Last week there was a USA Today article on the emergence of state-sponsored ad campaigns targeted at corporations, enticing them to move their headquarters for the financial and tax advantages. States such as Nevada, New Hampshire and Indiana were cited for the aggressive promotion of their economic and lifestyle features, and their unapologetic bashing of their neighbor state’s shortcomings. From this, a curious question began to circulate around observers as to whether this strategy could be called “state branding” or “place branding”.
It is a stretch to call these campaigns a deliberate act of branding, even though there are elements of brand meaning associated with any discreet geography. What is interesting is the intentional friction the state-sponsored campaigns produce by rubbing together two highly-charged emotional issues: (1) economic advancement and (2) geographic tribalism. Each state that promotes this strategy is betting that its corporate audience will care so much about attaining #1 that they will abandon their ties to #2.
The flaw in the strategy is that #1 is a temporary opportunity...once the market recovers people will quickly want to return to status quo and their long-standing values. As eager as a company may be to improve their economic bottom line, they must care more about their organizational considerations, and specifically on the impact corporate relocation would have on the lives of their employees. Take New Hampshire as an example: it's fine for the state’s economic development team to promote its tax incentives, but how does it hide the fact that NH ranks 50th out of 50 states in per student capita investment in public schools, and have student test scores whose national ranking reflects that investment strategy? Would any company be excited about moving the families of their top management team from Massachusetts, a state that has always been on the high-end of the educational performance spectrum? Whatever economic argument can be pitched is quickly overwhelmed by the social and cultural forces that are hard to quantify in monetary terms but easy for a CEO to appreciate and accept as decisive reasons to stay put.
We will probably see more of these state promotional campaigns, for nothing says opportunity like collective misery. I would predict a low, low return on investment for the ad money spent, however. What would make a difference is if the governor of any state (the erstwhile CEO) would employ a bona fide branding strategy, i.e. to identify a compelling and differentiated benefit for any person or company choosing to reside in that state, and then aligning all its resources, programs and policies to reinforce its brand promise. It will look at its state's brand in a holistic manner, integrating the economic, social, cultural and environmental realms with an eye towards long-term sustainability. Instead of robbing Peter to pay Paul, there will be such growth and wealth created by the massive population influx into the state that Peter and Paul will both get to retire comfortably.
Sadly, Professor Kotler is correct in that through their very narrow lens, state governments are only able to see the opportunity as a zero-sum game. Innovative and visionary leadership, and immense courage and stamina to take on the infinite number of interest groups, is a critical requirement for any state leader to achieve this winning strategy.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
What companies should learn from Mark Sanford
Reflecting on the political fallout of Mark Sanford's southern "swing", one could see this as another link in the epidemic chain of sex scandals that has really never been broken since the Clinton-Lewinsky link-up in 1998. I choose the word epidemic because it feels more like a contagious disease than just a misguided decision of an ego-centric power player. Including Sanford, 23 politicians have now succumbed to this epidemic since President Clinton, who of course was not the first-known case but is certainly now the best-known.
In his blog for GovExec.com, Scott Eblin accurately diagnosed the root cause of this type of misbehavior as a psychological fear of "not being enough". He attributes his conclusion to Eckhart Tolle, who wrote in his book "The New Earth" :
"Whatever behavior the ego manifests, the hidden motivating force is always the
same: the need to stand out, be special, be in control; the need for power, for
attention, for more... The ego always wants something from other people or
situations. There is always a hidden agenda, always a sense of 'not enough yet,'
of insufficiency and lack that needs to be filled. It uses people and situations
to get what it wants, and even when it succeeds, it is never satisfied for
long."
So what's the connection with corporations? Read Tolle's description of human behavior again, but now substitute a CEO or company president as the subject. Most of you can probably think of a dozen business leaders for whom this is an accurate profile.
The object lesson here is about leadership and culture. As fashionable as it may be for companies to de-centralized and democratize their organizations, it's a universal truism that all companies expect their top leader to model behavior and define the boundaries of the culture. When the CEO endorses a business growth strategy motivated by a "not enough yet" mentality, in the extreme you can get a criminal result such as Enron, Tyco or Adelphia; but more likely you will get middle managers and front-line managers to adopt the same self-interested behavior, justified by the rationale of "that's how you get ahead in this company". This is a rhetorical question, but if President Clinton had not blunted the immoral edge on adultery in 1998, do we think that 23 senators, congressmen and governors would have made their tragic decisions so blithely?
The alternative to "not enough yet" is "we have enough, so let's share what we have". This is the choice of companies who truly practice Corporate Social Responsibility, and who are able to achieve the proper balance between economic, social and environmental concerns. It requires companies to moderate self-interest (always in the name of shareholder interest...the dangerous trap) with an equal measure of selflessness. Where will this type of culture shift come from? It's never going to be the head of HR, or the CFO, or even the CMO who will stimulate this change, although those are vital supporting roles to legitimize and reward new employee behaviors. This has to come from the top of the organization, where conflicts between short-term financial performance and long-term community interest have to be mediated; where the generous spirit of volunteerism has to be modeled; where discussions with the Board of Directors to insist on their support of a broader versus narrower agenda has to be held.
Notice that this is the first time I've mentioned "brand" in this blog. While everything matters in the arena of brand building, in my view strong and principled corporate leadership matters most of all.
In his blog for GovExec.com, Scott Eblin accurately diagnosed the root cause of this type of misbehavior as a psychological fear of "not being enough". He attributes his conclusion to Eckhart Tolle, who wrote in his book "The New Earth" :
"Whatever behavior the ego manifests, the hidden motivating force is always the
same: the need to stand out, be special, be in control; the need for power, for
attention, for more... The ego always wants something from other people or
situations. There is always a hidden agenda, always a sense of 'not enough yet,'
of insufficiency and lack that needs to be filled. It uses people and situations
to get what it wants, and even when it succeeds, it is never satisfied for
long."
So what's the connection with corporations? Read Tolle's description of human behavior again, but now substitute a CEO or company president as the subject. Most of you can probably think of a dozen business leaders for whom this is an accurate profile.
The object lesson here is about leadership and culture. As fashionable as it may be for companies to de-centralized and democratize their organizations, it's a universal truism that all companies expect their top leader to model behavior and define the boundaries of the culture. When the CEO endorses a business growth strategy motivated by a "not enough yet" mentality, in the extreme you can get a criminal result such as Enron, Tyco or Adelphia; but more likely you will get middle managers and front-line managers to adopt the same self-interested behavior, justified by the rationale of "that's how you get ahead in this company". This is a rhetorical question, but if President Clinton had not blunted the immoral edge on adultery in 1998, do we think that 23 senators, congressmen and governors would have made their tragic decisions so blithely?
The alternative to "not enough yet" is "we have enough, so let's share what we have". This is the choice of companies who truly practice Corporate Social Responsibility, and who are able to achieve the proper balance between economic, social and environmental concerns. It requires companies to moderate self-interest (always in the name of shareholder interest...the dangerous trap) with an equal measure of selflessness. Where will this type of culture shift come from? It's never going to be the head of HR, or the CFO, or even the CMO who will stimulate this change, although those are vital supporting roles to legitimize and reward new employee behaviors. This has to come from the top of the organization, where conflicts between short-term financial performance and long-term community interest have to be mediated; where the generous spirit of volunteerism has to be modeled; where discussions with the Board of Directors to insist on their support of a broader versus narrower agenda has to be held.
Notice that this is the first time I've mentioned "brand" in this blog. While everything matters in the arena of brand building, in my view strong and principled corporate leadership matters most of all.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Welcome to the Branding Matters Blog!
Of the world's most loved brands, many have been in the market for generations while some have just recently come onto the scene. Regardless of their history, the people responsible for managing these brands have to be opportunistic, nimble and decisive. No one has the luxury of endless deliberation and debate these days, lest they allow the window of opportunity to slam shut.
For this reason, we offer our best current thinking on the Branding Matters blog, so that our visitors can keep up with conversations on the hottest topics in the branding world.
We're especially excited to hear from visitors from the Higher Education arena, as we know your world is changing faster than a NASCAR pit crew. Many schools we've talked with have used the same go-to-market model for over 100 years! How many industries have been able to resist market evolution for even 20 years? This is why adoption of a brand strategy for a college or university is so vital, as it points the way to an externally-focused view of the world that is necessary to be competitive and relevant.
Similarly, we offer our help to those companies who are committed to achieving broader corporate goals that include new activities re: sustainability and Corporate Social Responsibility. If ever there was an area where companies should proudly copy the practices of others, CSR is the one. The fundamental tradeoffs between short-term financial goals and longer-term sustainability goals, and the dilemma of how to establish the right processes and resources to be effective is shared by virtually every company in business today. Our quick advice here: before you do anything proactive in the CSR arena, benchmark against other similar companies first. The buddy system works.
To paraphrase Scott Bedbury, when it comes to managing a brand, everything matters. So you can expect that we'll be covering an amazingly broad expanse of ground in this space.
For this reason, we offer our best current thinking on the Branding Matters blog, so that our visitors can keep up with conversations on the hottest topics in the branding world.
We're especially excited to hear from visitors from the Higher Education arena, as we know your world is changing faster than a NASCAR pit crew. Many schools we've talked with have used the same go-to-market model for over 100 years! How many industries have been able to resist market evolution for even 20 years? This is why adoption of a brand strategy for a college or university is so vital, as it points the way to an externally-focused view of the world that is necessary to be competitive and relevant.
Similarly, we offer our help to those companies who are committed to achieving broader corporate goals that include new activities re: sustainability and Corporate Social Responsibility. If ever there was an area where companies should proudly copy the practices of others, CSR is the one. The fundamental tradeoffs between short-term financial goals and longer-term sustainability goals, and the dilemma of how to establish the right processes and resources to be effective is shared by virtually every company in business today. Our quick advice here: before you do anything proactive in the CSR arena, benchmark against other similar companies first. The buddy system works.
To paraphrase Scott Bedbury, when it comes to managing a brand, everything matters. So you can expect that we'll be covering an amazingly broad expanse of ground in this space.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)