A brand is a promise, a social contract, an implied guarantee, a reducer of risk. However, all that presupposes that a brand is centered on a positive experience (or the promise of one).

Psychologically brands are emotional reactions toward these expectations, be they repeat or first-time. Emotional reactions are formed over the short- or long-term depending on the circumstances, but are generally long-lasting in either case. However, they are not always positive.

Therefore, I believe that because both positive and negative emotions  toward expectations exist, positive and negative brands must exist as well. Having a brand does not mean you have succeeded, it means you’ve succeeded or failed rather well—nothing in-between.

Riffing off the idea of the net promoter/detractor continuum, I think of brands the following way:

Think of laundry detergent. You have thirty choices, but will typically prefer one over all others, and if that one is not available you may decide to go with a fallback choice as a last resort. And there may be one choice that you will always avoid, even if it’s the last bottle left on the shelf. The rest of the choices are neutral, meaning they are not brands, as you have no feelings about them. Brand, by definition, is therefore a personal experience.

The brand, and your emotional attitude toward it, is a mix of personal and external influences, typically not within the control of the brand owner—actually, you are the brand owner; the originator is the brand steward. How you react toward a brand decides whether it’s a positive or negative brand. Past experience matters a lot, but so does testimony from your peer group (family, friends, colleagues), and trusted third-party advisor (e.g., Consumer Reports) when approaching a first-time experience.

Since brand loyalty is more easily lost than won, brand stewards have to have a deep understanding of the motivations and emotions for being a choice, lest they wish to run risk of sitting on a negative brand at any point in time.

If I have a negative reaction at the thought of you or your product (U.S. Airways, Cox, Sucralose), you have/are a negative brand with me.

Where the net promoter/detractor concept comes back into play is the ratio of positive vs. negative emotions toward you/your brand. It’s much more important to avoid creating negative experiences than it is creating positive ones. You can always work on improving yourself; it is nearly impossible to erase negative experiences and emotions, however.

Note that I don’t have to share my negative feelings about you with others—to damage you—to have a very negative impact on your business. Instead, many of us have the memory of an elephant and will abide by our positive and negative experiences for a long time. And while the customer definitely is not always right, be aware that you are continuously building a positive-negative brand ratio.

J.C. Penney has in a very short span of time managed to become a negative brand for many.

My wife and I joined in a family trip to Hawaii to celebrate her parents’ 50th wedding anniversary. Each person booked his/her own flight and accommodations, but as it turned out eight out of ten of us were on the same non-stop flight out of Phoenix.

Yes, I did fly US Airways, even though they punish me for being a good customer (previous post). It’s called monopoly power.

My wife is lucky in that as a phenomenal freelance editor she has so many adoring clients that she’s always drowning in work (a real problem, actually…). She’s been pulling 3+ all-nighters per week for the past month just so that she can actually go on this trip. She hasn’t flown since 9/11—we’ve literally been driving cross-country to get everywhere.

We all bought tickets in fourth class (First: First Class; Second: Business; Third: Economy with extra leg room; Fourth: Economy with “normal” leg room). I fly fourth class 99% of the time, but have occasionally stumbled into better seating. However, to give my wife some respite and something to look forward to since she’s avoided flying, I decided to upgrade us to first class. Anyone who has flown internationally knows that first class on a US airline is barely equivalent to business class on other airlines, but it is remarkably better than fourth class (that still doesn’t make it good, however).

We are seated in the third row. The flight attendant comes around to take our meal order: “I’m sorry, but we’re all out of choices, we only have tortellini left but we have a lot it.” My jaw only hit the floor at her follow up: “I hope that’s okay with you (?).”

It’s the first time my wife is flying first class, and she’s not having a first-class experience. U.S. Airways has quickly become a negative brand with her. And I’m still struggling with what my answer to the above question should have been.

It’s not how or to whom you market, it’s how you position what you market.

[Really, I’d prefer sticking to writing about good branding and marketing strategies, but Salesforce.com makes it too easy to keep this thread going.]

The saga continues. First, Salesforce.com cannot figure out what my needs and expectations are, even though I’ve expressed them many times before (previous post). Then they cannot follow up properly on their own promises (other previous post; FYI, once I finally chatted with the Radian6 rep I had a phenomenal experience, and I made sure her boss knew).

As you recall, I renewed our Jigsaw (Data.com) subscription. However, you don’t know that once the renewal had kicked in our points were set to zero, meaning we could not access and download data anymore. NOT what should be happening after renewal.

My first step was to reach out to customer service. I filled out the service request form at Jigsaw’s website, and immediately received an auto-response email with my ticket number.

A day passed. Nothing happened.

I responded to the email, copying my account rep and my renewal manager.

A day passed. Nothing happened.

I forwarded the service request auto-response email to customer service at Data.com.

A day passed. Nothing happened.

I called and learned that (a) they are really backed up, and (b) my ticket is not in the system—so it doesn’t really matter how backed up they are because they’ll never get to my issue (?).

I also finally learned through osmosis that the corporate-, training-, and customer service cultures at Salesforce.com are to not give a crap. The person I spoke with did eventually get my issue resolved, but that is beside the point (taking responsibility the first time around is the point).

The lesson for marketers? Customer life-cycle experience is your brand. Else, your best hope for survival is to have a permanent monopoly, this way you have license to deliver crappy customer service round-the-clock.

If you are not marketing strategically, you are not marketing.

There are several types of learners: visual, auditory, reading, and kinesthetic. White papers appeal to reading learners.

But what is a white paper, and what is its purpose? First and foremost it is an educational tool. The author analyzes and synthesizes data and information objectively, and then draws a mind-blowing conclusion that is hard to refute. In theory; but really not that infrequently.

Once the white paper exists it can be given away freely to establish or cement thought leadership. Beyond that, reader data can be collected and leveraged for lead generation. A typical example is to ask for an exchange of data: I give you the white paper for “free,” if you give me your contact information. People who sign up for white papers know that they will get marketed to, but that is a fair exchange if the white paper actually delivers value.

So, white papers do a good job of educating and generating goodwill (make sure your white paper delivers value, or all you will have managed to do is generate a lot of ill will), help with lead generation and even search engine ranking, but they appeal to only a subset of your audience because they are [relatively] difficult to consume.

A new trend in education is blended learning, a combination of self-paced, face-to-face, and online collaborative learning. More importantly, however, blended learning isn’t about the delivery platforms, it’s about stimulating the brain in multiple ways on the same subject matter via traditional and e-learning methods, and in that process addressing all types of learners. A more holistic approach.

Webinars combine all three aspects. (1) They are online by default and can be consumed from anywhere. They are collaborative because they often include a meaningful Q&A session at the end, during which additional teachings and comprehension are delivered. (2) They aren’t truly face-to-face, but since they are often live and provide the ability to ask questions and get answers, they make you feel like you are part of a live information exchange. And (3) they can be self-paced because you can re-watch them, and frequently the host will make the presentation materials available for download and later review.

eTrigue is a provider of marketing automation and sales acceleration software (in the cloud), and an excellent example of how to educate using a blended approach. Its “Friday Coffee with eTrigue” webinar series is an educational series for novice and expert marketers alike to educate us on issues and solutions relevant to our profession.

Of critical importance is that eTrigue doesn’t use the webinar to promote itself, but that the company features expert industry thought leaders to present on relevant topics. About half the time eTrigue’s platform could be part of the solution, but that is not the reason to for hosting the webinar. Presenters have included Barry Castle (Skype), and Christine Crandell, the best marketing philosopher of recent times (personal blog; Forbes blog).

Once the event is over the company makes the recorded webinar and presentation available to anyone for later viewing and download, not just pre-registered attendees.

eTrigue still also makes white papers available on its website—white papers do provide value. But webinars can actually engage the audience. The fact that eTrigue recognizes the importance of nurturing and nourishing the community is very telling of modern marketing memes.

Marketers need to participate in the community they are trying to sell in to. eTrigue has learned how to lead the conversation.

For those of you keeping score at home regarding my iPad purchasing saga (see post about Apple), based on Apple’s advice I switched from Apple’s online store to Best Buy. So that you don’t have to read the whole previous post, I ordered too many iPads from Apple and was subsequently banned from buying more.

Today I received a cancellation email from Best Buy because they were “…unable to verify my information.” So I called to verify my information.

First I was asked for my phone number so that they could look up my name. My question about why they didn’t just ask for my name went unanswered. After finally locating my order—once I gave them the order number (why didn’t they just ask for that in the first place?)—I learned that once more I’ve ordered too many iPads, and this order will not get filled.

I’ve seen this movie before.

No one in customer service was able to tell me what the order limit is, but I was told with absolute certainty that not a single person at Best Buy would be able to override it.

Since I’m decent at math I figured out the order limit myself. This was my third order (the very first one I placed was the one that Apple had canceled on me about ten days ago), and therefore the purchase limit has to be 2.

That could make gift-giving very tricky for some people.

It certainly puts a damper on my ability to stimulate the economy. Carole Inman (marketer extraordinaire) put it this way to me:

I think we have identified part of the reason the US economy is lagging – self-inflicted injury! 😦

It also goes against every marketer’s mantra of not over-promising and under-delivering, which is beginning to affect my efforts. Since I have a supply chain problem, it’s time to either seek alternate sources (not working) or substitutes. I feel a Five Forces blog post coming on . . .

Definitely time to reach out to Amazon.com to see how they feel about gifting the Kindle Fire.

Fact #1: Bankers work on behalf of their clients.

Fact #2: Bankers work on behalf of themselves.

Keeping the above in mind, why are we surprised that the Facebook IPO (NASDAQ: FB) was executed to the benefit of Facebook, the company, and the underwriting banks, rather than the retail investor?

Henry Blodget, CEO/Editor-in-Chief of Business Insider—who in his time put more lipstick on pigs than most of his peers, and is permanently barred by the SEC from working in the securities industry—is positively outraged by the bankers’ behavior. Blodget makes very valid points (article/video), but is he really permitted to be “shocked” by insiders giving themselves an advantage, legal or not?

Next, Paul Graham makes the point that valuations on startups could be going down because of the Facebook IPO and the lack of value it delivers to IPO investors (institutional and retail alike).

Shouldn’t they? I mean, not across the board, but for unproven business models? LinkedIn, in comparison to Facebook, actually has a proven business model: it’s an HR solution.

By definition, the bankers did great. They got Facebook and themselves the most money possible. I agree, in the long-term Facebook should not be underperforming its IPO price—that would be very bad for Facebook (and, of course, investors). But in the short-term, Facebook got the most money for giving up the least.

I am not arguing that deceit is an honorable practice, but I’ll go with this cliché: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

What ought to happen is that more real due diligence is being done. Perhaps less investment, but not fewer investments. Yes, companies once more will have to prove that they can make money, not just aggregate content. Thank you, Facebook, for the lesson.

The lesson to marketers? Deliver value to your stakeholders, not just your shareholders. (I really need to make that an axiom.)

Change management must include all stakeholders, and customers are stakeholders, too.

J.C. Penney Is the New Sears: Ron Johnson Has Done “Incalculable Damage,” Davidowitz Says is a fantastic article (and video) about JC Penney’s massive misstep in going to an everyday-low-prices model in this economy.

Anyone with a clue could have forecast this, and many did (my wife and I chortled at the original announcement, predicting failure on the spot). Apparently, Ron Johnson, JC Penney’s CEO, needs to get out more, or did the entire JC Penney board miss all the popular extreme-couponing TV shows?

Howard Davidowitz correctly asserts that limited in-store testing would have been advisable over betting the whole company on a hunch.

Better yet, leveraging JC Penney’s customer insights team should have been the first step before performing any in-store testing. These brand protectors and profit maximizers know how to perform a conjoint analysis survey and interpret its results.

A conjoint analysis is often misinterpreted or pigeon-holed as helping a company figure out its pricing, which is why it might not seem the right tool for JC Penney (since the company was very clear about how it wants to price). Instead, a conjoint analysis survey helps a company figure out what trade-offs a customer is willing to make–meaning, without being asked directly, the customer will inform the company of what is truly important to him/her. Typically clusters of choices will emerge, and a company can then build its go-to-market strategy from there.

In JC Penney’s case the conjoint analysis survey could have been leveraged to learn what’s important to customers today. Yes, customers always want the most for the least. Luckily, a well-designed conjoint analysis survey lets you actually sidestep that issue, and instead learn about customer price elasticity, shopping preferences, and motivators.

JC Penney could have leveraged many channels, including focus groups, but more importantly social media and public communities to get real meaningful feedback on its proposed pricing change.

Thus, even prior to any real-world testing, meaningful insights could have been collected. Then a limited roll-out should have been used to complete the testing phase.

A conjoint analysis is not a change management tool, but it can be used to measure the impact of a proposed change. As Ron Johnson said, “…the customer ignored us 99% of the time.” With proper foresight he could have made sure not to have pushed that to 100%.

Luckily, as CEO he can blame others:

Our marketing isn’t doing the work . . . We’ve got to get our pricing across. Coupons were a drug, they really drove traffic. [Customers] need to understand the value we’re offering.

Sheesh!