Measuring Up

Become synonymous with what you do

This is no easy task for companies. As a matter of fact, most hire firms like Peppercom to help them create more visibility for what sets them apart and to ultimately try to build their brand above and beyond category or industry competitors.

Over the last 50 years, I can only think of a handful of companies that have truly become synonymous with the category/service/product they create or represent. To name a few, Kleenex successfully did this with tissues and Google has now accomplished this with Internet search. But, it often takes many years of creating superb customer experiences, exhibiting much desired product/service qualities that competitors don’t posses and spending lots of $$$ on disciplined marketing.

The fact is that most industries or categories simply have too much competition for one company to truly stand out as a brand in this dominant way. Understanding that the odds are long against any organization becoming the next Kleenex or Google, I believe that many companies still have a real opportunity to become more synonymous with what they do. But, they need to recognize creative PR or marketing approaches that can create impactful ways for them to own white spaces that exist (especially when such ideas or opportunities are smacking them right in the face). ADP did exactly that when the opportunity presented itself. Among other offerings, ADP is the largest outsourced payroll company in the country. I’m not sure when it happened, but ADP proudly owns an employment index which showcases the increase/decrease in new jobs created each month. Guess what? Pretty much every media outlet I reviewed either refers to this index or simply profiles it as the official barometer in our marketplace. The tie in is clearly perfect for ADP because it links the brand to employees/jobs. In today’s business environment, tens of millions of eyeballs have seen this index and there’s no doubt it has helped ADP build its brand to become more synonymous with what it does.

I can find lesser known examples, but equally successful in their own right. Ever hear of a company called Prebon Yamane? Probably not, unless you are a Wall Street trader. Prebon Yamane was acquired over a dozen years ago, but it used to be one of the largest wholesale brokers (brokers to traders) on Wall Street. These firms are seen as commodities by their customers and most have very little to speak of that truly sets them apart. But, Prebon Yamane did something very smart. It had been tracking the ups and downs of Federal Fund prices in the industry for years. The information was limited to being used internally at the firm, as well as provided to clients to help their trading efforts. Until, a Wall Street Journal editor conducted a random interview with the firm’s CEO. As a matter of fact, this CEO happened to discuss how important this proprietary information is to clients. Long story made short, it took a few months, but Prebon Yamane’s index soon became the first official “Fed Fund” Index featured two to three times per week on the front page of the 'Marketplace' section of this elite daily newspaper. Aside from creating instant credibility and publicity for the firm, the branding from this index allowed Prebon Yamane to become synonymous with Fed Funds on Wall Street. This was a huge marketing win which cost nothing to arrange.

From time to time, we present clients with these type of branding opportunities. Typically, through one of our white space audits it becomes clear that no one in our client’s industry has taken ownership of a topic, issue or even most/all of the service/product it represents. Yet, I find that in many cases it’s hard to convince clients to move forward with such initiatives. The reasons vary as to why the responses can be negative. Sometimes it’s just about money (even though the investment cost is typically low), but often it’s just because  they are too focused on just delivering solid, yet basic “bread and butter” results for their organization.  

That’s disappointing. Whether it be some type of index, research, award program, unique coalition or simply just taking a proactive, consistent stance on owning a thought leadership topic that no one else is, marketers need to see that three is often very little setting each company apart from the competition. If a real idea comes along to make one’s company even a tiny bit more synonymous with what it does, my advice is to find a way to make it happen.

How will they “Spin” this?

There’s a cool, new club in New York City called Spin. Much like cigar bars and pool clubs took off five to ten years ago, Spin is making a big bet that ping pong will become the next craze among the New York club crowd who are quick to find the newest progressive and creative themed venues. 

Right now, Spin’s near term future looks pretty bright.  I attended a special charity tournament a few weeks back and was a little surprised to see just how packed the place was (on a Monday night.) It was fun to see how dozens of seemingly normal club goers became competitive and talented table tennis players once the jackets and ties came off and the paddles started to swing through the air. Naturally, ping pong isn’t the only activity of choice at this club. The crowd hanging at the chic long bar was just as rowdy as the players they were watching.

I’ve heard from friends that Spin is on fire right now. The place continues to pack ‘em in. That’s not surprising because Spin’s owners were smart enough to catch a rising trend in America… the growth of ping pong as a cultural sport.  And, they’ve created a nice formula to tie it into a real club scene. Unfortunately, it seems that the organization doesn’t understand (or simply doesn’t care) that success can be ephemeral. Especially, when the business is solely based on the fickle and ever changing wants of trendy consumers.

Which leads me to discuss my issues with Spin. For the last three weeks, we’ve tried to book a day time birthday party for my 10 year old son at Spin. (He’s an avid ping pong player.) The responses from the club have ranged from indifference, to rude, to plain idiotic. The women who are functionally charged with booking these types of events have lost our file, given us the wrong email addresses, told us they’d call back and then never did so, and have plain forgotten who we are (after multiple conversations.) I’ve spoken to two other friends who both shared the same type of experience as I.

In my mind, Spin’s staff either doesn’t give a damn, or is so confused and disorganized that they have no idea how to create customer loyalty. Either way, it doesn’t really matter. My belief is that it might happen tomorrow, next month, a year or even two, but Spin will fail if it doesn’t change its modus operandi pretty quickly.

I’m not writing this post to bitch about a business that frustrated me. Spin is but one example of a very real business issue that exists today. Trendy restaurants, clubs and other consumer facing businesses come and go for the reasons I highlighted above. Once that frenzy is over, only the really customer focused, savvy businesses that can provide superior products/services then survive. To do that, these businesses have to focus from the onset on how they can build a solid base of loyal fans who will provide the core sales revenues (to stay afloat) when all the hip and cool early adopters move on to the next trendy theme.

My guess is that the heads of Spin’s management are ‘spinning round and round’ right now in a state of euphoria and confusion. They are probably ecstatic about their new found success and have no idea that it’s time to shake off that feeling that they are conquering the world and start looking at the basics of how to build a business from the ground up. Of course, that all starts with delighting the customer.

Everybody is a “solutions” provider

The other morning, I watched Dow Chemical’s CEO conduct an interesting interview on CNBC about his  company’s business strategy.  Throughout the interview, he repeated over and over again how Dow Chemical is a solutions provider for its clients. He offered up one or two examples that showcased this. But, to be honest, he pretty much lost me after the fifth time the word “solutions” came out of his mouth.

So many companies across countless industries continue to use ambiguous phrases such as “solutions provider” to describe the core benefit provided to clients/customers. The problem with this phrase is that while everyone understands immediately what the word solutions means, ironically it has almost no worth or significance because of its complete overindulgence in today’s business world.

Think about it. What company doesn’t provide solutions to its customers? I’ll go out on a limb here and contend that those companies that really can’t provide solutions won’t be in business very long. So, if a company has been in business for say a year or even two, it’s probably safe to say it is providing at least a solution to customers.

I believe the bottom line effect of using a phrase like this in one’s positioning statement, or at least  as a core message in how a company tries to set itself apart, will have the opposite of the desired result. Most business people hear or read “solutions provider” and their eyes glaze over because they’ve heard that from thousands of other companies. Now, this company (which is trying to set itself apart) has actually become that much more commoditized in the mind of the target audience.

Try using this phrase on a phone call with a reporter while communicating why your client has the greatest company since sliced bread. Oh boy. You’ll never experience someone try to end a conversation quicker. For them, it’s a matter of building credibility about why your client deserves to be interviewed or featured versus the other thousand companies that are pitched to him/her each day. You say solutions provider and the reporter hears blah, blah, blah… It’s an instant turn off and the credibility you were attempting to build is gone.

Over the years, we’ve seen many buzz words come and go. Most don’t have lasting power (which is good) because they become meaningless because everyone tries to own them.  A few phrases that come to mind (mostly from technology companies) include: cutting edge, bleeding edge and scalable. While there is certainly nothing wrong with communicating these phrases internally, we’ve always tried our best to steer clients away from putting them in press releases, on their Web sites and in articles/speeches. Sometimes it worked and many times it didn’t.

For whatever reason, “solutions provider” continues to live long and prosper. (Sorry, I’m a Star Trek fan.) I hope just a few of those companies that continue to cherish this phrase wake up and take notice of what I’m writing. Trust me. You won’t be putting your best foot forward in communicating what your company’s unique story is if “solutions provider” is in the mix.

Protecting the brand or antagonizing fans?

One of the ongoing Internet debates these days focuses on how companies can protect their brands when they are used in an unauthorized manner (often known as patent infringement), while also being very sensitive to the issue that they might be alienating, and even angering fans of that brand through their actions.

In these cases, I don’t mean obvious theft where companies or consumers are illegally profiting from another company’s cherished brand by selling product knock-offs or leveraging it on a Web site in some way to conduct e-commerce. No, instead I mean there are hundreds of cases where “fans” of that brand are just so excited about it that they set up Web sites to discuss, promote and gain an exponential amount of positive publicity about that brand by attracting hundreds (or thousands) of other fans.

One example that comes to mind is a fan site called www.ILOVECROCS.com, a few years back. The creator of this site absolutely adored this trendy rubber shoe. To show his appreciation, he built this site and promoted the brand through photos of different styles of Crocs. He attracted hundreds of new fans (and one would think) helped to provide free, positive marketing services for this company. From what I understand (told to me through a third party,) it wasn’t long after that he received a 'cease and desist' letter from the company’s lawyers. When the man tried to explain that he wasn’t making any money at Croc’s expense and just wanted to show appreciation for the brand through this Web site, the company attorneys didn’t care. In the end, the man was forced to pull down the site. And, that was that. Until anger started to boil up inside this “fan,” and he completely changed his views about Crocs. This anger manifested in his developing a site called www.IHATECROCS.com. And, of course, he now was pushing out only negative stories and vibes to those same fans about this brand that he once cherished.

Other companies such as FedEx and Dell have had very similar experiences as well.

The other day, my business partner and I received the email below. We created a completely fun, post-holiday Star Trek spoof video (in the spirit of our agency’s personality). The video was sent out to friends and family of Peppercom and posted on our Web site. You’ll see this CBS attorney (which owns the Star Trek brand) was actually very polite and tactful in her letter to us. Which is very much appreciated. CBS has every right to protect its brand rights in Star Trek and clearly its attorney is making sure that this is enforced to the letter of the law. Personally, I have no problem with it.

But, the question I ask is whether companies like this are doing more harm by protecting the brand from any type of infringement (even when the other party isn’t trying to profit in any way from it) versus allowing the brand to build more excitement and fans through our new digital world? Common sense dictates that the more Star Trek is seen by consumers, the more these same consumers will be interested in buying products, going to their trade shows and watching the latest Star Trek movie. That all adds up to more $$$ for the owner of that brand.

There isn’t an easy answer here. But, I’d love to hear any thoughts you might have on the topic

Dear Sirs: 
 
I write as attorney for CBS Studios Inc. ("CBS"), owner of rights to the "Star Trek" franchise (collectively, the "Series").  These rights are protected by numerous copyrights and trademarks in and to the Series, the characters, the ships and other elements thereof (collectively, the "Star Trek Properties"). 
 
We appreciate that the success of the Star Trek Properties is enhanced by the interest of its dedicated fan base.  However, as a public relations firm, your company understands that CBS is obligated to enforce its rights in the Star Trek Properties to guarantee the Properties’ continued success.  In that regard, CBS is sensitive to consumers' desires to communicate and share information about the Star Trek Properties, and we seek to strike a balance between encouraging legitimate use and discouraging unauthorized infringement of valuable rights.  For example, CBS has numerous licensees worldwide who offer a wide range of products and services, all of which are carefully monitored for compliance with its licensing program to ensure the quality, authenticity and integrity of all goods and services associated with the Series.  In addition, CBS objects to the unauthorized commercial use of the Star Trek Properties, as well as the posting of protected material such as audio or video content, content from official websites, photographs, artistic renditions of the characters or other properties, music and sound files, and books or excerpts therefrom. 
 
It has come to our attention that your company has distributed a video utilizing the Star Trek Properties (http://vimeo.com/8707511) (the " Video").   While we appreciate your firm's interest in the Star Trek Properties, we are concerned about your use of the Properties as such use may be deemed violations of CBS's rights under applicable copyright and trademark laws.  It appears that the Video was limited in scope and timing.  We therefore request that your firm take steps to remove the Video from your website, vimeo.com, and any other website which your firm controls and confirm that your firm will refrain from using the Star Trek Properties in this manner in the future without prior written consent from CBS.
 
We trust that you understand CBS' concerns and will comply with our request.  We would appreciate receiving your written confirmation of your compliance within ten (10) days of receipt of this letter.  Should you need any additional information or wish to discuss this further, please use the contact information provided below. 

Nothing in this letter shall be construed as a waiver or relinquishment of any right or remedy possessed by CBS Studios Inc., or any other affected party, all of which are expressly reserved.
 
Mallory Levitt
Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, Intellectual Property
CBS
51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
ph: 212-975-3633
f:  212-975-0114
Mallory.Levitt@cbs.com

Choosing to be great, not big

My business partner gave me a very interesting and unique book the other day called “Small Giants.”The author‘s premise and focus is that growth doesn’t always need to be the most important metric for success. Instead, through telling the story of 14 very special, privately held companies, he shows that success can be viewed through many different lenses in a variety of unique ways.

In fact, each of these 14 companies has consciously decided not to grow their business. Yes, they are all profitable. But, each owner(s) finds gratification in a host of different ways, including: giving back more to the community, having the best product/service available in a smaller business pond, providing the best work environment possible for employees and even innovating to always be better for customers without growing so large that this might not be possible.

One of the fascinating, heart-felt stories focuses on the founder and CEO (Fritz Maytag) of Anchor Brewing, the first micro brewery based in San Francisco. This home grown entrepreneur had started the company making the highest quality beer in the mid 1960s. At that time, micro brewed beer wasn’t known and Anchor had limited demand of about 600 barrels from local restaurants and liquor stores. But, by 1973 demand started to soar because of the products high quality appeal. Anchor was producing 13,000 barrels. Yet, success was a mixed blessing. For the company to keep up with demand, it had to greatly expand by taking on significantly more overhead (new brewery plants), or outsource the actual brewing of the product. The thought of outsourcing his secret formula and taking a chance that quality and taste would be sacrificed created a lot of sleepless nights for Fritz.

Instead, he made the decision not to outsource or expand, but to ration the amount of beer distributed to each customer. Of course, that didn’t make these customers very happy. The loved the beer and instead of receiving more, they now had to deal with half the supply typically sent to them. As time moved on and Fritz saw that demand continued into the 1980s he considered taking the company through an IPO to raise the money needed to grow. That would provide him with his own capital and the business would no doubt be considered a success.  In the end, he followed his heart and backed away from going this route because Fritz believed that growth wasn’t how he viewed success and he never wanted to jeopardize that local, high quality product that created such high demand in the first place. Fritz said, “It occurred to me that you could have a small, prestigious, profitable business, and it would be all right. Like a restaurant. You can stay as you are and have a business that’s rewarding and a source of great pride.”

Anchor’s story is a great one. It made me take a look at Peppercom and ponder whether this philosophy (become great, not big) could work within the public relations and marketing services world. Could it be right for us? There is no doubt that as firms become larger, they tend to lose that higher value touch that clients want and expect. Many also find that it’s much harder for them to maintain that “special sauce” (i.e. innovation, quality, results driven) that made them great in the first place (read the chapter on CitiStorage for more on this topic) as their revenues double and triple in size. These reasons alone should make any agency CEO carefully ponder the risks versus rewards of exponential growth.

In Peppercom’s case, we’ve never been focused on growth for growth’s sake. Our mission has always been to innovate by creating new offerings and new ideas that can help solve our clients’ challenges or take advantage of real opportunities. We believe that if we’re successful in accomplishing that, growth will naturally come with it. That said, I doubt that we could ever become a company that isn’t interested in growth.

Why? Well, employees want to be part of an organization that is dynamic, offering new opportunities for them to grow. And, growth is critical because the reality of our industry is that clients tend to come and go. So, new business efforts need to continually be in motion to replace and add to existing revenues. Yet, there needs to be a greater good beyond becoming a larger entity. Making the workplace environment a real place to learn and excel, giving back to the community and those who need it and trying to create a culture where people do enjoy coming to work are all critical goals at Peppercom.

I highly recommend “Small Giants.” It might not change your thoughts about whether to grow or not. But, it certainly will provide life and business lessons that can make you better.

 

A decade of measurement successes and failures...

Once again, Katie Paine is leading the thought leadership charge on the topic of measurement. She's asking for those in the marketing/PR field to offer up what they believe are the best and worst measurement concepts in the last decade.
 
I'm a guy who believes in measurement. So, here's my two cents on the good bad and ugly of what’s been created and discussed over the last 10 years. (in reverse order, of course):
 
The Ugly
1) Advertising equivalency is as strong as ever - In many PR camps, this is still the case. This concept which began in the stone ages (earned media publicity is compared to the advertising equivalency in space, inches and/or amount of broadcast time), will just never die. It provides zero value. Yet, it costs a lot to analyze. And in the end, marketers have a measurement report that tells them absolutely nothing about how successful their program is. Way to go, industry...
 
2)  Using technology for technology sake - I've watched one vendor after another sprout up with these "magical" offerings. In many cases, these companies have created algorithms, software architecture and lots of complex metrics formulas that are just too damn hard to understand. Sure, some can push data to you in a moment's time. Others can provide scores and analytics of vast digital and media points that could never have been retrieved before. The problem though, is that if we can't really understand what's behind the score, metric or analysis, then how do we know what's being fed to us is even correct?
 
There are too many technologies that can't be verified to provide accurate outputs or outcomes and that scares me.
 
3) The human touch - On this same note, technology has begun to replace the inefficiencies of human labor. In many ways, that's really positive. Where it took hundreds of man hours to collect and tabulate data for a particular media or digital metrics program before, now the right software formulas can do the same work in a half hour. That's amazing… except, let's not forget the value that our professional analysis and insights provide.
 
There isn't a measurement system in existence that can offer up strategic and prescriptive strategies and tactics to tackle the problems or opportunities that became apparent through computerized number crunching. We are moving too quickly into a world where human analysis is being replaced by intelligent software. That is a disaster waiting to happen as we deal with the most pressing corporate topics like reputation and sales. 
 
The Bad
1) One standard to measure all - Much like the consumer technology world is still trying to create one PDA that will do everything for the customer, our PR industry continues to search for one standard that can measure any media, event, trade show, digital program, etc. Maybe we'll find this golden standard. But, I don't understand why that "Holy Grail" is deemed so important.
 
Rather, I think what is critical is that specific metrics are tailored for each client and every campaign based on its individual needs. Might we lose something in cost and efficiency by having various standards? Yes. But, as long as the standard is accurate and clearly measures something that matters, who cares.
 
2) Information overload - We still receive far too many reports, graphs, analysis and reams of wasted paper from measurement specialists. Sorry to be so direct on this. But, I think that many companies providing these reports feel that the more data they hand over, the more value it will seem like they are providing. Very few are actually marketers or public relations professionals though. If they were, they'd also understand how little we care about quantity versus quality.
 
The Good
1) Real time metrics can lead to immediate action – It’s exciting to see that almost any issue, campaign or disaster can be monitored in real time now. This means that as data is pushed to our desk tops, we can immediately make actionable decisions to try and change opinions, push out our messages and/or contain a negative situation. Of course, this leads to an entirely new set of challenges. But, it’s great to see how linked metrics and real time campaigns are now. This will only become that much more powerful.
 
2) Better products make us more sophisticated – There’s no doubt that a number of great offerings exist out there today. I won’t start naming them, but we now have the ability to benchmark competitive programs at a very sophisticated level. Digital analytical tools allow us to figure out exactly who our programs are reaching and what impact they may be having. And, through the integration of creative graphical offerings with back end software, we can provide immensely appealing dashboards which allow clients to see their program’s achievements at a glance.

3) The industry has brought outsiders in...and that's good – Let’s face it. Marketers/PR practitioners are very good at what they do. One of these strengths isn’t the ability to provide real analytical tools and research methodologies that measure campaigns. I think that the industry has done a very good job of reaching outside the profession to bring in those who are professional researchers, statisticians, and just big thinkers. This was a must need to ensure that our offerings are accurate and dig deep into business insights. 

Overall, our industry still has a long way to go. If you have any thoughts on this topic, please fire away.

Very little “Spirit” at this airline

I just got back from a relaxing week long vacation in the sun.

Trying to save on costs (like many others,) we decided to fly Spirit Airlines for the first time. It was an interesting, mixed-bag experience for us. More to the point of this post, I’m not sure that the company’s description of what it uniquely offers and its positioning vis a vis other airlines is entirely accurate. That should create long term branding (and business) problems because customers (like me) won’t experience what the brand (or company) is promising.

Here’s Spirit’s positioning (highlighted on its Web site): "Spirit Airlines’ ULCC (Ultra Low Cost Carrier) approach liberates customers from being forced into paying for services they do not desire or use. When customers are seeking the best value in travel they can choose a low fare at spiritair.com and select the services and options appropriate for their travel needs. Spirits ultra low cost model driven from numerous efficiencies, new aircraft, advanced technology and dedicated staff allows the airline to take this approach offering savings to millions of customers…"

The statement also highlights key messages such as: "friendly staff and clean, new airplanes."

Let’s start with some of Spirit’s positive attributes (although spelling isn’t one of them. The word “Spirits” is a typo in the positioning statement above.) It is an inexpensive, absolutely no frills offered airline. And, those first few rows of seats are more comfortable because of their excess size (kind of feels like being in first class seats without actually having a first class). From what I experienced, the airline did an adequate job of getting us from Point A to Point B, on time, without any major headaches. That (in itself) can be considered a successful trip.

But, does it really “liberate” customers from being forced into paying for services they don’t want? Hardly. That’s 100 percent pure spin. And, it comes across as a company trying to sell me snake oil. I don’t know about other air travelers, but to me those little comforts that come with flying (like a free soda/bag of peanuts) and checking one or two bags at no cost (Spirit charges $25 per bag) are taken for granted. I paid $100 extra at the airport because we had four bags for five people. That seems an awful lot like being forced to “pay for services” to me.

It took me half a flight to figure this out. But, those efficiencies that Spirit mentions in its positioning statement are merely added charges that it makes from its passengers on items that every other airline offers for free.

I know it sounds as if I’m complaining (guess I am). But, those were really minor issues compared to what’s coming next. Spirit Airlines offers its passengers shoddy, run down, filthy cabins. And, that’s unacceptable. The seats are absolutely grimy with food, ink and God knows what types of stains. And, the floors beneath the seats are even worse. Ultra Low Cost Carrier should not mean – “the place is disgusting.” But, once again, it’s clear that this is probably another one of the many efficiencies the airline has concocted to save money. I guess, if no one cleans the plane, then the company doesn’t incur any added hard costs for cleaning.

Let’s move on. Spirit promotes its dedicated and friendly staff.  That’s a complete fallacy. The first flight attendant we had was simply disinterested in all the passengers. I could accept that. But, the last one who served us actually had a frown on his face the entire trip and acted as if he shouldn’t have to do anything because we were flying the cheapest airline in the world. This guy was genuinely pissed off and it came across in every function he performed (including the dubious task of figuring out seat assignments when the flight was overbooked).

Here’s the problem with Spirit (in a nutshell). Many people appreciate having a low cost alternative (especially during tough times like this). But, no one wants to be forced to feel like third class citizens who could only afford the lowest cost alternative living in the Steerage compartment of the Titanic. I heard many passengers mention that they were embarrassed to fly this airline because of what it represents. They certainly could have gotten over it pretty quickly though if the entire experience was at least adequate. Instead, so many  customers bitched and moaned about how schlocky everything was.

In this economy, airlines such as Spirit need to exist and my guess is that this one will continue to operate just fine for a while. But, I wonder how things will change when life changes for the better. People understand that they get what they pay for. The problem that will hit Spirit down the road is that no one pays for unsanitary conditions and rude service. Ultimately, this brand will pay the price for that.

For the record, now defunct, economy-class airline Zoom, is a former Peppercom client.

Put that in your pipe and chew it!

Yes, I realize that this headline is both foolish and a mixed metaphor. But, when I heard a Cleveland Cavaliers basketball player exclaim this line last night in an interview, I laughed so hard that I decided to write about it.

Professional athletes and their coaches (many of whom used to be professional athletes) are notorious for butchering metaphors, analogies and clichés in media interviews.  I’ll admit to flubbing a few of these well intentioned lines in my day, as well. But, some professional athletes are in an entirely different league when it comes to the succession of incongruous or ludicrous comparisons that come out of their mouths each and every day.  Here are a few of my favorites that I’ve recently heard:

-    “Left hand, right hand, it doesn’t matter. I’m amphibious” --  Professional basketball player
-    “Can’t let one bad apple spoil the whole ball of wax” – Professional baseball manager
-    “I don’t want to shoot my mouth in my foot, but those are games we can win” – Professional football player
-    “I can see the light at the end of the tightrope” – Former professional basketball player. Now team president.

What’s my point (you might be thinking)? I’ll tell you.

When athletes make the jump from amateur to professional levels these days, they have a thousand and one counselors/coaches/mentors available to them. These experts try to teach them everything  from how to save and invest their new found money (that is still a tricky one for many), to quickly become more mature and professional  in how they handle themselves in the public (off the field or court), to dealing with the mental and physical grind of long, tedious seasons that they’ve never experienced before. But, are they ever coached or provided any guidance on how to become better public speakers… especially during press interviews?

Probably not. And, this reality is a real mistake. When these celebrities come across so poorly in the public eye, it only reflects negatively on them. Sure, they might have high paying jobs now, but, on average, most will be looking for a new career in two to four years. Whether they want to use their notoriety to move into a public broadcasting job or something else, those who speak as if they are uneducated, will probably face much longer odds of ever landing that next job they really want. It also becomes problematic when that first “crisis” strikes and those naïve and often inarticulate athletes are now in a panic situation, but have never been properly trained on how to communicate beforehand.  Instead, irony hits hard after the crisis hits when dozens of “close confidants” come to their side, offering lots of advice on what to say and how to say it. Unfortunately at that point, it’s often too late.

This post keeps bringing me back to one of my favorite movies, Bull Durham. Remember when Kevin Costner’s character (Crash Davis) started to mentor “Meat” (the highly uncivilized pitching prodigy that Tim Robbins played). After Costner witnessed Meat’s horrendous interviewing skills, he said to him.”You’re gonna have to learn your clichés. You’re gonna have to study them. You’re gonna have to know them. They’re your friends. Write this down -- we gotta play it one day at a time.”

If only every professional athlete had his own Crash Davis, the sports world would be so much better off (at least better spoken).

Have you recently heard any mixed metaphors or just plain bad quotes that are hilarious? Would love to hear your thoughts.

Is any sponsor safe anymore?

As the Tiger fall out continues (I think it's something like day 17 or 18 now), the business stories have begun to focus on which of Tiger’s many multi-million dollar sponsors will terminate their relationship with him. Of course, now that the shock of his transgressions has worn off, this is the most natural issue to turn to. Today, Gillette announced that it will severely limit Tiger's involvement with company endorsements. No surprise, Accenture has removed him from its Web Site and pretty much every other sponsor has stopped promoting Tiger in any way.

That's all par for this course. Yet, I believe there is a larger, more significant issue that all marketers need to be thinking about:  If Tiger Woods, the ultimate gold standard role model for kids and adults alike can fall from grace like this, then is any athlete or celebrity sponsorship safe anymore? And, should the sponsorship industry make wholesale changes to its strategies now when it comes to focusing on singular celebrity endorsements to build brands?

My answer is no... and yes. Here's my deeper explanation.

Tying a brand (or company's) image so closely to one (or even two) celebrity endorsements(s) has always been a risky proposition. Over the last 20 years, I've heard many a client tell me that his/her worst fear is to receive that call (or email) from some reporter who has the scoop that their corporate sponsor has been caught using drugs, abusing his wife or living out some other illegal or unethical act that will surely create big customer/investor problems. Still, in the past, the reward has clearly outperformed the potential risk for some very smart marketers like Nike, Gatorade and Accenture (which have achieved major business gains through singular endorsements). I believe that part of the reason for their success is because they seem to be highly selective with whom they allow to represent their brand (one would think an accounting firm has a very sophisticated risk analysis process for vetting endorsement candidates). And, when their celebrities got themselves into real troubles (think Michael Jordan as Nike's face when he had serious gambling issues), this 24/7 digital landscape (which never allows for stories to die) either didn't exist, or wasn't nearly as powerful as it has become today.

The latter point is what marketers should really be concerned about. For the heck of it, I googled the words 'Tiger' and 'Nike' just now. Something to the tune of 1,700 stories, blogs, tweets and other discussions/articles came up. Many have threads of content which question Nike's decision making behind associating Tiger as the "face and ethics of its brand." Unlike what happened in the "old days" of Michael Jordan, Nike's stock and sales have now taken a real hit because it's so closely associated with Tiger. The power behind digital communications is that it allows for anyone to push out opinions (like me), create more gossip and in this case, initiate a continually growing "mob-like," virtual attack that has clearly played a major supporting role in hurting this sports apparel company's core business.

Tiger stood for all those wonderful qualities (commitment, professionalism, can do attitude, winning, pure and ethical, etc.) that its sponsors believed would never fail them. In many ways, Tiger was a no-brainer...the ultimate safe sponsorship.  So now, there is no one or nothing that truly is a safe bet.

Corporate marketers need to change their "bet everything on the farm" endorsement strategies now. They might want to take a page out of the pharmaceutical industry's drug development strategy play book instead. These giant companies invest billions of dollars on dozens of drugs with the hope that just one or two might eventually make it to market as a block buster seller. They have to hedge their bets across many drug investments because each one has such a low risk of ever baring real fruit. And, the risk is simply too great to place a company's future behind one miracle cure.

In this same vein, corporate marketers cannot look at one beloved athlete as its "miracle cure" anymore. Instead, they should create many, smaller, but equally focused endorsements which allow for brands to achieve more modest benefits from attributes that each celebrity brings to its products or company. And, they can bypass all the unavoidable risk and eventual disasters that one endorsement will probably bring someday. Remember, one face associated with a company or brand completely ties the two together in almost every way. On the flip side, any one of 15 or 30 faces which are far less promoted with said company or brand, can be extricated so much more painlessly should the need arise.

Not exactly "The Worlds Local Bank"

Does this line seem familiar? It should. HSBC Bank has been promoting this tagline in its long running advertising  campaign over the last 3-4 years.

I always thought that the positioning behind this advertising is both creative and compelling. And, the bank also takes an innovative approach to where the ads are seen. For example, some hit you right in the face in Newark, London, San Francisco and Hong Kong immediately after deboarding any Continental flight. The full-sized billboard ads are impossible to miss because they line the narrow runway that every passenger has to walk through to exit.

Think about what HSBC is trying to communicate about itself, for a moment. What small or mid-sized business and consumer wouldn't want to feel that their bank provides a plethora of sophisticated global benefits to them? Yet, at the same time, each customer is delightfully treated in a small town, warm and personalized “you matter to us," demeanor.

Sounds like a slice of heaven, right? Too bad (in my experience) the campaign doesn't ring true. And, for a variety of other reasons,  I believe HSBC should think seriously about dumping this very expensive marketing program because it only serves to damage the bank's image.

We spoke to HSBC about a year ago when my firm was looking at changing bankers. We wanted exactly what HSBC is advertising. Our first meeting went well -- we met with a nice team of bankers. Seemed bright. Told us we'd experience all that this campaign proudly promoted. Great.

Then, reality set in over the next few weeks as we poked and prodded HSBC and a variety of other big and small competitors to deliberate which one made sense for us.

For starters, HSBC wasn't competitive on price with other smaller ones because of huge, global overhead and risk concerns. I have no issue with higher costs if there is more value offered.  The problem is that because the bank was going through a world of hurt (bad subprime loans), every decision, on every loan deal had to be made from London. The result was that this "local" bank had underwriters (from a continent away) who didn't know us, making broad, cookie cutter decisions that clearly didn't fit our needs. And, they were so risk averse to any potential new loan that the cumbersome rules and terms being offered were downright valueless. On top of that, the time it took to actually receive a proposal was absurd. This was because of the lengthy bureaucratic red tape that existed in every single decision this behemoth had to make.

In the end, we received no local "care" or understanding of our needs and a whole lot of we "can't move on a dime" attitude. The experience was exactly the opposite of what HSBC promises in its ads. Needless to say, we passed on their offer.

The banking disaster that we all experienced over the last 15 months has made most customers feel very different about this industry. Even if there is an inkling of truth to HSBC's advertising, I have to question how credible it is to leave the same campaign running now, when so much big bank cynicism exists. Read the past headlines. HSBC was mired in the financial muck as much as the others. This bank suffered huge losses, shut down many operations and laid off thousands of people in local markets around the world.

Seems to me that it would have been much more credible for this bank to take a fresh, new look at its positioning after the financial destruction took place. After all, like the rest of them, it made some pretty bad decisions across the globe in so many of those individual markets where it is supposedly local.  More to the point, anyone can promote anything they want about their entity. But, if the messages being advertised don't fit the reality that customers experience, the communications isn't just worthless, it will actually serve to create negative feelings toward that company.

Would you like to know how I feel about HSBC?