Corporate Eye

...compare, compete, excel

Archives for January 2010

Introducing the Online Behavioral Advertising Privacy Icon

behavioral_advertising_privacy_iconIn mid-2009, U.S. advertisers came together in an attempt to ward off threats by the Federal Trade Commission and consumer advocacy groups against online behavioral advertising targeting claiming the process was a violation of individuals’ rights to privacy.  A group of 12 companies that represent some of the biggest advertising spenders in the world, including Google, Microsoft, General Electric, and more, developed a document listing seven self-regulatory principles in an attempt to appease the opposition (you can view the 48-page PDF here).

Part of the plan those companies came up with was to create an icon that would be used in online ads that are served based on behavioral data to fully disclose to consumers why they were seeing these ads.  This month, the icon was unveiled and reported by The New York Times.  You can see the privacy “i” icon pictured above.

Individuals who see this icon in an online ad can click on it to learn more about the process used to serve it to them, including the use of behavioral data.

There are two sides to this story.  First, consumers have a right to dislike behavioral segmentation.  As a consumer, I can see how it can be construed as an invasion of privacy.  On the other hand, marketers and brand managers are likely to become more dependent on behavioral targeting once they see the boost in conversions it’s likely to deliver.

The simple truth is that demographic segmentation lost much of its allure years ago.  In fact, I wrote an article about that exact topic in November 2007 for branding and marketing expert Drew McLellan’s popular blog, Drew’s Marketing Minute.  The post was called “Is Demographic Segmentation Dead?” and discussed how demographic segmentation was already being usurped by behavioral segmentation.

In other words, the shift from demographic to behavioral targeting in online advertising is not new.  It’s been coming for years, and the question now becomes — will advertisers find themselves faced with regulations preventing them from doing the behavioral targeting they so desperately want to use or will self-regulation allow them to continue without interference from government regulation?  Only time will tell.

What do you think?  Leave a comment and share your thoughts.

The January Wrap-up

Russian Ice Aquarium

I had so much fun doing the end-of-year posts that I want to repeat the experience regularly.  So the Monthly Wrap will (a) cover short things that didn’t fit elsewhere, and (b) update things that did.  Here’s the debut:

An update on “the Twitter experiment.” A couple of months ago, in the post HR Superstars: A Handy Guide, I promised to follow everyone on the iCMS list of “21 HR Leaders in Web 2.0 You Must Follow” and report on the experiment.  I duly created a Twitter account and set up a TwitterDeck column to show every superstar tweet.  However, after a couple of days I decided that only 16 of them offered enough substantive content (as opposed to personality chat) to be relevant, so I trimmed a bit.  I did not tweet from this account at all for the first six weeks, but it was found by a few other tweeters, and I’ve followed back those that seem to offer interesting content.

The interim findings: Quality and quantity are not mutually exclusive, but they often do not go together.  A couple of frequent tweeters are consistently interesting, a couple are not.  On the other hand, tweeting infrequently does not necessarily lead to better tweets!  And on the third hand—I realize even more than ever that everyone’s personal filter is set to a different version of what’s meaningful/interesting/useful.   So I’m still working on how to draw general conclusions from the HR/Recruiting Twitter stream.  Next step in the experiment is to go beyond the original list and see who else is rippling this particular pool.

Unintended Messaging strikes again. I’m expecting this to be a monthly feature!  In January, the most striking example I encountered was on the website of a mid-sized professional services company.  I think the page was labeled “Executive Leadership” but it could have been some close variant of same.  Photographs of the leadership folks were arranged in three columns and (let’s say) eight rows.  On the bottom row were three women.  You guessed it—the only three women.  Title-wise, they were indeed at the lowest level of the leadership hierarchy, which was arranged from President/CEO/Etc. down to Director of Marketing/HR/Whatever.

How to avoid this unfortunate image, in which women appear to be crushed under a heavy stack of men?  My first thought is alphabetical arrangement.  Second would be some type of grouping that would allow the women to be scattered in among the men.  For example, put the top four guys in a C-level group, then break up the others into functional groups such as operational, people, or whatever would work.  I’ll bet there’s a way . . .

What are they thinking at Kashi? It’s nothing to do with Careers directly—but a gaffe in corporate communications will eventually rub off on the employer brand.  Short version:  Those of us longing for Kashi waffles, and finding none at the store for several weeks, went to the Kashi website for insight.  Buried on a deep page was a small note saying:  “We are experiencing delays in production due to repairs and equipment upgrades at our waffle facility. We expect to be fully stocked in early 2011 . . .”

Yes, you read that right:  2011.  And insult is added to injury by another post from the company describing this year+ gap as a “temporary shortage.”

A year’s lapse in the availability of a popular product line is really huge from a business perspective.   But even more problematic is letting people wonder for weeks (and maybe forever) about the missing waffles, because the automatic assumption when a product line disappears is either “unpopular product” or “troubled company.”  A little more research discovered no signs of clarification via press release or Facebook page.  (In case you think I shouldn’t be scolding a small-but-earnest natural foods company—let us not forget that super-giant Kellogg bought Kashi in 2000.  And Kellogg can’t help out with these waffle woes???)

That’s it for January.  Another Monthly Wrap feature:  The illustration is just for visual enjoyment.  See more ice wonders at EnglishRussia.

Are All Brands Global in the 21st Century?

globeAre all brands global?  That’s a question we could have answered easily a decade or two ago, but today, it’s not as simple.  With the growth of the social Web, tools like blogs, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and so on make the global conversation immediate.  Could it be argued that because of the power of the social Web in terms of spreading information wider and faster than ever, all brands are global by default simply because they have the potential to get in front of a global audience?

It’s an interesting concept to consider.  Brands that once had no intention of becoming global in the short term might find themselves on a global stage simply through a popular blog post or tweet.  And that means brand managers have a global image and messaging responsibility, whether they want one or not.

Even small business brands can become global brands thanks to the conversation and sharing of information that happens on the social Web, so it stands to reason that corporate-backed brands shouldn’t just wonder if the same could happen to them.  Instead, they should expect that it will happen to them and plan accordingly.  That means your brand strategies should be positioned to speak with a global audience now.  Consider how your brand promise, messages, and image will translate in front of a global audience now before you find yourself in an unfavorable position at the hands of a social Web conversation.

Many brand managers dream of the day that one of their messages goes viral and spreads around the world bringing more word-of-mouth marketing and online buzz than they could ever have hoped for.  But what if that word-of-mouth marketing and online buzz happens and you’re not ready for it?  What if your brand suddenly ends up in the spotlight of the global stage?  It could happen.  Are you ready?

Do your brand promise, image and message translate to a global audience?  It’s time to ensure that they do.

Image: Flickr

Starbucks: Full Court Press!

 

Starbucks NYT

Okay—pun intended.  But blame the New York Times for introducing basketball in its recent story titled Now at Starbucks: A Rebound.  In its Q1 earnings report, SBUX showed a net income of $241.5 million (up from $64.3 million in the year-ago quarter), revenue up 4%, and same-store sales up 4%.  After several quarters of steady declines, the new view must look just like heaven.

So what has Starbucks done right?  First let’s consider how this connects with the subject of Careers.

Back in May of 2008, when Starbucks was still assumed to be bullet-proof, HR guru Kevin Wheeler wrote an article about employer branding titled Why Google or Starbucks? In it he wonders what makes people especially eager to work at certain companies, and decides:  “More people are attracted to causes than things.”

We could argue whether this is still true in times (like now) of high unemployment.  But let’s say for the moment that Wheeler’s proposition is at least basically true.  He sees Google’s “cause” as free information, and asserts that:

Starbucks’ cause is community. It’s a place, like in the old television show Cheers, where everybody knows your name. It feels good to go into your local Starbucks every morning, be greeted by a smiling barista who knows your name and your favorite drink, and to meet some friends.

That is indeed the role Starbucks plays in my life, and in spite of corporate ups and downs, my local baristas are always warmly waiting when I walk in the door—and I regard every Starbucks location as a remote office plus home-away-from-home.  But even when Wheeler was writing, SBUX was in trouble.  That same year saw the beginning of extensive store closings and layoffs, along with a barrage of downside publicity.

To the extent that their reinvention campaign is succeeding, it’s not only because of streamlining or process improvements. There has also been a focus on reenergizing employees—and Starbucks has joined the new culture of customer engagement: lots of social networking, a listening campaign, special offers, and even an affiliation with MSNBC’s feisty AM talk show, Morning Joe.

The Starbucks Career Center website now reads like an excerpt from Wheeler’s article.  The headline:  “It’s a lot like working with friends.” And the pitch:

We call each other “partners”. We respect our customers and each other. We’re dedicated to serving ethically sourced coffee, caring for the environment and giving back to the communities where we do business. And we’re still small enough to remember your name when you walk in the door.

Reinforcing the message is a festoon of employer awards, from the trusty Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For to Forbes 100 Best Corporate Citizens and Best Places to Work for LGBT Equality.  So the “cause factor” is definitely full court press.

Not that everything is perking perfectly in the inner world of Starbucks.  There are employee complaints—and because Starbucks is big, and actively represents itself as a responsible employer, those complaints get coverage.  But the percentage of unhappy workers seems proportional, and there is definitely no lack of barista wannabes.

Now for the punch line. If you compare Keven Wheeler’s prescription for establishing a strong employer brand with NYT’s account of what’s behind the Starbucks rebound . . . there is a very strong similarity.  Wheeler’s five steps to “Make Your Company Memorable”:

  1. Gain perspective and know yourself.
  2. Define the promise.
  3. Develop a strategy.
  4. Create a “buzz” to communicate your brand.
  5. Measure your progress.

In short—what works for getting and keeping employees works for getting and keeping customers.  And vice versa.

5 Tips for Branding Success

blocksBuilding a successful brand takes time.  There are no easy routes to success or shortcuts to save time.  You might get lucky and garner widespread awareness and attention for your brand, but successful brands depend on customer loyalty.  There are no shortcuts to developing relationships with consumers, creating expectations for your brand, and meeting those expectations through every customer touch point.

With that in mind, following are five factors that should always be on your mind when you’re building a brand.  They should permeate through all of your brand-building and marketing initiatives.

1. Be specific

Strong brands are focused brands.  Define your brand promise in specific terms so it stands out from the broad and vague promises of other brands.  Then make sure your brand lives up to those specific promises.

2. Be authoritative

Define your brand promise and shout it confidently to the world.  Make everyone else believe in your brand promise, too.

3. Be consistent

Define your brand promise and how you want to communicate that message to consumers (i.e., your brand message and brand image) and don’t waiver.  Conflicting messages confuse consumers causing them to turn away from your brand in search of one that makes them feel secure.  Consistency is vital to brand building success.

4. Be honest

Consumers are not naive, and they appreciate straightforward, transparent messaging.  Don’t promise the world and not live up to those promises.  Honesty trumps pie-in-the-sky claims any day of the week.

5. Be relentless

Persistence will be rewarded.  Get your brand messages out there and then get them out again and again.  Consumers see and hear a myriad of messages everyday, and it’s easy for yours to get lost in the clutter.  Don’t give up too soon.

Image: Stock.xchng

Mobile Apps are Hot – Does Your Brand Have One?

A recent study by DM2PRO and Quattro Wireless reports that mobile apps are going to skyrocket in popularity in 2010, so while less than 50% of companies surveyed for the study invested in mobile apps in 2009, the majority plan to do so in 2010.  That’s a significant shift in investment strategy.

Most companies surveyed in the study claimed that they invest in mobile apps to increase customer engagement, connect with targeted audiences, expand their marketing reach, and keeping their brands in front of consumers.

Where are all those dollars being invested?  Check out the chart from eMarketer below to get an idea of where marketers in North America used mobile/social apps in 2009 to get an idea.

mobile_apps_sites

Facebook and iPhone apps clearly lead the pack in terms of where investments in branded apps are channeled, and I don’t suspect that will shift much in 2010.  However, it’s expected that more companies will invest in mobile apps than social media apps in 2010.

What is particularly interesting in this trend is the fact that there is more standardization in apps today, so investment costs are actually decreasing in many ways.  Hopefully, that will lead to more advancements in terms of capabilities and functionality.  ‘Plain Jane’ apps could be usurped very quickly as the world of mobile apps morphs before our eyes.

This is a fast paced environment, and the truth of the matter is that many brands may have trouble keeping up and staying relevant, particularly brands backed by large companies that have to wade through corporate bureaucracy to make decisions and move to action.  This could actually be a good thing for consumers though, as smaller companies that can move faster jump in and seize opportunities, but will those smaller companies stand a chance in the long run?  Or will we have a fast rise and faster plunge similar to the dotcom bust in the 1990s?

Regardless, it’s an exciting time to be a marketer!  Does your brand have an app yet?