The tag line is supposed to be the embodiment of a company’s corporate vision. It should reflect the company’s brand positioning and, if possible, capture the company’s unique selling proposition (assuming it has one). It should drive the marketing spend, look and content.

The best tag line my former company ever used was during the period when it was part of the Masco group, a collection of upscale home renovation and home furnishing companies that over time have included the likes of Merillat kitchen cabinets, Delta faucets, Weiser locks, Behr paints, as well as Thermador appliances and Hendredon and Drexel Heritage furniture. The tag, encapsulating the premium nature of the group’s various businesses: Where quality finds a home. The play on home worked in principle and in fact.

Tagging in Tough Times

It is interesting to see how companies shift their focus as the winds blow hot and cold. Keeping to the home sector, one of the engines that drive the economic well-being of the nation, The Home Depot strived to be your go-to partner in renovation with their tag: You can do it. We can help. Their commercials appealed to cocooners everywhere and tugged mightily at the heartstrings. But budgets are tighter now and the Big Orange has shifted to More saving. More Doing. This matches up neatly with Walmart’s Save Money. Live Better, a tactical shift that aims at crossing demographic boundaries. Ironically, Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse, Home Depot’s natural born enemy, has gone the old Depot way with its tag: Let’s Build Something Together. Most interesting.

Another company that shifted its emphasis, trying to deke out the recession was Scotiabank, one of Canada’s big five chartered banks. For a number of years, its tag was You’re Richer Than You Think. Scotiabank wanted you to know that it was the one to handle all your ill-gotten gains. But times got tougher in the millennium’s first decade and people just didn’t feel all that rich. So Scotiabank switched on a dime (9.5 cents for American readers) and came up with a new message to potential customers: Get a second opinion. Scotiabank invited Canadians to take advantage of a no-obligation second opinion on their portfolios. The focus was on service and solutions, things it assumed consumers were looking to bank on in tough times. But things are getting better north of the 49th parallel and so Scotiabank has happily brought back the Richer than You Think tag.

Scotiabank hasn’t cornered the market on service, however. Another Canadian chartered banker, TD Bank, stays open from “8 till late”, 50% longer than the competition. TD’s tag is Banking can be this comfortable and the primary visual is an iconic, massive (and, in my wife’s opinion, perfectly ugly) green leather chair.

Zoom Zoom

Ever since the birth of segmentation by GM’s legendary Alfred P. Sloan, car companies have tried hard to match tagline to brand aspiration. Some of these tags have become almost iconic; others, however, are as forgettable as the cars themselves. Following are our best and worst automotive taglines.

Starting with The 5 Best:

#5. Volvo. For Life. This one, though relatively innocuous, resonates because it plays off Volvo’s well-known and well-deserved reputation for safety.

#4. BMW’s The Ultimate Driving Machine may be a bit pretentious but it certainly captures the company’s image of and aspiration for itself. The good news for BMW is that both are shared by its target audience.

#3. Lexus: The Relentless Pursuit of Perfection. Lexus has clung to its M.O. and its tag since day one. Perfect. (Side note: I had a terrific assistant who was a bulldog when she had to follow up on something. I told her to add a tagline after she signed one of her menacing memos: The Perfection of Relentless Pursuit.)

#2. Chevy Trucks: Like a Rock. What can I say? I love the song. And it’s certainly better than Ford Tough and Dodge’s Grabbing Life by the (Ram’s) Horns.

#1. Okay, so the header gave it away. Number one is Mazda’s Zoom Zoom. Fun. Fast. Forever young.

And now for The 5 Worst:

#5. If Volvo is fifth best, its Swedish compatriot, Saab, is fifth worst.  Saab never could get it right, however. Born from Jets was bad. Its new Move your mind is truly, mind-bendingly, bad. It would rank higher on the hate scale if anybody actually cared.

#4. On the other hand, there is the curious case of Mercedes Benz. Oh, how the mighty have fallen! Mercedes recently dropped its Unlike Any Other for The best or nothing. It’s part of Mercedes’ new strategy to highlight the fact that the company is introducing 16 new models by 2011. Really? I mean, do you get that? Considering the heritage of Engineered Like No Other Car in the World, how did Mercedes Benz come up such a cropper?

#3. Late and unlamented. In another case of what were they thinking? how about Pontiac’s fighting it out with Ford over the rights to Car. Ford’s recent ads let you know that the company “speaks car”. But Pontiac is Car. Don’t get it? Here’s the company’s own explanation: “Car. One simple word. Packed with so much meaning. To some, it stands for freedom. To others it’s hood scoops and horsepower. For others still, it means fun and escape. We all have our own personal definitions. They all mean something special. So let’s bring car back. And all the good it stands for. From the company that always was, and will be, Car.” There you go. From the company that always was, but no longer will be. Car.

#2. Mercury: New doors opened. Case closed.

#1. Toyota tops (bottoms?) the list. You have to question the thinking behind Toyota’s Make Things Better. Seriously, is that a call to action for their own organization or their potential customers? It gets really weird when you remember Toyota’s previous tagline: Moving forward. Considering the sticking accelerator pedal recall crisis to follow, the marketing folks were clearly prescient. All around, this has not been a good year.

Haunted

Of course, when the tagline follows the name but not the thinking way up in the corner office, the words ring more than just hollow. They come back to haunt you.

Consider BP Global’s Beyond Petroleum.  That BP pays lip service to alternate technologies has been well documented. So for anyone paying the slightest attention, Beyond Petroleum is, like everything else BP says, beyond belief.

Enron’s slogan was Ask Why? The “thinking” behind the tag was that Enron was an innovative company because it questioned conventional wisdom. Now, when we look back and consider the actions of “the smartest men in the room”, you know the answer.

Microsoft abandoned its Life Without Walls, which may or may not have been its way of asking the Antitrust folks to leave them alone. Of course, the irony of Life Without Walls is not lost on Windows users who depend on firewalls to protect them against unwanted viruses. Well, at least its new Be What’s Next tag can’t get them into trouble.

Then again, with taglines you never know.

Love It or Hate It, Nike’s Ad Got Noticed

The sub-head: Widespread reaction means ad worked, executives say

Really?

I have a lot of respect for Hollie Shaw and I am sure her reporting is accurate. I also swore to myself way back when that I would not weigh in on the whole Tiger thing on the basis that enough ink had already been poured into the sea of Tiger Woods reporting to keep the Titanic afloat. But the premise that noise for noise’s sake is a good thing bears discussion.

You all know about the commercial. Trading in on the dead father’s memory and the respect in which that memory is held. A cut and splice job assembled to set the stage for the son’s redemption. A swirl of publicity ensued in the wake of the ad’s appearance. Some decried it for being in bad taste. Others, including a goodly number in the advertising industry said that bad taste or not, the commercial wouldn’t hurt Nike a bit. Indeed, they surmised, all that publicity would be a boon for a company that seen its golf sales decline 11% in 2009.

“If I were the marketing guy at Nike the day after that ad ran, I’d be a pretty happy guy”, said the chief creative officer at one large at agency.

Why?

In the bad old days, that mantra was a variation of the line usually attributed to master showman, P.T. Barnum: “I don’t care what they write about me, as long as they spell my name right.” Which is reminiscent of the classic from Mae West: “Call me anything, but call me often.” (Note: you may also find the first quote ascribed to Mae West and, another old time entertainer, George M. Cohan.) Any publicity, it was said, was good publicity.

Well, we know better now. And, somehow, I don’t see where the Nike ad is good publicity. Here’s my thinking.

1. Reflected Glory?

Nike’s promotions are celebrity-based, with Tiger Woods the centerpiece of its celebrity platform. If the ad reflects badly on Tiger Woods – and even the ad execs admit it doesn’t help polish Woods’ already tarnished image – how could it be a plus for the advertiser who clearly produced the ad to play off that image? Sorry, but ugly is as ugly does.

2. Bottom Line Contribution?

The link between Woods and Nike is well-established…and well understood by the golfing community at large. If this ad had not been aired, would Nike’s notoriety be one wit less impressive? I doubt it.

For example, none of Nike’s 2009 sales decline is attributed to the Tiger factor (if there is such a thing).

According to a survey conducted by TNS, a world leader in market research, global market information and business analysis, the scandal may have hurt Woods’ personal reputation, but not those of the brands he endorses. Respondents to a TNS survey said they had a more favourable opinion of Tiger’s brands including Nike, EA, Gillette and Gatorade (which did drop Woods but only at a point too close to the survey to have an impact).

I cannot see where this ad did Nike any good in the market or that missing out on the publicity garnered by its airing would have done it any harm.

3. The Fatigue Factor

Polls confirm that most people are tired of hearing about the Woods scandal. It was interesting…even titillating. For a while. But most now feel it’s time to move on and time to let Woods move on with his life, sympathy for Elin Nordegren notwithstanding. The ad, therefore, did nothing but keep the embers lit. It contributed to the fatigue.

Plus, frankly, the ad wasn’t that interesting. Or the production quality that good. In fact, objectively, the ad was pretty boring and, were it not for the context in which it was placed so callously, it would have been eminently forgettable.

In short, if I were the marketing guy at Nike the day after that ad ran, I wouldn’t be that happy with myself.

If I have learned anything over the past 30 years, both as an experienced practitioner and keen student of business strategy, it is this: Those who run companies have one basic responsibility. No, it is not to make money. It is to keep their respective companies running. The core of any strategy must, therefore, be sustainability.

Too often, you will hear the same answer, told smugly, when asked about the essence of business enterprise. Business, it will be knowingly explained, is about making money…the more, the merrier. In fact, greed is about making money, the more the merrier. Business is about building an enterprise that is capable of making money over the long haul. Strategies that yield unsustainable profits are short-sighted, short term and doomed to failure. Greed is short-sighted and almost never sustainable.

So, more than just building a profitable organizations, business leaders must be focused on building sustainable ones. A company must be able to withstand economic volatility, a hyper-competitive market, lengthy supply chain disruptions and, yes, catastrophic events. It is easy to make money when your boat, like those around it, is rising with the tide. But can your boat survive a tsunami? Can it survive a protracted industry slump? Can it survive the Chinese? How about new technologies? Sweeping regulatory changes? What would happen to your organization in the event of a major acquisition?

Sustainability in the management context is about ensuring that a company’s product or service offering responds to the needs of its customer base and that it will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. It is about its operations being as productive and as low cost as its competitors. It is about having a strong and stable customer base and a reliable supply chain. It is about having a stable cash flow and not having bank covenants that could strangle it when things become volatile. And, yes, it is about being prepared for catastrophe.

So, what is the first step in becoming a company from which investors can count on reliable, consistent returns well into the future? How does an organization become sustainable?

The answer is somewhat paradoxical. To be sustainable, a company must change. To change, the company must begin by strengthening the status quo.

Sustainability strategies require leaders to take a long-term view of their business. Getting the future right, however, first requires getting the present right. You cannot attract good people unless you take proper care of your current people. You cannot attract new customers unless you are adept at keeping the ones you have. You cannot usefully leverage a weak product portfolio. You cannot successfully expand a weak geographic base. Jim Collins writes Good to Great because you cannot go from Bad to Great. Without a strong foundation, you cannot get to there from here.

Sustainability, therefore, begins with understanding what you are doing right and then doing it better. Build from the foundation up, not the roof down. In other words, do not change. Evolve.

In a fast changing world, where most advisors would say that to succeed you must learn to change, it’s a paradox, to be sure.

To summarize, blogger Dustin Curtis took American Airlines to task for a terrible website (cluttered front page, poor user interface, etc.). Remember, customer experiences take place at points of contact. Every interface, every encounter, online, in-store or in person, is critical. Curtis received a detailed, if anonymous, e-mail from an AA designer explaining why it is understandably difficult to get good design at large companies. The big issue, he explained, is the sheer number of interventions by competing interests within the company.

My own experience in a large company says this is not necessarily true. Successful design is predicated on a consistent brand message being presented with clarity and creativity. The size of the company and the need to accommodate a range of interests are not predictors of design excellence. But let’s put that aside for the moment.

Mr. X, as he dubbed himself, did say that there were updates on the way that would address some of the problems. So far, so good, though I question the need for anonymity.

In telling the story, Techdirt shows an unfortunate bias. Our intrepid reporter very much appreciated the response given by Mr. X. “It’s human. It explains the situation without PR/marketing speak that a recipient would know was bogus. It is the type of response that makes someone feel good about American Airlines (mostly). So, how did AA respond? It fired the guy.”

Let us begin by looking at the actual response given by the supposedly well-intentioned Mr. X:

“I like to think I’m decent at what I do, and I know the others I work with here are all pretty good. The problem with the design of AA.com, however, lies less in our competency (or lack thereof, as you pointed out in your post) and more with the culture and processes employed here at American Airlines.

“…doing the design isn’t the hard part, and I think that’s what a lot of outsiders don’t really get, probably because many of them actually do belong to small, just-get-it-done organizations. But those of us who work in enterprise-level situations realize the momentum even a simple redesign must overcome…. They know what it’s like.”

So, this is how I interpret what Mr. X said:

- I am a good designer. Any problems with the AA.com design are not my fault, nor the fault of my colleagues. The fault lies with my company which is large and unwieldy (“the group running AA.com consists of at least 200 people spread out amongst many different groups”) and the cumbersome process we are required to work with. Let’s face it: AA is not a “get-it-done” organization.

- Left to my own devices, I could make a really cool site. I could make changes I deem appropriate on a dime. I would not bother with review and approvals with all the revisions such reviews would likely engender. I would say no to new feature requests if they prove difficult to accommodate.

Am I being unfairly selective? Am I being a corporate apologist? Just read Mr. X’s e-mail and judge for yourself.

So, I see things differently from Techdirt:

- Mr. X is certainly human with a number of very human foibles…one of which is an inability to take responsibility. He and his colleagues are clearly unable to neatly marry up the different needs of a complex organization.

- His response does not show loyalty to his employer. He dissed his company publicly. And, in cowardly fashion, did it behind the cloak of anonymity. I wonder if he ever bothered to show Mr. Curtis’ e-mail to his superiors so as to allow the company to come up with an appropriate response. Forget for a moment the highly prejudicial comment about PR/Marketing Speak. The fact is that any company with its head screwed on straight, given a well-intentioned criticism, could easily respond without being bogus. (Whether or not American Airlines is a company with its head screwed on straight is another question and probably a very good one.)

- The response would NOT make someone feel good about American Airlines. On the contrary, it says: if you think the website sucks, you should see what it’s like working here!

Would I have fired Mr. X? No. At least not unless this was one of a series of offenses. But I certainly would have had a chat with him about the appropriate way to approach outside criticism of the company.

This is a case of dumb and dumber. It is not completely obvious which is which.

My take-aways from the two-day course included a good understanding of root causes and a terrific mug that graced my desk for the next thirty odd years. Over the three decades, I sipped at least 20,000 cups of coffee from my KT mug, protected it zealously from grasping hands, and washed it at least… oh… a dozen times.

The KT approach to problem-solving involves five logical steps that sound just like the Scientific Method you learned in high school; despite this – or because of this – it has been incorporated into Six Sigma, Lean Manufacturing and ITIL (the Information Technology Infrastructure Library). It is, in my opinion, both too simplistic and too complex a methodology. So, despite the whole build-up, the truth is I seldom, in fact, used KT for my own problem-solving. I’ve always found that nothing is that simple and, when you get down to it, seldom is any problem so complex.

So, what was my approach to solving seemingly intractable problems?

Step 1:

When faced with the most confounding problems, I have learned that you’ve got to go deep – yes, to the root – to find the cause. In that, KT and I are aligned. The first step – before you start digging – is to clear away all of the rubble. You’ve got to be honest with yourself and with your colleagues. You’ve got to put aside not only paradigms and prejudices, but also personal pets (people, products and projects). Otherwise, you will reject the obvious. Believe me, when you look back on a tough problem that has been solved, the cause will inevitably, in retrospect, have turned out to be obvious. (Note: In retrospect, everything is inevitable.)

Step 2:

For this, I refer to Murphy’s Law. Actually, two laws from Murphy’s Law, Book Three. Here they are:

Hoare’s Law of Large Problems: Inside every large problem is a small problem struggling to get out.

The Schainker Converse to Hoare’s Law of Large Problems: Inside every small problem is a larger problem struggling to get out.

To illustrate these seemingly paradoxical laws, I will, with apologies, use General Motors. Certainly enough ink has been and will continue to be spilled on this colossal corporate quagmire and commentary has and will continue to come from many closer to the scene than I. But I am a ‘car guy’ and can hardly help myself.

GM presents a very large problem indeed. The problem (if it makes sense to consider it a single problem) seems to be insurmountable. But, if you dig a little, you would find that the crux of GM’s problem has been, fundamentally and for some time, poor design. This is a very specific issue buried under an avalanche of crises. (Hoare’s Law) The poor design reflects a misunderstanding of the market caused by management arrogance as much as anything else. Management arrogance is a very large problem that is easily glossed over because arrogance, by its nature, is amorphous, subtle and self-propagating. The problem of design in this case (and, frankly, in many others) is really a symptom of the disease of arrogance. (Schainker Converse)

It all started back in the Alfred Sloan era. Sloan led GM from 1923 to 1946. He was a management and marketing genius. Credit Sloan for inventing brand families, annual model changes, planned obsolescence, and the market for used cars.

Sloan gave each car division its own price and style categories. Decades later, demographics changed, as did market dynamics. But the old divisions remained, along with too many old ideas. As Buick’s prime customer aged, however, so did the brand message. And so did the car’s technology. Pontiac’s demographic didn’t age; it simply disappeared. Badge engineering not only removed Saab from its demographic, but made it impossible to figure out what that demographic was. Also impossible to figure out was Saturn‘s value proposition, which changed as the Division tried to go mainstream. Meanwhile, in a market becoming increasingly compact, GM could never figure out how to make a small car. Or, more precisely, couldn’t really see the point of putting a lot of value into such a small margin vehicle. Think Xerox and Canon.

The fact is that better design would go a long way to saving GM. The Enclave SUV saved Buick from extinction and the new La Crosse (Allure in Canada) will safeguard its survival. The CTS brought Cadillac back from the brink, but the STS and DTS are so long in the tooth that even the ancients won’t bite. Chevrolet has a little bit of everything, though not enough of anything really special. Malibu, like all the GM cars built on the Epsilon platform, is pretty good. The Camaro is competitive, though no major threat to Mustang in the pony car wars. The Volt, however, could be a game changer.

Bringing Bob Lutz out of retirement was a terrific move – even if Lutz is a Neanderthal. It was a great move because Lutz is very good at what he does. He saw that the various divisions had a lot of similarity but little synergy. He fixed the product development process. His appointment also showed that senior management recognized a very specific issue midst the clutter and was willing to sacrifice the comfort and challenge the slow pace that was the status quo.

Which brings us to Step 3.

Step 3:

Fix the problem fast and, if possible, fix it once and for all.

Epilogue: On April 1, 2009, Lutz stepped down on from his position as Vice-Chairman of Global Product Development and will retire from GM at the end of 2009. Lutz said that one reason for his decision was the regulatory climate in Washington that would force him to design what the feds want rather than what customers want.

Postscript: Lutz is back, this time in a marketing role. This makes no sense. Lutz is a design guy. His way of being and his way of talking make him far from an ideal marketing guy. Oh well.

Note: The 1960 Corvette pictured above is a classic example of good design.

Saturn, a different kind of car company that never quite figured out how to make a go of being different and, as a result, made little difference to the fortunes of its parent GM, is now on the verge of extinction. It is ironic that the more Saturn made cars people actually wanted, i.e., the more mainstream it became, the less relevant and more redundant it became. In other words, it is good to have a point of view, but make sure the view has a point in the first place.

Starbucks had a strongly-held point of view about coffee and people and how the two could come together. And that was enough – along, of course, with impeccable execution – to make the company an institution and an icon. Over-expansion which led to under-execution, along with competition from the lower brow and lesser brews of McDonald’s brought Starbucks profits to a coffee grinding halt. Vivanno smoothies, breakfast foods and other unimaginative fixes proved to be little more than froth. So now, two years later, Starbucks comes out with its newest game changer: VIA Ready Brew instant coffee.

According to the company’s spinners and weavers, Ready Brew is a breakthrough in “soluble” coffee:

“Ready Brew is different – it’s full-bodied and flavorful, just like the Starbucks coffee you know and love…The magic is in a proprietary, all-natural process that we spent years perfecting. We microgrind the coffee in a way that preserves all of their essential oils and flavor. No other coffee company takes this step, and it makes all the difference.”

The wording is reminiscent of an old ad for Tab, a vile diet drink introduced in 1963. “How could just one calorie taste so good?” the jingle asked teasingly. “Because the Coca Cola Company kept the flavor in Tab.”

Ready Brew takes direct aim at the $17 billion instant coffee market. Starbucks hopes to satisfy analysts without resorting to franchising and other brand-sensitive restructuring initiatives. But you’ve got to wonder: will the Nescafe crowd spend more for a Starbucks brew and could a frapuccino freak fall for an instant coffee? Will the brand be damaged by its implausible dip in the soluble pond? My guesses are no, no and yes. Time will tell.

So what about those 50 points of IQ? Starbucks shows what happens when your view gets fuzzy and Saturn when there is no substantive and sustainable view in the first place.

Time to yank out the PIMS database. The marketing budget was not going down without a fight. In fact, I had little trouble convincing my colleagues of the need to keep investing in marketing and product development. To my surprise, we had even less trouble convincing the Board. The issue arose with our attempt to determine the extent of this investment.

I came up with a plan to focus expenditures on winning technologies, products, markets and even specific customers. My Power of One presentation explained why we should put all our money on leadership products, first movers, consolidators and core markets. I was successful on the principles of the thing, but not the details. My colleagues were all for focusing, but to most that meant keeping the pressure up on those areas and pulling back elsewhere. Which translated not into the reallocation of funds and resources but into cutting what had now become ‘non-strategic’ investments. Hmph…here I was, hoisted on my own petard!

Seeing the Big Picture

It was useful, however, to take a broader view of things. Pulling back on the marketing spend (as I would normally define it) was offset by pushing ahead in R&D and operating efficiencies. What is Marketing in fact? Arguably, the additional investment in R&D and operations covered two of the four Ps…maybe even three. In fact, the company was about to embark on the biggest capital program in its history.

So now the marketing exercise was to get the biggest bang for the buck being spent on the ‘focus’ items and find a way to keep the rest sailing along in their slipstreams.

Remember the last post? “In down times, consumers and businesses alike look to safe havens, familiar brands and dependable suppliers that focus on delivering consistent value.” While we kept plugging away at our key focus items, all items were ceremoniously dumped in the safe haven / familiar brand / dependable supplier basket. Public relations, customer service, complaint handling, loyalty programs…all those things that make customers comfortable with a brand were tightly managed with the safe/familiar/dependable relationship in mind.

The jury is still out on how, ultimately, this strategy will work. But the company is sticking to the plan and, in fact, has returned to the black well ahead of schedule. The future looks bright…even if, right now, that future feels very far away.

Note: Our best wishes for a speedy recovery to David St Lawrence over at Making Ripples. The long-time blogger, author, artisan, community activist, gentleman and friend recently suffered a heart attack. This obviously strikes close to home, given my history. Take care of yourself, dear reader, and pay heed when your body sends you signals that something is wrong.

There are times, however, when strategy junkies need a quicker fix than can be provided by books, good or bad. These cravings can be satisfied by reading various business magazines and blogs. Not all are of these are of equal value either and some blogs, especially, are thinly-disguised platforms for selling services and are unabashedly self-serving.

All this is to introduce a business magazine I discovered quite by accident in a store that offers for sale obscure magazines, toy soldiers and Marvel comic memorabilia. The discovery was the Spring ’08 issue of Strategy + Business. Published by Booz Allen Hamilton, the huge strategic management and technology consulting firm, Strategy + Business is – to their credit and my relief – neatly disguised and only mildly self-serving.

Interestingly, it wasn’t the feature articles that most captured my attention but the front section columns. A number of these should get you thinking :

Upturn Thinking in Downturn Years

In market downturns, the companies that emerge strongest are those that, while retrenching, push ahead with long-term strategic planning. One example of a company that did just that is Lucent; even while the telecom hardware business was in decline, CEO Patricia Russo pushed ahead with an initiative to identify new growth areas that would make use of Lucent’s core capabilities and provide stable revenue and income streams going forward.

New Metrics for Media Campaigns

The reach and frequency metrics used in assessing traditional media campaigns are losing relevance in this age of the web, social networking platforms, cell phones, PDAs, podcasts and video games. Marketers are looking to deliver “contextually relevant messages” to specific, i.e., targeted concentrations of potential customers. They are seeking more precise information on how this digital activity correlates to actual sales. As this information becomes available, they will increasingly embrace the pay-for-performance advertising model.

Undiscovered Riches in IP

In an age of commoditization and globalization, you might imagine companies would dig deep to find and exploit assets that yield sustainable differentiation. Among those assets, Intellectual Property may well be the next frontier. Companies are getting wise to the significant revenues that can be gained through patent and technology licensing. IP is moving out of the legal counsel’s office and into the corporate development arena. In fact, in the past 15 years, licensing revenues have burgeoned from $15 billion to $110 billion. To take it to the next level, companies will have to make their intellectual property both serve the business and be a business in its own right.

New Life for Tired Brands

Ford is attempting to revive the Taurus brand out of the ashes of the Five Hundred, and Proctor & Gamble is using Red Zone antiperspirants and deodorants to reposition Old Spice among teen males. Should and can old brands be revitalized? Have the attributes which once made the brands successful been eroded or been made irrelevant by competing brands? Are the products suffering from the poor opinion of its original customer base or poor awareness from new, potential customers? A proposed four-step Brand Vitality Assessment (which, no doubt, Uno Who could conduct) would provide the answers.

All in all, I rate this magazine a lucky find, one for which you might keep an eye out. You might also want to scour the back issues. Go to www.strategy-business.com. Of course, with Booz Allen Hamilton being a mega consultant, you should not expect a free lunch. Not while they’re trying to build the brand at any rate.

Every marketer has been taught about contact points, where stakeholders’ paths, direct or indirect, intersect with those of the company. It can be a trucker asking for directions, or a dealer following up on an order, or a consumer with a complaint, or a shareholder with a query. It can be opening your package or looking you up in the yellow pages. It can be reaching you – or not – on the phone, via e-mail or in person, at the door. For marketers, each point of intersection is vindication, at least, that something is working, and a valuable opportunity to make that something (and the relationship if nothing else) work better.

Too many companies underestimate – and therefore, under-resource (in manpower and funding) customer service in all its various forms. Time is money but, when it concerns customer service, the money is seen as spent rather than earned, outbound rather than inbound.

I once had a bright employee who was asked to coordinate shipments during a period of tight supply. Since we had cleaned out most of our inventory, we were operating on a just-in-time or, as we put it, on an as-needed basis. To keep all this transparent to customers, we had to keep one step ahead of them, knowing what their needs were before they did. This required constant tracking and communications, a maximum of effort and empathy for a minimum of 12 hours a day. It was reputation-making stuff and, precisely for that reason, this employee had a request – that her title did not include the words Customer Service, which would have devalued her role dramatically. When and how, I wondered, did this unfortunate devolution of customer service begin?

Branding is ultimately about how people see your company, its products and/or services. Customer service is what you do at that critical moment when people get to see your company as it really is. The two are inextricably linked. Companies that spend a ton of marketing dollars to build the brand should remember this.