The big issue, of course, is the sinking of the Costa Concordia off the coast of Italy. This is a branding disaster for Costa and for Carnival. The problems are fairly obvious.

First, it is tragedy, with more than a dozen deaths.

Second, this is a visible problem. The ship, half-submerged, is a powerful image, broadcast all over the globe day after day. And it seems like the ship might be there for a long time.

Third, there is a general feel of incompetence about the incident, with the captain apparently steering the ship into hazardous waters while dining with a lovely young woman and then the crew struggling with the evacuation.

This is all not good news for the Costa brand, of course: anyone eager to take a cruise with those folks?

The problem is that this all reflects back on the Carnival brand, too.

Costa is a fairly small cruise line with a total of fifteen ships. Carnival is a much bigger cruise line, with twenty-two ships, including some of the largest ships in the world. The Costa brand is damaged, clearly, but the Carnival brand is also being hurt as the crisis drags on.

Carnival has a problem because the corporate name, Carnival, is the same as an operating brand. So when a different operating brand like Costa has a problem, it reflects back on the corporate brand, Carnival, which also hurts the operating brand, Carnival.

It is interesting but not surprising that the press has rarely mentioned Carnival’s other brands, such as Princess, Cunard and Holland America, when discussing the Costa disaster. I suspect most people don’t know the brands are all connected.

One way to avoid a problem like this is to have a distinct corporate brand. This is the P&G model; P&G is just the corporate name. P&G’s operating brands are all distinct: Tide, Pampers, Old Spice and all the rest. With this model, the troubles of one brand are not likely to damage the other brands.

Carnival’s approach is simpler, of course, the corporate brand is an operating brand that people see and understand. It is also perhaps better for the stock, since people can invest in a brand they know.

Carnival’s decision to use the Carnival brand at the corporate level made sense in some respects but it ultimately it increased the branding risk. The company is dealing with that today.

Several weeks ago, organizers changed the route and start time of Chicago’s gay pride parade. Cardinal George was concerned that the new schedule would result in the parade interfering with the morning worship service at a neighborhood church.

On Christmas, a local television station aired an interview with the Cardinal during which he said, “You know, you don’t want the gay liberation movement to morph into something like the Ku Klux Klan, demonstrating in the streets against Catholicism….”

As you might imagine, the Cardinal’s comparison of the gay rights movement to the Ku Klux Klan went over rather poorly.

He recent apologized for his remarks, though people in Chicago are still protesting.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-holy-name-demonstration-0109-20120109,0,6796152.story

The lesson in all of this is clear: understand the power of brands and be careful how you use them. Cardinal George is a smart individual, and I’m fairly confident he didn’t mean to offend people by mentioning the Ku Klux Klan; he was just making a point. But the Ku Klux Klan is a powerful and strikingly negative brand. By bringing the KKK brand into the discussion, the entire tone changed. The brand transformed the situation.

Brands have enormous power. Some brands are positive and some are negative. Be careful how you use them.

Sears is a fading enterprise. Sales are down from $53.0 billion in fiscal year 2007 to $43.3 billion in 2011. The stock is trading today at about $33 dollars per share, down from over $180 dollars per share in 2007.

The decline isn’t likely to stop. Overall retail sales in the U.S. will probably muddle along and Sears will continue to lose share to tough competitors like Amazon, Target and Best Buy. Sears hasn’t invested in its stores, so the retail environment will continue to deteriorate. And the core problem remains: Sears doesn’t have a clear brand position in the market.

The only unknown is the endgame. What will happen to Sears and Kmart?

The company isn’t likely to be purchased because an acquisition depends on having a buyer. It isn’t clear who would want the company.

Liquidation is possible but this would be costly and challenging. And, with the soft commercial real estate market, disposing of the retail space would be difficult.

A repositioning is needed if the brands are to rebound, but this seems unlikely, too, because this would require significant investment. And a repositioning would probably involve a narrower focus, hurting short-term results.

Sears could spin-off its product brands, such as Kenmore and Craftsman. This move would make a lot of sense, but it wouldn’t fix the Sears and Kmart brands.

The most likely path seems to be more of the same: a gradual, slow decline leading to liquidation. The only question is how long it will all take.

Several hours after I put up my post, however, I heard from Hilton’s social media department, saying they saw it, were concerned and were looking into it.  And then a few hours later I heard from a manager at the hotel apologizing and offering a free night say if I wanted to visit again.

This is all rather impressive.

The Hilton team found my blog post and quickly moved into action.  By doing so, I never got around to posting on Trip Advisor, as I was planning to, and I’m softening my original post a bit, dropping the “avoid the Minneapolis Hilton” line.

This shows why companies should monitor social media; by watching what people say on-line, companies can identify unhappy customers and address the situation to limit the damage.  Every company should be doing this.

I suspect it is far easier to create a responsive social media team than to educate all the front line staff.  It isn’t as effective but it provides a second chance.

Hilton ultimately did a nice job responding to the situation.

Sometimes there isn’t much you can do; the person is unsatisfied for one reason or another but you don’t find this out and so can’t address it.  It is hard to deal with a problem when you don’t know there is one.  This is why companies should encourage customer feedback: it is a far better to know about an issue than not.

But sometimes the issue surfaces and there is an opportunity to address the situation and turn an unhappy customer into a happy customer.  This is a moment of truth for any organization.  In some ways, finding an unhappy customer is a wonderful thing; it is an opportunity to excel.

Of course, this assumes your people are willing and able to take action.

Yesterday I spent the evening at the Hilton in Minneapolis.  It was a disappointment.

Now I’m not a very demanding hotel traveler.  I just need four things: an adequate room, internet service, a wake-up call and a key that works.  The Hilton went one for four.  The hotel had no internet service all evening, my key didn’t work and I never received a wake-up call.

When I checked out, the woman at the front desk dutifully asked “So how was your stay?”  I replied, “Well, actually it was really disappointing: no internet, no wake-up call and a key malfunction.”

I would like to say this is when she quickly called in the troops, summoning the front desk manager and offering a room discount, credit for a future stay or at least a free donut.  Unfortunately, she just looked astonished and somewhat terrified, and mumbled, “Oh, I’m sorry to hear that.”

Any service organization should make sure that employees look for unhappy customers and have the tools to try, at least, to address the situation.  Hilton can do better.

So is this a smart move? I think so, for three reasons.

First, it will create enormous PR buzz. The news is already showing up in all sorts of media outlets, including The Wall Street Journal and The Chicago Tribune. The story will generate discussion and comments and get people thinking about Quill, many for the first time.

Second, this move differentiates Quill. If you want Dunder Mifflin paper, you have to become a Quill customer. This makes Quill unique and different and cool, and in the world of office supplies this is a major accomplishment.

Third, the move is easy to measure. One of the great challenges in marketing is seeing the impact of initiatives. But this move is easy to quantify: Quill executives can simply watch orders of Dunder Mifflin paper to see how it is working.

There are of course some concerns. First, it isn’t clear how much more people will pay for Dunder Mifflin paper. Is there a lot of value in the name? Is it worth the licensing fee? Second, the move will likely attract a lot of individuals, which might be an issue for Quill, a very business to business focused company.

On balance, however, the move looks like a winner, a way to put a somewhat low profile company on the map and differentiate it in a competitive market. This is what good marketing is all about.

Stores feed the frenzy with aggressive deals, encouraging people to get out early and line-up for the biggest savings. The media, faced with a slow news day, covers all the action in-depth.

I’ve always enjoyed watching the frenzy, visiting stores Friday morning just to see people buying and spending in a joyous, if sometimes stressful, scene. It is a wonderful marketing moment.

This year, though, it seems to be fading, at least a bit. Partly this is because retailers are now offering deals earlier and earlier in a bid to compete with on-line merchants and each other. When many stores open on Thanksgiving, there is no need to race out Friday morning to get going.

Partly, though, I think people are a little tired of it all, tired of spending, tired of the expectation that it is important to buy lots of stuff. The fact that many people in the United States are struggling financially only accentuates this. It is hard to get all jazzed up about buying things when you are struggling to pay the bills.

Friday will still be a lively day in the stores and I’ll be there once again watching the action. But Black Friday may not measure up to its usual peak.

Perhaps this will encourage people to stay home and spend a little more time with family and friends and that would be all for the best.

Happy Thanksgiving.

The first article is one about the challenge of creating a powerful brand experience when shipping items through the mail. This is a significant issue; when a customer buys a product at a high-end retailer, the buying experience is an important part of the proposition. The article highlights the different things retailers are doing to create a similarly rewarding mail-order experience, from using hand-written notes to special wrapping techniques.

A similarly notable article focuses on the auto industry and the importance of the clothes worn by their models at auto shows. Everything shapes a brand, of course, so this is an important question, just one we don’t usually think about. The article highlights how brands are focused on identifying fashions that fit with the brand. What should a BMW model wear? How about a Jeep spokes-person, or a Chevy model?

And then there is a positively depressing article about Sears. The main point: Sears is killing its brand by dramatically cutting back on investment. When many brands are working very hard to create positive experiences, Sears is apparently concentrating on finding ways to reduce spending. One startling fact: Macy’s will spend about $400 million renovating its flagship store in New York. Sears will spend a similar amount across its 2,200 stores in the next year. With this sort of focus on brand building it isn’t surprising that Sears has seen declining sales since 1995. The brand really matters.

Here are the links:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203611404577041993085305320.html?KEYWORDS=crate+and+barrel

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204323904577040670203824132.html?KEYWORDS=porsche

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204517204577042442598865710.html?KEYWORDS=sears

This afternoon Walmart denied the story, saying the document NPR saw was real but “overwritten and incorrect.” Reuters quoted Dr. John Agunobi, president of Walmart U.S. health & wellness as saying, “We are not building a national, integrated, low-cost primary care health care platform.”

My question for Dr. Agunobi and everyone at Walmart is quite simple: why not?

Walmart needs growth. It is one of the biggest companies in the United States but growth has essentially stalled. Healthcare is a huge opportunity.

Importantly, Walmart would be a unique and different player in healthcare: low-cost, super-efficient, reliable, practical and friendly. Walmart could do to healthcare what it has done to retailing, which is to force people to get much better, either differentiating in a meaningful way or cutting costs and prices.

Indeed, Walmart may be the best way to fix the healthcare spending problem in the United States. The company has vast scale, immense financial resources and an aggressive approach.

This is all easier said than done, of course. Healthcare is a complicated world. Selling toothpaste for less is a lot easier than selling MRIs for less.

Still, Walmart needs growth and healthcare is a huge opportunity. And the U.S. needs Walmart to bring some fresh thinking and low prices to healthcare.

This is why I am so impressed with what Nest pulled off this week.

Nest is a start-up company launching a new thermostat. It is apparently a pretty nifty device; it looks cool and makes a number of adjustments based on who is in the room. But at the core it is, well, a thermostat.

This week Nest was everywhere. I saw it in the New York Time, The Wall Street Journal and The Chicago Tribune. In each publication Nest received a huge article and all of the articles raved about this very cool new innovation. I did a Google search on Nest Thermostat today and got 35.2 million hits. This is pretty impressive. Nest is exceptionally well positioned heading into the holiday season.

How did this happen?

Well, it certainly wasn’t chance.

Nest clearly executed a simply brilliant PR campaign. I suspect the company and its agency crafted the story and pitched it carefully. In a slow news week, media outlets picked it up and ran with it.

The fact that a former Apple executive started Nest certainly helped. And it is an interesting device. But more than anything Nest did some brilliant marketing.

Well done.