Global Brand Project: Become the Chief Celebrant of Your Community, Not its Celebrity

In recent posts I have been developing the manifesto for the Global Brand Project and found that my perspective resonates with many marketers working in both global and local roles.

I saw a presentation that really caught my attention this week. I want to share it with you –it endorses much of what I have been saying and more importantly adds qualitative value to the discussion, bringing something new to the table on which I had not focused sufficiently:  The humanizing power of social media on brands and how harnessing this channel is transform our brand landscape.

Let’s look first at Mainwaring’s view of what makes brands successful. He lists 6 keys:

• Defining purpose and core values
• Distilling the purpose and values into emotional terms
• Crafting a manifesto
• Writing a vision statement
• Committing to the brand purpose
• Align internally

Brand purpose is a subject I covered in a previous post [http://www.consumergoodsclub.com/cgc-richard-kohn-blog/234-marketing/722-unilevers-global-social-mission-]. When brands stand for something it is extremely powerful in defining their future, acting as a compass for all the brand’s activities.

Mainwaring finesses this adding that once the brand has purpose and something we care about, it can build a conversation within its community and make a contribution to the cause. Here’s an example http://greenxchange.force.com/vGXhome of how Nike is using its community influence to benefit the environment.

Social media so radically democratizes the communication process that brands that are not authentic, transparent or accountable are very quickly found out. Look at the backlash that BP had to deal with once it started advertising again about how it cares for the environment after the Gulf of Mexico spill last year. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9n-X6zf8UY

What this boils down to is that social media is driving brands to become more human. In the dark old ages of the early 1990’s brands could control communications through three main channels (TV, radio & print). For today’s consumer it is almost inconceivable for them to buy anything without checking peer reviews, blogs, carrying out price comparisons and a multitude of alternatives.

Cut-through in this market means that we really must know like and trust a brand before we will ‘invest’ in it – just like the sort of decisions we make around those human beings with whom we want to interact.

There is a good reason why Dell ( http://www.Dell.com ) the consumer computing company continually receives excellent reviews from its consumers – it’s because it does not talk about itself all the time, but makes sure that it is the loudest cheerleader for its consumers who make up the Dell community.

Social media is transforming the consumer landscape in which brands operate, democratizing the buying process through the interactions of a dynamic focus group of 1.5 billion people active online on a daily basis. Harness this power for good and it will transform the fortunes of your brand, make an error – like trying to control what is being said on line about your brand – and the level of damage will be amplified across multiple platforms and millions of desktops.

The key takeaway from the presentation: The world is moving fast away from the brand of Me to the brand of We.

I think this is a truly important contribution to the Global Brand Project. If you have an hour or so, take a look at the whole of the presentation yourself (http://t.co/4A0rBIa ) there’s a lot more good stuff in there that’s worth the time. It would be really interesting to hear from people how this message resonates with them.

I look forward to your comments and input.

Think About CRM: How to Increase Your Sales By 100%

In my last post I asked whether the CRM industry is ready willing and able to service the many small and medium sized businesses who could be potential customer. This post looks at how businesses should use their own systems and analysis to target clients – because this is something that I think a lot of CRM solutions sellers are failing to do.

You probably know the saying ‘the cobblers children wear the worst shoes’. The same could be applied to any industry, and the CRM business is no different. What’s going on here? When you work day to day in a business, servicing clients, looking for new business or developing enhancements to our offerings we often forget about our own business and to apply the same standards to our business as we would to that of a client. Why? There’s lots of reasons. No-one gets any credit for selling and implementing an internal CRM system; we are the experts so of course it’s already in place; we think we are actually doing this.

Working like this on our own businesses never seems to be a priority. When in fact it should be priority number one. For a start, if I am selling any service what better advertisement do I have for my services than the fact that I used them to attract a new client? Here’s a simple example. As a marketing consultant I advise companies that an effective communication channel they can use is to have something published that presents them as subject matter experts – when other people read your views it increases your profile and reputation making it more likely you look to them for support than someone else from whom you have heard nothing. Do I ‘put my money where my mouth is’? Of course. You are reading this article.

Applying the same to the CRM industry poses an interesting question. If our CRM solutions are so good, should we not be able to ‘prove’ that by demonstrating that we used our own systems and solutions to target and convert our new clients?

I think this is a question that many companies should be asking themselves. If your company, a CRM solutions provider, is finding it challenging to maintain, develop and grow your business ask the question: Are we using our own services and solutions properly and effectively? I think that a lot of companies are not.

So this brings me to the headline – how can you increase your sales by 100%? It really is as simple as using the products and services you offer better and implementing them in the same way that you would advise any of your clients.

Surely, if the solution that you are offering is as good as you promote it as being and as beneficial as promised to your clients and prospects, there could be no better advertisement for your services. You have one great advantage over the organizations that you might target – you really understand how CRM works and what it can bring.

Too many of us get caught in the inertia of dealing with our day to day troubles to see that the easiest of solutions can be the most powerful. Use your service on your business, write up a detailed case study and then explain to the prospect you are sitting across the table to that it was by using your own solutions that you got to them and soon you will see how growing your sales by 100% needs you to do nothing more than truly and passionately live your brand.

What action steps will you take as a result of this article.

It would be great to hear from you with stories of how you used your own services to bring in business.

Think About CRM: Why Small Businesses Don’t Buy CRM Systems, and How to Get Them To

Why small businesses don’t buy CRM systems, and how to get them to.

If you listen to our politicians, the way that we are going to get out of our current tough financial environment will be by small, local businesses becoming more and more successful.

We hear a lot about the banks, high-tech and manufacturing enterprises but the truth is that the mom & pop businesses, the small enterprises that are truly the engines of growth. Once these businesses start to grow, they stimulate demand and from the grass roots our economies start to pull themselves out of the doldrums.

If they are so important to the economy, why do so few of them invest in CRM and what would having a CRM system deliver to them? Here are a few thoughts.

1. Small businesses do not understand CRM:  There has been such a focus on enterprise solutions in CRM that small businesses do not think that CRM is suitable or relevant to them. They simply do not understand the purpose of a CRM solution, the benefits that it can bring them or the value that it will deliver in their business.  This is an issue for the CRM industry which should be addressed by more emphasis in marketing campaigns on explaining what CRM means for the small business.  As an industry, we need to question if CRM suppliers done enough convince small business owners that CRM is a worthwhile investment for them? Has the CRM industry satisfactorily communicated the benefits that a CRM solution can deliver to small business?
2. Don’t believe it’s worth it/value it: Money is tight for small businesses. While a big business can wait a few years to get a return on their investments, small businesses generally do not have that luxury. As a result, CRM is not adequately valued by these potential customers. They have their client lists, they generate new business themselves, they keep their key customers happy – so why would they need the investment in a CRM solution. The industry needs to make sure that small businesses do believe that CRM provides a significant return on investment for their businesses. We need to be prepared to provide these potential customers with a reason to believe that the investment in CRM is worth it for them.
3. Done believe you about the results: Allied to not believing that CRM is worth the investment comes the next problem that they do not believe the results that are promised to them. Have we got enough testimonials to be able to show them that companies just like theirs have benefitted sufficiently from their investment to justify CRM in their business?
4. Don’t believe it will work for them: OK, so you have shown a potential customer with a small business that CRM has value to them and that other similar businesses created a return on investment on buying a CRM solution – the next problem is helping them understand that a system will also work for them. This is no longer a question of whether they believe that CRM offers benefits, more an issue that the business owner cannot see it being effective in her particular business: Why? The implementation will take too much time and effort, there will not be full compliance – we have all heard these objections before, but has the industry done enough to make CRM implementation manageable for the small business? What more could be done for them?
5. Don’t believe they can afford it: Of course, any good CRM professional would say that a potential client cannot afford to be without it. Nonetheless, many small businesses will claim that purchasing a CRM solution, or committing to a service is beyond their means. As I said above, money is tight. Are the pricing models we have in the industry sufficiently flexible to attract small business owners? Does it look like any CRM supplier takes an element of risk in their models to compel business owners to part with their cash. In most cases, the business can afford the solution, they just do not have it at the top of their priorities. It’s our job to get it there.
6. Don’t want it now: You’ve spent hours with the prospect, they like the solution, they love what it can deliver and believe that it will be good for their business and it fits within a budget… just not now because we are dealing with another initiative. Creating urgency is an essential part of any sale, but how do we achieve this with CRM? Last minute offers are not likely to inspire confidence, they already believe that the solution could help them. The response might be “if not now, when?” Creating urgency of the need is an essential part of the sale which is even more important to utilize in the small business scenario. Why? Because these businesses always have something more urgent to do, spend their money on or fire to fight. The industry needs to tap better into the needs of these groups to find out why CRM might become an urgent need.

I have no doubt that there are some great success stories from the industry in working with small to medium sized businesses. It would be great if you can share these within this community.

Digital outperforms TVC for DTC

All the most recent research shows that consumers are increasingly tuning out TV commercials. This includes Pharma offerings. Other industries have reacted to this much more quickly and are now adopting holistic, interactive, digital strategies and are getting the sort of cut through and (more importantly) sales results that TVC offered when it was the only medium in the game.

The activities of the FDA should not deter marketers from venturing into the digital age and increasing their focus and spending online – OK we all know that Novartis got its wrists slapped for the Tasigna facebook widget – because this is where the customers are at the moment. More and more of the people with whom Pharma marketers want to interact are online, and using online as their conduit to all media. How many people watch TV these days? The majority of us either have TIVO system where we record what we want, or subscribe to Vuze or TV duck . I cannot remember the last time I actually sat down in front of the TV and suffered an episode of House interrupted by commercials: but I am looking at ads online ALL the time. So are the majority of your customers.

The FDA is not the problem here, it is the fact that Pharma marketing departments have not invested in digital knowhow and the big agencies that they work with either do not have specialist digital agency teams (so don’t promote this as the way forward), or once they get the team they are so emasculated and underfunded that you might as well not have bothered.

And that’s the crazy thing. Digital costs so much less than other channels to develop, and test – yet it is now proving to have the best ROI of all. Why? Because your prospects is pre qualified before you get to them. Instead of pay and spray advertising (do you really know how many of the target audience suffer from the condition targeted with your sponsorship or TVC?) you can be more targeted, more specific and much more likely to make a sale. Having a website is simply not enough any more. Consumers want dynamic content, news, interaction a conversation. While it might not be true, it looks like Pharma marketers simply do not understand this channel.

Part of the reason is that Pharma marketers like to work with one agency ‘that understands the industry’. And that’s why all the advertising looks and feels the same and why the consumer is increasingly disengaged. As I said above, the big agencies have developed a digital service, but what happens is that the cutting edge marketers from these smaller agencies leave once the big boys come to town. It’s just not fun for them any more. They went into digital because they saw the difference it could make and the fact that they were not institutionalized is what made them great. Industry knowledge is too inward looking, too self contemplative. Digital agencies are about fresh blood and ideas. OK, you might make some small mistakes to being with, but these guys learn really quick.

And talking of the inside out view providing analyses that TVC works on an ROI basis is frankly self serving. Have you ever looking into the potential conflicts of interest from the market researchers, agencies, media buyers and all the other professionals working in the industry who would have so much to lose if Pharma decided that the ROI from this channel did not deliver? Sadly a great deal of the marketing industry is beset with organizations that feed on each other, none of which wants to upset the gravy train they are all on because they have too much to lose.

Look what just happened with the Super Bowl. Millions of dollars spent on providing advertainment for the audience. We saw lots of reports on which as was the most popular, which had the best recollection, which was funniest and which agency had egg on its face for screwing up the execution. What we did not see is any of the agencies suggesting which might actually change consumer behavior and increase sales.

With digital media measurement can be more precise, direct: effective.

I do not propose that all your budget is immediately switched into the digital area, but please, please start the shift in this direction now. The Pharma companies that will win in the future already have sell designed digital strategies as a part of an holistic 360 approach. In this instance, there is no doubt that speed of getting into this channel will deliver significant competitive advantage.

Stop branded DTC Advertising?

Watching US TV it is hard to believe that there was no DTC Pharma TV advertising before 1997. It was then that Michael Friedman, at that time a deputy commissioner of the United States Food and Drug Administration, announced the policy change which opened up a vast and untested venue for drug companies’ marketing departments by freeing TV drug ads of the previously unworkable requirement that they painstakingly detail side effects.

This move has delivered on the health benefits that Dr. Friedman imagined: The ads raise awareness of disease, promote greater consumer awareness about prescription drugs and prompt consumers to talk to their doctor about often sensitive topics. Indeed, patients report valuing the information they receive. The ads appear to not only drive conversations between patients and doctors but also remind those who have been prescribed medicines to take them.

So, there is an upside, but this move, which at the time was neither actively sought by nor much discussed within the industry trade association, Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America does add pressure to the medical profession to prescribe the specific branded drugs that patients request – driving up the costs of healthcare.

From the Pharma industry a groundswell of opinion is starting to question whether opening up TV to DTC has had long term benefits for the pharmaceutical companies. More specifically, questions are being asked about whether this has been good for Pharma communications or has now become a major burden for the industry that does little for patients or improved healthcare.

Looking at the effect that DTC has on brands is enlightening. The agencies that support these ads advise the industry that they strengthen brand loyalty, increase brand awareness and drive sales; they would wouldn’t they? TV advertising for Pharma has been very good for the TV companies and the advertising agencies.

But do they really benefit the brands? Surveys now show that consumers/patients often perceive that these ads make drug developers appear to be more concerned with sales than with treating patients and research into medical conditions.

Intuitively, consumers know that Pharma companies are not altruistic but still they have difficulty in distinguishing commercial objectives (and that the companies have to keep an eye on the bottom line) from the concern that Pharma companies have for their customers’ health. Consumers are much happier at the prospect of Pharma companies spending billions on research and development than (admittedly much smaller amounts) on advertising.

Why are they feeling this? Partly, because TV ads for these drugs have just become plain vanilla. Much of the TV coverage suffers from such a serious degree of sameness and ubiquity. [See https://mytubefacetwitter.wordpress.com/2011/01/31/where%E2%80%99s-the-big-idea-in-your-communications/] There’s nothing in these ads that develops brand loyalty because there is no competitively distinguishable brand positioning demonstrated in the advertising.

So why are these companies continuing to pump (at the last estimation) up to $5bn into advertising every year? Firstly, it is argued that because of the competitive pressures in the industry, companies can’t forgo the ads; they have to keep up with rivals who are also promoting their products on TV.

Excuse me? Poppycock. If you need plain vanilla advertising to keep pace with the competition then someone is not doing their job properly. Your communications strategy and objectives are all wrong.

This is negative advertising, saying nothing more than we exist so choose us instead of our competitively undifferentiated colleague. Nice.

Now it’s been proposed that instead of each brand advertising its own products drugmakers collaborate on disease-focused campaigns that raise awareness of certain conditions and urge patients to talk to their doctors for treatment options.

This would certainly cut companies’ advertising budgets, end the ridiculous laundry list of frightening side effects mandated by the FDA and deliver important information to patients. The vision is that there would be unbiased information about the medical conditions and encouragement to seek out the medicines and vaccines that can help patients maintain and improve their health. It is argued that with this collaboration drug companies could trim their TV marketing budgets. Advertising agencies and broadcasters would still retain some of the billions of dollars in drug ads that support programming, including news. Patients and caregivers would be spared the assault of promotional messages, often unintelligible warnings about side effects, and cloying images that make up much of current TV drug advertising.

Wonderful, but this is avoiding the issue. This treats the symptom and not the cause. TV advertising is failing to achieve cut through because the advertisements are not imaginative or sufficiently compelling to change consumer behavior – thus making the investments worthwhile.

This industry does not need more awareness campaigns, it needs better communication strategies. The sooner we stop using regulation as an excuse for failing to create effective communications, the better. Every time you allow a communication to air that fails to cut through, you damage your brand. The opportunity to advertise DTC is too good to waste that way.