Business Thoughts

here an insight, there an insight, where an insight?

So.

Every once in awhile in the ad/marketing business we talk about “what’s the insight that will help us create the big idea?”

Ok.

Not every once in awhile.

Actually ad nausea.

So often your head hurts.

In fact it may be the reason why people in the industry drink as often as they do.

Wow.  I wonder if that is an insight.

Anyway.

Here is an insight to the aggravating people always asking for “an” insight.

There are product insights.

Company insights.

Consumer (or user) insights.

There are category insights for gods sake.

Insights are all around us (I wanted to use a gnat analogy but that could be construed as sarcastic).

Here an insight, there an insight, everywhere an insight (I believe that is a nursery rhyme insight reference).

In the end … a really good insight in marketing/brand management/product development/whatever development … marries the product and consumer needs.

Here is an insight.

Consumers don’t care about products or brands. All they care about is outcomes and results. Let’s , for simplistic sake, suggest that is “need.”

Some marketing insight guru described a consumer insight as “penetration into the target’s collective subconscious to unearth a link between untapped attitudes and behaviors to discover a deep-seated truth that reveals important needs/values the brand can exploit to connect with the target to impact attitudes and behaviors.”

That insight definition made my head hurt.

Especially the “exploiting” part.

But.

I do like the ‘deep seated truth‘ part.

Regardless. Suffice it to say the guru meant “an insight into need.”

<oops. Too simple>

Anyway.

There is no one insight.

And rarely is an insight more than just a window of opportunity (only to be replaced by another “insight” at another time).

The only thing that stays the same? That truth part.

Because the frickin’ truth is that if you want to change something in a consumer mindset (attitude) leading to purchase/usage (behavior) which benefits the brand (sales) … focus on some outcome/result.

Yeah … yeah … yeah … that ‘outcome’ may be a Maslow type outcome (self-worth, appearance, esteem, actualization, etc.) but that is outcome for god’s sake … not some mumbo jumbo on a voodoo thing I want to penetrate and exploit.

It is something real to a person. And if it is real … it is a truth. And if it is a truth it cannot be exploited … it can only be something that can be ‘met.’
And, by the way, if you happen to wrangle up an insightful truth (and make it through the mumbo jumbo marketing maze internally and externally) it really can impact what you do:

-          Product design: how it looks and what it says on shelf or wherever you sell it. Why? Well. Now we can talk about exploiting. Because if you DID make it through the maze I can guarantee you are the exception to the rule … most of your competitors didn’t … therefore you can exploit their failure to do so (marketing gurus call this “weakness”).

-          Marketing communication: this is obvious … but easier than you think (assuming you have made it to a ‘deep seated truth’) … why is it so much easier? Well.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm <I am thinking not humming>… because you have an opportunity to … well … speak the truth. Ok.  It’s harder than you think despite that fact. Because even if you make it to this point (having identified the truth) a shitload of people will panic … they will want to dress the truth up in Lady Gaga like clothing trying to make the truth look ‘sexy’ (or more appealing). Why? Because sometimes people think the truth is too bland and needs to be spiced up.  Marketing gurus make you think this way because they want to call his truth thing something like “an untapped compelling belief”. Yeah. Right. Marketing bullshit. Run away. As fast as you can.

So.  This is easy if you are around people who accept that it is easy.

Ok. Next.

A lot of good insights are wasted. Not just because the window of opportunity closes while you dither around with whether the insight is really an insight or whether it is sexy enough … but because even with a good, or even mediocre, insight it gets wasted because then no one wants to identify who the insight should be communicated to.

Huh?

Yup.

It can be a real head scratcher but let’s say you find a nifty insight against a specific group … and then all of a sudden some genius stands up and says “tell everyone that … maybe they just didn’t know ‘x’ and we need to tell them … because … well … your presentation was great … and we should tell everyone the truth.”

In marketing layman’s terms this is some spineless jellyfish who doesn’t want to agree on a targeting choice but rather go to some broad audience (this is the infamous shotgun versus rifle battle).

Suffice it to say if most CMOs/Marketing/Agency decision makers were generals their armies would be carrying around shotguns and not rifles.

I think the Cosa Nostra called them “luparas” (lupara is an Italian word used to refer to a sawn-off shotgun traditionally associated with Cosa Nostra. The shortened barrel of a lupara lend itself to easier concealment and the lack of choke contributes to a wider spread of shot when the weapon is fired).

Yeah.

Well.

This is sounding more and more like the Valentine’s Day Massacre so maybe it is appropriate.

And it all starts so innocently.

“We need an insight.”

And it sounds simple … align purchaser need, an insight, and customer benefit and you can typically have a great opportunity to identify a good marketing idea.

Maybe it is simple because, once again, success revolves around the truth.

And maybe it is so frickin’ hard because, well, once again, it revolves around the truth.

In the end?

I end up discussing the mafia and shooting myself with a Lupara.

friends, feedback, influencing & a new economy

So.

My thoughts on this topic were inspired by a trendwatching’s briefing called “The F-Factor.”

Their briefing (another excellent one by the way) discusses focuses how the impact of influencers’ on purchasing has increased because of the web (and the dynamics associated with the web).

By the way. Trendwatching has another excellent briefing called Crowd Clout from about 2007 or so which makes essentially the same point.

I am going to try and put my spin on their insights by talking a little about the past (the evolution of this whole influencer explosion) and the future (how it is creating a new economic model).

Let me begin by saying despite the advent of “social media & social marketing” that consumer decision-making has always been personal and social.

The truth is that consumer decision-making has always been about seeking feedback, leaning on what friends say and seeking ‘influencers’ thoughts … all of which influence the ultimate purpose.

This was true even before the media (or people seeking to create some ‘buzz’) added the word “social” to the marketing world. Yes. Even the marketing dinosaurs knew decision making ultimately had a significant social aspect.

What do I mean?

People talked amongst themselves.

People talked to their neighbors about home services.

People talked to relatives or friends about more personal decisions.

People reached out to trusted advisers (doctors for medical, veterinarians for pet stuff, dermatologists for skin stuff … well … you get the picture).

People talked and discussed.

In fact The Economist just did a great article on how Martin Luther built the entire Protestant faith off of ‘buzz.’

(boy … that is social media working at levels they could typically only dream of these days)

The difficulty we face in the current “what is buzzworthy” world we live in today is that it wasn’t called social back then therefore we seem to struggle in finding ‘successful past case studies’ (or at least ones that someone will pay attention to). In the “old” days … people simply sought out ‘experts’ (I use the term loosely … let’s assume the definition here is “someone who probably knows more than I do and can inform my decision making process”) to make a better decision.

Before social media you could always count on the following two factoids with regard to who influenced a purchase the most.

“Who do you speak with about making a purchase?”

1. Family. 1a. Friends. (you could flipflop or call it a tie pretty much all the time)

But something HAS changed.

The internet has changed our worldview on friends (and influencers).

“Our definition of friends has changed because of Facebook, and Twitter, where quantity as opposed to quality is now almost a mantra”.

Rick Murray, President, Digital Edelman Digitas

Well.

I don’t know that I totally agree with Rick from Digitas.

Oddly while social networks do increase quantity research has shown three key things (to indicate that quality is tagging along with the quantity characteristic):
1. A Pew Internet research study shows that internet has actually strengthened and expanded existing social roles of churches and fraternal organizations.  Therefore the quantity has simply strengthened existing quality.

2. the same research showed that more frequent communications via text actually ENCOURAGES the desire to spend more face-to face time

3. the research also shows that texting requires more careful crafting than a telephone or face-to-face communications and 3 out of 10 teens say “that they are more honest with friends when they talk online” therefore quality is the underlying foundation among all this “random quantity” discussion.

Next.

And while we often talk about how internet is influencing people we need to be careful with the ‘influencing’ word.

Research shows that the web can assist in education but ultimately the final influencer remains one and the same as the past.

The most tangible example I have at my fingertips of this notion is the most recent 2011 NPD Group Aftermarket Consumer Outlook Study:

Q: “Where would you go to learn how to do repairs on your vehicle?”

- Friend/Family                                                57%

- Vehicle Repair Manual                               46%

- Mechanic                                          42%

- Internet                                            42%

- Store Personnel                            16% (yikes)

Basically a Mechanic is AS influential as the Internet in this decision.

One word thought here. Wow.

So.

The main point here is that a consumer now has access and is aware of more people (true friends as well as web based friends) and can have more frequent communication due to the digital revolution. Yet. Social media is simply the fact that the traditional benefits of an acquaintance network (personal or professional) and friendships can be more expansively realized than before.

The other truth is that products today are at the mercy of crowds of friends. Crowds providing unsolicited feedback and influencing hordes of consumers making decisions on a daily basis.

Yes.

This is the “F-Factor:”

It is the expanding scenario of consumers increasingly tapping into their networks of friends, fans, and followers to discover, discuss and purchase goods and services, in ever-more sophisticated ways. (source: trendwatching.com)

The F-Factor is a real part of people’s lives because it provides real value. Value in that it offers a purchase decision making opportunity that is more efficient, more relevant, and more interesting and provides more “depth/breadth” than before. In the past consumers either had to spend endless time and effort on trying to discover the best of the best, or had to rely on sources that were distant, unknown or untrusted, and therefore potentially unreliable or irrelevant.

Now the six degrees of separation (at least in the influencer world) has shrunk significantly to a “no degree of separation” influencer world (this entire phenomena is inherently changing the trust value equation).

So.

Trendwatching does a nice job of identifying five ways that the F-FACTOR can influence consumer-buying behavior:

1. F-DISCOVERY: How consumers discover new products and services by relying on their social networks (Friends).

2. F-RATED: How consumers will increasingly (and automatically) receive targeted ratings, recommendations and reviews from their social networks. (by the way … this is creating an entirely new industry of something called ‘curated consumption’ where non-experts become distributors of expert like information).

3. F-FEEDBACK: How consumers can ask their friends and followers to improve and validate their buying decisions.

4. F-TOGETHER: How shopping is becoming increasingly social, even when consumers and their peers are not physically together. (in other words, the web permits consumers to share real time information and feedback and opportunities … and this is like a pebble in a pond syndrome where relevance & interest creates ripples difficult to quantify when it works).

5. F-ME: How consumers’ social networks are literally turned into products and services (curated consumption at its best).

This is one of those situations where the internet has unequivocally changed the dimensions of existing attitudes & behaviors. Simplistically the web has put the old F-Factor on steroids. I say it that way to point out that the web has not created anything new (attitude wise) but rather has encouraged a desired behavior to new boundaries.

The internet has also expanded an interesting existing consumer aspect to this entire “influencer” situation.

It is expanding the entire trend of putting consumers to work (whether they recognize it or not).

Think about his for a second.

This trend existed before the web. The easiest early example of this was in the fast food industry. For example the consumer of the fast food restaurant is also to some degree an actual producer of the meal.

-    Among other things, diners are expected to serve as their own waiters carrying their meals to their tables or back to their cars, sandwich makers (by adding fixings like tomatoes, lettuce, and onions in some chains), salad makers (by creating their own salads at the salad bar), and bus persons (by disposing of their own debris after the meal is finished).

This trend has existed for some time.

Putting consumers to work gained momentum with companies/brands after the birth of the fast food restaurant and has expanded to other industries:

-    Being a gas attendant  by pumping your own gas

-    Serving as a bank teller at the ATM machine

-    Working as the checkout cashier at the supermarket by scanning one’s own food, bagging it, and paying for it by credit card

-    Being a ticketing agent by using electronic kiosks to check in at the airport

-    Serving as an entertainment guide by co-creating a variety of experiences such as moving oneself through Disney World and its attractions

-    Performing traditional medical professional services by using do-it-yourself medical technologies (e.g., blood pressure monitors, blood glucose monitors, pregnancy tests) that allow patients to perform their own medical tasks

-    Being a caller on a call-in radio show

-    Being part of a Reality TV show

And now the web has enabled brands (or is it consumer empowerment like everyone suggests) to put consumers to work in a wide range of sometimes subtle and less material ways (this is where the F Factor truly comes into play).

Once again.

Think about that.

Much of what happens (and is created) online is generated by the user. Today’s web experience is often being defined by users producing content (individually as well as collaboratively). It wasn’t that way in the beginning when most of what existed on the original web was provider-generated but lately there has been an explosion of “consumers doing the work.”

Some examples of how the internet is putting consumers to work:

-    Wikipedia – where users generate articles and continually edit, update, and comment on them

-    Facebook, MySpace, and other social networking websites – where users create profiles composed of videos, photos, and text, interact with one another, and build communities

-    Second Life – where users create the characters, communities, and the entire virtual environment

-    Blogs – where the commentary is produced by the consumer

-    eBay – where users are their own selling agent & shipper

-    YouTube and Flickr – where mostly amateurs upload and download videos and photographs

-    Craigslist – where consumers (mostly) create the market

-    Amazon – where consumers do all the work involved in ordering products and write the reviews. (in addition users’ buying habits and site navigation are documented to recommend products)

-    Yelp! – where users create an online city guide by ranking, reviewing and discussing various locations and activities in their area

-    The GeoWeb, which consists of online maps where, increasingly, users are creating and augmenting content with Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo tools. In fact. Google Maps users can fix errors; add the locations of businesses; upload photos; link Wikipedia articles to, and blog about their experiences with, or reviews of, places on the map.

And that’s not all.

Start thinking about the new “location awareness” tools, often used in conjunction with ‘smart’ cell phones with GPS technology, which allow users to track where they are at any given moment and upload this information to websites such as Facebook, Twitter or one’s blog (Google Latitude, Yahoo’s Fire Eagle and Loopt mobile phone application).

Sure.

This type of consumer involvement in consumption was certainly not invented by the internet, but given the massive involvement in popular online sites, it can be argued that it is currently both the most prevalent location of this new type of consumption (consumer) purchase model … and it is certainly the most important facilitator as a means of consumption.

Bottom line.

It can be argued that the web is influencing an entirely new consumption model.

A new economic model (as I so succinctly suggested upfront).

This leads me to my big finish.

Friends, feedback and influencers is bigger than simply the web or how brands can compete in this transparent world (where putting consumers to work doesn’t mean they are an employee).

The F Factor is impacting America & capitalism (forget about the whole brand and branding discussion … this is much bigger than that).

Capitalism itself will be transformed, perhaps radically, in this F-Factor world we live in. Several thoughts lead me to this conclusion.

First. The inability of companies (brands) to control consumers in the way, and to the extent, that they have been able to control consumers in the past. Due to increased transparency there is a greater resistance to the incursions of obvious capitalism (e.g. efforts to gain greater control and greater profits).

This does not bode well for the companies dabbling in Facebook & twitter & social marketing who are doing so with the intent to “influence or guide purchase behavior.”

Second. It is difficult to think of today’s consumer, mentally & attitudinally, as being exploited in the same ways as before. The whole idea of exploitation is contradicted by, among other things, the fact that today’s consumers seem to enjoy, even love, their involvement and what they are doing and are willing to devote long hours to it … for no pay.

Third. The emergence of a whole new economic model to conduct business because of the internet. Traditional capitalism is dependent on the notion of the exchange of money for goods and services and profits are made in those exchanges. However, little or no money changes hands between the users and the owners of many websites (for instance, users do not pay Facebook or Twitter to use the services).

For one thing there is the unwillingness of corporations and other organizations to pay for work done by these new web based influencers. This is compounded by the fact the new consumer increasingly prefer, and are able, to pay little or nothing for that which they consume on the internet (news, blogs, social networking sites, and so on).

Think about this as part of a new economic model.

Friends … family … influencers … or extended employees?

Yikes.

That will raise some hackles.

Yeah. Think about it.

What I have outlined is contrary to what Humphreys & Grayson (2009) argued that when corporations are involved this type of consumerism is simply the creation of “temporary employees” and thus does not indicate a fundamental change in capitalism.

However I contend that entire business models based around these new consumer types (the so called “temporary employees”) who are unpaid and given the product for free indicates the possibility of a new form of capitalism.

Now.

If you are a business and you are reading this, think about the implications.

All these “friends” providing feedback (unasked for or asked for) and influencing gazillions of attitudes (which generate some type of behavior) are your employees (paid or not).

They are your associates.

They are an extension of all those people who come in every morning, drink your own bad coffee and use the internet inappropriately during business hours in your office.

When you look at them that way would you choose to treat them differently?

Do things differently?

Think about your “social media” plans differently?

Even sit down with strategic planning and think about your business model differently?

I will help out here.

The answer to all of those questions should be “yes.”

The web is a powerful powerful facilitator of influence & business.

You may elect to call it “friends & feedback quantity” architecture but I suggest if you want to be successful you think about it as a “quality” mechanism which can impact a new economic model.

Intimidating? Possibly.

But if you don’t think of it that way you will probably influence no one and end up on the slippery slope of irrelevance (with no friends).

never interrupt the enemy

“Never interrupt the enemy when he is making a mistake.” - Napoleon Bonaparte

This is a follow up to yesterday’s “when you start to suck, stop.”

Why?

Well. Because that one was focused on your suckedness and this is focused on someone else’s suckedness.

Simplistically. If your enemy is starting to suck … don’t interrupt.

Once again, similar to knowing when to stop being difficult, it is difficult to stop from … well … stopping someone, even an enemy, when they are sucking.

Most people see it as an opportunity to shine and cannot wait to show that they don’t suck.

So … this is about patience … oh … and, actually, lack of ego.

Let me go to the ego thing first.

We all like to look & sound smart (or skilled at something). “Opportunity to shine” is how I put it earlier. As soon as someone starts sucking we inherently see the opportunity to show we don’t suck. And we want to rush in as quickly as possible to make the ‘I don’t suck’ statement (or make the point that would confirm to everyone around us that we don’t).

It’s difficult but …. wait. Yep. Wait. Rest your ego for a second (or a minute or whatever).

Your ego will have its opportunity.

Why wait (i.e., “won’t I miss my opportunity”)?

Well. Oftentimes timing is key because if you don’t rush, and pick the time correctly you get an added plus (beyond the non-suckedness) … people will also judge your character.

Oh. And earn some respect.

Trust me. Everyone else in the room knows the other person is sucking. They also know you are not pointing it out (or making the other person look foolish).

Look. Invariably your actions and words are compared to ‘your enemy.’ And it becomes a reflection of who you are as a person from a character perspective. And people recognize that.  And they store it away for the future (because everyone knows they will suck at some point and they would prefer to be working/being with someone who is not going to leap at the opportunity to point it out).

So. That is the ego part.

Next. Patience?

Often we are in a rush to “do something” where patience is called for. Setting character to the side … I would like to remind people that mistakes are often like quicksand (corollary to sucking). Not always but sometimes.

Regardless. Patience simply means let your enemy make as many and as much of a mistake as he/she is willing to make. Don’t interrupt the possible depth & breadth of the mistake.

Patience permits you to assess the best opportunity … do you just sit back and let your enemy drown in the quicksand (always a viable option) or at some point when the depth & breadth has been maximized (short of going under) you reach out and pull everyone out of the suckedness zone.

You win either way.

And you don’t have the win opportunity if you aren’t patient.

Napoleon was absolutely a master at permitting his enemy to suck for as long as it took to maximize his opportunity.

Never interrupt your enemy when he/she is making a mistake.

Much much harder to do then you think.

Much much easier to do the more practice you have.

knowing when to stop

“when you start to suck, stop” – Kristen Hersh

So.

This is so explanatory it needs no explanation.

However.

What I would suggest to everyone is that, in general, people don’t stop when they start to suck.

And they don’t for one of two reasons:

  1. They are oblivious to their sucking.
  2. They recognize their suckedness and begin to do whatever it takes to rise above sucking (only to find out that sucking is like quicksand)

Let’s go to # 1 first. Oblivious to sucking.

Unfortunately life doesn’t have stop signs (or any signs for that matter) with regard to sucking. Nor is there a manual you can read. You can pretty much only hope for one of 2 things … either over time you start to recognize your own signs of suckedness or you happen to have a really good friend/co-worker who has a special sign they give you to tell you that you suck (or are starting to suck).

Knowing when you start to suck is difficult.  Really difficult.

I think it is easier to recognize when you aren’t sucking. So what I typically tell people is that when you know you are going good … and on a roll … as quickly as you can find a “period” point. I mean a stopping point (usually characterized by the fact you need to stop talking to actually breathe) … and … well … you stop.

Now.

That may be as difficult as stopping when you suck (maybe harder because it is natural to want the goodness (non-suckedness) to go for as long as possible.  But. Stop on a high note. Trust me. If someone really likes it they will ask for more.  If they don’t … well … you did great.  You didn’t suck.

The corollary factoid?

Well. If you enter into the suck zone and you stop … well … I can guarantee they won’t ask for more.

It all sounds confusing doesn’t it?

It is.

Especially now as we move to #2.

This is where you actually realize you suck … and then begin paddling as hard as you can to get out of the suck zone.

Oops.

Sucking is like quicksand.  The harder you work to stop sucking the further you get sucked down into suckedness.

But, once again, it is natural to try and want to end on a high note so you work to get there. This is human nature to try and get yourself out of trouble once you recognize you are in trouble (insert suck for trouble at any point)

And you shouldn’t.

Stop.

A little suckedness will be recognized as just that … a little. And most people will overlook the little for whatever made up ‘the most.’ But.  A lot of suckedness? It’s … well … a lot.  And difficult to overlook or ignore.

Anyway.

Kristen is a musician … but she said something relevant to anyone at any time.

It’s her quote but I would change a couple of things to create some advice.

“When you think (even an inkling) you are starting to suck, stop.”

The corollary?

“When you think it is going good, stop.”

But.

I guess truly the best thought in the end is just where I started … “when you start to suck, stop.”

hard choices

Ok. Let’s talk a minute about Kodak.

And the fact that their demise had nothing to do with lack of foresight or inability to innovate (because they actually invented the digital camera). Kodak is about leadership, or the lack thereof, and people and decisions (or the lack thereof).

When an iconic company and brand like Kodak goes bankrupt everyone should think about hard choices and people who make them.

Oh. And people who don’t make them.

I am sure in 1976 when Kodak had 90% of film and 85% of camera sales in the US and was regularly rated one of the world’s five most valuable brands that it would seem inconceivable to company decision makers that the company could disappear. I do not have to imagine that we the people couldn’t conceive it.

In addition.

What’s not often recognized is that it was actually Kodak that invented the digital camera (in 1975). And, interestingly, four years after that a Kodak executive issued a report that predicted, in some detail, how different parts of the market would switch from film to digital with an inevitable digital mass market by 2010 (whew. Pretty close, huh?).

Look.

This is surely not the first time a company, and its leaders, has decided it is so self-important it can ride out what is happening in the market.

But I believe people are focusing on the wrong things.

Successful organizations are rarely successful because of foresight (or fortune telling or predicting the future). They are typically successful due to thoughtful reaction and response to change … and making the inevitably hard decisions when the change is truly disruptive to their core business.

Yes.

Decisions get significantly harder when a company is faced with truly market disruptive innovations/actions.

And, no, corporations don’t have to inevitably die. It depends entirely on their adaptability.

So.  Let’s talk about the decisions to adapt.

What I mean by that is … why couldn’t Kodak and its leaders make the hard choices to avert this demise?

I disagree with the popular opinion that it was their lack of vision with regard to the role digital in the photo business that led to their demise.

Why?

Many organizations make big innovation or lack of vision mistakes and don’t go bankrupt. Why don’t they?  They make the hard decisions to course correct.

Yup. Hard decisions are called hard because they are just that – hard.

Difficult.

Not soft.

Not soft?

“I want (and need) to make significant changes. But I want to retain the core.”

(Oops … that is  decision with high potential for ‘soft characteristics’).

Why? That core, or what is deemed most important, always seems to grow and grow when being discussed internally. It is almost within the DNA of an organization to think in these terms. And, inevitably, those ‘significant changes’ become soft changes.

Hard means sacrifice. Not cutting back on the decision. Making a real sacrifice.

I wrote about it in a post called “how far would you go to solve a problem?” http://brucemctague.com/how-far-would-you-go-to-solve-a-problem

Hard decisions could have saved Kodak. I truly believe that.

But let’s maybe discuss why hard decisions are hard to make (even by people who are quite capable of making a good hard decision).

Here is something to ponder.

Hard choices harden the person who makes them.

You have to harden yourself.  You have to harden yourself, insulate yourself a little, from the human aspects of the decision and focus on the bigger picture and the horizon. Please don’t mistake this for minimizing the ‘little people’ or the individual. This is the forest or trees type decisions leaders need to make. It may sound callous but it is just like firefighting a big fire … burn some trees to save the forest.

Oh.  And sometimes burn a shitload of trees to save the forest.

Leaders make the same decisions.  In this case it is people & buildings and not trees.

Regardless.

The big hard decisions, when they are made, harden you as a person. It’s just life.  It’s not personal.

Here is what makes it even tougher.

I believe all of us who make hard decisions worry a little bit that it … well … becomes too easy.

That we become so hard that we lose sight of everything else.

Oddly Richard Gere in Pretty Woman reminded us of this – if you got past the fact he was hiring a hooker in the Beverly Wilshire Hotel – in that his character lost sight of ‘being human’ as he became quite good at making hard decision for business successes.

And it was a true depiction of what can happen. Hard decisions are difficult because there is not only a financial risk & toll … but a personal toll. Each one affects you.

As with everything in life (it seems) … it is a balancing act.

I say all of this to try and share that there is a human aspect of any hard decision.  And leaders don’t overlook that (despite what everyone else may want you to think).

Every one understands the repercussions.

Every. One.

Now.  Having said that.

Someone at Kodak couldn’t make the hard decision.

I truly believe that.

Were they soft with regard to people or whatever? Heck. I don’t know.  I believe they just inevitably made soft decisions. Soft decisions that possibly gave a glimmer of hope but once you begin the slippery slope of business issues (particularly if you are a large company and gravity really takes over) the glimmer becomes dimmer and dimmer over time.

To stop the slide a really hard decision needed to be made.

A big hairy audacious decision.

Anyway. I often believe business leaders could learn a lot from the military on how to win a war.

Do I believe a general wants to lose a single soldier’s life? No. He does not.

Do I believe a general understands that he needs to lose soldiers’ lives? Yes. He does.

Do I believe those decisions weigh upon him (even if we elect to judge the decision on the final successful outcome)? Yes.  I do.

But they make the hard decisions.

And no one at Kodak did make the hard decision.

It wasn’t lack of foresight.

It wasn’t a lack of understanding of what was happening in the market (trust me … they probably saw dozens of reports of what was happening in the marketplace).

It was a lack of ability to make the hard decision.

And … it’s a shame.

jeep & robert frost

Ok.

It is very difficult in the car advertising business to make your advertising stand out.

Car manufacturers spend zillions of dollars (ok … only billions of dollars) and it is difficult to find something truly new and relevant and interesting to say.

So sometimes you just have to find a different way of saying the same thing and hopefully it stands out.

Jeep Wrangler Arctic just did it (for me at least).

In the television ad I saw I heard a poem I sort of recognized … and I couldn’t figure out who the voice was who was saying it (but it sounded dated).

The poem (and words used in the ad)?

“Stopping By Woods on a Snowy Evening”

The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.

The author? Robert Frost.

Holy cow.

Some copywriter dug around in his/her literary mental archive and saw these words and said “shit … I bet if we put some amazing footage of a Jeep Wrangler (Arctic to be specific) driving through some impossible snow underneath these words … well … it would be the shizzle.”

Then he/she thought some more and said …

“Oh. No. Let’s do better. Let’s use Robert himself.” (thought bubble attached: hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … I wonder if there is a recording of Robert Frost reading it?)

Holy shit (instead of ‘cow’ this time). Yes.  There is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfOxdZfo0gs&feature=related

And then they edited it to make this Jeep ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHeG8J5b1U4&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL3F36F72A7E0D8CB7

(by the way … if you stay on the link and let the next Jeep Compass ad run it is a great border collie ad)

Ok.

Is it brilliant advertising? Maybe not.

It is a brilliant creative way to say what you want to say? You bet.

It is an incredibly creative way of saying something that almost every ‘rough ‘n tumble’ car manufacturer has said.

Will most people know it is Robert Frost? Hell no.

But it sounds cool and tough and timeless and the words are relevant and if you do know it is Robert Frost … well … it make you feel like you are a smart Jeep owner.

Anyway.

Here is the entire Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening poem:

Whose woods these are I think I know.
His house is in the village, though;
He will not see me stopping here
To watch his woods fill up with snow.

My little horse must think it queer
To stop without a farmhouse near
Between the woods and frozen lake
The darkest evening of the year.

He gives his harness bells a shake
To ask if there is some mistake.
The only other sound’s the sweep
Of easy wind and downy flake.

The woods are lovely, dark, and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.

Good stuff Jeep.

Oh.  I have read a couple of commentaries on this advertising where some people were getting in a tizzy (a technical term) on using Robert Frost to sell Jeep Wranglers. Geez people … get over it. Get a life. It is a smart idea. And it’s not like they are using his poem (and voice) to sell feminine wipes or erectile dysfunction drugs (not that there is anything wrong with either of those). This was artfully and thoughtfully done.

Once again. Well done Jeep.

facts and creation

“Without the hard little bits of marble which are called ‘facts’ or ‘data’ one cannot compose a mosaic; what matters, however, are not so much the individual bits, but the successive patterns into which you arrange them, then break them up and rearrange them.” - The Act of Creation

I find it tragic to watch bright, energetic youth become lethargic and uninspired in the workplace.

Yes. Tragic. Because it is such a waste of not only mindpower but, well, will power.  And it is also tragic to the work company because lethargy does not lead to ideas/ideation/creative thinking.

To me? The real problem lies with the older folk (in manager positions) who seem to lack a comprehensive relevant view of learning.  Or maybe better said … they have an archaic way of viewing the way it should be done.

There are a lot of leaders (management whatever you want to call them) who appear to be guilty of classifying learning as being a difficult and frustrating experience.

This is in combination with the fact they also tend to have odd views on ‘how to make it fun.’ Oh. And to complete that thought … they have a belief that they have to ‘make it fun’ because learning is difficult/frustrating. Therefore it is a flawed belief system.

Look.

Creative thinking and innovation does not arise out of a vacuum but must be supported by a culture that encourages people to experiment. To experiment with facts, with ideas and products. With the hard little bits of marble as it were.

Original thinking and new ideas has to be nurtured and rearranged in successive patterns … not destroyed and scattered.

We can all encourage creativity by helping young people learn to assess the bits of marble and take intellectual risks in their work & ideation. Does this have to be “made” fun? Nope.  And it is, frankly, silly to think it has to be.

Instead this is like providing a spark to combustible matter. I am not suggesting it should be painful but rather fun is slightly less relevant than providing the inspiration to learn and become engaged.

Ultimately I don’t believe management should teach people how to create ideas.

The goal should be to prepare young people to be competent and original in their thinking.

Do that and they will create mosaics like you have never seen before.

Oh.

And in successive patterns.

(by the way … that is a good thing)

fearless work

Creativity is a tricky thing.

Having been involved in the creativity business in some form for over 20 years I recognize that the best of the creative best are … well … part insecure … and part fearless.

And it’s the fearless part that I am going to write about because I saw this quote somewhere.

“I seek fearless work that challenges me”

-          choreographer Martha Graham

This is good stuff.

This is the kind of stuff not for the faint of heart.

And, frankly, this is the kind of stuff for few people.

Because this quote is indicative of someone whose heart lies in doing fearless work.

Oh.

Fearless work means being fearless of failure.

Fearless work does NOT mean doing something wacky just for wacky sake.

Oh. But that is the first thing people who condone fearless work bring up.

You hear words like “stupid” or “what were they thinking” or “I could have told them it wouldn’t work <or be popular or be liked>.”

In my mind those are words of people who fear work that looks fearless. This fear can be disguised as a variety of things … discomfort in something new … misunderstanding … lack of ability to recognize something.

Whatever.

This is about people who actually DO the fearless work. Because people who seek to do fearless work recognize several things:

-          how difficult it is (even though it may seem simple to the creators)

-          how unpopular it may be

-          when to stop being unpopular (the guard rails in fearless creativity)

in fact. I am going to use someone else who pursued fearless work to make the point. Kristen Hersh. The Rat Girl. One of the founding members of The Throwing Muses.

A teen I may add (just to make another point that teens can often be wiser beyond their years).

Here is what she said about the difficulty of pursuing fearless work:

“do you know how hard it is to not know how to sound like other bands? There aren’t any lessons to teach you how to do this and no one can help us figure out what <to play>. It’s hard to learn something that no one can teach you.” – Kristen Hersh

Actually.

I wish I could share this with anyone who is critical of any original idea so they could think about the fact someone is doing something that was self taught … because here was no one to teach).

Sometimes doing fearless work is difficult because you are forging your own path.  There are no lessons.  There are no rules.  There are no guardrails. In fact. The real difficulty is knowing when to put up your own guard rails.  Knowing when to stop innovating and just be … well .. creative with fearless work.

Kristen, as a 19 year old teen, pursued fearless work and did some amazing stuff (along with her fellow teen and musical genius in her own right … Tonya Donnelly).

Anyway.  I think the fearless ones tend to hear and see things the rest of us don’t. In simplistic terms it is only popular in their own heads.

And unfortunately for the fearless there is only a minority who truly understands what they are doing:

(Kristen Hersh) … “but we play unpopular music.”

(producer) …

“that’s exactly what you play because you’re inventing something. You’re gonna be hugely influential.”

I do believe the best of the fearless best recognize that what they do is unpopular to the majority.

They may not like it. They may not embrace it.  But they understand it. And fight their way through it.

Because it is a fact.

All the truly influential fearless creators didn’t have it easy early on.  They were creating something … inventing something.

In their fearless work they were paving the way for people to think differently, see differently … just experience something different.  Yeah, I know, that is what being influential is all about.  But that doesn’t make it any easier.

Fearless work is often unpopular initially.

But there is a difference between bad unpopular and influential unpopular.

Good fearless is about understanding the guardrails.

Oh. Yeah. Those guard rails.

So how do the fearless know when to stop innovating?

“when you start to suck, stop” – Kristen Hersh

Sounds simple … but I believe the best of the fearless best have an internal quality control.  In the mind’s of the ‘less mature’ innovative thinking maybe the guard rails are less defined. But. In the best of the fearless best they have that inner barometer to recognize what sucks and what doesn’t suck.

Oh.

And before we start putting too much weight on ‘less mature’ and associating it with age I would like to remind you that Kristen said this last quote when she was 19 (oh, these smart teens as I like to remind those wise stodgy adults).

Like I just said.

The best of the fearless best have an inner barometer.  They are born with it. They are born with the guardrails.

But this doesn’t mean there isn’t fear.

Even the fearless creative people have fear.

Everyone has fear (lest we forget).

We fear the idea of something more than the thing itself.”  Steve Chandler

Fearless work means loving the idea of something more than fearing the thing itself. I imagine that thought encapsulates most good things in life. But in this case those who pursue fearless work have overcome their fear in pursuit of what is good fearless work.

Martha Graham.

Kristen Hersh.

A number of other people whose quotes I just didn’t use.

All pursued fearless work.

And created beautiful things.

And influenced how the rest of us looked at things and listened to things.

As for you & i?

All we can do is …

Act.

Do.

Create.

And seek our own version of fearless work.

And in the end maybe we are lucky enough to positively influence people.

And, at its best, maybe we actually be influential.

its all about the balance sheet, baby

So.

This is about the American economy and a plea for all of us to quit bitching about how the government is the fault for all our economic woes.

Yeah, sure, the government could (and should) take some actions to help … and improve their own balance sheet.

But. The combination of the US population (people) and corporations have more money on their balance sheets at their disposal than the government (therefore can make a bigger impact).

And.

Remember.

Its all about the balance sheet baby.

What do I mean? Savings & cash.

And I mean we are finally heading in the right direction (so quit looking at unemployment and government balance sheet for a moment).

Overall households have increased their % of hhld savings as a percentage of disposable income.

I won’t get the numbers right but suffice it to say people are improving their household balance sheets.

And.

Corporations are flush with cash. As they have become more conservative and banking money for the future their balance sheets have become quite healthy with cash.

These are indicators of good things in the future.

Oh. And before I get to the crux of the consumer/corporate balance sheet dilemma let me share one quick factoid about US debt, their own balance sheet and how we make money (as a country).

I share this factoid slide from a presentation because, I admit, I do get a little tired of how Michelle Bachman and lots of other people so casually focus on debt:

————————————–

(this comes from an Economic Summit presentation in London)

US is a Giant Investment Bank

- The Asian Savings Glut enabled the US household to “Borrow” money cheaply from savers looking for Capital Preservation and Security and then “lend it back” as risk capital

- If you borrow $100 at 4% over 7 years and set aside $28 to pay the interest, you can then buy “equity” in emerging markets with the remaining $72

- If this “only” produces 10% pa, then over the life of the bond you have doubled your equity capital, you now have $144 after interest, and $44 after principal

- Traditional balance sheet measures such as debt to GDP ignore the asset side of the equation, while liquidity measures such as debt service to income ignore the different nature of equity (capital growth)

- Traditional economic measures fail to capture the real balance sheet and cash flow situation and declare this to be an “Imbalance”

-          A slide from Economic Symposium London march 2011

——————————————–

I shared that just so I could get beyond the country’s balance sheet discussion and get to what you & I can do and should do.

So.

On to us consumers … and what we can do to insure some economic growth in the future.

Its about the savings.

Uh oh.

I didn’t say spending (which spurs the economic outlook).

Yeah. Its true that the economy demands increased consumer spending. The problem is that millions of lower- and middle-income households have lost their capacity to spend – in actual dollars as well as mentally ‘scared’ to spend even if they have the dollars.

Despite the growth in savings as a percentage there is an overall lack of savings ‘safety net’ and a level of debt (even if it is small) that hovers like a gargoyle looking over most people’s shoulder. Although it would be helpful if affluent households spent more, we shouldn’t be calling upon a struggling majority to do so. In the long run, the health of the economy depends on the financial stability of our households.

Therefore we need to reduce our own debt on the balance sheets. Oh. In addition we (the people) need to become less dependent upon social security as “the” retirement fund (I will get back to that point).

Attitudinally it appears like we are making the needed shifts.

In the second quarter of 2009 households put away 7 percent of disposable income, compared with under 2 percent in the third quarter of 2007. Yet the savings rate is falling again, down to 5.3 percent in December.

(note: I added that last point because that is our biggest issue … changing long term behavior and our desire to want to spend versus save)

According to a Harris Poll (maybe in 2010?) 27 percent of Americans have no personal savings and 34 percent have no retirement savings, an increase from over a year ago.

Here is the tricky part.

US consumers want to reduce their debt, but the economy’s recovery depends on their spending. By some estimates, de­leveraging is happening more because of defaults than because of people opting to pay down their debts. A decline in credit-card debt, for example, closely tracks the rate at which banks are charging off delinquent card loans.

In addition job losses are leading to foreclosure or bankruptcy. In others, borrowing has stalled because card issuers have reduced credit limits or raised interest rates.

Think about this …

These are all “forced” balance sheet improvement behavior patterns.

These are not “choice” behavior changes.

That is a point I am making so that we don’t get fooled by numbers …. but rather focus on behavior.

Any behavioral model will show you that forced behavior creates only short term behavior change. And that is why many Media & Economic reporting information is flawed and misleading to the general public.

Yes. Once again I will point out there are some encouraging signs which we should nurture.

The cost of debt payments as a share of personal disposable income, has fallen to around 12 percent, from nearly 14 percent when the recession began. But that overall figure masks wide disparities – millions of households have no debt at all, while others are deep in debt (go back to my “the Two Americas PewResearch post).

Yes.

By looking only at numbers it appears the trend is moving in a positive direction.

But (and this is a big but) …. we need a change in attitude (which will create the behavior necessary to make it all work).

American people are addicted to spending (this is probably an entire post all in itself on breaking down the addiction culturally).

But let’s instead think about some things.

Americans definitely spend more than people in western Europe and Asia.  Definitely. Its part of our DNA.

You can look at consumption levels and control for purchasing power over the last several decades, and America is simply in a league of its own. The only people who come close are people in Britain, but they are about 85 percent of the level of American consumption. Germans, French and others are in the 70 percent range, Japanese even a little lower. So Americans spend like no one else.”

So what can help us become better savers.

I guess I think about this like any addiction.

It has to be part personal responsibility and part ‘system’ (a system that enables us for success).

I think we need to improve the access of lower-income households to savings institutions.

We just saw Bank of America and other banks trying to charge an extra fee on people with debit cards, particularly with low minimum balances. That tends to discourage people especially among lower-income households.

We need to remember about 25 percent of lower income America is unbanked (they don’t have bank accounts).

So.

First.

Similar to Europe we need to incentivize banks to create small savers accounts. They have a low or minimum balance, that have no fees, and pay a recognizable interest rate. These can be subsidized by government working with banks (and that, my friends, is a good use of government spending).

Second.

we need to revise our tax laws.  There are too many tax exempt advantages incentivizing borrowing. We need to incent saving.

Third.

Learn from others.

We can learn from societies that promote a more balanced approach to saving and spending.

Few Americans appreciate that the prosperous economies of western and northern Europe are among the world’s greatest savers. Over the past three decades, Germany, France, Austria and Belgium have maintained household saving rates between 10 and 13 percent, and rates in Sweden recently soared to 13 percent. By contrast, saving rates in the United States dropped to nearly zero by 2005; they rose above 5 percent after the 2008 crisis but have recently fallen below 4 percent.

Unlike the United States, the thrifty societies of Europe have long histories of encouraging the broad populace to save.

During the 19th century, European reformers and governments became preoccupied with creating more frugal citizens. They focused on creating hundreds of savings banks that enabled the majority (pretty much anyone) to save by accepting small deposits. Central governments established accessible postal savings banks where small savers could bank at any post office. In addition, to encourage thrifty habits in the young, governments also instituted school savings banks.

All these actions fostered a culture of saving that endures today in many countries (and fosters a certain type of economy). For example … the French government attracts millions of lower-income and young savers with its Livret A account available at savings banks, postal savings banks and all other banks. This small savers’ account is tax free, requires only a tiny minimum balance, and commonly pays above-market interest rates. And in German cities, one cannot turn the corner without coming upon one of the popular savings banks, called Sparkassen.

Legally charged with encouraging an overall savings mentality these banks offer no-fee accounts for the young and sponsor financial education in the schools.

Ok. And while we may not have all those governmental driven opportunities here (and want to use that as an excuse) we need to get in our heads that even with the economy we can save. Even with reduced income we can save.

We only have to look to Africa, where millions who have just risen above the poverty level, have created savings accounts despite the fact their disposable income does not permit any luxury.

In addition, many foreign countries have also restrained the expansion of consumer and housing credit with the intent to minimize being personally over-in-debt. Home equity loans are rare in Germany, and Belgians, Italians and Germans are rarely offered an American-style credit card that allows the user to carry an unpaid balance.

Oh.

Lastly.

Savings & retirement.

Your retirement isn’t about social security.

When Social Security came about in the 1930s, it was largely a program to keep families from starving and from going absolutely broke.  It was never intended as a long-term benefits program.  Yet life expectancy has increased over time and now today, many Americans depend on Social Security as their primary source of retirement. We need to change our ‘entitlement’ attitude on this.

That’s it for today.

At the end of the day, someone, somewhere in America has to save. In fact a lot of someones somewhere have to save.

Save a lot, save a little …. just save.

And, remember, it’s all in your head. Because if an African earning 5,000 dollars a year can figure out how to save money I imagine we can figure out how to set aside some money.