For years  I have been urging clients to think in terms of total brand experience when approaching their marketing efforts.  Some rolled their eyes, others glazed over, but a few took heed.

Allow me to share my most recent experience with Fossil Jewelry/Watches and how in just a few moments I turned from a brand advocate to a brand basher.

It started with a broken watchband. A small pin had broken and the band separated into two pieces.  When I purchased the watch, the sales associate had sized the band right there at the counter and had specific knowledge as to what to do, how to do it, and the necessary tools and parts to accomplish the task.

I returned to the establishment with the separated watchband and requested that the pin be replaced. I was informed that the requested repair could only be accomplished by returning the watch with separated watchband to the factory.  I conveyed to the sales associate that when the watch was purchased, the band was adjusted right at this counter,  so why did it have to be returned the factory for such a minor repair? That's just the way it is,  said the sales associate  as she pushed a do-it-yourself repair form in my direction. In addition, I was told the repair would cost $35.00 and take six weeks to accomplish.

As the original price of the watch in question was under $100.00, I was reluctant to consent to a repair fee costing one-third of a new watch. I thanked the associate, picked up my broken watchband and proceeded to a neighborhood jeweler. Upon presenting the problem with the band to the jeweler, she whisked the watchband to the back room and returned a few moments later with a new pin in place and the band repaired – NO CHARGE.

Which establishment gained a customer for life and which one lost one?

I’m amazed when large companies spend millions on branding, marketing, web technology, and social media, yet neglect to train their front line representatives on what it takes to provide a positive brand experience.

Lately, I’ve noticed people referring to poor customer service, sloppy work or inferior products as good enough. Good enough for what?

To pass as an acceptable standard?

To fulfill the need on a temporary basis?

To fall short of the desired result?

Or perhaps good enough has become the measuring stick for the amount we are willing to spend to get the job done.

When did we start to accept good enough as a substitute for quality?

From my perspective, it started with the economic melt down in 2008. Cutting back and putting off tasks that required capital because we were scared about the future.  This trickled down the food chain, resulting in employee layoffs and failed businesses.

"Get it done for less" became the rallying cry for getting the job done. Well, getting it done for less also means turning whatever  "it" is into a commodity. And we know that commodities are the domains of the low cost producer.

Low cost producers make lots of whatever it is -- cheaply. Yes, you have to serve yourself, educate yourself, hope it accomplishes the task at hand and if it's not exactly what you want, but it's close, it's good enough.

Well here is the shocker – good enough  does not build brand loyalty.  Brand loyalty is built on exceeding customer expectations and providing a positive brand experience at every touchpoint.

Brand loyalty is based on exceptional service, quality products, understanding the individual customer's needs, and delivering it in such a way that builds relationships.

With the passing of Steve Jobs, I’m reminded how Apple is the best example of delivering a positive brand experience through their technology, product design, retail stores and website.

"...the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do... Don't settle."   Steve Jobs

Over the last several months the Wall Street Journal has published What They Know, a series of five articles examining the personal data that web companies collect to better target advertising to web users in the U.S. What I found interesting was the growing controversy swelling around third party data gathering and user privacy rights.

Those in favor of data gathering make a convincing argument that the web, as we know it, is based on access to free content. Free content is driven by advertising revenue.  Advertisers after the holy grail of MROI, Marketing Return On Investment, naturally want all the information they can get on your shopping habits and brand preferences. To obtain this data, third party networks place increasingly sophisticated tracking technologies on your computer and smart phone in the form of cookies, flash cookies and web beacons.

Those opposed to this conduct argue that tracking your internet activity is akin to following you through the shopping mall making detailed notes on your shopping purchases and preferences, and then selling this information without your permission to assorted marketers interested in relieving you of your hard-earned cash.

The new economy (post recession) is forcing all of us to reevaluate our purchasing habits. From cars to clothes to restaurants, we as consumers are deciding what we really need, how much are we willing to spend, and if we’re getting the best value for our hard earned dollars.

Big consumer brands have recognized this and have repositioned their products and services to address the new frugal consumer mindset.

For example, in 2007, Walmart changed its tag line from “Always Low Prices” to, “Save Money, Live Better”. Kmart followed suit changing “Kmart  - The Stuff of Life” to “There’s Smart and There’s Kmart Smart”.

Most big business-to-consumer brands have the financial wherewithal to retool their marketing efforts to coincide with changing consumer values.  Smaller business-to-business brands, constrained by reduced marketing budgets, longer sales cycles, and multiple purchasing influencers, have had to make do with their marketing materials.

It is my belief that a majority of business-to-business advertisers could benefit from a brand revitalization, starting with a review of their value proposition.

For example, say you manufacture a specialty chemical used for treating silicon wafers.  The final decision maker may be in the c-suite but the influencers are in engineering, purchasing, and research and development.  Each of the influencer audience has their own set of purchasing criteria that need to be addressed in order to complete the sale.

Relying on advertising to address these wide-ranging criteria may not be the most efficient or effective use of marketing funds.

This is where your “owned” media properties become very important.  Whether through your corporate website, a micro site, a video posted to your You Tube channel, or an e-newsletter, all of these “owned” media outlets provide the ability for you to engage the audience with selected information that influences their decision.  In addition to creating an environment for one-to-one dialogue, these properties also provide marketing ROI via analytics.