By Bob Grant

The recent article by Michael Barbaro in the New York Times about hundreds of condo owners suing Donald Trump because they bought into the lie that Trump actually stood behind and owned some “Trump” properties that the condo owners purchased. In fact Trump merely licensed the use of his name and brand to sell these properties.

This is not at all unusual as many famous people license their name and identity to sell products. Need I say, “Buyer beware.”? While it is certainly the responsibility of the consumer to investigate whether or not there is a sincere and valid connection between the brand and the product, product manufacturers have a responsibility to offer honest branding.

Consumers need to be more knowledgeable about branding. Branding goes back to the days when cattle ranchers branded their cattle so that you could tell which cattle belonged to the “W” Ranch and which belonged to the “XY” Ranch.  If you bought  “W” Ranch beef, you could count on it that it came from the “W” Ranch.

This brings to mind the whole notion of good brands, and bad brands and how they can easily shift from bad to good or good to bad. Remember when Tiger Woods was a good brand? American Express, Buick, and the very game of golf wanted to be linked to Tiger Woods. Then a little mishap with the misses, and the Tiger Woods brand quickly turns into the “untouchable.”

By Bob Grant

Condominium complexes that promote themselves as being Trump properties, when they are such in name only, do a disservice to the consumers who buy them, the real estate investors, and Donald Trump himself. As news leaks out, and condo owners feel duped and bring suit, all of a sudden the Trump brand itself begins to be tarnished.

Good brands are developed and stay healthy when their unique evidence of distinction and the ability to deliver on their promises to the consumers who purchase their products supports them.  Brands are developed from within an organization, company, or even a person. It is the very essence and quality of that entity that creates its brand.  The Tiger Woods brand was a good brand, when Tiger was playing golf like no other golfer before him, and Donald Trump was a good brand when he first developed a real estate empire in New York. They have not been able to maintain their uniqueness since.

Companies and organizations are the same. They need to constantly be vigilant of their brands and protective of that brand so that they continue to serve consumers with honest and dependable services and products, and prevent their good brands from going bad.

By Bob Grant

Integrated marketing expert, Professor Don E. Schultz, in a recent article in Marketing Management magazine describes quite accurately the importance of the value of brand as an asset.  He points out that the value of the brand makes up 48% of Coca-Cola’s enterprise value and 37% of that of Google. However, the point of his article is that marketing and brand managers do not understand that relationship which makes it difficult for them to get the support of financial officers to back brand and marketing initiatives. From my experience it is just the opposite.

While I don’t doubt for a second that big brand companies like Coca-Cola, Google, IBM and Apple  senior financial management totally understand the value of brand and I imagine that they are in sync with their marketing and brand managers. However, in smaller and less brand visible companies, it is my experience that the marketing and brand managers understand the financial benefits of the company brand and struggle to convince the financial managers to support brand initiatives.

Mr. Schultz does point out that short-term fiscal year accounting systems work against support for long-term brand funding. This may be why financial managers of small to medium size companies find it difficult to justify expenditures on brand development.

I would be interested in hearing from others about who has the better understanding of the company’s brand value.  Is it the marketing and brand managers, or is it financial managers?

by Bob Grant

Facing poor sales in September, 2010 The Gap decided to make a logo change, as if an updated logo was going to turnaround slumping sales. The new logo immediately received negative reaction from customers, publications and independent bloggers. The Gap quickly reverted back to their old logo.

According to the April 8, issue of the NY Times, in March with Gap’s North American sales of same store sales down 9% The Gap recently announced a reassessment of its brand. According to John Seifert of Olgivy, the Gap, “sort of lost its story and lost its focus on what made it different and special.” Seth Farman, Gap’s chief global marketing officer, is reported to have said, the Gap “needs to set a clear point of view for the brand.”

It was at first surprising that a large corporation like the Gap would think that a logo change would change the brand of the company. Logos, being a visible representation of a company, are often thought of as the company brand. The very definition of a brand goes back to the wild west days when cattle ranchers “branded” their cattle so one ranch’s cattle could be differentiated from another ranch. Today, well established logos do connect us immediately to the company, think Nike, IBM, and Apple. However, the logo is just a recognizable reminder of the company it represents, but the true brand of a company is what the company itself represents in the minds of it customers, potential customers, and its employees.

Developing one’s brand is not an easy process. A company needs to evaluate who they are as a company and who they want to be as a company. It’s important to ask stakeholders and employees inside the company about their perceptions of the company. It is equally important to uncover what customers and potential customers think about the company and what the company is promising to them. Once the research is complete, how do you synthesize that research into brand messaging and positioning statements that will resonate with audiences inside the company and outside the company. Then comes the awesome task of turning that brand into reality by altering the way the company does business and getting everyone inside the company on board to back up the company’s new brand.

The Gap is on the right track and it will be interesting for us brand strategist and marketers to see how they will improve their brand and increase their sales.

According to a recent survey of senior marketing executives, 2010 CMO Survey, conducted by the Fugua School of Business at Duke University and the American Marketing Association, marketing budgets are expected to grow by 9.2% over the next year. Not surprisingly budgets for Internet marketing are expected to rise an average of 13.6% followed by brand building at 8.3% and CRM spending at 8.3%.  The survey notes that social media spending is expected to grow from 9.9% of total marketing budgets to 17.7% over the next five years.

As a brand consultant I am pleased to see the uptick on brand building. Since Internet marketing bandwidth and marketing opportunities are vast it will be important for companies to focus on their brand differentiation. Not only does a company need to deliver a strong message in its marketplace, the company also needs to be certain that the brand is backed up by company employees and executives who need to deliver on that brand promise.

The CMO survey noted that while CMO’s were optimistic about their own companies, they were less optimistic about the US economy. With worries about the economy, strong brands supported by strong brand advocates within the company will be even more important to compete in a shrinking economy.

I Very much enjoyed the event, “Combining SEO and Video to Drive Awareness and Lead Generation Online” sponsored by Business Wire.  The panel of experts provided facts, insights, advice, and predictions on the place of video in marketing communications.

The event opened with an eye-opening question, “How many in the room have looked at a video online in the past month?”  100% of attendees raised their hand.  We then viewed a video provided by David Meerman Scott, author of “The New Rules of Marketing and PR”, which showed the question being asked in Japan, London, Boston, and San Francisco with similar near 100% response.

Some take-aways for me from this event in no particular order were:

• Videos to record customer testimonials

• Videos in press releases get 500 times more responses than text

• Videos dramatically increase conversion rates on web pages

• Click through rates are 50% higher with video

• Videos help build awareness at the top of the sales funnel

• Videos help convert sales if used near the bottom of the sales funnel

o   Example: using a video to support a proposal may help close the sal

• How to video

• Videos for market research – interview customers

• Flip video phones – inexpensive and easy way to record video

• Use video in social media

• Use video on your blog

• Use video to generate a call to action

• Use video to show company’s social responsibility

·         Technology will make videos even more in demand – think I-Pad

·         Videos for employee empowerment

Thanks to the following for a very informative event:

Cliff Pollan, Tim Bradbury, Joe Chernov, Judy Gern, Dave Toole, and David Meerman Scott.

In today’s economy and competitive environment it is very important for industrial and manufacturing companies to be smart marketers. Companies need to understand what they are good at and why they are different that their competition. They need to look inside their company and see what makes them successful or not successful. They need to understand what their strengths are and why those strengths endear them to their customers and why those strengths are sought after by their prospects. We call this understanding your company brand. Your brand defines you. Your brand is the evidence of your distinction and the process of uncovering that brand is brand development.

Once that brand is defined and everyone in the company from the CEO to the janitor understands and has adopted that brand, then and only then can you begin to launch a successful marketing campaign.

In the next few weeks we are conducting a survey with industrial manufacturing companies to get an understanding of how they are marketing their products and company. You can view survey at

http://grantmarketing.com/survey2010/index.cfm  . Take the survey and see the results at the end of the survey and enter a drawing to win a $50 Amazon gift certificate.

It is time to revisit once again the value of brands as illustrated by the Tiger Woods brand.  While brand values have taken a hit this year as in General Motors,  Chrysler, Lehman Brothers and all the other brands hit by the recession, the Tiger Woods brand and endorsed brands gives us a view of how brand value is effected having  nothing to do with the economy.

According to Victor Stango and Christopher Knittel, economics professors at University of California Davis, shareholders of Woods major sponsors, such as Nike, Gatorade and AT&T have lost somewhere between $5-billion and $12-billion in market capitalization as a result of Tiger’s fallen image.  If we add this to the loss of revenue for the upcoming 2010 PGA golf tournaments that will certainly lose money because of Tiger Woods absence, how many more billions of dollars will be lost? We already learned from Woods absence from the 2008 tournaments from his knee surgery that viewership of these tournaments was down drastically.  How about the game of golf itself?  Golf courses and country clubs have already suffered due to the economy.  Will there be fewer aspiring Tiger Woods heading for the links this spring and summer?

The Tiger Woods brand issue should make CEO’s and CMO’s reevaluate their brand strengths and brand management and give high priority to brand strategy as part of their overall business strategy. We can now see how much brand can have a major impact on a company’s bottom line.

Earlier this year I wrote that the Tiger Woods brand is so strong that when he was out with knee surgery, major PGA golf tournaments had a significant drop in viewers. For example the Buick International was down 57%.  (see  http://tinyurl.com/y9857s2   ) What effect will the accident in Orlando and Tiger’s actions surrounding the accident have on the Tiger Woods brand?

I am sure that in the long term American Express and GM will be just as thrilled to have endorsement contracts in place as Tiger destines to be the greatest golfer if not greatest athlete of all time. However, in the short term, there will be some fallout and consequences. The first being the recent decision not to participate in the Chevron World Challenge. What an opportunity lost for Chevron and other sponsors of this event and the game of golf. The incident in Orlando would have spilled over to this week’s tournament, and imagine how many viewers would have tuned in to see and hear from America’s favorite brand icon. Would he have answered questions from the press? Would he be able to play at his best? Would the other players support him? Would his wife be at his side? The tournament would be great drama and the television ratings would be off the chart.

I am sure Tiger is getting sage advice from his lawyers and agents, but I would have loved to have seen him play and make a record number of birdies and eagles, hold up the trophy, give thanks to the tournament, players, and love to Elin. End of story.

The most important asset of your company’s brand to your customers and prospects is your employees. The number one reason a person will change vendors is the interaction he/she has with the personnel of your company. If your employees are not strong advocates for what your company stands for, your company is in jeopardy of losing business.

Every company needs to strive to build a brand-based culture. The reasons to build a brand-based culture are the following:

• It provides a tangible reason for employees to believe in your company, which keeps them motivated and energized.
• It allows each employee to see how he or she fits into the grand scheme of delivering the brand vision and promise to its customers and the effect of these efforts on the business goals.
• It develops a level of pride tied to fulfilling the brand promise.
• It provides a great recruiting tactic as well as a powerful retention tool.
• It confirms that the customer and the brand are the things to focus on.

Whether your business sells to consumers or whether it is a B2B model, getting your employees to understand the company’s brand promise is an essential part of building a brand driven business that delivers sustainable, profitable growth.

Southwest Airlines is an excellent example of carrying its brand of friendly affordable air carrier service through its employees to its customers, which is clearly stated on the Southwest website:

“Our Culture is unique because of the SOUTHWEST SPIRIT of our Employees. Defining SOUTHWEST SPIRIT is difficult, but one of the important components is an altruistic nature that places others before self. Our Employees are famous for their warm hearts and giving nature, which is what makes Southwest a Company with a conscience. The Employees of Southwest are committed to ‘doing the right thing,’ which is why giving back to the communities we serve and contributing positively to our environment is simply the way we do business.”

How do C-level managers keep employees informed and engaged in the brand’s evolving story and what it means to them? Does there exist inside the company an internal marketing effort to increase employees understanding of the brand while eliminating any perceived barriers to embracing it?

We propose that a company needs to look inside itself and perform an internal assessment of how employees, including management and channel partners perceive the corporate brand and how it delivers its brand message to its customers. A coordinated internal understanding of the brand is just as important as a good external marketing initiative.

Business Week published its annual “Best Global Brands” list last week. The usual top brands are still on top, Coca Cola, IBM, and Microsoft. Some like Google have jumped from #20 to #10, and retailer H&M is on the list for the first time at #22.

“The 100 Best Global Brands are a reflection of the global economy – the current credit crisis in the U.S., the growth of emerging markets and the increased emphasis on sustainability are all key trends that resulted in brands rising or failing on the list,” said Jez Frampton, CEO of Interbrand. “The increasing complexities of the global economy reinforce the importance of protecting and growing a brand. It is a company’s most valuable asset – and a far less volatile asset than others during a time of economic uncertainty.”

With the economy heading for an official recession it raises the discussion about marketing in a down economy. Do you cut budgets? Do you keep them the same? Do you increase marketing budgets? Many companies have taken advantage of down economies in the past to increase their brand positions when there is less advertising/marketing noise. Take BMW for example, who in 1974 reintroduced itself as the “Ultimate Driving Machine,” a slogan that is still being used today. BMW not only rebranded itself from a manufacturer of sports sedans to a maker of SUV’s and luxury sedans, but even surpassed Mercedes in the luxury brand auto market.

With tight credit and diminishing sales, companies need to evaluate where to cut costs and increase cash flow, but they also need to re-evaluate their brands. According to Business Week, “When times get tough, people reexamine old habits and brand loyalties. Their tastes shift dramatically as they cut back.”

Maybe it’s time to reevaluate your company’s brand by:

• Internal research to see how employees, management, and channel partners understand your brand and how well it is communicated to customers.
• External brand research with customers to understand how well your brand is resonating with them.
• An internal review among company management and stake holders to refocus on unique selling points and unique positioning statements facilitated by a non-partisan third party.
• Touch Point analysis – Reevaluate where your brand comes in contact with your potential buyers. Has that changed? Are you spending too much money on one medium, when it would be more cost effective to market through another medium?
• Web analysis – On your website, is your core message to your clients and prospects clear.

Studies have shown that companies that strengthen their brands during a recession are 7 times more likely to come out of the recession stronger. This is because companies that rebrand successfully are positioned to reap the rewards of better consumer confidence during expansions. The lesson is simple — no matter what type of business you run, don’t put branding on the back burner during these hard times.