Comments

For me, if a company needs to market itself to its own employees then that doesn't say a great deal for the management, the culture or the product/service.

It implies a number of possibilities to me:
That the employees don't believe in the product enough to pitch it to friends and relatives.
That they don't think their work is worthwhile.
Management view employees as being just as gullible and susceptible to advertising as the general public.

Maybe it's because I'm English, but whenever a company over here tries to do this sort of thing, everyone plays along with it, but just ends up thinking it's a joke. Comments like "Have these people actually seen what we make?"
It ends up smacking of brainwashing and company-line.

If a company has genuinely worthwhile products, good leadership and creative, innovative and fulfilling work then people become the brand without having to be advertised to.

Posted by Gary at January 19, 2005 5:04 AM

GREAT! get an ad company to work with your people on the 'internal marketing' what an innovative strategy... and as for management having to pick up their act, this is possibly 'an act of management' better this than the "ol' sack and few to wake 'em up".

Its fresh, frivolous, lively, luscious and liquid, make it happen I say! BUT follow it up with a strategy that goes deeper, work on and with the People, Environment/s and watch the Culture/s grow.

Posted by Steve at January 19, 2005 5:56 AM

In my opinion marketing is about catching & keeping customers. That implies that everybody in a company should have their minds fixed on always doing some kind of marketing of our products & our company. AS former SAS-boss, Janne Carlson, once said; "The point of truth is always there when you talk to a customer."

For me it is insane using an outside company to internal marketing. If I cannot communicate the idea and USP's of our products to our own people, I have to go looking for another job.

Posted by Roy at January 19, 2005 7:16 AM

Most employees associate themselves with their team or department than the organisation as a whole. They are also rarely are informed what messages the marketing team are trying to communicate out - it is far too common that they see new campaigns at the same time as the public.

Should ad agencies be used internally? Well, from experience the only good answer is 'Depends on how they are used'.

Recently I had a positive experience with an agency with a big, global brand redesign (of the evolutionary type). We asked the agency to bring the brand guidelines down into a set of internal guidelines which could be used in-house. This alignment served to reinforce the external messages and was well received.

The major issue is that employees have a much stronger view of what the firm means to them than customers. This opinion is built from what they see around them - hence my comments about associating with department. Promoting a message which conflicts with this will be rejected. The best messages seem to promote 'reality with a stretch' - ie what they see but with some management aspiration (keep this medium term or it gets rejected).

Of course, the marketing message is but a small part of this shift. The staff have to see that the 'brand behaviours' are seen as an integral part of everything the firm does - from how they are measured and rewarded, to how systems help promote the actions.

So:

Are ad agencies the ones leading this change?
No, forward-thinking clients are asking for it and agencies are responding.

Should companies turn to their ad agencies for help with internal marketing?
Yes, given that they are in a good place to help align messages. However it is a small piece of the puzzle, much bigger than the marketing department

How will ad agencies address this challenge?
Some badly (without taking time to research what the staff feel and as a new way of generating revenue) and some well. The success will be related to how the agency is managed by it's client.

Will it be the right way?
It might be the right way, but it is unlikely to be the only way. Think contribution. Getting the marketing and HR teams working together is a big step forward.

Posted by Andrew Marritt at January 19, 2005 7:48 AM

In my opinion the heart of the Brand has to be communicated in a direct way. Certainly you can build a strategy of signs, messages and communications, but it will never reach to what we have been calling "micromanagement". The management of details, of spirit in small things. The Ad Agency cannot be in constant touch with the foreline employees. And other point we should not miss is that the heart of the Brand should not be "designed" by a staff, whether they are helped by a team of consultants or not. The heart of the Brand has to be like a flame coming from all of the employees. The Ad Agency can be a permeable agent who helps to communicate but cannot say, "Hey guys, this is the Brand Identity from now on". I have seen cases like these.

Posted by felix gerena at January 19, 2005 7:52 AM

Steve, et. al - to me the Brand must be supported by the players throughout the organization.

Simply then, make sure associates understand the Brand - love it - and radiate its essence to everyone in all contacts. Hire optimists and diplomats that thrive on Brand Harmony details and love to live and communicate the Brand as part of their lifestyles.

Posted by John at January 19, 2005 8:19 AM

Above, I have referred to "micromanagement" but there´s another point, too. It´s what I call "corporate mythics". Corporate mythics represents the lively condensation of collective experience, in this case, corporate experience.

Corporate mythics are shared guidelines coming from real experience, from sacrifice, failures, recoveries and wins. They set authentic behaviour lines, heartfelt feelings and the memory of special shared moments.

I usually realize how often Tom talks about the time Bob Waterman and him wrote "In search of Excellence". That´s the mythic side of a corporate culture.

A myth personifies heroes, idealized action patterns and that´s the essence of leadership.

Posted by felix gerena at January 19, 2005 8:44 AM

If you look at the strongest brands (Ralph Lauren's Polo springs to mind), the brand has been distilled and everyone in the enterprise understands it and transmits it continuously. Lauren is also notorious for firing those who inject sort of disharmony into his brand.

Can an Ad agency help-maybe, if they're helping to define the brand and train the workforce to transmit the brand. If management has simply abdicated the responsibility of brand building, then they are merely flushing money down the drain. EVERYONE REALLY NEEDS TO BELIEVE THE BRAND STORY!!!!

Posted by kurt wendelken at January 19, 2005 8:55 AM

This is the bit that really scares me.

Be the brand or your fired!
Everyone really needs to believe the brand!

I don't think this “Be the brand” is right. I think fundamentally you need people who live up to the meaning behind the brand (it’s values etc) NOT the superficial layer on top. I want people in my organisation to be constantly trying to destroy the brand – and build better - not automata who are being told what to think, say, do. I would much prefer to deal with a human being who is slightly off message but is amazing any day.

You cannot tell people what to believe – create something (product, company, culture etc) special and people will 75% sign up for the ride. I suspect the Ad agency wouldn’t be spending years in your company working with you to build your culture.

I am sure that Steve Y will tell me that is what he means by brand – and he is right – unfortunately the way it is implemented in most companies needs to be ripped down not supported.

Posted by PaulH at January 19, 2005 9:15 AM

The goal of internal marketing is that each person who works in the company has a clear idea of their personal role in "telling" the company's brand story, and is enthusiastic - and equipped - to play that role.

My skepticism about the way ad agencies are likely to approach this is that they will try to advertise to employees. If you mount a "campaign" and view internally marketing according to the anachronistic "brute force" model that runs most ad agencies, the employees will not be moved.

Assuming a company has a good brand strategy, the first task is to translate that brand strategy to individual job roles, so people understand their personal role. This can't be edicted. If a company is small enough (like 90%+ of companies), you can involve all employees in the process, helping to define their own roles. If the company is bigger, you can involve representatives from each job role. Employee participation has two benefits: 1) They have great ideas since they really know their jobs and 2) they are more likely to buy in.

Can ad agencies do this? I doubt it, but I'll be interested to see if any can prove me wrong. The bottom line is that this is not an advertising issue, and ad agencies are notorious for focusing on advertising. After all, if all you have is a hammer, everything tends to look like a nail.

Posted by Steve Yastrow at January 19, 2005 9:24 AM

Firstly you have to why are these companies communicating internally? The reason is normally because they've just woken up to the fact that the image and reputation of a business cannot be sustained by a bunch of creatives coming up with emotive staplines and combining them with imagery that doesn't exist in the real world.

The experience that a customer has when picking up the phone or standing in front of an employee is what determines whether they start a relationship with that business or not.

For this reason businesses have started to invest more in internal communication. However my own opinion is that whilst internal communication of any kind should be of the same quality as anything you produce for external audiences, the way you convey the message is totally different. Traditional marketing is subtle, genteel sometimes and perhaps open to debate. With internal comms you need to clear, consistent, honest and not leave any room for doubt.

If you want to try something different then ask a cab driver to help - they'll tell you straight and leave you in no doubt.

Posted by Andrew Cameron at January 19, 2005 9:57 AM

Good morning. It's a feeling conversation. (1) Why are ad agencies asked to do this work in the first place? Employees recognize that it isn't really in their benefit, they recognize that it is ultimately for the profit line, that it is for the PR in the WSJ, that is makes for a great party at the local pub on a Friday afternoon...but really is that what the employee needs? (2) Why isn't there an internal marketing group on site 24/7 attending to the needs of the company's most important consumers, their employees? See if the employees saw the company care as much about them as they did their purchasers they may give them 100% - hell they may let out all of their pent up desire and passion. (3) Make your internal associates "feel" equal to your consumers, split hr into a functional group and a marketing group. Brand = Talent. Activate the belief. But not through ad agencies, we all know what they want = profits for the company, an incongruent goal - a good goal, but incongruent.

Posted by Wendy at January 19, 2005 10:20 AM

SteveY: "My question: Are ad agencies the ones leading this change?"

No, the Ad agencies are not the ones leading the changes... it fact its the consumers. A large MSM (Main stream Media) --cant name it- Cited a $2.7B revenue stream from online ad's. This is surpassing the ad revenue from Print !! With those figures in had, there whole folio is now being remodeled for aggressive online content publishing...which is being targeted for the consumer now.. a big paraidgm shift is in occurence... I'll be really interested in seeing their final B-Plan !!

Posted by /pd at January 19, 2005 10:37 AM

apply POR system:
P for Problem = e2e failing.
O for Objective to solve the problem = find out why they are not interested.
-Hear everyone.
-Build company interactive culture.
-Hire PASSION and TALENT .
-Pitch ad/creative marketing Co s that really care that know and get involved.
-Through the books (not Tom s ) for this matter.
- Look for STRONG PERSONALITY.
- Discribe BRAND as a Story.
-Undestand that BRAND is framed from inside the Co but built from outside.
-Sack all those who do not put PASSION TO WORK.
R for expected Outcome = re positioning of your BRAND and PRODUCT in and out the Co.
-BRAND re birth culture.
-Finally take knowledge that the brand behaves as a person that grows, and grouth does not mean it has a strong personality.

Lets all make it simple, the more complicated we do it , more articles like these where someone discoveres the egg will come out,and some few ad agency s will only worry to cash the money.
There are creative communication Co s that go beyond the limits in caring for your BRAND, find them talk to them , their not BIG.

Posted by steve m at January 19, 2005 1:54 PM

Great question Steve.

I too have sat in those meetings where top management 'communicates' the new position, values statement etc. It was such a load of old tosh. Not one person walked out excited, enthused, or to be honest all that interested. It had no relevance to what they believed in or felt.

Where do the only workable brand values come from?

Not from what focus groups think they should be. Not from the outside at all.

Not from what the top management feels they should be. Brand values cannot be imposed.

They come from the inside. They come from the people who work for the company or brand. They will have a set of perceptions about what they stand for and what their brand stands for. This is the place to start looking for brand values.

It isn't about big pitches, slick advertising, large rollouts etc. If this is the first time your employees are aware of your 'new' values, you have likely failed already.

If you haven't read it, take a look at the interview with Sam Palmisano of IBM in Decembers Harvard Business Review - that is the way to create values that work. He set up a 'ValuesJam' site to discuss with employees what IBM meant to them. He got 50000 comments in 3 days. Many critical, many positive. Through consultation these were distilled down. He then acted like the leader he is. He took personal responsibility to make sure that the organisation came into line with these values. Yes, people's jobs were on the line! Including his own.

Finding values that work is not about hiring agencies, focus groups or any other such nonsense - it comes from the inside. And follow through comes from strong leadership. online pharmacy viagra trial pack

PS. I would rather see an HR consultant hired than any ad agency - someone who could advise how best to integrate these values into the hiring process.

Posted by Freddie Daniells at January 19, 2005 3:05 PM

You re sitting at a restaurant with some friends ,its raining out side , some girl waving to a lost cab takes the attention of all of you, and you coomment
- The other day when I came out of my office I had that same fucking problem-.
So one of you re mates asks -, where are you working now -.
You answer - at PocketGlue -
.He remarks,- great , I love that special Pod ,and the pack have you something to do with that new commercial on tv-.
Yeah says other one-, I saw the banner in google-.
Whats you re feeling.
Brand is valued by the precepcion of users and consumers you can build all the values you think the BRAND needs , but if they dont build a story out of the Co ,what the use .
Think what would have been you re reaction if after saying you worked in PocketGlue ,
youre friend would have said - I wonder whats that girl name, hey you go out there and get her a ride.
Hope you get the whole picture and look now out of the window, things are changing.

Posted by steve m at January 19, 2005 4:10 PM

Steve M:

Agreed - things are changing. It is today more about realness/authenticity. The girl didn't even notice you - she was just being herself.

It aint about what you think about me - that is your choice. The only thing I can be is myself (you'll see through me in no time otherwise!).

Hope you like me - but if not...so be it.

Posted by Freddie Daniells at January 19, 2005 8:07 PM

Two quick points...1) The article points to a tremendous need. Hypercompetitive and dynamic markets are forcing companies to re-evaluate, shift, reposition, hey, even re-invent their value proposition and how its presented to their customers and partners in the value chain. They have placed far too much emphasis on external market communications and far too little on assuring employees can actually deliver on these new sets of promises. The need is real and it's huge. 2) Advertising agencies are still, sadly, still focused on big, primarily unidirectional advertising campaigns as the solution to just about every problem. They may talk branding, internal, environmental, etc... but it generally leads to one place - a major advertising campaign. Other consultancies such as PR companies (full disclosure, I work for one), corporate culture shops and others are better prepared for the sustained DIALOGUE that is required for successful internal campaigns. Advertising is a critical marketing function but best aimed out at the market where it can do the heavy lifting required.

Posted by Ramiro at January 23, 2005 6:14 PM

As an architect designing corporate interiors that is essentially what we do: INTERNAL BRANDING. Companies seem to forget that the environment has such an enormous impact on the way people work. Look at what it costs to run a company and the percentage paid on the office environment in comparison to the salaries, very little indeed. However, most companies pay little to no attention to their physical work environment. WRONG! If someone walks into an office this is the first impression they get of that company. An office interior tells a lot more than a compay brochure.

Posted by Martin at January 24, 2005 7:27 AM