Why do so many companies not get social media?

A curious question was posed to me recently by an organization who was asking for my help regarding their social media marketing and communications programs. I was asked if I used Facebook to which I replied yes. The next question surprised me, I was asked how many friends I had on there and while I knew the answer, it was about 180 or so at the time, I could see a deep frown on the interviewers face and was asked, "how come you have so few?"

I think that mentality sums up many organizations approach to marketing via social media. They believe it's best to plunge in without knowing the depth or temperature of the water. The important thing is to not miss out on getting wet. Forgive me for using more swimming analogies but they run the huge risks of jumping into shallow water , freezing water or water full of sharks.

Social media marketing can only succeed if we proceed with the due diligence we would in other marketing or public relations forums. We can't use some shotgun style approach while blindfolded and hope we hit the target. We need to use social media strategically and with a mental image of the beginning middle and end of the social media program.

The great risk we run here is that organizations may use the same approach to social media that was used to the web when that first emerged in the mid-to-late 1990's. That was a time of instant experts and throwing money at a problem and the immediate assumption that the old rules no longer apply. Hard lessons taught organizations that was not so but here we are facing one more time the assumption that the old rules no longer apply.

Let me close out with what I told the person I was meeting with. When asked why I had so few friends on Facebook, their interpretation not mine, I responded very simply. I asked about their client base and asked how intimately they knew them. I didn't really want an answer but could see I hit a nerve because they didn't know their client base that well. I then threw down the gauntlet and after bringing up my friend list offered them the chance to pick any one at random and I would tell them 3 things about them. The point being social media should help you broaden and strengthen you presence in the market and should not be just some fast and easy way to help yourself sleep better at night.

Step back when examining your Marketing & PR programs

I have had several conversations with customers during the past few years and I often hear a common refrain, it can vary but it is basically, gee we had this great hit in The New York Times, (fill in pub name here) and we only saw a slight up tick in sales. Well first, if you saw any upward movement in your sales that is a good thing is it not? But more importantly, you missed the point entirely on what PR can accomplish for you.

Public Relations is an incredibly valuable tool and helps in ways that are too many to count. But it has the same weakness of any marketing tool. It is not designed to function as a sole agent for driving change. Quite the opposite, it can offer a slight up tick like mentioned above but the chances for long term success are virtually non-existent. In a discussion I once participated in, I likened a PR program to going out running after a long lay off. You will feel terrible and probably feel like you're going to die. Now you can assume running failed to get you healthy, or you can keep forcing yourself out there day after day and before long, you're amazed at how your body responds and how great you feel.

The same holds true for marketing and communications. You can not simply sit back and cherry pick a success and say that it's not working or this worked and that didn't. In fact evaluation needs to be taking place in an ongoing fashion and needs to examine not just the marketing mix but how other elements in the organization such as sales are helping. A complete and exhaustive examination may show that other elements in the organization are hindering the development and execution of both the brand as well as the communications program.

We live in a world that tells us we should expect instantaneous results and that we should act in an instantaneous fashion. The down side to this idea is that we are surrendering the ideas of perspective and focusing on evaluation and adjustment. It is much better to do it right once and invest a little more time in a program than rush it and be disappointed in the results.

Protecting marketing from those who think they can help!

One of the most interesting facets of marketing and communications of late is when a weak or even a failing organization decides to hitch all of its growth potential to MarCom. This is somewhat ironic because it represents a variation on the theme I last spoke about where MarCom is seen as simply a foot soldier, expected to do nothing more than carry out orders and do as told. But let me be clear that this represents just a different variation of the same, terrible mix I spoke about last time.

In some organizations, senior managers are in love with marketing and communications. Of course, while we would love to have that happen, it is not always what it's cracked up to be. While I am a tireless and relentless advocate that marketing is the best way to build brand, it can not be the sole part of the organization out there delivering the organizations message. Also, marketing needs to be used in such a way so that the return on investment it can provide can be maximized.

One trap which needs to be avoided at all costs is the temptation to use marketing and communications as vanity tools. There is an old builder's maxim that says one should know the soil before laying the foundation. That is very true when it comes to marketing and communications. In my own experience I have told many managers that PR does not stand for press release.

So the point here in summary is that as marketing and communications professional we need to do all we can to build and protect the brand. If you look around the organization, there is very no one else who is really equipped or capable to do so. While the risk of having nothing done is both real and great, the risk of having harm come to the brand by individuals who think they know how to manage it, but really don't, is even greater. Marketing and communications people need to be that person who is there to build, render aid but also defend the brand, all depending on what the situation calls for.

It's time for marketing and communications to take a stand!

One area where marketing and communications has always lagged is that it allows itself to be seen as a strictly tactical tool by the C-level executives. The past recession has made this even worse. The corporate communications function has struck a new low by becoming simply a reactionary tool which has offered hardly any strategic contribution to the organization's success.

2011 should be the year in which we take back our profession and reassert it as the strategic tool that it is. Speaking as someone who works as a free-lance consultant, I have the advantage of offering strategic advice to senior level executives on what to do, and then to go and execute it on a tactical level. My experience with this is that even when speaking strategy, and trying to draw marketing and communications into a larger corporate theme, it is virtually impossible to have the senior level executives see MarCom as anything other than a tactical tool. When it comes to communications all we hear is that the C-level wants more press releases, a new web site, more literature and so on. We rarely hear about using it as a strategic tool to drive sales.

This is really the fault of the marketing managers out there who are more than happy to coast along doing as little as possible and figure that if they go along and get along they will survive. Sadly, this has left our field scattered with a bunch of mediocre managers who lack the courage and drive to challenge management and encourage it to see marketing and communications as a long term tool which, when executed properly, can drive the entire branding and sales function.

One thing we can do as a profession is to drive our field and commit to standards of excellence. How many other fields would sit by and allow anything other than excellence be their guides. Such fields and medicine and law have high barriers of entry and require educated people to make informed decisions. Also, a certain specialty is not only expected but in many cases it's required.

Marketing and communications could benefit greatly by taking on more of trappings of an elite profession in 2011. By doing this, we can establish ourselves as legitimate stakeholders and contributors to the organization's success. By standing up and wanting to be counted as a profession and not just a job, we can have a stronger impact on the entire business community!

Driving social media in 2011

Ah yes, my first post of the new year. When thinking about what to write about I only had to go back into the waning days of 2010 to find some good material. One of my personal favorite topics is social media. Besides being personally fascinated by it, I find it very interesting to see how organizations are allocating resources to develop their social media platforms. Some, are following the failed model of the late 1990's and are walling up their social media programs as far away from marketing and communications as possible. Others look to outside people to tell them what to do but at the same time use the masquerade that they know exactly what you are talking about and that you are not telling them anything they have not all ready thought of.

The key for a successful social media program is that it absolutely must be run hand in hand with public relations. Furthermore, PR and marketing must be the parts of the organization which make the calls and guide the development of the program. This was not done with the development of the web site in most cases and as a result, we see that the Internet has never lived up to its full potential as a marketing or communications tool.

Also, only PR and marketing people can see that when it comes to social media, one size does not fit all. We need to find the best fit for the organization. Not every social media site is ideally suited for the needs of the organization. The goal is to find the site which fits the organizations needs and not the other way around! Social media is a tool to be used for the betterment of the organization and not a cool gadget we need to find a way to use.

I believe that's the key for social media in 2011 and why it has been a bust for most companies up to now. Find the right social medium for your company and work with an organization or individual who truly understands not just social media, but also has a firm understanding of organizational needs and can find a program which will dovetail perfectly with organizational goals. Marketing and specifically PR are ideally suited to make social media work for companies large and small in 2011.

How best to integrate social media into organization marketing

I have been fascinated by the number of organizations who are hiring for social media managers. I have spoken to a few of these people and I have seen some very interesting things. By and large the one finding I have noticed is that they see social media as a bomb to be defused. They approach it in the way the technicians in the "Hurt Locker" approached their jobs.

It has become apparent to me that the concept of social media in the marketing and communications field has yet to be fully defined. For one thing there is a tendency when defining the role responsible for social media to look out and see what's popular in social media and try to find a way to fit into all outlets. Very little forethought is given into what may be the best social media outlets. This is very similar to bringing the furniture into a house before the windows have been installed.

Fortunately, one trend that does seem to be emerging is the desire for marketing and communications to handle the social media platform for the company. Given that on a professional level this didn't really exist 2 to 3 years ago, this bodes very well. Those of us who were around remember how when the internet took off, web design and structure was set off very distinctly from marketing to mostly disastrous results.

Still there runs a grave risk of placing some type of mystique into social media that doesn't belong. I had one person tell me that they wanted someone who had a "feel" for social media meaning someone who was younger. My main concern here is that if someone doesn't understand marketing, how can they develop an integrated strategy? Physicians do this all the time, they go off and learn about new procedures and new tools. They don't just bring in doctors just out of med-school with the idea they know more, it is expected that physicians keep up to date on the latest technology and integrate it into their years of experience. This is something which marketing and communications people can adapt to social media.

So what do marketing people do when it comes to social media and how do we fit social media into our current marketing platform. One of the best methods to follow may be that of our friends in the medical field. We need to keep up to date and most importantly find a way to integrate new and emerging trends such as social media into our own field of expertise. By assuming ownership of what is new in the world, we can fully contribute into the organization's climate. We also need to make sure we don't shut out the lessons we can learn from those who may have less mileage overall, but may have a special expertise we lack. Remember professional learning never stops!

Time to stop falling for the latest fad

One of the great weaknesses in marketing, or any aspect of business for that matter, is when a certain technology or skill is seen as unassailable and/or beyond criticism. A very worrisome trend is that social media is beginning to approach those standards in some respects. When any media vehicle is seen as a cure all that every one is in love with then it is time to take a step back and wonder if we're really doing something intelligent, or if we are like a herd of lemmings about to plunge over the cliff.

Now to be absolutely clear this is not by any means an assault on the viability of social media. Quite the opposite it is in my opinion a rare attempt to assess it based solely on its merits and avoid repeating the errors made when the web first came on the scene. For those not around or of short memory the Internet was seen as a magic cure for all that ailed the organization. Of course when this proved false organizations were forced to scramble because now they had to rely on more traditional marketing methods which had been largely shelved if not forgotten.

There was an insane posting I saw lately that I think demonstrated just how much the disease which is the passion for social media has infected marketing. One blogger actually referred to social media as marketing on steroids. So if I understand it clearly, and I think I do, social media is being compared too a drug which provides very little short term benefit, no long term benefit and ultimately kills its user? This is yet another brick in that wall of why PR, communications and basically marketing are not taken seriously as disciplines. We fall in love far too quickly and seem to completely lack any sound judgment or discipline.

Marketing people need to learn the art and science of self-discipline. We need to remember that gorging on appetizers will not allow us to properly enjoy the main course. Instead we need to focus on building a well balanced, well formed plan which combines the best of the old and the best of the new. That means that we will use some elements of both and that we will not use some. To act as if one program is completely without fault because it is new is as foolish as disregarding it for the same reason. It is up to marketing people to get their heads on straight and to think long term and constructively and deliver results which will build a brand!

Using Marketing to Lead the Way to Better Times

All we need to do is to turn on the TV and see that the recession is lingering and how poorly we are all doing. Yet a quick look at corporate earnings tells us that companies are booking record earnings and profits. This seems to be a disconnect in this aspect and it makes me wonder what the heck is going on. While one answer to this question is certainly cost-cutting and keeping costs low, the other aspect is just as clear, there is zero marketing going on. People are being fed a message that feeds upon itself and discourages people to make any decisions that may help boost the economy.

Let me address the issue of cost-cutting first. Tom Peters is attributed as saying either "you can't grow by shrinking," or "you can't grow by cutting costs." What ever the correct statement is, the sentiment is true. If you think strategically and invest in market growth and market your product appropriately, you product will take root in the market place and revenue and, if managed intelligently, profit will follow.

The other mentality is that of the C-level. As usual they see no benefit in marketing and choose not to market their way to prosperity. Instead they choose to entrench and try to survive, not realizing that a downturn or recession has been shown to be an exceptional opportunity to seize advantage in the marketplace. It is telling that Apple, Google, Coca-Cola and Procter & Gamble have all increased marketing spending by at least 10% during the past few years. As a result, they have increased market share and have successfully launched new products.

It can't be said that only consumer companies have been successful doing this. The marketing arms of a number of tech companies such as TI have done great things and are reaping vast rewards. Sadly, these companies seem to be an exception and not the rule. Most companies are taking on a bunker mentality and live in fear of tomorrow which in a sense means they are tying their own noose and will be completely unprepared to take advantaged of a new burst when the economy resumes humming.

The conclusion that can be drawn here is that some companies are choosing to take the lead and market their products to their customers. These companies are the ones who will be uniquely positioned as the next wave of market leaders and some may continue brand leadership, others may sit on their hands, focus exclusively on the near term and lose any market advantage. Investment in marketing and communications will result in brand leadership and market growth if not now then in the future. The question is if you are an entrepreneur and see marketing as an investment with low to moderate risk or if you're completely risk adverse and are willing to sacrifice future growth for short term satisfaction.

Shaping Marketing and Communications During the next Recovery

As the recession lingers on we often wonder if we will return to a period of prosperity. History tells us we will and it also tells us that we struggling with the dark areas of recession and feeling sorry for ourselves when all of a sudden we find we are in prosperity again. In fact a recent study showed that most analysts and pundits are as correct in their guesses on the economy as a bench warming ball player is about getting a hit. That's roughly 20 percent.

The big question I am wondering is if we will emerge a little chastened or if we will jump right into more excess and create another warped bubble where it's a party train and we think the good times can never end. Marketing and communications have a lot to do with creating bubbles and excess and of course we bear a lot of the costs when the bubble bursts. I am often reminded of the person who parties to excess on Friday night, only to swear off it Saturday morning and then goes out and does it twice as hard.

One tool that is rarely exercised in marketing and communications is the tool or restraint. Sure we hear the old cliche about striking while the iron is hot and so on. What we rarely see is marketing to step up and try to guide the brand so that rather than being some rickety old roller coaster, we are a high speed thruway where our top of the line sports car can cruise easily along. Marketing needs to guide and not just tag along for the ride.

Another tool to ensure marketing survives the next great wave is to make sure we are a council to the C-level executives. The C's like to go on a spending spree when their is a few extra dollars and they tend to spend like sailors on liberty. Marketing should force a strategic focus on spend money on what is most important and not necessarily what is fashionable or even worse, what is transient. While we all know that companies who spend more on marketing and communications during a recession often emerge stronger, we have to make sure that the position of strength is not squandered on either an early celebration or a bunker mentality.

Good times are destined to return that much we know. Sadly, I don't have a crystal ball which allows me to say when it will end, but when it does marketing and communications need to be ready. It's time to get off the crazy bubble train and bring marketing and communications into the world of manageable and strategic partnership within the organization. Rather than be a cost center we need to prove, yet again, that we are a premium revenue producing arm and, through our management of the brand, a vital component of the organization.

Is PR Dead?

A good friend of mine, and a journalist no less, asked on his blog if PR was dead and, or dying. This wasn't a shot at PR in so much as he was questioning why companies spend a great deal of money on something which, in his opinion, is of very little value and which the news media pays no attention too. I corrected him on the two errors I see in the story, the first being that PR offers no value and the second being that we offer members of the media no value.

Now the easy thing to do here is to fly off the handle and say that this person has no idea of what we do and how important we are. But that would be only petulant and self-serving. I think we are better served if we use this as a means of examining the value we do bring and if we are offering true value to the organization or if we are muddying the waters and are a professional in search of a role?

I will say that I believe that a number of PR organizations, specifically some agencies, do a great disservice to the organization by being petulant and immature in their dealings with the media but also being petulant and immature in how they deal with the concept of public relations. Having worked with a great number of agency people I have seen no shortage of immaturity and almost infantile behavior. Now before I am strung up by my colleagues in the field I will freely admit I don't believe they are the majority but that they are a large enough minority to give those who do their job's right a black eye.

I also disagree, in the strongest terms possible the stereotype that all PR people are spin doctors or that we all bend the truth. First, I believe strongly that there are two sides to every argument and they deserve to be heard. Granted it can be an argument between right and wrong but that still is an airing of opinion which in an open society is a very good thing. Secondly, certain professions tend to get smeared by the acts of a few. Lawyers can certainly attest to this. But let's not forget the positives that have come out of these fields.

If not for public relations, we would have never heard of the ills of smoking, the need for seat belts or advocates for people with disabilities. All of these great causes were advocated by pressure groups which all use PR to advance their messages. Are there excesses in PR, of course, but there are in education, finance and even in media.

There is one thing PR can do a much better job at and that is letting the world know about how it helps make us healthier, happier and safer thanks to PR. Is PR necessary, absolutely because every legal organization, now matter what we think of it has a right to have its voice heard. Also, despite crying how much they hate it, the news media would be lost without a public relations person to help them meet the right people. Good journalism owes its life to good PR. So PR does contribute to the success of so many organizations. We are not just a cog in a machine, we are a strong driver or a full gear and when used properly we help the entire engine run much smoother.

Sorry but the rumors of the death of PR are greatly exaggerated!

Why marketing may need to fight the C-level for control of the brand!

Communications and marketing people have a tough job that much is sure. No department in the organization is faced with such a rapidly changing means of reaching out to their target audiences, thus doing their jobs, as the Marketing and communications teams. Still there is one group that makes our job extremely difficult. It is the C-suite's slavish devotion to short term gains with a full knowledge of how the long term results will produce nothing but harm for the organization.

One key example of this is that the C-suite often expects marketing and communications to produce immediate results, while all the time reducing the budget we have to work with and shortening the amount of time to allow a campaign to work. Imagine if we told a doctor that a certain surgical procedure needs to take only 4 hours instead of 6, they can only use 75% of their tools and we expect the patient to be functioning at 120% inside of a week. People would laugh because these conditions are the height of irrationality, yet we think nothing of expecting marketing and communications to work under these conditions.

The most egregious weakness in this scenario is usually found in public companies. It is almost laughable how in many public companies the sole audience the C-level is interested in is the investment community and in keeping them happy. I have seen C-level executives prance around like they are in a dog and pony show and do self destructive things all for some short term benefit which, like a sugar rush, is often gone before it's enjoyed. Hardly any degree of attention is shown to the customer or retaining the customer. I have found it mystifying that a C-level executive will often dodge a customer call, yet will happily speak to some freshly minted MBA from Harvard or Princeton to keep the stock rating positive and thus up a penny or two.

An intelligent C-level executive sees the brand as the key to organization survival and thinks in the long term. The best analogy I have ever heard is that running a company is like climbing a mountain. You keep your eyes on the peak but also focus on the next ledge. That's a great analogy for what marketing can do to help a C-level executive succeed. Rather than being a cost center or a prop shop, marketing and communications can help the C-level executives reach the next level of success as well as that eventual peak. In fact, we're the only group who can get the program off the ground.

Marketing and communications can only succeed if they are viewed as a long term, strategic tool. Seeing them as a temporary, tactical tool to be cut and expanded on a willy, nilly basis is not only short-sighted but it is self-destructive. Visionary leaders in marketing and communications need to take the lead and need to confront the C-level on the responsibility to defend the brand and ensure its long-term success.

Let marketing drive the company

This is a very obvious statement so please forgive me if I insult your intelligence. An automobile needs a steering wheel, accelerator, gear shift as well as brakes to operate properly. A bike, needs much the same things with the big change obviously being that it doesn't need the accelerator as that is the person riding. In the world of business, communications is what provides the acceleration and to some degree provides warnings of the course corrections and changes required as well as providing warnings about the crazy drivers in the other lanes and even the speed limits.

What's the reason for this automobile analogy? Well marketing and communications are far too often seen as entirely functional or tactical tools and far too few organizations see the value they bring as strategic assets to the organization. Can you imagine for a minute if you reacted when the person in front of you slams on the brakes or when the other driver runs the red light? Just like in marketing, a great driver needs to be in command of the situations, needs to know the course and needs to be able to predict, with a high degree of accuracy, what is likely to happen soon.

Now the key thing to see here is that accidents will happen and perfection is impossible. Sorry, C-Level executives seem to think we are perfect when in fact we are not, and that is nothing to be ashamed of. The fact remains however that the true guidance of the organization should be the domain of the marketing and communications department because we are the ones who understand how to chart an organizations long term voyage through the various ups and downs the organization will face. In addition, the marketing and communication team will be one of the few groups who do not live from quarter to quarter and have a more long term, strategic outlook.

So the long story short is that the guidance and acceleration of an organization who sees itself as a leader should be run through the marketing and communications group. Unlike most of the business world marketing and communications, when done properly, are long term strategic departments. That is necessary in order to help an organization survive the temporary hurdles which will come across its path from time to time. The organizations' who pursue other courses may succeed but it's like driving with a blindfold on. As long as there aren't any disruptions in the road, you will do fine. If you focus on marketing and communications as the leads for the organization, you should be able to avoid a number of pitfalls and in doing so, leave those organizations who choose another method of guidance well behind you.

Where do we set the bar on ethics?

One of my favorite shows is Mad Men. It has won the Emmy for best drama three years straight. Besides presenting an engaging and enlightening view into the early 1960's. It combines strong characters with intelligent dialogue and just a dash of dark humor. I particularly liked the most recent episode broadcast on Sunday night here. For those who don't wish to know the plot skip the next few lines. As we know, Don Draper, the head of creative for Sterling, Cooper, Draper and Pryce paid to have an open letter in the New York Times where he renounced any future intent to do advertising for cigarettes.

I find this interesting because it raises a rarely discussed part of marketing and communications and that is the aspect of where do we draw the line when it comes to marketing and communicating in an ethical setting. Now I will assume that no one believes that it is in anyway ethical to market a product which is illegal. The big gray area becomes whether or not it is unethical to design a marketing campaign for a product which is perfectly legal, but is certainly unhealthy.

Obviously the biggest market to consider is what Don Draper was considering and that was cigarettes. While they remain perfectly legal products, one has to consider if doing marketing for these products is unto itself unethical. While I do not smoke, and I am a huge proponent of preventing smoking, and it will kill you, the fact remains that it is a legal and highly regulated product.

Another industry to keep in mind is the fast food industry which sells meals which are extremely unhealthy and a leading cause of obesity today. But once again the fact remains it is a legal product and one whose risks, while not as sharply defined as cigarettes, are clear and distinct.

The final industry to consider is defense related industries. These people make weapons and let's be honest, weapons kill people. That is their purpose. If they fail to do this then they have failed! But having worked with that field the logic is that their products, if well designed, will save lives by making the other fellow less likely to start anything!

So now we're at the crux of the argument. Is is necessarily unethical for a marketing person to do their job in a field where the product is unhealthy. While some people may not like my answer, I believe there is nothing wrong with working for a company who is selling a legal product. Granted, there perfectly acceptable reasons to be upset with the products themselves but that does not render the product themselves unacceptable provided they meet the appropriate regulatory requirements.

Kudos to Don Draper for making a stand and deciding that his company will draw the line at cigarettes. Notice that the writers did not put McDonald's in the script. If someone wants to take a stand and would not wish to work for a company which makes a product or promotes a lifestyle they object to, that is their right to refuse. Just remember, as Don Draper learned, nothing happens in a vacuum and there will be ramifications. Stands are very brave and should be respected, let's remember the old quip that in physics, every action has an opposite and equal reaction while in business that reaction is 20 fold!

Time for hiring managers to exit the comfort zone!

As we all know there is a problem in the employment system today. No I am not speaking about the 9.6% out of work, but rather the fact that even with unemployment that high, companies can't find qualified people to do the job. I was speaking with a recruiter friend of mine recently and was told that many hiring managers are being so exact and so picky that it is making the job of finding a qualified candidate nearly impossible. Case in point, let's assume that the hiring manager wants a corp. comm person who has 5 to 7 years of experience in health care and someone comes along who has 8 in tech. Nearly every time that person will be rejected, despite the fact that the skills are there.

Similarly, managers can often hire someone and not fully fleshed out their position. I have a rule of them that when ever I am reading a job description if it is one paragraph or less, I keep looking. Granted there may be a gem in there but the fact is that if a company only describes a position in one paragraph then they haven't really invested the time in seeking the long term potential for the position and whomever ends up with it will most likely be going crazy in a very short amount of time!

Let me be clear on one thing, I do believe companies have a right and, to be honest, an obligation to construct a job description that works as much for the internal audience as for external candidates seeking to join. But that should be an ideal and not a straight jacked which prevents the hiring of a qualified individual for the role. While I can't claim to be an expert on other fields, I can be sure that a qualified and capable marketing or communications person has a set of skills which are capable of being used in any field. Speaking as someone who has worked in various industries I can testify that if you are a good marketing communications person for a software company, your skills will be equally useful in hospital setting.

The other too that hiring managers must remember is that we do not always get everything we want. When we were young children we wrote out lists to Santa every year. Now if you were a young boy like me, you weren't really happy when you saw clothes in what you unwrapped Christmas morning but what you may not remember is how those clothes were put to good use. The same hold true for hiring a candidate. Someone may not be an exact match for what you want but if they have the skills, and have experience comparable to what you seek then you should find the best way to make them fit. Your industry can be learned a lot quicker than the skill set necessary to do the job can be taught!

I may be preaching to the choir here but I do think we need to have organizations realize that by adhering strictly to a pre-defined list of qualifications they may be missing out on some individuals who have amazing skills and who can bring fresh perspective and make a strong, positive impact on the organization. I don't recall the exact story but I remember hearing that in either Chinese or Japanese the characters for risk and opportunity were nearly identical? Well even if the story is wrong, the sentiment is dead on. Look at the candidate who can contribute the most to the organization, not the one who can simply fit the bill of what you're looking for!

Time for marketing to learn from failure!

There is a well known and time worn statement which goes, those who can not remember the past will be doomed to repeat it. The worse are attributed to the poet and philosopher George Santayana. These words are as true today as there were when they were first spoken. In fact they seem to be even more relevant because our periods of remembrance seem to be drawing shorter and shorter with each generation.

I bring this up today because there are direct ties into business and specifically marketing and communications. Another cliche that is often used is that success comes from many fathers but failure is an orphan. Both of these statements define what is wrong about business accountability in this day and age. More often than not if something goes wrong, the first thing organizations try to do is look for a scape goat and eliminate that person to keep the baying of the legal wolves in check. This quite honestly is stupid and in many cases counterproductive. If there is a complete and total violation of a companies policies as seems to be the case with Hewlett Packard, then dismissing the head of the company makes some sense. However I am here to talk about the lesser examples that often times do not make a lick of sense.

Having been around the block in marketing a while, I notice that many times senior level executives will wonder why their initiatives are not producing the desired results. More often than not marketing and communications people will look for an excuse or a reason to give as to why they are not. In most cases there is a simple explanation such as marketing conditions or even lack of support from other elements in the organization. It is not improper or unprofessional to refuse to fall on your sword because some other party has failed to participate in the successful development of marketing and communications strategy.

So what's the point here? That is simple. marketing, corporate communications, PR etc need to OWN the communications function and the message. We need to let the C-level know when they are not being reasonable and we need to both educate other groups in the organization and help them understand what marketing and communications is all about and how to work. What is very interesting is that organizations who view marketing and communications as a strategic tool, similar to finance or sales, find the greatest return on investment for their marketing dollar. They tend to stay the course and spend their marketing dollars wisely.

Organizations who are struggling or failing tend to share a common trait as well. They see marketing and communications as purely tactical weapons. Elements to be used only in reaction to market condition and not as a strategic weapon. A perfect case is how McDonald's reinvented itself to offset negative publicity as well as changing marketing conditions. This required a difficult reappraisal of their operations from top to bottom and included a major revision to how they went about marketing their products.

The lesson to be learned from all of this is that in marketing and communications, as well as in any aspect of business, failure is an excellent teacher. This is not a call for everyone to fail, rather it is a call for us to stop treating failure as something that requires a quick trip to the gallows and then carrying on as if nothing has happened. Use marketing as a tool to build brand and build sales. You will fail along the way that can't be helped. What you can help is taking the setbacks, learn from them, and come back even stronger and assume an even strong position in your market.

And, if failure is an orphan then it can join, Nelson Mandela, Alexander Hamilton , Dave Thomas (who founded Wendy's) and Louis Armstrong. So being an orphan is never easy, but can lead to great things!

Driving down the highway that is marketing and branding

I am sure we all have stories about seeing crazy things on the highway. Be it people talking on their cell phones, shaving or even reading while driving at break neck speeds. This past weekend, while driving to a cook out, I was forced to pass a woman who was driving 45mph in the left lane because she was busy texting and apparently fixing her hair. Of course I thought two things. First, this woman is an accident waiting to happen but secondly and more importantly it represents a good analogy of what is going on in marketing, communications and branding today.

For one thing marketing is be driven at breakneck speed and is often to expected to arrive at locations in an unreasonable amount of time while not getting a speeding ticket. In words that will ring true to all marketing people, do it fast, do it right, do it under budget and make no mistakes. What is also true for all marketing people is that, much like cars, the universe they operated in is changing. For a long time the automobile was a sanctuary. For better or for worse it was an area where a person could not be reached.

Marketing used to be a relatively easy to understand format. It used to be archaic and very traditional, with a long established means of doing things. It's scope was very limited and it was seen as highly tactical. There was very little change in its scope for a great many years.

Both areas have seen tremendous changes during the pasts several years. For cars there is now cell phones, GPS, satellite radio and so much more which change how we operate in the car. For marketing, the changes are even greater. Marketing people have evolved from being the helmsman who steers the large slow moving vessels to the captain of the craft running viscous white water.

As for the highway itself, we see that some people take to driving it different ways just like a true highway. For example, some people take to the driveway and drive really slow, others drive like lunatics. Others take it slow and steady. This is to be expected because just as drivers are unique and approach the highways different organizations approach marketing different.

What's ironic is that many organizations are like a lot of drivers in the good old days and approach marketing the way they approached driving. That is to say they don't plan and often get lost along the way. In these pre Garmin or Tom Tom days people had to look for gas stations or other locations to find their way. A great deal of organizations drive down that highway with no idea where they are going or how they are going to get there. Sometimes they drive down the highway very fast assuming speed is progress or sometimes they stay in the right lane assuming that slow and steady will win the race, yet fail to notice all the competitors blowing by them.

The moral to the story is that driving on the modern highway is a great analogy for doing marketing, communications and branding in the modern age. You need to have the right tools to get the job done (a well maintained car,good radio, etc.) you need to know where you want to go and how to get there. You need to stay focused on the road and not get distracted by small and inconsequential items. Lastly, you need to be aware of your surroundings and judge your progress by your own goals, not by what is going on around you.

Where are the corporate communications mentors and leaders?

Having been in PR, Marketing and Corporate Communications I have noticed a few things. Usually the best talent are soloist or individuals contributors. The reason for that it would seem is that agencies and in house organs tend to draw careerists who are better at navigating the corporate minefields than at developing a tight and on-target message. Now of course everyone who reads this will think they are the exception and I am sure I will hear how such and such a company is the exception. The sad case is that as a profession we are failing those who are coming up in the ranks in how to do what we do and, by extension, we are damaging both our clients, their brands and our profession.

OK let me throw some harsh reality out to people who seem to think otherwise, especially in the corporate and agency world. People just out of school have NO CLUE about how to work in an office. I don't care if they have done internships all through out school. They have done sprints, now they have to run a marathon, they have done the swimming portion of the triathlon and now have the last two legs to complete. We have an obligation as professionals to take these people under our wing and teach them how to do our profession right. Also, if we can impart in them the need to be forceful advocates for how our profession should be run then we will be taken seriously and seen as a profession.

A good example is what happens to lawyers at large firms. They are worked liked dogs that much is true. But they also have a senior lawyer, usually a partner, who is guiding them along and helping them learn the ropes so they will succeed. Unlike a lot of marketing and PR people, they are not waiting for a mistake to be made so they can destroy their self esteem and reap some petty sense of power and victory, they are working to guide this person through what is best for the firm and ultimately the profession. (Notice I did not mention the client!)

I had the good fortune to train my dog and found it very enjoyable. First, he is smarter than about 95% of the people in the world today. Now get ready everyone because I am about to liken training a dog to dealing with people. Training him worked very well because I taught him how to be a house pet, (no jumping on the furniture, housebreaking, waiting for dinner). In doing so I corrected him when he made a mistake but I also made sure he knew when he did well. Ultimately he did well because he knew it was the right thing to do.

Usually in Marketing or Corp Comm. we see no mentoring or leadership. We see someone assigned as a supervisor who basically sees it as extra work being assigned with no benefits for doing this. We should see this as a great opportunity to share knowledge and impart experience. A chance to offer constructive criticism and teach the person to grow and become not only a better Marketing, PR, Corp Comm person by improving their technical skills and also improving their confidence. Lastly, we can overcome our greatest professional weakness and treat people that by cooperation we secure a great deal more than by petty and needless competition.

If corporate communications, marketing and PR are ever going to be taken seriously we need to recognize talent and nurture it. We need to end the immaturity, the turf wars and the nonsense and present a united front as a mature and credible part of the business community. Once this process is completed, or at least well underway, we can start to be taken seriously as a profession.

Sprinting to the finish line.

Now that Labor Day is behind us we start heading into the time of year when the days grow shorter and the leaves change color and the thermometer drops. In many respects this is my favorite time of year because the air is so fresh and refined that it makes the work process so much more enjoyable. It also is the time of year when we can focus on what is coming up and begin our sprint to the finish line.

Ideally, the summer was spent planning for this sprint. That was of course, in between fantasies of vacations. The fall sprint should be focused on bringing target audiences back into focus and get yourself onto the radar of major stakeholders. This is really the time of year when marketing budgets are being established and major purchasing decisions are generally being reached. This is the time of year when planning turns into execution.

Given that a lot of plans are being made for 2011 we need to make the most of this time of year. This is a great time of year to engage social media and bring your customers and potential customers in at a new level so they can see you as a more concrete partner in their business. It is also a time to use the more traditional methods and try to engage media partners in a business relationship that will result in the previously mentioned complete market penetration. Lastly, it is the time to stop being the wallflower and become the player in the industry you thought you should be all along.

The final third of the year is when you should really shift into high gear. It is the time of year when marketing and communications need to demonstrate what we can really do for the organization and how our skill and success means the organization can and will be successful. It is when our planning and drive will lead to success in the market. Of course if it is not done with the right balance of strategy, execution and team work than we will fall short and the blemish to marketing will be impossible to erase.

How too many chefs ruin the brand

I have seen my fair share of cooking shows during my life time. Now the hot chef is Gordon Ramsey but my personal favorite is Julia Child. The reason I always liked Julia is that you were able to see the art, and science, of creation. I always found it amusing that she seemed to find her own cooking did not taste terrible.

One thing I find interesting about Julia Child and chefs in general is that there is a direct analogy between cooking and building a brand. In each case there are unique elements which need to be created, proportioned correctly and then executed in order for the right blend to produce a wonderful bounty. Also, not everyone can do it right and few have the patience to take it to a level of excellence.

Let's stay on the cooking analogy for a minute. While we make like our lemon sole or maybe just a cheeseburger and fries , the final product represents a long journey involving many hands. We seldom think of the farmer who grew the lettuce or the grapes for the wine. Nor do we think of the truck driver who drove the produce to market. But what we do know is that once the products get to the restaurant, the chef and his or her kitchen staff know what to do with them and how to turn them into the incredible edibles we all love to eat.

Ideally this would be true with marketing and branding. Ideally the marketing department would develop copy, work on PR strategy, coordinate design components and be allowed to build a brand. Sadly, as we all know this is rarely the case. More often than not, CEO's and other senior executives like to stick their noses in and order direct changes to the product with little or no input regarding how the marketing team feels regarding the decision. The inverse is just as sad, they don't care enough about marketing to properly fund it and as such instead of buying the fresh lettuce for the salad or the top choice meat, we have to pick through what is left and try and make do.

Let me continue with my chef analogy, could anyone imagine the owner of a restaurant coming in and say, you know we need to keep costs down so from now on everyone gets their meat one style so we need not run extra ovens or in the bar advocate putting apple juice in some of the mixed drink containers arguing that the customers aren't going to notice. Surprisingly that happens to some degree in business. Not that there is active attempts at deception but rather micro-management by people who do not understand the field and think that they know the brand best or even worse don't think in terms of the brand but rather in short term, quarter-to quarter periods.

Of course one problem with being a chef is that someone will always criticize the cooking. That is true with marketing and branding and needs to be taken as part of the job. However the only type of criticism that works is to offer constructive criticism. Saying this is wrong, or not what I had in mind is totally wasteful and useless in development. Rather saying something like, "I would prefer we focus more on the technology as opposed to the design," is a concrete and workable brand criticism. Sadly, this is very rarely heard.

So what is the conclusion to take away from this? Well, I hope it is that marketing and communications people, just like chefs, need to be allowed to work. By doing this we can create a brand which will be stronger and ideally assume market leadership. All good chefs, like good marketing people, value constructive criticism and see it as a means of improvement. What we need from external audiences is the freedom to do our jobs with some feedback both good and bad but most importantly the opportunity to do our jobs!

Putting the cart before the horse, tech wise!

I have mentioned previously how fascinating I find organizations who wish to jump on the social media bandwagon and want to hire "experts" in the field. Given that we're talking about a technology that is probably 3 years old at best, that would be similar to finding a preschool age child who can type or do math. What we are dealing with now is people who have some theories as to what will work best and really it is the person who can sell the best dream that will win the race, not necessarily the person who has the best qualifications.

I was speaking to a senior communications person recently who asked me for my ideas on how to use social media tools such as Facebook, Twitter, You Tube and Wikipedia to enhance their communications programs. I gave my own thoughts on the matter and we had a discussion regarding these thoughts on the issue. When it came time for me to ask questions, I asked this person, "How do you see social media working with your marketing programs and how will you quantify success regarding social media?" Well, going by the flow of blood and skin tone out of this person's face you would have thought I asked them to calculate Pi to the 800th number.

The sad fact is that there is a mad scramble to jump on the social media band wagon but there is very little thought given as to why or what advantage might be reaped for the least investment. Now lets be clear, I am NOT advocating that social media has no place in a business environment. Quite the opposite, done properly I believe social media can greatly enhance the brand, but we need to pick the technology innovation because it enhances the brand, not because we think it is cool and fun. World of Warcraft is still the biggest online community last time I checked, yet I don't see businesses rushing to set up avatars on WOW.

So the goal here is that before we all decide to jump onto the social media bandwagon, we need to decide how we can use it to grow brand recognition and ultimately sales. We shouldn't jump in out of fear that we are missing the boat. A measured and concentrated advance into social media, like we would approach any new media, would seem the obvious outcome. But it falls to all of us communications professionals to not only provide the necessary guidance as we head into this new communications arena, but also to provide a braking mechanism if necessary. Proceed with both caution and purpose and you will most likely succeed.