Companies expend a great deal of time and money protecting their brand in the public, but for many companies it is their internal behaviours that are the most dangerous. How new staff are greeted, and existing staff let go, have multitudes of impact on the perception of the brand.
A recent example is, of course, the automotive industry in Ontario. The lay-offs abound and some brand damage has been delivered to General Motors and Ford, among others. The important thing here is these companies put effort into minimizing the public effects of the lay-offs as best they can with great buy-out packages, paid new training for laid-off workers, minimizing impact through attrition and negotiating support with the government.
A disgruntled laid-off or dismissed employee has a huge impact on the brand. They all have families that are part of the experience, feeling the anger, humiliation and fear right along with the worker. And all those family members have extended families and friends that hear about the issues. All told, one worker can impact the brand attitude with over 50 people.
Companies in the financial services industry have varying levels of attention to how they treat workers. Many of these companies in Canada are out-sourcing support departments. (The financial services industry in the U.S. is just another story all together) How these out-sourcings are handled impacts the brand.
A positive example is Sun Life Financial. They undertook to save costs against their budget by outsourcing their cafeteria, fitness staff and print departments. There was fear among the employees as the negotiations took place, but Sun Life Financial minimized the impact with regular communication and assurances of protection for existing employees. When the outsourcing was implemented, the staff in each department were offered the opportunity to stay, have benefits and keep their seniority.
A not so great example is the out-sourcing of the mail room at Aviva Canada. The staff were informed of the negotiations last November and were promised protection. Suddenly just before Labour Day, a meeting of the mail room staff was called and they were all informed the department had been outsourced and their jobs at Aviva Canada would end in four days. So much for even an act of courtesy like two-weeks notice. Sure, they gave them a buy-out package including the two-weeks in lieu of notice (required by law), but these people were suddenly out of work - after understanding they would be protected. The next day, the outsourcing company, Pitney Bowes, arrived and offered the staff their jobs back, but at $10,000 a year less, with no seniority, no accumulated holidays and a three-month probation period. And they had one-day to decide if they would commit to this new job.
Aviva Canada was most pointed in informing the mail room staff that they would now be considered outside employees and would be treated as such if they should apply for a job with Aviva in the future. This after some of the staff had been with the company for nine years.
Now a couple of nasty brand things happened here. Aviva Canada's brand got nailed as being untrustworthy, secretive and uncaring. Pitney Bowes gets nailed as being cheap, uncaring and advantage-takers. It's not about the money and the 30% cut in pay most of the workers experienced, it is about decency and dignity. Giving these people only one day to decide if their future was tied to an advantage-taking company or tied to unemployment in a potential recession, fear would certainly win out. Perhaps this is good business strategy - trained workers at 30% lower cost - but it isn't even close to good brand strategy.
And if these companies think for one moment that the staff of the mail room didn't share their experience with their families, they are not thinking clearly. And what the family members do with the information - well, the company has no control over that.
Next week - be careful how you say hello. Yet another brand damaging experience.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Saturday, September 20, 2008
The cost of creative - in dollars & sense
Great marketing is driven by great creative - the words and pictures that engage the consumer. It evokes emotion, whether good or bad. And emotion is the key driver in 90% of purchases in our modern times.
Before the 1970s, features and benefits helped the customer make the buying decision. Now the decision is based on how they feel about the product or service. Does it make them feel good? Is it easy to see "What's in it for me?"
Creative that doesn't engage the consumer or, heaven forbid, causes a negative reaction is, at best, a waste of time and money and at worst, damages the relationship between the company and their customer.
Great creative isn't cheap. It's a rare thing when the perfect creative answer happens in the first hour of work. But don't be fooled that you need to pay $250/hour or more for creative that really works for your customer.
Quick case in point - Microsoft (you knew I was going to there). The Jerry Seinfeld/Bill Gates partnership on what was supposed to be Microsoft's venture into being "cool" is a fiasco. And certainly didn't come cheap. Why would they even try to be cool? Well, because Apple looks cool, sounds cool and is slowly chipping away at the PC world. But Apple is cool without obviously trying. Microsoft is rather like your great uncle who wears plaid pants and sock with his sandels. You can give your uncle a great, funky haircut and new clothes - but he'll never be cool. He doesn't talk cool or walk cool.
Somewhere along the way, the creative team on the Microsoft fiasco forgot that the success of Seinfeld, the show, was based on the interaction of the characters not on the simple presence of Jerry Seinfeld. It was an ensemble success. If you change one element, it no longer has the appeal. Seinfeld himself was never the key element. He was simply the glue that held it all together. And worse news, Seinfeld is old news.
I have the utmost respect for Bill Gates, his philanthropic work and how he has taken Microsoft to the edges of world domination. But I simply have no respect for the idea that Bill Gates can act or even look comfortable on screen.
Big lesson here? Don't try to be something you're not, even if the highly paid creative team thinks they are on to a new direction. Use common sense. And no matter how you look at it, $10 million for an "old news" performer to kibbutz about everything except the product is bad, bad, bad.
But fortunately for Microsoft, all the brew-ha-ha over the Seinfeld fiasco allowed their Mojave Experiment campaign to basically fly under the radar. Whose brainchild is this? The creative team obviously recognized that Windows Vista is a behemoth of negativity. But trying to disguise it as a new operating system called Mojave is just emphasizing how really negatively consumers feel. If Microsoft accepts the consumer view that Vista is the devil in disguise, then seriously make headway in changing the consumer attitude. And not through an ill-conceived television campaign. Deal with the issues that make consumers angry. Deal with the megalomaniacal behaviour that made the decision to design Vista so you have to spend a ton of money replacing your older programs with new versions that work with Vista. And how about more testing before release so you don't fry people's brains with ridiculous errors and constant updates to the product? If you bought a refrigerator and then discovered you had to re-wire your house to use it and it only remembers how to stay cold with constant adjustment - well, you'd just return it and probably not buying anything from that company again. This concept isn't rocket science.
And contrary to what Apple would have you believe, their operating system is not without its own bugs. They may not have the blue screen of death, but they have the ever spinning wheel which, if you watch it long enough, probably hypnotizes you into believing they are a direct descent of the gods.
Enough with trashing poor, poor Microsoft. (Although if you folks at Microsoft can hear me, maybe next time hired folks who are a little less "cutting edge" and a little more "common sense")
To bring it all back into the world of small business, your creative should engage your customer in a positive way. Keep it neat and tidy (no over-designed grunge please). Catch their eye and give them a reason to spend a minute with your message. Don't embellish (you'll get caught), don't lie (you'll get fined), and don't think that amateur creative doesn't damage your brand. It does.
Before the 1970s, features and benefits helped the customer make the buying decision. Now the decision is based on how they feel about the product or service. Does it make them feel good? Is it easy to see "What's in it for me?"
Creative that doesn't engage the consumer or, heaven forbid, causes a negative reaction is, at best, a waste of time and money and at worst, damages the relationship between the company and their customer.
Great creative isn't cheap. It's a rare thing when the perfect creative answer happens in the first hour of work. But don't be fooled that you need to pay $250/hour or more for creative that really works for your customer.
Quick case in point - Microsoft (you knew I was going to there). The Jerry Seinfeld/Bill Gates partnership on what was supposed to be Microsoft's venture into being "cool" is a fiasco. And certainly didn't come cheap. Why would they even try to be cool? Well, because Apple looks cool, sounds cool and is slowly chipping away at the PC world. But Apple is cool without obviously trying. Microsoft is rather like your great uncle who wears plaid pants and sock with his sandels. You can give your uncle a great, funky haircut and new clothes - but he'll never be cool. He doesn't talk cool or walk cool.
Somewhere along the way, the creative team on the Microsoft fiasco forgot that the success of Seinfeld, the show, was based on the interaction of the characters not on the simple presence of Jerry Seinfeld. It was an ensemble success. If you change one element, it no longer has the appeal. Seinfeld himself was never the key element. He was simply the glue that held it all together. And worse news, Seinfeld is old news.
I have the utmost respect for Bill Gates, his philanthropic work and how he has taken Microsoft to the edges of world domination. But I simply have no respect for the idea that Bill Gates can act or even look comfortable on screen.
Big lesson here? Don't try to be something you're not, even if the highly paid creative team thinks they are on to a new direction. Use common sense. And no matter how you look at it, $10 million for an "old news" performer to kibbutz about everything except the product is bad, bad, bad.
But fortunately for Microsoft, all the brew-ha-ha over the Seinfeld fiasco allowed their Mojave Experiment campaign to basically fly under the radar. Whose brainchild is this? The creative team obviously recognized that Windows Vista is a behemoth of negativity. But trying to disguise it as a new operating system called Mojave is just emphasizing how really negatively consumers feel. If Microsoft accepts the consumer view that Vista is the devil in disguise, then seriously make headway in changing the consumer attitude. And not through an ill-conceived television campaign. Deal with the issues that make consumers angry. Deal with the megalomaniacal behaviour that made the decision to design Vista so you have to spend a ton of money replacing your older programs with new versions that work with Vista. And how about more testing before release so you don't fry people's brains with ridiculous errors and constant updates to the product? If you bought a refrigerator and then discovered you had to re-wire your house to use it and it only remembers how to stay cold with constant adjustment - well, you'd just return it and probably not buying anything from that company again. This concept isn't rocket science.
And contrary to what Apple would have you believe, their operating system is not without its own bugs. They may not have the blue screen of death, but they have the ever spinning wheel which, if you watch it long enough, probably hypnotizes you into believing they are a direct descent of the gods.
Enough with trashing poor, poor Microsoft. (Although if you folks at Microsoft can hear me, maybe next time hired folks who are a little less "cutting edge" and a little more "common sense")
To bring it all back into the world of small business, your creative should engage your customer in a positive way. Keep it neat and tidy (no over-designed grunge please). Catch their eye and give them a reason to spend a minute with your message. Don't embellish (you'll get caught), don't lie (you'll get fined), and don't think that amateur creative doesn't damage your brand. It does.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
