Archive for the ‘brand monitoring’ Category

Last night on our weekly PR 2.0 chat on Twitter (anyone can join this weekly chat Wednesdays at 8pm EST. Search on hashtag #pr20cat and join in!),  we discussed branding and PR 2.0 and why PR folks (and marketers, that’s a topic on integration for another day!) need to understand branding and how it affects their interactions with constituents (or publics). 

If you’ve hung out in social media circles long enough, I am sure you’ve heard “you don’t own your brand, your customers do.” Nothing can be further from the truth and why we need to be very careful with how we phrase this as marketers, consultants, agencies, etc. 

FACT: You do own your brand and brand messaging
FACT: You don’t own relationships customers have with your brand 

I kicked off by asking people’s definitions of branding and a lot of people responded with a brand relationship definition, which is great but I think it also leads us to, as marketers implementing social media, to want to easily hand over the keys to the castle a little too easily. 

For some people it’s a chicken and egg situation. Do you love the logo or the company that produces the product/service first? Vanessa French asked me (paraphrased) “what if your mom gave you Pepsi as a kid, you’d have a relationship with Pepsi (based on emotion).” My response was “what if your mom served you Pepsi in a plastic cup and you never saw the bottle?” 

People tend to identify with a brand (i.e. logo, message, etc.) first and then they relate to it. I think it explains why there are so many fake bags (Gucci, Louis Vuitton, Kate Spade, Hermes, etc.) not to mention other products on the market. It’s not that people relate to the company that owns the brand it’s that the brand (in this case a logo) gives them a perception of inclusion without the sting of the price tag. If they truly had a relationship with the brand they would never by fakes. Unfortunately, the perception of others is what spurs on the fakes market. 

From “Driving Brand Value” by Tom Duncan & Sandra Moriarty (what I shared during the PR 2.0 chat): 

Brand relationship is driven by: 

• Trust
• Consistency
• Accessibility
• Responsiveness
• Commitment
• Affinity
• Liking

(Sounds a lot like what we talk about with social media, huh?)

Five Levels of Bonding:

• Awareness
• Identity
• Relationship
• Community
• Advocacy 

I think we also tend to mixed up brand perception with branding and brand relationship. My perception of a brand comes after my relationship with the brand. For example: 

I bought a Jaguar and it was a piece of junk that could never be fixed. The Jaguar dealer and Jaguar wouldn’t do anything about it. I bought based on the brand (awareness/identity), my relationship was affected by lack of trust, consistency, accessibility, etc. My perception is that Jaguars are bad cars. I am sharing my story (WOM) on my blog (social media). 

So, if you are Jaguar’s PR folks and I had consistent blog about this and chatted on forums, you might want to pay attention. I would hope.

The tenets of branding are still viable, but just like everything else with social media they are more visible today and brand relationships and perceptions are out in the open. 

But we DO have control over our brand and messaging! You might want to reconsider using “trust” in your brand (logo) or messaging if the case is that the brand relationships and perceptions indicate that you are not an organization to be trusted. 

By the way, Driving Brand Value was written in 1997, and yet offers lessons that we still have not learned. It’s available on Amazon starting at $0.38 USD. I suggest you snap up a copy. 

Also, grab Integrated Branding by LePla and Parker while you’re at it… 

What do you think?

[Image: David Armano]

At last night’s Social Media Club Philadelphia we had Duncan Alney from Firebelly Marketing come speak to us on the corporate mullet (didn’t know mullets were back in style, did you?).

You can image the conversation, right? Business in the front (traditional marketing & corporate mindset) and party in the back (social media & mindset). Rather than me ramble on… here’s Duncan:

After the meetup we met for dinner and had an interesting conversation around how the Gen X and Gen Y folks in the room reacted to Duncan’s presentation. Here are the thoughts of business professionals who understand the corporate mullet (in order of appearance): Valeria Maltoni, Gloria Bell, Eileen O’Brien, Duncan, and Bill Lublin:

What do you think? Have you seen a noticeable difference in how both groups approach integrating social media? If you are a Gen Yer, what do you think of the assessment? Why do you think there’s a gap in professional social behavior as compared with Gen Xers? Or, are there Gen Xers that could also use a filter?

[Image: 80stees.com]

After discussing the inauthentic nature of PR in my last post, I hope you know that I do respect and enjoy being part of the PR profession (well, except those PR areas that are broken) and truly believe that most PR folks are engaging in PR in a way that is effective. That said, I still believe that ghostwriting from PR pros (or profs) isn’t necessary or authentic (I am not sure that there’s much that can convince me…but I’ll keep an open mind, I promise).

I thought it might be a useful conversation to discussion how PR 2.0 will keep you SO busy providing strategic services/counsel for your clients or employer you won’t need to worry about ghost blogging and tweeting as a source of income or a way to show value for one’s job. And I know for a lot of PR agencies and pros that might not truly understand the nature (dare I say, culture) of social media, those are areas of concern. I get it, I really do. 

While this might not be as interesting as a debate, perhaps it will prove to be more useful. 

Today’s typical and traditional PR person does a lot of the following tasks: 

• Builds relationships with third-party resources (usually the media, sometimes bloggers)
• Maintains existing relationships
• Does research
• Listens/Analyzes (usually online/print pickups)
• Writes plans
• Provides counsel
• Creates targeted messages
• Conveys timely news with constituents (but typically media and maybe bloggers)
• Builds a brand’s reputation
• Maintains a brand’s image
• Deploys crisis communications
• Clips or tracks pickups or mentions
• Provides measurement of campaigns
• Handles some marketing communications (including collateral, website content if a marketer isn’t part of the team)

 With PR 2.0 you can add the following to your skills, deliverables and job description:

• Monitors brand in real-time
• Listens/Analyzes online conversations or mentions in real-time
• Responds promptly
• Conducts primary research in real-time
• Engages in two-way conversations with ALL constituents (in-house PR folks)
• Participates in social networking in a value-add way (in-house PR folks)
• Develops new online skills (blogging, wikis, RSS, etc.)
• Understand the importance of building relationships with all constituents (media, bloggers, employees, investors, fans, friends, followers, detractors, etc.)
• Responsible for Search Engine Optimization
• Identifies & engages with influencers and brand evangelists (in-house PR folks)
• Manages communities of constituents (in-house PR folks)
• Integrates new technologies into PR plans
• Shares industry information, not just key messages
• Builds communities
• Engages evangelists to help create word of mouth
• Understands that engaging in PR 2.0 will help at time of crisis
• Stays up-to-date on trends
• Trains management, co-workers and/or clients constantly 

I don’t know about you, but to me that looks like a pretty busy job to me! All without having to ghostwrite or tweet (sorry, I couldn’t resist).

I cannot take complete credit for these lists. While I have been engaged in PR for a long time, some people just say things more succinctly than I do…and I like to give the credit they deserve. So, please, seriously, if you haven’t read PR 2.0 by Deirdre Breakenridge, add it to your reading list. She makes the transition to PR 2.0 crystal clear, easy-to-swallow, and provides a lot of proof points (i.e. some of the list information is from her book). John Bell at Ogilvy is another source of great information when it comes to the PR pro of the future (be sure to read John’s post when you get a chance). He’s the guy behind this post’s image and some of the items on the PR 2.0 list. 

I am sure that I am leaving things off of both lists, so please be sure to add where necessary if this is too simplified.

Thoughts? Opinions? Objections?

[Image: John Bell]

I had an interesting conversation with Peter Kim while out at SXSWi last week about my recent personal branding post and the comments he left a comment asking me to expand my thoughts from a corporate perspective and to explore the parallels between corporate and personal approaches. During our conversation Peter said that he thinks that most people will have a personal brand over time, so I asked him what he thought that would mean from a corporate viewpoint. He asked me to write a post on what I thought it meant and, well, you know me, I have lots of opinions and thoughts…so here goes.

I agree that most corporate people will begin to create online ‘personal brands’ by setting up LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, insert next new cool online tool here, accounts. But is that enough from the corporate perspective?

Having these accounts doesn’t automatically grant people with personal brand equity. And I think that’s the disconnect that I have with personal branding. Having a bunch of online accounts doesn’t just automatically equate to equity. But what you do with those accounts including the conversations you have and the people you are connected to does have the ability to establish online personas and reputations that might equate to equity and that’s what corporations are interested in. It’s like the new sales person showing up with an already established network. The sales person is implying that they have established relationships that will help to generate revenue (and their bonuses!). Sales people sell against a revenue number and that’s the potential equity they bring to the table. But what if you aren’t in sales? As a marketer, what does your personal brand bring to the table in the form of equity?

Let’s take a step back and wrap our heads around traditional corporate branding (there’s a method to the madness and boring definition review).

Brand: A name/mark intended to identify and differentiate a product/service of a seller

Brand Mark: The part of the brand that appears in the form of a symbol, design, distinct color/font

Brand Name: The part of the brand that can be vocalized (words, letters, numbers)

Brand Loyalty: A buyer’s commitment to repurchase the brand

Brand Equity: The value the brand adds to the product/service

For generations marketers have been branding with these terms in mind (think Coca-Cola, Nike, Amazon.com, etc.). But let’s look at it from a personal perspective in relation to working for a company, government agency, non-profit, university, etc. (the “corporate” perspective).

Personal Brand: A name/mark intended to identify and differentiate a product/service of a seller

Personal Brand Mark: part of the brand that appears in the form of a symbol, design, distinct color/font

Personal Brand Name: The part of the brand that can be vocalized (words, letters, numbers)

Personal Brand Loyalty: A buyer’s commitment to repurchase the brand

Personal Brand Equity: The value the brand adds to the product/service

So how do the definitions change when “personal” is added? And what should corporations look for or expect? You didn’t think they should hire you just because of your cool online presence, did you?

• What are you selling? How does your unique skill set, experience, reputation, etc. achieve corporate goals and objectives?
• What’s your brand mark? Perhaps you have a personal logo or an avatar (photo). Are you distinct?
• What’s your name? That’s obvious. But is it a well known name that a corporation would embrace? Is it a name recognized and established in the industry?
• How much loyalty do you have banked? Can you bring ready-to-buy customers/prospects to the table upon hiring? Does the brand loyalty you’ve established help shorten the sales cycle? Do you have marketing/PR relationships that help save money or generate revenue?
• What is your personal brand worth in revenue? What value does it add to the existing corporate brand? (Or does it conflict?) Does your personal brand help propel the corporate brand forward or create buzz?

The last one, personal brand equity is of a lot of interest to me. Years ago there was a push to make marketing professionals accountable (brand valuation) for the financial well-being of corporation brands. Wikipedia explains it this way: “[to] measure the brand as a financial asset. In short, a calculation is made regarding how much the brand is worth as an intangible asset. For example, if you were to take the value of the firm, as derived by its market capitalization–and then subtract tangible assets and “measurable” intangible assets–the residual would be the brand equity.”

From the brand equity perspective, what I am wondering is that if you feel strongly about personal branding, would you stake your income on it? Would you be willing to derive a portion of your income based on how much you positively or negatively influence brand valuation from an accountant’s viewpoint? (i.e. if it’s positive, more income; if it’s negative, less income perhaps even termination).

From the corporate perspective, should corporations pick people with established online personal brands over those that do not? What if their skill sets are the same? Should someone with an established online personal brand be paid more?

From a personal approach, what if you are the personal brand that owns the company? Do you view your personal brand equity stake to be even higher and therefore riskier?

Would a company full of personal brands that were compensated on personal brand equity provide a better customer experience?

What are your thoughts? What am I missing? What would you add?

[Image: iStock]

I really didn’t want to be part of this whole “personal branding” conversation because I just don’t believe in personal brands. But after a Twitter conversation last week, I feel compelled to say something. I am not going to dive into why I don’t believe in personal branding here today, but just know that after doing corporate branding for almost 15 years, I struggle with transferring those same concepts, trademarks, theories and applications to…people (other than JLo, Madonna, etc.)

Don’t get me wrong, I truly believe that marketing, PR and communications folks need to have an online presence/reputation especially when it comes to networking. I’ve known so many professionals that let their networks go because they are so busy with work, family, etc. and then when they want a new job or get laid off they struggle to establish or re-establish a network…and it’s usually too late because it can take years to establish and maintain a network of people who know and trust you. Valuable networks require time and nurturing…after all, we are talking about people here. And in this tough economy, it usually takes an established network to help you land a job or to open a door or two for you.

Should marketing, PR and communications professionals develop an online presence and manage their online reputations? Yes and yes. No argument there.

Should marketing, PR and communications professionals develop personal brands? I am not convinced. Let’s look at a couple of examples.

Example One: MarketingProfs

As a marketer, I talk to a lot of offline marketers (offline = they don’t have Twitter & Facebook accounts). I often ask them “Do you know Ann Handley or Allen Weiss?” I get a blank stare. Then I ask “Do you know MarketingProfs?” The response I typically get is “I LOVE MarketingProfs, such great information…love their newsletter, etc.” I love MarketingProfs too and have been a member since 2000. And now that I know and have chatted with Ann and Allen both in person (I had the pleasure of meeting Ann at the Digital Marketing Mixer) and on Twitter, my commitment to being a Premium Member is cemented and they can be guaranteed of my ongoing renewal. Even though Ann has her own well-known blog, I get the impression, as a customer, that along with the folks that aren’t in the public eye, both Ann and Allen mainly focus on being MaketingProfs employees and brand stewards. (But I hope they’ll stop by and clarify that for us).

Point: The MarketingProfs brand is solidified by their employees’ passionate and authentic brand management work.

Example Two: Dan Schawbel

Let me just say even though I don’t believe in personal branding, I have a huge amount of respect for Dan Schawbel and his work in personal branding. He’s really done a great job with branding himself and becoming known as a top leader in the personal branding space. His work, I am sure, has helped lots of Generation Y folks get their online reputations in order. But I’ll ask this one question…do you know where Dan works? He works for EMC Corporation, a high-tech IT equipment manufacturer. Honestly, I know more about Dan’s work on personal branding than I know about Dan’s work for EMC. I’ve never met Dan or chatted with him on Twitter, but for the longest time I thought he was a personal branding consultant. So, how does EMC, his employer, benefit from his online “personal brand?” Is Dan utilizing his personal brand to talk with IT data center professionals about how an EMC Clariion solution might work for their data center and to promote the EMC brand?

(Dan, sorry to use you as an example but you are the king of all things personal branding! I hope you’ll stop by and let us know how things are working with your and EMC’s brands.)

Point: Whose brand is more important? The company’s or the employee’s?

Example Three: A personal experience

I was at a job interview over the summer for a job that I wasn’t really interested in, but wanted to see what the company had to offer. The hiring manager came into the interview with my resume in hand and started asking me the typical interview questions. All was going okay until he asked this one question: “Tell me what don’t you like about marketing?”

Even though arrogant, I couldn’t help it…I chuckled and said “Have you read my blog? Have you Googled me?”  He said “no.” I answered with “Well, I can tell you there is nothing about marketing that I don’t like…” He said “that’s impossible.” I wanted to answer: “Well, I like everything about marketing except for people with marketing titles that ask silly questions like that of another marketer and especially of one with a blog called “The Harte of Marketing.” But, I didn’t say that aloud because that would have been totally rude and uncalled for. I let it go and didn’t debate it because there are lots of marketers who don’t like everything about marketing and he was just doing his due diligence. But what it showed me was that this particular company didn’t care about a potential candidate’s online savvy or the passion that was behind the blog. It just didn’t matter…at all. And it never would.

Point: Even when you have a so-called online “personal brand” (or reputation) some companies just don’t care.

Let’s face it…when you start talking about brands egos are involved. Are you willing to give up your personal brand for the brand of the company that pays your salary (whether it’s an employer or a client)? Or on the flip side, should a company be willing to give up their brand when an employee’s brand is stronger and holds more recognition and influence? Is this a situation ripe for a brand conflict? Or can there be a balance between personal and corporate brand (I am thinking Richard Branson/Virgin might be a good example here).

Where do you fall in this branding debate? What additional examples can you share?