One must contemplate the distinction between branding and rebranding. Rebranding is often miscast as an exercise in repairing one’s reputation. Some rebranding efforts focus on mitigating a negative image (such as Philip Morris’s name change to Altria or AIG’s move of their advisory business to Sagepoint). Yet rebranding may also represent subtle changes in positioning, or the recasting of visual identify, such as Starbucks recent move to a more contemporary look.

If you’re thinking about rebranding your company, bear in the mind the following considerations:

Seek out simplification-Today’s rebranding efforts are often a function of providing clarity to the marketplace and removing brand confusion. Citi’s recent rebranding removed a single word (if the word bank is in your name, it may not be a bad idea to remove it). Our cluttered market values simplicity.

Leverage Social Media from the ground up- Within our firm, we recently rebuilt our website, refreshed our brand, and printed new business cards (including a QR code). All of our marketing includes embedded social media components, with the intent of driving traffic to our website where prospects can experience various multimedia tools that are featured online.

Use emotional triggers-Google famous Parisian Love ad (when an American finds love in Paris) is a classic example of using emotional messaging to capture the imagination of your audience. All marketing should utilize emotional triggers.

Enter new markets- Pabst Blue Ribbon, perceived as an also-ran in the U.S. rebranded in China as an ultra-premium American lager (PBR) and is selling for upwards of $44 a bottle (the Chinese may not have everything figured out).

Reshape perceptions about quality-Rebranding should not appear cosmetic or contrived. Harley Davidson’s slide in perceived quality in the 80’s was magnified by stiff competition from Japanese competitors.  The company’s drastic repositioning included a return to its core products and the formation of the Harley Owners Group (HOG’s),  which reestablished Harley a bad boy brand.

Identify unmet needs- Your offer may need to change as the utility of your product or the benefits that differentiate it may shift over time.  Marketers will often use a tag line when they wish to preserve their brand equity, and point out new features or benefits.

Use professionals- Rebranding can back fire when companies draw attention to their marketing.  Many smaller companies try to utilize self service template web sites and similar home grown tools that come off as……home grown. Marketing requires constant investment. Hire people who can assist you with both messaging and technology.

Understand the hard and soft costs- Change can be expensive, given the need to reprint, re-sign, change email addresses, etc. Consider all your hard and soft costs (including management team band) with as you refresh your brand.

Organizations often under appreciate the importance of branding. In this world of hyper-competition, the way you communicate the nuances of your brand are more important than ever.

I just recently wrote in this space about the housing market’s affect on our broader economy. It appears as if real estate is the Pareto principle at work. Five states (Arizona, California, Florida, Michigan and Nevada) have generated a shocking 46% of the nation’s foreclosures[i].

While there are a number of forces as work, there is one explicit predictor of foreclosure activity. States where judges must approve foreclosures in writing have 260% more activity than in other states.  As homeowners and banks wait for the government to take action, markets spiral downward, only diminishing the value of properties that have positive equity.

In the states where foreclosures are dealt with quickly, the market has already begun to turn.  Each of us can reach our own conclusions about the role of government (this is not the appropriate venue for such a debate).

The broader point is that the U.S. real estate market, like many other markets has vast regional differences and elements within it moving in different directions.  The concept of the “business cycle” is a bit of a misnomer. Traditional cycles have been disrupted and replaced with a series of variables that drive markets very quickly, sometimes without pretense or warning.

The events that created the recent housing bubble created the perfect storm.  The recovery will be another type of storm, with regions and even areas within regions recovering more quickly than others. We see similar phenomena in employment and growth in various industries.

It used to be that selecting the right industry was enough to ensure some level or prosperity. Today, entrepreneurs and investors need to find very specific opportunities and niches where growth and profit are plausible.

Like everything else, choose your real estate carefully.

Globalization has enabled unprecedented hyper-competition, and all types of dynamic comparative pricing models. Yet pricing within many segments of our economy appear like something from the The Stone Age.

If you go into a white tablecloth restaurant and order the sea bass on a Wednesday, you might pay $30.  If you return to the same restaurant on a Saturday the price would be the same, even though demand in the restaurant is likely to be very different.  Eateries price on the cost plus model built in the industrial age; the price is based on some multiple of raw materials (or labor).

Our economy doesn’t work this way anymore.  Consider the market for sports tickets. Sports franchises (the Lakers for example) set the initial price for a ticket. But the market resets the price in real time based on supply and demand. If it is a Tuesday night game against the Raptors, a seat may command a few dollars more than the face value.  A Sunday game against the Celtics could command double that within a market being energized by the likes of Stubhub and other online exchanges.

Variable pricing based on nuanced supply and demand is the future, and it is the present.  Marriott has historically been the most profitable hospitality company, as its revenue per available room (the industry benchmark) often exceeds that of rivals. In the case of hotel rooms (or airfares), business-to-consumer pricing models can shift daily based on numerous variables such as weather, events, or the calendar.  Like it or not, exchanges that provide comparative prices are proliferating, in both B2C and B2B.

I am not advocating the companies participate in such portals: they the fastest way to commoditize an industry. What I am saying is that the acceptance of such tools points out a broader problem (or opportunity), that markets re-price based on real demand, not arbitrary prices set by the seller.

Businesses, including those that market products and services business-to-business will need to be more analytical about which products and services could and should command higher prices and which will command less.  To set up a fixed pricing schedule seems overly convenient in a world where buyers have far more sensitivity over some purchases than others.  A software developer may need to sell a project at a low cost to win the business, but could charge far more (on an hourly basis) for change orders that are not foreseen by the client.

Most small and mid-market companies have not done enough research to understand the relationships between the products and services they sell.  If an accounting practice sells tax work and audit services, how should they price one against the other and what is the likelihood that clients will gravitate to them as a result of their pricing model or other variables? I think few really know.

Companies should test various pricing strategies to see what works best, and be more purposeful about tweaking pricing to reflect current demand.

I have been accused of being the eternal optimist. Guilty as charged. Our economy seems to have turned a corner; employment is gaining steam and the stock market is surging. Yet housing seems to be stuck in quicksand.

I am not here to dispense any investment advice, but instead want to pass on some observations on the plight of the U.S. housing market. While much is being made of the insolvency of European banks, we should be equally troubled by the assets held by the largest U.S. banks.

Consider the prospects of Bank of America. The bellwether financial institution required a government bail out, and an infusion by Warren Buffet after its prepackaged acquisition of Countrywide’s toxic assets. The bank holds a staggering $400 Billion+ in U.S. mortgage debt, a third of it in home equity lines of credit – the true villain in the U.S. real estate collapse.

According to B of A, 5% of its mortgage portfolio assets are “non-performing” or are in default.  Some have accused the bank of uneven accounting on its balance sheet.[i] Some estimates forecast as much as 39% of its portfolio having a combined loan to value rate below 100% (upside-down). It is expected that about a third of those mortgages could default, and that the banks losses for the average loan are far higher than 50%. Unlike past swings in the market, foreclosed homes have little retained value for the lender, and are boarded up or even torn down. JP Morgan, Citibank and Wells Fargo do not fair much better in terms of performing assets[ii].

Perhaps even more perplexing is weakness in the underlying real estate market.  Economist Paul Dales of Capital Economics suggests there is an excess inventory of more than 1 Million residential properties. Housing supply is somewhat stagnant. In Los Angeles for example inventory has gone down 1.65% through September but prices showed 0% change for the year[iii]. As a result, housing starts are projected at a tepid 620,000 for 2012 (according to Federal estimates)[iv]

Even though money is very cheap, many borrowers can’t qualify for a mortgage under the exacting standards being employed by banks. Under tight scrutiny by regulators, we are seeing the familiar rubber band effect as lenders have gone from one extreme to the other – lending to everybody with a pulse to rejecting buyers with cash and good credit scores.

Consumer behavior has also shifted. While lower than 2010, a whopping 17% of defaults are “strategic defaults” where borrowers can afford their monthly payment, but simply walk away.[v]

What is hurtful is not only the affect that the real estate market has on realtors, title companies and mortgage lenders; but the shadow economy it supports. Construction and subprime manufacturers of everything from lighting fixtures to lumber are suffering at the hands of weak U.S. housing demand.  The reality is that much of our economy’s GDP growth over the last two decades is a reflection of a false premise, that Americans can just pull money out of their homes on demand.

So as the housing market goes, so goes our economy. Forecasts of 2 and 3% growth rates are a direct result of consumer affluence being minimized by zero wage growth and declining property values.

While economists are cautiously optimistic about America’s future (as am I), we need to be cognizant that a further depression of the housing market could lead to the failure or bail out of U.S. banks which undoubtedly would reverse recent market gains and economic momentum.

Many CEOs feel that they are the victims of a lackluster economy and a government that is ineffective at offering any meaningful stimulus. In fact, 79% of CEOs fear that the fundamentals of our sluggish economy will remain the same or get worse.[i]

Economists have long understood that our thinking about the economy is governed by emotion. U.S. history is riddled with periods of growth and decline steered by the mood of the nation.

My generation grew up with a relative level of stability. We are simply not accustomed to the notion of “economic uncertainty” and we are not very happy about it. As a result, we have the tendency to overreact to stimuli in the form of collective euphoria or collective despair. This emotional response explains the nature of bubbles, as we all race to adhere to the conventional wisdom of the moment.

Today’s wisdom is that we should be scared…about sluggish growth, high raw material prices, health care costs, China, the Federal deficit, taxation and lots of other things. You know our psyche is a bit fragile when people are worried about inflation and deflation at the same time.

Our thinking often crystallizes around “the economic cycle,” which is something of a misnomer. Every business participates in this broader cycle, as well as a monetary cycle, industry cycle and company life cycle. The economy itself is merely a component in a spider-web of stressors that can be triggered by a myriad of forces from around the world.

Our expectations seem unrealistic, framed during a time when banks over leveraged, real estate was overpriced and stock market multiples were in the stratosphere.

The reality is that our economy is still growing (although perhaps in tepid fashion). Forecasts are for GNP growth of 1-2% for the remainder of 2011. When our GNP is growing at 4% we are bulls, but at 2% we are bears.  This meager difference illustrates that our fear is based on perception and is somewhat irrational. It is like the fear of flying: one knows that statistically there is virtually zero chance of a crash, yet to some, the fear is quite real.

Perhaps what we really have to fear is fear itself.  We should not be scared of a 2% variance, we should embrace it. In many instances, it will be the confidence of the CEO that will drive the level of investment businesses make, which will in turn either be the impetus for growth or maintain mediocrity.

Of the CEOs recently surveyed, 41% believe that prices of their products or services will rise next year. The potential for rising raw material and energy prices in 2012 could actually be a boon to vendors who are posturing to raise prices.

It is time to reset expectations with our customers, vendors, employees and ourselves. Within this data, there is plenty of salt, but perhaps there are a few grains of sugar as well.

A good leader must exude confidence in his or her business every day. If you don’t see the value in your products and services, no one else will. When the competition is weak, it is time to attack. Let your competitors have the scarcity mindset, while you focus on the strategic gambits that will grow your business and create sustainable competitive advantage. We will get our 2% back some day—we just need to be a little patient.

[i] Vistage CEO Confidence Index

One of the bi-products of our caffeine crazed, media blitzed economy is that we have virtually no attention span. It is as if we have a collective form of ADD. Over time, customers get bored with their vendors, alliance partners and trade associations. Client relationships have a natural tail.

The ability to continuously delight customers is a skill mastered by few. Clients need some type of stimuli that reinforces the value we provide them and it needs to come in different forms at different times. Variety is not just the spice of life; it is the remedy for overcoming the dreaded- inevitable customer fatigue.

Entertainers understand the element of surprise all too well. We all have a lot to learn from that ingenious management mind; Jerry Garcia. In the 60’s, the Grateful Dead had a Board of Directors and a call center. Whenever “the Dead” where touring, “Deadheads” who had gladly forked over their phone numbers would receive outreach about upcoming performances. The Deadheads would do something extraordinary; they would follow the band from city to city. As every show was an ad lib (jam), no two were alike, and no one knew what the Dead were going to play. Most businesses would kill to have the raving fans of the Dead.

The problem of customer fatigue is exacerbated by the fact that challengers are incented to barrage prospects with new offers and discounts in a way that an incumbent is not. In relative terms, the incumbent can easily become complacent and offer clients much of the same. As the old adage goes, “if it isn’t broke…”.

I heard of a guy who gave a business review presentation to a client on an iPad. At the end of the presentation, he said to his client “thank you so much for your business” and handed him the iPad. Giving such generous gifts may not be as accepted as it once was, but imagine the shock value of the meeting. It is one the client will never forget! We need to find ways to maintain our clients’ attention span.

Customer fatigue only magnifies themes we have often shared in this space. The number one rule of customer relationship management is to take better care of the customers you already have than new ones you might attract. Offering our best discounts to new customers flies in the face of this principle. Organizations often position their best people as hunters, and then delegate customer service to others (who may not be empowered to make customer retention decisions). An organization can easily lose sight of its most precious possession, its most profitable customers.

Customers should be treated differently based on their lifetime value, and perhaps even receive different benefits based on their tenure.  One of my clients recently calculated their average client retention cycle (and at what time they lose the average client) and is now taking steps to change their approach over the span of the customer relationship.

Find a way to shake things up and keep customers coming back for more.

In Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell asserts that one needs to invest 10,000 hours in an activity in order to become an expert. I take solace in knowing that I am evidently both an expert in Strategic Planning, and overcoming the drama induced by teenage daughters.

The rapid escalation of global competition has brought about a new round of hyper-specialization.  The concept of specialization is nothing new; the division of labor has been a key tenant of economics since the birth of capitalism. Yet sites such as Guru or eLance, have propelled specialization to a new art form, where one can access dozens of specialists from around the world in any conceivable competency in a matter of minutes.

Specialties that do not require any special education (other than what is readily available on the internet) such as graphic arts have quickly commoditized. You can hire a graphic artist online for $15 an hour.  In cases where greater technical aptitude is required, specialists still out-earn generalists. The median Internist in the U.S. earns $176K per year, while Cardiologists earn a median of $403K (some make $800K or more). [i] If you had a heart attack, which would you see?

Perhaps the most common strategic blunder I observe within entrepreneurial companies is a penchant for addressing overly broad targets. Marketers, seeking the largest audience cast too wide a net. In their need to satisfy the largest number of prospects, they become de facto generalists. That is, instead of addressing a niche market with specific solutions, they try to satisfy a larger audience with a multitude of products and services. At some point, the value they can provide suffers from diminishing returns.

The more crowded a space, the more difficult it is to differentiate, and the greater the need for expertise. Before its bankruptcy filing, GM attempted to sell within every segment, from sub-compact to Hummer. GM experienced what is often referred to as the peanut butter effect; the wider you spread something, the thinner it gets. GM’s branding was diluted and ability to control quality constrained.

Many small businesses may employ generalists because of their lack of talent depth. To have one IT professional manage a network, build the company website, select an ERP package and fix all the desktops is an archaic paradigm worthy of recalculation.

The reason that specialists are worth more than generalists is that they have a deeper subject matter expertise that drives:[ii]

Quality-Processes replicated over time promote less deviation, less defects and fewer errors.  The specialist thinks deeply about an area of expertise in which they have experience and are less likely to make mistakes.

Speed- Specialists do not need to reinvent things. Cycle times on proposals and product delivery is faster. If a company offers 50 stock products instead of 500, they can manage less inventory and ship items quicker. For every new project outside the boundaries of a company’s expertise there is resource draining learning curve that costs time and money.

Relationships-As the specialist is highly respected, their opinions are sought after by the media and people who want to know them, hire them and refer them to others.

The realities of outsourcing and off-shoring are driven by these phenomena. It is inherently inefficient to participate in activities that are not within a firm’s core competency and do not directly contribute to the bottom line. Thus, the migration of labor (outsourcing) will rise at a fervent rate.

In fact, the entire concept of the corporation, with its multiple functional departments (such as accounting, sales and marketing, design, operations, engineering, manufacturing, etc.) is under some attack. Social norms around what constitutes a working environment are shifting quickly and enabling greater specialization. Collaboration tools make the world of work far more virtual, which will continue to feed the frenzy.

Think about how to specialize as to optimize your revenue, margin and profit.

I recently had a conversation with a CEO who was lamenting about the disparity between public company valuations and those of privately held concerns. As of July 2011, the S&P is trading at a multiple of 14, while private company multiples remain in the 5-6 range. Investors value public company access to capital, and scalability into large consumer markets.  Of the Top 10 U.S. companies by size, none are pure play B2B companies.

Small companies come in all forms; some compete with larger branded companies, and some market directly to them.  In the age of confluence, some do both. How can small companies survive in a land of giants?

The primary difference between Fortune 1000 companies and smaller ones is more fundamental than which markets they serve. Intel founder Geoffrey Moore makes a distinction about business architecture – the difference between “complex systems” and “volume operations”[i].

Many smaller B2B companies are built to support specialized and custom solutions, while most Fortune 500 companies are built from the ground up to serve the masses. While customization may command higher prices (per transaction) than generalization, high volume companies cross a threshold where their infrastructure promotes a lower cost per unit and the experience curve takes full affect. Thus, B2B companies face an inherent profitability disadvantage.

Where Microsoft offers its highly useful suite of Office products at around $400 per license, Apple’s B2C model (which is often utilized by small businesses and micro-businesses such as designers and the like) offers Pages and Numbers at $9.99 each. One offer is based on high intellectual capital value and the other on mass appeal and ease of use.

For smaller B2B companies to reach new levels of profitability, requires they find a path to scalability. Of course not every business wants to be big. Some entrepreneurs prefer a “family culture” and more tempered growth (with less risk).

One way to effect profitable volume is to find a balance, where products and services are “mass customized”. Mass customization is all the rage in consumer products where individuals can even build their own handbags and Nike basketball shoes to their specifications.

Smaller companies (B2B and B2C alike) should seek out solutions that allow for better utilization of existing solutions across more customers. In other words, the provider should not need to reinvent the wheel with each project. Often, optimizing margin requires leverage of a base product or service that can be replicated, at times with features configured to the customer’s individual needs. To configure from a menu of choices is considerably different than satisfying each specific whim, which may offer greater intimacy with the customer, but may also require the business to sacrifice profit. For every feature created for an individual customer, there is a resulting opportunity cost (time, money and energy that could be invested elsewhere).

The other requirement for getting big is a shift towards systems thinking, where management teams make decisions within the framework of their company’s capabilities. For a new initiative to succeed requires careful analysis of the resources required to implement it. The key for smaller companies who aspire to do business with larger ones it to utilize systems and processes consistent with the expectations of the customers they serve.

Competing against larger companies requires a unique mindset. Often small businesses use concepts like judo (where the larger opponents energy is often used against him) to beat the larger foe at the point of attack. Consider the depth and width of the market you want to serve, and scale your resources accordingly.