This strategy is not wholly without merit. Nor is the Poison Apple (let-someone-else-take-the-first-bite) strategy. Let others do the development work in the lab and the pioneering work in the field; once the product has proven itself but before it becomes established, swoop in with a clone and nifty marketing that ostensibly shows differentiation and you’re set. You have to be quick, however. An aggressive pricing strategy would also help but, generally, that was not our way. We were always about value-added, if not value-creation.

The Drivers

In the evaluation of new product potential, success was measured against a set of criteria. We would ask the tough questions: Does the new product play off existing strengths and to existing customers? Is it easily explainable (and, therefore, marketable)? Does the potential return justify the investment required? Clearly, incremental improvements, line extensions and value-added me-too products, which leverage existing brands and customer loyalty, would more likely give yes answers to these questions.

One study of 11,000 new product launches conducted by Kuczmarski & Associates (a Chicago-based management consulting firm specializing in accelerating growth through innovation) listed the primary motivations for launching new products. In order of importance:
-    Attract a new customer or market;
-    Gain or maintain a competitive advantage;
-    Retain customers;
-    Fill a growth or profit gap;
-    Arrest margin erosion;
-    Utilize new technology.
All but the last could be accomplished without adopting ‘risky’ innovation strategies.

In a business with small margins, a success rate of 10-15% for new products is unacceptable. And that’s after the cost of trials and errors getting past the development stage and finally to market test in the first place. Or is that second place. At any rate, market testing is far from foolproof and not universally accepted as the perfect way to go.

This includes market testing new merchandising concepts.

The Best Buy Example

In the September 15, 2008, issue of Marketing magazine, Lesley Young reports on Best Buy’s recent penchant to skip a step (ref. Launching Pad) when initiating new retailing options. Its new Best Buy Mobile mall store concept, for example, went straight to market launch.

Test marketing and launch marketing use basically the same techniques. But tests can eat up time (3-6 months) and save little on costs compared to, say, a true, though geographically-restricted launch. As well, with increasing ethnicity and socio-economic diversity blurring demographics, and with the spillover of regional media diffusing erstwhile targeted messages, there are few perfect test markets available anyway.

Best Buy also created Geek Squad departments inside their stores without testing. They found, probably to no one’s surprise, that the techies were as valuable on-site as they were on the road.

Again, back to my own experience, we found that segment-specific marketing was almost fail-safe as direct-to-launch programs. Of course, in-house specialists worked with customers during the entire design process so that we always knew we were on-target.

At the end of the day, despite all the budget and time restrictions, you’ve got to get results. If you are not introducing a whole new technology, market tests do not circumvent the restrictions, nor do they guarantee the results. The merits of the product or service, the simplicity of the message, and excellence in the execution of the launch will be the determining factors of success.

Last point: I referred several times to the issue of explainability. Will people ‘get’ the new product or program? Can the marketing message be simply defined and easily delivered? It is extraordinarily difficult to change people’s perceptions or habits. I would never consider launching a true innovation or a new technology (which tend to do both) without market testing first. There is a right time and place for everything.

In the Knowledge@Wharton case, the stimuli for discussion were executive hires at financial megalosaurs Merrill Lynch and Citigroup. Stanley O’Neal (Merrill) and Charles Prince (Citi) were asked to leave their respective companies subsequent to the mortgage securities fiasco. In December, John Thain, CEO of NYSE Euronext and a former president of Goldman Sachs became Merrill’s chairman and CEO. Citi, however, went inside, tapping Vikram Pandit. Then again, Pandit was hired by Prince just a few months earlier so he barely qualifies as an insider; he was Citigroup’s investment banking head before his new appointment.

(Subsequently, Merrill was acquired by Bank of America. Pandit, meanwhile, faces major restructuring challenges at Citi; check out Gary Weiss’ article in the September issue of Portfolio magazine.)

The Wharton discussion takes place at two levels: the issue of going inside or outside in key executive searches and the importance of succession planning in general.

CEO Selection

The selection of CEOs is as much a politically-motivated, risk-mitigating, investor-sensitive decision as anything. Boards, like those at Merril and Citigroup, go outside to let the investment community know that they recognize there are internal problems and that a change in direction – and a changing of the guard – is merited. It would be impossible to advance anyone associated with the old regime.

It is risky (Wharton’s words) to bring in someone at the height of a crisis. There’s a huge learning curve to understanding a company’s strategy and culture. A CEO who comes in from the outside is very dependent for information from and vulnerable to the perspective of those left …an irony in itself.

But what about lower level executive positions? The consensus seems to be that this is the most appropriate level for leadership training and succession planning because this is where the likelihood of selecting internal candidates is highest.

Indeed, Peter Cappelli, management professor and director of Wharton’s Center for Human Resources feels it is better to focus on skills improvement in general than to groom people for specific positions. “I don’t think the idea ought to be to develop people for a particular job,” Cappelli says, “because the odds of using them in that way are pretty small. Both the person and the job have to be lined up too exactly for that to happen.”

Unfortunately, despite the supposed emergence of workforce planning, most firms seem to have abandoned the systematic management of talent, not only as a priority but as a core human resources activity.

Planning Pros and Cons

They argue that businesses operate in fast-paced, highly-competitive, increasingly-global environments; it, therefore, only makes sense to access the broadest base of talent available when seeking specialized skills and technical knowledge. The internet makes tapping into this base easier and faster than ever. To boot, the needed skills and knowledge can be acquired on a contractual basis, reducing long-term overhead cost commitments. Finally, bringing in new talent at all levels on an ongoing basis maintains freshness and brings to the organization new perspectives needed in an ever-changing world.

On the other hand, I would argue that a company should be diligent in maintaining and leveraging the intellectual capital of its organization. I have always been a big believer in the value of experience, codified process knowledge, and intellectual property (brands, trademarks, patents and licences). These are all best home-grown.

I also believe that self-fulfilment, not self-gratification, is the prime motivator of success. There is no better motivator of people – especially in the upper levels of a company – than the opportunity for advancement. It is, of course, an opportunity that must be earned, not given. But developing talent coincident with the strategic mid- and long-term needs of the company, enhancing leadership and management skills, and substantively encouraging upgrades in education to ensure employees are fully-conversant with the latest technologies are all cost-beneficial.

Finally, rather importantly, stuff happens. People resign, retire, become ill. Some fail to adapt to changing circumstances, management, or technology. Assuming their responsibilities cannot be reassigned – a big assumption – they must be replaced. Without diminishing the value of and need for new blood, there is also value in and need for continuity, connectivity (relationships with stakeholders) and chemistry.

Whatever their approach, companies should take as much of the drama out of the succession process as possible. Employees – especially senior ones – should understand their respective company’s policies going in and their own potential for growth on an ongoing basis. That their company goes inside or outside to fill the CEO position - or any management position, for that matter - should never come as a surprise.

Unfortunately, I hit a roadblock. At the end of May, shortly after posting my last entry to View from the Corner Office, I suffered a serious heart attack. Heart failure and subsequent surgery, which included – or should I say concluded with – the severing of two arteries, set me back in a significant way.

As a result, I have not posted for almost three months. This is a shame since this site was gaining traction and an audience of significant geographic breadth.

I will return, however, within a few weeks. I would ask you all to be patient for just a bit longer. Check your RSS feed for when the next post arrives. For some reason, I can see an entry on succession planning. In the meantime, be sure to review past entries.

Again, I apologize for the break; it will, hopefully, be my last for a long while. Thank you for your patience and understanding.

According to legend, a short while after the OMM became a phenomenon, the good doctor went through some personal stuff. He created the story of Who Moved My Cheese? to help him deal with a difficult change in his life, “learning”, say the promos “how to take his changing situation seriously without taking himself seriously” and, eventually, turning a negative into a positive.

Who Moved My Cheese? is a simple story about two guys and two mice and how they had to deal with cheese being moved around in a maze. Two decades after the story was created, Who Moved My Cheese? was finally published. It became a #1 international bestseller, with one million hardcover copies in print within the first sixteen months and over ten million copies within the next two years.

Cheese Wiz

Critics of the book say that the story is simple enough for a child to understand and that it insults their intelligence. Simple it is. And insulting it is. Even allowing for the child-like drawings of cheese (you know… Swiss-style wedges with holes) that are strategically placed as filler between thoughts, there is not enough substance here to fill a… well… a ham and cheese sandwich.

The author claimed that it is not what is in the story of Who Moved My Cheese? but how you interpret it and apply it to your own situation that gives it value. I hope so, because there is virtually nothing in the story. If you are determined to part with a twenty, find a homeless person in the street and hand it over. Look closely at both your circumstances and see if you come away with anything of value. It is likely you will and, best of all, the twenty you part with is almost assuredly money better spent than had you bought the cheese book.

Cheese is touted as the world’s #1 book on change and Johnson the world’s #1 business author. Ridiculous hyperbole…unless you are referring to sales $. Then it’s just ridiculous.

Here’s the Poop

We move from the paper thin veneer of pop business culture to the thicker one of poop culture. Kirk Weisler, who is managing to carve himself a neat career as a motivational speaker, also draws from real life in his narrative, The Dog Poop Initiative.

The ‘essence’ of the story, done in rhyme, is that a dog poops on a soccer field. Coaches, refs and little tykes play around it. Finally, one coach takes the initiative and picks up the offending lump. To quote, “The Scoopers take the initiative and are the ones who lead the way. They make the field a better place for all the rest to play.” There you have it. All of it. Leadership in a nutshell, so to speak.

At least the drawings are cute.

I admit to having attitude. But then I also admit to having standards. I probably shouldn’t be so crotchety about this thing, but I believe that if business people are going to commit valuable time and hard-earned money to reading, they should be rewarded with substance, something that passes for original insight, and at least a smidgeon of scholarship.

I’ve nothing against best-sellers. But spend the time with those who’ve taken the time. You want to change your life? Try Stephen Covey. You want to change your company? Read Jim Collins. There are just too many good books, serious writers and deep insights out there to waste your time on poorly written pap put out by cynical publishers.

There is a story worth telling that speaks to the trickle-down effect. One plain-talking CEO I knew, during a break in a tough round of labor negotiations, decided to get personal. He dropped in on the union leadership and told its members that while the company was owned by shareholders, the plant they were representing ultimately belonged to the workers. The Board was far away. He, as CEO, would likely move on in one year, three years, maybe five at the outside. But most of the workers had been with the plant for decades and few were about to leave any time soon. They had helped build it and they had made it run through the good times and bad.

If these negotiations were to lead to a shutdown, he told them, a strike would impact their future and the future of their families far more than it possibly could him. They had few options now and would have fewer options were the plant to close. In the current environment and with outsourcing now an economically and politically viable option, a shutdown – and even permanent closure – was a real possibility. This little chat was a break in protocol; there were certainly all sorts of reasons why it was a bad idea. At the very least, it could be construed as a threat. I knew this CEO, though. It wasn’t a threat; it was a plea.

As it happened, the union missed his point. The employees walked out. The company then kept them out long enough for it to really hurt.

I tell this story not to decry union tactics in this particular case…or in any other, for that matter. It is not meant as a commentary on the GM/UAW negotiations…which just happened to be mentioned in the first Chaos Theory post. I relate this story because this particular CEO was stating what I have learned over the years to be an important truth. As the economy slowly but steadily sinks, companies will – as they must – rationalize their operations. Plants will close. Workers will lose their jobs. Their fates are inextricably tied. And so, when it comes, the wave will swamp not just the plant, but its workers and their families. The chaos will have become very specific before it inevitably becomes general.

Well before the nuclear blast that was the sub-prime mortgage fiasco, well before the subsequent fall-out spreading like Mt. St. Helen’s ash over the U.S. economy, there were troubling signs. One by one, we were seeing the elements fall into place for a perfect storm.

We focus on the super novas, like the JPMorgan acquisition of Bear Stearns Cos that sent analysts into a tailspin, but what I have found most worrisome are plant closings being announced with unsettling relentlessness and regularity.

There are the biggees. General Motors, for example, has a plan to close or eliminate shifts in a dozen plants as part of a plan to cut 30,000 hourly jobs in the U.S. and Canada by the end of 2008. The controversial agreement recently signed with the United Auto Workers union not only sanctions the closings, but lays the groundwork for drastic wage cuts and opens the door to further unsettling moves.

And then there are the smaller, less known punches to the economic gut. Pilgrim’s Pride, the largest chicken processor in the U.S., is closing a chicken processing complex and six of its 13 distribution centers. The catalyst is soaring feed-ingredient costs resulting from a surge in corn-based ethanol production.

This post is not going to question the corporate strategies that hinge return to profitability on cost-cutting. That is an issue for another day. What I do wish to point out here is that none of these cuts occur in isolation.

As the Pilgrim’s Pride closings indicate, downstream effects, near invisible to the untrained eye, are taking their toll. The chaos theory applies to the economy. With oil profits soaring in a way that gives additional bite to the term ‘crude’, refiners are investing in cokers and other technology to maximize their yield from each barrel . High value extractions like ethanol are being favored in the refining process. As we have seen, this hurts the chicken industry, for one. It also means that the availability of Bunker C (heating oil) as well as paving and roofing asphalt will be diminished and that their costs will also rise dramatically. And, with the rules of supply and demand being adhered to with religious fervor, the cost of natural gas and other oil alternatives will most assuredly keep pace. Plant operating costs will continue their upward trajectory.

The escalating cost of gasoline has, of course, been especially hard on truckers, who also have to contend with reduced backhauls in a downturn economy. To say nothing of regulatory changes and enhanced security measures. For trucking companies to survive, they will have to pass on these costs and inconveniences to customers. Logistics will prove an increasingly troublesome challenge.

With the housing bubble burst and demand for building materials down dramatically, we have seen the shutdown of numerous lumber and OSB (Oriented Strand Board or waferboard) mills. With the closure of sawmills, there are less wood chips available. There is also less recycled paper available thanks to, among other things, increased consumption by the Chinese. The combination makes things tough for manufacturers of LDF wall board and MDF furniture who have also been hit by the downturn in housing expenditures. This downturn is, of course, related to the mortgage mess and the resultant tightening of credit. It is also a reflection of growing consumer nervousness engendered by continuing bad economic news, including plant closures.

And so on.

There is an intertwining of relationships between industries and a cascading of effects as a result of each change in any one industry’s fortunes. We can see the overall impact of all these linkages, but the subtleties are not as obvious as they are telling.

Remember those lines from Paul Simon’s The Sound of Silence? Obviously, he had been to one too many company meetings.

A quick corner-of-the-napkin calculation says that I have survived in the range of 7,000 meetings over the course of my career. Somewhere around the 4,000 mark, I figured things out. You might think, therefore, that I’m slow but, hey, I was in a meeting.

So, here is one veteran’s Top 10 take-aways on meetings and facsimiles thereof.

1. Meetings are neither good things nor bad things. But, depending on your objectives, they can be necessary or unnecessary things. So when you are planning a meeting, begin by asking yourself these questions: Why have a meeting at all? Can we achieve what we need more efficiently and more effectively in another way?

2. What kind of meeting is this going to be? Brainstorming sessions are not the same as information sessions are not the same as planning sessions. The objectives are different; therefore, the organization of the meetings should be different, as should their participants.

3. So, who should be invited? Only those that have to be. This is, apparently, not as obvious as one would imagine. The tendency is to invite everyone and anyone who is remotely attached to the issue at hand or remotely related to someone else who, by invitation or by chance, will also be at the meeting. There is more fear of insulting someone by leaving him or her out than there is of having the wrong people or too many people involved in the first place. This is not a quilting bee. The only people you should worry about insulting are the people who actually should be there; you don’t want to waste their time. Oh yeah, the maximum number of people at a meeting: seven.

4. There should be an agenda prepared for any meeting, no matter how small. If you deem an agenda superfluous, then so, likely, is the meeting. An agenda, sent out in a timely fashion, ensures people come to the meeting prepared and makes clear the purpose of the meeting and its desired outcome.

5. Meetings can easily meander, with conversations wandering off in different directions. There should be one key objective going in and one major accomplishment coming out…which is achieving the key objective. Get what you need out of a meeting or get out of the meeting. There has to be a single-mindedness about this. Anyone who is of two minds on the subject should not be invited and certainly not invited back. I am reminded of this line from comedian Fred Allen: A conference is a gathering of important people who singly can do nothing, but together can decide that nothing can be done. You’ve got one objective. Get it done.

6. To make sure there is no meandering, there should be a facilitator at every meeting. Most people assume that the chairman should play the role of facilitator; after all, it is the chair’s meeting. Wrong! You can’t play leader, scribe and facilitator at the same time. You may be the mouthpiece of the project, but you shouldn’t have to be its eyes and ears. The facilitator will make sure the meeting starts and ends on time, will keep the meeting on track (i.e., stay on topic), will stop side conversations, will ensure everyone gets a chance to speak, and will take notes so that no good idea gets lost. The facilitator is invaluable.

7. Everything comes to him who hustles while he waits. Apply his dictum from Thomas Edison to meetings…or, more precisely, to between meetings. People must meet their commitments, must do their assignments. I have seen teams energized and I have seen projects grind to a halt simply because someone did or did not complete a pivotal assignment. In other words, the between time is as important as the meeting time itself. You don’t want to have to have a meeting (as I have had) to agree that you agreed on something at your last meeting.

8. Be aware of each meeting’s dynamics, which really means, be aware of the people dynamics going on in each meeting. These change in dramatic but predictable ways when senior managers are present. It is important for managers to subordinate their ideas until others have had a chance to speak and that, if others speak, said managers do not shoot down or shrug off suggestions or even offer yes-but-wouldn’t-it-be-better-if improvements.

9. Meetings are to be survived and to do so sometimes means you’ve got to find a way to amuse yourself with the small things. I love whiteboards. I dislike laser pointers. I hate arrangements where table legs get in the way of mine. Speaking of legs, though, I have to admit to being a student of seating protocol. And seating habits. Where people sit is predictable and, as it turns out, inviolable. Okay, so the boss sits at the head of the table, opposite the drop-down screen. Others jockey for position and eventually sit where they sit. As time passes, you will notice that where they sit is where they always sit. Just as you will sit where you always sit. Seating is a security blanket, so if someone sits in someone else’s seat, there inevitably ensues a bizarre dance of the lost, a silly milling about. Like I said, be amused.

10. Lunches have become a staple of the North American meeting diet. Lunches meaning pizza and barbecue chicken. Not meaning tuna and bell pepper pockets. They say armies march on their bellies. So do meeting participants. Feed them wisely, which means that if the meeting continues after lunch, do not feed them too well. Nothing slows down a meeting like having all its participants take a communal nap.

So there you have it: 10 things to note for your next meeting of the minds.

There is no company that has too many good people. So, if you interview someone bright, ethical and enthusiastic, someone with a good work ethic, someone whose training matches the position you are seeking to fill and whose attitude is a perfect fit with the group he or she would be hired to join, go for it.

Hiring While De-Hiring

Companies take hiring especially seriously when they are in re-engineering mode. The ingress and egress of people come and go in turns; they must, therefore, be handled carefully so as not to get in each other’s way. But serious and cautious do not necessarily mean wise. Re-engineering sometimes gets in the way of intelligent thought and intelligent hiring. If a critical position needs to be filled, fill it. Quickly! I have seen companies stall hiring, saving salary and losing invaluable momentum in the process.

Inside Hiring Outside

I have been privy to numerous debates about hiring from within as being a virtue or a vice. One CEO said to me, “If a company cannot find anyone from within to fill a senior position, then management, starting at the very top, has failed”. I know of several Fortune 500 companies that move people up in spiral fashion, alternating between staff and operating positions. Others, however, see things differently. Companies, they say, need to refresh themselves, need to add new blood, new ideas, new energy. They see recycling employees as slowly grinding companies into mediocrity. I have even witnessed debates about what constitutes inside and outside. For example, how would you qualify a long-term temp being made permanent? Or the rehire of a former employee who has gained valuable experience elsewhere? Trust me, those competing for the position have very different – and not altogether generous - views of the issue.

Family Matters

Then there is the matter of hiring family. Generally, the more paternalistic the company, the more likely it is to hire employees’ relatives. Not surprisingly, this maximizes loyalty and minimizes turnover. Not surprisingly, those who prefer hiring from the outside see reasonable turnover as healthy and the lack of turnover ossifying. What is healthy? Between 5 and 10% annually. I am of two minds on the family issue. It should not prevent a hire, all things being equal. But, things are never quite equal. When family members are involved in anything negative (a layoff, for example), emotions will run somewhat higher than usual. Conversely, when family members do well, there is always a suspicion (even if there is not a hint) of patronage. Many companies would rather not take the chance. It’s a shame.

When Too Much is Not Enough

It is easy to understand why you wouldn’t risk hiring someone you believe is too junior for a position and likely not up to the job. It is more difficult to accept not hiring someone because they are too senior and likely to quit within six months because the job would not be enough of a challenge or provide enough opportunities for growth. Surprisingly, I have seen the second case occur more often than the first. The problem is clearly bigger than the people involved. If any job situation does not provide enough scope or latitude for growth, then the company is not worth the time applying to in the first place. Jobs must be clearly defined. Job situations, however, should never have boundaries set so tight that we cannot foresee growth, laterally or vertically, for quality people who are placed in them.

Running the Gauntlet

In some companies, even lower level hires are expected to meet a variety of difficult thresholds, to say nothing of a host of senior managers, before getting the nod. I find it strange bordering on the scary to force entry-level prospects to run a gauntlet of managers, with gusts up to vice-presidents, to get a job. They are repeatedly put on the spot, a spot that I imagine seems to them somewhere close to the guillotine. I can understand – and, in fact, always insisted on - the process for senior hires. I personally have interviewed over a dozen candidates for senior positions. But I can also recall the process once being used in a way that completely intimidated a wonderful candidate for a relatively low-paying clerical job. I must confess, though, I kinda sorta didn’t follow the process. In truth, I counseled the candidate on how to navigate the gauntlet, how to handle the pressure and the people involved. Perhaps I helped, perhaps my help wasn’t needed, but the candidate did just fine. And two years later is still doing fine, thank you very much.

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.