Posts tagged fragmentation
about transactional branding
Aug 27th
Ok.
I use this term ‘transactional branding’ a lot when I am talking about business and defending why we shouldn’t talk about branding (or at least stop until everyone can turn off the bullshit meters and maybe all agree on terms of usage).
The premise behind the phrase is that excellent marketing/communications/branding activity/whatever you want to call it and business results – transactions – can and should be inextricably linked.
I do believe a truly inspiring insight or idea will inspire positive brand value and inspire consumer action and I call it Transactional Branding.
Now.
Let me be clear.
I wasn’t the genius who came up with the phrase and idea (although the concept behind it has always resided in my pea like brain).
Some guy at an agency I worked at articulated this idea (probably scribbled on a napkin over cocktails) and came up with the phrase and wording in maybe the late 90’s.
I loved it.
My boss loved it (who was actually the president).
Pretty much everyone else hated it.
It’s that damn word transactions.
Marketing and advertising agencies feel like it diminishes their abilities (and their art) to suggest that they do anything transactional
(but … to come to their defense .. while this is a visceral response I have not run into one great marketing/advertising creative mind … EVER … who didn’t understand that ultimately whatever they created needed to generate a business result or their ‘creative idea’ just wasn’t worth a shit).
Anyway. All that said.
Recognizing a brand cannot exist without ongoing sales, revenue or retail traffic seems to be an overlooked topic in the branding world.
Okay. Someone is going to suggest that it is simply ‘understood.’
Well.
It’s not.
In fact there is an entire generation of young marketers entering into the ‘branding world’ thinking it is all about building value (or adding value).
Well geez … adding value on ‘what.’ Not a logo. Or not on some culture. The value has to be added to … well … some ‘thing.’
And, oh by the way, that ‘thing’ needs some sales, revenue or traffic or your ‘thing’ will become ‘no-thing.’ (let alone a brand).
So this transactional branding concept means building the ‘encourage consumer action’ into the branding effort. In other words, create business outcomes today so the brand lives tomorrow.
It’s kind of a simple concept.
Some people may call it ‘holistic’ or something (maybe not).
Anyway.
How it works:
One brand idea. One brand voice. One brand strategy. An integrated communications plan with multiple tactics (which can be changed constantly because the strategy remains the same).
- note: see my glocal article on my point of view on flexibility in execution.
It begins by identifying ‘the’ inspiring insight (typically the marriage between consumer and brand insight).
Of course you identify the desired business results.
You identify the best communications/marketing ideas to generate the best results.
You develop smart insightful creative messaging (within the organization as well as externally to insure some alignment).
Then you measure results and adjust tactics as appropriate.
Whew.
Sounds simple.
Bottom line.
Here is the tricky part (t least to me)
Everything emanates from the inner truth (the essence, the company value insight, the cultural & functional core of the organization, whatever you want to call it) of the company. THAT my friends is really the brand.
All you are doing with transactional branding is sharing your ‘brand’ with people and let them fall in love with you (hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … and really the only way they can fall in love with you is if they go out on an actual date … uh .. a transaction.)
So from that ‘inner thing’ you get to create some inspiring brand idea and incorporate it into tactics that create transactions.
THAT is Transactional Branding.
Oh.
And if you buy this thought/philosophy. It isn’t just about advertising or marketing.
Transactional Branding is about working on all aspects of a business – from traditional and non-traditional tactics to in-store to organizational attitudes and behaviors and … well … whatever. Because brand and transactions are so inextricably linked that it is about internal organization equal to, if not more important, than what is done externally wit customers.
Oh.
One last great thing about attaching transactional and brand.
It’s all about “selling ‘more’ of what they want to sell at a higher price.”
Whew.
Doesn’t get much better than that if you are running a business, does it?
decommoditization (no longer being a commodity)
Aug 19th
So.
It seems like I have been talking with a lot of b2b businesses (technology, software, backroom type stuff) lately and we inevitably begin talking about ‘brands, branding & being different.” Three painful B’s.
And then a lot of discussion circles around understanding b2b versus traditional consumer marketing (which usually drives me slightly nuts until we get past that discussion).
- note: I have an entire downloadable white paper on b2b marketing so I won’t waste a lot of time on that discussion here.
Anyway.
I have some b2b experience but wouldn’t qualify as an ‘expert’ based on my resume.
However. Here is the deal.
Unless you have worked only at “glamor brand” companies (think Nike, Coke, McDonalds, etc) you have spent an entire career making your unglamorous brand/company/service not look like a commodity (because pretty much all non-glamor brands all get thrown into some confused perception/awareness cluster).
Oh.
By the way.
Even ‘glamor’ brands struggle with differentiation (or not dropping into a functional commodity status) in the b2b market (see Kodak, IBM, etc. as prime examples).
So.
Unless you have worked on a glamor brand where people line up to show your logo somewhere on their body you have had to become an expert in the decommoditozation business.
I know I have on my resume (somewhere) something like “an ability to differentiate in commodity like categories.”
What do I mean by ‘commodity-like’? Think banking, grocery stores, department stores, pest control, motor oil, eye drops, pretty much any P&G product you can think of, healthcare, cellular.
(all industries of which I have worked in).
Well. Okay. That said.
Nowadays with the advent of the internet and an endless depth of available information almost everyone is in a commodity like category.
Oh. And other than a happy few this also summarizes almost the entire b2b category. Everyone fighting themselves out of the ‘lowest cost provider’ status into ‘great value’ (which by the way is ‘brand’) status.
It doesn’t sound glamorous but I haven’t been in the branding business or the marketing business or whatever strategy business someone wants to call it … I have been in the decommoditization business.
And, in fact, (beyond me) anyone who says something like that in an interview? Hire them. And hire them now.
In today’s world the moment you stop and rest on the thought you are a ‘brand’ and have added value in someone’s mind (b2b or consumer) is the moment you start creeping back into commodityland (which is not nearly as fun as Disneyland). It takes work (inside a company and outside a company – marketing stuff) but it can be done. You can get someone to drive past 3 supermarkets to get to yours. You can get someone to pay more money for some software program written in code Albert Einstein couldn’t understand. You can get someone to choose your widget over 22 other similar widgets. But only if you are relentlessly focused on clearly and concisely de-commoditizing.
Hugh MacLeod did this cartoon and I laughed because I don’t know him personally but he used almost the exact same words I/we used in a new business presentation to a state tourism business in the late 90’s (and then used over and over again with retail and commodity-like businesses).
It’s not just advertising.
If you own a business or selling anything to anyone life isn’t top down (brand to product). Life is down to up (constantly seeking to insure your head is above the commodity water).
Does that sound defensive?
God. I hope not.
It’s just smart. It doesn’t mean you aren’t on the offensive and building value and thinking long term it simply means you have a practical objective – I don’t want to be a damn commodity.
Interestingly.
I am going to end on a personal note about de-commoditizing. Hugh wrote this (I believe .. I lost the source):
“The best way to offset one’s own commodification is to build one’s own personal “global microbrand”, irrespective one own employer.”Brand You”, as the great Tom Peters called it way back in 1997. A good blog works about as well as anything. And no, you don’t have to be an A-Lister.”
So.
I guess while I talk the talk in interviews and with businesses and whomever will listen to me … I am also in a way walking the walk by building a blog (two of them in fact) and maybe I can become my own global microbrand.
Now.
How cool would that be?
Bruce. No longer a commodity. Awesome.
Running a Business Part 2: Organizational Alignment
Dec 23rd

Note: Read Running a Business Part 1 here.
The biggest failing I have seen in businesses throughout my career is lack of alignment within an organization.
Let me explain what I mean by alignment. Alignment is that everybody understands functionally what the organization absolutely must deliver day in and day out. And it is nice if they understand the “why” (the vision), but the functional aspect is the core to alignment. Understanding of this can help all levels prioritize what is right and what is wrong. It also insures externally people never get confused.
I sometimes refer to alignment as “purposeful fragmentation.” Alignment permits the parts of the organization (departments, divisions, etc.) to maintain some autonomy yet always be grounded in what is ultimately important to the organization.
Typical problems for alignment:
The Pendulum.
The more the leader is unfocused (and unfocused can simply mean lack of consistency) the larger the swing with on-the-ground employees. A swinging organization is one that is wasting energy in trying to meet shifting objectives. Even worse in a pendulum situation the leader, because the transgressions are so minor in his or her eyes, often doesn’t recognize the repercussions of his or her actions (and blames the organization).
The Crack.
A crack in agreement in upper leadership becomes crevasses by the time it reaches individual departments. Maybe the executive leadership team is split on vision and what is important. It may be a minor disagreement. It may be only one or two of the 12 person executive team. In the end it creates inefficient crevasses in the organization where individual groups “do their own thing.”
The Marbles
It may be the leader is talking with marbles in his/her mouth and no one understands but I don’t call it the marbles because of that.
The leader is unclear. Maybe they are so aspirational no one is clear what they are supposed to do. Maybe they are clear but no one understands. Maybe they are perfectly clear but unfocused. Regardless. The organization becomes like marbles dumped on a table. Everyone rolling every which way in whatever direction their particular lay of the land dictates the way to go.
Anyway, eventually they all do roll off the table and the leader has lost his marbles (Sorry. Couldn’t resist).
The Exception
The leader suggests the situation dictates an exception. Regardless of the reason for the exception the organization doesn’t remember the reason…they only remember the exception. And one reasonable exception begets another reasonable exception in their minds.
So. What can an organization do to get aligned?
Bookending for alignment.
I like a bookend strategy to gain alignment. What this means is great leaders are clear on vision (words and consistent actions) and have on-the-ground employee understanding. Get those two things straight and inevitably all the books between the bookends will all make sense. In a bookend strategy the Middle Management’s job is easier because instead of directing up/down they are managing what they are receiving from the top and underneath. In terms of percentages, this means that the leader can be 75% vision and 25% functional/tactical and the on-the-ground organization can be 25% vision and 75% (or even more) functional/tactical. It represents a good mix but aligned on commonalities.
Finally. The key to alignment is isolating the organization’s Core Competency.
Strip away all the emotional aspects and outline in a succinct way what the company/brand delivers from a functional aspect the best, i.e., what is it they are best at. This core competency should be stated as a specific superiority claim of distinction or a distinct focused statement at what the company functionally does best.
Many people talk about “isolating the vision or the purpose.” Frankly, if the core competency doesn’t support whatever vision is stated, it is all going to fall apart so you may as well start with what the organization delivers day to day functionally.
The core competency needs to be supported with “reasons to believe”:
The reason to believe for the core competency should be focused. Does it have a special ingredient? Is there a pre-emptive endorsement (more NASCAR chief mechanics recommend, more doctors recommend, etc)? Has research shown proof (Volvo crash demonstration)? The preference is to have one focused reason to believe, but often a company needs to “bundle” distinct areas of expertise (tastes great, less filling or brighter teeth, fresher breath) to deliver proof of performance. Whatever is decided as the reason to believe it becomes the unassailable mantra throughout the organization from management, innovation, product development, sales, marketing, finance strategy and service.
Ultimately alignment has several dimensions – physical, emotional and intellectual understanding throughout all levels of the organization (leader to the most junior on-the-ground employee). It ends up being a fine line between alignment and purposeful fragmentation, but one worth walking.







