Before you can discuss why Web 2.0 is important to your business you must first know what Web 2.0 is. Web 2.0, a phrase coined by O’Reilly Media in 2004, refers to a perceived second-generation of Web-based services-such as social networking sites, wikis, communication tools, and folksonomies-that emphasize online collaboration and sharing among users.

One of the things that strikes me is how quickly things change on the Internet. Web 2.0 is less than four years old and yet is really one of the most important forms of marketing now that every Internet business must do.

Today people are changing the way they surf the Internet. With social communities popping up all over the place people like to be a part of something and get their information that way. If your business is not involved in marketing itself in some way to social communities you are missing out on valuable traffic.

Today when people show up to a website or a blog they want to be entertained. Think about that and what it means to your business. No longer can you just throw up a webpage with a bunch of useless information in a couple of Google ads and say you’re in business.

Now Web 2.0 marketing means being interactive with your customers and your visitors. You entertain them by making your page appealing to them. Certainly useful content is important, but so are things such as graphics, audio, video, polls, and so on.

If you are not really sure how to do this go and take a look at what some of your competitors are doing. You will quickly see a successful website and how they have adapted their marketing strategy to today’s marketplace, compared to a website who still living in the dark ages, so to speak.

The other thing you need to do is to learn everything you can about Web 2.0 marketing and how you can apply it to your business to make it more successful.

Critical to effective brand management is the clear definition of the brand’s audience and the objectives that the brand needs to achieve.

What are the objectives that you hope to achieve with your brand?

Your brand should be comprised of the company personality, image, core competencies and characteristics. The impressions that you make as well as the words people will use to describe your company to others, are the basic framework of your brand.

With a strong brand you build credibility, have more influence on your market, and motivate customers and clients to purchase from you.If done correctly your company will be looked at as a leader not a follower.

To determine your brand objectives ask yourself the following question:

• What is it that you want your brand to do for your company?
• What do you want others to know and say about your products or services?

Sample objectives may include:

• Being recognized by receiving a specific award
• Picking up a certain number of choice projects
• Gaining a specific number of new clients in the next year
• Positioning your company as an industry leader in the next five months

You will find that by defining your objectives it is easier to develop a plan of action to achieve those objectives.

ASDI is the Trademark logo for Pure Designs unique methodology in building brands

By defining your objectives you are able to map out a plan on how to achieve those objectives. Say for example your objective is to position your company as an industry leader. How can you go about doing this? You could:

• Have members of your team speak at Trade Shows
• Schedule lectures at professional group gatherings within your industry
• Write and publish articles in newspapers, magazines, or online media

Once you’ve determined your objectives the next step is to build and develop your brand strategy by listing out how, when, and what you are going to do to accomplish and meet your those brand objectives.

Use the questions above to determine your brand objectives. List each objective and map out how you plan to accomplish and succeed in meeting those objectives. Don’t stop there! Once you’ve finished take time to list out what you can do in the this month or this quarter to meet that objective. Be specific and schedule those action items in your business calendar (2007 About.com, Inc., a part of The New York Times Company).

When thinking of brand-building techniques, we consider typical methods of communication through traditional advertising, public relations, Web sites, etc. However, most often overlooked are your internal employees, or “brand ambassadors,” as I prefer to call them.

These include not just salespeople and customer service staffers, but those who deal with billing issues, Web site inquiries, requests for return authorization or technical issues. Without properly educating and training these brand evangelists, you are losing valuable opportunities to retain your existing customers and maintain consistent messaging about your brand. Ultimately, this will erode both market share and profits.

An organization’s two most valuable assets are its employees and its brands. A brand often accounts for between 50 percent and 70 percent of an organization’s total financial value while internal ambassadors that keep the brand alive and strong make up the rest. So it’s critical that your employees aren’t just enthusiastic about the brand-they also need to understand it. If they don’t have a clear idea of what the brand stands for, they can’t communicate effectively and deliver the kind of service you require.

Consider that the cost of acquiring new customers is vastly greater than the expense of retaining existing customers-sometimes costing as much as 20 times more. If you take the time to educate all of your employees that deal with customers, you can greatly enhance consistency in brand messaging. This reinforces that customers hear the same thing about your brand. Some fundamental ways to accomplish this include bi-monthly or quarterly town hall meetings, formal service introductions or training for new products, and sending monthly newsletters.

You’ve invested in branding your product or service to your target. But you may not be applying the same level of investment to your internal team. Take some thought and care as this is a high-value area you need to include in your marketing strategy and budget. For example, develop a program to align the behavior of your employees with the brand promise; develop a culture that fosters suggestions for improvements and create rewards or incentives based upon the result of increased customer satisfaction or retention.

You and your employees need to become students of the customer mindset. One cost-effective way to accomplish this is by surveying your customers and clients. Doing so will, one, help you gain invaluable insight of what works, what doesn’t and what you should be doing differently; and two, send your customers a message that lets them know you are listening.

Consumers obviously want their voices to be beard and moreover, it’s clear they want to participate, given the proliferation of blogs, chat rooms and social networks like MySpace and Facebook. Your customers, who can help make your product or service better, are no exception. Always consider using a third-party survey resource to gain objective feedback.

So the next time you allocate your budget towards brand-building, set funds aside to educate and train your internal brand employees. Without properly investing for the long term, you could be leaving a lot of money on the table that your competition may grab right from under your nose (John Foligno.National Jeweler. New York:Mar 2008. Vol. 102, Iss. 3; pg. 50).

As marketers, we must become credible communicators with consciences. When we communicate, the language we use is very important.

Nutrition guru and New York University professor Marion Nestle points out that sometimes profits are placed above values. She calls this the “organic-industrial complex.” Her point is that business priorities force some companies to focus on profitable growth at the expense of responsible behavior. This corrupts the concepts and gives marketing a deservedly bad reputation.

Some companies incorrectly assume they can focus on profitability or sustainability but not both. The Sustainability Opportunity is not an either-or proposition. We do not have to sacrifice marketing with a conscience at the altar of profitability.

Exploiting trends is not the opportunity. Instead, the Sustainability Opportunity means we all have a chance to provide the essential leadership that responsibly helps consumers do the right thing.

Ikea knows that doing the right thing is the right thing to do for business and for society. Ikea has set a sustainability objective requiring that all activities have an overall positive impact on people and the environment. This objective affects not only the products it markets but also store design, transportation and store lighting. Its measurable goal is to become 100% reliant on renewable energy and to cut overall energy costs by 25%.

Marketing with a conscience means providing ease of choice, ease of use and ease of mind. Putting people’s minds at ease calls for more than merely communicating truths; it boils down to creating trust.

Trust is not a result of how big we are; trust is a result of how big we act. Truth speaks, but trust is why people listen. Consumers are skeptical unless truth comes from a trustworthy source.

But trust in all established institutions is in trouble. Marketing is no exception. People fear that through the power of marketing, their control over their own behavior is being lost, or at least being manipulated. When trend exploitation prevails over responsibly responding to consumer concerns and desires, then it is not surprising there are opinion-influencing critics of marketing who think marketing is inherently harmful.

We should not be afraid of marketing’s power. Through effective marketing, we can make a difference. The question is: What kind of a difference do we wish to make?

The Sustainability Opportunity is a great chance to change the perception that marketing is contributing to social problems to a belief that marketing can be an effective part of the solution. The Sustainability Opportunity presents us in marketing with the chance to help people live more sustainable lives.

Based on the famous Brundtland Report on our common future, the mission of marketing with a conscience would be defined as “marketing that meets today’s consumer and community and business needs without compromising the needs of future generations.” The Sustainability Opportunity is a marketing leadership opportunity to commit to the idea of demonstrating that effective marketing with a conscience is responsive, responsible and profitable (Larry Light, Advertising Age (Midwest region edition) Chicago: Nov 12, 2007. Vol. 78, Iss. 45; pg. 34, 1 pgs).

The focus on sustainability is not just an awesome opportunity but also an enormous responsibility. The Sustainability Opportunity is not just about being eco-friendly or offering biodegradable packaging or chemical-free tomatoes. Rather it is an opportunity to responsibly respond to.

It does not mean marketing that confuses and confounds consumers for quick profits with no view of what it is doing to consumers and to society over the long term.

Unfortunately, some marketers view every development as an opportunity for trend exploitation. As marketers, we must commit to not only producing the right results but producing the right results in the right way.

Some marketers, however, see an opportunity to exploit the language of sustainability. And that’s reprehensible. Some marketers are overhyping their communications, exaggerating consumer benefits and building misconceptions with communications designed to confuse rather than clarify consumer derision making.

For example, the language some marketers use in the food business is being concocted and corrupted. We know that people want fresh foods. Fresh is fabulous. But what does fresh really mean? Does it mean freshly made? Freshly made in front of me? Made from ingredients that were once fresh? Prepared fresh every day? What does “packaged for freshness” mean? Some restaurants use highly processed foods but say their food is fresh. Is freshly assembled food fresh?

And what about “natural”? Unlike organic, natural has no legal definition. So “natural” is used everywhere, on everything from food to drinks to dishwashing soap to cosmetics. In fact, one retailer markets fresh, natural cosmetics. There are pretzels that are labeled “naturally baked.” Can pretzels be “unnaturally” baked?

Then there’s “organic.” At least it has a set of legal rules. Consumers think they are doing the right thing by buying organic. Rightly or wrongly, consumers continue to equate “organic” with “healthful.” Research from the Organic Trade Association indicates organic-food sales grew 22% in 2006 to nearly $17 billion. And it isn’t just about food and beverages. You want healthier hair? How about organic shampoo and conditioner?

Yet even organic can be misleading. Organic doesn’t necessarily mean sustainable. One dairy company sells organic milk that meets the legal definition, but the cows the milk comes from are confined to concrete floors their entire lives. They don’t graze on pastures, and they don’t see the light of day(Larry Light, Advertising Age (Midwest region edition) Chicago: Nov 12, 2007. Vol. 78, Iss. 45; pg. 34, 1 pgs).

Consumers are waking up to the fact that sustainability is an urgent matter. They are asking: How do I live a sustainable life? Is my health sustainable? Is my job sustainable? Is the economy sustainable? Is my child’s future sustainable?

Can I make a difference by changing my light bulbs? Buying a front-load washer? Carrying my own shopping bags to the grocery? Driving a Prius? Recycling?

Sustainability is the focus of so many of today’s personal, social, corporate and legislative challenges. The Sustainability Opportunity has big implications for brand relevance.

Healthy, wellness, fitness, fresh, free-range, organic, natural, reduced, reusable, recycled, biodegradable, green, global warming, climate change, carbon footprint, eco-friendly, locally sourced-these are no longer fringe ideas.

Safeway is focusing on developing a line of organic products branded simply with the letter “O.” Wal-Mart is selling organic foods, moving organics from Haight Street to Main Street, and is the largest U.S. seller of organic milk. A new American vodka brand, 360 Vodka, is positioned as the world’s first environmentally friendly vodka. is packaged in an 85% recycled-content glass bottle, and all labeling, packaging and promotional materials use 100% recycled paper, along with water-based inks.

GE has made eco-imagination the focus of its future. The Sundance Channel has an initiative called “The Green” with programming and tips on eco-business, eco-innovations and eco-automotive initiatives.

Jerry Powell, editor of Resource Recycling magazine, pointed out in The New York Times, “What used to be done by a guy who wore Birkenstocks and drove a Volvo is now being done by someone who drives a Ford 250 with a gun rack” (Larry Light, Advertising Age (Midwest region edition). Chicago: Nov 12, 2007. Vol. 78, Iss. 45; pg. 34, 1 pgs).

Brand alliance is a branding strategy used in a business alliance. Brand alliance, which has become increasingly prevalent, is defined as a partnership or long-term relationship that permits partners to meet their goals (Cravens, 1994). Rao and Ruekert (1994) treated co-branding as a strategic alliance and proposed a managerial decision template to analyze the cost and benefits of joint branding. Moreover, they discussed the implications for different types of alliances and determined the value of each brand to the partners.

Desai and Keller (2002) argued that the main advantage of a brand alliance is that a product may be more uniquely and convincingly positioned by virtue of the multiple brands involved, thereby generating more sales and reducing the cost of product introduction. However, an unsatisfactory brand alliance could have negative repercussions for the brands involved.

Most of the extant research focuses on how consumers’ attitudes toward the brand alliance and the images of the allied brands interact with each other. Park et al. (1996) compared co-brands to the concept of conceptual combinations in psychology and revealed how carefully selected brands could overcome the problems of negatively correlated attributes. Argawal and Rao (1996) argued that a brand alliance could signal product quality when the loss of reputation (future profit) or sunk investments were significant enough for the branded allies. Simonin and Ruth (1998) found that consumers’ attitudes toward a brand alliance could influence subsequent impressions of each partner’s brands, although these effects also depended on other factors, such as product fit or image congruity.

Co-branding is a strategy of brand alliance. In the marketing literature,co-branding has been used interchangeably with labels such as brand alliance and composite branding. Grossman (1997) broadly defined co-branding as “any pairing of two brands in a marketing context, such as advertisements, products, product placements, and distribution outlets”. More narrowly defined, co-branding stands for the combination of two brands to create a single, unique product (Levin et al. 1996, Park et al. 1996, Washburn et al. 2000).

Co-branding is a special case of brand extension in which two brands are extended to a new product. In a co-branding alliance, the participating companies should have a relationship that has potential to be commercially beneficial to both parties.

Various theories have been used to explain how consumers reconcile their attitudes towards co-branded products. For example, cognitive consistency suggests that consumers will seek to maintain consistency and internal harmony among their attitudes (Anderson 1981, Simonin et al. 1998). Similarly, the theory of information integration suggests that, as new information is received, it is processed and integrated into existing beliefs and attitudes (Schewe 1973)

Empirical research on co-branding is limited to relatively few studies that have usually examined product concepts or fictitious products rather than real instances of co-branding. Park et al. (1996) examined the effects of product complementarity to evaluate co-branded product. The results revealed that product complementarity is the key appeal in co-branding because it allows the co-brand to inherit the desirable qualities of each brand. The pairing of high-quality or high-image brands is another area that has received attention in co-branding literature (Washburn et al. 2000, McCarthy et al. 1999, Rao et al. 1999).

As many companies seek growth through the development of new products, co-branding strategy provides a way to develop new products as successful brands provide signals of quality and image. Co-branding involves combining two or more well known brands into a single product. A successful co-brand has the potential to achieve excellent synergy that capitalizes on the unique strengths of each contributing brand. In the last deca de, co-branding and other cooperative brand activities have seen a 40% annual growth (Spethmann and Benezra, 1994).

Companies form co-branding alliances to fulfill several goals, including:

1. Expanding their customer base
2. achieving financial benefits
3. responding to the expressed and latent needs of customers
4. strengthening competitive position,
5. introducing a new product with a strong image
6. creating new customer-perceived value,
7. gaining operational benefits.

One industry in which co-branding is frequently practised is the fashion and apparel industry (Doshi, 2007).

The basic principle behind co-branding strategies is that the constituent brands assist each other to achieve their objectives. Utilizing two or more brand names in the process of introducing new products offers competitive advantages. The purpose of the double appeal is to capitalize on the reputation of the partner brands in an attempt to achieve immediate recognition and a positive evaluation from potential buyers. The presence of a second brand on a product reinforces the reception of high product quality, leading to higher product evaluations and greater market share.

Co-branding may also affect the partner brands negatively. James (2005) showed that combining two brands may cause brand meaning to transfer in ways that were never intended. Thus, the potential benefits and risks associates with co-branding strategies must be explored and carefully examined. However, little research has addressed co-branding strategies, examined the factors to determine a successful strategy, or assessed the impact of two or more merged brands. Currently, a conceptual framework of co-branding is still lacking. This framework may offer researchers the freedom to study co-branding phenomena from various perspectives and provide guidelines that will help highlight similarities and differences among various co-branding strategies. The present paper advances research by proposing a typology using co-branding aim, category, and effect to research co-branding strategies. The typology indicates the importance of co-branding strategy and furnishes a starting point for future research.

Business marketers must appeal to the hearts, not just the minds of their customers and prospects, even in seemingly unlovable industries such as electronic components and concrete.

The strategic and financial benefits of strong, clear and most of all emotionally appealing brands were a recurring theme at the Institute for the Study of Business Markets during its two-day conference, B-to-B Marketing: Beyond Best Practice to Next Practice, last month in Tampa, Fla.

Every b-to-b company might at think it is brand-managed, but few really are, said Philip Kotier, S.C. Johnson Distinguished Professor of International Marketing at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. Kotler delivered the opening day keynote at the ISBM conference.

Kotler whose latest book, “B2B Brand Management,” explores these topics in detail-enumerated the advantages of a strong brand, from higher priées and lower customer churn to favorable supplier relationships and lower employee turnover.

Moving from a purely rational value proposition to “rational plus emotional” as part of a brand repositioning contributed directly to increased business, said D. Keith Pigues, VP-marketing at Cemex, a global provider of cement and concrete. In one year, an integrated campaign, emphasizing exciting customer applications of concrete helped drive sales volume up 229% and profit up 201%.

John Fleming, principal and chief scientist at the Gallup Organization, continued the day’s theme, quantifying the impact of emotionally resonant encounters, specifically between salespeople and customers. “Satisfying customers is not sufficient,” Fleming said, and will not drive financial performance. Henoted that customers measured as “passionate” about a brand deliver two times the profitability of average customers.

Along with customers, employees must be emotionally connected to the brand for the company to achieve top performance, Fleming added.

“The challenge we have as b-to-b marketers is to lead our linns to really understanding the left brain impact of what we do the emotional contact we have with customer, the emotional impact of our brand, how to measure that and make it better and stronger,” said Ralph Oliva, ISBMs executive director.

Also, at the conference, ISBM announced a reworked version of its data visualization tool for marketers that now includes integration with Microsoft Excel.

“Systematic marketing decision making can improve marketing productivity by 5% an to 10% you with minimal additional costs,” said Gary Lilien, distinguished research professor of management science at the Smcal College of Business Administration at Pennsylvania State University and co-founder and research director of ISBM. He said the tools interface had been revamped and simplified based on user feedback.

Marketing Engineering for Excel, an Excel add-in, lectures eight analytical tools, including market segmentation and targeting, customer lifetime value and conjoint analysis. The software suite also includes a companion book, “Principals of Marketing Engineering,” and wehinar-based training.

Marketing Engineering for Excel, now in beta, will be available for sale at the end of March. Although final pricing has yet to be finalized, ISBM officials said the tool will cost around $1,000, with discounts for ISBN members. The ISBM conference attracted about 125 marketers (Ellis Booker,B to B, Mar.12,2007).