While updating Informing Arts’ website I was reminded, the hard way, of the need to keep digital brand assets current. We stumbled on issues relating to trademark renewals and obsolete digital file formats. Even strategic marketers like me can overlook details like how current are your brand assets — can you still make changes with existing software tools?

While neither issue is life threatening, dealing with brand asset “hygiene” issues has consumed time and money better spent on more productive activities. Although I do confess to having fun with the designer and getting my hands dirty with Adobe Creative Suite 4… Informing Arts’ revised site is not quite ready to “go live,” but it’s imminent.

The Backstory: Informing Arts Brand

A top-notch designer created Informing Arts’ corporate logo and business papers in 1997, and her design strategy has served us well since then. A former Aldus/Adobe designer, she now leads the creative team at PopCap Games. No doubt the quality of her work enabled us to go years without having to update our brand identity, except for minor tweaks to adjust from print to web. We printed reams of business papers, and now that most communications are electronic, we still have lots left in inventory! Only the business cards need refreshing.

Unfortunately, the software tool used to create Informing Arts’ corporate identity, FreeHand, is no longer on the market. Time has marched on, and arch-rival Adobe Illustrator CS4 can no longer open our 10-year-old FreeHand files. During the decade since our design was done, Adobe acquired Macromedia which had acquired FreeHand from Aldus and the original designers of the software. It’s been years since Adobe updated FreeHand, a lingering death, I’d guess…

So I had to hire a designer to recreate the corporate identify files, to fix the consequences of imperfect file conversions. Had we stayed up-to-date with version changes in file formats, some of these costs might have been avoided. Luckily we had some ancient EPS and TIFF files to build upon.

Fast Forward to 2010

Having said that, I chose to take advantage of this file update project to change fonts for Informing Arts’ logotype and business papers (in case we ever need to reprint them!)

The original design specified Berthold Garamond, a typeface which is very elegant, with delicate ascenders and descenders. These details look fabulous on commercially printed materials, or when reproduced on a high-res laser printer.

But all that finesse disappears on most computer screens, let alone mobile devices. We’d struggled for years when we had to insert a small rendition of the logo in an Office doc or a web file. So it was time to switch to a typeface that remained elegant and legible even when displayed on lower res screens and printers. We chose Cronos Pro.

And here are the results: Informing Arts’ revised mark, displaying the company name in Cronos Pro Subhead.

Lessons Learned

One of the interesting lessons we learned along the way was the reminder about documenting all those last-minute design decisions, like exactly what Pantone color did the printer end up using… Our files called the color swatch “goldenrod.” Not a PMS spec, and not a color that has a consistent meaning across PC and Mac platforms, to say the least. My files did not contain written records of those final decisions, so we were having to make guesses about color choices and color ramp details.

We were also reminded that there were visual effects the commercial printer could achieve (in terms of a very subtle color ramp) that are still out of reach digitally.  Or at least, out of reach digitally for those of us not blessed with Apple-size creative budgets.

Net net: a project we thought would take an hour or two consumed a day of a designer’s time plus half a day of my time. And when you pay by the hour for an experienced designer, the cost is comparable to what you’d spend on a new PC. Not huge in the grand scheme of things, but definitely a reminder to stay current with file formats!

Are your partners tarnishing your brand? Do you even know?

This story concerns a good brand that risks dilution and negative word-of-mouth, due to poorly trained partners who interact directly with the brand’s consumers.

Alaska Airlines: Great Brand, But Partners Need Training

Last week I flew home from Boston’s Logan Airport via Alaska Airlines. The flight was fine, but the check-in process raised questions about the airline’s operational competence. Or at the very least, its investment in training and agent-support systems. I’ve flown the Boston-Seattle route numerous times since Alaska started serving the Boston community, but last week marked a new low point.

As a marketer, the experience left me wondering if Alaska is paying enough attention to all its brand touch points, especially front-line agents with direct passenger contact — away from the airline’s home base. Last week’s impressions were formed by people not employed by Alaska Airlines, but few passengers were aware of that distinction.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m a big fan of Alaska, but the check-in experience at Logan reflects badly on their brand. It’s a huge contrast to how well they’ve streamlined the check-in process at SeaTac, their home base. Night and day, you might say…

Fortunately, we arrived at Logan Airport 2 hours before our flight. We hoped to have oodles of extra time: enough for a quick bite at Legal Seafood before boarding our flight.

I’d completed the web check-in process 24 hours earlier, so I just needed someone to handle the baggage logistics, security, and validate my preprinted boarding pass. My friend’s status was more risky. The web check-in service refused to assign her seat, so she needed an agent’s help with the boarding pass and seat assignment.

Unfortunately for us and the Portland passengers in line behind us, the ticketing agents representing Alaska in Boston were poorly trained. This meant that each passenger’s check-in experience was time consuming, frustrating, and potentially incomplete. (The agent was unable to complete my friend’s seat assignment process, so had to send her to the gate with a stand-by status. Goodbye, Legal Seafood…)

All 3 agents appeared uncomfortable with Alaska’s systems and procedures for routine activities: charging for overweight bags, assigning seats, or identifying passengers with prepaid bag fees versus those who still owed money. My agent erroneously stuck Portland tags on my luggage, rather than SEA. Good thing I noticed her mistake before my bags disappeared down the conveyor belt!

Worst of all, the agent serving passengers in the First Class and MVP queue was a newbie. Her first day on the job (or at least, her first day with Alaska’s systems and processes). Her transactions took about 15 minutes to complete. She often sought help from one or both of the other agents to complete a transaction. Which meant that no one else was served while all 3 agents tried to complete a single passenger’s check-in transaction.

In the span of 15-20 minutes we watched those 3 agents check in (with varying degrees of success) just a handful of parties. Needless to say, passenger frustration mounted with every minute that passed. As all could see, the nearby security queue was nerve-wrackingly long. Add in transit time to the gate: another 10-15 minutes… Heaven help the passengers who didn’t leave enough time for all the airport clearance procedures.

Not Alaska’s Fault?

In Alaska’s defense the Boston-based agents handling the check-in process were not Alaska employees; they worked for Alaska’s local partner airline. But most of the passengers did not recognize that difference, and could have cared less. As a result I’m sure everyone simply assumed that Alaska’s gate agents are poorly trained, or that the rush to cut costs comes at the expense of passenger experience.

Until a year ago or so, Alaska partnered with a different airline in Boston for the ticketing and check-in process. Their former partner’s check-in process was competent, albeit less friendly and less speedy than what you generally experience in Seattle.

Why has it taken so long to train the new partner’s gate ticketing agents in Alaska’s processes and systems? Is the issue a lack of in-service training, a union gotcha – or is there a big usability and UX challenge that Alaska needs to tackle on behalf of its customer-facing representatives?

Yes, Alaska’s pilots and flight attendants are warm and friendly as always. But in the context of brand touch points, they’re having to work extra hard to overcome the poor impressions created by ill-trained partners who deliver sub-par check-in experiences.

Net net: if you rely on partners for key customer-facing touch points, make sure to equip your partners with everything they need to reinforce your brand’s value prop and key principles. And pay attention to the impressions they create in the minds of your customers.

I was on the phone yesterday catching up with a friend who runs a boutique market research agency in the Silicon Valley. She was running errands at the end of her workday, and was picking up her all-in-one HP printer from the repair shop when I called. This was at least the third or fourth time she’s had to take the printer in for repair, due to its “horrendous paper jams,” she told me. She’s lost all patience with the beast.

She was so frustrated with her failing printer that our business conversation got diverted into HP printer bashing. We started by talking about how much we used to love the laser printers that HP made in the 1990’s. Both of our firms had HP printers back then, printers that produced great quality prints and operated reliably for over a decade. She’s now about ready to throw her 3- or 4-year old all-in-one into a dumpster.

When she finished venting about her HP printer, I complained about the HP LaserJet P2055dn that I bought just 6 months ago. It prints OK, but not as well as I’d like, but that’s not my primary issue. (My prior LaserJet printed better, even as it aged.)

This LaserJet suffers from communication errors with my Macs; jobs disappear into the ether. Despite 128MB of RAM, it prints S – L – O – W – L – Y. Heaven help me if I have to print a multi-page document from the web. Worse yet, anything that includes a barcode — like a boarding pass, a USPS shipping label, or an event ticket. Yesterday’s 2-page ticket (with a bar code) took almost 30 minutes before the first page came out of the printer. Just think of how that log-jammed everything else in the queue. Boarding passes usually take 5-10 minutes to print… It makes me grit my teeth when I think about HP’s claim that the first page prints out in <x> seconds. Yeah, right.

Unfortunately, I bought a new HP-branded toner cartridge at the time I got the printer: an investment of over $160. The cartridge is unused, but it’s now time to replace the toner. Thinking about the sunk cost in that cartridge and its value in proportion to the printer’s price is the only thing that’s keeping me from throwing out my new printer just like my friend. The cartridge is specific to the printer, so if I dispose of the printer, the toner is money down the drain. (The environmentalist in me cringes at the thought of disposing of a printer when it’s not even a year old.)

So my friend is now actively shopping for a replacement printer, and tells me she’ll never consider an HP printer again.

I’ll probably use up my toner cartridge, and then go shopping myself. Whether HP printers will be on my next shopping list is unlikely, unless something miraculous happens to improve the printer driver before the new toner cartridge gets used up. If web pages could print in seconds I’d be happier, but knowing I’m facing a minimum 5-minute wait before the first page comes out of the printer is a source of huge frustration, day after day… It’s like a toothache that never goes away.

So here we have two small business owners actively disenchanted with our HP printers, and talking to each other about what the quality decline must be doing to HP’s printer brand. And the time we’re both wasting as a result: she with trips to the repair guy in Los Altos, me with those unbearable delays before the first page comes out of the printer.

What makes this story so disheartening is that both of us worked for HP earlier in our careers. As former employees (and former shareholders), we’d like to feel better about the brand. My friend might even have played a role on the laser printer marketing team back in the 1980’s.

So how did HP lose its way?

I suspect that HP spent so much time focusing on driving profits with all those printer consumables that they took their eye off the ball when it was time to ensure quality standards on the printers themselves…

The old HP, the one we worked for, used to obsess about quality standards. It used to be an inside joke among employees: the size of the gap between HP products’ actual performance and the modest claims that the company would make within advertising or marketing materials. I guess the new HP is different.

If only they offered a money-back guarantee for the people they’ve disenchanted… The results might send a financial signal that it’s time to start putting a higher priority on quality for devices whose life cycles should last years.

I love strolling and window shopping in Paris. There’s a special mystique that window dressers in Paris employ that brand teams and marketers everywhere would do well to emulate.

Shop windows in Paris do a wonderful job of conveying the idea of what’s being sold — of conveying the brand essence, helping you envision how you might benefit from the products or services on offer. For a moment or two, you’re experiencing the dream, fantasizing about how you might look better, happier, healthier or whatever, based on the nature of what’s being presented for your delectation…

The most powerful windows don’t crowd the display area with a representative sampling of everything inside the store (as you sometimes see in America). This is not a functional or utilitarian approach to marketing what the merchant has on offer.

The power of simplicity. I love the idea — but it’s so hard to put into practice, given all the factions and stakeholders that marketers must contend with.

This must be a painful time to be a marketer at Dell Computer. Dell has just introduced a svelte, feature-packed premium laptop aimed at execs, status seekers and “impression makers.” Thanks to their PR team (or influencer relations), Dell secured a high visibility blog posting at the NY Times discussing the product and its aspirational positioning. Unfortunately, it backfired.

Customer Dissatisfaction Can Be Toxic

The blog post has already triggered over a hundred comments, largely negative – some virulently so. Here’s a sample comment, triggered by customer dissatisfaction:

All that matters to me is that after years of being a loyal Dell customer I have decided to NEVER purchase another computer from them again. Their customer service is now the most horrifying experience a consumer can ever fear to encounter.

And several others, in the same vein:

Buy Dell at your own peril.

I agree with the other Dell bashers, they make garbage hardware and their support is horrendous.

If I worked for Dell, this comment would make me cringe – and want to mandate that the people responsible for customer service take on the mission to overhaul the company’s reputation, based on actions and performance:

Dell has the worst customer service I have ever encountered in a company, and that is saying a lot. I used to be a loyal customer, having purchased dozens of computers, servers and laptops from them. Recently I had an experience so tortured and kafkaesque that I vowed never to give them my money again. I use Macs and PCs, and feel that the Mac hype is overblown (they don’t work all the time either). But compared to Dell, any other PC would be a joy.

Many of the comments say, paraphrased, “For that price, get a Mac.” The comments offer lots of reasons why. (Yes, the Mac cultists are out in force…)

All of the comments above were made in response to the NY Times blog post.

So What Happened? Why the Backlash?

The first reason for the negativity is a direct consequence of many years of Dell’s disappointing customers. People in the blog are writing from their own personal experience; anger and disappointment fuel their comments.

But the subtler reason is linked to brand strategy and the positions that Dell and Apple occupy in people’s minds.

Dell’s attempt to claim the premium, lust-worthy laptop positioning and thereby  challenge Apple’s MacBook Pro ran afoul of “brand permission” space. Customers are unwilling to grant permission to Dell to move into a radically different positioning, given what they know and believe about the Dell brand and the competitive environment.

Customers do not find Dell’s aspirational positioning credible, given Dell’s long-term (and very successful) stance as a utilitarian value leader. Their personal experience with the brand and the way the company relates to its customers reinforces the strength of their convictions.

Customers ridicule the idea that a Dell-branded product will appeal to status seekers, or impress people who think of themselves as “impression makers.” Here’s a comment that makes this point crystal clear – Dell is far from enjoying premium “badge” status:

This is the most impressive laptop you can buy… from Dell. I’d choose any brand but Dell to impress. Dell has positioned itself as the brand every brainless IT department buys every single one of their crummy locked-down computers from to run five year old software on, and I congratulate them on their success. However, I would never associate that brand with anything that is remotely impressive or individual. They’re the Denny’s of the computer world.

What compounds Dell’s situation is that customers so strongly believe Apple’s dominance of the most desirable, high-performance positioning that they take up arms to fend off challengers to Apple’s position. For example:

Macs are brilliantly designed, have the BEST OS as noted by virtually all credible experts, has the highest consumer satisfaction levels, by far, as well as the highest ratings for ease of use, reliability, customer service, etc., so why would you buy anything else?

How Has Dell Responded?

Social media influencers, take note. Dell is probably listening to these comments, but has no visible presence (at least not in the first two pages’ worth of comments) in this conversation. Given the negative tone of this debate, is that the optimal social media strategy?

How many times have your executives (or your clients’ executives) directed you to focus on the “quick wins,” the quick fixes, or go for the “silver bullets?”

Yet as B2B marketing experts know, it takes patience to build a trusted brand. Marketo asserts in their blog, Modern B2B Marketing,

It is not uncommon for a prospect to read a vendor’s blog for 6 months or even longer before engaging that vendor, or for a lead to require 7 or 8 marketing touches before being sales ready.

And that just starts the process of turning opportunities into customers… The more that’s at stake, the longer the sales cycle.

How Patient Brands Behave

Patient brands allow customers to set their own pace and timeframe to work through their learning and decision making process.

Patient brands invest in active listening to learn what’s on people’s minds or uncover misperceptions that they must address over time. They communicate authentically, interact and respond knowledgeably with customers and prospects who want to engage with the brand. They plant seeds that flower as online communities. They fertilize and provide good growing conditions for those communities.

They encourage consistency in policies and employee behavior.

They realize that marketplaces are made up of people and organizations; and recognize that people have memories and feelings. They understand that strategic moves can have lasting consequences so they avoid erratic behavior or strategies “du jour.”

The Flip Side: A Parable

A friend reminded me the other day of what can happen when executive teams make major changes to their channel model, such as exiting the SMB market and dropping their partners. Later, when business conditions change and they want to re-enter that market, they don’t understand why their field or partner organization are so challenged in recruiting good partners. They don’t understand why partners no longer want to do business with this brand.

Here’s a story of a Silicon Valley brand…

My friend worked for what was once an admired brand in a handheld device category, a former innovator. She and her team had spent at least 2 years developing the partner model, building out the partner programs, and recruiting solid partners with sound businesses and a good customer base within the SMB sector.

One day the executive team at her company decided that the consumer market was more appealing, so they disbanded the partner team and eliminated (or de-invested in) their partner programs. Not surprisingly, sales to SMB customers declined precipitously.

A year or so later, when consumer sales failed to materialize and customer acquisition costs had reduced operating margins, the execs decided to resume their focus on SMB customers and partner-based sales. They looked around, and lo and behold, there was no institutional memory, no understanding of KSFs for leveraged sales to SMB customers – their experienced talent had left the company.

Unfortunately, both SMB customers and the partners who focused on that sector of the B2B market remembered all too well this brand’s willingness to abandon them. No matter how enthusiastic the company’s new hires, they could not overcome the marketplace’s memory. The brand had demonstrated its untrustworthiness.

The brand never recovered, and it’s in the process of disappearing from the market.

I love the idea of conversational marketing, and applaud the innovators who are trying to figure out more scalable ways to put it into action. A tweet today from Jeremiah Owyang led me to an interesting new offering from marketing pundit Seth Godin, one that puts brands in a social media context.

A Provocative Idea

Agent provocateur Seth Godin has just stirred up the pot with his new offering, Brands in Public. His intent is to provide a place where brands can “coordinate and organize the conversation” about the brand: the good, the bad and the ugly.

If his concept takes off, brands will appear within a public exchange, hosted by his company, Squidoo. Feeds from multiple sources of user-generated content will be aggregated and organized in real time – resulting in a semi-automated brand portal. The brand owner will have the opportunity to provide commentary, clarification, rebuttals, etc.

The key point here is that the consumers own the conversation; the brand’s role is to respond or provide context for interpretation.

As Seth explains in the introductory blog post,

…It’s not behind your firewall and not something that has to fit into the larger über-corporate strategy. More like a tradeshow and less like your home page. It’s in public. It’s simply a place for your brand to see and be seen, to organize and to respond.

The Devil Is in the Details

I like the concept, but believe adoption will hinge upon the quality of the execution. If the feeds are 100% programmatic, I predict the brand exchange will wither away due to problems with the signal-to-noise ration – especially for brands whose names are common terms, like Apple or Orange.

I checked out the Apple brand page. There are some interesting links and user comments, but also a lot of irrelevant tweets about apple pie recipes, pork and apple dinners, etc. (So much so that I’m unlikely to check out that page again – even though I am a long-time Apple enthusiast.)

Buried in all the UGC are some rough diamonds, but you’ve got to do a lot of sifting to find the gems. How many people are willing to expend the energy?

Results were slightly better with SAP’s brand page, where the conflict with common terminology is less of an issue.

My experience with clients reinforces my notion that the signal-to-noise ratio is a critical success factor, even for brands that just want to monitor the conversations.

As a case in point: One of my clients has already spent weeks with the help of an analyst team to ensure that their listening platform, provided by TNS Cymfony, correctly distinguishes the relevant user content from the false matches. Like Apple my client’s brand name comprises common English words, so false matches are frequent. It’s taken a lot of fine-tuning to weed out the chaff.

For the Squidoo service to take off, I believe there needs to be a similar intelligent filtering mechanism – one that is automated for scalability’s sake. Brand owners will need to weigh in to help fine-tune the filtering mechanism.

Otherwise the aggregated content is compelling neither for brand enthusiasts nor brand owners. And thus a potentially good concept will not succeed.

Good luck, Squidoo. I hope you can solve the signal-to-noise ratio.

These days it’s cool for companies to want to emulate Apple. But it’s harder than it looks.

Case in point: This month’s Fast Company features Amazon’s Jeff Bezos pursuing his “inner Apple” as the cover story. Many articles and case studies have been written in an attempt to illuminate the secrets behind Apple’s continuing success. Pundits pontificate about Apple’s “secret sauce.” CEOs tell the troops to “get creative – innovate like Apple.”

So what’s behind this quest to imitate Apple? Mass media’s 25-year love affair with Apple? Apple’s stock performance? Its brand cachet? Ubiquitous  iPods, iPhones and white ear buds? C-level execs wanting global celebrity status like that of Steve Jobs or former Apple exec Guy Kawasaki? Today’s fad of PowerPoint bashing? The pursuit of cool?

I’m amazed at how often the “Apple wannabe phenomenon” crops up in the media, client engagements, cocktail conversations, and so on. I’m equally amazed at how unrealistic people are about what it takes to behave like Apple.

It’s Not Easy to Be Cool

From what I’ve seen, most business leaders’ desire to emulate Apple is wishful thinking. Their dreams cannot be realized because they are not supported by:

• a clear strategic intent linked to a disciplined, specific and actionable plan
• a favorable corporate culture
• a willingness to invest in change management to get from today’s pedestrian reality (whatever that might be) to Apple-like coolness
• holistic product planning that proceeds from the identified customers’ desired experience goals as a non-negotiable starting point
• or any real understanding of what’s required to embrace design as a strategic pillar of the essential corporate/brand strategy.

I call this the “CEO free lunch syndrome” – meaning they want it, but don’t have any intention of paying for it. Just like the mythical free lunch, execs who pursue this course are unlikely to make any real progress on their quest to emulate what’s best about Apple.

Embracing your “inner Apple.” It’s not just a question of hiring some brilliant interaction designers, award-winning agencies,  industrial designers or design strategists. Dressing in black turtlenecks and jeans; or dropping PowerPoint in favor of Apple Keynote and a slavish adherence to the principles of  “presentation zen.”

It’s Gotta Be Baked In – Part of Corporate DNA

My perspectives on Apple are based on a long history of working together in a variety of roles: employee, partner, customer,  service provider, and former shareholder.

So what does this perspective tell me?

It’s Hard to Imitate Apple

Apple’s competitive positioning and brand associations are based on tough-to-emulate qualities that take years to put into practice. Things like:

• employee indoctrination, on-boarding, corporate values – a corporate mantra – and cult-like objects to inspire devotion and reinforce commitment
• management-backed values  and recognition systems that support and reinforce behavior on the part of every employee to be consistent with corporate brand principles
• hiring and retention practices that attract and keep the right people on board (or within reach of Apple’s influence ecosystem)
• a culture that actively discourages mediocrity, celebrates heroic actions, and rewards risk taking without unduly punishing fast failures (as long as the mistakes lead to fast learning)

It’s Expensive to Imitate Apple

Even if you ignore Apple’s investment in highly designed and world-class ads, collateral, web presence – or “product as hero” photos that romance the brand (I’ve heard they spend upwards of $100K on the iconic photographs that will appear everywhere.) – Apple is committed to a highly disciplined approach that’s almost impossible to imitate. For example:

• an obsessive attention to detail, quality workmanship, and design principles focused on just the essentials (see story below)
• “tough love” criticism to prevent mediocrity, or good-enough-but-not-great ideas and products from creeping into the product or brand portfolio
• ruthless willingness to prune the product portfolio to just the right set of products and offers (no more SKU creep)
• willingness to delay product ship dates (or increase last-minute development costs) to ensure that new products adhere to design standards and Apple brand principles – no compromise
• a web presence and design philosophy that are so consistent you’d recognize them as coming from Apple even if the name and logos were removed
• willingness to vest decision making authority in a small number of design czars (or even a design dictator like Steve Jobs), rather than compromise the clarity of the design vision by trying to reach consensus across a broad constituency
• willingness and ability to develop design personas, supporting use cases and experience/interaction designs that will ensure customer delight – tactics that deliver on the strategy

Here are a few stories to illustrate my points.

Some Stories

The Cult of Apple – Internal evangelism

When I worked there, indoctrination into the cult of Apple began on Day One, with an all-day orientation that celebrated the myths and legends of the then-young company. (Even back then I wondered if I were getting brainwashed…) Throughout my 5 years as an employee, we were showered with tchotchkes, war stories, presentations, internal publications and artifacts that reinforced brand values and design principles.

Besides the official corporate values, there were “words to live by” and corporate mantras. Things like:

The journey is the reward.

And:

Apple will change the way people work, learn, live and play.

We reinforced these beliefs and values in everything we did, celebrated, talked about – or evangelized to partners and other stakeholders.

It’s the only employee badge I’ve never thrown away.

External Evangelism

Guy Kawasaki became famous after publishing the ideas he pioneered while leading Apple’s externally facing “Evangelism” team – a practice that Microsoft later borrowed? stole? “embraced and extended?” from Apple. Apple actively promulgated its beliefs and values, and required adherence from any partner whose offering would complete the value proposition to be delivered to the end-customer. (When I was there, this was a condition of participation in joint campaigns and promotions.)

More recently, I’ve heard stories from friends and family members who worked for AT&T during the launch and roll-out of Apple’s iPhone on the AT&T  network. To say there was culture clash between the two companies would be an understatement (based on the war stories I’ve heard via the local grapevine).

A major source of friction was Apple’s relentless insistence on owning the consumer’s online experience: people activating their first iPhone, or transferring their mobile number from another carrier. Apple didn’t want this step – a critical first impression — to be just another same-old/same-old AT&T activation experience. The problem for AT&T was that Apple’s desired online experience didn’t mesh nicely with the legacy back-end systems that got consumers up and running on AT&T’s subscriber network. Even so, despite enormous technical and scalability challenges, Apple prevailed.

The Design Czar

Most people have heard or read stories about Steve Jobs’ direct and hands-on involvement in customer-facing design decisions. But I’ve heard a story that’s really telling: his obsessive attention to design detail even for things that are “under the hood,” less likely to be visible to the casual observer or product reviewer.

I heard this story from a design principal for a Bay Area firm, who was in the room with Steve Jobs and Jonathan Ivey when this event occurred.

Apple was nearing design completion for one of its high-end Mac powerhouses – the expandable silver tower computers that are purchased by Hollywood studios, animators, design professionals, game developers, and Apple enthusiasts who aren’t budget constrained.

According to my source, Steve opened up the cover, looked at the board layouts and the design of the expansion chassis, and announced they weren’t good enough. He insisted that what was under the cover had to be just as beautiful (and functionally elegant) as what appeared on the outside of the product. Ease of use and design elegance – as applied to ease of maintenance by the Mac owner – had to match Apple’s vaunted UI standards for software usability. The design execs were sent back to their teams, and told to get it right. Apple delayed the product launch until the design principles and quality standards were achieved.

There’s a similar story about a last-minute design decision to replace the glass on the first iPhone to ensure it would be best-in-class, optical quality.

A related story – learning from design archetypes:

When I was working for Apple in the early days, one of Apple’s buildings on Mariani Drive proudly featured a black BMW motorcycle and a Bosendorfer piano in its main lobby. Why? They were held up as the design exemplars — illustrating the perfect balance between form and function. We all knew what they represented.

My Apple Credentials

Starting in 1983:

• partnering with Apple to develop and promote software solutions for Apple II, III, Lisa and Mac 128K (VisiCorp – 2⁺ years)
• playing a key role on the early Macintosh business marketing team in Cupertino (Apple employee – 5 years)
• partnering with Apple to further the franchise for creative/media professionals(Aldus/Adobe – 4 years)
• writing an early (co-branded) white paper on the Internet that Apple published and distributed around the world (1996, Informing Arts)
• being a loyal Apple customer since 1990 or so, and a Mac user since 1984.

I can’t claim to have current insights into Apple’s operating philosophies, but based on their observable behavior, I doubt they have materially changed.

My final point: if you want to emulate Apple, look below the surface and think carefully about whether you’re willing and able to commit to the required transformation. Let alone, fund it.

Earlier I blogged on the purpose of a business and the problems that can arise when organizations lack a clear sense of purpose, or when they define success narrowly in financial (shareholder-centric) terms. Today’s post focuses on business purpose and its links to corporate brand strategy.

In the context of brand strategy, purpose energizes the organization’s “heart” — the intersection of corporate strategy, the organization’s shared values, and its fundamental reason for being. Purpose is the “zen of the brand,” in companies wise enough to define and be guided by a clear sense of corporate purpose.

Purpose as the Essence of Corporate Identity

Purpose animates the brand, infuses it with meaning, shapes and inspires the motivations of employees. When employees identify with the organization’s purpose, when it gives meaning to their work, customers benefit.  The brand promise will be grounded in something meaningful and enduring – something that should outlast the cast of characters who lead the organization at any given point in time.

For the world’s best-loved brands, employees who closely self-identify with the purpose become passionate brand evangelists; the company, its products and the people behind them inspire cult-like loyalty among the customer base.

Among yoga aficionados, Lululemon, a designer and retailer of high-end yoga gear, comes to mind. Nordstrom was once like this, as was BMW.

Apple was like this in the early days, when I worked on their marketing team. It’s painful to leave a job with a company that’s infused with a strong sense of purpose, particularly when your self-identity gets intertwined with the company’s mission. When you leave an organization like that and end up working in “normal,” run-of-the-mill companies, it can feel like Paradise Lost… Nothing is ever quite the same.

Beyond the “cult of Steve,” beyond its “cool factor,” one of the reasons why the Apple brand has had such powerful resonance among global consumers is the lasting power of its guiding purpose – and its enduring impact on two generations of Apple employees. Despite occasional missteps, Apple has enjoyed a long tradition of delighting its customers.

A clear and meaningful purpose, one that inspires employees to do their very best, can be a source of long-term competitive advantage, even when product generations come and go. This has certainly been the case for the core Disney brand.

If you want a more academic rationale for this premise, check out Richard Ellsworth’s Leading with Purpose, a well-researched book on the subject of corporate purpose and its impact on corporate performance.