The case studies pitch Kodak against Fuji as side-by-side brand buddies battling for market share with two very different approaches, and clearly the brand mindset that won out for long term survival was the innovative one.

What these studies demonstrate is the need for brands to be dynamic in terms of their evolution.  If you’re not staying ahead of the curve, then at least watch the curve closely and be sure to jump on it sooner rather than later.

Marketing wisdom states that we create values, identities and guidelines for our brands.  And business wisdom dictates that we have a vision and mission for our brands.  So if we are to adhere to these then we need to embrace the concepts of evolution – not least because ours is not a static world and the consumer market stands still for no brand.

A great example of this is Lego®.  One of the most iconic toy brands, Lego was top of children’s wish lists for generations.  But the arrival of more electronic and technologically-bent alternatives, meant its resonance with its audience dipped dangerously in the 90s.  The brand then wisely teamed up with hugely popular licences such as Harry Potter and Star Wars.  But the really clever move, the real innovative product shift, came with its most recent launch of the Lego® Friends (http://friends.lego.com/en-us/default.aspx?icmp=COUSFR3Friends).

Recognising the movement towards miniature dolls that Polly Pocket initiated and then Barbie, Bratz and Disney et al have been pursuing over the last five years or so, Lego’s new line embraces small and engages with little girls to a level that it has never previously managed to achieve.  This shows that although the toy industry may be contracting, it is still significant and the successful players are those that innovate either regarding new product, or as is in this case, with new lines and brand extensions.

Innovation can also be found in brands’ communications, the channels they use, the audiences with which they engage, the programmes they deploy.  Rather than the hard-to-attain ideal that most businesses assume innovation to be, it can actually simply be a different way of looking at things – a squidgy bottle instead of a glass one for ketchup, covering a Kimberley biscuit with chocolate, outdoor gyms in parks, Boot Camps, the list is endless.

Ultimately, ‘Adapt or Die’ is not just a business mantra it’s actually a business imperative.

SH

Twitter has become the forerunner in breaking news stories. Within moments of the US Airways flight 1549 crash landing into the Hudson the news had spread virally, in fact the news was broken on Twitter 15 minutes before mainstream media[1]. News of Michael Jackson’s death reached many people through Twitter, again within moments of his death occurring.

Twitter is a global conversation and there is very little control over it once it is let loose. An individual or a company can create a hashtag or start a conversation but cannot control what direction the conversation takes. McDonalds recently found this out to their cost when they launched a hashtag campaign, #McDstories[2]. The intention was to encourage positive McDonalds’ stories but within an hour this had backfired with negative stories and criticisms tweeted. McDonalds were quick to claim that the number of negative tweets was low and that the story was exacerbated and fuelled by the media. Regardless of the truth of this it is clear that Twitter wields vast power, this was particularly evident during the last presidential election. With days to go before the election, Sean Gallagher was leading the race until an unverified tweet was read out on air during a live debate. The information proved to be incorrect but by that time the damage was done and the race lost for Gallagher.

Unfortunately, as the fact free reporting of some tabloids and glossy mags is finally being questioned at the Leveson inquiry, Twitter might well be waiting in the wings to take its place as the home of unsubstantiated news reporting. “Never let the facts get in the way of a good story” is a mantra oft quoted over the years; it looks like that story remains the same and only the medium has changed.

AH

Clicks, tweets, likes and shares offer marketers vast amounts of customer detail, alongside footfall sales and receipts.  Then there’s copious reports and papers on financials, market sentiment and even trendspotting, to be considered.  And all this on top of the anecdotal, on-the-ground feedback proffered by sales teams and mystery shoppers.

From a marketing and communications perspective, this deluge throws up a two particularly serious issues:-

Firstly, how do you distinguish between the peripheral and the really useful data?  Writing in his blog for the Economist Schumpeter (www.economist.com/node/21542154) says that the “value of things is largely determined by their rarity”.  Applying this truism to the data deluge point and it would seem that the data of most value to a company is therefore not necessarily the everyday output from the organisation’s daily marketing activity.  So where is the really useful data and how can it be gleaned?

In a world gone cyber-crazy, brands today have so many touch points with customers, the resulting data noise is tumultuous.  And the current obsession with social commentary is in danger of rendering other data inferior.

Ironically, the stakeholder conundrum of the Noughties has evolved and even a few loud activists, now on-line, can be a serious drain on a brand’s communication effort.  Meanwhile other – often much greater in number – customers’ passivity goes unchecked.  Social media has irrevocably transformed the volume of the consumer voice, and in the main undeniably for the better.  But it has arguably followed that he who shouts loudest and most often will not only get heard but also receive a disproportionate level of attention with respect to their actual value to the brand.  Distinguishing your data is a priority issue, and a critical communication issue that must not go unchecked.

The devil really is in the detail, or the detailed implication of the data in this case.  So the second issue is how to extract genuine intel from the select data, and convert this into useful and valuable knowledge that can be embedded and utilised in the company’s marketing strategy.  This then in turn can determine an organisation’s communications strategy, and in particular identify which audiences to deal with and in what manner and should be a key business endeavour.  .

Paradoxically, the communication by-lines of marketing days gone by still resonate in 2012:  The customer, data and content are all still king, it’s just the dais that’s changed.

SH

Vodafone’s decision in May to relocate its call centre operations attracted criticism when it was reported that some employees learned of the decision by e-mail [1]. This was compounded by an organised campaign of opposition to the decision that focused on the commercial justification for the move within the context of the overall financial performance of the Irish operations [2].

Media coverage of Talk Talk’s announcement in September saw reporting focus on the issues surrounding the abruptness of the announcement and the lack of notice to the government [3]. While Aviva’s announcement last month also provoked condemnation related to the lack of clarity around the impact on employees [4].

Clearly the communication of such bad news will never be welcomed by either affected employees or the government of the day, as testified by the examples drawn. All the more reason that the PR professional tasked with developing the announcement communications plan seeks to ensure that there is no exposure to reputational damage from accusations of insensitivity, inappropriateness or uncertainty in the delivery of the announcement.

In two of the cases mentioned above there was the potential for negative spill-over from the redundancy announcement on the sponsorship activities of the companies concerned, an area that the PR professional also has a responsibility to protect.

From our experience the priorities for ensuring an appropriate announcement that minimises the impact on the client’s corporate reputation are the communication of a transparent and sound commercial rationale for the decision and ensuring that the delivery of the announcement is sensitive to the concerns of all stakeholders, especially affected employees.

EB

Keating & Associates Director, Emmet Barrett, will present the company’s experience of and insights into communicating redundancy announcements at the Legal-Island Annual Review of Employment Law taking place on Wednesday 16^th November in the Radisson Blu Hotel at Dublin Airport and on Tuesday 29^th November at the Stillorgan Park Hotel in Dublin. Details available at http://www.legal-island.ie/.

[1]http://www.independent.ie/national-news/leading-companies-shed-200-jobs-2660234.html

[2] http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0527/vodafone.html

[3] http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0912/1224303945684.html

[4] http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1020/1224306125735.html

One of the most interesting proposals is one which was raised at the Labour party conference in Liverpool recently. The idea of ‘like for like redress’ as they put it, means “mistakes and falsehoods on the front page receive apologies and retraction on the front page”.

It’s surely no coincidence that in the wake of this, the Daily Mail has followed the lead of the likes of the Guardian by starting its own corrections and clarifications page (now being watched eagerly by liberal media bloggers), showing a hitherto unheard of desire for self regulation.

Such a rule would clearly be of value if it does act as a deterrent to careless or poorly sourced reporting. If it makes media think twice before running the sort of stories they did on Chris Jeffries[1] or the Sun’s infamous Hillsborough coverage[2] then obviously it’s a positive move.

It remains to be seen how it would work in practice though. Although in theory, if you are wronged by the media, you want everyone to know you were wronged, in reality one might think twice about having your picture back on the front page or the false story repeated again, even with a mea culpa. Clear guidelines would need to laid out for any such redress to ensure it actually benefits the wronged party.

This is the problem with any retrospective punishment – the damage has already been done. Of course the only proper solution is better care in journalism in the first place, honest mistakes are one thing, but careless reporting of and/or knowing misrepresentation of the facts simply shouldn’t be acceptable.

JB

Ireland is currently in the throes of a leadership battle. Sure, the arguments in the media tend to focus on candidates’ political, legal or social prowess. But the jury is undoubtedly unanimous in the belief that what Ireland needs in a President is a leader.

The climate in which this debate rages however, is terse. Whilst The Institute of Leadership & Management has conducted research that finds trust in CEOs marginally higher than previous years, there is still a gap between employees trust in their line manager and trust in their CEO [1].

The deficit in leadership qualities is evident in the commentary on the issue, as case after case is cited as testament to where Ireland’s leaders – in business and public life – are failing their audiences.

Trust is a key element of good leadership but is arguably thin on the ground at the moment. A look at the antecedents of trust – ability, understanding, fairness, integrity and consistency – explains why this is the case. Trust is not an acquirable commodity, but rather must be earned by leaders, and sustained through their actions.

Harvard Business Review also suggests there’s a need for maturity in leaders [2]. This is not about being ageist, but accepting the truism that age equates to experience. And experience matters.

On this point let’s be clear, where experience may be lacking it is critical that support is sought and taken. And from where and from whom leaders take advice is of paramount importance.

We are a nation of talkers but not necessarily walkers. Consultants abound and the leaders of today and tomorrow need to be selective in the counsel they keep. One option is to find a mentor or “personal board of directors” – an individual or group of individuals from whom valued and valuable opinion can be gleaned, and with whom you can sound out your views and options.

Good leaders know that, contrary to being an indication of weakness, seeking out advice is actually a sign of wise and stealthy leadership.

SH

[1] www.i-l-m.com/research-and-comment/trust-business.aspx

[2] http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/10/we_need_more_mature_leaders.html

In marketing circles we often debate how a celebrity’s association with a brand can affect it.  But what about your customers’ ethics and how they can impact negatively on your brand, as is the case with Blackberry Messenger being used by UK rioters last week? [1]

A whistle-stop tour of the brand sees Blackberry in the early/mid Noughties enjoying an enviable position as a ‘destination’ mobile phone for business users…  By the late Noughties it’s challenged by a plethora of alternatives… but then come 2010, it fortuitously finds itself as the phone of choice for a previously untargeted but nonetheless attractively large youth audience…. Now it’s reeling again as the brand is tainted by some of its audience’s use regarding the riots.

Of course the situation is exacerbated by the fact that it’s a technology / media brand and popular wisdom in some quarters dictates these guys are responsible for all modern day ills! So what can Blackberry do?  Or in terms of learning, what could it have done, or can other brands do, to mitigate the issue?

Having a visible Code of Ethics is a good starter.  Not some lip service within the Annual Report, or as an obscure link on the website that’s as hard to find as the RyanAir helpline number.  Many brands have stated principles and values but these won’t be of real practical use if they’re merely static and stated ideals.  Brands need to be upfront about their values and ethics, making it clear what the brand stands for, and by default, what it does not.  This then is a tangible and acceptable hook on which a defence can be built when it’s required.  Critically, having this before a crisis strikes means it is viewed as sincere rather than smacking of knee-jerk ethics and platitudes created to negate criticism.

Secondly, media and other brands could do well to state within their terms and conditions that the brand will assist the authorities if requested to do so.  This flags the brand’s intention to act and pre-empts customer objections to revealing data, as happened with Blackberry and other brands in the past –Vodafone, Facebook, Twitter.

And thirdly, it is inevitable that the problem can be part of the solution.  In this case BM is being used to facilitate the clean up in the same way as it was used to communicate the riots.  Brands cannot disassociate themselves with the negatives easily or quickly, but they can, and they should pro-actively communicate the positives.  And should do so constantly and not just reactively.

Good crisis management is about pre-empting and mitigating the risks.  To be fair I’m sure no one at Blackberry would have predicted riots of the scale of last week.  But then risk management is about preparing for the unexpected.  I remember drafting a crisis plan for a UK company and including terrorist attack as a highly unlikely risk; that was in February 2001…

SH

[1]http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/sectors/retail/retailers-targeted-by-rioters-suffer-fall-in-brand-perception/3029330.article

Andrew Hill “Riots must not kill Blackberry Messenger” Financial Times, August 15th 2011

Interestingly their machinations on the subject are slightly different in that Unilever reduced its marketing spend to €3bn and gave it a serious efficiency remit, and P&G increased its spend by 11% of net sales but deployed it differently, with a brand building focus rather than promotions.

But what both approaches focused on was the long term branding to support their competitiveness despite, or indeed, because of the current difficult economic and price issues.

So the message here to Irish companies – both large and small – is therefore to look at how your marketing is working for you.  And especially to ask the question “Is it working hard enough?”

Seeking external marketing advice can be a good investment but you must ensure the counsel you pay for is reliable and objective… There’s been too much vested interest selling going on in Ireland so caveat emptor!

To be truly impactful marketing must infiltrate the value chain at every level:  Good employer brands generate good levels of employee productivity; well marinated and communicative relationships with suppliers can lead to greater levels of service and discounts; and effective marketing can secure customer satisfaction, attrition and loyalty.

Of course good advice can be about action or direction.  And whilst many companies may want, for personnel or financial reasons, to keep marketing’s implementation in-house, it’s well worth considering mentor or strategic support which can be both invaluable and cost effective.

The current business climate is undeniably difficult, but professional guidance can help brands navigate these turbulent times singling out specific stakeholder groups as required.

Too often marketing is directed at certain groups leaving other audience in a communication wilderness.  But an important facet of modern business is the expansion of all brands’ stakeholder set, each of whom needs to be recognized, assessed and communicated with appropriately.

An objective eye cast over your business and stakeholders, can glean important insights that may impact on your business from not just a reputational perspective, but also with regard to your competitiveness, and the bottom line.

It can be a quantifiable investment, because the power of focused marketing cannot be under estimated.  It’s worth its weight in gold… and we all know how gold is looking at the moment!

SH

Some commentators, including the usually flawless Charlie Brooker, have pointed out that Miliband is by no means the only public figure to have undertaken an interview this way, and lays the blame squarely at the door of PR people[2] who he says “must have figured that since the interview would be whittled down to one 10-second soundbite for that evening’s news bulletins, and since they didn’t want to risk their man saying anything ill-advised or vaguely interesting, they might as well merely ignore all the questions and impersonate an iPod with just one track on it.”

The answer from this desk to that point is ‘well, of course’. Anyone who has worked in the PR industry for a reasonable length of time will have experienced that moment where a pre-recorded interview has gone exactly to plan, only for it to be broadcast with the most pertinent (at least from our point of view) part of a client’s response to an issue left on the editing room floor and you left with more questions to answer.

Let’s be clear, we aren’t talking about fudging a hard hitting toe-to-toe question and answer session here, we are talking about making sure when a pre-recorded interview is edited for news, that an accurate representation of views is given.

These days our audiences have an increasingly short attention span (140 characters for several million people) and we have less and less time and space to communicate our message. When you are faced with an issue where it is absolutely essential that one key viewpoint on an issue is made, ‘staying on message’ is vital.

No, it shouldn’t go to the extremes that we see in this clip. There is a certain expectation that once a person gets to a particular level in public life that they will have developed communications skills that take them beyond simply repeating their key messages, and rightly so.

However we should understand that if someone is repeating one thing over and over again; perhaps it is simply because it’s the one thing they need people to hear.

JB

Hill refers to P&G’s high-tech and “high touch” research, and the FMCG big boys certainly appreciate the value of turning stats into meaningful data. But not all organisations share this mindset.

The true value of a data set is it’s correlation with other sets and the context in which they all sit. Juxtaposing the survey that says your product is great, with the anecdotes and on-line reviews that say it’s not, can reveal telling points regarding the benefits and flaws of your product. But you have to be open to the criticism, and more importantly, you have to be listening.

And there’s lots to listen to: The social media networks also offer management a rich and varied source of information – and one that’s fast gaining traction as Twitter et al expand their services. This should be utilised and the information analysed alongside other data sources to expand the typically rhetorical PR survey that says your product’s great.

Ultimately in this Information Age we should be mindful that the public, customers and consumers don’t just want to be heard, but genuinely AND demonstrably listened to.

SH