The importance of deciding what to brand – the personal versus corporate versus product branding dilemma…

April 22, 2009 by

An incident occurred yesterday that got me thinking about the importance of branding.  At our company, like many I am sure, we often deliberate about “where to brand”.  Recently, there have been some great blog posts and great reads thinking through the question of personal versus corporate branding – the most recent of which I found compelling from a CEO who had tried to transition his personal brand into a corporate success.  If you look at some of the models out there – they would tell you that there is success at every level.

Before I go into the more recent of these examples, let’s look at the well known examples.  In terms of mixing personal and corporate branding, you need to look no further than Steve Jobs of Apple and Bill Gates of Microsoft.  Most people see this model and think – that is it!  But there there are other models which I think are very compelling.  For instance, look at IDG.  For the most part, what IDG has chosen to brand is the product – the business units and their solutions – not the personality and in many ways not even the parent company.  And then look at CNET – that is a corporate brand which has then inspired personality brands beneath – but always kept the branding at the corporate level strong and intact.  And finally, look at Rachel Ray and Martha Stewart – these are individuals who focused on building the personal brand and then leveraging that brand into a opportunity

So how does a CEO decide?

With the proliferation of social media, there is no question that personal branding is going to be an important part of every branding scenario.  To that end, I would suggest that CEO’s do not resist it for themselves or for their employees, but instead encourage it.  Ask as many employees as possible to blog, tweet, and promote their brand within the overall umbrella of the company and organization.

But then – there is a decision to make.  The decision, I think, comes down to three option – 1) Brand yourself as the leader or 2) Brand the company or 3) Brand the products and solutions you offer.  I would suggest that each CEO needs to decide a primary option and push on that.  Few of us, if any, can push more than one option and be successful without being diverted.  For me, all decisions need a clear focus and what I have focused most on it which will be the most effective in driving revenue and building value.  To that end, a CEO can look at each of these options and work through the if-then analysis – if I choose this path where will the organization be whereas if i choose that path where will the organization be.  With that in mind, the decision should rise to the top and be obvious to the CEO.

Are you thinking about branding?  Are you struggling with the personal versus corporate versus product branding dilemma?  What have you decided and why?

Filed Under: CEO Corner

What should McDonald’s do – what do you do when there is a public negative comment about your product??

April 15, 2009 by

I was debating in writing this morning’s post which of the two titles I should use for the post – so i decided to use both…  What should McDonald’s do? What do you do when there is a public negative comment about your product??

First let me set up the situation

Watching “Morning Joe” this morning (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/), they were announcing the anniversary of the launch of the first McDonald’s restaurant.  At that point, Willie Geist – (@WillieGeist1) – brought out a bag of McDonald’s breakfast food to “celebrate”.  He handed out certain pieces to each commentator.  At that point,  Mika Brzezinski – (@morningmika) – quickly said “No……” and refused to accept the food – citing that she would not eat it and “that food is bad…” (please note that these quotes are the closest to what I recall – not exact quotes but give the sentiment of the comment).  If that was not bad enough, when Joe Scarborough (@JoeNBC) starting eating a McDonald’s hash brown, Mika reached over, urged him to stop, and told him that “if he were to squeeze the hash brown he would see fat and grease oozing out”…

Now why do I care – what is the lesson

I wondered the same question to myself.  I have lots to worry about in my life – why did this bother me so much.  Then I realized, it caused me to think – what is the appropriate reaction when someone makes a blanket, public, negative comment about your product?  Any honest CEO will tell you that he / she has faced this problem at least once in his / her career.  Sometimes they are grounded in fact.  Other times, they are just perception – but perception that can drive a lot of momentum.  In business school we studied in earnest the Tylenol case – a case in which they reacted “quickly and decisively” to the scare surrounding the issues around their pills in the drug stores.  But we are also taught that sometimes ignoring the comment is the most effective solution.  So how do you decide?  Is it simply weighing the PR impact versus the opportunity and cost?  Is it weighing the character of the person who made the comment and deciding that way?  Also – has it changed now that social media and internet communications have become the backbone of viral communication?

So – what is the appropriate reaction when someone makes a blanket, public, negative comment about your product?

I think it is a combination of all of these that is factored into the decision as to what to do and how to act.  Most important, I think, is to look at the potential opportunity cost if the perception were to spread out of your control and also the opportunity to leverage this into a win for your organization.  To that end, if I were in McDonalds, I would seize upon this as an opportunity.  There is this perception out there that their food is bad as represented by Mika Brzezinski  on the show.  Most people are aware of it, and I am assuming that McDonald’s is as well.  To that end, why not capitalize on this poor exchange on TV to promote a new message about McDonald’s.  In essence, take this negativity, surround it with truths about the value of the product and what McDonalds offers, and create a strong and supporting viral campaign.  Here are some ideas -

  • Turn it into a fun but valuable YouTube video – with real people commenting on your product surrounding the comments by Mika Brzezinski.
  • Launch a web site talking about the experiences of real people who eat your food and why they think it is good
  • Search out experts who can comment about the menu you provide and why it is not “bad”
  • Stress the other items on your menu on this site that are healthier in nature
  • Stress the good things that McDonald’s does for the community – with a slogan as simple as “Are we that bad when we do so much good” (or something much more savvy than that…)
  • Use Facebook, Twitter, Myspace, and Youtube to your advantage to really rally people around your brand and your products – make this comment an example of the people who are driving tis mis-perception
  • And finally… offer a promotional program to people to have a coupon to get a hash brown for free or some very reduced price and encourage them to take a web video of themselves eating it and speaking “back to Mika”

In this day and age, the times have changed.  The proliferation of the internet and social media tools have afforded companies like McDonald’s to really launch into a viral campaign to send a message and drive its brand.  In a recent interview on Ellen, P. Diddy stated that he liked Twitter “Because it allowed him to talk to his people directly without filters”.  The same can be said for companies and their brands.  My recommendation is to take advantage of this and to leverage this negative “perception” comment into a strong and positive viral communications program.

Am I off?  Do you agree?  Should McDonald’s take another approach?

Filed Under: General Tagged With: ,

Communities or Channels – that is the question of the day…

April 10, 2009 by

 

Recently, I have been debating with Chris Brogan (www.chrisbrogan.com) – president of New Marketing Labs (www.newmarketinglabs.com) about the difference between communities and channels and which will be the future of internet communications.  While I believe “pure” communites have their place – particularly in social settings, I am becoming a firm believer that is the channels that are the true future of the Internet.

First – the definition

Before I explain my thinking, let me first explain the differentiation as I see it.  Communities, in their truest sense, are made up of a large number of equally important individuals meeting each other, sharing ideas, and communicating with and amongst each other.  While a community might havea community manager and / or a community leader, all people are – for all intents and purposes – treated equal.  Channels – on the other hand - still have many of the same aspects of community – the ability to communicate, comment, share ideas, and connect – but they are focused on a certain, designated group of content providers who formulate the thought leaders of the group.

Why I think Channels are the future…

With that definition in mind, here is my reasoning behind Channels over communities.  When communities were small and the sharing of ideas was concise, the ability to read all, identify the poignant ideas, and get the most value out of the community site was possible and very accomplishable.  But now, as communities have grown, it is becoming increasingly impossible to discern who is providing quality content and who one should read versus the noise of the larger community.  Take – for instance – Twitter.  While most Twitter users are following hundreds of people, they are truly only following a select few people and paying much looser attention to the others.  In fact, for new Twitter users – the first questions are always the same – who should I follow – who is worth listening to.  They are readily admitting that while they will follow many, they will only listen to some.   The same is true in most other community sites where the numbers are sizeable.

Is this a new phenomenon?

I would argue – it is not.  For those of us who used to read the newspaper (and those who still do) – is this not a channel?  By choosing which newspaper to read, were we not choosing who was “important to listen to”?  And for those who watch TV – are we not making that choice all the time?  Yes.  It is not different.  In fact – even in our social lives and school lives – we chose – amongst all of the people we have met – who to spend time with – who to share ideas with – who to “listen to”.

So why is this important?

I believe it to be important for the following reason – as everyone is trying to figure out the new communications mechanism that are arising with the proliferation of social media and social platform tools – those that choose to create these platforms and tool with a channel-centric perspective will emerge victorious.  Their content will be considered the most useful, their site the most valuable, and their business the winners.

Filed Under: General Tagged With: , , , ,