Hartford Business Journal

24 Hartford Business Journal • March 11, 2019 • www.HartfordBusiness.com EDITOR'S TAKE Let's explore Lehman's econ.-dev. credentials S hould David Lehman be Connecticut's next economic-development commissioner? So far, the answer to that question has largely been based on whether or not Lehman — and his former employer, Goldman Sachs — is partially to blame for last decade's financial crisis. Lehman, a former Goldman Sachs partner, has come under intense scrutiny for his role overseeing some of the complex financial products that helped sink the U.S. and world economies during the 2007-2008 financial crisis. While it's an important issue for state lawmakers to investigate as they deter- mine the fate of Gov. Ned Lamont's pick to lead the state Department of Eco- nomic and Community Development, I think there's a larger, more important question being overlooked: What qualifies Lehman for the job in the first place? There is no doubt Lehman, who rose to a managing director rank at Goldman in his 20s, is incredibly sharp, but why does his Wall Street-banker background qualify him to help determine and implement policies that will shape Connecti- cut's future economy? That is a more important question lawmakers should be asking, and there may be no real black-and-white answer, because the role of economic development itself — espe- cially in the hands of government — is a nebulous concept. For no matter how much state government "experts" try to stimulate or help shape Connecticut's economy, much larger forces are driving the train, and no economic-develop- ment strategy is more important than having a competitive tax and regulatory climate and a highly skilled workforce. Even still, there are different philosophies on how the state ought to help promote growth, and the public should hear more about Lehman's vision, rather than trying to determine if he was responsible for peddling toxic securities a decade ago. Personally, I thought Lehman's choice as DECD commissioner was a strange one. It was obvious his Goldman Sachs background would be a political liability for Lamont, and just as I wouldn't hire an accountant to be my lawyer, I ques- tioned how being a Wall Street banker qualifies him to lead the state's economic- development strategy. While I believe state leadership posts must go to smart people, intelligence alone shouldn't be the only qualification. For example, when top corporate executives decided a few years ago they want- ed to shift the MetroHartford Alliance's focus more sharply on economic develop- ment, they didn't bring in another high-profile CEO to lead the regional chamber; they searched far and wide for someone with economic-development chops. That led to the hiring of David Griggs, who was previously the vice president of business investment and research at the Greater Minneapolis St. Paul Region- al Economic Development Partnership. Gov. Dannel P. Malloy actually followed a similar strategy as Lamont when he brought in a high-profile CEO to lead DECD. In an interview before she left office, Catherine Smith, who was previously chief executive of Windsor insurer ING U.S. Financial Services (now Voya Financial), admitted she "didn't know anything about economic development," before she took the job and had to learn quickly while trying to help shape key economic policies. Her tenure was spotty, as economic growth lagged during Malloy's eight years in office. She also helped oversee a vast expansion of the state's corporate welfare policies, doling out hundreds of millions of dollars to private companies hoping they would add jobs or not flee to lower-cost states. I think that strategy was ineffective. Lamont said he'd like to rely less on cor- porate welfare. Where does Lehman stand on the issue? Questions like that are undoubtedly being asked and answered, but much of the media's focus hasn't been on the substance of Lehman's philosophies. He did tell Hearst newspapers that his background in real estate and public infra- structure financing makes him qualified for the job, which could certainly be true. He said he also believes in further developing the state's cities and attracting smaller, innovative companies to the state, which is a hallmark of Lamont's philosophy. My question is, how do you make all that happen? Let's spend more time ex- ploring that. BRAND BUILDING Brands taking a social stand is a slippery slope By Bill Field T rends in the branding and advertising world that show no signs of abating are virtue signaling, values marketing and corporate activism communications. Advertising is the ultimate copycat business as more brands are bowing to societal and political pressures to take a stand. The corporate responsibil- ity space grows more crowded each day as brands jump on board with their trumpets blar- ing about their "stand" on social media. The ques- tion arises, are we looking at a moment in time or a movement that truly changes the branding paradigm? This space is not for the faint of heart. Equally with these campaigns, there are moments of elation and troughs of despair. Where one CEO sees the opportu- nity for social purpose leadership for their brand, another views it through the profitability-and-revenue- increase lens. They don't have to be mutually exclusive of each other, but it is tricky to navigate from a brand- ing perspective to not fall into being labeled as "good washing" the brand. Brands portraying themselves as "in- fluencers" are on the rise. The Millen- nial and Gen Z consumer crowds are pushing the brand shift to increased social-issue involvement. Conversely, a large percentage of audiences (close to 50 percent) identify themselves as dis- interested and unengaged with brands' social messaging and support. They care about brand performance. It presents a major dilemma for brands. It's a fine line to walk when entering the advertising world that uti- lizes "virtue signaling" as their brand positioning. You solidify brand advo- cates while at the same time alienating an equal percentage of consumers. Late last year, for example, Nike's campaign — "Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing every- thing." — featured the polarizing former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepe- rnick, who gained national attention for kneeling during the national an- them and speaking out on social-jus- tice issues. It resonated on multiple levels, both from a creative message and revenue impact standpoint. Gillette's latest campaign — "The best men can be" — has entirely missed the mark. Important lessons are to be learned from both. Us- ing corporate activism as a brand- ing mechanism is complicated and loaded with downside risk. Nike's campaign was a continua- tion of the well-orchestrated ex- ecution of their arrogant brand personality based upon athletic per- formance — one that's been carefully crafted in their breakthrough adver- tising for decades. The tagline "Just Do It" asks the question of whether you are good enough to wear Nike shoes and apparel. The Kaepernick ad worked because social activism has always been an integral part of Nike's strategy. This long-standing purpose gives consum- ers a reason to belong to the brand. On the other hand, Gillette's latest campaign, "The best men can be," falls flat on all counts when taking on the toxic masculinity front. It reeks of des- peration for a brand that has lost close to 20 percent in market share during the last decade. Category disruptors, Harry's and Dollar Shave Club, are eating Gillette's lunch as both continue their quest to own the men's grooming category. It doesn't feel like a social campaign, but one of repositioning "The best a man can get" tagline that Gillette's been running for decades. They're using the guise of "being a better man" as a way to elevate the brand. It's disingenuous at best and lacks true authenticity. Yes, there are social-media tactics supporting the campaign, but the buzz is sure to subside quickly. The dislike-to-like ratio for the campaign is disproportional. The greatest mistake is underesti- mating the pushback from the "lec- ture" feel of the execution. It scolds, it's preachy and accusatory. It groups men together as inherently flawed. Tell- ing people what to do is a dangerous precedent when you're a brand. Take a look at Gillette's current packaging — blue for men, pink for women. The latest campaign is a classic example of "greenwashing" in action. They say one thing and do another as the strategy hasn't yet trickled down across the company. The bottom line: Corporate-activism branding is tricky to navigate and can be a home run or strikeout. Bill Field is the founder of FieldActivate, a Connecticut-based marketing firm. Opinion & Commentary Greg Bordonaro Editor Bill Field

• Cover