In 1993, newly minted IBM CEO, Lou Gerstner, when asked about his vision for the company, replied that IBM was in a mess and he did not have the time now to indulge in of vague forecasts. The press reacted poorly. Descriptions of Mr. Gerstner’s vision for IBM would be helpful for quarterly guidance. The press was not asking for a futuristic, vaguely mystifying, inspirational message. They were looking for visionary guidance to better understand where IBM wants to go and how it plans to get there.

Analysts and observers want to hear a specific and meaningfully encouraging vision that serves as the corporation’s guiding star. , Short-term goals are essential. But so is the future ambition. Using SMART objectives as the basis for guidance provides a framework for delivering both. SMART Objectives mean objectives that are: Specific, Measurable, Aspirational yet achievable, Related to overall business growth, and Time-specific.

Take Ford Motor Company, for example. Ford was the US car company that did not go bankrupt during the financial crisis; Ford did not take millions of dollars from the government. It weathered the downturn using its own reserves and came out of the recession in really strong shape. The company had record earnings in both 2015 and 2016. Ford’s recent statements to Wall Street have erased this recent history.

In May 2017, Ford hired a new CEO, Jim Hackett. Since then, Mr. Hackett has made several attempts to articulate what he sees as the vision for Ford. Every time, Mr. Hackett has been criticized for making generic, uninspiring, less than positive descriptions. Mr. Hackett has said a lot without saying anything.

According to Automotive News, Wall Street is becoming impatient with the vagueness of the Ford messaging. Wall Street complains that he is not specific in his commitments. On the one hand, Mr. Hackett is honest in his comments, letting analysts know that Ford is not as competitively fit as its competitors, and that the company’s revenue and volume have not grown as hoped for: even though there was revenue growth, costs increased at the same time. On the other hand, he has not communicated Ford way forward in an encouraging, meaningful manner. As one money manager remarked, “When a CEO comes out and says it’s going to be a bad year, that’s not going to instill confidence in investors. There hasn’t been the data or the narrative to instill confidence. It’s created uncertainty around what success at Ford can be.” Mr. Hackett has failed to articulate a specific aspirational ambition.

Commentators and analysts say that General Motors CEO, Mary Barra, has done a much better job of creating a meaningful description of GM’s current goals and future goals 5-10 years down the road. At Tesla, Elon Musk continues to generate rapture with analysts and investors even though each statement he has made has not come true. An exciting vision is a powerful force. An analyst with Autotrader.com put it this way in The New York Times, “They (Tesla) haven’t delivered what they’ve promised, but does it matter? It doesn’t seem to matter to its investors and the customers who’ve put down deposits.”

Financial Times’ Lex reporters say that “The Tesla Chief Executive cannot be accused of being distracted by his promises to Wall Street. Nor has he been corrupted by conservatism.” On his analyst call – Financial Times hesitates to call it an earnings call, as Tesla has none – Mr. Musk laid out a future – near and longer-term – of promises and bets. These may seem unachievable but we cannot know. Clearly, Mr. Musk believes these are.

Tesla’s goals are 1) sustained positive quarterly operating income (Tesla has recorded only one of these); 2) 5,000-a-week Model 3’s rolling out (over a year late); 3) to make money (Tesla has recorded only 2 quarters of teeny-tiny profit); 4) to have an autonomous vehicle drive from LA to NYC (promised for 2017); and 5) improved margins for the S and X models (margins for both fell the last two quarters), Mr. Musk offers an exciting, ambitious vision with specifics. He sees a future 4-year’s out where Tesla would produce 100,000 electric trucks a year. He is completely confident this will be achievable. At the end of the call, Mr. Musk enthusiastically proclaimed that if Tesla could send a Roadster into space to orbit the asteroid belt, “I think we can solve Model 3 production.” He is a master of the appeal of SMART objectives.

Mary Barra continues to stonewall on its pledges to compensate families whose loved ones were either injured or killed driving GM cars with flawed ignition switches. Yet, Mary Barra receives positive reviews for GM’s vision of tomorrow

Mr. Hackett’s October 2017 Ford vision generated more grumbles than golly gee’s. He committed Ford to cost cuts, shifting money to the money making vehicles, moving manufacturing to China to save money – including the production of Ford Focus for North America, pivoting from gas to electric, simplifying and modernizing the company, and, making Internet connectivity a priority.

As rapacious and greedy as Wall Street investors and analysts can be, there seems to be a soft spot for the big ideas. As Oliver Wendell Holmes (a Supreme Court Justice) once said, “Every now and then, a man’s mind is stretched by a new idea or sensation, and never shrinks back to its former dimensions.”

CEOs must optimize the short-term with the long-term. To offer meaningful messaging, CEOs must rely on SMART objectives.

• Specific: Saying that the brand is doing X but not providing details frustrates listeners.
• Measurable: Remember, especially today, all claims are checkable.
• Aspirational and achievable: Ensure that plans are possible dreams.
• Related to overall business growth
• Time-specific: for the short-term goals, Wall Street can be very impatient. For long-term goals, make the horizon just close enough so investors and analysts can see the brand there.

On January 15, 2018, three of the four top stories in Google News’ Technology section were about cars. Coincidently, the CEO of Fiat Chrysler Automotive (FCA), Sergio Marchionne, said, in an interview with Bloomberg, that automotive companies have to come to terms with the fact that pretty soon automotive news will no longer be about combustion engines: “Developing technologies like electrification, self-driving software, and ride-sharing will alter consumers’ car-buying decisions within six or seven years. The industry will divide into segments, with premium brands managing to hold onto their cachet while mere people-transporters struggle to cope with the onslaught from disruptors like Tesla Inc. and Google’s Waymo.” Mr. Marchionne added, “Auto companies need to quickly separate the stuff that will be swallowed by commodity from the brand stuff.”

When asked about the automotive makers that will survive, he continued, “If a portion of the industry is going to be commoditized, then the attrition rate is going to be tremendous for those that cannot distinguish by brand.” But, at FCA, it will be different. “We took a completely different strategy when we came to brand differentiation from our competitors. If you look at Jeep, RAM, and the premium brands, those are brands that will survive. But if you provide basic transportation, it is like buying a generic phone.”

This is a rather remarkable prediction as Ford unveiled the Steve McQueen Mustang BULLITT, from the iconic 1968 movie with the incredible, pre-special effects, car chase. Mr. Marchionne’s words have dramatic consequences for automotive marketing.

First, if the future of automotive is technological advancements, self-driving vehicles and ride-sharing, then handling, cornering, the turn radius, and the feel of the driving experience are moot communication points. Brands are going to have to figure out something new to say if people are going to buy or be driven in a car.

Second, articulating clear brand differentiation will need to be revisited in ways that will carry into the future. This requires a thorough review, and contemporizing of automotive brand promises. Waiting around to address this is the wrong approach. Get ahead of the parade. Brands like Tesla, Lyft, and Uber have already overturned the norms of the automotive world. All seem to be promising electric vehicles well within the coming decade. Ford is investing $11 billion in electric vehicles, and stated that the company intends to have 40 electrified vehicles by 2022. Ford CEO, Mr. Jim Hackett is planning to cut $14 billion in costs over the next five years, moving monies away from sedans and internal combustion engines to develop more trucks and electric and hybrid cars.

Third, automotive brands must also be better differentiated from sibling brands within the corporate family. The days when cars consider a unique grille and tail lights enough to distinguish a brand name are over. Aside from the aggressive grille, is a Lexus ES really that different from a Toyota Avalon?

Fourth, as Mr. Marchionne stated, technology will become commoditized. All vehicles will have electric batteries, GPS, self-parking, back up and side cameras, and all the other electronics that are currently seeping into the driving experience. Basing a brand’s promise on excellent, groundbreaking technology will not be a winning strategy. Mere technologies will not be the basis for a sustainable, differentiated brand promise. Differentiation will require real creativity to make the total experience distinctive. Nissan’s concept car, the Nissan Xmotion (pronounced as cross motion) has 7 touch screens: The Verge emag said, to enter the vehicle is like “entering a dense forest of technology.” To understand how far Nissan took the technology, The Verge writer, Andrew J. Hawkins, highlighted his favorite paragraph from the Nissan press release: “Fingerprint authentication is used to start the operation of the Xmotion concept. When the driver touches the fingerprint authentication area on the top of the console, the opening sequence starts, awakening the virtual personal assistant – which takes the shape of a Japanese koi fish.” Need we say more?

All brands are facing a challenging but creative future as technology invades all aspects of our lives from home life to browsing the Internet, to shopping, to entertainment, to driving experiences. Just as retail brands are reimagining themselves, automotive brands must revisit and reinvent themselves.

The retail world just provided another example of the importance of relevant differentiation. Sam’s Club is closing 10% of its 660 stores, as reported by Sarah Nassauer in The Wall Street Journal. Sam’s Club is the Walmart version of a bulk-item membership shopping experience. It is Walmart’s version of Costco.

Sam’s Club CEO, John Furner, states that the stores’ locations are the problem. The Sam’s Club locations were chosen in anticipation of larger affluent populations leading to increased store traffic. However, there is a deeper issue to consider, an issue that came to the forefront in 2015.

In August 2015, Ms. Nassauer, who reports on retail for The Wall Street Journal, revealed that Sam’s Club’s was concerned about its close association with Walmart reinforced with nearby locations. The 2015 CEO, Rosalind Brewer, said in an interview, “We want to be less of a Walmart.” The belief was that the close association with Walmart was an impediment to attracting more affluent membership club shoppers who are able to pay for a membership, and have the money and space to bulk up on products ranging from paper towels to plasma screen TVs. The Walmart shopper and the Costco shopper are different segments. But, Sam’s Club was unable to shake off the image of Walmart.

According to Ms. Nassauer, Sam Walton developed Sam’s Club (1983) as “a place for small business to stock up on discounted bulk items, not a Walmart clone that offers everyday deals.” However, as time passed, wherever Walmart placed a store, Sam’s Club was next door. In 2015, 200 Sam’s Club stores shared parking lots with Walmart.

Location matters. Costco places its stores in urban areas and along the nation’s coasts. Its Brookfield, CT location draws customers from wealthy northern Fairfield County, CT, as well as from parts of eastern Connecticut. It also has a store in Norwalk, CT that reaches towns such as Greenwich, CT. Costco was an early seller of organic foods, and by 2015 had over 200 organic items available.

Leadership stability has been an issue at Sam’s Club as well. Nine executives have run Sam’s Club over the past 22 years: that is one CEO every 2 – 2 1/2 years. It seems that many executives see the Sam’s Club job as a stepping-stone to a higher level in the Walmart organization.

But, it is the power of the Walmart brand essence that has affected the ability of Sam’s Club to establish itself as a brand for affluent shoppers. Even the Sam’s Club stores located in affluent areas are not attracting enough of those customers to make the store viable. Walmart’s brand essence is all about selling more for less, as its website states. By selling more for less, Walmart is able to make a difference in people’s lives. Sam’s Club lives in the Walmart brand embrace and has not been able to sufficiently differentiate its brand in a relevant manner from Walmart.

Tests of high-end Sam’s club stores have delivered mixed results. Test stores offer “individual prepared meals, pricey furniture, apparel and food, next to bulk Coca Cola. The aim is to try to attract shoppers who might also shop at Whole Foods Market.” In order to succeed, Sam’s Club is seeking new suppliers, as its current vendor roster is not able to supply these types of products.

E upscale

Aside from not being able to successfully differentiate the Sam’s Club brand from its parent in a relevant manner, it is far easier to extend an upscale brand downward, than it is to take a lower scale brand and move the image upscale. Giorgio Armani created Armani X as its less expensive, less couture brand. It would have been difficult to take an Armani X brand and make it couture. When Toyota brought Lexus into the US, it kept the relationship with Toyota distant. An entire new dealership network was created.

A current example of an effort to make an affordable brand go upscale is Hyundai. The South Korean brand has decided to take its new Genesis luxury vehicle out of general Hyundai dealerships, and create a separate dealer network. Hyundai executives believe that early Genesis sales were hurt by the highly affordable image of the Hyundai brand, and its early low quality perceptions. The plan is for Genesis vehicles to be completely phased out of Hyundai dealerships.

Brands can be repositioned and reimaged and upgraded to attract a more affluent customer. But, this takes substantial resources that few can afford. For example, P&G turned Oil of Olay, a drugstore staple competing with Pond’s Cold Cream and Nivea, into a more expensive beauty and skin care brand. It differentiated the brand on the basis of science and ingredients.

On its website, the Sam’s Club mission is articulated as “At Sam’s Club, we’re committed to saving our members money on the items they buy most and surprising members with the unexpected find.” The store says it is dedicated to offering exceptional wholesale club values. The website also states: “Sam’s Club is on a mission for Savings Made Simple. Since 1983, we’ve worked to provide our members quality products at incredible values.” This is not enough to differentiate from Walmart. Walmart can make a very similar claim. And, in visiting the Sam’s Club website there is more than remarkable similarity to the Walmart website: the only difference appears to be the brand name and some of the items.

For all the talk about location, product selection, ever-changing leadership, and the economy, the truth seems to be that Sam’s Club never really differentiated its brand from Walmart. Sam’s Club never had a chance to build its brand into a Costco challenger.

Established food brands, set in their ways, are having suffering sales difficulties. Food is an area where paradoxical turbulence is having extraordinary impact. We want healthful food and indulgent food; we want diet and delight. This is a massive opportunity for a permissible pleasure.

According to Bloomberg.com, “We want to eat healthier but are also drawn to indulgence.” Check the frozen desserts category. Upstart brands offer fewer calories that are also indulgent. These paradoxical brands are wiping out the profits of the familiar, established, freezer case standards. When Ben & Jerry’s, the stalwart, do-good, creator of Cherry Garcia and other Baby Boomer classics is being “creamed” by Halo Top and Yasso, you know the world has changed.

According to The Wall Street Journal, January is the season for eating salads. We want to stick to our New Year’s weight loss/healthy eating resolutions. On the other hand, as “greens” restaurants (Chopt, fresh&co, Sweetgreen, Just Salad) sprout all over our cities, places that sell indulgent cupcakes and other desserts (Magnolia Bakery) are holding their own. However, The Wall Street Journal found a customer who admitted that Magnolia Bakery’s Key Lime Pie could fit into a week’s eating by having it as a lunch meal. Dairy Foods magazine, a magazine asked, “How does a dairy processor address the public’s enlightened attitude about nutrition while still appealing to its inclination toward indulgence?”

In addressing the paradox promise of a permissible pleasure the absence of “bad ingredients” is often more motivating than the inclusion of “good for you” ingredients. Absence of “bad ingredients” is what many of the new frozen dairy dessert brands are pursuing. Dairy Foods calls it “the premium paradox” of frozen desserts, when someone might select the high fat, high sugar, and high caloric option rather than the low calorie, no sugar, and low fat option, which has an ingredient list of “bad” unpronounceable additives. Take the bad out. Remove the bad ingredients. I will eat the delicious, high fat, high sugar and high calorie dessert as long as it is all natural.

Leverage the paradoxical desires for luscious and lite. Consumers want food brands to optimize both indulgence and wellness. Consumers want the joy of indulgence while being allowable. This is happening right now: Halo Top offers delicious, low calorie ice cream. In 2017, its sales were US $300 million. Halo Top’s promises a healthy ice cream that tastes like ice cream. Because of its low calorie count and delicious flavors – a serving has between 70 and 90 calories – Halo Top took away “the shame spiral” of eating an entire pint in one sitting. A whole pint of Halo Top is between 240 calories to 360 calories. Halo Top offers some non-dairy, vegan flavors made with coconut milk.

Lasso, which makes frozen Greek yogurt bars is now in the low calorie frozen Greek yogurt pints business with selections such as Caramel Pretzel Mania, Rolling in the Dough, Coffee Brownie Break, and Party Animal: all have anywhere from 100 to 150 calories per single serving. A serving of Ben & Jerry’s starts at 270 calories.
Brands such as Dreyer’s, Edy’s, Breyer’s and Ben & Jerry’s, are struggling. Activist investors are urging the big brands to be more digital. These activist investors are pushing these brands to reallocate financial resources. These activists miss the point. The struggles social media communications, and technology. The social is not financial engineering. The problems stem from not recognizing and successfully addressing changing customer desires.

Paradox promise opportunities are growth opportunities. Optimizing the contradictory sides of the paradox into a relevant, differentiated, trustworthy solution is more than just an opportunity for food brands: it is an imperative.

Database management is a hot topic today. Numbers can generate numbness. Marketing executives often expect data analytics to reveal the answers. The role of data, evidence, research, is to inform, not to decide. Research provides direction, and raises questions. Data does not decide; people do. Data do not take into consideration mission, context, policies, priorities; people do. Data do not think; people do.

Research can be seen as an evil villain stifling creativity, dominating our ability to make creative judgments. On the other hand, data can inform decision-making in an uncertain, volatile world. Data have a role to play in marketing: in brand design, in package design, in store design, in industrial design, in product design, in service design, in experience design, in communications design.

Unfortunately, as business has become more demanding, business has become more defensive. In a world where budgets are being squeezed by limited resources, managers and marketers lean towards an over-reliance on the mystical muscle of measurement to take over the role of marketing expertise and experience. While there is much that we can measure, there is also much that is not measurable.

There are hundreds of research firms and data management firms that provide tools and metrics and processes for data collection and for data analysis. There are hundreds of quantitative tools and techniques that claim to provide creative ways to figure out what people really think and feel about everything and anything. There are a whole host of qualitative approaches such as anthropology, ethnography, group interviews, individual interviews, projective techniques, eye movements, brain wave tracking, facial expression, hypnosis, shadowing, at the disposal of market researchers. In addition, every time you hit a buy button, or check out an ad, you create your own unique data stream that is collected, analyzed, and augmented.

There is a graveyard of large-scale, multiple country research projects using qualitative and quantitative techniques only to find that unveiled a recitation of results and a huge report without drawing a single, insightful, newsworthy actionable recommendation. When the report just reports, without providing truly creative, insightful interpretation business action is stymied.

Data should be a learning tool, not a rationalization tool. We cannot allow ourselves to be mystified by the math of metrics. The surface beauty of the nature of analytics and of attractive wondrous new qualitative approaches is enticing. The more mystical the methodology, the more hopeful we are. We don’t have to think. The research will do the thinking for us and tell us what to do. Of course, no one intentionally commits valuable resources to something that is likely to fail. If the decision turns out to be wrong, it is the fault of the research. “I made the wrong decision… the research made me do it!” This is not the reason. It is just an excuse. Worse yet, when we discover that we are unable to measure what is important, we make important what we can measure.

Data can provide direction for decision-making. Data informs decisions. Data does not think. People do. We should not let the data become the decision-maker. We should not allow mystical measurement processes and metrics mesmerize management. Secret, proprietary techniques should not rule the decision-making world. We should not defer decisions to black lock-boxes full of mystery. We should not make clear decisions based on unclear tools and techniques. We must not allow process to dictate over passion. We must not sacrifice accountability on the altar of measurement.

Disciplined research is an important contributor to effective business management. However, there are too many marketers who believe that superior analytics will make superior decisions. Analytics provide helpful input into decision-making. They do not make the decisions. People do.

MBA has come to mean, “Manage by analytics.” Marketing leaders must be more than reporters of the results of data analysis. We are evolving into a generation of marketers who live in an antiseptic, analytic world. Superior analysis provides understanding of where we are and how we got there. It provides helpful information about how to defend the status quo. As long as the world stays the same, it can provide predictions based on current trends. But, the world is not likely to stay the same. Research alone does not provide insight into what kind of future we can and should create for our brands.

In this increasingly competitive, sometimes frustrating marketing world, there is a pervasive fear of taking the leap of faith based on informed judgment. Informed judgment is not guesswork.

Marketers must use their expertise and their judgment and their creativity to make reasoned, informed, and insightful decisions.

In other words, measurement should be an input into a marketing learning system… always looking for insight-based opportunities to improve our ideas.

Linear thinking analysis is ineffective because customer behavior is not linear. Analysis is defined as the detailed examination of the elements or structure of something, typically as a basis for discussion or interpretation. It is the separation of a substance into its constituent elements.

Superior analysis can tell us what is happening. Synthesis is different. Synthesis is defined as the combination of components or elements to form a connected whole. Creative synthesis is about putting together familiar elements in unfamiliar ways. Creative synthesis is the road to true, actionable creative insight. Synthesizers draw together information from multiple fields and use that to create an understanding of why people do what they do and why people feel what they feel. They see creative patterns where others see disconnected fragments of information. They see a future that others fail to see.

Effective marketing requires marketing discipline. The problem is we often seem to believe truths will appear out of process over passion, a magical result of research techniques. Some marketers believe that if we follow a disciplined step-wise process supported by special tools and analytics, a decision will be revealed. . This is nonsense. Hiding behind process and metrics is a safe way to manage. It is way to avoid responsibility. People make decisions; processes do not. Managers make choices; metrics do not.