Business Thoughts
older experienced people and transformational hires
Jul 28th
So. In the past months I received two things that didn’t seem related but in my warped mind they did:
1. Ralph Cutcher (a nice really smart guy) talked in his newsletter about helping companies hire more transformational people. Here is what he said:
- Transformational Players –During the last year, most of our assignments have been for what I would term “transformational players”. Sounds like an impossible search assignment right? Not really. What these searches represent is an expectation of change and new possibilities, principally tied to establishing new capability, a new leadership approach or new business creation. And they are always entwined with an expectation for revenue lift. Our view may be skewed somewhat by the nature of how our practice has evolved, but I also see this when I talk with connections in every corner of the marketing and advertising world. A great replacement is not really considered a high value staffing move. More often than not these transformational player moves are accomplished by trading out another role(s) to fund this move, making an incremental FTE add or moving a star player into a transformational role. The result over time will be a version of the GE model… every year trade out the bottom 10% of your performers. In this updated model, every person is intricately tied to a higher value role with a constant re-evaluation of the roles and how they fit in. This future view will put a premium on a person’s ability to influence and activate the organization regardless of their current role.
2. I was forwarded an email suggesting about only 4% of employees in advertising (say marketing) agencies are over 50 … so where is the knowledge and experience coming from (and the editorial suggests how can agencies developing communications to boomers do so without boomers guiding the relevance)? Here is the quote from EngageBoomers:
- The PEW Center released a study at the end of last year suggesting that the current generation gap is the largest in the almost 50-year history of the study. Even larger than during the Vietnam war era. Today, an astounding 79% of Americans believe that there is a generation gap in the ways young and old think and believe. And then there’s this … The average age of an advertising agency creative person is 28. The average age of a media planner is 24. And less than 4% of advertising agency personnel in America is over the age of 50. I know why all the ads look and sound the way they do. I know why none of them talk to the 50+ audience. A friend of mine offered up this paraphrased quote from the Greek philosopher Xenophanes: “If horses had gods, they would look like horses.” Thirty-five year old creative people are always going to create messages that look like them, sound like them and act like them. Why? Because they’re 35.
Okay.
I have to tell you.
I think the market place needs more 50 year old+ employees than ever before (and I am gonna tell you why).
Now. I am not suggesting all 50+ people are the same. And this generalization may be translatable to other age groups but let me suggest there are three groups:
- Over 50 and all they know and believe in is what they were taught when they were in their 20’s.
- Over 50 and they have all the knowledge they need to be on their own and like being on their own (I call these builders)
- Over 50 and have accumulated iterative learning over the years and have a unique combination of old and new (and like renovating)
(note: I wrote a post about Builders versus Renovators if you want to check it out)
The first group is lost in the past.
They will struggle because their thinking and ideas and even their vocabulary can be out of date. They will suck at transformation or renovation. Their hope is finding someone who needs to work on their internal construct of how to get shit done because … well … they know how to get shit done within a system. But mostly these are the people when we were young we thought were ‘out-of-touch’ from the real world (or chuckled to ourselves because they would throw out up to date buzzwords acting like they knew what was going on).
The second group has accumulated enough knowledge and expertise and confidence where mentally they have flipped from ‘working for someone’ to ‘working for myself.’
They have recognized their ability to build. And they like building (which is different than transforming). They would suck at transforming because they want to run the place and not simply be an enabler for the organization to shift. (Ralph also talks about this within his newsletter as “fear of flying” and learning about yourself). They could possibly be out of touch or they could be leading edge entrepreneurs. But it doesn’t matter because they are now going forward as their own boss.
And then there is the third group. They are renovators (Ralph calls them Transformation people).
Companies should be fighting over these people.
They are old but not old. They are experienced but still learning. They have a solid thinking construct but flexible in application. They may have their quirks (because I believe all of us older people start feeling more comfortable in our own skin and therefore are a little less worried about ‘fitting in’) but also tend to be more interested in the result than worrying about step by step how they get there. They can actually make the current buzzword understandable by using past functional learnings to explain them. They clearly have one foot in the past (history & knowledge) and one foot in the future (restless & learning). Great at transforming. Great at bridging generation gaps.
So.
When I say “fighting for these people” I don’t mean to suggest that companies should be stockpiling these people at the expense of young energetic fresh thinkers and doers. I am simply suggesting that companies need a good tier of these boomer types to transform themselves when, frankly, a lot of companies need to be ‘transforming.’ (and my definition of transformation is leveraging from solid good older characteristics an injecting some new characteristics).
I am also not going to suggest there should be a direct correlation between % of boomers in population and % of boomers in the makeup of business organizations.
That would seem kind of silly to me.
You don’t need a shitload of these people because they are catalysts (and I think if you have too many catalysts in a room it creates either a black hole or an implosion … I cannot remember which).
But the numbers are pretty compelling that organizations should seek that third group of over 50ers (let’s be nice and call them boomers … hey … I am one … well … officially I think I am a Joneser).
In 2009 The PEW Center released a study outlining the current generation gap is the largest in the almost 50 year history of the study.
Today, an astounding 79% of Americans believe that there is a generation gap in the ways young and old think and believe. 
Truly the only way to bridge that gap within an organization and eliminate generational divisiveness is to have boomers who can effectively communicate with and motivate all age groups.
Look. Just to make a point for all organizations.
I don’t know that I buy the dire extent of the issue the editorial in Media Post suggests with regard to boomers in advertising/communications agencies (The average age of an advertising agency creative person is 28. The average age of a media planner is 24. And less than 4% of advertising agency personnel in America is over the age of 50).
To the facts just stated I frankly say “so what.”
I don’t believe only women have to work on female driven communications, African Americans on African American focused communications or clowns to work on circus communications.
Talented communicators can create links with anyone they desire to communicate with.
This leads me back to the importance of that third group of boomers with the talent I outline.
That group will tend to be generalists.
They will have such a varied experience background that their value will be exponential in that they know how to transfer learnings to different situations. 
They will know how to take company vision (or ‘dream”) and give younger people purpose. And they will be flexible enough to do it in a variety of ways.
Organizations today should be absolutely climbing over each other to find those people.
Why?
Because no 25 or 30 year old can have that ability (that I guarantee).
Why?
Because there is no possible way they would have had time to accumulate the experience and learnings to be fully (they could be partially at that point) capable of what a good third group Boomer type can offer an organization.
But hey. I am biased. I am selling my own age group.
But.
I will also say.
This is one of the few topics I feel pretty confident that I am right on.
separate but one
Jul 28th
“… be as separate as the fingers, yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress.” 
Booker Washington
Ok.
I am going to take this awesome quote and talk about two things: business and personal.
Business.
Whenever anyone asks me about “integration” this is the quote I use.
We talk so often of “staying on strategy” or “meeting objectives”.
Why? Because there is so much everyday other shit going on you worry about losing control. So you have one of two choices. Leverage off of something (strategy) or aim for something (objective).
That’s it. Let’s call it vectoring for success. Okay. Let’s not.
And you have to choose because today everyone is “integrating.” What I mean is everybody is seeking to implement a shitload of tactics in a shitload of different vehicles and it can all go to shit really really fast.
Ok. So you are on your ‘vector.’
You have one of two choices (in general).
Create chemistry through conflict management (think dictator insuring all the fingers stay on one hand or get chopped off if they start flipping you off). This hand can punch a bunch of people along the way but just as a boxer ages over time your career as a conflict hand organization will wear out in a relatively short time.
And then there are hands that face conflict with chemistry. Create a culture that thrives on that vector. (whenever I type that word I want to ask “what’s your vector? Victor” … anyway …) this one is a little scary because it contains that evil word “decentralization.”
Uh oh.
Great organizational chemistry almost always has a thread of some autonomy. But great organizational chemistry embodies the quote also. So. Choose your path. But if you like the quote you know which way to go now.
Personal.
Whenever someone asks me about what makes a great relationship this is the quote I use.
I believe being one while remaining two is the greatest thing that can ever happen in any relationship.
‘To be one yet remain two’ is the way I believe I have heard it said before. But Booker says it better.
I would imagine this means a balance between independence and dependence.
Uhm.
Yes. Dependence.
Being dependent isn’t a bad thing on occasion. In individual moments we all need someone. If we don’t … well… I would argue you aren’t human.
But having some independence keeps the partnership healthy and growing. And actually keeps the “ones” stronger as ‘ones’ so when they become ‘two’ they actually have strength far beyond the numbers. (I think Pythagoras proved this in his third marriage).
shakespeare and self esteem
Jul 27th
“Be true to thineself.”
Shakespeare
I used this quote in maybe one of my first 5 posts but since my friend Jen referenced it with regard to self esteem I thought I would bring it back and refresh it slightly with the whole self esteem discussion in mind (as well as my recent rant on advertising agency differentiation).
Let’s talk business first.
I use this quote in every branding exercise I have ever done. I believe branding, personal or companywise, doesn’t start with the ‘customer’ but in understanding yourself. And in understanding yourself … have the kahones to be true to thineself regardless of the repercussions.
Branding experts spend so much time focusing on the customer and doing whatever you have to do to be liked by consumers that they lose sight of what a brand really is at its core – thineself.
I would imagine at its core this thought is about a company’s self esteem.
I guess if all you want to do is make money and be a prostitute, or a chameleon, and be whatever the consumer wants and do whatever the consumer wants in search of the almighty dollar then you should go ahead. But while I would probably lose the consulting gig I would then suggest ‘be comfortable being a legal prostitute.’ And, oh, (no offense to any prostitutes) expect that no matter how big your wallet gets you will have the same self esteem as a prostitute. By the way. I am not the first to suggest this (at least in the advertising industry). The original founder of The Martin Agency in Richmond said something very similar (I have the exact quite in a box somewhere). But. Those ad guys are mad men anyway.
When I do any strategy gigs and I use this quote I typically suggest it’s like building a great circle of friends. Your circle of friends is stronger if there is some mutual respect and you truly enjoy each other’s company (flaws and all). Now. That doesn’t mean everyone will be your friend. Some people may like you but not be a friend. And some people will just have no interest in being your friend. But in the end your company, your product/service, your brand is better off if it is ‘true to thineself.’
Okay.
Personal (and this whole self esteem thing).
Heck, I believe it may be one of the most important lessons a person can learn in their personal life (and one of the most difficult lessons to actually implement I may add). I don’t have a lot to add from what I say to business owners (above).
Similar to businesses getting caught in the barrage of consumer influence on company image an individual is faced with a similar situation (without money involved).
As Jen told me:
“realize sometimes people just get bogged down, and the external factors are definitely loud/pervasive, but still annoying to see/listen to people play “victim” or blame their upbringing/society/partner/etc on their unhappiness or their unwillingness to climb out of the pit.”
I cannot disagree.
Shakespseare was a smart dude. I don’t think he lacked for self esteem (although I would imagine he had the typical creative artist insecurities lying below a healthy façade of strong self esteem). But self esteem is a tricky thing.
It is made even trickier by the fact we are always growing as a person. We are always gathering external information and assessing ourselves. Part of self esteem is understanding what is good and should be respected about yourself and another part of self esteem is partially understanding how to change and evolve and improve.
And that is self esteem’s trickiest challenge.
Be stagnant and you aren’t improving. External factors will remind you of that. Constantly.
So change and those wily external factors have a habit of understanding that your foundation is shifting and starts seeking cracks in the foundation to weasel its way into.
My first post on “be true to thineself’ may have been too flippant.
Truth in itself is very difficult; add ‘thineself’ and difficulty increase exponentially. Negative self esteem issues are a “pit.” That is true. And I am with Jen on this one … no one should be willing to accept living in this pit if you have a choice. And everyone has a choice when it comes to self esteem.
Ah.
But nothing good in life is easy.
That is an unndebatable truth.
a rant on ad agencies differentiation: part 1 the missed opportunities
Jul 25th
So. I have managed advertising agencies, I have been business development director at agencies and I have talked with so many business owners about advertising agencies as well as search consultants (kind of like executive search people for businesses looking for agencies) that I think I have seen pretty much every angle any agency has ever taken to differentiate themselves.
And I think any sane person who stuck their head into this padded room advertising agencies live in would suggest the occupants exhibit some relatively insane behavior patterns on occasion.
Look. No matter how you slice it my friend Luke Sullivan said it best “it’s all about the work.” An agency both has the work and can do the work or they don’t and they can’t (but are trying to convince everyone they do and can).
We in the agency business hate admitting it’s “the work” because then it makes us sound like a manufacturing plant cranking out widgets. Well. Tough nooogies (I love typing that). Agencies are what they produce. Simple as that.
Do they produce ideas (so they can claim they are ‘thinking agencies’)? No.
Those are consulting firms (who typically in my harsh point of view have absolutely no value to the world because they shirk the responsibility of the actual ‘doing the work’ once they have the insight/idea).
Anyway.
Advertising agencies produce “tangible creativity” based on an idea.
Doesn’t mean you should be any dumber because you shamelessly state it’s the work (cause if you don’t have the insight or the idea you ain’t gonna produce ‘the work’ anyway).
A person I admire said “well, our work sells shit.” That works for me too.
Does it mean they do crappy work?
Nope. Just that if you come to them and they develop work for you it will … well .. work.
Anyway.
Differentiation.
So most agencies that can do the work fall into three categories.
- Ones known for a charismatic talented personality. Jeff Goodby. Roy Spence. Alex Bogusky. Stan Richards. And going back in time … David Ogilvy, Mary Wells, Bill Bernbach. Let’s call them “zen masters.” Kind of the Phil Jackson’s of the advertising industry. These are at the top but there are a slew of well known charismatic personalities that can raise the level of an agency that can and does the work to a place in the marketplace where they are differentiated. Oh. And charismatic takes on all shapes and sizes. You may not know the people I stated above but one is reserved and taciturn and brilliant, one is bombastic and pulpit worthy and one is casually brilliantly articulate and one is formal and disciplined and concise. There ain’t no formula here folks for charismatic talented personalities. Other than the fact people like to listen to them and follow them.
- Ones who are known as an agency that does ‘this kind of work.’ So the agency isn’t driven by a charismatic personality but most probably by a distinct culture or attitude that has consistently generated a distinctive look & feel of “work” that has worked and they have become known for something. Cliff Freeman agency probably the easiest one to point out here.
- Ones in between but wanting to be one of the above two (oh. Most agencies are here).
This third group is a morass of all size agencies ebbing and flowing as several are always on the cusp of moving into one of the two categories above and some slip in and some never make it and fall back into the pack. All always seeking that ‘differentiation’ that makes them get considered. And group three is doubly difficult to compete in because this is also the group where agencies who don’t really do ‘the work’ (because they cannot … because … well …. they suck) reside and wander around trying to look like agencies that can do the work and confuse the whole kitandkaboodle (another word I like to type).
Oh. Before I get to the differentiation thing.
So why can’t some really good agencies get up into one of those two categories?
Well. I am going to generalize but try these on for size:
- Charismatic personality. Agencies are typically hotbeds of egos and politics. Elevating one person above the rest is a gauntlet that even the most charismatic person has to be slightly lucky to get there. It is certainly the easiest way for an agency to get in the game but most agencies waste this opportunity through politics and egos. Or. They simply choose the wrong horse to ride to the top. What do I mean by that? Well. An owner of an agency may feel they are the anointed ‘charismatic one’ because it is their name above the door. When in reality they are simply the one who has the cahones to own an agency and manage an effective agency and hire great people so it becomes a great agency. The owner is the wrong horse in this case.
- Agencies that are known for their work. This is a complex group. Couple things fall in here. If you don’t have the account how do you get known for the work? (that is the issue but I will suggest an answer in part 2 in differentiation). Or even worse is the battle between making money and doing work. All agencies have clients in their stable where they don’t do work that completely sucks but it isn’t “all about the work” and it pays a lot of bills. Maintaining that balance is really really difficult. Combine that fact with the fact that most agencies in this group chase anything hoping it is ‘the one.’
Please note that almost everything I have written in this section translates into “the agency is not in control of their destiny.” That is until they get ‘the client’ and even then you are having to prove it wasn’t a onetime fluke but sustainable. Even Crispin, who began in group three, shifted into group 2 (about the work) and ultimately now resides in group one (Alex Boguskyland) was only able to achieve this over a period of time. It takes some consistency to move from group three to two. The one thing that doesn’t take time is a charismatic personality. If you got one ride that horse until it breaks a leg and you have to shoot it.
Ok. Back to the work and differentiation.
First.
I believe most agencies confuse differentiation and being distinct. Agencies known for their work aren’t really different. They just have a point of distinction. For whatever their work is known for.
Second.
So. In the attempt to break out of the morass in group three agencies go to incredible heights of zaniness to break out. The most typical and tried & true is the “proprietary process.”
whew. Okay. Unless some agency has a magic cube they throw their work into that they shake up and then pull out the magical “work that works” no one has a proprietary process.
Sure. They may be some differences. But they are nuances. Pretty much everyone does a derivative of everyone else.
Why wouldn’t you? The best processes are smart and well done and copied.
Anyway. Process differentiation is part 2 of this rant.
Part 1 simply suggests differentiation is simpler than ad agencies tend to make it. Doesn’t mean it is easy. Just means it is simpler if they would allow it to be so.
a rant on ad agencies differentiation: part 2 the so-called proprietary process
Jul 25th
A noted in part 1 I believe the core of any advertising agency differentiation is “it’s about the work.”
But.
Often the agency that is not instantly ‘knowable’ by its work immediately drops down into “our proprietary process” mode (which suggests .. “We can do as good a shit as those Crispin/JWT
/GSDM/whomever folk because we have a nifty whizbang process).
Why does everybody go to process? Easy.
As it is ‘all about the work’ here is how it goes:
Is the work smart, insightful, educational, entertaining and effective? No (drop out. Process won’t save you. You don’t belong here in the discussion) Yes. Move on.
Ok. Do you do it consistently? No (you are in trouble. Particularly if you say something like ‘we can but our clients don’t let us.’). Yes. Move on.
Ok. Do you have some formula that guarantees that consistent work? No. we don’t have a process. Its sheer luck of the draw. (okay. Here is why you need a process).
The typical answer here ? ‘Well, yes and no. we don’t have a formula but we do have a consistent process we like to work within that increases the likelihood of success. But, no, there are no guarantees. But our process is pretty good. And we are pretty good. And you are gonna fire our ass if we aren’t successful so we are highly motivated to get it right.”
Ok. But if you are consistent why won’t you guarantee it?
(without getting into compensation discussions)
‘Well, a process is simply a means to an end. It helps uncover true insights and ideas but it only informs us to develop the creative thinking it doesn’t develop the actual creative ideas. “(although it can on occasion but you never tell anyone that).
So. That is your argument for having a non proprietary solid process. But hanging your hat on your process to differentiate is nuts. It’s your work.
But.
Day in and day out scan advertising agency websites and sit through dozens of credentials presentations and if you have enough coffee to stay awake (which is actually not that tough because most are pretty entertaining and everyone likes to look at ‘the work’ …. Oh … the work?!? … ok … moving on) you will have to endure everyone talking about their process. Their proprietary magic cube that generates the work.
Here is what you want to show. Okay. And I want to be clear. In this simple process chart there are boundaries but freedom. The lack of detail doesn’t mean that there is not discipline but the freedom is in the simplicity:
A simple “you & I discuss, we take information, we start thinking, we make sure time & costs meet you expectations, we do whatever voodoo we do on that particular assignment that generates work, we show you work.”
But. Simplicity seems too chaotic. So we decide to show detail:
And then we invest ¾ of a meeting talking about process in the presentation because we either:
(a) feel like we have to discuss each detail point or (b) the audience is so confused they have to ask a zillion questions to figure out what the hell you are showing.
But.
This is the truth. This is really the process chart that reflects a simple truth:
But telling the truth is not good. Because no one wants to trust chaos.
Unfortunately advertising agencies are part chaos (because that is the characteristic of creative thinking) but we pony up a proprietary process to prove consistency and logic and a sense of comfort. Regardless (and this is where I repeat myself) it all ends up with the work. Process is a means to an end.
Here is the real issue. (I think I am going to say something smart here so pay attention)
People confuse process and disciplined thinking.
You look at that last chart (which IS truly what happens in a creative process) and you think chaos. Well. Not really. Let’s call it organized chaos. Or maybe even better said “disciplined chaos.”
First.
I dare you to talk with any creative thinker. Any creative thinker. It need not be an adverting agency person. It could be a scientist seeking a cure for cancer. A NASA engineer seeking a way to build a space ship to leave our galaxy. A product development person seeking an innovative product to meet an unmet need.
Discovery is messy.
Doesn’t mean they aren’t disciplined and have a “way” to attack it.
It is not a process. Or a strict methodology. Because in the end discovery is often about the unexpected or the unintended.
So. What do I mean?
You can attain an awesome unintended result despite a focused articulate smart objective/strategy “aim.”
So if the result doesn’t match the initial objective do you throw the result away?
Gosh.
That means penicillin never happened.
Email never happened (the military discovered it).
That means the atom is ignored.
That means America was never discovered.
People don’t like to hear it but it is exactly the same in advertising and communications.
Discovery is messy.
(sorry about that)
And having a proprietary process may sound good and make you feel good what matters is if your messy discovery creates good ‘output.’
I guess what I am saying is if you are an ad agency and you are investing a lot of emotional and intellectual energy into outlining and developing a whizbang process than I would suggest you are wasting good energy.
But.
With that said.
Say you have your process and you want to differentiate yourself.
Well.
Get to ‘the work.’
Anyway.
Here is my last thought.
Controlling your destiny and differentiation (or being distinct).
You have a whizbang process that looks an awful like everyone else’s but has a nifty name but you have a limited work portfolio. And you want more clients. Bigger clients. But the new potential clients don’t feel comfortable because you just don’t have the ‘work proof’ to get you over the hump.
If I were an agency owner or business development director and I had a budget I would build a soup to nuts beta case study. High risk. High return.
Pick a company any company. Doesn’t matter (although I would imagine if they are really high on your wish list you may as well put ‘em in there). Run them through your process. Get the insight or idea or whatever your process is supposed to generate. Do the work (yes. That is clearly speculative work.) Test it. Show that it “works.” Go back and rework it of it doesn’t work. Get something that works.
There is your proof.
In fact, your process worked so frickin’ well you didn’t even have to have the client there. And when you talk to a client? “Imagine how much better the work would be if a client were involved to provide us with the ‘x’ factor.”
Bundle enough of these and you have test proofed your process, proven you can do the work. Show work that works.
Do large agencies have to do this? Nope. When I was at J Walter Thompson I had so much shit in my bag I could pull out there weren’t enough minutes in a meeting to be able to show examples.
Do agencies who want to get out of group three have to do things like this? Yup.
That is the price of getting out of group three (if you want to get out … because you can make a fine living in group three if you are comfortable there).
There you go.
My rant on advertising agency differentiation parts one and two.
Interestingly I would imagine that while I focused on the advertising industry this applies to many industries where there are massive amounts of commodity like service providers dwelling in some nondescript morass of non differentiated excellence.
So maybe this can apply to you as well.
Hopefully my rants benefit someone other than just my own conscience.
If not? My conscience is at peace.
Big fred
Jul 25th
Ok. Back to the security company job I had in college.
This one is about Big Fred.
That is what everyone called him (I wonder if his last name was really Fred. hmmmmmmmmmmmm). Big Fred was a mountain of a man. I am sure there was a lot of muscle hidden in there somewhere but he was Jabba the Hut before there was Jabba. I am not sure he ever had to actually take any action because he was so intimidating.
Anyway. Big Fred’s job was always the same job at every event. He managed the artist/players entry area backstage. He was the last line of defense to the performers. He said who got in, what got in and in general provided oversight for their well being. So when I was a backstage supervisor I was kind of de facto under Big Fred’s supervision.
I would say everyone I talked to thought Big Fred had the sweetest job in the company.
After a couple of months watching Big Fred in action I was pretty confident if I paid attention I could learn a lot and very confident you couldn’t pay me enough to do his job.
(by the way, while I didn’t follow closely I do believe he was recognized for ability beyond being big because I believe a number of bands hired him to manage their backstage tour).
Big Fred had a big job that was easy to miss because of all the glitz and glamor surrounding everything taking place.
Big Fred had a huge pain in the ass job with massive benefits.
Big Fred was constantly squeezed.
By those within (the performers) and those without (those who wanted to be near the performers).
He had to balance all that and make it all seem like it was under control. I am pretty sure I never once saw Big Fred freak out (even as the oiled up dancers came racing out of the Van Halen dressing room).
Let’s see.
So. I have Neil Young at the back entrance wanting to be let in. I don’t have his name on the list (and you learn VERY quickly it doesn’t matter who it is if you don’t have them on the okayed list they don’t come in). So, me, capable of making many decisions, frankly ain’t gonna make this call.
“Hold on a second, will you Mr. Young.”
Back to Big Fred.
Explain.
Now Big Fred was a master of this crap. He knew if he should ask someone, put someone on the list or just say no (all while he has one eye on caterers wandering in, random special guests and keeping riff raff out of the way). Here is where he shared an even bigger lesson to me (the kid). “Nope. He can’t come in.” (‘Oh shit’ bubble over my head) … but he then says “Hold on. Let me come with you and we can tell him together”.
Look. This may sound stupid, but to a 19 year old kid telling Neil Young “nope” was a big thing.
And Big Fred kinda had a great sense for how to defuse things as well as delegate and empower.
I know I say in my bio I have always been a collector of moments and Big Fred gave me some of the most thoughtful formative management moments.
I will tell you the biggest lesson he taught me.
To say “no.”
And to be fearless with regard to whom you said ‘no’ to.
You quickly realized in this position that it wasn’t a “power thing” but rather a clear decisions made that met the needs of the situation.
So. 19. Maybe 20. Into my 21 year.
I became comfortable saying ‘no’ to Sting, Stevie Nicks, Nick Nolte, a slew of people I don’t have time to list during Eagles shows because they never let anyone backstage, a governor, a senator and others who you would know but may not know because it was the decision of someone else.
This was not abusing power.
This was simply becoming comfortable saying “in this situation at this time I am going to have to say no to what you want.” And, frankly, I moved up in the organization because I wasn’t star struck and just dealt with it.
And, frankly, I probably moved up in my career because afterward I was rarely star struck and made decisions at had to be made.
And Big Fred gave me my first lesson on this.
I am unclear whether others saw the same thing but I hope Big Fred is still doing well.
He taught me some basics I still utilize today.
Do not be afraid to say no, to anyone (regardless of their title or stature or fame), if you are in the right. That is the lesson for the day.
stay thirsty my friends
Jul 23rd
I don’t always drink beer, but when I do, I prefer Dos Equis.
Dos Equis. What an awesome campaign. What an awesome idea. What an awesome way of elevating a relatively unknown product to a place where people are wondering, if not just thinking about the product, of not actually buying to maybe to try it.
Look. I should have written about this campaign, and idea, a long time ago. In fact so long ago I shelved the idea thinking what the hell … it’s too late.
But this campaign keeps coming back and is still interesting.
You may not know that this is the second attempt at using this “most interesting man” character and development of product personality.
The actor behind the ‘most interesting man’, Jonathan Goldsmith, has been playing this part since 2006. And I believe the first campaign of commercials was in 2007.
Apparently it didn’t kick ass originally and went away for a long while. But someone, either at Dos Equis or Euro RSCG (who created the campaign), must have seen enough promise in the concept to stick with it because the same spots started running again the following year. And this time around the “most interesting man in the world” struck a chord and this new beer icon was born.
So. Pretty much anyone who has a TV is aware of, “The Most Interesting Man in the World,” campaign.
The salt-and-pepper haired gentleman with the smooth voice and a taste for adventure. I am addicted to him. I admit it. it is the things that make him the ‘most interesting’ … well … interesting:
He once had an awkward moment, just to see how it feels.
He can speak French… in Russian.
He is the life of the party, even when he does not attend.
Policemen often question him simply because he’s interesting.
He once had an awkward moment, just to see how it felt.
He lives vicariously through himself.
He goes to museums and they let him touch the art.
Even his enemies list him as their emergency contact number.
Years ago, he built a city out of blocks. Today, over six hundred thousand people live and work there.
If he were to give you directions, you’d never get lost, and you’d arrive at least 5 minutes early.
People hang on his every word, even the prepositions.
He is the only man to ever ace a Rorschach test.
Every time he goes for a swim, dolphins appear.
His personality is so magnetic; he is unable to carry credit cards.
He never says something tastes like chicken. Not even chicken.
He could disarm you with his looks… or his hands. Either way.
His charm is so contagious; vaccines have been created for it.
And his closing line “Stay thirsty my friends.”
So. I am not gonna give you any brand or branding gobbledygook because this was a great idea and it builds a personality for the product.
Period.
(all the branding experts can pile on about all the other things associated with the gant charts you present on how to build a brand).
I don’t care if it’s a shitty product (well. I do actually but that’s a different post).
But. If I drink a Dos Equis I can almost guarantee people will think I am interesting (or at least joke about it).
Once again. Period. Stop. Good enough. Job well done.
Few advertising campaigns actually go beyond advertising and begin shaping the kind of character development you kind of dream of when you start marketing a product. And this one is doing just that.
And it’s not just me. People love this campaign. I know they do (how?).
Because Millward Brown says so.
Dos Equis has been able to take an extremely popular tongue in cheek character and through targeted placement through a variety of tactics get people to send it around the web (and the world and just talk about it) and make it successful according to market research by Millward Brown. The TV campaign is in the top five percent of most enjoyable ads in U.S. research history.
The campaign covers TV, print, interactive online, radio and event promotions. Videos and ads were posted on YouTube as well as a number of other sites with the intent of having consumers appreciate the ‘out of the realm of possibility’ character and send it to one another.
The website is pretty awesomely done also.
So. What makes the character appealing?
The campaign idea (I guess I could call the guy a mnemonic tactic) is not insulting.
It’s so deeply satisfying because it is intriguing, well written and so outrageous it is fascinating to see how “interesting” the most interesting man can be.
Like any great fictional character, even though it’s completely made up, it’s so outrageously true. It lives on in people’s minds because it takes real attributes and stretches them to the unbelievable boundary (which is funny in its extremes).
This fictional character is a cross between Ernest Hemingway, Bill Murray, Burt Reynolds and some Count from a nonexistent place in central Europe. This guy harkens back to the old concept of what a man’s man should be. To the exponential factor. The nth degree.
In love with women and booze, but classier than most, he travels the world seeking experiences (“his beard alone has experienced more than a lesser man’s entire body.”). Awesome.
Lastly. The part I truly love. Possibly the most interesting thing about the commercials is that he never really commits to promoting Dos Equis. He only prefers it. The closest he comes is with the tag line:
“I don’t always drink beer, but when I do, I prefer Dos Equis.”
So. The most interesting man in the world is not an avid beer drinker but when he does want one, the most interesting man must select an interesting beer to quaff (or if you are the most interesting man do you sip, gulp, chug or drain?). Whatever, the ads are totally awesome.
Here are a sampling of Three Most Interesting Man commercials (enjoy my friends):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ym2Jma04qo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9GYocBqGyA&feature=related
Don’t stay thirsty. Grab a Dos Equis!
simple complicated. complicated simple.
Jul 23rd
Making the simple complicated is commonplace.
But.
Making the complicated simple is not commonplace.
That.
Is.
For.
Frickin’.
Sure.
In fact. I have almost started believing that they are teaching “how to complicate things” in schools these days.
And even worse? (and this is really nutty)
Say for example you really have been able to articulate something simply AND it is actually so awesomely simple it is brilliant.
You are feeling pretty good with yourself about right now. You were clear, concise and brilliant in simplicity.
(here comes the nutty part)
No one believes its right.
Yup. No shit.
“It cannot be right. That’s too simple. WE MUST BE MISSING SOMETHING.”
(I capitalized it not because when it is said someone is shouting but, rather when you hear it, it sounds like someone shouting in your head and there is a buzzing sound in your ears like a grenade went off beside your head)
You want to look around and calmly say:
“You are correct. Brilliant insight in fact. What’s missing is all the COMPLICATED SHIT YOU WANT TO COMPLICATE THIS WITH.”
(note: on occasion you may actually shout this but on the off chance you don’t you will want to shout it)
Somewhere in the past it became uncool to do something simple.
And since that time (and I would shoot the bastard if I could find him who did it) it seems like we have gained momentum surrounding this concept and not is it uncool to do something simple the majority of people cannot even recognize a simple solution.
Simplicity has gone the way of the Dodo (extinct).
On occasion someone stands up and says “hey, I am not sure Dodos are extinct, I am pretty sure I saw one in that conference room.”
Everyone laughs. “Dodos are extinct.”
“Well, I have seen a picture of one and I am pretty sure it was one.”
Needless to say you either become extinct in the company if you stay the course or worse they throw you into the loony zoo with all the other Dodo sightings.
So.
Here’s the deal.
If you are one of the rare birds who can see simple things as they are (simple), don’t get frustrated. And every time you watch something simple become more complicated just take note and put that thought in a little box for another day.
Because one day you are going to be in a position to tell people what to do. I guarantee it.
How can I guarantee it?
Because you are one of the rare birds who can see the simple within the complex.
It won’t matter how many of these discussions you lose in early years.
Oh, and you really aren’t an extinct bird. Just so rare no one recognizes you.
You will lead one day.
Then you pull out your box and start doing simple things and kicking some ass (just don’t tell anyone you are a Dodo … probably not a good idea … let them think you are extinct).
Fun aside.
Lack of simplicity in the business world is probably the biggest issue in business these days. And it is overlooked as everyone focuses on ‘building brands’ and bottom lines and organizational alignment and whatever the business buzzword du jour is.
Shove ‘em off to the side.
The biggest issue facing American businesses today is over complicating simple things.
It’s that simple.
(and no one will believe me)
capitalism, crisis and cycles
Jul 22nd
So. I rarely simply cut & paste an existing article but then I came across this interview. I believe all of us think about the current economic situation and is it a recession or a depression and why it happened and what will happen. This interview with Richard Foster is probably one of the most concise down-to-earth every day language discussions on the topic I have ever seen.
In addition. The concept of creative destruction (which is not about advertising) is one I have always been interested in. Simply it suggests that creative minds in a marketplace, think entrepreneurs & innovators, will ultimately destroy the boundaries of the existing marketplace and in the wake of the destruction a new system will be created. And the cycle will resume. Of course, anyone who follows my thinking know I like cyclical behavioral patterns so of course I liked the interview. Below is a nice image I found from an innovations company which simply shows creative destruction concept.
There are a couple of real gems in here if you fight your way through equities and hedge funds.
- The essence of capitalism is capitalizing. Such a simple statement that explains the essence of not only our economy but our ethos as a nation. That means at our core we are “growers.” We are happiest when we see opportunities or innovations or new things and capitalize on them. Literally and figuratively this is a huge thought.
- Creation will happen again and will again leave behind the big guys trying to rely solely on operations. For those of us in the world who talk about brands (and really mean companies) and repositioning and revitalizing this thought is very important. As the marketplace cycles we so often seek to freshen stale imagery when the reality is we should be seeking to refresh some creativity WITHIN the company (that could be attitude, innovation or a variety of things) so that their world becomes bigger than ‘relying solely on operations.” Another huge thought.
Anyway. It’s interesting reading. Enjoy.
A coauthor of Creative Destruction explains how the business world—and the capitalist system—will change in the aftermath of the financial crisis.
Richard Foster, a McKinsey director from 1982 to 2004, is a coauthor of Creative Destruction: Why Companies That Are Built to Last Underperform the Market—and How to Successfully Transform Them. In that book, he and Sarah Kaplan argue that to endure, companies must embrace what economist Joseph Schumpeter called “creative destruction” and change at the pace and scale of the capital markets, without losing control over current operations. In a recent interview with the Quarterly, Foster offered his view of how the current financial crisis might change the business world and the capitalist system.
The Quarterly: How does your vision of creative destruction apply to today’s situation?
Richard Foster: Let’s start by looking back. In the 1970s, we had the “Nifty 50”—invulnerable companies that couldn’t possibly lose, and of course they all did. It will be the same today; there will be surprising losers, and survival will come down to simple things, like cash and margins. If you’re a low-margin company without a lot of cash or perhaps with too much leverage, you will not make it. Someone will figure out how to do better.
In the financial-services sector, the upheaval will create a new generation of leaders. Fifty years ago, we didn’t have 8,000 hedge fund managers. Then somebody said, “We can go short as well as long; we have much better information than people did in the 1930s, and the information comes to us instantaneously rather than days after the event. We can make a lot of money modeling and leveraging that information.” So the hedge funds were born. How many of those guys had been successful at mutual-fund management? I don’t think any. They might have been commodity traders, but few were mutual-fund managers. Today, other kinds of people with no experience or expertise will challenge incumbents from outside the industry, and there will be a lot of them. Most of the challengers will fail, but a few will succeed, and they’ll become the heroes of the next generation. If you had to bet on anything, that’s it because that’s what has happened in the past.
The Quarterly: Could you elaborate on this life cycle?
Richard Foster: In the book, Sarah Kaplan and I show that over the long term, the market performs better than companies do. There can be periods—5, 7, 10, even 15 years—when that isn’t the case, but corporate performance always reverts to a lower level than the market because the economy is changing at a faster pace and on a larger scale than any individual company so far has been able to do without losing control. That’s the challenge: to create, operate, and trade—to divest old businesses and acquire or build new businesses—at the pace and scale of the market without losing control.
The balance among creating, trading, and excelling operationally changes over time. When the economy is in a growth spurt, there’s more creating. Few companies are trading very much and operations are fine. In those circumstances, the newer companies in the economy tend to outperform the index, and the older companies that are only focused on operations underperform the market.
As the market collapses, the weaker upstarts get squeezed out. The survivors are the cash-rich “operators,” which perform at levels closer to the averages, which themselves are lower. Companies that operate well shine in down times, as they are now. Every investor on the planet is looking for companies that have cash left. The turmoil will clear away the weaker companies—the companies that have taken too much risk. This doesn’t mean they’re bad companies; it’s just that they’ve taken on too much risk given their balance sheet resources.
The Quarterly: What happens then?
Richard Foster: New, young companies that have conserved cash and have solid and often expanding margins surge ahead. When this happened in the ’70s, companies such as The Limited, The Gap, Home Depot, and John Malone’s TeleCommunications Inc. sprung from the burned forest. After the crash of 1987, Microsoft, Oracle, and Amgen took off. Then in the ’90s, we had the Internet companies. Creation will happen again and will again leave behind the big guys trying to rely solely on operations.
The Quarterly: To what extent is today’s financial crisis different from earlier ones?
Richard Foster: The granddaddy of cycles in this economy is the equity premium, which is the difference between the longer-term total returns to shareholders and the supposedly risk-free debt rate. It is the premium the equity investor gets for taking the equity risk. Looking back, we can see seven great cycles. During the boom times, when the equity premium goes way too high, everybody hocks everything to get in on the game, and this creates the conditions for a crash. When the crash occurs, the politicians come in and say it was this or that person’s fault. Then they create regulatory institutions, and virtually every one of those institutions—starting with the Federal Reserve, in 1913, as a result of the crash of 1907—has been quite productive for the nation in the longer term. This includes the formation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, in 1934; the Investment Company Act, in 1940; the beginning of the end of fixed commission rates in 1970; and the Sarbanes–Oxley Act, in the early 2000s.
The Quarterly: What happens in the aftermath of the new regulations?
Richard Foster: What do self-respecting entrepreneurs do when subjected to new regulations? They learn the regulations backward and forward and then vow never to start another business that falls within the scope of those regulations. And so off the entrepreneur goes to find a new way. That’s one reason credit default swaps eventually took the form they did—the other options were regulated.
The new entrepreneur often seeks ways to innovate outside the scope of the newly established regulations. In the beginning, all that works out fine. We have innovations, we love the people who created them, they’re great heroes, the returns are strong, everybody says, “I’m going to be one of those guys.” Eventually, all the truly good guys who are going to get into that business have done so. The opportunity starts drawing less savory figures—charlatans who overmarket, cut corners, establish usurious contracts, and do other clever things to generate profit for themselves. They end up bringing the system down. Then guess what happens? At the end of that period, after the equity premium has soared and collapsed again, the government steps in and regulates the systems, this time focusing on the last wave of abuse. And then we start over.
We were getting somewhat better at handling these cycles until 2000, but since then we’ve gotten worse. The collapse of 2008 isn’t like the crash of 1929, because we have the institutions that were created in the last century, and they are very effective. Understanding the differences between the ’30s and today is at least as important as understanding the similarities.
The Quarterly: Capitalism has just taken a beating. What will the future look like?
Richard Foster: The essence of capitalism is capitalizing—bringing forward the future value of cash to the present so that society can grow more quickly by taking risks. It goes back to the Dutchmen in the 16th century, sitting at their coffeehouses in Amsterdam and Leiden, loaning each other money for a guaranteed return. Someone said, “I’ll give you a little higher return if you give me a piece of the action”—and equity was invented. That had the effect of bringing forward, into real cash today, the net present value of future earnings. That levered society and allowed it to grow at a much higher rate than it would otherwise have. Equity was a very clever invention, and we are not going to give it up. This is the way people are. This is the way commerce works and will continue to work unless capitalism ends. And that won’t happen, regardless of what you read in the press.
reaching a legacy idea
Jul 21st
“Hey, if I am going to lose, let me lose doing something.” – sam seaborne on west wing
I was typing something about my global generation education initiative and I had West Wing on in the background and I heard the Rob Lowe character say this line.
It made me pause.
The dilemma with pursuing a legacy idea is although it has a high appeal for success (because it means ‘something’) it is difficult, time consuming, has low chance of success (ever being implemented) and it doesn’t pay bills.
And it makes you think about the whole idea of pursuing and reaching a “legacylike” idea.
I imagine any life decision, seeking a new job/pursuing a legacy idea/pursuing a new business idea/whatever, combined with the fact you have to sustain and maintain everyday life responsibilities at exactly the same time is a version of this dilemma.
I would like to claim this chart but some guys at 50topmodels.wordpress.com created it.
So. Some guy named John William Atkinson wrote Motivational Determinants of risk-taking Behavior in Psychological Review in 1957. He suggested that if one can choose the grade of complexity (difficulty) of a task individually and independently most of the decisions are taken in a mid-complexity-level. Too easy tasks or too difficult tasks can neither provoke a strong feeling of satisfaction nor a strong disappointment. Or the other way round. Highly motivated people often choose a realistic complexity of tasks whereas low motivated people choose tasks that are finally to easy or too difficult for them.
Then Atkinson continued his studies with something else which I am hoping would make me feel better about my legacy idea but I couldn’t find anything else he wrote that I could understand.
But. Here is where I think I would sit good ole JW Atkinson down and have a debate.
If I set aside the fact bills have to be paid at some point I would say he doesn’t give ‘appeal of success’ enough emphasis. Especially if the appeal of success is tied to “doing something” or maybe better said ‘doing something that may truly matter.’
As Sam Seaborne says “if I am gonna lose let me lose doing something.”
And, while I am talking about the legacy I personally want to leave behind, I would imagine this thought bleeds into many of our lives.
I don’t think I am different than most people.
We all want to ‘do something.’
With me it’s this.
For some parents it is going to be their children.
For other parents it is a business or an idea that they want to leave behind for their children.
For others it may be number of kids they taught who went on to be happy & healthy people.
For some it may be that they have made something that will live on.
But deep in our heart of hearts we want to know that we have done something that matters.
In a ‘big’ thought kind of way somewhere in all of us we would like to leave the world a better place than the way we found it (and everyone can define the extent of ‘better place’ in their own minds).
For example. My friend Scott pointed out in a comment to my immortality post (and a really good point) that it can often simply be making a difference in someone’s life. He is right. And if that is as good as it gets, well, that ain’t bad.
But sometimes the desire to ‘do something’ is bigger than individuals or individual moments.
In my case I am taking ‘world’ literally and not figuratively.
And I guess that Atkinson is suggesting that the size of the ‘do something’ legacy task can often lead to a complexity that increasingly makes it difficult to be successful.
Anyway.
At some point I am going to have to decide whether I am going to compromise (assuming I cannot find someone to implement this idea within a reasonable time frame).
And here is where I and the rest of the world meet regardless of what we are talking about.
Do I seek something to pay the bills but may not make the legacy impact I truly seek to do?
I believe if you are an adult reading this we have all faced this at some point.
(and if you are a 20something or teen reading this please rewind and don’t read this post because you should not have to learn about compromising yet)
Day to day responsibilities (not just bills but true responsibility to others who count on you) is a real life factor in whatever you decide to do or not do. It’s not like you have a blank sheet and put on it “do something that matters.”
The sheet isn’t blank.
Before you put that down you have cars, mortgages, children, mates/partners, work obligations, general shit that needs to get done.
How does it all happen?
Well. In the kindest sense you learn to balance or juggle. In its harshest sense you compromise.
And I fear compromising has left far too many people numb to life … or maybe just numb to their dreams. Or maybe more specifically numb to ‘doing something.’
Maybe I fear that numbness if I end up compromising. I don’t know.
I, as everyone else, certainly want to be happy. Live. And love. And be loved. Travel. See things. Meet people. Meet more people. And learn.
But.
Doing something.
Boy.
Doing something.
Something that can leave the world a better place.
Atkinson is/was probably a shitload smarter than I but I gotta tell ya … if you even have a glimmer of hope of getting to do something big … something really big … something that matters in a big way … something that someone would know was a legacy idea … well … I don’t know.
If am going to lose, I want to know I lost doing something.
