Comments

Strange... the phrase "marketing to" absolutely grates... and that goes double when I think about it applied to an internal "campaign."

Overreacting?

Posted by Rockster at April 22, 2005 3:25 AM

Either you're overreacting, Rockster, or I'm not clear in my communication. Probably me!

I'm the last person to support "campaigns" "to" employees. So, sorry if I was not clear. The internal marketing process I employ and believe in is one that helps individuals within a company define their personal roles in the telling of the organization's brand story. The reasons I believe in involving people in defining their own roles is twofold: 1) they'll have great ideas (experience proves it every time) and 2) better buy in.

So ... I'm not talking about using old-time traditional marketing tools to market to employees. But the question still holds: Are organizations as focused on internal marketing as they are on external marketing? Should they be? Are there cases where internal marketing is more important than external marketing?

(My views on this are described in detail in Chapter 6 of Brand Harmony.)

Posted by Steve Yastrow at April 22, 2005 4:00 AM

I have written in other places as follows;

"Trust your staff - they know all the answers - all of the time"

I passionately believe that.

In healthcare which is my 'career life' as a manager I just know that people are 'kept under' by complex processes and yet if they are just given trust and allowed to fly, then they soar!!

I don't like the expression 'marketing within' either Rockster - but I do like Steve's helpful explanation.

If we simply ASK OUR STAFF they will provide us with all we need to know about how they should be treated. I think 'marketing within' really means 'how we should value our staff' - and how do we illustrate that by our actions as leaders.

Great topic Steve

Posted by Trevor Gay at April 22, 2005 4:13 AM

A key issue, sometimes forgotten. Many companies focus on planning and implementation and forget their staff has not taken part in the diiscussion in the strategy or they take for granted that a new marketing strategy "has to be understood" by the employees without effort. A big mistake.

Posted by felix gerena at April 22, 2005 4:48 AM

very good, what about "We need to start marketing ourselves"?

Posted by Tarek Rahal at April 22, 2005 5:49 AM

It is my experience, where there is a major new brand initiative and unless the entire company has somehow been involved in its development, that an internal marketing campaign to encourage buy-in is critical to ensure success. And, please, let's not relegate the word marketing to the "think twice before using" category.

Posted by Ciaran McCabe at April 22, 2005 6:39 AM

yep, the "inside branding" is often overlooked. Some companies I have been working for really had no idea how important is to communicate to its staff what is their brand and lacks vision communication inside. Because as a member of the organization I can make outside communication much more efficient if I myself feel being the BRAND, rather than those publication and presentations I communicate to my customers.

That’s really the point where CRM initiatives fail and when vision stays on paper and where Marketing people at the company are interpreted as the "weird people making simple things look complicated and expensive".

Moreover starting internal communication efforts would give lots of valuable information feedback to Re-Image [© T.P.] outside marketing.

Posted by mantautas at April 22, 2005 7:29 AM

in the transportation services industry the importance of the personnel as part of the brand experience is apparent. //// in fact the personnel is your primer brand driver (not taking the more technical aspects like punctuality, routes, price… into account). //// internal branding projects – not your usual staff training – come with mergers, re- brandings, relaunches… and can/should affect the whole organization – (whereas i have never really seen that happen to its fullest extend).
personally i have been involved in two of those projects in the transportation services industry – once as part of a consulting team, once as part of the client’s organisation (european airline and german railroad carrier).

talking in general, to my concern three factors (reason / time / process) are crucial for successful internal branding projects. first of all you need a real reason…. new brand, new logo, new ceo, new strategy, new structures… whatever… you need real irritation, a real fresh start, a real reason. and you have to capitalize on that. secondly “time”: timing is crucial for the involvement – do not let them be the last to know, do not let them be the first to know – when you come to the market with a new identity you want it to be both solid and fresh. and thirdly “process” – fully agree with you, steve – an extremely clear cut process design, which creates the time and space for your people to buy into the new idea and encourages them to define their roles accordingly. however - in this process you will have to deal with people who do not like change at all and with others who are over-enthusiastic (would love to re-define their whole life in their new role-definition). both extremes are danger to the project’s success. so, a sharp process design is crucial… feed-back loops etc. and experienced facilitators… and you have to damn well know what you are doing…

classical internal communication campaigns? – as you also brought this up… not too much and not too little. if they accompany the project in a meaningful way… ok. but they do not really touch the heart of the matter.

Posted by jens at April 22, 2005 8:09 AM

TRUST THE STAFF only is a road to ruin. Mission, vision, and guiding principles should be clear to all. Plus communication to employees should be continual, new, fresh, fun - so for Progressive Insurance, for example, they must understand SPEED is a main part of their BRAND.

HOW ABOUT THE TP COMPANY internals - what the heck is going on - chaos?

Posted by Sean at April 22, 2005 8:23 AM

Absolutely a critial issue which is frequently misunderstood, or worse, ignored. This very issue came up during my recent exit interview [sic.].

Posted by Carlos N Velez at April 22, 2005 8:25 AM

I think this is missing the point - your brand IS your people. Whether you like it or not the customers perception of dealing with your company is based on dealing with your people. Your products came from your people. Instead of getting your people to "be the brand" why not let your brand to align with what you have already?

This at least stands a chance of success and would not be "internal corporate marketing spin" I think there is an underestimation in management and marketing about how much the average person hates feeling like they ar being manipulated by marketing

Posted by PaulH at April 22, 2005 9:12 AM

My experience is that a lot of the time executives see internal marketing as unnecessary. Their belief that their people are already "bought in" combined with a hesitance to spend more inside the company can make internal programs a hard sell. Often, however, this sense of confidence in ones employees is misplaced. Employees need the communications and "marketing" as much or more than customers.

I'm dealing with a situation like this right now where the need for internal marketing is clearly evident, yet the senior executive team is so focused on "awareness" (a bad measure to begin with) that they will only consider things that address external markets. Employee morale is low and engagement is sinking fast, but the willingness to recognize and act is lower still. A friend of mine said I should fire the client. Any suggestions?

Posted by Andrew Hayden at April 22, 2005 9:28 AM

Clearly we're all in the same ballpark; despite some of the slight disagreements and nuances of perspective, everyone here recognizes the importance of having people within and throughout an organization be deeply involved in the brand and clear about its meaning.

But ... I think we'd all agree that most companies don't practice this way. Why?

I clearly remember a spark that got me thinking of this stuff about 12 years ago. At that point I was vp of resort marketing at Hyatt, and was very focused on how the real marketing was happening between guests and employees, not in the $50K print ads that were considered as necessary as breathing.

At the same time, an overall corporate ad campaign was done, encompassing all 100+ hotels, not just the 17 resorts. The campaign featured pictures of models, I mean employees, um, yes, at least they looked like they might be employees. This was one of those campaigns where the process was stupid and it became an agency and client-company-president groupthink thing. In any event, at the very last minute, a back-of-house poster was created and sent to the hotels. It said "Tomorrow we're launching a new advertising campaign about you, and you're going to like it."

Ugh.

There's a story in my book about a major United Air LInes campaign focused on customer service where flight attendants weren't told, and found out about the campnaign, which promised they'd give great service, by watching TV.

Why does this happen?

Posted by Steve Yastrow at April 22, 2005 10:00 AM

I believe marketing starts internally, with Identity Marketing; however, I believe branding is dead. I believe the way to inspire people is to invite them into Affinity Groups, groups that engage them in feeling potential emotions as communities: employee and consumer or truly consumer and consumer if we were honest. Be the brand isn't human or real, humans want to be part of communities, not brand groups. So, I am an internal to external marketer, only not through the brand. What business are we really in? Let's get clear. Marketing is changing, we are evolving, we are changing the terms of engagement..."engagement." It's fun.

Posted by Wendy at April 22, 2005 10:07 AM

STEVE - it seems there needs to be a company "keeper of the corporate culture / BRAND" so everyone is on the same page - for example - I'm totally PERPLEXED BY TP company culture at this point - unsure if I can trust the BRAND any longer - getting mixed signals. Thanks.

Posted by Sean at April 22, 2005 10:41 AM

"Branding is dead." "'Marketing to' grates me." "'Inside branding' is overlooked."

What is everyone talking about? Brand = strategy = marketing + innovation = engagement/communication among people. Simple? Yes. Easy? Hell no. But please, stop the linguistic madness.

The problem with most businesses is that they don't have a superior strategy (a.k.a a strong brand). When one exists, everything else - including engagement of people - flows naturally.

Do you honesty believe that FedEx, Starbucks, Microsoft, Apple, et al have ever sat around kibitzing over brand inside? C'mon. They're too busy executing superior strategies.

Posted by Tom Asacker at April 22, 2005 11:17 AM

Tom,
You're absolutely right. Unfortunately, you can probably count the number of companies with truly strong brands inside and outside on one hand. Even these companies still work very hard on the internal aspects of it in order to make sure their employees are fully engaged in the brand. They may not sit around and kibitz on it, but they sure do pay a lot of attention to it.

Posted by Andrew Hayden at April 22, 2005 11:52 AM

Tom A ... great points ... totally agree, except I think those companies do talk about the brand inside, but they do it in a way that is in sync with their overall superior strategies. My entire morning has been spent so far on the phone with a client with superior strategies, where we are using the brand, understood and lived by all 250 people in the company, as the best tool available for supporting, nurturing and evolving their strategy.

Posted by Steve Yastrow at April 22, 2005 12:04 PM

... hmmm

what wendy, paul and tom are saying makes me feel like a rusty old technocrat.

and of course, tom, corporations whose products and strategies are superior - or at least of some relevance - do not need "kibitzing" over brand inside as much as others in order to engage their people...
but - honestly - how many companies are that?

Posted by jens at April 22, 2005 12:14 PM

You say tomato, I say tomatoe. Everyone has a different definition of (and possible aversions to) "Marketing" and "Branding." Drucker once said, "managing people is a marketing job." - and I agree. However, we must differentate between creating a culture and bombarding employees with marketing hoo-ha. If employees don't feel valued, they sure as heck are going to provide value to your customers.

One of my clients recently said, "My employees 'don't get it'" when talking about his mission. Uh-oh. As evidenced in other comments, the people are the brand - and the brand is created every time one of them pours a cup of coffee, answers the phone...or tells a customer "sorry, that's against policy." Your people are only as good as your internal communications to and with them. (Of course, you've also got to to make sure you've got the right people in the right positions.)

Posted by Mary Schmidt at April 22, 2005 12:41 PM

Andrew, Jens and Steve. I couldn't agree with you all more! And so, there you have it. Companies should be working to make their strategies superior (which including all employee activities). Just as in sport, engagement comes from doing a job well and believing that your role will help contribute to a competitively superior team/outcome/brand. If there's no belief, I don't care how you spin the story.

Posted by Tom Asacker at April 22, 2005 12:46 PM

"...strategies superior..." (sic) is just a piece of the action. The rapid ability to change, innovate, create anew - and expect and have faith in an enlarged vision - all key to free enterprise wealth. Talent that is happy and in sync with the business is also key - to get back to a main thread of "internal marketing".

Posted by Sean at April 22, 2005 1:47 PM

Steve... I'm going to have to buck up and read your book... (after that whole Wal-Mart thread that had 50+ comments, and now this one... you sure ask interesting questions!).

I guess I'm along the Tom A et al line of thinking, though. Maybe this comes from my cluetrain conversion, but "branding" as an activity performed without engaged employees and fluid communication inside and outside, without a superior strategy and superior product or service... sounds like "spin" and maybe even trying to fool people. It is a facade, and the truth will be known.

So... I think that if you even ponder the internal communications requirements as remotely related to "marketing," you've failed somewhere in the foundation of your business.

Posted by Rockster at April 22, 2005 1:48 PM

It would seem that there are different ways to talk about the same thing. Branding is marketing is communication is identity formation is visioning is...

The bottom line is that people need to be clear about what the company stands for and how it applies those values through their products, services and processes. Even then there will be differences in perspective. People interpret their organization through their experience with it, not through the boilplate that every department produces to define the company.

When I conduct internal surveys in the context of strategic planning processes, I always ask some form of the following question: "Given that this organization may have many missions, what do you see as THE mission of the organization." What always comes is a perception based on where the employee or Board members stands in regard to the rest of the organization. It is always widely diverse, but not necessarily inconsistent with the goals and values of the organization. It provides a richness that can be beneficial, when handled properly.

That said, someone, probably the CEO, has to become the person who establishes the baseline of perspective that everyone else uses to base their own perspective on.

I like to think of this person as representing the magnetic North on the compass. They represent a perspective that provides direction, but still is not true north. Diversity of perspective is the declination corrective for the company, so that it doesn't stray too far off course.

Posted by Ed Brenegar at April 22, 2005 3:33 PM

...."declination corrective for the company..." reads like the perfect company to AVOID at all costs - especially the boring "managers".

Posted by Sean at April 22, 2005 6:52 PM

Sure staff buy in quick, but watch them buy out just as quickly. Seen it happen too many times in various roles I have been in and consulting I have been a part of.

And hey, why not market to them, HR as Marketers to cause buy in again.

Some HR seems to have training as thier only buy in, for some employees they don't want that, they in fact loathe it.

The thoughts on staff being involved, and is it okay to trust them... yes to a point. people put in to their level of incompetency (usually because the organisation has been incompetent). Therefore the input soon causes a void and a fresh approach is needed. EG. a flower needs external nutrients to blossum once its own has been expended.

The answer lies in the ability of a Co to be flexible in its apporach, speedy on the up take, and ready to zig when it thought of zagging.

Posted by steve at April 23, 2005 7:04 AM

I have written elsewhere that we are in danger of over complicating branding. It is simple - it is what makes an individual or an organisation stand out - a distinctive feature.

My concern is that we will turn branding into some academic discussion - we will have an MBA in Branding soon GOD FORBID!!

Please keep it simple!

Posted by Trevor Gay at April 23, 2005 7:19 AM

Steve Y., Cathy M. et al: Don't take it personal but most of us don't want to hear from any of you any more - Tom has to get back on this thing, or you will lose most of your loyal readers. Happened on his old website too. Period. Marketing. What your customers want... Think about it. Thanks.

Posted by eric lapp at April 23, 2005 8:48 AM

for those, who liked this discussion here: today's ft has an nice article on GM http://news.ft.com/cms/s/928dd6d2-b361-11d9-ad2b-00000e2511c8.html

"rotten cars, not high costs, are driving GM to ruin."

and for those who are not subscribers: "... This is the company, remember, that gave us the template for the modern, multi-divisional corporation. A pioneer of financial control and fact-based management, it spawned two of the best management books ever written - Peter Drucker's Concept of the Corporation (1946) and Alfred Sloan's My Years at General Motors (1964).
As the hard-headed Sloan would surely have recognised, however, this is no time for sentiment.
..."

- have a nice weekend.

Posted by jens at April 23, 2005 9:05 AM

I have worked in places where the frontline communication was superb - but it still didn't get people on board - The reason the employees didn't agree/believe in the ideas/strategy - people are intelligent and have in built BS detectors - no amount of marketing can get people on board with something they disagree with (usually counterproductive if anything)

This is what worries me when people talk about marketing in this context (instead of communication) most people look at marketing and they disbelieve it as corporate spin. People don't like being told what to believe. If there is good communication,the message is grounded in reality and make sense you don't need marketing!

Posted by PaulH at April 23, 2005 9:33 AM

Hell , Companies marketing Internally first ?? YOu gotta be kidd'en me !! The employees are the last to know about some sort of strategy or syngery build. Its pathetic that companies treat their employees as just plain workers.

when I try to get internal and external synergy creation for same page kickoff..I get the 3rd degree of the eceholons because they say, that employees should not--or rather need not know the details. Only the external partners. Yet, when the External partner calls up to find out more info, what does s/he do eh ?? picks up the phone and calls into the employee that they have a relationship with. What happens then ?? The employee says "really ?? .. I never heard of such a thing- let me find out and I'll get back to you". Next thing, is that they try to find out.. and the upper strata say "why are you asking, tell the customer to speak to xyx or just redirect to call center they have the info".

Whewww..wait a moment, we have just made OUR CUSTOMER wait for answers. Why ?? Because we as a company have not done due dilgence orientation internally !! We are not facing off externally as one cohesive organic enitity. This sucks !!

when will companies understand that markerts are conversations--converstations both internally and externally !!

Posted by /pd at April 23, 2005 2:51 PM

Hmm.. I remember this as part of stratigic business plans, but it is not put into place and it does not work.

Why? Simple there are too many people that are in the know, where as marketing depends on misdirection and confusion to try to reassciate an alternate image to replace reality. So how do you think that you are going to fool the people who designed this image artifically?

Posted by avitar.net at April 23, 2005 2:56 PM

"...markerts are conversations--converstations..." (sic) thankfully just one blogger has an exceptionally low blog IQ.

Posted by Brad at April 23, 2005 6:16 PM

as a non-profit (a church), we fully believe in internal marketing. after all, if our own people aren't proud and excited by their own church, why would they invite anyone in or promote it as a good place to be. it's the whole viral marketing thing, and for us the "word-of-mouth" deal is huge.

i can't imagine it's that different in for-profit entities... if your own people don't believe in you, that's going to show through pretty quickly.

Posted by mark o'brien at April 24, 2005 11:37 PM

Steve, perhaps everyone is getting wrapped up in the "branding" word but I think of internal marketing as both visioneering (vision, mission, strategy, goals) and talent development. There are companies that understand their most valuable asset is their people -- and there are companies that do not value their employees. It all starts at the top with the leadership of the company (not that we all can't be leaders). If I can paraphrase John C. Maxwell... He says that the best gift leaders can give to their people is to grow (always be learning), serve and model. And if they want to get the best from their people, leaders have to listen, observe, relate, teach, demonstrate, and empower. And if we do those things, our people will be motivated beyond belief and there will be such momentum in our companies and organizations that truly nothing is impossible. It's all about energy, and a company can't fake it (or at least not for long). Starbucks, Nike and a few other brands have achieved massive growth, not because of any great external branding strategy or ad campaign, but because the leadership of those organizations believed in their people and realized they couldn't go to the top alone. Network marketing companies like Avon, Mary Kay, Tupperware, Nikken and others have been pioneers in this arena for years -- traditional companies should take a lesson from the network marketing model in that personal development is of primary importance. Transformation starts on the inside of a company because transformation is an individual human behavior. As Dan Pink says, "It's a whole new mind."

Posted by Sally Witzky at April 25, 2005 2:56 PM

I think there is an issue here that is bigger than marketing, or even business.

It is our mindset that we have to pretend to be something other than ourselves. Not to get all psycho-babble, but I think there is a huge issue in our western culture that pushes us to think we have to fake our way through life. Everything we communicate has to put us in the best light with those who hear/read us.

The problem is 2-fold:

1) "the best light" is different with each person. So, we become something we're not. We do it in our lives, we do it in marketing.

2) We don't know who we are. Even if we tried to be ourselves, we don't know ourselves. We're so busy doing what others have told us is the right thing, that we forget to investigate what we were MADE to do (if your worldview allows that). Same in business. We're so busy trying to tell people that we give give them what we think they want, we don't really know who we are as a business, as a brand.

So, marketing becomes a mask and we become businesses without a face. Hence, I believe internal marketing is critical, but it must be authentic.

Posted by Dustin at April 25, 2005 6:11 PM

Internal marketing is all about effectively communicating with and engaging employees ... if your employees don't feel valued, neither will your customers! Too often internal marketing is treated like a "program-of-the-month" (we're about to launch a new campaign, what can we do to get our people to buy-in?) when it should be ongoing. It's a bridge between marketing and HR; however, as the employee relations function of HR continues to be downsized, marketing must take a pro-active role to ensure the employee-customer satisfaction link. In theory, most organizations subscribe to being both employee- and customer-focused ... then there's reality. (Wanna know the secret? Internal marketing isn't just about marketing -- it's really an issue of leadership.)

Posted by Sybil at April 27, 2005 10:11 AM

Agreed,

Now here's a thought… If 'internal
marketing' is about communicating
commitment to values (never designed
for positioning) and organizational
learning for competency development
(presuming highly volentary change)
where the brand is the natural byproduct.
What can internal marketers communicate
that HR or leadership can't do effectively?.

It could be argued that all customers
are a human resource =P

Posted by Soleilmoon at April 28, 2005 10:05 PM

Internal marketing comes up in one of Tom's other favourite ideas, experiences and the experience economy. For emplyoees it is just as important that they understand the inherent experience their employer is portraying. For the employee, is there a clear central set of values that is well understood? this is key not only to retaining employees but attracting and retaining new employees. IS there consistency in everything the company does both internally and externally - if there is a dischord then it is usually the employee that loses out. Is the organization offering a unique culture to its employees?
Marketing internally is really letting the employees be on the same page as the customers. Charlie Trotter is the expert at this with his employees experiencing the uniqueness of the experience they offer while having a hand in creating an even greater experience for customers.
My interest is also in retirement planning for senior executives - not the financial stuff but the lifestyle planning. So if anyone wants to talk about this or if Tom et al have a comment, they can learn more by going to my blog http://best-half.blogspot.com/

Posted by Gordon Neufeld at May 3, 2005 1:59 PM

Can't believe I missed this conversation. Good perspectives and ideas. I think internal marketing is different from having employees engaged and living your brand. Internal marketing will be done by marketeers whose main focus is on the outside (the consumer) but forget how to apply those same kinds of ideas and principles on the inside and then when they do they are in a pitching selling spinning mode. I have lots of blogs devoted to this on my blog called HR's brand new experience at http://www.blogs.bnet.com/hr/

Posted by regina at May 5, 2005 1:28 PM

Three companies I've worked with and where I've seen first hand the power and effectiveness of what I'd call "internal marketing" are Motorola, GE and Boeing. But what is internal marketing - to me, its the messaging of who "we" are and what "we" do. Its not spin-meistering the latest crappy ad campaign or trying to talk employees into "buying something". Its nurturing the brand...

I have a similar challenge in my current work. One of my flight teams operates inside a fire department - who is also its largest customer. Marketing the team and its capabilities to those who engage its services is critical to the unit's growth and success. But the activity, when balanced against marketing "externally", is something folks don't want to do. Its crazy, but sometimes we know the enemy and it is us.

Posted by Chris at May 15, 2005 11:42 PM