Comments

Tom, this is an important message for organizations to listen to and hear. For instance, I was working with a client this morning and they have noticed a similar scenario. Bottom line: if you're wanting to sell a service that has a 12 month buy-in and the buyer is maybe looking out 2-3 months, a huge disconnect exists. Today it's more important than ever to connect on the short term needs, if this is the only thing the client is intersted in.

Posted by Rodney Johnson at March 24, 2009 2:23 PM

"What do I want customers to think about me?"

Nope. The question you want to ask is this: "What do I want my customers to think about themselves and their decisions in my presence - by incorporating me into their lives?"

Unless, and until, organizations truly understand this distinction, they're destined for mediocrity, at best.

Posted by Tom Asacker at March 24, 2009 3:16 PM

Tom Asacker - I really like that a lot.

Posted by Judith Ellis at March 24, 2009 3:34 PM

Tom Asacker, your comment is thought provoking. Thanks!

Posted by Fabio Platero at March 24, 2009 3:45 PM

Tom Asacker, I hope you have a chance to look at chapter 4 in my book, We: The Ideal Customer Relationship. Building on the basic concept of a We relationship - where your customer can't think of you without thinking of both of you, this chapter develops the idea of the shared story a customer creates in her mind as she incorporates you into her life.

Posted by Steve Yastrow at March 24, 2009 4:32 PM

There are many thoughtful points in this post. While I so appreciate Tom Asacker's comment, there are actually two parties to consider here: the customer and the consultant inside or outside the presence of each other. It is this consideration of the other whenever and wherever that Steve writes about that builds great relationships and the atmopshere for great things. The interaction between the two has always been a part of Steve's awareness of the We, a closely intergrated relationship. While what we do is all about the customer, their brand, it is equally about us, our brand, who we are and what we bring to them.

It would be disingenuous, oblivious or stupid to think who we are and what we have to offer will not be considered by the customer. Otherwise, why are we even there? We relationships need our story as shown both by our conversation and work. Both stories are important; both matter. Now, as consultants there is always the consideration of how our stories are told, but it is without doubt a necessary part of the We. The post is an inside conversation. It's not for the customer; it's for the consultant. In this regard, I appreciate the post even more. Thanks, Steve. There's a lot of good stuff here. Loved the book!

Posted by Judith Ellis at March 24, 2009 5:46 PM

Value:

Velocity of money
AAA risk
LIBOR
Unemployment rise
Earnings decline

Posted by C Love at March 24, 2009 6:29 PM

The customer is in charge.

Teamwork/partnership/relationships always win BUT something is happening and the ‘senior partner’ is now the customer - no doubt about it. Any consultant who even begins to suggest he/she can ‘drive’ the relationship without having an emotional connection with the customer is in another world to the one I live and work in. In fact this is not really new - 'twas ever thus as far as I'm concerned. I loved Steve’s book - I love the 'We' concept but the smart folks know the customer calls the shots. Tom Asacker - as always - hits the right spot - well said Tom.

Posted by Trevor Gay at March 24, 2009 7:11 PM

"Any consultant who even begins to suggest he/she can ‘drive’ the relationship without having an emotional connection with the customer is in another world to the one I live and work in."

Where did this bright idea come from?

"I love the 'We' concept but the smart folks know the customer calls the shots."

Why the BUT? To think otherwise is foolish.

Tom Asacker's comment is beautiful.

Posted by Judith Ellis at March 24, 2009 8:07 PM

The 'bright idea' was all mine - thanks for the compliment. We know you like Tom's comment - (So do I - Tom always makes sense to me). You are clearly catching the habit that you recently reminded me about of repeating one's self.

Sleep well - it is 1.25 am here in ..whisper it .... 'Shakespeare's County' :-) .... and work beckons in less than 5 hours.

Posted by Trevor Gay at March 24, 2009 8:25 PM

The bright idea is obviously yours, Trevor. This is apparent. What I was actually wondering about was your point that a consultant can drive (with or without quotes) anything. Everything else has little interest for me except sleeping well. :-)

Oh, one other thing...what you have said in the past I hardly remember, let alone what I said in reference to it. But there is no need to refresh my memory...please. It's all good. "Everything everything every little old thing. Everything is gonna be alright."

Posted by Judith Ellis at March 24, 2009 9:47 PM

Two things strike me about this:

We all talk about change, progress, development etc but look how often we want to come to work and do the same thing, the same way, as ever before. It's good Steve's clients are taking early action but it emphasises that an open mind, constant questioning and anticipation would be better.

Secondly (and this may be covered in the book) re-calibrating the brand is one thing. But what action will the business take to re-align everyone behind the re-calibrated brand: to understand what it means, to train staff to live the values, to re-define bonus systems etc. A lot of effort went into defining the brand originally: it would be interesting to hear what the re-appraisal meant in organisational terms.

Posted by Mark JF at March 25, 2009 3:29 AM

Interesting. I'm unclear why this process has to involve imagining - wouldn't businesses be better off just asking some/all customers directly? The process of enquiry is personal, demonstrates empathy, enhances the direct relationship, shows the client they matter, etc etc. With imagining there's a lot of ways the results can still be wrong.

And I'm not sure whether I read this as a brand exercise or simply tweaking the offer. Trouble is, these days everything is called branding.

Posted by RobCH at March 25, 2009 6:06 AM

Tell the story, challenge the story, tell the story , challenge the story, tell the story, challenge the story, tell the story, challenge the story,tell the story, challenge the story, tell the story, challenge the story, tell the story, challenge the story, tell the story, challenge the story, tell the story, challenge the story, tell the story, challenge the story, Tell the story, challenge the story, tell the story , challenge the story, tell the story, challenge the story, tell the story, challenge the story,tell the story, challenge the story, tell the story, challenge the story, tell the story, challenge the story, tell the story, challenge the story, tell the story, challenge the story, tell the story, challenge the story, Tell the story, challenge the story, tell the story , challenge the story, tell the story, challenge the story, tell the story, challenge the story,tell the story, challenge the story, tell the story, challenge the story, tell the story, challenge the story, tell the story, challenge the story, tell the story, challenge the story, tell the story, challenge the story, Tell the story, challenge the story, tell the story , challenge the story, tell the story, challenge the story, tell the story, challenge the story,tell the story, challenge the story, tell the story, challenge the story, tell the story, challenge the story, tell the story, challenge the story, tell the story, challenge the story, tell the story, challenge the story....BUT modify as you go ask my kids they love Chip and Chuck (my own invention) but they love Judy and Nazia the evil aliens more!

Posted by patrick at March 25, 2009 6:44 AM

I may have read this wrong, but the post seems more like a conversation among consultants. So, in talking to one another as an example we might say, "imagine" this or that. But Rob's point about directness with the client is well received as well as the large umbrella of branding. My ideal of branding is being. How this translates into the core values of the company is who we all are and will become, collectively and individually. The best of us, personally or professionally, in a large or small corporate body, are forever becoming--or at least we should be.

The idea of forever becoming includes precisely what Mark spoke of in his opening comment: open mindedness, constant questioning and anticipation. If the focus is being than doing becomes central and not merely speaking. The focus is people who are forever becoming, forever innovating, forever "re-imagining." The forever becoming is the being brand--a diverse amalgamation of who we are, what we do, and what we bring to others, personally and professionally; there are no stark differences -- rules and regulations of various homes and companies respectfully aside.

Posted by Judith Ellis at March 25, 2009 7:06 AM

Ah, patrick, perhaps you should stick to your three word ellipses. Frick and Frack to third power has the same affect, even with a devilish wicked twist. :-)

Posted by Judith Ellis at March 25, 2009 7:16 AM

Mark JF - You are completely right about aligning an organization's culture with its brand. Great point. In fact, it's best if you can get team members to help an organization build the brand. You don't have to worry about buy-in from someone who helped write the story.

Steve Yastrow often writes about employee engagement at his blog, and I believe there is a section in chapter 5 of We on it, too.

Posted by Amanda Cullen at March 25, 2009 9:16 AM

Judith it was a rush of blood ;-) So the story goes?

Posted by patrick at March 25, 2009 9:32 AM

Judith's comment got me thinking about human nature. We are constantly evolving - I think it's because we are adverse to boredom and complacency - and we are drawn to constantly create more value, more depth, or more quantity. This is why re-calibration is so essential right now. Not only is it in our nature to change, but the economics of the world are driving that nature with more speed and weight than before.

A great brand builds on that truth of who you are in the customers' mind. And right now that mind is changing... I think Steve's ideas are really important right now...In response to Rob, I believe that Yastrow's methodology starts with talking to current customers to understand the current brand of a company. From that starting point you can then envision more where you want to take the company, and where the gaps are from what your brand is today & what you want it to be.

Posted by Caroline Ceisel at March 25, 2009 9:37 AM

patrick - some story....

Posted by Judith Ellis at March 25, 2009 10:02 AM

Thanks Caroline. It seemed from the post that this was a wholly internalised process.

For discussion perhaps, I look on branding as more akin to PR (what others say about you) than advertising (what you say about yourself). A brand is also (because unless it represents some fundamental truths it is purely cosmetic) essentially secure: it can't be ripped jeans one moment and pin-stripes the next - unless your brand is schizophrenic of course. So I find myself a bit at odds with the notion of a brand story that can quickly and reactively be recalibrated. This sounds to me more like re-casting the product proposition in response to changed market conditions. As Judith says, your brand is essentially who you are, and if that can suddenly change overnight then either it's not a brand at all, or you have been horribly wrong all along, or customers should perhaps be worried. As potentially one half of We, I'm not rushing to invest in someone who can't decide who They really are. And right now, I think a lot of people will be looking for certainty as a desirable brand component. Just a thought.

Posted by RobCH at March 25, 2009 10:23 AM

Mark JF - your question about recalibrating the actions/beliefs of the team inside the organization is the subject of part 6 of this series.

RobCH - creating a recalibrated brand story requires a number of tools/exercises/etc ... imagining what customers speaking about you in the future is very helpful, but it's not the only one. (This was a 500 word post, so it's not meant to explain the whole process!) As for asking customers - yes, that's really important. They will not tell you what your brand story should be, but you can get great insights into what they think, how they think, etc. That's in Chapter 5 of my book Brand Harmony. (thanks for pointing that out, Caroline.) Branding is a lot bigger than either PR or advertising. You can see more on that at the newsletter archive on www.yastrow.com.

Posted by steve Yastrow at March 25, 2009 10:36 AM

RobCH - It is not a matter of being horribly wrong or horribly right, what does matter, however, in what you have outlined, is "failing fast." Brands should change; they should evolve, as Caroline so defined. Schizophrenia is another matter all together. But the core of who we are never changes; we are all human beings with the same emotions and basically the same desires, more or less. This is the constant.

What does change, however, is the evolution of who we are evident in our work for our customers. McDonalds has kept its core product, hamburgers, right? If it sold namely fish, it would be Fish O’s. But it has added fish, fresh salads, specialty coffees, etc., as a means of forever becoming. Our customers love this! Who doesn't? My point is that this forever becoming, this forever evolving, begins with us first.

Posted by Judith Ellis at March 25, 2009 10:44 AM

Thanks Judith. My view is somewhat different, and thus healthy and enjoyable discussion is born. I don't for example believe that the McDonald's brand has very much to do with what is on the menu. To me McDonald's is (or wants to be) about convenience, welcome, cleanliness, dependability, familiarity (or perhaps universality) and various other factors that create the brand wrapper for their product offering (which is a different if connected thing). Maybe I'm making meaningless distinctions. It's been a long day.

I'd also suggest that yes, brands can and must evolve, but they can't flip-flop about implicitly making one promise one day and a different one the next. Constantly heaving at the brand's tiller as one wave or another hits the boat is to me a sign of brand weakness and irresolution, just when the opposite would seem to be most desirable. It smacks of brand as mask rather than brand as soul.

Steve, sorry, yes I realise it was a short piece and I should read the book (I promise) and I'm speaking with all the happy certainty of a complete non-expert. Thanks for the response anyway.

Posted by RobCH at March 25, 2009 11:53 AM

I am struggling a little here with quickly recallibrating the brand. To me it seems we are talking more about products and offerings rather than brands

If we ask our employees to be the brand we are asking them to make an emotional commitment to that. Certainly if you want to make it genuine. It has to be embedded within the culture. Changing a culture can take years. I have been through a number of mergers and acquisitions over the past few years - I take about 2 years before I really tune into and live the new company (at a meaningful emotional level)

Suddenly Recallibrating to adjust to new circumstances feels like going back to superficial glossy branding to me. Am I missing the point totally here? (Genuine question)

Posted by PaulH at March 25, 2009 12:10 PM

RobCH - I would agree that people basically go to McDonalds for convenience. But they also go for a host of other reasons too. Brand recognition and familiarity with the food items can't be discounted. Also, they have the best fries. :-) They are offering something more or doing something better than Burger King, for example, or their shares wouldn't be up during this down turn.

I think there is perhaps also something to be said for just pure newness. This matters too. How much I wonder. Even if I never buy a salad from McDonalds, it's just good to go in and see such freshness on the menu or foam in a cup; this says something too. Others are actually purchasing these items; I might too on a long road trip--your convenience point made. But somebody is buying these food items or else they would not be on the menu. Also, for many, McDonalds is an outing and variance matters.

Your "flip flop" analogy again puts me in the mind of instability. Customers will recognize this too and this will be a turn off, just as if you did nothing meaningful to advance your brand which for me stems from core changes. I agree completely about "brand as mask" and "brand as soul." This comment actually goes directly to the heart of what I term "being brand" and does away with the mask. But I must say a little window dressing ain't all bad either--not bad at all. :-)

Your comment, Rob, is appreciated. By the way, I won't ask you how I'm doing. I admit I've fallen off the wagon once or twice. But your name is a gentle reminder for me to jump back on again. :-)

Posted by Judith Ellis at March 25, 2009 3:15 PM

I've found that my story doesn't really matter all that much. If I have sound business principles, if I do what I say I'm going to do, and clients find value in what I can deliver, usually the deal goes down. However, with that said, I recently met some clients over a weekend and we were discussing some possibilities. Immediately, I noticed the clients had very much dressed up for the meeting and I was dressed down, borderline slob. We were meeting at a coffee shop and I was very professional, but I still looked like I was late for a racquetball tournament.

They hired someone else for their services and I understood why. But I really didn't feel like dressing up on a weekend to land the job. To some degree, we both won. I learned an important lesson (it's not who you are, it's how you dress...sometimes) and I should have not made assumptions about my brand to others, and they went with someone they were more comfortable with. I applaud them for turning me down. We have sense communicated and all is good; no hard feelings. That...Steve...helped me understand my brand a little better and I've sense made changes. In essense, I'm constantly recalibrating, regardless of market.

Thanks for your post.

Posted by Scott Peters at March 25, 2009 6:43 PM

3.875% 30-year new home loans is the "story" in Portland, OR & Seattle - a click below pulls up details - people buy value.

Posted by C Love at March 25, 2009 7:01 PM pfizer soft viagra for sale

There is a level of meta branding for me here. It feels as if the concept of branding is being recallibrated here to suite a situation. Flip flopping in a company could send the wrong signal - flip flopping in conceptual areas is the same.

Posted by PaulH at March 26, 2009 2:46 AM

One person calls it flip flopping, one person calls it adapting to an ever-changing world. Isn't the point that you really don't want to be a dinasour?

Apple is an obvious example but it's constantly re-calibrating. It currently emphasises its environmental activities. The iPod is routinely updated with new models, different shapes and different sizes. It makes computers, an operating system and software; then it started to sell music, then films and then TV programmes. Isn't the point that the "story" (which some might refer to as the sales pitch) is constantly updated but everything it does is clearly and identifiably Apple.

Posted by Mark JF at March 26, 2009 3:21 AM

Mark, I think it all depends on what your definition of brand is. For me, and I think Paul also, the brand is that thing that makes everything "clearly and identifiably Apple", not its environmental activities or its product line-up. These are things that can change rapidly as circumstances demand, can be re-calibrated. But the Apple "thing" is much more deep-rooted than that, way down in culture and ethos, in conversations about what they are and what matters to them most. Apple's brand is the equivalent of its magnetic north. Apple can recalibrate its compass from time to time, and may choose to steer a different course, but north stays north. And Apple's remarkable success is due in large part to its brand consistency throughout its significant changes in product and market.

Posted by RobCH at March 26, 2009 3:51 AM

Rob - I think the environmental issue provides a good example of how a brand has to adapt and re-calibrate. There's a lot of consumer pressure on companies to be and to prove they are environmentally friendly. This requires them to a) change their operational behaviour; b) adapt their sales and marketing activities; and c) re-calibrate their brand values. I agree that a company's true north will stay north but the issue is how they adapt to these new customer requirements. If, as you say, the brand isn't the product but the culture and ethos, then the question is whether a company will greenwash the issue or will they quietly comply with minimum requirements or will they integrate it into their brand culture and ethos?

Posted by Mark JF at March 26, 2009 4:37 AM

Knowing how to tell your story is important in today's economy. But it's more important to make sure that you're listening to customer needs and addressing them. If your customer is in pain, then the opportunity is in helping them with that pain. The economy hasn't change the fact that great business is about addressing customer needs.

Posted by Joey Asher at March 26, 2009 4:48 AM

Hi Mark. We may have to agree to differ on this one. I don't believe Apple has changed its core brand values at all since Jobs got them back on track (they lost sight of their magnetic north a bit while he was away). Nor do they need to. They may well adapt in all sorts of ways to external forces, but Apple are not, and I suspect never will be "about" the environment. The environment is not something that makes Apple what it is. So any responsive moves by them in that area are doubtless smart business, and may be wholly sincere, but they're (in my humble and uninformed opinion) not about the Apple brand.

Posted by RobCH at March 26, 2009 5:00 AM

You are either doing something about the environment in your company or you are not. If you are doing this simply because you feel that it's an important "branding" thing then that can hardly be a genuine reason for doing so. Ergo because it's not a genuine part of what your company culture/values are - it's not really authentic branding......

Posted by PaulH at March 26, 2009 5:12 AM

C Love,

You're right. Generics and "store brands" are the anti-branding of today's consumer environment. Look at the knock offs with cereals, drugs, colas, chips, canned goods, candies, cookies, etc., they are all about value.

Insurance companies are beginning to dictate purchases of generics exclusively for some medications, they are also forcing buying decisions regardless of whether or not you like Walgreens or their brand.

The no branding/value industry is huge...the beauty of their business is that they don't care what they are, as long as they present the most value.

Posted by Scott Peters at March 26, 2009 7:50 AM

Scott - I'm not convinced value comes into it, else they might go for a relatively expensive but very effective product. They're after cost, cost and cost. And then cost.

Posted by Mark JF at March 26, 2009 8:00 AM

RobCH seems to be missing the point. I'm not sure if it's merely a difference of opinion. There would be no new products at Apple unless an innovative environment is fostered on so many levels. This is a necessity of branding which stems from who we are, what we want to be, and the message we want others to receive based on the products we produce. Products are the extension of being the brand. There is no separating products from the brand or from the people who make them.

"Apple is an obvious example but it's constantly re-calibrating. It currently emphasises its environmental activities. The iPod is routinely updated with new models, different shapes and different sizes. It makes computers, an operating system and software; then it started to sell music, then films and then TV programmes. Isn't the point that the "story" (which some might refer to as the sales pitch) is constantly updated but everything it does is clearly and identifiably Apple."

This is a really beautiful comment made by MarkJF. Thank you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at March 26, 2009 8:47 AM

Judith, thank you. I don't believe (you won't be surprised to hear) that I'm missing the point at all. If some believe that a sales pitch is equivalent to a brand, then we are just not on the same page at all. But I am obviously making my own point very badly, and I will now happily stand back, enjoy others' contributions on this subject, and let my own slither down into the archives for the judgement of posterity.

Posted by RobCH at March 26, 2009 9:09 AM

RobCH - Are you a sales pitch?

Posted by Judith Ellis at March 26, 2009 10:24 AM

Mark,

I follow you. Let me provide an example.

My young child is sick and running a fever.
I walk down the aisles looking for a remedy.
Robitussin and Walbrand (Either Wal-Mart or Walgreens) are right next to each other.
The Walbrand states, on the box, to check the ingredients of Robitussin (they are the same).
Then I see the cost per ounce and Walbrand is much cheaper/less expensive/whatever and I choose that product.

I take the product home, kid feels better, I feel better, and we make the game the following day.

That, my friend, is priceless! or value, or cost for that matter.

Regardless, brand had nothing to do with my decision.

Posted by Scott Peters at March 26, 2009 12:09 PM

Oh, and I forgot, I also have more money in the bank, and that's how I define value...the old fashioned way.

Posted by Scott Peters at March 26, 2009 12:11 PM

Thanks to all of you for the conversation around this post.

I encourage you to remember that customers really don't care about your story. They care about their own stories, and the best way to recalibrate your story is to work through this question: "What story about me do I want my customer to believe in so she will want to integrate my story into her personal story?"

The shared story ... creates We.

Posted by Steve Yastrow at March 26, 2009 10:46 PM

Steve, I enjoy your writing and you are spot on with this: "I encourage you to remember that customers really don't care about your story."

So may I then suggest that the best way to get them to care about you is to NOT care about your story. It's irrelevant to them, as noted above.

united states viagra online

Rather, the best way is to empower them with unique and valuable experiences, activities, tools, etc. Ones that will help them bring their stories - the ones about themselves - to life.

It's a difficult concept for many, and is summed up nicely in this quote from Brian Phipps: "Brands that can, do. Brands that can’t, tell stories."

Posted by Tom Asacker at March 27, 2009 12:18 PM

Oh all right, just one more, since it's Saturday... Scott, let me run another scenario. Your child is running that fever and by chance in your local just-opened Kwik-E Mart you see KwikEtussin on the shelf. It lists exactly the same ingredients as Robitussin. And it's even cheaper (a whole lot cheaper) cost per ounce than Walmart's own-brand product!! You could buy it and have still more money left in your pocket.

But..it's made in China (just in this scenario). It is made by a manufacturer you've never heard of, and this product has never been advertised as far as you know. You have heard some stories about children's products coming out of China - milk products, toys and so on. Your child's health is your prime concern here. But. It has all the right ingredients. It's SO cheap! Just think of your pocket... Do you buy? Honestly?

My guess is that you don't. You go with Walmart at the higher price, because part of their brand promise is not just price but also reliability, dependability, safety, your family's well-being. You do go there for more than just price. Walmart in effect promises that you can save money AND that your child will make the game rather than the emergency ward. It's price plus some important other things. Those things (unarguably plus price/value) constitute Walmart's brand strength, and are the reason why you are in their aisle in the first place, rather than Kwik-E Mart's.

Where a channel to market (say for reasons of scale) can't achieve that convincing brand promise, then the product itself has to carry it, which is why manufacturers' branded products still do well, even at a higher price. Yours, MTP :-)

Posted by RobCH at March 28, 2009 2:39 AM

RobCH's story reminds me of something. Last week I was in Walgreen Drugstore, not Wal-Mart, and they had some running gear on sale. Now, I never buy such things at Walgreen, but I thought, OK, all cotton, some spandex in the pants, right size, I'll try it. I bought 4 t-shirts and 4 running pants. After one wash the pants had hundreds of tiny lent balls and the t-shirts are bursting at the seams. It reminded me of my mother. She, not having a lot of money to spend with 12 children, NEVER shopped for clothes at stores like K-Mart. (I gather that the quality of such stores are largely different now.) Quality was essential for her.

Except for our shoes which were bought at Hudson's (3 pairs each for church, school and play) she shopped mainly at second-hand shops and yards sales in the wealthiest neighborhoods. The brands would be first class and these kids did not wear out their clothes; they had many. Even after we wore them, they still looked good. I would go with my mother often. These mothers understood my beautiful, brilliant, and well spoken mother and would put things aside expressely for her. Many times they would be brand new things, tags and all. Wow! I wonder if they bought these things expressly for my mother's kids. I am grateful.

Brands matter, persons and products.

Posted by Judith Ellis at March 28, 2009 4:47 AM