Dont Let Your Personal Brand Lose Relevancy - Personal Branding Blog - Stand Out In Your Career

Dont Let Your Personal Brand Lose Relevancy - Personal Branding Blog - Stand Out In Your Career Today, I spoke with Tim Manners about brand relevancy. Tim cites various examples about people and companies that are staying relevant and others that are not. When it comes to personal branding, you have to stay relevant by having the latest skills and by following the latest trends (even starting a trend). You have to constantly remind others of your existence and as technology changes, you should use the latest channels to get your messages across because your audience will be there. Tim, why do you think demographics are dead? Dont you think targeting specific audiences is important when it comes to marketing your brand? Demographics can be a valuable way to target specific audiences, but for the most part they are a poor substitute for true insights into people as people. In my many conversations with top marketing people, I was surprised by how many of them indicated that demographics were less relevant to their marketing strategies today than in the past. They suggested they were looking beyond demographics and taking a more holistic view of the marketplace. For example: Anne Saunders, when she was CMO at Starbucks, told me that Starbucks is less about any particular demographic group than it is about creating a great coffeehouse experience for people in general. Leslie Kilgore, the CMO of Netflix, said that Netflix was essentially about a better movie-going experience. Jim Adams of Chipotle, who, when I asked him if he was targeting any particular demographic group said, “Yes â€" people who eat!” The point is that the real goal is to create a better experience for your customers, and that knows no demographic boundaries. In some cases, too much reliance on demographics can actually limit your growth. Think about the recent success of Nintendo, for example, which created a better video game experience, and as a result now appeals to groups it didn’t previously â€" even senior citizens, not to mention women and girls. Demographics are really are a vestige of mass media advertising. The future belongs to marketers who take the time to truly understand their customers and create better experiences for them. Which companies and people arent as relevant anymore as they were years ago and why? When you think about it, just about every brand, regardless of how great or successful it is, has flirted with irrelevance at one time or another. Remember back in the late 90s when Apple nearly went out of business? They had turned what had been something really special into beige boxes and clones of its former self. As we all know, that changed when Steve Jobs returned, and came out with those candy-colored iMacs, and reminded everyone of what made Apple great to begin with. That really is the key â€" the brands that stay in touch with what made them relevant in the first place are the most successful brands. FAO Schwarz was in Chapter 11 bankruptcy a few short years ago because it tried to compete with Wal-Mart and Toys R Us on price, and its merchandise mix became pedestrian â€" indistinguishable from that of its competitors. But now FAO is back, and about to expand into some 700 Macy’s stores nationwide, because it re-connected with its original idea, which is unique, quality toys that spark the imagination, in combination with a spectacular shopping experience. As for brands that aren’t as relevant anymore as they used to be, I can’t help but think of Krispy Kreme, which used to be about donuts fresh out of the oven and turned into tired looking donuts at every corner gas station. Krispy Kreme confused ubiquity with relevance, tried to expand faster than it should have, and lost its way. That happened largely because of growth pressures from Wall Street. Starbucks is now suffering from a similar problem. And let’s not forget Lehman Brothers, which had been around since the 1800s, and was known for its high-end clientèle and highly personal service. Had it stayed true to its original point of relevance, it might still be in business today. You say Brands that depend too heavily on buzz for growth are not built to last. A lot of startup companies are looking for a lot of press when they launch, from TechCrunch to the NY Times. Does this work? Why or why not? There’s nothing wrong with looking for buzz or publicity. My point is that it’s a short-term tactic that is not sustainable over the long run. Too many people seem to think that the marketing business is like the fashion business, that’s it’s a game of looking cool or buzzworthy, played out in 15-minute increments. Too many brands try to use buzz, or other kinds of advertising, as a crutch rather than a platform. We’ve seen that recently with Microsoft and its ads with Bill Gates and Jerry Seinfeld, which created a lot of buzz and not much else. At best, Microsoft was trying to be as cool and hip as Apple, which will never happen. At worst, Microsoft was trying to cover for the shortcomings of its Vista operating system, which is misguided. If they want to spend $300 million on something, they should think about investing it making sure their product works as advertised. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImyK29QLs_A] My favorite example of a brand that uses advertising as a platform is not a fashionable one â€" it’s Avis. Everybody knows its slogan, which hasn’t changed for 40 years: “We’re #2. We Try Harder. “ It’s not just an ad slogan, it’s the Avis culture, which is all about customer service â€" making the customer, not Avis, #1. This has paid off for Avis in customer loyalty ratings, which regularly beat Hertz, whose positioning as the #1 car-rental company really is all about them, not about us. What are your 6 guiding principles for brands? Which is your favorite/the most important and why? My six guiding principles are 1) Insights, or understanding people as people, and creating conversations with them instead of talking at them. 2) Innovation, which is focused on solving problems and adding value. 3) Investment, centered on satisfying consumer needs versus polishing brand images; 4) Design, which is kept simple. 5) Experience, which is about creating better lives for real people in the real world, and not just in television commercials. 6) Value, which is not only about providing value to the brand, but also making consumers feel valued. I don’t know that one principle is more important than the others, but if I had to pick a “favorite” it would be the “Experience.” Partly this is because ultimately, how we experience a product or service largely determines its relevance to us. But it’s also because I believe one of the best ways to create a better experience â€" at retail, while shopping â€" is one of the most underdeveloped opportunities in marketing today. The retail store is perhaps the only medium where sales and marketing happen simultaneously. The only real possibility is the Internet, although I would argue that the Web is more a sales medium than a marketing medium, at least at this point. Not only is retail a place where you can surround the shopper in a fantastic environment that touches all five of the senses, but it is also the place where the cash register rings. The marketing industry turns itself inside out to calculate ROI on its media spend. There should be more attention to the potential of retail not only to enhance brand relevance, but also to drive brand growth. Can you relate your branding philosophies and research to individuals. How can people remain relevant to the marketplace? This is a great question which I’d like to answer by quoting an extraordinary man who passed away a few days ago. Paul Newman once said, “You can get straight A’s in marketing, but still fail ordinary life.” He made the comment to Lee Iacocca after his Ford Pinto caught on fire. Newman’s Own â€" his line of food products â€" is a great example of how his personal relevance translated to the marketplace. Paul Newman never made a penny of profit personally on his products, and to date has raised more than $250 million for various charities, mostly for children and education. Tom Indoe, the president of Newman’s Own, once told me that people bought Newman’s Own in part because they liked and trusted Paul Newman. They also bought it because doing so helped good causes. But the main thing that made Newman’s Own a success was that the products were of super high quality â€" and this is because they were either from Paul Newman’s own recipes or were personally kitchen tested and approved by him. My point is that relevance is in fact a highly personal matter, and many of the great innovations happened purely because an individual solved a problem for him- or herself, that happened to apply to a lot of other people. My favorite example of this in the book is Steve Wozniak, who for all intents and purposes invented the personal computer simply because he was wanted a better way to create and play computer games. People can remain relevant to the marketplace, simply by seeing themselves as their own best customers. Tim Manners is editor and publisher of The Hub, a print magazine dedicated to exploring insights, ideas and innovations as the ultimate driver of effectiveness in marketing. He is also editor and publisher of Reveries.com, the home of Cool News of the Day, a daily digest of marketing insights published both online and via an e-mail newsletter since 1998. Manners is a regular contributor to FastCompany.com. Tims new book, Relevance: Making Stuff That Matters, just came out.