What American Airlines Needs Now is Brand-ness

By now you've probably heard American Airlines has landed in bankruptcy. While it circled overhead longer than most of it's domestic brethren, it's finally landed on runway 11. Chapter 11 that is.

But AA's decent into bankruptcy really shouldn't come as a surprise. Just listen to it's CEO:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/29/news/companies/american_airlines_bankruptcy/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2

Sure, operating in a post-9-11 world, the recession and rising fuel prices didn't help. But last time I checked, Southwest Airlines, about to turn 38...as in 38 consecutive years of profitability...hasn't been functioning in an alternate universe. It reminds me of the team that makes excuses about the weather when it's opponent, playing in the exact same conditions, doesn't.

Did you notice that AA's CEO never uttered the word "customers" until prompted at the end? Everything he said was company and shareholder focused. Paradoxically, all you ever hear from Southwest is how unfair it is for us, customers, to pay bag and change fees. Hmm...

What AA's "leader" fails to truly recognize most of all is that he doesn't have a broke airline on his hands. He has a broken brand.

He said it will be "business as usual" for customers. That's a shame. Essentially, more nickel and dime-ing passengers rather than overtly focusing on creating a better experience for them.

But it doesn't sound like it will be "business as usual" for employees. More work for less pay and reductions in workforce, salary and benefits appear in the offing. I don't know about you, but if I were an employee, I'd be on the next plane out!

Do you know what routinely tops employee satisfaction studies in terms of what matters most to them? Having a clear understanding of the company's purpose and their role in it. Essentially, the brand. Not salary. Not vacation. Certainly not fear.

Like a plane with mechanical difficulties, the unraveling of most brands usually occurs under the skin - inside the organization at a cultural level - before it manifests itself at the surface. Undetected, it inevitably spells doom for the brand.

Like so many companies before them - Boston Market, Sharper Image, Circuit City - and now AA, the foundation of their failures was not understanding that you can't make decisions in boardrooms without impacting the brand.

Business decisions are about the company. Brand decisions are about the customers. Without customers, you don't have a company. Or at least one that people can trust.

Why is it that only Southwest Airlines gets it? (Despite never having filed for protection, I think JetBlue has fallen into the trap of making business not brand decisions once too often, i.e., stranded passengers on tarmacs for six-plus hours). Simple. SWA always makes brand decisions because it's business model is designed to support it's brand.

This exposes another flaw in most companies: They treat their business strategy and brand strategy as separate functions, rather than one. Brand should be your business - and entire company's - strategy. I call this "Brand-ness."

Brand-ness is creating a brand first and then figuring out how to monetize it, not creating a business and figuring out how to brand it.

It seems way too often anymore we hear: "Today, company X filed for bankruptcy?" But I can't ever recall hearing: "Today, brand X filed for bankruptcy."

These are my GUTS Feelings!

Why You Can No Longer Afford to Specialize

In the late 1970s, comedian, Steve Martin coined the phrase, "Let's Get Small." Little did the iconic star of screen, stage and studio realize that he was also talking about brand.

If Martin were to release a follow-up to that Grammy-winning comedy album in 2011, I'd suggest he call it: "Let's Get Even Smaller."

You see, for years I've been counseling clients that the secret to making your business bigger is make it smaller. Or, simply put, specialize.

Like vinyl records, Palm Pilots and Shake Weights, everything eventually runs its course. Today, the key to hitting it big in business isn't specializing.

It's micro-specializing.

What is micro-specializing? First, a little context about our current place in time. In a wired - and wireless - world, boundaries are no longer defined geographically. Brands appear virtually at our fingertips and sometimes thousands in as little as 0.13 seconds.

Then there's physical saturation. Check out the 5-mile radius around my little slice of suburbia:

• Over 160 chiropractors
• 200-plus (non-fast food) restaurants
• Some 50 places that will fix my computer
• Nearly 50 interior designers

At one time triathlons, laptops, and social media were specializations. Today, they've evolved into categories, giving way to the Warrior Dash (micro-sports), iPads (micro-computers) and Twitter (micro-media).

How does a specialization morph into a category? It spawns a host of imitators, often with indistinguishable differences, and turns mainstream almost as fast as a Google search! Unless you get inside heads first, when a specialization turns into category, you could be in big trouble.

Specialization is also a term that's losing its, well, "specialness." I encounter brands almost daily spraying things like: "We specialize in neck pain, back pain, carpal tunnel, stress relief, headaches, overall wellness..." Watered down? Try drowning!

A micro-specialist is someone or some thing that specializes in an area of specialization (or category) and sounds like this: "Our sole focus..." or "our only purpose..."

Dave Stockton is a golf coach. But he's a micro-specialist, focused on the "other" game - the one played on the green. Ask U.S. Open champ Rory McIlroy how that's working out.

Doctor in the Kitchen makes healthy snacks. Founded and guided by doctors, flax seed at its core and a "Good Food is Wise Medicine" brand mission, it's a micro-specialist.

Even within the highly-specialized Navy SEALs, there is an elite unit known as SEAL Team 6. They're the micro-specialists - and heroes - that took out Osama Bin Laden.

Steve Martin also once said that "comedy may be big business but it ain't pretty." That too could be a brand reference. Micro-specializing might not always be pretty, but it is the key to making your business big now and in the future.

These are my GUTS feelings.

What's the Most Dangerous Word in Brand?

What does Boulevard Brewing Company, a Kansas City-based micro brewery, now have in common with Coors and Swisher Motor Company, a client of mine in the late 1990s?

All three are examples of the most dangerous word in brand.

Coors did it with Rocky Mountain Spring Water. Swisher, a mower company, with barbeque grills. Where are those products today?

Now, Boulevard Brewing has introduced Pale Ale Mustard.

When you start adding products and services outside the scope of what your brand stands for in the minds of customers and prospects, history shows you will diminish what makes you special to them, and they'll no longer have a compelling reason to pick you over a competitor. You also open the door for a more focused rival to come in and steal your market share.

Who can you trust more for a GPS wrist unit, Garmin or Timex?

Not only does this cause confusion in the marketplace, it creates chaos inside the organization.

"Didn't I sign up to make specialty beers? Why am I now making mustard? Am I working for Boulevard Brewing Company or Frenches?

Once a brand unravels internally it inevitably spirals externally.

And why did the founders of Boulevard Brewing start the company? Was it their passion for micro beers or condiments?

The motivation behind Pale Ale Mustard is clear: Greed. The irony is that history also shows us that the key to successfully growing your brand and profits is just the opposite: Shrink it.

General Motors isn't emerging from banktrupcy and turning around because it's offering more car lines. It contracted brands and is further distinguishing them from one another. Conversely, expanding it's menu and changing it's name from Boston Chicken to Boston Market drove it straight into banktrupcy.

You see, brands are about specialization, and you can only achieve it through focus. A specialist can command more than a generalist. Whole Foods can charge a lot more for cereal than Piggly Wiggly, Victoria's Secret twice as much for a bra than Macy's and Starbucks $5 for my sugar free vanilla latte with soy milk this morning.

Back to the Boulevard...I find it hard to believe customers were knocking down its doors begging them to make beer AND condiments. I also find it hard to believe that people will line up for tours to see where they make the mustard.

So, what is the most dangerous word in brand? It's actually the word found at the end of brand, and the one in all caps in the last paragraph. It's AND!

Mini Cooper can't make small AND big cars. Victoria's Secret can't be lingerie AND business suits. Boulevard can't be beer AND condiments. At least not in the mind, where brands reside.

AND is the antonym and nemesis of focus. Therefore, there is no place for AND in your brand.

Maybe you're okay with Pale Ale Mustard. Some of you can justify it because you like its beer. Perhaps, you might also enjoy a tall, cold Grey Poupon Pilsner?

Boulevard, just focus on beer AND drop the mustard, and whatever other brand expansions you're cooking up, AND get back to what you do best and what people really want from you: Great Artisan Beer.

These are my GUTS Feeling.

Social Media as Research: Fire or Smoke?

An entrepreneur I respect immensely sent me the link below to an article entitled, "Will Social Media Replace Surveys as a Research Tool?"

http://adage.com/article/news/p-g-surveys-fade-consumers-reach-brands-social-media/149509/

I agree with some points made, including the idea that "conversation" is now the expectation and that quality insights matters most.

I also concur about being methodologically agnostic. One size does not fit all. But you also can't be agnostic in thinking every brand needs a social media strategy. It was real consumer insights that revealed to two of my clients that nearly nine in 10 customers and prospects had no desire to connect with them in any way on Facebook or Twitter. BTW, one of those clients is in the Internet solutions business. Kinda ironic don't you think?

This is not to say these clients are impervious to social media backlash. But in as much as assuming everyone wants to get tweets from your company or friend your business, allowing social media chatter or buzz to do much more than inform on a basic level is kinda like using a bucket to put out a building fire. It ain't enough.

Remember the Motrin moms incident in 2008? Motrin quietly launched an Internet campaign on a Friday about hip pain moms can get from carrying their infants. By that Sunday, a few offended bloggers lit the fuse, a thousand Twitter moms poured gas on it and before the weekend was up Johnson & Johnson pulled the campaign to douse the flames.

For argument's sake, let's say J&J was targeting 15 million women (I'm probably way under-stating by millions). All totaled, there were only 1,500 tweets, many of which came from the same tweeters. I'm not a mathematician but I believe that comes to 0.01% of tweets to my estimate of consumers targeted by Motrin. Would you make ANY decision based on just 0.01%?

Reacting is not a strategy. Informing yourself in a methodologically-appropriate manner, using a representative sample and uncovering the real attitudes behind the behavior is one.

Had J&J addressed the "crisis" with a little "crisis research" (companies can turn this quickly) instead of knee jerking, they might not have called in the fire department so quickly. At the very least, gathering real insights might have validated their decision.

Don't get me wrong, social media chatter can inform. But using it alone to make brand decisions is like running into a burning building. It's not very smart.

These are my GUTS feelings.

Hat Trick to Move Away from "Mainstream" May Just Net A Pro Soccer Team a Powerful Brand

While I am not a soccer fan, I am a HUGE fan of what Kansas City's Major League Soccer (MLS) team is doing off the field.

First, its $200 million, dedicated soccer stadium (above) opens in June. Throughout it's existence, the team played in Arrowhead Stadium, a football venue that seats nearly 80,000. When you draw about 10,000 a night, that's a lot of empty red seats showing up on SportsCenter. Then, it moved to Community America Ballpark, a much smaller stadium. Better than Arrowhead but it was designed for semi-pro baseball not soccer.

Every brand needs its own home. Sharing spaces - and images for sure - can conspire to dilute brands. It's because every brand needs to be in total control of its brand. Look what happened when Mercedes jumped in bed with Chrysler and AOL hooked up with Time Warner. They were costly affairs for all parties involved.

In Europe, soccer is king and they routinely fill 100,000-seat stadiums. Domestically, it has never enjoyed that level of popularity. New niche-specific digs aside, how else can a team in the Midwest in a sport like professional soccer compete in mainstream America?

Don't be mainstream.

This speaks to a second brilliant brand move: Changing the name from "Wizards" to "Sporting KC." The former always felt Harlem Globetrotters-esque to me. It's also not unique; there's the Washington Wizards of the NBA for one. Those things aside, "Wizards" was a traditional, middle-of-the-road American sports name in the vein of Tigers, Kings and The Magic.

Professional soccer will have a difficult time ever being as mainstream as football, basketball and baseball in America. Al Ries in The 22 Immutable Laws of Branding wrote that two brands separate from the pack and dominate a category. Like Coke and Pepsi, Google and Yahoo! and FedEx and UPS to name a few.

"Sporting KC" is a brand name that has a "club" feel to it much like Manchester United, Chelsea FC and Real Madrid, and Toronto FC, DC United and Columbus Crew in the MLS. It's new logo is actually an emblem, something you'd associate with a club. Okay, "Wizards" too sounded like it belonged in a club. A magic club.

Creating a brand that creates a "club" appeals to those that see themselves as part of something exclusive, special. Like people who drive Jeeps. We - yes, I'm in that club - believe only a select few belong behind the wheel of one. There's even a mantra: "It's a Jeep thing. You wouldn't understand." In reality, there's no secret handshake. A valid drivers license gets you in. But in the mind, where brands reside, it's the exclusive domain of a select, unique, passionate few.

The brand trifecta was achieved in something it didn't do: Not selling out when it came to selling naming rights. I was privy to a 2009 national study on the effectiveness of advertising. Sponsorship, which includes naming rights, was one of the most ineffective means of driving brand awareness. More importantly, consumers don't see the value in it. Calling it Lincoln Financial Field isn't going to motivate Philadelphia Eagles' fans to invest with the namesake.

So, how did it christen it's brand-spanking new, soccer-specific complex?

"Livestrong Sporting Park."

Not my first choice. I prefer "Sporting KC Park," born from my belief that you must be relentlessly consistent and laser-focused in reinforcing your unique value. That's because every moment is a moment of truth for your brand.

Sponsorships involving naming rights also are risky because you acquiesce control of your image. Does anyone remember Paige Arena? That was the original name of Mizzou Arena before a school scandal forced the billionaire Laurie family strip away their daughter's name. What happens if Lance Armstrong is ever found guilty of doping?

However, naming the venue after a charitable organization instead of corporate America is anything but conventional. As is doing so for free. In fact, Sporting KC will donate a portion of its revenue - up to $7.5 million over six years - to the cancer-fighting foundation. It's a stellar example of walking-the-walk, the true definition of branding, not labeling like Bank of America Stadium or the Home Depot Center.

Altruism aside, the timing of yesterday's naming rights announcement was the equivalent of a free kick into an empty net for Sporting KC. Our most popular sport, American football, is on the verge of lockout. Over money. A brilliant PR move.

Success will be measured, ultimately, at the gate, in merchandise sales and advertising revenue, and on the field. But attitude usually dictates behavior. By focusing on repositioning its brand in the mind, and doing so in a way to appeal to its niche rather than the masses, Sporting KC might just be on its way to rewriting the record books on how to build a sports brand.

The lesson for all brands? Those that separate themselves by image, aesthetics and space usually are the ones that stand out and stand apart.

These are my GUTS feelings.

The New Colors of Brand Success: Black & White

One of my favorite brands, Southwest Airlines, continues it's brilliant assault on the airline industry. First, it was no bag fees. Now, it's no ticket change fees. Fish in a barrel.

It's true, virtually every domestic carrier is serving it up on a silver tray table for Southwest. But I bet your competitors are as well. Perhaps, not so overtly. Perhaps, you don't yet recognize it. But they are. You just need to know what to look for and how to exploit it.

So, where is the first place you should look? Not at your competitors but inside them to see their true colors.

Too often, I encounter clients/prospects that either fail to do their competitive homework or do it wrong. You can't truly understand their brands just by looking at their websites and advertising. What they claim to be, and what they really are, is often different. Fox NewsChannel says "Fair and Balanced." But most people think "conservative" or "Republican." That's a big difference in an image, and important to know, to effectively take them on.

Once you truly understand the perceptions of your competitors' brands, then you can attack their position provided your brand provides real contrast. Or you can create the position from which to attack.

Take Bing. It's lumping all search engines into the "cluttered and confusing" category. How? By positioning itself as "decisive." How's that working for Bing? Born mid-2009, it's now the third most used engine and is quickly closing the gap on Yahoo! While the chasm between Google and everyone else is the size of the Grand Canyon, Bing is carving out territory.

By reinventing (and a new use for) the wheel, Dyson is making every other vacuum look like a typewriter compared to a laptop, much like what Swiffer has done to the mop. Dyson has nearly 25% share of its market, and Swiffer has been so successful it's now part of pop culture.

At the risk of glossing, many of my competitors - and there are a lot of them these days - claim branding as a service offering. It's on their business cards, websites and office doors. But they are really just delivering back-end tactics like design and campaigns. When I meet with a prospect, I use this to my advantage by demonstrating the contrast between what I do - real brand strategy built from within organizations out to customers - and what most competitors do - logos, slogans, ads, web, etc. I relish every opportunity to compete for business because they keep doing their thing which allows me to keep doing mine.

I'm also not soup-to-nuts. I'm a brand strategist. Period. Specialization is yet another opportunity to show contrast between me and them. The more services they add to their business cards, the more I look like a brand expert. Well, at least I hope so. If nothing else, I'm a rival rather than a competitor. That's what creates a powerful brand.

What makes your company, product or service distinctive must be what black is to white. Otherwise, it will be difficult to create contrast and separate yourself from competitors.

Finally, when it comes to fighting competitors on marketing and advertising battlefields, your attack should actually never be directly at them. What about Southwest you might ask? Isn't it smacking competitors right in the chops? Yes and no. In truth, it's using the entire industry to create further separation and strengthen it's position in the minds of customers and prospects.

Southwest's competition isn't on runways. It's in the terminal known as the "mind." As is yours.

These are my Guts Feelings.

BTW...check out my just launched Website at www.gutsbranding.com!

Don't Be An Oxymoron. Focus on the Little Picture.

Recently, I was told by a pair of company leaders that I was "too focused" in defining the brand. They proceeded to say that we needed to "broaden the focus." Isn't that kind of like saying, anarchy rules, barely dressed, friendly argument and one size fits all?

Yes, “broaden the focus” is an oxymoron.

It’s not the first time I’ve been told by executives and even colleagues that I’m too narrow in defining brands. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard things like, “there’s no way everything can live the brand.”

Oh, really?

Shame on Pixar for only focusing on family movies and sticking to it’s “less is more” approach. Did you know it takes five years from concept-to-completion to make a picture? That didn’t seem to bother Disney, which shelled out $7.4 billion for the company.

Pity the Whole Foods fools for focusing on organic and ringing up profitable quarters and shares at a two-year high even in a tough economy.

And I’m guessing the end is near for Southwest Airlines, whose barebones (but fun) focus the past 37 years has yielded 37 consecutive years of profitability and counting.

Then again, Pixar isn’t really focused on movies nor is Whole Foods on food and Southwest on flying. If they were, Pixar would make movies for adults, Whole Foods would stock as much non-organic as organic foods, and SWA would nickel and dime customers like every other airline. No, they are all focused on building brands. And as such, they are focused on the “little picture.”

You see, I was also told by one of the aforementioned leaders that they had to look at the “big picture.” I believe he was insinuating that I wasn’t. I wonder if he would have approved Hooters Airline, Coors Rocky Mountain Spring Water or Bic Underwear?

Okay, you could argue no one in their right mind would rubber-stamp those ideas. Except, that CEOs did. What about examples that don’t seem so obvious like a Mercedes for the price of a Camry? Even Forbes Magazine wasn’t buying it:

“Finally, an inexpensive Mercedes is an oxymoron, since the three-pointed star is all about prestige. A Mercedes is something people have always felt they had to work for; to "achieve" a Mercedes for a mere $26,000 might undermine the value of the brand.”

Forbes’ concern was validated when the Mercedes brand itself suffered and the cheap Benz was ultimately sent to the scrap yard.

To really be focused on the big picture means to really focus on the small picture. But this is counterintuitive to conventional thinking. Broadening focus might just work in the short run, but inevitably, you undermine the core brand and over time your brand will lose its meaning and market share. Like Boston Chicken, which was looking big picture when it expanded its menu beyond chicken and even changed its name to Boston Market to be all-inclusive. Shortly thereafter it went bankrupt.

Statistically, nine in 10 expansions fail yet companies continue to think big picture. Did you know that Papa John’s started out selling pizza, subs, cheese steak sandwiches, fried vegetables, etc? When it found the courage to slice off everything but pizza and think small picture, it eventually became the third largest pizza franchiser in the world.

And how do people emotionally connect with the big picture? Take cities for example. Atlanta is touting itself as “A City Too Busy to Hate.” Huh? Broad, confusing and uninspiring. Then there’s, “What Happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.” Its focus is small and crystal clear. Now wipe that smirk or smile off your face.

If category-dominating, often category-creating laser focused brands like Apple, Facebook and Fox Newschannel aren’t enough to convince you that focusing on the little picture – i.e., your brand - rather than expanding is the key to dominance, then you’re just clearly confused.

These are my Guts Feelings.

Southwest Airlines: Oh Yeah, It's SO On!

Southwest Airlines continues to be the darling of domestic airline brands and the apple of my eye because it continues to be the perfect storm of business model and brand model.

For a little perspective, Southwest has never strayed from it's low fares, no frills, lots of fun image. All it's done is produce 37 consecutive years of profitability. How many other airlines can say that? How much has the industry changed since Southwest first took to the skies? Over 200 domestic airlines have either merged, been taken over, or are now extinct.

But over a year ago, this category killer took its brand into the stratosphere when it launched its bags fly free assault. Talk about kicking competitors when they are down. It was more than just guerilla warfare and great marketing strategy. It was a brilliant example of creating more brand separation from not only competitors but an entire industry. And every nickel and dime move other carriers make - some are contemplating charging to use the toilet or making you pay by how much you weigh - the more SWA looks like a hero.

So, what does Southwest do for an encore? Separate itself even further from all other domestic pretenders by declaring you can only find fares and book tickets on swa.com. Doesn't this fly in the face of conventional and contemporary thinking that you must be everywhere to be successful? Au, contraire.

Brand strategy legend Al Ries (The 22 Immutable Laws of Branding) talks about the Law Exclusivity. Essentially, two brands cannot share the same image. He couldn't be more on point. However, I take that law a step further when talking about exclusivity: Mass availability does not always mean mass consumption; demand can create more desire.

CBS doesn't repurpose its programming on Hulu, a site that allows you to watch episodes of some network and cable programming after it airs. Yet,, CBS once again won the coveted A25-54 demographic amongst all other broadcast networks this past season. How many jewelry stores actually carry Rolex watches? Though often imitated, you have to go to high end shops to purchase one. And it's doubtful you'll find Cuban cigars next to the register at your local convenient store. If you can get your hands on them, a box will set you back as much as $500-$700.

So, by not allowing itself to participate on sites like Orbitz or Travelocity, Southwest is not only physically separating itself further from competitors, it perceptively is making its brand more unique by not blending in with the fray.

The only downside? It doesn't make it easy for you to conveniently compare its fares to competitors side-by-side? But Southwest Airlines never portends to have the absolute lowest fares. Rather, all the things it has systematically done through the years from serving peanuts, group seating and no charge for bags, have conspired to make it the best overall value in the air and a brand to be envious of no matter what category your product or service is in.

Southwest likes to say, "It's On." When you consider the powerful impact all these moves have on customers and the brand damage it continues to inflict on reeling competitors, I'd say "It's SO On!"

These are my Guts Feelings.

Feed the Beast, Starve the Brand. Just ask Toyota.

Domino's. I'm not talking about a Pizza chain. I'm talking about all the ones falling at Toyota.

It's gone from pristine image to recalls to hearings on Capital Hill to now being investigated by a grand jury and the SEC, and rapid evaporation of customer satisfaction at its dealership as people wait days - even weeks - to get their defective vehicles fixed.

Poor Toyota.

But this all could have been easily avoided if it would have followed one simple premise: Make brand decisions not bottom-line decisions.

When you make most or all of your business decisions based on boardrooms and the bottom-line, you are focused on the company. When you make your business decisions based on your brand promise, you are focused on the customer. In the immortal words of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton, "the only person that can fire me is the customer." Are you listening Toyota?

By focusing on itself, failing to listen to initial customer complaints, sourcing inferior materials, neglecting to issue recalls sooner than later, covering up and trying to cover its tracks, all in an effort to save a buck, Toyota has cost itself dearly in the form of brand damage. I saw a figure that estimated it's loss of brand equity in the billions. That's a multi-billion dollar punch to the gut that is already hitting them in the wallet and could take years to recover. If ever.

When you choose bottom-line over brand, you also might as well hand over your playbook to your competitors because eventually you will lose. In fact, this could be the best thing that ever happened to GM and other American car companies. Whereas Toyota failed to knock out it's American brethren when they were being bailed out by the government, GM has been given another at bat. But I wouldn't just swing away at reliability and dependability. I'd hit 'em where it really hurts: Trust and transparency. If customers believe in you, there's a good chance they will believe in your products.

The Toyota meltdown tees up another opportunity for me to talk Southwest Airlines. It's business model is its brand model and vice-versa. That allows it always stay focused on the customer and continue to profitably soar.

Remember: when you feed the beast, you will starve the brand.

These are my Guts Feelings.

What You Can Learn from A Weekend Bartender About Building An Authentic Brand

My date and I wanted an after-dinner drink Saturday night. We ended up in an older, not-particularly-trendy but eclectic part of town. I had designs on a place but it was closed for a private party. We wandered down the street and stumbled upon a small restaurant, one of those places with painted tin ceilings, cracked plaster, limited seating, and a menu that changes daily. We bellied up to the small coffee/wine bar for our nightcaps.

Our bartender wasn't exactly warm. I wouldn't call him cold either. He was more matter-of-fact but well-spoken. Between sips of Grenache and her Italian red, we struck up a friendly conversation with him. It wasn't too busy so the banter went on though he continued to work behind the bar.

He mentioned that he only worked weekends, which led me to inquire about his "real job." This 30-something is in the house-flipping business. You can probably guess my next: "How are you doing in this economy?" I had come to the preconceived conclusion that he must be moonlighting to supplement income.

"Very well," he replied.

It wasn't the answer I expected. When things aren't going well, most people try to hide it (except on Facebook). But he seemed genuine. I began to dig, believing there might be a brandecdote to be had and shared with you.

His name slips me now (more on that in a minute) but it seems this entrepreneur has carved out quite a nice little niche. Flipping houses doesn't do justice to what he does.

He noted it takes him about six months to finish a home and he works on only one at a time. He's clearly not about the quick turn and volume. He also does most of the work himself, which you could see from his hands. Both answers lead me to believe he has good margins, a good indicator of a strong brand. Remember, specialists can charge more than generalists.

As the discussion progressed, I began to wonder if he realized he had been following many of the key laws that create and govern the most powerful brands. If not, he certainly has the instincts.

He's definitely laser-focused. He only rehabs houses in a few square-mile radius of a somewhat historic area. He admitted to having strayed to a few other neighborhoods in the past but realized it wasn't the same for him. He is back on his turf and committed to staying geographically limited. If only Coors and the show, Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, along with so many other brands, realized that mass availability doesn't always equal mass consumption.

I don't claim to be Bob Villa but I have some baseline knowledge about home improvement. It's clear, he does not cut corners. He also tries to salvage original materials - floors, walls, even windows if possible - to maintain the original charm. Yet, he transforms them into modern, efficient homes.

There's another unique aspect to his brand: It seems he already has the buyers secured. Any unique brand needs a unique business model, like Southwest Airlines and Google for example. In fact, brand and business model should be one, not separate. While I don't know the particulars of his, I surmise clients have most of the skin in the game, allowing him to operate somewhat free of the financial pressures that everyday house flippers face.

His target audience is also narrowly defined. I get the sense they are somewhat affluent and desire this bedroom community for all it's neighborhood charms. They are also willing to pay for maintaining the integrity and originality of the home but want and need modern conveniences. He's currently working on a home for a Kansas City Chiefs football coach.

In essence, he doesn't work for home buyers. He works with clients. Again, reading between the lines, I sensed they find him. If you have a powerful brand, you don't need to shout. People will hear the whispers of others and find you. Starbucks, Google and YouTube are testament to that idea, having all launched with no advertising. To this day, they do very little of it.

When you create a focused, unique brand, you don't have to work as hard at the marketing. It speaks for itself and others will do the talking for you. Conversely, when you create an average-to-above-average product or service, be prepared to bullhorn your way in front of people.

Even the biggest marketing and advertising budget is no guarantee you'll be successful. Just think about products that have launched with million dollar advertising blitzes and flamed out like WebTV, Kellogg's Breakfast Mates, and of course, New Coke.

Before leaving, I asked if he had a Web site. Nope. Business card. Nope. Which explains why I don't remember his name. More importantly, I know what he does because it so stands out and how to find him. I recognize that not everyone can operate this way. But he's doing just fine without a Web presence or business card. His calling card is his reputation, which is built by having a truly distinctive product or service and staying true to it.

As to why he bartends on Saturday nights? He says it's because the owner is a friend. He added it provides a little weekly break from his busy life, which includes a wife and two kids at home. Since he's only working one night a weekend, it really can't be for the money. Then it struck me. This low-key, savvy entrepreneur is doing it for another reason: It just so happens this restaurant/bar is around the corner from where he lives, which just so happens to be the same neighborhood in which his brand is alive and well.

He has built an authentic brand from the inside out. Smart guy.

These are My Guts Feelings.

Two Brands, Different Decisions

A former television news media client of mine just recently switched Internet Service Providers. It got a cheaper deal. Hey, who isn't looking to save a buck where they can in this economy.

That same week, there was major breaking news in this market. The body of a missing 9-year-old girl was found plus an arrest. My former client was all over it on its Web site. Immediacy and responsiveness are critical drivers of its brand mission. That laser focus and commitment to living its brand mission the past few years are the reason it is now the viewers' go-to source in the market for breaking news and weather.

Wanna guess what happened when the masses came looking for late-breaking developments on its Web site? A door slammed in their faces. A "do not" enter sign. A broken promise.

You see, when it paid more it got more bandwith. Now, it pays less and gets less bandwith. The Web site shutdown from too much traffic.

Wanna guess what information-hungry consumers probably did next? They went elsewhere. To competitors. And that leaves a mark.

You see, consumers don't care about your excuses. They want what they expect from you - what you've promised - each and every time they need it. Break that trust enough and they will ultimately break up with you.

Station ownership is private equity. Definitely bottom-line thinkers. Can't really blame them for trying to run lean. But they are shooting themselves in the foot. By nickel and dime-ing it, this news brand, after spending the past couple years earning back viewers' trust, has taken the first step toward breaking its contract with its customers. Isn't it customers that ultimately pay the bills and help you realize a return on your investment?

Now, some contrast. Last week, a new online-only news Web site, the Texas Tribune (http://www.texastribune.org/), went live. A few days later, in its own back yard, the tragic Fort Hood shootings.

The Texas Tribune could have covered it and in person. But it didn't. Why in the world wouldn't it?

"It wasn't our story. Should we have been just one more news organization that rushed to Fort Hood? I don't think so, " said reporter Matt Stiles, who joined Texas Tribune from the Houston Chronicle.

"We're about public policy and politics," said Evan Smith, one of the founders of the new not-for-profit. "What I wasn't going to do was send someone racing up the Interstate to cover something, however important, that wasn't ours."

Let those two quotes sink in for a bit.

Here is a brand-spanking new brand that could benefit from sampling. But instead it made a brand decision, not a bottom-line one. Time will tell how successful their enterprise will be. But it's off to a good brand start.

First, it appears the Texas Tribune has done an excellent job of immersing its staff of 12 mostly seasoned, enterprise journalists in its brand. They seem to grasp who they are and who they aren't. The Texas Tribune is creating it from the inside out, the only way to build an authentic brand and insure a consistent experience each and every time, at every point of contact, for customers and prospects.

Second, reminiscent of Southwest Airlines, it has a unique business model (funded by investors, endowment and donations) that allows it to be a brand first and foremost.

The Texas Tribune early on gets that your brand should be your most valuable asset, the thing you protect at all costs. That's THE real bottom line.

These are my Guts Feelings.

Kurt Bartolich
Founder, Brand Internalist
Guts Branding
www.kbartolich@gmail.com

Why Integrated (Insert Marketing or Brand) Is Backwards Thinking - FOLLOWUP

I read a review about the integrated marketing conference (see my previous blog) in the KC Star this morning. One quote in particular by a conference organizer got my dander up: "Your brand is not what you say about yourself. It's about what others are saying about you." She was referring to the impact social media has today on brands.

I guess she'd better get busy alerting the folks at Google, Nike, Volvo, Ritz-Carlton, OnStar, Coca-Cola, EA Sports, BMW, YouTube, Victoria's Secret, FOX Newschannel, Zappos, Southwest Airlines, Verizon, Maytag, Apple, etc., etc., that they should shut up now and stop force-feeding their respective messages about safety, driving experience, conservative values, freedom, dependability, etc., down our throats.

But let's not let facts get in the way. Like, virtually everyone of those brands I listed, that continue "pushing" out to consumers, dominates it's category.

I get that social media has changed the landscape of marketing. It can create groundswell, both good and bad, and you should have the cup against the social media wall to know what's being said about you. But I liken it to producing a commercial: When editing, you start with the offline or basic edit followed by the online or final post. You would never go to air with just an offline edit. So, why would you make decisions based on social chatter that has no controls in place for the sample, weighting and statistical accuracy?

If you are seeing or hearing things about your brand in social media venues, by all means, investigate. Just substantiate it. The woman in the article also noted that blogs are influential but lack credibility. I too have seen this in research. To draw a parallel, in a study conducted a couple of years ago by my former employer, Frank N. Magid Associates, Inc., a question was posed to Millennials (also loyal viewers of) about The Daily Show, and if it influenced their political points of view. It was an overwhelming, "no." One respondent went so far as to say, "it's on Comedy Central after all." People are smarter and savvier than marketers give them credit. Aren't Facebook and Twitter really just condensed blogs?

Building a brand has always, and will always be, a joint venture, driven by the company first. That's because a brand is a promise. It's the company that initiates the handshake. Smart companies do their homework first by finding and exposing the gaps - and unmet or under served needs - in the market place, then reaching out. The consumer's role is to help dial in, and articulate back, important things like what it means to them, if it's satisfying their desires, if it's fulfilling the promise, if it's veering off course, competitive perceptions, etc.

These are my Guts Feelings.

Kurt Bartolich
Founder/Brand Internalist
Guts Branding

Why Integrated (Insert Marketing or Brand) Is Backwards Thinking

I recently received an email invitation to an "Integrated Marketing" conference in my hometown. From the description, it promised that attendees would experience the future of marketing.

Actually, my first exposure to the term, "Integrated (insert brand or marketing here)," was through a young woman fresh out of college who joined the same company I was working for a few years ago. She often spoke about integrated brand and her desire to become more involved with it, and to get our clients to practice it. I had never heard of the concept until that moment. I admit I didn't quite understand it.

Perhaps, I was naive. Had my head buried in the sand. Maybe, I was just too old school for those super-smart Millennials.

But I had a hard time believing any of those things to be completely true because many of my clients were in rapid ascent mode, chewing up large chunks of market share and spitting out competitors. More importantly, they were building strong foundations to sustain their trajectories.

Instinctively, it seemed to me, integrated (insert marketing or brand) was another of those new-fangled buzzwords or phrases that comes out of nowhere but everyone starts using like, vertical strategy, optimization, value justification, etc. Marketers...gotta love 'em. Great at pilfering, repurposing and repackaging.

My gut reaction to the phrase, integrated (insert marketing or brand), was "really?" That's because I've ALWAYS practiced - and counseled clients - that their brand is their strategy, and everything they do, every decision they make, every program they initiate or system they build, every person they hire, every campaign they create, every dime they spend, etc., should be birthed and governed by their brand mission. If you haven't been thinking this way all along, there is a good chance you are not the dominate brand in your category. If you aren't thinking this way, and you happen to be the leading brand in your category, you are probably on top for reasons out of your control. Regardless, you are vulnerable.

Let me further explain: By embracing the notion, integrated (insert brand or marketing), you are essentially buying into the idea that you must fit together all of your company's existing pieces to create one idea or image. The biggest flaw in this thinking is believing that you can simply fit those pieces together to form the same image. Chances are, your parts and pieces were created independently and tactically to address a particular and present concern or need. Over time, they stack up. Stacks of unrelated things add up to confusion in the mind.

Essentially, integrated (insert marketing or brand) is backwards thinking.

That's because brand is the all-encompassing thing. Brand is your strategy. It comes first. Therefore, everything you do should flow forth from your brand, not be cobbled together to fit it. Your brand should dictate all the pieces you create. If this isn't the case, it's going to take separation, not integration, from those things that don't fit the brand, and the formation of new things that do fit it, in order for all of your parts and pieces to naturally form that single (and hopefully, distinct) impression.

Brand should also be your business model. Few brands were ever born from a spreadsheet. Though, many have been killed by one. Southwest Airlines is a terrific example of this premise. It's business model has always been about efficiencies. It makes no bones about it. SWA also leverages it in ways to create a fun, easy, and hassle-free experience for customers, whereas other airlines, that are now clamoring to streamline, are making customers feel like victims of their inefficiencies...and appearing to be greedy. Southwest's latest assault, the campaign about bags flying free, is brilliant. It was born from its brand mission and provides stark contrast to what virtually every other carrier is doing. SWA continues to separate itself in relevant, meaningful ways.

Southwest is also a shining example of creating a culture that bleeds its brand at every single point of contact, so promise and payoff are always one. That's how you create an authentic brand. It might just be the best example of building a transparent (had to throw in a buzzword) brand from the guts of its organization out to the consumer.

By the time I write my next blog in a few weeks, I bet there will be dozens of new buzzwords in the mainstream attached to revolutionary promises. Heck, I've already come across a Web site that portends to create your personal brand through aggregation (fancy term for integration) of all your social and professional sites. Sounds like another example of "integration." You can believe the hype if you want. Or, you can stick with what really works and always will: Building a brand from inside your organization out to your customers.

These are my Guts Feelings.

Kurt Bartolich, Founder/Brand Internalist, Guts Branding

These are my Guts Feelings.

kbartolich@gmail.com

Starbucks Heading Further Away From Home VIA New Ready Brew

According to dictionary.com, the word "via" in preposition form is defined as "by a route that touches or passes through." VIA is also the brand name of the new instant coffee from Starbucks. I was introduced to it last week by a young Barista. She made sure I understood that it's good for when you're at sporting events or camping out.

Or, as I retorted, "any place other than here."

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Starbucks built as a destination brand? Many referred to it as the "third place," with home and office being the other two. It seems Starbucks is moving closer to a new address: Your nearby Piggly Wiggly. Perhaps, it can persuade the grocery manager to put out a few bistro tables, pipe in some artsy music and install wireless Internet on Aisle 5.

If you feel compelled anymore to step inside a bricks and mortar version of Starbucks, take note of what's happening. It's redesigning, including installing new espresso machines, to make them more inviting and feel like your neighborhood, yet is launching products like VIA to send you away. In fact, the little trial sample of VIA I was handed has three boxes on the front that are X'd, with the first one denoting it's extra bold, the second to remind us (thank you) that it's coffee and the third to let us know we can take these little suckers "anywhere."

Exactly.

Guts Branding principle and reminder to Starbucks: Mass availability does not always equal mass consumption. In fact, making something less convenient, even in this era of instant access and on "our terms," still works if you have a powerful, desired brand. I once again cite CBS, the only network to grow in households and key selling demos in the 2008-2009 season. Unlike it's direct competitors, it made none of it's programming available via Hulu. You wanted CSI Miami, Two and Half Men or 48 Hours, you had to watch them on CBS's terms. What a novel concept.

Starbucks is again chasing "convenience," becoming more and more of a commodity and starting to blend (and not in the good coffee sense). That's physical and mental territory long-held by the likes of McDonald's and convenience stores. As much as I believe McDonald's could benefit from a good cup of focus, you don't see it packaging and selling its coffee in stores. At least not yet.

If you think about it, the Starbucks brand was originally built around the notion of "inconvenience." Loitering encouraged could have been their mantra. After all, that was a big piece of the original vision.

But then it was like the signs were switched overnight to no loitering when it added drivethroughs (at least you have to drive around the building rather than bypass it all together) to its grocery store line of prepackaged coffees, right there next to Folgers and Nescafe', which already dominates the instant coffee market. I'm sure VIA, which officially launches in two days, will have plenty of skews as well. One more reason to avoid your nearby Starbucks.

I'm really not anti-Starbucks. In fact, I wouldn't have a problem with VIA and other similar product offerings if Starbucks had started out as a store brand. Where I have a problem with it, or any other brand for that matter, is when after it tastes success, it travels in a direction opposite of what people want or expect from it. What if Subaru began making front-wheel drive vehicles or YouTube allowed people to post text-only stories?

My advice to Starbucks: Hit the brakes. Make a U-Turn. And find your way back home.

These are my Guts Feelings.

Fire Your "Offensive Coordinators" and You Might As Well Punt Your Brand

Earlier this week, my beloved Kansas City Chiefs fired their offensive coordinator. Head coach, Todd Haley, is now assuming that responsibility.

How many companies during this recession have fired or downsized their offensive coordinators, a.k.a, marketing professionals, and handed those responsibilities off to someone else, perhaps, in another department all together? Too many to count.

Indeed, times are tough. No business is immune. While the move by the Chiefs doesn't seem to be economically-driven, the impact will be the same: When you eliminate specialists, particularly those directly charged with brand communication, you are risking the future of your most valuable asset.

If you recall, in the 90s the old playbook was pitched and NFL head coaches tried tackling general manager responsibilities. And I'm not talking a bunch of second stringers. Future Hall-of-Famers, Mike Holmgren and Mike Shanahan, took a crack at it.

How did that work out? Not so well. It was too much for one person to handle. Divorce ensued shortly thereafter and teams went back to separate positions.

Why did this approach fail?

I offer a pragmatic but brand-centric reason: While the roles of the GM and head coach parallel in dealing with player personnel, functionally, they are on completely different playing fields. In a nutshell, the GM handles the bottom-line and the head coach handles the sidelines.

And you simply can't do two different things simultaneously well.

Specialization is the foundation of any powerful brand. FOX Newschannel can only be conservative, Las Vegas can only be sin city and Victoria's Secret can only be sexy lingerie. What would happen if FOX News tried to be both conservative and liberal? Vegas tried to sell itself as a family destination? Victoria's Secret marketed business attire? First, those positions are already taken, so it would fail on that level. Subsequently, they would dilute their own specializations, leading to mind share and ultimately market share erosion.

Todd Haley has credentials as an offensive coordinator. He called plays in last year's Super Bowl. But he has a different focus now, that is much different than being an offensive coordinator. It should be on pulling together a team of specialists like the defensive coordinator, offensive line coach and the training staff toward the common goal.

A head coach usually creates and manages the team's brand personality like Bill Walsh and his West Coast Offense, Chuck Noll's Steel Curtain, and Dick Vermeil's Greatest Show on Turf. Ensuring that ever person from the field up to the owner's box is living the brand is a full-time job in and of itself. It's going to be difficult for Haley to stay strategically-focused when he's tactically drawing plays in the dirt.

When you try to focus on two things at once, you end up making compromises to one side or the other but usually both. It takes absolute, undivided attention on one thing to be a specialist, to be a brand.

So, when you punt your marketing professionals, and hand these critical to your bottom-line responsibilities off to say your sales manager or business manager, you are taking the first steps towards killing your brand. You are sending the signal inside your organization that brand is not your priority without even realizing it. Whomever assumes marketing responsibilities, will in turn lose focus in their area of specialization. More dominoes will fall inside your organization that will eventually have an impact outside it.

If brand isn't your main focus, and building it from inside your organization out to customers and prospects, it should be. Nearly $210 million of the The Dallas Cowboys overall value is attributed to brand management. While there are other things that factor into the overall value of an organization, Jerry Jones' new stadium will eventually grow old and depreciate. The NFL revenue-sharing model that is so lucrative for teams could change. Star players will come and go. But your brand is really the only thing you can control. As your most important asset, it needs to be nurtured and grown by specialists, not handed off as an afterthought to bean counters and tactical thinkers in a short-sighted effort to save money now.

While there is great optimism under the new regime at Arrowhead Stadium, and I'm personally excited about it and Haley, it's his first time as a head coach, he inherits a team coming off a 2-14 season, and his starting quarterback is already injured and the season hasn't even kicked off yet. He already had a lot of balls in the air. He just added another big one, and that makes it even more likely he'll commit some costly fumbles this season.

These are my Guts Feelings.

What's In A Name? Everything!

Do you call it H1N1 or Swine Flu? Did you call it the Car Allowance Rebate System or Cash for Clunkers? Do you say Economic Stimulus Package or Government Bailout?

Unless you're a medical professional or a government employee, the latter most likely in all three instances.

For the same reason we use U.P.S., not United Parcel Service, FedEx not Federal Express, and I.B.M. not International Business Machine, our complex minds deal more efficiently and effectively with simple things. Or, as the old saying goes, K.I.S.S! (Keep It Simple Stupid).

But simple isn't enough. I recently worked with a client on developing a brand name. They got the simple premise, but weren't grasping the other two critical ingredients: Unique and memorable. This client was locked into a brand name that was generic like The Dog Groomer or H-E-B. These might be simple, but they aren't unique nor memorable. Names like Doggy Style (yes, it is a real name) and Whole Foods are, satisfying all three criteria.

Working with media clients over the years, particularly local market televisions stations, I encountered brand name issues often. Station call letters created the conundrum. With a few exceptions, most were forgettable. Only people on the inside knew what acronyms like KRGV, KSHB or WPPY stood for. Most viewers use channel numbers as their reference point. Yet, in markets where ratings are determined by how viewers fill out diaries, call letters is one way to receive credit for a program that was viewed. But if viewers don't remember who they are watching, what's the point? Call letters like KARE, WOOD and KAKE are the exceptions. Why? They form a word. Words are more memorable than acronyms.

You might be thinking at this point I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth. After all, I did mention U.P.S. and I.B.M. earlier. But they didn't start out as acronyms. They were birthed as words, much like the Entertainment and Sports Programming Network (ESPN) and shortened after being established over time. In these rare instances, they became more memorable as acronyms because in word form weren't unique, simple or memorable.

That opens up another can of worms: Names that on the surface really have nothing to do with the product itself like Nike, Amazon and Yahoo! Yet, I'd be surprised if anyone doesn't know what they represent. You can redefine the meaning of a word (think: "Spam" and "Blackberry") with the right strategy. Over time, the name and idea can become synonymous.

Don't let lack of URL availability influence your decision on a brand name. Do you think Google, Spike and Target would have changed their brand names if the respective URLs weren't available? My guess is they would have done whatever they could to secure the URLs even if they were already taken. Why? Keep in mind that Coca-Cola (mostly referred to as Coke, another example of simplification) is worth about $66 billion but it's physical assets are worth just around six billion. What accounts for the difference? Brand essence and brand name. Find the right brand name first and then find the ways and means to take complete ownership.

When you consider that what you do can ultimately be copied but not your brand name, then you must do everything you can to create one that is unique, simple and memorable, distills the essence of who you are and/or what you do, and won't be confused with anyone else in the mind.
These are my Guts feelings.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde Make The Rounds for Hospital Brand

I spent this past Friday night with my mom in the Emergency Room. The good news is she's fine. Unfortunately, these visits have become a little too commonplace this year with her.

In the winter, she ended up in the same ER twice, and stayed each time for about 10 days. She was pretty sick and almost didn't make it. But she persevered.

So, when I received the call Friday from my mother's good friend that the ambulance was taking her to St. Joseph Medical Center again, based on recent experiences, I was comforted knowing she would once again be in good hands. From a treatment standpoint, she was. But that's where any similarities to her stays at St. Joe less than six months apart end.

From a medical standpoint, the crew in the ER and on her floor for the weekend was what I expected in terms of knowledge and expertise. But their collective bedside manner was much different this time, sans one notable exception.

Don't get me wrong. No one treated my mother poorly. But everyone seemed "less caring" and less responsive, particularly in the ER. Okay, it's a hospital not a Ritz-Carlton. I get it. But it's also not a Level I trauma center. The ER and floor she was on over the weekend were no more or less busy than her previous stays.

She was in the same place as before, yet it felt very different this time around.

For example, the ER staff seemed slower to respond when she needed to use the bathroom, this after telling her the medicine they just injected into her would make her go often for hours. While not exactly what I would call, "bad," the overall atmosphere had a "sterile" feeling and temperament of the ER staff was very matter-of-fact, lacking that sense of real "caring" that was omnipresent before. It also took them a few hours longer to get her up to her room than before.

With the exception of her main day shift nurse, it was more of the same on her floor. After I left the next morning, I tried calling mom three times that afternoon. I was never able to connect with her. Instead of getting a live operator right away, I went immediately into an automated system. I was on hold for up to 10 minutes on one occasion. Once I did actually get a live person, I gave her my mother's room number. She seemed put off that I didn't know if my mom was in the bed closest to the window or door. I told her it was a room with just a single bed and one phone. The woman was short with me and then connected me, though I can't be sure to the right room because my mom never picked up. I called back an hour later, and after going through the same automated drill, I asked to be connected to the nurses station on my mom's floor. The person that answered put me on hold. I was in limbo for 15 minutes. No one ever picked up. I finally gave up. The nurses station was probably no more than 50 feet from my mother's room.

Six months ago, I was singing the praises of St. Joseph Medical Center. I told friends how caring, quick and responsive everyone was and consistently so. I should know, I was there virtually every day and for hours on end. With all the different people she came in contact with, combined with the length of her two previous stays, there was ample opportunity for "impressions." I can't remember a single person or situation that didn't surprise me in a good way. It felt like everyone was singing off the same sheet of music, rowing in the same direction, cast by the same director. I also have competitor contrast, having been to other area hospitals with her over the past few years. St. Joe was a breath of fresh air.

After this weekend, I can't say the same thing. In my mind, it no longer stands out in an outstanding way. Instead, it felt "mediocre." It simply "blended" with other hospitals I was familiar with.

Let that sink in for a minute. It blends. When something doesn't stand out in extraordinary ways, how often are you likely to share your experiences? Well, I don't talk about the Hyatt, Dillards and Overstock.com. But I won't shut up about Ritz-Carlton, Nordstrom and Zappos.

Not only am I now less likely to talk about St. Joseph Medical Center in a positively radiant way, I'm less likely to recommend it so vehemently. More importantly, it's losing status as my mom's default destination for hospital care. This is not extreme. It's how most people react when a brand doesn't live up to the expectation it created.

I'm sure management at St. Joe has their excuses. Perhaps, staff reductions and other cuts. As a customer, I could give a rats tail. Likewise, your customers don't care about your problems. We want to know, no expect, that every time we come into contact with something that matters to us, it's the exact same experience unless it's been made even better. Not different, but better. That would mean deepening it, the most important thing you can do for your brand. Not widen it, not reduce it, but deepen it. Much like Volvo continues to reinvent automotive safety.

Even more disconcerting is my familiarity with St. Joseph Medical Center from the inside. I was working for a small local agency 10 years ago. It was one of our accounts and I was a part of the strategy team. While it has a CEO, it's really run by nuns. The two in charge then wouldn't have allowed what I experienced. It makes me wonder who is in charge now. It makes me wonder if they have a brand mission. When you have a brand mission, you know exactly who's in charge.

To that end, I did see some familiar signage around the halls of St. Joseph Medical Center that spoke to its commitment to care. When I saw them a few months ago, I remember thinking, "Yes, and then some." Yesterday, as we exited, I thought, "What happened?" No longer a promise of value, those posters were now just taking up space on the wall.

St. Joseph Medical Center needs to figure out its identity and get back to outstanding. Because it's clear from my collection of experiences with it, those on the inside don't really know or understand the expectation, particularly how to live it every single minute of every day, regardless of shift, department, employee or volunteer, CEO or nun, etc. Everyone must be oriented, trained, tested, retrained, and constantly immersed in how to deliver upon the brand mission. Even external partners and vendors. If a brand mission doesn't exist, it needs to create one to crystallize it for everyone, and create internal programs that will bring the brand mission to life. This is how you build a powerful brand. From the inside-out.

Everyone must also be held accountable to the brand mission. If they aren't, rest assured, they will be by their customers and prospects. I'm using a blog to speak to the two different St. Joseph Medical Centers I have now experienced. Management may never read it. Rest assured, there are other vehicles available to people today that can create groundswell faster than you can say, "Uh, oh."

Bottom line: You can't afford to let your brand become a Jekyll and Hyde.

These are my Guts feelings.

Social Media Is Not The Savior. Brand Is.

I just finished scouring adage.com this morning. Not surprisingly, the top two most viewed stories pertained to social media.

I'm here to give you a different take on "new" media, particularly Facebook and Twitter. Instead of more ideas on how to leverage them, I'm focusing on the lesson you can learn from them.

I believe many people, particularly marketers, view social media as a means to create, reinvent and build brands. Even the lead story on adage.com, Is Bob Lutz the Right Guy to Lead GM's Marketing, is about whether it should have looked to a more digital savvy marketer than a 46-year vet of the industry. Is it really change as GM promised, some are questioning in the article.

I have no way of knowing if Mr. Lutz is the right choice or not. But I believe a successful turnaround is predicated less on him and more about whether or not GM reengineers it's thinking. It needs to reinvent itself from the inside based on the three integrated Ps: Products, positioning and people. In a nutshell, think brand!

Everything in the Ad Age article spoke to creative design, advertising and communications as Mr. Lutz's role. There was no "real" talk about brand whatsoever. If brand isn't in his job description, it should be. In fact, it should be his focus. At companies where the focus is brand, it's every one's responsibility, from CEO to janitor.

One of the first things on Mr. Lutz's agenda is to meet with "key officials" to review proposed work and messaging of GM's remaining four brands. My first agenda item would be to get the CEO, brand, product, engineering and design teams in the same room and determine what tangible, meaningful, real distinction - between sibling brands and competitor brands - is being created, and how the culture is being changed at all levels, from CEO-to-dealers and everyone in between. That should be job one, to steal a line from a competitor from the past.

Reading between the lines of the Lutz story, and from other sources, everything still seems compartmentalized at GM, not woven together through brand, and approached from the outside-in. Isn't that business as usual?

My approach: Create authentic brands first and reengineer the culture to bring those brands to life (walk the walk). Then create the strategic messaging (talk the walk). Lastly, determine communications, creative and media channels (take it on a walk).

Don't take this as an attack on Mr. Lutz. This is the part he's been assigned. He might be a terrific addition to the cast. My issue is the play itself seems to be the same old script.

Coming back full circle, leveraging Facebook and Twitter is one thing. Learning from them is another. The thing you should really pay close attention to more than anything else is both are unique, simple, focused and memorable concepts. Those are the key ingredients of any powerful brand. Facebook is social networking. Twitter is status (as in updates). This is no different than Google is search, Victoria's Secret is sexy lingerie and Wal-Mart is low prices.

If you're not focused on "brand" first and making sure your culture bleeds your promise in everything you do, media - traditional, social, digital, etc. - isn't going to be the savior. Brand is. Always.

These are my Guts Feelings.

mailto:Feelings.kbartolich@gmail.com

Trying to Be Everywhere Can Get You Nowhere. Fast.

In my never-ending quest to learn - and find source material for this blog - three articles this week caught my attention. I've got Guts (Branding) Feelings about each of them. For this blog, I'll focus on one in particular: Time Warner Links with Comcast for TV Everywhere Trial.

The focus of the article is about the cable giant moving a step closer to offering channels a la iTunes: The consumer selects and bundles the channels it wants rather than it being a cable cramdown. But that's not what I'm focusing on for this post. It was actually a section in the article about Hulu and the broadcast networks that most piqued my interest.

Unlike the other three big networks, CBS is opting not to make its programming available via Hulu, the Web site that allows you to watch your favorite shows for free. Today, shouldn't you make your products and services available to the masses and on their terms? Well, CBS' defiance (or, maybe they just haven't struck the right deal yet) didn't hurt it. In fact, it was the only network out of the big four to actually increase ratings last season. Keep in mind Nielsen now can measure out-of-home (and non-set top) viewing in top markets. So, any argument about ratings advantages or disadvantages doesn't hold water.

Was it because CBS, the top network in households the past few years, has better programming? In part. Who wants to watch bad programming no matter where it's offered? Wouldn't making it available "everywhere" be more convenient for consumers, just the way we all want things today? Yes. However, when it comes to strong brands in certain categories, the other side of supply and demand - something that's hard to get your hands on - is a powerful force! If you build it - a powerful, highly-desired brand - they will come. Even on your terms.

Remember when Coors beer was only available west of the Rockies? Everyone wanted it. People used to bootleg it. Smuggling Coors that was at the heart of the 1970s movie, Smokey and the Bandit. Today? Original Coors isn't even in the top 10 selling domestic beers.

Remember in 1999 when Who Wants to Be a Millionaire was on ABC? It was generating ridiculous 30 and 40 shares? Then, ABC began airing it four nights a week. The show was cancelled less than two years later. Attempts to revive it, including it's syndication run, have had moderate success at best.

Then, there was the Sopranos. You could only get original episodes by paying for HBO. It made die hard fans wait nearly two years between season five and its final season without a single new episode. In fact, HBO remained very tight-lipped during final season production, refusing to leak any plot line details. All totaled there were only 84 original episodes during its nearly nine-year run. That's not very many when you consider that Law & Order has over 300 originals. If you wanted Sopranos, you had to do it on HBO's terms. Apparently, it worked. Sopranos was the most commercially successful - and one of the most critically acclaimed - cable program of all time.

Why does Nordstrom Department Stores only conduct one sale a year? Because it has such a strong brand predicated on extraordinary experience and high quality offerings it doesn't have to. In fact, having more sales would actually work in favor of competitors by effectively narrowing the gap of distinction between them and Nordstrom. Avoiding sales protects the Nordstrom brand and helps keep competitors separate in the minds of consumers.

Bottom line: Mass availability does not always equate to mass consumption.

In my opinion, the biggest mistake that Starbucks ever made was installing drive through windows, followed closely by over-expansion. Starbuck's brand was never about convenience. Rather, it's all about inconvenience. But inside the confines of Starbucks corporate, bottom-line decisions were made to expand in ways that conspired against the brand. My practice is built around the notion you build the most authentic brands from inside your organization out to consumers. Decisions you make in boardrooms are every bit as critical to protecting your brand as the systems, programs, training and people you put in place.

Mass exposure also does not guarantee mass appeal. It seems everyone is trying to figure out how to leverage social media. In fact, companies are redefining job descriptions and creating positions based on it. I believe there is value in social media. But I also find that people rush to jump on the newest bandwagon way too often. When online video first emerged, every client I worked with a few years back just had to find a way to "own it" in their market. Yet, research our company conducted for these broadcast media clients indicated "information" was actually more important to users of broadcast media news sites than video. This explains why newspaper Web sites, video poor but content-rich, have generally out-performed broadcast media sites in the local market space.

Keep in mind it was us, the practitioners, that added the "media" to social. Facebook and Twitter weren't created with that in mind. So, there are a couple of important things to keep in mind when entering the social media landscape:

--Does my brand actually fit in this space? If you have to wedge it in, it's not going to work. In fact, it could do be very off-putting to consumers if you're not careful. Twitter might make sense for a brand that is predicated on getting information out quickly to people, like a news and information brand or Apple, which could probably get away with creating groundswell with the release of a new iPhone. But is there really a Twitter strategy that works for say Tide? Volvo?

--Know exactly who is utilizing social media and how. A 2009 national study by Frank N. Magid Associates, Inc., indicated that Baby Boomers were more inclined to use social media sites for information and news. Conversely, the pre-teen and teen Millennials are using it more for watching and sharing videos, music and other Web-centric content. Because Boomers grew up in a passive advertising world, it's probably natural for them to expect to be marketed to on any platform. But the younger generation can smell a rat! So be careful.

--Listen. It's one of the key take aways from the Magid study. You don't need to be on Twitter, Facebook, blogging, etc. But you do need to keep an ear to the wall and listen to what consumers are saying via those channels, and talk to them in an open, earnest way, when it's necessary or makes sense for your brand.

Most importantly, how distinctive and relevant is your brand? If it doesn't give people a reason to post, share or Tweet, they won't. Make sure your brand stays remarkable and does remarkable things, so people will keep talking about it.

Sometimes, trying to be everywhere gets you nowhere. Fast.

These are my Guts Feelings

GM Needs a New Baby, Not A Re-Birth Announcement

I've received emails and comments from friends, some in the business, praising the television spot lauding the "new GM." Feedback has ranged from, "very American," "they're coming clean" and "powerful message." I too agree with those sentiments.

However, what so many are overlooking in this decades-in-the-making, historic mess, is a lesson for any brand: This should have never happened. GM shouldn't be having to manufacture a positive spin. It chose to be in this place by expanding and contracting in wrong ways. And when it comes to its rebirth as articulated in the commercial, why should we believe them now? More on that in minute.

First, Al Ries suggested years ago that GM needed to reduce its brands and models. GM chose not to listen. It continued expanding in the wrong ways like adding brands (Saturn, Hummer) and more models within each brand, ignoring Ries's "Law of Contraction." All the research I've been a part of for clients always supports "less is more." Brands that try being all things to all people get very little credit for anything and own very little market share. Brands that are laser focused on a distinctive idea, concept or approach, get major attitudinal props not only for their one thing, but for things they don't even do or focus on! It's called brand halo. Despite just focusing on safety, consumers believe Volvos are also durable, reliable, even though it doesn't tout these attributes. If you're good at one thing, you must be good at other things, goes the thinking. Conversely, if you try to be all things, you're good at nothing, goes the thinking.

Where GM contracted wrong was in making platforms and designs virtually ubiquitous. In the short run, sharing tactics reduced costs and saved money. But, as always, when you go from brand to bottom-line focus, it will catch up to you. Why aren't Honda, Volvo or Toyota filing for bankruptcy? While every automaker has been hurt by the recession, they are examples of how being brand focused helps weather tough patches much better than bottom-line driven companies.

If you have a powerful brand, you don't need to be bottom-line focused. Rather, bottom line sensible. In fact, your brand and business strategies should be one in the same. And the strongest brands are always better positioned to reclaim lost ground and grow faster when the economy does turn around. Can you say that about your brand?

Back to rebirth campaign. GM says it's changing. Oh, really? I'm seeing these spots everywhere, and at least three times in prime last night. A national buy of this magnitude can't be cheap for a company that is broke...and broken.

More importantly, and predictably, GM is taking an outside-in approach by running the birth announcement before the new baby is even born. For all we know, it could end up being as ugly as the old one. I'm not surprised because companies generally attack similar situations or new launches by talking-the-walk before walking-the-walk, anointing before it can back it up. This can create an expectation that so often falls short in the minds of consumers. Inside-out strategy would have GM reducing, retooling, redesigning and rebuilding internally and quietly before ever uttering a word externally. It could learn a lot from Staples, which successfully orchestrated its turnaround in the early 2000s via inside-out strategy.

If GM were to take this inside-out strategy to heart, but was worried about disappearing off consumers' radar screens, while re-engineering itself, it could engage a carefully-planned and timed information leaking strategy to give it "presence." The right chatter could also ensure that when the new GM is born, it's everything the birth announcement says it is and much more.

These are my Guts feelings.