Blue Ocean Strategy encourages a company to explore untapped markets where immediate and rapid profit growth is possible because of a lack of competition. So instead of battling for profits in the established marketplace, companies should look to generate new markets where they are the only player.

In contrast to a blue ocean (an undiscovered market), the red ocean is the current marketplace, where corporations are competing for market share. Intense competition leads some companies to go under, and the "cutthroat nature" of business turns the ocean bloody or red. It's the concept of diminishing returns, as companies have to devote more resources to besting the competition in order to build market share slightly.

Without the cost of competition, corporations are free to focus on developing their product. Moreover, innovative companies will have the opportunity to define the rules of the marketplace in their favor.

Starwood Hotel's targeting of non-customers is a recent example of Blue Ocean Strategy as they are trying to step outside the traditional market boundaries of the hospitality industry.

Origin:

Michigan State University Professor Charles W.L. Hill introduced the idea in 1988 that differentiation and cost management was the key to gaining a competitive advantage. The concept was encapsulated in the 2005 bestseller, Blue Ocean Strategy: How to Create Uncontested Market Space and Make Competition Irrelevant, written by W. Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne.

IBM initiating a major stock buyback.

Citing robust growth in Europe and a greater diversification of their business, IBM is showing their viability even in times of economic hardship ... HA! Take that, US Recession! (Too soon?)

Ever since selling off their personal computer division to Lenovo, IBM has been a model in rebranding as they've gone on to redefine their brand as an expert in enterprise-wide information technology and (apparently) they're doing pretty well. Feeling good enough about themselves to buy back a lot of stock and push their earnings up.

Getty Images bought by private equity firm.
The proliferation of user-generated content combined with a changing media environment, sent media stalwart Getty Images seeking out new opportunities for strategic growth, so they put themselves on the block ... The result? A $2.1 billion offer from private equity firm Hellman & Friedman.

Getty was already exploring other areas for business growth (and quite successfully), but as a private company they have greater latitude and more opportunities.

We talked to June Blocklin of Gilbert and Company, advertising agency consultants, about the difficulties to overcome when searching for a new brand agency and how CEOs can sometimes, mistakenly, value chemistry over an idea that could transform the earning power of their brand.

Where are the places that most companies stumble when searching for an agency to partner on a brand?

The right short list is a critical starting point - and the place where companies often miss. There are thousands of alternatives available and always more than one agency that can fit the bill.

The key in getting to the right short list is knowing how well the different agencies fit the criteria you determine are important. You want to find, say, five agencies that not only deliver the services and have the relevant experience that you want, but are hungry, for whatever reason. That's an indication that they will step up and do a good job.

Importantly, that list should not always be about who's "the hottest." A fabulous campaign done for somebody else doesn't necessarily mean they'll do the same for you. You want to make sure you are talking to companies who want you as much as you want them.

In part two, we discuss how a CEO can work with a consultant to establish a cultural change in their organization.

Can CEOs inadvertently be standing in the way of an organization's growth?

I sometimes find leaders choosing to stand above the organization and feel that they're going to change it without it somehow profoundly changing them in the process. Effective change can only happen when leaders grow personally. The CEO has to ask themselves: "Am I prepared for some kind of change in me?" Because change in their organization starts in their office.

I remember a client saying to me once, "Chris, I realize that every instinct I have for this business is no longer relevant, yet they are the only instincts I have."

They had got to a very critical place in their own learning, the place of "I don't know." But then he moved forward, and made some difficult and risky choices, which may well not have worked. Without this almost mystical combination of humility and courageous vision in a leader, change is very hard to foster. I have said, "As grows the leader, so goes the change process." It seems that this is most often the case.

The Halo Group talked to consultant Chris Houston of The Change Alliance about when it is time to bring in a change agent and how a CEO can effectively lead an organization in a new direction.

How does the need for a change agent arise within an organization?

A leader always has two fundamental challenges. The first is to run the organization they have today; they have a responsibility to serve and deliver products to their current customers. The second is to change their model, so that tomorrow's performance is in some way different, better, or sustainable. And the difficulty is that both of these goals need to be achieved simultaneously. Often, the management process pays particular attention to one task or the other, usually today's performance - best reflected in the numbers that show the current economic strength of a corporation. But the results today are the outcome of previous decisions, so today's change agenda is intended to produce results for tomorrow.

The quarterly earnings cycle forces a transactional response. CEOs feel that they have to do something today - preferably Now! - which is why it is sometimes helpful to have an outside opinion and perspective, one not caught up in the issues of producing today's output. A change agent has an eye on the horizon as opposed to the immediate crisis. It's that ability to simply think beyond the immediate issues of today, but do so fully cognizant of the present realities.

Greenwashing is a marketing effort where a product or service is presented as "green," when in actuality it may not be environmentally friendly. Under this strategy, a company may change its look or use a buzzword like "organic" or "natural" to try and convince consumers that it has lowered its negative impact on the environment. Greenwashing is an environmental reinterpretation of the concept of whitewashing, wherein a corporation uses a biased presentation in attempting to cover up wrongdoing.

As it stands currently, there is not a lot of restriction on green advertising. The Federal Trade Commission is considering an update on green marketing guidelines, but the "Green Guides," haven't been revised since 1998. In response, a proliferation of consumer advocacy watchdogs have come into existence featured on websites like EnviroMedia's Greenwashing Index. And the planet-conscious claims of marketing campaigns are being called into question.

Recent debates over greenwashing have covered the sustainability of Procter & Gamble's Swiffer and whether Kimberly-Clark, maker of Kleenex and the world's largest tissue manufacturer, was effectively protecting heritage forests in Canada.

Origin

The concept of greenwashing appeared in the early 1990s. It arose as a response to the upsurge in green marketing by corporations designed to coincide with the 20th anniversary of Earth Day in 1990.