Thursday, February 26, 2009

Be a brand fanatic, not a brand lunatic

For an organization’s brand to successfully make its mark on the world, the people who work inside the organization must be fanatically devoted to it. This means that everybody needs to make a commitment to do three things:

1. Demonstrate the brand’s values in everything they do
2. Tell the brand’s story or message when they talk about the organization
3. Visually display images that are consistent with the brand

This can be difficult for people to adhere to, especially when we are talking about a large organization that has a variety of offices and distinct subcultures associated with each. Very naturally, each of these groups sees themselves as distinct and wants to be recognized for what it does. But at the end of the day, if the strategy of the organization is to create awareness around the unified brand (sometimes companies or agencies choose to promote their components rather than the parent), then the employees within distinct subcultures must rise above their day-to-day affiliations and make a decision that they represent the organization as a whole.

This is where the role of the brand function comes in. The people within the organization whose job it is to establish, protect, and promote the brand need to rally the employees around the chosen identity. It is their job to make sure that everybody in the company becomes a raving fanatic about the brand – is so proud to be affiliated with the brand that they themselves practice “brand discipline” in their behaviors, words, and so on.

A word of caution though: Sometimes brand fanatics can turn into brand lunatics. These are the people who are also known as “the brand police.” They seem to be forever looking for the slightest infraction of the brand, not focusing on engaging people but rather on rebuking them. When brand lunatics take hold, enthusiasm for the brand wanes, as people feel forced into complying with it rather than carried along on a tidal wave of enthusiasm to build something amazing in a very collaborative, collective way.

It is not always easy to walk the line between enthusiasm and overdoing it. But it is important to do so in order to preserve the organization’s overall brand health. Because at the end of the day, the brand is only as good as the employees who willingly support it.

Friday, February 13, 2009

Getting over the fear of feedback

In the age of social media I think there is a lot of confusion and fear around the issue of having a message vs. controlling the message. The fact of the matter is, a mature brand engages in all of the following three phases:

1. Phase 1: Has a message
2. Phase 2: Listens to feedback
3. Phase 3: Facilitates a conversation around the feedback

The first phase is the most important. To develop an effective brand (remember that you always have a "default," which is the brand you have if you're not trying to present yourself in any particular way), you have to have a key message. Forget the logo for now, just think about the idea, the concept, the words. Without that you are absolutely nowhere.

But having a message is not the end of the game. And that is where many organizations still don't seem to get it.

The reality is, if you communicate a vision, mission, philosophy, and values, you are in fact making a PROMISE. And people are going to hear your promise and hold you accountable. You wanted them to listen? Well they are, and you can bet that they're not just sitting there with their hands folded quietly in their laps. They are waiting to talk back. And with the social media tools now available, it is easier and easier to do so and click "send," for all the world to see.

Realize that by reacting to you, they are branding you too. And that is something you really can't control. It is the dynamic between the message going out, and the messages coming in, that creates the real brand. So Phase 2 is to listen to that feedback, and Phase 3 is to actively encourage and facilitate the conversation. If your brand is solid, you can make modifications based on the dialogue without cutting away at the core of the brand.

Sounds good, in theory. But what can you counsel an organization that accepts this reality but still shuts down? (Remember this is an emotional reaction not a logical one.) Imagine comments like--

1. "Well then forget branding, it's not worth investing in."

2. "Nobody's on social media anyway."

3. Etc.

The first thing to do is gather objective arguments and facts if possible. It is not about opinions here. Branding exists by default and so does feedback, and people are online by the gazillions, so the best thing to do is face it and handle it the best way possible.

Some things I think are good to say:

1. "Either we control the brand or the brand controls us" - meaning, "If we don't do anything to send out a message, then we are really at the mercy of feedback. So we may as well have a voice in our own identity."

2. "Social media is here and it's not going away" - meaning, social media is literally exploding in importance, and the organization is nowhere near powerful enough to stop people from going online and saying what they have to say, whether it's true or not. The feedback will get out somehow. (Of course we always had social media, it just wasn't always online.) At a minimum the organization needs to acknowledge what is being said about it in social networks; better would be to respond; even better than that would be to put up its own brand-sponsored forum for feedback (positive or negative) about the brand and invite people to have the conversation there. But certainly not to view dissenters as enemies or treat them as such.

Let me be clear here that I am NOT counseling any organization to destroy its own reputation or hurt someone else's by providing a platform for or engaging in inappropriate discussions of any kind (e.g. publishing unsubstantiated allegations). I am only saying that a brand's health depends on the interaction between message and feedback, and a reasoned discussion is vital.

Also let me say that actually reaching stage 3 is very, very difficult to do, for a lot of reasons--including financial, psychological, cultural, political, and even legal--even though they may sound logical and intuitive. That is why, as time goes on, I find myself re-learning and re-repeating the same basic brand lessons over and over again. In branding it's not about being fancy. It's really about doing the basic things well - getting the organization together to tell a particular story, reaching out to tell that story to employees and the public, engaging their interest and attention, and sustaining the story's credibility in the face of mistakes, dissension, and even disaster.


One more thought:

We can compare this with parenting.

Some parents don't know what to say to their kids about anything in life. But just because they don't have a clear message, doesn't mean the kids aren't receiving one. That's like the default mode of branding.

Some parents tell their kids exactly what to do in life - they have a message. That's like branding - phase 1. But they don't want to hear their kids react - they don't listen.

The smartest parents, the ones whose kids actually absorb their key values, determine who they are and what they want their kids to remember (stage 1), listen to their kids' response (stage 2) and engage in a conversation around the issues (stage 3).

Thursday, February 12, 2009

How organizations can get people to participate in social media

Posted this on as a response to a question about human capital techniques to get older employees to participate in social media. See what you think about how these apply to total branding - because I truly do believe that social media and branding go hand in hand these days and you really can't have a brand without participating in the conversation:

1. Not sure that "full use" of social media tools is the right goal - rather that the tools are made available as is needed, appropriate, etc. Every agency has to determine what's right for their mission as well as what's right for certain groups of employees vs. others.

2. In general, younger employees seem more comfortable trying new technologies. Conversely, the more "different" social media seems, the more resistance among older employees. Actual comment: "I'm not going onto Facebook; it's not for me" - no real reason that I could see. In theory, social media tools that look like Outlook or Word, for example, or interface with these familiar softwares, are probably more likely to be adopted. This I think is the issue with Sharepoint - it's so different looking that it scares people off. So the human capital has to be managed by buying or customizing technology to suit the way people can use it.

3. Culture of creativity, innovation, trust & within a secure environment - these two factors, together, are huge. If you have an environment where people are afraid of punishment or discouraged from being creative/innovative, they are not going to readily adopt social media, which by definition involves speaking to a wide audience without the filter of official approval. Basically, you have to show that you trust your people and will give them a little latitude. Of course you have to ensure compliance with behavioral codes of conduct, but that doesn't mean you stifle people completely. At the same time, the conversation has to take place in a secure environment - not just vs. the outside world but keeping conversations restricted to those with a need or interest in knowing. Not every conversation has to be accessible to everyone.

Monday, February 2, 2009

A Chief Branding Officer for the United States

Right now the State Department is U.S. "brand central" - specifically the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs.

And we have seen some amazingly talented people occupy that role - most prominently Karen Hughes and Charlotte Beers. Whether you think they succeeded or not, they are brilliant strategists.

I once had the privilege of hearing Karen Hughes speak and will never forget it.

I wonder though whether this position should be broader. Because our brand is about much more than international diplomacy. We need to have a distinctly American communication that is:
  • Clear
  • Compelling
  • Correct
  • Coordinated
  • Consistent

I know one possible objection to such an office is that branding is propaganda. But you know what? That is just not true, at least not anymore, in an age where social media rules. Rather, it is about effective communication. Clearing the decks and telling the truth amid all the noise, including the lies, that are propagated out there in print and online.

We are fortunate that a Chief Technology Officer is on the way. I say, we need a Chief Branding Officer as well.