The "Envelope", The "Box" And Other Fictitious Boundaries Of Human Thought

Why Do We Relentessly Use Restrictive Metaphors To Explain Creativity?

By David Miranda

I am a big fan of the human race, particularly those members whose creativity have changed and shaped the lives of the rest of us in so many different and diverse areas - the arts, science, medicine, architecture, transportation, human rights, technology, and, yes, business.

The names of these people, past and present, are too many to list here, but they all have one thing in common - they were creative thinkers who had to battle the inertia and resistance of their ideas from those whose comfort zone was the status quo. History continues to repeat itself although we always hear rhetoric to the contrary.

I have attended countless marketing meetings, conferences and seminars where marketing executives and gurus have encouraged the attendees to "think outside the box" or "push the envelope" to create products and services that provide a strategic competitive advantage for their firms or clients.

What is this "box" or "envelope"? Simply stated, it is the sacred cow - the status quo. Here lies the hypocrisy. Encourage new thinking but hang on tightly to the way we currently do things.

In any successful enterprise today, there should be no status quo, no comfort zone. The status quo is a terminal illness if left untreated. Relentless innovation is the answer. Innovate or die.

Need some examples? Local newspapers, passenger trains, typewriters, vinyl records, barber shops, milkmen, travel agencies, local bookstores, mom and pop hardware stores, door-to-door sales, dial-up Internet services, etc. etc. etc. All represent businesses that clung to the status quo too long to save themselves.

Ladies and gentlemen, there is no "box" or "envelope". That's why they call it "thinking". So don't think outside "this" or try to "push" beyond "that". Just think and you'll find better solutions than those who play in "boxes".

The Marketing "Tango" - Good Dancers Make Their Partner Look Good

The Difference Between Seller-Centric And Buyer-Centric Marketing

By David Miranda

In order to for someone to buy something, they first have to want it. That's what marketing does - getting someone to want what you are selling. That said, why do marketers continue to get it wrong more often than not? They are seller-centric rather than buyer-centric.

Here's a recent example.

I was invited to attend a series of marketing presentations by a company that had put out an RFP (Request For Proposal) to a short list of five ad agencies. Each was given 30 minutes to present their case for getting the business. Only one agency had it right.

Four of the agencies took most of their allotted 30 minutes talking about themselves, i.e. "we've been in business for X number of years"; "this is a list of our clients"; "these are samples of some of our work", "this is how we work" etc. etc. etc. What each of these firms failed to understand is that the company wanted to hire an agency that helped them sell stuff, i.e. "enough about yourself, what are you going to do for me?" Their presentations were "seller-centric" not "buyer-centric".

The successful agency spent the majority of its time talking about the company and communicating how and why hiring them would help them "sell more stuff". This agency was buyer-centric. Buyer-centric means putting yourself in the shoes of the buyer. Buyers don't care about you, they care about themselves and whether you can help them achieve their own objectives - plain and simple. If you think that an impressive presentation of your credentials will do it, you are dead wrong. Your credentials may have gotten you "an invitation to the dance", but when the music starts, it's time to dance not just telling people you are a good dancer.

When the music started, the four unsuccessful agencies sat this one out.

Remember it's not about you. It's takes two to do the marketing "tango". Let the client lead.

Marketers Are The Investment Bankers Of Brands

Is Your Brand Gaining Or Decreasing In Value?

By David Miranda

You have no doubt heard the term, R.O.M.I (Return On Marketing Investment). It is the critical metric on the success of a brand's marketing investment. Just like an investment banker's success is measured on the increased value of investment portfolios, a marketer is responsible for increasing brand value for the company. The CMO of a company is really a CMIO (Chief Marketing Investment Officer).

For the past six years, for example, BusinessWeek and global brand consultancy, Interbrand have produced its annual rankings on the most valuable brands in the world. The report identifies the top 100 global brands that have managed to create and sustain strong performance in today’s competitive market. (The Top Ten Global Brands are shown in the chart above) Brand values were determined using the method Interbrand pioneered nearly 20 years ago and has since used to value more than 4,000 brands. Brand value is calculated as the net present value of the earnings the brand is expected to generate and secure in the future for the time frame from July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006.

BusinessWeek 2006 Best Global Brands Highlights

Turnaround Performances: After year over year decline from 2000 to 2004, Nokia (#6) has regained its leadership position in the mobile telecom industry with growth in both the high and low ends of the market. Nokia’s scale has always made it competitive in the rapidly growing low priced segment, but a resurgence in design and a concentration on desirable features has meant that Nokia is now able to maintain its average selling price and reinvigorate its brand image with the high end consumer. Likewise, Motorola (#69) has historically struggled in the high end of the market…until the Razr. A hero product, it has in recent years helped the brand maintain its solid number two position in the category.

Top Gainers: The top gainer with a brand value increase of 46%, Google (#24) creates growth under with the strategy of "do no evil" positioning itself at the opposite end of the spectrum from the more corporate Microsoft. Overall growth of Internet commerce has perpetuated consumers’ acceptance of purchasing goods and services online enabling eBay (#47) to skyrocket in value up 18% and the third highest gainer this year. In the second spot with a value increase of 20%, Starbucks (#91) has found financial success by leveraging the brand with a premium fast food and extending its product offering into music and publishing.

Top Decliners: The growth of mass retailers has taken market share from traditional apparel brands such as Gap (#52). Losing the most brand value with a decline of -22%, Gap has been unable to clarify its brand image and with a less distinct positioning the brand has been less effective at selling clothing causing reduced long-term stability. Ford (#30) continues to lose money on every car sold – and brand value year after year. Down -16% this year, Ford’s American heritage is an insufficient brand attribute to hold off growing competition from Japanese and German automakers. Down -12% this year, Kodak (#70) has made valiant strides to catch up with the digital world, however the reality is that competition is fierce and profitability is thin compared to Kodak’s film business and thus the brand’s value continues to decline.

In summary, it is important to understand that every marketing decision for a brand is an investment decision. Invest wisely.