Category: Opinions

Entrepreneur As a Skillset

Comment by Ray Carlson:
I found this article to be reflective of my career as a chemical engineer in the petroleum refining industry.  I had been involved in the Junior Achievement Company Program while in my early years at Northwestern University, and that relatively simple program gave me an entrepreneurial mindset that manifested itself in my subsequent career.
When making decisions on expanding a refinery or designing a new one as I did in Sweden, I had to develop business plans to show the economic viability of making such investments.  My actions were so-called ‘intrapreneurial’ because I was making decisions for my employer, not a business of my own.
Therefor, developing entrepreneurial skills can be of great value even if one takes a job because those skills can enhance the profitability of the business. Employers should be interested in those that we have trained and business plans they have developed.  Most employers and managers  have not done so and should appreciate having an employee that can do it.
ORIGINAL ARTICE from Talent Economy:
Being an entrepreneur in 2016 means more than starting a business and taking on risk. Today’s definition is more reflective of a skillset that larger organizations are finding incredibly valuable.

Entrepreneurs are the faces of innovation. They start new businesses that disrupt industries and create great value to society.

In 2016, being labeled an entrepreneur has taken on new meaning. Due to the allure of entrepreneurship created by the most recent wave of new technology companies, led by celebrity founders like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, the term is increasingly thought of as a skill, not just an occupation. These leaders label themselves as founders, CEOs, etc., even if they’re seen as entrepreneurs, writes a Forbes contributor. It’s often those who aspire to the status of Silicon Valley-esque business owners who label themselves as such, which is why the word is included on many resumes.

While some insist that people do away with the trend of writing “entrepreneur” on resumes, a growing opinion is that they can be entrepreneurial without having started a business.

Being entrepreneurial is a special skillset, and someone doesn’t need to be an entrepreneur in the truest sense of the word to have it, according to Nathalie Duval-Couetil, associate director for Burton D. Morgan Center for Entrepreneurship at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana. “Capturing value is that entrepreneurship piece because you might have a great idea,” Duval-Couetil said, “but really if the idea doesn’t have any value to anybody that they’re willing to use or pay for it, then it doesn’t have any value.”

Large companies have found the value of operating more entrepreneurially in how they function. Methods such as agile and lean, development practices coined in the technology industry, have overtaken some formally bureaucratic organizations. Moreover, 2012 research from professional services firm Deloitte found that nearly half of the companies it surveyed reported generating higher profit margins when they became more entrepreneurial.

But what does it mean to entrepreneurial?

Purdue’s Duval-Couetil said that entrepreneurs understand the process of capturing values from knowledge or resources. Qualities and skills of these people include perseverance, willingness to navigate obstacles and ability to network and analyze market research.

Michael Marasco, director of Northwestern University’s Farley Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation, added that entrepreneurs typically possess qualities that include being hardworking, smart and focused on changing things for the better.

People who are entrepreneurial may exhibit these skills even if they’ve never started a business from scratch.

Are entrepreneurial skills learned or innate?

Duval-Couetil, who helps lead a university program in entrepreneurship, said that some people are naturally drawn to the idea of embodying the skills of entrepreneurship, while others take some time to discover their interest.

Nevertheless, many business schools have entrepreneur courses and certification programs. The Certificate in Entrepreneurship and Innovation Program at Purdue requires that students take introduction courses in entrepreneurship, marketing and management, two option courses for market-specific depth and a capstone course or experiential program.

Duval-Couetil said these courses are rooted in the fundamental definition of entrepreneurship: They help students learn how to take an idea to market and start a business from the ground up.

However, she also said that by virtue of taking these courses many students learn many entrepreneurial skills that are valuable toward their employment with large organizations.

For instance, an engineering student with limited sales or public speaking skills might take what they learned on these subjects in an entrepreneurship course and apply it to their future engineering job at a large company.

Northwestern’s Marasco said that these types of entrepreneurs — the kinds that work in large firms — understand the business and aim to make it better, so they bring up ideas, gain support for them, and then make compromises between what they want to do and what the organization aims for.

What can CEOs do to foster an entrepreneurial workforce?

To show that the company supports entrepreneurship, leaders can champion new initiatives, support new business and keep open channels of communication, Marasco said. This helps employees at the organization have a say in what’s happening and feel that they’re owners of the company.

Duval-Couetil advocated for training to gain greater awareness of the concept. But beyond that, it’s important for companies to create a culture that embraces the value of entrepreneurship and values entrepreneurial talent. “The smart companies are the ones that are figuring out ways to keep those people,” she said. “If you have kind of a bureaucracy culture, you can’t expect entrepreneurial people to thrive.”

Lauren Dixon is an associate editor at Talent Economy.

CLICK HERE  for the original article by Lauren Dixon, Associate Editor of Talent Economy.

Marketing: Brand Name is Rule No. 1

Original Title:

The Most Important Marketing Decision You Can Make

What’s In a Name? Pretty Much Everything

By . Published in Advertising Age on .


What brand name should you use?

Most marketing mistakes can be corrected. Not brand names.

Once you’re committed to a brand name, that’s usually it.

Eveready made that mistake. The long-time leader in appliance batteries, Eveready introduced a new alkaline battery in 1959.

So what did the Eveready company call its new alkaline battery?

The leading appliance-battery company introduces an alkaline battery brand? I’m sure nobody at Eveready gave the name problem a second thought. Eveready alkaline battery.

Six years later, the PR Mallory company entered the alkaline-battery market. What did P.R. Mallory call its alkaline-battery brand? P.R. Mallory alkaline battery?

No, it didn’t.

When you launch a new brand, you should do what P.R. Mallory actually did. Decide first what your new brand should stand for and then incorporate that idea into the new brand name.

“Long lasting” is the obvious idea an alkaline battery should stand for. So P.R. Mallory called its alkaline brand Duracell. And Duracell went on to become the long-time leader in alkaline batteries.

But what about the Eveready alkaline battery? Wasn’t Eveready first in alkaline batteries? It didn’t matter.

Eveready wasn’t an alkaline battery. In consumers’ minds, Eveready was a zinc-carbon battery.

But surely, nobody would make the Eveready mistake today.

How come Nokia called its new smartphone a Nokia smartphone?

How come BlackBerry called its new smartphone a BlackBerry smartphone?

How come Sony called its new smartphone a Sony smartphone?

In consumers’ minds, Nokia is a cellphone, not a smartphone. And BlackBerry has a keyboard, not a touchscreen. And Sony is a TV set, not a smartphone.

Even P.R. Mallory couldn’t resist the urge to put its corporate name on its new alkaline battery. For the first 16 years, Duracell batteries also bore the Mallory name.

Tide and Mr. Clean
Relatively recently, Procter & Gamble introduced two new brands: Tide Dry Cleaners and Mr. Clean Car Wash.

By a wide margin, Tide is the leading detergent, so why isn’t Tide a good name for a dry-cleaning service?

Would you like your tuxedo washed in Tide detergent?

No, no, no, you might be thinking, Tide is also a dry-cleaner. It says so on the signs in front of the stores.

But not in the minds of consumers. So with a name like Tide Dry Cleaners, the brand has two communication problems: (1) Convincing consumers that Tide is also a dry cleaner, and (2) Why consumers should use Tide rather than some other dry-cleaning service.

Mr. Clean Car Wash has the same two problems.

Why not reverse the process. (1) Start with the idea the brand should stand for, and (2) Pick a name that reflects the idea.

What’s a good name for a car wash?

In most states, there are Environmental Protection Agency regulations in place that require car washes to recycle or “reclaim” their water and treat it to remove all the dirt, oil, grime, sludge, salt and anything else. But in many cases, not all the water is recycled.

But most consumers don’t know that.

So Procter & Gamble could have engineered a car wash that recycled all of its water. Recycle100 Car Wash might be a brand name that could be trademarked.

Procter & Gamble is the world’s most-magnificent marketing machine. I’m surprised the company couldn’t come up with better names than Tide Dry Cleaners and Mr. Clean Car Wash.

The dubious benefit of specialists
Marketing is following in the footsteps of medicine. The medical industry is ruled by specialists. For an eye problem my wife is having, she has been shuttled between five different specialists. No one solves the problem, they just refer her to another specialist.

In marketing today, the traditional advertising agency is just another specialist, along with media specialists, direct-mail specialists, PR specialists, social-media specialists and brand-name specialists.

A brand-name specialist would most likely never suggest a simple name like Recycle100. It’s too simple. And perhaps difficult to trademark.

Much better is a word that can easily be trademarked like Fairlife for Coca-Cola’s new milk product.

“Fair” and “Life” have nothing to do with either the milk or the key advantage of the product which has 50 percent more protein than regular milk. That’s why it simplifies trademark issues.

We would have called the new product ProMilk to connect the brand name with its major advantage. Could you trademark a name like ProMilk? Perhaps not because “protein milk” could be considered a generic name for a new category. But it would be worthwhile trying.

A name that hammers the inherent advantage of your new brand is always your best choice. Take I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter which has become the second largest-selling margarine brand, second only to Country Crock, a brand that sells for half the price of I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter.

The power of a visual
Many categories don’t lend themselves to focusing on a key attribute. So another effective way to become a big brand is to select a visual that has some relationship to the product you are branding. Then pick a name that reflects that visual.

There are plenty of names available. At last count there were 1,025,109 words in the English language. With more than a million words to choose from, there should be a few words available for a new brand.

Some powerful brand names were created by first looking for a visual and then picking a word to define the visual. Red Hat Linux, Gorilla glue, Roach Motel roach killer, Burning Man arts festival, Monster energy drink, Yellow Tail wine, Redbox video rentals.

Another effective technique is called “portmanteau,” combining two words together like durable and cell to form Duracell. (We usually call this technique “telescoping.”)

Telescoping has created brand names like Casamigo tequila, Silk soy milk, Teavana tea, Miralax laxative, Swatch Swiss watch, AirTran airline, Groupon coupons, Sakrete ready-mix concrete.

Brand names are important. The right brand name can pay dividends for decades to come.

Duracell is now more than five decades old. And still the market leader.

Marketing: Battle for Territory

Original Title:

Being Customer Oriented Isn’t the Best Marketing Strategy

Focus on the Competition and Then Do Something Different

By . Published in Advertising Age on

What wins in marketing today? The conventional wisdom is “customer centricity.” As one pundit put it, “Connect with customers based on their behavior or where they are in their purchase or life cycle.”

Who can argue with that? I can.

In 2009, we started working in China with Great Wall Motor. At the time, the company made trucks, sedans, minivans and SUVs and marketed them under nine brand names: Coolbear, Deer, Florid, Haval, Lingao, Peri, Sailing, Socool and Wingle.

So what did we recommend? We recommended that the company focus on Haval, its SUV brand.

Why SUVs? The company’s research showed that Chinese customers preferred sedans because they were more prestigious.

On the other hand, Chinese customers thought SUVs were practical vehicles with no social status.

So we figured the other 28 Chinese automobile companies would focus on sedans because they were customer oriented and that’s what Chinese customers wanted.

And that’s exactly what they did, leaving the SUV field open for Great Wall to dominate.

As a result of being competitor oriented (and not customer oriented) Great Wall became the largest, most-profitable Chinese automobile company.

What do customers want?
If you ask customers what they want, they often say, I’m happy with the brands I buy, but I’d really like something better and cheaper.

That’s why companies spend billions of research & development dollars on Plan B. Developing “better” products and services.

Then they spend many additional dollars advertising their better products and services. But what do customers think when they see an advertising message for a better product?

Unless the brand is the market leader, they don’t believe the advertising. How can this be? If the brand were actually better, it would be the market leader.

Doesn’t the better brand win in the marketplace?

Ironically, that’s what management also believes: the better product wins in the marketplace. Hence the emphasis on research & development.

Yet year after year, the same brands continue to maintain their leadership. Heinz in ketchup. French’s in mustard. Hellmann’s in mayonnaise. Land O’Lakes in butter. Campbell’s in condensed soup. Morton in salt. Domino in sugar. Swans Down in cake flour. Coca-Cola in cola. The list is endless.

So many companies move on to Plan C. Selling their better products and services at a “cheaper” price.

But if a brand is cheaper than its competitors, customers think it can’t be as good. Starbucks didn’t become successful by selling cheaper coffee.

Heinz and Hunt’s
What do customers think when they see a small bottle of Heinz ketchup selling for $1.89 and the same size bottle of Hunt’s ketchup selling for $1.49?

Hunt’s can’t be as good as Heinz.

Some consumers, of course, buy Hunt’s to save money . . . even though they consider the brand to be inferior to Heinz. So the lower price produces sales but makes it impossible for the brand to ever dominate the category.

If better and cheaper doesn’t work, then what does work?

Be different
“Think different” was the Apple slogan years ago, and the same idea can work today. After the success of Red Bull, hundreds of energy drinks were launched in the American market. (In the four years between 2005 to 2008, there were 956 brands of energy drinks launched.)

Weren’t some of those 956 energy-drink brands better and cheaper than Red Bull? And didn’t some of those brands have the backing of a major beverage company? (Coca-Cola introduced three energy-drink brands: KMX, Tab energy drink and Full Throttle.)

So which brand became a strong No. 2 to Red Bull? The better energy drink or the one that was different?

The one that was different. Monster, virtually the only energy-drink brand that was launched in a 16-oz. can, became a strong No.2 brand with 37% market share.

Full Throttle, the Coca-Cola brand, has a 1% market share.

Marketing is like warfare
In marketing, you compete with competitors for customers. In warfare, you compete with enemies for territory.

Focusing on customers in marketing is like focusing on territory in warfare. If your enemy knows your territorial objective in advance, it greatly simplifies its defensive strategy.

On June 22, 1941, Adolf Hitler launched the German invasion of the Soviet Union. The objective: Moscow in the north.

Six months and millions of casualties later, the German offensive was halted short of its objective.

So Hitler changed his strategy and launch a second major offensive on July 17, 1942. The new objective: Stalingrad in the south.

History repeated itself. Six months and millions of casualties later, the German offensive was halted short of its objective.

What should Hitler have done? He should have launched his attack in the middle of the country so his ultimate objective was in doubt.

The line of least expectation
That’s what B.H. Liddell Hart, the greatest military thinker of the 20th century, called this strategy and many powerful brands have followed this approach.

How many customers wanted more expensive coffee before Starbucks was launched? Very few.

How many customers wanted Greek yogurt before Chobani was launched? Very few.

How many customers wanted a “touchscreen” smartphone before the iPhone was launched? Very few.

When your brand takes the line of least expectation, you can be pretty sure no other brand will be doing the same thing. And that’s what builds powerful brands.

Being different.

Marketing: Is Singular Branding a Good Idea?

Original Title:

The Major Marketing Issue of the 21st Century Isn’t What You Think It Is

By . Published in Advertising Age on

Ever since the turn of the century, the agendas of chief marketing officers have been focused on two things: 1) the Internet and 2) Big data.

It’s time for a change.

CMOs should devote their time to what I believe is the major marketing issue of the 21st century: multiple brands.

In a world where technologies are rapidly changing, a single-brand company is at a strong disadvantage.

Look at IBM, once one of the largest, most-profitable companies in the world. In recent years, IBM has spent $30 billion on acquisitions, including $5 billion last year alone.

In the year 2000, IBM had $88 billion in revenues. Fifteen years later in the year 2015, IBM had $82 billion in revenues, a decline of 7 percent.

In 1981, IBM had a great opportunity to become a multiple-brand company when it introduced the first 16-bit personal computer. But instead of giving the new product a new brand name, the company hung the IBM name on its PC.

In the next 23 years, IBM lost a reported $15 billion on personal computers, finally selling its PC operations to Lenovo for $1.75 billion.

IBM versus Apple.

Compare IBM, a single-brand company, with Apple, a multiple-brand company. Apple was the largest-selling personal computer (an 8-bit machine) when IBM introduced its 16-bit machine. So Apple followed suit with an advanced personal computer of its own.

But not with the Apple brand name. Apple called its advanced personal computer “Macintosh,” a brand name that still resonates with high-end PC buyers today. Then, of course, Apple introduced three more new products all with new brand names: iPod, iPhone and iPad.

Go back to the year 2000, when IBM had revenues of $88 billion. That year, Apple had revenues of just $8 billion, one-tenth as much.

Last year, Apple had revenues of $234 billion, almost three times as much as IBM. And net profits of $53 billion, more than four times as much as IBM.

Now, which company had the better marketing strategy? The single brand company (IBM) or the multiple-brand company (Apple)?

Even Apple doesn’t always follow Apple. The company made a major mistake in my opinion by not giving its new smartwatch a new brand name.

Lenovo versus ThinkPad.

Consider Lenovo, the company that bought IBM’s personal-computer operations. Included in the deal was “ThinkPad,” IBM’s model name for its laptop computers.

You might have thought that Lenovo (a weak name in the English language) would have used ThinkPad as a brand name for its entire computer line. But no.

Single-brand thinking is rife in the boardrooms of corporations worldwide. So ThinkPad became just another Lenovo product.

ThinkPad, in my opinion, could have become the dominant personal-computer brand worldwide, but not with the Lenovo name. In the first quarter of this year, Lenovo had just 20% of the PC market, just barely ahead of Hewlett-Packard‘s 19%.

Furthermore, Lenovo is barely profitable. Last year its net profit margin was just 1.8% which was actually an improvement over previous years. In the 10 years since acquiring IBM’s personal-computer operations, Lenovo has had a net profit margin of just 1.5%.

In those same ten years, Apple has had a net profit margin of 22.1%.

Now, which company had the better marketing strategy? The single brand company (Lenovo) or the multiple-brand company (Apple)?

Nobody follows Apple.

With Apple’s success with multiple brands, you might think high-technology companies would rapidly follow suit. But they didn’t.

Take the smartphone, perhaps the most revolutionary new product of the 21st century. After the success of the iPhone, 11 major high-tech companies also launched smartphones: BlackBerry, HTC, Huawei, Lenovo, LG, Micromax, Motorola, Nokia, Samsung, Sony and Xiaomi. Now how many of those companies used new brand names for their smartphones?


Samsung alone had the Omnia, Instinct and Vibrant before settling down with the Galaxy. And whereas a consumer will rarely – if ever – say “Apple iPhone,” he or she will almost always say “Samsung Galaxy.”

Take the electric vehicle, which could turn out to be one of the most-successful new products of the 21st century. The interest is certainly there. Almost 400,000 people have made a thousand-dollar down payment on the Tesla Model 3.

And most of the major automobile companies in the world have introduced electric vehicles: BMW, Fiat, Ford, General Motors, Kia, Mercedes-Benz, Mitsubishi, Nissan and Volkswagen. Now how many of these companies have used a separate brand name for their electric vehicles?


Not only that. Even after acquiring a company with a well-known brand name, some companies will try to bury the name. After its $67 billion acquisition of EMC, Dell has just announced its new marketing strategy. The PC business will be called “Dell” and the enterprise infrastructure business will be called “Dell EMC.”

In other words, everything gets thrown together under the Dell name.

(Even worse, putting two well-known brand names together like “Dell” and “EMC” is a major mistake. When Coca-Cola bought Glaceau for $4.1 billion, should the company’s name have been changed to Coca-Glaceau?)

So why does Dell want to emulate IBM instead of Apple?

It didn’t work in the past.

Michael Dell, chairman and CEO of Dell pitched the end-to-end strategy as a boon to customers who want a single partner that can do everything.

We’ll see. It’s been our experience that business customers as well as consumer customers want to do business with the best company in each category and not with one company that sells everything.

Go back in history. Dell has tried the single-brand strategy in the past with little success.

Dell became enormously successful by focusing on selling personal computers direct to business customers only. So what did Dell do next? They expanded the Dell product line to include consumer personal computers, retail distribution, MP3 players, television sets and other products. (Remember the television commercials: Dude, you’re getting a Dell.)

They also went down the acquisition trail, spending $12.7 billion on 18 acquisitions in the years from 2009 to 2013. And then went private in 2013 for $13.75 a share.

A stock that was selling in January 2001 for $59.69 a share.

What should Dell do?

What should Dell do with its new collection of companies? Instead of marketing the package under the Dell brand name, we would recommend that the Dell name be used only for the company’s line of personal computers and servers.

The EMC brand name could be used for the company’s enterprise infrastructure services.

The VMware brand name could be used for virtualization software and services.

Dell’s Secure Works could be merged with EMC’s RSA unit and marketed under the RSA brand name.

When you marketing everything under one brand name, the way Dell and IBM are doing, it’s very difficult to make that brand name stand for any singular idea.

Unless you consider “mess” a singular idea.

New Way of Making a Slogan

Original Title:

Sound Advice for Creating a Slogan: Forget Words

For a Lasting Impression, Think Beyond the Written Word

By . Published in Advertising Age on

We live in a world of words. Our memos are written in words; our emails are written in words; our marketing plans are written in words.

Yet, there are no words in your mind. There are only sounds.

Watch a child learning to read. They will often move their lips. Why is that? Because they are translating the words they are trying to read into sounds they can understand.

Adults don’t move their lips. But they still convert words into sounds in order to understand them. That’s why it takes time for a printed word to be understood.

There’s a reason for this delay. A mind consists of two brains: A left brain that handles sounds and a right brain that handles visuals.

A printed word is a visual that enters your mind in your right brain where it is decoded and then sent to your left brain where it is transformed into sound. That takes time, approximately 40 milliseconds.

That doesn’t sound like much, but if our stoplights were verbal instead of visual, you could expect even more carnage on our highways. (Your right brain recognizes visual symbols without needing verbal translations. That’s why you can react quickly when a stoplight changes color.)

Your mind has some 100 billion neurons.

Each neuron has an axon that branches out to carry electrochemical signals to other neurons. That allows a mind to establish hundreds of billions of connections between neurons.

Sounds that are related to each other apparently establish connections in minds. That’s why rhyme and other memory-enhancing techniques can greatly increase the memorability of a slogan or a brand name.

That’s what makes alliterative brand names like Bed, Bath & Beyond memorable.

But do companies recognize the critical importance of “sounds” in the formulation of their company or brand names or their advertising messages? Apparently not.

There are 30 Major League baseball teams. But only four of these teams use an alliterative name: New York Yankees, Chicago Cubs, Philadelphia Phillies and Pittsburgh Pirates.

Advertisers often make the same mistake. Marketing managers will evaluate potential brand names or advertising slogans by writing them on flip charts or presenting them in PowerPoint slides. Or distributing them in memos or emails.

All in print, of course.

Marketing managers are so used to working in print they often forget about the sounds their brand names or slogans might convey.

Techniques to increase memorability

There are five techniques to increase the memorability of advertising slogans:

  • Rhyme
  • Alliteration
  • Repetition
  • Reversal
  • Double-entendre.

By now, you might think companies and their advertising agencies would be wise to these techniques. But it’s surprising how few slogans use any of five.

In a survey taken last month of 1,061 advertising slogans, only 175 slogans, or 16%, used any one of the five. And many of these uses were trivial.

Yet marketing history is filled with powerful slogans using the five memory-enhancing techniques. Here are some examples.

In the American market, the leading coffee brand used to be Maxwell House. The brand even had a clever slogan, Good to the last drop. (In 1999, Advertising Age ranked it as the sixth-best advertising slogan of the 20th century.)

Today, the leading coffee brand is Folgers and not Maxwell House. Folgers’ memorable slogan: The best part of waking up is Folgers in your cup.

Why breakfast when coffee is consumed all day long? One reason is that “waking up” rhymes with “cup.”

But there’s another reason, too. You generally need something specific to create a memorable slogan. And the best way to create a specific benefit is by “narrowing your focus.”

Folgers did that by narrowing its focus to breakfast.

In the 1920s, Mather & Crowther, a London advertising agency, was hired to promote apples. The agency lives on today as Ogilvy & Mather and the apple slogan they created is just as famous as the agency.

An apple a day keeps the doctor away.

Most Americans know the motto of France: Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité. But most French people don’t know the motto of America: In God we trust.

One uses rhymes. The other does not.

M&Ms is the leading candy brand in America, thanks in part to an alliterative slogan that also communicates a key attribute: M&Ms melt in your mouth . . . not in your hands.

Again, narrowing the focus to a single benefit (doesn’t melt in your hand like a chocolate bar) allowed the brand to create a memorable slogan.

And many of our most-famous brand names owe part of their success to alliteration: Coca-Cola, Dirt Devil, Dunkin’ Donuts, Mickey Mouse, PayPal, Range Rover and many others.

Years ago, Federal Express tried to compete in the air-cargo business with market leader Emery Air Freight by cutting prices. That didn’t work. FedEx (the current name of the company) lost millions of dollars.

Then FedEx narrowed its focus to “overnight” service. They could have said, “The overnight air-cargo carrier,” but they didn’t.

Instead, they used a slogan that made FedEx the market leader: When it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight,

(Today FedEx is a global air-cargo carrier with $47 billion in annual revenues, second in size only to United Parcel Service.)

In 1952 when Frank Perdue became president of Perdue Farms, a chicken processor, the company had revenue of $6 million. In 2005 when he died, the company employed 19,000 people and had revenues of $2.8 billion.

In between, Frank Perdue was the spokesperson for the brand. His bald head and big nose made people think he looked like a chicken. Purdue’s slogan: It takes a tough man to make a tender chicken.

“My chickens eat better than you do,” he told consumers in some of the 200 different television commercials he appeared in.

What slogan did Advertising Age rank as the top slogan of the 20th century?

A diamond is forever, the slogan of The De Beers Group of Companies, and first used in 1938.

Three years later, diamond sales were up 55%.

A diamond is the hardest substance on earth and should last forever. A diamond ring is the symbol of a love that could last forever, too. A double-entendre that creates an emotional bond with consumers.

In an era where advertisers change their slogans every year, the longevity of the De Beers slogan is remarkable. It’s still used today, even though it’s now 78 years old.

As the De Beers slogan illustrates, double-entendre is perhaps the most-powerful memory-enhancing technique you can use. The two different meanings oscillate in consumers’ minds, creating memories that are hard to forget.

By using one of these five memory-enhancing techniques, you can create a slogan that could last forever, too.