan all you want.  Scheme big dreams and map out creative strategies until your face turns fuchsia.  None of it will succeed unless you have the resources to support it.  How many campaigns have gotten out of the starting blocks in a blur, only to fall to its knees a quarter way through the race because it’s out of funding?

TRUE Branding (Truthful/Transparent, Relevant, Unique and Engaging) is the core to building a successful marketing communications program.  With strategic marketing you can analyze a company’s TRUE Brand position, develop a successful plan and implement a program to raise awareness and engage your market. But remember, branding takes time and sometimes painful effort. It shouldn’t be viewed as a quick fix, or a “face-lift.”

With that, I’d like to send a big “Thank you” out to my friend for letting me vent to (at) him.  Although the coffee was good, I appreciate the conversations that make me think and evaluate how I can better help clients and their brands.

Next time, the coffee is on me.

Keep Cooking!
Andrew B. Clark
The Brand Chef

Politicians… I hate ‘em. They offend me. They make me want to punch something – like a shih-tzu (although they already look like someone got there before me). Politicians spew, expound, wax poetic, twist, massage, and congeal the language that I cherish into convenient, little, sound bites and slogans that, from a branding and marketing standpoint, make me want to puke.

Today, my ire turns to *Hillary Clinton and her cronies…

At her Senate confirmation hearing, Ms. Clinton defined her (intended) approach to diplomacy as “Smart Power.” Describing it as, “…using the full range of tools available to the United States, including diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal and cultural tools.”

After some thought – and a little digging – this slogan, this “catchphrase” Ms. Clinton and her staff so strategically thought up sounded like more of the same regurgitated crap that lost her the presidential nomination bid. And it is.

Case in point:

“Soft Power,” (notice the subtle difference) first theorized and then published in a book by the same title, by Joseph S. Nye, Jr., professor of International Relations at Harvard, outlines his position as,

“The kind (of power) preferred by certain thinkers and political scientists… (that includes) ideals, diplomacy, moral authority. All about hearts and minds.”

What the hell? Am I wrong thinking that Hillary (and every other politician) needs to stop trying to speak in “marketing-eze” and that they really need to start thinking for themselves?!?

You know what, Hillary; the Senate is a group of pretty smart folks. I don’t think you need to dumb it down for them. Or are you so unsure of your ability to perform the job, you need to create these nifty little catchphrases to gloss over the facts? Just do your damn job already.

Rob Frankel, a branding expert and author of “The Revenge of Brand X.” said, “Essentially, ‘smart power’ is just more evidence of how bad the communication coaching Hillary Clinton gets and probably cost her the (presidential) campaign.”

And Alan Siegel, founder and head of Siegel + Gale, a considerably credible branding, marketing and communications consultancy, described “Smart Power” as an “unfortunate choice of words.”

Amen. (my choice of words)

From a marketing and communications standpoint, this was a bad choice. Unoriginal. Uninspired. Trite. Redundant. From a political and, may I say, professional standpoint, I’d suggest firing your communications advisers and simply getting down to the task at hand…

Maybe I’m just sick of the rhetoric. Maybe the recent campaign was too much. Maybe after another cup of coffee, I’ll see the advantage of using slogans and tag lines in politics.

Then again, maybe not. ‘Cause politicians and the sort make people disregard – no, dare I say HATE what I do for a living… Stop trying to market and do your damn job already!

That’s it in a rant… what do you think? Politics and marketing. Do they make good bedfellows?

Until next time…

Keep Cooking!
Andrew B. Clark
–The Brand Chef

*Spineless Disclaimer – I’m not anti-Hillary, and this is not intended to be a direct assault on Ms. Clinton. I think she is incredibly intelligent with MUCH to offer our country as Secretary of State. So, please comment accordingly.

As most of you know, I’m an avid fan of cartooning, satire, and the art – simply for the genuine fun that the industry provides. Master illustrator/satirists from Charles Schultz, Berkeley Breathed and Gary Trudeau to our local Brian Duffy have been staples of my required reading since I was… well, old enough to pick up a newspaper. And from a communications standpoint, I believe cartoons are a perfect tool — visual, simple, unique, entertaining, and educational.

But sometimes they’re a bit more…

Mother Goose and Grimm creator Mike Peters is being sued by the The Federation of Colombian Coffee Growers over a cartoon published last week poking fun at Columbian Crime and Columbian coffee. The federation alleges that Mike’s cartoon “damages the intellectual heritage.” They’re asking for US$20 million.

According to the report:

Peters apologized for having offended anyone in a letter that arrived at newspaper El Tiempo’s editor’s office,…

According to the cartoonist, the specific comic is part of a series of cartoons based on the fact that the inventor of potato crisp Pringles had his ashes buried in one of his invention’s package. Peters says he never intended to insult anyone.

Classic.

Mike Peters has never had trouble owning up to his style of satire. If he were to insult The Federation, I’m sure he would have 1) been even more “in your face” about the quip, and 2) taken a stronger (guaranteed to be more humorous) stance against the claim.

$20 Million? Who doesn’t already know about Colombia’s heritage? hmmmm, but they do grow some great coffee.

Does the cartoon make YOU want to stop drinking Colombian coffee and switch to Chai Tea? (Ack) Does this kind of legal nonsense really need to plug up our already burdened system?

What say you?

Food for thought.

Keep Cooking (up more actionable communications)
Andrew B. Clark
-The Brand Chef