Tom Asacker

Peter Drucker on doing things

"Efficiency is doing things right; effectiveness is doing the right things."

Something struck me the other day.  Have you noticed how bloggers seem to only report on cool, controversial or cutting-edge products, marketing campaigns and business models?  It's true.  You'll find references to JetBlue, Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Whole Foods, Apple, Zune, Wii, VW, Mini Cooper, et al.  But one rarely finds a business blog post about Toyota.  I wonder why that is?  Is it because doing the right things and doing them right, like producing quality vehicles at competitive prices, lacks newsworthiness? Or perhaps most bloggers simply have no way to spin Toyota's marketing prowess in a way that enhances their personal brands.

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that Toyota Motor Company is on the verge of becoming the world's biggest automaker.  The company is aiming to open three more new plants by 2009 in a bid to secure 15% worldwide market share by 2010. The Journal also reported that Toyota has decided to throttle back production of its youth-focused Scion brand to keep the brand special and cool.  Toyota gets brand!  The Big Three don't.  And that's why they had to meet with George W. this week.

Now, I'm pretty sure that Toyota could care less about its lack of respect in the business blogosphere.  But I'm still curious.  What say you bloggers?  What's with us? Why do we love to report on the flea-flicker and ignore excellence in blocking and tackling?

Dwight D. Eisenhower on America

"Only Americans can hurt America."

I hope your candidate won (unless he was running against mine). Either way, let's get together and make it work. Deal?

In the meantime, take a quick coffee break and enjoy our special "beverage" edition of GuruBBQ, featuring fried Coke, banned energy drinks and Greek Ouzo. Also, billion-dollar candles, misquotes and the truth about Mae West.

John Kenneth Galbraith on politics

"Politics is the art of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable."

It's Election Day in the great U.S. of A.  If you live here, please vote. Even if it is for the unpalatable.

Speaking of politics, take a look at that image above.  I have a marketing communications question for you: why does that tactic still work?  And trust me, it does.  Are voters simply choosing familiar names when they enter the voting booth?  Are they assuming that many signs equals many supporters and, thus, they want to vote with the majority?  I'm asking, because this speaks directly to two competing philosophies of branding and marketing.

I'll refer to the first ideology as "positioning."  Positioning assumes that people are generally time-starved and not very well-informed regarding the tangible differences between brands.  Given this scenario, the prudent marketer should simplify her message, narrow her focus, do the opposite of her competitor, and exploit low attention processing with powerful, emotive associations and repetition.  The emphasis is on identity creation.

Let's call the second tenet "x." (Perhaps you can come up with a word.  I couldn't.)  "X" assumes that ones audience is interested in the brand and is well-informed, well-connected and a source of expertise and new ideas.  The wise marketer would do well, in this environment, to get close to her audience and educate, involve, and otherwise engage them in growing the brand.  The emphasis is on value co-creation.

Which philosophy do you advocate, and why?  And why does it appear that politicians subscribe to the first one?  Are "political candidates" a low involvement category?

Shel Silverstein on tug o' war

"I will not play tug o' war. I'd rather play hug o' war. Where everyone hugs instead of tugs. Where everyone giggles and rolls on the rug. Where everyone kisses, and everyone grins, and everyone cuddles, and everyone wins."

Me too. Here's a pass along hug from me to you (click and watch the short video).

Harry S. Truman on marketing

"Always be sincere, even if you don't mean it."

Seth Godin posted something today that resonated with me.  Read it and see if it resonates with you.  And my guess is that if it doesn't today, it will in the very near future.  So here's why I shared Seth's feelings:

I received an email yesterday from a NYC PR person pimping her hotel client. I typically tag such correspondence as what it is - "spam" - and let Gmail deal with subsequent interruptions.  But this particular time I was in a playful mood, so I responded to the email asking said PR person if she'd like me to highlight her client in my GuruBBQ show.  She obviously has never watched the show, because she sent me an immediate reply:

"Yes, that would be great! What other info do you need? How about photos?"

I shook my head while typing this reply:

"You've never watched my show, have you? ;)"

I never heard from her again.

I've come to expect that type of email, so it didn't really bother me.  But this next one did.  I received an email from a fellow business author asking for some marketing advise.  I typically go out of my way to help people who ask, so I began considering his issue and a reply.  But then I noticed something in the email header.  This author sent the same email to five other Toms, including Tom Peters.  Want to know what the book is about?  The brave new opt-in, customer-centric marketplace.

I could post dozens of these "spam" examples each week: from x-rated URL's in my blog comments and trackbacks, to the email from the guy from Africa who needs help getting his million out of his bank, to more subtle and disturbing ones, like the ones above.  But I won't. For I'm sure that if you're reading this blog, you know better and wouldn't really gain from reading them.  Am I right? ;-)