Netflix is Ruining its Great Reputation

I have always admired Netflix. Who wouldn't? Here is a company that was created by Reed Hastings because he had a $40 late fee at Blockbuster. He created a company with a unique customer algorithm, similar to that used by Amazon, that matches customer preferences, and with the ability to source materials for the most niche of movie interests. At the same time, Blockbuster was focused on major hits and keeping an inventory in its many stores.

Netflix was able to see the future and adapt to video-on-demand and downloadable movies, even doing deals with video game makers and DVD player makers.

All of this was admirable. I use Netflix as a case study in my MBA and Executive MBA classes. Now, Netflix has decided that it makes sense to move into pop-up ads on websites. Instead of keeping awareness high, they are becoming a nuisance. Instead of remaining an admired brand, they are ruining their reputation. They are becoming the equivalent of being stuck in a room with a life insurance salesman who just won't stop talking.

I don't know who is advising Netflix, but I wish they would step back and remind themselves of what made them such a valuable brand and return to their roots. Stop the interruption, pop-up ads. Those are for lesser companies.

BP's Independent Gas Stations are Hurt by the Spill

Business is reported to be down about 20% at some BP stations. This is even more severe than after the Exxon Valdez accident when Exxon lost about 5% of its business, some of which it has never regained. As a result, reputation experts began to estimate that reputation was worth about 5% of revenues on an annualized basis. It actually could be worth more, depending on the severity of the reputation damage that is done.

Among the victims of the BP disaster are the owners of BP gas stations. In the US,virtually all of the dealers are independent owners and operators--they have no relationship to BP other than selling gas under the BP brand. They are suffering and taking flack from consumers. Gas stations are being picketed.

A consumer has only three ways to show their disgust with BP: 1) they can urge their member of Congress or Senator to punish the company, 2) they can boycott BP gas, or 3) they can divest themselves of BP stock, if they hold it or urge their company to divest the stock from its portfolio.

This is a situation in which there is no upside for the dealers. They have a business relationship with a bad actor. As a result, the diminished brand equity and reputation of BP will continue to hurt them. They can scream and explain themselves all they want, and we can all feel sorry for them, but they are collateral damage. If consumers continued to buy BP gas they would not only be supporting the gas station owner, but also directly benefiting BP. I feel sorry for the station owners, but there is no way I am going into a BP station.

We've seen this situation in other markets. Toyota dealers are independent of the company, yet they were suffered great damage during the Toyota recalls for acceleration and brake problems. Most car dealers are independent. What can they argue? "Buy a car from me because I have nothing to do with making this lousy car"? Sorry, but brand associations are what lead you to make your purchase of the dealership in the first place. You linked yourself to the brand, for good and for bad. You are now suffering the impact of that brand association. We need to remember that there is truth in what our Mother's always told us: "we will be judged by the company we keep".

So, we can feel sorry for the independent BP dealers, but they benefited from the great reputation that BP had for so long--I'm sure that is why many of them wanted to own BP stations. They chose wrong brand association. Life is not fair.

Endorsed Brands Take a New Twist

Endorsed brands have always been an important brand strategy. Endorsements take on different variations. We continue to see people with lab coats acting as doctors to endorse the efficacy of a product or demonstrate what a "talk with a doctor" might look like. There are Ralph Lauren and Eddie Bauer interior in cars. Reebok sponsors work-out rooms in hotels. Martha Stewart is an endorser of towels, pillow cases, dishes, and other home products. Her name provides a risk reduction for those who are not certain they know how to properly decorate their homes. Oprah's endorsements can drive book sales, generate traffic at stores, and create new celebrities (Dr. Phil, Dr. Oz, etc. were all created by Oprah and have now become their own celebrities and are now endorsers).

Endorsements are designed to lower fear, uncertainty and doubt in the purchase. Endorsements are not designed to attract everyone. They are designed to attract the target. They connect the target with people who are admired or looked up to. They are a reference group--someone we aspire to be like or be associated with. A Nike shoe is a brand, but an Air Jordan takes on a whole new dimension because Michael Jordan is behind it. His endorsement was so strong that LeBron James actually said one time that he thought he could jump higher when he was young because he was wearing Air Jordans.

As a result of social media, consumers have become even more skeptical or celebrity endorsements, so a new twist has occurred. Celebrities like Ashton Kutcher and Lady Gaga are now taking a piece of the company and taking on management roles within the company so that their endorsements are not only more believable, but so that they share in the success or failure of the company (actually, there is little downside for the celebrity from a monetary standpoint since they get paid as well as a getting equity). Kutcher, for example, is going to be the head of social media for Popchips, a line of potato chips that are baked rather than fried. He is considered a social media expert because he has more Twitter followers than almost anyone on earth. He may not really know social media, but his Tweats about Popchips will likely lead to increased sales--at least amongst people who like Kutcher.

We saw how intimately tied companies and products are to their endorsers during the Tiger Woods problems. Accenture dropped Tiger immediately because his endorsement was no longer appropriate for a consulting firm. At the same time, Nike continued to support Tiger since he was responsible for the rise of Nike Golf. His personal issues could be separated from his athletic prowess. Tiger may not have had a piece of the equity at Nike, but he has a lot to say about design, similar to the input and responsibilities that Michael Jordan had at Nike.

Nike better watch closely what is happening. If Tiger or Jordan wanted an equity stake in the company, they would command a lot a hefty amount of stock--more than shareholders might be willing to tolerate, but the negotiations and calculations would be very interesting.

Developing a Good Positioning is Critical

I have seen and read so many positioning statements that sound like wonderful features or wish lists from the organization. They are often written by people inside who want those on the outside to believe the fantasy--that they are what they claim in the positioning. Words like "best", "exclusive", etc., find their way into the positioning without any sense of internal challenge as to whether or not they can be defended or supported. Too often, outside firms that are brought in to help with the positioning only hurt the process further when they think of positioning as trying to influence the market rather than explaining choices form the market perspective.

Positioning solves a number of issues for an organization: it identifies the target, it establishes the point of differentiation, it frames a promise, and its offers a reason to buy, invest, join, etc. In other words, solving the positioning puzzle is one of the the most important steps in the strategic process.

There are a number of must haves in a positioning:

--First, it must have a target. The target can be stated in demographic terms, or psychological terms, or behavioral terms, or any other way that we normally segment a market and identify a target. It doesn't have to say that the product or service is intended for men or women or craftsmen or some other group, but it should say who the product or service is intended for.

--Second, the positioning must create a frame of reference. All brands create a promise of performance and positioning helps, as a major part of the branding process, to state the promise that the target will receive

--Third, the positioning needs to offer a point of differentiation

--Finally, the positioning should give a reason to buy. In other words, what does the target get out of this experience, investment, etc.?

Companies need to recognize that positioning is a competitive endeavor. In other words, one is not just positioning ones own company, but one is juxtaposing the company against competition. Everyone in an industry group has similar offerings. The question is why you are different? Why should I give you my time, money, etc. versus someone else? This is a zero-sum game. We need to assume that when one buys us they do not buy someone else, or the corollary, that when they buy our competition, they are excluding us. It is called positioning because we are trying to establish our position in the market. Our customers and other key stakeholders will determine where they position us. Hopefully, our desired position will resonate with stakeholders.

So, positioning is critical in marketing strategy and branding. Good positioning should create a bit of angst internally. It is a mirror to the company from the client or customer perspective. If it is universally liked it is, like works of art, probably not that good. Great brands are not universally liked, but they are absolutely loved by some-- enough people to make them valuable. We want to differentiate, not be universally loved in our positioning. If we are for everyone, we likely don't have much to offer. We need to figure out who really needs us and why and make that clear in our positioning.

There is a Huge Need to Integrate Strategy and Execution

The July-August issue of Harvard Business Review has another excellent article by Roger Martin, Dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto. In the piece, he argues that strategy and execution must be linked, but that they are not in most strategy courses in business schools, nor by consulting firms. It should be noted that Martin used to be a partner in a consulting firm prior to becoming Dean at Rotman.

It is clear that most people separate strategy and execution. How many times have we heard about a company engaging a strategy firm and then finding it difficult to implement the strategy once the firm is finished. I used to have a CEO who was fond of saying: "strategy is fine, but 90% of success is in execution". As Martin notes, one cannot be successful in execution independent of a good strategy, and one cannot have a good strategy independent of good execution.

It is interesting that in the brand and reputation world, most of the firms operating are execution-type firms. The brand firms do brand audits and then develop a new logo and set of identity guidelines. The advertising firms do advertising; the PR firms do PR. On the strategy side, McKinsey, Boston Consulting Group, and others are doing some brand strategy, but this is a very small part of their overall offering. There is a gap where Martin sees one. And, it is a wide gap that needs to be bridged.

Execution is becoming more and more commoditized in the brand world. Strategy is where the money is. So, implementation firms are typically staffed with junior people who do not really understand strategy; and the strategy firms are staffed with senior people who do not want to be bothered with implementation. When the strategy is done, it is "handed off" to the company which typically hands it off to a PR or advertising firm. The latter are typically not involved in the strategy discussions so they often implement against a strategy that they do not fully understand, unless they are briefed directly by the strategy firm or unusually well by the client. Advertising and PR firms say they do strategy, but they don't. They do advertising or communications strategy, not the type of strategy taught in an MBA program.

The difficulty is often with billing. Strategy firms bill thousands of dollars per day for even middle-ranked people; execution firms bill a fraction of this. So, when strategy and execution firms have tried to talk about mergers or working together, they often get stymied with billing. Clients who hire advertising or PR firms are usually not willing to pay $5,000-$10,000 per day for strategy; an strategy firms do not see the need to have an implementation group on the pay-roll.

In my own consulting practice at Brand and Reputation Management, I focus on linking strategy, brand management with employee engagement. I try to lay out implementation plans for the client, but I do not do the execution. I usually ask the client if I can help them brief the implementation firm so that there is a smooth transition to execution. But, this request is not always accepted. So, I have not connected all the dots, as Martin has pointed out, and could be serving my clients better if I were to connect with an implementation firm.

I have said to many people that there is a huge need for a brand and reputation management firm that has business and marketing strategy people, brand experts, researchers and implementation staff. There is nothing like that right now. Perhaps a first step would be to connect a few good firms together in common practice.

The McChrystal Flap Shows a Problem with His Team's Value Set

President Obama is being forced to decide what to do with renegade General McChrystal. The General and his advisors gave an interview to Rolling Stone in which they ridiculed many of the officials in the "chain of command". Now, Obama is forced to decide whether to accept the resignation that McChrystal is certain to offer (military culture demands that he tender his resignation). This is a President with so many problems confronting him that one has to wonder whether the fates have aligned against him.

When I read about McChrystal and his band of merry, arrogant, men, I see a poisonous culture that is highly problematic. We have seen the same culture at Enron. I saw it first-hand at Nortel. It is a culture of personality in which the boss is so revered or feared (I'll leave it to psychologists to figure that one out) that they become an arrogant, totally self-confident group that feeds off of one another. Everyone who "gets it", in the language Enron executives used to use, is part of the team. Anyone who doesn't agree and live the same life "doesn't get it" and needs to be ridiculed and purged. It is a test of purity. This may build a strong team, but the team is more akin to what the Communists referred to as the "cult of personality" than to a culture of ideas and thought leadership that characterizes most great leaders.

Great leaders surround themselves with people who think and are encouraged to share their ideas, even if they conflict with the prevailing ideas. When thoughts are closed off, there is only one way of thinking. The team gets, what a former professor at West Point I knew called "the spirit of the opposition". That is, a single-minded passion; almost mindless. But, McChrystal is a person who sleeps only a few hours a night; eats only one meal a day; refuses to take water and food while walking around in the harsh climate and heat; and will not nap on the plane. He sees his wife of 33-years only 30-days a year and celebrated their anniversary at a pub in Paris, along with his inner circle. Think about that personality. He is a military guy and we want him to win the war, but he clearly has psychological problems and he has selected a team of advisors that share his problems.

The McChrystal group calls itself "Team America" and believes that they are the only ones who know how to fight the war. Others who disagree are ridiculed, as was on wide display in the Rolling Stone interview. Many of the worst comments were not made by General McChrystal, but rather by unnamed staff. He may not have been in the room when they made those comments, but he clearly gave his team the feeling that they had the right to ridicule the Vice President and others in the Administration.

The military has prided itself on becoming more entrepreneurial and more akin to a corporation than to the hierarchical structure of the past. The success of the military can be found in people like General Petraeus, who appears to be not only bright a brilliant military mind, but also a great leader. Great leaders gain their ideas by having others challenge them. This is what leadership is all about. Not about giving orders, but rather about inspiring a team to internalize the outcome and help the organization succeed.

I recall Jack Welch, former CEO of GE, noting that the most problematic leaders are those who are successful in making their financial numbers, but at the same time destroy the lives of those around them. They are poison to an organization and need to be coached for change or fired if they cannot change. They can too quickly become the "exemplars" of the organization--those others aspire to become. It seems that McChrystal is that kind of leader. He is successful on the one hand, but he also seems to be poison.

BP's Internal Communications Becomes Theatre of the Absurd

The following was reported by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal. Just when we thought that Tony Hayward's yachting trip was the height of absurdity, BP's internal PR people go off on a tangent that can only be dubbed "what the hell were they thinking...or smoking?"
_____________________________________________________________________________________

In-house corporate magazines are supposed to make the company look good, but The Wall Street Journal is asking whether Planet BP, the oil company's organ, is smoking something:

[I]n Planet BP — a BP online, in-house magazine — a "BP reporter" dispatched to Louisiana managed to paint an even rosier picture of the disaster. "There is no reason to hate BP," one local seafood entrepreneur is quoted as saying, as the region relies on the oil industry for work.

Indeed, the April 20 spill on the Deepwater Horizon is being reinvented in Planet BP as a strike of luck.

"Much of the region's [nonfishing boat] businesses — particularly the hotels — have been prospering because so many people have come here from BP and other oil emergency response teams," another report says. Indeed, one tourist official in a local town makes it clear that "BP has always been a very great partner of ours here…We have always valued the business that BP sent us."

_______________________________________________________________________________

We know that BP has to try to maintain the internal morale of the company's employees, but this is beyond absurdity. One has to wonder whether BP has manufactured its own reality and cannot quite live in the real world that they have thrust us all into with their destructiveness.