Brand New Day - BusinessWeek

Twitter Dominates CMO Social Network Plans

David Kiley — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:57:02 -0500

It's here, there and everywhere. The popularity of social networking is climbing by the week with virtually every age bracket, right up to seniors.

Today 110 million Americans, or 60% of the online population, use social networks, according to a new study by Anderson Analytics. That number is conservative, because instead of counting unique users or everyone who has an account, the Anderson study counted only people who have used a social network at least once in the past month.

According to Anderson, the average social networker goes to social sites five days a week and checks in about four times a day for a total of an hour each day. Nine-percent stay logged in all day and are constantly checking out what's new.

Social networkers' feelings about brands online are more fairly positive. Some 52% of social networkers had friended or become a fan of at least one brand. When asked by Anderson if they would like more communications from brands, 45% were neutral, while 20% said yes and 35% said no.

Anderson conducted the study online in June with 5,000 demographically representative respondents, and then went in-depth with 1,250 of them.

Facebook has emerged as the leading site for volume and attention from marketers now that Myspace has established a solid pattern of decline, especially among consumers advertisers find most attractive at the moment.

While Facebook continues to struggle in its quest to monetize all that online volume, Twitter is emerging as the platform that seems to intrigue marketers even more than Facebook.

Of the leading social networking platforms, Twitter by far has the lead in attracting marketing interest in the next 12-18 months, according to this week’s Brand New Day/CMO Club poll.

Of 103 chief marketing officers who responded to the question asking them which platform would figure into their marketing plans the most in the coming months, 40.8% responded Twitter, followed by 26.2% saying Facebook, 16.5% saying LinkedIn, and 8.7% responding “Other.”

A few of the quotes offered by the CMOs:

“I look at Twitter and Facebook more for Branding and LinkedIn for demand generation and lead nurturing”

“While the question forces a single answer, organizations really need to take a holistic approach to social media. One that reaches all potential consumers for the brand, and does so in a compelling & consistent way that builds awareness & equity for the brand. Not doing so will result in your brand failing to connect with your customer in a meaningful and viral way.”

“My approach for twitter is different for many other CMOs. I leverage Twitter to improve customer services and responsiveness to customers. I leverage Facebook for internal employee alignment and encouragement around our marketing and differentiation programs.”

Mobile Devices' Share of Eyeballs Climbing

David Kiley — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:13:50 -0500

One out of every seven minutes of media consumption today takes place on mobile devices, according to new research from IPG's Universal McCann and AOL.

The study, which polled 1,800 mobile users over the fourth quarter of last year and first quarter of 2009, found that 80 percent of smart-phone users are satisfied using the quality of the Internet on their mobile devices.

Ninety-five percent of the respondents said they used mobile media to fill downtime; 82 percent said they use it at work; 81 percent while shopping; 80 percent at home; and 65 percent while commuting to their jobs. Among specific activities, 73 percent of respondents reported searching for maps and directions while 55 percent said they participated in social networking or sought out restaurant and movie listings or reviews. Forty-four percent reported seeking national news and information.

With mobile usage expected to grow by 60 percent by 2011, marketers are understandably sorting out ways to communicate their brands to mobile users.

Perhaps the best example of mobile marketing was President Obama’s election campaign which signed up millions of supporters for mobile alerts to speeches, events, new alerts and local fundraisers ion their areas.

I also like the way Marriott’s smartphone app. Works to allow business travelers to book hotel reservations. Motion picture marketers can’s assemble a film launch without a significant mobile plan. And car companies are increasingly turning to mobile to launch new vehicles. The convergence of mobile marketing and social networking with people facebooking and twittering from their handsets si also leading companies like Ford and GM to pump up mobile budgets for products aimed at younger buyers like the forthcoming Ford Fiesta and Chevrolet Volt.

There are now 63 million mobile Web users in the U.S., more than 19 million of whom access the Internet on a weekly basis. Of course, the number in China has some 240 million.

Six Questions That Can Improve CMO Job Security

David Kiley — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 01:25:04 -0500

By Pete Krainik
Founder of The CMO Club
Everywhere I go, as head of The CMO CLUB, I get asked about the latest report on CMO tenure and that CMOs only last 18 months, or 22 months, etc.

In reflecting on the past three months hosting CMO Club dinners and my career these past eight years as GM at Siebel, CMO at DoubleClick, and EVP Marketing at Avaya, I concluded that one of the most important things to ensure success at the CMO level, in addition to the standard questions on roles/responsibilities, market share, competitive strategy, why the last CMO left, etc., is to be able to get answers to what I am calling: “The six most important questions to assess the probability of your success in the CMO role.” These questions not only provide CMOs the ability to predict success, but help shape the overall success of companies.

Question 1: Is there clarity of strategic direction and approach with the board and the CEO. For a CMO to be successful, the CEO and Board must be in sync on what is working, not working and the strategies to improve. I was involved in an interview process a number of months back for a CMO position with a large computer company and the CEO kept talking about the company’s biggest problem: “Having more exciting branding and messaging.” One of the board members told me the biggest problem was improving sales and demand generation in Asia. Another board member told me the biggest issue is pricing. If that group is not in sync and crystal clear on the key strategic problems they want to solve, how are you as a CMO going to make the right decisions on priorities, resources, brand leadership, and defining success?

Question 2: How much real authority do I have to drive change? To be successful you must have authority and support of the CEO to drive marketing investment decisions, media decisions, in-region plans and resource deployment, user group management, etc. Whenever I hear about corporate staff CMO positions with each region having their own marketing groups reporting to region heads, I question how much authority and ability there is to drive needed change.

Question 3: What is the degree of customer centricity in the company? If your company is product focused (despite all the lip service given to customer focus) or focused only on the short term bottom line, how much influence will the CMO really have within the company? When I worked at M&M/Mars back in the late 90’s, the focus on the consumer and consumer driven product development, drove the value and importance of the CMO role within that business. A number of product focused, high tech companies would not be the right fit for high impact CMO success. Customer centricity must start with the CEO and Board. If they don’t truly believe it and see the value in starting with the customer, your ability to influence change at the CMO level will be difficult. Everyone talks customer centric, few really demonstrate it.

Tanqueray Rolls Global Campaign

David Kiley — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 00:47:57 -0500

Drinks giant Diageo has rolled out a global ad campaign from Wieden & Kennedy, Amsterdam for Tanqueray gin. Themed "Resist Simple," the effort seeks to position Tanqueray as a brand of gin for people who resist the obvious. That idea got translated to "Resist Simple."

In this TV spot, then line that jumps out is the one near the end about how the people drinking Tanqueray go back to Paris again and again but have resisted seeing the the Eiffel Tower, the Mona Lisa or the Arc de Triomphe.

Positioning the consumers of your product as people who go the other way, or take the road less traveled seems a bit played to me. And who are these people? Why do I care? And what kind of numb-skulls go back to Paris repeatedly without going to the Louvre, or strolling by the Arc de Triomphe. Heck, wouldn't you eventually pass by the Arc in a cab or on a Vespa? The guy sounds like a jerk.

This is more of the effort of Diageo to globalize its drinks ad campaigns. In fact, though done by a different agency, there is something about this effort from Wieden that makes me think of the Ketel One ad campaign recently released by Diageo and done by Grey.

It's not nearly as bad as the Ketel One campaign. But the common denominator is a serious lack of creativity. This campaign, like the Ketel One effort, seems like it was ordered through the mail from an agency that advertises in the back of a magazine for franchise business owners. It could be for anything. If two agencies on two different continents are creating ad campaigns for two different brands, and those campaigns look like they came out of the same tired creative group, then I have to point to the client as the culprit on the dumbing down of its advertising.

In another TV spot, called "Backstage," the virtues of the signature Tanqueray & Tonic cocktail are highlighted with a voiceover that refers to the drink as “…what the guy who often talks his way backstage is having.”

Spirits brands have personalities that must be honed and nurtured through advertising. Look at advertising for, say, Jack Daniels, and you will note that is nothing like the ads for Wild Turkey or Maker's Mark.

After all, in the case of gin and vodka, there is only so much differentiation you can achieve in the product.

Tanqueray is a good solid gin with some class. It has been served by some clever ad campaigns. This just doesn't happen to be one of them.

CMOs Focused on Reaching "Influencers" Via Social Media

David Kiley — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:45:07 -0500

By Pete Krainik
Founder of The CMO Club

Having finished a series of 15 dinners in as many cities with chief marketing officers, I was struck by how around 75% of the formal dinner conversations centered around leveraging social networking tools and how to reach “influencers” through these mew media versus traditional outlets.

Also, as I looked around the tables at these dinners—put on by The CMO Club—I noticed a number of star CMOs sitting and listening, but not taking notes. But once we started talking about CMO Leadership beyond their marketing organization, all pens or mobile devices were out taking notes and engaging in the conversation.

These are the two topics clearly dominating the work lives of CMOs today—social media and crafting their own leadership strategies.

The first thing that separates star CMOs from all the others is their delivery as an Officer (O) in the company. Officers lead business-wide change, not department change. The only way you can drive the growth agenda for your company is to lead your brand company-wide. Randall Beard, Global Head of Marketing at UBS, led our recent NYC CMO CLUB dinner discussion on this exact topic. How much time are CMOs and marketing executives spending in this area?

Do you think Dell, GM, Starbucks, 6 Flags, and others can creatively campaign or leverage social media their way to future profitable growth? Company-wide focus on adding value to their customers is what’s needed and where CMO focus should be. Social networking tools are great new solutions for helping execute your customer value delivery plans.

The second thing that separates star CMOs is their delivery as a Chief (C) in the company. This is all about ensuring your entire organization has the talent and skills you need to compete in today’s world. Susan Lintonsmith from Red Robin Restaurants has done, in my opinion, a great job in focusing on restaurant level customer engagement by employees. Todd Townsend told me recently the things he learned while CMO at Sonic Drive-In have been extremely valuable to him in his new role at Qwest in focusing on organization wide customer engagement programs and talent development. Peter McNally helped me kick off a CMO Coaches program in the club about “Talent Development” and his CMO conference calls for our members have been one of the most popular roundtable topics. Remember, it’s all about leadership in company wide branding and customer engagement talent development.

You would be surprised how many conversations I have with CMOs in which they put in new dashboards and metrics, start measuring, seeing where they are, but then not having the expertise within their departments to improve and lead “real” improvements in dashboard metrics. I did this, now how do I move the dials?

You want to be a star CMO (or help your CMO be a star)? In my opinion, make sure you lead as an officer in your company around company-wide business change and focus your energies on talent development and company-wide internal brand development.

This is a time in which a lot of bold experimentation, as it relates to reaching consumers via social media, is called for. It is a time of transition and upheaval, exacerbated by the recession. Success in getting through this period will not come from playing it safe, but rather demonstrating to the whole organization that all the new investments you are making in uncharted waters is part of a coherent plan and that you have the skills to take the organization where it needs to go.

This post kicks off our new series inviting guest bloggers to contribute to Brand New Day for a week.

CMO Club: GM Should Keep Its Name

David Kiley — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:57:20 -0500

As General Motors works to re-emerge from Chapter 11, a question has to be asked: Might it be better to change the company’s name?

General Motor’s corporate name has been part of its brand muddle. It perennially struggles with how much to spend on ads centered for its product brands—Cadillac, Chevy, Buick, etc.—and how much to spend pushing GM as a brand.

“GM,” which has also been the company’s stock ticker symbol, though, many believe, has become an albatross, like “AIG,” and even “Enron.” No matter how good GM’s new vehicles are, and many are terrific, there is an idea that they will be dragged down in the minds of consumers if they are sold as GM cars.

And GM doesn't have time to waste. It has to get more car-buying consumers interested in considering its cars and trucks in the next 12 months or the government bailout of the company will be deemed a fiasco.

Chrysler has, to some degree, faced the same dilemma. But it has decided to keep the “Chrysler Group LLC” name under its new corporate structure, even though there is consideration of doing away with the Chrysler brand in future.

As part of Brand New Day's partnership with The CMO Club, we asked its members whether General Motors should ditch its brand name.

101 CMOs responded, and 86% said, “No.” An overwhelming majority voted that GM should keep its century-old name, even though it connotes failure to a large swath of the buying public.

A few quotes from CMOs in the club who responded “No”:

“Leading your brand has moved beyond the marketing department. Name changes are marketing centric approaches, leading product (cars), customer service and operational excellence are business centric and what GM needs to focus on.”

“Not until they change the CEO, the union or make other dramatic changes to their culture.”

“No. It takes a much longer to build the name recognition and brand equity of a GM then to turn it around once it is tarnished. If they can survive and really focus on what customers want they can have a great brand again. America loves a comeback story.”

“No way!! It's a great name and an American icon. And with the federal bailout, we all have a stake in them succeeding. If they start making great cars that people want, they'll come back. If they don't, a different name won't help. In fact, it would hurt more.”

“GM's issue is not their name. The only way to rebuild their brand is to build products consumers love, and maybe even have a good experience buying. They haven't done this for a very long time.”

Some Say Obama Campaign Shouldn't Have Won at Cannes

David Kiley — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 10:15:25 -0500

Author Rick Mathieson [Branding Unbound] writes that The Obama Campaign should not have won awards at the International Ad Festival in Cannes.

“Call it the audacity of hype. There's a lot of commentary right now about the Obama Campaign for America winning two Grands Prix in the Titanium and Integrated Lions categories at the Cannes Advertising Festival last week.

But in my opinion, the campaign should not have won these prizes for a couple of reasons:
1. Cannes is about creativity. The Obama campaign was not about creativity, but about strategy - using myriad channels to get out the message and the vote. Sure, there was the idea that strong community building enabled consumers to help build the Obama brand. Yes there was all the text messaging and what not. But there was nothing especially creative about that, or any particular element or mix or elements.

2. Some are arguing the campaign won for effectiveness. Well A.) Cannes has never been about effectiveness - any number of infomercials would win over creative work. And B) though this may sound contrarian, I'd argue there was nothing especially effective about the campaign, despite the candidate's decisive win.
It’s interesting that Mathieson says that the most effective campaign of the last 12 months shouldn’t have won anything. The chatter this year, more than any other, was whether the Cannes festival still carries relevance.

I don’t think, as Mathieson says, that the awards should be about creativity alone, as in creativity of copy, art direction and cinematography. The awards should reward creativity of idea and execution no matter who it is achieved. And divorcing creativity from effectiveness seems like an irrelevant notion to me.

How many times have we seen seriously creative and beautifully executed ads win big awards and have almost no effect on the product or brand? Answer-plenty. That’s why for years we saw agencies enter ads that they created and ran once or twice on cable so they could enter the work in an award show. That’s not creativity so much as it is commercial masturbation.

Having a really well orchestrated, multi-dimensional and creative campaign win at Cannes is a good lesson for the industry.

U.S. Supreme Court Helps Future of Ad Skipping

David Kiley — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:15:12 -0500

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday unintentionally struck a victory for consumers who don't want their time wasted with bad or irrelevant ads. The high court declined to hear a case about digital video recorder technology, thus making it easier for cable systems to offer services that would bring ad skipping systems to more TV watchers.

The case began in 2006 when Cablevision Systems, the New York-area cable operator, made plans to offer a DVR system in which a customer could digitally record a program, say a football game or American Idol, on a server provided by the cable company rather than on the hard drive of an at-home DVR box.

The technology allows an operator like Cablevision to convert existing set-top boxes into ones with DVR capabilities without installing new equipment in millions of homes. It is, most agree, a much more efficient solution to proliferating more DVR boxes.

But programmers like Turner Broadcasting System’s Cartoon Network and CNN had sued Cablevision, charging the system violated copyright law. In March 2007, a lower court agreed, ruling in the opinion that Cablevision “would be engaging in unauthorized reproductions and transmissions of plaintiffs’ copyrighted programs.” Not so fast, ruled the The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, which reversed that decision. The Appellate Court's ruling is the one that stands now.

Plaintiffs argue that cable systems, by storing the programs remotely, could redistribute them in ways that potentially rob those holding copyrights from their fair share of revenue. That argument didn't hold much water. Arguing what a party "might do" seldom does. Their real cause, of course, was trying to slow down the penetration of DVRs and DVR-like capability, which consumers use to record programs and skip ads.

Networks and cable operators have yet to crack the code of aiming ads at people that aren't irrelevant. In other words, they still can't figure out a way to aim dog food commercials at just people with dogs, and spare the dog-less from 30 seconds of wasted time. I would suggest that is a problem for the networks and cable operators to work out technologically rather than holding poor defenseless dog-less people hostage to watching Alpo ads.

Cablevision said the decision of the court not to hear the case would help make DVRs more accessible, and that programmers and advertisers could, for example, sign agreements allowing Cablevision to insert new ads into recorded content.

Oh Joy. But can I suggest to Cablevision that if that is their plan...might you ask customers to fill out a survey to find out if they own a dog before inserting dog food ads into someone's recording of The Wizard of Oz. And if customers are going to give you that kind of information, make it worth their while by giving them the service for free, while those who want the service ad-less have to pay for it.

Sarah Silverman Obama Ad Can Teach Marketers How To Win

David Kiley — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:03:22 -0500

The online video created by Droga5 and starring comedienne Sarah Silverman for the Jewish Council for Education and Research won several honors at the Cannes International Advertising Festival this week including a Gold Lion in the cyber category.

The “ad” is a teaching moment for those who choose to learn.

1. It doesn’t look like advertising.
2. It is entertaining.
3. It is totally connected to the issue [product, brand].
4. It spawned huge pass-along in social networking, as in “You gotta see this.”
5. It doesn’t look like advertising.
6. It breaks some rules. [Some marketers can be freer on the Net than on network or even cable TV].
Lesson: if it looks like advertising, people will be more likely to skip it.

I had an e-mail exchange with a top marketing exec at a major company this week in which he quoted the former Coca-Cola chief marketing officer Sergio Zyman to me: The purpose of advertising is to sell product.”

Yes. Okay. But that product won’t be sold unless the public is paying attention. Zyman created a whole lot of advertising in his day that just looked too much like advertising for my money.

I’d say the Obama campaign, plus efforts like this that were created outside the campaign structure, have more to teach marketers these days than just about any other advertising I have seen lately.

Suzuki's Quality Gain and Audacious Ads May Finally Boost Respect

David Kiley — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 11:33:45 -0500

Japanese automaker Suzuki has long been the doormat of the U.S. auto industry. The company, known for making very good and competent motorcycles, scooters and recreational three and four wheel vehicles, has long made and sold cars and SUVs in the U.S. that either lack on styling, quality or both.

Who can forget Suzuki’s entry into the U.S. with the Suzuki Samurai, which Consumer Reports lambasted as unsafe back in the late 1980s. Since, it sold the Sidekick. Then came more substantial SUVs like the Grand Vitara. The SUV’s have always felt a bit cheap, with the quality of interior materials always suspect and using poor grades of plastic. But the car side of the business was always a hodgepodge of cheap econo-cars and odd blends of Japanese, South Korean and European influences. The Suzuki Verona, for example, was as anonymous a sedan as I ever saw.

So, it was with a gaping open mouth that I recently saw a TV ad from Suzuki comparing the SX4 to the MINI Cooper. Huh? Wha?

But here is the thing. While Suzuki still can’t style itself out of a paper bag, the SX4 is a dandy little car. While it lacks good fuel economy, the all-wheel drive I quite good for such a small car. I happened to have it as a loaner last winter when I woke up to almost a foot of new snow. I had to get to a TV appearance in downtown Ann Arbor, MI, and the SX4 powered through 12 inches of the wet-stuff in my driveway, street and some of the downtown unplowed streets. I would have hated to have the MINI that day. One of the reasons the SX4 gets crummy gas mileage for such a small car is, in fact, the weight of the all-wheel-drive system. But also, Suzuki, despite seemingly modeled after Honda in many ways, has never made fuel economy a priority in the cars it sells in the U.S.

The other thing long dogging Suzuki has been quality. It has languished near the bottom of J.D. Power’s Initial Quality Study, as well as the firm’s Vehicle Dependability Study. But perhaps that is starting to change. In the new IQS, Suzuki moved from almost dead last a year ago to no. 9 in 2009, above industry average and well ahead of brands that have higher perceived quality, like Nissan, Volkswagen, BMW and Scion. The big reason seems to be the high ratings buyers of the SX4 are giving their vehicle.

Perhaps the audacity of comparing its best rated vehicle against the highly popular MINI, plus some better quality ratings that turn up in Internet research will finally get the public to take Suzuki more seriously. But some better fuel economy ratings and styling that doesn’t look like it came out of a high school art class, plus continued good quality ratings, will help too.

VW, Cadillac, Chevy, Ford and Their Love of Ad Cougars

David Kiley — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:41:56 -0500

With all the bad news surrounding the car business, my hat off to www.jalopnik.com for doing something totally frivolous, fun, yet strangely thought provoking. Yes…it’s a list of the hottest spokes-cougars for car companies.

Cougar is a term, for the uninitiated, that refers to a woman of an uncertain age who aspires to the younger man. The term seemed to take off with the rise of “Desperate Housewives” and gained traction in last year’s American Idol when ultimate winner David Cook was said to be the object of desire of the “cougars” in the audience.

But for the past year or so, the cultural phenomenon has spread to really just encompass ladies who merely look like they might be interested in their son’s college room-mate. Housewives of Orange County. Housewives of New Jersey. And the recent reality show…The Cougar. Actually, this show might kill the whole thing.

Jalopnik names : Brooke Shields for Volkswagen, Jill Wagener for Mercury, Kim Cattral for Nissan Australia, Susan Lucci for Ford dealers, Kate Walsh for Cadillac, Heidi Klum for Volkswagen and the Mitsubishi iMiev Mom holding the plug to this little electric car in such an alluring fashion.

Conspicuously left off the list of all time greats, though are two of my favs: one because it is so awful and one because it is so fabulous.

The best worst spokes-cougar for a car company ever was Celine Dion pitching the Chrysler Town & Country minivan. Here she is:

The best spoke-scougar of all time, hands down: Dinah Shore pitching Chevrolet for the USA. In the 1970s, she snared Burt Reynolds, who was around 30 years younger than her at the time. Now, that’s Cougaring.

Britney Likes McDonald's Too

Michael Arndt — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:39:09 -0500

Britney Spears popped into a McDonald's in suburban London for lunch on June 17, says the London Daily Mail. Tut-tutters scolded her in the blogosphere. But she's not the only singer with a taste for Mickey D: As I noted in May, Miley Cyrus went on a McDonald's kick, and not for the first time, I later learned. Unlike Miley, though, Britney didn't tell her 1.9 million Twitter followers about her McMeal—her latest tweet thanks adoring fans outside her hotel—so we don't know what she had. Maybe it was only a Diet Coke.

P&G Goes Viral With Tampax Videos

David Kiley — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:23:29 -0500

Call me old fashioned but I think some products should just be advertised pretty much for their features and attributes. I really don’t think an agency should get overly zen or slick with toilet paper, cotton balls, and oh yeah….tampons.

But show me a client with a product or brand that is a borderline commodity, and I’ll show you an agency that is out to cure it of its commodity status.

Which brings me to the curious case of Zack Johnson, the fictional character created by Leo Burnett Chicago on behalf of Procter & Gamble’s Tampax feminine hygiene brand. The campaign is anchored by a blog featuring videos at Zack16.com. Zack, if you can believe this, has his male parts replaced by female parts, and has his first menstrual period during French class. He skulks into the girl’s restroom to use a Tampax machine.

I’m not sure if this will sell more Tampax. But it’s interesting

EX GM Exec Says the Automaker Has Toxic Marketing Culture

David Kiley — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:45:34 -0500

Mike Jackson, the former head of corporate advertising at GM, tells it like it is at GM in a column he penned for Automotive News.

I could have blogged in this at out AutoBeat blog. But I decided to put it here because what he says about GM could very well be the case at other companies that rely on advertising and marketing to move consumer goods.

Here is the key part:

At GM, there is a bias against outsiders, especially those without automotive experience. But to do what is needed, GM again must look outside the organization.
Ten years ago, I was brought into GM as part of a major reorganization led by Rick Wagoner and Ron Zarrella. Wagoner was a great leader with global experience committed to lead a new GM. Zarrella was a visionary marketer committed to making GM brands relevant to American consumers.
It was a strong team. Also recruited from outside were such executives as Paul Ballew, Roger Adams, CJ Fraleigh and Debra Kelly-Ennis. We were charged with revitalizing U.S. sales and marketing efforts.

At first things went well. We earned the respect of those in the organization who embraced the vision and yearned to create a different culture. Veteran leaders such as Bill Lovejoy, Kurt Ritter and Lynn Myers provided support, guidance and experience. Under Lovejoy's leadership, there was passion and enthusiasm, and we seemed to be gaining momentum.
We were close to changing the culture and achieving outstanding business results. But when Lovejoy retired at the end of 2002, the GM lifers once again assumed control.
Immediately there was talk of returning to the good old days of a command-and-control culture in which a chosen few made every decision. Their tactics were simple: focus on getting dealers to take inventory and launch an incentive program every month. Programs such as Employee Pricing for All and Standards for Excellence infuriated the dealers and alienated consumers.
Eventually, many of us who were supposed to be agents of change got frustrated and left GM and the auto business.

Consumers Looking To Food Inc. For Fresh Food?

David Kiley — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:59:49 -0500

According to a report released this week by Ipsos Marketing, Consumer Goods, North American consumers have put "providing fresh ingredients" as the top thing they are looking for from food companies.

This was the top ranked response the firm asked respondents to a survey what the one area should be that food companies focus on most when developing new products. Twenty-six percent chose it from a menu of options, putting it ahead of "providing additional health benefits" (24 percent) and "making the packaging more environmentally friendly (21 percent).

It's a bit puzzling, though, why consumers would assume a "food company" was the place to get "fresh ingredients." I mean, are people really looking to Kraft, Conagra and Campbell Soup for "fresh." Ever hear of a farmer's market? Or even the produce section of your grocery store?

Few picked "improving the taste" (14 percent) or "making the food quicker and easier to prepare" (6 percent).

Just 4 percent of the North American respondents chose "developing foods that are totally different from other foods on the market" (4 percent. Last ranked was "developing packaging that is more convenient to use." I guess the companies have made it about as easy as they can without compromising package integrity. Anyone recall when York Peppermint Patties were packaged just in foil wrappers that were scrunched down around the candy? Yikes.

I hate surveys.