Now, I had been blessed with a nursing squad that was really fantastic—empathetic, knowledgeable, tenacious about patient care—and I told her so. But I did have some issues with the nursing assistants or “techs,” as well as an intercom system that was beyond useless—and I told her about those as well.

“Show me,” she said, and handed me the intercom so she could see how it was—or was not—working.  “They hate when I do this,” she mused about her team, who clearly were used to her little spot inspections.

As I expected, the intercom was unintelligible and the tech who got the page was unresponsive (until she realized her boss was on the line).

“I’ll get someone to fix the intercom this afternoon, and I’ll talk to the staff,” she promised.

I was discharged soon after, so I don’t know if any long-term fixes resulted from our little chat. But I felt…well… heard.

Businesses often ask their clients about service through various tools—surveys, interviews, focus groups, SurveyMonkey—and Aartrijk has led scores of such research projects. During the development of those questionnaires, when we’re trying to discern the most critical subjects, someone inevitably will say, “Well, it doesn’t hurt to ask.”

But it does—or it can.

Because if you are not in a mindset to receive the criticism, or if you are not in a position to act on the feedback, then asking for input can be seen as disingenuous. Gathering information for the sake of gathering it doesn’t help you and it wastes the time of the stakeholders you approach.

Years ago we worked with a client who wanted feedback from its employees. The staff were candid and articulate, and we gathered some very good ideas. But the senior managers didn’t agree with the input—and dismissed it. To this day, they struggle with some of the same issues—as well as a belief among their employees that the proverbial suggestion box is really just a black hole.

Objective input from stakeholders is vital to keeping your brand relevant and meaningful. Just be sure you’re ready to act on what you hear.

After sending out good mental vibes to Maria and the kids, who deserve way better than this, I got to thinking about the corporate fallout from this. While Schwarzenegger is not currently a spokesman for anyone (that I know of), he has been busy reviving his film career, including the announcement of an animated children’s program called The Governator. Which means that somewhere there is a PR office (other than his own) madly constructing spin and corporate lawyers reviewing the morals clause of his contract to determine if, indeed, Schwarzenegger has “committed any act that offends the community or any segment thereof and/or public morals and decency.”

Now, you and I may consider this a fairly cut-and-dried case for terminating a relationship with a celebrity spokesperson, but if the situation is not about right or wrong but merely right for us or wrong for us? What if the spokesperson’s private life simply veers from the brand it is representing?  What if, for example, we saw photos of Sam Waterston gambling in Vegas—instead of conservatively investing his money with TD Ameritrade?  Or if Raymond Burr had declared his homosexuality while he was representing the traditionally conservative Big I, instead of being outed after his death? Today it wouldn’t be be a big deal (nor should it), but in the 1980s? Good luck with that.

The world is too complicated, and the news/blog/social media coverage too overwhelming to hang your brand on one person any more—or at least one real person. For every Dennis Haysbert or Wilfred Brimley, unfortunately, there’s a Charlie Sheen or Miley Cyrus. And while some spokesperson bets are predictable, others are not. Tiger, OJ and Martha Stewart all caught us by surprise, no?

It is for all these reasons that so many big brands have moved to imaginary people, talking animals and celebrity voiceovers. While the actress who plays Flo is a real human being with flaws and secrets, most of us don’t know her name and wouldn’t recognize her if she fell off a stool in a bar. And given her quirky persona, we don’t expect her to be perfect. But Aflac learned recently that this too is no guarantee against trouble: Gilbert Gottfried, voice of their infamous duck, tweeted callous jokes after the earthquake and tsunami in Japan—and lost his gig.

Now, most of us don’t have the marketing budgets to have such concerns about celebrity spokespeople. But the lesson extends to our other, less renown brand ambassadors—business partners, employees and, yes, even customers. And while a misstep from one of them probably won’t land your firm on TMZ, you can be damaged by what’s said in your local newspaper, at the next Chamber lunch or on your receptionist’s Twitter feed.

To wit: A friend recently held a charity event at which a guest behaved badly, prompting another guest to whisper, “It’s just bad for their brand.”

Indeed.

But it wasn’t a joke. Though CARFAX indeed has “fax” in its name, the company today distributes its used-vehicle reports only through online access. But that gap between identity and reality doesn’t seem to have hurt the company, which, with more than 8 billion records in its database, is one of the top Web sites for vehicle research.

But that disparity got me thinking about other brand identities that no longer deliver on their name, logo or tagline, and whether or not it matters.

Immediately I thought of AARP, which a few years ago formally adopted its acronym and dropped American Association of Retired Persons because, among other reasons, its members are not all retired. That change was controversial, mainly because A-A-R-P isn’t the easiest moniker to roll off the tongue. But this over-50 lobbying operation remains a dominant force on Capitol Hill, and it is a major source for products and services coveted by aging Boomers.

And then there’s the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which hasn’t changed its name, even though most African Americans today recoil at the phrase “colored people.” While the organization remains a civil rights leader, its name does hinder its ability to position itself as truly contemporary, as if its best days are behind it.

On a lighter note, there’s UPS, which for much of its 103-year history used a logo with a package wrapped in paper and string. But by the 21st century the delivery service had expanded its business model considerably, so in 2003 it changed its logo, losing the package icon. And not a moment too soon: UPS no longer accepts packages wrapped in string, because they get caught in its machinery.

Then there’s 7-11, the name of which originally indicated the hours of operation, though most stores are now open all the time.

Creating a brand identity is a fun, creative endeavor, but also a lot of work. There are seemingly endless criteria involved (trademark and URL availability just to start), and there usually are personal preferences thrown into the mix as as well. But, unless your organization has money to burn, pay careful attention to the shelf life of any name, logo or tagline you develop. Think through not only who you are today—your offering, your customer or member, your geographic reach, the manner in which you distribute your products and services—and consider where you might want to go tomorrow, or 25 years from now.

After all, a great identity should help define you, not limit you.

Why? Baby Boomer principals are looking to fund their retirements, benefits brokers are eager for P&C partners to relieve them of  the uncertainty of healthcare legislation and, quite simply, bigger fish are just eating smaller fish. Agents, brokers, companies, vendors…no one in our space is immune.  And among those left standing, there is a profound need to embrace their new family members and prove their relevance in a highly competitive marketplace. Add to that the number of organizations that simply need to shake off tired brand identities and touch points, and you’ve got a host of entities debuting new looks.

So, it should be no surprise that over the last two years Aartrijk has been involved in the rebranding of several industry organizations—providing brand research, naming, tagline and logo development, trademarking, rollout and sometimes all  of the above. And while every rebrand is inherently different, I’ve noticed a few common misperceptions and lessons learned. For those even considering rebranding, some words to the wise….A brand identity is not a brand. While this may be a given for some of you, I expect it will be a revelation to many others: Your brand is your reputation; your brand identity is the combination of your name, logo and tagline. A brand is something you earn, a brand identity is a way of expressing how you want to be viewed. A “rebrand,” therefore, creates a new identity in the hope of eventually influencing the reputation.

The research matters. The smartest path an organization can take when considering a new identity is the undertaking of some stakeholder research to better understand the current brand value—the aggregate feedback from your customers, employees, business partners and others who know you. If you don’t know where you are, it’s hard to plan where you’re going.

Committees are a double-edged sword. By nature I’m a loner, a social but introverted only child. So it may be counterintuitive that I like working with a branding task forces. Sure, creative-by-committee has its challenges, but getting input from your key constituents before your debut is waaaay better than hearing from them after your launch. (And you will hear from them, especially if they don’t like something.)

Give yourself time. While there can be value in launching a new identity at a major event or on a significant date, rushing to meet a false deadline can kill a half-baked rebrand. Give yourself time to get your employees onboard, to adequately vet the new name, to test the tagline or create the style guide. And with so many touch points to synchronize—Web site, collateral, press releases, signage, to name a few—avoid having them all finalized the same week. You only get one chance to debut, so make sure you’re ready to go, and give your team enough time to enjoy it.

A new brand identity can infuse an organization with energy and create buzz with stakeholders, and ultimately it should give you an opportunity to reinvent who you are and where you’re going. But remember that you still have to earn the brand itself.

Fast forward a few decades and I find that I was not alone in my lack of knowledge about the Knights—or about fraternal organizations in general.

While nine million Americans are members of a fraternal benefit society—and those individuals devoted an astounding 91 million hours of volunteer time to their causes in 2009 alone—a lot of folks still don’t fully comprehend the value of these community-focused organizations.

And some of those people work on Capitol Hill. Yes, despite the many social services gaps filled by Fraternals, there remains a gap of understanding about their value.

Enter Joe Annotti of the National Fraternal Congress of America, the 125-year-old association of 70 fraternal benefit societies, including, among others, the Knights. Annotti wanted his members to be recognized for the enormous role they play in serving communities across the nation. He wanted to move his target audience from ignorance to awareness to “can’t live without them.”

Aartrijk jumped in to help, and after two years of research, evaluations, creative development, design, programming and many, many conference calls, NFCA last week introduced its new identity: American Fraternal Alliance. The new name, logo and tagline better communicates the association’s purpose, values and membership.

In addition to the identity, we developed a new Web site (www.FraternalAlliance.org), a powerful media campaign and other brand touch points. And in May we’ll help them host a congressional event on Capitol Hill to acquaint our nation’s leaders with this impressive group, whose members contributed $400 million to charitable programs supporting community service projects in the last year alone.

And it is all these Fraternals’ good deeds—in a world riddled with bad deeds—that makes it really rewarding to work for this group. They are good people helping those less fortunate. And some of the hats are pretty cool, too.

So, I guess I shouldn’t have been all that surprised when he asked me the other night: “Why are the most creative TV commercials for insurance?”

Having worked in the insurance marketing space for many years now, I admit that I’ve seen more than my fair share of very, very bad advertising. But he was right: Much of the good ad creative now on television is related to our industry.

Why? Probably because every point of market share within the U.S. property-casualty sector represents about $4.6 billion in premium. Of that, more than one-third is personal auto, and the biggest opportunity for personal auto writers are buyers new to the industry—consumers under the age of 30 who have not yet formed a strong brand loyalty.

So, there is a very big incentive to create clever, witty ads that appeal to a younger generation (my 40-something husband notwithstanding) who want personal lines.  And, if the preliminary numbers from A.M. Best Co. are any indication, those spots are working. Although total personal lines premiums were up just 0.8% from 2008 to 2009 (with national independent agency carriers down by 3.2% and regional IA companies flat), direct writers grew premiums by a staggering 8.6%. And while exclusive writers saw a small uptick in that time—0.3%—their 2010 creative clearly is striking out at those 15-minute consultations: As Mayhem explains, “If you’ve got cut-rate insurance, you could be dealing with this mess yourself.”

All this makes me eager for a bigger presence for independent agents in this space—a brand that will drive consumers of all ages to independent agents, where they will get the choice of markets, claims advocacy and customization we know they need (but too often they don’t know are available to them).

Ten years ago, I was heavily involved with the launch of Trusted Choice, which was created by the Big “I” with that very purpose in mind—differentiating independent agents and building market share. A decade later, the brand is on the verge of some initiatives that could deliver on that promise.

But there needs to be a vigorous effort from more than just Trusted Choice. Agents themselves need to become more versed in what brand is and is not. To grasp that a brand is something you earn, not something you get. To pursue Generation Next as customers, employees and partners. To accept that social media and Web positioning are not fads they can ignore, but vital strategic vehicles for engaging customers, prospects and the community at large.

Companies can help by imparting their branding knowledge to their field staff, who engage with agents far more often than does the VP of marketing. They need to create and distribute tools, and emphasize the importance of a strong agency brand.

Here within the independent agency channel, I often hear grumbling about the “damn gecko.” But railing at the lizard isn’t the answer. Rising to the challenge is.

Kevin Jenné heads for Korea.

Maybe it’s because I grew up during the angst of the Vietnam War—the protests, the POWs, the endless arguments about what it means to be a patriot, to love and to serve your country—that I am always somewhat surprised to hear of someone volunteering for military service during wartime. Whatever the motivation—to get out of a dead-end town, to earn a college education or special training, or simply to make the world a safer place—I’m overcome by that commitment and humbled by the sacrifices made on behalf of all of us.

Yet we see young men and women every day doing just that. What we don’t see as often is a 40-something father of six (and grandfather of one!) returning to active duty after many years of civilian life and weekend reserves.

But that is exactly what Kevin Jenné, Aartrijk’s director of research & strategic insights, is doing. Having recently finished a two-week reserve assignment in Korea, Kevin is now packing up his Seattle-based family for a one- to-two-year assignment as the Strategic Alliance Officer at U.S. Naval Forces Korea in Seoul.

In sharing with our team that he was leaving Aartrijk to accept this assignment, Kevin said, “I do feel compelled to accept this assignment, as there are very few officers who have the background and skill sets needed as the U.S. is dramatically restructuring the alliance with South Korea. It sounds trite when they say, ‘Your country needs you,’ but that is exactly what they are saying.”

We will miss Kevin’s brains and sly wit during his hiatus from Aartrijk, but we couldn’t be more proud of his patriotism. Godspeed, Kevin, and God bless America.

Our CEO, Peter van Aartrijk, regularly brings his gigantic labs, Molly and Betty, to the HQ office, where they welcome visitors with a lot of licking and pleas for petting, and then they settle in at Peter’s feet. Guinness, one of my two prison cats (they were part of a Pets for Prisoners program, which explains a lot), is almost always on the sunny spot of my office floor, while the other one, Harp, forces me to mute calls because of her caterwauling.

And while all that may sound like a distraction from the work we do for our clients, it actually is quite the opposite: Our animals calm us and amuse us, which enables us to focus and enjoy our work. And that’s not just us: In a nationwide survey by the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association, 73% of responding companies found having pets in the office created a more productive work environment among—and  27% had a decreased absenteeism rate.

But if you don’t have your furry favorite by your side at work, we’re happy to share ours. Just visit the Aartrijk Zoo.

But before we start feeling too superior, let’s admit that the insurance industry is not much better. Industry associations, agents, brokers, vendors and companies all use a plethora of acronyms for their products, services, committees and the organizations themselves. Typically it starts as a convenience when typing an internal document or naming a file, but soon enough we’re using the acronym with customers, prospects and partners.

And those acronyms are not helping your brand.

Why? Because brands are built on emotion, and it’s hard to get warm and fuzzy about a bunch of letters. Which is why the National Association of Realtors—in a bold break from the association pack—doesn’t promote itself as NAR, but as Realtors^®. NAR is an anonymous, meaningless entity; Realtors are people.

And there’s a second, more tactical reason to avoid acronyms: Most of the letter mixes used in web addresses are already taken; www.NAR.org, for example, is the home of the National Association of Rocketry. And, finally, some acronyms can be unintentionally offensive, such as Friends University, which never abbreviates its name.

When Aartrijk worked recently on rebranding the AMS Users Group, we gave great thought to how any full name might be abbreviated by members, partners, employees and media. The Network of Vertafore Users was selected in part because most liked the nickname NetVU, and www.netvu.org was available. As we work with other rebranding clients, we’re patently avoiding introducing new acronyms into the soup.

Take a look at your organization’s own communications. Are you using an unpronounceable acronym when one or two words would better convey your story?  If so, you may be holding back the power of your brand. Think about it.

Scott Addis, who gave his lively “Purple Cow” presentation about organic growth strategies, highlighted another interesting point: His research shows that some 48% of agents don’t feel their firm’s brand is differentiated from the competition (and I’ll add that some of the remaining 52% are…um, optimistic…in their belief that their brand is distinctive). Sounds like a great opportunity for stronger brands to edge out the competition.

The seminar’s agenda was rich with other subject experts:
•    Rob Lieblein, Hales & Company, tackled three segments—an economic overview; business models for benefits brokers, plus organizational and compensation strategies.
•    David Paul, ALIRT Insurance Research, showed agents how to evaluate carriers beyond their Best rating.
•    Audra Szollosy, Hales & Company, reviewed 2009’s M&A picture and gave an outlook for the next year or two.
•    Dan Price, Hales & Company, got into the guts of transaction multiples, earn outs and deal structures.
•    Mike Griffin & John Stretton, Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge, covered the legal strategies for M&A.
•    Laurie Lynard, The Prospecting Expert, has some funny (and real!) prospecting phone call recordings to share.
•    Peter Marathas, Proskauer Rose, gave legal insight to health care reform, HIPAA and CHIPRA.

Read Mark Ruquet’s write-up of the event in National Underwriter.

Laurie and I will be back with the road show in Chicago next week, and then Peter van Aartrijk and I will team up for Dallas and San Francisco in May. Join us.

www.mergerandacquisitionsseminar.com