Squirrels first. Golfers second.

I live on a golf course and more than occasionally golfers either walking, searching for a ball, or in golf carts driving near the wrought iron fence toward their lay get too close for my black lab and he'll bark incessantly with a menacing tone until they move on (I try to keep him quiet during the backswing).  He doesn't understand that the entire golf course - even just the fifth green - is not his to protect.

No, his focus should be on his own backyard. A modest yard, two mature live oaks, a flower garden, shrubbery, patio, arbor. Not acres of well manicured greens running the length of the neighborhood.

But I, myself, too often try to 'boil the ocean' when all I can really control is my own pot. In truth, that's all we ever can do. But if we do a good enough job at that, collectively, the ocean - world peace, world hunger, the environment, the industry, the company - will come along in time.

Seeking to solve the bigger issues is noble. These issues may be they charitable, or simply problems at work beyond your authority (not ability) to change. Ultimately they are past our own ' fence'. In reality, our real responsibilities lie within our sphere of influence, in our own backyard. While we need to keep our eyes on the ultimate, broader objectives (in my Lab's case, ridding the world of golfers) it is because results matter that for our objectives, our sanity, our accomplishments, we focus first on what we can impact most directly in our own sphere of influence, that is, within our own backyards.

BP media mis-steps: Incompetent PR or arrogant leadership?

I can’t help but consider the past six weeks of corporate responses from BP regarding the Atlantis Platform disaster. The initial response in the first week was bad enough to warrant a typical blog entry about proper PR, compare the obvious textbook Tylenol case, but I thought that too banal. Yet as time passes, the official responses continue to be not only awful, but awful in a colossal, ongoing, repeating, self defeating, ignorant sort of way that underscores that BP executives are far better at talking than listening. Or doing.

The spill in the Gulf is now the largest ecological disaster ever in the United States. (BP needs to thank the gross incompetence that led to the tragedies and human toll at Bhopal and Chernobyl for keeping them off the top of the ‘worldwide’ list. For now.) So let us consider for a moment what it must be like at BP headquarters:

Consider the boardroom dialogue at HQ that allowed BP CEO Tony Hayward to say to a UK newspaper that “The Gulf of Mexico is a very big ocean. The amount of volume of oil and dispersant we are putting into it is tiny in relation to the total water volume.”

What of the urgent meetings among top executives that ended with the suggestion that BP stick to initial estimates of 1,000 barrels per day of leaking oil, when many independent experts were saying up to 20,000? Did they think the public – including experts in flow measurement – weren’t ever going to find out?

What of the casual water cooler conversations between cubicles where idiotic comments that the company “doesn’t know how birds and marine life have died” were allowed to be shared – and then implicitly encourage public opinion pieces about how the wildlife damage is minimal – “only being a little oil on a couple bird’s wings”.

Not to mention apparently very little comment regarding the eleven men who lost their lives when the platform exploded. (The media is complicit in their attention to the ‘pipe cam” over the human toll.)

There are more examples. Many, many more, as the list of mis-steps is as long as the oil slick is wide. But can we blame the PR team? Well, insomuch as an OIL COMPANY apparently had no, or a poor, or not agreed upon, disaster response process in place, yes. But even at that, it is often the corporate executives, regularly relegating PR (and marketing) to the back of the bus and out of the boardroom, that are likely to blame here. Instead of allowing these critical communication professionals to help manage the disaster communications, designate executive spokespeople, and align messages, BP simply sent employees a reminder of the Non-Disclosure Agreements in their contracts and then continued blathering unbelievable statements like a five-year-old caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

Until the disaster, the BP marketing and public relations team was doing an excellent job redefining BP (which holds the worst safety record in the industry), as a leader in eco-friendly oil production and alternative energy. But corporate PR can only do so much. Eventually, words must be backed with action if a brand makeover is to ‘stick’.

Even at BP, I suspect their PR professionals understand this. Unfortunately, their executives never have.

Fear and the American Consumer

In a recent article in his newsletter Drum Beat News, my colleague Jack Howe writes of the death of 'conspicuous consumption':

"Luxury buying is off in a major way - reports from Neiman's, Saks, and all top brand name retails report the same cut back from their consumers. So the company that must survive is making sure they offer solid business cases with every offer. Understanding the consequence of how the CEO, at the business your selling to, gets paid can pay off for you, the seller. As consumers, we are still spending, just not in the ways we were before. It is highly unlikely, given the cost of bailing us out of our current economic situation, that we will in our life time, see a return to what we knew as conspicuous consumption."

Interesting also is his observation in the same article that the increasing homogeneity of automobile design also points to the idea that 'standing out' is 'out'.

Whether or not I agree that recent poor auto design is a sign of a larger cultural shift, the apparent death of 'conspicuous consumption' is an interesting argument and worth evaluating from a marketing perspective. Given rising national and personal debt, a worldwide credit crisis, inflationary pressures on energy and food stuffs, plus the impact of environmental awareness and regulation, comfort with high levels of consumption no longer looks - or feels- 'right'. There are even anecdotal stories of monied customers foregoing store-branded shopping bags in order to keep a lower profile on their ill-timed retail therapy.

For years many marketers have relied primarily on brand prestige (associating personal attributes onto or from a product) and constancy (that is, 'I know what I'm getting', aka 'no one ever got fired for buying IBM') to maintain market share and margins. With the new normal of a slower consumer engine on the economy, we must re-evaluate what motivates customers now. I see these four are among the leading motivators:

Value: The rise of the big box discount chains, while suspect themselves in this era of the 'new normal', provide insight into consumers desire to buy in bulk, reduce packaging, and generally 'stock up' in what is perceived to be a very volatile period in our history.

Necessity: Discretionary spending is off, minimalism is in. Name your own example: Even here in truck-crazy Texas, Hummers are criticized, while the sparse Prius hybrid is envied. Vacations are out, staycations are in.

Savings: Once arguably in negative territory, personal savings in the United States has turned to a pace not seen in years, some estimates now as high as 4%. Anti-debt radio personality Dave Ramsey has a slogan that says it best: "...the paid off home mortgage has taken the place of the BMW as the status symbol of choice."

Fear: Arguably the previous three motivators are a result of fear to one degree or another. But this is a non-specific, generalized fear of a quickly shifting geo-political and economic landscape. Remember what happened to action movies after the Berlin Wall fell in 1989? Stallone had to find new enemies because the Ruskies were our pals. It was easy in an earlier era when Russians were the bad guys and we had a collective target for our enmity. But the new political environment, unnamed terrorists have exacted far more damage to our lives and psyches in the last decade than the Russians did in the prior fifty years.

Once, leveraging FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) was the last refuge of marketers unable to sell a product or solution on merits. Today, it seems to be the self-imposed primary motivation of consumers. And in a world where banks are bankrupt, car manufacturers are nationalized, real estate is no longer an inflation hedge, terrorists have us disrobing to get on an airplane, and the national debt clock needs more light bulbs, who could blame them?

Related articles by Zemanta

• 4 Problems That Could Sink America (usnews.com)

How much green is there in green?

In a recent price sensitivity analysis conducted by Rockbridge Research, it was discovered that most consumers would purchase a product indicated as 'green' (environmentally friendly) over a 'regular' product of the same type, but only if they were the same price. The study concluded that overall, "...as the green product’s price increases, consumers’ inclination towards it decreases."

Not surprisingly, specific audience categories offering unique attitudes toward the 'green movement' differ in the value they place on such products. Six distinct consumer groups within the overall adult consumer population were identified, with “Green Tech Leaders” willing to pay far more for a green certified product, while “Anti-Greens” are not willing to pay much more at all. That alone is interesting as it still indicates a willingness to perhaps consider the positive social implications of buying green even to those who do not value it themselves. This indicates that green product attributes are valuable, but not widespread enough to accommodate anything but a modest price adjustment.

From a share prospective, a green alternative may move the needle. From a margin perspective, this study indicates that their isn't yet much green in being green.

To learn more about Rockbridge’s Green Technology Segmentation, click here.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Nearly all "Eco" Product Claims Are Misleading [Greenwashing] (consumerist.com)