Comments for JPL

Comment on Social Media Use: For the U.S. Air Force it’s a Benefit, not a Threat by John Walker

John Walker — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 14:24:38 +0000

Paul,

Thanks for your comment. I have to say that I have been very pleasantly surprised by how forward thinking the Air Force appears to be regarding social media. A colleague commented to me that if there is any organization that would have a strong argument for locking down communications by its staff, it would be the Air Force. However, you have taken the opposite approach. Very interesting.
John

Comment on Social Media Use: For the U.S. Air Force it’s a Benefit, not a Threat by Paul Bove

Paul Bove — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 13:51:47 +0000

John, thanks for recognizing the strides we’ve made in embracing social media at the Air Force. It’s been a challenge, especially since many of the websites were blocked from our computers until just a couple months ago. But as you mentioned, if we don’t allow the Airmen to tell the story, somebody else will. Education is key to ensuring they do it safely. There is an updated version to the social media guide (just a few edits and updated stats) located here: http://www.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-091210-043.pdf.

Again, thanks.
Paul F. Bove, Social Media Strategist
Air Force Public Affairs Agency

Comment on The Brand Architecture Dilemma by Michael Deiner

Michael Deiner — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 14:40:05 +0000

Rene, yes, it would be great to have the budget and resources (time included) Sony, Apple or Virgin have to enable best practice options. But as you indicated, this is not possible for many businesses. Thanks for your input and kind words.

Comment on The Brand Architecture Dilemma by Rene Power

Rene Power — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 21:14:55 +0000

Interesting blog. Personally, I think taking the house of brands approach demands time, resource and budget investment to support them, which is not possible for most businesses with multiple product lines to do well.

It is perhaps easier to build a single unifying brand and then over time extend. When you buy Sony, Apple or Virgin you know what you are buying into.

Keep up the good work and ignore the detractors.

Comment on The Brand Architecture Dilemma by Michael Deiner

Michael Deiner — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 21:04:59 +0000

Harry, thanks for your feedback. I believe you and I are on the same page. I have been reading multiple blog posts and articles lately claiming one method over another. Making those blanket statements or decisions without researching the multiple variables can be very dangerous for any organization. While some general claims can be made on either method, a solid brand architecture requires research and a calculated strategy that directly aligns to your business objectives and core brand.

Comment on The Brand Architecture Dilemma by Harry Cornelius

Harry Cornelius — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 01:55:52 +0000

These kind of questions are so abstract that they don’t make that much sense.

While there are general tendencies (I hesitate to call them rules), it is always a matter of context as to what works best. There are so many different strategic and marketplace considerations that it is hard to draw general conclusions. To be sure, a branded house is more “efficient” there a many many areas when this isn;t the best strategy. . For example, when you want to sell a product line, not having a corporate brand stuck to it can make it easier. Or in beer marketing, having a craft brewer endorsed by its mega-corporate owner would turn off the target market.

What one can do is map the different types of conditions where one model works better than another. This structural map would be of use… a general question is only thougth provoking

Comment on Differentiation: It’s not just being different by Michael Deiner

Michael Deiner — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 20:18:51 +0000

Patience – Thank you for your thoughts and intriguing question. You made me stop and think and I love when that happens! I meant the quotes to be taken at face value as you indicated. I wanted to draw attention to those two words in a way that shows how they are mutually inclusive of each other. Simple being different is not enough. You must be different and relevant to build a meaningful brand connection. Thanks again, Mike

Comment on A Digital Marketer’s Perspective of China by Joe Tertel

Joe Tertel — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 17:29:28 +0000

Here's an interesting article from Wired Magazine that complements some of my perspectives on Chinese technology. Chinese pirates are tech's new innovators

Comment on Differentiation: It’s not just being different by Patience Merriman

Patience Merriman — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 20:05:30 +0000

A well-written post — the basics don’t change!

I do have one question for you, though. If you dropped the quote marks around the words “different” and “relevant” would the meaning of your message change in any way? I know that scare quotes have a function — alerting readers that the word or phrase within may not mean what we think. But in this case I think maybe you DID mean those words to be taken at face value. Am I right or wrong?

Comment on Turning Change into Evolution by Michael Deiner

Michael Deiner — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:21:14 +0000

Mike Britt – I couldn’t agree more. In addition, Evolving is less expensive than change.