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.

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.

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

There are simply no superlatives that could possibly describe the achievements of  Steve Jobs. As a technologist, he was JFK, Michael Jordan and Jimmy Hendrix in a black tee shirt.

Perhaps his most indelible mark was that he made us “think differently” about the most fundamental things; the way we learn, make home movies, communicate, and listen to music. The Apple revolution has been about creativity, learning, sharing and social responsibility.  Steve Jobs innovated innovation.

He proved what a cancer survivor was capable of.  In a bitter irony, his chronic health problems may have played a part in his genius. At a Stanford University commencement address he said “If you live each day like it will be your last, some day you will certainly be right.”  “Remembering that I will be dead soon is the most important tool I have ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life.”

His big choices included enormous gambles that represented leaps in technology. In a world becoming more complex by the day, he combined design and function into simple elegance. His products were beautiful and useful.  He made us more productive while having fun.  Steve Jobs’ Apple has set the bar for every new product design and technology.  Tools we use can be convenient and modular, and they can “just work”. It wasn’t just the iProducts that were extraordinary, he built powerful service delivery platforms in The App Store and iTunes that have paved the way for ecommerce.

The loss of Steve Jobs is resonating like the deaths of Marilyn Monroe and Princess Di, amazing for any business person, much less a geek from Cupertino. Perhaps it is because he made us love inanimate objects in a way we couldn’t have otherwise. How is it that we love our computers and our phones so much? As the President said last night, he was “brave enough to think differently, bold enough to believe he could change the world and talented enough to do it.”

Along the way, Steve Jobs built the 2nd most valuable company on the planet.  It is rare that a man creates such a lasting legacy, that it is not even defined at his death.  One gets the sense that the platform for innovation that he built will continue to create gadgets and technologies that we can’t even imagine.

I have unique perspective on this, having just moved to 100% MAC about a month ago.  So, like so many others, I am a disciple of a man who changed the world and I am saddened for our loss. I am proud to say, I am a MAC.

There has been the occasional business leader whose reign has been magical (Welch and Jobs come to mind).  Yet their business often fall to sustaining enterprise value after they leave. GE’s revenue and stock appreciation has been stuck in neutral since Welch’s departure, as the 20^th century’s most profitable company tries to find its way.  Apple has been trading all over the map in the last few weeks as the market tries to reconcile a world without the imagination of Jobs and his fancy gadgets.

A systemic problem for private companies is that a lack of management and bench strength.  This dearth of talent goes deeper then inhibiting productivity in the short term; it is a significant barrier to value creation for the entrepreneur.  If an exit is an objective (as is often the case), buyers generally want to see a strong management team and bench that can support future growth. If it is the business owner and his brother-in-law that possess all of the tribal knowledge (intellectual capital) about how a business operates successfully, the enterprise can lose luster with investors.

There are similar problems when one or two employees within a company are technically superior to those around them. Often, feeling their power and value, they are unwilling to teach, document, and delegate. When management and boards allow such conditions to persist, they are doing a disservice to the shareholders and are putting the company at risk.

Organizations should:

1. Require that every manager have a delegate – Identify and develop strong number twos that can eventually step in and take on the job duties of every manager. If people can’t attend conferences or go on vacation, because no one else can cover their desk, it is a sign that they have not developed the talent around them. To develop others takes time and investment including focus on performance reviews, career pathing and training.
2. Institutionalize activities, duties and best practices – Develop thorough documentation. Companies must maintain policies and procedures if they are going to be operationally excellent. When a supplier errs, it is usually because an inexperienced junior staffer doesn’t do something the way his senior counter-part would have. Often the junior staffer is criticized, even though it is their management who put them in position to fail.
3. Teach - Great leaders are usually great teachers; they aspire to develop others through daily interaction, and the sharing of information. The inability to teach is often a sign that a manager views themselves as the only person competent enough to complete certain tasks, and makes excuses as to why they can’t find other people to step up.  Great companies have development plans for every key employee, and make resources available for their continuous improvement.

Organizations that formalize these practices in their companies will maintain a long term strategic advantage over those who do. The talent war has only just begun.

Google’s behemoth $12.5 Billion acquisition of Motorola’s phone business set a salvo across the bow in technology circles. Google’s largest acquisition raises the stakes in the quest for platform dominance. The trend towards vertical integration is clear, as Coke and Pepsi buy up their bottlers, and manufacturers such as General Motors and Boeing eat up suppliers.

Consider the plight of HP, who has no software dancing partner in the world of mobile computing and announced last week of their exit from the desktop business. Investors penalized the company (who bought competitor Compaq a decade ago) severely, erasing $12 Billion in market value with a matter of days. [i]

And then there is e-textbook publisher Kno, the VC backed darling of Silicon Valley, who recently shelved plans to create a tablet for the education market after realizing that they did not have the chops to compete on a global scale with tablet manufacturers. The company moved towards an App for iPad only to have their margins raided by Apple (who earns a 30% royalty). [ii] While Kno has enormous upside, it is unlikely to realize its vast potential unless it owns or is owned by a distribution partner.

Today’s turf wars are not with a single competitor, but with their entire distribution platforms (as in the case with mobile devices). So the consequences of globalization persist; the large get larger and the small find the right alliance or face considerable competitive disadvantage. Vertical integration provides a recipe for greater control of cycle time and quality and a significant cost advantage. At a time when margins are slimming, companies are looking to participate both up and down stream.

It appears that the swell of distribution channels has made distribution even more important, so those who can find unique methods of delivery are creating a first to market advantage, such as Amazon has with books. As private equity investors look for deal flow, and shrewd entrepreneurs look for bargain basement acquisitions, they should look not only at competition, but for suppliers or customers that present control and cost advantage throughout the entire supply chain.

With so much cash on the sideline, some sectors may be ripe for another round of consolidation. The choice many businesses face today is will they be the consolidator, or the consolidated?

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.

Businesses often fall in the trap of thinking that because their customers are happy, that they will remain in the fold.  Global competition has brought about switching options that did not exist before the world was flattened like a pancake. Businesses who serve other businesses (B2B) must go deeper than the occasional sales call, Christmas gift and customer satisfaction survey; they must find ways to box customers in.

I often travel on behalf of clients, who arrange rooms at the Marriot, Hyatt and upscale locations such as the Four Seasons and Ritz Carlton. If any of these chains solicited my feedback, I would give them high marks; I am satisfied. Yet given a choice, I will go out of my way to book a Hilton. As experts at J.D. Power and elsewhere have pontificated, there is a chasm between satisfaction and loyalty.

I find it fascinating that the term Customer Relationship Management (CRM) has become synonymous with overpriced and monotonous software.  The CRM revolution offered the promise of analytics that promoted tracking the most profitable customers as calculated by their lifetime value. The premise of CRM is to treat valued customers differently than less profitable ones. Somewhere along the way, many organizations lost sight of the point.

While frequent flyer programs and the like are popular, few realize the promise of customer loyalty. In the case of Hilton I receive free breakfast, cocktails, bottled water, Internet and frequent upgrades. Hilton truly treats me like a VIP, and they have boxed me in at a very low incremental cost.

So how can a B2B enterprise apply such thinking to deepen their customer relationships? There are certainly ways to provide special benefits to your best customers. The definition of best should not be limited to the customers that buy the most. It could mean who pays on time, participates in key programs, attends vendor events, etc. Special rebates can be paid to customers who demonstrate their loyalty and are easy to do business with.

There are also other intangible benefits such as direct customer service lines and faster cycle times that can be extended to those who meet certain thresholds. Companies that utilize distributors should evaluate, score and incent those that represent their product best, and meet specific performance criteria.

Your best customers are worthy of this investment, as they are the ones that are most apt to look beyond price when making decisions about their vendors. Treat your best customers like VIP’s.

The long term implications of Japan’s massive earthquake and tsunami have recently begun to materialize. Over the course of the last twenty years, management principles have centered on efficiency; do more with less.  Six Sigma, Lean Manufacturing, outsourcing, and off-shoring have boomed. Perhaps our fascination with reducing costs and optimizing return on assets has manifested in an overly minimalistic view of the world.

The recent supply chain disruptions have illustrated the vulnerability of our thinking as just in time translated into late product shipments, unsatisfied customers, and sluggish earnings, spanning from Toyota to Tiffany’s. The vulnerability may be far greater for smaller companies with less sophisticated logistics and reliance on a smaller web of suppliers.

Thus the central question is shifting away from what is the minimum possible cycle time to what are the supply chain risks and how can they be mitigated? Manufacturers have had to adapt, in some cases reengineering their products to use components or materials that have been suddenly unavailable.  Some product development teams have had to adapt, at times looking like a scene from Apollo 13 (when astronauts famously had to construct a part based on the materials they had on hand).

Customers have the right to ask more questions about how their vendors manage supply and what types of contingencies they have in place.  As has been evident in recent years, vendors and customers alike must think broadly about what eventualities could disrupt the global marketplace and collaborate on solutions. The horrific events in Japan reflect only the latest in a series of events that are reshaping how products come to market.