Trust ,Transparency...and talking Trash

Trust, transparency .... and Talking Trash.

We are living in a time of reduced if not a total rejection of many of the institutions , societal, political or philosophical constructs and beliefs we use for personal and collective value systems.

In 1966 John Lennon famously claimed the Beatles were "more famous than Jesus..." ( source: wikipedia) and whilst a deliberately provocative statement at the time , it is also true today that successive generations have progressively turned away from unquestioning belief in the trustworthiness of the state and its institutions ,figures of authority like politicians, or the media ,placing successively and generationally firstly more trust in certain brands and subsequently currently giving the most weight to the opinions of friends and social media feedback.......the most likely only truly disruptive legacy of social media ..?

On a personal level I prefer to believe we have not entirely replaced rational, evidence based discourse with celebrity and fake news, community with self ,and post WW2 aspirations of peaceful ,global ,borderless citizenship and thinking with unfettered Tribalism and "walls" of all kinds....but that would be straying into politics which is fair game for Twitter rather than Linkedin !

When we address the issues of rebuilding that diminished brand trust I think as do many others that it is obvious that not only do consumers have more choices and information than ever , but that the dynamics of these relationships have been altered beyond the comfort zone of many established businesses by today's technology and the accompanying paradigm shifts in access to new routes to market which consequently opens markets to nimble ,small startups.

It is not too much of an exaggeration to say many across any generational or economic divide believe the state and unrestrained capitalism have to varying degrees failed them ; worse still these people feel that "Big business" is actively and knowingly deceiving and even harming them in the pursuit of profit ,be it in food or indeed the world of pharmaceuticals for instance.

So what is the future for brands that wish to genuinely connect or indeed reconnect , as opposed to simply jumping on the latest bandwidth borne bandwagon....?

The answer is the same as in truth it has always been in any relationship with pretensions of durability and equality..It's more about the real person behind the facade , what you actually do and what you stand for, looking out for them.

Build trust by behaving and espousing values your consumers subscribe to , by delighting your consumer , delivering what you and you alone can do spectacularly well every time.

Like in all the best relationships , there is no room for secrets , silences or half truths; be transparent in what you do and why, respect my aspirations and beliefs..if I say I want organic food in sustainable packaging for example, be totally transparent in providing easy access to all the evidence , because it makes for a happier more durable relationship, and because it builds trust over time. It is no longer acceptable to simply demand trust , provide partial truths , or ignore my questions.

Trust needs to be earned and earned again each time I buy your brand.
Treat consumers with respect and take time to get to know what is important to your consumers if you want a meaningful relationship..I have been pretty disappointed on a number of occasions this year by what I saw as a most corporate type of response to my communications... no evidence of any human voice..
A customer experience /customer journey is more than just a new app, or a new chief customer delight officer, it's about a tone of voice, a way of treating consumers with respect, as in any relationship. Self evidently if you treat me like I have no value to you then we have no relationship going forward...

I'm done talking trash for this year , so may I wish you all the best for the forthcoming Holidays, and ask you to contact me if you would like to see how I might work with you and build your brands in 2018. Thanks for reading my posts during the past year.
Best,
Martin

I'm a Chump ,ok, but don't treat me like one

Just because I am a chump..it doesn't mean you should treat me like one.



Recent experiences have lead me to think about customer service , and to share my contrasting experiences with various companies of very different sizes and business models.


It would seem not all companies value their customers,even if they say they do .

Some apparently seek primarily to cover their own backs if a customer complains, rather than engaging and trying to build a better basis for an ongoing relationship..

You can show respect even when you disagree with the customer. "Cover your back letters "approved by Lawyers probably won't strike an appropriately customer centric view...

Respond promptly,don't allow a complaint to fester, it becomes tougher to resolve positively.

Listen to the nature of the complaint, not everything can be solved by eg a money off coupon

In short don't treat me , your customer, like a chump, even if I know I did behave like one...

So "Hurrah and smiley emojis "for my small on line coffee supplier and for my favourite on line hotel booking site..who get more of my business going forward.

The "Are you kidding me ? "award goes to the bearers of false " failed delivery attempt " notices...we would both prefer you beaming in packages to my living room by teleportation, but failing that please do at least show up at my door when you claim to...it's bad for my blood pressure.

The "Ugly "service award goes to a car hire company ..you upsold me ,I was a chump ,I complained after I got home ,whilst acknowledging my own "chumpness" and did not ask for anything. It took virtually three months and some chasing to get a reply which said in essence: you signed the papers in three places ,all legal, our people did their job, followed process .. sorry it took us so long to get back to you, peak season and all....chump!

I was a chump on that occasion but they didn't seem to get my frustration and the point I was trying to make about upselling as a business practice... all of which made feel like a bigger Chump.



Your customer service is my customer experience and sometimes forms the defining part of your brand perception; it should be a chance to engage and strengthen your business relationship when things haven't gone well with the customer for whatever reason.


Ps : The online travel portal from whose site I originally hired the car have failed to even acknowledge my complaint, after I reached out to them some two months into my complaint to the car hire company..Won't be using them again either!


Pps : As he grew older I used to tease my Dad about his habit of complaining, and now my kids tease me for the same behaviours ;I hope he would side with me in this case . I miss you Dad.

When Tech met packaged goods

(image: the Colossus computer, the work of Alan Turing. courtesy of Wikipedia)


When you look at the above image of Colossus ( source : wikipedia)a pioneering computer built by Alan Turing in the 1940's , it is incredible to think that what I would describe loosely as "Tech" is today being marketed much like packaged consumer goods.

The daily struggles with tech that accompany most of us today however trivial or important show just how much Tech has impacted and changed all our lives since the arrival of mass market offerings and consumer adoption of items such as mobile phones in the early nineties, followed within a few years by the arrival in our homes and workplaces of the internet and personal computers of various types and footprints.

As a long time marketer of branded consumer goods, pretty much exclusively in food and drink, I have been a keen observer of marketing in other categories beyond packaged goods, but perhaps none has evolved as significantly and as quickly as Tech..I am sure marketers of fashion and beauty products which change all the time will disagree with me , but please do explain what I got wrong.

So what are the similarities , what can tech marketers learn from food, and vice versa ?

The classical similarities are all there: product range segmentation tending to hypersegmentation , brand and retailer brands ,route to market choices , pressure on shelf space, promotional noise and for some brands the investments in consumer comms. We can also see the financial pressures on brand owner companies , the emergence of on line only brands in mobile phones who then dance Dell like into omnichannel instead early on ...

Superficially at least Tech categories have a lot of things going for them that most packaged goods brands would love to have , not least the consumer frequency of interraction , the category interest and top of mind that these bring, the opportunity for product innovation compared to many types of packaged goods like food for instance , opportunities for visible self reflection , and last but certainly not least the growth opportunities that come with constant reinvention ,new tech , finite product lifecycles and geographic penetration growth opportunities in populous emerging economies.

And yet it would seem to me that with the notable exception of the Apple brand family there is little or no real brand distinctiveness or stickiness elsewhere in Tech ,which means somewhere along the line that marketing is not as effective as it aims to be in building profitable brand ecosystems. As a personal example ,how many of us non Apple users are brand loyal when we change phones,tablets, pcs ? I ended up buying on functionality and price, not brand for instance and have over the years been disappointed by my misguided brand loyalty in mobile phones for instance ...

So , Tech products are more like packaged goods after all ( schadenfreude ?)... low margin ,limited brand loyalty, interchangeability and all.

Maybe the grass isn't greener in Tech after all....

Big Bad food..

Another week , another Big (Bad)Food story....

With the approach of Halloween ,yet more self inflicted outrage descends on Big Food.

Cue yet more " why did the chicken cross the road ?" type jokes... seriously food and drink industry people, what's going on?


Big Food does not automatically equal bad food, either nutritionally or ethically, and could even be a force for a better world..

The reality of an urban world which is the reality for the majority of people worldwide, is that at a basic level most of us are now essentially reliant on others to produce and distribute the food we buy.

So how come there is so much mistrust if not downright hostility to the larger companies who provide most of what we eat... and how much of the suspicion is justified?

Are the bosses of Big Food really all evil people hell bent on killing us all in the name of a quick buck? who is forcing us all as consumers into dangerous and unhealthy food choices? Is there an unbiaised and trustworthy voice out there ?

Consider GMO crops for instance..I'm not a scientist and simply can't get a clear view amidst all the invective on whether they could play a big role in combatting famine , or whether they are part of a dastardly, commercially driven plot to enslave farmers and turn us all into mutants.

There is unfortunately too much evidence of dubious practices across the production and distribution parts of the supply chain for the food industry to simply ignore or shrug them off.. More concerning is whether these failings are systemic short cuts driven by management , criminality pure and simple , or whether they occur when employees get it wrong occasionally.

Is the answer to tax,restrict or even ban all "unhealthy" foods, treating them the same as alcohol and tobacco? Or outlawing the unnecessary use of pesticides antibiotics or ingredients? Is the use of Blockchain technology for purposes of transparency and traceability as powerful a force for good as proponents would suggest ?

To oversimplify the big picture solutions: If consumers are sufficiently educated on diet and nutrition to make considered and informed decisions the demand for more unhealthy foods should begin to reduce.
Similarly ,once consumers are better informed about what has gone into the food they are eating they are more likely to reject unethical practices , unecessary ingredients and additives and vote with their wallets.

P is for.....

How many P's does it take ?

In business and especially in debates involving marketing it is hard these days to avoid reference to the notion of the" Four P's ", mostly to deride them as obsolete....

I have recently encountered reference to the 7 P' s for the first time , by the inclusion of people, process,and physical environment to the original four P's.
I will leave theorizing to others , but here is my take on it...Are we headed the way of shaving devices, with ever more blades required to complete the same task ?

Whilst it is both healthy and necessary for business and business theory and practice to constantly be challenged and to evolve in line with changes in customer wishes and behaviours,technology and competitive landscape , surely the single greatest imperative ,namely delivering superior customer satisfaction remains unchanged.

I don't wish to appear completely closed to the necessary and continuing debate about marketing and business theory , so in the interest of fairness here are a couple of other P's that others have referenced when discussing business and marketing..

Purpose... lots written ,nothing constructive to add as I struggle philosophically speaking to stay on the benefits ladder which transforms as a random but recent example fizzy pop ( beginning with P ...)to somehow changing the world for the better.

My friendly sparring partner during my time at Lactalis Mclelland Jim McGregor often referred to marketing as" ( coloured) Pencils......"and yes ,he was in charge of the ministry of Promotions.

A certain Richard Branson weighed in recently on Linkedin with the comment that he doesn't do Presentations, preferring authenticity above script; I so wish I had had the chance to work with you Sir Richard....

My personal favourite P doesn't get nearly enough love , so in closing I leave you with PASSION, without which our work is cold and grey, and unlikely to spark engagement with either colleagues or customers.....which is what Brandbuilding is about.

Dear Alexa,Bixby, Siri....

Dear Alexa , Bixby and Siri, we need to have a serious conversation about us...

Some write with bright eyed enthusiasm of a Tech enabled future where our busy lives are made "easier" , like maybe an updated real life version of The Jetsons.....or perhaps being British I imagine it closer to Wallace and Gromit.

Tom Goodwin for instance writes about tech and innovation in a sceptical way I enjoy and can relate to ; increasingly though I feel uneasy about this topic at a basic level ,and what if not how this future needs to look like if it is to be a force for good ....

Not only is a commonly presented vision of this future pretty shallow looking , but there are for now a number of major issues that I feel are not properly addressed relating to our individual identities and personal data.

Amidst all the well meaning words devoted to the need for Purpose, it strikes me that a technologically driven future which benefits only urbanistas like myself and the profits of the companies serving me easier and better customer experiences is not exactly making a difference where it really matters....You may well say there has been a trickle down benefit in eg technologies around things like mobile phones for instance, but it is unlikely that mobile phones came about primarily to help those in societies with broken or missing infrastructure.

At a more basic level however I am unhappy about what I perceive as an unacceptable price to pay to become a part of the Tech future, namely the need to surrender ever larger chunks of our identities , our private selves to anonymous on line places and organisations where they are not fully secure from misuse by others, nor indeed our own anymore.

So Adieu then to you Alexa, Bixby, Siri..it's not you it's me ; I'll turn the lights off on my way out thanks.

Combining New and Natural in food innovation is hard

Combining New and Natural is tricky in food innovation, given consumer demands for great taste allied to natural and healthy on the one hand and unprocessed on the other ....all wrapped up in transparency and a no compromise mentality.... great challenge!

Geography/ culture and History:

This area has been a popular route these past few years with as just two examples the increased interest shown in historical products that had fallen out of favour like eg spelt flour, or products used in one country ,culture or region introduced into other such as Tofu or Quinoa.

Conversely, the introduction of more non dairy products based on plants into traditional Dairy countries and a reverse movement of Dairy products into countries like China shows that this type of axis is promising on an international scale ; witness recent pronouncements on the growth of coconut based products by the Pret a manger chain as a major growth driver in the UK.

There are going to be limits however; I'm sceptical for instance about the likelihood of bugs becoming the next big thing in protein , certainly in my household.

What has often helped this movement has been the opportunity to offer built in health benefit associations for these new around here products....


Health benefits help in both existing and new foods:

The explosion in the various categories of "free from " foods says all you need to know about the interest in lactose free ,gluten free, dairy free, sugar free vegetarian and vegan foods , with over 50% of British homes now buying into the various claimed health and wellness or ethical benefits , as opposed to this being the result of a rise in medical diagnoses . Although often not completely new , free from versions do open up pre existing categories to new or lapsed buyers rather than cannibalise a given market.

Similarly,interest generated in a very traditional product category such as oats centred around newly claimed cholesterol reducing benefits and has helped spark a raft of more contemporary developments in both the traditional oats core hot and cold cereals market and beyond into areas such as so called dairy free oat"milk".Similarly ,health claims around a claimed antibiotic effect have definitely helped the sales of Manuka Honey . Witness also ,the successful new market established by new products containing natural plant extracts which help cholesterol reduction meets the consumer criteria of new and Natural....Similarly ,significant consumer interest and market growth were seen by the launch of added health benefits with the launch of e.g. probiotic yogurts, or the introduction of smoothies.


As a word of caution there was a rush a few years ago to add Fish oil Omega 3 into a great many products , some of which sat uneasily with consumers and which failed...by what logic for example was fish oil added to liquid cows milk? It is fine to remove fat or other ingredients from an existing product ,or indeed reinforce existing ingredients , but beware tinkering.....consumers do look at ingredients lists .


Genuinely new foods however are trickier because they are often at odds with either consumer acceptance of the use of technology in food , or because they push boundaries too far for consumer acceptance.

Consider for instance the genuinely new food that is Quorn, a plant based myco protein ingredient that is similar to tofu in its infinite ability to be transformed . The Quorn business is a long term endeavour for sure , but gaining traction over time ,and successive owners. No one however talks much about the technological background and history......Compare that technically based entirely new product success with the unwillingness of the British public to embrace Ostrich meat ,which was much hyped as a healthier new meat in the late 20th Century.


Cleaning up one's act:


Pretty much a given these days simply to stay in the game , and whether it is reducing sugar or fat , embracing sustainability or fairtrade, sourcing local ,reducing carbon footprint, animal welfare , no to growth hormones in animals, reducing packaging waste ....just about everyone is actively pursuing this....making this axis generally a poor differentiator or source of innovation. Witness the advertising money spent by e.g. makers of breakfast cereals generally to change perceptions from junk food to wholesome by adding wholegrain to all their products as just one example.

This route also has risks.... if consumers dislike the taste of the reformulation this can be tricky ,Just ask the people at companies behind Lucozade or Heinz brands about this balancing act as it applies to sugar and/or salt reduction. However laudable it may be to make food choices healthier, our taste buds need reeducation over time...

Consumer willingness to accept a "technology over natural" compromise plays a big role. Sugar / calorie free drinks for example rely on consumer desire for guilt free outweighing any of the concerns that regularly make the headlines about potential health side effects of artificial sweeteners..


Food Technology , science and consumers:

Global Heavy hitters are now coming to market with hybrids that blur the boundaries of food and life science,beauty companies are selling beauty from within drinks in Asia ( collagen or Aloe Vera drinks ); food supplements are being repackaged ,retargeted and resited in store from e.g. bodybuilding in an attempt to make them more mainstream.

Then there are pure technologically based attempts to innovate ,and this is where things get tricky....most consumers don't really want to know , generally it is felt the less technology and additives used in our food the better...no GM crops, no pesticides, no meat grown in a lab.... but being fickle we don't want compromises on year round availability, shorter shelf life, uglier looking fruit and vegetables, and so on.

Some other technologies like eg the use of cold pressing of juice or raw instead of cooked chocolate make intuitive sense and may indeed being taste and health benefits.


It is worth pointing out that one of the arguably good things that the EU authorities have done is to outlaw health claims that are not deemed to be scientifically proven , by which I mean it protects consumers .


So where's the point in this ramble, and where's the branding angle?

In the teeth of a major decline in the belief in and value added of brands generally in many countries , it is now a given that not only must food brands be transparent and honest like never before, but that they must innovate like never before to try and help sustain relevant value added versus private label as well as other competing brands.

I would suggest this has more to do with taste than technology per se. So , greater focus on and respect for our consumers whatever their idiosyncrasies and apparent contradictions..and small incremental steps if you want us to embrace new foods and new technology...but no bugs for me thanks..

Promise and delivery,can they ever be friends?

This is a personal perspective on a very tricky topic, sparked by a great post on linkedin by Dr Travis Bradberry recently about things which get you fired......

" underdelivering versus promises made" is one topic covered in his article , but it is such a major topic and the cause of many a painful journey , that it merits a sizeable space of its own.

What you read next may not be you or the place you work , but I know this kind of stuff still happens on both client and agency side...and it unfolds like a slow motion car crash ,leaving a trail of human and business debris. Reading this piece to the end may therefore help you sense if something is not right before it all turns ugly.....

The delivery versus promise issue is a recurring life challenge ,not just in our working lives ,because it covers communication both explicit and implicit, relationships , and the balance of power ; what is said vs what is inferred but not said ; what is actually understood , what is agreed happily or under pressure ; negotiation vs imposition, process , and a kind of alternate reality with double speak and double standards enshrined in an opaque, coded language ......

Most of us have at some point been obliged to call on others for something of a leap of faith ,to trust our ability to step up into new responsibilities we have little or an imperfect experience and expertise in, bullshit our way through the selection process and the subsequent newly hired in post learning curve. "Fake it till you make it " is just one new phrase I have learned on Linkedin....

The bad news is in getting that job you just "agreed" to the unrealistic top down targets the Board / your Boss are imposing on you.....which they hopefully also deep down know are totally unrealistic, but are obliged to accept themselves in order to protect their own position in the food chain...

The sad truth is that unfortunately people are sometimes mistakenly hired or go for roles or corporate cultures they turn out to be simply unsuited for, never mind about whether promised ressources have been provided or cut. Sometimes this situation can be compounded if the "underperforming " party can't or won't accept there is an unfixable problem..even if it is entirely a fiction of the employer's making...either way it spells trouble, and it takes guts and a good personal internal warning system to recognize the problem early and tackle it head on.

This conflict situation can lead to all kinds of bad consequences, from seemingly constant or personal criticism , to dysfunctional and demotivated teams , to losing the brightest team members , or sky high personal stress levels which can and do often leave nasty physical and psychological scarring , even before the end game , the sudden reorganisation and assisted rapid exit for "underdelivery versus expectation....."

To be clear ,this blog is neither in any way an apology for underperformance, which must always be addressed transparently honestly and promptly....nor does it seek to ignore the fact that we are all free to walk away if we don't like what is being asked of us, which as a concept works better in some countries, cultures and situations than others of course....

It is rather a call for greater integrity and transparency in how we set up and communicate goals and expectations be they numeric , competency or judgement (yes, .. subjective ..nightmare) based , the spoken as well as the unspoken; and how we deal with the fallout when things don't work out in a way that maintains everyone's dignity.

As to the Brandbuilding angle , if we aren't personally aligned with the work culture we find ourselves in then both parties brands will be harmed.

The new marketing team ..same as the old one?

I just read a pretty balanced Article in Marketing Week about the changing shape of the marketing team, which painted a coherent picture of the career and skills landscape and challenges facing marketeers today ..but don't necessarily agree with the vision painted of the optimal marketing structure.

Do check it out on https://www.marketingweek.com/2017/04/11/specialists-future-marketing/?

My issue with the notion of multiple in house specialists approach, as distinct from the traditional marketer as generalist approach , is that although there are indeed more specialisations or tools in the marketing tool box than ever before ,there is nothing new with the core challenges....

the biggest of which is whether to outsource or bring in house...something the big fmcg companies have been dealing with ,in changing ways since the very dawn of fmcg when they literally produced their own soap operas in house ,I mean content for broadcast on the mass media of the day.

As a marketeer of a certain mindset I agree with the analogy made in the article of the continuing role of the Brand manager as "Quarterback ", but I would argue this really hasn't changed.

It could be argued that one of the key factors driving the trend to bring more specialists in house is because of an inability to successfully harness multiple partners externally...

Essentially my issue with much of the current theory swirling around the roles and shape of the New marketing team is that by default all specialists risk a certain myopia, or to paraphrase a song lyric" to a hammer everything looks like a nail"..

Nett, the role of the brand manager ,generalist but with a holistic, discipline neutral approach is in fact even more important than ever....

The Food industry is important and worthy of more serious debate

I love food, it's a fascinating topic which cuts across borders,Geo politics, ecology, history,culture,trade,economics, farming, animal welfare ,and more....

I am lucky enough to have spent almost all of my marketing career in the food business across different countries and food categories, but there were times when it felt certainly less glamorous than working in other sectors, not to be mentioned at social gatherings....

Over recent years howeverI have tended to jump in and defend it from the increasing media negativity surrounding it,despite its shortcomings.

So let's start with the important stuff...food is literally a matter of life and death;the latest smartphone , app, handbag, car and so forth are not...does any other industry come close to that?

On the flip side there are a few criminals in our industry who deliberately peddle dangerous or even potentially deadly chemicals passed off as food products to innocent people around the world. Such acts should in some cases be treated as attempted mass murder by the authorities, which might just act as a deterrent.

The vast majority of food companies do not ,contrary to some articles you might see in the media , set out to deliberately harm the health of their consumers...that would be a stupid business model, surely, apart from the ethical issues.

Food stories in the media too often seem to be presented as scare stories, placing insufficient share of the responsibility on the consumer who chooses to buy and consume ,or the need for good education at home and in schools.

Similarly, stories are often not properly supported by robust ,proven scientific data...in the last month alone I have "consumed" scare stories about the risk of arsenic poisoning from eating rice( see my earlier blog on this topic) and about how vegetable fats are making "us " all ill...or how we are all being pretty much force fed sugary fizzy drinks....

Let's have more education,more qualified nutritional and dietary advice,more balanced reporting, more personal responsibility along with choices , and of course true corporate social responsibility .


If you are interested enough then fact check the data in your country about the popularity of" free from" foods ( no gluten, dairy ,sugar etc.,)and compare with the incidence of medically diagnosed intolerance....It makes interesting reading ,certainly here in the UK. I read an article just yesterday about this in the Times about the number of people in the UK claiming to be Lactose intolerant versus those actually professionally diagnosed...

There are other issues as well....

The scientific and unscientific communities both seem to change the goal posts and advice with alarming regularityabout which foods or diets are good or bad for us...people are getting confused,too much noise.


Equally seriously, how to stop good,edible fresh food being scrapped or dumped in order to meet absurd "beauty pageant " appearance criteria from customers, or to artificially bolster market prices instead of ensuring farmers can simply get a fair reward for their hard work..

So food industry, we do important work and also sometimes trivial work (OK, chocolate is pretty serious for me, if not truly existential), but could we do much more ..isn't that what so called "purpose based" businesses should be doing?

Where's the Brandbuilding/ marketing angle on this? Responsibility towards the long term welfare of our consumers and our planet is both the right thing to do as well as the best business strategy...just look at the the gushing feedback for Unilever and it's ethical business model following the recent failed take over attempt...

Your brand is your whole company...get real about business ethics

At what point do corporations get real about all the Happy Smiley stuff , and where does the responsibility lie for corporate ethics ? I certainly don't mean simply having a beautifully crafted tab about corporate social responsibility or similar "Feelgood of the day" on the corporate website .

Is there any joined up, corporate level evaluation of this stuff , should there need to be an Ethics Director on the board, or should everyone in positions of power be able to flag and stop " bad behaviour"?

Recently we all saw the video rant of the Boss of Uber;this week I read an article on the BBC about foreign Truckers working in the UK for months at a time away from home and on low wages based on pay rates in their home countries, which are insufficient for them to live decently on in the UK ...and it made me think of the behaviours of the companies using this type of working arrangements ,and that somewhere this has been sanctioned by bosses with apparently little or no regard for the welfare of their workers or sub contractors. Conditions for workers in developing economies is of course a similar issue,as are issues of animal welfare in countries with different standards....

I worked more than thirty years ago for a firm where every year,starting as a junior manager I had to sign an ethics policy document which meant that not only was I not allowed to do anything illegal or unethical or indeed ask anyone else to do similar , but that there was an anonymous phone number in Head Office to report any such attempts for any employees to use if necessary.

Let me just put a few contemporary Buzz words out there:

Purpose, Corporate social responsibility, inclusion/ diversity in the workplace,
Environmentally friendly( energy, bio environment ,emissions, recycling and waste reduction),the Gig economy, zero hours contracts...

What do they mean overall if your business behaves unethically in just one area ?

I'm not for instance suggesting closing down all factories in emerging economies as a panacea , but people up and down the supply chain need to be treated with fairness and dignity....and fairly rewarded.

I recently heard the UK managing director of a large fmcg firm complain for instance that standards of health and safety , quality assurance and employee conditions expected by UK retail customers from their private label suppliers simply didn't exist where his product raw materials came from,and that the cost of applying UK standards to his business model was culturally as well as economically unviable....with potential job losses in several countries.

Finally ,here's my "Brandbuilder" point....your brand is your whole company, your whole supply chain, how you treat your workers, your animals, your suppliers, local tax authorities...not just the shiny end product. Make sure this subject is on the agenda of every board meeting.....and on the objectives of every functional team.

The responsibility for good corporate governance should lie with each and every one of us, as employees,bosses and as consumers. It ultimately risks damaging not just people but also profits if businesses fail to properly address the wellbeing of their employees.

And just maybe for some it should be keeping them awake at night ...

Does m&a activity need more checks and balances?

In the current political economic and financial environment with continuing access to low interest debt there has been a recent spate of large merger projects, some of which have succeeded eg PSA takeover of Vauxhall/Open brands from GM, together with some that have failed like Kraft Heinz proposed takeover of Unilever.

It seems as if the underlying rationale behind these two projects which are not atypical highlights the current push to consolidation, cleaning up balance sheets eg offloading burdensome employee pension obligations and the pursuit of "synergies"...eg the inevitable loss of jobs as capacity is rationalised.


Within this it seems there is little talk of top line growth or even serving consumers better, and let's not even go near the notion of the Purpose Economy ..


To my mind these examples are pretty much pure financial transactions, and it seems to me like todays m&a might be the reincarnated persona of those Bad Boys ,the bankers who precipitated the global economic recession, the effects of which will be felt for a generation at least...

So should m&a be subject to closer scrutiny pre approval ( BHS refers)...?

Who's in charge here .?

Another boring blast from the past , or a call for pragmatism ?
During the early part of my career local brand managers were exhorted by their bosses to behave like business unit General Managers , and take overall ownership of every aspect of their brands, from sales forecasting and other supply chain disciplines through the four P's including advertising and promotion. Honesty requires me to say that particularly for multicountry brands this was the cause in some companies of brands with little or no consistency in brand identity, sometimes justified by different local consumer needs, often not.. In this era some companies practised a comparatively light touch approach to ensuring consistency of brand identity, with local teams still enjoying a good measure of input in all aspects of the marketing mix, albeit with some centralised coordination and oversight.

Critically a notion of the primacy of the local market still had meaning...

At some point in the 90's I think it became the custom to begin the increasing fragmentation of the job , with brand equity considerations and control transferred definitively from local teams to global or regional marketing teams.

At this point the local brand marketing teams were left essentially with local so called brand activation roles , eg picking from a menu of centrally prepared options for promotion, new products, and comms. The obvious benefits of a more centralised approach included subtantial cost synergies , as well as providing for greater consistency of international brand strategy and brand identity...

The consequences however unintended at the sharp end in the local market are the risk that the brand becomes further removed from the local consumer,lowest common denominator blandness, that success is more dependant on skilful internal relationship management between local and central teams;and finally for me personally the bigggest bugbear , that the appeal ,reward and role of local brand management is somehow diminished , with the reduced autonomy that comes if the local team no longer has full use of the marketing toolbox ......

Today I see the brand management role being fragmented further and further ,as new specialisations make their presence felt and new departments spring to life: Digital and Innovation being the most talked about...and don't start me on automation either please....

So my question is who's in charge nowadays, and does any one person actually have a holistic view of the brand in the local market?

p.s :My speciality subject is food , where local tastes and habits vary widely and do matter; there may be less of a local issue in other fmcg product categories of course...

The mirage of Direct to Consumer sales..or licks to bricks to clicks

Recent press releases and articles continue to stress the Utopian future vision for brand owners of direct to consumer relationships and sales. The reality is as always is more nuanced, and that there is no single solution , because current consumer behaviour demonstrates how much they have already embraced multiple shopping channels.

Nestle for instance recently announced they now have 5% of their sales direct, with faster growth rates than offline channels...to me that means in food at least they are just about keeping pace with on line food sales....

If you step back from the hype and consider the evolutionary curve of selling to consumers you might plot the journey thus: "From licks to bricks to clicks" Starting with mail order (licking stamps)-》 to retail outlets both fixed and mobile -》to online ,the odd one out is actually the retail store as it is the only one the consumer has traditionally had to leave home for,even if that is not the case today of course.

Those either side of retail stores in this evolution have therefore often in fact had direct sales..

The difference in today's debate is that is the manufacturer/ brand owners are trying harder to go direct and cut out the traditional middleman,in order to trouser the extra margin... I mean to have relationships with each and every one of their consumers.

Now in the age of supposed consumer indifference it is worth asking to what extent consumers actually want to have direct relationships with brands.... Secondly brand owners will surely need to develop additional new /non core competencies in consumer contact on a massive scale..?

Finally is it not the case that future has already arrived , and that multi channel shopping is simply a must have to meet consumer need states and existing behaviours.... Believe the hype?

Another day ,another food scare story.....

You may well have become aware in a seemingly never ending series of food scare stories that food is dangerous , not just unhealthy... most food apparently... and especially the foods you love... It has also become apparent that most food companies are actually trying to kill us all, by stealth, and that marketers are evil incarnate. In addition to the run of the mill stories about "Processed food" last night I watched a pretty balanced ,evidence based expose about the dangers of a pretty much basic and unprocessed food, which also scared me .......the culprit this time is ... rice, and I share this with you in a sense of public service announcement. Apparently arsenic occurs naturally in rice , and can cause Arsenic poisoning if eaten in sufficient quantities daily over time ,and if not cooked in a particular way which reduces the Arsenic level....but which is probably not much known or used by rice eaters, certainly none I know. Now I don't know about you , but I wonder if all the rice eating cultures of the world knew they should give up eating rice, immediately, or change the way they cook it? More worrying how did previous generations survive.? Are today's rice eating peoples all really Zombies? Unfortunately the programme last night didn't deal with these rather more exciting and important questions....