Blog

If you’re thinking about rebranding, you should ask yourself pointed questions. Chelsea Alventosa of Canva, a creator of a simplified graphic-design tool, has come up with ten good ones. Though the company’s focus is on logos, packaging, and imagery, these questions work even from a broader perspective.

Here are the five questions I liked, but all ten will make you stop and think. Check out the article. It’s lavishly illustrated with examples.

“Will a rebrand compromise your brand equity?”

If your brand name is well known and has a great reputation, you want to make sure you’re not confusing customers or negatively impacting hard-earned brand equity. Ms. Aventosa says, “Your goal when rebranding should be to give your brand a new twist that customers identify with and support, rather than going in a completely different direction.” In her view, IHOP did a great job of refreshing its logo while maintaining the colors that patrons associated with the restaurant.

“Can you identify a problem with your current brand?”  

“Before rebranding your business,” says Ms. Aventosa, “it’s important to ask yourself what problems there are with your current logo, or brand kit.” If you can’t identify a real problem, you should probably hold off. Gap revamped its logo in 2010 and got such bad feedback that it reverted to the design we’re all familiar with. I point to Agilent Technologies—a Hewlett-Packard spin-off—and Accenture—formerly Andersen Consulting—as examples of branding that, in my opinion, didn’t need to be fixed with silly suggestive names.

“Is your brand story still relevant?”

Does your brand reflect the values of your core audience? Have your customers’ values changed over the years? If so you need to change as well. American Eagle Aerie, for example, which now reflects a body-positive ethos—think Lizzo—in its sleepwear and intimate apparel line for young women.

“Have your service offerings changed over time?”

As what you offer has evolved, has your brand kept up? Does it convey how you’ve expanded or contracted your offering? Ms. Aventosa points to Uber, noting that its 2016 rebranding was intended to convey broadened services and a global identity. Ms. Aventosa counsels companies to be consistent in their use of colors and patterns throughout marketing materials so that their look will become “instantly recognizable.” Large companies, such as Cisco, typically create brand and style manuals to guide look, feel, and voice. And so should smaller enterprises. It’s never too early to start creating a consistent impression.

“Can people understand your message at first glance?”

“What information and feelings does your branding give at first sight? If people are confused about what you are trying to portray when they catch a glimpse of your website or product, they probably won’t stay long.” Ms. Aventosa points to Tesco, a UK-based grocer whose Everyday Value product line sold poorly until a packaging revamp conveyed a better quality-value message.

Clearly, rebranding should not be undertaken lightly. Branding touches on how a company feels about its customers and itself, its history, and where it’s going. And rebranding should prompt the same kind of self-examination.

Dizanna – 123rf.com

You may not be thinking about how your brand culture will react to hard times. But Chris Wren (@chriswrenla) certainly has. In a September 2019 article “Leveraging Brand Culture to Combat Recessions,” he discusses things brands may want to consider in what he—and others—believe is the coming recession. “Market volatility, tariffs, Brexit, upcoming elections in the US, and economic indicators point to the high likelihood of a recession impacting consumers and brands soon.”

But first, what is the culture we’re referring to? Actually, it’s workplace culture, and it’s “the mark a job leaves on people. It’s what people say about where they work when they leave at night. And when they leave for other companies. It’s the way that where they work makes them feel.” Equally important, culture is about what makes employees both happy and unhappy, listening to what you hear from then, and, of course, caring what they say.

Mr. Wren points out that the world is different than it was during the Great Recession of 2008. Social media scrutiny, as it has with everything else, puts brands “under the spotlight in the way they compensate executives, how their employees are impacted, and changes that can happen through the supply chain.”

So, given that such a high percentage of employees are living paycheck to paycheck, Mr. Wren discusses approaches such as pay cuts and emergency loans, which can foster an “we’re all in this together” camaraderie. But he also notes the downside: these programs may not be enough. Proactivity is important. “When the recession hits, step up your internal corporate communications and encourage employee engagement.”

Like companies anticipating bad times, we should all think about how we manage our personal economics. They are integral to our brands. I was raised in a household that functioned by the maxim “Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.” I’ve strayed, of course, from this New England austerity, yet, when I’m in adherent mode, I feel better. And I’m betting companies do too.

Alexlmx – 123rf.com

Shana Pilewski, a senior content marketer at Dynamic Yield, has come up with nine crucial branding mistakes to avoid. Branding mistakes can cost your organization money and the time required to fix them—assuming they’re fixable—and of course, they can impact image and reputation. As Ms. Pilewski says, “Your brand is a window into the heart and soul of your business… Branding is not just a buzzword for getting a one-time campaign right—it encapsulates everything you want to communicate to your customers.”

Getting branding right is enough of a challenge, but keeping it right is critical, because it must evolve along with your customers.

Here are my three faves of Ms. Pilewski’s tips, though they’re all part of a package, so you probably want read her blog post.

Missing out on the value proposition

Value proposition has sort of an academic sound, but at bottom, it’s what distinguishes your brand from all others out there. Ms. Pilewski recommends against overusing buzzwords, vague terminology, mimicking your competitors too closely and, here’s a biggie— “not communicating the problems you solve.” As so many marketing pundits have put it, no one cares that you’re faster, sleeker, or gorgeous beyond words. What they do want to know is “What’s in it for me?”

Not adhering to brand guidelines

I’m sure we’ve all heard snarky comments about the “brand police.” Perhaps we’ve even made them ourselves. But the truth is, brand guidelines exist for a reason. Ms. Pilewski says, “Brand guidelines serve to demonstrate what you represent, and what differentiates you from your competitors.” So, you need to pay attention to color schemes, how you use your logo, fonts, voice/messaging, and imagery.

A few years back, I worked on a couple of branding and messaging projects for Taproot Foundation, a truly excellent organization the provides pro bono services to non-profits. What I recall vividly is presenting really well-though-out branding recommendations to a couple of clients who essentially said, “Well, if we don’t like them, we’ll combine them with some stuff we already have or we’ll just ignore them.” Ouch. At the end of the meeting, I think we had our clients convinced that piecemealing would be a big branding mistake, but you never know. These well-meaning folks were amateurs, frankly, and they probably perceived us as the hated brand police.

Forgetting what makes your brand distinct

What happens if your customer demographics change? Ms. Pilewski says your branding needs to address a new subset of customers and connect with it appropriately. She uses Lord & Taylor as her example, noting that the store rebranded itself to appeal to millennials, while attempting not to alienate its original clientele of well-heeled older women. It seems as though the effort was only partially successful. Lord & Taylor has closed its flagship Fifth Avenue store and expected to close up to 10 of nearly 50 locations in 2019.

Yes, I’ve rolled my eyes and spoken derisively of the brand police in the past. Yet, these folks are more enforcers than positioning and messaging geniuses, and their true function, in my opinion, is to keep us from making branding mistakes that cause problems for our organizations and may be difficult to fix.

everydayplus — 123rf.com

Recently, I read an interesting article on cooperative competition by Chris Wren, who writes for Branding Strategy Insider.

Mr. Wren starts by describing an interaction between McDonald’s and Burger King in Argentina. On McHappy Day, which dedicates the proceeds of sales of Big Macs to fighting childhood cancers, Burger King responded by deciding not to sell Whoppers and asking customers to help McDonald’s as much money as possible by buying a Big Mac.

Burger King customers responded positively to the request, and many people were thrilled when “the King” visited a McDonald’s to promote the campaign.

Interesting, eh, but perhaps not as unusual as one might think. Mr. Wren points to an article by Paul Friederichsen, which says “ … brands must recognize that in the face of growing challenges, it is no longer enough to provide a quality product or good service. Brands must also provide evidence of a ‘higher calling’—a desire to build a legacy—their legacy.” In my opinion, cooperative competition will likely become more important as companies seek to court millennials whose reputation for seeking out socially conscious brands is well documented.

Here are the three ways in which cooperative competition can benefit brands.

It strengthens the “higher calling” message

Everyone knows that companies are in business to make money, but cooperative competition is transcendent. Mr. Wren cites the example of Tesla supporting open source regarding its intellectual property. By encouraging customers to buy a Big Mac on McHappy Day, Burger King was reinforcing the message that helping children with cancer was paramount.

It humanizes the brand

Mr. Wren points out that “ … it’s much more than defining personality traits and changing the style of communication. It’s about actions.” He then notes that charismatic CEOs have taken stands on issues that need support. Check out his article about Patagonia, IKEA, and Salesforce.

It creates an opportunity for reciprocity

One of the executives behind the Burger King campaign commented that his client loved that asking customers to buy from McDonald’s was the kind of thing Burger King would do but McDonald’s probably would not.

Years ago, at a networking event in California, I spoke to a fellow professional who had recently moved to Portland. She commented on being shocked at how withholding her peers were. “They seem to be afraid to help each other out,” she said. “In California, my partners and I were always making referrals when we didn’t have capacity or thought someone else could do a better job. We always found that came back to us in good ways.”

Rawpixel  — 123rf.com

 

According to three Australian business school professors—Mara Olekalns, Ruchi Sinha, and Carol T. Kulik—women face negotiation challenges unique to their gender. And because “ … negotiations are woven through the fabric of our everyday working lives,” it is critical that they master the skills they need to manage themselves, their teams, and their work effectively.

Aside from negotiating for pay or promotions, the three most common negotiations for women involve work resources, professional development, and work-life balance. In all these areas, many of the women interviewed in the professors’ recent study saw negotiation as a “battlefield where a lack of information or clarity on what you (or others) want is a disadvantage.”

Professors Olekalns, Sinha, and Kulik have identified three unique negotiation challenges for women.

#1  Balancing self-advocacy and communality

Women have often been reluctant to advocate for career advancement out of fear of being regarded as “pushy, unlikeable, and undesirable team members.” ( I recall hearing both men and women describe Hillary Clinton this way.)

The professors recommend balancing warmth and assertiveness during negotiations, first showing that you understand the needs of the others involved. They also recommend framing your ask in the context of your team. For example, you might “frame a salary increase as fair compensation given your contributions to the team (rather than as an Individual want.)“

#2  Managing difficult emotions

This is a biggie. Women have reported feeling anxious and worried, because they perceive that a  negotiation might not end well. During negotiations—and after—they have described the challenges around managing frustration, anger, and hurt.

You may be able to reduce anxiety through a strategy of defensive pessimism where you reduce your expectations and consider how a negotiation could unfold. Assuming things will not go well can help you prepare better for resistance and be ready to provide your opposite number additional information. The underlying theory is that the more you prepare, the more you will reduce your anxiety level. Understanding what triggers your negative emotions will help you distance yourself from them and the damage you can cause by an imprudent response. Focusing on how you can do better next time will help you leverage your experience going forward. Of course, training yourself not to become attached to a specific outcome pretty much  without saying.

#3  Overcoming interpersonal resistance

The authors point out that negotiators may use power plays to influence or undermine. Respondents in their study cited such examples as a manager missing a scheduled meeting, overreacting to an ask, or behaving in an unpredictable or volatile way. They comment, “We know that women face more resistance in negotiations than men, and building capacity to persist despite it emerged as a clear theme in our interviews.”

So what to do? “Building grit is key.” Recognizing that one is in it for the long term and persisting are critical to building strength and resilience. So is mobilizing the confidence to overcome obstacles. In this environment, it’s important to see setbacks as opportunities to learn more about those with whom you’re negotiating and to develop constructive responses.

This is such a rich article. I’ve only touched on major points and recommend you read it in its entirety. Though the authors see these three challenges as unique to women in negotiations, I can’t help but think they also apply to men. After all, how many men have you encountered who have confessed that they don’t look forward to negotiating and wonder if they have the skills to be successful.

Dmitrii Shironosov — 123rf.com

Today, with so many people working remotely, the words you use may be risking your chance for a promotion. Without a video meeting solution—which may or may not reveal your body language—your coworkers and manager are pretty much forced to rely on your emails and phone conversations. The wrong choice of words, however innocently intended, can cause problems.

Stephanie Vozza, who writes on career matters for Fast Company presents a list of eight phrases you should avoid using. (Thanks to Crystal Barnett of HR service provider Insperity whose ideas contributed to this article.

Avoid these words and expressions

Honestly

Seems harmless enough, doesn’t it? But Ms. Barnett says it can come across as an attack when talking about others. I wasn’t sure I got that until I pictured a scenario where you may be pointing out a colleague’s habitual tardiness and start your comments with “honestly” or perhaps “to tell the truth.” Use “honestly” only when you’re talking about yourself.

I think.

Initially, I didn’t see much of a problem with this. I find “I think” much more palatable than expressions like “my thought is” or variants thereof, but I stand corrected. Ms. Barnett says that “I think” immediately diminishes your credibility. She recommends saying “I know,” or “Based on my experience, my recommendation would be …” I’d 86 “would be” in favor of “is” because it sounds more direct and less hedge-y.

I

“ … always defer to the team when sharing your success,” says Ms. Barnett. Otherwise, you come across as arrogant and not collaboration-minded (my term), which is unappealing.

Yeah, but …

Use this expression and you may be considered negative, combative, or unwilling to follow instructions. You’ll need to find a more congenial way to ask clarifying questions or identify issues. Ms. Barnett suggests saying something like “I understand your point of view. Let me provide you with another perspective of what we can accomplish.”

Just

“Just” is a filler word that can sound negative if you’re on the receiving end. When someone says, “I’d just like you to get this done,” they’re essentially saying that they’re not asking for much but you typically have not delivered. Kind of like a parent saying, “ I’d just like you to clean up your room.” To Ms. Barnett, “just” diminishes the hearer’s confidence and the importance of the message.

Yes

Say “yes” to a managerial request too often, and you can get stretched too thin. Instead,  suggest making a list of priorities. This way, you’re not saying “no” to a new task and you’re helping ensure that everything doesn’t take on the same level of importance. When I started my career, we were told to ask our managers to assign priorities when they asked us to take on a new project, but this method sounds a lot more empowering.

Sorry

Saying “sorry” isn’t enough, especially when talking to an authority figure, notes Ms. Barnett. Always follow it with what you’ll do to fix the problem. A super-busy manager won’t be happy that you messed up, but they’re bound to be at least somewhat relieved that they don’t have to come up with the solution themselves.

That’s not my job

Ouch. “Passing the buck in today’s work environment can be extremely toxic, especially if you’re working with customers and clients. If you receive a request that’s outside your scope, wheelhouse,

Your managers and colleagues are insanely busy, and their attention spans are truncated. All the more reason to be very careful of what you say. Talk is not cheap; in fact, your promotion may depend on it.

Aleksandr Davydov — 123rf.com

 

Low employee turnover should be great, right? After all, it takes time to hire a new employee, and that translates into decreased productivity, revenue, and innovation. (See the interesting article from GlassDoor on this topic.)

But maybe low employee turnover isn’t as positive as it looks at first glance. Stephanie Vozza of Fast Company tells us why in an article that presents the ideas of David Shanklin, managing director of culture solutions at CultureIQ.

The problem with low turnover

According to Mr. Shanklin, “In many organizations with long-tenured employees, the status quo of ‘good enough’ can become the comfortable enemy of ‘getting better.’” What he’s saying is that employees who have hung around a long time may be physically present but not really  engaged in their work, trading off engagement for a steady paycheck.

When high-performing employees or those with good potential leave, managers should be concerned. And they should assess company culture. Mr. Shanklin notes that an organization’s purpose and how employees treat each other are key. He says, “It’s said that people don’t leave companies; they leave managers.” I think that’s true. Managers exemplify organizational culture and when people leave a company, they often say things like “I couldn’t stand working for her” or “He was a jerk, but everyone looked the other way.”

Regarding organizational purpose, employees want to stay if they share an organization’s values and feel as though they’re making a difference. I think that applies even if they might be able to make more money elsewhere. Mr. Shanklin believes that if companies make their values “come alive,” employees will be able to discern whether they are—or are not—aligned.

The benefits of turnover

Just as low turnover isn’t necessarily a good sign, higher than normal turnover isn’t always bad. Managers and HR professionals should take a close look who is leaving.

Let’s say an organization rolls out a major new strategy or a big cultural change—no more telecommuting, for example. The folks hitting the trail may no longer be a good fit. Those hiring on may be more enthusiastic about what they see as a good opportunity to contribute work or they may bring in the kinds of skills the rejuvenated organization needs.

Mr. Shanklin recommends exit interviews as a way to pinpoint what is influencing turnover and what kind of employee is leaving. I agree in principle but can’t help but wonder how freely people really speak in exit interview.

And now a petite bonus: This lovely video from Jay Shetty

As a member of the growing cohort of older workers myself, this subject is close to my heart, and I recently read a Harvard Business Review article that put the reasons to hire older workers far more eloquently than I can. In fact, Josh Bersin and Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic seem like the kind of guys you’d have a great conversation with on a long plane trip.

But I digress.

Bersin and Chamorro-Premuzic contend—and this is backed up by research—that our tendency to evaluate people based on age is becoming problematic in the workplace. “In other words, if you are older, you are likely to be considered less capable, less able to adapt, or less willing to roll up your sleeves and do something new than your younger peers.”

Demographics explain why this is happening. First, we’re living longer. Live expectancy is now 79 years and will most likely reach 100 by the end of the century. Second, young people in places like the U.S., the U.K., and Japan are having fewer children. The only way their economies can address this trend is to improve productivity, which the authors say is not happening, or through immigration, which is a highly charged topic.

So, what to do?

Bring older workers back to work—at “meaningful, important jobs.” Work is an antidote to the malaise many retired people feel, malaise that can lead to depression and death. So many people are still involved with their jobs, deriving a sense of purpose from them. Look at the seniors—noxious term, eh? —who are still kickin’ and still worthy of respect for their efforts.

Older people compensate in expertise and knowledge for a diminution in mental horsepower (which begins after the age of 30.) They are often surprisingly entrepreneurial and yet less driven by the need to prove themselves.

Top Tips for Companies

Here’s a quick review of the authors’ ideas that I like the best. For the rest, read the article, which is well worth the few minutes it will take you.

• “Give older people titles and roles that let them contribute their expertise.” You can do this without offering higher pay, which neatly counters the argument that older people are “too expensive.” I think that older workers would be so happy to be considered valuable that they wouldn’t quibble over compensation.
• “Bring age diversity into your DEI programs.” The authors note that one of their studies showed that age-diverse teams feel more psychological safety and a sense of innovation than age-biased teams. Could this be because older people may be able to moderate an often-unkind and inappropriate sense of competitiveness among younger members? (My thought.) 
• “Recruit older people.” Make a point of this and mobilize storytelling skills to share the success of returned older workers.

Now, a story of my own

Recently, I spent some time in a smallish southern city. One morning, as I was waiting to pay for breakfast at the fabulous City Diner, I fell into conversation with an older guy named Clyde. He was, he said, back to work after retiring a few years before. Initially, after leaving the workplace, everything was fine. He resurfaced his driveway, put up new gutters, landscaped his backyard, updated plumbing fixtures, volunteered some, and did a host of other things he’d procrastinated on for years.

Then, one day, he was done. Nothing else to do, except watch TV. Until he started thinking about his late uncle. In retirement, that worthy fellow did a few small chores in the morning, after bidding his still-working wife goodbye. Then he watched TV. Until one day, he didn’t. “The day after his funeral, I decided to go back to work,” said Clyde. “Everyone who knew my uncle knew where he spent most of his time. So I decided the Grim Reaper would have to come and find me.”

nyul — 123rf.com

If you’re like most of us, you probably want to be a better speaker. Even if you haven’t thought about it much or the occasion to stand up in front of a group of people doesn’t come along often, you would probably say “yes,” if someone asked if you wanted to improve your speaking skills.

Last week’s post  featured the ideas of speaking guru Anett Grant, and this post does too. Even those of us who feel pretty comfortable about public speaking can probably use help—because we may not be quite as good as we think we are.

Herewith are four tips from a 2016 Fast Company article by Ms. Grant, whose subtitle is “Yes, your words matter—just not as much as you think.”

Understand what your audience is listening to

“Cognitively speaking, people don’t listen at the word level.” Interesting, eh? Turns out, we all listen at the thought level. And at the level of our own individual thoughts.

As Ms. Grant notes, different words mean different things to different people. We filter communications through our own biases. This means that your ideas and the way you present them may matter more than your words. I can’t disagree with this, but as a writer, I still think it’s important to pay attention to the words you choose. Ms. Grant also comments on memory bias, which influences the degree to which people remember what you intended to say.

Be aware of your rhythm

If you’re focusing on your words, you’re likely to affect your rhythm. That is, instead of taking natural pauses, you’re trying to find the “right” word, which “creates a staccato delivery–your rhythm is fragmented, erratic.” Worse still, you sound hesitant and doubtful.

It’s better, according to Ms. Grant, to use the first word that comes to mind and then elaborate on what you mean. That will help you maintain a smooth delivery. Ms. Grant doesn’t say this, but I think it might be o.k. to tell your audience that you’re searching for the right word but may not land on it.

Watch the big words

As a younger person, I gloried in my big vocabulary. Alas, far from impressing people, it caused them to believe that I was hopelessly pretentious. In a  recent post about authenticity, I quoted Mark Twain on the virtue of using simple language. As Ms. Grant says, “Remember, your goal is to make your audience understand the power of your ideas, not be dazzled by the precision of your vocabulary.”

Watch your meaning

Growing up in bilingual Montreal, Ms. Grant was mindful of the need to translate meaning rather than exact words. Here, in Silicon Valley with its richly varied community, we need to think along the same lines. A multicultural audience may not get the care with which you’ve chosen your words, but it will appreciate clarity of meaning. In fact, even within the same culture, you should pay attention to differences in meaning of the same word.

In a way, I find it reassuring that words are perhaps not as important as we may think they are. In my view, words are part of an integrated package of rhythm and meaning that we would all do well to master. Even if we’re “only” talking to loved ones, neighbors, friends, and colleagues with whom we interact randomly.

udra — 123rf.com

How can you avoid making a boring presentation?

Your subject is interesting, Your audience should be eager to learn more about it. You’ve done tons of research. (Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia wants a contribution.)  You’ve practiced until your preso sounds smooth, but not too smooth. Heck, you’re an interesting person, so it should all go well.

Well, not so fast. Anett Grant, CEO of Executive Speaking has several important things to say about why those people in the third row are nodding off. (When you thought they were nodding in agreement.)

Your speaking habits may be to blame for the soporific quality of your communications. According to Ms. Grant, you’re probably doing three things to create a boring presentation.

Your rhythm is (un)fascinating

You need to vary the length and pacing of your sentences throughout your presentation. Sameness is monotonous. It can make people feel sleepy in the same way as a shiny object swung pendulum-like does. Long sentences can definitely do that, so favor shorter, rather than longer sentences.

Your sound pattern is compressed

Ms. Grant notes that she once worked with a French and a Chinese client. Both had distinctly different accents, but she had the same reaction listening to both of them: she felt drowsy after just a few minutes. A rapid, crisp, compressed pattern flattens your speech, even though you can pack more words in.

I can testify to the effect of a compressed speech pattern. I was once on a project team with someone who spoke very fast and never varied his pattern. After listening conscientiously for a few minutes, I felt so battered by his barrage of words that I tuned out. Ms. Grant points out that when you “stretch out your vowels, your sound pattern becomes more broadband and less monotone.”

You’ve omitted storytelling

Your presentation is less than 20 slides long. Each slide is thankfully light on content, “but if you don’t frame your message as a narrative, you’re not going to engage your audience.” So dig a little deeper and find a way to turn those metrics and factoids into a story that will make people sit up and take notice.

Just for fun, I’ve included a link to a quick YouTube example of a truly boring presentation. Grab a cup of coffee and enjoy.

Aleksandr Davydov — 123rf.com