Brand Architecture Of Identity - A Disciplined Methodology For Success

At Story Of Eight Forces That Can Make Or Break A Brand

By David Miranda

I learned many years ago that the old adage, "You can't teach an old dog new tricks" is not true. I had the pleasure some time ago to meet my friend, Bill Ryan, the founder of Mandala, a San-Francisco-based consulting firm. He is a fascinating individual whose bio, among other things, includes a stint as a teacher of Transcendental Meditation trained by the Maharashi Yogi, himself. Bill moved on to the business world and was a major architect in developing the Yahoo! brand. Bill believes that each company has a story to tell, but it must first follow vision and strategy. (I highly recommend anyone contact Bill for his unique perspectives and invaluable guidance of "getting your story right".)

As a brand marketer, I was curious about the techniques and methodology he employed. He shared with me what he calls, The Architecture of Identity (A of I). He taught this old dog "some new tricks". The A of I, a mandala of which was created by Bill's Mandala is included here, is a unique way to develop and nurture a brand. It is premised on the notion that a brand is the result of two dimensions of eight forces. The first dimension includes the three core forces - vision, positioning, and voice. This dimension can best be described as "How the brand is seen from the inside of the enterprise" by its internal stakeholders from grassroots to the boardroom.
The second dimension includes the five marketplace, or external forces including market relevance, product/service superiority, ecosystem integration, management and culture, and finally sustainability. In simple terms, this is how the marketplace perceives the brand.

The Architecture Of Identity is a discipline to ensure that these two dimensions are in sync and, if they are, provides the greatest opportunities for success. So with proper credit to my friend, Mr. Ryan, the following summarizes the Architecture Of Identity.

Core Forces - How The Brand Is Perceived Internally

Vision – This is the brand's unique reason for existing – the core insights responsible for the brand's creation combined with new sparks of genius that continue driving it forward. Vision should be heroic, but simple. The vision statement for The Coca-Cola Company, for example, is "To have our products available within an arm's length of desire."

Positioning – The optimum desired brand position, both in people's minds and in the competitive landscape, that provides the best opportunity for success. As in racing, competitors continually vie for positions at the start and during the race that give them the best chances for winning. For brands, as in racing, people pay attention to the front runners. It should be noted that a brand should not confuse size (revenue, number of locations, etc) with brand positioning. The largest brands, for example, are not necessarily the most innovative or the most consumer-centric. Southwest Airlines is not the largest airline, but it is perceived by air travelers as having the best customer service by U.S. air travelers. Apple is not the largest technology company, but it is considered the most innovative brand.

Voice – The brand's personality, i.e., the attributes it desires to project in the marketplace. This is what marketers most often refer to as “brand attributes.” This is not just "what a brand says"; it is also "how a brand says it." Brands are like people. Each has its own unique personality traits. Think of Nike (Just Do It!); Gatorade (Is It In You?); MasterCard (There Are Some Things Money Can't Buy); and BMW (The Ultimate Driving Machine). These tag lines are synonymous with the personality of their brands. Now name their major competitors and their respective tag lines.

Marketplace Forces - How The Brand Is Perceived Externally (In The Marketplace)

Market Relevance – the market’s actual acknowledgement and recognition of the brand versus what was intended by the brand (vision, positioning, voice). Once a brand has lost its perceived relevance in the marketplace, it is all but impossible to regain it. The examples are many. Perrier was once the leading bottled water sold in the U.S. Pontiac and Taurus are being retired. Remember PanAm, TWA, and Atari?

Product/Service Superiority – the criteria for evaluation of the brand, e.g., leading in quality, performance, functionality, innovation, expertise, etc. In the marketplace, the advantage lies with those brands who consistently demonstrate their leadership in providing the best price/value; are the most innovative; and demonstrate their expertise supporting their brands with consumers and partners. To be perceived the best creates considerable and expensive barriers-to-entry for potential insurgents.

Ecosystem Integration – how the brand integrates into the marketplace with consumers, with partners, with distribution channels, with technology platforms, and with media channels. Successful brands must take a holistic view of the landscape. A leading brand, for example, is worthless if does not have distribution and "shelf space". A leading brand cannot achieve its potential if it does not extend itself to emerging media channels and technology platforms.

Management and Culture – the perception of the brand's leadership, innovation, competency, credibility, values, and integrity. Take Apple, for example. Apple was the creation of Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak. Mr. Jobs, considered the company's visionary and creator of the brand's unique culture, was forced out of the company he founded. Without his leadership, Apple floundered. His return has marked one of the great turnarounds in American business. The iPod has created a business and pop culture phenonmenon that has changed, forever, how people consume music. Apple stock has soared since his return.

Sustainability – the brand's ability to successfully compete in spite of strong competition, economic conditions, or other potentially disruptive conditions. The ability to persevere and succeed is the characteristic of a strong brand. New insurgents are entering the marketplace every day threatening incumbents. Incumbents must agressively deal with these insurgents or risk becoming irrelevant. Microsoft, for example, was slow to respond to Google and Yahoo. AOL was slow to respond to MySpace and Facebook. Large media and entertainment companies were slow to respond to iPod and YouTube. Sustainability of brands demands proactively dealing with opportunities and threats of insurgents.

In summary, this is a dynamic process that requires relentless oversight in order to make adjustments as required by market conditions. What is your brand's story? If you need help, contact Bill.

Thank you, Bill, for sharing your story with me.

Mandala and Architecture Of Identity are used by permission of Mandala-VSS.

Dealing With WMC (Weapons Of Mass Connection)

Recognition of Why And How Companies Need To Be Prepared For The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly

By David Miranda

Consumers (and employees) are armed today with powerful WMCs (weapons of mass connection) - blogs, digital cameras, picture phones, chat rooms, cell phones, and user-and generated-content sites are just a few of many ways that people can utilize to instantly unleash the power of the connected world. The recent examples of the power are many. Here's a couple.

Michael Richards, better known as "Kramer" on the hit TV show, Seinfeld, was caught on a camera phone during a gig at LA's Laugh Factory where, in response to hecklers, he spewed racial epithets like a mad man. (See Kramer video) Almost instantanously, the clip was released on the Internet to millions of consumers. Mr. Richards is in crisis mode to save his career. Sen. George Allen (R-VA) who was not only considered a shoe-in for re-election and a possible Presidential candidate for 2008, was narrowly defeated, in part due, to a video clip, released on YouTube, chronicling his denigration of a competitor's campaign worker called the "macaca" incident. (See George Allen video)

But it's not just those in politics or entertainment that are vulnerable. Companies and brands risk the same exposure. Take a recently-released Bank Of America video of an internal marketing event. Many user-generated-content sites hosted this clip viewed by millions generating thousands of comments, mostly expressing disdain. When the exposure is favorable, all is good; but when it is not, it can be bad, in fact, ugly. Are businesses prepared for the negative implications?

Let's face it. There's nothing new here. Internal stuff has always been fodder for the break room or water cooler and, more often than not, is shared with outside third parties - whether it be for harmless fun or for airing dirty laundry. The difference today is that it happens instantaneously and virally. Sanctioned and unsanctioned internal company events or communications, therefore, should be looked at from the perspective: "How will this play on YouTube?, on blogs? in chat rooms?

Top executives must be prepared for dealing proactively with the world beyond the auspices of the Ivory Tower. New policies must be developed. Awareness must be raised at every level of the company - from the cubicles to the grass roots. Rapid response mechanisms must be devised to determine the appropriate course of action.

Weapons of mass connection: A new caveat emptor for businesses.

The Apartheid Of Marketing In Business

Why Do We Continue To Segregate Marketing In Business?

By David Miranda

No, this is not about race, ethnicity, religion, sexual preference or gender. It is about the marketing discipline. The American Heritage Dictionary defines apartheid as "the condition of being separated from others". It is high time that marketing was formally integrated into and across all disciplines within an enterprise.

We have all been exposed to marketing that sets high expectations for a brand, more often than not, disappointed with the actual experience. We see smiling friendly faces in ads, but experience people who have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed. We hear promises of friendly, prompt, and courteous service, only to call and hear recordings on how long the wait time is. We find out that brand promises are not promises at all, just marketing speak. Fast food isn't fast at all. Express aisles are not express. Query calls and emails are not responded to promptly. Too often, businesses hide behind too many "I'm sorrys", as in, "I'm sorry for the wait", "I'm sorry I'm not here to take your call", or "I'm sorry for the delay in getting back to you." But they want to remind you the care with "Your business is very important to us". Sure.

One might call this bad management or poor execution. The fact is that these are all examples of poor marketing. Yes, poor marketing. One cannot make a sale if consumers are dissatisfied with how they are treated by the brand. Consumers do not make a distinction that it was operations or accounting or the IT department.

This problem occurs countless times every day and will continue to occur until the enterprise eliminates the apartheid in the corporate structure. Marketing must be integrated throughout the culture of the enterprise.

Here are the arguments:

• Everything inside a company is a cost. All sales are generated outside the company. In order to get someone to buy something, you first must get someone to want it. That's what marketing does and everyone in the company should understand and embrace this basic tenet from the CEO to those on the front line and everyone in between. A marketing-savvy culture creates a strategic competitive advantage.


• Everyone in the enterprise is a marketing ambassador for the enterprise each with his or her own social network. Each represents a source of marketing intelligence, sales leads, engagement, suggestions, etc. Positive or negative word-of-mouth.


• Everyone in the company, not just the marketing department, has a vested interest in being "keepers of the brand". Since everything in marketing communicates, everyone in the company should be disciplined to respect the integrity of the brand - in their demeanor, daily communications, and interactions with each other and with third parties.

In summary, stamp out marketing apartheid and make a committment to integrate marketing to everyone in the company.

It has top and bottom line benefits.

Marketing Today - Chess, Not Checkers

Same Game Board, Different Game

By David Miranda

The marketing game used to played like checkers - a high stakes game of checkers. In checkers, the rules of the game are simple and easy to understand. You make a move. Your competition counters. Good moves capture business. Bad moves lose business. Whoever has the most business at the end of the day (or fiscal period), wins. This, simply put, is how the game of marketing was played. Make the right moves and to the victor belongs the spoils.

In the traditional marketing model - the checkers model - the game was simple and easy to understand. If marketers "moved" to reach consumers, they could rely on mass marketing such as television, radio, newspapers, and magazines, for example, to market new products and services, brands, etc. In doing so, they could be confident that their campaign would reach the desired audience. Of course, competitors would counter with their own moves.

Today, marketing, like checkers, is played on the same game board, except the game has changed. The game is chess, three-dimensional chess. Now there are more and newer playing pieces each with more complexity than the simple checker - search, social networking, mobile, user-generated content, e-mail, digital display, etc. The dynamics and unique characteristics of the pieces require a more strategic approach that dictates a winning game plan. Why? The "moves" to reach customers via traditional media no longer deliver as they once did.

It is imperative, today, that marketers understand the new game including all the new "pieces" that are being introduced to the game. Understanding today's marketing chess game will allow a marketer to keep the competition "in check" to ultimately win in the marketplace.

It's your move!

Using Mr. Rogers To Help People "Get With The Program"

The Innovation Adoption Curve And Your Organization

By David Miranda

We all know about the Innovation Adoption Curve developed by E.M. Rogers. His "Diffusion Of Innovations Theory", has permeated strategic thought and planning since its introduction creating various permutations such as Malcolm Gladwell's best seller, "The Tipping Point". The basic premise, of course, is that in the population there are five adopter categories: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. Although the theory is meant to describe consumers, it can also be used to describe people with an organization with respect to their willingness to embrace change. Applying the Rogers curve to your organization can provide management insights than can help people within the organization "get with the program" based on their position on the curve.

• The innovators are the first to embrace change, representing 2.5% of the organization. Innovators are considered to be venturesome people willing to take risks. These are the people you need to get on board from the outset.


• Early adopters, who enjoy leadership, prestige, and who tend to be opinion leaders, represent 13.5% of the organization. These are the people who "evangelize" innovation and enjoy their role in doing so reinforcing their leadership role.


• The early majority usually embrace change before the average person and they represent 34% of the organization. This group creates the needed momentum and critical mass for success.


• The late majority also represents 34% of the organization. This group of people is usually skeptical of change and will embrace it only after a majority has. This group generally requires more time and effort as they take a "wait and see" attitude.


• The laggards represent 16% of the organization and are the last to come on board. They are usually suspicious of change, tradition bound, and conservative. Some of this group will never accept new ways of doing things. The status quo has a strong gravitation influence on them.

The point here is not to stereotype people within the organization. Rather it is a tool to understand the underlying dynamics that effect an organization and its desire to impart innovation and change.

So let Mr. Rogers help people "get with the program".

Marketing Jeopardy - The Right Answer Is Asking The Right Question

Success In The New Marketing Landscape Is No Game

By David Miranda

Alex Trebek: "The Marketing Jeopardy categories are: Revenue, Market Share, Profits, Competitive Advantage, and RMOI (Return On Marketing Investment)."
Marketing Contestant: "Alex, I'll take 'RMOI" for $30 million."
Alex Trebek: "The answer is '30-sec spot' ".
Marketing Contestant: "What is advertising that is costing more but delivering less?"
Alex Trebek: "Correct. I could have also accepted newspaper ads, magazine ads, radio, and outdoor."

Every day this game of marketing jeopardy is being played out by marketers. They employ and deploy a mix of media solutions only to find the campaign has cost more but delivered less. Buy why? Simply put, the answer lie with today's consumer media consumption behavior. Today, the consumer dictates the when, where, and how media is consumed. Aided by the Internet, DVR's, and mobile, for example, consumers can now consume media on their terms, no longer, beholden to the programming of traditional content publishers and distributors. Consumers are driven by the four C's - context, content, convergence, and convenience.

Context refers to the relevance of information to the consumer based on their individual tastes and preferences, e.g lifestyle profile. Content refers to quality and quantity of the programming regardless whether it was created from traditional sources or other consumers, better known as user-generated content, e.g YouTube. Convergence refers to the blurring of lines between television, the personal computer, and mobile. Consumers expect and demand the ability to enjoy content on the channel of their choice. Convenience refers to the K.I.S.S. principle. Consumers will gravitate to simplicity, also known as user-friendliness.

The Final Jeopardy answer is change. The question is "What is the most important challenge for engaging consumers in today's dynamic marketing landscape?"

Today's Marketing - Engaging Or Annoying The Consumer?

Cutting Through The Noise And Clutter With More Noise and Clutter

By David Miranda

The cartoon character Pogo said, "We have seen the enemy and it is us."

Most marketers, or their agencies, suggest that marketing success is the ability to "cut through the noise and clutter" that plagues the marketplace by engaging the consumer with a compelling brand message. To communicate this compelling brand message they then contribute to the ubiquitious noise and clutter. For consumers there appears no refuge from the barrage.

Television programming is rife with commercials. Terrestial radio is comprised of ads interrupted by programming. In print, journalistic content is losing ground to advertising. Mailboxes, both traditional and digital, are filled with unsolicited solicitations. Web pages are framed with online ads including the dreaded pop-up or ambush varieties. Out-of-home ads are pervasive - highways, trains, buses, airports, malls, sports venues, washrooms, and elevators. The mobile phone, blogs, and social networking sites represent new media targeted for ad dollars.

What's the result? Believe it or not, the consumer is harder-to-reach than ever, according to marketers. Consumers have retaliated to the onslaught with do-not-call lists, TIVO, spam filters, and ad blockers, and the like. They have immunized themselves from noise and clutter that surrounds them.

Is there a solution for marketers? Yes, how about starting by employing the marketing Golden Rule, i.e. market unto others as you would have them market unto you." A brand cannot successfully engage a consumer by annoying them, just like an individual cannot engage another by seemingly stalking them. In the latter example, the result will be unanswered calls or communication or in extreme cases, restraining orders, the equivalent of a do-not-call list.

Stamp out noise and clutter, engage.