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.

Everybody likes to think of themselves as a strategic thinker.  From advisory board members, to CPA’s and marketing consultants, lots of people list “strategic planning” within their list of competencies. Yet, there is a big difference between thinking broadly about strategy and creating a functional, tangible, strategic plan.

Strategy is somewhat esoteric, and theoretical. It deals with broad decisions that must be made about a business such as what products to offer; in which markets, using which core capabilities. The carefully crafted strategic plan has tactics woven into it, in the form of goals, objectives, initiatives, and action plans.

Unfortunately, some companies have a strategy and no strategic plan (and vice versa). If the strategy is stored solely within the confines of the thinking of the entrepreneur, there is no strategic plan.

There are books written about preparing a strategic plan in an hour and writing a marketing plan out on the back of a napkin. The napkin’s evil cousin is the one page business plan, which may tout simplicity as grand, but lacks depth, scope and detail. As the thinking goes, anything as important as the future of a business (and the implications for its employees and investors) should be explained in a few paragraphs. Using the same mindset, an airline pilot’s flight plan could be drawn on a napkin.  A cancer researcher’s thesis should be able to fit on an index card. Perhaps we can cut a few corners and keep the design of that skyscraper to a minimum. Who has the time?

The other problem with the napkin analogy is that it suggests two guys sitting in a pub dreaming up the grand strategy over a Guinness. Some of history’s most ingenious strategies may have been dreamed up that way. Yet the grand strategies do not always translate into a functional strategic plan based on research, thought, prodding, challenge and development of core capabilities such as supporting human capital and technology.

Most importantly, the people who will be responsible for buying into the grand scheme need to be included in the process of developing it. If a board of advisors or two guys in a bar craft and develop the strategy void of management’s input, they are likely to sabotage it or at least slow down its momentum.

Thus, the distinction between being a closet strategist and creating a thorough strategic plan is an important one.  The finer things in life, like a great cabernet or scotch, take time. Building a strategic plan requires patience and a level of expertise that you would expect out of a CPA or intellectual capital attorney.

Take the time to convert your strategy into a tangible strategic plan that you can share with your investors, employees, vendors and even customers (when appropriate). Isn’t the future of your company worth it?

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.

This week, I want to expound on a series of unrelated events shaping our world:

Last year, a deluge of rain in Australia and Canada, and drought in Argentina and Russia sparked a worldwide rise in food prices.  On Dec. 17^th, after months of poor supply, Tunisian produce vendor Mohammed Bouazizi was mugged by police and then set himself on fire in protest.  Reaction to his plight set off a revolt in the Middle East. Beyond the radar to us overly indulgent Americans is that the world is on the verge of a global food shortage.

Ironically, the U.S. growers have reaped the rewards of higher prices for U.S crops and futures contracts. Wheat prices were up as much as 74%, (corn 87%[i]) and net farm income is up 20% this year. Demand is rising for dairy, meat and poultry to support a burgeoning global middle class.[ii] Spring planting of key crops will dictate food prices later in 2011 but farmers may be hesitant to plant in a period of high fuel and fertilizer costs.

While unrest continues throughout the Middle East, social states who provide strong entitlements such as UAB, Kuwait and Oman will likely not be threatened. Similar protests in oil rich Iran or Iraq would be more unsettling to world markets.

——————————————————————————————————–

As Motorola revealed its Xoom tablet this week, the Microsoft vs. Apple war took on a new dimension. The real war may be tablet vs. PC as a new generation of devices operating on Honeycomb-Android (Google) and other operating systems hit the market[iii].  Electronics makers are currently developing over 100 designs of new models, many of which sport more business friendly applications.

The second generation of iPads has been somewhat under wraps but is expected to be lighter, faster and include a camera and video conferencing capabilities. Apple’s advantage is its burgeoning iTunes and App Exchange platform.  Apple only spends about 7% of revenue on R&D, about half of what Google and Microsoft[iv] spend, providing a significant competitive advantage. I was in a meeting last week with 7 other people; everyone had a tablet.

Meanwhile, Microsoft (Office 365) and others are developing new Small Business Enterprise applications to better leverage the combination of mobile devices and low cost cloud computing options. The paradigm shift to storing all documents on the internet is emerging as a revolution coined as “cloud productivity.”

————————————————————————————————————–

Cisco’s new “telepresense” conferencing systems are all the rage, providing a far more realistic teleconference then the 1^st generation systems. With concerns over fuel costs and the environment, more companies may be moving towards adopting such technologies.

If you want to see an amazing video on future technologies, see “A Day Made of Glass…Made Possible by Corning” on YouTube.

—————————————————————————————————————

It is expected that the U.S. post office will eliminate Saturday delivery by the end of 2012.

_________________________________________________________

It is “hurry up and wait” for small businesses looking to minimize their insurance costs.  The health care bill requires that each state set up “health care exchanges” by 2014[v]. Most states are dragging their feet, and waiting to see what legal challenges emerge.  California has already pushed through legislation but other states are dragging behind.

It is expected that “exchanges” once enacted may actually bring about market conditions that will lower costs for small groups (in the neighborhood of 50 lives)  who will be better able to leverage buying power and have more predictable premiums. Let us pray.

[ii] The Kiplinger Letter Vol 88 No.

[iii] Motorola’s Xoom Starts Tablet Wars by Walter Mossberg WSJ 2/24/11

[iv] Mobile Wars Bloomberg Business Week 2/21/11

[v] The Kiplinger Letter Vol. 88, No. 7