What Chief Branding Officer's Don't Know

I'm going to attempt to write this with as much sensitivity as I can muster. After all, it's not without foundation that I've been labeled as much for my brutality as irreverence. What can I say? I'm a guy who calls 'em like he sees 'em and sometimes I don't like what I see.

I recently had a conversation with a very high level branding officer of a very high profile Fortune 100 company. I don't want to step on any toes here, because truth be told, this person was very kind and extremely genuine. Totally well-meaning and, judging by the tenor of our conversation, a true believer in New Age marketing. For the uninitiated, New Age marketing is that which places a premium on engaging with end users through social media, surveys and megatons of research.

You know, stuff for which agencies are totally unaccountable.

The purpose of my conversation with this Chief Branding Officer (CBO) -- code-named Jordan to keep things anonymous -- was to find out if the company had any real brand strategy to speak of. Actually, the purpose was to find out if the company even had a brand strategy. Most don't, which is why I call them. It's what I do. But that's another story.

Jordan was very amiable, asking me why I would ask a question like that. "Because I'm on your web site right now, and for the life of me, all I see is a logo. Not even a tagline. No reason for anyone to choose your brand. Nothing. Is there a brand strategy?"

Keep in mind that I'm talking to a CBO -- the highest level there is in this type of corporation, which happens to be international in scope and service. A Wall Street darling. A major player in its field. And with all that, this is the answer I get:

"Our branding agency will be presenting the brand strategy to us in the coming weeks."

When I got back into my chair, I couldn't help but inquire as to who that agency might be. It was, as I suspected, a major international hack branding agency whose failing works I've previously lambasted here. Who else would have the cojones to string along a powerhouse client -- for years -- with absolutely no tangible deliverables while charging the client millions for the privilege?

I've grown accustomed to the millions-for-hackery branding scams that go on in the boardrooms of corporate America. But the real shocker was that Jordan couldn't even come close to expressing what the company's brand strategy was. Not even a hint. Jordan wouldn't even take a shot at it, which could only mean one thing: Jordan had absolutely no idea what a real brand strategy is. One look at the company's materials only reinforced my suspicion: Logos were everywhere, but no place could one find any message conveying why the company should be perceived as "the only solution to its prospects' problems."

I'm often asked about high-level, Fortune 1000 clients. "Aren't they more knowledgeable and sophisticated when it comes to branding?" The answer, sadly, is no. Not by a long shot. In fact, when it comes to branding -- real branding -- I'm consistently dismayed to find that in general, the bigger the name, the less they know about branding. But when you think about it, it makes sense:

When you're small and bucks are sparse, you do everything you can to establish and protect your market share. You make sure people know you for the right reasons, whenever and wherever you communicate with them, because losing market share means losing the food off your table. But when you're big -- really big -- you get fat. Really fat. You get so fat that you forget what it's like to be hungry; you pay people to be hungry for you. Instead of thriving on grit and determination, you order lattés and conference reports. You become detached from who you are and why you are because, win or lose, you know you can always fire the agency, but you'll never go hungry.

When you're that high up in the ivory tower, the denial gets so thick that you can barely see your way down to the golf course. It's happened to so many big brands that I've lost count. It's happening to brands like Kodak and Maytag and Yahoo and so many others I've written about here.

Now the long, slow decline will begin to take its toll on Jordan's Fortune 100 company. I suppose the good news is, as with all degeneratively diseased patients, Jordan won't even realize the impending doom until it's much too late -- and the stock in the pension plan is worthless. But Jordan doesn't believe that. The company, it would seem, is too big to fail.

Meg Whitman Stumbles Again

If you live in California as I do, it's impossible to sit in your car, mired in traffic without listening to your radio. Sure, most of us are plugged into our iPods precisely because we hate what's on the radio, but after a while, even your favorite New Age trance music gets boring. Sometimes, you just gotta hear what's happening out there, beyond the wall of glass that divides you from the other morons crawling along the eight lane highway at five miles per hour.

Sometimes, you just gotta hear the news -- or at least what passes for news.

At this writing, California's richest ego-maniacs are beginning to jockey for position to become the state's next governor. So far, just about all of the announced candidates are from the northern part of the state, a nod to the monumental amount of wreckage left in the wake of the last southern-based governator's bid to fool all of the people all of the time. The first two candidates off the line are a millionaire and a billionaire, Gavin Newsom and Meg Whitman, respectively.

Sigh.

Gavin is the well-heeled mayor of San Francisco, whose ethics and morality qualify him to serve as a role model for all Californians, if you call sleeping with your best friend's wife "qualified." The big question is not whether Newsom supports gay marriage (he does) or can appeal to Californians in the south (Gavin who?), but whether he can stock enough hair-styling mousse to last throughout an arduous, mud-laden campaign. Nobody has ever accused Newsom of being a particularly deep or thoughtful person. Judging from his early campaign efforts, I see no reason why this would change any time soon.

Meg Whitman, on the other hand, may be able to do something in California that neither the Republican or Democratic party has been able to do since eighteenth century France: Govern a state while in complete and total denial. In case you don't know who she is, Meg was the CEO of EBay, fostering its growth until a series of bad decisions (can you say "Let's buy Skype!") suddenly angered enough shareholders to motivate her to switch careers. Fast.

You would think that being in Silicone Valley, Meg would be hip, slick and in touch with what's going on out there. Well, you'd be wrong. In an homage to Marie Antoinette, Whitman's first radio spots go directly at where California's problems aren't, proving she's just another rich candidate that's hopelessly out of touch.

Here. Take a minute and listen to this:

Wait a minute. Banks are failing. Insurance companies are defaulting. Bernie Madoff is rotting in prison for scamming billions. The media is hoisting Wall Street on its own petard -- and Meg Whitman is telling voters that what they need in the governor's office is another business person?

Wow. Talk about denial. Where is she getting her brand strategy, WalMart? I mean, this woman can buy just about anything she wants, which I suppose includes stupid advisors. Of course, you have to remember this is the Republican party, the party which drove John McCain's campaign into the earth with genius advice from the likes of Carly Fiorina (who nearly destroyed Hewlett-Packard). These are the same voices that shouted their approval for that-one-lipstick-away-from-the-Presidency pick, Sarah Palin.

Do I sound a bit too negative? Maybe so. After all, these are just the first two horses out of the gate.

Meet you at the glue factory.

Yahoo: Money for Nothing

You have to hand it to the folks at Yahoo. No matter how many chances they're given, they keep tripping over themselves. I've been watching Yahoo ever since they were knee-high to a modem. In that time, they've gone from the powerhouse of search engines to the Jerry Lewis of the internet.

It's companies like Kodak and Yahoo that make me such a strong believer in the economy of the United States. Where else could major, publicly-held institutions keep failing year after year and still bluff the public into investing even more millions into their eventual demise?

Yahoo is the typical modern American tragedy: A first mover in a category which it dominated for years, Yahoo watched in dismay as Google ate its lunch in record time. Under what could only be called the denial-driven dictatorship of Jerry Yang, Yahoo coughed up any and all dominance it once held by simply refusing to brand itself. Nobody knew why they should stay loyal to Yahoo, so nobody bothered to.

Nobody was quite as confused about Yahoo's brand as Terry Semel, the showbiz CEO who took over Yang's mission of driving the company into the ground. For some reason (speculated in past issues of this blog), Semel had visions of Yahoo becoming the center of internet entertainment. It was a grand, totally naive dream, however, that failed every single opportunity given to it. In the end, Semel left Yahoo users even more confused, and its shareholders even more destitute.

With Yang finally being given his walking papers, Carol Bartz assumed command of Yahoo's sinking ship. Suddenly, new hope abounded. Maybe, just maybe, Bartz could right the brand that never was. Unfortunately, the hope sank quickly as it became apparent that Bartz's dog and pony show was actually the same old song and dance. Even a joint program with Microsoft did little to enthuse anyone; two high-awareness non-brands joining together did nothing to raise the hopes -- or stock prices -- of either one.

Now comes word that Yahoo is launching a $100 million ad campaign -- glaringly mislabeled as a "re-branding" -- which further illustrates its incompetence:



Once again, the adage proves true: When you try to be something to everyone, you end up being nothing to anyone. Once again, by not articulating what Yahoo is, or why it should be "perceived as the only solution to its prospects' problems," Yahoo is spending millions to actually say nothing at all.

Am I missing something here? Does anything in these ads say anything at all to you about why you should use Yahoo? Or how Yahoo offers you something you can't find anywhere else? Is anyone at Yahoo aware that they could run these ads in Braille and they'd have the same effect?

A lot of people maintain I'm a harsh guy. I'm not a harsh guy. I'm just a guy who hates to see mediocrity and failure being passed off as professional success. I call 'em as I see 'em. And from what I see, Yahoo's future is looking bleaker by the minute.

Why Technology Never Trumps Humans

It seemed like a good idea: Build a fun, flirty iPhone app that generates millions of custom pick-up lines on the fly, simply by tapping in specifics of a situation:

A user enters the place, time of day and characteristics of his intended date, hits a button and chooses a line ranging from clever to clumsy. And just to keep things under control, we allowed the user to choose between lines that are either Safe or Sexy.
The app is called LittleWingman and it tested through the roof.

It's an equal-opportunity application, generating pick-up lines regardless of gender or orientation, which means it spews out lines for men to women, women to men, men to men and women to women -- all on the fly. And because it contains no graphics, no profanity and no abusive language of any kind, we knew it was a cinch to gain approval from Apple's iTunes Store.

And it did. Eventually.


Nine gruelling months after it was originally submitted.


Why was LittleWingman constantly rejected? As it turns out, not for any specific objectionable words or graphics -- it doesn't have any.  In fact, LittleWingman may be the first and only app ever rejected purely for the sexual ideas it stimulates in users' minds.

Are phrases like "tight-fitting jeans" and "legs" objectionable? Not to most people. But when LittleWingman composed them into the following line, iTunes had a big problem with it:


"I'm tonight's official legs inspector. I'm going to have to ask you to remove those tight-fitting jeans."


At first, we thought iTunes objected to words like "breasts" and "ass" -- two commonly used words in many other apps. So we replaced those with "casabas" and "tush," only to be rejected again. Within a week or two, the same canned message came back with the same canned rejection:

At 5:51 PM -0800 3/5/09, devprograms@apple.com wrote:
Thank you for submitting LittleWingman to the App Store. We've reviewed LittleWingman again and determined that we still cannot post this version of your iPhone application to the App Store because it contains inappropriate sexual content and is in violation of Section 3.3.12 from the iPhone SDK Agreement which states:
"Applications must not contain any obscene, pornographic, offensive or defamatory content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, etc.), or other content or materials that in Apple's reasonable judgement may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod touch users."
If you believe that you can make the necessary changes so that LittleWingman does not violate the iPhone SDK Agreement we encourage you to do so and resubmit it for review.

We combed through the content again, looking for any profanity or objectionable content. But we couldn't find any, because there wasn't any.  It was the application that was writing the content by itself, based on what the user had chosen.
For example, LittleWingman generated this line for user who finds herself at a wedding: 

"Think any of the rabbis at this ceremony can lend us some personal lubricants?"

Random? Funny? Hardly objectionable as a flushing toilet, upskirt shots or jiggling breasts you'll find in other iPhone applications, yet iTunes rejected that generated line flat out.

The correspondence flew back and forth, with LittleWingman getting rejected for combining innocent phrases like "kiss" with innocent body parts like "lips" into pick-up lines that resulted wonderfully appealing ideas as to what things people might actually kiss with their lips.

Each time, the App Store returned the same canned response, with no guidance as to fixing the problem, mainly because there was no problem there to fix. Unlike the now-banned "baby shaker" app, LittleWingman was pure, positive pick-up lines -- and healthy ones, at that.


At six months, we thought we had a breakthrough: iPhone 3.0's 17+ adult rating was just the ticket to get us past our non-existent objectionable content. We re-submitted. And got rejected. Again.


The maddening, automated responses were finally disrupted when, after seven months, a real, breathing App Store human being actually left a voicemail at our offices. We began the dialogue which, two months later, resulted in LittleWingman being approved -- with only the two word changes from its original submission. And that, as it turns out, is the main problem with technology: it lacks human judgment, which cost us time, energy -- and nine months' of sales.


It's been nine months of nuttiness. But at least now the world doesn't have to struggle with how to approach that blonde at the end of the bar.

You can download LittleWingman directly from Apple's iTunes Store by clicking this link.

Why We Stimulate Cars & Banks

No matter where I go, it seems as if everyone is complaining about something. Sometimes it's the weather. Sometimes it's relationships. Somewhere along the line, complaining seems to have replaced baseball as our national pastime. If you're a reader of this blog, you may recall that I'm on record that this recession, the deepest economic ditch since the Great Depression, will not last nearly as long as any of the talking heads have predicted. There are a number of reasons for this.

First, the conditions under which we find ourselves are profoundly different than any other economic setback this country has ever experienced. The speed of communications today renders many of the problems -- and their solutions -- practically obsolete. This time around, everything is happening for different reasons.

In years past, for example, restoration of trust and faith in the financial market would have taken years. Months to develop recovery programs, months to approve them, months to announce them and months to execute with no guarantee of success or failure.

When Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office, the quickest means of announcing recovery programs was radio -- and not everyone had one. The next quickest was print -- and not everyone read them. While it's true that bad news travels fast, prior to the Digital Age, all news traveled slowly, which meant reaction times -- in fact, reactions themselves -- occurred and behaved according to totally different algorithms. As late as the 1980's, most stock trades were performed by real humans. Slow humans. And the slower they were, the more time there was for doubt and risk.

Today, one click sends the order that joins millions of others in nanoseconds, not days. We know the reactions to a political or financial program within minutes of its announcement. We see the results of capital infusions within hours. Things move faster than they ever have.

And that's the main reason why this recession is going to evaporate a lot faster than your cable news talking head would have you believe.

A second reason why this recession is like no other is that its root cause isn't a mystery. There's only one reason for the markets collapsing: a shortage of cash. When there's no cash, nobody can borrow. When nobody can borrow, nobody can pay. When nobody can pay, people lose their jobs. The solution is as simple as the problem: Someone has to lend the system money to prime the pump with the cash that makes things work. The only entity that can do that is the government, who is also the only entity able to create and administer the recovery programs we have.

Which leaves me wondering why everyone is complaining so much. Sure, it's easy to dismiss the efforts required of economic recovery with a cavalier remark. But you never hear any of the whiners come up with a plan as entertaining as their soundbytes, a favorite of which seems to be "Why are the banks and car companies getting the money?"

The answer is pretty basic: Because that's where the money does the most good, for the most people in the least amount of time.

The fundamental reason why the recovery is going to work a lot faster than you'd expect is that the Obama administration correctly understands that it takes money to make money. If you believe that America -- and the world's -- economy is driven by finance, you have to empower the professionals to distribute it to the enterprises that require it. That means you pay the professionals whatever they need to get the money into the system as efficiently as possible. Yes, these are many of the same creeps and criminals that brought the system down the first time. But think about it: who else would you have doing the job, the government? A postal worker? A second lieutenant from the Marines? In times of crises, you don't bring in neophytes. You bring in professionals who know how to get the job done -- and know you're watching their every move.

So the first chunk of money has to go to the guys whose job it is to get the money out there. And that's why the banks are getting $385 billion (at last count).

Of course, that doesn't stop the malcontents from crying about the auto industry. Why should they be rescued? Also a simple answer: Cars require a whole bunch of people and equipment to make the business go.

Think about just one part of your car: the lowly seat belt. A factory has to weave the belt material. Someone has to design the strap, and sample the various weave patterns which they then have to test for strength. They have to import raw materials. Someone has to select the proper fibers and then submit it for safety testing. A different company has to design the buckle, complete with blueprints. They not only have to import raw materials, they have to fabricate the machinery for production to press the metal components for the buckle. that buckle gets tested, too. Someone has to pay the labor to attach the buckles to the straps. Someone has to inspect the assembly. Someone has to clean the parts and pack the proper number of proper lengths of belts into the proper shipping containers, while someone else has to make sure the shipment is forwarded to the proper place at the proper time. And so on.

And this is just for the friggin' seat belt. The same thing happens for gas pedals, door locks, side mirrors, shift knobs and everything else you can see -- and not see -- in and on the car you drive. Cars have thousands of components and assemblies, whose production is often contracted out to thousands of smaller businesses throughout the world that employ millions of people. There are paint manufacturers, lubricant suppliers, fasteners, coils and filter vendors. The list is almost as endless as the names of the employees on these companies' payrolls.
Virtually no other industry, at least to my knowledge, employs so many people in so many ways as does the auto industry. And I haven't even gotten to the aftermarket folks. Remember all those steering wheel covers and custom spinners with the sixteen inch rims? Well, small companies have to manufacture and assemble all the parts for those, too.

If you're going to prime the economy's pump, you've got to get the money out there fast, where it will do the most good. That means banks and cars.

And if you think I'm kidding, check the chart out for yourself. Look at the stock prices for Citibank, Bank of America and just about every other major financial survivor since the depth of the recession in February, 2009. Notice a pattern? Wake up, you whiners. Jump on the wagon and ride this one to the recovery. It's going to be here sooner than you think.

Sarah Palin is the new Billy Mays

The summer of 2009 is likely to be remembered as the Season of Celebrity Death. Even discounting the pervasiveness of new media, I can't recall a time in which so many died so quickly in so short a span of time. I need not list all the celebrities who went on to meet their maker. You already know who they are.

The most notable and over-exposed passing had to have been Michael Jackson, a sad and pathetic caricature whose talent was the only real thing we ever knew. The least announced and mourned was the death of Sarah Palin's career. While Jackson's demise was prolonged to include everything from an American Idol-style tribute show to a fairly tasteless promotion of his father's new record label, far less attention was devoted to the mystery that is Sarah Palin, specifically, why is she quitting -- and where does she go next?

I'm sure all the media talking heads will speculate as to the plans of the not-even-one-full-term governor of Alaska. In her rambling, somewhat incoherent resignation announcement, Palin herself gave no clue as to her plans. The news media "analysts" claim she has a shot at launching her own talk show, in the same manner as Governor Mike Huckabee has done on FOX. Others have put their money on speaking tours, insisting she has the ability to draw huge crowds and substantial speaking fees. Amazingly, there are still a few Republican hold-outs -- true Olympians of denial -- who continue to rearrange the deck chairs on Palin's Titanic and insist she will run for President in 2012.

The answer, at least in my opinion, is the proverbial "E. None of the above."

Palin has squandered what little political capital she ever had in a brilliant two step process. First, she tanked the McCain presidential campaign by violating Benjamin Franklin's sage advice, "Better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." In that race, Palin demonstrated how Americans can be charmed by charisma but not fooled by lack of intellect. From the very first pre-written lipstick joke, it was clear that Palin's talents were not the stuff of great statemanship.

Second, Americans will forgive just about anything: sex scandals, tax problems, you name it. What they won't forgive is a quitter, especially one who rants about not being a quitter while she's resigning from less than a full term in office. This is America. When the going gets tough, the tough get going -- but not out the back door. As far as Palin is concerned, the only thing she can run for is the midtown bus.

What, then, is left for Sarah to do? Those who hope to see her on the lecture circuit will be profoundly disappointed as she proves to be the political equivalent of Octo-Mom, likely with the same career half-life. People with short attention spans can only stand to hear the same one-note sonata springing from her lipstick hockey mom mouth for a certain amount of time.

And this is why the world needs more brand strategists. See, Palin has talents and attributes. They're just misplaced. She's engaging, fun -- and perfectly shallow. In the right circumstances, she actually could be a mega-star. It's just that politics is the way wrong theater. The right place, however, has been providentially carved out for her and laid at her feet:

Sarah Palin should be the next Billy Mays.

You think I'm kidding? I've been taunted for less, you know. But if you add it all up, it makes perfect sense. Sarah Palin could never sell Americans on health care or tax reform, but I guarantee you she could move boatloads of Pocket Fisherman or Mighty Putty. She's likeable enough to be a guest on a talk show, but doesn't have the chops to last longer as a host of a talk show. Regrettable as it is, the death of Billy Mays leaves a vacuum to be filled: a likeable, fun, get-in-and-out-in-60-seconds pitchman whose primary connection is with the primary telejunk-purchasers that are the heart and soul of QVC and HSN: housewives and working moms.

There's lots of doubt in my mind about Palin's ability to sell foreign policy, but none whatsoever about her ability to sell wrinkle remover and gun polish. In fact, there's nothing in the combined QVC and HSN inventory that Palin couldn't charm out of the wallets of an unsuspecting American public.

Where I come from, you leverage your strengths and mitigate the weaknesses. Sarah, if you're listening, there's a truckload of vegetable slicers with your name on it.

Beheading General Motors

Now that the other shoe has dropped, the world continues to speculate about the prospects of General Motors, the recently crashed-and-severely-burned mega-enterprise that was once considered "too big to fail." Pundits on the right claim the government has no business being in business. Liberals on the left cry that the government isn't doing enough. Unfortunately, both sides are way off course, not even close to where the real problems are.

The problem with General Motors isn't down on the factory floor. It's not even in their operations or dealerships or research & development. In fact, those guys are doing pretty well. The real problem with GM is right up there, on the top floor of their executive offices, where the empty suits are destined to repeat the very same mistakes that got them into this mess.

Think I'm kidding? Watch this:

More of the same old, tired promises we've always heard from the American car industry. More hot air from the tailpipes of the Deutsch Agency, GM's tried-and-failed advertising vendor who believed tagging Saturn as "a different kid of car company" actually meant something. Of course it didn't. Saturn has failed, too. But failure never seemed to matter to the brass at GM. In fact, reality never seemed to matter to the brass at GM. If it did, they'd be doing things a whole lot differently than in the past.

The first thing they'd do is shut the hell up. Brands rely on trust, clarity and credibility. If your brand promises something, you've got to deliver on it. If you don't deliver on those promises, your brand's credibility is crushed like a '62 Corvair in the wrecking yard. General Motors has been failing on the bulk of its promises for decades now. The last thing anyone wants to hear are more "feel-good" messages from guys with a bad delivery track record.

If GM were smart, they'd just go quiet. Stop all the talking and let the public wonder what they really are up to. In fact, if they could just shut the bullshit valve for a month or two, people would start wondering what the hell really is going on over at GM. They'd stop rejecting GM precisely because the bullshit stream had stopped flowing.

If we could just get GM to shut the hell up, all that quiet could generate industry buzz about the delivery of goods GM has teased us about. The folks over at Apple are masters of this, publicizing nothing other than an appearance at some consumer electronics event where they "plan to make a big announcement." For months prior to the event, nerds and geeks keep the internet buzzing with speculation and theory -- and they do that for free.

Then GM should just deliver the Volt. No amount of masturbatory media can compare to simply delivering the goods. Just rolling out the proof of what they've promised would turn people into believers.

Why isn't GM doing that? Why not stay silent and maybe drive a prototype Volt down Sixth Avenue in Manhattan, allowing just enough time for some yutz to capture it on his cell phone and post it to the web?

I'll tell you why: Because the boys in the penthouse, despite having the heads handed to them on Capitol Hill, still have those heads firmly buried in the corporate sand. What the government -- and just about everyone else -- doesn't realize is that General Motors doesn't understanding branding at all. Want more proof?

In the 1960's, the Pontiac brand was roughly 92% testosterone. If the brand were any more masculine, the cars would have had hair on them. Across America, young, virile men roared down the highway in GTO's, Firebirds, Bonnevilles and Trans-Ams. Rock bands composed odes to their Pontiacs. Top 40 hits like Little GTO were played at parties and dances at every high school, college and beach. Ever watch Burt Reynolds in Smokey and the Bandit? Yup. That's a sleek, shiny black Pontiac TransAm, baby, built to kick the ass of any southern sheriff stupid enough to chase it.

Of course, that's the TransAm from the 1970's.

By the 1980's, the geniuses in GM's penthouse decided that the Pontiac brand was too strong to die, and began replacing their macho machines with smaller, foreign gas-powered roller skates that never had a chance of delivering on the brand's original promise. All over the country, people were disappointed to be getting Perez Hilton when they'd been expecting Burt Reynolds.

Yuck.

I really hope General Motors succeeds. I'm convinced that the country does, too. But it's not going to happen by firing workers -- unless the workers you're talking about are the boys up in the penthouse.