Toyota has spent decades, not to mention billions of dollars, spreading the message that their vehicles are superior – in safety, style and value. The recent PR debacle facing the automaker goes to show the vulnerability of a brand. Years of maintaining a solid reputation can be shattered in less than 24 hours.

Consumer confidence in Toyota is definitely at a pivotal point. First, the floor mats. Next the sticky accelerators – linked to 19 deaths. Then, with the promise of a “fix” on the horizon, Toyota announced last week that there is a problem with the Prius’s brake system. Where does it end?

Some think that the Toyota brand is done – that they should throw in the towel and start anew. After the contamination issue in 1982, Johnson & Johnson had to repair the Tylenol brand, but no need to scrap it all together. Neither did Firestone or Exxon after their respective catastrophes. Toyota’s major problem, aside from the obvious engineering flaw, in my opinion is the mixed messages being disseminated, further fueling consumer anxiety. Drive. . .Don’t drive. . .It’s electrical. . .It’s mechanical. . .We know. . . We don’t know. . . Get your message straight! This lack of clarity is just further aggravating an already fragile situation.

To a certain extent, loyal patrons are forgiving and would be willing to trust Toyota again. But when is enough, finally enough? As a Camry driver myself, I am waiting (and waiting. . .and waiting) to see if the company can pull a U-turn and boost my confidence or if the crisis will continue to go down hill.

If you were in the driver’s seat of Toyota’s messaging during this fiasco, would you have done anything differently?

Photo credit: Robert Vinet

Very rarely does an ad generate editorial media coverage. Generally, advertising is confined to its paid space – until the ad itself becomes the news. This is what’s happened for one controversial Super Bowl commercial: gay dating site ManCrunch.com. The ad depicts two men kissing and was denied by CBS.

Since the rejection, the company has received an enormous amount of publicity. Stories in news outlets, blogs, television and radio have created discussions in numerous public forums. This just adds value to the nearly $3 million price tag CBS is charging for a 30-second spot.

But why the uproar? Controversial subject matter always strikes a chord and advocates on both sides of an issue will make their voices heard. In fact, it was reported that CBS believed ManCrunch submitted an ad they knew would be rejected in an effort to generate free publicity. ManCruch denies the accusation.

And while ManCrunch is receiving a fair amount of free publicity, are they better off? As of today, the ManCrunch commercial on YouTube.com has been viewed more than 400,000 times. Last year, Wikipedia reported that the Super Bowl was watched by 93.2 million people. Would the aired ManCrunch television commercial create the same level of conversation? Would the controversy have as much value without social media?

The Wall Street Journal recently launched a multimedia branding campaign titled “Live in the Know.” The campaign stresses the value of the in-depth research that the paper brings that goes beyond chatter and sound bites. In a time where major newspapers are fighting to keep their readership, I thought the campaign was an interesting approach.

Yesterday in my mailbox, I was surprised to find a package from Kiss My Face. It’s an organic and natural cosmetics and skincare line … one that I had never heard of. Until yesterday.

Apparently, I had won some contest I had entered online, and this was the prize. As a products “junkie,” I was excited to open all the testers and flip through the marketing materials. The pamphlet directed me to the company web site, so I immediately logged on to the computer to check it out. (Yes, a marketer’s dream … I’m “one of those people.”)

Almost an hour later, I had read through pretty much the whole site and made a list of stuff I wanted to try. The only thing I was disappointed in was their blog section, which hadn’t been updated since February … and the one before that was September 2008!

This got me thinking … what were the missed opportunities here? What if their blog was updated frequently? I would have subscribed – a weekly, if not daily, reminder of their products. Perhaps I would have followed them on Twitter, too. The point is: Their contest was a success. I learned about their products, and I intend to buy … and how much did it cost them? A few samples and a dollar in postage? But how much further could they have gone?

That said, at least I’m thinking about their products. And blogging about them, too.

At Blogwell, a social media conference taking place today, Scott Cook (founder of Intuit), offered an interesting definition for a brand.  He said:

“A brand is no longer what we tell the consumer it is; it is what the consumers tell each other it is.”

Here’s the thing: Has defining a brand ever been as simple as what a company says?

At Costa DeVault, we’ve been in the “branding business” for more than two decades. But, we’re constantly reminding our clients that a brand isn’t a logo … or a tagline … or a piece of collateral. Those are tools that convey your brand.

A brand is the perception formed by your audiences about your company and/or product. That definition remains as true today as it was 20 years ago. Social media doesn’t change the definition. But, social media does offer a new set of tools that companies can leverage to help influence public perception. Companies that embrace social media can engage stakeholders and shape their perceptions.

No matter how many new tools are introduced to the marketplace, it’s important to remember that old adage, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” A brand is still a brand — defined by public perception, not corporate speak.

What’s the return on investment? In years past, ROI served as the yardstick for measuring traditional marketing campaigns. Did the campaign generate the desired results and how did they stack up against the costs?

Well, that’s just another concept that has evolved, thanks to flourishing online communities. As David Armano wrote in Business Week, marketers can listen, learn and adapt … thanks to new focus groups.

By listening and engaging the “collective” through all phases of our initiatives, we now have opportunities not only to be more in tune with customer needs, but also to adapt as quickly as they do. In our digital world, that could be the most important ROI possible.

The game has changed. We don’t have to wait — in fact, you shouldn’t wait — until the end of a campaign to see how it worked. Instead, gain valuable insight during the implementation phase and adjust as needed to maximize effectiveness.

Springpad — a free online list-making and notebook service — engaged the Twitter community to conduct an online focus group. The Springpad moderator asked four questions, mainly focusing on service use and user interface. Springpad users offered their feedback and input, and the moderator asked follow up questions — much like a typical focus group. While the results aren’t scientific, Springpad received valuable feedback, such as:

The moderator also engaged participants in conversation — and showed that the company is open to ideas, as illustrated by this exchange:

This new “I” — insight gained from listening to online communities — will help marketers make better decisions and ultimately deliver a stronger product. They’ll get more bang for their buck — which is critically important during this challenging economy. In this ultra-competitive marketing landscape, the winners will be those companies that understand how to incorporate insight to strengthen the return on investment.

As our company ventures into more work involving social media and online brands, we have been making an effort to read everything on the subject that we can get our hands on. And, yes, that includes books. Admittedly, it seemed ironic for me to be toting around a hardback to learn about the future of what is going on online.

“Grown Up Digital: How the Net Generation Is Changing Your World” by Don Tapscott challenges many of the stereotypes about millennials (those currently between 11 and 31 years of age). What I was most interested in was confirming what our staff has come to believe is an inevitable shift in our industry: that the interest in social media as the latest tool in communications was not a passing trend, but rather the way it is and will be in the future.

The most compelling case for this position came from Tapscott’s analysis of population and the Baby Boom Generation. There are now 77 million Baby Boomers, born 1946 to 1964, making up 23 percent of the U.S. population. Net Geners, or millenials, consist of approximately 81 million people born from 1977 to 1997, and currently make up 27 percent of the US population. This echoing effect, as it has come to be described, represents the largest swell in population in our nation’s history, and it stands to reason that what interests them is going to impact the way we do everything.

Tapscott points out that where Boomers passively watched television in their free time, Net Geners have grown up with the Internet – interacting and changing content and incorporating online tools into their lives. His look into Net Geners’ interests and tendencies, further reinforces a very different set of expectations – not only of themselves, but also of the brands they chose to align with. Some companies have taken notice and incorporated this change into their online brands and tools that speak to their customers. Many have not and are hoping it’s just a fad. If they’re wrong – it is going to take them a long time to catch up.