Vlocity-Developer answers - Vlocity Certified Communications Order Management Developer Updated: 2024

Colin Jeffries is the Vice President of Marketing and Communications for BrightView Health and host of The Rethink Marketing Podcast.

With huge international organizations like Pepsi, Fanta, HBO Max (“now Max”), Baskin Robbins and others launching new corporate identities recently, rebranding is top of mind for many marketing leaders. Call it a “brand refresh,” “brand simplification” or whatever the buzzword du jour is, but at the end of the day, if we are changing our name, logo, colors or other features, it qualifies as some level of a rebrand.

If rebrands are seen as simple, why do so many with executive support and big budgets fail? More importantly, what can we do to ensure the success of our own corporate face-lifts?

Let’s first address three common myths, and then we can dive into a framework to evaluate the need for a rebrand.

The Amorphous Demand

When I was leading marketing for a multistate orthopedic, spine and sports medicine organization, there was some pressure to rebrand based on so-called “market sentiment.” When I spoke with referral partners, organizations we sponsored and patients, it was clear that the demand was coming more so from employees than the market. If a rebrand is a solution to no real problem, those precious resources should likely be allocated to more impactful projects. The onus comes from noncustomer (agency, employee) sentiments like “the market thinks we’re outdated” or “our color scheme is so 1980s.”

New Leader Fingerprints

Rebrands are obvious, sexy and easy to show off. They look like the marketing function is making progress. When a new CMO or agency partner wants to leave their mark, a rebrand is often low-hanging fruit. Even a new CEO who wants to evolve the culture and direction of the company may argue that a rebrand is in order—“This isn’t my grandfather’s company anymore!” Sometimes these “leave my mark” objectives are better solved through revamping internal communication, improving customer service or pursuing another initiative.

Positioning And Branding: The Same Thing?

Even some seasoned marketers use the terms “branding” and “positioning” interchangeably.

If the market is shifting, repositioning can occur independent of a rebrand. Sometimes both a rebrand and reposition are necessary, but a rebrand alone won’t solve the need for an adjustment in positioning to Boost business outcomes.

Now if we aren’t falling victim to any of these illusions, what should we do next when a rebrand is top of mind? In my experience walking several midsize organizations through improving their customer-facing brands, there are three specific questions that we need to answer—beyond the basics such as, “Do we have the budget for this?” Fair warning, these questions sound extremely basic, but there is a reason that inspecting the landing gear is on every preflight checklist. Working through these three seemingly obvious questions can help ensure success. Even some multibillion-dollar rebrands miss one or more of these!

1. Is a rebrand going to address a solvable problem?

An example of a problem not solved by a rebrand is decreasing share of wallet over time because consumer desires are shifting. Changing the name or logo does not address product-market fit. An example of a problem solved by a rebrand would be revenue dropping by 30% because of the name Isis Nails, a real scenario in which a Queens salon found itself in 2015. The business rebranded to Bess Nails and Spa, removing any apparent confusion.

2. What are we trying to accomplish via a rebrand, specifically?

If we are attempting to reduce customer churn, increase branded search, differentiate from a competitor, etc. that should be established and clarified upfront. This often eliminates confusion around the justification of the investment required for a rebrand. Further, the difference between “doing a rebrand” and “successfully rebranding” revolves around defining success. When we start with a specific, solvable problem that is fixed in whole or in part by a rebrand, then laying out distinct key performance indicators becomes a natural next step. That makes evaluating the rebrand’s success simple.

3. What are the alternatives?

As marketing leaders, we can change a lot more than the brand. If a rebrand of some sort is the right solution, then great! But if a website rebuild, literature overhaul, brand guide refresh, market repositioning, etc. is an option that gets us closer to solving the biggest problems facing the organization, maybe we should explore those instead of defaulting to a rebrand.

In the case of Isis Nails, a website rebuild would not fix the underlying problem. Usually, a rebrand is the best option after a bad rebrand. For example, the TV network Animal Planet rebranded in 2018 after its 2008 rebranding missteps. Viewers reacted negatively to the 2008 rebrand that included the “M” turned sideways in the logo. In the last few years, brand simplifications have been in vogue as Intel, Zara, Indesit and other brands did away with frills and stripped down their logos.

Sometimes rebrands are the answer. A rebrand can make a ton of sense and be a boon to a business that actually needs one.

Whether the move fixes a solvable problem, addresses a strategic area of opportunity or is the best long-term investment of resources, a strong rebrand may be a difference maker for businesses. When we ask ourselves those three questions, we can move in the right direction and evaluate whether or not a rebrand is in our best interest.

Forbes Communications Council is an invitation-only community for executives in successful public relations, media strategy, creative and advertising agencies. Do I qualify?

When communicating about science, one main challenge is to respect the intelligence of the audience without overestimating its knowledge of the Topic or field. For fear of being insultingly simple, conference speakers often make their presentations too complicated. Many attendees may wish the presentation were aimed at a lower level, although their pride may prevent them from admitting this to the speaker. In contrast, few attendees will complain that a presentation was "too simple" for them. Still, attendees react negatively to speakers who address them as if they are stupid. Perhaps the one thing an audience never forgives is a lack of respect.

Respect is about how you say things (your tone) more than about what you say. In general, dare to say things the way they are. If you need something from your supervisor, go ahead and ask for it. If your experiments failed, say so. If you receive an off-topic question, feel free to flag it as such. As you do so, however, strive to help (not offend) your audience. Politely ask your supervisor (state why you need what you need). Present useful lessons from your failures. Finally, offer to discuss the off-topic question in private.

Respect and tone are hard to define, but they have more to do with intent than with set rules. For example, if you are a Ph.D. student, it might be appropriate to address your supervisor by his or her first name; it depends on him or her and on the institutional culture (a question of rules). Still, starting an e-mail as Dear Leilah or as Dear Dr. Delmont indicates distance rather than respect per se. You could very well call your supervisor Dr. Delmont and at the same time show disrespect in the way you phrase your e-mail, such as by demanding something instead of asking for it (a question of intent).

Given that your intent when communicating about science is to make the audience understand, make it a habit to write and speak in a simple, straightforward way. Instead of striving to imitate the intricate style of many papers, explain things as simply as you would to a colleague, face to face. Show respect to your audience by avoiding undue informality and by crafting and proofreading your text carefully, but do not believe that you have to write or speak in a special way to "sound scientific." Above all, focus on your purpose: Get your message across.

Most human communication is spoken and done without much thought or planning. Lucky for us, speech is impermanent and endless reanalysis is rarely possible. However, communication in the digital age by PowerPoint, Word and email can be dissected and reanalyzed. Good workplace communication requires planning and consideration.

Join Mark Jones of Dow Chemical, as he discusses the importance of clear communication during this free interactive broadcast co-produced by ACS Professional Education. You will discover key concepts of effective presentations, how to best present complex data, as well as expand the discussion to include emails, reports and other documents.

How do editors select reviewers?

A number of factors determine our choice of reviewers. Of primary importance is the reviewer’s expertise, as it is essential that we receive expert feedback on all technical aspects of the work under consideration. We seek to expand our peer reviewer pool to ensure that the feedback we receive is as global and diverse as the communities we serve. Therefore we often look for new reviewers to bring important perspectives to the review panel while also seeking input from reviewers with previous experience of the journal’s editorial process; this is to ensure consistency in review across manuscripts. We take author suggestions for reviewers into consideration, but are under no obligation to use them, and we honour a reasonable number of exclusions when the motivation for them is clear.

We strive to provide our authors with fair and constructive reviews. If reviewers do not adhere to these expectations, we will not ask them to review again.

How can I become a peer reviewer?

We are always looking for new peer reviewers to ensure that we maintain diversity in our global reviewer pool. One critical element in making yourself visible to our editors is making sure that your work is easy to find online, so that we can understand your expertise and current interests. An updated laboratory webpage is important, as this provides a showcase for your work. Make sure that you have an ORCID and that you keep your profile up to date. Finally, let the editors know you are interested, either via email or when you meet them at a conference.

Should I agree to review a manuscript if I have co-authored an article with an author of this manuscript?

It depends, and you should talk to the editor. Typically, we do not have past collaborators review each other’s manuscripts, but if it has been a sufficiently long period of time (e.g. 3–5 years) since you worked together or if the co-authorship does not reflect a close association, we may make an exception. You should contact the editor to raise a potential competing interest, and they will advise on the best course of action.

Should I agree to review a manuscript if I am working on a similar project?

Please discuss with the editor before you agree to review if you are unsure whether you could provide an unbiased judgement of the work due to your direct involvement in the same research area.

Should I agree to review a manuscript if I used to be a member of a group involved with this study?

It depends on whether you retain a close relationship to the group, and how far you’ve come in establishing your independent career. While we avoid reviews by close associates, in some instances you may be sufficiently independent from your previous group. Please discuss this with the editor in advance of accepting the invitation.

Should I still review a manuscript if I’ve already reviewed it for another journal?

Having reviewed a manuscript for another journal does not constitute a problem, provided that you feel you can objectively assess the study with the standards of our journal in mind. Please discuss your prior experience with the manuscript with the editor if you have any questions or concerns, without disclosing confidential details such as the journal you reviewed for.

How can I become a better peer reviewer?

If you are interested in building your skills as a peer reviewer, please consult our free online course Focus on Peer Review from Nature Masterclasses for detailed insight into the peer review process. You can also build your skills by offering to provide informal feedback on your colleagues’ manuscripts.

How can I obtain credit for the reviews that I have submitted?

We offer all reviewers the option of downloading a certificate detailing their peer review experience with us. Reviewers can also add reviews to online profiles such as ORCID or Publons. Additionally, some of the Nature Portfolio journals ask reviewers if they would like their names associated with the published paper, in recognition of the peer reviewers’ contributions. See our Get recognition for your efforts page for details.

How do editors envision peer review changing in the future?

Peer review is an opportunity to Boost the quality and validity of a study, therefore the constructive exchange between authors and reviewers, mediated by the editors, is a pillar of this process. Nevertheless, publishing is a dynamic process that changes as scientific research advances. We constantly revise our journal policies to fulfil the evolving needs of the research community and ask our authors to comply with these policies. For instance, as improved transparency of reporting and reproducibility of published results has become a need to facilitate and strengthen scientific research, we started asking our authors to provide raw data.

At Nature Communications, we adopted transparent peer review in 2016 and it is welcomed by many authors. Transparent peer review gives a unique and meaningful insight into the merits and limitations of the papers we published. It also shows the role the peer review process played in enhancing the soundness and impact of the studies. Collectively, the peer review files published alongside papers in a certain field of research offer truthful insight on the state-of-the-art.

Authors can decide to publish the peer review file on a voluntary basis. One year into this scheme, 60% of the researchers who published in Nature Communications decided to publish the reviewers’ reports and their rebuttal letters; this has grown to 70% in 2019. Along the years, more and more peer-reviewed journals across publishers are adopting transparent peer review schemes. Altogether, this indicates that many researchers and editors value open science and transparent peer review.

Do editors actively work to Boost diversity (gender, geographic and race) in your reviewer pool?

Yes, we do. In our reviewer pool we have researchers from diverse backgrounds and we actively work to continue improving diversity and inclusion by inviting new reviewers from underrepresented groups as often as we can.

How do editors handle the list of suggested/excluded reviewers the authors send?

Authors can suggest or exclude reviewers. It’s an option; it is not a requirement during submission. The editors have to ensure a fair peer review process and we may or may not contact the suggested reviewers. If we do, we check these suggestions for potential conflicts of interest and biases and verify whether the suggested potential reviewers have the appropriate expertise to assess the manuscript. We don’t invite potential reviewers the authors have excluded. If the list of excluded reviewers is excessive (e.g., more than five excluded reviewers), we contact the authors and ask for a revised list of potential reviewers they want to exclude. In other words, we won’t invite potential reviewers that may not provide meaningful insight and fair comments.

Does Nature Communications deliver official credit (i.e. on Publons) to a trainee who is co-reviewing?

In recognition of the time and expertise our reviewers provide to the peer review process at Nature Communications, since November 2018, we acknowledge their contribution in our published papers. Our reviewers can choose to be acknowledged anonymously or be named. In Publons, reviewers can state that they reviewed for Nature Communications.

I did a peer review but I never found out the outcome; is that normal or something I should chase?

Different journals have different policies. At Nature Communications, we inform the reviewers of our decision and they will receive an email containing all reviewers’ reports. If you review for a journal that does not have this system in place and you would like to know the outcome, you can reach out to the editor.

If editors invite revisions of a manuscript, do the reviewers see the paper again after the author has addressed their comments?

If we invite the authors to revise their work, we will contact the same reviewers to assess the revised version of the manuscript and provide further comments. This can happen for multiple rounds of revision, in most cases 1 or 2 rounds. It is important to consider this point when accepting to review a manuscript.

I understand why the work needs to have enough novelty to present an advance in a specific field. But in the era of reproducibility crisis, isn't a certain amount of overlap with previous publications essential in proving a concept?

For a selective journal like Nature Communications, we would typically expect the paper to provide some novel insights to the specific field. This does not mean, however, that every angle covered by the paper is entirely novel, and a certain amount of overlap with what was already known about the Topic might be absolutely fine. Reproducibility is indeed at the core of the scientific method and has inherent value on its own and we are interested in replication studies where the replication per se is a significant advance for the field. The advance of a particular paper is always a case by case assessment.

This depends on the situation. The major focus for editors assessing a review is to look at the rationale provided for the comments. However, sometimes (in particular for multidisciplinary studies) reviewers may comment on aspects of the paper outside their own core expertise. In such cases, editors may weigh the comments of the reviewer with expertise on that particular aspect.

What happens if a reviewer realises they have a knowledge gap for one key part of the paper (but are presumably experienced in other parts), for example an interdisciplinary paper?

In cases of interdisciplinary papers, it is quite common that a reviewer may not have expertise in all parts of the paper. The editors would seek to compile a panel of reviewers that covers all of the different angles of the paper, and communicating the knowledge gap to the editors is enough. The paper under peer review is shared with the reviewers confidentially, and the reviewer should not seek advice from other individuals without contacting the editors first, even if they might have a person in mind who would cover the missing expertise.

What kind of expertise and experience would be useful to gather beforehand as a student or postdoc if one is interested in applying for editorial positions?

Many of the skills necessary for an editorial position overlap with those you are learning when working towards your degree and training to be a researcher: efficiently practicing and evaluating studies and familiarising yourself with specific research areas to name a few. It is important to maintain a curiosity towards research in your broader field, not in the centre of your immediate projects, and keep up with the major discoveries on a more general level. Working on communications skills will be useful for interactions with other editors, reviewers and in particular authors. If you are interested in seeking a career as an editor, you may also wish to familiarise yourself with scientific publishing in general, in addition to submitting papers as an authors and (hopefully) acting as a peer reviewer.

How detailed should a peer reviewer report be? Is longer and more detailed always better?

There are many good ways to write a report, and the degree of detail also depends on the paper being reviewed and the personal style of each reviewer. Due to this variability there is no easy rule of thumb for how detailed the report should be, but in general it is important to provide the rationale for the major criticisms especially in the first round of revision. However, a report does not have to be long and address each finding of the paper in minute detail to be a very helpful report.

United States National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby indicated that Hamas held Israeli hostages could be victims of sexual abuse when speaking with reporters in Washington on Wednesday.