Corporate Eye

...compare, compete, excel

Archives for 2009

Building Brand Trust

trustWith the economy struggling, consumers seek brands they can trust more than ever.  Can consumers trust your brand?  Do they?

Your answers to the preceding questions are very telling.  Be honest.

Even if you believe consumers trust your brand, you should imagine that they don’t.  Building brand trust is a powerful tool when all other areas of people’s lives are in a state of flux.  Let them know they can depend on your brand.

But how?

Through marketing, of course!

Marketing messages can build brand trust.  Don’t assume your consumers know they can trust your brand.  Tell them.  And then remind them again.  And again.

These days, consumers need to feel extremely confident that they’re making the right decision when they pull their hard-earned money out of their pockets and hand it over in exchange for a product or service.  The more secure they feel in making that decision, the more likely they are to actually open their wallets and make those purchases.

But not so fast!

Before you can create the marketing messages that will build brand trust, you need to find out specifically where your target audience needs and wants trust and security and how your product can fill that void.  Only then can you feel confident that you’re communicating the right messages that will actually resonate with consumers.

It seems obvious, but you’d be surprised how many brand managers and marketers skip this step operating under the false assumption that they either know what their customers need already or that their customers want the same things that they do.

Bottom line, don’t assume anything except that consumers don’t trust your brand.  Then give them a reason to trust it.

Image: Flickr

Can the Corporate Website Drive Process Improvement? Maybe . . .


neon-qm

A recent post on problems with the interview process left off with a question:  How are interviewing issues connected to the Corporate website?  Here are a couple of steps toward an answer:


Some of the best Career sites I’ve visited signal that they are serious about hiring–and that they have a supportive attitude toward candidates–by offering a thoughtful, well-developed description of the hiring process.  Ideally, that includes a preview of what to expect in the interview process, with tips for success.  Consider a couple of examples at Merck and CarMax.  Not only is the information valuable in both cases, but by their tone and approach the two treatments convey additional information about the respective (very different) companies.

Why don’t more companies do this?  In many cases, I’ll bet, it’s because communicating with website visitors at a detail level seems like a low-priority item that would take time no one has.  But also, I suspect, because the process isn’t well-defined, or possibly doesn’t even exist.  For example–in terms of interviews–there may not be a consistent approach, so different interviewers use whatever method occurs to them.

Personalizing the interview process is not a bad thing, but completely randomizing it probably is.  So one value of providing job-seekers with online information about interviewing might be internal.  That is, the process of crafting a message could/should lead to further thought about what really does go on in a company’s interview process, and whether improvement is needed.

I haven’t (yet) found any analysis or even evidence supporting the idea that website development can drive process improvement.  But I can report on my own experience, much of which has had to do with communicating business and technical information in documents, presentations, and online content.  More often than not, once the decision was made to “publish” a process or project to a broader audience, much (much) re-thinking happened.  The necessity of explaining something frequently reveals the need for clarification, adjustment, or even a return to the drawing board.

Worth the time and effort?  Well–if you believe the studies that say employment interviewing is often poorly done, and that bad interviewing results in costly hiring mistakes and/or new-hires who aren’t enthusiastic about the company–maybe so!

Bonus: It would be great if corporate Career sites actually stated the company’s expectations for its interviewers.  I haven’t found an example of that yet, but hope springs eternal!

Double Bonus: I had a good time reading the uninhibited opinions of HR consultant Wendell Williams on interview questions.  You might too.


(Thanks to Xurble for today’s question mark.)


Social Web Branding Not Connecting with Women

First, let’s take a look at some facts and trends:

  1. Statistics tell us that women are responsible for the vast majority of purchase decisions.
  2. Women spend time on the social web.
  3. Brands are not connecting with women on the social web.

Looks like a missed opportunity.

A recent study by ad:tech Chicago and Q Interactive gives us even more insight into the failure of brands to connect with women on the social web.  The study surveyed 1,000 women and reports the following results:

  • 75% of respondents’ purchase decisions are not affected by social networking sites.  Only 21.9% say social networking sites have “somewhat” of an influence on their purchase decisions and 3.3% say they greatly influence their purchase decisions.
  • 52% of respondents have friended brands on social networking sites.
  • 19% of respondents feel negative emotions when they come into contact with brands online, and 17% feel positive emotions, while 64% feel neutral emotions.
  • 10% of respondents engage in brand-related activities on the social web such as finding information and writing reviews.
  • The most common social web activities reported by users are sending private messages, sharing photos, and chatting.
  • 75% of respondents spent more time on social networking sites this year than they did last year.
  • 54.1% visit social networking sites daily, 30.8% weekly, 7.4% monthly, 7.7% once every few months.
  • 66.4% use Facebook, 16.3% MySpace, 3.1% Twitter, and 1.4% LinkedIn.

These statistics tell us a few very important things.

  1. Brands need to find ways to connect with women through the social web, particularly on sites like Facebook.
  2. Current brand efforts on the social web are not working well to attract a female audience and getting them to engage with the brand.
  3. Women use the tools of the social web to be social, and that’s where brands need to find ways to interact with them.  Simply providing information isn’t enough.

And here’s a final thought for you to ponder:

Respondents to the survey cited price (47%) and quality (45.7%) as the top reasons for their purchase decisions.  Brand ranked fourth with just 2% of respondents saying brand is important.  Guess what ranked above brand?  ‘Other’ which 3.5% of respondents cited as a primary reason for making their purchase decisions.  That tells us that the social web provides an open opportunity for brand building.  In fact, that’s one of the biggest opportunities for social web marketers.  The long-term brand building strategy supported by short term marketing tactics is what creates a successful, integrated marketing plan.

Your thoughts?

Are you going to this? Rebuilding Reputation

Anyone working within the financial services sector – or, indeed, anyone who reads a paper or watches the news – will be aware of the difficulties that this sector has faced over the last year or so.

How can companies within that sector rebuild their reputation and rebuild the trust that was once placed in them? What can companies from outside that sector learn from those companies who have gone through this experience?

Communicate Magazine have another very interesting conference scheduled for later this month on just this topic. They’re bringing together an intriguing slate of speakers from across the sector: from the International Centre for Financial Regulation; from Barclays, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Santander, ING, HSBC and Man Group; and from The Observer, BroadView and FinancialMarketing.

rebuilding reputation conference

You can see the agenda and download a PDF here, but I can tell you that they’ll be covering topics such as:

  • Is the relationship between the fourth estate and the banking community irretrievably broken?
  • Were journalists just reporting a financial meltdown or were they exacerbating it?
  • How to communicate change to an internal audience
  • How to reposition your brand when people just want to talk about the past
  • Getting the best out of your corporate messaging

As you can see, it’s not just relevant to the financial sector, though that will be the main focus; it looks as though corporate communicators from across the patch will find something to learn from the day.

I went to a recent Communicate Magazine conference (on Social Media in a Corporate Context) and found it fascinating – though exhausting. There’s a lot to be gained from being in the same room as people dealing with the same issues as you are, thinking about the same things…

Interested? You can learn more here.

And a discount for Corporate Eye readers

I’m delighted to announce that we’ve agreed with Communicate Magazine that Corporate Eye readers will receive a total of 20% discount. The early bird discount of 10% runs out at the end of this week, but as one of our readers, you get 20% – even after that date. Book now!

What’s Up with Those Interviews?


lipstick-qm-3

A friend of mine, who recently became one of many professionals let go by a very large, very bankrupt company, has been telling me about her experiences as a job seeker.  On the up side, she’s been getting interviews.  On the down side . . . each one seems to be more unfortunate than the last.

In one case, the interviewer was the COO, and reportedly so puffed up with his own accomplishments that my friend felt like an audience rather than a candidate.  At the other end of the spectrum was the second event in a planned series of seven rounds!  Candidates are expected to meet with three different HR representatives, “the team,” and two managers, after which whoever is still sane and still wants the job will be grilled by the Big Kahuna.

In Lap Two of this marathon, my friend coped with an hour of detailed questions that began almost before she could sit down and never departed from the formulaic: “Please describe a situation in which you ________” [two minutes].  “Please give an example of your experience with _________” [two minutes] . . . . “Thank you, goodbye.”

In both these cases, she left hoping she wouldn’t be called back.  But of course–since she really wants to find a job–it’s sort of a double-bind situation.  If an hour or two spent with representatives of a company are like torture, do you really want to become an employee?  Yet, like just about everyone who finds themselves wandering around the interview funhouse, my friend feels a sense of failure when an interview doesn’t go well.

From the seeker side, the solution/challenge is to see oneself, rather than the company, as the “shopper.”  And that thought should spark some interest on the company side.  In a recent column for ere.net, consultant Stephen Balzac makes a convincing case that (my paraphrase) companies who think they can take advantage of high unemployment by being rude to job applicants may be in for an unpleasant surprise when times turn around and the best hires have gone elsewhere.  Along the way, Balzac cites examples that might cheer up my friend–such as the interviewer who spent an entire meeting reading email, and when the candidate tried to get his/her attention, responded shortly: “We multi-task here.”

I think we can all agree that comment indicates a misunderstanding of what “multi-task” actually means.  But in terms of the message this behavior delivers to job-seekers, you can take your choice:

  • “I’ve already decided I don’t like you, and I’m just going through an exercise here.”
  • “The job we’re discussing is not important enough for me to give full attention to finding the right person.”
  • “Everyone at this company is so overworked that we have to be doing at least two things at all times.”
  • “Our workplace culture does not value courtesy.”
  • “I can afford to behave unprofessionally because no one cares what I do anyway.”
  • “I’m so disorganized that I can’t manage my job, and yet the company has picked ME to judge YOU!”

Stipulating that interviewing practices may need some improvement at many companies . . . how does that connect with the corporate website?  Glad you asked.  See the next installment!


(Thanks to Margaret Anne Clark for the starting point of today’s question mark.)


Will Marvel Get a Disney Makeover?

spider-man-ride-universalThis week, it was announced that Disney is acquiring Marvel.  There are several reasons why Disney made a move to takeover Marvel when theme park attendance is down and incurring additional debt through an acquisition is viewed as risky.  The most plausible reason has to do with capturing the male audience.

While Disney has no problem capturing girls with its Princesses, Hannah Montana and High School Musical properties, boys have proven to be harder for the Disney brand to connect with.  Pirates of the Caribbean and Cars helped, but getting a stronger hold on the male audience would certainly help Disney in the long run.  At least where the Disney entertainment and merchandising executives are concerned.

However, that’s not enough for Disney.  The online buzz is also filled with speculation that Disney wants to add more female elements to the Marvel properties to broaden the existing audiences for those brands and products.  I wonder how that will fly with the die-hard Marvel brand loyalists.

As a branding professional, I’m more interested in this story with regard to how it will affect the long-standing Marvel brand.  Disney has a way of purchasing business and brands and as AdWeek describes it, “Disneyfying” them.  I think that term is very accurate.  Many brands that had freedom and flexibility to stay current, evolve, and change on the fly to meet consumer demand have found themselves ensconced in the bureaucracy of Disney after acquisition.  Think of ESPN.

So how can Marvel retain its cult brand, it’s cool to be a comic book geek, persona after Disney takes control?  There is no doubt that Marvel will get a Disney makeover, so it will appeal more to the masses than a sub-culture.  That’s the Disney way, and Disney executives have made no secret of the Disney brand extension strategy in past interviews — they flood the market with a hot brand or property until it’s saturated and then move onto the next one with nary a backward glance.

What do you think?  What will become of Marvel?

And by the way, I wonder what this acquisition will mean for Walt Disney World’s local competitor — Universal Studios Orlando — and the various Marvel-themed attractions there, including Universal’s Spider-Man ride pictured above.  We’ll have to wait and see.

Image: Flickr