Measuring Up

Become synonymous with what you do

This is no easy task for companies. As a matter of fact, most hire firms like Peppercom to help them create more visibility for what sets them apart and to ultimately try to build their brand above and beyond category or industry competitors.

Over the last 50 years, I can only think of a handful of companies that have truly become synonymous with the category/service/product they create or represent. To name a few, Kleenex successfully did this with tissues and Google has now accomplished this with Internet search. But, it often takes many years of creating superb customer experiences, exhibiting much desired product/service qualities that competitors don’t posses and spending lots of $$$ on disciplined marketing.

The fact is that most industries or categories simply have too much competition for one company to truly stand out as a brand in this dominant way. Understanding that the odds are long against any organization becoming the next Kleenex or Google, I believe that many companies still have a real opportunity to become more synonymous with what they do. But, they need to recognize creative PR or marketing approaches that can create impactful ways for them to own white spaces that exist (especially when such ideas or opportunities are smacking them right in the face). ADP did exactly that when the opportunity presented itself. Among other offerings, ADP is the largest outsourced payroll company in the country. I’m not sure when it happened, but ADP proudly owns an employment index which showcases the increase/decrease in new jobs created each month. Guess what? Pretty much every media outlet I reviewed either refers to this index or simply profiles it as the official barometer in our marketplace. The tie in is clearly perfect for ADP because it links the brand to employees/jobs. In today’s business environment, tens of millions of eyeballs have seen this index and there’s no doubt it has helped ADP build its brand to become more synonymous with what it does.

I can find lesser known examples, but equally successful in their own right. Ever hear of a company called Prebon Yamane? Probably not, unless you are a Wall Street trader. Prebon Yamane was acquired over a dozen years ago, but it used to be one of the largest wholesale brokers (brokers to traders) on Wall Street. These firms are seen as commodities by their customers and most have very little to speak of that truly sets them apart. But, Prebon Yamane did something very smart. It had been tracking the ups and downs of Federal Fund prices in the industry for years. The information was limited to being used internally at the firm, as well as provided to clients to help their trading efforts. Until, a Wall Street Journal editor conducted a random interview with the firm’s CEO. As a matter of fact, this CEO happened to discuss how important this proprietary information is to clients. Long story made short, it took a few months, but Prebon Yamane’s index soon became the first official “Fed Fund” Index featured two to three times per week on the front page of the 'Marketplace' section of this elite daily newspaper. Aside from creating instant credibility and publicity for the firm, the branding from this index allowed Prebon Yamane to become synonymous with Fed Funds on Wall Street. This was a huge marketing win which cost nothing to arrange.

From time to time, we present clients with these type of branding opportunities. Typically, through one of our white space audits it becomes clear that no one in our client’s industry has taken ownership of a topic, issue or even most/all of the service/product it represents. Yet, I find that in many cases it’s hard to convince clients to move forward with such initiatives. The reasons vary as to why the responses can be negative. Sometimes it’s just about money (even though the investment cost is typically low), but often it’s just because  they are too focused on just delivering solid, yet basic “bread and butter” results for their organization.  

That’s disappointing. Whether it be some type of index, research, award program, unique coalition or simply just taking a proactive, consistent stance on owning a thought leadership topic that no one else is, marketers need to see that three is often very little setting each company apart from the competition. If a real idea comes along to make one’s company even a tiny bit more synonymous with what it does, my advice is to find a way to make it happen.

One size fits none

Our crack PepperDigital team conducted a very interesting study on social media trends across the global spectrum. They are currently writing a 12-part blog series based on analyzing a host of interesting findings.

Not surprisingly, one of the core insights that was proven (though) shows how different cultures, crossing different countries utilize the Web and communicate/socialize much differently from each other. Marketers everywhere need to pay attention because overall campaigns, product introductions and/or relationship building clearly needs to be tailor made and implemented uniquely for each and every demographic and country/region that is targeted.

Our PepperDigital team offers a number of examples of how this is acutely true. I can think of one specific example that recently happened with a former client (not to be named) in which the senior executive in charge wanted to gain more attention for a blog post he had written on key business ethics principles. He asked us to generate a lot of international exposure among online communities where his customer base (senior HR managers) socialize and go to for thought leadership content. This all sounded great except that these principles were very US-centric and although they were smart and strategic, we believed they wouldn’t resonate with target audiences in some parts of Europe and Asia.

Although we pushed back, this former client was adamant about making this happen. So, we reluctantly backed down. Of course, the result was many comments on his post. About half were positive (from US business managers) and the rest chose to negatively dig into the very fact that these comments didn’t take into account social business norms in other key countries (like the EU). Not what our former client wanted.

If you’re interested in this topic, please take a few minutes and check out PepperDigital’s 12 different forthcoming posts. I think you’ll find them interesting.

Empathy should be word #1 in corporate America

I'm still amazed when I see how badly some companies screw up public announcements surrounding layoffs. It  really isn't that hard to understand how to play this game (even if the corporate leaders really don't give a damn.)

To me, everything, from the decisions being made, to the communications delivered, should be executed with one key word in mind– empathy. Defined as: the ability to share in another's thoughts, emotions and feelings. This basic, yet critically important way of thinking is missing in so many parts of our business world today. For employees living in these horrifying times, it simply means identifying with the fear/pain they are going through, showing that you are human and care about the poor souls who are being let go. And, then act responsibly by at least communicating the right thoughts/feelings or actions.

I think that The Gannett Company really blew it earlier this week. Sorry to pick on Gannett, but this is a great case in point that proves my thesis. This large media company made another round of employee cuts. That's kind of par for the course in the media world these days. But, the real shocker is that its management decided to cut severance pay for the first time ever. And, that is both big news and an incredibly scary reality for many reporters who were laid off after spending five, eight or 15 years at the company.

Gannett tried to communicate that the severance pay program is merely being substituted for another alternative compensation one called “supplemental employment benefits." The problem is that it's very confusing and complex because with this program the company shifts the burden of having to outlay severance $$$ to state unemployment programs. And, those terminated employees have no idea what their package will be until they fill out unemployment documents and then wait to better understand how the system actually works.

Gannett's core message on this is that most (or many) employees will actually end up receiving close to as much as they would have in a real severance package. But, according to some experts who are quoted in this New York Times article (As It Cuts Jobs, Gannett Also Cuts Severance Pay,) that isn't entirely true and some vulnerable people could actually receive next to nothing.

The main problem here is that this transitional program is incredibly complex and hard to understand (for readers and employees) and Gannett does a simply terrible job of demystifying it and offering any real empathetic stance towards those people who were once loyal employees. The kicker for me is this statement from the company's spokesperson which comes across as clueless and completely uncaring. It reads, "The 1,400 people laid off this month should not think of the program as severance. The purpose of this is to supplement your unemployment while you're getting a job. It's a transitional pay, not severance."

Well... duh. It's obviously not severance. But, when you first read the quote, it comes across as corporate speak, almost non-understandable. And, certainly uncaring. Then, after I read it a few times, I realized that she is saying that while we're ripping any severance you used to be entitled to out of your hands, we are providing a real transitional benefit to you in other ways as you naturally move into that next career job that is (of course) waiting right around the corner. I think the true meaning behind the quote (if I understand it) is actually more insulting and less compassionate than I initially thought (i.e. don't insult these former employees by making it seem that any type of job is going to be easy to find right now.)

By the way, I did a quick blogosphere check. Not surprising, there are hundreds of mad conversations taking place about how poorly Gannett handled this situation.

A very smart client of ours named Dev Patnaik from Jump Associates authored a great book called Wired to Care. Dev spends his life helping companies become more empathetic to their customers, employees and other key audiences. The results are amazing because it allows them to live for an hour, day or ongoing in those audiences shoes and to truly feel their pain and needs. One opening true story from the book focuses on a design manager from a company that makes ambulatory products for seniors. The company's sales weren't doing well because the products just weren't hitting the mark. So, this manager decided to do something pretty amazing. For a week, she became a very old person living in New York City. Meaning – she not only dressed like a 78 year-old woman (wig, shoes, clothes, etc.), but also decided to go the extra mile by wearing the strongest bi-focal glasses (for poor vision), braces on her legs (so she would have trouble even moving around) and fake dentures (just to top it off in feeling every bit of pain.) Her transformation was amazing. More importantly, a week of trying to ride the bus, hail down taxis, or even just walk down the street, made her truly understand how this type of senior lived, what minute to minute problems existed (like how to even climb stairs) and how other people either ignored or somewhat discriminated against her because of her advanced age.

The net/net of this experience was that this designer was able to help make much more effective and relevant products for her audience because she lived in the most empathetic way possible to understand it.

While I'm not advocating that companies need to go this far, it is clearly time for the Gannett's of the world to change the way they think and act and starting showing more consistent empathy or it will greatly impact their ongoing reputation and business success in the future.

Respect and value our time and the end result will be better

The debate rages on in our industry about whether agencies should have fixed monthly retainers or bill real time of staff for client engagements. With all due respect to PR Week, I think the publication really got it wrong in its latest analysis. And unfortunately, it’s public viewpoint acknowledging that fixed, month to month retainers are the way to go, only serves to hurt our industry by bringing us back to the "Dark Ages." It’s ironic because PR Week is one of the few objective guiding lights whose mission has always been to show the business world just how strategic and important our work is. But, in this instance, the argument conflicts with its mandate.

Here’s the article: "Are fixed monthly retainers the best billing option for PR agencies." In full disclosure, you’ll see that the article is actually a debate between my partner Steve Cody and another agency president, Sean Cassidy. Sean strongly advocates monthly retainers. Steve argues against it. And, PR Week wrongly agrees with Sean. For the record, I’m not writing this post to stand behind Steve. As a matter of fact, Steve and I often disagree on many issues within our industry. This has nothing to do with loyalty and everything to do with the fact that I vehemently disagree with Mr. Cassidy (and PR Week). Now, let me explain why.

This really all begins by understanding what clients are actually paying for (conceptually). We believe that our clients are compensating us for all the valuable time we devote (strategically, creatively and implementation) to generate results. In essence, our professional staff’s time is our product. Knowing that this is the case, when we tell a client that it will cost $20,000 this month to do all of that to generate the results that we all agreed upon, that isn’t some arbitrary number that was made up out of thin air. It’s truly based on how much time we believe it will take for the team to accomplish the goal. If we follow Sean’s train of thought, then that same $20,000 has nothing to do with the professional time the team will need and has everything to do with a lump sum of money that will support whatever it takes to generate the same said results.

This means that if it takes the team $45,000 or $62,000 in time for that month to generate those results, so be it. Because Mr. Cassidy’s view is that it’s all about settling on a fixed amount of fee to be as flexible as possible for the client, the agency could end up losing serious fees every single month because the client has been conditioned to believe that he/she is only paying for results, not for the professional time that is needed to obtain results.

NJ hospital learns "church and state" rule the hard way

After all the public relations gaffes in the last year, some muckety-muck, powerful executives still don't get it. Because I live these types of decisions every day, it must be too intuitive to me how to handle the most basic and obvious PR decisions. That's why I really shouldn't be surprised to read about the latest bumbling move by Hackensack University Medical Center.

This type of PR blunder has happened for as long as newspapers existed.  The Record, a daily newspaper owned by North Jersey Media Group, was preparing to write a controversial article about the questionable Board connections of the Medical Center. So, right out of a "PR 101 Never Do This" guide, the hospital's Board threatened to pull its entire ad campaign if the paper had the nerve to run the piece.

Kudos to the brave daily (especially in this economy.) With the threat looming overhead, the publisher never flinched and the article was printed that Sunday. And, like clockwork, the Board pulled all of its advertising budget. We all know what comes next in this story. The Record printed another article simply stating what the Board did (threatened it and then pulled the advertising campaign.) And now, the Medical Center is on its heels, back pedaling because it looks so stupid (like a big, bad bully) through more negative publicity.

Now the Board has issued an apology and offered to reinstate the ad campaign. (The statement was issued through its PR firm.) And, I'm reading this latest article (with a few million other people in The New York Times). Need I say anymore...?

What's the lesson(s) learned here? Well, there are a few. First, I don't care how powerful you are, don't try to control national or daily newspapers with threats or money. It simply won't work. In actuality, the more powerful and/or famous one is, the greater the chance he/she will be covered by the press because that's what sells newspapers.

Secondly, our world is much too transparent now to ever think that a threat like that one given by the Medical Center Board won't be leaked or reported. So, one better understand how one story will surely evolve into more ongoing embarrassing news if this bad strategy is enforced.

Lastly, these executives (in this case The Hackensack Medical Center Board) need to learn to just deal with the issue at hand in a sensible way. Because, there are no easy answers once a crisis begins. If the Medical Center indeed does have bad practices at the Board level, well... it should have looked at its vulnerabilities and fixed these. Since it seems like that ship has sailed, then the Board needs to retain the right crisis communicators/managers to counsel them better on openly and honestly dealing with the problem.

Step one (these days) means having a truthful conversation with The Record to explain what the issues are and how they will be changed for the better.

Yes, I'm sure the Medical Center would have still taken some knocks for its questionable practices. But, assuming changes are forthcoming, the negative coverage might have stopped there and an important media relationship would still be intact. Of course, this is not the reality now.

Thankfully, the ethical boundaries separating advertising and editorial still exist in most reputable newspapers. That's important, so that you and I can continue to believe (most) of what is written these days. Hackensack Medical Center (a very good hospital, by the way) learned this reality the hard way.

“Expect the worst and you may get it"

This was the catchy headline message from Robert Shiller's, New York Times piece yesterday. His premise is quite interesting. Based on historical data, it seems that the more we (Americans) talk about an impending depression, the more likely it is going to become a reality.

Everyone thinks that the 1930s Great Depression was the largest to hit our country. Not so. According to Shiller, we had two pretty significant ones in the 1870s and 1890s, as well.

He claims that it's important to understand that each depression was partly driven by the retelling of earlier depression stories. In fact, in the 1930s, there was such incessant talk about the previous depressions before, that this partially led to a reduction in consumers' willingness to spend and businesses' want to hire and expand.

Thus, the Depression storyline could easily end up as a self-fulfilling prophecy for us now.

It's also interesting to note that in each depression, an "accident" created a way out for America. For the ones in the 1870s and 1890s, the combination of European famine and a hugely successful crop at home stimulated our economy. And, of course, we all know how World War II greatly alleviated the economic pain of the 1930s.

So, if one believes this analysis, it seems to make sense that we (as a nation) need to stop obsessing and communicating so many negative fears about this terrible economy and start focusing (and acting) more positively about what's to come. Of course, that's not an easy thing to do. This strategy clearly needs to begin with our President. It's time for him (and his administration) to start reinforcing why this stimulus plan will work. They need to provide real details that we can believe and also should stop worrying about the political blame game. Meaning– we all know that George Bush helped to get us into this mess. There is no longer a need to continue to dwell on the fact that Obama’s administration didn't cause this economic downturn, and it will "take a long time" to get out.

Next, we need to find a way to create trickle down positive thoughts. If these optimistic viewpoints could make their way to state and local politicians, business executives, our media, the blogosphere and finally the American public, well... we just might fool ourselves into thinking that this recession will dissipate sooner than we think and the D-word was just a bad dream, with no chance of becoming a reality.

But, how do we really convince ourselves that life will get better? Maybe the real trick is to start putting faith in one component of our economy or society that will save us from this ugly malaise (i.e. "the accident.") Could it be the billions of dollars that will soon fuel alternative energy technologies that will change our fortune? Maybe, when we remove our hundreds of thousands of soldiers (and billions of $$$ in cost) from Iraq, we'll see an upbeat surge in consumer behavior? Maybe, just maybe the media will actually get sick and tired of writing about all the negatives and decide that they will be the collective group that brings the wind of change by only focusing on those nuggets of happy stories/indicators that exist, but are never in plain view. This in turn will create a ground swell of positive sentiment, changing our perceptions for the better. (OK, this one is clearly a long shot.)

I don't know what will change our luck. If I did, then I probably would have already bet my farm on it and certainly wouldn't be writing this blog. But, I do know that this is one blogger who can do his share by trying to avoid past mistakes. My doom and gloom depression-discussions are history now. It's time for me to look for positive signs and figure out new ways to prosper. Hopefully, that one small step will begin to make our day to day lives a tad more gratifying.

The commercial sustainability movement just may be recession proof

I’ve been involved in a lot of client conversations these past few weeks surrounding general cost cutting and marketing/PR budget reductions. That’s no surprise to anyone. This economy is making the best of the corporate world think twice about how funds should be allocated based on where sales/revenues will be made.

Interestingly (maybe even surprisingly,) none of these discussions have included any talk about slashing from corporate sustainability programs. No, to the contrary, clients remain quite focused and bullish on changing their business practices and models to become more environmentally friendly. And, they continue to speak with tempered enthusiasm about how their efforts will be promoted and marketed to all constituents who matter the most.

This theory was reinforced at a unique panel discussion that I attended this week. Co-sponsored by the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and Wall Street West (both are Peppercom clients) the discussion centered around the ongoing trend/need to build “greener” buildings, data warehouses and industrial plants/factories. I heard one sustainability expert (an architect from the AIA) tell the audience that most companies have already factored in sustainability costs into their business models and don’t view it as a “nice to have” any more. He further said (I’m paraphrasing) that economic slowdown or not, many within the retail/real estate/office/buildings commercial world now view “green” as smart business and have fully incorporated best practices into their daily mindsets.

An article in today’s New York Times (“Green Plans in Blueprints of Retailers”), demonstrates that many retailers concur with these sentiments. In new Wal-Mart stores the baseboards and moldings are made of plastic left over from diaper manufacturing. Chipotle, the Mexican fast-food chain, has installed an energy-producing wind turbine outside a new store in the Chicago suburbs. McDonalds has opened a newly rebuilt restaurant on the South Side of Chicago which is crammed with energy and water saving gadgets as varied as high efficiency appliances, pavement that filters rainwater and tables and chairs made out of recycled materials. Subway, Target, Office Depot (also Peppercom client) and Best Buy have many of their own projects under way as well.

Why are they all jumping on the bandwagon?

That’s pretty simple. Most of these green initiatives will actually produce long term cost savings for these companies. In a bad economy, going green is actually a prudent operations decision. But, the commercial green movement is also fueled by the hopes that these organizations will look that much better to consumers who purchase their products. So, companies with smart sustainability programs have the opportunity to exponentially enhance their brand image. And, that’s always important

The challenges that so many of these companies have though (including some of our clients) is that while they are making sincere efforts to conserve water, become carbon neutral or give back to the environment, they also have businesses or product lines that still create lingering environmental problems. Quite often, those problematic areas are core to sales efforts, or take a long time to modify/change, or in some cases the “green alternative” just won’t work yet.

I’ve seen two types of negative reactions to these challenges. Some companies try to simply pretend the issues aren’t there and want to move full stream forward, promoting all the wonderful new sustainability initiatives in place. That’s a very dangerous strategy because in our 24/7 transparent world it is almost certain that some activist group or angry consumer will make a big deal on the Internet (or worse at their home office) by calling the company out for its hypocrisy.

Other, more conservative companies believe they shouldn’t market, publicly discuss or promote any of their activities until those questionable practices or products are 100 percent changed to be “green friendly.” While those companies should be commended for their restraint, our sustainability experts at Peppercom would tell them that this ultra cautious approach probably isn’t necessary. They’d tell the management at these companies that NGOs, activist groups and consumers understand that even those corporations with the best green practices are still far from perfect. After all, this movement has only become widely accepted over the last few years. What’s more important though, are the substantive details within sustainability plans that these companies need to create (often referred to as roadmaps), showing how the changes will take place over time. Such roadmaps can provide immense credibility and may be as important to promote as the environmentally friendly products themselves.

My feeling is that commercial sustainability is here to stay (especially as our government forces more requirements and offers greater incentives to corporations to become greener). Those organizations that can play key roles consulting to companies on how to build, design, manufacturer, promote or market their green endeavors in the right way, will hold their own even in the worst economic downturn.

First MeasuringUP podcast is now online

This week, Sam Ford (our Director of Customer Insights) and I posted our first podcast. The topic focused on politics and brand building and is being launched through Steve and Ted’s RepChatter podcast series. Thank you, Steve.  Future podcasts will be coming soon, and they will be housed on MeasuringUP as well as our PepperDigital blog that Sam contributes to. In the spirit of this chat, I’ve written a post here,   Sam has written on the topic, and we’ve invited other PR bloggers to join in the conversation. You can see posts from Frank X. Shaw, Todd Defren, Talya Bosch, Ted Weismann, Indra Gardiner, and our own Matt Purdue on the topic as well.

The art behind building the brand of Obama

I’ve read reports that Barack Obama’s campaign has raised more than $650 million through September. Let’s have fun and take a guess that the total amount raised through this election will be around $800 million. It wouldn’t be too farfetched to surmise that most of these funds are somehow leveraged to build the Obama brand to become the candidate of choice. After all, those $$$ are paying for his staff (who spread his gospel,) advertising, public relations, digital communications, large events, more fund raisers, travel costs and many other line items that are focused on “getting the word out” about this candidate.

Assuming you agree with my hypothesis, let’s compare this brand building initiative to what the biggest corporate marketers in the world spent last year. It’s kind of astonishing – Barack Obama’s presidential campaign would be ranked 36th among this prestigious list of corporations. This means that more resources are invested in building the Obama brand than that of Colgate, Microsoft, HP, Viacom, Wal-Mart, Cannon and Samsung.

Think about that for a second. All of these companies spend a lot of money on brand building. But, those budgets are spread across hundreds or thousands of products/services, as well as on the mother brand itself. This dilutes the impact that any one marketing initiative can have on a specific product or corporate brand. Obama’s campaign (on the other hand) continues to singularly focus (like a laser beam) on pushing out the same core messages to America for almost two years now. Just as importantly, the essence of who Obama is (his brand essence some might say) has been consistently choreographed and emitted to the American public in the same strategic manner as well. This has to be one of the largest, concentrated brand-building campaigns of all time.

Of course, brand building isn’t just about the $$$ being spent. And, creating a Presidential brand isn’t an easy assignment. For every ad, email, speech, conversation or article that pushes out the brand of Obama, there are countless negative forces being aimed directly at his reputation. Most of the time, this waters down so much of the positive image that is trying to be built. And, among many disparate audiences, those negatives are believed and taken as gospel (i.e. the man is connected to terrorism.)

In my estimation, this is precisely why Senator Obama’s campaign advisors (brand builders) deserve so much credit. You see, from the day Obama announced his Presidential bid, it’s clear that his advisors had a strategy to reinforce a number of core attributes/beliefs that the Obama brand would stand for. Love or hate the man, the brand of Obama has never wavered (through all the attacks and adversity) and in these final days before he probably becomes our next President, it’s fair to say that the excitement generated because of the Obama brand is a large reason for this success. The Obama camp has brought back so many of JFK’s attributes and brand promises to attract those same audiences that made “Camelot” so appealing to young people in 1960. These include:

-    Fresh, invigorating, change that young people want to be a part of; a new way of thinking; standing for something higher in life; freedom from the old way of politics; something that stands for a greater good; a man who is charismatic and cares.

Yes, I know it’s also about the economy… stupid. That certainly helped to turn the tide on any Republican candidate. Additionally, as I wrote about a few days back Senator McCain’s choice for a running mate certainly didn’t help matters. But there is nothing subtle about the way Barack Obama’s brand has been masterfully built.  I tip my hat to those campaign wizards who had the foresight to make it happen.

UPDATE: Frank X. Shaw has posted his own response to this topic over on Glass House. His post focuses on the concept of "fragile branding" in politics. Meanwhile, see Todd Defren's post about Obama "CMO" David Plouffe, Talya Bosch's post on America as a brand in relation to the political election, Ted Weismann's post on negative depositioning in brand differentiation (political and otherwise), Indra Gardiner's post on Obama's campaign and how it coincides with Seth Godin's book Tribes, and our own Sam Ford's post on "real America" as a brand and Matt Purdue's post on successful Obama strategies that businesses should learn from.

Give it a cause and watch it sell

I happened to be in a few retail stores this weekend. It was interesting to see the new batch of cause related products that were on the shelves of places like Whole Foods and Target. Unlike those offerings sold over the last few years, these products didn’t just offer to donate a small percentage of net profit to feed starving children. Instead, they focus on co-branding two highly visible, yet distinct brands together to pack even more of a credibility punch with targeted consumers. One high profiled example of this is Clorox’s new Greenworks line of cleaning products which has licensed The Sierra Club brand to feature its logo on each and every bottle.

I watched keenly (especially in Whole Foods) as many shoppers selected a number of these products over their more visible competitors and it gave me food for thought…

This should become one of a few next waves of new product creations within much of the retail category. Think about it. Retail sales are down (almost across the board.) Even the most powerful, mass chains like Target (and hottest specialty ones like Whole Foods) reported lower earnings this quarter. The reality is that consumer spending probably won’t increase any time soon, and is likely to actually decrease. So, aside from some obvious trickery to generate higher sales (like by saving money on making product bottles smaller, yet keeping the price the same,) this industry needs to get down right creative with its shelf space because the same old traditional strategies just won’t cut it.