Last Thursday the new president of Toyota admitted that the company lost its way over the last decade as it tried to overtake GM to become the world’s largest automaker.

Akio Toyoda (grandson of the company’s founder) said, “I do not think we were wrong to expand our business to meet the needs of customers around the world but we may have stretched more than we should have.”

Indeed. Toyota’s legendary quality has slipped as sales have slumped with the decline in the global automotive market. Toyota lost its focus on the legendary operating philosophy that had won the hearts, minds and wallets of a generation of consumers and led it to the precipice of becoming No. 1 in the world.

Says Toyoda about what the Wall Street Journal calls his “back to basics” strategy, “Rather than asking, ‘How many cars will we sell?’ or ‘How much money will we make by selling these cars?’ we need to ask ourselves, ‘What kind of cars will make people happy?’ as well as, ‘What pricing will attract them in each region?’ Then we must make those cars.”

That’s a good start. When growth stalls, the place to begin is with the needs of the customer. Only by better understanding those needs–and orienting its strategy around that understanding–can a company increase its relevance and desirability, critical building blocks in regenerating growth.

Toyota’s problems are, of course, intertwined with the larger issues affecting the auto industry. But the company is wise not to blame all of its woes on external events. By putting its own house in order, Toyota is increasing the odds that when the larger economy turns around, its own fortunes will lead the way.

The “Lack of Consensus” problem rears its ugly head again:

January 10, 2000 (CNNfn):“In a stunning development, America Online Inc. announced plans to acquire Time Warner Inc. for roughly $182 billion in stock and debt Monday, creating a digital media powerhouse with the potential to reach every American in one form or another…’Together, they represent an unprecedented powerhouse,’ said…a media analyst…’If their mantra is content, this alliance is unbeatable. Now they have this great platform they can cross-fertilize with content and redistribute.’”

May 29, 2009 (LA Times):“Time Warner’s rocky marriage to AOL is coming to an end. Citing irreconcilable differences, Time Warner Inc. said it was legally separating from its much younger spouse, America Online. The marriage, which was announced to great fanfare in January 2000, had been on the rocks practically from Day One — doomed from the get-go by lofty expectations of a new power couple that could dominate the media landscape for generations to come…The new Time Warner was applauded by analysts.

So “analysts” thought the AOL/Time Warner merger was brilliant. Until they didn’t anymore. Just goes to show that you can’t believe everything you read.

Make your decisions based on what you know, not what they think.

“Failure is feedback.” I wish I could claim those words as my own, but the credit for them goes to Peter Jones, an Irish entrepreneur and investor.

Jones is right. He goes on to say, “Don’t be put off by failure; if you don’t try something, you’ll have learnt [sic] nothing.” Those thoughts echo Google founder Larry Page, who said, “Invariably we try ten things that don’t quite work out in order to do one thing that’s successful. And we learn a lot in doing the ten things that didn’t quite work.”

In other words, failure is feedback.

In this time of muddled vision and tough choices, that’s good to keep in mind. When push comes to shove, any decision is better than no decision, because at least when you make a decision there’s an opportunity to learn something.

When growth stalls, it’s easy to lose your nerve. Don’t. Be smart, be thoughtful, and be strategic, then be decisive. If nothing else, you’ll be wiser for it tomorrow.

Like a well-maintained engine, a well-managed brand can keep a company moving steadily forward. But every brand, like every engine, suffers wear and tear, and sometimes even the best-kept ones require an overhaul. That’s what happened to Fram.

Fram is a 75 year-old oil filter brand with a storied history. Who can forget the famous TV commercials featuring crusty old mechanics saying, “You can pay me now, or pay me later?” Those spots built the Fram brand into semi-iconic status.

Of late, however, Fram has run into a problem. Seems its historical target audience of do-it-yourself (DIY) amateur auto mechanics are a dying breed, especially when it comes to oil changes. It’s just too easy to pop into the quick lube down the street rather than crawling under a filthy car to risk bloody knuckles and second-degree burns. In fact, Fram discovered that 70 percent of oil change occasions now fall squarely in the DIFM (do it for me) category. Not good for a DIY brand.

At that point, Fram had a choice. The company could have given in to the internal dynamics that tend to plague struggling organizations, sticking its head in the sand, living in denial, and being hampered by finger-pointing and internal divisions while its market continues to degenerate. Or it could face facts, deal with its issues and rejuvenate its brand.

Fram chose the latter. Recognizing the changing dynamics of its industry, Fram used sophisticated consumer research to identify a new core target–one that didn’t begin by separating DIYs from DIFMs (a hard habit to break, no doubt). Based on that analysis, the company has reoriented its positioning so it will resonate with a new consumer sweet spot.

That’s easier said than done. Fram’s task not only included new advertising, it involved a redesign of over 1,100 SKUs and an entirely new approach to distribution. Being easily found on the shelves at automotive aftermarket stores is no longer enough; now Fram also has to meet the needs of quick lube operations and independent auto mechanics. That’s a whole new ball game.

Will the new strategy work? Time will tell. But Fram is off to a good start, having been both intelligent and deliberate in its approach to a very real challenge. With the economy in tatters, other companies may be seeing fissures in their foundations that represent similar existential threats–and will require courage to address.

Some will muster the will, and some won’t.

Neilsen recently reported that advertising spending in the first quarter of 2009 fell 12 percent. The decline happened pretty much across the board, but it was particularly bad in the automotive sector.

Auto factory and dealer association advertising dropped by more than 27 percent, and local dealers cut their spending by more than 24 percent. No surprise there. What blows my mind, however, is the fact that more than three thousand car dealers cut their advertising to zero. Zip. Nada. Nothing.

While the reasons why are understandable, they don’t change the reality that the marketplace is never static, and competition doesn’t take a day off. To wit, AAMCO has just launched the largest campaign in its history, spending $30 million in an effort to win simple service occasions like oil changes and tire rotations from troubled (and shuttered) car dealers. Nothing like kicking an industry when it’s down.

But that’s what the free market is all about–creative destruction. Not only is this a great opportunity for AAMCO to seize market share, it will help the brand as it continues its evolution away from transmission service alone. And it shows real guts to take this step in the troubled economy. Good for them.

While I feel sorry for the auto dealers, many of whom are being shafted by decisions made in D.C. and Detroit, it’s encouraging to see the invisible hand continue to work. The more companies that have the nerve to follow AAMCO’s example and look for creative ways to advance their interests, the sooner the economy as a whole will recover.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, James Stewart captured the unique loss of focus brought on by a lack of consensus among the key stakeholders (dare I say “stewards”) of GM over the past few decades.

He says, “It has been long in coming, this slow death of what was once the greatest and biggest corporation in the world. The myriad causes of its demise have been thoroughly chronicled, but to my mind one stands out: The custodians of GM simply gave up trying to build the best cars in the world. To accommodate a host of competing interests, from shareholders and bondholders to labor, they repeatedly compromised on excellence. Once sacrificed, that reputation has proved impossible to recapture.”

As Stewart said, GM’s downfall has been thoroughly chronicled. But years from now, with the perspective of history, I have little doubt that the company will be viewed as the perfect poster child for the principles I present in When Growth Stalls. If this can happen to what was once the world’s most dominant corporation, it can happen to yours and mine as well. We should continually take heed.

When you think of La Quinta, what comes to mind? What about Waldorf-Astoria? Two very different images, I suspect.

The La Quinta hotel chain has made its mark as a moderately-priced, low to mid range hotel concept. By contrast, Waldorf-Astoria is one of the most glamorous names in hospitality. Most people would never associate the two brands, other than as members of a very broadly defined hotel industry.

That’s why it was an odd experience for me as I arrived at the PRSA Counselors Academy conference several days ago. When I first learned the conference was going to be held at a place called La Quinta, my mind naturally flashed on the imagery established by the La Quinta hotel chain, even though I suspected that the resort wasn’t officially related. And when I saw the sign at the entrance proudly stating that the resort was part of the Waldorf-Astoria collection, I had an entirely different set of expectations.

The resort was lovely and my stay was enjoyable, but that’s not really the point. I found it fascinating how both the La Quinta and Waldorf-Astoria brand identities framed my initial expectations of what I was going to experience. Over the years, both companies have developed specific brand footprints in my mind that were very different–and that caused a period of cognitive dissonance as I attempted to categorize where, exactly, I would be laying my head.

The next time somebody dismisses branding as a luxury, reflect on my experience (or similar ones you may have had). Branding is all about creating meaningful expectations in the minds of customers and prospects, and waiting to do so until the point of purchase may be too late.

One way or another, your brand will be categorized in the mind of your prospects. The more intentional you can be with your identity, the better.

Over the past week or so Microsoft has used its monstrous marketing leverage to introduce its new search engine, Bing, to the world. Having used Bing just a handful of times, I can say that I’m intrigued by the service. I’m unwilling, however, to pronounce judgment on it yet.

That said, I was encouraged by a statement made by Microsoft’s CEO, Steve Ballmer, in reference to the launch of his company’s new search engine. Commenting on his task of competing with Google and its amazing 64 percent market share, Ballmer said, “To make our 8% [market share] grow significantly, we don’t have to capture the imagination of everybody, but we have to capture the imagination of some.” That’s a great perspective to have, and it’s spot-on.

It’s easy for any of us to be intimidated by competitors who are much bigger and stronger than we are. But Microsoft understands a powerful principle: it doesn’t have to topple Google to succeed, it merely has to put a dent in its market share. With such a large footprint Google is, by definition, meeting some of its users needs better than others, which spells opportunity for enterprising competitors. And with #2 Yahoo a distant second (serving only 20 percent of the market), there’s a lot of room for share shifting. Rich and powerful Microsoft may be one of the few companies with the focus, intensity and wherewithal to make it happen.

For years I’ve rooted for someone–anyone–to take on Microsoft and win. Even though I’m a big fan of Google, I find myself oddly rooting that Bing will succeed. That’s the great thing about competition–it keeps every player on its toes. That almost always means good things for the rest of us.

“A company’s foremost responsibility is to do well. That may sound politically incorrect, but the reason is inexorable. Winning companies create jobs, pay taxes and strengthen the economy. Winning companies, in other words, enable social responsibility, not the other way around. And so, right now–as always–companies should be putting profitability first. It’s the necessity that makes every other necessity possible…every company must face reality. You have to make money first to give it away.”

–Jack and Suzy Welch, writing in BusinessWeek’s June 1st issue.

In my industry, the past ten months or so have been mostly about fear and loathing. Most marketers are just trying to somehow make their way through the economic mess. Some are slicing and dicing their budgets, while others are merely nipping and tucking. But they’re all feeling the pain.

Despite this, I tend to agree with UCLA professor Richard Rumelt when he said, “A structural break is the very best time to be a strategist, for at the moment of change old sources of competitive advantage weaken and new sources appear.”

This time in history certainly qualifies as a “structural break.” And since very few companies are acting normally, there’s no such thing as “the norm” right now. Which spells big opportunity.

Take the banking industry. Most of us wouldn’t even think to go near it these days, except perhaps to withdraw cash to stuff under our mattresses. Yet Fortune’s Jon Birger offers an interesting take on the opportunity in the magazine’s May 25 issue:

“Launching a bank in this economy may sound insane, but star bank analyst Meredith Whitney has been saying since last year that the timing couldn’t be better. First, a new bank starts out with a nontoxic balance sheet. Second, its earnings are juiced by a steep yield curve that allows for a healthy spread between the interest the new bank is paying depositors and the rate it’s earning on its loans. And best of all, it is competing with established banks that don’t want to lend – they’re focused more on plugging leaks in their balance sheets than on making new loans.”

Birger and Whitney make a good point. The lesson here is that no matter the sector, opportunity awaits. As crazy as things are out there, people still have needs that must be met, and with so many aspects of their lives up in the air they may be more open than ever to new options.

Think about it in terms of your industry. There may be opportunities for growth just beyond your normal field of vision that can be tapped with little more than imagination, a willingness to try something new and a little bit of courage. Find some time to set aside the pain and pressure of the moment to explore what the future might look like.

It may be coming more quickly than you think–and if you don’t bring it, someone else will.