In thinking about the post my colleague Karl recently shared on the importance of culture I couldn’t help but ask myself, “how about vision?”  Culture is critical in successfully connecting brands with customers, but we have to recognize that the long-term vision for the organization and its brand(s) are what shape culture.  Not having a clear vision and applying it across the organization will result in cultural differences that lead to external and internal misalignments such as the ones that Karl spoke about.

And before you dismiss vision or mission statements as consultant speak or items that only appear on a company’s website or in an annual report, consider brands like Apple, Old Spice, Samsung, and Xerox.  These are leading organizations that used redefined brand visions as the catalyst to achieve newfound success, turnaround their failing businesses, and reposition themselves as brand leaders.

“Even while Rome was burning people wanted to know what the city of the future would look like.  What will Xerox look like after it comes through this period of survival and turnaround?” – Anne Mulcahy, CEO of Xerox

But having a vision of what to strive to achieve will only get you so far.  A common tenets that these successful brands shared was decisively directing their resources.  From operations to R&D to marketing communications, investments were made to support the new brand vision.  Another key component was leadership’s ability to have the entire organization adhere to the vision.  Commitment to a singular idea over time, in some cases more than 5 years, is what’s needed to turn a brand around.

It’s unfortunate that such foundational issues are often times put off to the side, possibly because leadership isn’t ready to make a commitment or because it’s so difficult to measure such efforts within the short-term.  But for a successful brand to thrive over time, it needs a solid foundation.

As the saying goes, Rome wasn’t built in a day.

This is the fourth in a series of short posts related to The CMO Agenda research. Informed by recent CMO conversations and CMG Partners‘ collective experience helping top marketers develop marketing strategy, we have compiled a list of seven ideas or jump starters for further conversation. These are meant to spark discussion, ideas, and action as we all enter a difficult 2009.

The transparency and accountability of brands is increasing as new uses of the Internet drive the democratization of voice — shifting knowledge and control from marketers to consumers. This trend is forcing marketers to adopt non-traditional methods of brand management to ensure the brand is consistent not only in communications but through all customer touch points. As one CMO put it, “everything we do communicates.”

If you believe that the true definition of a brand lies with the perceptions of consumers not with the marketing leaders, then the extreme brand management practice would be for consumers to drive the expression of the brand. Well maybe not, but this is exactly what the maker of Skittles has done (knowingly or unknowingly).

In March, Skittles re-launched their website, which used social media tools for content: Twitter for “Chatter”, Facebook for “Friends”, Wikipedia for “product information” and YouTube for “Media”. This was heralded by some and refuted as a circus trick by others (see a previous post for my take).  Unfortunately, I have not been able to find information on the performance of the campaign.

This example, whether good or bad, does provide a new theory for brand managers and bring to reality the old phrase “a brand is what others say about you, not what you say about yourself.” How will you begin to renew your brand management practices to align with consumer voice?

Mirror post at alanhart.wordpress.com

The numbers are in on Tropicana.  Within less than 60 days, orange juice sales dropped 20% while the entire category only decreased by 5%.  There’s a really good article in AdAge with interesting reader comments.  I agree that repackaging, like rebranding needs to be bolstered by more than superficial changes as we’ve blogged about recently.

I don’t agree that Tropicana may permanently lose market share from this.  I’d argue the opposite.  Tropicana customers may feel closer to the brand now; their opinions were heard and swift action was taken.  It’s what’s expected now of brands and I think Tropicana made the right decision although not enough time has passed to determine whether the sales drop can be attributed to the packaging or other market forces.

What will be interesting to see is if Tropicana can use the re-rebranding to drive increased brand loyalty to regain the market share it’s lost.  Are customers going to flock back now that the familiar packaging is back or does Tropicana have to find additional ways to communicate to customers?

Has public perception of AIG tarnished the brand so much that a rebrand is in order?  Apparently that’s what its CEO thinks is needed to salvage the organization’s future.  He may be right.  The now infamous $165 million in bonuses may represent the straw that broke the camel’s back.  Public rage seems to have shifted blame for the financial bailout entirely onto AIG.

This reminds me of when Solomon Smith Barney (SSB) became the target of an SEC investigation after lead telecom analyst Jack Grubman was found to have issued misleading research reports that recommended companies such as WorldCom (remember Bernie Ebbers?).  Like AIG, SSB was blamed for much of the meltdown that ensued once investor losses piled up, but SSB only went through a partial rebrand.  It did however make significant organizational changes to signal it was serious about making things right.

If AIG does decide to rebrand itself, it should approach this as more than just a superficial makeover.  Rebranding needs to go beyond coming up with a new name, logo and corporate swatches.  In this case, it must be sincere and credible, which can’t be achieved through changes that are only skin deep.

AIG should consider how to build a new brand from the inside, as we’ve outlined in our paper, Brands that Walk the Walk Win.  It starts with establishing new organizational principles that embody what the new brand should stand for.  Just as important is creating guidelines for incentives that will induce the right kind of behavior.  For changes to take hold, AIG will need to get the entire organization to embrace these new ideas.  That means conducting research not only among customers but also with employees and other constituents that can affect the health of the brand.

Finally, AIG should consider how to develop a brand management system to measure and monitor its new brand so it can make adjustments as needed as we’ve suggested in our Brand Health Scorecard approach.

Are social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter muscling brand managers into micro-managing their brands?

A recent blog posting by a Twitter investor hailed Twitter’s potential future as a tool to get an immediate pulse of its 6 million members, like a mass focus group.

Love it or hate it, Twitter is making an impact.  Think about Facebook’s pending changes.  Your status bar will soon ask you “What’s on your mind?” instead of “What are you doing right now?”  While it’s a subtle change, it reflects a further push towards immediacy.  Facebook has also decided updates will be refreshed in real time just like Twitter rather than every 10 minutes as they are today.

Where does the madness end for brands?  I think about the article “If Brands are Built over Years, Why are they Managed over Quarters?” and fear that social media could drive brands to be managed by the minute.

How do managers avoid becoming mired in attention deficit disorder (ADD), making short-term decisions like discounting, that may be necessary right now but that may damage a brand in the long-term?  Consider adopting brand measures that balance a combination of metrics;  ones that capture both backward and forward looking indicators as well as short-term and long-term measures.

Given how sensitive customers have become to price and value, it’s important to include ways to understand emotional perceptions, which is where social media can play a role.  But this needs to be offset by a disciplined use of additional criteria to ensure that your brand is building towards the long-term identity envisioned.

So, show social media the respect it deserves but don’t let 140 character sound bites dictate your brand.

“I remember when…” can be an extremely powerful phrase to evoke with customers. Using nostalgia to elicit an emotional response is nothing new, but at a time when people are unsure what the future may bring, sometimes it’s useful for brands to have customers reminisce about the past.

And this isn’t just about baby boomers, although they’re a significant force to consider when using nostalgia. But for many other consumers, myself included, nostalgia can now include memories of brands from the 80’s and even the 90’s.

So how do brands connect effectively with customers through nostalgia right now?

General Mills, for example, is currently running a campaign with Target stores that features retro packaging for cereals like Cocoa Puffs. As an added bonus, customers who collect a handful of proofs of purchase can get a free retro T-shirt featuring a GM mascot.

In a similar vein, Mastercard is running a commercial as part of its priceless brand campaign that features some high-profile supermarket faces like the Jolly Green Giant, Count Chocula, and the Pillsbury Dough Boy that speaks to the tradition of having dinner together as a family.

And finally, there’s Disney, the brand that wrote the book on marketing nostalgia. They now have spots that speak to parents and grandparents about how visiting a Disney park can make you feel like a kid again.

But proceed with caution: there’s a flip side to nostalgia. If you’re an airline you may not want customers saying to themselves, “I remember when airlines didn’t charge for food or baggage.” Having customers perceive that products and services are now inferior than before could come back and bite you where it hurts.

P.S. Doesn’t anyone else think it’s a little cannibalistic of Charlie of Starkist Tuna to be eating casserole? I’m assuming it’s tuna casserole.