Out of State, Much in Mind

As the snow started falling like crazy in Colorado on Wednesday of this week,  I came across an article about the ski industry in Colorado. Due to lingering effects of the economic downturn, the ski industry has shifted its marketing strategy from marketing nationally and internationally to marketing in-state and  regionally. People aren’t driving as much, aren’t planning to go too far from home and aren’t spending that much money on a luxury like skiing.

Similar, but not exactly the same issues are being felt in higher education. Rising tuition, lower income, loss of jobs are being faced by many families. Which is one reason why I was surprised to see many universities last week mention they are going to start, are thinking about, or are being to pressured to increasing their out-of-state admissions.  UC Berkeley, University of Colorado, and the State University of New York are thinking of ways to increase out-of-state and international student numbers.

A couple notes before I begin. While I understand the  state funding issues and other budgetary issues revolving around this  issue, I want to mention some of the  marketing issues these schools may face in the near future as they move forward in their decision, at least in the short term. Also, this is not a bashing on the schools strategic decision, but more of a brain dump on potential issues.

• Costs families have to weigh. Students and their families, for the most part, have less money and may not be able to be accepted for a loan. This means that many students and families will have to debate whether they actually can afford some of the additional costs of an out-of-state education:
  • housing
  • transportation, both for local driving and back-to-home visits
  • transportation,  family visits on campus
  • long-distance communication
  • parking
  • out-of-state tuition
• Scattered audiences. While there are still many families doing “okay” and are able to afford or receive loans for many of the items listed above, being able to market to them en-masse may be difficult.  So money will be needed to boost marketing for a more scattered and widespread audience.
• Angering the local stakeholders. Community members, alumni, donors, and others may feel slided by the nearby university’s decision to target more out-of-staters. Some may disagree with the idea their higher education institution is not educating their local community. Some may even feel so strongly about it, they will no longer donate to or cut ties with the school.
• Reworking marketing materials. Many organizations have a single search mailer or viewbook they send to prospective students and they often tend to focus the style, language, and voice to match their major audience. Depending on where they shift there attention to grab out-of-state students, the schools above may need to rework their marketing materials to effectively reach their new audiences.
• Understanding and communicating with new audiences. To increase out-of-state enrollment, many will have to look to new markets and new audiences to reach their goals. This means that marketing research should be done to find  potential students and understand their motives.  Also an increase in out-of-state or international recruiters may be needed.
• Increased competition. Trying to sway a potential student away from a less-expensive,  in-state  university may be hard sell. Also, many institutions have been increasing their marketing capabilities to reach the increase of potential students (via – more higher ed students during poor economy). They are also trying to protect the markets they themselves consider strongholds.
• Educating new audiences. Many schools have market strongholds where the audiences know them fairly well. The audience knows about the school, have been on the campus a couple times, have considered going there, and have friends or family members that have gone there. When shifting markets, especially out-of-state markets, the marketing will have to start from scratch in many areas and educate the audience about the school.

Many universities have done almost the opposite based on their situations. They are bunkering down and, as mentioned, protecting or solidifying their current markets often with great benefits. They may even be venturing into a few newer markets to look for potential students.  Seems like a risky time to be frustrating current market strongholds and venturing heavily into new markets.

This is a risky move by UC Berkeley, University of Colorado and State University of New York with several potential issues, but only time will tell if  the benefits will outweigh the costs and if this is a strategy they plan on keeping in the long-term. All the luck to them and others facing this type of situation.

Brand Managers Have Always Been Brand Advocates, But Now It’s Just Getting More Official

According to the consultancy Black Coffee, a Brand Advocate is a consumer who preaches the merits of a given brand when prompted. According to Dave Chaffey, a Brand Advocate is a customer who has favorable perceptions of a brand who will talk favorably about a brand to their acquaintances to help generate awareness of the brand or influence purchase intent.

Where I’m going with this is in both these instances, the advocate is not actually ‘part of the team’. In both these definitions the advocate is the customer. You could even say they’re sitting up in the stands cheering for their team. If you are an institution of higher education, they are your alumni, your community, and yes, your fans in the stands. So when I read this article from Advertising Age about ‘Why It’s Time to Do Away With the Brand Manager’ it got me thinking… Is it? Is it a silly title based on the fact we all know the consumer is the one that truly defines your brands, especially with the constantly changing online social landscape. It’s a two-way street now more than ever before. Is it time to have the title of Brand Manager go the way of the cassette tapes? While the article is a great read, I’m not necessarily convinced. The actual report suggesting this change will be released by Forrester next week.

I believe there is still a place for what we’ve come to know as marketing management. There’s a lot more to be responsible for than what you might find in an ‘advocate’. In the higher ed space, a central figure in your marketing department remains the optimal setup. An employee who’s looking at both the means and the end.

There’s a few other snippets in this article from the report that  got my attention, one being, “…ditching the formal annual budgeting process and upfront media-specific allocation in favor of frequently updated, on-the-fly plans that adapt quickly as conditions change and money earmarked upfront for initiatives, not specific media. In my view, some of this applies to higher education and some doesn’t. I don’t think ditching the annual budgeting process can be done. There are too many logistics that make this a bit on the impossible side for universities. However, while potentially risky in dealing with the unknown, it might be possible to consider planning for initiatives rather than specific media. I’m going to let that thought simmer for a while…

Another passage that was attention grabbing was “…marketing executives should think less about anchoring annual plans around one or two big hits and more about doing many smaller things quickly and adapting based on real-time consumer feedback and other data.” There are still good in having a fairly robust and solid marketing plan in place, but still have areas of flexibility. In today’s environment, changes can happen quickly, but at the same time, the reason for many of those changes can be pinpointed to social networking and analytics. This can result in a university or college taking quick action.

All in all in regards to the position title, we’re just talking about a technicality here. A title is a title. The duties and responsibilities of a position are obviously what really counts. You’re always going to need someone to keep a close eye and make observations and decisions on what to do in the marketing world. You’re still managing the brand and there are still shots to call… you just might have a little less control over the results.

Health Care for Sick Brands

Now that “branding” has become entrenched as a buzzword with colleges, universities, and non-profits, a lot of the consultations we’re asked to perform focus on diagnosing what ails a brand, and prescribing corrective action. It’s really brand remediation, a sort of health care for brands – the BRAND ER.

Common Ailments
Hundred of illnesses can beset brand marketers. Here are a few of the most common ailments we get asked about:

• Obsessive-Creative Disorder – Creating brand new campaigns every year!
• Budganemia – No resources to do what you have to do?
• Old Brandage – Tired, outdated designs, photo style, palette?
• Psychosis of the Giver – Campaign doesn’t work for donors or influencers?
• Brandnesia – No one can remember what it is you stand for?
• Multiple Personalities – Umpteen entities, each with their own logo?
• Brandkenstein’s Disease – Umpteen entities, all living in one body – “It’s alive!”
• Brandiswine Flu – Pandemic messages that infect everyone and differentiate no one!
• Research Effective Disorder - Little, aged, or no research to point the strategic direction?

We’re obviously having a little fun with these names, but the symptoms are no joke. These are serious and complex brand challenges. And when you face them for real in the field, identifying what’s really going on – and what to do about it – can get pretty tricky, pretty fast.

The Treatment
Take Obsessive-Creative Disorder (feeling the need for new campaign creative every year or two), for example. Many colleges flit from one creative campaign to another – a costly idea. Consider: A corporation investing, say, $80 million in advertising each year might be able to get away with it, but a college investing only $1 million or less is throwing away hard-earned equity by changing too often.

While departmental clients often harp on the theme that “We need a new campaign,” no institutions I know can build reach and frequency at high enough levels to enable them to change campaigns annually. Again and again, data proves that most institutions begin to get good campaign traction after two or three years. So if you’re changing the look and feel of the creative every year or so, you’ll be starting over from scratch in building brand recognition. That’s enough to make any brand manager feel under the weather.

The best treatment for this condition is a program of brand evolution rather than creative do-overs. It is a way to strategically manage creative updates using new imagery, revamped formats, fresh headlines, and incremental design tweaks so that the campaign continues to feel fresh and new, yet builds on what has gone before. It’s a simple idea, sure, but it compounds the impact of your campaign many times over to help you better achieve the holy grail of marketing: Return on Investment!

We’ll be conducting more brand diagnoses in the August 27 Online KnowledgeBuilder – “The Brand ER, Triage For Ailing Brands.” If your brand isn’t as healthy as you’d like, think about joining. We’ll ask participants to describe the symptoms their brands are exhibiting, and then talk over the possible treatments. Should be lots of fun as well as informative.

Stay healthy!

<!–[endif]–><!–[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <![endif]–><!–[if gte mso 9]> <![endif]–> <!–[endif]–><!–[if gte mso 9]> <![endif]–><!–[if gte mso 9]> <![endif]–><!–[if gte vml 1]> <![endif]–><!–[if !vml]–><!–[endif]–>

Breaking Your Brand Family’s Back

The intense cost of supporting multiple sub-brands and independent brands came up during last week’s Online KnowledgeBuilder on brand architecture. I thought it was worth a little more discussion.

Our KnowledgeBuilder discussion reinforced that, in most cases, little thought is given to marketing costs when the heads of various units – deans, chairs, directors, vice presidents, etc. – get a wild hair that they want their own brand identity. For some obscure reason, unit directors are convinced that having their own logo and creative identity will somehow make their units more successful. Maybe it’s ego, too.

But rare is the unit director who gives serious consideration to what it will take to actually support their sub-brand or independent identity.

It’s more than just the cost of creative development, although that can be significant on its own. It also involves printing costs; signage; costs for website, microsite, and social networking presence and maintenance; ongoing PR and internal communications; events marketing; and an adequate advertising budget. How about staffing for developing the materials, writing a separate marketing plan, and implementing integrated tactics?

We’ve estimated that each sub-brand you create will cost your institution at a minimum, an additional 65% to 85% of the core marketing budget in order to adequately support it. For example, if you’re investing $1 million annually (including salaries, operating expense, PR, marketing, advertising, and promotions) on the core brand, then each sub-branded unit should be budgeting between $650,000 and $850,000 in annual marketing and communications investment.

Each independent brand will cost your institution even more – between 75% and 100% as much as the core brand marketing budget. (It’s never a good idea to have a sub-brand invest more in marketing than the core brand over an extended period of time, since the risk is that the sub-brand will eventually gain greater equity than the core brand – a calamity.)

For institutions devoted to the public good, and particularly in this difficult economy, such additional marketing requirements can appear extravagant to the point of wasteful.

Regardless, the projected costs for marketing support of sub-brands and independent brands needs to be at the forefront of any discussions about creating unit-based identities. It should be one of the basic criteria for whether or not to create such an identity, and it’s one of the big reasons that we caution brand managers that senior leadership must assume authority and responsibility for approving the institution’s brand architecture.

I invite your further thoughts on this issue, and thanks to all the participants in last week’s KnowledgeBuilder on brand architecture

Brand Architecture: Who’s Really In Charge?

Last week a reader responded by email to a recent post on brand architecture, taking issue with one of my assertions.  Her point of contention concerned who should determine how various units are positioned – as elements of the core brand, as sub-brands, or as independent brands.  I wrote:

“When you don’t have a strong brand architecture in place, we’ve seen such decisions being made – by default – by the communications manager or publications director or even a designer! Little wonder these brands fall apart at the seams.”

The reader felt this was unfair and inaccurate, and responded:

“I think I understand that you are appealing to institutions without a strong brand when you say this. But my experience shows me – that in many colleges and universities – the communications manager, publications director or designer is EXPECTED to be the expert on brand development and management.  The senior leadership delegates to these professional[s]. And it becomes important for these folks to BECOME experts in branding. I, for instance, have been encouraged to understand market data and analysis.   These people (like me) are your audience. Don’t diss them.  Maybe you can hook senior management this way at some institutions – but not at all.  A little more respect-”

I was actually referring to institutions that have already developed a strong brand platform and seek to determine how they should position various high-profile divisions, campuses, colleges, schools, and centers.  But it’s a excellent discussion point, well made, and my thanks to this colleague for bringing it up.

Yet I stand by my assertion that decisions on brand architecture need to be made by senior leadership.  I have two compelling reasons:

1. Positioning decisions go far beyond marketing.  They impact the fundamental mission of both the core brand and the related units, with implications for academic operations, program selection, delivery methods, resource allocations, fundraising, target audiences, staffing, and a host of other management factors.  Marketing issues need to be part of the positioning decision – the marketing staff should give senior leaders well-researched recommendations regarding how units should be positioned – but marketing is only one aspect of these far-reaching decisions, and it’s a mistake to allow marketing be the sole determinant.
2. It can be career-limiting for marketing staff to make unilateral decisions on brand architecture.  Deans and other unit leaders are typically fervent on how their units are positioned, and rightly so, since such decisions impact the health and well-being of their units.  When marketing staff make the call on their own, they often find themselves going toe-to-toe with a dean and/or vice president.  For example, when the marketing team “grants” sub-brand status to a campus, college, or school, it’s akin to opening Pandora’s Box with other deans wanting the same treatment.  It’s politically dangerous for the marketing staff to deny powerful campus leaders.  While senior administrators have both the pay grade and the broad management experience needed to make – and defend – such decisions, marketing staff usually don’t. 

We have incredible respect and admiration for higher ed marketers and brand managers and what they do – after all, that’s what we do, too.  And we agree that marketing experts need to have significant input in the process – in fact, we recommend that the brand manager take the lead role in proposing a comprehensive brand architecture matrix for the entire institution, and then present the rationale to the senior leadership team for discussion, debate, and approval.

But institutional leaders have to own the decisions regarding which units will be part of the core brand, which will be accorded sub-brand status, and which will operate as independent brands.  In order to ensure sustainability and acceptance of the brand architecture, they have to assume sole authority and responsibility for these decisions.  Then they can delegate brand development and management to the marketing experts. 

This is a great debating point, and I hope this reader and other colleagues will join the Online KnowledgeBuilder on brand architecture this Thursday (July 16) at 11:00 MDT for in-depth discussion of this issue and others related to brand architecture.   Look forward to more great discussion!

Get More Face Time on Facebook

On the heels of Travis’ recent post Get Engaged!, I started looking more closely at Facebook’s (FB) rapidly evolving advertising strategy. The two major spaces the company is focusing on are a beefed up ad presence on its coveted FB Home Page and on email pages.

For me, the jury is still out as to whether an increasing ad presence will hurt or help FB in the long run.

As a user, I’m not that thrilled – except when the advertising is fun and creative, then, I personally don’t mind it. And it’s presence on the sidebar means I can tune it out pretty easily.

However, as a marketer, I can’t (and I’ll tell you that you can’t) pass up the opportunity to use FB’s new offerings to advertisers to help build connections with your target audiences. I’d tell you, you shouldn’t rely solely on this space, but it definitely should be one of your mediums in a well integrated campaign to gen Y and gen X audiences. See the blog Facebook Experimenting with Video Poll Home Page Engagement Ad Unit.

The numbers make a pretty compelling argument to be in this space. According to FB’s Manager of Brand Market Solutions, Trista Handisides, the Facebook home page is the “most engaging page on the Internet” – with nearly 6 billion monthly minutes spent, compared to 3 billion minutes for Yahoo, 1.86 billion for MSN, and 700 million for MySpace. (check out her comments at the Facebook Marketing Breakfast).

Particularly intriguing to me, are the possibilities to incorporate video into ads. In a move that’s very on FB brand, the videos are combined with polls that ask something of users, as an engagement mechanism. These aren’t hugely widespread yet, but I suspect we’ll see a growing number. I know they certainly catch my eye more. To get an idea, look for the current Lexus campaign. It’s a nice combination of a TV driven campaign that is intriguing enough to give it a viral quality on the Web, i.e. by using the polls on FB to ask audiences what they believe is happening in the commercial. Answering the poll takes you to Lexus’ FB page, where you can learn more about the product, see the other ads, and, of course, read what others are saying about the campaign.

What a great opportunity for higher ed marketers to get creative. Taking the big picture view, you could go the Lexus route by using TV combined with other tools, including FB. However, you’d have to have a good question to pay it off. For example, our client, the University of Southern Maine is currently running a TV campaign with the theme “That’s Education My Way, this would marry nicely with a FB video/engagement spot that invites the user to choose what “Education Their Way” would look like and lead them to a University prospective student page that would further the conversation. You heard it here first USM!

Other opportunities on FB include using banner ads like the flash ad for Best Buy on the left. These appear mostly on your email home page.

You’ll also see polls included with intriguing still images.

The ads I’ve been discussing are all negotiated through FB’s advertising unit. If you’re doing these kinds of ads, it’s a good idea, to work with an agency as it will know the ins and outs of negotiating in this space and can give you some pointers on how to get the most out of this investment.

The ads you see most often, consisting of a headline, image, and a brief sell line below, are the kind you can create yourself right on FB. They come at a set price for view and performance. These are a great way to get started and, for the price, a good medium to incorporate into your ad buys aimed at younger audiences. But, if you can, step it up. It will pay off in terms of building engagement equity for you brand. The added bonus is that FB’s great metrics allow you to measure results in real time. But that’s a blog for another time…

On a side note… three finalist for the International Brand Master have been chosen: Andrew Careaga, Catherine Scruggs, and Jenny Beckman-Wong (in no particular order).  Now the voting is in your hands! Read about the top three nominees and their accomplishments in higher education below and vote for which person you think exemplifies their profession. Don’t take the voting lightly as the 2009 International Brand Master will be asked to speak of their challenges and successes at the Brand Manager’s Summit in October of 2009. Vote by Wednesday July 8 (click here).

Big, Bad, Bold Brands and Why They’re Beautiful

Market positioning is a high-stakes game, part art, part science. Get it wrong and your campaign can go down in flames. Get it right and you’ll occupy a powerful leadership position that will provide competitive advantages for years to come.

Those are the issues that higher ed marketers discussed in last week’s Online KnowledgeBuilder on competitive positioning. The session began by discussing two fundamental truths of competitive positioning:

1. Market position is defined not by you, but by your audiences. You may aspire to occupy a certain position in the marketplace, but it won’t make whit of difference until audiences begin to think of you in that way. Your market position exists only in their hearts and minds.
2. The single most important factor in competitive positioning is differentiation. Young and Rubicam’s long-term study of brands proved that brand equity is determined by how well organizations set themselves apart from competitors. That supports what brand gurus Al Ries and Jack Trout first outlined in the seminal book, Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind! It’s more important now than ever before.

The discussion then outlined the research elements you need for effective positioning:

1. Brand Audit. Identifies the category in which you compete, your messaging, consistency, priority audiences, capabilities, resources, and your current position within your category.
2. Marketplace Analysis. Identifies competitors in the category, their messaging and positioning, who they appeal to, and overall market and audience trends and demographics.
3. Audience Research. Identifies audience segments, awareness, perceptions, and dimensions of your products/services that are most important in audiences’ decisions to engage with you

After the research, it’s time to identify the niche leadership position that fulfills two criteria: It holds great potential in the marketplace and it’s a position based your unique core values and competitive strengths. It’s done through a consensus-based Brand Platform.

The brand platform should include a positioning statement, brand promise, and brand drivers. Your platform should be

• Boldly Differentiating. If you can’t find a way to set yourself apart, you’ve got nothing.
• Intrinsically valuable. Audiences must view it as inherently valuable. If your platform is based on friendliness, you have to ask yourself: Is that important enough to motivate engagement? Will it trump prestige or career outcomes? It depends on the value system of your audiences, and the only way to know is research.
• Unique to your organization. Can you deliver it better than competitors? It doesn’t work if you promise something in which you cannot excel.
• Timeless. The platform must stay relevant next year, and the year after that. It’s counterproductive to support a position based on what’s “hot” and what’s not.

We explored samples of big, bold brands that have given their owners exceptional return-on-investment. Why? Because these brands set themselves apart within their competitive sets through innately important, timeless brand promises – which they deliver better than the competition.  Among them:

• Washington State University (www.wsu.edu) – “World Class. Face to Face.” differentiates WSU among public research universities by promising internationally known programs and individual involvement and face time with top researchers.
• Clarkson University (www.clarkson.edu) – “Defy Convention” sets this private research university apart on its ability to span boundaries through innovation and an extraordinary team approach both inside the classroom and out.
• Del Mar College (www.delmar.edu)- “What’s Your Dream?” is a campaign running for more than 10 years that differentiates this 2-year college based on the fact that it offers the largest program selection in their marketplace.
• University of North Dakota (http://www.go.und.edu) – promises and delivers a pervasive “Innovative and entrepreneurial spirit” that permeates the entire organization and provides a competitive edge for students.

Special thanks to all our KnowledgeBuilder attendees: great questions and thoughtful discussion about your own positioning efforts and challenges!

If you missed this one, and would like a reprise or a custom presentation for your organization, just let us know.

And sign up now – before all the seats are taken – for the timely June 25 Online KnowlegeBuilder, Advertising is Dead! Long Live Advertising! We’ll lead attendees through the brave new world of online advertising, and provide the skills and insider tips you’ll need to negotiate it successfully!

Competitive Positioning in a Volatile Market

There’s great truth in the marketing adage: If you’re not a leader in your category…create a new category.

A leadership position imparts a host of advantages: market leaders have more secure market share, especially in volatile economic times. They are able to drive awareness and attitude. They are first to benefit from upswings and last to feel downturns.

But the real secret is this: Through strategic positioning, you can identify and express a leadership position that sets you apart from your competitors!

Positioning simply refers to how you’re perceived by audiences relative to competitors in the same category. As Al Ries and Jack Trout defined in their bestseller Positioning – The Battle for Your Mind, which is generally considered the authoritative description of the subject, positioning is all about differentiating yourself in the minds of your prospects.  Differentiation, in fact, is arguably the most critical component of a strong brand – if you can’t find a way to differentiate yourself, you’d better be prepared to compete on price alone.

So what is your differentiating strategy? How do you express your leadership? How do you bring it to life and deliver it to audiences? Should it change to respond to today’s economic realities?

Here are the four major considerations in positioning:

Assessing Your Market: Positioning needs to start with an assessment of your competition and trends in your competitive marketplace. How are competitors positioned? What motivates your audiences? What is changing?

Differentiating Yourself: What differentiating idea distinguishes you from your competitors? What unique benefit do you provide for your audiences? Do your internal stakeholders believe and own this singular idea? Has it been expressed clearly in a brand platform?

Delivering Your Promise: Is your position honest and real? You can’t simply claim to be different, you actually have to deliver what you promise. If you can’t, there is no real point of differentiation. Every individual and unit in your organization should be working to deliver the promise.

Communicating Your Difference:Your marketing and communications should define your differentiating idea in an attention-grabbing and compelling way. But this is where the art of positioning truly comes into play: Your messaging can pivot from a niche leadership position in many different ways, depending upon competitors, consumers’ changing motivators, and trends in the marketplace.

In a volatile market such as we face today, it can be necessary – even urgent – to examine your messaging and assess whether it needs fine-tuning. How you employ your differentiated position in today’s unpredictable marketplace can make all the difference!

Our next KnowledgeBuilder on June 4 will examine positioning strategies in the context of the four components above and in light of today’s unstable competitive marketplace. We’ll have in-depth discussion how to pivot your brand messaging to strengthen your leadership differentiation while responding to consumers’ economic and quality concerns.

Join us on June 4, because strategic positioning can literally make the difference between thriving in today’s economy, or merely scraping by.

Making Facebook a Real Marketing Tool

Today’s Online KnowledgeBuilder, presented by EMG Senior Brand Strategist Ineke Caycedo, ran through the five steps for turning Facebook into a real marketing tool. Marketing pros across the country took part in the 90 minute interactive seminar.

Ineke’s online tutorial used Facebook as the model for social networking (SN) because, in terms of networks that build connections, it sits at the top of the leader board:

• 68.5m users / 57% are 18-24 (U.S.)
• 1.91m monthly visits
• “cleaner” image compared to others
• X-er’s are fastest growing segment
• Size = best return on investment

Although the tips were demonstrated on FB, the nuts-and-bolts secrets she shared are applicable to most SN sites.

Social networking is a new tactic, so even the big boys with loads of resources are feeling their way through, but there are some who are striking the right notes, including:

1. Coca-Cola
2. Social Media for Small Business – Powered by Dell
3. Victoria’s Secret PINK
4. Sears
5. Mini USA
6. Gary Vaynerchuk
7. Fernthai Volunteer Foundation
8. Target

Most higher ed sites are not fully developed, either, but a few have implemented some unique features and interesting approaches that are worth mentioning:

1. The Ohio State University – O-H-I-O photos from the military
2. Dalhousie University – Extended information tab
3. UCLA – Where in the world is your Bruin; General use of all quadrants of the page; Comments Policy
4. University of Michigan – cross connecting to other UM pages using favorites
5. University of Southern Maine – use of photos and videos

So what are Ineke’s five secrets?

1. Brand Mapping: Create a map of all officially sponsored SN pages, develop nomenclature/outline for how they are named and presented, and link them to the primary site in your Favorites section – using ‘Pages’ rather than “Groups”; make sure that individuals in charge of each page are updating on a regular schedule (weekly or biweekly, at least)
2. Micro-Targeting: Identify the primary audience segments you want to engage in SN, and match existing sites and new pages to serve those micro-segments, making certain that you limit pages to only those that can be regularly updated/maintained, and eliminating those you can’t support. Content should target groups with narrowly defined interests.
3. Use all page quadrants: Customize your FB presence with consistent institutional signatures; tailor the tabs to reflect your priorities, ensure that you use the left hand column to draw attention to important features like your news and events feed; a favorites box that cross connects to other pages within the university, etc.
4. Features to motivate audience engagement: Here’s where marketing creativity shines! Motivate audiences to submit their photos to the page from different locations around the world, or create a contest, or establish a mystery with prizes for those who figure out the solution. Pre-packaged applications motivate involvement, too. Brainstorm out-of-the-box possibilities!
5. Manage your SN presence: Your SN brand presence will need regular guidance, supervision, and resources. It’s critical not to over-extend your capacity. While the individuals in sponsoring units should be responsible for providing updates and content, all of the sponsored sites should be centrally supervised and coordinated. If possible, ensure that departments put someone in your office as an administrator on their site. This allows you to give them content valuable to their constituents and also remove/correct incorrect content from their pages.

Make sure to look at the upcoming KnowledgeBuilder topics. These interactive, skills-based online seminars are a great way to keep you and your staff members at the top of your game:

• June 4: Positioning Your Brand in a Competitive Marketplace
• June 25: Advertising is Dead! Long Live Advertising!
• Look for future KnowledgeBuilders focusing on Twitter & YouTube
• Missed the Facebook session? Let us know if you’re interested, and we’ll put a reprise in the schedule or schedule a Custom KnowledgeBuilder for your team!

We look forward to seeing you!

Take Me to Your (Brand) Leader!

What is the biggest challenge in brand development? In last week’s poll question and blog post, we asked readers to identify the biggest challenges they faced in launching branding projects.

A third of poll respondents said the biggest challenge they had faced was the lack of a strong brand leader. Spot on. The critical role that a brand champion plays in brand development rings true in our experience with organizations across the country.

The rest of poll respondents were equally split among the following challenges:

• Stakeholders not understanding what branding means
• The long lead time in brand development
• Belief that resources would be better spent on other projects
• Lack of campus consensus on what the brand should be

These all represent important challenges, to be sure, but they are most often the symptoms of a lack of strong brand leadership.

Dr. V. Lane Rawlins, former president of Washington State University and a visionary brand leader, said it best during WSU’s brand development process:

“It’s all about getting people to believe in something that’s bigger than they are, a vision of what they can become. If they believe, they will act.  If they believe, they will change their behavior.”

It’s an essential part of brand development to have that kind of committed brand champion. The brand leader is someone who expresses your brand vision in a way (and from a pulpit) that inspires and motivates others.

It’s best by far if your brand champion is the president or chancellor, but we’ve done it successfully with the provost leading the charge. In several cases, it was the chief recruitment/advancement officer, and the process has been successful even when a small team of 3 or 4 influential faculty/administrators acted as the brand champions.

On the other hand, it doesn’t work well when the chief marketing or communications officer tries to fill the role, since he or she is the person responsible for on-the-ground implementation. And certainly external consultants cannot fulfill the role, either. Whoever acts as a brand champion must be credible, trusted, influential, and authoritative.

And in looking back at the challenges identified above, all of them really flow from the strength and effectiveness of your brand champion. The brand champions must express the vision that sparks broad consensus; they must educate and inspire others on why branding is so important, what it means to embody a brand, and why it’s worth the input of time and resources.

They must become your brand Ghandi, William Wallace, Martin Luther King, Gandolf – defining and exemplifying the vision. Your brand evangelist.

Without such a power champion, brand managers can quickly find themselves in a precarious situation – we’ve seen this too often. It can be career limiting, since there is no one who will stand and defend the marketing director against the inevitable opposition driven by internal politics and personal agendas.

Make sure to give us your take this week’s poll question about which company you think uses social media the best. We’ll take a deeper look into your responses next week.