We’re in economically difficult times, so the prevailing business strategy is to batten down the hatches and cut as much as possible to increase the bottom line, right? Yet, I don’t see market leaders doing that. Google is the acknowledged leader of Internet search and they have a product in Beta right now called Google Wave. Plenty of people are pretty excited about it and can’t wait for it to go public. This is good because Microsoft is taking their shot at the Internet search game with Bing, promoted more as a decision engine. That’s not to mention the countless others formulating or debuting new products or services at a time when the majority are trying to shore up their core business offerings and consumers.

The thing is: these market leaders are looking to what we’ll need tomorrow or beyond. (Even if we don’t realize it quite yet in some cases.) Some take the current economic situation in hand, (which has helped in the shaping of the business offerings) while others  look past it, anticipating what will be required to function with the lessons we’ve learned.

This is not an exclusive club and everyone should have an idea of an offering that will extend their business, regardless of what it is. Fear cannot guide markets. Thought can though. There’s plenty of businesses both large and small that could benefit from just making an attempt to become contemporary. Integrating social networking, finding alternate channels of engaging potential consumers, rethinking their marketing plans. (It’s not just push/push anymore and it’s gone beyond push/pull for most. Now it has to be an active dialogue.)

It’s time to take ownership and instead of hoping to maintain what has been achieved, get aggressive and adapt new methods to market existing offerings or find the piece that needs to point the way forward. Either way you need to engage the consumer. When was the last time you asked one,”Describe your perfect transaction/product/service”, or “What do you need that we’re not offering?” That’s where these ideas come from. Talk to your employees. They use all sorts of services and products. They’re consumers. What sets them off? What makes them happy? What do they long to see that isn’t out there? Get those answers, then apply it to your business. See what you can do/afford and scale accordingly. This is as relevant to Microsoft as it is to the local owned small business. What can you do to make sure you’re putting your best foot forward and thinking about what your consumers need. (Product or service? Improve/increase existing ones or create anew?) These are the answers you existing customer base is looking for and it’s what will sway potentials your way.

I’m lamenting the passing of my Monday night of television. For me it was the best night to watch. It just lined up right and I didn’t have to DVR much. But now that Chuck is done and Castle just finished (maybe forever) and 24 ends next week, that’s it. (Your favorite day may differ depending on mileage and taste.)

This brings up a question for the major TV networks: Where do your viewers go when their favorites (Days, shows, seasons, years) are no longer on? Cable has figured this out. MTV no longer shows music videos and barely contains a connection to music anymore. But they’ve spun off a host of MTV channels to appeal to the viewers of all of their evolutionary eras. So has VH1. (Which is where you’ll really go to see music videos. OK, not current ones.) Cartoon network has done the same thing. They have totally original programming on the main channel now. If you want to watch The Flintstones, The Jetsons, Jonny Quest or Justice League Unlimited you can go to Boomerang. (I say you because I don’t think many of today’s kids are watching the oldies. Maybe when Dexter’s Lab, Powerpuff Girls or Teen Titans are on, but not before.) Nickelodeon has both Noggin for preschoolers and Nicktoons for 24 hr saturation of their patented brand of watered down John Krickafalusi inspired wackiness. Disney performed the inverse and has stuff to compete with Nick on Disney XD.

Encore’s suite of niche movie channels frequently raids old television vaults for programming. (Not complaining. As a matter of fact, they could spin off totally new channels with nothing but old programs for Westerns and Detectives and I’d probably watch.)

The thing here is that the networks are losing ground. Because of that and the current economy, they have a tougher bottom line. (How else to explain 5 nights of prime time Leno?) But they continue to fight a losing battle with cable by greenlighting niche programming when it doesn’t bring in enough numbers to justify it. They cancel the shows and alienate audiences who find what they’re looking for by watching Burn Notice, Monk, Rescue Me, Nip/Tuck and Stargate Universe. That’s just the ones that fall into the golden demographic of 18-34. What marketing has taught us (though not apparently the major networks) is that: There’s plenty of money to be made in the young crowd. (Look at how all the family movies clean up at the cinema. The kids don’t drive themselves there.) There’s plenty to be made from the boomers as well. (Tons of studies show their buying power continues to be a major force.)

So why is the only diversification going on either the news channels from NBC or the family channel from ABC (Really Disney)? Why doesn’t CBS have its own mystery channel? It’s demographics clearly show that theres a market for it. Think of all the shows CBS has run through the years. (Yeah, they don’t own them all. So they have to pay for some just like anyone else would. It’s still found revenue compared. They’re not funding new shows for the ad dollars.) Why doesn’t NBC have it’s own comedy channel?

The networks are so obsessed with the game of new seasons and ratings that they’ve let the easy money slip through their fingers. (And they’re still losing money in the process.)

In the world of cameras Canon is a name to be reckoned with. So why is it that their efforts on product development and marketing for thier 5D Mark II model is so haphazard?

The camera is an HD SLR still camera that also shoots HD video. It made an initial big splash when video from the camera hit the Internet and everyone freaked about the picture quality. It seemed amazing, especially when the price was taken into accountability. Had Canon produced an all-in-one solution for HD imagery?

Not really. The first thing to burst the bubble is that there’s no real way to capture decent audio with the device. You’re stuck filming essentially MOS and finding another suitable solution for audio with the hope of synching later. The next thing to appear in reviews was the problem of image stabilization when moving the camera in video mode. No handheld shots for you 5D Mark II.

These are major issues for HD Video users and Canon had to know about them before releasing the model for sale. So why the disconnect? Were they hoping the advances were enough to woo enthusiasts to overlook the shortcomings? Was there a hope that regular consumers would take the economic plunge into a prosumer grade product?

I think there’s possibilities with both of those if Canon had been upfront about things and played up the cost vs. the product’s potential. As it was, the excitement of the initial footage release died quickly after the hype met reality in reviews. Had Canon tempered the excitement and played up the potential to the regular consumer as a high-end entry level prosumer product, sales might look promising.

This is a prime example of trying to control the image of your product and then completely dropping the ball. No doubt a lot of time and money went into the development of the camera, so it’s a shame to see marketing build a lot of excitement for…the next version.

Most of you are still snickering over the Twitter/Skittles debacle. Many of you recall the Motrin vs. Twitter/Blogging Moms melee of last Nov. Some of you are paying attention to how Rush Limbaugh is dividing the Republican party. What do all of these have in common? No oversight or thought process given to programs/ campaigns/ PR.

We live in a world where the marketing paradigm has switched over the last few years. At first marketers were giddy that they could use the Internet for viral purposes. Steadily the consumer began to find their voice and by Web 2.0, consumers were your marketing partners whether you liked it or not.

Many businesses, and I include many large businesses, are still wrestling with that and trying to get a handle on social media. This is why you just can’t throw out Skittles on Twitter and hope that it’s going to take off. No thought was given, so is it any wonder things went south? (They switched to Facebook, but haven’t really changed things enough to be a success. It just tied off the blood loss.)

Motrin made the mistake of placing too much emphasis on a knee jerk reaction from a few vocal online individuals and pulled a marketing campaign. First, why would you not test this out for adverse reaction in the first place? Second, if you did, but came to the conclussion that the negative reaction would be small enough to risk running it, then why wasn’t there a contingency plan? Neither of those were taken into account, but that’s really not the worst of it. The campaign wasn’t horrible, just the way Motrin handled the negative reaction. They didn’t get any real feedback, assuming that the vocal few made up a large group. (Shades of the moral majority, mommy bloggers.) They didn’t know anything about Twitter or the blogs the few had, so they assumed the worst when presented with them. Instead, how about educating yourself and engage these people? Placate the loudmouths so they can’t start a groundswell of any kind.

Then there’s the mouth of the Republican party, Rush Limbaugh. Like him or not, he makes a living shilling for the party. He’s savy enough that when he gives speeches he concocts sections that he knows the media will extract to use. Yet, this knowledge of the very media he’s a part of doesn’t stop him from shooting his mouth off and further dividing the party.

All of these instances and more could be headed off with proper thought leadership. An outside, independent view of business matters so that the right hand does know what the left is doing. Someone that points out when things dilute your brand. A voice that keeps things on point. Some common sense when dealing with the ever evolving online world. (That translates into how to deal directly with customers as well. Ironic that customer service errodes as business becomes more interactive than ever before.) An entity that serves as armor for a business. (With the economic downturn many are cutting services to increase the bottom line, but they’re doing it across the board, often leaving themselves vunerable to a keener competitor. So really, the entity as armor keeps the business from hurting itself.)

This entity needs to be free of the politics that bog down good ideas and stifles the checks and balances that are needed when businesses go forward with management/marketing concerns. It can’t be hampered in calling out problems or insisting on testing or research before putting something before the public. That’s the kind of thought leadership that puts businesses ahead. One that’s not afraid of pointing things out in the mirror and asking for a correction.

After all, when you go out, don’t you do the same thing? And when you straighten that tie, smooth that dress or fix your hair, aren’t you glad you did? Sometimes though, you don’t catch everything and someone calls your attention to it before you go out the door. Now aren’t you twice as glad?

Some may have noticed that my blog posts have slowed down a bit. They may have noticed that mine is not the only one to have reduced the number of entries. That’s because there are newer tools being used for what was once the ‘quick’ blog entry.

Between Twitter and Twitwall most shorter entries have disappeared. These services effectively spread the word on niche news items, (whatever it is that you follow) links, notices on service/products, images, tutorials and thought dispersal/feedback. And, feedback is indeed what you get as well as an interesting network of peers. (Use of Tweetdeck optional.) Things progress (with a capital ‘P’) quickly as if you were IM’ing with your marketing team.

What this does to the bloggers is cuts down on the amount of re-blogging. (At least hopefully it does.) And causes bloggers to save their blogs for more pertinent pieces/ information. And, really, that’s the way it should be. The smaller entries are meant to get out and make an impact, but Twitter works better than RSS feeds for that.

Feedback is the main response one is looking for with posts anyway, so it doesn’t matter what forum is used to get them out. Social networking allows this interaction on pertinent matters in a much quicker and elegant way than blogging. For businesses it makes much more sense to integrate these tools and not just rely on a blog. Customers/clients want results and they want to know that you’re listening.

So, it’s not really any more work, it’s just deciding which service outlet to delegate the post to. This will result in more effective blog posts and the other items (which some used to keep their stats high, thus the re-blogging) will become Twitter or Twitwall fodder. (Don’t worry you can start a new tally count in the Twitter-verse if that’s your thing.) Remember that people don’t have to join Twitter to see your posts and that they are referenced on other websites and magazines. (So you can still get that cross promotion you were looking for.) Save your blog posts for the longer entries. By virtue of their size they become more interesting then. (And you can promote them on Twitter or any other social network.)

I was at the grocery store the other day and noticed something different. In the facial tissue aisle there was a specific area created for OTC allergy medications. It wasn’t an endcap. It was right in the middle of the tissure selections at average head height to maximize exposure.

We’re used to some things being stocked next to one another to influence sales; chips and soda, meats and cheeses/seasonings, etc. Usually the two above mentioned are seperated by a fair amount of space despite the natural co-dependence of the items by allergy sufferers.

This got me to thinking about which other marketplaces are missing out on this cross-marketing potential. Seeing as how the brick and mortar world is covered, I looked to the other vast marketplace: the Internet. Now, many of you are familiar with Amazon’s insistence on showing you products similar to those you’ve searched for, so it’s not like this is new territory for some. However there are many B2C and B2B sites that totally missed the boat in making these associations. Many were the kind of sites you could spend hours on without being able to discern what exactly it is they are offerring. (Hint: If you can’t figure out a website’s service/product quickly, then chance’s are they can’t either. Good work for web copywriters though.)

So, review your sites and make sure you are maximizing its potential for both new and existing customers.

When watercooler conversation at work turns towards what’s happening at work, more often than not criticism is voiced. A good deal of that time the criticism is valid as there seems to be an ever growing void between the top most echelons of management and production/service/sales. However, when quizzed about the decision making process behind these policies your average worker will point towards “some MBA”.

Now, C-level management is where company wide policies and directives come from. These are not always, or even often, holders of MBA degrees. The MBA in question is usually a consultant/analyst. Sometimes this is in-house, but the major assumption among the workforce is that they are brought from the outside. They don’t understand the company and they just arbitrarily want to cut jobs. These consultants/analysts, in truth, get their marching orders from the top just as a regular employee would. They can find places to cut the fat in companies, ways to streamline operations and increase productivity. They make suggestions based on the wants of their customers.

If top management wants to save money by outsourcing jobs, you can bet that’s how the analysis is going to come back. That’s the instructions given: Compare/contrast current operations and suggested steamlined operations vs. outsourcing. Outsourcing wins on a surface cash basis. That’s what get reported to shareholders so that’s the course of action taken. It merely validates a decision already made. What doesn’t get taken into consideration is the additional cost of ramping up offshore, communication errors resulting in lost production, lost customer service and production erros that have to be brought back to the states that increase costs. (But don’t get recorded as a negative to offshoring because there are seperate books being kept for in and out of country. Frequent repairs get billed here and the books still look good for the offshore effort.)

If top management wants to marginalize costs, but keep the work here, nobody credits the MBA for saving their jobs. Then top management gets the credit. It’s a wonderful thing to pay for scapegoats.

The other problem MBA’s currently have is a diluting of their brand. Everybody and his brother off an MBA program now. Not all of them are even accredited institutions, but they have great payment terms or financing available. Remember, you get what you pay for. Those people are out in the workforce now and their mistakes taint the pool for everyone else. (This is the same for everyone. Engineers, I’m looking at you.)

So, the moral is: don’t jump to conclussions or rush to point the finger at someone in a generalization. The same could be said for anyone else with a higher degree or title. (Doctors, sheesh, don’t get me started…)

Most of us are in full blown DefCon 4 mode right now in regards to employment or our roles within an organization. Heads of companies are trying to stem the economic flow of blood. This leads to a panicked cutting of personnel and services across the board instead of a thoughtful analysis of how to reduce expenses.

Many marketing departments feel these cuts more severely than other departments because they still haven’t found a way to effectively show ROI. Still, even with that against them, it would be a grave mistake to cut marketing across the board or more severely than other departments.

Marketing is the voice of the customer, your outreach to customers both existing and potential, your public image and your defense against attacks from the press or the public. When you cut these services you are leaving an opening for your competition to acquire your customer base. (Let’s face it: existing customers are still spending money, yet by cutting marketing you devalue that money. Right now they’re looking for more value.)

Marketing can certainly be shaped up and put into fighting weight as all departments should be right now. Analyzing your marketing channels, advertising ROI and maximizing customer contact and response for retentions purposes should all be priorities now. Obtaining new customers is not an emphasis as everyone has developed the bunker mentality. Note that I said ‘not an emphasis’, not something to be totally eliminated. Be prepared to take advantage of opportunities that arise. (And they will.)

Make a case for marketing during downsizing efforts or those efforts will continue until there’s nothing left to downsize.

Your average American is not too enchanted with the business world and financial institutions in particular right now. Mention CEO and you’ll notice an involuntary lip curl. Who can regain the public’s trust so that the ship of business can right itself?

I believe it will fall to the small business person. There is no CEO in their organization to squander away profits while feathering their own nest and they are by definition, part of average America. So support them and spread the word if you like the goods or services they provide. We have to get the business cycle going again and these are your neighbors. They share your values, fears, and economic hardships. We have to build trust in business again in order to sway the economy, so do it with a face you can see up close and a hand that’s ready to shake in solidarity.

Our new President has been addicted to his Blackberry for some time. So much so that when told he would have to give it up when sworn in he uttered,”They’ll have to pry it from my hand”. Now that’s a dedicated customer. It also dovetails with his model of transparent government.

The problem is that from a security point of view his account could be hacked and potential sensitive information could be leaked. Now, there are many business leaders in Obama’s shoes, yet they continue to use their devices. It’s become somewhat of a staple in business life for executives. They feel secure about it. But the POTUS is a different entity and a bigger target. Knowing that he had one would make certain factions want to try to crack it.

Here’s where Blackberry should have stepped up. (And they could have done this long ago as others in government,or as mentioned business, have the same issues.) They should have found a way and offered a service to Obama that would keep his device secure. Sure, it would be an ongoing issue that would have to be constantly scrutinized to keep hackers out, but think of the PR. Offer the special secure service to Obama, and anyone else wanting that level would have to pay, dearly. Make it so it’s compatible with many carriers, but at some point it would go through their proprietary service and servers so that they control the content. All employees associated with handling the content would have to be vetted by top security. No potential impropriety can be chanced. That’s how you take on Iphone with a product that’s in it’s mature stage in the life cycle. Step up what it can do or how it does it.

(But, really I wouldn’t expect Obama to use it as much as you might think. He’d never get anything done with texts, emails, and phone calls. And that’s just from using it with an elite inner circle. But, just to get him to smile and say that the company took special measures on his behalf. Priceless PR. And, befor you scoff at such a thing, I’m old enough to remember when JFK mentioned that he was fond of reading a thriller series from Ian Flemming. That blossomed into a film empire that’s still going to this day.)