Stop guarding your precious brand
Marketing and PR are out of control
In some ways, I can’t blame Marketing and PR people for wanting to control everything. They’re asked to look over something that’s out of their control to begin with: How people think and feel about their company and it’s products. Not to mention, in the Enterprise there’s a ton of employees and simple tasks are owned by committee. It’s no reason Marketing people yip-yip-yip like chihuahuas when anyone else touches the powerpoint template.
Marketing and PR people are like IT 
The IT Department is asked to make sure that everything in the company is secure, so IT’s default answer is “no” unless execs tell them it’s ok. Marketing people are asked to influence people’s feelings inside and outside the company so their default answer is “we have to do it, we’re the experts” (so, another form of “no”). Then, a group of Marketers work with some agencies to whitewash everything to look and feel the same and Marketing then thinks they’ve done their job. I should know, I’ve worked in those departments.
You can’t stop people from talking about you
You actually want them to talk about you, right? Yet, invisibility or apathy is the effect that constant Marketing “no” has on company’s brands. There’s no need to guard, no one wants to attack. Regardless, the truth is that Marketing is overburdened. It’s stupid to task them to be responsible for molding a big Marketplace to their little will. The world doesn’t work that way. If a product sucks, it sucks and no amount of Marketing can fix that. It’s just as stupid to turn them into defensive Brand cops, who enforce martial law on any communication that goes out the door without their approval. Unless it’s a confusion around copyright, or a hairy PR situation, there’s nothing to defend.
You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You are the same decaying organic matter as everyone else, and we are all part of the same compost pile. –Fight Club
Get permission to move from transaction to interaction 
Marketing needs to be released from being solely responsible for changing perceptions or driving leads. They should be enabling the organization to make meaningful, positive customer experiences and connections. This may seem like a subtle shift but when Marketing can feel comfortable becoming listeners instead of blasting sales messages, dramatic change ensues. Suddenly, employees start to really learn about what interests the market without a commercial agenda. Real conversations begin and Marketers begin to enlist the assets of the organization. This results in much more positive customer experiences. I think of this as ROB (”Return on Behavior”) others may think of it as some form of Net Promotor Score (NPS).
Meantime, back at the Jive ranch, we get shot down daily
We have tons of customers who don’t want us to even mention them. We want them to talk about the cool stuff they’re doing. Or let us promote it. But they always say no. Why? Because “it’s just our policy” or “we have to protect the Brand.” Keep in mind, companies using our software are doing really positive things. They’re either uniting their company and improving the way they collaborate with each other or launching publicly accessible online communities where they’re actually listening to their customers. These are leadership activities and both of which increase the ROB/NPS.
Results of my Twitterpoll
Questions I asked:
- “Why do Marketing/PR departments stop others from talking about them?”
- “Why do companies think they need to guard their brand?”
- “What’s an example of when not guarding a brand has resulted in something bad?”
“Most are interested in telling their story, not genuinely interested in listening to customers. I was talking with a friend last night about models of abundance versus scarcity - most Marcom is based on scarcity and control. The going-forward model is tapping the collective (social web) and abundance of thought to drive improvement.”
Jonathan Yarmis, AMR Research (@jyarmis)
“One could argue that Microsoft, by not protecting the brand, went from plucky underdog (even while big) to convicted monopolist. Microsoft didn’t protect its brand and in the vacuum they got defined by third parties more heavily. You know that’s not it but they didn’t fully see how the discussion was going, i.e., they didn’t manage even what they could.”
Jeff Mann, Gartner (@jeffmann)
All brands which through overuse became synonyms for an object rather than a brand. Kleenex Bandaid Hoover
Steve Mann, SAP (@stevemann)
I only think of competitive reasons why not too share. No reason around the brand unless they are close to your space 
Old habits die hard (but its an ugly death).
Things people have said about this post
Ah, must be Monday cause Sam is pushing buttons again! Love it. I FEEL your pain!!! Even though I am part of I.T. and it’s true that our default answer is indeed “NO”, I continue to swim upstream and try to fight this battle.
I feel there are enough tiny victories (as you’ve experienced with PR and Marketing bots) to encourage me to continue my quest to more yes answers.
Here’s an example that I experienced while at another company. I was using some amazing software from ScriptLogic and they asked if I would do a case study so I agreed. Well, when I ran it by the powers that be there was a surprising response, not just from the head of I.T. but from our sales/marketing department as well. They highly recommended that I didn’t do the case study! All kinds of ridiculous excuses about the company name and potential security exposure blah blah blah. I proceeded anyway but in order to keep my job I told ScriptLogic to not use my company’s name in the case study. http://scriptlogic.com/casestudies (Mine is the very first one at the top for the bank. I was the network admin at the time).
I agree that the knee-jerk paranoia that’s rampant in corporate america needs to stop. I believe it is slowly changing but it’s still aggrevatingly slow. We need to keep pushing them and more of us need to speak up on this issue.
Keep pushing them buttons, Sam!
Pai
I am Jack’s sense of self worth… You have to give marketing SOMETHING to do, when they don’t know HOW to enable the organization to make meaningful, positive customer experiences and connections.
I have noticed a particularly large and typically vocal Jive customer suspiciously absent from your new website’s customer page.
Inspiration for this post?
I encourage all of our clients to open up, to allow for feedback, and to create a conversation. Most important, companies and brands need to realize that every aspect of their behavior is transparent; therefore, thought word, and action need to be aligned. If they acted accordingly, there would be no need to protect, as the context of the brand is defined, but flexible, like a trusted friend.
I think in large part it’s a somewhat horrified response to the popular idea that “brands are conversations.” Many in marketing and PR apparently interpret that sound bite to mean “customers are trying to muscle in on our jobs,” rather than “customers are talking about our brand in very public ways now, and we’d better pay attention to what they’re saying.”
In my book, both marketing and PR at their best can be described as “effective, directed communication” — yes, your goal is to direct how your brand is perceived, but that process actually gets easier when you listen and participate, and the tools to facilitate that process are getting better every day. Telling customers to sit down and shut up because you’ve already finalized your identity campaign is a losing proposition these days (assuming that it ever worked at all).
“Thirty years ago your company had the only megaphone in the room, and it could drown out conversations. Today? Well, you’ve still got that megaphone, but people are sitting in that room posting to their blogs and texting one another as you talk. And it’s good odds that they’re talking about you and your dumbass megaphone.” (Adapted from a post on seamonkeyrodeo.)
Hi Sam,
You were right. I do like this article! I think these are my favorite lines:
“It’s stupid to task them to be responsible for molding a big Marketplace to their little will. The world doesn’t work that way. If a product sucks, it sucks and no amount of Marketing can fix that”
Sam,
I completely agree. I can’t understand how, in today’s technological environment, companies still try to only use marketing departments to “push” out messages(I had a small post on it a few months ago ). Today, the message should be no more than 25% of the marketer’s job. The remainder should be tasked to connect with consumers and understand their needs (not try to fit whatever engineering developed into their needs).
A marketer who truly understands today’s environment and possibilities can be a great asset for a company. Now it can’t be all on the company, the marketer needs to be able to communicate across functional areas, management levels, and with all types of consumers - a tall order for sure. While I understand that some companies will make it impossible, but today’s marketer must be prepared to evangelize this message throughout the company. If we wait for senior executives to “get it”, we could be waiting a long time.
Cheers!
Good post, Sam. I agree that marketers need to let go and start having conversations with their marketplace. I have posted more of my thoughts at http://abovethenoise.blogspot.com/2008/04/can-marketers-have-conversations.html
I agree with your basic point about Marketing being focused in the wrong place (e.g. “Protecting the Brand”), but I wonder Sam if the issue is more basic. How many Marketing organization are internally focused when they should be externally focused? How many Marketing organizations understand and focus on their basic purpose; to drive growth (as defined by the business)? How many Marketing organizations are focused on deliverables (powerpoints, events, press releases, etc.) versus effects? My guess is the organization focused on driving growth and measureable effects don’t suffer the ills you written about as often. Thoughts?
In the world of social change, your brand message is particularly applicable. With $0 for marketing, it’s even more important to empower people to spread your “brand” for you. By necessity, I think many small/new nonprofits like mine (http://www.EpicChange.org) are trying to exploit the benefits of supporter-led marketing efforts, perhaps even more than organizations with huge marketing budgets and departments. Just today, I published my own rules for storytelling on our blog at http://www.EpicChange.org/blog, which closed with the most important rule, “Let your supporters speak for you.” If you get a chance, stop by and give it a look.
Insights like these are the reason I follow you on twitter. Thanks for the advice (and the cybersteak)!
@StaceyMonk
Hi, Sam, this is a slightly different frame on the concept of user-centered design … which is the core of what makes a product or a website **work**. Period!
On one level, control also reflects fear, I think. (Hey, I just saw the Dalai Lama today. His message: need to remove fear, doubt and suspicion to make way for compassion.) Marketing (and advertising) uses fear-uncertainty-doubt as weapons against the unsuspecting (or unsophisticated). That’s the absolute opposite of engagement and conversation.
Control can also mean “fear of losing one’s job.” It’s closely aligned, in this meaning, with preserving position (esp. common with middle managers whose jobs have been to control the flow of information w/in an organization). But it, too, is the opposite of conversation.
What’s different about new companies (digital ones) and old companies is reflected in Jeff’s comment: “All brands which through overuse became synonyms for an object rather than a brand. Kleenex Bandaid Hoover”
NEW companies *want* their brand to become a verb … to diffuse rapidly and totally. Google is a verb (but not Yahoo!). So is Tivo (but not ReplayTV). If those companies had tried to “protect” their brand like Jeff is suggesting, would they be as successful as they are? (Yes, I know Tivo is not as successful as Google, but it’s more successful than it’s competition.)
In the days when there were only a few channels to the customer, like retail stores, radio, television, and newspaper, it was (just barely) possible for marketing and PR departments to control much of what was officially said about a company. Today, with broadcast media fractured into hundreds of channels and new media in the hands of anyone with Internet access, a defensive strategy no longer makes sense. You’ve got to engage your customers pro-actively.
[…] April 2008 at 5:56 pm (Social Networks, Web/Tech, marketing) Sam Lawrence throws down the gauntlet to marketing folks today in a blog post entitled “Stop guarding your precious brand.” […]
[…] Software, put out a post close to my heart - Marketing and PR departments clinging to idea that they need to control the message. Companies can not stop people from talking about them. Technological change means that their […]
[…] A lot of our customers replace the name of the product (Clearspace) with their own company name or they create a completely new brand. In this case it was the latter. I’ve modified the logo for this post since the customer’s Marketing/PR department isn’t ok disclosing vendor associations. […]
[…] Go Big Always - Stop guarding your precious brand relax. (tags: avatars branding) […]