I recently watched Juan Enriquez's Pop!Tech presentation, "10 Commandments for the President Elect – to Save the U.S. Economy." Yes, I know: Plenty of big thinkers have theories on how to correct the mess we're in, but I really encourage you to check this one out (www.poptech.org/juanenriquez). A Harvard MBA, author, CEO, academic and international debt-crisis expert, Enriquez clearly explains (in just 30 minutes, and with the aid of a sardonic wit and some Chihuahua slides) the systemic problems that got the U.S. economy into trouble. More to the point, he asserts that a true fix will require tough choices, not Band-Aid remedies aimed at boosting politicians' approval ratings.

These bandages have been in the headlines for some time now. First it was the $700 billion bailout of the financial industry. Now Detroit automakers are clamoring for a handout. Who's next? When does it stop? And will any of this really fix the problem? Enriquez says no, and the idea of throwing good money after bad got me thinking about another kind of bailout—the sort we, as marketers, don't need to watch CNN to know about.

It's the "brand bailout." Don't know one? Oh, sure you do. How frequently do you see temporary "fixes" to short-term brand woes that fail to even get near the core problem? Brand bailouts come in many forms, but they all look like cop-outs; they all take the easy way out today at the expense of a brand's health tomorrow.

Like what? Like failing to invest in true innovation while conjuring up brand "news" that lacks any relevance (Translation: New Look! Same Crappy Contents!). Like cutting media to hit short-term profits while forsaking long-term equity. Or like buying short-term merchandising without addressing the real problem: your pathetic trade margins.

Here's my favorite brand bailout (with thanks to Mr. Obama and Mrs. Palin and apologies to swine everywhere): putting lipstick on a pig. You puff up a brand at the surface without even looking at the problems beneath.

In fairness, not all brand bailout are conscious acts of cowardice. Sometimes you can't easily identify your systemic problems and, therefore, the noblest intent ends up being just a Band-Aid in the end. Look at Pepsi, whose management appears convinced it has a systemic branding problem. How so, you ask? Well, if dollars are votes, Pepsi is casting over a billion of them in favor of a fancy new logo. That's right, $1 million in design development costs and a staggering $1 billion to roll out the new logo design across the globe. If Pepsi didn't think it had a systemic branding problem, how else could it justify such a sum?

But is Pepsi following Enriquez-like counsel and making tough choices now to really fix what's ailing them, or is this just one big friggin' totally misguided brand bailout? Time will tell.

Lest you think I've appointed myself some kind of moralist, I should be clear that brand bailouts might be evils, but they're necessary evils. As a former CPG marketer, I know how this stuff goes down. A line manager's "approval rating" depends on hitting the short-term goal. Want that next promotion? Hit those top and bottom-line targets. As for the long-term needs of the brand? Let the brand manager-elect worry about that after you've been appointed to bigger and better things.

But hang on a moment. Did that pass-it-onto-the-next-guy reasoning sound familiar? It should; it's what the boys at Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns were apparently thinking. But unlike them, you still have hope for your brand. Who knows, you might be able to fix the sky before it comes crashing down—that is, if you have the courage to make some tough choices now. So, do your brand (and the economy) a favor, and stay away from those Band-Aids.



Brian Erdman is senior brand consultant at Brandimage, Cincinnati. Reach him at (513) 961-6225 or berdman@brand-image.com.