Liggett Stashower POV

I was watching a documentary on Jimmy Carter a while back and something really stuck with me. As the film reviewed the historic Middle East peace talks that took place at the Camp David summit, it portrayed an exhausted Carter who tenaciously worked through those difficult days. At one point Carter needed to take a walk and “collect his thoughts”. And, if you can imagine this, he walked alone in the woods for several hours and just thought. No Secret Service and certainly no cell phone, no email, no tweeting (except for the birds) and no iPad. Simply a man and his thoughts taking some time to slow down, take a deep breath, and reflect. I believe that was 1978.

At some point between then and now we have become a culture of compulsive individuals who seem to fear the idea of being alone with our thoughts. Our intense desire to be connected has become so pervasive that many of us only feel positive about ourselves when we’re doing multiple things simultaneously. I see it all the time. I witness colleagues that are texting and checking Facebook status on the way to the printer to pick up an email while wearing their Bluetooth and chatting away. I’m overwhelmed just watching it all go down.

As a strategist focused on creating brand experiences, I continually challenge myself on what constitutes a good experience. Lately, I’m focused on the idea of balance in its many forms. Of course there is the obvious balance of media mix and platform story telling that I painstakingly think through. But lately, I’ve been thinking about how to balance the communications mix in such a way that allows a target audience to not only consume the message but also encourages them to digest it. Yes, gets them to spend some time, perhaps while they’re disconnected, to put that message into the personal context of themselves and their lives.

As elementary as that may sound, remarkably I think it’s becoming harder for us to achieve. With the constant advancements in technology, our tendency seems to be to shout our messages at every opportunity through the ever-increasing list of available channels. We’ve become a culture of shouters with the texting, tweeting and status updates.

Somewhere along the line we forgot that effective communications has both a sender and a receiver. We’re really good at sending, but I’m not sure we show a whole lot of respect for the receiving. Receivers need time to well, receive, and process, think and respond. Maybe it’s time to restore some balance in the fundamental process of communications and give our audiences an opportunity to receive. Perhaps what we’re shouting is nothing that our receivers can use or for that matter even care about. What if, as a brand, we actually started to consider what content our audience would find inspiring, useful and thought provoking? Now there’s a novel idea.

Here’s my very simple suggestion. Instead of using that technology to shout, think of ways to use it that encourage thought and, ultimately, some intelligent dialogue. My theory is that there are others like myself who are looking to escape our frenetic, hyper-connected world and would find a brand that encourages them to slow down to be refreshing. Imagine, being encouraged to enjoy a bit of glorious silence, think, then participate in a conversation. Personally, this is a brand that I would invite into my world–a brand that respects the nuances of balanced communication.

Photo credit: The National Archives

Imagine having a business strategy of losing to your competitors to be profitable.  That sounds crazy, but apparently it’s a strategy that is reaping rewards for several major league baseball teams.

According to Deadspin.com as reported by ESPN.com, the Florida Marlins and the Pittsburgh Pirates, despite having the smallest payrolls in major league baseball, both turned a profit.  While the Marlins have been competitive, the Pirates have had 18 straight losing seasons.  Nonetheless, the Associated Press reported that the Pirates made nearly $29.4 million in 2007 and 2008, according to team documents. Thus, the Pirates have been winning (profitable) by losing.

While the Pirates can continue to lose to make a profit, most businesses can’t.  Most companies must build or maintain a strong brand, which is a cornerstone of success. The brand provides associates with an identity for their company and guidelines to achieve goals.  It attracts and secures customers to use products or services.  And, a brand lures in prospects.

Unfortunately in this tough economy, many companies are following the Pirates’ strategy and trying to save themselves into prosperity rather than support their brand.  Oh, it might help a business in the short run, but over time the assertive companies who invest wisely in their brands will gain market share.  The assertive companies will also be able to attract more talented employers, which will help them become even more successful.

No, I am not saying spending more money will help you instantly grow or become more profitable. What I am saying is to take another close look at your brand and marketing communications strategy for 2011.  Now is the time, with next year just around the corner!  Ask yourself if your brand reflects your products or service; the people you want to hire; the way you want to treat your customers; and the message your want to convey to your associates, customers and prospects. Be honest, clear and precise and you can create a winning strategy for 2011 by not losing to the competition.

Photo credit: Miles Gehm

I’m feeling a little left out these days. As a member of the more than 78 million Baby Boomers in the U.S. – the generation of consumers born between 1946-1964 — I am largely ignored by consumer products marketers (CPG). This from an industry where I make my living?

According to a recent report from The Nielsen Company, while marketers continue to focus on either the 18-34 or the 18-49 demographic, they are losing touch with and missing out on opportunities to connect with Boomers.  Nielsen estimates that while Boomers spend 38.5% of CPG dollars, only 5% of advertising dollars are currently targeted toward this group, adults 35-64 years old (a segment that includes the latter half of Generation X as well as Boomers).

A few facts about Boomers from Nielsen’s research tell the story. This group dominates 1,023 out of 1,083 CPG categories. They watch 9.34 hours of video per day – more than any other segment. They also comprise a third of all TV viewers, online users, social media users and Twitter users, and are significantly more likely to have broadband Internet. Boomers visit the same Web sites as the coveted 18-34 age group, with only a slight shift in ranking for Facebook and YouTube.

The statistics may seem surprising, but as a member of this generation, I am puzzled by this lack of interest and attention from marketers. The attempts by some marketers to reach Boomers is either laughable, insulting or both.  You know the ones. They are peddling everything from blue pills to hair dye to beer that won’t add inches to your waistline but tastes so bad it is undrinkable.

Much has been written and reported about this generation, often referred to as the generation of excess and overindulgence. This is the generation of McMansions and Hummers. Of nips and tucks. As Baby Boomers reach retirement age, they are redefining what constitutes a luxury item and what defines a basic need.

Their size alone represents an enormous purchasing influence. Boomers are also part of what has been termed the sandwich generation. So, they are influencing and making decisions for aging parents – often related to health care issues – as well as children, many of whom are starting college, new jobs and families. Not only are they purchasing at rates as high as other segments, but because they are often buying for their kids, many are “double-dipping.” Many Boomers are empty nesters with lots of time, money and interests.  And, marketers don’t seem to be interested in them.

Why? Do they believe Boomers are reluctant to experiment with new technology or new brands?  Remember, this was the generation that did lots of experimenting in the 60s and 70s. Are they too brand loyal that getting them to change at this point in their lives is next to impossible? Are they that different or difficult to connect with? If marketers have figured out a way to connect with the millennials, surely they can figure out how to connect with Boomers.

I think I can speak for my fellow Baby Boomers — we are receptive to being courted by marketers and we really aren’t that difficult to find.  As for me, I can be found where I am most weekends – walking the aisles of Lowe’s.

While cleaning out my mom’s basement, I came across a chest of my grandmother’s treasures. We found two badly tarnished sets of silverware, photographs, a horrifying doll in traditional Polish dress and random trinkets. Lining the bottom of the chest was the sports page from the now defunct Cleveland Press dated April 24, 1962.

There were a number of interesting articles on the page, including an article by Regis McAuley about the Cleveland Indians’ flight from New York after they beat the Yankees. Apparently major leaguers used to entertain themselves midflight by playing “burn the napkin:”

It’s a party game where a paper napkin is stretched over a glass and a coin set on the napkin.  Object is for each player to burn a hole in the napkin with a cigaret and the fellow who makes the coin fall into the glass owes everybody else a nickel.

While I don’t think the FAA allows players that kind of fun today, there are parts of the major league experience that have withstood the ages – as the Frank Gibbons piece (below) illustrates:

Even 48 years ago it seems Major League Baseball closely guarded its “wholesome” image. The $500 fine that Stengel received for appearing in the aforementioned ad seems wildly hypocritical for an organization that today touts a team named the Brewers (est. 1970), many adult beverage promotions and stadiums named “Busch,” “Coors” and “Miller.” I can’t imagine that there are many fans that truly believe that the guys on the field are angels (even in Anaheim.) There are numerous stories documenting major leaguers’incredible exploits both on and off the field.

MLB is well within its rights to dictate what its employees can or can’t do while in uniform. What I take issue with is how selective the league is when “protecting” its brand.

The steroid era has called an entire generation of records and statistics into question, but baseball seems slow to do anything about it. The commissioner has claimed a “goal of zero tolerance,” while the league allows players at least five strikes before they’re out.

Pete Rose betting on games got him banned for life and out of the Hall of Fame – presumably for cheating. All while the effects of human growth hormone are enjoyed by modern day players long after their suspensions have been served.

The league may have come out of the steroids debacle better 48 years ago when reporters were friendlier with players and judiciously reported on their foibles. Now with the 24-hour news cycle and social media, everything is exposed. Baseball doesn’t seem to realize that fans can now see behind the curtain. We notice when they chastise steroid abuse one day and immortalize the 500-ft homerun the next.

Like any brand, MLB needs to decide what it stands for. If it wants to stick to its roots of protecting the image of its players, then it must ensure that it’s worth protecting and address cheating players. They need to be honest, upfront and admit that mistakes have been made.

Now would be the right time for MLB to right its ship. It might get some help from the NFL and NBA in 2011, which could help baseball back up that “America’s pastime” claim.

As I’ve discussed before: your brand isn’t what you say it is, it’s what they say it is. All you can do is put out a consistent, believable message that is backed up by your product(s) and your organization’s actions. And that’s where MLB keeps striking out.

Photo credit: goaliej54

It was all the rage years ago – every college student seems to start off believing it’s true. Subliminal advertising: hidden messages or images in ads designed to affect your subconscious mind, overwhelm you with a longing and desire for, well, you’re not quite sure. Because you never really saw it.

“The Hidden Persuaders” by Vance Packard was published in 1957 and spawned a cottage industry of imitators. Dozens of books have been written on the topic, many with copyrights in the past five years. This is one myth that just doesn’t seem to die. The reality is, if you look hard enough, you can find anything you’re looking for. A profile of Kevin Bacon in the marbleized fat of your maple-cured bacon? It’s in there.

I don’t know of a single professional that believes in subliminal advertising. If any of these conspiracy
theorists had a clue how hard it is to get a simple, decent ad created – much less anything where we’ve inserted a hidden word or buxom curve – they’d give up that story
and steer their offspring away from a career in marketing. 

As talked about in conspiracy theorists, subliminal advertising is BS. Done. End of story.

Or is it?

Looked at another way, subliminal advertising is real and extremely powerful – just not the way Packard envisioned. As detailed in Malcom Gladwell’s “Blink,” the human mind reacts to subtle, below-the-consciousness clues. It’s proven in study after study that we can be “nudged” one way or the other in our thoughts by something as simple as word choice – hearing a series of positive words assigns more positive attributes to whatever follows; negative words give us a more negative attitude.

So what does this mean to marketing? Every detail matters.

This is why the art director wants to spend a little more on a better photographer. It matters.

It’s why a TV commercial averages $332,000 to produce. Could you shoot it with a Flip Video camera? Sure. But the subtle quality cues that are communicated are subliminal advertising. The details matter, even the ones you can’t see.

It’s why your agency resists changes, even the ones that may seem inconsequential to you – everything is connected to everything else. It’s why it’s so dangerous when your sales staff creates their own Powerpoint presentation. (Any company where this doesn’t happen?) Every touchpoint of communication is a piece of your brand and every little thing adds up. Why invest hundreds of thousands, or millions, of dollars to burnish your brand image and then let the details slide? How many times do we hear, “It’s just this one little thing?” One of my favorite quotes in business sums this up:

“If people see coffee stains on our tray tables, what will they think about the way we maintain our engines?”
– Donald Burr, CEO, People Express Airlines.

What are the subliminal coffee stains on your brand?

I’m a die-hard Cleveland fan. I can’t help myself. (Just ask my wife about my reaction to “The Decision” last night.) I got a call from Joel Hammond at Crain’s Cleveland Business the day before LeBron’s big announcement to talk about LeBron’s brand and if it was incurring damage because of this free-agency circus. And my answer was nationally, no. Locally, yes.

That was before I witnessed the greatest spectacle of nonsense ever televised (and, yes, The Rock of Love Reunion Show is included in that.) And the fact that LeBron stuck to his cliché script perfectly even though many of the comments were incongruous.

“I never wanted to leave Cleveland.” But he did.

“But I also felt like this is the greatest challenge for me is to move on.” Yes, playing on a team with two other All-Stars is a HUGE challenge (NOTE: sarcasm).

I still hold that the real damage to LeBron was done in game five of the 2010 playoffs versus the Celtics, when he showed no passion or determination to win. And before that when he stormed off the court following the Cavs 2009 playoff loss to the Orlando Magic without shaking hands.

But LeBron and his pals at LRMR forgot (or never learned) one of the most important rules of branding. It’s stated perfectly in Marty Neumeier’s The Brand Gap: Your brand isn’t what you say it is. It’s what they say it is.

And right now, they aren’t saying very nice things. As a Cleveland native, I never expected the national media to side with us. We’re used to being the butt of their jokes. ESPN loves to show the Cleveland “failure reel” anytime any Cleveland team is televised. But lo and behold, LeBron’s ego pushed the envelope too far and created a groundswell of sympathy for my hometown and disgust for the self-proclaimed “King.” LeBron is taking a serious thumping in the court of public opinion. He held the league hostage for two months. He stole the spotlight from all the young players during the recent NBA draft. You can’t be a king without subjects and he just beheaded most of his.

Unfortunately for LeBron, brands are founded on trust. And he betrayed a lot of that yesterday. All of Northeast Ohio trusted that he wouldn’t and couldn’t be cruel enough to wrench the sword from the Cavs’ logo and jab it in our backs. So now he’s got to work to rebuild his trust with however many fans he has left. He has to follow through on his promises. He has yet to light up any city “like Vegas.” He made Cleveland sparkle a little like Reno but that’s not enough. The new Miami Thrice has to win now. No excuses. No hurt elbow. Hire Jeff Gillooly, if need be. LeBron has made a career (until game five) of exceeding his hype. He was always better than expected. But I’m not sure anyone can overcome the sensationalism of last night’s broadcast. If he’s going to Miami to chase championships, he’d better catch them.

How much this affects his pocketbook remains to be seen. History remembers victories more than vices. If he wins championships, some of this debacle will be lost to the sands of time. Wins will sell his shoes, convince sponsors to continually throw money at him and keep the playground dreamers pretending to be him when imagining their own last-second heroics – everywhere except Cleveland.

I recognize the fact that I probably wouldn’t have written this had he stayed with the Cavs – but as a Cleveland sports fan, I’m loyal to a fault. Also Dan Gilbert is my new hero, despite his font choice, and I dedicate every quotation mark in this post to him.

Photo credit: Daquella Manera

One of the sure signs of summer in my neighborhood is all the youth groups standing in front of the BP station at the center of town waving signs to wash cars to raise money for their baseball, soccer or cheering team. I feel sorry for the owners of these stations, who are good, solid members of our community.  They didn’t cause the problems in the Gulf, but they’re definitely paying for it on the front line, and I do understand why. When we’re not happy with our elected officials, we can vote them out of office. When we believe we’ve been wronged by a company or a brand, we can choose to take our business elsewhere. The American people have responded accordingly across the country and now BP is working to bail out the impact of our boycott on their distributors.

Many people, companies and universities are now weighing in, and I’ve no doubt that stopping the oil from continuing to pump into the gulf is not an easy problem to solve. If it were, the scarlet billows of oil on the water would be nowhere near as extensive as they are today. The scariest take-away from all the hearings with BP, as well as other oil company execs, is that there’s little assurance that this can’t or won’t end or happen again soon.

So, sitting at the forefront of what’s being called the greatest manmade environmental disaster, how does the BP brand survive all this well-deserved scrutiny? From my point of view, this is an ideal situation where action speaks louder than words. At this point, it’s probably best to divert from paid media to some more appropriate crisis response activities; and they’re not easy nor without deep expense. So, here’s the response I would have liked to have seen from BP that, in the long run, may have kept me from thinking twice about filling up at a yellow and green gas station.

1. The media is already more than engaged in coverage of this event. Make all the appropriate executives as accessible as possible and respond with honesty, integrity and sincerely – including when you’re meeting with a Congressional committee or maybe even the President of the United States. Rather than be summoned, proactively provide critical information on a timely basis – hourly, daily, whatever is appropriate at any given time.
2. Put egos, competitive conflicts and profits aside and immediately call a summit of all the top executives and engineers at all the major oil companies and work together to not only resolve the oil leak as quickly as possible, but also start to address what needs to be done for the future, too.
3. Take over hotels in key locations and offer to pay for all the expenses to send as many of your employees from around the world to the gulf to help with the clean-up. I’m sure they are as frustrated as the rest of us and many of them would be willing to go. (Heck, I’ll go — pay for my expenses, too.)
4. Go there yourself. Get down there now. Set up a temporary HQ office and run the company from the shores of the Gulf and live, eat, breathe and feel first-hand what the people most affected by this situation are feeling. End each workday by heading to the beach, shovel in hand, and scooping up some tarballs into plastic bags.

The best test of leaders and companies is how appropriately and true to their brand they remain in responding to bad times as well as good. The long-term negative impact of the oil spill for the gulf region is indescribable. The same can be said for the BP brand. It’s going to take a long time to bring both back.

Photo credit:  FreeDigitalPhotos.net

I’m not sure there are any secrets left to branding that haven’t already been revealed. Just Google “branding secrets” and you’ll see what I mean. So, rather than rehash something you may have already seen and heard or know, I’ve decided to offer some observations on just a couple of those secrets that might explain why they keep getting revealed over and over again.

You can’t differentiate from the competition if you don’t truly know the competition.

It’s equally important to spend time and resources assessing your competition’s brand just as much as your own. What do they stand for, how is that different from you (or not) and what position can you and you alone hold? Think Wal-Mart and Target, Starbucks and Dunkin’ Donuts or 3M tapes (the grey and transparent ones) vs. our client, Duck brand tapes (the one with all the cool colors). Without that greater understanding of your competition’s brand, you can never truly develop your own brand promise as confidently or deeply as possible because it absolutely depends on being able to succinctly differentiate from theirs. Which segues very nicely into the next secret.

Make research a must-have, not a nice-to-have.

I don’t think I have ever reviewed the results of a quantitative or qualitative study or observed a focus group discussion without at least one “aha” moment or insight. It’s gratifying to validate an assumption as true or reveal one that turns out not to be so. Better yet is when you discover a demonstrative strength or advantage that you didn’t even know existed or that you’ve underestimated its impact on your business.

I remember one such focus group when the client and agency were both convinced that a new product, introduced at a premium price point in the category, would open the door for application in luxury home construction. Truth is, the product actually excited homeowners and builders of mid-range homes – the majority of homes being built in the United States.

Let’s face it, the people who buy luxury homes can pretty much afford whatever they want. But the appeal for middle America was a much-desired, richer looking exterior design without the expensive price point. Because of research, brand positioning eventually shifted from “luxury home construction at a competitive price” to “upscale exterior design available to anyone.”

Be true to your brand promise.

Much has been written recently about Toyota and the impact of recalling several million vehicles due to a potentially dangerous sticking gas pedal. The Toyota brand promise of reliability has certainly come into question and, quite honestly, perhaps more so by the way the company responded to the problem rather than the actual mechanical problem itself. I think as consumers, particularly as it relates to the auto industry, we’ve come to understand and accept recalls. It’s when the perception that Toyota may have been trying to hide a problem from us came to light, that Toyota’s reliability as a brand promise took the hit. Toyota brand loyalists aren’t just expecting the cars to be reliable, they’re expecting the company behind them to be so, too – during the car purchasing process, during the car repair/service/maintenance process and during the “we’ve got a problem with our cars” process. Toyota quality is not just the emotional connection we feel when we grab the steering wheel, it’s the quality connection at every touchpoint – when times are good but especially when times are bad.

Brand relationships are no different than human relationships – if you’re left feeling disappointed or betrayed, you’ve got a lot of repairing to do before the friendship, trust and loyalty can return. That shouldn’t be taken lightly, and that’s no secret.