by Jay Miletsky

It’s been a bad summer.  More job losses, stagnant bank lending, uncomfortably hot temperatures…well, we can’t pin the humidity on the Obama administration.  But the rest of it lands squarely on his doorstep, and the continued failed policies that democrats have so rabidly supported.

Now, Obama is talking about another overhaul that proves exactly how out of touch a community organizer with no small business experience can actually be.  With the midterm elections right around the corner, Obama wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and use the $35 billion dollars in savings to help small businesses through a variety of means, including a potential payroll tax “holiday.”

As a small business owner for the past 15 years, I can safely say that no amount of tax cuts will incentivize me to hire a single employee.  Neither will any grants to invest in new technology, a reduction in capital gains or any other hair-brained schemes that might sound good on news talk shows, but have little real street-level value.  In fact, there’s only one thing that will make me hire more employees: more business.  Not just any business, but business from companies I can count on to pay their bills and pay them on time.  In other words, large, established companies.  But as long as those companies fear higher taxes and increased costs through ill-planned healthcare bills or other Obama-agenda items, they’re not going to spend the money that small businesses need to survive, succeed, and get back into the business of hiring.

If the government really wants to help small businesses, they should help big businesses first.  In other words, get the hell out of their way.  Reduce their taxes and stop de-incentivizing them to invest and spend.  Wealthy companies and individuals don’t typically like to stuff their money under their mattresses – they’d rather invest it and watch it grow.  Holidays from payroll taxes sound great, but I still have to afford to pay my employees’ salaries every two weeks, and therefore need to be sure that I’ll have the income coming in on a regular basis.  Let big businesses spend, and small businesses will be happy to start hiring again.

STEPHANIE AGRESTA – THE AGENCY PERSPECTIVE:

They do. In fact, according to an eMarketer report titled “More CPG Brands Tapping into Online Video,” more than 40 percent of all consumers want to make closer connections to the brands they use. If this is hard to swallow, it’s because our disbelief stems from a skewed view of the brand/consumer relationship. Too often, marketers view this relationship as only existing across a divide. For many, the relationship is defined as consumer versus brand in much the same way as we see Republican versus Democrat, conservative versus liberal, atheist versus believer. There’s a sense of contention between brands and consumers, largely because marketing’s job has historically been primarily to convince an otherwise skeptical consumer to take certain actions.

But social media changes that. In the social media space, it’s not about convincing, it’s about listening and engaging. That’s a radical shift in how brands and consumers relate to each other. Before social media, what were consumers’ options? They couldn’t talk back to the TV. Visits to corporate headquarters were out of the question. And toll-free numbers usually resulted in disinterested operators. Now, however, for the first time, consumers have a method for talking to the brands they use, sharing their ideas, their complaints, their compliments, and their observations in a way that gives them a voice and ensures they are being heard.

You may ask, “Okay, but how does that apply to every brand? After all, does anyone really wake up with a strong need to chat about KitKat bars?” The answer is, sure! Why not? That brand, like any other, introduces new flavors and variations, and runs promotions, contests, and advertisements. There’s plenty for people to talk to the brand about. And if the brand takes the time to start a conversation, that’s even more of a reason for consumers to start talking.

At the same time—and I know I’ve said this before—the relationship between consumers and brands isn’t always consumers talking to. Very often, it’s consumers talking about. Going back to the previous example, a quick Twitter search for KitKat shows that at any given minute, people are publicly discussing the brand in one way or another. Some just like to mention in passing that they’re in the mood for one. Some like to announce that they’ve just had one. Whatever the reason for the mention, the brand name is being discussed. Being involved— listening to what others are saying—can play a role in a brand’s marketing, customer service, and product development.

People are talking, and they’re talking about brands. What those brands decide to do about that can make all the difference.

B. BONIN BOUGH – THE BRAND PERSPECTIVE:

That’s a question for the ages. Now, to a degree, consumers already communicate with brands and identify themselves with and through brands. There are so many examples, I don’t need to go through any of them. The real question is, do consumers want to mass-communicate with brands? And I think the answer is no. They really want to communicate with each other. The more we can enable or add value to those interactions, the better chance we have of them actually participating with us.

There are, however, small percentages of consumers that do want to communicate frequently with brands. Advocates, brand evangelists, fanatics—whatever you want to call them, as you move up that funnel of consumer engagement, the highest value is found in this small group. Hence, NetPromoter and services in that area become so valuable.

The kind of energy you see in that advocate/fanatic category can be turned into co-creation, not just evangelism. The DEWmocracy program is a great example of that. The leadership of Brett O’Brien on the brand is what you read about in case studies. Talk about a person and a brand who knows the core consumer! Dew has an unbelievably loyal following. DEWmocracy leveraged that in developing three beverages in collaboration with the Dew community—and all three flew off the shelf. While I had no involvement with the program, I watched it roll out, and it really is textbook. At first, I wondered why they were limiting the initiative to such a small group of die-hard fans, but after seeing it evolve I understood the real pay-off was in the connection with their core consumer and in the product that was created as a result of the process. Instead of mass on the front, it is mass on the back end, and entirely aligned with the consumer because they created it. In the case of DEWmocracy 2, consumers are helping create everything, including the marketing.

Now, why consumers communicate with brands is probably better answered by a sociologist or psychologist than me. But tactically, from a digital perspective, it goes back to giving them a reason to participate, which is either enabling them to communicate or adding value. I know at this point it sounds very cliché, and I’m really sorry I’m bringing it up, but finding that value equation is essential for a successful program. Take what 1-800-Flowers is doing with their birthday Facebook app. Basically, they alert you when it’s one of your friends’ birthdays and provide a link to purchase a gift or flowers. What is so awesome about that is it adds value to relationships. What is also interesting is that it leverages data to deliver a tailored experience.

We are about to see an explosion of data-driven consumer-facing applications, which will be exciting and crazy at the same time. Data has already been leveraged to target and, in limited cases, to customize; but now we can cross-reference so many personalized profiles and data points that we can deliver, geotarget, connect, you name it. Look at Nike Plus and how revolutionary it has been in building networks of interest and connecting people with similar tastes. There are just so many profiles that exist of—and so much data generated by—people across the Internet that the potential to connect them is vast. It’s going to be a fun ride!

by Jay Miletsky

We all love a good train wreck.  Since the very first news broadcast, we’ve highlighted individuals who misbehave – clearly, there’s not a huge audience for positive, happy news about people helping their neighbors out with some random act of kindness.  Sure, once in awhile a story along those lines slips in somewhere, but they’re few and far between.  And that’s okay – we need to feed our inner beast.

But lately, entertainment has taken a dramatic turn, and leapfrogged past a very dangerous threshold.  Suddenly, instead of just observing bad behavior, we’re rewarding it.  The combination of hundreds of cable channels, 24 hour programming and the Internet has changed the fame game, so that the most outrageous behavior wins:

• Hard working people with real talent in their chosen industry are struggling to find jobs and make ends meet, but idiots like Mike the Situation and Snookie are making millions each year for public drunkenness, using people and being generally obnoxious.
• Steven Slater tells off a plane full of passengers, grabs some beers, deploys the emergency chute and slides down it in a dramatic exit from his job as a flight attendant with Jet Blue.  Instead of being regarded with contempt (the chutes are expensive to reload and could have been potentially dangerous to people on the ground), Steven has become a hero for the working man, and will be rewarded with his own reality TV show.
• The entire cast of The Real Housewives of New Jersey (who do not, in my opinion, represent Franklin Lakes, NJ, where I grew up), are simply awful people with little to offer to the world outside of overblown spending sprees and shallow, pointless, petty dramas with each other.  But nearly 4 million people tuned in to watch their reunion show in the hopes of seeing more shouting, screaming and fighting.  And there’s little question that the bitchiest of the bunch, Danielle, will get her own show within the next year.
• Heidi and Spencer.  ‘Nuf Said.
• Unwed, 16 years old and pregnant?  Congratulations!  We’ve got good news for you – your complete lack of responsibility qualifies you to allow Dr. Drew, the world’s most opportunistic doctor, to exploit you on MTV.  At one point, in the middle of the summer, as I was walking the dog through a nearby park, I heard a group of 15 or 16 year old girls talking about their boyfriends, and one of them actually said, “Oh my God, if I got pregnant, I would totally go on that show!”  That’s right – shoot for the stars, kid.  The promise of fame now gives you a good reason to be irresponsible.

I could go on, but really – why bother?  Slowly but surely, it seems as though the more civilized we get, the more barbaric we become.  Before we know it, audiences that appreciate thoughtful, skillfully produced entertainment will disappear completely, replaced by a nation of mindless voyeurs intent on watching the next set of out-of-control exhibitionists reap their overblown rewards.

Like I said, we all love a good train wreck.  It’s just a shame that we’re all aboard the train.

by Jay Miletsky

One of my favorite jokes has to do with the power of loyalty:

Q. How do you know that a dog is man’s best friend?

A. Lock your wife and your dog in the trunk of your car. Let them out an hour later and see which of them is still happy to see you.

Loyalty is one of the most powerful forces in the universe. It’s also the brass ring in branding: There’s nothing more valuable, but it’s extremely hard to grab. Why? Because a brand-loyal customer is revenue in the bank – and a disciple on the street.

Loyalty is derived from a mix of many different ingredients, each of which must be fully present for the magical formula to become – and remain – potent:

1. The brand needs to exist in a category the user cares about. For example, I’ll never be loyal to any brand of paper towel because, well, I just don’t particularly care about the category.
2. The brand needs to promise something that the market desires or requires.
3. The brand has to consistently fulfill its promise.
4. The brand’s personality needs to somehow reflect the personality of its market.
5. The brand needs to be true to its personality and not waver.

Notice that “price” and “accessibility” are not on the list. Consumers who are brand-loyal are largely indifferent to higher prices or accessibility issues.

Apple is perhaps one of the best examples of a company that commands tremendous brand loyalty. Even in the ’90s, before their ultra-hip ad campaigns and retail stores, Macs had reached an almost cult-like status. Back then, Macs were two, three, four, or more times more expensive than their PC competitors (they still are); more difficult to find; way more difficult to fix (good luck finding an Apple repair shop in the mid ’90s); and extremely limited when it came to compatible software (in your average 1995 computer store, past the gleaming white shelves jam-packed with PC programs, games, and applications, stood a single dusty, cobweb-covered shelf housing a few Mac programs-each a version or two behind). But Mac users knew a secret that their PC counterparts didn’t know: Their Macs were better. They were cooler, easier, more intuitive, and they were the anti-Microsoft-and nothing was going to get them to change their minds. Not price, not accessibility-nothing. That’s brand loyalty at its finest.

by Genevieve Smith

Welcome to my world. This could be a really complex discussion or a really simple one; I’m going to go with simple. Here’s the bottom line: Influential and effective managers generally manage business units or support groups that generate profit or cut expenses in a way that is material to a company’s bottom line. They’re hired because they have the necessary skills and knowledge to generate results and they can be held accountable for profits.

Managing these relationships is where brand management becomes an art much more than a science. Yes, you could create enterprise metrics and measures that demonstrate the brand effect to the bottom line—and you should do this no matter what, as we’ve discussed. The challenge for brand management in this situation is to demonstrate how the brand creates relevance and value for the influential manager and his or her business unit and bottom line.

The first thing you have to do is work with the manager to define “brand”—meaning brand as a core operation, not graphics, logos, or marketing—so you know you’re talking about the same thing. If, even after this discussion, the manager fails to get on board, a somewhat naughty but effective response is to ask that the dissenting manager rebrand his or her business unit and stop doing business under your brand if he or she doesn’t want to pay for the privilege (if you allocate brand expense) or doesn’t believe in the brand’s effectiveness. If this person really believes the brand has no value to his or her group, then he or she should be up for the challenge—but chances are he or she will see the light.

by Mike Hand

Is a risky concept worth trying if failure means potentially losing the account (or, for a marketing director, losing your job)?

Risk-taking is a major part of life and can bring tremendous rewards. It’s important to remember, however, that risk-taking can be extremely dangerous if the risk involves tampering with something that is currently working and if done without careful thought. Then again, risk-taking may also result in a huge win by driving incremental sales growth. So how do you assess whether a risk is “worth it” ? Before anyone can answer that, they need to ask themselves a few questions: How badly do they need the account and/or how badly do they need this particular job? Is the upside for the business really there? Are you the only one who sees it? Answer these questions, and then you can discuss whether the risky concept is truly worth pursuing.

While I’m all for taking creative risks and pushing the envelope, any campaign concept that is so risky it could actually jeopardize your livelihood or alienate your current user base might be pushing things too far. Some risks are just bad ideas that should be put back in the creative drawer, never to be seen or heard from again. The number of people who might be attracted to the idea could be totally eclipsed by the number of those who will be turned off. Some risks will result in only marginal impact, creating a minimal swing—but that doesn’t mean they aren’t worthwhile. The only real downsides in such cases are the loss of time and productivity from pursuing the effort; if more consumer insight was gained, then it was worthwhile. On the other hand, if the risk has the potential to drive large sales gains and increased consumer awareness with your only concern some potential media backlash, that’s not a risk at all. Go for it!

If you believe an idea is extremely strong and has major upside potential, you might propose a market test to see how things go. But realize that within hours of the test, your biggest competition in the segment will be fully aware of it—thus removing the element of surprise and allowing your rival to prepare for any potential national rollout in the near future. Your idea will instantly become public knowledge, making the concept ripe for the taking.

The bottom line? Be willing to make a mistake and go after big opportunities. Too many companies are mired in short-term thinking and are foolishly risk averse. Go change your corner of the world—just don’t act carelessly with your brand equity.

by Jay Miletsky

Like many people, I keep Tweetdeck on in the background while I work, and occasionally glance at it to see if anything interesting happens to pop-up.   Aside from Friends, Mentions and DMs, I have columns for #marketing and #branding viewable, and over the past few months I’ve noticed certain recurring trends in these topics that are just slightly less irritating than sticking hot pokers into my eyes and twisting them, slowly.

So here they are, in no particular order, and I would love to find out if I’m the only one out there bothered by these things, or if there are others out there who feel the same way:

1. The Brand Haters: “I have an idea – instead of getting involved in a real discussion about branding, I’ll tweet something absolutely ridiculous, like branding has jumped the shark, or Unbrand everything – branding is pointless.” I can only guess that’s what goes through these idiots’ minds each time they write something like that.  Wow, aren’t you just the rebels!  Clearly, the brand-haters see themselves as ultra-hip and unaffected by capitalist evils, but the truth is they’re just uninformed and out of touch with reality.
2. The Broken Records: Seriously, enough with the personal branding crap already.  Over and over and over again, my Tweetdeck is besieged by these zealots who are practically giddy about the idea that individuals can brand themselves.  So here it is…wait for it….: individuals can brand themselves. Happy?  Can we move on now?  If you really understood the concept of “branding” then you know that “personal branding” doesn’t have to be treated like its own religion.
3. The Sheep: It’s amazing how many people take the word “follow” too literally.  The Twitter sheep have little of their own to contribute – instead, they wait breathlessly for their online heros to make a statement, and then they rush to retweet the hell out of it.  Newsflash for the army of Schawbelites: more than half of what Dan Schawbel says either doesn’t make any sense, or is amazingly basic.  But that doesn’t matter – I don’t even think the sheep bother to read it.  Apparently, retweeting it is enough.  “Hey!  Dan says the days of Facebook and Twitter as marketing platforms are over.  Wow, that must be true!  I have to retweet that!!”  I have nothing against retweeting something you believe in and agree with, but…UGH!!  The sheep!
4. The One-Tweet-Wonders: The one-tweet-wonders are individuals that seem to have a sudden marketing or branding-related epiphany that clearly nobody has ever thought of before.  No link, no reference to a blog.  Just a simple, usually uninspired statement, like Branding is the building of reputation. Really?  Thank you, guru, that was very profound.  You may now resume your seated position at the top of the mountain.
5. The Easily Amused: I’m amazed at the staying power of this one simple graphic – an illustration depicting the difference between advertising, marketing and PR (for reference: http://bit.ly/c82oMv).  For the last few weeks, I’ve seen this image appear on an number of site and retweeted endlessly as though it were a brand new idea, and an extremely clever one at that.  Well, it’s definitely not new – I included a version of this same graphic in my college text book Principles of Internet Marketing over two years ago, and I know that I had seen it somewhere else long before that.  And it’s certainly not that clever.  Maybe on par with a decent knock-knock joke, but that’s about it.  Please, people, move on!

I understand that being on Tweetdeck is a lot like walking through Times Square on Saturday night – there are going to be all types of people there, some normal, some nice, some obnoxious and rude.  And if you’re going to be there, then you have to accept everyone, or at least put up with them all.  But the people I appreciate the most on Twitter are the ones with original thoughts, who are real, personable, and have something of value to share.

By Jay Miletsky

As I was flying down to Dallas for a meeting earlier this week, I was half-heartedly flipping through the US Airway’s in-flight magazine when a short but interesting article caught my eye.  It was a reprint of an article from the Harvard Business Review, about whether or not social networking can actually show any measurable results when it comes to brand building and marketing.  What made it interesting (other than the results), was that they didn’t focus on a major brand, which would make for a more obvious case study.  Instead, they focused on a smaller company called The Dessert Factory – a Houston-based bakery and café chain.

According to the report, journalists Utpal M. Dholakia and Emily Durham sent a poll to The Dessert Factory’s 13,000-plus e-mail database and received a bit over 600 responses back.  They then launched a Facebook Fan page, invited their customers to become fans, and spent the next three months regularly updating the page with pictures of desserts, info on the people who worked at The Dessert Factory, sales, contests and promotions.  At the end of the three month trial period, they re-sent the original poll, this time getting back over 1,000 responses from people who were fans on Facebook, people who weren’t fans on Facebook and people who didn’t use Facebook at all.  After comparing data between the two surveys, the results were eye-opening to say the least.

Across the board, it appeared that a simple Facebook Fan page was able to positively affect consumer behavior.  People who were fans of The Dessert Factory visited the stores 20% more often, were more likely to go out of their way to visit The Dessert Factory as opposed to a competitor, spent a larger portion of their dining budget at the chain, were more likely to recommend the brand to friends and family, and on a four point scale felt a stronger emotional bond to the brand than did those who were not fans.

It’s a great study that makes a strong case for the benefits social networking can have, even for smaller brands.  But it did make me wonder why.  After all, people could find specials and promotions in their local newspaper.  They could enter contest in the outlets themselves.  They could see plenty of dessert images on the company’s Web site.  So why would a fan page alone be able to make such a dramatic difference?

The reason is the inherent buy-in.  Not to over-simplify, but there is power in the word “fan.”  Assuming technology stayed the same, if Fan pages were instead named Awareness pages, for example, it’s unlikely the Harvard Business Review study would have yielded such positive results.  There’s a distinct difference between being a fan of a brand, and being aware of one.

The Fan page has taken what had previously been a vague concept – brand loyalty – and made it visible.  And once it’s visible, it becomes actionable.  By listing themselves as fans, consumers publicly proclaim their brand loyalty, increasing their incentive for demonstrating this loyalty by actively supporting it through increased purchases and more aggressive word-of-mouth.  Facebook has transformed what was once a quiet – and often subconscious – relationship and given it tangible value.

For any company, regardless of size or industry, achieving true loyalty is the gold standard in consumer/brand relationships.  With a Facebook Fan page strategy in place, brands can not only increase this loyalty, but give consumers an opportunity to proclaim it – helping turn positive experiences with favorite brands into real revenue.