# data[].attributes.headline
WHY STRATEGY FAILS AND REAL LIFE EXAMPLES

# data[].attributes.subject
WHY STRATEGY FAILS AND REAL LIFE EXAMPLES

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If your organisational culture has these five characteristics, all attempts to implement strategic change will likely be doomed.

It's no longer a secret that most companies struggle with strategy execution. McKinsey research tells us, for example, that 70 percent of change efforts fall short of desired results. The financial losses implied by statistics like these are massive, and corporate leaders have taken notice. Today's senior leaders realise that implementation is at least half of the leadership challenge when it comes to improving performance via strategic change. Too frequently, however, they seek solutions in the wrong place.

When I speak to executives about what constitutes effective strategy execution, they very often emphasise the importance of "communication". If they could only master the art of communicating the new corporate strategy, employee alignment would be guaranteed and resistance overcome. Of course, having a clear and consistent message is essential. But within organisational culture there can be powerful, unspoken messages that contradict official rhetoric. Peter Drucker famously said, "Culture eats strategy for breakfast." I believe the same could be said of strategy execution.
Collective emotions
Managers are usually uncomfortable dealing with emotions in business settings, especially the all-important collective emotions - i.e., various emotions experienced by different stakeholder groups inside and outside the organisation, including employees, customers, communities, and investors. However, as much as managers may want their intended strategy to succeed, they still find it difficult to accept that the fate of their best-laid plans depends on the emotional allegiance of these groups. Instead, they assume their communications-which often focus only on the intellectual "left brain" rather than incorporating the "right brain", the seat of emotional engagement-will be heeded when their back is turned.

My prior research shows that executives who are receptive to the subtle, non-verbal signs of collective emotion are more likely to have the credibility required to lead strategic change. Sadly, such leaders are still few and far between.

Over time, emotionally illiterate leadership gives rise to a change-averse corporate culture. While profits are high and the economic climate remains promising, the problem stays under the radar-much like the early stage of cancer. But when a change in course becomes necessary, senior leaders find that no matter how hard they try, transformation never takes root.
Microsoft's woes
Consider what happened internally at Microsoft in the year or two just before the iPhone came out. Having gotten wind of Apple's impending game changer, Microsoft chairman Bill Gates tasked then-CEO Steve Ballmer with creating a copycat device to forestall Cupertino's market dominance. Ballmer passed the word to his senior vice-presidents, each of whom had at his disposal thousands of engineers and an R&D budget running into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Their combined failure to produce an acceptable iPhone equivalent is the stuff of tech legend.

What went wrong? Despite their shared mandate, the departments didn't cooperate fully with one another. A big part of the problem, experts agree, was Microsoft's infamously cutthroat "stack ranking" system, which forced managers to grade employee performance on the curve. Regardless of individual performance, a certain percentage of staffers would always be ranked as "below average" or "poor". Low-ranking employees were ineligible for promotions and pay rises, and would sometimes be shown the door.

As a result of stack ranking, Microsoft's top talents were wary of and competitive with one another, seeking to surround themselves with employees who would make them look better by comparison. Any collaboration between them was stifled by the dehumanising corporate culture.

In November 2013, reports surfaced that Microsoft had abandoned stack ranking. Three months later, Ballmer stepped down as CEO.
Five main barriers
Microsoft's story may be high-profile, but it is not unique. Wherever there is a lack of emotionally incisive leadership, employees will tend to fall back on the basic human instinct of self-preservation. Ironically, what is "survival mode" for employees may well spell the death of a corporate strategy.

In my decades of experience working with executives representing dozens of nationalities, I have identified five main emotion-based barriers to strategy execution within organisations. Each one presents a major danger to transformational efforts by preventing the necessary sense of urgency and commitment to a common task from taking hold throughout the organisation.

· Mistrust and low sharing of useful and timely information - A "politics first" mentality that prizes appearance management above action. This causes a situation where no one wants to be the bearer of bad news. As with Microsoft, Nokia and probably Volkswagen, problems will come to leaders' attention only when it is too late. Strategic alignment is further hindered by information-hoarding among players who see their colleagues as competitors.

· Low receptivity to effortful change - Effortful change (even when it's obviously beneficial, e.g. quitting smoking or staying on a diet) is easy to profess, difficult to do. Leaders must demonstrate their own willingness and ability to change before asking it of others.

· More talk than action, then misaligned action - As I suggested above, communication for intellectual understanding does not elicit emotional engagement to implement the new strategy. When leaders fail to inspire the collective toward a common goal, each team will tend to veer off in its own direction. It becomes impossible to integrate all the silos.

· Mechanistic action - When under high time and performance pressure, employees become creatures of habit rather than taking risks to become innovative.

· Complacency - Confronted with the potential effort and risk of strategic change, the organisation as a whole believes the status quo is good enough, so why do the hard work to change it?
Balance is the key
Leaders already spend a lot of time and energy making a solid left-brained case for their strategy, as they should. But without a corresponding effort to engage emotionally and a culture that supports that effort, the spirit of change will quickly fade from the scene. To execute a strategy successfully, you need a good plan and an even better culture. I will discuss how this could be done in future blogs.
Quy Huy is Professor of Strategic Management at INSEAD. He is also Programme Director of the Strategy Execution Programme, part of INSEAD's suite of Executive Development Programmes.
Follow INSEAD Knowledge on Twitter and Facebook

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Five Reasons Most Companies Fail at Strategy Execution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If your organisational culture has these five characteristics, all attempts to implement strategic change will likely be doomed. It's no longer a secret that most companies struggle with strategy execution . McKinsey research tells us, for example, that 70 percent of change efforts fall short of desired results.

# data[].attributes.headline
Amazon intolerable staff conditions scandal

# data[].attributes.subject
Amazon intolerable staff conditions scandal

# data[].attributes.body
Links to ethics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Amazon has been accused of creating "intolerable working conditions" after allegations that workers have been penalised for sick days and that some are camping near one of its warehouses to save money commuting to work.

Willie Rennie, the Liberal Democrat leader in Scotland, said Amazon should be "ashamed" that workers at its warehouse in Dunfermline have chosen to camp outside in the winter.

He made the comments after the the Courier newspaper published photographs of tents near the site that it said were being lived in by Amazon workers. It said at least three tents were pitched close to the warehouse by the M90 in Dunfermline and that a man living in one of them had said he was an employee who usually lives in Perth.

A Sunday Times investigation found that temporary workers at the warehouse were being penalised for taking time off sick and put under pressure to hit targets for picking orders. It also claimed that although workers could walk up to 10 miles a day doing their jobs, water dispensers were regularly empty.

Amazon has hired 20,000 agency workers for the peak Christmas season, more than doubling its workforce. Staff have to pay to catch an agency-provided bus to the Dunfermline site.

Rennie has repeatedly called for the firm to improve conditions at its Dunfermline site and said the latest claim "chimes with the feedback I have received from local people over a long period of time".

He said: "It confirms that Amazon have created intolerable working conditions for many. The company don't seem to be interested in keeping workers for too long as they work them until they drop. They have generated an oppressive culture where management and some workers put undue pressure on workers.

"It's time for Amazon to finally change their ways. That means a change to wages and to working conditions."

Rennie said the firm should be "ashamed that they pay their workers so little that they have to camp out in the dead of winter to make ends meet".

Amazon, which has 12 fulfilment centres around the UK, has come under fire in the past for its treatment of workers, many of whom are employed through agencies. Three years ago, an undercover reporter for the Observer wrote about the long hours and physical work carried out for low pay, while more recently unions have claimed that workers are falling ill as a result.

Online job forums have reviews by former workers which describe being expected to "work like robots" and "paranoia with job security". Workers say overtime is compulsory and holidays banned in the busy months of November and December.

When questioned about the tents, Amazon said it "provides a safe and positive workplace with competitive pay and benefits from day one".

It added: "We are proud to have been able to create several thousand new permanent roles in our UK fulfilment centres over the last five years. One of the reasons we've been able to attract so many people to join us is that we offer great jobs and a positive work environment with opportunities for growth.

"We offer associates a range of roles in our fulfilment centres, depending on their preferences. Some roles involve walking a number of miles each day, a fact we make clear during the recruitment process. Many associates seek these positions as they enjoy the active nature of the work. There are many opportunities for people who prefer less active roles.

"As with nearly all companies, we expect a certain level of performance from our associates. Productivity targets are set objectively, based on previous performance levels achieved by our workforce."

The company said it analysed wages every year to ensure they were competitive. All permanent and temporary Amazon workers start on £7.35 an hour or more and earn at least £11 an hour for overtime. There are paid 30-minute lunch breaks and subsidised meals. The new national living wage is £7.20 for workers aged over 25.

Water is readily available for staff as they performed their duties, Amazon said, and it has a "fair and predictable system to record staff attendance and take into account individual circumstances".

Michael Newman, an employment lawyer at Leigh Day, said that it was legal for companies to have a policy which meant that workers were effectively penalised if they were off sick. "Absence policies are definitely becoming stricter - one example would be having a bonus or 'attendance allowance' that is then forfeited if the worker is off sick," he said.

"Amazon's policy doesn't seem particularly unusual though - the important thing is to distinguish between days off, and periods of absence. It is usually the latter that counts for unfair dismissal purposes, although many policies look at both how long you are off for, and how many times you are off."

The Labour MP Frank Field, who has been campaigning against poor conditions for self-employed workers, said the government-ordered review into working practices should issue an interim report.

"Inquiries take time but over that time the injustices are growing," he said. " There have been reports on Hermes and Uber done by my office, and now the Sunday Times investigation - there is enough information out there."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Amazon accused of 'intolerable conditions' at Scottish warehouse

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Amazon has been accused of creating "intolerable working conditions" after allegations that workers have been penalised for sick days and that some are camping near one of its warehouses to save money commuting to work. Willie Rennie, the Liberal Democrat leader in Scotland, said Amazon should be "ashamed" that workers at its warehouse in Dunfermline have chosen to camp outside in the winter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Hewlett-Packard. Ben & Jerry's. Even Microsoft and Apple were born out of a partnership. These days, when competition is fierce and you can't afford to compete on price alone, a partnership may be a smart business move. Online partnerships happen every day, when Company A has something valuable to offer Company B wherein both businesses benefit and grow as a result.

But how can you leverage these kinds of partnerships to grow your own business goals? Let's take a closer look at four little-known examples and learn how they used the power of partnerships to boost their bottom line (and how you can too!).

1. Brand Piggybacking: Notre Dame and Fanatics.com

Fanatics.com is well-known as the web's largest online retailer of officially licensed sports merchandise, so it's only natural that the Fighting Irish would choose them to power their online store. Many colleges and universities elect to run their own e-commerce shops, but none of them have the name recognition and "fanatical" service that has become ingrained with the Fanatics.com brand.

According to Daniel Skendzel, Digital Media Program Director for the University of Notre Dame, the university "ultimately chose Fanatics because of the company's focus on the e-commerce shopping experience. They are annually among the highest rated firms in customer service. They have a proven track record for delivering an outstanding product assortment. They have invested in technology and infrastructure to ensure fast and accurate product fulfillment. We are pleased to be working with an industry leader like Fanatics".

What You Can Learn From Them

When you can take advantage of the existing good-will and industry-leading name recognition of an existing brand far easier than trying to establish your own store independently, it makes sense to piggyback on that brand. This is why many publishers and online stores take advantage of Amazon and Google Shopping as an additional outlet for their merchandise. Big name online brands have far greater reach and exposure, so why compete when you can cooperate?

2. Go Beyond Being a Solution Provider: Apptive and Mobile Commerce

There are plenty of mobile commerce providers on the web, all promoting a near-instant, beautifully-rendered mobile version of your site. So what makes Apptive, an m-commerce provider, so different? Rather than shout about their services in a digital echo chamber, Apptive partnered with leading e-commerce providers Volusion, BigCommerce and Shopify to enhance their existing offerings by integrating its mobile commerce tools with the service providers' existing click-and-build e-commerce templates.

As their customers say, "Apptive is a really exciting addition to my marketing toolbox," says Tahnee Elliot, owner of TC Elli's and a Bigcommerce customer. "My boutique clothing store is in a college town where I'd estimate over 90% of my customers are smartphone users. Giving them a super easy way to interact with my store from their smartphone and gaining a new direct communication channel with push notifications has been awesome."

What You Can Learn From Them

Even when you're in an ultra-competitive niche, customers will tune you out if you're shouting from an island about how you offer the best services for the lowest prices. The fact is, they know they have plenty of choices. Simply being online and offering ease of use technology is no longer enough to set you apart. You have to embrace the tools your customers are using, and look for ways to make it easier to boost both your service, and the services your buyers frequent.

3. Look for Unique Ways to Accentuate Other People's Products and Services: Valpak and Samsung

On the subject of integrating with the tools your customers are already using - we have Valpak. In the U.S., Valpak is synonymous with coupons-by-mail, and their mailers are both loved and loathed by residents around the country for their coupons and the assorted junk (including promotions and sweepstakes) that come with them.

In a unique partnership with Samsung, Valpak developed an app that would let Galaxy and Galaxy Note users manage their coupons, savings, tickets and loyalty points direct from their devices. In an added twist, Galaxy users could also receive proximity alerts on their smartphones of alerts and sales in their area. They could pick and choose which coupons were most relevant to them, or turn off the feature altogether, giving them the freedom and flexibility to stay up to date on new notifications from the shops they loved and frequented.

What You Can Learn From Them

By looking for ways to accentuate other people's products and services, Valpak positioned itself as front-of-mind in a consumer-driven, deal-hungry marketplace. Samsung enjoyed the benefit of an exclusive product that only users of their higher end devices could participate in, thus giving them a channel into a lucrative, hard-to-reach market. What are some ways that you could add to other people's products and services in a way that you both benefit?

4. Around the Corner, Around the World: Drugstore.com and E4X

You may recognize the name Drugstore.com, but what is E4X? As it turns out, they offer geo-location services that can identify where a customer is browsing from, and adjust a site to fit the local currency and culture. Today, Drugstore.com operates a presence in 52 countries, dynamically recommending products to international audiences around the world.

Chief marketing officer David Lonczak notes that International sales represent a pillar of growth for Drugstore.com...Online retailers of all sizes can avoid certain problems of selling overseas by first getting to know their potential customer base, exposing them to the right products and finding good technology partners."

What You Can Learn From Them

There's no shortage of sites experiencing international blunders after launching in foreign countries unprepared. As such, Drugstore.com took the time to get to know their buyers in each country, while investing in the technology and infrastructure needed to cater to their unique needs. Finding a company that excels in an area of specialization that makes it easier for customers to do business with you is a no-brainer when it comes to forming a strategic partnership!

Creating Your Own Partnership Plan

With each of these companies, and many more, each strategic partnership vision started with a plan. Outline what it is you hope to receive, and perhaps more importantly, what your partner should receive as a result of working together. Leave the sales pitch at the door and concentrate on building a real, solid relationship with key decision-makers.

Even if they don't seem "sold" on the idea at first, getting them to open up and explain their goals will allow you to tailor your plan so that it more precisely meets their objectives, while concurrently meeting your own. Good luck!

About the Author: Sherice Jacob helps businesses improve website design and increase conversions with user-focused design, compelling copywriting and smart analytics. Learn more at iElectrify and get your free conversion checklist and web copy tune-up. Follow @sherice on Twitter, LinkedIn or Google+ for more articles like this!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
4 Real-Life Examples of Online Businesses That Have Thrived on Strategic Partnerships

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hewlett-Packard. Ben & Jerry's. Even Microsoft and Apple were born out of a partnership. These days, when competition is fierce and you can't afford to compete on price alone, a partnership may be a smart business move. Online partnerships happen every day, when Company A has something valuable to offer Company B wherein both businesses benefit and grow as a result.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Think of a brand success story, and you may well think of Coca-Cola. Indeed, with nearly 1 billion Coca-Cola drinks sold every single day, it is the world's most recognized brand.

Yet in 1985 the Coca-Cola Company decided to terminate its most popular soft drink and replace it with a formula it would market as New Coke. New coke was a Coca cola brand failure story. To understand why this potentially disastrous decision was made, it is necessary to appreciate what was happening in the soft drinks marketplace. In particular, we must take a closer look at the growing competition between Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola in the years and even decades prior to the launch of New Coke.

The relationship between the arch- rivals had not been a healthy one. Although marketing experts have believed for a long time that the competition between the two companies had made consumers more cola-conscious, the firms themselves rarely saw it like that. Indeed, the Coca-Cola company had even fought Pepsi-Cola in a legal battle over the use of the word 'cola' in its name, and lost.

Outside the courts though, Coca-Cola had always been ahead. Shortly after World War II, Time magazine was already celebrating Coke's 'peaceful near-conquest of the world.' In the late 1950s, Coke outsold Pepsi by a ratio of more than five to one. However, during the next decade Pepsi repositioned itself as a youth brand.

This strategy was a risky one as it meant sacrificing its older customers to Coca-Cola, but ultimately it proved successful. By narrowing its focus, Pepsi was able to position its brand against the old and classic image of its competitor. As it became increasingly seen as 'the drink of youth' Pepsi managed to narrow the gap.

In the 1970s, Coke's chief rival raised the stakes even further by introducing the Pepsi Challenge - testing consumers blind on the difference between its own brand and 'the real thing'. To the horror of Coca-Cola's longstanding company president, Robert Woodruff, most of those who participated preferred Pepsi's sweeter formula.

In the 1980s Pepsi continued its offensive, taking the Pepsi Challenge around the globe and heralding the arrival of the 'Pepsi Generation'. It also signed up celebrities likely to appeal to its target market such as Don Johnson and Michael Jackson (this tactic has survived into the new millennium, with figures like Britney Spears and Robbie Williams providing more recent endorsements).

By the time Roberto Goizueta became chairman in 1981, Coke's number one status was starting to look vulnerable. It was losing market share not only to Pepsi but also to some of the drinks produced by the Coca-Cola company itself, such as Fanta and Sprite. In particular the runaway success of Diet Coke was a double-edged sword, as it helped to shrink the sugar cola market. In 1983, the year Diet Coke moved into the number three position behind standard Coke and Pepsi, Coke's market share had slipped to an all-time low of just under 24 per cent.

Something clearly had to be done to secure Coke's supremacy. Goizueta's first response to the 'Pepsi Challenge' phenomenon was to launch an advertising campaign in 1984, praising Coke for being less sweet than Pepsi. The television ads were fronted by Bill Cosby, at that time one of the most familiar faces on the planet, and clearly someone who was too old to be part of the Pepsi Generation.

The impact of such efforts to set Coca-Cola apart from its rival was limited. Coke's share of the market remained the same while Pepsi was catching up. Another worry was that when shoppers had the choice, such as in their local supermarket, they tended to plump for Pepsi. It was only Coke's more effective distribution which kept it ahead. For instance, there were still considerably more vending machines selling Coke than Pepsi.

Even so, there was no getting away from the fact that despite the proliferation of soft drink brands, Pepsi was winning new customers. Having already lost on taste, the last thing Coca-Cola could afford was to lose its number one status.

The problem, as Coca-Cola perceived it, came down to the product itself. As the Pepsi Challenge had highlighted millions of times over, Coke could always be defeated when it came down to taste. This seemed to be confirmed by the success of Diet Coke which was closer to Pepsi in terms of flavour.

So in what must have been seen as a logical step, Coca-Cola started working on a new formula. A year later they had arrived at New Coke. Having produced its new formula, the Atlanta-based company conducted 200,000 taste tests to see how it fared. The results were overwhelming. Not only did it taste better than the original, but people preferred it to Pepsi-Cola as well.

However, if Coca-Cola was to stay ahead of Pepsi-Cola it couldn't have two directly competing products on the shelves at the same time. It therefore decided to scrap the original Coca-Cola and introduced New Coke in its place.

The trouble was that the Coca-Cola company had severely underestimated the power of its first brand. As soon as the decision was announced, a large percentage of the US population immediately decided to boycott the new product. On 23 April 1985 New Coke was introduced and a few days later the production of original Coke was stopped. This joint decision has since been referred to as 'the biggest marketing blunder of all time'. Sales of New Coke were low and public outrage was high at the fact that the original was no longer available.

It soon became clear that Coca-Cola had little choice but to bring back its original brand and formula. 'We have heard you,' said Goizueta at a press conference on 11 July 1985. He then left it to the company's chief operating officer Donald Keough to announce the return of the product.

Keough admitted:

The simple fact is that all the time and money and skill poured into consumer research on the new Coca-Cola could not measure or reveal the deep and abiding emotional attachment to original Coca-Cola felt by so many people. The passion for original Coca-Cola - and that is the word for it, passion - was something that caught us by surprise. It is a wonderful American mystery, a lovely American enigma, and you cannot measure it any more than you can measure love, pride or patriotism.

In other words, Coca-Cola had learnt that marketing is about much more than the product itself. The majority of the tests had been carried out blind, and therefore taste was the only factor under assessment. The company had finally taken Pepsi's bait and, in doing so, conceded its key brand asset: originality.

When Coca-Cola was launched in the 1880s it was the only product in the market. As such, it invented a new category and the brand name became the name of the product itself. Throughout most of the last century, Coca-Cola capitalized on its 'original' status in various advertising campaigns. In 1942, magazine adverts appeared across the United States declaring: 'The only thing like Coca-Cola is Coca-Cola itself. It's the real thing.'

By launching New Coke, Coca-Cola was therefore contradicting its previous marketing efforts. Its central product hadn't been called new since the very first advert appeared in the Atlanta Journal in 1886, billing Coca-Cola as 'The New Pop Soda Fountain Drink, containing the properties of the wonderful Coca-plant and the famous Cola nuts.'

In 1985, a century after the product launched, the last word people associated with Coca-Cola was 'new'. This was the company with more allusions to US heritage than any other. Fifty years previously, the Pulitzer Prize winning editor of a Kansas newspaper, William Allen White had referred to the soft drink as the 'sublimated essence of all America stands for - a decent thing, honestly made, universally distributed, conscientiously improved with the years.' Coca-Cola had even been involved with the history of US space travel, famously greeting Apollo astronauts with a sign reading 'Welcome back to earth, home of Coca-Cola.'

To confine the brand's significance to a question of taste was therefore completely misguided. As with many big brands, the representation was more significant than the thing represented, and if any soft drink represented 'new' it was Pepsi, not Coca-Cola (even though Pepsi is a mere decade younger).

If you tell the world you have the 'real thing' you cannot then come up with a 'new real thing'. To borrow the comparison of marketing guru Al Ries it's 'like introducing a New God'. This contradictory marketing message was accentuated by the fact that, since 1982, Coke's strap line had been 'Coke is it'. Now it was telling consumers that they had got it wrong, as if they had discovered Coke wasn't it, but rather New Coke was instead.

So despite the tremendous amount of hype which surrounded the launch of New Coke (one estimate puts the value of New Coke's free publicity at over US $10 million), it was destined to fail. Although Coca-Cola's market researchers knew enough about branding to understand that consumers would go with their brand preference if the taste tests weren't blind, they failed to make the connection that these brand preferences would still exist once the product was launched.

Pepsi was, perhaps unsurprisingly, the first to recognize Coca-Cola's mistake. Within weeks of the launch, it ran a TV ad with an old man sitting on a park bench, staring at the can in his hand. 'They changed my Coke,' he said, clearly distressed. 'I can't believe it.'

However, when Coca-Cola relaunched its original coke, redubbed 'Classic Coke' for the US market, the media interest swung back in the brand's favour. It was considered a significant enough event to warrant a newsflash on ABC News and other US networks. Within months Coke had returned to the number one spot and New Coke had all but faded away.

Ironically, through the brand failure of New Coke loyalty to 'the real thing' intensified. In fact, certain conspiracy theorists have even gone so far as to say the whole thing had been planned as a deliberate marketing ploy to reaffirm public affection for Coca-Cola. After all, what better way to make someone appreciate the value of your global brand than to withdraw it completely?

Of course, Coca-Cola has denied that this was the company's intention. 'Some critics will say Coca-Cola made a marketing mistake, some cynics will say that we planned the whole thing,' said Donald Keough at the time. 'The truth is we are not that dumb, and we are not that smart.' But viewed in the context of its competition with Pepsi, the decision to launch New Coke was understandable. For years, Pepsi's key weapon had been the taste of its product. By launching New Coke, the Coca-Cola company clearly hoped to weaken its main rival's marketing offensive.

So what was Pepsi's verdict on the whole episode? In his book, The Other Guy Blinked, Pepsi's CEO Roger Enrico believes the error of New Coke proved to be a valuable lesson for Coca-Cola. 'I think, by the end of their nightmare, they figured out who they really are. Caretakers. They can't change the taste of their flagship brand. They can't change its imagery. All they can do is defend the heritage they nearly abandoned in 1985.'

Lessons from New Coke

Concentrate on the brand's perception. In the words ofJack Trout, author of Differentiate or Die, 'marketing is a battle of perceptions, not products'.

Don't clone your rivals. In creating New Coke, Coca-Cola was reversing its brand image to overlap with that of Pepsi. The company has made similar mistakes both before and after, launching Mr Pibb to rival Dr Pepper and Fruitopia to compete with Snapple.

Feel the love. According to Saatchi and Saatchi's worldwide chief executive officer, Kevin Roberts, successful brands don't have 'trademarks'. They have 'lovemarks' instead. In building brand loyalty, companies are also creating an emotional attachment that often has little to do with the quality of the product.

Don't be scared to U-turn. By going back on its decision to scrap original Coke, the company ended up creating an even stronger bond between the product and the consumer.

Do the right market research. Despite the thousands of taste tests Coca-Cola carried out on its new formula, it failed to conduct adequate research into the public perception of the original brand.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Think of a brand success story, and you may well think of Coca-Cola. Indeed, with nearly 1 billion Coca-Cola drinks sold every single day, it is the world's most recognized brand. Yet in 1985 the Coca-Cola Company decided to terminate its most popular soft drink and replace it with a formula it would market as New Coke.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is Volkswagen accused of?

It's been dubbed the "diesel dupe". In September, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that many VW cars being sold in America had a "defeat device" - or software - in diesel engines that could detect when they were being tested, changing the performance accordingly to improve results. The German car giant has since admitted cheating emissions tests in the US.

VW has had a major push to sell diesel cars in the US, backed by a huge marketing campaign trumpeting its cars' low emissions. The EPA's findings cover 482,000 cars in the US only, including the VW-manufactured Audi A3, and the VW models Jetta, Beetle, Golf and Passat. But VW has admitted that about 11 million cars worldwide, including eight million in Europe, are fitted with the so-called "defeat device".

The company has also been accused by the EPA of modifying software on the 3 litre diesel engines fitted to some Porsche and Audi as well as VW models. VW has denied the claims, which affect at least 10,000 vehicles.

In November, VW said it had found "irregularities" in tests to measure carbon dioxide emissions levels that could affect about 800,000 cars in Europe - including petrol vehicles. However, in December it said that following investigations, it had established that this only affected about 36,000 of the cars it produces each year.

This 'defeat device' sounds like a sophisticated piece of kit.

Full details of how it worked are sketchy, although the EPA has said that the engines had computer software that could sense test scenarios by monitoring speed, engine operation, air pressure and even the position of the steering wheel.

When the cars were operating under controlled laboratory conditions - which typically involve putting them on a stationary test rig - the device appears to have put the vehicle into a sort of safety mode in which the engine ran below normal power and performance. Once on the road, the engines switched out of this test mode.

The result? The engines emitted nitrogen oxide pollutants up to 40 times above what is allowed in the US.

What has been VW's response?

"We've totally screwed up," said VW America boss Michael Horn, while the group's chief executive at the time, Martin Winterkorn, said his company had "broken the trust of our customers and the public". Mr Winterkorn resigned as a direct result of the scandal and was replaced by Matthias Mueller, the former boss of Porsche.

"My most urgent task is to win back trust for the Volkswagen Group - by leaving no stone unturned," Mr Mueller said on taking up his new post.

VW has also launched an internal inquiry.

With VW recalling millions of cars worldwide from early next year, it has set aside €6.7bn (£4.8bn) to cover costs. That resulted in the company posting its first quarterly loss for 15 years of €2.5bn in late October.

But that's unlikely to be the end of the financial impact. The EPA has the power to fine a company up to $37,500 for each vehicle that breaches standards - a maximum fine of about $18bn.

The costs of possible legal action by car owners and shareholders "cannot be estimated at the current time", VW added.

How widespread are VW's problems?

What started in the US has spread to a growing number of countries. The UK, Italy, France, South Korea, Canada and, of course, Germany, have opened investigations. Throughout the world, politicians, regulators and environmental groups are questioning the legitimacy of VW's emissions testing.

VW will recall 8.5 million cars in Europe, including 2.4 million in Germany and 1.2 million in the UK, and 500,000 in the US as a result of the emissions scandal.

No wonder the carmaker's shares have fallen by about a third since the scandal broke.

Will more heads roll?

It's still unclear who knew what and when, although VW must have had a chain of management command that approved fitting cheating devices to its engines, so further departures are likely.

Christian Klingler, a management board member and head of sales and marketing is leaving the company, although VW said this was part of long-term planned structural changes and was not related to recent events.

In 2014, in the US, regulators raised concerns about VW emissions levels, but these were dismissed by the company as "technical issues" and "unexpected" real-world conditions. If executives and managers wilfully misled officials (or their own VW superiors) it's difficult to see them surviving.

Are other carmakers implicated?

That's for the various regulatory and government inquiries to determine. California's Air Resources Board is now looking into other manufacturers' testing results. Ford, BMW and Renault-Nissan have said they did not use "defeat devices", while other firms have either not commented or simply stated that they comply with the law.

The UK trade body for the car industry, the SMMT, said: "The EU operates a fundamentally different system to the US - with all European tests performed in strict conditions as required by EU law and witnessed by a government-appointed independent approval agency."

But it added: "The industry acknowledges that the current test method is outdated and is seeking agreement from the European Commission for a new emissions test that embraces new testing technologies and is more representative of on-road conditions."

That sounds like EU testing rules need tightening, too.

Environmental campaigners have long argued that emissions rules are being flouted. "Diesel cars in Europe operate with worse technology on average than the US," said Jos Dings, from the pressure group Transport & Environment. "Our latest report demonstrated that almost 90% of diesel vehicles didn't meet emission limits when they drive on the road. We are talking millions of vehicles."

Car analysts at the financial research firm Bernstein agree that European standards are not as strict as those in the US. However, the analysts said in a report that there was, therefore, "less need to cheat". So, if other European carmakers' results are suspect, Bernstein says the "consequences are likely to be a change in the test cycle rather than legal action and fines".

It's all another blow for the diesel market.

Certainly is. Over the past decade and more, carmakers have poured a fortune into the production of diesel vehicles - with the support of many governments - believing that they are better for the environment. Latest scientific evidence suggests that's not the case, and there are even moves to limit diesel cars in some cities.

Diesel sales were already slowing, so the VW scandal came at a bad time. "The revelations are likely to lead to a sharp fall in demand for diesel engine cars," said Richard Gane, automotive expert at consultants Vendigital.

"In the US, the diesel car market currently represents around 1% of all new car sales and this is unlikely to increase in the short to medium term.

"However, in Europe the impact could be much more significant, leading to a large tranche of the market switching to petrol engine cars virtually overnight."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's been dubbed the "diesel dupe". In September, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that many VW cars being sold in America had a "defeat device" - or software - in diesel engines that could detect when they were being tested, changing the performance accordingly to improve results.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sometimes a marketing campaign just doesn't work. Maybe you chose the wrong venue or the wrong medium or the wrong time of year. All forgivable. Sometimes, however, it's much deeper than that: You chose the wrong message. Less forgivable.

On these rare occasions, your brand's storytelling doesn't just fail; it blows up in your face. Here are eight examples of times when a marketing campaign was an utter disaster and how you can learn to avoid such mistakes for your clients.

1) The Time Levi Claimed Hotness Comes in All Sizes

Sounds like an awesome message for a clothing company, proclaiming that no matter what your size, you are welcome in the Levi tent. The message was the right all-inclusive, go-girl vibe, but the picture that went along with that message was a complete and utter failure. The women in the image were all stick-thin, exactly the opposite of whom the marketing message was meant for.

Lesson: Make sure your images match your message.

2) The Time McDonald's Got Embarrassed on Twitter

What a cool concept: Invite people to share their stories of why they love your restaurant with a certain hashtag. However, it's a lot less cool when people hijack that hashtag and start using it to complain about your restaurants and your food. That's what happened to McDonald's with the #McDStories campaign. Instead of people tweeting about their enjoyable experiences, they inundated McDonald's with criticism.

Lesson: Be realistic about your brand. The biggest mistake McDonald's made was kicking off the campaign with a tweet about making its burgers with pride. Let's be serious though; it's McDonald's.

3) The Time Amazon Creeped Everyone Out

The new Amazon Echo is sort of like the cylindrical version of Siri: It can answer your questions, turn on your music, or control your other devices. Neat idea. However, releasing a nearly 4 minute YouTube ad about its functions wherein the device appeared weird and kind of creepy was a mistake.

Just hours after Amazon released its ad, a parody version came out that was really funny and racked up more than 3 million views in a few hours. Suddenly Amazon Echo wasn't the story; Amazon Echo parody was.

http://youtu.be/KkOCeAtKHIc

Lesson: Forget the focus groups. Have some real humans watch your ads and make sure they don't have a creepy vibe before you release them.

4) The Time Huggies Questioned Dads' Parenting Skills

When you sell diapers, you want to appeal to parents. You will not appeal to parents if you imply some of them are not up to the task of changing their babies' diapers. This is what Huggies did with a campaign called " Have Dad Put Huggies to the Test." Its ads portrayed dads as imbeciles who are too busy watching TV to change their kids' diapers. And it reassured viewers that Huggies are so strong the kids will be fine till mom comes home!

Lesson: Do not, repeat, do not rip on your target demographic.

5) The Time a Mattress Company Pretended to Shoot a Teen Girl

This is just unbelievably bad. A mattress company in India wanted to show how bouncy its product was, so it used a graphic to show how teenage girl Malala Yousafzai, who was shot by the Taliban for pursuing an education, bounced back from her terrible fate on a mattress. The agency behind the campaign quickly apologized, and the advertisement was pulled.

Lesson: Using more timely content can be a brilliant way to sell your brand, but don't be crass. Commercializing a shooting is in poor taste.

6) The Time Kmart Made Its Employees Work on a Holiday

When you are accused of doing something not nice, sometimes it's smarter just to ignore the complaints than to try to defend yourself. Kmart took to Twitter to answer people who complained that by opening on Thanksgiving, the store was putting profits above its employees who would have to work rather than spend the holiday with loved ones. Kmart tweeted that it was just trying to give its workers an opportunity to make some extra money.

Lesson: Do not engage, even if you really believe that silly nonsense you tweeted.

7) The Time an Oregon Radio Station Made a Racist Billboard

Just try to avoid racism in all forms, OK? It's not only distasteful in daily life, but it's particularly noticeable and despised when used in advertising. A billboard for a radio station in Oregon that said "We love you long time" was placed in Chinatown in Portland, and you can imagine the outrage.

Lesson: Even if you can justify that it's just a little insensitive, that is not a good enough reason to use it in your branding.

8) The Time GM Used a Suicidal Robot

Addressing suicide in a marketing campaign is challenging. It's usually best avoided, and it's certainly not something you joke about. However, General Motors did just that with an ad -- in the Super Bowl, no less -- that depicted a despondent robot line worker killing itself after making a mistake on the job.

Lesson: Remember the advice that you shouldn't joke about sex, death, or taxes? Take it to heart.

What other lessons have you learned from times when brand storytelling has failed? You can share them in the comments section below.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sometimes a marketing campaign just doesn't work. Maybe you chose the wrong venue or the wrong medium or the wrong time of year. All forgivable. Sometimes, however, it's much deeper than that: You chose the wrong message. Less forgivable. On these rare occasions, your brand's storytelling doesn't just fail; it blows up in your face.