Pam Spevak Expert

Get in Touch

Bio

As President of Brainchild Advisors, Pam provides commercial solutions to business leaders and entrepreneurs looking to grow their businesses. Prior to founding Brainchild, Pam was CEO of Swellco Holdings and grew the Swell brand into a multi-platform media and lifestyle business. She ran business development at SFX Entertainment, where she turned the company's local live entertainment businesses into a national sponsorship delivery network, and founded its interactive business as President of SFX Interactive. At Creative Artists Agency, Pam was a founder of the agency's New Media department.

Pam’s Live Feed

  1. Pam S. commented on Question 22

    And in a siloed client environment...
  2. Pam S. commented on HOW BRANDS GET CREATED

    The Twitter handle miss was a biggie, and I agree, Michelle, it does beg the question as to who's minding the store. But the decisions made with regard to separating the businesses were based on imperatives and economics that, while running completely counter to customer needs/wants (thank you Hollywood!), they are also out of Netflix's control.
  3. Pam S. commented on HOW BRANDS GET CREATED

    I'm with you Ted. Someone at Netflix should have read your post before yesterday's botched announcement, particularly the part about "enduring connections." Transparency, while admittedly two months late, doesn't seem to be making up for bad missteps judging by how pissed off once-loyal subs have become.
  4. Pam S. commented on Question 23

    Amen Gareth! I have nothing to add - you hit the nail on the head. In fact, the dreaded silo may thus far be the most discussed hurdle on BF to doing almost anything constructive!
  5. Pam S. commented on The brand development process must be opened up

    Agreed. This issue goes back to the early days of television when it was perceived as little more than radio with pictures. Seems not much has changed since then - much of the business world needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the reality of disruptive technologies. You'd think with 40% of the US market embracing mobile apps they wouldn't need that much convincing. Is it fear? Inertia? Mediocrity? Beats me...
  6. Pam S. commented on Branding in transition

    Indeed.
  7. Pam S. commented on Market driven or not?

    Erin, I would love to agree with you. But If you look at the media and entertainment industries, those in power have consistently and successfully resisted change for much longer than market forces and common sense would suggest they could (change, by the way, which almost universally came from outside of the industry because of that desire to preserve the status quo). Just look at the music business. It's amazing the lengths one will go to to protect a fat salary and bonus.
  8. Pam S. commented on Potential implications and thought-starters

    This goes back to the silo point that has been made elsewhere by me and others. The hurdle is systemic - unless working across silos/departments/functions is part of the corporate culture, job descriptions and, to be really crass about it, compensation, it won't happen. This is going on as we speak in many traditional media companies, particularly print. Unless the cross functionality becomes a CEO mandate with senior executive buy-in, and unless compensation and advancement is based on playing by the new rules, it just doesn't happen.
  9. Pam S. commented on Potential implications and thought-starters

    I'm with you, Erin. Your last point, I think, is the critical one - you can't measure the impact of campaigns that are never developed for fear they may fail. Permission to fail is absolutely critical. One of the great advantages of digital media is the relatively low cost of experimentation and iteration. Companies need to understand that if you never fail, you're playing it too safe. And a campaign or execution that doesn't work the way it was hoped or anticipated is only an abject failure if there's nothing to learn from it.
  10. Pam S. commented on Branding in transition

    Thanks MIcah for the correction/clarification. Ted, you could have gone with Oscar Wilde's "Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative," though I don't recall him being terribly successful at selling lots of products :)
  11. Pam S. commented on Branding in transition

    Yes, one could think about their brand essences that way. But isn't that "deeper, more fundamental customer relationship" characterized by a level of consistency? There's an implied trust, a level of expectation that is fulfilled, a perception of the brand's coolness or reliability or some other attribute - a, dare I say it, consistency - that allows these companies to expand into other businesses.
  12. Pam S. commented on The brand development process must be opened up

    Not surprising - these data points reflect the downside of the standard corporate silo structure, which is the bane of so many industries. Too many companies giving too much lip service to trying to forge change and really just playing at it. They'll learn the hard way.
  13. Pam S. commented on Chart no. 4 - Forces at Work

    Media fragmentation delta is interesting. Wonder what that number would have looked like 10 or 15 years ago when the traditional media environment was highly fragmented but digital was less of a factor...
  14. Pam S. commented on Chart no. 3 - Forces at Work

    I wonder how important social media really is to some brands...and how many people just feel a need to jump on the social bandwagon so they can check it off their "to do" list...
  15. Pam S. commented on Chart no. 2 - Branding In Transition

    This has always been true - brand thinking has to permeate every aspect of an organization because every point of customer contact is a brand defining, brand impacting opportunity. Branding is also a critical element of corporate culture - if your employees don't get your brand, how will your customers?
  16. Pam S. commented on Branding in transition

    This may be a question of semantics, but I think consistency is the hallmark of a strong brand. Apple may be known for product innovation, but it's branding is the most consistent out there - we can all identify it from 100 miles away. Contrast that with Target, whose brand was, for a time, highly consistent. In the last couple of years, they have moved away from the iconic creative with which they were strongly associated, and their business has suffered at the same time. Coincidence? I don't think so...