Abiah.com, Christian Organization and Ministry Brand Development

Disney to test toys after Mattel's recall

According to the Associated Press, Disney has contracted with companies to purchase their branded toys in order to test the toys for problems.  This of course comes in the wake of the Mattel toy recall.

A Disney spokesman said that, while testing is really the manufacturer's responsibility, Disney wants those companies to know they're watching.

This is an example of the kind of thing that makes Disney who they are and what sets them apart.  They understand the value of their brands and they actively protect them.  This takes leadership that isn't afraid to incur the upfront expense because they understand the value it gets them in the long run.

Do I think Disney's perfect?  Absolutely not.  That mess a few years ago with Katzenberg and Eisner showed that Disney has leadership problems and board problems just like other large corporations.  The difference is they actively work through their problems.

Some reasons for this?  They have a very clear vision and mission.  They're dedicated to engaging their staff members at every level in supporting the brand.  They make staffing and development a tremendous priority.  And when they make mistakes?  Like the old song says, they pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and start all over again.

Can that be said of you and your organization?

Using stars to sell products

This latest example of *sports celebrity gone bad* as played out with Michael Vick and his *alleged* involvement in dog fighting has me wondering about many different things.  One issue that specifically relates to our broad topic of branding is that of celebrity endorsements.

Using celebrities to endorse products dates back to radio programming and the earliest days of TV.  Celebrities on radio programs and early TV programs were expected to endorse the products and companies that were sponsoring their shows. 

Partnering with a celebrity is an element of positioning the product and company.  The theory is that if it's a good match the prospects will want to purchase the product for several reasons.  They feel they know, like, and trust the celebrity so if Hanes underwear is good for Michael Jordan or Kevin Bacon or whoever they have their "Hanes on now" then the underwear must be good enough for me.  Or if the celebrities reputation is as a hottie (as Rihanna's mentioned in yesterday's post), then I'll be a hottie too (I wish it were that simple!).

But celebrities often have meltdowns...as we've seen all to often lately...and in the information age it can be fast and furious.  Is it worth it to use a celebrity?  And what happens when they crash and burn?

I'm all for forgiveness but when we're talking about paying millions to maintain a connection with someone who is linked to drug use, abusing animals, or whatever their crime du jour is, the company must also be concerned with showing employees, shareholders, and consumers that they're not going to tolerate or endorse that celebs bad behavior.

Your thoughts on all that?

And, by the way, if you'd like to send your thoughts to the commissioner of the NFL and support the Humane Society, head on over to their site.

Do we really need to use sex to sell?

A friend of mine sent me an ad showing R&B singer Rihanna apparently endorsing Totes umbrellas and coming out with her own line for the company.

Rihanna is certainly a beautiful girl and her music is great to dance to (hmmm...sounds like an old Bandstand rating), and I can appreciate a mature company like Totes looking to do something to boost sales.  And good for the 19 year old singer to be smart enough to extend her earning potential beyond the fickle music business.

What I'm really questioning is the provocative nature of the picture used in the ad (which appears to be a variation of the picture on her website) and the need to use sex to sell. 

I realize the first job of an ad is to get attention but do we have to do it through sexual images? 

I'm not going to touch the gender issues here, my focus is strictly from a marketing and advertising issue. 

My experience with umbrellas is they don't work well in truly heavy rainstorms and they don't cover two people at one time.  Frankly, I'd be more interested in an ad that visually got my attention around one or both of those problems and then told me how this product solves one or both of them.

So what's the thinking out there on sex selling?  Is it that marketers use it because they assume it works or does it genuinely work?

Does fear keep you out of the big leagues?

Sunday, April 15th, was the 60th anniversary of Jackie Robinson's debut in Major League Baseball.  In addition to the speeches and presentations, he was honored with 200 players, managers, and coaches around the league wearing his famous number 42.  The only number to be retired by every single team in professional baseball.

Jackie Robinson did more than just break a color line in sports.  He was a talented and dignified role model for an entire nation.  He went to work every single day on a national stage and faced racial slurs and death threats; yet he never hung his head or hid in embarrasment if he didn't perform as well as he wanted or was able.

Each of us faces challenges every day, but few of us face challenges like those faced by Jackie Robinson. 

At your next leadership team meeting, ask the group in what way fear is holding them back and holding the company back?  What more could be achieved if you attacked the problems with bravery and dignity?  Are you willing to do that?  If not, why?

The Imus thing

Yesterday as I was watching the news and the coverage of the Imus -- Rutgers' women basketball mess I wondered if it would impact sponsorship.  I'm glad to say it has.

Big brands Staples and Procter & Gamble have pulled out.  Media buyers report that clients want to avoid the show.

Brands have to consider the impact of who their brands are tied to because -- whether the brand intends to or not -- buying comercial time or ad space appears to be an endorsement of the program and it's content.  The decision to purchase commercial time on a TV or radio program should be based on more than the demographic the program attracts.  It should also be based on the psychographics of those listeners.  Are these really the types of customers you're trying to attract?  Does the programming reflect the values of your brand?  Are you ALWAYS proud to be connected to the program?

Most commercials are a waste of money and effort anyway.  If Staples or P&G have a hard time deciding how to spend their marketing dollars, I can think of one company that would be willing to talk to them. : - )

Chiquita and the terrorists

Last week, a story appeared in newspapers that discussed Chiquita's guilty plea in Federal court that they have been funding a Columbian terrorist group.

That's a pretty startling discovery. 

Apparently, Chiquita had been paying protection money to a group the Federal government declared a terrorist organization.  According to Chiquita this was money to pay the group to stay away from its employees and this kind of thing needs to be done in dangerous areas like Columbia.

According to proscecutors in the case, the group they paid, United Self-Defense Forces of Coumbia (known as the AUC for its name in Spanish), has been responsible for some of the worst masacres in Columbia's civil war and is an active exporter of cocaine.

I'd like to think there will be some type of backlash against Chiquita for their behavior (other than the 25$ million fine they), but I'm skeptical. 

I think I'll start buying Dole.

What did your gifts communicate?

So the holidays are finally over (that's right...Epiphany was 1 / 6 and that's the last of the 12 days of Christmas).

So what did you give to say "thanks" to your clients?  How about your referral partners?  Your staff?

Did your gifts reflect your brand and make the connection between it and the receiver stronger or was there no connection between your brand and the gift?  What kind of shelf life does the gift have?

Over 20 years ago, a retailer I worked for held a sales contest and the prize was a jacket so nice I still have it.  Now THAT was a gift with high perceived value and a terrific shelf life!

Did your gift say "I value our relationship"? or did it say "I really don't think too much about you" ? 

If you don't think you hit a homerun over Thanksgiving, Christmas, or New Years, don't worry.  Valentine's Day is around the corner and you get another chance to show the love to your customers.

PS.  Ryan and I got iPods for Christmas from Santa's Chief Elf for South Jersey, Guy Richards.  Mighty nice, huh?  I hope you were extra good to your staffers because -- don't forget -- they're brand ambassadors!

Do you live your brand values?

My husband and I were watching Ruldolph-the-Red-Nosed-Reindeer when the HR person and brand strategist in me reared their ugly heads. 

That show is not only a great holiday tradition, it's a great example of a brand out of internal alignment!

There's Santa -- the CEO.  On the outside, his organization is built on fun and bringing happiness to children everywhere.  What's the reality?  Far from that.

He shows up at the reindeer games where Rudolph has just executed an incredible take-off.  This little guy demonstrates a couple of times that he's got an amazing vertical leap and tremendous potential.  Everyone, including Santa, is excited.

Then his fake black nose gets knocked off and he's exposed for what he truly is.  A reindeer with a great leap but a red lightbulb for a nose.  Suddenly, people make fun of him and forget that he just demonstrated a record-breaking takeoff.  Even Santa does this by saying "Too bad.  He had a nice takeoff too."  This shows Santa for what he is -- A poor leader --  and the group for what it is:  a place that values conformity over break through performance.

Is fear holding you back?

Today is the 65th anniversary of the bombing of

Pearl Harbor

That anniversary always makes me think of Franklin Roosevelt’s famous quotation, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”   That statement was made in 1933 in his first inaugural address, over 8 years before the attack.  It was true in 1933 at the height of the Depression.  It was true on December 7th, 1941; and in many ways it remains true for us today. 

(this article appeared in our newsletter)

Don’t let fear keep you from being successful

“The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Those words are just as true now as they were when President Roosevelt spoke them in his 1933 inaugural address.  They’re not just true for us collectively as a nation, but for our organizations as well.

A company develops a personality based on the combined personalities of its leaders.  There’s one aspect of our personalities that keeps us and our companies from moving forward and that’s our fears of loss.

Our fears around loss of status, respect, or positive regard by those at every level around us lead us to make decisions designed to protect that status we enjoy, whether those decisions are right for the company or not.  We fear looking foolish so we take a very safe course of action, which may include no action at all.

Fear of various types of loss can lead us to take credit for the good ideas of others (so we don’t lose status as a smart person in the eyes of others), to not moving into a new line of business (so we don’t lose money, don’t lose status as a leader in the industry, etc.).Fear of failure is tied to this fear of loss. We resist giving a staff member a project because we’re afraid she won’t perform well and will make us look bad for assigning her the task. We’re afraid to volunteer for a project because we don’t want to run the risk of embarrassment if we make a mistake.

Fear of losing control of our company – or at least our department – will cause us to make all decisions. This prevents others from learning and traps us in the very set of circumstances we keep saying we don’t want – having no one willing to step up and lead. It also acts to encourage the best staffers to look for jobs with employers who aren’t afraid to give them those opportunities. Our real fear is that the organization may not really need us.

Which weighs more - what you say or what you do?

Hi everyone-

I just watched the clip of Michael Richards' (Kramer from Seinfeld) rant.  This meltdown has been all over the media including CNN. 

I watched it with my mouth open -- literally.  Even though I heard about it I couldn't believe it!  I don't care what the heckler in the audience did, Richards should never had said those things. 

Of course he's now saying he's not a racist.  Really?  You sounded like a racist to me. 

We've all been exposed to someone who's said something hurtful and then said "Oh, I was just kidding."  But we know they weren't.  Or if they were, then there's something not quite right about their sense of humor.

Now let's look at this from a business standpoint. 

So many businesses say "customer service is our priority." But do they mean it?  They may treat you badly when you're trying to make a return.  They don't have enough staff to properly serve you without waiting.  They don't select the best employees or train their staff on how to answer questions. 

Those kinds of things tell me "saving a buck" is their priority, not serving the customer.

What we do carries more weight than what we say. 

We tell our children to eat their vegetables, yet we're not eating a healthy diet.  We tell them not to smoke while we puff away.  Kids will watch and do as we do.

A company tells it's employees how important teamwork is yet doesn't discipline or fire the salesperson who brings in the big accounts when they know he treats coworkers badly.  This tells people that production is more important than teamwork.

Michael Richards may be trying to convince the world and himself that he's not a racist, but his behavior tells us differently.   Is your company's behavior in alignment with what it's telling the world?

Winnie Anderson on behalf of the team at Abiah Desings