I drink, on average, eight a day– Diet Cokes, that is. Talk about a breakfast with voltage! Nothing comes close. I worship the gunk.

As do we all. Even Britney Spears has been rumored to drink 24 Cokes a day! We are not Americans. We are, technically speaking, “descendants of Pilgrims who are addicted to brown carbonated dish water with legal overdoses of sugar.” That’s our beloved Coca Cola. A nation of Coke addicts– that would be us.

In my life, no other company, not one, has remained as solid as Mt. Rushmore and so steadfastly successful. Oh sure, there was the new coke, old coke marketing idiocy, but the only ones who made a federal case out of that were the losers in the business schools who call themselves “professors”– a euphemism for “what the hell is going on?”
How has Coke made us not customers, but addicts? Otherwise disciplined people craving the stuff? Well actually, by practicing the oft discussed but rarely practiced, majesty of execution.

Sure, Coke, the national drug company, advertises and holds events and other junk to move the gunk, but mostly they do nothing but the really “hard stuff” that is at the core of every business:

1. Distribution: Coke is everywhere. That is no accident. Forget the advertising agency that dreams up stupid taglines. The wholesalers deserve more credit. Ever walk into a food store and want a Coke and walk away empty handed. No! That’s execution!

2. Ever have a bad Coke? A stale one? One that tastes somehow not like a Coke? No. Quality control is King and when you serve a billion a day and never screw one up. Wow!

3. The drug of choice is always, always cool. To rappers and hip hoppers and investment bankers and accountants. Yes, accountants, (actuaries are still stuck on milk, but who wants to satisfy actuaries?)

Coke is NOT a creature of marketing. It is a success story of execution. A national addiction. And when you need a drug, and it’s there, you are addicted for life! What a life. What a country.

Mark Stevens
CEO

Tell me what your success story of execution is.

You can easily buy a pair of stylish shoes in China for 10 bucks.

And you can buy a pair of stylish shoes in Rome for $500.

Often they are the same shoes, from the same factory, the same leather and identical designer– not a whit of difference.

So China, for all its emerging economic power (I have been there and it’s real), makes $1 and the Romans make $250. It’s not hard to do the math. And it’s ugly for China.

Why? Not because of the “inequity.” As a Republican, I don’t dwell on that. I prefer to focus on the fix. It’s ugly because China has a clear marketing fix.

China is a dictatorship. They can do something in a NY minute. So, and here comes the raw power of marketing, tomorrow you can have the power of branding and the equity that goes with it; from eyeglasses to suits, all you you have to say in China is: “Made In Italy.”

In one fell swoop, China becomes the most important economy in the world. Case closed!

Mark Stevens
CEO

So what do you think about “Made in Italy, China?”

How do you get to be known by your initials? Famous for them? A permanent stamp in history?

JFK and FDR are memorialized this way. To complicate matters, JFK and FDR were worlds apart. The former was a male model, the latter was a world leader, both with earth-moving wives as different as black and white.

Both had brands— three letter brands that were loved in their heyday for what they represented. People knew what they stood for. Soaring figures that, in FDR’s case could change the world, and at JFK’s end, that shifted the perception spectrum to appear he could. One sold substance and hope, the other sold hope alone, but there is always a big market for both.

Think about it. Both men created three-letter brands that camouflaged their weak points and glorified their strengths. FDR was in a wheelchair and JFK was a pain based drug addict (and Marilyn addict). Both captured the imagination of the public and ruled in great measure because they lived up to their brands.

Do you? Does your business? Do you have a name alone? A true brand? Do you use dozens or hundreds of words to tell your story when three letters will do? Consider the following:

1. When it comes to branding, less is more. If you need time to tell your story, forget it. No one has the patience to listen. Look at your story today and cut it in half. And then cut it in half again.

2. Branding has almost nothing to do with logos and color systems. Worrying about this finger painting is the nonsense of business dilettantes. The myth that Nike has endured as a great company because of the swoosh is moronic. It has become an empire because it does a hundred things right from design to R&D to distribution. And because the driven animal who founded the company made sure it always lived up to its brand’s promise. You don’t need a sentence to describe Nike. In this case four letters do it all. Next time someone wants to polish up your logo, ask yourself if your product or service is as good as it can be before you spend a dime on art.

3. Ask yourself if the brand you have still has resonance. Still has meaning? What does Kraft stand for? Macy’s? Buick? Revlon? What does yours stand for?

If it’s time to go back to the drawing board remember the two men and six letters no one will ever forget.

Mark Stevens
CEO

If you were starting a business today, whose brand would you want to leverage? The august American poet with a junkyard voice? The eclipse of the sun beauty with enough sex appeal to melt a star? Or who the hell is Conrad Hilton?

Let’s think about this in business terms. In metaphorical and pragmatic terms. If you were selling just about anything but stuck-in-the-sixties Volvos, you would want Paris over Bob. So you call her agent, pay her a zillion dollars and presto, you are a genius. “We got Paris! We got Paris!”

A feat comparable only to the Manhattan project (in the eyes of the mega budget Clio drooling crowd that calls themselves marketers). And Ms. Hilton may help sell your stuff for a while, but forgive me but I am driving to a bigger issue here. For most of us, the goal is to build enduring businesses as opposed to here today, gone tomorrow cooleramas. Dylan has been a major brand, a mini industry, for four decades. And one that has accomplished something of true and timeless significance.

In four decades, Paris Hilton will be as cool and as magnificent as the Pet Rock, The Chia Pet. Odds are she will not even be remembered. Except perhaps for a vague connection to the titan who built a great and enduring business and bankrolled Paris’ ascension up the trajectory of zero-substance global heroes.

Which brings us to Conrad. Long after “Like A Rolling Stone” is elevator music and Paris is just a city again, millions will be gambling in Hilton’s casinos, sleeping in his hotels and drinking in his bars. Conrad’s that is.

As responsible and visionary businesspeople, we must ask ourselves:

• How do we build a company with legs?
• How do we balance fashion with substance?
• How do we declare constructive war on our businesses so that they never get complacent?

Mark Stevens
CEO

This Blog Post is by Chris Kieff
Editor of Unconventional Thinking

Most of our readers get this blog via our email system. This means that you’ve most likely missed the lively debate that’s running on the blog about whether we are, to use the words of another blogger; “Rude, Crude and Socially Unacceptable“

Since the “Mark Stevens Vs. Warren Buffet” blog has received 25+ comments (as of Thursday) we felt that there is enough interest to reprint the excerpts from some of the best comments for all of our readers to see and consider.

I’ve found it interesting that while the comments on our blog are very nearly 50/50. Which may be because of the back and forth dialog. The voting on BrandSizzle is clearly running 89% that Clear Channel should not have violated their contract with MSCO, vs. 11% that Clear Channel was right in removing the ad. While several of the commenter’s noted that it was purely the use of that term in the title of Mark’s books which caused them to pick the books up, and ultimately buy them.

There was much speculation that Mark and by extension the rest of us here are childless, which is quite wrong- the children of staffers exceed the employee count (as it should). However, we do live in the NYC area and so believe that we may be more tolerant than some other areas. But that didn’t stop our friend over at Net Jets.

The one point I found conspicuous by it’s absence was that offensive ads for all manner of things were never brought into the discussion. Blatant sexuality is tolerable, but the mention of a word that has one meaning of a sexual nature is unacceptable? Look at the cover of Cosmopolitan Magazine that any 6 year old can see in the supermarket, I’m embarrassed by the language used.

Does Mr. Net Jet worry about explaining these to his daughter?

“Sex Tricks He’s Never Seen Before: The Outrageous ‘Rock’ Technique And 21 Other Moves That Will Make His Thighs Go Up in Flames!”

“Turn your man into a YOU pleasing sex genius”

“The Sex he’ll die for!”

I would propose that in common usage today; “that sucks” doesn’t carry any sexual meaning, while “that blows” certainly does. I think that the Net Jets executive is a little behind the times, while perhaps MSCO is a little on the leading edge in our usage of “sucks”. In another 5 years the point will be moot, (a word that’s reversed it’s meaning in the last 15 years,) by which I mean it is not going to be worthy of discussion.

I think that the real issue here is that some fat cat Net Jet executive threw his weight around simply because he could make the little guy suffer. There are many other egregious abuses of social standards that could and should be fought. But this jerk decided that he would take on MSCO purely because he would win, because he’s working from a position of the Big against the Little. He doesn’t fight against Cosmo because it’s strength against strength and he won’t win that one.

And finally a message for our clients, and those who read this blog looking for business insights. In order to engage your prospects- you must engage with them to create a dialog. While this discussion is only thinly related to the business of marketing, it is highly engaging to many intelligent people who read it. Now our task it is transitioning this engagement into a business engagement with those who have found us anew as a result.

Selected Excerpts from comments to Mark Stevens vs. Warren Buffet:

You can read the full comments here:

Mark (not Mark Stevens) says, “The word sucks is offensive because of it’s sexual root which is why it gets peoples attention and I am guessing why you used it.”

Gaston M. says, “If he really cares that much, why stop at MSCO why not keep crusading against all the bad words seen in the media? ITS RIDICULOUS!!!”

Paul says, “However, “sucks” is not a word that is used in my household, either by the adults or the children. We find it in poor taste, and I certainly don’t want my 8 or 10 year olds thinking that it is anything but rude, despite the fact that I know they’ve heard it many times at the school yard.”

Paul says, “You aren’t being prohibited from publishing your book, or speaking in appropriate forums. Commercial speech is not the same as public speech, and has no absolute guarantee of privilege. Your website name in large letters on a billboard is offensive to community standards.”

Jordan M. says, “Clear Channel is doing you a huge favor because (hopefully) news organizations will pick up on this story and give your books and (delightful, talented) firm ‘free’ publicity.”

Paul says, “While the judgments of the mayor’s office and of Clear Channel’s management were wrong in how they dealt with this issue, neither is trying to hurt anyone. Rather, they are trying to respect that we are pluralistic, with many different views of what is acceptable in the community.”

Rajan S. says, “Just as we are expected to teach our children right from wrong, we are also expected to teach our children how to use good judgment, and part of that is knowing how to filter what they see, read and hear the second they step out of the household and in to the real world.”

Paul says, “I’ll be at the front of the line defending Mark’s right to use the word in the right context, but it has no place on a billboard that is seen by everyone.”

Andrea says, “With media on display and easily accessible by everyone at all times - online, in the middle of primetime television, on billboards - we seem to have to be more responsible for where our own eyes (and our kids) may linger.”

Marketing Recruiter says, Why is this necessary? Because it’s clutter busting? Because the URL was available? Maybe. But just as likely it’s because you may not have kids, or because the problem you caused with my kids is very abstract and not your problem. It’s selfish.”

Rajan S. says, I recall many times seeing billboards as well as public store fronts in shopping malls advertising the fashion company “fcuk”, which stands for “French Connection UK”. The “fcuk” is obviously meant to shock - read it fast enough and the other word appears. I don’t see anyone recalling those ads or preventing their children from going to malls.”

Gaston M. says, “Kids can watch TV or the news and learn about prostitution, the acts of rape & murder, money laundering, sex and all different criminal acts. Now someone puts the words SUCKS on the billboard and a community of parents are in uproar because it’s ‘offensive’…priceless.”

Paul says, “Many puerile-minded, insensitive and selfish “marketers” haven’t the intelligence to create marketing campaigns that don’t rely on below the belt shock factor to make their point

Nedra W. says, “They should have written policies regarding what falls within their guidelines of acceptability in terms of content. If they did not feel the word “sucks” was appropriate, they should not have agreed to post the billboard. Having signed the contract, they were then obligated to follow through despite the complaint they received.”

And now it’s your turn to sound off.

Is this a tempest in a tea pot?

A major social ill facing our society today?

Click on the comments below and add your bit.

It Really Doesn’t Matter Citigroup is, yet again, rebranding itself.

By Tom Taulli

[This is excerpted from the article on MSNBC.COM]

I recently wrote a book review of the Real Deal, the autobiography of Sandy Weill. In building his financial empire, Weill changed the name of his company several times — always when he struck a transformative deal: Primerica (1988), Travelers (1995), and Citigroup (NYSE: C) when he merged with Citicorp. Perhaps there is now another name change in the offing: according to a report from The New York Times, Citigroup might become Citi. However, it is likely not to amount to much.

Citigroup spent about 14 months on the process and had the support of Landor Associates, which is a branding company and part of the WPP Group (Nasdaq: WPPGY). The plan calls for the elimination of the memorable red umbrella logo, which 137 years old and has lots of brand equity. But it does have issues — it is a sign of bad luck for certain countries in Asia. Besides, isn’t an umbrella a symbol of defensiveness? Doesn’t Citigroup want to show it can still grow?

…

I also interviewed Mark Stevens, the CEO of MSCO and author of Your Marketing Sucks. His opinion on the matter is straightforward: “It sucks. Why? A stupid waste of shareholders’ money. Is the new better than the old? Why don’t we just change Microsoft’s name just for the hell of it.”

…

Read the whole article here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16670755/

Every marketing and general management professional thinks we can teach Kate Moss-just a “dumb model”- chapter and verse about business. Man are we donkeys.

I can hear Kate laughing at us. (In fact, she is sitting right next to me as I write this.)
[Editors Note: Yea, in your dreams, Mark.]

What do I mean by this deification of Moss? In business, the art of recovery is critical. From time to time, we all blow it. How and if we emerge from the mud is what separates the real world stars from the college professors.

And Kate, well she was considered done, fried, fini, just months ago. Now she is not only back from the muck, she has cemented her position as the el primo “dumb model” in the world.

How she did it reflects a bedrock business principle.

If people love you
your product
your service
-not just like, LOVE

-they will forgive everything and keep buying.

For Kate, there were no sloppy Today show Mel Gibson 10 cent apologies. No groveling for forgiveness. She simply stood there and broadcast her greatest asset: drop dead, sex machine, ice cool beauty. Forget all the nonsense crisis management scrap metal shoveled out by the “professionals.” Just lead with love. Listen to Kate.

Mark Stevens
CEO

There was a time …yes there was… When great business people created extraordinary companies not on numbers or Wall Street green lights or the promise of personal wealth…

but instead on the power of love.
What?

We are so removed from this ideal now, that this seems like a fantasy. A dream, actually, like nonsense. But hold on cowboys and cowgirls, it’s true. Not in movies or novels but the cold reality of day.

Walt Disney was not a businessman first, he was a lover. Of ideas. Same for Henry Ford, and Ralph Lauren, Richard Branson, Thomas Edison, And Mary Kay.

Miracle men and women such as these fell in intoxification with ideas and then acted to bring their ideas to life. Did they become wealthy in the process? Absolutely. But did they do it for the money? Absolutely not. They did it for the love of the idea. For the realization that life is short and the spoils go to those who dream, love and take risks for the sake of their romance. Disney wanted to create a world of imagination. A world humanity could get lost in. Was it a sure shot then? The raving lover that he was didn’t give a damn.

Neither should you. Or I. Great companies, spiritual companies, dreaming companies, genius companies, world changing companies are not founded and grown by MBAs. They are cultivated like desert flowers by lovers.

Throw away your spread sheets for a moment and fall in love. Take a chance. Risk failure. But be driven by love. Sooner or later you will find excellence. The speed bumps along the way are simply the price all lovers pay.

Mark Stevens
CEO

Tell us how love has changed your business,
Leave a comment below.

Snow Patrol’s “Chasing Cars” is one of those lightning rod songs that flies out of the magic of the creator’s mind and blows everyone away the first time they hear it. Like Halley’s Comet or a meteor shower. Zoom, the music enters your brain and you are in love.

What makes the song zing is the passionate and profound fusion of dreamy lyrics and music. It’s all about calling a time out in life and allowing the mind to free float. To draw cartoons. To imagine the impossible. To embrace the romance of life. To do nothing and in the process to do the most powerful thing in existence. To think with no rules. No preconceptions. No limitations.

This is the most powerful, liberating and exhilarating thing in the universe. It was a founding principle at the once great IBM. And the once great Microsoft. And the greater every day Google.

So why has it been wiped off the agenda at virtually every company on the planet? Why is hardly anyone ever told;

“stay home today and just think,”

or“sit under a tree and chase cars”?

This article was originally published in the MSCO Newsletter Unconventional Thinking in March of 2005. We have reprinted it here along with other newsletter articles by popular demand and to make it available to our blog recipients.

1. Advertising and marketing are the same.
To hell, they are. Advertising means buying space or time to relay a message. It can be important to marketing or irrelevant, depending on the company and its goals. We told one of our retail clients to stop advertising and sales went up.

2. The best marketing presents a company and/or its products as beautiful or creative or sexy.
Who says? I’ll tell you: the ego driven creators of beautiful/creative and sexy marketing. What they won’t tell you is that they don’t care a whit about your company’s Return on Investment from its marketing dollars. They just want to be told what creative geniuses they are. Sometimes the least “creative” marketing is the most effective. Wal-Mart’s marketing will never win a prize for aesthetics but it has built the best brand in the world.

3. Salespeople aren’t really part of the marketing process.
Nonsense. They are the centerpieces. Yes, there is a difference between selling and marketing, but if the marketing process leads to a sales team empowered to close, and the salespeople are not closers, sales will be few and far between.

4. With the right training, you can turn non-closers into closers.
Forgetaboutit! You can’t train non-salespeople to sell and you can’t stop salespeople from selling. Find the latter and pay them well.

5. Great marketing agencies are the ones that win lots of awards. So choose them.
Okay, if you want to borrow awards to place on your mantel then do so. But if you want sales to grow, go for the award-less agencies that live by the credo: the best marketing is the product of the least expense that results in the highest ROI. My marketing firm, MSCO, Inc., has won a few awards, I am embarrassed to say. The only one I am proud of, we received from Forbes for creating an ad that motivated more readers to act than any other ad.

6. Good marketing is based on rules.
You should spend x percent of your revenues on marketing. Great direct mail generates an x percent response rate. Hogwash to it all. Every company, every product and service is different: so how can there be universal rules? Rules are for schools. Results are for business people! If you are told that the best return you can get on direct mail is 1 percent, seek to generate 10 percent! Great marketing, inspired marketing, can be the most powerful force in growing companies large and small. The great marketers - Bill Gates, Mary Kaye, Tom Watson, Ray Krock, Sam Walton - avoided the myths, avoided marketing that sucks and drove their companies to the mount. You can do the same.