Green Cheese

An Uncomfortable Branding Truth

2010-03-03T15:39:00.000-08:00

Sometimes I get an uncomfortable feeling when people ask me what my company does. It is not that I don’t know. I do have an elevator speech and I can evangelize about what we do. For all my creativity, I have yet to be able to fully replace the word advertising withBrandgineering^TM.

I firmly believe that brands are not built by advertising, but by customer service. Sure, you can accidentally build a brand for a short time based on the product or service, but within a short time your business will likely fall apart.

Years ago there was a small film studio that exploded in a niche market. The owner of that brand went on speaking tours telling his story of his success. He was heralded as a genius. Not too many years later he was sitting in bankruptcy court – penniless and suicidal. In his biography, he admitted that his success was largely attributed, not to his product, but that customers were purchasing just about anything in that fad marketplace. He had treated his employees and customers poorly and eventually, his brand quickly deteriorated. He wasn’t smart; he was lucky.

Building a solid business and marketing that business requires a solid relationship with the customer. It is the basis for all your marketing efforts. Leading brands understand that the customer–brand relationship are highly dependent upon relationships. Honesty. Integrity. Value.

I see our primary responsibility with our clients is first helping them build Brand.Relationships^TM with customers. When a customer walks in the door, how are they treated? What contributions does your brand make to the community? How do the leaders at your company treat the staff or team members? Your customer service at all levels has as much to do with your brand as the product or service you offer.

So, when you ask me the first thing I’ll do in our advertising or Brandgineering^TM effort, it will likely be examining your customer service practices – no amount of slick advertising or fancy graphics will benefit your brand unless we make sure the foundation of your business is solid – the customer relationship.

Carl Hartman | www.brandgineering.biz | Denver & Los Angeles

Why "The Who" was the Best Brand Marketed at the Super Bowl

2010-02-07T17:25:00.000-08:00

Once again, the music industry, and more specifically The Who, stole the marketing show during Super Bowl XLVI. Why, you ask? Because the entertainment industry understands marketing their brands better than any other industry. The Who, Carrie Underwood and Queen Latifah are probably the only brands that got paid some big bucks to advertise and not the other way around. Plus, they took advantage of the opportunity to make a personal connection with their customers. Smart.

Once again the mega-advertising-agencies stumbled on the most important thing - selling products. The same story plays out each year: huge brands hired overpriced advertising agencies to create some very nice television ads --- and I can't remember what they were advertising. Sure, it could be my ADHD --- OR --- it could be that they've forgotten how to sell.

It seems that, for years, the advertising has attracted "creatives" that think up really cute ideas. Those ideas are supposed to sell products and they often fall short of that goal. Years ago, one of my clients related this story to me as he sat there crying (literally) about the huge amount of money he spent (wasted) on an advertising campaign. It was very creative --- part of it featured a video filled with very sexy camera moves, lit very well, great performances by the on-screen talent, fabulous musical score --- it, however, did nothing to sell his product. The advertising business has almost become the outlet for aspiring artists, musicians, and filmmakers to milk clients for money to live out their creative dreams without regard to their primary job - selling products and marketing brands.

Right off the bat, The Who told the audience to "put down the chicken fingers and turn the television way up!" Then, they hooked the audience with standard Roger Daltrey and Pete Townsend energy. During that time he reached out to his audience in the stadium and the screens at home and left them wanting more. Without any wardrobe malfunctions - short of Townsend’s belly flash - they sucked in the audience and was the most memorable part of the 3 plus hour-long event.

My wager is that overall, The Who will sell more units and get more hits on MySpace this week than any other product that had a commercial during the Super Bowl. I'd love to explain why, but that will be in my new book "Brand.gineering" and the subject of future blogs.

Rock On! --- Carl Hartman, CEO brandgineering.org

What We Haven’t Learned from Television

2010-02-06T21:32:00.000-08:00

I grew up in a household that had a black and white television that my dad eventually and reluctantly exchanged for a color television. We had a huge load of LPs on the shelf and a superb tube driven stereo system that my dad built from the ground up. My father even had a Victorola that now sits in my living room and is over 100 years old. We had old tube operated radios and I remember when we got our first, very expensive, solid state radio with a cassette player. I remember disc jockeys in LA lamenting the missing hiss of vinyl when the first CD players came out. The point is that I was around to see major transitions in media delivery.

I was not around when television was invented; I am not that old. But, I do remember the discussions about the fear of people in the film industry that television would eventually destroy cinema. Well, it is more than 50 years since consumers have adopted television en masse and people are paying ten dollars to see films. Television has not killed cinema, it could be argued that television has enhanced cinema, providing additional business models for back-end sales.

Television actually evolved into its own format that is similar to cinema, but different. When television started out, it was highly technical and technical people ran the show. Until the 1980’s it was still required to have a special FCC license to operate a video camera at a network or TV station. Eventually, the storytellers took over and made TV what it is today: a medium for telling compelling stories.

When I worked as an Executive Producer at PBS a small group of us were assigned to a new project developing media for the Internet. My first day on that project involved sitting in a room full of software engineers and people concerned with technical stuff. These people were telling us how to build web sites.

I made enemies quick. I quickly developed the mantra “We don’t allow the people down in Master Control tell us how to make television, why do we allow the people doing the technology tell us how to build web sites?” Media is, after all, a storytelling medium, not a technology platform. Content is king. Eventually, I won a competition against 80 other PBS entities, held by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, to develop Television of Tomorrow. I combined the best of cinema, radio, television, graphic communications, gaming and interactive media to tell compelling stories. – I have to give credit where credit is due, I was helped greatly by two people at Carnegie Mellon University, Randy Pausch and Scott Stephens.

So, what are we doing with these multi-function boxes that allow us to read, listen, and watch? We are still kicking the tires and are only using a fraction of the ability of the medium. Computers have been around as long as television and yet we have not figured out how to effectively use the boxes on our desks to their full potential.

What makes a medium powerful is not the medium, but the application of the medium. It is one of the reasons we use professional screenwriters to develop our copy for web sites. We respect that all mediums are about telling stories, not the technology. I see a lot of cool stuff on the Internet; amazing animated sites with wiz-bang technology. I rarely see compelling stories. Until we compel and move people with what we do, it is simply a meaningless activity.

Stories are what move people. They are the foundation of communication. The message and story should always drive our efforts.

The Value of Social Media

2009-04-21T08:19:00.000-07:00

Twitter? LinkedIn? Facebook? MySpace?

Social networks remind us that between 83-87% of all goods and services are sold via the old fashioned method of social networking. Even if there were no Internet, what we do know is that the bulk of sales for any business happen because of a relationship or more importantly in the world of branding: a perceived relationship.

Brand.Relationships are about emotion - that same warm and fuzzy feeling that happens when you have a valued friend. A well run branding campaign generates the same emotional feelings with the customer. A good brand should feel like a valued friend.

The advertising community is twittering about the fact that Ashton Kutcher was the first to reach million friends on Twitter. They are filled with Twitter envy and are trying to grapple with one important thing. Aston did this entire stunt without paying an advertising agency. Ouch!

Social networking is at the heart of selling products and services - not advertising. Advertising is cold, impersonal, flashy and usually lack substance. Branding is about a relationships - in a very real sense Brand.Relationships are not about what the customer knows, but who the customer knows.

Do your customers know your brand?

What General Motors can learn from Jack Northrop

2009-03-30T22:16:00.000-07:00

Many years ago I had the privilege of working with GM’s new interim chairman, Kent Kresa. Sure, I know the guy probably doesn’t remember me, but that won’t stop me from telling the world that both of us share a connection – we both worked at the company started by aviation pioneer, Jack Northrop.

General Motors has stumbled in many ways. However, since marketing brands is our business, we’ll stick to GMs use – or misuse – of advertising. GM has poured tens of millions of dollars into advertising; advertising that does nothing to sell cars and trucks. As we like to ask, “If advertising is so great, then why don’t advertising agencies advertise?”

GM has a great product. My father had GM cars, I had GM cars, my son had a GM car. They are solid and outlast any other brand. GM vehicles are a great value for the money. Yet, their advertising is failing to sell a great product. Therein is the problem: advertising rarely sells products.

One of Jack Northrop’s strengths was building a genuine atmosphere of family with his employees and customers. Funny, that is how most companies are built and sustained. When customers feel an authentic relationship with the product they tend to talk about the product to their friends. More than 87% of products are sold by word of mouth and relationships. I remember being at Northrop and the Division General Manager, Bruce James, knew just about all two thousand of us by name. That carried over into the relationship with the customer.

General Motors has lost the connection with the customer. The brand is dead, or soon will be if the management and marketing team does not dump traditional advertising and go back to the foundations that build brands – relationship marketing; they need to use the same methods of building authentic Brand.Relationships® we encourage our customers to use.

General Motors needs to build the team and family atmosphere internally. It is not just a job; it is a family affair. Jack Northrop knew that his employees from management to contracts to engineering to manufacturing were his strongest assets. The attitude must then naturally extend to the marketing.

When you care about a product, you’ll likely go to bat for the product. You tell your friends. Basic stuff. GM needs to leverage their satisfied customers. Not in traditional, sappy TV spots and print ads, but in new and innovate ways. (You want to know how? That is why you hire us. I’m not going to give away the store.) Branding is, after all, managed word-of-mouth – and what we do better than anyone else. And, It gets results.

What the Advertising World Can Learn from Ansel Adams

2009-02-10T12:25:00.000-08:00

Many years ago a friend of mine decided to take a photographic walking tour during her visit to Yosemite National Park. Armed with her instamatic camera she began snapping photos as the tour guide pointed out scenic photo opportunities. Not long after the tour began her camera jammed. An older gentleman stopped to help her and fixed her camera. Unfortunately, the tour group had gone on far ahead of them. So, the older gentleman spent the remaining portion of the day with her, showing her the sites and helping her take photos.

The following day, my friend decides to visit the one-hour photo shop at Yosemite to get her pictures developed. Meanwhile, she decided to check the gift shop and began looking at coffee table books of Yosemite. She picked up one amazing pictorial display book by Ansel Adams and thumbed through the pages. Then, finally turning the back page over it revealed a picture of the photographer. To her surprise the man in the photo was the same man that helped her on the trail; for one afternoon, she had been tutored in photography by the great Ansel Adams.

She later explained to me that, “Those were the best pictures my instamatic camera ever took.” --- Cameras do not take pictures. Photographers take pictures. The camera is just the tool. An instamatic camera in the hands of a great master can create great works of art. An expensive camera in the hands of another less able person can create really bad pictures.

The buzz in the advertising industry seems to be about different platforms. What about cel phone delivered advertising? How should we handle advertising over the Internet? Angst over what should be done with all emerging platforms is rampant. What should we do?

Their concern should be more about content and message --- less about platform. The ad business continues to crank out advertising with messages that do not attract attention. The message about that brand does not have a hook that engages the viewer and leave them remembering the value proposition that ultimately leads to a sale.

Ansel Adams just needed an opportunity – an instamatic camera – to take a picture. His message was solid, regardless of the tools he used: a lesson to be learned. Keep it simple, with a message that grabs the customer and leaves them remembering why that message is critical to them and leads them to a purchase.

Message 101 - Why Should We Care About a Product?

2009-02-03T08:46:00.000-08:00

So what?

Does anybody have the guts to ask that question during any advertising agency meeting?

Do they even know to ask the question?

Why should the consumer care about your product?

What's your value proposition?

We'll, this week two brothers walked away with a cool $1 million dollars for creating a advertisement for Doritos that ran during the Super Bowl. --- Great! Exciting! Wahoo! --- Why is this exciting? Simple. These two men did exactly the same thing for Doritos as an advertising agency would do for Doritos. Nothing. Two unknown filmmakers got really creative and made a spot that did nothing to sell Doritos --- just like the advertising agencies of today.

Brand.Hooks are one of the tools our company GC Brandginnering, uses when developing a message about a product. A simple description of a Brand.Hook is that one important thing the consumer takes with them after contact with a message about that product.

So, what did America take way when they watched the Doritos commercial?

Carl Hartman

www.brandgineering.org

Springsteen Sold Records @ Super Bowl?

2009-02-01T23:20:00.000-08:00

Once again, the music industry, and more specifically Bruce Springsteen, stole the marketing show during the 2008/9 Super Bowl. Why, you ask? Because the entertainment industry understands marketing their brands better than any other industry. Bruce is probably the only brand that got paid some big bucks to advertise and not the other way around. Plus, he took advantage of the opportunity to make a personal connection with his customer. Smart guy.

Right off the bat, Springsteen told the audience to "put the chicken fingers down and turn the television way up!" Then, he hooked the audience with standard Springsteen energy and four songs - one of which was new. During that time he reached out to his audience in the stadium and the screens at home and left them wanting more. Without any wardrobe malfunctions he sucked in the audience and, aside from bad officiating, was the most memorable part of the 3 plus hour-long event.

My wager is that overall, Springsteen will sell more units and get more hits on his MySpace this week than any other product that had a commercial during the Super Bowl. I'd love to explain why, but that will be in my new book "Brand.gineering" and the subject of future blogs.

Rock On! --- Carl Hartman, CEO brandgineering.org

Hey Bud.TV, Let's Party

2007-05-23T08:05:00.000-07:00

When we heard about Anheuser-Busch's $30-40 million Bud.TV Network, we hoped that something on the web site would actually be worth watching.

The first complaints we have heard from other users was the difficult login process. We had no trouble. Using our über-wideband connection we attempted to view the views, but they chugged and clunked along. Rather annoying.

Our first reaction was "Who snorted the first $29.9 million away?" Surely, the people that developed the site either lined their own pockets or spent the money on cocaine. Somewhere, with all the money spent on high production values somebody forgot the most important part of media production - story. It is kinda like real estate - location, location, location. Story, story, story. People have to have licenses to do all sorts of things in this world, making media should be one of them.

Obviously, some of the content was licensed or acquired, therefore the budget couldn't have been blown on production. After spending $5000 on web site production and a few hundred thousand on production, the remaining money could have been spent on good content that attracted viewers. What did they do, supply 30 people with a keg of beer and $1 million, then turn them loose. This is media production done in an alcohol induced stupor. Maybe the execs that funded this at Anheuser-Busch were equally filled with their own product when they created this mess.

Bud.TV will fail, not because the idea sucks, but the content. Everybody thinks they can make TV or movies. Just because you own a camera and live in NYC or LA does not make you a filmmaker. Most of the people we went to film school with twenty years ago are still waiting tables. What is even more sad is that there are REALLY good filmmakers out there with GREAT ideas and can't get them made, meanwhile somebody soaked Bud.TV for the load of crap on their site now.

Bud.TV would have had better results just burning the money.

Hagel for President? Not Unreasonable.

2007-05-17T18:57:00.000-07:00

Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel has been attracting attention as a potential candidate for the presidency of the United States. Hagel is a moderate Republican from the Heartland and his Nebraska bred values are reflected in his politics. Nebraska is famous for a great football team and its one-house, non-partisan legislature. In this heavily red state (no pun intended), it is not common for a Democrat to seek and win office. Other well known Nebraskans are former Republican Governor and very effective Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns as well as Democrats: former Governor and Senator Robert Kerry and current US Senator Ben Nelson. This pragmatic state is home to rural agriculture, insurance, and one of America's richest men, Warren Buffet who still lives in the same home he had when he started business in Omaha. Nebraskans are more apt to elect the best person for the office and not fall hard along party lines.

Hagel could end up as a serious contender as an independent candidate for president. We've had some serious discussions with our moderate Democratic friends in the media industry. There are strong feelings from reasonable Democrats and Republicans that are tired of the arguing from the far sides of both parties; we all want to get back to a civil system in which positive discussion over issues leads to results and not self-serving political results. If anyone can pull it off, Hagel will be the one.

The surface problem with Senator Hagel is that extreme conservatives (and even some moderates) have painted him as soft on war and even questioned his loyalty as a Republican when he challenges the president. This criticism is easily stripped away when his positions are examined. Chuck Hagel is thoughtful, not afraid to confront an issue, and make the appropriate choice based on the right thing to do and not party loyalty. With the memory of the passing of Gerald R. Ford fresh in our memory, it is hard not to make a comparison. Hagel is intellectually honest, respected by many on both sides of the isle. The Nebraska Senator and Vietnam vet probably stands the best chance of uniting the country, winning or bringing the most positive conclusion the war, and setting our country on the best possible course.

Of course, we always try to introduce our media and advertising spin to the blog. This is really our biggest concern. We're rather sure that Bush isn't stupid, but his on-camera public presentations are laughable. Certainly, President Clinton is glib, but lacked the same ability to gain the confidence of the American people and not come off as an infomercial host. We've been longing for a president that can inspire the country with a Reaganesque flare. – Hagel needs to inspire the American voters while the Republicans and Democrats are sparring. Hagel's soft-spoken bull-dog like persona must be transformed into inspirational speaker and cheerleader for America. If we were his campaign director we would be ordering a full compliment of VHS tapes from the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California and start Chuck studying the master of communication, himself.

Here are the things that need to be done as Hagel "brands himself" for president. We have experience at this, we did the advertising work for one independent Nebraska candidate and "freaked out" the Republicans so much, they sent an adviser from Des Moines, Iowa in an attempt to fix the problem – our candidate was up in the poles and attracting voters at a cost of about $.50 (fifty cents!) per vote versus the Republican's more than $15+ per vote. In fact, toward the end of the election the Republican candidate wanted to jump ship from his advertising agency and hire us. Then again, we get paid on results and not a fee for service. We may be small, but we get results for national clients.

The objectives should be:

Voters must understand at least 3 key factors that differentiate Hagel from the Republican or Democratic candidate.
Voters need to clearly understand why voting for Hagel is important to them as a citizen.
Any and all advertising should be genuine, testimonials by people that tell his story for him. It is just more credible. Not his mother! If I see one more warm and fuzzy commercial with a politician hugging the kids and playing with the dog, I'll vomit. It is contrived.
He has to make personal and genuine connections with voters, much like we do for our clients in the music industry.
Don't use social networking and myspace unless genuine contact can be made with users.
Use weekly, on-line chats with Chuck and encourage a personal blog that doesn't look managed.
We need to repeat this because advertising agencies are clueless. The message has to be created from the perspective of the voter. It is not who he is, but what he means to the individual voter.
No attack ads, even to answer false accusations.
Grassroots! Word of mouth is the least expensive. Personally, I would never waste a dime on broadcast advertising. It does not get good results for the cost. In fact, we eliminate broadcast for most of our clients and boost their sales as much as 800%. There are much more effective methods.

Hagel's Blogspot Space
Hagel's Congressional Web Site

Jerry Falwell - The UnHoly Trinity Reduced to Duo

2007-05-17T00:26:00.000-07:00

Today the Holy Trinity, comprised of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson was reduced to a duo when Jerry Falwell slumped over his desk and gasped his last breath of air and reduced his carbon footprint to zero. While I don't plan to join the liberals that are dancing on his freshly dug grave, I'm sorta glad that the trinity is slowly being silenced. Not that I want to see any of them dead. However, all Christianity would benefit if any or all of them would just shut up. If that doesn't happen, I'd settle for a debilitating stroke or duct tape over their mouths. For all our sake, Pat and Jim, shut up!

As a conservative Christian that would never consider himself an "evangelical" I want to take the apple from Eve's hand and stuff it in their mouth, just to keep them from saying yet another stupid thing that doesn't even remotely resemble what I read in my Bible. Dunno. Maybe all of them bought a different version than all the rest of us read. Then again, I have heard the same stupid comments come from the mouths of other evangelicals. So, it is reasonable to assume that they found something written in the Bible between the lines, which is apparently where they spend most of their time reading.

I guess the first part of my complaint is really that any or all of them supposed that they could speak for any or all of us. Somehow, they managed to convince a lot of people that they represent the majority view among conservative Christians. Maybe, many Christians were happy to feel like they had a voice in government again and that religion as an essential part of human existence was again part of the public debate. However, the problem with allowing any of this trio into the debate was their flavor of the Christian world view - which by its very definition including forced indoctrination of the world, with little or no tolerance for other viewpoints.

One must understand that the trio, now duo, has one primary belief which is so dangerous that 18 Muslims boarded airplanes on 9/11 and used those airplanes as weapons in order to combat that belief system. However outrageous it may seem to blame 9/11 on evangelicals, it has basis in fact.

The general view of many evangelical Christians is that part of their role is to bring about the earthly kingdom of Jesus on earth. This includes rebuilding Solomon's temple in Jerusalem, which requires support of Isreal at all costs, having as many evangelicals in public office as possible, and winning as many souls as possible - evangelizing the world. All views that they would have you believe are shared by the majority of Christians. Both Robertson and Falwell stated this publicly, on the record.

Now, first you must know that this view is a view of a slim minority of Christians, mostly those that consider themselves evangelicals. The truth is that history records for us that the prophecies from the book from the Bible called Revelation have been fulfilled and Jesus himself insisted that he would not have an earthly kingdom. Solomon's temple was destroyed and was never intended to be rebuilt - Jesus considered his followers to be the "spiritual" temple that would be rebuilt in three days after his death. Yet they think they can force the return of Jesus as an earthly ruler buy helping God out - as if an all powerful God actually needs their help.

However, they remain steadfast in their belief of Christ's impending earthly return. Muslims remain threatened, because one of their holiest shrines, the Dome of the Rock, sits dead center where the evangelicals plan to rebuild Solomon's temple. There is even a move afoot to collect building supplies for this venture. Egad folks, get the picture. If the Muslims think the monument to Mohammad's ascent into heaven would be destroyed, they would have a reason to target America.

One item of interest. The particular Christian denomination to which our president belongs rejects the evangelicals view of "the end times." This is easily seen in Bush's policies toward Israel pre- and post- 9/11. Prior to the attacks of 9/11, President Bush dispatched then Secretary of State Colin Powell to Israel to put pressure on them to resolve their dispute with Palestine. News stories of the time leading up to 9/11 recorded Powell pounding Israel. I was shocked at bin Laden's actions. Had he been patient enough to wait it out, the United States would have, most-likely, forced Isreal into a more workable solution. It should be noted that we've probably made more progress toward peace with Isreal and its neighbors under the Bush administration than in previous administrations.

Domestically, evangelicals have used the political process to force feed their brand of morality on America. James Dobson, in particular, is to blame for this. Dobson, holds great political influence over conservatives because he once had some credibility. As he ages, his views have become more radical. The big mistake is that Christians have been allowing this psychologist and radio host to set political agendas based on his personal views - many of which are his opinion that he attempts to pass off as Bible fact - and people actually buy into what he says with out ever questioning him.

I place the hatred of conservatives by the left squarely on the unholy trio. Without James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell we would probably not had moveon.org or George Soros. This trio encourage and emboldened an entire generation of evangelicals to pick up picket signs and storm the gates to every abortion clinic or protest every gay rights parade. While attempting to stop abortion and erase every rainbow, they actually made the problem worse. Surely, if anybody is to blame for the huge divisions in our land, this group is at the center of the cross-hairs. Their approach drives people away and is NOT the approach Jesus used to win converts.

So, while some celebrate the life of Jerry Falwell - and with no disrespect to his grieving family during this time - I can't celebrate. Jerry Falwell represented an entire group of people that is more about following a set of rules (religion) and less about a relationship with God. God doesn't want an earthly kingdom - he wants what he had at the very beginning - a relationship with man. It is unfortunate that this trio has done more to drive people away from God than attract people to God.