Pull-up Banner Stands Made Simple

Portable banner stands are a simple and inexpensive way to create a presence at special events and tradeshows. With the right graphics, they'll help you attract the people you want to talk to.  The retractable style or "pull-up" stands make setup a snap!
 
However, if you haven't noticed, there are 14 million (slight exaggeration) different models and prices. When you consider the different banner materials and printing techniques, the options become even more mind-boggling. At Ideation, we can simplify all this and help you zero in on the right display for your needs.
 
Check out our Exhibit & Tradeshow Displays section of our website for more examples.  

Pick Three: Service, culture and profits

The saying goes: Good, cheap and quick. Pick two. I first heard that line early in my career and there probably isn't a more accurate statement when it comes to providing a service.

The other night I read Tony Hsieh's book excerpt in this month's Inc. on why he sold his company, Zappos, to Amazon.com. It provided some great insights that you don't typically get and it all surrounded Hsieh's strong desire to ink a deal that would maintain and build on the culture and customer service that was the platform for it becoming a $1 billion company within its first 10 years of business.

It isn't often that you read a story like this. Big company buys little guy (not that Zappos is at all little)... and then nothing changes. Of course everything could still change, but you get the sense that it won't. Customer service is the main differentiating factor that Hsieh created his shoe company around. Without it, it's not Zappos. The consumers will quickly notice the difference if it's not the same company and if policies begin to change.

As for that saying at the beginning of this post. Zappos is great and quick, but they're not any cheaper than the competition. I've never purchased shoes online. I have a hard time understanding how people do it if there isn't any type of significant savings in doing so. I'd be the kind of guy that would go to the mall and try on the shoes and see how they fit and then go online to see if I could find them 20% cheaper. I'm assuming I'm not alone. I have to try it on and see how it looked on me, not the model in the website's thumbnail photo. This isn't an online music shop where you can listen to a song sample and 15 seconds later have the song downloaded. This is a retail store with merchandise that you have to touch, feel and try on.

Taking all that into consideration I truly am amazed with Zappos' level of success. Customer service and experience is important to me, but no matter how easy it is to ship back a pair of poorly fitting shoes, it's still a pain. Zappos remarkably makes it happen.

This merger looks like a great deal for both companies. Both can gain a lot from each other. Consider Amazon's ability to even further improve on its own customer service and imagine what kind of revenue Zappos could potentially generate with the backing and support of Amazon. You don't see it often, but there really appears to be two clear winners in this deal. And you can only have two winners when you have two very successful, smart and customer-focused companies working together.

Good, cheap and quick? Pick two? I'll pick Amazon and Zappos.

Rules are meant to be broken…

There's a common phrase out there in the design world: you can break the rules as long as you first know what they are. Every now and then that comes to mind and it popped up again yesterday after hearing about GM's internal memo that circulated externally to the New York Times stating that the automaker was enforcing the use of the brand name Chevrolet over its commonly-used nickname Chevy.

I don't know about you, but all I know is that Chevrolet makes Chevy trucks. It doesn't make Chevrolet trucks. And the Corvette? I wrote about this a while back, but you'll be hard-pressed to find a Chevy or Chevrolet badge anywhere on that car. Corvette is a "white sheep" brand of Chevrolet and doesn't so much take pride in being associated too closely with either GM or Chevrolet. Are Corvettes now going to carry the name? Chevy is strong. Chevrolet is formal. Contrary to what we preach everyday, both names have an extremely strong place in the consumer mind. Both names should remain.

Insulting the buyer by pretending a nickname doesn't exist is just a poor and short-sighted approach. Do you think Harley-Davidson is going to start saying you can no longer just call their bikes Harleys?

As far as the argument that international sales could be hampered due to the confusion? Well, GM, you then have bigger issues to solve when it comes to internationally branding Chevrolet. If that's their argument then why is the same car called something different depending on which side of the Rio Grande you live?

Sending a memo saying you can't use "Chevy" anymore is ridiculous and completely contrary to what should be smart branding sense. I also found it interesting that the memo stated: "when you look at the most recognized brands throughout the world, such as Coke or Apple for instance, one of the things they all focus on is the consistency of their branding..."

Um, Coke is a nickname for Coca-Cola. And, Chevy, wake up, you really are one of the most popular brands in the world. Being popular and being profitable aren't always the same thing. Solid brands, if anything, realize the importance of being flexible. Being strict in imposing rules makes you look like a drill sergeant rather than a brand ambassador.

When things don’t go perfectly…it’s how we react

A lot of things happened last night in Detroit at Comerica Park. Rather than witnessing history's 21st perfect game it was more like a perfect storm. And in all that craziness there is a lot to be learned about business and what to do in the face of adversity.

Let's start with Armando Galarraga. The guy threw a perfect game in everyone's eyes (even umpire, Jim Joyce's, after he reviewed the replay), but how he reacted to the call was even more telling of his character. Every day, business owners, entrepreneurs and managers are faced with challenges, dilemmas and factors that are completely out of their control. I think about the client for whom we performed "perfect" work for, but for whatever reason at the end of the day they figured it wasn't outstanding enough or they just had it in them to make it their decision as to which direction they were going to go—the decision of a different direction for no apparent reason. It happens. It's happened to us and last night it happened to Galarraga. But what did he do? He didn't argue. He didn't go running up to Joyce hollering in disbelief. He stood there, smiled and let the reality sink in. Later, in the clubhouse, he talked to the media about the situation and even talked one-on-one with Joyce. Today he walked the lineup card out to Joyce who was the homeplate umpire. He handled it like a true professional. In fact, I'd say he handled it better than a true professional. He could have been bitter, but he decided to live with what he knew — that he had thrown a perfect game. The history books will disagree, but he knows.

Now consider Joyce. You have to feel terrible for the guy. He screwed up, but haven't we all. At least he wasn't the fireman who had to decide which person to grab out of the burning house before the roof caved in. At least he wasn't the surgeon who came down with a case of the yips and snipped the wrong vein in the middle of brain surgery. The best business owners are the ones who make the quick decisions and fortunately they're rarely life and death. They're not always right, but the good entrepreneurs stand by their decisions, whether they succeed or fail. What Joyce, and everyone else who makes a mistake, has to do is get up and get back at it the next day. But more importantly, he admitted he messed up. He faced the criticism. So many people these days hide behind attorneys or point the finger at someone else. Joyce could have said he had the wrong angle. He didn't. He could have maintained, even after reviews, that he made the right call by saying Galarraga's foot wasn't on the bag or that the ball bobbled in his glove. He didn't.

There's also a example in the way Galarraga's teammates handled the situation. They raced to his support after the game and let Joyce know what they thought about the call. Later, as cooler heads prevailed, they celebrated in the clubhouse as if it were actually a perfect game. Teamwork. Collaboration. It was all there. The best in business have a team who has their back.

So this isn't a blog post so much about branding as it is about doing the right thing. It's somewhat related to my last post about internal branding. Treat people right: your people and the people doing business with you.

I tell you, last night's events will stick with me forever. I'll always remember where I was and what I was doing. In many respects, Galarraga will go deeper into history because he was the first player in baseball history to be wrongly denied a perfect game on the 27th out. Heck, a huge group of 20 have perfect games and quick off the top of your head (no cheating with Wikipedia) who was the last guy to throw a perfect game before Dallas Braden did early this season? Gotcha. Obviously retiring 27 batters in a row is a huge feat, but you'll never forget Galarraga. It was historic for sure.

Internal branding: Treat people well and don’t let the bad ones in

During the past couple of months I've witnessed some pretty interesting things happening on the inside of some fairly large companies. I listen to the whispers: "she's not good for this company." "He has no idea what he's doing." He's completely out of his league." "Wow, they must have been a good interviewee."

Those quotes are true. (Names and genders are shuffled to protect the guilty)

I don't know who wrote it, and I'm sure many have repeated and practiced the saying, but I recall reading somewhere that your employees are more important than your customers. Initially I didn't really agree with that. However, I found myself thinking about that the other morning as I met a friend and former colleague for coffee. We were talking about the way we've seen certain business owners treat their employees. As we talked we realized it all was starting to come full circle for that particular company — and not in a good way.

Your team is only as good as you treat them. Treat them like crap and what does that say about your company culture, let alone the company's brand. Don't think for a moment that that abuse doesn't show up when "stepped-on" employee gets in front of "wool-pulled-over-the-eyes" client.

It should be obvious that in order to get the most out of employees you need to treat them well. Exceptionally well. But what about the flip side? What about the bad people? The miserable folks? The complainers? The lazy employees? Just as there are bad people dressed as management, there are just as many bad people disguised as employees supposedly playing an important role in your company's success.

What do we do with bad people who interview well? What do we do with bad people who don't have a B.P. accreditation after their name? The challenge is to never let these people through your door. They're qualified on paper, but not for your company.

Your company's reputation is way too important to have bad people carrying its torch.

Whether you've hired someone who's incompetent or highly-skilled, their ability to blend into the culture of your business is probably the most important tool they have to offer — especially if you're putting them in front of the customer. Good people can screw up and rebound. Bad people don't have a chance.

Too often, as we begin to implement a branding strategy for clients, I hear them say: we're going to have an uphill battle getting everyone on board. Your internal branding efforts are a lost cause if you're not first starting out with outstanding employees and leaders. Leaders have to treat their people right. And their people inherently have to believe in the company. They can't be told to believe. Yes, a tree that falls in the woods still makes a noise even when nobody's there to hear it. Treat your team like crap behind closed doors and they're still treated like crap. Likewise, gossip about your company and no matter what elevator pitch you memorize you'll still ooze negative venom.

Like all branding efforts, the exercise never ends — especially when it comes to making sure you have the right team who is on board with what the company is all about. I say forget trying to train people to regurgitate the company line. Instead, craft a clear message and quickly educate. If they're not willing to understand or are incapable of being a "YOUR NAME GOES HERE" type of employee without brainwashing or hypnosis, then they need to go.

I'm willing to bet that most managers don't give enough consideration to their company's brand when they're in an interview. Sure, they ask the standard questions, but how about asking potential employees questions about your company's brand. Ask them what the promise of this company is. Don't try and trick them, but observe their answer. Is it half crocked crap filled with a bunch of words like quality and professional? Next.

Do you chose employee candidates based on their skills or how they fit within the larger team and system? As the saying goes, everyone's a marketing person. Look around your office; is that a good idea?