Doctors market themselves with very little push back. Accountants and credit counselors market themselves (especially these days). So why, if lawyers market themselves, do they come off as ambulance chasers or some kind of smarmy worms in Brooks Brothers’ suits?

Shai Littlejohn, from The National Law Journal outlines a simple solution,

“…Although you may be able to do anything with a law degree, a law degree and solid experience alone will not do it for you. For those young attorneys who dream of becoming top lawyers, the key is to be three parts lawyer and one part marketing agent.”

She continues with,

“Through expertise, involvement and shared values, top lawyers continuously cultivate reputable self-brands. It’s the essence of those brands that separates top attorneys from colleagues destined for repeated lateral moves or career stagnation.“

Using personal branding (for recent grads) and professional branding (for established careers and firms) to build a “reputation” that becomes marketable for growth — what a novel idea…

Throughout the article, while including networking, charitable involvement, and family activities, Littlejohn continues to support branding in the legal profession to benefit and advance careers and service to clients.

It makes perfect sense. In these times of exploding growth in social media networking, aggressive advertising and promotion by virtually every industry on the planet; lawyers need the same skills to build a brand that will be beneficial to their careers as well as benefit the service they can provide to their clients – without the concern for guilt or stigma of impropriety.

Hmmm. Sounds like a recipe for success to me.

Let’s cook up some conversation… I’d love to get your input. Do you know a lawyer that utilizes personal or professional branding to enhance their exposure and growth? Do you think lawyers that aggressively market their brand come off smarmy or cheap?

Keep Cooking!
Andrew B. Clark
– The Brand Chef

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

I can see it. In seconds, and with innocent passion and excitement, the birthday wrapping is obliterated with a flurry of glee and breathless expectation. The laminated and embossed photos on the box virtually promise of hours – if not a lifetime – of excitement and imaginative adventures in outer space. And emblazoned on the box, no smaller than 3” square, is the big, red, “Lego®” logo – promising quality, creativity and adventure for everyone. But as the box top is flung over the coffee table onto the sleeping dog, the contents – or lack thereof – holds nothing but disappointment.

What a heartbreaking experience.

So, say you’re the parents of that little boy. What do you do?

1) Apologize to your sobbing son and chalk it up to another flub of the commercial marketing machine.
2) Take the box back to Super-Mega Mart and hope they’ll take an opened box return?
3) Apologize (again) to your sobbing son and write a scathing post on your blog, Twitter and Plurk about the negative experience, comment on toy / consumer blogs and forums about how Lego’s piracy scarred your son and how he’ll never be an architect or fighter pilot because of the experience?!?
4) Create a consumer action group and file a class action lawsuit against Lego®?
5) Call Lego® and ask for replacement packets or a new box altogether?

Let’s say you work at Lego® and this problem confronts you. How do you handle it?

1) Ignore it. The box has shipped and there’s nothing you can do about it?
2) Provide the customer a claim ticket and refer them to Super-Mega Mart for return/replacement procedures?
3) Offer a discount on the purchase of a future Lego® product?
4) Offer a replacement package at cost, including shipping and handling?
5) Overnight the replacement box with additional Lego® swag and an apology letter addressed to the boy?

This is one situation where TRUE Branding (Truthful, Relevant, Unique, Engaging) is tested. Lego® has a simple choice to make. And that choice will be based on their policies, procedures, culture, mission and commitment to their customers… Their Brand.

What do you think happened? I can’t say, but trust me when I say that the story ends with everyone happy.

How does your brand react in a situation like this? Does the customer walk away satisfied? Or do they simply walk away?

Food for thought.

Thank you Steve (Follow him on Twitter @swoodruff) for letting me use this experience to make my point.

Until next time…
Keep Cooking!
Andrew B. Clark
– The Brand Chef

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 Zetland’s argument, he states that by restructuring the water pricing (dramatically raising costs from approximately $2.80 – $3.40/gal. or $35/mo. to $5.60/gal. or $95/mo. – a 217% increase) for Californians, the market will correct itself.

(chart credit: Forbes.com & Los Angeles Department of Water and Power)

Okay, I see that. Instead of simply breaking even on water costs and creating an unmanageable water deficit; make municipal water a profit center and discourage users from over use.

But as Dunber and Levitt so aptly ask, “…would higher prices at the tap be as influential … as higher prices at the pump,” creating a tipping point for water usage, just as they predict will happen for gas.

Assessment: I think market manipulation like Zetland’s suggestion will just lead us down a detrimentally slippery slope. And that slope is covered with water and crude oil.

Let’s look at it this way.

According to the US Census Bureau, California‘s population is hovering right around 36.5 million (just over 10% of the total US population) with a projected growth rate 7.6% annually. That works out to 12 million households consuming water and about 13 million in ’09. If we’re to pump the costs of water up by over 200% for 12 million households what do you think will result?

More bottled water.

Sure, bottled water currently costs more than tap, but after a tap cost hike like the one Zetland is proposing; where will consumers turn for hydration on those hot California days? Pools, baths, dishes, cars and lawns aside; demand for ingested water would become such a commodity that bottle manufacturers – those non-biodegradable, crude oil thieves – would be swimming in a pool of Middle Eastern Saudi swill and ozone destruction.

Higher tap costs = higher bottled water consumption = higher crude oil consumption + additional non-recyclable waste = aforementioned slippery slope.

But that’s just my opinion.

Of course there are efforts to move plastics to a “more green” production process, but how soon will that happen?

I’d love to get your spin on this. Do you think 10% of the U.S. population can be made to pay more for water – forcing them to look for other resources for consumable water? What kind of effect will that have on our National economy? Will it measurably affect the already skyrocketing crude oil costs? And globally, will it have an effect on the environment?

Let’s get this conversation boiling.

Until tomorrow,
Keep Cooking!
Andrew