Branding Strategy Insider

Brand Building: Fear Decisions By Committee

 
In his autobiography, “Confessions of an Advertising Man," legendary advertising pioneer David Ogilvy, tells how he was once invited to a corporate meeting to compete for a major account. When he entered in the chairman’s board room, the chairman said, “Mr. Ogilvy, we are interviewing several agencies. You have exactly fifteen minutes to plead your case. Then I will ring this bell and the next agency waiting outside will follow you.”

Ogilvy quickly asked: “How many people will be involved in the decision?”

“The twelve members of the Committee here today,” replied the chairman.

"Ring the bell!" Ogilvy said, and walked out.

David Ogilvy understood the perils of decision by committee. He knew that this approach to decision making often failed.

In behavioral science, there is a well-documented propensity for small committees to drift toward "extreme" decisions, that is, a group of individuals acting as a committee often makes a decision that none of the individuals acting alone would make, given the same information. Yet, even with this insight decisions are made this way everyday.

Brand Strategy: Win By Creating New Value

Many marketing people are obsessive about the urgent work of competing rather than the more important work of creating.

Brand owners and managers are busy people! They’re busy everyday in back-to-back-meetings. They’re under increasing pressure to create more revenue, and get more stuff done as cost effectively (cheap) as possible. They’re thinking about supply-chain logistics, product development, pricing, channel strategy, promotions, customer service and their competitors.

Managers are hyper-focused on their marketing ROI– the urgent metrics executive management values most and forms the basis of reward and compensation. It’s easy to see why the focus is on the urgent rather than the important. Only a select few of enlightened marketers are afforded the luxury of paying much attention to the more important work– creating!

One of the important principals we hold near and dear in our brand strategy practice needs to be mentioned:

Tis better to create new value than compete for the value created by others.

Why on earth do really smart people invest tens of millions of dollars bringing me-too products to market?  It makes no sense at all, yet it happens all the time in every product category.

Why Clients And Their Ad Agencies Behave Badly

Why is the client/ad agency relationship so complicated and fraught with drama on both sides? 

Seemingly, the business relationship between clients and their marketing agencies seem to have ever-shorter life spans. True enough, the marketing game is a tough business for all concerned. Lately things seem to be more cantankerous between clients and their agencies. Both are behaving badly these days.

If you’re on the client-side, have you been subjected to these poor ad agency behaviors?

The agency won your business with principals and senior talent then turned the real work over to junior-level (more-profitable) people.

In pitching your business, the agency presented creative work produced by creatives who no longer work at the agency.

In pitching your business the agency claimed expertise they didn’t have.

The agency intentionally low-balled fees to win your business, then made up for it in future ‘out-of-scope’ or “mission-creep” billings.

Account planning made recommendations weighted to those marketing channels driven by profit to the agency rather than results for you.

Or perhaps you’re the Principal of an ad agency, have you ever experienced these soul-sucking client moves? 

Are You Left-Brained Or Right-Brained?

Marketing and management are at war in today’s boardrooms.

The reason for the war is that marketing and management don’t understand each other. The reason they don’t understand each other is that their brains are different.

Management people tend to be left-brain thinkers: they are verbal, logical and analytical.

Marketing people tend to be right-brain thinkers: they are visual, intuitive and holistic. Which one are you? Are you Left-Brained or Right-Brained?

This short quiz will reveal the answer, giving you a better sense of 'where you are' in the room.

Sponsored By: Brand Aid

David Ogilvy On Creating The Ideal Agency Culture

Advertising legend David Ogilvy left us with more than what it takes to make great advertising. He also shared a clear direction on how his employees -- his people -- should be treated. Please take a moment today and think about the agency, consultancy -- corporate culture you are creating or influencing. Then read David Ogilvy's thoughts below on creating the ideal culture. Are his values alive where you work?

1) We treat our people like human beings. We help them when they are in trouble—with their jobs, with illnesses, with alcoholism, and so on.

2) We help our people make the best of their talents. We invest an awful lot of time and money in training—perhaps more than any of our competitors.

3) Our system of management is singularly democratic. We don’t like hierarchical bureaucracy or rigid pecking orders.

4) We abhor ruthlessness.

5) We like people with gentle manners. Our New York office goes so far as to give an annual award for what they call “professionalism combined with civility.”

Agency Decisions: Good Morale Or Bad Clients?

Bad clients can try your soul. Ever had one? Have one now? There are times when you must persevere for the health of the company. And times when you must resign the account for the health of the company.

In the early 1930's Ray Rubicam found himself at these crossroads. Young & Rubicam served the extremely large Pall Mall account of the American Tobacco Company. The owner of American Tobacco, George Washington Hill (Pictured), was notorious for badgering those who were unfortunate enough to do his advertising. The relationship between George Hill and Young & Rubicam grew so strained that Rubicam decided it would be in the best interest of the agency to forfeit the $3 million account. (Hill wanted Rubicam to replace his creative team) Rarely has the news of a large business loss met with such a sigh of relief at an advertising firm. The $3 million loss was seen as well worth the boost in morale.

While much in advertising is hard to measure, the emotions of your people are quite telling. Is sacrificing morale for business good business?

No.

Put your people first.

Sponsored By: Brand Aid

Consumers Desire Authenticity In Advertising

We’ve seen it and heard it a thousand times – the flawless model posing in an ad for facial-blemish cream... an extremely powerful cleaner that removes every trace of dirt in one effortless wipe... the picture-perfect baby modelling the 100% waterproof diaper. In these scenarios, there’s not even a hint of a single red spot, a stubborn stain, or a bedraggled mother. This is the story of the past 50 years of commercials, and they all have one thing in common – they all feature perfect brands in perfect environments. En masse, we all must believe what we see, or do we?

Take for example the most watched videos on YouTube. Most are by amateurs whose work looks amateurish. We watch reality shows on television, and despite all predictions that they’re on their way out, they keep inventing ever-new situations.

Some months ago a major European cosmetic brand was forced to cut costs. They were not alone, but the only way they could do this was by reducing the length of their TV commercials. They aimed to cut their regular 90-second spots down to 30 seconds. The big dilemma they faced was which scenes should be cut out? Instead of taking the conventional route – opinions and guesswork – they used a neuro-scientific tool based on EEGs whereby brainwaves of consumers were measured and evaluated. By scientifically analysing the commercials they were able to assess which scenes were the most emotionally engaging.

In Search of Brand Accountability

Many departments within a corporation will argue the need for accountability in marketing, but none steps forward to take ownership of how to account for brand equity.

Theoretically, the CEO is responsible for the value of the corporate brand. Unfortunately, it is a rare CEO who understands how brand equity value is created. CEOs would love to see their company prosper but few understand how to take command or utilize the tools available to make it so.

The CFO properly challenges the high costs of marketing today because there is no standard for accounting for the profitable return on investment for brand building activities. In the world of the CFO, marketing is ONLY seen as an expense without any direct connection to ROI. Thus, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

CMOs would be wise to step forward to take command of brand marketing accountability. Many would argue that they have done so, but attempts to date to create a unified set of standards have been anemic. Most attempts to build accountable ROI bridges to the CFO or CEO have been misunderstood or at the least unrequited.

Senseless Marketers: Breaking The UnBroken

Marketers really are morons. While workers in other disciplines build their knowledge base carefully over decades, our industry seems intent on destroying its most fundamental concept in an attempt to replace it with something new.

Take Forrester, the US research giant, and its latest thought piece: 'Adaptive Brand Marketing: Rethinking Your Approach in the Digital Age'. In my opinion, it's a disgraceful publication. It's not that I disagree with many of the points made in the piece; it's the way it recommends the wanton obliteration of some of the central concepts of marketing as a purportedly sensible response to the challenges of digital marketing.

According to the report, the term 'brand managers' should be replaced with 'brand advocates'. What a load of unhelpful bollocks. We have spent 70 years establishing the term 'brand manager' as a commonly accepted and respected function within many organisations. Just as we get there, Forrester wants to knock it all down and replace it with a fluffier, camper alternative.

Imagine if chartered accountants suddenly decided to rename themselves 'personal levy advisers' or firemen rebranded themselves as 'incendiary technicians'. You'd expect an outcry from embarrassed professionals keen to hold onto their identity.

Not so from marketers. Advertising Age actually supported Forrester's suggestion, with an article entitled 'Why it's time to do away with the brand manager'.

Forrester wasn't finished there. Its report also suggested changing the four Ps from product, price, place and promotion to 'permission, proximity, perception and participation'. Can I add a fifth? Pointless.

The Chief Marketing Officer – A New Boardroom Role

The Chief Marketing Officer (CMO) has become one of the more commonly talked about corporate designations in recent years. Given the tremendous marketing potential offered by the new media and proliferation of distribution channels, companies have begun to realize the huge potential of marketing in guiding corporate level strategies and substantially contributing to the financial bottom line. In spite of such an understanding, it is startling to note that the average tenure of a CMO is merely 23 months compared to a CFO that typical lasts 4-5 years on average.

Further, not many companies have a senior marketing representative in their C-suite. This begs the question – do companies need a CMO or is the role of a CMO a mere hype? This article probes this question and offers companies some guide posts for better strategic directions. 

Why do companies need a Chief Marketing Officer? 

As the business landscape evolves, marketing also evolves into an organization wide strategic discipline. Given marketer’s knowledge of the customers, it is imperative that the CEO and the corporate board have a representative of the customer to continually educate them. Additionally, companies need a strategic CMO to benefit from: