How's Your Brand? Interactive Marketing Trends for 2008

When I helped set up Caldwell VanRiper's (once the fifth oldest ad agency in America, now part of the $400 million MARC USA) interactive division in the mid-1990s, we used to wonder how a Web site would ultimately impact corporate brand. After all, back then there were NO search engines, and local bookstores sold tomes that listed "hot" URLs that one had to manually and laboriously type in.

Today there's no question that a company's interactive presence is a main (if not THE main) driver of the elusive corporate brand. As chiefmarketer.com says: "Your Website is the central expression of your company's brand."

Of course, a brand is not a single thing. It's not a logo, but a logo is part of a company's brand. Brand equity and value can best be defined as the total consumter/stakeholder experience heavily salted by perception. Your company has a brand whether you want one or not.

With regard to online marketing and how it impacts your company's total brand, the Web is a scary bit. Why? Back to chiefmarketer.com: "The Web is in its 'Uncle Miltie" stage. More than 50 years ago, Milton Berle's television programs capitvated the country. While incredibly popular and important in TV history, the experience of a grainy black and white program pales in comparison with the Tivo-driven high-definition world that we can experience today."

The upshot? "We're about to see the same type of change online."

Look for more in upcoming blogs about major changes coming online. Now, if I can only get The MEK Group's Web presence fixed where I want...

Productivity and Drive-By Insults

Confronted by a lengthy report that challenges conventional thinking or traditional assumptions, which comment is easier to make among your peers?

"Looks like we might have to re-think our strategy, based on what I'm seeing here."

Or

"I'm soooo glad we have a gold-plated MBA on our team. Pardon me for asking, but how much of this do you think was downloaded straight from the Internet?"

Unmitigated sarcasm -- which has been called the lowest form of wit -- only works when someone gets hurt. It is base humor at someone else's expense. When sarcasm is thought-through and self-directed (consider Winston Churchill's self-deprecating humor -- "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it!"), it can intensely underscore a point.

But when sarcasm dominates, it destroys productivity. Rabid sarcasm openly directed in a belittling way drains morale and creates productivity-sapping resentment.

And as has been said, resentment is anger in rehearsal.

Ever been the brunt of a intense sarcastic remark that you didn't get immediately? An hour or so later you then realize the deep cut and probably begin ruminating -- replaying the hurt over and over again and perhaps plotting your witty and equally sarcastic response. Full of resentment, you can thus induce an unending cycle of building (and unexpressed) anger that only produces more bad thoughts and can spill over into other relationships.

In the workplace, how much productivity gets lost because of this waste of time?

Perhaps in the end it can be argued that sarcasm is the chief defense for those whom mediocrity is a key outcome. "Consider the source" might be good advice.

But avoiding unnecessary sarcasm, the kind that is intended to inflict pain, is a better option.

Want to improve your competitive capacity in 2008? Try championing civility. And avoiding hurtful (and productivity killing) drive-by insults.