Who's Going to Hire Jim Chukalas?

Maybe it's because my ears perk up when I hear a Greek surname on television, or the name of my company coming from Jim Chukalas's mouth on Countdown with Keith Olbermann on July 20, 2010- either way, I'm curious and will be watching which company hires this man.

(photo courtesy of the Associated Press)

Jim Chukalas of Fredon Township, NJ, worked as a parts manager for a Honda dealership for the majority of his professional career. On July 19, he stood beside President Barack Obama in the White House Rose Garden, along with two other ordinary citizens, while the President made his case for an extension of unemployment benefits to Congress.

The next day Chukalas was a guest on Countdown with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC.

He explained that in September 2008, a New Jersey Honda dealership chose to eliminate Chukalas's position. Jokingly, Lawrence O'Donnel, standing in for Keith Olbermann, stated that it would probably have been a more positive experience for Chukalas to have made his television debut "as parts manager of the year" instead of a face of one of millions of out-of-work Americans for the July 20, 2010 airing of the pundit progam.

In the interview with O'Donnel, according to Chukalas, major job-search sites have suggested that he transition from parts manager to a more lucrative industry outside of automobiles - a position in logistics, purchasing or warehouse management. Transitioning from inventory management after 21 years of automotive experience into another industry, according to Chukalas, is not the easiest thing in the world.

Whether quipping or in sincerity, Lawrence O'Donnel, suggested that Chukalas talk to MSNBC's human resource department at the end of the interview. Assuming that MSNBC doesn't see the PR value in hiring Chukalas - a man that stood next to the President the day before - a company soon will.

Whatever Chukalas does decide to do, the company that chooses to bring this man on, can really play their cards right and use the move for excellent public relations.

Tell them Venetta sent you.

Should Social Media Participation be an Employee Requirement?

This dynamic question was posed on LinkedIn, and to my surprise it didn't receive much traction. My major theory as to why? Too many companies are looking at the potential of social media for short term advertising and marketing campaigns. (I have a secondary theory regarding the fact that this was a discussion vs. a question and that people are less likely to participate in discussions because they are not published on your LinkedIn profile - for now at least - and therefore there is less social currency associated with, "check out how smart I am and look at what I answered" attached directly to my profile - but I digress...)

"Let's go to Facebook and fish where the fish are." It makes sense, do it. The fact of the matter is that not enough companies are carving out the long-term strategic capabilities of what it means to be social. Social is here and it is changing daily. People are people and will continue to be people. Whether or not Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc. will suffer the fate of Bebo in the upcoming months or years doesn't matter. It's incredibly irrelevant to the long-term because the medium doesn't matter. Social has taught us that people are ongoing and so is conversation. With technologies in place this will only continue. For marketing and advertising purposes, this is great, assuming that you do it correctly or constantly improve and refine your message.

Reverting back to the question, the following is the two cents I shared on LinkedIn where I was incredibly disappointed by the lack of engagement from those that profess to be in the social "know" and are self-proclaimed "experts" and "guru's". Again, to my dismay, no one seemed interested in discussing the potential of "social" for long-term employee engagement strategies to build competitive advantages. I hope that it is not a tell-tale sign that we are more concerned with our current customers than our future employees and future sustainability as an organization.


"It is imperative that all companies start engaging their own employees in social media/ social tools within their organization. But, “requiring” participation doesn’t work either. If something is required, the quality and quantity of content will be subpar no matter what. Transparency is what consumers are looking for right now, and will most probably be able to identify the companies in which the employees are made to participate in some capacity. The key is for companies to effectively motivate, engage and create brand enthusiasts and advocates of their employees so that they want to participate in the external social activities of the company .

Once you tie social media and participation into an employee’s “what’s in it for me” (along with having a product, service, and company worth the buzz), the participation won’t be forced. This is the one of the hurdles.

Another hurdle is that the big buzz marketing ideas and strategies are growing Facebook and Twitter fan bases aimed at engaging their customers. Companies are currently too focused on their external customers and in my findings, are not doing enough with their internal customers, and their most valuable asset: their employees. Social media has been widely discussed and implemented as a marketing tactic and hasn’t been explored enough as a strategic tool within the organization.

When you factor in the mindsharing capabilities that social tools enable companies with, the possibilities for a sustainable competitive advantage increases significantly. Considering the power of networks as well, a strong internal “social network” is also likely to decrease attrition and save companies millions of dollars a year. Organizational development and training is an area that large organizations can benefit from through social tools by harnessing the power of their internal crowd and collaborating on a much larger scale, without geographical (or even “cubical”) boundaries.

We already know the power of social media and companies are finally jumping on the bandwagon to listen to their customers. Most companies have forgotten the power of the employees that they already have and the power that their participation in company sponsored social media/social sites could have on their organization for not only external marketing campaigns and tactics, but also for long-term sustainable competitive advantage."

-Originally shared (by me) on LI to much disappointment in the quantity of responses considering that many attest to being a "ninja" regarding social media these days

My positioning on whether or not social media should be an employee requirement teeters on yes, but knowing that motivation and recognition factors for human behavior hinder the feasibility of a yes or no answer in terms of implementation, the fact of the matter is simple:

If you have a good company, have a good product, treat customers and employees right, then requirements aren't needed, people will oblige and participate for the long-term sustainability of the company, no matter what the collective effort is.

But truth be told, how many companies can truly say that they, in Google's words, aren't evil in any aspect of how they do business and that anything that they do internally (minus trade secrets, business strategies, and the like) should be published for all to see?

John Quelch's "Marketing Your Way Through a Recession": Harvard, I expect more from you.

The elements of John Quelch’s 2008 recessionary marketing tips are important considerations for corporations considering their marketing plans in 2008 and 2009. But, Quelch hasn’t considered the “Long Tail of the Consumer” and the groundswell’s importance in these post-capitalistic times. The arguments that Quelch makes are outdated, better suited for the 1980’s U.S recession, or even for the dot.com bust in the late 1990’s. The power of technology and the adaption of interactive marketing that have dominated our society and marketing initiatives within the last decade are non-existent within this post. Really, Harvard? This is what you pay professor and resident blogger Quelch for?

I'll give Quelch one thing - he makes a good simple point to research the customer to learn how “consumers are redefining value and responding to the recession.” This is a key element to corporate success and redefining brand value propositions when consumers are less likely to be loyal to certain products and brands. It's shocking that still, in 2010, most companies can't define their consumer image or just turn a blind eye to what people are really saying about their brand.

The incorporation of simple brand management techniques, as discussed in Chris Anderson’s The Longer Long Tail and Charlene Li and Josh Bernoff’s Groundswell, are not as common as you'd think. Despite the simplicity and ease that technology offers, according to Anderson, in his 2008 Long Tail adaption, “you’d be surprised how many companies don’t know the answer [to what their consumers say about them and their competition]. They don’t Google themselves” (231). Though recessions often present opportunities for marketers - Quelch's lack of interactive marketing strategies lands short.

Quelch's dusty dogma fails to properly assess marketing spend during a recession, most importantly, this recession during the same digital era (i.e, Quelch wrote this article just months before the financial free fall in September of 2008 while digital spend was still gaining momentum) Although it is a documented trend that “uncertain consumers need the reassurance of known brands” (Quelch), Quelch’s suggestion to increase television ad spend during tough economic times again fails to consider the decrease in importance that these media play in consumer influence during the current digital age.

Taking into consideration the following:

• “McKinsey, the consultancy, projects that by 2010 advertising on broadcast television will be barely one-third as effective as it was in 1990” (Anderson 225)
  
• What the Forrester Research team identified as the “Groundswell”, published just a month after Mr. Quelch's article: “A social trend in which people use technologies to get the things they need from each other, rather than from traditional institutions like corporations” (Li and Bernoff, 9).
  
• The Forrester US Interactive Marketing Forecast

Okay, okay, I get the rebuttal, these figures weren't even published at the time that Quelch and Harvard published the article. So... let's see what was available to us/him in an era so long, long ago in 2008:

• In TNS Media's 2007 Intelligence Reports, all media spend decreased from 2006 to 2007, with the exception of the Internet, which grew by 1% point
• MC Marketing Charts reports Nielsen data for 2007, with "Internet display advertising continued its growth leadership, increasing 15.9% in 2007 to $11.31 billion in expenditures" compared to "television media, full-year Network TV expenditures declined by 2.0% to $22.43 billion"
• Digital Marketing Guru, Mitch Joel publishes TV Viewing is Down As Internet Usage Continues to Rise? Not Exactly in November 2008. And although it appears that Mitch's post reveals Quelch's point... not exactly. Not exactly at all. Traditional media is fragmented, "DVR usage continues to rise and American's spent more than 6 hours per month watching TV that was time-shifted. On top of that 31% of those watching all of that TV were also online at the same time."

Quelch misses the mark with the following: "when economic hard times loom, we tend to retreat to our village," for a suggested marketing focus on family values. And I absolutely agree. But... coupled with the decrease in television advertising effectiveness, and more so, with what Anderson calls a fundamental marketing shift where "selling doesn't work" (The Longer Long Tail, 225), Quelch undermines the importance of technology to support his point. Quelch fails to mention how powerful social technologies are in "retreating" to the village. A village in which the consumer can now create (Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and the list goes on). And is it a coincidence that social media usage is growing rapidly amongst global economic chaos? Doubtful. Agreed, "uncertainty prompts us to stay home but also stay connected with family and friends". Yet, Anderson's "fragmentation of marketing" (225) and Joel's "fragmented media" are pieces of the puzzle that are missing in his suggestions. More attention to marketing plans are needed during the recession, more precision, more strategy, but not in the traditional media that focused upon with a disregard for the digital explosion.

I agree with the spirit of Quelch's article, though there are numerous factors omitted that would better reflect the current marketplace in which we all live. Quelch's major flaw lies in not discussing the elements of technology that are currently shaping communication. In the "new landscape of influence" shaped by technology (Anderson 235), consumers are connecting to each other in self-built online communities. People trust what those in their own personal networks say, not what a company is broadcasting as the message of the week. True, "successful companies do not abandon their marketing strategies in a recession, they adapt them" (Quelch). Unfortunately, there isn't any insight in how to best adapt such strategies in the midst of a recession amidst the groundswell - two prime opportunities for marketers and consumers to become best acquainted.

Starbucks & Nescafe - Counterproductive Nescafe Campaign?

So... Starbucks is Starbucks. Their brand is synonymous with luxury all over the world. Numerous books have been written regarding what Starbucks has done to create such strong brand equity with a commodity - my personal favorite The Starbucks Experience - regarding the brand (love it, or hate it), behind the coffee giant.

As the recession deepens, Starbucks is feeling the pain with an 8% decrease to $2.3B in the first quarter of 2009. Expenses were reduced to $120 Million while consumers become stingier with their discretionary income but still feeding their need for caffeine.

Combatting the ideas that their coffee is more expensive than it is worth, Starbucks unveiled a new campaign (part of the city wall poster seen above). CEO, Howard Schultz, discusses the Starbucks story - "It's not just coffee. It's Starbucks" here. Starbucks, Schultz asserts, will break outside of it's coffee bean shell. With the historic campaign (Starbucks is not an avid advertising company), Starbucks will focus on their overall experience, rather than the coffee itself.


Makes sense, in the middle of the recession, as consumers do not have the time, and quite frankly no one looks to brand names when they are on unsure of their job stability, to promote "Starbucks Via", a ready-brew, at a fraction of the cost, as an attempt to stay on top of the easy-to-self-make coffee drink capturing (possibly recapturing) market share lost to McCafe and cheaper coffee alternatives.

Taking a look at a concurrent coffee advertising campaign - Nescafe, on the other hand, is trying to capitalize on the Anti-Starbucks sentiment shared by numerous consumers. As a corporate conglomorate, Starbucks faces criticism for their "over-priced" coffee, labor issues, fair trade, real estate practices, et al. The Nescafe campaign, part of which can be seen in the photos above, is counterproductive.

As seen on many billboards, specifically in the Chicagoland area, their usage of "Starbucks Via" as the front runner of the text on their campaign, might be causing the opposite of their initial intent. Driving in my car, on the bus, walking my dogs, "Stabucks Via" is the first thing that I see. Capturing an audience that is mobile (as with most forms of OOH advertising), marketers and advertisers have a limited time to capture their audience. The message is completely lost amidst the Starbucks campaign itself, further fueling brand recognition for Starbucks. Arguably, "Starbucks Via" is more compelling than the Nescafe logo at the bottom of their ad.


Not the smartest move, Nescafe. The message makes sense, the Anti-Starbucks target makes sense. The media chosen is too expensive to share the platform with the competition. Nescafe is advertising for Starbucks. They are sharing their message with an organization that they are trying to combat. They are using precious marketing and advertising dollars in an economically sensitive time to further promote a brand they are advertising against...

now, it's all different - time to reinvent the business wheel ("a recession is a terrible thing to waste")

2 + 2 = 4.

That will never change. It was the same in 3000 BC as it now. Until the end of time, 2+2 will always equal 4.

Everything else, is fair game.

Law, medicine, and the only other highly regarded practices will remain with their fundamentals, but technology will change their practices. Innovation will be a continuum, but the fundamentals will always remain the same.

Business - as a society - has reached its all time low. It's 2009, we are in the greatest recession of all time. Pre-World War II, we had technology, but it never reached Ground Zero like it did during 2008-2009. And the fact of the matter, in 2009, we should have known better. We should have forecasted better. We saw the computer age before the 1929 recession saw it - we should have known something. But we didn't.

This is the time for innovation.

Business models have succeeded for years. Various business models. Pyramid schemes, corporate America, small business America, "sell a useful product, people will buy" mentality IS OVER.

Times have hit rock bottom. Digital is the wave of the future. The recession has made America weary of everything. Digital has made America immune to the messagings of the past.

It's done. Start over.

The modern day consumer is weary. He/She hates you. He/She doesn't want to be sold anything. He/She thinks that you are the corporate villain. You made this happen with your "big business" model that will trickle down to the common man.

You had no big idea. There was no palatte. There was no following. There was no traffic.

And if there was - modify it. Now.

2009- starts fresh. New minds. New ideas.

Ideas of the past, are that. Ideas of the past. And we see what they have produced. This mess.

Move past recession and depression and economic gloom and doom. Constantly change. Constantly innovate. Let the minds of the future roam.

December 2008 Riots – Mirror for the World

The violent riots that gripped Greece last December may act as a precursor of social uprisings for workers and employers globally – across party lines, age, culture, and socioeconomic background. Although the historic turbulences between Greek workers, union, and political government affiliations are very complex and deeply rooted in their respective culture and history, the global financial crisis raises the stakes for U.S. and global economies to re-examine the interdependence between government and workforce and recognize the social and volatile implications that can occur with the global economy in shambles. The recent uprising in Greece must serve as a warning for the rest of the world as everyone is currently affected...

... Ironically in a fit of unprecedented violence at the same Polytechnic University that saw the demise of the military junta in 1974, Greek labor strikes exploded with the shooting of the teenager last December. The culmination of the Greek government’s dissonance and inability to address the social and economic issues that plague the citizens exploded in 2008 to destroy the city of the ancestors of modern democracy. In the midst of social and economic downfall, the world watches in disbelief, and possibly, in disregard, “It’s tempting to dismiss this as a purely Greek affair that carries little significance to the outside world” (Kaplan 2008). Provactively, Kaplan warns, “Pay close attention to Greece; at a time of world-wide economic unheaval, it might eerily presage disturbances elsewhere in 2009.” With the United States falling into a deeper financial recession, the global economic crisis is cancerously making its way throughout the world. Issues of education, unemployment, governmental budget deficits in the billions of dollars, threatened pension funds (decreasing 401K values for us Americans) and all around uncertainty and cycnism of and for the future – we can only hope that the Greeks can teach us something else before it is too late.


*For the full article and citations, please contact me directly.

Recession, Baby.

I don't know if the news has hit the wire yet, but we're in a rece(depre)ssion. AH!
Take cover.


Slumdog Millionaire cleaned house at the Oscars for 2008. In a time where we need hope, where the news continuously reinforces the idea/fact that the economy ain't so hot, layoffs are occuring by the hundreds of thousands, every job board is offering "help" for jobseekers (they are really selling something to someone), companies are rethinking their corporate goals and evaluating everything that they spend any money on - the world fell in love with Jamal Malik, the chaiwala from Mumbai.

Slumdog, underdog, chaiwala, we rooted for Jamal to win it big. Less because we just wanted someone from the slums to be a Millionaire - but because he was transparent. He played the game by the rules, he took some calculated risks, and he deserved it.

Do the C-levels on Wall Street? Do the car companies? Does John Doe across the street getting foreclosure assistance?

Who knows (my guess is not).

For now, we have the hope from the slumdog, the chaiwala. Play by the rules and you'll get tortured - But the million is yours.

I hate to say it, but reality isn't so promising, or so rewarding.